'Splain this one Lucy?

[Voyageur]

Come on guys! We all know Love is destined for Canton. If the Packers traded up to get him, he's the "GOAT in waiting!"

 

[longtimefan]

Come on guys! We all know Love is destined for Canton. If the Packers traded up to get him, he's the "GOAT in waiting!"

Literally saving this..just in case.

 

[Voyageur]

Literally saving this..just in case.

I think there's a better chance that we'll establish a colony on Mars before the 4th of July this year than having that happen, but, I thought I'd pander to the fans who think that all Packers deserve sainthood.

 

[PikeBadger]

As I have mentioned repeatedly it was foreseeable from the get-go that Love won't play any meaningful snaps for all of his rookie contract. What you fail to understand is that doesn't result in Love being a bad player but the Packers selecting him being a terrible pick.

You can say it as many times as you like. All it tells me is that you think along the same lines as the Lions and Jets GM's.

With Rodger's status uncertain in the spring of 2020, it was no sure thing that Love would not become the starter in his first 5 seasons.

 

[PikeBadger]

Final Warning. We're less than 48 hours from the annual Amish Draft contest thread being locked. Get your picks finalized soon.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You can say it as many times as you like. All it tells me is that you think along the same lines as the Lions and Jets GM's.

Actually trading up in the first round to select a player who is set to not have an impact during his rookie deal is a great way to turn your franchise into the Lions or Jets.

With Rodger's status uncertain in the spring of 2020, it was no sure thing that Love would not become the starter in his first 5 seasons.

Nice try, but a rookie deal only runs for four seasons.

 

[PikeBadger]

Actually trading up in the first round to select a player who is set to not have an impact during his rookie deal is a great way to turn your franchise into the Lions or Jets.



Nice try, but a rookie deal only runs for four seasons.

Lol, your draft philosophy and mine are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I don't believe in drafting for the upcoming season. I want the Packers to draft players that are going to be good candidates for signing a second contract with us. I don't really want rookies to have to be in a position to make huge contributions their rookie season. If you have to consistently rely on rookies, you have a consistent roster weakness problem.

 

[gopkrs]

Lol, your draft philosophy and mine are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I don't believe in drafting for the upcoming season. I want the Packers to draft players that are going to be good candidates for signing a second contract with us. I don't really want rookies to have to be in a position to make huge contributions their rookie season. If you have to consistently rely on rookies, you have a consistent roster weakness problem.

I think you should give rookies a real chance at contributing though. Sometimes I think coaches don't give some rookies that chance simply because they are rookies. Thinking of the future should also include thinking about the 2nd half of the season imho.

 

[Voyageur]

The thing about rookies is that even if they're going to be great NFL players during their careers, they're unpredictable in year one. If you get one who can make a mark for themselves during their first year, you're fortunate, but don't count on it.

That's what makes each team's draft a little different. Can you afford to sit and wait while a guy starts to earn his check? Then there's guys like Rashan Gary, who take several years to develop, and when they finally do, and you're getting value, they're about to get a big check from someone else, after you paid the freight in getting him ready for that day.

The dilemma is always there. This year, the Packers need to catch lightning in a bottle, and get someone who can catch the ball, and understands what's needed to do so, with Rodgers at QB, in the LeFleur system.

Not pushing any particular player, but I think the guy most fit to do this that quickly isn't even an early pick. I see David Bell out of Purdue as the guy who can step up in year one and be what they need. He's not going to awe you with speed, but he will look the part of a polished receiver with how he runs routes, and senses what needs to be done to create targets for Rodgers. I wouldn't mind seeing us get him after round one. Hopefully, in round 3. I watched a few of his games on TV this past year and saw him do things that I've only seen a handful of guys do with the Packers. Stuff that guys like Jordy and Adams did, to create space, and handle back shoulder catches, as well as physically battle for the ball.

 

[lambeaulambo]

who the heck is Lucy? tell those kids to get out of my lawn.

 

[Poppa San]

who the heck is Lucy? tell those kids to get out of my lawn.

Splainin'

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Lol, your draft philosophy and mine are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I don't believe in drafting for the upcoming season. I want the Packers to draft players that are going to be good candidates for signing a second contract with us. I don't really want rookies to have to be in a position to make huge contributions their rookie season. If you have to consistently rely on rookies, you have a consistent roster weakness problem.

In a perfect world I prefer rookies not having to contribute in their first season as well. Unfortunately that's hardly how it works.

Taking a look at this season with the Packers there's zero doubt that they need a rookie to significantly contribute as a pass catcher.

Then there's guys like Rashan Gary, who take several years to develop, and when they finally do, and you're getting value, they're about to get a big check from someone else, after you paid the freight in getting him ready for that day.

Is this a typo or do you expect Gary to end up playing for another team?

 

[PikeBadger]

I think you should give rookies a real chance at contributing though. Sometimes I think coaches don't give some rookies that chance simply because they are rookies. Thinking of the future should also include thinking about the 2nd half of the season imho.

Agree. I prefer the coaches to bring them along at a reasonable pace if possible so they have a better chance to adapt and eventually succeed as they grow. Rookies have a lot of new stuff to deal with both on and off the field.

 

[Voyageur]

Then there's guys like Rashan Gary, who take several years to develop, and when they finally do, and you're getting value, they're about to get a big check from someone else, after you paid the freight in getting him ready for that day.

Is this a typo or do you expect Gary to end up playing for another team?

--------------------------------------------------​

I think it's 50/50 that we end up getting him for a 2nd contract to be honest. He's going to reach near super star levels this year I'd guess. Just speculating here.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Is this a typo or do you expect Gary to end up playing for another team?

--------------------------------------------------​

I think it's 50/50 that we end up getting him for a 2nd contract to be honest. He's going to reach near super star levels this year I'd guess. Just speculating here.

Just my opinion but any front office that lets an elite pass rusher go after their rookie deal (aside from legal/outside issues) deserves to be fired.

 

[Voyageur]

Just my opinion but any front office that lets an elite pass rusher go after their rookie deal (aside from legal/outside issues) deserves to be fired.

It depends on how you see the team moving forward. The individual pieces are not more important than the sum of the team itself. If you can add a couple of quality players on long term deals to replace him, it's something they would consider. Not once did I say they should do it, but rest assured, if they did, it would be for what they considered the ability to make the team stronger.

But, I do agree with you, that at this moment, they should be fired if they did something like that. But, I don't know where we'll stand after this draft. Things can change.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

It depends on how you see the team moving forward. The individual pieces are not more important than the sum of the team itself. If you can add a couple of quality players on long term deals to replace him, it's something they would consider. Not once did I say they should do it, but rest assured, if they did, it would be for what they considered the ability to make the team stronger.

But, I do agree with you, that at this moment, they should be fired if they did something like that. But, I don't know where we'll stand after this draft. Things can change.

Unless the team is selling all elite players to start over and pretend the team was created today, getting rid of an elite player at the second most important position on defense just makes no sense. You still have to attempt to win (unless you’re Jacksonville)

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It depends on how you see the team moving forward. The individual pieces are not more important than the sum of the team itself. If you can add a couple of quality players on long term deals to replace him, it's something they would consider. Not once did I say they should do it, but rest assured, if they did, it would be for what they considered the ability to make the team stronger.

For some reason it has been widely accepted around the forum that trading young, blue-chip players is a good idea because a lot of fans seem to believe there's no issue adequately replacing them with the cap space saved and the draft picks acquired. In my opinion that's utter BS.

Successful teams hold on to players like Alexander and Gary and find a way to build a competitive team around them.

 

[Voyageur]

You can only afford to hold on to so many young players whose salary demands are outrageous, and quite frankly, that's where the majority of them are going with the best players in the league. The problem is, those outrageous salaries only supply one body on the field, and sometimes you have to sacrifice one player rated at 95, using a 75 in his place, so you can upgrade three other positions where you've been stuck at 35, and can raise them to 75, using the money difference between the 75 and 95 to do it.

That's a -20, when you lose the 95, but you can get a return of +80, and a net return of +60. That's the logic in making deals like they did with Adams. They believe they can get that kind of net return from it.

As to who the core players are, and keeping them, the objective is that you expand the core to guy that you can lock in for a series of years to give your team more potential to win, not saddle yourself with a couple of super stars who can't win games alone. I'm afraid that's pretty much where we'd gone, by not upgrading the defense when they should have, and paying attention to special teams.

 

[Schultz]

I have 2 problems with your argument.
1. They tried everything they could to keep Adams. It was only when he made it clear he would not play on the tag that they traded him.
2. Via both the draft and free agency they have done nothing but try to upgrade the defense.

 

[longtimefan]

You can only afford to hold on to so many young players whose salary demands are outrageous, and quite frankly, that's where the majority of them are going with the best players in the league. The problem is, those outrageous salaries only supply one body on the field, and sometimes you have to sacrifice one player rated at 95, using a 75 in his place, so you can upgrade three other positions where you've been stuck at 35, and can raise them to 75, using the money difference between the 75 and 95 to do it.

That's a -20, when you lose the 95, but you can get a return of +80, and a net return of +60. That's the logic in making deals like they did with Adams. They believe they can get that kind of net return from it.

As to who the core players are, and keeping them, the objective is that you expand the core to guy that you can lock in for a series of years to give your team more potential to win, not saddle yourself with a couple of super stars who can't win games alone. I'm afraid that's pretty much where we'd gone, by not upgrading the defense when they should have, and paying attention to special teams.

Nicely said

 

[Voyageur]

I have 2 problems with your argument.
1. They tried everything they could to keep Adams. It was only when he made it clear he would not play on the tag that they traded him.
2. Via both the draft and free agency they have done nothing but try to upgrade the defense.

That's often how it ends up. You reach a point that there's no negotiations possible, when a person has as much talent as Adams does. That's when you start looking for that deal that will help you down the road, instead of dumping several players that are valuable, but not at the same level as Adams, just to meet his demands.

The Packers had reached that point. Dump several valuable pieces, or trade Adams. They chose the trade, and the improvement at at least two positions in the process.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You can only afford to hold on to so many young players whose salary demands are outrageous, and quite frankly, that's where the majority of them are going with the best players in the league. The problem is, those outrageous salaries only supply one body on the field, and sometimes you have to sacrifice one player rated at 95, using a 75 in his place, so you can upgrade three other positions where you've been stuck at 35, and can raise them to 75, using the money difference between the 75 and 95 to do it.

In my opinion it's imperative to hold on to those young elite players by signing them to deals at market value. You have to realize that we aren't talking about several guys every single year but one each season if it works out perfectly. Alexander and Gary definitely fit that bill.

One issue I'm having with fans advocating to move on from players like that is that there's no guarantee the team will be able to replace them with 75s as you call them. Just take a look at the Packers' receiving corps, there's not a single player on the depth chart being that talented at this point of his career.

As to who the core players are, and keeping them, the objective is that you expand the core to guy that you can lock in for a series of years to give your team more potential to win, not saddle yourself with a couple of super stars who can't win games alone. I'm afraid that's pretty much where we'd gone, by not upgrading the defense when they should have, and paying attention to special teams.

It's important to get better production out of players still on their rookie deals than Gutekunst has been able to. It doesn't make any sense to overpay for guys like Lowry instead of holding on to elite players.

The Packers had reached that point. Dump several valuable pieces, or trade Adams. They chose the trade, and the improvement at at least two positions in the process.

Actually the Packers offered Adams a huge contract but he declined it. Therefore they ended up trading him.