Adams tagged

[Deleted member 6794]

Personally, I wasn't freaked out about Rodgers making a decision, it was WHEN he would finally make that decision. Had Rodgers made his decision a month ago, the last month could have been spent working on their current Free Agents and potential cap casualty cuts, based on knowing Rodgers decision. Now negotiations with those players can take place, but as we saw yesterday with Denver and Seattle, those negotiations with other teams may have already taken place for some of them, over the last month. The Packers may actually get a few "we have already moved on, unless you can beat this deal" from players like MVS.

I'm absolutely convinced the Packers' front office worked with all of their free agents on possible deals while waiting for Rodgers to announce his decision. In addition I don't believe they allowed any other player to talk to another team about a contract.

As far as Adams goes. That was actually the easiest decision that the Packers had to make, why would you not franchise him? You keep him if Rodgers decision was to stay and try to trade him if Rodgers wants out.

I would have preferred the Packers to sign Adams to a long-term deal before having to use the franchise tag on him. There's still time to work it out though.

 

[McKnowledge]

That depends on the compensation the Packers would receive in return. If they move on from Love they're in desperate need of a backup QB.

A Super Bowl contending team needs a veteran backup, not a rookie. Let's build the depth of this team the right way. Trade Love to Houston or Seattle and get back adequate compensation.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

In addition I don't believe they allowed any other player to talk to another team about a contract.

"Allowed" vs "Done without tampering" are too different things. I am pretty sure MVS and his agent already have feelers out. I use MVS because I think he is a guy the Packers don't think twice about if Rodgers isn't on the team, but now with Rodgers "back", they actually might try to resign him.

I would have preferred the Packers to sign Adams to a long-term deal before having to use the franchise tag on him. There's still time to work it out though.

I wouldn't have been shocked to see Adams tagged and traded if Rodgers was gone. Maybe Adams himself told the Packers "If Aaron isn't my QB, I want out of GB." That might have been why they waited to go into heavy negotiations on a long term deal.

 

[tynimiller]

A Super Bowl contending team needs a veteran backup, not a rookie. Let's build the depth of this team the right way. Trade Love to Houston or Seattle and get back adequate compensation.

A back up as you describe is most likely going to cost more than Love does presently...and with our Cap situation should we really do a move that costs us more?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

A back up as you describe is most likely going to cost more than Love does presently...and with our Cap situation should we really do a move that costs us more?

Agree and throw in the fact that you still have a dead cap hit of $6.518M if you get rid of Love. So taking a cap hit of $10M+ in the backup QB department, wouldn't be high on my priority list. Also, I don't see a backup, including Love that keeps the Packers on a winning tract.

 

[McKnowledge]

Agree and throw in the fact that you still have a dead cap hit of $6.518M if you get rid of Love. So taking a cap hit of $10M+ in the backup QB department, wouldn't be high on my priority list. Also, I don't see a backup, including Love that keeps the Packers on a winning tract.

Since you also don't see him as a viable backup, why keep him?

 

[Mondio]

Since you also don't see him as a viable backup, why keep him?

They will because they saw a certain amount of potential in him. He's young, he's practically only as old as this years draft class. he hasn't really had opportunity to show much. He could really blossom here in a year or prove he's not it.

 

[tynimiller]

Since you also don't see him as a viable backup, why keep him?

He didn't say Love wasn't a viable backup, he said he doesn't see a backup that keeps this roster on the winning tract.

Love to me would have the best chance just from being familiar and guys knowing him to...but it would still be considered a long shot for sure.

 

[McKnowledge]

They will because they saw a certain amount of potential in him. He's young, he's practically only as old as this years draft class. he hasn't really had opportunity to show much. He could really blossom here in a year or prove he's not it.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm not vehemently opposed to anyone else and their views on Love. However, we have to take into account that "there is a game within the game" when it comes to sports.

His opportunity was against the Chiefs and that suspect defense the middle of last season.

All QBs have egos, and I can't imagine Love and his camp is thrilled that there is no viable way that Love will start for GB this season or any seasons.

Players want to play. I have a feeling Love will pursue a trade, which is completely understandable.

It would be prudent on GB to explore these possibilities.

 

[McKnowledge]

He didn't say Love wasn't a viable backup, he said he doesn't see a backup that keeps this roster on the winning tract.

Love to me would have the best chance just from being familiar and guys knowing him to...but it would still be considered a long shot for sure.

Agree and throw in the fact that you still have a dead cap hit of $6.518M if you get rid of Love. So taking a cap hit of $10M+ in the backup QB department, wouldn't be high on my priority list. Also, I don't see a backup, including Love that keeps the Packers on a winning tract.

Including Love...

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Since you also don't see him as a viable backup, why keep him?

Already answered by me and those who came before me.

For years the Packers have been without a quality backup QB and during that time, I always preached that maybe a Veteran would be the better way to go with a championship quality team. However, in this situation, that of being committed to Love for the tune of $6+ M, as well as the Packers cap woes, it makes more sense to stick with Love and his development. Again, it won't really matter who is playing backup QB if the Packers lose Rodgers for multiple games.

Who would you replace Love with to improve things and how much would that cost the Packers, in addition to the $6.5M cap hit you get with trading Love?

 

[Budman]

I guess if someone was giving a 2nd or 1st I would consider it, but I don't think anybody would. I don't think they're giving up on him yet though. Obviously he's not ready, but our QB is coming off back to back MVP seasons, he's not exactly replaceable at this point either. For as much people think extending Rodgers is an indictment on Love and what they think of him, I think it has more to do with the level that Rodgers has been playing at making it pretty much impossible to say, see ya, to a qb playing like that.

Love isn't ready, but I'm not sure they're ready to jettison him because they don't think he has it either.

I agree and great statement. Some are saying that it proves that Love isn't the answer, that Gutey and staff have seen that he doesn't have the talent etc. I am in the camp of your thinking. Rodgers level of play makes it hard to just move on.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I agree and great statement. Some are saying that it proves that Love isn't the answer, that Gutey and staff have seen that he doesn't have the talent etc. I am in the camp of your thinking. Rodgers level of play makes it hard to just move on.

I think those saying it, are those that were saying it before Love took a snap for the Packers. There is no doubt Love isn't anywhere near the QB Rodgers is and probably not at the point that Gute hoped he would be, but until he gets more playing time, we may never know if he had it or didn't.

 

[tynimiller]

Including Love...

Read my whole post, he said he doesn't see any backup keeping us on the winning tract - he wasn't speaking to the viability of Love as a back up.

 

[Mondio]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm not vehemently opposed to anyone else and their views on Love. However, we have to take into account that "there is a game within the game" when it comes to sports.

His opportunity was against the Chiefs and that suspect defense the middle of last season.

All QBs have egos, and I can't imagine Love and his camp is thrilled that there is no viable way that Love will start for GB this season or any seasons.

Players want to play. I have a feeling Love will pursue a trade, which is completely understandable.

It would be prudent on GB to explore these possibilities.

like I said, not much opportunity. If every QB was given one game to prove what they have, we'd have none of the greats we know and a guy like Chad Pennington would be a super star or at least hailed as one.

I don't know what he'll be, so far i'm unimpressed, but we'll see and 1 game isn't an adequate opportunity in my book.

 

[El Guapo]

Unless Rodgers convinces Matt Flynn or Zeke Bratkowski to come back to Green Bay, there is very little chance that the Packers trade Love before the draft.

 

[El Guapo]

like I said, not much opportunity. If every QB was given one game to prove what they have, we'd have none of the greats we know and a guy like Chad Pennington would be a super star or at least hailed as one.

There is a reason that fans aren't allowed to run football teams. Irrational fans do typically own them however.

 

[Dantés]

For me.

Its funny that after only ONE true pre season (again...its MY OPINION, he hasnt had the true time to hone the skills.) and one real season people are so fast to dismiss love.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But for me. I want to give the guy until end of 2022 b4 really making a judgement call

He could be a flop. He maybe average or he could be a future hof.

But for me. Again my opinion. Give him a real chance..m maybe packer brass hates him.

But he hasnt the true test as 10000s of qb b4 him had

I totally agree with this, but they should still trade him.

If Rodgers plays here for 3-4 more seasons, Love will leave for an opportunity anyways. Better to get something for him than wait two more years for him to walk.

 

[Voyageur]

I don't believe for a moment that the Packers will shop Love around the league. He's potentially a solid enough back up at this point that he'd be better than almost any who would be available via trade, or free agency. Add to that, his knowledge of the Packer system, and his salary isn't bad for a guy who carries a clip board as #2.

The only way he's going to believing, in my opinion, is if someone comes along and makes an offer they can't refuse.

 

[Magooch]

IWith Rodgers having agreed to an extension it's all but guaranteed Love won't see any meaningful action until his rookie contract expires. I highly doubt the Packers would be interested in re-signing Love without being able to fairly evaluate him until then, therefore it might be best to receive some compensation for him at this point. As others have mentioned I would prefer to hold on to him as long as another team isn't ready to give up a day 1 or 2 pick for him though.

That's the problem for me. Barring a major injury to Rodgers (knock on wood), chances are that even by the time Rodgers is done, we'll have hardly seen anything out of Love except for perhaps some garbage time opportunities or maybe late-season if we've not got much left to play for (top seed locked up or whatever). How many would really be comfortable signing Love to a new contract when all we could really say for him is "We haven't really seen him play, but he's sat behind Rodgers for four years, and he had potential in 2019, so there must be something"?

That's not even anything against Love per se but I just don't think it would be particularly prudent to offer a second contract to him in that sort of situation. And frankly I have to think that Love and his agent would likely be considering pushing for a move themselves, too.
Putting a positive spin on it, I think for QB-needy teams you could really sell it by saying that Love's the same age (more or less) as most of this year's top QBs, he's had two years of experience in the league (well, at least insofar as that he's learned under Rodgers and trained in a pro-system for a couple of years), and arguably would grade out the same or higher than any of this year's top prospects, too. Is spending a first-round pick on a player like Pickett, Willis, Corral, etc really that much more appealing than trading a second for Love? I think it's a legit question that some teams might be asking.

But, that said, I agree that unless the price is right I'd think he has more value to us as a backup. I've seen a lot of speculation lately that perhaps we could get a second for him, or maybe two thirds (this year/next year). I'd probably take that, but anything less I'd probably say just keep him for now.

 

[McKnowledge]

Already answered by me and those who came before me.

For years the Packers have been without a quality backup QB and during that time, I always preached that maybe a Veteran would be the better way to go with a championship quality team. However, in this situation, that of being committed to Love for the tune of $6+ M, as well as the Packers cap woes, it makes more sense to stick with Love and his development. Again, it won't really matter who is playing backup QB if the Packers lose Rodgers for multiple games.

Who would you replace Love with to improve things and how much would that cost the Packers, in addition to the $6.5M cap hit you get with trading Love?

I don't give a damn about cap figures at this point. The off-season has just started. Who knows what moves comes next?

However, what concerns me is who will backup Aaron Rodgers in the event he misses multiple. I think that's important even if it doesn't matter to you.

If you have to overpay...why not do it for security.

 

[McKnowledge]

like I said, not much opportunity. If every QB was given one game to prove what they have, we'd have none of the greats we know and a guy like Chad Pennington would be a super star or at least hailed as one.

I don't know what he'll be, so far i'm unimpressed, but we'll see and 1 game isn't an adequate opportunity in my book.

Jordan Love got at least a week of preparation as the No. 1

An opportunity is an opportunity.

Everything else is subjective.

 

[OldSchool101]

Already answered by me and those who came before me.

For years the Packers have been without a quality backup QB and during that time, I always preached that maybe a Veteran would be the better way to go with a championship quality team. However, in this situation, that of being committed to Love for the tune of $6+ M, as well as the Packers cap woes, it makes more sense to stick with Love and his development. Again, it won't really matter who is playing backup QB if the Packers lose Rodgers for multiple games.

Who would you replace Love with to improve things and how much would that cost the Packers, in addition to the $6.5M cap hit you get with trading Love?

Plus wouldn’t Loves guaranteed accelerate to this season if they traded him?
If so we’d be paying near $7m and then have anothe hole to fill?
Bye bye Rasul or Bye Bye MVS or Bye Bye Preston etc..

 

[Mondio]

I don't think any would accelerate, his salary is guaranteed, it wasn't paid up front. So if he was traded, new team just takes on salary and remainder of contract. at least I think LOL

 

[Packerbacker1996]

This is the Adam's or Love thread?

Offer Adam's 22/year over 4 years if he says no play him 1 year under the tag the punt that greedy b.. elsewhere.