That would be great, but I think Rodgers wants to get PAID. That talk about a 2 year 120 million extension, I believe it. He can't have his cake and eat it. Tommy boy has been taking 10 million less per year than the best QB contracts for as long as I can remember and it has served him well.
Why would they trade Love?
Because if you're committing to Rodgers 2 more years then Love's contract is over and he walks. His contract runs through '23 also with the 5th year option in '24. In this scenario we're committing to Rodgers through '25 then you're not taking the 5th year option and then you're just letting Love walk with no ROI.
I agree it's hard to imagine AR looking at this from a business perspective and seeing the benefit to him personally and possibly screwing with the QB market. To be fair though, and to your point about Brady, I think he's cashed in his final two years to the toon of $25M per year. He didn't quite give Tampa a discount although that's certainly lower than what we see from Mahomes, Watson, etc. I think it's a give and take, Rodgers gets a guaranteed bloated salary and bonus his final two years, GB gets some cap space early on. Something has to give if he wants GB to get him what he wants.
@H5 posted:Why would they trade Love?
All in means all in. The future doesn't matter. All assets to be focused on winning a Super Bowl in 2021/2022.
@Grave Digger posted:Because if you're committing to Rodgers 2 more years then Love's contract is over and he walks. His contract runs through '23 also with the 5th year option in '24. In this scenario we're committing to Rodgers through '25 then you're not taking the 5th year option and then you're just letting Love walk with no ROI.
I agree it's hard to imagine AR looking at this from a business perspective and seeing the benefit to him personally and possibly screwing with the QB market. To be fair though, and to your point about Brady, I think he's cashed in his final two years to the toon of $25M per year. He didn't quite give Tampa a discount although that's certainly lower than what we see from Mahomes, Watson, etc. I think it's a give and take, Rodgers gets a guaranteed bloated salary and bonus his final two years, GB gets some cap space early on. Something has to give if he wants GB to get him what he wants.
25 million a year is about 10 million less than other QB's are signing for. QB's who have not won 7 Super Bowls. He, absolutely, gave Tampa a discount.
Yes I agree, but it's not like $25M is nothing for a 43 year old QB. He's not clearing the way for Tampa to make unlimited move, he's still the top earner. QBs making $35 plus are a decade or more younger than him. He's making about what he should IMO.
@Grave Digger posted:Yes I agree, but it's not like $25M is nothing for a 43 year old QB. He's not clearing the way for Tampa to make unlimited move, he's still the top earner. QBs making $35 plus are a decade or more younger than him. He's making about what he should IMO.
Brady is obviously the most successful QB in terms of team success ever. This past year he had a LeBron James opportunity. In other words, he was a free agent that could pick his own team and the Patriots decided not to franchise tag him.
He got the opportunity to pick a team and probably as part of signing there got them to agree to go all-in. Trade a 4th round pick for a TE that had been retired. Bring a character risk (Antonio Brown) in that Brady wanted when they briefly played together in New England. Despite having a 43-year-old QB, the Bucs did not bother to try to draft a QB of the future. Every pick was one that theoretically could contribute immediately. He also walked into a situation with a team that had a bunch of high 1st round picks on the roster recently because they were terrible in some recent years.
Brady played well and enhanced his legacy. But there are several NFL QBs that would have done just as well there had they been able to leave their current teams with no compensation going back. Rodgers, Mahomes, Watson, and Wilson would have probably all won more games there than Brady given that the Arians system is really about throwing the ball aggressively downfield and they all have much stronger arms than Brady. You could make an argument that even guys like Stafford and Matt Ryan would have looked pretty good in that system.
What will be interesting is to see whether any other franchise QBs ever get to the point of having this type of no-strings-attached free agency. It's unlikely with the franchise tags, but it's already happened twice (Manning to the Broncos is the other). Imagine if Rodgers fails to renegotiate with the Packers after next year and they get forced to either take the huge cap (40 million) and keep him hit or waive him to not blow up the roster for the future. If he wanted to play hardball he could do it and then pick his team. Brady's success this year helps his leverage as no one will think that a 38 year old with a strong arm and much better athleticism will age worse than Brady.
@Goalline posted:All in means all in. The future doesn't matter. All assets to be focused on winning a Super Bowl in 2021/2022.
I like Tim Boyle but I'm guessing Love will be the back-up in '21, and he is probably a better option to bridge for a game or 3, even when all in.
@H5 posted:I like Tim Boyle but I'm guessing Love will be the back-up in '21, and he is probably a better option to bridge for a game or 3, even when all in.
Completely agree, but Rodgers doesn't seem to agree.
Personally, I think we will regret letting Jordan Love get away. I am that high on him.
I'm not sure Rodgers is thinking in those terms, or even cares about who the back-up is. If he is thinking about Love as an asset that could be moved to improve the team, what exactly do they get in return? We're supposing that Gutekunst trade Love and their #1 to move in the 1st for an impact player, or to trade for an existing impact player.
I just don't see them using Love in a trade scenario. Other options to me would be more picks or other players for a move up. More likely option is to sign a FA for an all-in move.
There is no way in hell Love is traded, but I think Rodgers would give him up for a 2 or a 3 if it brought him a potential star at WR.
If you commit to Rodgers for any amount of time beyond â23 then youâre moving Love and recouping some value or he walks away and you get no value. This time next year we will, because after â21 itâs more realistic to move on from Rodgers contract, either 1) trading Rodgers and preparing to start the Love era 2) committing to Rodgers long term and trading Love while his value is still high/heâs young or 3) committing to Rodgers through his contract and signaling we will pickup Loveâs 5th year as his first year starting. If they donât win a SB in â21 I honestly think Rodgers will request to mutually part ways and be traded to another contender. I think he wants to be here until he retires, but I think he wants that SB and wants to be with a FO he believes in.
2 year trial period coming for both Rodgers and Love.
@Goalline posted:There is no way in hell Love is traded, but I think Rodgers would give him up for a 2 or a 3 if it brought him a potential star at WR.
I think Rodgers would trade him for a star LB, CB, or DL. Or JJ Watt.
@Goalline posted:Completely agree, but Rodgers doesn't seem to agree.
Personally, I think we will regret letting Jordan Love get away. I am that high on him.
Based on what? I'm not being snarky, just curious. I haven't watched college highlights beyond little snippets.
Who thinks the Packers would/could trade Love for a star LB, CB, or DL - or JJ Watt?
Don't know the specifics, but I think it is possible for GB to restructure/extend Rodgers AND keep Love under contract beyond ARs deal. If, IF, they think or see that Love is the future post-AR, why not re-do his contract before he rookie deal ends? This could afford them the space to keep AR at a higher number, and back-load Love's deal after Rodgers retires. Could give them balance to commit to both.
@MichiganPacker2 posted:Based on what? I'm not being snarky, just curious. I haven't watched college highlights beyond little snippets.
I would be fine if you were being snarky. Isn't that just a sign of disapproval?
First of all, Love was awful his final season at Utah St. But then you find out he lost all his coaches, got thrown into a completely different system, and then lost all but one of his teammates. That's a lot for a young man to absorb.
Those new teammates? Baaad! Without Love last year they were 1-5. With him, they were 7-6. The offensive line? Horrendous! Love was abused every game. The receivers? Dropped balls GALORE. The QB's that replaced him? 6 TDs(yes, they averaged 1 a game) 5 picks. This was the case of NASCAR driver racing a Prius against other NASCAR drivers. He clearly pressed too much and threw a bunch of picks. Quite frankly, some of his decisions were baffling.
Contrast that with 2018 when he had competent coaches with talented teammates. His footwork was better, he was poised with more time in the pocket. He looked like a future NFL star.
With Love, no part of the field is safe for that defense. He can hit passes to any part of the field and his arm is so strong he can do it through ridiculously tight windows. He will stand up tall in the pocket and throw accurate shots with rushers in his face, yet he is a really good scrambler. He is not a running QB like some on this board seem to think. In fact, he is more disciplined in the pocker than AR12 was under MM.
Damn, Goalline, you almost have me! But I still can'get past the whole "body lean" thing! 
@H5 posted:Who thinks the Packers would/could trade Love for a star LB, CB, or DL - or JJ Watt?
Don't know the specifics, but I think it is possible for GB to restructure/extend Rodgers AND keep Love under contract beyond ARs deal. If, IF, they think or see that Love is the future post-AR, why not re-do his contract before he rookie deal ends? This could afford them the space to keep AR at a higher number, and back-load Love's deal after Rodgers retires. Could give them balance to commit to both.
The question is why would Love do this? He ostensibly wants to be a starting QB sooner than later, his value is nothing until he actually plays which won't happen while Rodgers is here. Best he can hope for is starting 4 preseason games and showing out. If GB extends Rodgers then Love will force his way out so he can start building a resume. I don't blame him, Rodgers was prepared to do the same thing if GB let Favre come back for '08.
@Maynard posted:Damn, Goalline, you almost have me! But I still can'get past the whole "body lean" thing!
Jordan Love has even better body lean.
I wouldn't extend Rodgers any longer than 2023 which will also be the prime years for Jones and Linsley if they are resigned. If we don't win a Super Bowl by then it ain't happening. With his announcement on the NFL Honors he may very well decide to hang it up sooner than he has said prior to his engagement. I'd hate to be on the hook for a shitload of dead cap if he suddenly retires. I hope he is being honest with the Pack on his future. The possibility of children could very well change his perspective.
@Goalline posted:All in means all in. The future doesn't matter. All assets to be focused on winning a Super Bowl in 2021/2022.
I think we forget sometimes this is still Green Bay. The only reason players want to play here is because the org has built a winning team for 30 years (two HoF QB's certainly help). Players aren't clamoring to live in GB. Mortgaging your entire future for 2 years means we're in cap hell, can't keep good players even if we drafted them, and certainly aren't going to sign FA's.
I think the front office fully understands GB is a small market and it needs to continually stay competitive to survive long term. And that means being able to pay players to stay or come in, when teams with cities that have more to offer are also competing for the same players. You can't do this if you bet the farm on a 2 year window.
Through this lens it entirely makes sense why they drafted Love and why they make the moves (or not) in FA. They need to always be planning for the future. And the team *was* good enough to win the SB this year.
Going all-in is no guarantee at a SB, but it is a guarantee of burying your franchise for a decade in a place that can't afford to do that.
Since 1992, Tampa Bay has had 10 winning seasons; 17 losing seasons; and won 2 superbowls. That includes losing seasons 8 out of the last 10 including this years Super Bowl.
Green Bay has had 23 winning seasons and 4 losing seasons and 2 superbowls.
which do you prefer? Iâll take being a contender every year with a chance to win.
@vitaflo posted:Mortgaging your entire future for 2 years means we're in cap hell, can't keep good players even if we drafted them, and certainly aren't going to sign FA's.
Going all-in is no guarantee at a SB, but it is a guarantee of burying your franchise for a decade in a place that can't afford to do that.
I guess it depends on your definitions. If success means winning seasons, sure... the Packers, Steelers, and Patriots are the kings of the hill in the NFL since 1990. If success means Lombardis, the Packers are in different company.
https://champsorchumps.us/reco...-nfl-wins-since-1990
But âgoing all inâ also needs to be defined, and it does not equate to âcap hellâ automatically. The idea of âgoing all inâ is about recognizing the window of the roster being championship caliber and maximizing it. It means using available cap space to fortify the roster with blue chip talent, or succeeding in acquiring talent through the draft despite the low draft position.
We all know the Packers could have done more on this front over the years. Too often they have chosen to take the cheaper route. Roster and coaching mistakes can be hidden quite well with a generational talent at QB...
The Steelers are almost identical to the Packers over the last 25 years or so. They made it to 2 more Superbowls than Green Bay, but win their division just about every year and usually make the playoffs just about every year. Theyâve also had plenty of playoff disappointments (like Green Bay) but overall have been very competitive and I wonder if their fan base reacts like some of us?
Is there a difference being in cap hell from making stupid moves and failing and being in cap hell after winning a SB or 2?
@PA green & gold posted:Since 1992, Tampa Bay has had 10 winning seasons; 17 losing seasons; and won 2 superbowls. That includes losing seasons 8 out of the last 10 including this years Super Bowl.
Green Bay has had 23 winning seasons and 4 losing seasons and 2 superbowls.which do you prefer? Iâll take being a contender every year with a chance to win.
Context matters.
In the 22 seasons of football so far this century, the Green Bay Packers have gone into every one of those seasons with either Brett Favre or Aaron Rodgers as the team's starting QBs.
In contrast, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers have started Shaun King, Brad Johnson, Brian Griese, Chris Simms, Jeff Garcia, Byron Leftwich, Josh Freeman, Josh McCown, Jameis Winston, and Tom Brady.
The South has represented the NFC in the Super Bowl 6 times this century (with all 4 franchises getting to at least 1 Super Bowl). In contrast, teams from the North represented the NFC just 2 times (the Vikings have not appeared in a SB in 45 seasons and the Lions have never been to one).
TB has appeared in and won 2 Super Bowls and GB has appeared in and won 1 Super Bowl this century.
If the goal of the Packer organization has been to consistently remain competitive and oftentimes win the less than stellar NFC North (11 times since 2000), then the team has been a smashing success this century.
However, if the goal of the Packer organization has been to play in and hopefully win Super Bowls this century given the Hall of Famers behind center each season then I'd reckon the team's performance has been something other than a smashing success -- and indisputably less successful than the Bucs.
@Music City posted:I guess it depends on your definitions. If success means winning seasons, sure... the Packers, Steelers, and Patriots are the kings of the hill in the NFL since 1990. If success means Lombardis, the Packers are in different company.
https://champsorchumps.us/reco...-nfl-wins-since-1990
But âgoing all inâ also needs to be defined, and it does not equate to âcap hellâ automatically. The idea of âgoing all inâ is about recognizing the window of the roster being championship caliber and maximizing it. It means using available cap space to fortify the roster with blue chip talent, or succeeding in acquiring talent through the draft despite the low draft position.
We all know the Packers could have done more on this front over the years. Too often they have chosen to take the cheaper route. Roster and coaching mistakes can be hidden quite well with a generational talent at QB...
Packers are in the same company as PIT, BAL, TAM, and SF and only 1 SB behind NYG, DEN, and DAL. Just because NE has had an entirely unique set up and run over the last 20 years does not mean everyone is behind. Their formula is HOF QB, HOF HC/GM. No one is replicating that and just because GB doesn't win like NE doesn't mean the system is wrong.
The key isn't blowing your wad on UFA's, it's drafting well, developing a talented core, and winning while those guys are on their rookie deals so you can add a Charles Woodson or Reggie White to your defense to put you over the top. GB stopped drafting well around 2012ish and, as we've just witnessed, adding high priced UFA's hasn't been the answer. Truly, Nick Perry, Datone Jones, Jerel Worthy, Damarious Randall, Quentin Rollins, Eddie Lacy and Casey Hayward should all be on their 2nd contracts and be the veteran core of our defense so that adding Z Smith, Gary, Savage, Amos, Kirksey, etc. put us over the top. The fact that ALL of those top 100 picks were wild busts, aside from Hayward who was just allowed to walk, is what has kept us out of the big show. It's not FO frugality or a poor strategy, it's simply only hitting on 30% of your top 100 picks for a decade (10 of 34 from 2007 to 2017).
Yes TB got tremendous production from UFA's, but draftees like Vea, Devin White, Carlton Davis, and Winfield were truly big keys to stopping the teams they stopped. I don't know what the ramifications will be for Tampa from all their UFA activity, they may have maneuvered smartly and protected themselves.
Digger,
I completely agree on your post. I think from a fans perspective many want our team to copy what TB did and go all in for the season.
But like you said it comes down to drafting well, developing players, and when its smart go get some free agents, and let player go one year early than one year too late.
To me Gute has done an amazing job at rebuilding this roster. Sure he has a ways to go and this off season will be challenging but the dude has been smart with how to build this team and I trust him.
"Going all in" means not pissing away raw "potential" picks in lieu of drafting contributors.
The narrative is stupid. The solution was obvious and it didn't involve scrapping the future.
Ted Thompson thought he was drafting contributors for a decade. No one drafts guys early who they believe won't contribute for 3 years, except when you're drafting a successor at QB and your QB has 3 years left on a contract. If you think a guy is Patrick Mahomes then fucking get him, whether he is or isn't is beside the point, it's not even a debate. Gute didn't pick him because he thinks he's good, he picked him because he thinks he's great. This guy has hedged his entire career on Jordan Love being the next great NFL QB, that's some heavy shit. His career as a GM is over, not just in GB but probably ever, if Love doesn't pan out. Nothing was scrapped, Gute believed (correctly) that he had already assembled a SB team.
@vitaflo posted:I think we forget sometimes this is still Green Bay. The only reason players want to play here is because the org has built a winning team for 30 years (two HoF QB's certainly help). Players aren't clamoring to live in GB. Mortgaging your entire future for 2 years means we're in cap hell, can't keep good players even if we drafted them, and certainly aren't going to sign FA's.
I think the front office fully understands GB is a small market and it needs to continually stay competitive to survive long term. And that means being able to pay players to stay or come in, when teams with cities that have more to offer are also competing for the same players. You can't do this if you bet the farm on a 2 year window.
Through this lens it entirely makes sense why they drafted Love and why they make the moves (or not) in FA. They need to always be planning for the future. And the team *was* good enough to win the SB this year.
Going all-in is no guarantee at a SB, but it is a guarantee of burying your franchise for a decade in a place that can't afford to do that.
The only arguments I see being made on X4 against Gute's approach is that the draft should be used to get players that can contribute now. AKA the Jordan Love pick.
I'd hardly call selecting a WR or ILB in that slot "mortgaging your entire future." The entire premise of your rebuttal is a strawman. I don't see anyone here saying we should throw caution to the wind. They are saying Jordan Love pick was too early and if you dive deeper, signing Lowry over a street Free Agent was a big mistake.
Gute went in raw, he went for it... He added all those FA's on defense. Then, mid stroke, he pulled out and put a condom on when he selected Love in round 1 instead of someone who could contribute to the 2020 and 2021 teams.
@Grave Digger posted:Nothing was scrapped, Gute believed (correctly) that he had already assembled a SB team.
This is such a key point. So much hand wringing about not picking this guy or that position, so little is mentioned about how Gutekunst gambled that his roster was good enough to get there, and he was right. They pissed it away, but he was right. 2 plays from the Superb Owl.
Shifting focus to 2021, they have a cap to clean up and then a few big decisions to make.
What's clear to me is that a team NEEDS a top tier QB to compete on a regular basis. Just look at the playoff teams. If the Packers think Love can be one of those guys, it would be foolish to trade him.
None of the 9 teams that passed on Mahomes was sitting with a young stud at QB. Hell, KC probably had the 2nd best QB in that top 10 with Alex Smith coming off a 12-4 season. But they decided Mahomes was too good to pass up. Tell me any wouldn't take a do-over for Patrick Mahomes.
@Grave Digger posted:Ted Thompson thought he was drafting contributors for a decade. No one drafts guys early who they believe won't contribute for 3 years, except when you're drafting a successor at QB and your QB has 3 years left on a contract. If you think a guy is Patrick Mahomes then fucking get him, whether he is or isn't is beside the point, it's not even a debate. Gute didn't pick him because he thinks he's good, he picked him because he thinks he's great. This guy has hedged his entire career on Jordan Love being the next great NFL QB, that's some heavy shit. His career as a GM is over, not just in GB but probably ever, if Love doesn't pan out. Nothing was scrapped, Gute believed (correctly) that he had already assembled a SB team.
He definitely hedged his career. Well, maybe not considering Murphy. Love isn't Rodgers coming out of college and he spent extra draft capital to get him.
The kicker is even the Love pick wouldn't be such an issue if Gunt picked a defensive player before the 4th round. Wait, 5th round.
I guess the other issue is did Gunt undervalue Tonyan that much coming into the season? I did but then my fortunes aren't riding on know what talent is on the Packers. They picked up a guy in Dafney that may legitimately stick at TE. 3rd rounder? I'm sure there was some defense there to get.
@Music City posted:This is such a key point. So much hand wringing about not picking this guy or that position, so little is mentioned about how Gutekunst gambled that his roster was good enough to get there, and he was right. They pissed it away, but he was right. 2 plays from the Superb Owl.
Shifting focus to 2021, they have a cap to clean up and then a few big decisions to make.
How was he right if they didn't win the NFCC to even make it to the Super Bowl?
Pretty sure that's the entire point.
If that's the standard then every GM since Favre through Rodgers has been 100% correct all the time.
The beauty of the draft is there are no sure things. I mean, itâs still a bit of a crapshoot. Some picks are more obvious and predictable than others.
The idea that had GB simply passed on Love and drafted someone in his place to automatically put us over the top is wishful thinking at best.
Iâd argue that drafting Love was the primary reason GB got within a play or two of the Super Bowl because it lit a fire under Rodgers ass and drove him to prove everyone wrong that he wasnât declining. I mean, heâs never played better than when he has a chip on his shoulder.
The failures of defensive draft picks from 2015-2017 to me are the #1 reason this team has come up short the last two years. They then had to invest additional draft capital on more defensive players or spend money in FA to close the gaps. Thatâs the reality.
@Tschmack posted:The beauty of the draft is there are no sure things. I mean, itâs still a bit of a crapshoot. Some picks are more obvious and predictable than others.
The idea that had GB simply passed on Love and drafted someone in his place to automatically put us over the top is wishful thinking at best.
Iâd argue that drafting Love was the primary reason GB got within a play or two of the Super Bowl because it lit a fire under Rodgers ass and drove him to prove everyone wrong that he wasnât declining. I mean, heâs never played better than when he has a chip on his shoulder.
LOL
The failures of defensive draft picks from 2015-2017 to me are the #1 reason this team has come up short the last two years. They then had to invest additional draft capital on more defensive players or spend money in FA to close the gaps. Thatâs the reality.
You guys understand the whole premise is Gunt should've at least tried? So any logic you use as to why that idea is "wishful thinking" can immediately be turned around on your arguments?
Real simple, he didn't even try because he believed the cavernous gap in the middle of the defense, which any fool could see, was good enough.
You want to know why I know this? Because they didn't win the NFCC let alone the Super Bowl.
This isn't a complex issue.
@Henry posted:He definitely hedged his career. Well, maybe not considering Murphy. Love isn't Rodgers coming out of college and he spent extra draft capital to get him.
The kicker is even the Love pick wouldn't be such an issue if Gunt picked a defensive player before the 4th round. Wait, 5th round.
I guess the other issue is did Gunt undervalue Tonyan that much coming into the season? I did but then my fortunes aren't riding on know what talent is on the Packers. They picked up a guy in Dafney that may legitimately stick at TE. 3rd rounder? I'm sure there was some defense there to get.
Love isn't Rodgers coming out, but neither was Josh Allen or Patrick Mahomes. He doesn't have to be to validate the pick. Rodgers was by no means a perfect prospect, he had his detractors and fortunately for us enough of the league felt he wasn't good enough to go before pick 24. We obviously know everyone was hilariously wrong and I'm not saying it's the same situation with Love, BUT I put some stock into a guy tying his career to a risky player. It makes me take a pause and wonder if this guy could actually be the real deal. The NFL is tough, it would have been easier for Gute to hitch his wagon to Rodgers and ride him until his arm falls off. Taking this course is harder on his reputation, his public image, and ultimately on his career. Hard to believe a guy would do that for a player he doesn't believe is special. He's not Rodgers, but I'm just going to throw a couple stat lines just for a comparison:
Final 3 years, 55%, 6431 yds., 37 TD, 21 INT, 78.88 rating
Final 3 years, 61%, 8600 yds., 60 TD, 29 INT, 92.01 rating
One of these was pick 33 in the '91 draft, one of these was pick 26 in the '20 draft. His coach didn't love him (for different reasons) and gave up on him after only a season. Have a field day with that.
Let me clarify. What was Rodgers biggest rap coming out of Cal? Tedford guy? Held the ball high? Was arrogant? It surely wasn't that he was one of the most accurate, efficient college QBs playing in a major conference. Something like a 70% completion rate?
Now tell me about Love. The guy is the epitome of "raw" and makes bad decisions when he isn't playing in a dumper offense where his receivers get a shit ton of YAC . . . in the MWC.
Love is Gunt's huckleberry. I can honestly say this without it being the weak dodge it normally is, I hope I'm wrong. Mostly because that is a hell of a hole to dig out of.
Just like Love isn't Rodgers coming out of college, Rodgers isn't Favre at the end of his career. MVP level QB who hasn't said shit about retiring.
Time to invest in the future!