What To Make Of Our WR No-Shows

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Packers are a Super Bowl contender with Rodgers though. Therefore the front office should do everything reasonable in their power to keep him in Green Bay but not think about trading other elite players as well.

In addition fans shouldn't be jumping the gun on blowing up the roster as it might take way longer than many anticipate for the Packers to get back to being a legit contender once that happens.

My suggestion on trading Adams came with 2 caveats, both of which you don't seem to be taking into account:

1. Rodgers is traded/refuses to play.
2. Adams refuses to resign with the Packers due to #1.

Sorry Captain, but I am not suggesting "blowing up a roster" What I am suggesting is getting value for 2 elite players that may very well not want to be (by they own accord) playing in Green Bay in the near future. One of which has a simple contractual out at the end of the season. The other rumored to be threatening to not report or retire if not traded. So who would be blowing up that roster, these 2 guys or a smart GM that recognizes the situation for what it is?

You seem pretty hell bent on a Super Bowl run this season and act like the Packers control all the cards, when they actually don't. First, complaining that they were idiots for not restructuring Rodgers and using the cap savings to go all in. When in reality it sounds like they were attempting to do just that and Rodgers refused. You yourself have stated that the Packers would struggle without Rodgers, a statement I totally agree with. Now you suggest that if Rodgers indeed doesn't play, contemplating trading a player like Adams, who admitted if Rodgers leaves he would have to rethink signing, wouldn't be smart?

I highly doubt that Gute's goals don't include a Super Bowl win each season, but he is also paid to keep his eyes on the future of the team and make appropriate moves to try and maximize the Packers chances for long term success. Hanging on to a disgruntled/non-committal Adams for 1 final Rodgerless season and getting a late 2023 3rd round comp pic as a result, would be short term blind Tom Foolery in my book.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

My suggestion on trading Adams came with 2 caveats, both of which you don't seem to be taking into account:

1. Rodgers is traded/refuses to play.
2. Adams refuses to resign with the Packers due to #1.

Sorry Captain, but I am not suggesting "blowing up a roster" What I am suggesting is getting value for 2 elite players that may very well not want to be (by they own accord) playing in Green Bay in the near future. One of which has a simple contractual out at the end of the season. The other rumored to be threatening to not report or retire if not traded. So who would be blowing up that roster, these 2 guys or a smart GM that recognizes the situation for what it is?

You seem pretty hell bent on a Super Bowl run this season and act like the Packers control all the cards, when they actually don't. First, complaining that they were idiots for not restructuring Rodgers and using the cap savings to go all in. When in reality it sounds like they were attempting to do just that and Rodgers refused. You yourself have stated that the Packers would struggle without Rodgers, a statement I totally agree with. Now you suggest that if Rodgers indeed doesn't play, contemplating trading a player like Adams, who admitted if Rodgers leaves he would have to rethink signing, wouldn't be smart?

I highly doubt that Gute's goals don't include a Super Bowl win each season, but he is also paid to keep his eyes on the future of the team and make appropriate moves to try and maximize the Packers chances for long term success. Hanging on to a disgruntled/non-committal Adams for 1 final Rodgerless season and getting a late 2023 3rd round comp pic as a result, would be short term blind Tom Foolery in my book.

This.

As hard as it is to think about if Rodgers doesn't play we gotta send them both out. Ideally to an AFC team (Oakland, Denver) who in return gives us probably the biggest haul of picks and players in NFL history.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This.

As hard as it is to think about if Rodgers doesn't play we gotta send them both out. Ideally to an AFC team (Oakland, Denver) who in return gives us probably the biggest haul of picks and players in NFL history.

Agree and it can't be said enough, I am not stating that the Packers should give up on Rodgers or Adams, but if it looks like both of them don't want to play in Green Bay, better to not bury your head in the sand and just let it happen and when you come out of the fog, you have neither player and very little (late 3rd round pick) as a result. As you said, this situation(s), albeit a forced opportunity, it could be an opportunity with a huge payoff and upside for the Packers.

If people are blaming Gute for the situation to be where it currently is, I can only imagine how much blame they would be throwing on him, if a year from now the Packers are Rodgerless (retired), Adamless and only holding a #97 pick in the 2023 draft.

 

[El Guapo]

If there is one thing that gives me confidence in a season without Rodgers, it's that LeFleur's offense doesn't necessarily need an elite QB. If McCarthy was still running the show and we lost Rodgers, it would be ugly. Right now we have a good running game and an offensive scheme that keeps defenses' on their toes. Rodgers absolutely makes it better, but a lesser QB should have better success in LeFleur's system than most others.

Let's hope it doesn't go that way, but if it does, we have that going for us.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If there is one thing that gives me confidence in a season without Rodgers, it's that LeFleur's offense doesn't necessarily need an elite QB. If McCarthy was still running the show and we lost Rodgers, it would be ugly. Right now we have a good running game and an offensive scheme that keeps defenses' on their toes. Rodgers absolutely makes it better, but a lesser QB should have better success in LeFleur's system than most others.

Let's hope it doesn't go that way, but if it does, we have that going for us.

While I agree with you that MLF's offense is probably a better one to have to have a below average QB running, I don't think it or the other 10 pieces are great enough to overcome the loss of a FHOF QB running it. Will it look like the Mike McCarthy Hundley run disaster? I hope not and doubt it, but it will be a far cry from last years offense IMO. Besides the direct benefits that we see as a result of Rodgers skills, give defenses the opportunity to worry a lot less about the QB and concentrate on the rest of the offense and I predict less of just about everything by the Packer offense.

 

[Krabs]

If you’ve got a problem? Quit. Put your cleats up here on the desk and there’s the door. But if you’re personal desires have now risen above what’s best for our team and our family? Then you need to go find another team where players run the show. Meeting Adjourned. The tubs for your equipment and door to our left are for the quitters.

Overall, it's a great message. It speaks more to armature level sports these days though. We live in the salary cap era where guaranteed contracts and dead money against a team come into play. It theory a coach could say "hit the bricks". However, in Rodgers case it would cripple their cap more than it already is and pretty much devastate the team. Players do have leverage these days. In his specific case they could dig their heals in and just force him to retire. One could play it this way in specifics with the WR's though. There would still be salary cap ramifications, but not like with Rodgers. Regardless, I think old school talk like this is over.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Overall, it's a great message. It speaks more to armature level sports these days though. We live in the salary cap era where guaranteed contracts and dead money against a team come into play. .....I think old school talk like this is over.

Great points and I agree. However, they still call it a team sport and players seem to say that "its not about me, its about the team". If it ever got out that it no longer is about the team, but about the needs of the individual player, it might ruin the game. In Rodgers situation, it might come off to the casual fan as "Jesus Packers, do what is right and give this guy what he wants, we are nothing without him!". While I agree that our wins and losses will take a ding without Rodgers, you still have to view this as a team sport and if you cave to one player, who really does not appear to have what is best for the team at the front of this, then you go down a slippery path.

I also don't agree that Rodgers has the Packers over a barrel in regards to the cap hit either. If they trade him, they split up the dead cap over the next 2 seasons. Which if I did my math correct is currently at $31.556 M...so $15.778/season. Painful, but considering the Cap Hit on them this season with him playing is $37.202 M if he plays and next year $39.852 M it isn't that bad.

Also, if he refuses to play/retires, they should only have to account for the scheduled dead cap hits during the time it takes for him to declare he is done with football, thus not paying his salary, roster bonuses or workout bonuses.

In short, the Packers still have Rodgers over a pretty decent size barrel.

 

[Half Empty]

This.

As hard as it is to think about if Rodgers doesn't play we gotta send them both out. Ideally to an AFC team (Oakland, Denver) who in return gives us probably the biggest haul of picks and players in NFL history.

Wow. Before we start listing the blockbuster trades of the past, what do you think the haul for this one is, so we can legitimately slot it?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Team Unity and Building on display at OTA's!

So good seeing the WR group looking so happy together.....oh wait.....that isn't any of them, they are all off doing more important things.

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

 

[tynimiller]

Team Unity and Building on display at OTA's!

So good seeing the WR group looking so happy together.....oh wait.....that isn't any of them, they are all off doing more important things.

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

This is my favorite entire RB group we've had in camp ever honestly. That #3 and #4 spot going to be a DOG FIGHT!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This is my favorite entire RB group we've had in camp ever honestly. That #3 and #4 spot going to be a DOG FIGHT!

I really do too. Obviously I love Jones, I think Dillon could be a stud, but the guy I am possibly most excited about is Kylin Hill. Not sure how this guy was still around in the 7th round, but he could be an absolute steal. His Junior year had him listed as a candidate for the Doak Walker award and had he not gotten a new pass happy coach and opted out of his senior season 3 games in, who knows! But his junior stats were this and his film is fun to watch too:

13 games
242 carries
1350 yards
5.6 yds/carry
10 TDS
18 rec.
180 yds.
1 TD

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Wow. Before we start listing the blockbuster trades of the past, what do you think the haul for this one is, so we can legitimately slot it?

I think a trade to either Denver or Oakland will include 6-7 picks, likely three firsts and three seconds - the precedent of course is the Herschel Walker trade. Jerry Jeudy, or Ruggs would come our way. Probably their incumbent QB and a defensive star either at DL or ILB and maybe a second WR (?Hamler? Renfrow?). Adams and Rodgers would go their way plus maybe another WR like Lazard as a throw in. To me a deal like that with contract negotiations/extensions, etc. could be win win. Which ever team gets ARod gets his favorite weapon, and we get ample ammo to build a contender by the time Rodgers hangs up the cleats in a couple years. I don't think he's playing past 40 years old.

 

[Sanguine camper]

This.

As hard as it is to think about if Rodgers doesn't play we gotta send them both out. Ideally to an AFC team (Oakland, Denver) who in return gives us probably the biggest haul of picks and players in NFL history.

Those picks that would come in a trade(s) would come at the end of the round so they wouldn't be as valuable as they may appear to be. The real valuable draft picks would be the Packers'. Without Rodgers and perhaps Adam's, a top five pick in each round would be likely. Trading Rodgers for draft picks isn't what its cracked up to be. While they aren't chicken scratch, end of the round picks won't get you that elite qb, pass rusher or LT.

 

[OldSchool101]

Those picks that would come in a trade(s) would come at the end of the round so they wouldn't be as valuable as they may appear to be. The real valuable draft picks would be the Packers'. Without Rodgers and perhaps Adam's, a top five pick in each round would be likely. Trading Rodgers for draft picks isn't what its cracked up to be. While they aren't chicken scratch, end of the round picks won't get you that elite qb, pass rusher or LT.

I think it’s presumptuous to say GB will be bottom 5 AND a trade team will be top 5 year 1. The odds of that would be very, very weak odds to an objective sports analyst. I’d say 13:1 odds
Denver won 5 games and they’ll instantly be 12-4 or 13-3? Cmon they’ll likely lose 1-2 against KC alone

Get me BOTH Packers bottom 10 Trade partner top 10? and we’re an unlikely:likely 5:2 odds

I think fans are underestimating the other talent on this Roster and the ability of this staff to put us in favorable matchups. GB could easily go .500 without Rodgers in year 1

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think a trade to either Denver or Oakland will include 6-7 picks, likely three firsts and three seconds - the precedent of course is the Herschel Walker trade. Jerry Jeudy, or Ruggs would come our way. Probably their incumbent QB and a defensive star either at DL or ILB and maybe a second WR (?Hamler? Renfrow?). Adams and Rodgers would go their way plus maybe another WR like Lazard as a throw in. To me a deal like that with contract negotiations/extensions, etc. could be win win. Which ever team gets ARod gets his favorite weapon, and we get ample ammo to build a contender by the time Rodgers hangs up the cleats in a couple years. I don't think he's playing past 40 years old.

While I would love that type of compensation, I doubt we could convince one team to fork over that much for 2 players, even 2 players as good as Adams and Rodgers. Might be just too much for 1 team to afford. Send Rodgers to Vegas and Adams to Denver.

 

[OldSchool101]

While I would love that type of compensation, I doubt we could convince one team to fork over that much for 2 players, even 2 players as good as Adams and Rodgers. Might be just too much for 1 team to afford. Send Rodgers to Vegas and Adams to Denver.

I agree. Rodgers could get a couple future 1sts and future day 2 selections. That’s about it. If they gave us a high level player they’d likely want someone decent in return or they’d drop 1 of those day 2 selections etc..
I’d say a
2022 1st+2nd
2023 1st+(3rd or player trade in lieu)

 

[gopkrs]

Probably their incumbent QB and

I don't want another teams incumbent QB. I'll go with the big haul minus that position and roll the dice.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't want another teams incumbent QB. I'll go with the big haul minus that position and roll the dice.

Agree. If a QB is of such little value to another team that he is a thrown in trade piece, why would we want him and what could be a decent sized salary. Not to mention the goal, at least for now, is to give Jordan Love a shot at eventually be the starter. I'd prefer an additional pick over a QB.

 

[OldSchool101]

Agree. If a QB is of such little value to another team that he is a thrown in trade piece, why would we want him and what could be a decent sized salary. Not to mention the goal, at least for now, is to give Jordan Love a shot at eventually be the starter. I'd prefer an additional pick over a QB.

I could see using 1 of our 2022 extra selections (day 2 etc..) to beef up our QB room depth.

 

[OldSchool101]

I don't want another teams incumbent QB. I'll go with the big haul minus that position and roll the dice.

I agree. We’d already have a low end #1 QB + Jordan (unknown with high upside) After that we just need a good developmental QB

 

[GreenNGold_81]

I don't want another teams incumbent QB. I'll go with the big haul minus that position and roll the dice.

Nor do I, but from a salary perspective at least with Oakland, they'd have to trade away Carr because he makes a good chunk of dough.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

I agree. Rodgers could get a couple future 1sts and future day 2 selections. That’s about it. If they gave us a high level player they’d likely want someone decent in return or they’d drop 1 of those day 2 selections etc..
I’d say a
2022 1st+2nd
2023 1st+(3rd or player trade in lieu)

That's little more than LA traded for Stafford isn't it. It'd have to be much more for the MVP.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Nor do I, but from a salary perspective at least with Oakland, they'd have to trade away Carr because he makes a good chunk of dough.

Let them trade Carr to Minnashitty for 3 first rounders and we will take 2 of those too.

 

[OldSchool101]

That's little more than LA traded for Stafford isn't it. It'd have to be much more for the MVP.

I’m also considering a monetary aspect though with
Rodgers remaining 3 years X 105mil
(35+ annual)
Stafford remaining is a 2yr X 43mil
(21.5 annual)

There’s an offset of $ Capital to Draft Capital. Rodgers IS better..but that’s about 13.5mil annual less for Stafford.

 

[Schultz]

But Stafford asked to be traded........................oh wait.....................never mind