Trade Watson?

[gopkrs]

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.

If he plays good and looks strong; I see no reason not to sign him half way through the season

 

[mradtke66]

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.

I do agree that value varies by team, but again supply and demand says the young, good players will be the most expensive during free agency. Signing them before that happens gives the team exclusivity. Once the tampering period happens, all bets are off.

Personally, I like to gamble on re-signing guys early vs gambling on re-signing them later.

As long as they are ascending and you identify them as such, sign them before they breakout. The team gets the player at a reduced rate, the player gets safety and security in exchange for top dollar.

 

[OldSchool101]

I sometimes think we need to take the context of the data to show a players worth. Because there are so many variables. As one example If we’re simply saying “”player X makes us 1 yard better per play”. First of all 1 yard better than who? As one example when Christian Watson was out Josh Jacobs led our Receivers in 2 separate games. Heck Matt Golden led the group and even Savion was getting targets. Do we compare a seasoned WR stats to a RB receiving stats? How many RB’s are in the top 20 most Receiving Stats? I’ll guess.. zero? Maybe 1? Which player tends to log more Receiving yards per target? A starting WR or a starting RB? RBs aren’t expected to log 17 per catch. Matter of fact a RB is more likely to just run the ball more when everyone is healthy and playing at WR.

Also if Watson goes out and he’s replaced with a Rookie like Golden. Do we really expect a Rookie with 3 college seasons to come in for weeks 1-7 in his first starting season and light up the Offense more than a WR in their 4th season? I don’t expect that and if think it would drop off at minimum 30-40 yards by default.
Do we assume a Rookie WR will never improve in year 2 or 3 or 4? I think I would naturally expect Golden to improve as his career evolves.

Also which Defenses did we play in comparison games and what is their Ranking. Did those rankings match perfectly when Player X was in and out? I doubt that.

There’s too many moving variables to assume that each week the conditions of our opponent, the venue, the weather were exactly the same. That’s really the only way we’d be able to accurately say player X makes the team better by exactly this 0.5 yards per play. Heck maybe really 1.5 per play? How would you know without the same conditions?

I guess I would just expect replacement players like Golden or Savion to gradually improve and we should really be comparing them in year 2,3 or 4 when they have been primed in system and have a strong connection with their QB.

 

[mradtke66]

I sometimes think we need to take the context of the data to show a players worth. Because there are so many variables. As one example If we’re simply saying “”player X makes us 1 yard better per play”. First of all 1 yard better than who? As one example when Christian Watson was out Josh Jacobs led our Receivers in 2 separate games. Heck Matt Golden led the group and even Savion was getting targets. Do we compare a seasoned WR stats to a RB receiving stats? How many RB’s are in the top 20 most Receiving Stats? I’ll guess.. zero? Maybe 1? Which player tends to log more Receiving yards per target? A starting WR or a starting RB? RBs aren’t expected to log 17 per catch. Matter of fact a RB is more likely to just run the ball more when everyone is healthy and playing at WR.

Also if Watson goes out and he’s replaced with a Rookie like Golden. Do we really expect a Rookie with 3 college seasons to come in for weeks 1-7 in his first starting season and light up the Offense more than a WR in their 4th season? I don’t expect that and if think it would drop off at minimum 30-40 yards by default.
Do we assume a Rookie WR will never improve in year 2 or 3 or 4? I think I would naturally expect Golden to improve as his career evolves.

Also which Defenses did we play in comparison games and what is their Ranking. Did those rankings match perfectly when Player X was in and out? I doubt that.

There’s too many moving variables to assume that each week the conditions of our opponent, the venue, the weather were exactly the same. That’s really the only way we’d be able to accurately say player X makes the team better by exactly this 0.5 yards per play. Heck maybe really 1.5 per play? How would you know without the same conditions?

I guess I would just expect replacement players like Golden or Savion to gradually improve and we should really be comparing them in year 2,3 or 4 when they have been primed in system and have a strong connection with their QB.

The point is not Watsons production, though it was solid.

The improved yards per play, TD rate, Loves QBR, all of the positive things happen just when Watson is on the field, not necessarily when he is targeted.

He played 475 snaps. He was targeted 55 times (11.5%), caught 35 and had 1 carry.

He is influencing the game by being on the field. Exactly how I’m not sure, but he is forcing the other team to account for him. The team as a whole is benefiting.

 

[OldSchool101]

The point is not Watsons production, though it was solid.

The improved yards per play, TD rate, Loves QBR, all of the positive things happen just when Watson is on the field, not necessarily when he is targeted.

He played 475 snaps. He was targeted 55 times (11.5%), caught 35 and had 1 carry.

He is influencing the game by being on the field. Exactly how I’m not sure, but he is forcing the other team to account for him. The team as a whole is benefiting.

I would imagine the bulk of Starting WR’s in the league have a positive effect on their team. Actually that could be said for nearly any position group. Placekickers, QB’s, RB’s etc.

When Watson was on the field for complete games in 2025, GB scored 23.0 points per game on Offense. In 2025, 23.0 pts/gm would rank tied for the 16th most points

When Kraft was on the field for complete games in 2025 GB scored 26.33 pts/gm. Which would rank the #9 scoring Offense.

When BOTH together played? It was 35.0 (Pittsburgh) points/gm

More recently, the Packers Offense has been more effective when Kraft is on the field over Watson and that is factual evidence. To suggest the results would flip flop by a margin of 6.66 points (3.33 differential and then 3.33 pts into the other direction) is a super hard sell imo.

The presence of Kraft appears to have a larger positive impact on the Offense than Watson. At least in points he did. Correct me if I’m wrong but whoever scores the most points wins. The rest of the data is a side show. Many variables play into this, but the results show just opposite of what you mentioned earlier. Ironically, It’s Kraft that led a #9 ranked Offense. That #9 Ranking was also largely WITHOUT Reed and Watson as Reed was injured early Week 2. So Kraft was working with Doubs and they began leaning more on Wicks, Golden and Josh in the receiving area due to Watson and Reed missing all but 1 game (Reed Week 1). Even Josh posted as a High Receiver 1 week early season. I’m convinced after doing more research that Kraft being out there is highly impactful to our entire Offense and more so than any other player except Jordan. Both players help out Offense tremendously though. However.. When Kraft went down?…the machine went down.

The Points favor resulted Kraft. When he was alone we went 4-1-1, losing just 1 game. Easily could’ve been 5-1

When Watson was alone we went 4-6
Technically 4-7 (playoffs)

 

[milani]

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.

A good example was 2021. Rodgers burned the 9ers in Frisco during the season when they needed to stop us. But come the playoff game that year Rodgers failed to go elsewhere when we needed first downs.

 

[milani]

If he plays good and looks strong; I see no reason not to sign him half way through the season

What if he gets hurt again by mid-season? Does his price drop?

 

[Heyjoe4]

That and giving the bitch eyes to his other receivers.

"The stare" - Rodgers was/is one of the greatest QBs to play in the NFL. But his interpersonal skills were lacking.

He did bring leadership, but he mostly lead through fear. No receiver, hell no teammate, wanted to get "The Stare".

I don't think it's a good way to motivate people to do better.

 

[Heyjoe4]

A good example was 2021. Rodgers burned the 9ers in Frisco during the season when they needed to stop us. But come the playoff game that year Rodgers failed to go elsewhere when we needed first downs.

I remember that game. If it's the one I'm thinking about, the 9ers only TD came on a blocked punt. I think the score was 13-7.

Rodgers just wasn't a clutch QB. That's probably not completely fair, but it seemed that way to me.

On another thread I commented that Rodgers lead mostly by fear, and was far too reliant on Adams and unwilling to give younger players a chance. That hurt the team in the playoffs as well.

 

[Heyjoe4]

What if he gets hurt again by mid-season? Does his price drop?

That's the $64 mil question milani. IMO Watson must have a complete season, performing at his usual high level but over 15-17 games. So 1200-1500 yards. 12-15 TDs. He is very capable of reaching those numbers. And if he does, he'll be worth $30-$35 mil AAV somewhere.

That's a really big "if". And to continue with your idea, will the Packers lock him up mid-season if he's on track toward those numbers?

Probably yes. Watson is too important to the offense to let him get away. Signing mid-season could save $5 mil/year AAV.

 

[gopkrs]

I remember that game. If it's the one I'm thinking about, the 9ers only TD came on a blocked punt. I think the score was 13-7.

Rodgers just wasn't a clutch QB. That's probably not completely fair, but it seemed that way to me.

On another thread I commented that Rodgers lead mostly by fear, and was far too reliant on Adams and unwilling to give younger players a chance. That hurt the team in the playoffs as well.

I'm going to give the 49rs some credit. Their defense was excellent

 

[Half Empty]

If he plays good and looks strong; I see no reason not to sign him half way through the season

Except if he has more positives on his resume, as you indicate, he'll be more expensive then.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I'm going to give the 49rs some credit. Their defense was excellent

Yes, good point. They held the Packers' offense to one TD, ummm, I think. Or was it two FGs?

Anyway, when a team is held under 20 points, much less 10, they should lose most of the time. That's why I'm so adamant in my belief that SB winners have #1 or #2 defenses.

Seems like less of an issue during the regular season, but elite Ds carry their teams (usually) in the playoffs, esp the conference championships and SB. Recent SB wins by Philly and Seattle illustrate this.

 

[Schultz]

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.

My point is all of those things should be true since he is better than the player that is on the field when he isn't.

 

[mradtke66]

L

When Watson was on the field for complete games in 2025, GB scored 23.0 points per game on Offense. In 2025, 23.0 pts/gm would rank tied for the 16th most points

When Kraft was on the field for complete games in 2025 GB scored 26.33 pts/gm. Which would rank the #9 scoring Offense.

When BOTH together played? It was 35.0 (Pittsburgh) points/gm

More recently, the Packers Offense has been more effective when Kraft is on the field over Watson and that is factual evidence. To suggest the results would flip flop by a margin of 6.66 points (3.33 differential and then 3.33 pts into the other direction) is a super hard sell imo.

The presence of Kraft appears to have a larger positive impact on the Offense than Watson. At least in points he did. Correct me if I’m wrong but whoever scores the most points wins. The rest of the data is a side show. Many variables play into this, but the results show just opposite of what you mentioned earlier. Ironically, It’s Kraft that led a #9 ranked Offense. That #9 Ranking was also largely WITHOUT Reed and Watson as Reed was injured early Week 2. So Kraft was working with Doubs and they began leaning more on Wicks, Golden and Josh in the receiving area due to Watson and Reed missing all but 1 game (Reed Week 1). Even Josh posted as a High Receiver 1 week early season. I’m convinced after doing more research that Kraft being out there is highly impactful to our entire Offense and more so than any other player except Jordan. Both players help out Offense tremendously though. However.. When Kraft went down?…the machine went down.

The Points favor resulted Kraft. When he was alone we went 4-1-1, losing just 1 game. Easily could’ve been 5-1

When Watson was alone we went 4-6
Technically 4-7 (playoffs)

The problem with all of that is you are looking at game totals. Even when healthy, neither player played 100% of the snaps. Too much summarization, not enough detail. That is a key difference in the data I've been throwing around. The set of "snaps without Watson" cover all of weeks 1 through 7, but also varying amounts for the rest of the season. The fairest comparison is looking at the snaps Kraft didn't play and see how much better they are with him vs. without within the same game. To be clear, I would expect some kind of bump, he's a good player.

And then the other part, which is why I keep harping on signing Kraft and Tucker--it could easily BE BOTH. Watson having this impressive measured improvement to the offense doesn't mean Kraft doesn't have the same. Losing Kraft and seeing total points go down doesn't mean it would have been even worse without Watson.

I keep asking for someone to find the equivalent metrics for Kraft because no matter they show, they will be interesting and paint a more accurate picture. I want them, but I don't have the time to go get them myself. And I don't know if I have the right access to get that breakdown.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I do agree that value varies by team, but again supply and demand says the young, good players will be the most expensive during free agency. Signing them before that happens gives the team exclusivity. Once the tampering period happens, all bets are off.

Personally, I like to gamble on re-signing guys early vs gambling on re-signing them later.

As long as they are ascending and you identify them as such, sign them before they breakout. The team gets the player at a reduced rate, the player gets safety and security in exchange for top dollar.

I fully agree with your statement. However, it's possible that Watson has fallen out of the part I bolded. I also don't think that by signing him early (before season starts) the Packers will get Watson at enough of a discount to offset the downsides of doing so. Those downsides would be injury, breakout of cheaper WR's, plateauing of his development and decreasing his motivation to earn his next contract.

Even if you ignore all of those potential downsides, I'm just not a fan of locking in what will probably be at least $80M of future cap space to Watson.

 

[OldSchool101]

"The stare" - Rodgers was/is one of the greatest QBs to play in the NFL. But his interpersonal skills were lacking.

He did bring leadership, but he mostly lead through fear. No receiver, hell no teammate, wanted to get "The Stare".

I don't think it's a good way to motivate people to do better.

I don’t know that stare works pretty good when my wife uses it.

 

[OldSchool101]

the number 1 statistical TE and a middling offense overall

or

a borderline top 10 statistical WR and a top 3 overall offense.

The problem with all of that is you are looking at game totals. Even when healthy, neither player played 100% of the snaps. Too much summarization, not enough detail.

Are these both you? Or is there an imposter in your home using your account? Because it appears to me it was you who presented the argument of a fictitious Offense ranking #3 with Watson. Are game totals (points, yards,, TD’s etc) not how you determine Offense ranking??
I responded to that specifically because I checked the math and what you presented is just not true. Our Offense ranked#16 with Watson. Watson also had Reed AND Doubs and I’d argue that’s our top 3 WR’s. Yet it’s a fact we didn’t score more or rank higher.

You should be asking the truth.

Would we rather have a #9 rated Offense with Kraft OR… a #16 rated Offense with Watson. This business above you wrote about a #3 Offense is total fantasy.


Sorry @mradtke66, I just can’t take you seriously on this discussion. It’s almost like you don’t want to know the facts of the 2025 season. I’m not making this up either. The Offense with Kraft was operating better and more effectively than it was with Watson. Instead you used an inaccurate almost fantasy comparison that exact opposite of actual reality.

 

[mradtke66]

I fully agree with your statement. However, it's possible that Watson has fallen out of the part I bolded. I also don't think that by signing him early (before season starts) the Packers will get Watson at enough of a discount to offset the downsides of doing so. Those downsides would be injury, breakout of cheaper WR's, plateauing of his development and decreasing his motivation to earn his next contract.

I'm not saying Watson is the second coming of Moss, but he certainly could be. He was on pace for about 1,100 yards last year. If we sign him to that level of contract and he goes off for 2000 yard, then we still came out ahead.

And as far as "cheaper" receivers breaking out, I have my doubts that our current crop could replicate what he does, but lets say your favorite between Golden and Williams can and does. You'll still have to pay them the premium contract. Are you unwilling to sign any receiver to a premium contract?

Even if you ignore all of those potential downsides, I'm just not a fan of locking in what will probably be at least $80M of future cap space to Watson.

Saying 80M is a little disengenous. His actual cap will be higher, but his guaranteed number will be lower. Only Justin Jefferson got a guarantee at signing of over 80M. Ja'Marr Chase did not (73.9). Jaxon Smith-Njigba did not (69.1).

Looking at Jaxon, which we at least have an idea of what his contract might look like. Let's say Watson is 80-90% the receiver he is. That's roughly 55-62M guaranteed at signing. Jax has a 6 year contract, meaning the guarantee is 9-10.3M per year in cap. I'd expect the base salaries in year 1 and 2 to be identical. At 1.25M, I suspect it's vet minimum? That means for 2 years, Watson would count roughly 3.3 and 4.8 percent of the cap.

After that, it does get fuzzy, but the is likely to explode with the coming re-negotiating of the TV deals.

 

[mradtke66]

Are these both you? Or is there an imposter in your home using your account? Because it appears to me it was you who presented the argument of a fictitious Offense ranking #3 with Watson. Are game totals (points, yards,, TD’s etc) not how you determine Offense ranking??
I responded to that specifically because I checked the math and what you presented is just not true. Our Offense ranked#16 with Watson. Watson also had Reed AND Doubs and I’d argue that’s our top 3 WR’s. Yet it’s a fact we didn’t score more or rank higher.

This was a hypothetical. Just like being able to afford/not afford Watson and Kraft is a hypothetical.

Would we rather have a #9 rated Offense with Kraft OR… a #16 rated Offense with Watson. This business above you wrote about a #3 Offense is total fantasy.

Again, a hypothetical. Thought experiment. Practically, I don't know how a team could have the number 1 TE and be rated as low as 16.

Sorry @mradtke66, I just can’t take you seriously on this discussion. It’s almost like you don’t want to know the facts of the 2025 season. I’m not making this up either. The Offense with Kraft was operating better and more effectively than it was with Watson.

We're talking different stats/metrics and stats. Watson's measured impact that I am referencing is as far as I can tell, is efficiency. Yards-Per-Play. We can A/B his impact because he doesn't play 100% of the snaps. Breaking down by snap allows the purest measurement of his impact outside of direct contribution. Similarly, we cannot him all the credit (or blame) when things go well (or poorly) on a per-game basis for the same reason.

 

[OldSchool101]

All junk aside. My gut is we will retain Both Watson and Kraft. I do think GB should draft a Slot option either by RD3- RD5 area this year
OR
RD2- RD4 area next year.

I can see Reed gone as we can’t afford all 3 players on big contracts. If Watson and Wicks could be resigned for a total combined $18-23Mil annual Cap hit I think it’s doable. Then draft
1 WR in 2026 (slot?) and another WR in 2027 (RD4 etc)

 

[mradtke66]

All junk aside. My gut is we will retain Both Watson and Kraft. I do think GB should draft a Slot option either by RD3- RD5 area this year

Agreed. Both are young, ascending players. Those are the ones you keep.

If Watson and Wicks could be resigned for a total combined $18-23Mil annual Cap hit I think it’s doable.

I don't think it'll be that little. First two years, yeah, Watson will only count around 10M based on the structure, but it'll balloon after that. Jaxon Smith-Njigba is 10.3, 15.6, 32.9, 36.5, 48.8, 50.3. Those middle two years likely won't look bad with the expected cap increases and the last two are probably fake years. Fake as is "we're either going to cut you or extend you," they are not void years.

 

[Pkrjones]

All junk aside. My gut is we will retain Both Watson and Kraft. I do think GB should draft a Slot option either by RD3- RD5 area this year
OR
RD2- RD4 area next year.

I can see Reed gone as we can’t afford all 3 players on big contracts. If Watson and Wicks could be resigned for a total combined $18-23Mil annual Cap hit I think it’s doable. Then draft
1 WR in 2026 (slot?) and another WR in 2027 (RD4 etc)

How do Watson AND Wicks get signed for combined cap hit of $23mil/yr? Watson alone will average over $30mil/yr, and even adding 2 void years on the back end will be over $23mil cap on his own. I hate void years as it adds dead$ when a player is gone, but understand using them occasionally.

 

[mradtke66]

How do Watson AND Wicks get signed for combined cap hit of $23mil/yr? Watson alone will average over $30mil/yr, and even adding 2 void years on the back end will be over $23mil cap on his own. I hate void years as it adds dead$ when a player is gone, but understand using them occasionally.

It won't be a straight 30M per year. Pretty typical for structure would be a low base salary in year 1 and/or 2, likely lowering his cap hit to the 10-15 range. It'll likely balloon in years 3-6, depending on the specifics. Of course the cap will likely rise, potentially a significant amount, depending on new TV deals.

You don't have to do it with void years.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Saying 80M is a little disengenous. His actual cap will be higher, but his guaranteed number will be lower. Only Justin Jefferson got a guarantee at signing of over 80M. Ja'Marr Chase did not (73.9). Jaxon Smith-Njigba did not (69.1).

Ummm....how is it disengenous? Alex Pierce, who some have compared a Watson contract to, signed the following deal:

"Alec Pierce signed a 4 year, $114,000,000 contract with the Indianapolis Colts, including $26,000,000 signing bonus, $84,000,000 guaranteed, and an average annual salary of $28,500,000."

JSN got $120M guaranteed.

Chase got $112M guaranteed.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!