Is it time?

[Mondio]

I dont't care about Wilson

And we will never see eye to eye on things as this.

My opinion is mine..might be wrong and you maybe right. I get the feeling until you see it from or hear from rodgers you will never trust any thing

See or hear what? That he shot down stuff from Hacket. I"m absolutely positive that he did, more than once. I bet he did with Mike too, and Joe Philbin. I need no convincing he thought some of Stenavich's plans were crap. I bet even he and Tom Clements had disagreements about what should be run from week to week or what should be dropped from the plan. Disagreeing your your OC and not wanting to do stuff you don't think will work is completely normal in every working relationship between great QB's and their coaches.

So don't care about Wilson, though that's the whole reason they wrote a story to take a shot at Rodgers with absolutely zero to substantiate or give some sort of qualification of the severity of what transpired.
Oh, he shot some things down. no ****? BFD, unless they have something on how ugly it got or something out of the ordinary the statement doesn't carry any weight.

and in the same story, it somehow tries to say Hackett didn't want to have that with Wilson, ok, so he let Wilson do whatever he wanted? how did that work?

 

[longtimefan]

See or hear what? That he shot down stuff from Hacket. I"m absolutely positive that he did, more than once. I bet he did with Mike too, and Joe Philbin. I need no convincing he thought some of Stenavich's plans were crap. I bet even he and Tom Clements had disagreements about what should be run from week to week or what should be dropped from the plan. Disagreeing your your OC and not wanting to do stuff you don't think will work is completely normal in every working relationship between great QB's and their coaches.

So don't care about Wilson, though that's the whole reason they wrote a story to take a shot at Rodgers with absolutely zero to substantiate or give some sort of qualification of the severity of what transpired.
Oh, he shot some things down. no ****? BFD, unless they have something on how ugly it got or something out of the ordinary the statement doesn't carry any weight.

and in the same story, it somehow tries to say Hackett didn't want to have that with Wilson, ok, so he let Wilson do whatever he wanted? how did that work?

You just don't get it

Does Hackett not want him with jets because of all what happened b4?

Have good day

 

[Mondio]

You just don't get it

Does Hackett not want him with jets because of all what happened b4?

Have good day

I get it just fine.

what did I miss? They had tension? again, show me something that says it was out of the ordinary, or it's nothing. I hate to break it to Hackett, but he's going to have that with any QB, even the ****** ones.
I'm pretty sure he knows that. They didn't get in anything of what happened before. It's like 1 sentence.

If the owner or the GM want Rodgers they'll pursue him. I still think he is a Packer or retires.

 

[longtimefan]

I get it just fine.

what did I miss? They had tension? again, show me something that says it was out of the ordinary, or it's nothing. I hate to break it to Hackett, but he's going to have that with any QB, even the ****** ones.
I'm pretty sure he knows that. They didn't get in anything of what happened before. It's like 1 sentence.

If the owner or the GM want Rodgers they'll pursue him. I still think he is a Packer or retires.

Its just a question I had when the article came.out

Not sure why you always have to turn it into something more.

 

[Mondio]

Its just a question I had when the article came.out

Not sure why you always have to turn it into something more.

you drop a quote from a story. I assume you did that because you thought it said or meant something. I guess not. My mistake for questioning it.

 

[tynimiller]

Bear with me through this, but let’s not pretend that it is out of the realm of possibility that Rodgers still doesn’t know what he wants to do…now personally I think he knows…but history says wouldn’t be shocked if he doesn’t.

Trade value of him has some incredible issues to say the least…an insanely gifted GOAT level QB, an insanely “annoying” off season headache in that he hasn’t known about his future each offseason for awhile, his massive cap structure hits….

I can make an argument with very valid reasons he’s worth a Russel Wilson type return….and I can make an argument for a GM wanting zero to do unless CHEAP (like zero Day 1 picks involved).

Is there a possibility that makes sense yet no one has brought forth, at least not directly formally….and the negotiations of this would be much more “woven” which could also explain perhaps everyone that needs to knows and the talks are hot and heavy surrounding this concept.

What if Packers and say for this hypothetical the Jets agree to terms of a Post June 1st trade for Rodgers.

Now the obvious BAD on this is ZERO draft equity return for Rodgers this draft…BUT is that all bad?

In a post-Aaron Rodgers era we are most likely not a SB team, and at our best a borderline battler for a wildcard spot if all chips and balls fall/bounce our way. Arguably many would say that is no different even with Rodgers…

Either way 2023 season is the “prove it” season to Love with 2024 or 2025 being the draft a QB years….so arguably draft equity then could be more pivotal than now….even if not for a QB and Love proves himself as the future you have draft equity (most likely pretty dang good amount due to trade) sitting there to build rookie talent contracts around Love.

Now if your the Jets as good as they are imagine you can add Rodgers without giving up a single pick this draft and only future and maybe a player or two.

That last part is the “this year return” for Rodgers. Instead of getting picks maybe Gute gets some guys back that could play roles here Clemons at edge, Ruckert at TE, Mims or Moore (I doubt they’d do that) back in return along with future draft picks.

Imagine a deal like this:

Packers give NYJ Aaron Rodgers

NYJ give GB:
Michael Clemons (2nd year guy on rookie contract EDGE)
Jeremy Ruckert (2nd year guy on rookie contract TE)
Denzel Mims (4thyear guy on rookie contract WR)
2024 First Round Pick
2024 Conditional 2nd Rounder (3rd if NYJ don’t make playoffs)
2025 First Round Pick
2025 4th Round Pick (3rd if Rodgers plays 2024 season - 2nd if Rodgers plays and they make playoffs)
2026 4th rounder with same conditions as above pick but for the 2025 season


Now trust me I’m not saying I believe this will happen, but I will admit if I’m Gute this is for sure a thought process I have on a board and may even bring up if say Jets won’t deal this year due to any or all items discussed.

 

[mradtke66]

What if Packers and say for this hypothetical the Jets agree to terms of a Post June 1st trade for Rodgers.

Now the obvious BAD on this is ZERO draft equity return for Rodgers this draft…BUT is that all bad?

From the Packers point of view, trading during the draft is optimal, if they believe they can get/require multiple years of picks. The rule, as I understand it, is you can only go out 3 years into the future, but on draft night, that means "this draft" plus 3 more years.

I'd want a 1st asap of course, but you might be able to string out three additional years of 3s that are conditional to 2nds if Rodgers keeps playing, playoffs are reached, etc.

 

[tynimiller]

From the Packers point of view, trading during the draft is optimal, if they believe they can get/require multiple years of picks. The rule, as I understand it, is you can only go out 3 years into the future, but on draft night, that means "this draft" plus 3 more years.

I'd want a 1st asap of course, but you might be able to string out three additional years of 3s that are conditional to 2nds if Rodgers keeps playing, playoffs are reached, etc.

The situation outlined is Post June meaning your three years are 24, 25, 26

 

[longtimefan]

you drop a quote from a story. I assume you did that because you thought it said or meant something. I guess not. My mistake for questioning it.

seriously? I post something and you imply I don't think it means anything??

I've had enough with your condensing and sarcastic "ways" and Rodgers is GOD

Join sunshine and capt as my ignore

 

[mradtke66]

The situation outlined is Post June meaning your three years are 24, 25, 26

Future draft picks are generally considered less valuable than this year's picks. We don't know, for example, if the gets turn into contenders. I'd rather have 1.13 (2023) and 1.30 (2024) than 1.30 (2024) and 1.30 (2025). General rule of thumb, and it's just general, is that a pick in next year's draft is worth 1 round later than this year's draft.

The idea of trading on Draft night specifically is you can get 4 years. That's the only reason I'd bring it up that trick.

 

[tynimiller]

Future draft picks are generally considered less valuable than this year's picks. We don't know, for example, if the gets turn into contenders. I'd rather have 1.13 (2023) and 1.30 (2024) than 1.30 (2024) and 1.30 (2025). General rule of thumb, and it's just general, is that a pick in next year's draft is worth 1 round later than this year's draft.

The idea of trading on Draft night specifically is you can get 4 years. That's the only reason I'd bring it up that trick.

Again, you're missing the entire scenario and thought to what I expressed. Of course many (myself included) would prefer the absolute haul you're stating - that isn't happening however most likely and for sure not in the scenario I outlined - it also doesn't mitigate the massive cap cost Rodgers is this season like the scenario would.

Do I think what I outlined will happen...not placing bets. However, I truly do believe there is more merit to it than many think - not too mention the Jets would love to have a Post June agreement knowing Rodgers is coming entering this draft...it is very attractive even if say it costs them some young players like I mentioned.

 

[mradtke66]

Do I think what I outlined will happen...

Unlikely.

I admit to not knowing much about the Jets roster, but if those young players are sufficiently good, why would the Jets part with them? I also don't know what rounds they were initially drafted in, but there would be at least some kind of accelerated cap hit from trading the players. It might not be much, but it is non-zero.

If the players aren't that good, why would the Packers accept them in trade?

 

[tynimiller]

Unlikely.

I admit to not knowing much about the Jets roster, but if those young players are sufficiently good, why would the Jets part with them? I also don't know what rounds they were initially drafted in, but there would be at least some kind of accelerated cap hit from trading the players. It might not be much, but it is non-zero.

If the players aren't that good, why would the Packers accept them in trade?

Okay stop piece quoting as you lose context, that wasn’t a question but an explanation lol

You’re losing the context of the trade, in this scenario your taking some young prospects now, in positions which are of “need” arguably and loading up future draft capital in a post June 1st deal in order to truly cut the cap hit felt by Rodgers in a trade before draft this year.

While I truly don’t think I should have to do your research to discuss the prospects discussed, they all fit the bill of players in their rookie deals with loads of potential that worst case are low cost depth guys immediately fleshing out a roster, with potentially two that truly may be something (Ruckert and Clemons)

Clemons was a fifth round end from A&M (was a transfer) with tremendous potential albeit raw that some had graded as high as a third but most were in that middle Day 3 which he went. He logged 2.5 sacks last year on not a ton of snaps (311) but truthfully showcased as much promise IMO as Kingsley Enagabare, so getting him worst case I say one of him or Enagbare fleshes into a true Edge4 or 3 which is important and with Gary out possibly early he is some depth insurance especially if say we don’t resign Hollins or bring in a similar level FA vet.

Ruckert was the TE out of Ohio State many of us on the board were fans of (search and you’ll quickly find posts). He was a do it all TE at OSU and due to injury didn’t see the field last season sadly till later but this third round TE would instantly assist fill the potential void of losing Big Dog and Tonyan on a rookie deal and potential to be something. Excellent to pair with a high Day 1 or Day 2 TE pick this year IMO along with Deguara.

Mims would be in his fourth and final year. Baylor WR with good size (6’3’) and speed (4.38 forty) that is a big slot type to many that just hasn’t fit in NYJ…rumor was they were considering moving the second rounder but nothing came of it. In GB he would at best be our WR3 and preferred 4 or 5 but if he clicks there was a ton of athleticism and still is in him; change of scenery.

None of these three were starters last year for NYJ so your not asking too much.

In this scenario you still get immediate 2023 return just not draft equity is all.

 

[mradtke66]

Okay stop piece quoting as you lose context, that wasn’t a question but an explanation lol

Nope, I like it. Also I'm not trying to quote out of order, by rather "this section of your quote," not necessarily the specific phrase. Especially when the original post is long.

You’re losing the context of the trade, in this scenario your taking some young prospects now, in positions which are of “need” arguably and loading up future draft capital in a post June 1st deal in order to truly cut the cap hit felt by Rodgers in a trade before draft this year.

I don't necessarily care about need. Are they players good enough to offset the lack of a high draft pick this year?

While I truly don’t think I should have to do your research to discuss the prospects discussed,

Two points. In general, if you're making the claim, you're responsible to provide the evidence. Similalry, I'll admit this is a stretch, but if you're making a case to do a thing or change someones mind, evidence helps to convince those people.

Second, this was some rhetorical. Maybe you take my question privately and think about it. Maybe you come back with a better argument. Maybe I accidentally kicked off a Socratic method back and forth.

Clemons was a fifth round end from A&M ...

Ruckert was the TE out of Ohio State many of us on the board were fans of (search and you’ll quickly find posts). He was a do it all TE at OSU and due to injury didn’t see the field last season...

Mims would be in his fourth and final year. Baylor WR with good size (6’3’) and speed (4.38 forty) that is a big slot type to many that just hasn’t fit in NYJ…rumor was they were considering moving the second rounder but nothing came of it. In GB he would at best be our WR3 and preferred 4 or 5 but if he clicks there was a ton of athleticism and still is in him; change of scenery.

None of these three were starters last year for NYJ so your not asking too much.

Now we switch gears from my attempt to be academic...ahem, HOL' UP MAN.

You want to trade a player, who would easily be the starter on what 27, 28 teams (don't make me count and look at the rosters, I'm tired and a little sick) for a 5th round end, an injured TE that missed the most recent season, and a second round player that has under-performed badly enough that he was traded? A second round player that could end up being cut?

In this scenario you still get immediate 2023 return just not draft equity is all.

I fail to see what value we'd actually get from those three players. Maybe a hope and a dream. I understand you'd get future draft picks, but good lord. Taking those three players is potentially doing a favor for the Jets, not getting something in return. Frankly, I don't think I'd offer a 5th to get all 3 guys. Further, do the Packers even like those players? Did they scout them and then fail them off their boards?

I think you're too hung up on Rodgers cap hit. Yes, whenever he's officially gone, we'll have a year of pain. Depending on exactly when, could be one big bad year or two medium bad years (Post June 1 tricks). But then the contract is gone. Loads of cap space just became free.

The scenario you're proposing lines up with the Texans getting rid of Brock. Brock and a 2 in exchange for a 7th to get out from under the cap. The key detail there was Brock was terrible, he had almost 0 value. Rodgers still has a lot of value. Yes, he loses some because of his age. Yes, he might rub some front-offices the wrong way. But his risk is more a question of how much longer he'll play, not if he's still good.

 

[tynimiller]

Lol it’s funny high draft capital now or later plus players….scoff at one and not the other,

Sorry if you think so little of Ruckert especially is just illustrating your lack of knowledge of the three….the dismissive “not even fifth for all three “ is just ignorance to the prospects.

Also tons of equity in future to package of Love isnt the answer or build with rookie deals hopefully if you hit a decent amount on them.

The fact I described a trade where GB gets two or three rookie deal prospects plus two first rounders and two more conditionals that could be seconds.

I’ll take that deal and lower cap all day over the immediate draft capital mainly.

 

[gopkrs]

Wasn't our OL a mess in that NFCC game too?

Yes, it was. But I think it was much worse because the coaches moved our R tackle to the L. And that made both of the tackles ineffective. Stupid imo and we made a similar mistake the next year. But I was not commenting on The Packers. I was only commenting on KC. And their O line was really bad in that super bowl.

 

[Cornelius Weems]

Bear with me through this, but let’s not pretend that it is out of the realm of possibility that Rodgers still doesn’t know what he wants to do…now personally I think he knows…but history says wouldn’t be shocked if he doesn’t.

Trade value of him has some incredible issues to say the least…an insanely gifted GOAT level QB, an insanely “annoying” off season headache in that he hasn’t known about his future each offseason for awhile, his massive cap structure hits….

I can make an argument with very valid reasons he’s worth a Russel Wilson type return….and I can make an argument for a GM wanting zero to do unless CHEAP (like zero Day 1 picks involved).

Is there a possibility that makes sense yet no one has brought forth, at least not directly formally….and the negotiations of this would be much more “woven” which could also explain perhaps everyone that needs to knows and the talks are hot and heavy surrounding this concept.

What if Packers and say for this hypothetical the Jets agree to terms of a Post June 1st trade for Rodgers.

Now the obvious BAD on this is ZERO draft equity return for Rodgers this draft…BUT is that all bad?

In a post-Aaron Rodgers era we are most likely not a SB team, and at our best a borderline battler for a wildcard spot if all chips and balls fall/bounce our way. Arguably many would say that is no different even with Rodgers…

Either way 2023 season is the “prove it” season to Love with 2024 or 2025 being the draft a QB years….so arguably draft equity then could be more pivotal than now….even if not for a QB and Love proves himself as the future you have draft equity (most likely pretty dang good amount due to trade) sitting there to build rookie talent contracts around Love.

Now if your the Jets as good as they are imagine you can add Rodgers without giving up a single pick this draft and only future and maybe a player or two.

That last part is the “this year return” for Rodgers. Instead of getting picks maybe Gute gets some guys back that could play roles here Clemons at edge, Ruckert at TE, Mims or Moore (I doubt they’d do that) back in return along with future draft picks.

Imagine a deal like this:

Packers give NYJ Aaron Rodgers

NYJ give GB:
Michael Clemons (2nd year guy on rookie contract EDGE)
Jeremy Ruckert (2nd year guy on rookie contract TE)
Denzel Mims (4thyear guy on rookie contract WR)
2024 First Round Pick
2024 Conditional 2nd Rounder (3rd if NYJ don’t make playoffs)
2025 First Round Pick
2025 4th Round Pick (3rd if Rodgers plays 2024 season - 2nd if Rodgers plays and they make playoffs)
2026 4th rounder with same conditions as above pick but for the 2025 season


Now trust me I’m not saying I believe this will happen, but I will admit if I’m Gute this is for sure a thought process I have on a board and may even bring up if say Jets won’t deal this year due to any or all items discussed.

Very good point, focusing on the future and trying to sow it up looks like the best play. The 30 years of HOF QB play is extremely rare, I mean who here remembers the many QB's just in the decade before BF? This was a rarity and we should feel blessed that we got to witness it (I know I am), but now I also know that no team gets 40 years of HOF QB play. I still remember some being like "why would the GBP drafted a QB in the first round when they already have BF"? I mean, there were ppl booing when he was drafted and also when he took the field. Who knows what the future holds? JL maye be sub par, maybe the next QB we'll draft will be better or worse. Whatever the case, my GBP fandom will remain and IMO, I'd trade him.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Correct - because my point is Mr MVP has done the disappearing act in the 4th quarter of 3 consecutive home “playoff” losses. How he does in other quarters (or games) is irrelevant to that point.

A quarterback's performance during the first three quarters isn't irrelevant for the result of a game though. Despite you believing that only the fourth quarter should be considered as it fits your narrative.

Actually YOUR point is illuminating tho. The Bucs defense was hardly impenetrable… yet in the fourth quarter - with the game on the line - Mr Rodgers folded like cheap lawn furniture - ditto against SF and Det.

The Bucs defense was that good that Mahomes struggled for all four quarters though.

What if Packers and say for this hypothetical the Jets agree to terms of a Post June 1st trade for Rodgers.

Now the obvious BAD on this is ZERO draft equity return for Rodgers this draft…BUT is that all bad?

That last part is the “this year return” for Rodgers. Instead of getting picks maybe Gute gets some guys back that could play roles here Clemons at edge, Ruckert at TE, Mims or Moore (I doubt they’d do that) back in return along with future draft picks.

Imagine a deal like this:

Packers give NYJ Aaron Rodgers

NYJ give GB:
Michael Clemons (2nd year guy on rookie contract EDGE)
Jeremy Ruckert (2nd year guy on rookie contract TE)
Denzel Mims (4thyear guy on rookie contract WR)
2024 First Round Pick
2024 Conditional 2nd Rounder (3rd if NYJ don’t make playoffs)
2025 First Round Pick
2025 4th Round Pick (3rd if Rodgers plays 2024 season - 2nd if Rodgers plays and they make playoffs)
2026 4th rounder with same conditions as above pick but for the 2025 season

First of all I would definitely prefer the Packers to not spread out the dead money created by trading Rodgers over two seasons. Take it this year and don't have it count against the cap in 2024 anymore.

In addition I definitely don't want the team to receive solely draft picks in future seasons, especially as it's likely those would end up being at the end of each round with the Jets improving.

On top of that, I'm not overly impressed with the players you included in the draft either. Clemons is most likely the best one out of the group but he didn't show a whole lot as a pass rusher during his rookie season. Ruckert didn't excel either as a receiver nor as a blocker during his college career at Ohio State and Mims has been a major disappointment since entering the NFL.

Therefore, a hard pass on that deal from me.

Yes, it was. But I think it was much worse because the coaches moved our R tackle to the L. And that made both of the tackles ineffective. Stupid imo and we made a similar mistake the next year. But I was not commenting on The Packers. I was only commenting on KC. And their O line was really bad in that super bowl.

When making an excuse for Mahomes' poor performance against the Bucs in the Super Bowl you need to consider the Packers' offensive line struggled against them as well though.

 

[tynimiller]

FTR folks the players I brought forth were solely ones that would provide depth and such on rookie contracts. You are not getting no doubt starters back for Rodgers at all IMO AND also getting loads of high picks.

Also the scenario I outlined of course is only if Rodgers wants out but no teams will produce a package GB would want pre draft.

 

[Mondio]

seriously? I post something and you imply I don't think it means anything??

I've had enough with your condensing and sarcastic "ways" and Rodgers is GOD

Join sunshine and capt as my ignore

Is that supposed to hurt?

So, I respond as if you did think it meant something, and I'm wrong. you then avoid every serious question I brought up about the article and why I'm supposed to think it means something because it's saying 2 different things in the same article with zero to substantiate anything and ask me why I always make into something. So what am I supposed to think?

Why even post it then? wrong for thinking you implied it meant something, wrong when I don't.

and you're right, I can get very sarcastic and condescending when straightforward answers are continuously ignored and then it's consistently tried to brought in a direction it was never going.

When you find 1 single post where I even remotely imply Rodgers is GOD, I'll leave forever. Newsflash I don't.

 

[Jayzee1981]

You just don't get it

Does Hackett not want him with jets because of all what happened b4?

Have good day

You can’t fix stupid bud. Valiant effort though.

 

[Mondio]

You can’t fix stupid bud. Valiant effort though.

awww, you're cute.

As with every NFL team, it doesn't care what Hackett wants if the owner or GM want Rodgers.

I happen to think that story says nothing but sometimes Rodgers didn't like what Hackett wanted to introduce. Same as Hackett probably shot down some of Rodgers's stuff and Hackett and Rodgers probably told MLF why they did or didn't like certain concepts. If you disagree, and you legitimately want to have a debate about, come with something. Unless that's the best you have?

 

[tynimiller]

You can’t fix stupid bud. Valiant effort though.

Forums don't need short swooping in comments that are purely posted to be derogatory or demeaning. Flesh out disagreement is a good thing, even strong disagreement...but this is just petty and childish.

 

[gopkrs]

A quarterback's performance during the first three quarters isn't irrelevant for the result of a game though. Despite you believing that only the fourth quarter should be considered as it fits your narrative.



The Bucs defense was that good that Mahomes struggled for all four quarters though.



First of all I would definitely prefer the Packers to not spread out the dead money created by trading Rodgers over two seasons. Take it this year and don't have it count against the cap in 2024 anymore.

In addition I definitely don't want the team to receive solely draft picks in future seasons, especially as it's likely those would end up being at the end of each round with the Jets improving.

On top of that, I'm not overly impressed with the players you included in the draft either. Clemons is most likely the best one out of the group but he didn't show a whole lot as a pass rusher during his rookie season. Ruckert didn't excel either as a receiver nor as a blocker during his college career at Ohio State and Mims has been a major disappointment since entering the NFL.

Therefore, a hard pass on that deal from me.



When making an excuse for Mahomes' poor performance against the Bucs in the Super Bowl you need to consider the Packers' offensive line struggled against them as well though.

Why do I exactly? I was not comparing. Merely commenting on your statistic.

 

[mradtke66]

Lol it’s funny high draft capital now or later plus players….scoff at one and not the other,

The future draft picks are generally considered lower value by most of the league. Even if you disagree with the premise that "next year is worth less," surely you can agree that the Jets are likely to win more games with Rodgers, ergo, each pick is likely to be later in each round, yes? And in such a situation, those picks will be worth less (not worthless) because they are later in each round?

Sorry if you think so little of Ruckert especially is just illustrating your lack of knowledge of the three….the dismissive “not even fifth for all three “ is just ignorance to the prospects.

Sure, I'll admit I know little of Ruckert, but by your own words, he didn't play at all last year due to injury. Where is he in his recovery? Has he even begun rehab? Unknown Value.

Mims by most observations is terrible. Why were the Jets willing to move on from him? It seems more likely he'd be cut by the Jets. IMHO, 0 value in trade.

Clemons has some value to me, he produced something at this level. And one can never have enough pass rushers, but 5th round no. 4 EDGE players are somewhat plentiful. If he can play special teams, sure, I'd want him. You'd get him for only 3 years vs. 4 as a rookie, so I'd value him approximately where he was drafted minus a little bit.

That's my ballpark math.

The fact I described a trade where GB gets two or three rookie deal prospects plus two first rounders and two more conditionals that could be seconds.

I don't see why we couldn't get that kind of offer in addition to picks. Though if we're accepting players, I'd hope to get a starter or someone the Packers actually want/graded highly when they came out. Assuming the Packers had graded Ruckert and Mims highly or favorably relative to whatever metric they use, sure, whatever, try to work them into the deal. But I would not add them in, trying to bargain bin dig.

I’ll take that deal and lower cap all day over the immediate draft capital mainly.

Again, I'm not terribly worried about the cap hit. If we're tight as a result of that hit someday, we'd likely cut some aging vets that are approaching the end of their second contract. The young core would survive.