The Big Choice

[Pkrjones]

I'm pretty sure Gute will get a few year "grace period" of down years by the football watching world. Everyone understands that there will be a dropoff after 2 HOF'r QB's over the last 30 years.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't know why you would want a complete re-build. Sounds like sour grapes. If we get a bunch of draft picks; they could fill holes and we end up with a solid team. The ones I would keep, depending how they keep playing, are Turner, Preston and Jones.

Once the Packers move on from Rodgers they will immediately stop being a legit Super Bowl contender. That means it doesn't make any sense to hold on to expensive veterans considering the cap situation the team is in.

At that point it would be smart to cut the losses to get out of troubles with the cap as soon as possible and use the draft picks acquired via trade or received as compensatory ones to add young talent.

It's completely unrealistic to expect there won't be a drop-off in performance over a few years once Rodgers isn't around anymore though.

You’re dislike for Dillon is showing again lol

You're wrong, Dillon has been a pleasant surprise for me. I don't consider a running back to be a core player to build around for several years though.

Good points. I don't think Z will be back under any circumstances due to his injury. That's a shame - great guy, great player. I don't quite get the logic behind letting all or most players walk. The reason a team drafts is in the hope some of them become All
Pro. Then you have to pay them. GB is fortunate to have a few. That said, there are only so many guys who can be paid $15 or $20 mil or more a year. Well, they don't pay us to make decisions on who to keep. Anyway, with the players GB has, I don't see the need for a rebuild.

I'm not advocating for the Packers to let young, blue chip players walk away by any means. If they won't be able to compete for a Super Bowl it doesn't make any sense to retain veteran players that won't be around by the time the rebuild is done just to win some more games while eating up a ton of precious cap space.

And Ty referenced the likelihood that Rodgers will want $50 mil/year. Well, given that Pat Mahomes is at $45 mil/year, and Rodgers was the MVP the last two years, I can see where he would expect to get paid that much.

But with all that, I still want to see Rodgers and Adams and as many of last year's players back as possible to make a run for a SB - in 2022 and 2023. Rodgers is a generational, maybe a lifetime talent we likely won't see again. Pay the man - and dammit Rodgers start winning the big games!

As mentioned in another thread, there's no way the Packers should think about paying Rodgers $50 million a year.

I’m very confident our Staff would land some huge names in the College circuit and FA inside 2 seasons.

The Packers most likely won't have any cap space to participate in free agency this offseason no matter what.

The Packers need REALLY good players, self-indulgent or not. I guarantee you that humility and altruism are A) not things that pro sports athletes tend to have in large supply and B) aren't worth a thing on the field of play. I don't think it's a good idea to tie up $50m a season in the QB position BUT that's probably because the Packers have been such consistent winners for 30 years. I guarantee you that teams who have struggled would happily pay that much for the best QB in the NFL. I'm also sure that Gute will happily pay that much because his job security is the most important thing to him and letting Rodgers go will probably cost the Packers 6-7 games and that puts a GM's job in jeopardy (especially if Love doesn't look worth that 1st round trade-up).

I highly doubt either the Packers or any other team are ready to pay $50 million per season for a quarterback who will turn 39 years old during next season.

Everyone understands that there will be a dropoff after 2 HOF'r QB's over the last 30 years.

I honestly don't believe everyone is aware of that.

 

[Pkrjones]

I think you're underestimating the intelligence of Packer fans. After our 2nd HOF'r is gone I don't believe many/some believe GB will just continue to win 75+ % of their games.

The make-up of the team must change. The team can't rely on brilliant QB play with mediocre D for it's wins. The team must be built differently, with a strong running game, stout Defense (top 10), and adequate, smart QB play. Move the chains, minimize penalties & turnovers, score some points and let the defense lock-down the opponent's offense.

 

[tynimiller]

Once the Packers move on from Rodgers they will immediately stop being a legit Super Bowl contender. That means it doesn't make any sense to hold on to expensive veterans considering the cap situation the team is in.

At that point it would be smart to cut the losses to get out of troubles with the cap as soon as possible and use the draft picks acquired via trade or received as compensatory ones to add young talent.

It's completely unrealistic to expect there won't be a drop-off in performance over a few years once Rodgers isn't around anymore though.



You're wrong, Dillon has been a pleasant surprise for me. I don't consider a running back to be a core player to build around for several years though.



I'm not advocating for the Packers to let young, blue chip players walk away by any means. If they won't be able to compete for a Super Bowl it doesn't make any sense to retain veteran players that won't be around by the time the rebuild is done just to win some more games while eating up a ton of precious cap space.



As mentioned in another thread, there's no way the Packers should think about paying Rodgers $50 million a year.



The Packers most likely won't have any cap space to participate in free agency this offseason no matter what.



I highly doubt either the Packers or any other team are ready to pay $50 million per season for a quarterback who will turn 39 years old during next season.



I honestly don't believe everyone is aware of that.

I can get on board with the mindset of you don’t build long term around a RB, makes sense.

 

[sschind]

I can get on board with the mindset of you don’t build long term around a RB, makes sense.

Maybe you don't build around one but having. A good one around sure is nice. Maybe its just me but I'd rather have the best RB in the league than the best WR. RB who touches the ball 25 times a game vs a WR who might get 10 and who is also very dependent on the ability of the QB. Fill your WR room with several above average WRs and it can still be very productive.

 

[Half Empty]

Don't really care, but I think you have to include yards per carry and yards per catch into your evaluation of the worth of a RB vs WR.

 

[swhitset]

Well, the Packers have shown in the past they can't play even .500 ball w/o Rodgers. Of course, those teams had lousy Ds. I think the team can win 10 games with a truly elite D, some additions to the offense as I noted, and average to above average QB play. That sounds good but hasn't been tested. If Rodgers does move on, we'll find out. (When I referenced trading Adams, it was in a tag and trade scenario.)

I don't disagree with riding Rodgers as long as possible. It may be more logical for the l.t health of the team to trade him, but let's face it, this is a win now league. Rodgers gives them the best chance.

While you are right that the defenses were not great, the ineptitude of the offense during the games without Rodgers was even more apparent and I don’t think a better defense would have made a lot of difference.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think you're underestimating the intelligence of Packer fans. After our 2nd HOF'r is gone I don't believe many/some believe GB will just continue to win 75+ % of their games.

I believe a lot of Packers fans are spoiled, not realizing how hard it is to find a HOF quarterback but expecting the team to find another one just like that.

Maybe you don't build around one but having. A good one around sure is nice. Maybe its just me but I'd rather have the best RB in the league than the best WR. RB who touches the ball 25 times a game vs a WR who might get 10 and who is also very dependent on the ability of the QB. Fill your WR room with several above average WRs and it can still be very productive.

I prefer the Packers to have a good running back as well and both Jones and Dillon fit the bill. In my opinion having a top wide receiver is far more important though.

But I was responding to another poster suggesting they were core players, something I disagree with.

 

[ARPackFan]

The make-up of the team must change. The team can't rely on brilliant QB play with mediocre D for it's wins. The team must be built differently, with a strong running game, stout Defense (top 10), and adequate, smart QB play. Move the chains, minimize penalties & turnovers, score some points and let the defense lock-down the opponent's offense.

You are describing the NE Patriots. Also, these things are obviously not easy to do or all 32 teams would be doing it.

I believe a lot of Packers fans are spoiled, not realizing how hard it is to find a HOF quarterback but expecting the team to find another one just like that.

A Packer fan under the age of 40 didn't experience the 22 years of frustration between Starr & Favre. In my opinion the last 30 years have been the golden era of QB play for the Packers and I doubt I will ever see its equal before I assume room temperature. I also think we will all look back at the last 30 years as the biggest squandering of QB talent in NFL history.

 

[sschind]

I prefer the Packers to have a good running back as well and both Jones and Dillon fit the bill. In my opinion having a top wide receiver is far more important though.

But I was responding to another poster suggesting they were core players, something I disagree with.

I understood what you meant and I agree for the most part about building around a RB not being such a good idea. I just think a lot of fans severely underestimate the value of a really good RB. The dime a dozen mentality is far to prevalent IMO. I also understand the value of a top WR. I just think a top RB is better to have.

 

[Pkrjones]

You are describing the NE Patriots. Also, these things are obviously not easy to do or all 32 teams would be doing it.

I could also be describing:
'21 Buccaneers, '19 49'ers, '15 Broncos, '12 Ravens, '06 Bears, '98 Broncos or any number of other teams (I'm tired of searching). A successful team CAN be built around a strong D & run game rather than requiring a top-3 QB was my point. When that top-3 QB uses 20+% of the cap it is very difficult to keep weapons for the O and keep a stout D.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I highly doubt either the Packers or any other team are ready to pay $50 million per season for a quarterback who will turn 39 years old during next season.

I feel like this is coming from someone who's team has had 3+ decades of HoF QB play and doesn't feel the pain that MANY teams in the NFL have felt. That 39 year old QB gets your team more wins than any THREE players combined at any other position. There are plenty of needy teams that will spend that much for 2-3 seasons of what they consider guaranteed playoff runs.

 

[Half Empty]

I feel like this is coming from someone who's team has had 3+ decades of HoF QB play and doesn't feel the pain that MANY teams in the NFL have felt. That 39 year old QB gets your team more wins than any THREE players combined at any other position. There are plenty of needy teams that will spend that much for 2-3 seasons of what they consider guaranteed playoff runs.

Well, that gets me off the fence. If anyone is that desperate just to get into the playoffs for a couple of years, the bounty from a trade should be spectacular.

 

[OldSchool101]

I can get on board with the mindset of you don’t build long term around a RB, makes sense.

While I agree in general. We also have to consider that one of our greatest strengths IS our RB group in this transition period. We have TWO that had 1000+ All-Purpose yardage. We’ve also seen that depth shouldn’t pose a problem if 1 goes down for a period of time.

IF the Packers can get Bak, Jenkins and Myers going simultaneously and if we can add 1 more stout guy on right side I think you guys will be surprised what production we are capable of in both Rushing and the short passing game. With an improved OL I’d expect a top 5-6 type Rushing production by its lonesome, with no noticeable drop in the RB receptions area.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I understood what you meant and I agree for the most part about building around a RB not being such a good idea. I just think a lot of fans severely underestimate the value of a really good RB. The dime a dozen mentality is far to prevalent IMO. I also understand the value of a top WR. I just think a top RB is better to have.

Another thing to consider is that running backs on average have shorter careers than players at most other positions because of the high amount of touches they receive.

With that being said I like having Jones and Dillon on the roster although I'm not a big fan paying top money for the position.

I feel like this is coming from someone who's team has had 3+ decades of HoF QB play and doesn't feel the pain that MANY teams in the NFL have felt. That 39 year old QB gets your team more wins than any THREE players combined at any other position. There are plenty of needy teams that will spend that much for 2-3 seasons of what they consider guaranteed playoff runs.

I highly doubt any team would be interested in paying Rodgers that much money just to get into the playoffs. That would rather be a Super Bowl or bust type of move.

 

[ARPackFan]

I could also be describing:
'21 Buccaneers, '19 49'ers, '15 Broncos, '12 Ravens, '06 Bears, '98 Broncos or any number of other teams (I'm tired of searching). A successful team CAN be built around a strong D & run game rather than requiring a top-3 QB was my point. When that top-3 QB uses 20+% of the cap it is very difficult to keep weapons for the O and keep a stout D.

I agree that it can be done but requires a team to not neglect positions at the expense of overpaying for others. As you point out, many teams have made it to the SB with this formula. The flip side is they have been unable to sustain it because they are not willing to let a player walk in free agency and instead end up overpaying. Personally I don't want the highest paid player at any position on the team because it implies other postions are to be underpayed and likely underperforming.

 

[OldSchool101]

I agree that it can be done but requires a team to not neglect positions at the expense of overpaying for others. As you point out, many teams have made it to the SB with this formula. The flip side is they have been unable to sustain it because they are not willing to let a player walk in free agency and instead end up overpaying. Personally I don't want the highest paid player at any position on the team because it implies other postions are to be underpayed and likely underperforming.

It’s very possible that this was the case with us. We need not look any further than our own ST. But boy oh boy we sure had one heck of an MVP!

 

[tynimiller]

Our special teams has been the issue for the last ten playoff losses?
Not one thing can be circled and blamed for our abysmal playoff track record over the last decade and it sucks.

 

[Half Empty]

Variety is the spice of life.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

This offseason presents the Packers front office with a pretty huge decision.

They need to decide what they're going to do with Aaron Rodgers.

Option #1 would be to use cap trickery (voidable years, bad extensions, restructures, etc.) to push their bad cap situation further out one more season so you can keep Rodgers and try again. It wouldn't make sense to do that if you had to gut the roster. The pro is obvious-- you keep an MVP quarterback and take another shot at the super bowl. The con is also clear-- you pile up more cap pain for yourself down the road and you have the opportunity cost of not trading Rodgers for a bunch of assets. The other consideration is that, even with a lot of creativity around the cap, it may be impossible to keep everyone you really do want to keep.

Option #2 would be to accept this as the end of the Rodgers era and start trading/cutting players, accruing capital, and ushering in the next phase of Packers football. The pro here is that you get your cap pain out of the way and you gain a lot of resources towards the rebuild. The con is simply that you no longer have an MVP caliber QB and a whole host of other great players.

Option #1, and the associated "cap trickery", seems to be the preferred choice of the Green Bay Packers:

Tracking Packers' moves to get under the salary cap before 2022 league year​

Tracking Packers' moves to get under the salary cap before 2022 league year

The Packers are attempting to shed over $50 million from the salary cap before the start of the 2022 league year. Here are all the moves made so far.

packerswire.usatoday.com

 

[tynimiller]

As others have stated the three restructures are definitely moves which did not need done if Rodgers was intending to move on from the organization...part of me wonders if Rodgers announces he is done in GB, will that rub Gutey and Co. a serious amount given some of these restructures could have been avoided.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Personally I don't want the highest paid player at any position on the team because it implies other postions are to be underpayed and likely underperforming.

Well, as soon as a team has an elite player at a position they need to pay him accordingly. I definitely prefer having several players that deserve to be among the highest paid in the league than the team lacking blue chip players.

As others have stated the three restructures are definitely moves which did not need done if Rodgers was intending to move on from the organization...part of me wonders if Rodgers announces he is done in GB, will that rub Gutey and Co. a serious amount given some of these restructures could have been avoided.

The Packers front office would be foolish if they made those moves without knowing Rodgers will be back.

 

[tynimiller]

The Packers front office would be foolish if they made those moves without knowing Rodgers will be back.

I have never agreed more with you than in this moment.

 

[Pugger]

I could also be describing:
'21 Buccaneers, '19 49'ers, '15 Broncos, '12 Ravens, '06 Bears, '98 Broncos or any number of other teams (I'm tired of searching). A successful team CAN be built around a strong D & run game rather than requiring a top-3 QB was my point. When that top-3 QB uses 20+% of the cap it is very difficult to keep weapons for the O and keep a stout D.

Yes, but do these teams with a strong defense and mediocre QB play return to the playoffs every year? This is a QB driven league and it is difficult to keep an elite QB surrounded by a dynamite team in all phases. Even Brady in NE went thru a 9 year SB drought.

 

[OldSchool101]

Serious question here. I’m not an NFL contract expert by any stretch.

However, isn’t there an Avenue
(IF NEEDED) whereas the Packers reverse remaining contracts to pay in a heavy Frontload manner to offset the forward push of several big contracts that we’ve just witnessed. Meaning sort of a reciprocal of converting monies to signing bonus’?

I’m asking because one would think a team could play on both sides of the Capital teeter totter in an emergency situation. In effect, reeling back in some of the future risk