What To Make Of Our WR No-Shows

[thequick12]

I totally disagree. A contract requires both parties signatures. Before either party agrees to sign the contract, they typically agree with all the terms. The Packers FO being declared a failure if any player decides he likes the terms another team is offering better? So were the Packers failures when they signed Jimmy Graham or Martellus Bennett? Or doesn't it work that way when the player fails to live up to the contract? Failures that they traded Brett Favre because they didn't want him in the building anymore?

Appears maybe that in your eyes, they are failures, because they didn't do what you would have?

Yes the signings of Jimmy Graham and Martellus Bennett were failures by the FO. Also I would consider the players failures as Packers. But from a job stand point they still got paid to go to work for the Packers. So really the failure was the decision by the FO to sign them because the players still made out. And full disclosure I was a big proponent of the Gharam signing. But that was a failure on my part as well. I thought he still had it but it became clear very quickly that he never had it really, and he certainly didn't anymore...so no I don't determine failure based upon whether it's what I would of done or not. Failure is failure no matter who makes or agrees with the decision. It generally is pretty clear in sports, after the fact or in hindsight or whatever

The failure in the Favre situation by the FO was once again poor player management...and they compounded that by taking a far inferior offer from the Jets in hopes of avoiding Favre. When they should of just taken the best offer from the Vikings or even the Bucs offered more than the Jets.

As for the both parties signature needed...yes that's true but if you manage the most important players on your team properly, they don't usually end up wanting out...my point is players like Adams, Alexander and Rodgers are so rare that the best FO teams don't let those guys leave no matter what...

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Knowing my wife's sense of humor, I think she was taking a dig at the intelligent and man section and ignoring the game reference.

Point taken. And I would tend to agree with her. It takes a special kind of idiot to actually enjoy cricket, even if he tried to explain it to me once.

 

[thequick12]

Have you looked at the 2022 Cap situation? Franchising someone is a full on dead cap hit. A GM deciding he is going to Franchise someone who made it clear that he didn't want to be in Green Bay because his QB was traded? Sorry, but that wouldn't be a move I would support. Especially given the fact that I don't think the Packers are Super Bowl bound without Rodgers for the next few years, so why pay Davante, risk pissing off other players and eventually get nothing but a comp pic when he walks after franchise tags are no longer prudent. Great idea, chain him up and make him play until he changes his mind!

I have...but we're talking about something that isn't likely to happen first of all. I'm not sure where you're getting this information that Adams would refuse to play for the Packers if Rodgers is traded. Which in itself is a ridiculous assertion. Rodgers isn't getting traded until earliest next off season...and I think it's a far more likely trajectory that he ends up signing an extension with the Packers

Second of all Adams produced with Hundley... Making Adams the perfect player to have as your numbers 1 wr if you don't know who your number 1 qb is gonna be. I'm not sure id agree that the Packers wouldn't be contenders for years...didn't Rodgers win the SB in his 2nd year as a starter? I'm not as down on Love as others I suppose as I liked him coming out...

Third, you can franchise a guy to buy time to work out an extension, most often the case or to trade him, rarely the case but has been happening more lately...

 

[gopkrs]

Kind of covered this above. The Packers are "stuck" accounting for (through cap accounting) everything that was guaranteed to Rodgers when he signed the contract and all the adjustments since, that has yet to be cap accounted for yet. This doesn't include future salaries, roster or workout bonuses. Think of it this way, Rodgers has already been paid ALL of the money in question, but some of it just hasn't been reported against the cap yet, since the NFL allows teams to spread the cap hit of doing so over the lifetime of the contract. Thus, why its called a "Dead Cap Hit", nothing the Packers or another team can do about it. If he is traded or cut, that cap hit has to be taken immediately or in this case 1/2 over this season and 1/2 over next if it happens after June 1st.

If the Packers do trade Rodgers, I don't expect his current contract to follow him for too long. His new team will give him plenty of new money and guarantees, letting him know that they want him for "X number of years".

Still, it must have huge trade value.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

my point is players like Adams, Alexander and Rodgers are so rare that the best FO teams don't let those guys leave no matter what...

Tom Brady leaving New England? Le'Veon Bell? This list can go on and on and each situation has its own details. Again, you seem to fail to recognize that failure often is a 2 party process. To say that one side failed and the other didn't, in many cases is not true. Mo Bennett and Jimmy Graham failed to live up to their contracts. Why? So easy to used hindsight and say "oh the Packers failed on those 2 guys or the Packers failed if they let Adams walk away from the organization, but to do that, you may be completely ignoring all the facts and rushing to the conclusion that you want to make. Saying the Packers failed when it comes to Rodgers is also totally not recognizing Rodgers part in the situation.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm not sure where you're getting this information that Adams would refuse to play for the Packers if Rodgers is traded. Which in itself is a ridiculous assertion. Rodgers isn't getting traded until earliest next off season...and I think it's a far more likely trajectory that he ends up signing an extension with the Packers

Are you paying attention to anything that is going on? Link to Direct quotes from Adams, which have been posted several times here. You draw the conclusion that you want to....

Packers: Aaron Rodgers’ future will affect Davante Adams, obviously (usatoday.com)

As far as you saying that the potential that Rodgers will be traded being a ridiculous assertion? Really?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Still, it must have huge trade value.

I guess we won't know until if and when it happens. I said it right after the draft, I feel the value has been slowly declining as this drags out further. Teams that 2 months ago may have potentially been interested in him have made other plans and who knows what all the negative drama of this will create in an owners mind as far as wanting to be a part of it.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Have you looked at the 2022 Cap situation? Franchising someone is a full on dead cap hit. A GM deciding he is going to Franchise someone who made it clear that he didn't want to be in Green Bay because his QB was traded? Sorry, but that wouldn't be a move I would support. Especially given the fact that I don't think the Packers are Super Bowl bound without Rodgers for the next few years, so why pay Davante, risk pissing off other players and eventually get nothing but a comp pic when he walks after franchise tags are no longer prudent. Great idea, chain him up and make him play until he changes his mind!

Franchising and trading is an option. Just letting the best receiver in the league walk for a 3rd round pick next year is an offense that should get ANY general manager fired on the spot.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Franchising and trading is an option. Just letting the best receiver in the league walk for a 3rd round pick next year is an offense that should get ANY general manager fired on the spot.

I agree, which is why if you know a player like Adams isn't going to sign another contract, you make a move and get the most out of him at the right time. If Rodgers is out of Green Bay and Adams wants to leave too, that time is now, while his value could be at its highest. While I get your franchise and trade option, you are running the risk of him getting hurt this season, then what? If Rodgers was sticking around and Davante said "you know, I want out after my contract is up, then I would do what you are talking about, since he might help with taking us to a SB. Without Rodgers, 2021 will not be a SB year IMO and that is with or without Adams.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

....Which in itself is a ridiculous assertion. Rodgers isn't getting traded until earliest next off season...and I think it's a far more likely trajectory that he ends up signing an extension with the Packers

It is interesting to find your 2 posts (below). The first continue your theory that the Packer front office would be fully to blame if Rodgers leaves and how the FO can't let guys like Rodgers go, no matter what. Then in your second post you are listing a bunch of Rodgers negatives. So how again would you consider Rodgers not being a Packer strictly a failure of the FO?

As for the both parties signature needed...yes that's true but if you manage the most important players on your team properly, they don't usually end up wanting out...my point is players like Adams, Alexander and Rodgers are so rare that the best FO teams don't let those guys leave no matter what...

Dude everyone knows this about Rodgers...he held the mccarthy grudge, he doesn't talk to his family, he told Favre he was gonna be better than him the first time they met....and he did it

 

[OldSchool101]

Once again, you're wrong about it. Rodgers isn't more expensive than Stafford for a team acquiring him. In addition his contract doesn't have any guaranteed money left.

You’re correct on the yearly because I redid my math and I forgot to include dead $ from future. $17+2. Which bring rodgers remaining yearly down to 16.994mil. (21.5mil annual for Stafford). Thank you for pointing out I was wrong

Rodgers is an absolute steal from a monetary aspect.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Rodgers is an absolute steal from a monetary aspect.

He appears to be an absolute steal right now for the Packers, because they front loaded his contract and have paid out most of that to him already. Absolutely drives me crazy to read "Packers are only paying Rodgers a salary of $22M in 2021, because that is not the case, his new contract was based on an average salary of $33.5M/year. That $22M is simply a book keeping way of looking at things. But back to the idea of trading him. Given what we are hearing (not facts) Rodgers wants to be paid more, as well as more guarantees. So of course his current contract would be a HUGE bargain for other teams. I just don't think he will be playing under the terms of his current contract, whether it is as a Packer or any other team. Which I think is why we are all here sitting here talking about this for the past month or so.

That sucks too, because the Packers would rather the current contract be enforced by themselves or another team, since that would no doubt bring them the most value in a trade, which they basically prepaid to benefit later from. That aspect would be lost in a new contract.

If Rodgers does stay in Green Bay and they work out a new contract, I would hope that both sides figure out something that is equitable, while accounting for all that upfront guaranteed money within the new contract terms.

 

[gopkrs]

If Rodgers does stay in Green Bay and they work out a new contract, I would hope that both sides figure out something that is equitable, while accounting for all that upfront guaranteed money within the new contract terms.

I don't know. I think what they already paid him was and is equitable. I don't think having an MVP season means that he is now worth more. jmo

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't know. I think what they already paid him was and is equitable. I don't think having an MVP season means that he is now worth more. jmo

Oh I agree with you. Just like had Rodgers (or any player) been injured in game 5 and lost for the season or just had a subpar year, I doubt he is at Ball's office door trying to give him a check for being overpaid.

That said, this is what I don't like about todays athletes. Rarely do we see them giving money from a contract back, unless the team threatens to cut them (Preston Smith). Instead, we get the players screaming they are being underpaid and want more money, either because they had a great season or other guys are now being paid more.

 

[OldSchool101]

He appears to be an absolute steal right now for the Packers, because they front loaded his contract and have paid out most of that to him already. Absolutely drives me crazy to read "Packers are only paying Rodgers a salary of $22M in 2021, because that is not the case, his new contract was based on an average salary of $33.5M/year. That $22M is simply a book keeping way of looking at things. But back to the idea of trading him. Given what we are hearing (not facts) Rodgers wants to be paid more, as well as more guarantees. So of course his current contract would be a HUGE bargain for other teams. I just don't think he will be playing under the terms of his current contract, whether it is as a Packer or any other team. Which I think is why we are all here sitting here talking about this for the past month or so.

That sucks too, because the Packers would rather the current contract be enforced by themselves or another team, since that would no doubt bring them the most value in a trade, which they basically prepaid to benefit later from. That aspect would be lost in a new contract.

If Rodgers does stay in Green Bay and they work out a new contract, I would hope that both sides figure out something that is equitable, while accounting for all that upfront guaranteed money within the new contract terms.

We were talking trade value there. Like if Denver picked him up how much their portion is etc..
Yes though to GB he’s getting more expensive by the year as he’s like a balloon payment.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

We were talking trade value there. Like if Denver picked him up how much their portion is etc..
Yes though to GB he’s getting more expensive by the year as he’s like a balloon payment.

I doubt any new team is going to be lucky enough to inherit his current contract. He will want a new one.

 

[OldSchool101]

I doubt any new team is going to be lucky enough to inherit his current contract. He will want a new one.

True that. Let’s just get on to June 2. I’m running out of tread on my fingernails

 

[Poppa San]

True that. Let’s just get on to June 2. I’m running out of tread on my fingernails

Your shipment of new stickons is due on Tuesday?

 

[OldSchool101]

Your shipment of new stickons is due on Tuesday?

That’s be perfect thanks. I’m sure there will be another catastrophe coming along soon, that I put them to good use.

 

[Krabs]

The Packers don't cripple their cap by trading Rodgers. They would have to deal with having a lot less talent at quarterback though.
Just for the record, you forgot to account for the $6.8 million roster bonus Rodgers received in March. Therefore trading him would result in a total of $38.356 million of dead money counting against the cap.

I don't understand you 38.356 million in dead money doesn't cripple a team. Plus, they are way over the cap in 2022. Not having that money would be painful to the roster. I also meant cripple in a sense of the cap and not having Rodgers. I agree we would be competing with the Lions for the cellar in the North.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Oh I agree with you. Just like had Rodgers (or any player) been injured in game 5 and lost for the season or just had a subpar year, I doubt he is at Ball's office door trying to give him a check for being overpaid.

That said, this is what I don't like about todays athletes. Rarely do we see them giving money from a contract back, unless the team threatens to cut them (Preston Smith). Instead, we get the players screaming they are being underpaid and want more money, either because they had a great season or other guys are now being paid more.

You don't generally see teams paying extra over a contract for good performance either. That's what I don't like about today's teams, their unwillingness to just give extra money to good players that earn it.

And I'm not sure how anybody doesn't believe an MVP season increases a player's value.

 

[Mondio]

Because they're both gambling. The player in that they're forgoing some money long term to get the most short term because they know they could get injured and not make any if they go strictly off performance. and teams give a bunch up front hoping the player doesn't check out, get fat, get hurt, or anything else they may do to not earn it. Teams would LOVE to play players based on performance. I'm sure of it.

Give them all a base salary of 400K and everything is an incentive after that.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You don't generally see teams paying extra over a contract for good performance either. That's what I don't like about today's teams, their unwillingness to just give extra money to good players that earn it.

And I'm not sure how anybody doesn't believe an MVP season increases a player's value.

Have you looked at Rodgers contract? I don't think that you have. He made an extra $500K for "working out" and another $850K based on incentive escalators that he met.

• Annual Workout Bonus: $500,000
• 2020-2023 Escalators ($1M Max)
  72.5 offensive snaps: $100,000 (earned in 2020, 2021)
  + divisional playoff game: $120,000 more (earned in 2020, 2021)
  + NFC Championship: $130,000 more (earned in 2020, 2021)
  + Super Bowl: $150,000 more
  $100,000 each for Top 3 in Passer Rating, Comp. %, INT %, Yards per Att., TD Passes ($100,000 earned in 2020, $500,000 in 2021)

I am sure $1.35M isn't enough for you, you want more right? So did Rodgers give back money during the years he didn't play up to his contracts? You can't have it both ways. Imagine having to readjust everyone's contracts after each season based almost fully on their performance of the last season. Oh wait, that would be called......performance pay!

I would be totally all for the NFL to switching to heavy in Performance and incentive based contracts. Sadly, these guys all seem to want guaranteed money. Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[tynimiller]

I too am a massive fan of performance/incentive based contracts - issue is estimating costs if you get too many of them built into a roster/cap situation I'd assume would be a headache.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I too am a massive fan of performance/incentive based contracts - issue is estimating costs if you get too many of them built into a roster/cap situation I'd assume would be a headache.

Agreed. I haven't sat down to try and perfect it, they don't pay me enough to do that.

One part of it is quite easy. Every position gets paid a base amount and beyond that everything is earned by each player, during each season. Due to technology and todays collection of just about every tidbit of information that happens in a game, statistically and logistically it probably would be quite easy to do.

The difficult part is how do you regulate it in relation to a cap and trying to continue to keep all 32 teams on a somewhat equal playing ground to keep the league competitive. Teams could sign the top 11 players on offense at that base rate and at the end of the SB win say "oh crap, now we have to pay for it, but it was worth it". Of course, if TD's and yards are part of the pay scale, a team can only total of so many of those in each game, so the wealth is spread around.

The current pay system is mainly based on "predicted value". Sure would be nice to bring in more of a pay system that payed on "Actual earned value".