Setting up 2025....A Cap Situation Discussion...

[mradtke66]

What’s up!
I just was comparing those 2 yesterday. Watson really has had a better start to his career thus far than MVS. It’s not night n day but Watson is 1better imo. He’s averaging 8% higher catch rate. Similar per catch yards, but more TD’s per year average. MVS signed a 3X30 with KC. Today that’s like? 11-12M yearly in real time.
I’d speculate Watson would bring 13-16M annual type $$. Such as 3X40M type $$

That wouldn’t surprise me, at least in the ballpark.

I don’t see this as a bad thing. If he’s worth it, re-sign him.

 

[OldSchool101]

That wouldn’t surprise me, at least in the ballpark.

I don’t see this as a bad thing. If he’s worth it, re-sign him.

Yep. My hope is that Wicks finishes strong. He had a poor start, but he’s gradually clawing his way out of a dropsies hole.

Other than TJ Slaton, I don’t see anyone really worth keeping from the 2021 draft class.
We’ve lost Samorie Toure and now Grant Dubose, plus no WR selected in 2024. I really think GB should draft 1 WR in the 2025 draft. It’s going to be hard to keep both Watson and Doubs and I’d prefer hold onto Watson and then go after a Possession type Wideout in that RD3-5 area. That keeps 1 pipelined and keeps our Cap balanced.

 

[tynimiller]

Another discussion worth having is also is there anyone you’re willing to extend a year early and not have escalation keep rising….that is the one situation Green Bay isn’t in at all, especially with Elgton not playing as well or maybe he gets consideration.

Personally I am strongly in the camp Zach Tom is the first guy in his class that needs signed.

We all can justify with reasoning moving on from Doubs ( many say ceiling is solid WR2) and Watson (injuries to some are chronic) but does anyone ever envision a OL without Tom….precisely.

Folks think the contract issue between Watson and around are only about them…but folks look at that draft class….i see four no doubters, and six worthy of possibly working into deserving. Just not something we can afford

 

[weeds]

If Jaire was on another team, he would make sure that he is healthy to face the Packers!

Unless our receiving crew develops into a REALLY good crew and he doesn't WANT to look bad... then, it's hangnail time.

 

[AKCheese]

if you cut or trade a player you shouldnt be afraid to face him because you’ve made the decision that your team is better with whatever you kept instead. When I see talk about trying to send a player someplace you won’t have to face him (like Favre) it’s a cowardly attitude… not a champions attitude. Same with the purse clutching about playoff byes, homefield, opponents. Your either the best team or you’re not. If you’re looking for another team to beat somebody so you won’t have to face them … you have a losers attitude already

 

[mradtke66]

When I see talk about trying to send a player someplace you won’t have to face him (like Favre) it’s a cowardly attitude… not a champions attitude.

There is more nuance than that. Sending (or allowing) a player to join your main rival helps the rival. Part of the game is not helping your rival. It's why trades within divisions are somewhat rare and/or have an inflated price tag.

 

[El Guapo]

if you cut or trade a player you shouldnt be afraid to face him because you’ve made the decision that your team is better with whatever you kept instead. When I see talk about trying to send a player someplace you won’t have to face him (like Favre) it’s a cowardly attitude… not a champions attitude

Uh, Favre did come back and kill us twice as a Viking.

We only got revenge his final season, when Brad Childress sent a plane to his house and literally dragged Brett off of his tractor to come play one more season. His heart wasn't in it and he paid for it with a brutal head-bashing on the frozen field in Minnesota.

I'll give another Vikings example. They traded Stephon Diggs away because he was a diva and wanted to be in a passing offense. Diggs was in his prime so why would you want to face that each week. The Vikings actually got better without Diggs but you can be sure that it was better that Stephon was playing in the AFC East instead of the NFC North.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

There is more nuance than that. Sending (or allowing) a player to join your main rival helps the rival. Part of the game is not helping your rival. It's why trades within divisions are somewhat rare and/or have an inflated price tag.

Agree

Any NFC GM worth his salt is going to try and trade a star player to an AFC team. Unless of course, he can fleece an NFC team and not worry about the said consequences of said players impact on his own team.

It's easy math, the other 15 teams in the NFC have a more direct influence on the Packers than the 16 teams in the AFC do. That influence can come in head to head meetings or playoff standings.

 

[Magooch]

if you cut or trade a player you shouldnt be afraid to face him because you’ve made the decision that your team is better with whatever you kept instead. When I see talk about trying to send a player someplace you won’t have to face him (like Favre) it’s a cowardly attitude… not a champions attitude. Same with the purse clutching about playoff byes, homefield, opponents. Your either the best team or you’re not. If you’re looking for another team to beat somebody so you won’t have to face them … you have a losers attitude already

I don't know if I entirely agree with that sentiment. The goal is of course to win the Super Bowl. But to win the Super Bowl you don't have to be able to consistently beat every single possible team - you only have to beat the 3-4 games on your postseason schedule. And sometimes there are matchups that simply work more or less favorably for you and IMO there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that.

For instance, right now, the current seeding has it 1. Lions, 2. Eagles, 3. Seahawks, 4. Buccaneers, 5. Vikings, 6. Packers, 7. Commanders. That would give Detroit the bye, with Washington (7) playing Philly (2), GB (6) playing Seattle (3), and Minnesota (5) playing Tampa (4).

Now let's pretend the playoffs start today and let me propose for you two scenarios. One is the "be the best or not" or the "you have to beat the best to be the best" scenario.

In this one, we beat Seattle (3), Philly (2) beats Washington (7), and Minnesota (5) beats Tampa (4) (While seeded lower, I think most of us would agree Minny are a stronger team). This would see us travel again to Detroit (1) in the divisional and Minnesota play in Philly. Then we'd have to beat Detroit and let's say again travel to Philly in the NFCCG to get to the Super Bowl. In this scenario, our Super Bowl-path is by way of playing Seattle, Detroit, and Philadelphia, and then whoever comes through on the AFC. I guess for sake of "toughest" we'll probably say KC or Buffalo.

But alternatively - let's say that Washington manage to upset Philly. This alone benefits us in two ways: it eliminates the #2 seed, and sends Washington to Detroit instead of us right away. And go ahead and imagine Tampa "upsets" Minnesota. We'd play in Tampa, with Washington going to Detroit. And just for kicks, imagine that Washington upsets Detroit. They'd then have to come to us for the NFCCG, no? Here our "path" is Seattle, Tampa, and back home in Green Bay. And say someone really creates chaos in the AFC bracket and similar stuff goes down and we end up playing Houston or someone in the Super Bowl.

Now obviously both of these scenarios are vanishingly unlikely. But my point is this: if you make it to the Super Bowl and win it, the majority of the time in a few years nobody will remember the "path" you took to win it (and those that do won't care!). If we won the Super Bowl by "path B" this year, nobody would be saying "Well it should come with an asterisk because we didn't have to play the best teams to get there". Like I said: all you can do is beat the teams that are drawn before you, but there's nothing wrong with hoping or angling for a "favorable" draw to come your way.

 

[OldSchool101]

There is more nuance than that. Sending (or allowing) a player to join your main rival helps the rival. Part of the game is not helping your rival. It's why trades within divisions are somewhat rare and/or have an inflated price tag.

I actually believe many guys that traded to an opponent get motivated to prove their former team wrong. I want no part of Aaron Rodgers or Davante Adams going to Minnesota or Chicago etc.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I actually believe many guys that traded to an opponent get motivated to prove their former team wrong. I want no part of Aaron Rodgers or Davante Adams going to Minnesota or Chicago etc.

I wouldn't be all that shocked to see both players end up wearing Purple next season. Imagine a receiving group of Jefferson, Adams, Addison, Hockenson and Aaron Jones.

Rodgers would guide that team to 6-11 with ease!

 

[tynimiller]

Yep. My hope is that Wicks finishes strong. He had a poor start, but he’s gradually clawing his way out of a dropsies hole.

Other than TJ Slaton, I don’t see anyone really worth keeping from the 2021 draft class.
We’ve lost Samorie Toure and now Grant Dubose, plus no WR selected in 2024. I really think GB should draft 1 WR in the 2025 draft. It’s going to be hard to keep both Watson and Doubs and I’d prefer hold onto Watson and then go after a Possession type Wideout in that RD3-5 area. That keeps 1 pipelined and keeps our Cap balanced.

I just now caught up on reading so apologies for the delay...that 2021 class is the definition of a decently deep but nothing top shelf across the board came from it. 7 of them are still active out of the 9 which is solid, but really only Myers appears likely a lock at a second starting contract somewhere...

There is a world where TJ Slaton and/or McDuffie are resigned. I see it being a case where GB let's them hit market after hearing where we are and if market isn't there we sign them to a cheap one or two year deal. I think Slaton likely might have a market more so than McDuffie because Slaton for his role is above average. McDuffie is that type of off ball LB I want around my team but always as a depth guy. Numerous folks have said no one will ever out effort Isaiah and that type of stuff is contagious.

 

[thequick12]

Speaking of 2025...

Davantae Adams is now dropping hints that he might be into a reunion with the Packers.

What are people's thoughts on this?

Personally I think it's obviously a longshot. The alternative however doesnt seem very good for the Packers.

I think there's a decent chance both Aaron Rodgers and Davantae Adams end up reuniting with Aaron Jones in Minnesota

That would be a scary offense with Rodgers, Adams, Jones, Jefferson, Hockenson, and Addison

 

[thequick12]

I wouldn't be all that shocked to see both players end up wearing Purple next season. Imagine a receiving group of Jefferson, Adams, Addison, Hockenson and Aaron Jones.

Rodgers would guide that team to 6-11 with ease!

Haha I didn't see your post til after I posted the above post...it seems I copied your post without even reading it hahaha

Except the 6-11 comment

I obviously think Rodgers is still at worst a top 15 qb in the NFL

Honestly top 10 is probably more realistic. Hes thrown for 23 tds and 8 ints behind one of the leagues worst offensive lines while playing for one of the most dysfunctional organizations in the history of the NFL

That "my down years are other guys career years" comment is case and point this season

Over the last 7 games hes had a passer rating over 100 in 5 of them. While throwing 13tds against just 1 int

 

[mradtke66]

Davantae Adams is now dropping hints that he might be into a reunion with the Packers.

What are people's thoughts on this?

I would welcome him, as long as all parties understand its 1-2 year situation. And Doubs doesn't get bent out of shape--he and Devante are probably the most similar type (not quality) of receiver and is thus most likely to share snaps.

I think there's a decent chance both Aaron Rodgers and Davantae Adams end up reuniting with Aaron Jones in Minnesota

That would be a scary offense with Rodgers, Adams, Jones, Jefferson, Hockenson, and Addison

History repeating itself aside, I can't see Minnesota doing that deal. Adams possibly, Rodgers no, and there is a chance they let Jones go. The man continues to get older. Either they hand the reins over to McCarthy or they extend Darnold. Rodgers is net-new, a short timer, and would be more expensive than Darnold. Too much risk for too little reward. I also don't know their cap situation. It might be impossible.

 

[PackerDNA]

Check out Ken Ingalls packer cap site. He's projecting after drafting and all the Packers start with 25 million to work with next off season. With restructures and void deals and such, it could go up to 75 million or more.Gute is gonna have a lot of options.