2020 Roster Additions

[PikeBadger]

Maybe "an awful lot of people" are a good deal smarter than you give them credit for.

Last year at this time, did you believe the Packers would go 13-3 and win a playoff game with a rookie head coach?

Maybe the sky isn't falling....Is that possible?

I don’t think the sky is falling at all. I think we’re much closer to being a Super Bowl championship than becoming a train wreck.

Every year at this time of year I read posts from people here that fail to factor in young player improvement and development. There seems to be a lot of assumptions that player skill is stagnant. I’ve always thought that our position coaches deserve more credit for their ability to develop players.

 

[Mondio]

I don’t think the sky is falling at all. I think we’re much closer to being a Super Bowl championship than becoming a train wreck.

Every year at this time of year I read posts from people here that fail to factor in young player improvement and development. There seems to be a lot of assumptions that player skill is stagnant. I’ve always thought that our position coaches deserve more credit for their ability to develop players.

I think Keke is going to be a good 2nd year player. I still have a lot of hope for Jones on defense. He has tools to work with and I think there is a role for him in this defense. He was pretty raw coming out of college as a DB. would not be surprised to see year 3 turn on for him

Never really was a Burks fan, but we'll see. He was looking better, but then hurt. Haven't seen nearly enough to give me high hopes and when he couldn't work his way on the field despite great need and him being healthy, I have my doubts.

I think we'll see some young TE's finally emerge, because they have talent, and they have to. There is nobody else.

I think Savage is going to be really special back there with Amos.

I'm excited for EQ, but not holding out high hope, though I do think he has a high ceiling. I think as Lazard gets more comfortable he's going to be a better big target than he's been. Jenkins? probably get better, but just maintain and he's going to be great for us.

 

[GleefulGary]

I think Keke is going to be a good 2nd year player. I still have a lot of hope for Jones on defense. He has tools to work with and I think there is a role for him in this defense. He was pretty raw coming out of college as a DB. would not be surprised to see year 3 turn on for him

Never really was a Burks fan, but we'll see. He was looking better, but then hurt. Haven't seen nearly enough to give me high hopes and when he couldn't work his way on the field despite great need and him being healthy, I have my doubts.

I think we'll see some young TE's finally emerge, because they have talent, and they have to. There is nobody else.

I think Savage is going to be really special back there with Amos.

I'm excited for EQ, but not holding out high hope, though I do think he has a high ceiling. I think as Lazard gets more comfortable he's going to be a better big target than he's been. Jenkins? probably get better, but just maintain and he's going to be great for us.

Jones? I'm having a brain fart...

 

[Mondio]

Jones? I'm having a brain fart...

It would appear I'm the one with the fart,

Jackson, Josh Jackson, not Jones.

 

[OldSchool101]

Yes, an awful lot of people seem to have a very difficult time grasping the reality that very, very few players come into the league as ready made products. Keep a close eye on our 2nd and 3rd year players. Their continued development will be what makes us championship contenders or not.

You hit right on it. The Packers are not immune to squandering 1st rounders like everyone else. I would ask those fans who are begrudgingly and unforgivingly upset a question?

1. How many of this list would single handily push GB over the top to a point where we’d dominate SF 49ers like they did us?? Even squeak out a last sec Win?

To be fair.. I’ll use only picks between #24-#32 overall (2 places before we picked at #26 to 2 places after our original selection at #30)
Rookie Kenny Clark (2016) Pick: 27th overall.
Rookie D. Randall (2015) Pick: 30th overall
Rookie Jones (2013) Pick: 26th overall. ..
Rookie Nick Perry (2012) Pick: 28th overall. ... Rookie Derek Sherrod (2011) Pick: 32nd overall.
Rookie Clay Matthews (2009) Pick #26 overall
Rookie Aaron Rodgers (2005) Pick #24 overall
Rookie Ahmad Carroll (2004) Pick #24 overall
Rookie Nick Barnett (2003) Pick #29 overall

I believe this to be a large enough sample size to illustrate what you’re getting towards the end of day 1 drafting. We can reasonably argue that 2-3 of those 9 would be instant producers in their Rookie season. Kenny Clark, Clay Mathews and Nick Barnett.

In his first 2 seasons Kenny Clark averaged 38 tackles, 2.25 sacks, 1FF, 1PD per season. I would argue back he’s Eliminated from a “Probowl or 1st team type nod inside 2 season. While a great player he would have little impact on GB beating SF until year 3.

I shouldn’t even have to talk about the next FOUR.. selections in our range and inside 2 seasons.. I won’t waste yours or my time and their collective production was bordering on embarrassing, considering the expectation of combined draft collateral used.

I’d argue Clay Mathews is the best example of what we missed at #26 overall.

The only other selection worth taking a position of him being able to make a sizable impact inside 2 seasons was Nick Barnett. While he became a very solid and respectable producer year 1 (112 Tot Tackles, 3INT, 2 Sacks, 3INT, 3PD. He did not really peak and attain standout recognition until his 3rd season (led the NFC Conference in combined tackles) +1INT, 1Sack, 1PD)). He eventually went All-Pro in in his FIFTH season in 2007 and SB Champion in his EIGHTH season 2010.
Out of respect for his great play early on, Barnett is the only other player that comes close to arguing his athleticism could have enough impact to better the team significantly in instantaneous fashion.

.111%-333% hit rate at early (or any quantifiable “difference maker”) production.

As they say..”Thems not good odds”.

It takes more than just 1 rookie drafted player to change the dynamics of a team. If we want to argue “Win Now” you best be presenting veteran players at the top of their game, not rookie 1st round leftovers.

Columbo.. “Oh and wait! Just One More Thing!
Now if CeeDee Lamb we’re there at #26? I’m mad with the rest of you (Squinting my eyes and Winking my eyebrows Peter Falk style)

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Every year at this time of year I read posts from people here that fail to factor in young player improvement and development. There seems to be a lot of assumptions that player skill is stagnant. I’ve always thought that our position coaches deserve more credit for their ability to develop players.

I know that Thompson and McCarthy have made you believe that second and third year players improving is the best option to upgrade the performance on the field. But there's not a whole lot of truth to it.

Let's take a look at last season for example. While Aaron Jones improved as a receiver not any of the other 21 draft picks in 2017 and '18 had a significant larger impact than during their rookie or second season respectively.

Never really was a Burks fan, but we'll see. He was looking better, but then hurt.

Burks played the majority of snaps on special teams once he returned in week 5, therefore I highly doubt an injury was part of the reason for him not receiving more playing time on defense.

You hit right on it. The Packers are not immune to squandering 1st rounders like everyone else. I would ask those fans who are begrudgingly and unforgivingly upset a question?

1. How many of this list would single handily push GB over the top to a point where we’d dominate SF 49ers like they did us?? Even squeak out a last sec Win?

I agree there wasn't a prospect available at #30 to single-handily push the Packers over the top but Gutekunst using the team's first round pick on any other position than quarterback would have improved their chances for the 2020 season.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I agree there wasn't a prospect available at #30 to single-handily push the Packers over the top but Gutekunst using the team's first round pick on any other position than quarterback would have improved their chances for the 2020 season.

While I get what you are saying, the words "improved their chances for the 2020 season" can't be stressed enough. If all you are wanting to do is take a swing at short term improvement, with low importance on long term, I tend to agree with you on the Love pick. One also needs to acknowledge that had the Packers used the pick on say a WR, there is no guarantees on that pick helping immediately or long term either.

Last years draft is a good example of what can play out in a draft, in the first round no less.
The Packers select EDGE Gary with the 12th pick and S Savage with the 21st pick. First of all, had they selected Savage with the 12th and Gary with the 21st, people would have lost their "sh*t" about reaching for Savage and some probably would have called Gary great value at 21. Hell, some called Savage a reach at 21.

Fast forward a year. So far Gary looks like a meh pick, that we will have to wait another year or 2 to see how it works out and Savage appears to be a great pick. So saying Love was a "bad pick" because he doesn't immediately improve the 2020 team might be a correct statement on the surface, but it really doesn't look at the big picture how that pick or other picks may or may not impact the future of the Packers.

 

[Mondio]

Burks played the majority of snaps on special teams once he returned in week 5, therefore I highly doubt an injury was part of the reason for him not receiving more playing time on defense.

Isn’t that basically what I said?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

While I get what you are saying, the words "improved their chances for the 2020 season" can't be stressed enough. If all you are wanting to do is take a swing at short term improvement, with low importance on long term, I tend to agree with you on the Love pick.

Even if Love works out as planned the Packers won't be able to take advantage of having a starter still on his rookie deal aside of the 2023 season. That's pretty important under the current CBA though.

Isn’t that basically what I said?

No, you implied that he was hurt at the end of last season.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Even if Love works out as planned the Packers won't be able to take advantage of having a starter still on his rookie deal aside of the 2023 season. That's pretty important under the current CBA though.

Any team can have a rookie QB starting if they like. Now if you are talking about have a top 10 QB starting while playing on their rookie contract, those are 2 different things and the latter if far more difficult to achieve.

I did acknowledged this in previous post. While the latter is a scenario every team would love to have, I think expecting it to occur with every QB is an unrealistic expectation. How long did Rodgers play well as a starter on his Rookie contract? How long will Mahomes and Watson be on theirs? When you are lucky enough to land a QB that is an instant sensation, how long are they satisfied to play on their rookie deals?

Again, it would be awesome to have all 22 starters on rookie deals, but when you are talking about the one position that IMO requires the most skill, knowledge and experience to play at a top level, you are probably going to be taking a lot of swings in the draft to find that one guy that fits this quotient of yours. Also, finding him in the back half of the first round, on the exact year that you feel Rodgers is done, good luck with that.

 

[Dantés]

Any team can have a rookie QB starting if they like. Now if you are talking about have a top 10 QB starting while playing on their rookie contract, those are 2 different things and the latter if far more difficult to achieve.

I did acknowledged this in previous post. While the latter is a scenario every team would love to have, I think expecting it to occur with every QB is an unrealistic expectation. How long did Rodgers play well as a starter on his Rookie contract? How long will Mahomes and Watson be on theirs? When you are lucky enough to land a QB that is an instant sensation, how long are they satisfied to play on their rookie deals?

Again, it would be awesome to have all 22 starters on rookie deals, but when you are talking about the one position that IMO requires the most skill, knowledge and experience to play at a top level, you are probably going to be taking a lot of swings in the draft to find that one guy that fits this quotient of yours. Also, finding him in the back half of the first round, on the exact year that you feel Rodgers is done, good luck with that.

Captain is wrong about that anyways.

The Packers can get significant cap relief from Rodgers starting in 2022, and if Love works out, would be able to have a starting QB at a significant discount compared to the market price for three seasons.

Certainly it's not the ideal scenario of having 4-5 years of a rookie deal, but his argument that they only get one year of any benefit is false. He either doesn't understand or just wants to complain.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Wrong or right about the notion of having Love on a cheap rookie contract for the maximum amount of time, it is an unpredictable variable that you really shouldn't make your decisions around. Otherwise, no team should pay a QB on a second contract or at least an expensive one. Instead, they should just keep plugging rookies in. Basically, finding a top QB and having him on a rookie contract for a year or 2 is bonus, but not one I would weigh too heavy when we are talking about needing a starter in the next 3-5 years or even possibly sooner if things don't go as planned.

 

[gopkrs]

Wrong or right about the notion of having Love on a cheap rookie contract for the maximum amount of time, it is an unpredictable variable that you really shouldn't make your decisions around.

This

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Any team can have a rookie QB starting if they like. Now if you are talking about have a top 10 QB starting while playing on their rookie contract, those are 2 different things and the latter if far more difficult to achieve.

Come on, Poker, you know that I wasn't talking about a starting quarterback playing on a rookie deal just for the sake of having one.

While the latter is a scenario every team would love to have, I think expecting it to occur with every QB is an unrealistic expectation.

I absolutely agree that it's completely unrealistic to expect that the Packers will being able to replace Rodgers with another future HOF quarterback just like that. That's why the front office should do everything in their power to surround him with enough talent to make another run at a Super Bowl as long as the championship window is open.

Gutekunst using the team's first rounder on his backup isn't a move in that direction though.

How long did Rodgers play well as a starter on his Rookie contract? How long will Mahomes and Watson be on theirs? When you are lucky enough to land a QB that is an instant sensation, how long are they satisfied to play on their rookie deals?

There was no rookie salary scale in place at the time Rodgers was drafted. The landscape changed with the CBA in 2011 and teams are now able to benefit from having a cheap starting quarterback for four years by selecting one in the first round. It worked out pretty well for the Chiefs last season.

Captain is wrong about that anyways.

The Packers can get significant cap relief from Rodgers starting in 2022, and if Love works out, would be able to have a starting QB at a significant discount compared to the market price for three seasons.

Certainly it's not the ideal scenario of having 4-5 years of a rookie deal, but his argument that they only get one year of any benefit is false. He either doesn't understand or just wants to complain.

You're the one not understanding the way the salary cap works.

It is a fact that the Packers would take a $17.2 million cap hit in dead money if they move on from Rodgers for the 2022 season. Last year's 26th overall pick, Montez Sweat, has a cap hit of close to $3.2 million during his third year. That results in a minimum cap hit of $20.4 million for the quarterback position for the Packers in 2022.

That is nearly five times more than Mahomes (less than $4.5 million) accounted for last season or three times more than the cap hit the Eagles took in 2017 for both Wentz and Foles. There's no way the Packers can fully take advantage of having a starting quarterback on a cheap rookie deal before the 2023 season, which would be Love's last one on his original deal.

Wrong or right about the notion of having Love on a cheap rookie contract for the maximum amount of time, it is an unpredictable variable that you really shouldn't make your decisions around. Otherwise, no team should pay a QB on a second contract or at least an expensive one. Instead, they should just keep plugging rookies in.

Actually a lot of teams shouldn't pay huge money to mediocre quarterbacks and try their luck with rookies instead. That would give them a better chance of winning in the long haul. Of course that doesn't apply once you have found an elite one at the position.

 

[Dantés]

You're the one not understanding the way the salary cap works.

It is a fact that the Packers would take a $17.2 million cap hit in dead money if they move on from Rodgers for the 2022 season. Last year's 26th overall pick, Montez Sweat, has a cap hit of close to $3.2 million during his third year. That results in a minimum cap hit of $20.4 million for the quarterback position for the Packers in 2022.

That is nearly five times more than Mahomes (less than $4.5 million) accounted for last season or three times more than the cap hit the Eagles took in 2017 for both Wentz and Foles. There's no way the Packers can fully take advantage of having a starting quarterback on a cheap rookie deal before the 2023 season, which would be Love's last one on his original deal.

Paying 20M in cap space for a good starting QB is a substantial discount when the going rate by that time should be between 35 and 40M. This is why I said from the outset that they would get partial benefit from his rookie deal, but of course I don't really expect you to interact in good faith with the things I actually write. It's much easier to disagree with the points I'm not making.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Come on, Poker, you know that I wasn't talking about a starting quarterback playing on a rookie deal just for the sake of having one.

I absolutely agree that it's completely unrealistic to expect that the Packers will being able to replace Rodgers with another future HOF quarterback just like that.

Do you see where these 2 statement contradict each other?

Again, I understand you would love to see the Packers have what the Chiefs and a few others have had, a Super Bowl team with a QB on a rookie contract, but I think those are exceptions not the norms. It is the unintended benefit of hitting a home run on a rookie QB. Not something you should bank on happening very often and IMO not something that should be used as an argument against drafting Love. However, if that is your ultimate goal and Love looks like a solid player, the Packers will have the ability to do that with Love in his 3rd, 4th and 5th year, while also picking up some draft picks by trading Rodgers next year.

I understand you don't like the draft pick, but it feels like you are trying to pile on arguments that don't exist to try and make your rationale for not liking the pick more concrete.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Paying 20M in cap space for a good starting QB is a substantial discount when the going rate by that time should be between 35 and 40M. This is why I said from the outset that they would get partial benefit from his rookie deal, but of course I don't really expect you to interact in good faith with the things I actually write. It's much easier to disagree with the points I'm not making.

First of all it's hilarious that you complain about me not responding to you mentioning that the Packers would get partial benefit from Love's rookie deal when you quoted one of my posts which clearly states that I have an issue with the team not being able to fully take advantage of it.

While it's true that good veteran quarterbacks will be paid significantly more money than the Packers would have to allocate to the position if they decide to go with Love in 2022 those teams would have the benefit of not having a first year starter as well. Other teams starting a QB still on a rookie deal would save way more cap space during that season that Green Bay will be able to.

Another thing to consider is that Love will be eligible to negotiate a contract extension with the start of the 2023 league year. If he proves to be a legit starter in this league I have serious doubts he would be interested in playing on his rookie deal resulting in the Packers effectively not benefitting from a cheap quarterback at all.

Do you see where these 2 statement contradict each other?

I'm sorry Poker but I don't see how the two statements I made contradict each other in any way.

I understand you don't like the draft pick, but it feels like you are trying to pile on arguments that don't exist to try and make your rationale for not liking the pick more concrete.

The argument about the Packers not being able to fully take advantage of having a starting quarterback on a rookie deal is absolutely true though. Under the current CBA three teams won the Super Bowl by benefitting from having a cheap starting quarterback with none of those teams having a former starter accounting for a huge chunk of the cap in dead money.

That was a huge reason those teams were able to surround the QB with enough talent to win a title.

 

[Paddypacker12]

Seems obviously a lot better to me to have a scenario where you've a starting QB on a rookie contract for a few seasons before it becomes time to invest heavily in them with a starting QB contract.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Seems obviously a lot better to me to have a scenario where you've a starting QB on a rookie contract for a few seasons before it becomes time to invest heavily in them with a starting QB contract.

Unfortunately the team isn't able to take full advantage of it by having a significant amount of dead money for the former starter counting against the cap though.

 

[Paddypacker12]

Oh I understand that, I was just agreeing with your general point that it's a lot more preferable to have a young starting QB on a rookie contract for a couple of seasons. He could have a promising first season, get rewarded with a big contract with guaranteed money and then turn out like a Winston or Mariota.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Oh I understand that, I was just agreeing with your general point that it's a lot more preferable to have a young starting QB on a rookie contract for a couple of seasons. He could have a promising first season, get rewarded with a big contract with guaranteed money and then turn out like a Winston or Mariota.

Just for the record, teams and players aren't allowed to renegotiate a rookie contract until after the completion of the third season of the deal.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Sometimes you just have to accept the non-ideal and run with it. If Jordan Love balls out year 3 great, he'll have two years left with the 5th year option and will have learned under Rodgers the whole time.