Trade Watson?

[Pokerbrat2000]

Spot on. There is no "go to" guy. Hell everyone in the stadium and on both sides of the field knew Rodgers was gonna find Adams when a play was needed. And they pulled it off, over and over again.

While I agree with you, but sometimes Rodgers seemed to ONLY trust Davante and at times, I think that was a negative.

Having a "go to guy" is important, but I would rather have 3-5 WR's that can be trusted to run their routes and catch balls. That makes it much harder on the defense to defend against the passing game. I think when a team spends a ton of capital on just 1 guy, as the Packers did with Davante, they can fall into that trap of having "1 Go to guy and a bunch of JAGS". I hope that The Packers never get back to that kind of WR group.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think the point that @mradtke66 is trying to make though (and correct me if I am wrong here, I don't want to put words in your mouth!) is that "Watson is more valuable than his *personal* stats show" is not exactly the same thing as "Kraft is more valuable than stats show".

The point is that Watson's impact on the overall offense IS measurable, even if it isn't borne out in his own personal stats accumulated. When Watson plays, there is objective data showing that our overall offense performs better, regardless of the impact (or lack thereof) on his personal stats.

So with Kraft it's not to say that this definitively ALSO isn't the case but just that I (we?) haven't seen that data yet. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist but I've not been made aware of it yet.

In other words:

- When Watson is on the field, Green Bay's offense performs objectively better, irrespective of Watson's personal involvement
- Therefore, we must ask: is there data to demonstrate that Green Bay's offense performs objectively better when Kraft is on the field, irrespective of his personal involvement?

Yes, I believe he or someone else posted such "data". My response to that was that it was very limited data, assumes lots of variables stay constant, and really the numbers weren't that large.

Which is why I said that one might be able to say the same thing about Kraft, when they include numbers such as rushing yards, touchdowns, sacks, 1st downs, ect.

However, maybe THE biggest thing that has to be considered is if you pay Watson $30M or you keep Kraft and pay him $15M, what does Kraft and a $15M player bring to the Packer offense? More, less or the same thing as Watson?

 

[Heyjoe4]

While I agree with you, but sometimes Rodgers seemed to ONLY trust Davante and at times, I think that was a negative.

Having a "go to guy" is important, but I would rather have 3-5 WR's that can be trusted to run their routes and catch balls. That makes it much harder on the defense to defend against the passing game. I think when a team spends a ton of capital on just 1 guy, as the Packers did with Davante, they can fall into that trap of having "1 Go to guy and a bunch of JAGS". I hope that The Packers never get back to that kind of WR group.

I agree with you on all of this. There were certainly times, too many times, when Rodgers wouldn't consider throwing to anyone but Adams. That is not good, and it was one of Rodgers' most glaring faults.

 

[Magooch]

Don't get me wrong. I love Kraft, he's one of my favorite players on the team and one that I find to be the most promising going forward. For me it is mostly just a matter of curiosity, I'd like to see what the data says (if it exists at present) on his impact on the offense as a whole.
For instance with Watson, when he is on the field (regardless of targets, catches, yards, etc), we average nearly a touchdown per game better on offense, and we are first in explosive plays and yards per route run. When he isn't on the field, we are 19th and 13th in those categories, respectively.
Does that same sort of impact exist for Kraft? I hope so!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

That is not good, and it was one of Rodgers' most glaring faults.

That and giving the bitch eyes to his other receivers.

 

[gopkrs]

I believe there is actually a reason why the contract of an xlnt w/o is much more than an xlnt TE.

 

[mradtke66]

I think the point that @mradtke66 is trying to make though (and correct me if I am wrong here, I don't want to put words in your mouth!) is that "Watson is more valuable than his *personal* stats show" is not exactly the same thing as "Kraft is more valuable than stats show".

The point is that Watson's impact on the overall offense IS measurable, even if it isn't borne out in his own personal stats accumulated. When Watson plays, there is objective data showing that our overall offense performs better, regardless of the impact (or lack thereof) on his personal stats.

So with Kraft it's not to say that this definitively ALSO isn't the case but just that I (we?) haven't seen that data yet. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist but I've not been made aware of it yet.

In other words:

- When Watson is on the field, Green Bay's offense performs objectively better, irrespective of Watson's personal involvement
- Therefore, we must ask: is there data to demonstrate that Green Bay's offense performs objectively better when Kraft is on the field, irrespective of his personal involvement?

I just fell to my knees--thank you. Some one got it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I believe there is actually a reason why the contract of an xlnt w/o is much more than an xlnt TE.

Besides case history?

If that was directed towards me, I have never doubted that Top 20 WR's have commanded more money than Top 20 TE's.

What I do believe is that both Watson and Kraft will want top money on their new contracts and that some team will be willing to pay it to them. With Kraft probably making close to Top 5 TE money and Watson more like Top 15. What the Packers will have to decide is if they want to commit that kind of money to either player and how that effects the rest of the roster.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

For instance with Watson, when he is on the field (regardless of targets, catches, yards, etc), we average nearly a touchdown per game better on offense, and we are first in explosive plays and yards per route run. When he isn't on the field, we are 19th and 13th in those categories, respectively.
Does that same sort of impact exist for Kraft? I hope so!

My gut, Watson is a bigger impact player, if you are only comparing his "impact" to that of Kraft and Kraft alone. However, that would be incorrect to do and thus it goes back to the question I keep posing and some are conveniently leaving out of the discussion. Is his lone impact equal to or greater than that of the players you can't sign, due to what you have invested in him? In this case, lets say if you sign Watson, you don't have the impacts of Kraft and a Doubs like WR.

Also, keep in mind that you are hedging on the health of 1 player (Watson) VS 2 (Kraft and Doubs).

 

[mradtke66]

Is his lone impact equal to or greater than that of the players you can't sign, due to what you have invested in him? In this case, lets say if you sign Watson, you don't have the impacts of Kraft and a Doubs like WR.

That part comes back to my usual opinions on free agency. Really good players don't make it to free agency. Those that do, have some kind of flaw or questions surrounding them.

Having more money tied up in Watson doesn't appreciably impact our ability to sign free agents, because there normally aren't good free agents to sign in the first place.

Might signing Watson prevent us from keeping some of our own? Maybe, but Kraft won't (or shouldn't) be the trade off. When you draft well, you re-sign those players who are stars, impact players, however you want to designate them. The players you are likely to lose are the cut candidates at the end of their second contract or just not offering 3rd contracts.

Players that are potential loses to offset Watson and Kraft money would be players like Jacobs (cut candidate), McKinney (do not extend after his contracts voids in 2028), Aaron Banks (cut candidate, already 29 years old).

Devonte Wyatt is also likely to be extended, changing how his cap number is applied.

Be ruthless with your old players. Kkeep the young, ascending ones.

 

[Magooch]

My gut, Watson is a bigger impact player, if you are only comparing his "impact" to that of Kraft and Kraft alone. However, that would be incorrect to do and thus it goes back to the question I keep posing and some are conveniently leaving out of the discussion. Is his lone impact equal to or greater than that of the players you can't sign, due to what you have invested in him? In this case, lets say if you sign Watson, you don't have the impacts of Kraft and a Doubs like WR.

Also, keep in mind that you are hedging on the health of 1 player (Watson) VS 2 (Kraft and Doubs).

I think that's fair although I guess I would have to ask if this dilemma actually exists in the first place? I mean obviously there ARE cap constraints and all that, but I guess what I mean is that I haven't heard any reporting suggesting that the team is viewing it in such a way as "Kraft + ???" vs "Watson". I think they have every intention of extending both Kraft and Watson (and if that comes at the expense of a Doubs type player, or a Wicks or Reed or whoever....I'm totally fine with that)

in other words, I think the question is more....would you rather have Kraft and (whoever) with no Watson, or more likely Watson and Kraft and be okay with losing another player(s) to accommodate

 

[Schultz]

It doesn't have to be, but this is a fine case where we can have this evidence. We DO have stats that show the Packers offense is more better/efficient with Watson on the field. I'm curious if there are similar stats for Kraft. Things beyond his own catches/touchdowns, etc.

You and I seem to agree that Watson is valuable past his individual contributions. I'm reluctant to pound the table without evidence. I consider that basic debate responsibility/etiquette.

If the offense is not better with Watson on the field, then he should not be on the field. Same for Kraft.

 

[Schultz]

Weeks 8-18 in 2025, 10 games, though the idea of rate stats is that it matters significantly less. His contribution here is obvious.



So here's the fun part--Watson didn't play 100% of the snaps on the games he did play in, fluctuating between 40 and 83 precent, depending on the week. This accounts for most/all of your concerns outside of down and distance



This sounds suspiciously like ignoring evidence because it is counter to your position.



Doubs signed for ~17M annually, thus it is easy to extrapolate. The offense would be about 0.11 yards per play worse in the running game and 0.80 yards worse in the passing game with a receiver of that quality.

On your last point that is only true if Watson was on the field and Doubs was not. The whole the offense is better when Watson is on the field makes no sense to me. If it isn't better than he should not be a starter.

 

[gopkrs]

My gut, Watson is a bigger impact player, if you are only comparing his "impact" to that of Kraft and Kraft alone. However, that would be incorrect to do and thus it goes back to the question I keep posing and some are conveniently leaving out of the discussion. Is his lone impact equal to or greater than that of the players you can't sign, due to what you have invested in him? In this case, lets say if you sign Watson, you don't have the impacts of Kraft and a Doubs like WR.

Also, keep in mind that you are hedging on the health of 1 player (Watson) VS 2 (Kraft and Doubs).

I think that even if we pay Watson, we will still be able to afford Kraft. It's not like we have two big salaried wide outs.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think that's fair although I guess I would have to ask if this dilemma actually exists in the first place? I mean obviously there ARE cap constraints and all that, but I guess what I mean is that I haven't heard any reporting suggesting that the team is viewing it in such a way as "Kraft + ???" vs "Watson". I think they have every intention of extending both Kraft and Watson (and if that comes at the expense of a Doubs type player, or a Wicks or Reed or whoever....I'm totally fine with that)

in other words, I think the question is more....would you rather have Kraft and (whoever) with no Watson, or more likely Watson and Kraft and be okay with losing another player(s) to accommodate

No matter how you slice it, a team has only so much cap space. This is heightened even more when you are discussing guaranteed money, since that is money that HAS to be reported to the cap at some point.

So yes, I would love if the Packers could resign both Kraft and Watson.

I would also love it if they could resign ALL of their quality players that could be Free Agents at the end of this year. After resigning all of them, I would love to see them sign top Free agents at every position of need as well. Yes, that is financially impossible, but I had to make a point. That point is one of opportunity cost. If you give Watson a massive new deal, which includes a lot of guaranteed money.....you have lost the ability to sign another player(s). You have also put a bundle of money/cap into just 1 player, a WR a player with some injury history as well.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think that even if we pay Watson, we will still be able to afford Kraft. It's not like we have two big salaried wide outs.

*see my post above*

Of course we can pay Watson and still afford Kraft, but what does that do to our ability to sign other players in the future?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

because there normally aren't good free agents to sign in the first place

I'm not going to make a list, but that statement is 100% just not true.

While not every free agent signing works out as expected, there are many good players available in Free Agency due to the fact that their previous team couldn't/didn't want to pay them.

 

[mradtke66]

On your last point that is only true if Watson was on the field and Doubs was not. The whole the offense is better when Watson is on the field makes no sense to me. If it isn't better than he should not be a starter.

The point is how he elevates the team even when he is not the target or focus. Love has a significantly better TD:Int ratio when he's on the field. Our YPC on run plays is higher when he's on the field. Loves QBR is higher when he's on the field.

 

[mradtke66]

So yes, I would love if the Packers could resign both Kraft and Watson.

I would also love it if they could resign ALL of their quality players that could be Free Agents at the end of this year. After resigning all of them, I would love to see them sign top Free agents at every position of need as well. Yes, that is financially impossible, but I had to make a point.

Every year is different, but the line "sign top Free agents at every position of need as well" is where I take issue. Most year, there is no such thing. Or rather, the "top free agents" are often not that top. They're just the best that's available sometimes, that's pretty bad/low. Or they're really old, which is kind of the same thing.

You are correct that signing Kraft and Watson probably means losing some other players on the roster, BUT we were probably going to lose them anyway. When players are old, you let them go. If they are middling, you let them go. If their level of play no longer matches their contract, you let them go.

The events could happen at the same time, but I'd say Jacobs is done after this year no matter if we extend both of them or neither of them. It's just the circle of life of the NFL roster.

 

[Pkrjones]

I posted this in the semi-live thread, but it has some relevance here, too.
"Love - top 5 paid QB @ $55mil/yr
Parsons - highest paid Edge @ $46.5mil/yr
Tom - top 5 paid RT @ $22mil/yr
Banks - top 6 paid LG @ $19.25mil
McKinney - top 7 paid S @ $16.75mil
Jacobs - top 8 paid RB @ $12mil"

Jacobs can become a cap-casualty after '26 if necessary. Banks & McKinney after '27 if necessary.

Adding Kraft to top-3 paid (guessing $15-$19mil/yr), AND Watson to top-10 paid (guessing $29mil/yr as floor, probably $30+) screws the cap, imho.

Gute is saying it helps both sides to do an extension now, but I think he's actually prepping for trading Watson due to excess salary demands. Watson definitely helps open up the O, but a younger, cheaper, more available player can do similar things. Trade him for a'26 #2, let him make his $30mil/yr with the Jets, and draft his replacement.

 

[mradtke66]

I'm not going to make a list, but that statement is 100% just not true.

While not every free agent signing works out as expected, there are many good players available in Free Agency due to the fact that their previous team couldn't/didn't want to pay them.

You touch on my point though--why didn't the other team want to pay them? Other than impressively poorly ran teams (Saints and Browns come to mind) you can get creative and keep pretty much anyone. They were deemed expendable for a reason. They were old. Didn't live up to expectations. Injury concern. Viewed as a role player and looking for starter money.

Can you get lucky? Of course, but let's look at our biggest FA signings. Everyone has an * by their name for one reason or another.

Reggie -- as a named plaintiff in the suit that gave us free agency, he was protected from the franchise tag.

Woodson -- old, frequently injured, and seen as a locker room problem. Signed with GB because we were the only team that agreed to keep him at CB. Tampa wanted to move him to safety

Pickett -- high draft pick, turned out to be a poor pass rusher and the Rams (I think) just let his contract expire

Martellus Bennett -- old, seen as a problem. Was a problem.

Jimmy Graham -- old, perceived as falling off. Fell off.

Z. Smith -- role player for the Ravens, questions if he could grow into a full time starter. Maybe right?

P. Smith -- Just not flashy. Probably the most solid signing, but we might have over paid to get him

And for those questions, you get to over-pay for everyone. Free Agency is 100% buy beware and I am absurdly skeptical of it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You touch on my point though--why didn't the other team want to pay them?

Sometimes teams don't resign players for reasons other than bad performance. Salary cap is a big one. Developed younger players, on cheaper contracts is also big. Then there's good players that flat out don't want to resign with their current team.

Basically, free agents aren't just "bad deals" because their current team let them walk.

 

[mradtke66]

Sometimes teams don't resign players for reasons other than bad performance. Salary cap is a big one. Developed younger players, on cheaper contracts is also big.

Salary cap is and is not. If the player is high on the good/special scale, teams find a way to keep them. They say they were cut for cap reasons, but it's much more "they aren't good enough to justify the contract" not that there isn't room. You can always make room with tricks. Yes you have to pay the piper eventually, which is why they employ those tricks for the special players.

Similarly, if you have a young player who is better than the veteran, the question becomes were they ever actually that good? Have they started to slip?

Then there's good players that flat out don't want to resign with their current team.

This is a non-zero list, but it's pretty small in practice. And then, why does the player refuse to play for the old team? It's not a given, there are certainly poorly ran teams, but maybe the player is the problem?

Basically, free agents aren't just "bad deals" because their current team let them walk.

I think all free agents are "bad deals" because their pay is elevated. You now have all 32 teams bidding on him. His cash-value will never be higher. The additional question, if not an outright red flag, is wondering why they made it to FA.

 

[gopkrs]

So far I think I know how Burks made it to free agency.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think all free agents are "bad deals" because their pay is elevated. You now have all 32 teams bidding on him. His cash-value will never be higher. The additional question, if not an outright red flag, is wondering why they made it to FA.

What is a "bad deal" for 1 team, might be viewed as a "good deal" for another team. Said player might be a big improvement for their team and/or fill a hole in their roster. Maybe that player fits better in their system, as well as what they have to spend.

Let's take Watson as an example, since this is "his" thread. He has 1 year left on his contract. His agent is probably talking to the Packers as well as putting feelers out with other teams as to his value to each of them in 2027 and beyond. This process gets even more intense as he gets closer to free agency without a new contract. If his agent finds out that Watson is "worth" $30M/year to the Vikings and the Packers are only offering $20M, its a no brainer. He tells his client not to resign with the Packers, get into Free Agency and sign with the Vikings.

So no, a players value is not a set commodity, it is driven by supply, demand and willingness to pay. I would also propose that this value differs from team to team.

Like it or not, Watson and his agent have or soon will consider him to be a free agent for 2027, whether he resigns with the Packers or leaves to sign with another team. How he plays in 2026 will ultimately determine who he is playing with and how much he will be paid in 2027. If I was Gute, I would keep him hungry/motivated, and hope it raises his playing level for 2026.