What To Make Of Our WR No-Shows

[Pokerbrat2000]

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

I was talking more about the doubling up on Adams and Rodgers to the same team as well as getting a lot of picks and starters in exchange. It is probably fortuitous for the Packers that the Lions got that much for Stafford, because you are right, it might have set the bar and Rodgers obviously should command more. Keep in mind though that Stafford is 4+ years younger and I think probably comes with less baggage. I also think Stafford is a much better QB than he appeared to be while in Detroit. I am actually nervous about what the Rams will look like with him and all those weapons they have.

 

[Schultz]

If the QB is a throw in, meaning the trade stays the same they just need to throw him in for cap reasons, then take whoever it is (Carr, Mariota, Bridgewater or Lock) and after the first key injury to a contending teams QB you have a trade chip.
I also agree that if you were to trade both of them you send them to different teams. They are each worth a 2022 #1 and not many teams have 2 of those to give up. If you send them as a package you risk the pick being a bottom 8 pick. By splitting them my guess is a top 16 and a top 20 scenario.

 

[Schultz]

We all surmise either Denver or LV for Rodgers. The tricky part is just who could you get the most from for Adams. I need to think about this a bit but off the top of my head (BLT-TEN-INDY).

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If the QB is a throw in, meaning the trade stays the same they just need to throw him in for cap reasons, then take whoever it is (Carr, Mariota, Bridgewater or Lock) and after the first key injury to a contending teams QB you have a trade chip.

• Mariota has a no trade clause in his contract.
• Carr's contract is too pricey for a back-up (~$20M/year)
• Bridgewater would be "reasonable" at $4.25 M, but Broncos really tied up a lot of money in that guy for a 1 year deal ($11.5M)
• Lock might be the best choice of the 4. Cheap 2 years left on rookie deal and who knows, maybe he has something.

Out of those 4 guys, Carr would give the Packers the best chance of going to a SB, but I highly doubt he is good enough to get us there. So why pay that kind of salary, stunt Love's development, get a few extra wins and pick later in each round?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The tricky part is just who could you get the most from for Adams. I need to think about this a bit but off the top of my head (BLT-TEN-INDY).

Maybe Jacksonville wants to hand Lawrence a nice shiny new toy? I would love that, because I think the picks would be better picks. I think Lawrence is going to be really good, but year one is going to still be ugly for him and Jacksonville.

 

[Schultz]

Poker you have many a time pointed out to people that they did not comprehend your whole post based on their responses to you. I thought I was pretty clear that any of the 4 QBs that were thrown in a trade (please read my definition of a throw in) would be eventually traded away.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

We could all watch Cricket?

It`s too complicated game for you to enjoy.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Do NOT egg buggar bill and scotty on...bloody cricket...LOL

It`s an intelligent mans game, so there`s no chance for you

 

[Deleted member 6794]

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.

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.

I agree that it would be foolish not to trade Adams if it's obvious he doesn't plan on re-signing with the Packers after the upcoming season. I don't consider him not showing up for voluntary workouts as evidence for that to be certain by any means.

I was wrong about the front office being idiots because of not approching Rodgers about restructuring his contract. They made a huge mistake allowing it to get to a point where the quarterback is seriously considering not playing for the team anymore though.

As you said, this situation(s), albeit a forced opportunity, it could be an opportunity with a huge payoff and upside for the Packers.

It could end up with the Packers not being a playoff contender for the next decade as well though.

Right now we have a good running game and an offensive scheme that keeps defenses' on their toes.

I'm curious about how that running back performs once opponents don't have to primarily concentrate on containing Rodgers.

However, in Rodgers case it would cripple their cap more than it already is and pretty much devastate the team.

The Packers don't cripple their cap by trading Rodgers. They would have to deal with having a lot less talent at quarterback though.

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.

Just for the record, you forgot to account for the $6.8 million roster bonus Rodgers received in March. Theefore trading him would result in a total of $38.356 million of dead money counting against the cap.

Denver won 5 games and they’ll instantly be 12-4 or 13-3? Cmon they’ll likely lose 1-2 against KC alone

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

The Broncos would immediately become a playoff contender with the Rodgers, resulting in the picks acquired most likely being closer to the end of each round.

It's not realistic to expect the Packers to easily win half of their games without Rodgers.

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.

A team trading for Rodgers would have to pay him only $65.7 million ($21.9 million average) over the next three seasons under his current deal.

I am actually nervous about what the Rams will look like with him and all those weapons they have.

If the Packers trade Rodgers there's no reason to be worried about the Rams but rather staying ahead of the Lions.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Poker you have many a time pointed out to people that they did not comprehend your whole post based on their responses to you. I thought I was pretty clear that any of the 4 QBs that were thrown in a trade (please read my definition of a throw in) would be eventually traded away.

Well I am glad you are at least paying attention However, you brought up Mariota as a trade option, I felt you should know that he has a no trade clause in his contract. I understood your definition of throw in, but I don't consider the already cap strapped Packers taking on another teams cap burden, just to try and trade them later, a "throw in" maybe, but not something I would want to do.

 

[lambeaulambo]

oh bloody hell...

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

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I agree that it would be foolish not to trade Adams if it's obvious he doesn't plan on re-signing with the Packers after the upcoming season. I don't consider him not showing up for voluntary workouts as evidence for that to be certain by any means.

I think we finally agree While I also agree that Adams not showing up for OTA's isn't a deal breaker, I think its just another sign that you have to be aware of and brings us to the next point.

I was wrong about the front office being idiots because of not approching Rodgers about restructuring his contract. They made a huge mistake allowing it to get to a point where the quarterback is seriously considering not playing for the team anymore though.

May I frame that first part?

The second part you might be partially correct on, but I also think you and some others might be putting way to much blame on the FO. I think most are seeing both sides of this and seeing the fault of each along the way and how it built up to this. Not only do I not think it wasn't just one thing that lead to this, but it was a series of both sides making mistakes. Thus, the keeping an eye on Adams part.

Just for the record, you forgot to account for the $6.8 million roster bonus Rodgers received in March. Theefore trading him would result in a total of $38.356 million of dead money counting against the cap.

Thanks, I was doing the math and noticing I was missing ~$7M and wondering where it went That $6.8 M Roster bonus will be an interesting figure. I do think Rodgers keeps it and the Packers account for it if he plays, for any team. However, if he sits or retires, they may go after that, as well as some of his upfront money. Stay tuned.

If the Packers trade Rodgers there's no reason to be worried about the Rams but rather staying ahead of the Lions.

This is definitely something you and I agree upon, at least in Season 1 LAR (Life After Rodgers). However, I think MLF's offense and the Packer organization as a whole are better than that of Detroit's and several other teams, so I think while it will take some time, the Packers will recover from something that was inevitable anyway.

In typing all these things out, I think where many peoples philosophies differ on this is "Who is to blame?", "Could it have been prevented?" and "What will life look without Rodgers look like?" Personally, I think both sides need to take blame and learn from it. Maybe it could have been prevented, but history has shown that a lot of NFL Star QB's don't finish with the same team and finally we might be seeing "LAR" earlier than we expected, but I think this team is in better shape than I anticipated for that loss and the organization will bounce back.

 

[PikeBadger]

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.

Maybe for a 27 year old Rodgers. The current version? I’d be thrilled if we could 4 picks and a starter.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Maybe for a 27 year old Rodgers. The current version? I’d be thrilled if we could 4 picks and a starter.

I have to defend GreenNGold here, because I made the same mistake when I initially read his post. He was talking about what the Packers might get in a trade of both Rodgers AND Adams. While I think he might be hoping for too much from one team, maybe 2 separate trades could net that much.

I agree with you though, given Rodgers age and even some of the current sh*t floating around about his attitude, if he has to be traded, I would be thrilled with 4 high picks and a starter. Sure beats the nothing you get by forcing him to retire.

 

[gopkrs]

oh bloody hell...

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

Kind of what I see if I ever turn on soccer. Some action for the first 10% of the video...and then just kicking the ball around. I'll admit that I will watch European Cup, World Cup and the Olympics though.

 

[gopkrs]

Why all the talk of trading Adams? Because he is in a contract year? Because he didn't show for practice? Just an offshoot of the ARod fiasco? He has not said anything that I know of.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Why all the talk of trading Adams? Because he is in a contract year? Because he didn't show for practice? Just an offshoot of the ARod fiasco? He has not said anything that I know of.

You may have missed him saying this....

Davante Adams: Aaron Rodgers' future "potentially" could affect my future - ProFootballTalk (nbcsports.com)

If Rodgers is traded/retired and Adams has no intention of resigning with the Packers, it would be silly not to trade him while he has a ton of value. Otherwise, he plays one more Rodgerless season and walks, netting us a late 3rd round pick.

 

[Schultz]

Poker. No trade option. Everything that you, I and the others are discussing are options. Mariota's options would be back up to Rodgers (assuming they trade Carr ) or back up in GB with the chance of being the starter for a while which could improve his chances of regaining a starting spot somewhere else if he plays well.

 

[gopkrs]

You may have missed him saying this....

Davante Adams: Aaron Rodgers' future "potentially" could affect my future - ProFootballTalk (nbcsports.com)

If Rodgers is traded/retired and Adams has no intention of resigning with the Packers, it would be silly not to trade him while he has a ton of value. Otherwise, he plays one more Rodgerless season and walks, netting us a late 3rd round pick.

It's interesting that he says he supports his QB 100%. I would love to know exactly what he supports. Maybe it is just something to say. As to him not signing...I could see him demanding a trade. But I cannot see him playing w/o a contract. Just because that is dangerous for him. And I cannot see him sitting out and missing out on millions of dollars and still be in the same position next year.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It's interesting that he says he supports his QB 100%. I would love to know exactly what he supports. Maybe it is just something to say. As to him not signing...I could see him demanding a trade. But I cannot see him playing w/o a contract. Just because that is dangerous for him. And I cannot see him sitting out and missing out on millions of dollars and still be in the same position next year.

It's not really the fact that he supports Rodgers that concerns me, its that he said if Rodgers is gone, it would make him have to rethink what he wants to do. That is throwing up a pretty big yellow flag and makes me pause and say "you better make damn sure he wants to resign with the Packers or trade him."

He has a contract through the end of the season. Are you saying he would threaten to not honor his final year and sit out unless he has a new contract?

I have said it before, a trade could be very beneficial and lucrative for Adams, especially if Rodgers is gone. Since, a trade would no doubt require a new contract and instead of waiting a year, he gets all that guaranteed money up front and probably top 3 WR money to boot. Yes, he could get that from the Packers too, but he might have to wait, be paid on his current contract and risk a major injury. Also, a trade of Adams VS just him walking away at the end of the season, could be very lucrative for the Packers too.

 

[gopkrs]

He has a contract through the end of the season. Are you saying he would threaten to not honor his final year and sit out unless he has a new contract?

No, I was talking about if he demanded a trade. But he could also want a new contract. But you are correct in bringing up the point of not honoring his current contract. That last year has to be tough for a player like him with so much money involved.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Poker. No trade option. Everything that you, I and the others are discussing are options. Mariota's options would be back up to Rodgers (assuming they trade Carr ) or back up in GB with the chance of being the starter for a while which could improve his chances of regaining a starting spot somewhere else if he plays well.

Of course, but I was addressing your post about "throw in options" and including Mariota as one of them. Under the definition of what you define a throw in to be, I would say be careful, because Mariota would have to agree to 2 trades...first to the Packers and 2nd to another team. His agent/or Mariota put in that not often used clause for a reason.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

That last year has to be tough for a player like him with so much money involved.

I have more sympathy for rookies on a lower end contract, but I still think they should play out the contract. It's all part of the risk of the business and even if Adams broke his leg, he might lose some money, but he is still going to be paid a boat load of it. IF the status quo becomes players sitting out the final year of their contracts for fear of injury, I am probably done with Football.

I'm sure someone is going to say "Adams has nothing to prove, why shouldn't he wait it out and cash in?" Well, he needs to prove he isn't just in it for the money and he is a team player. Playing it safe, just for the money wouldn't be a team player IMO.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

It`s too complicated game for you to enjoy.

You say that like an insult but luckily I'm an American so I'll accept it.

 

[OldSchool101]

A team trading for Rodgers would have to pay him only $65.7 million ($21.9 million average) over the next three seasons under his current deal.

Doesn’t that depend on the newer rules in trade agreement? It’s my understanding they can negotiate cap vs draft selections. Meaning GB has the ability to eat the dead (such as if they feel they are in total rebuild and want maximum draft capital) or wash the sunk $ (if GB wants less draft capital in trade in order to balance their books/or sign/resign FA’s) with a team that has significant monetary capital available (or is coming up short in sufficient draft capital to make the deal).

Either way. Rodgers is older (less years) and has far more guaranteed if they ate the dead $ in both/any scenarios. So that would still be factored into any trade collateral comparison, regardless of which way they chose. The whole point being ... Rodgers is riskier/more expensive to take on than Stafford was.

I also definitely don’t think he’s going to bring us 3 1sts snd 3 2nds. That would be great. But I don’t see it