The Big Choice

[OldSchool101]

With the hire of Hackett in Denver, the Broncos become an even stronger favorite to land Rodgers should he move on. I also think it puts Denver in a little bit of a desperate situation to attain him. I'm sure that they like Hackett either way, but you have to believe that a big part of the hire was to make Rodgers amenable to playing in Denver.

The most recent trade with any sort of comparability was the Stafford deal. Stafford was considerably younger at the time of trade, but also a lesser player. The Lions got a 3rd rounder in the 2021 draft and then 1st round picks in 2022 and 2023. They also got Goff, though it's debatable if that was added value for them or if they just ate his contract to sweeten the deal for LA. So we will ignore that.

In the upcoming draft, the Broncos have the 9th overall pick, plus two 2nd rounders and two 3rd rounders. Any deal for Rodgers must include that 9th pick, because in future years, with Rodgers, they will obviously be picking lower.

So what would a good deal look like? I would aim for something like this:

2022 1st round pick (9th)
2022 2nd round pick (~41st)
2023 1st round pick
2023 3rd round pick

That’s around what I’m thinking is reasonable, give or take.
One option in a Rodgers trade would be to trade #9 in a move down (don’t slap me just yet!) we could take an early mid 20’s and ask for a 2023 day 1 selection in return. My thinking there is giving Love 1 season to prove he can compete. Maybe getting a veteran backup in that $3-5M and we instantly cut our cap deficit more than half (Loves + Rodgers remaining sunk $)
If we draft a QB in 2023 then we potentially have 4 additional years under a Rookie QB contract for 5 rookie seasons. That opens the flood gates for resigning plenty of mid level FA veterans of our own.

 

[Firethorn1001]

One option in a Rodgers trade would be to trade #9 in a move down (don’t slap me just yet!) we could take an early mid 20’s and ask for a 2023 day 1 selection in return.

I'd hope a slide from 9 to the 20's would net more than just an extra 1.

NYG went from 11-20 last year with the Bears and got another 4th and 5th I believe. If you got 2 1's from Rodgers, would they also entertain trading Alexander? Ramsey netted 2 1's. So.. if you could trade Rodgers for a 22 and 23 1st and slide down picking up another 1 in 2023 and hypothetically trading Alexander for maybe X in 2022 and a 1 in 2023, that would be 4 1st round picks in 2023 (not to mention a 3 for Davante for compensatory and whatever else they get in the 3-7 range for trades).

Massive amounts of ammo in an expected QB heavy draft to chase Stroud/Young if Love doesn't work out and you've more than likely cleared the cap disaster by end of 2023.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Ya.. I know.. fantasy football, but I don't think it's that unobtainable.

 

[BrokenArrow]

didn’t say i missed the game… i was referring to the fact that people were beating that one example to death.

That's because it's a shining example of the underlying problem that has been there for a few years now.

 

[BrokenArrow]

Run it back lean on your teammates. This is the best situation for Rodgers should he decide to continue playing.

That would have to include him learning to finally lean on his other receivers not named Adams when crunch time comes around.

 

[BrokenArrow]

That’s a fear tactic. Most Everyone knows that we would be setup much more eloquently than the 1970’s teams. Our coach is better, our FO is better...

I think what a lot of fans forget (or maybe didn't know) is that the Packers had a terrible habit in the 70's and 80's of hiring former Lombardi players and coaches to fill the FO. It did not work well.

 

[Half Empty]

I think what a lot of fans forget (or maybe didn't know) is that the Packers had a terrible habit in the 70's and 80's of hiring former Lombardi players and coaches to fill the FO. It did not work well.

I remember some HC. Can you save some searching and tell me who ended up in the FO?

 

[PikeBadger]

Okay trying to follow so you're saying create just enough room to sign Campbell, but also keep Adams and Rodgers? Cut both Smiths. Am I following?

I'm not interested in keeping Rodgers. It's time for us to move on from him. Adams will not be worth whatever he signs for. Wouldn't offer him more than a 2 year contract which I'm sure he wouldn't accept.

 

[tripleguy]

I'm not interested in keeping Rodgers. It's time for us to move on from him. Adams will not be worth whatever he signs for. Wouldn't offer him more than a 2 year contract which I'm sure he wouldn't accept.

I completely agree. I'm so tired of the drama with this Queen. The other day he insinuated people tuned in to the 9ers game just to hope to see him lose because of his vax stance. Hey head case, does it always have to be about you and your incessant whining?? Maybe a lot of people across the US and beyond don't like the Packers because of the jag they have at QB. I think a lot of people are tired of him.

Great QB, don't get me wrong. You look at him and the other #12 and Rodgers has a much better arm. More accurate, can make all the throws. Brady just wins, especially in the playoffs. Sure, Brady had better talent around him when you look at Pro Bowl and All Pro caliber players, but Rodgers should have another SB or 2 under his belt. I say let him go and let other fans soak in the Au Jus that is Aaron Rodgers.

 

[Firethorn1001]

The other day he insinuated people tuned in to the 9ers game just to hope to see him lose because of his vax stance.

I don't think he was wrong on that. I'm sure there was a significant number of people that wanted him to lose for not only that, but a bunch of other comments. That would be another concern for management. If you think Rodgers is hurting the brand then that is another checkmark in the 'trade Rodgers' ledger.

 

[Dantés]

So part of the package back from Denver could be players. Given the position that the Packers will be in, it wouldn't be older, veteran players, but younger guys on rookie deals.

I think the most obviously candidate would be Jerry Jeudy. Obviously if the Broncos acquire Rodgers, they're in "win now" mode all the way, which means they aren't going to be shedding players that are key for their current success. However, where Rodgers goes, Adams is sure to follow. And Adams is essentially the best version of Jeudy, so the latter would be expendable.

Jeudy only played 38% of snaps in 2021. His line was 38 catches on 56 targets for 467 yards. If you extrapolated that out to 90% of snaps (essentially a full season, but coming off the field at times), it comes to 90 catches for 1,107 yards. And that's with Denver's QB play.

Jeudy is essentially the lesser version of Davante Adams-- he's a route technician whose game is all about creating separation. They're actually pretty similar athletes-- both 6'1" with Jeudy being lighter and faster in a straight line, and Adams being biggers/stronger.

However, Jeudy is still only 22. He came out really young, so there's still the potential for quite a bit of development. And while he certainly isn't as good as Adams, he would be about as good of an immediate replacement for that role in the offense as one could hope for. Plus, he's on a cheap rookie deal through 2023.

If they move on from Rodgers, then 2022 is going to be about taking cap medicine and assessing Love. The former means you're not trying to spend a lot of money on free agents and really build up the roster. But the latter means that you need to have enough pieces on offense to really get an accurate sense for what Love can do. I think Jeudy could fit both purposes.

 

[Dantés]

I don't think he was wrong on that. I'm sure there was a significant number of people that wanted him to lose for not only that, but a bunch of other comments. That would be another concern for management. If you think Rodgers is hurting the brand then that is another checkmark in the 'trade Rodgers' ledger.

Oh, there's absolutely no doubt that many covid cult members rooted for his failure and then celebrated it because he violated their orthodoxy.

It's probably not nearly as many as you'd think, but unfortunately it's a big chunk of public personalities-- a vocal minority. People whose career's are based on popularity are scared to question the twitter groupthink on this issue and many others.

 

[WNY PackerFan]

I am glad people followed the groupthink in taking the smallpox and polio vaccines in the 20th century.
When building a house I would listen to plumbers, carpenters, roofers, masons etc. when dealing with a pandemic I listen to health care professionals.

 

[Dantés]

I am glad people followed the groupthink in taking the smallpox and polio vaccines in the 20th century.
When building a house I would listen to plumbers, carpenters, roofers, masons etc. when dealing with a pandemic I listen to health care professionals.

And I fully support you having that perspective and believe you should be able to follow it and voice it without me or anyone else attacking your character or calling for the government to suppress you.

 

[BrokenArrow]

I remember some HC. Can you save some searching and tell me who ended up in the FO?

Bengston, Starr, Gregg all ended up GM or de facto GM. None did particularly well.

 

[WNY PackerFan]

And I fully support you having that perspective and believe you should be able to follow it and voice it without me or anyone else attacking your character or calling for the government to suppress you.

Thank you, that is the America I know and love as well.

 

[sschind]

One thing that worries me a bit with all this talk about the haul we will get from trading Rodgers is the talk that we can simply turn around and use it all just to take another QB in 2023. Obviously this would only happen if Love fails in 2022 but it seems like such a cavalier attitude "trade Rodgers for a bunch of picks then trade those picks for a guy who might be good." Don't get me wrong, it is a legit option but the way it is being bandied about kind of strike me as defeatist.

I agree with Dante's assessment of Jerry Jeudy. The only way I could see Denver including him in a trade would be if they knew they could land Adams. How convoluted are these trade talks going to get. This is a perfect example of how it would be very difficult to make some of these deals without some sort of tampering going on.

 

[Dantés]

One thing that worries me a bit with all this talk about the haul we will get from trading Rodgers is the talk that we can simply turn around and use it all just to take another QB in 2023. Obviously this would only happen if Love fails in 2022 but it seems like such a cavalier attitude "trade Rodgers for a bunch of picks then trade those picks for a guy who might be good." Don't get me wrong, it is a legit option but the way it is being bandied about kind of strike me as defeatist.

I agree with Dante's assessment of Jerry Jeudy. The only way I could see Denver including him in a trade would be if they knew they could land Adams. How convoluted are these trade talks going to get. This is a perfect example of how it would be very difficult to make some of these deals without some sort of tampering going on.

Oh there is doubtless just oodles and oodles of tampering.

Certainly there is lots of uncertainty in regards to a potential Rodgers replacement. Love may or may not work out. A rookie drafted in 2022 or 2023 may or may not work out.

But here's the other side of that coin: whether it's this offseason or in 2 years, Rodgers is going to move on. Replacing him is a certainty.

So the question isn't "should we or should we not find a successor?" but rather "should we try to trade him and have a lot more resources to find that successor and build around him, or should we put that off a couple more seasons?"

I think both options are compelling for various reasons.

 

[Firethorn1001]

Don't get me wrong, it is a legit option but the way it is being bandied about kind of strike me as defeatist.

One person's defeatism is another person's realism.

In a vacuum I would like the band back together. But, given the cap situation and the more than likely necessity to cut a few players, Rodger's aversion to how the Packer's have treated cuts in the past, Adam's wanting a significant chunk of $, Rodger's needing to extend to get his cap number and the unknown variable of 'who does Rodger's want back to not consider it a rebuild', How is he going to be with new coaches.. with all those variables, I just don't see how it all can come together. If one was talking about just the business side and the Packer's manipulating things by reworking, releasing and resigning people they could then yes. Throw in the Rodger's emotional aspect and who knows.

At some point.. he is gone. I guess I'd rather have that point be with a plethora of draft picks at their disposable rather than a retirement and ravaged cap. Guess if there was a SB in their it would soften it, but 2 #1 seeds and no Super Bowl appearance makes me go with the pessimistic 'not happening' belief.

 

[Schultz]

I keep seeing this 8 days crap. Yes on paper and by rule it is but do you think there is not a tri-lateral gentleman's agreement in place between DA17's negotiating team, the Packers, and the trade partner before it happens?

The reason I believe the answer to this is no is because Adams does not want to be tagged.

 

[OldSchool101]

I'd hope a slide from 9 to the 20's would net more than just an extra 1.

NYG went from 11-20 last year with the Bears and got another 4th and 5th I believe. If you got 2 1's from Rodgers, would they also entertain trading Alexander? Ramsey netted 2 1's. So.. if you could trade Rodgers for a 22 and 23 1st and slide down picking up another 1 in 2023 and hypothetically trading Alexander for maybe X in 2022 and a 1 in 2023, that would be 4 1st round picks in 2023 (not to mention a 3 for Davante for compensatory and whatever else they get in the 3-7 range for trades).

Massive amounts of ammo in an expected QB heavy draft to chase Stroud/Young if Love doesn't work out and you've more than likely cleared the cap disaster by end of 2023.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Ya.. I know.. fantasy football, but I don't think it's that unobtainable.

It’s very much in line with my thoughts. I’m shooting consevative, but I don’t doubt that a #9 trade back wouldn’t reel more selections.

It’s also possible Rodgers would get more than 2 day 1 selections, he’s arguable one of the best QB to ever play the game so getting selections across 3 drafts is possible. He’s capable of playing past 3+ seasons.
That may sound steep, but look at what Khalil Mack brought. Which would affect those 3 seasons more?

Any other team owning outside a top 10 overall selection would have to likely offer 3 consecutive Day 1 selections and a 2nd Round pick in 2022 in addition to maybe another day 3 selection or player trade later.

This is obviously just fantasy stuff. GB will probably slightly overpay Rodgers to appease the fan base if nothing else. The FO can always use #12 as a scapegoat if we spiral or if he Wins a SB they can pat themselves on their backs.
I think the team took quite a bit of heat the last 2 seasons from our own fan base. It’s likely they don’t shake the Apple cart again another consecutive season

 

[BrokenArrow]

This is obviously just fantasy stuff. GB will probably slightly overpay Rodgers to appease the fan base if nothing else.

I don't think they have to worry appeasing anyone. I think there is a healthy contingent of the fan base who are more than ready to move on. Many have been ready for quite some time.

 

[Poppa San]

The reason I believe the answer to this is no is because Adams does not want to be tagged.

The trading partner and DA17's team would have a contract gentleman's agreement in place before the trade so the tag would be a way to facilitate it.

 

[Poppa San]

I’m not anti Rodgers. I am anti anyone who sinks our ship and I don’t care how great they can navigate that ship or what rank they hold. If she’s going to slowly sink it’s time to think about the preparing the lifeboats. Disregarding that option would be our own pure ignorance.

So you're saying we get to choose between standing on the deck of the USS Arizona 7:30am December 7, 1941 or the RMS Titanic at 23:00 April 14, 1912 (without Rose btw.)

 

[gopkrs]

The reason I believe the answer to this is no is because Adams does not want to be tagged.

Though it would be much better if Adams was on board with a trade; it is not really his call. Of course he would prefer to just be a free agent. I think it comes down to a realistic outlook if we could get something for him and not be stuck with the tag.

 

[Voyageur]

So according to overthecap, the Packers are effectively 50M over the cap in 2022.

So if they kept Rodgers, how would they deal with that? Here are some possibilities:

-First and most obviously is to deal with Rodgers' number (46.4M); an extension could get that down to, maybe 30M? Less? Conservatively, maybe they pick up 20M that way in space, getting him under contract through, say, 2024.

-Next up is Za'Darius Smith. He's about to enter his age 30 season and a contract year; I doubt anyone would trade for his contract given that he missed the entire year so I think you either have to extend him (very risky with his age and back problems), or cut him (the more likely option). Even with the 12.4M in dead money, it would create 15.3M in space-- I believe a post 6/1 designation would create about 21M.

-Preston Smith is also entering his age 30 season and a contract year, but he's not the risky asset that Z is. If you're trying to bring Rodgers back and run this thing back, you can't also get rid of all your impact players. So I think you would go with an extension here and get the 2022 number down, say from 21M down to 15 or so?

-Kenny Clark would be a candidate for a restructure-- push some cap hit into the latter part of the contract and pick up another 5-10M depending on how extreme you want to go.

Then there are a number of guys who you could cut or restructure or just leave alone. They'd be obvious cut/trade candidates if you were starting over, but you don't want to gut the roster if you're keeping Rodgers:

-Adrian Amos: +7.9M to release; -11.9M to keep
-Randall Cobb: +~7M to release; -9.5M to keep
-Billy Turner: +4M to release; -8.9M to keep
-Dean Lowry: +4M to release; -7.9M to keep
-Mason Crosby: +2.4M to release; -4.7M to keep

And then there are the guys that you want to (or may want to) extend or re-sign:

-Davante Adams
-Jaire Alexander (2023)
-Elgton Jenkins (2023)
-De'Vondre Campbell
-Rasul Douglas
-Corey Bojorquez
-Robert Tonyan
-Marquez Valdes-Scantling

If it's me, I'm doing numbers 1-4 above (Rodgers, the Smith's, and Clark) because I don't see how you don't. Those four steps could get them, roughly, 5M below the cap ceiling.

Beyond that, I would be in favor of extending Amos (maybe +5M?), releasing Cobb (+7M), and releasing Crosby (+2.4).

This is obviously very rough math-- I'm just trying to get an idea-- but I think the totality of those moves would place them somewhere in the neighborhood of 20M under the cap.

That's what you'd have to work with to then sign a rookie class, fill out the roster with free agents (veteran or rookie), and get some extensions done. I would be doing whatever I needed to in terms of back-loading to get Adams, Campbell, and Douglas back. Bojo and Tonyan would be nice too, but not deal breakers for me.

Great work here. When a person does go through the numbers it spells out a different story than a lot of people realize. The answer? There is no easy answer to any of this, and by the time they get all their numbers crunched, and start offering money to people, the demands will change. Then there are those who are simply going to test the free agent market, no matter what's offered, because that's where they figure it's at.