Lazard Situation...

[Voyageur]

The Packers won't offer up more than about $6 mill to Lazard. They have a young nucleus on board, and will add to it through the draft.

 

[Firethorn1001]

Someone will overpay. Hope it's not us.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So you view him as an inferior WR than to MVS?

I can't speak for anyone else but I don't think MVS is worth $10 million a season and neither is Lazard.

 

[tynimiller]

I can't speak for anyone else but I don't think MVS is worth $10 million a season and neither is Lazard.

That isn't the discussion - I don't think Rodgers is worth or has been worth his last couple contracts...I don't think Davante is worth the money he got. Sad fact is in the league now they both are as crazy as that is.

 

[Voyageur]

That isn't the discussion - I don't think Rodgers is worth or has been worth his last couple contracts...I don't think Davante is worth the money he got. Sad fact is in the league now they both are as crazy as that is.

Reality is, their worth is dictated by the salaries they get, not on the results they actually have. What freaks me out is how teams keep rewarding players for past results, after the fact, and fail to identify the fact that those amazing results will probably never be recreated.

 

[Schultz]

I like Lazard more than most on here and I also realize the WR market price seems to have exploded. With that said my max offer would be $25 million for 3 yrs.

 

[Magooch]

So you view him as an inferior WR than to MVS?

Actually kind of an interesting question to me.

Broadly speaking I see Lazard as more reliable/consistent/steady - for me he is kind of a "low ceiling, high floor" type of guy while MVS I see as being a bit more inconsistent but also a higher ceiling, more dangerous player...

For their careers their stats are actually really quite similar too. Lazard higher catch percentage, higher 1st down percentage...MVS more yards/rec, higher ADOT, higher YAC/R, nearly identical drop percentage

Lazard does perhaps bring more intangibles or "utility" to the table but I think in general it's those "home run threat" type of guys who are more likely to get paid. I think MVS was overpaid at 10m per year but I don't expect Lazard will get that sort of offer either.

All that being said I don't know if I'd call him "inferior" to MVS but if I had to guess he will probably get paid as though he were

 

[Firethorn1001]

I view Lazard as James Jones. Love those guys on the team as 3's, but if they view themselves as a 1 or 2 and seek 1 or 2 money then someone else can meet their demands.

 

[tynimiller]

Actually kind of an interesting question to me.

Broadly speaking I see Lazard as more reliable/consistent/steady - for me he is kind of a "low ceiling, high floor" type of guy while MVS I see as being a bit more inconsistent but also a higher ceiling, more dangerous player...

For their careers their stats are actually really quite similar too. Lazard higher catch percentage, higher 1st down percentage...MVS more yards/rec, higher ADOT, higher YAC/R, nearly identical drop percentage

Lazard does perhaps bring more intangibles or "utility" to the table but I think in general it's those "home run threat" type of guys who are more likely to get paid. I think MVS was overpaid at 10m per year but I don't expect Lazard will get that sort of offer either.

All that being said I don't know if I'd call him "inferior" to MVS but if I had to guess he will probably get paid as though he were

They truly are IMO too about as equal value to a team - and is all dependent on the rest of the roster structure in the WR room and even TE to an extent too.

I prefer Lazard on our roster right now if it were a current question him or MVS.
If you told me we had Cedric Tillman or Mingo in the draft...bigger type WRs that I envision will be block/possession beasts I'd change my tune probably.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That isn't the discussion - I don't think Rodgers is worth or has been worth his last couple contracts...I don't think Davante is worth the money he got. Sad fact is in the league now they both are as crazy as that is.

I responded to you asking another poster if he considers Lazard an inferior receiver to MVS based on him not wanting the Packers to offer Lazard the same kind of money MVS received.

In my opinion not wanting to overpay for Lazard because MVS received that kind of money means anyone is considering Lazard an inferior WR though.

 

[OldSchool101]

I look at Lazard and see a reasonably good WR. He's not going to put up 1,800 yards a year. He's not that good. But, no matter how good a WR is, you have to evaluate the talent that's on the field with him. Is there another WR out there that will require coverage from two people? What are the routes this WR is running? Will you be able to control him with zone coverage, or is he going to need man coverage? Lots of little things that end up creating the actual results on the field. Yet, remember this, Lazard is not a game changing receiver, and probably never will be. He's good, but not great.

Making matters worse, the Packers did not show much else out there all year. We can talk about the good games from both Watson and Doubs, and be pleased with them. They were rookies. Next year, the rubber hits the road, and we see what they've really got in the tank. In the meantime, this season, any time Lazard ran a longer route, there was over and under coverage around him, making him a less likely target. He's not that proficient at winning those 50/50s. That's where Watson, and possibly Doubs, are going to excel. But, that's next year.

I'm not dissatisfied with Lazard's results. But, how do I decide what to pay him. I look at him as being mid-range, so that's what he gets, nothing more. He can walk if it will cost more.

In another system, Lazard might excel. Or, it is just as likely he will fail to even measure up to this year's standards. You just don't know until you plug these guys in, and let them work.

My guess? He's going to look the same, play the same, and be just average, no matter where he goes.

I can see that.
If we knew we’d have Maher locked up at TE? I’d walk Lazard for anything more than a 2X16mil type deal. Continuity is nice in staying with internal guys, but only to a degree. That $8mil annual can also applied to another Receiver just as easily and it’s an area you start getting more options (give or take a few million). I’d also be fine if we just drafted another WR or TE inside that top #47 that has substantial prowess in the Receiving area.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

LOL....PFF predicting Lazard gets paid $11M/year!

I do like Lazard, but that would be a gross over payment to a guy that had Aaron Rodgers as his QB. Even when he was the #2 or #1 receiver on the Packers depth chart, he didn't contribute like one.

PFF projects $11M per year valuation for Packers free agent WR Allen Lazard

Like Marquez Valdes-Scantling last year, could Allen Lazard simply become too expensive in free agency for the Packers to keep?

packerswire.usatoday.com

 

[tynimiller]

It a gross overpayment to the modern NFL salary levels. The explosion of cap and recent contracts do support IMO no less than $9M a year for Lazard without question. He makes the perfect sense for a team with a stud #1 and need that chain moving run game possession WR.

Honestly systems like Ravens and Steelers would love his style

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I have no doubt that Lazard will get paid, but probably more in the $8-10M range. A team isn't going to pay that for depth, so its going to have to come from a team that has a relatively big need for a starting (1-3) WR.

Honestly systems like Ravens and Steelers would love his style

Agreed. I can also see the Bears and Lions pursuing him, as well as whatever team Rodgers gets traded to.

 

[Pkrjones]

Honestly systems like Ravens and Steelers would love his style

Any of the "run 1st" teams would be a great landing spot for him, e.g. Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, or Tennessee.

 

[Voyageur]

We can suggest what a player is worth, in our minds. That doesn't really indicate the relative value to other teams, other than what we see, for the Packers. To a team with adequate cap room, the $11 mill idea might be easy enough to manage, if they know they can then spend draft capital on a player to really bolster another position of need.

Way too often we look at what a player gets in a FA contract and want to believe the player was over paid, when it reality, it's easily within budget for the other team, and a load off their mind knowing they have a player with as much ability as the one they grabbed.

If you look at what the charts say, about what the relative value of a player is by position, it tells you that it's more about slotting than it is about what the high side is for the player. The belief is that they fit into that particular slot, based on peer talent, and that's what it is.

That's why so many free agents are overpaid, and end up where everyone talks about how that was a mistake on the part of the signing team. The money appeared to be there at the time, and it was spent, to fill a need, and that chart of relative value was ignored.

I look back, and thank my lucky stars that happened with a few players on the Packers, like Charles Woodson and Reggie White. Although overpaid by chart standards, what they brought to the team was essentially a winning attitude. At the same time, I look at some of the ovepaid talent we've had, by giving out contracts to players already on the team, to keep them, and I wonder what went wrong in everyone's head, that made them fall so much in love with the concept of keeping a guy who essentially wants to be paid two to three times what he's worth.

Right now, I look at Rodgers and Bakh, and ask... "What happened here?"

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

That's why so many free agents are overpaid, and end up where everyone talks about how that was a mistake on the part of the signing team. The money appeared to be there at the time, and it was spent, to fill a need, and that chart of relative value was ignored.

Totally agree with your post, but it seems like year after year we see some of the teams that are "cap flush", overpay for multiple players. Why? Probably because they have the "money/cap" and a big need at certain positions, so they are willing to overpay. Do that too many times and you end up with players like Kenny Golladay, who the Giants signed in 2021 for 4 years and $72M ($40M guaranteed). Golladay was an ok WR with Detroit, but I don't feel bad for the Giants for being stupid enough to give him that much money. What it also serves to negatively effect, is setting the bar just that much higher for others. We have seen that at almost every position. One team goes wild and pays a FA too much and suddenly, the market is reset.

How does that hurt a team later on? Ties up money in a player(s) that isn't proportionally helping the team. Imagine how many players the Giants could have used that $18M/year on to improve.

Now for a team that is completely cap strapped, like the Packers, overpaying has an even bigger impact. The Packers are already thin at quality WR's and throwing something like $10M at MVS or $11M at Lazard, is not a very good way to try and improve your whole team.

 

[OldSchool101]

LOL....PFF predicting Lazard gets paid $11M/year!

I do like Lazard, but that would be a gross over payment to a guy that had Aaron Rodgers as his QB. Even when he was the #2 or #1 receiver on the Packers depth chart, he didn't contribute like one.

PFF projects $11M per year valuation for Packers free agent WR Allen Lazard

Like Marquez Valdes-Scantling last year, could Allen Lazard simply become too expensive in free agency for the Packers to keep?

packerswire.usatoday.com

Interesting it does sound about correct as far as market value.
I like Lazard. I also am mostly aware what happened last season in WR contracts and the demand in the draft. That said those record setting deals drive the market price higher. That in turn leads to a slightly inflated pricing. That holds true with Lazard he’s about a $7.5M WR but some team will overpay, I just hope it’s not us. I’d offer him at a 3X25mil with an out in 2024.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Interesting it does sound about correct as far as market value.

Until someone pays D.J. Chark Jr. $20M/year and Lazard and his agent bump the ask up to $19M/year.

 

[OldSchool101]

Until someone pays D.J. Chark Jr. $20M/year and Lazard and his agent bump the ask up to $19M/year.

I hope the Bears contract him at 5X100mil. They’ve got plenty of $ to waste again. They’re still reeling from the Khalil Mack trade

 

[Pkrjones]

I hope the Bears contract him at 5X100mil. They’ve got plenty of $ to waste again. They’re still reeling from the Khalil Mack trade

Regardless of what they might pay him, I'd hate to see Lazard destroying OUR DB's while Montgomery or Fields run wild.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Regardless of what they might pay him, I'd hate to see Lazard destroying OUR DB's while Montgomery or Fields run wild.

I don't see Lazard being that difficult to defend. He isn't particularly fast and it isn't like he is known for brilliant route running. I would have been "more fearful" of facing MVS and him getting behind Packer coverage. Even with that, neither WR would be my idea of a #1 or #2 WR to have on a team. The Chiefs have a plethora of weapons and it wasn't until most of them were down with injuries that MVS started seeing the ball a lot in the AFCCG. I will say though, he was better in KC, than I felt he was in GB in 2021.

 

[OldSchool101]

Regardless of what they might pay him, I'd hate to see Lazard destroying OUR DB's while Montgomery or Fields run wild.

Lazard?… Destroying who? ….
Oh you mean blocking? Lazard is a good blocker but if that’s the only upgrade we’ve got to worry about bring the Bears on.

PS. I hope he runs into Quay Walker first because he’s going to be mad and it won’t end well! I can already see a ejection and suspension!

 

[Pkrjones]

Lazard?… Destroying who? ….
Oh you mean blocking? Lazard is a good blocker but if that’s the only upgrade we’ve got to worry about bring the Bears on.

Thought it was clear that my fear is Lazard RUN blocking by saying that Montgomery & Fields would be running wild.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Thought it was clear that my fear is Lazard RUN blocking by saying that Montgomery & Fields would be running wild.

Montgomery is a FA, we may not have to worry about him in Chicago. Bears have a lot to do to rebuild, them signing Lazard would be very low on things to worry about the Bears doing. I hope they keep that #1 pick and bomb on whomever they pick. My fear is they get a team that is desperate for a QB and are willing to give the Bears a ton of 1st and 2nd round picks over the next 3 years.