What does "All In" look like to you?

I am with you, other than preferring Mack as our edge addition, while realizing getting all of them may not be economically possible, nor may they all want to come here as opposed to somewhere else.

Well we have to stop trying to be the youngest team in the league and get some veteran leadership for one

balls deep

sorry, hit post too soon. 

Just pointing out Devante would help Love with deep balls

@YooperPackfan posted:

Well we have to stop trying to be the youngest team in the league and get some veteran leadership for one

i completely agree.  I am sure there are some younger guys such as Jacobs being leaders on the team, but I think it can never be overlooked having some seasoned vets around. 

There is a right and wrong time for going all in.  Got a good to great young  qb on  a rookie contract (Washington for example) mortgage the future, spend everything, take some chances.  In short go all in.  A team like NO or Vegas, nope, a slow build is required.

Once that qb gets to a big contract, money changes everything and options are somewhat limited.

Packers projected to have $49M in cap space...plenty of room to add some solid FA, re-sign wanted guys...if that number is closer to $10M when all is said and done this off-season...that's All-In for me.

https://www.acmepackingcompany...025-salary-cap-range

@"We"-Ka-Bong posted:

balls deep

Little Balls or Big Balls?

you've seen the pictures

@Chongo posted:

Packers projected to have $49M in cap space...plenty of room to add some solid FA, re-sign wanted guys...if that number is closer to $10M when all is said and done this off-season...that's All-In for me.

https://www.acmepackingcompany...025-salary-cap-range

And I think that is honestly the Packers version of all in.  Draft and develop talent, manage the cap well, and fill in roster gaps with FAs that make sense.  It may not be the most splashy way of doing things but that is how you manage things long term.

@Chongo posted:

Packers projected to have $49M in cap space...plenty of room to add some solid FA, re-sign wanted guys...if that number is closer to $10M when all is said and done this off-season...that's All-In for me.

https://www.acmepackingcompany...025-salary-cap-range

GB ranks 13th in the league as of now in cap space. They would add another 6-7 million by cutting or trading Alexander.

So agree, they have plenty of room to go on a shopping spree in FA and the cap was also much higher than initially anticipated.

So does mean a Josh Myers is now re-signed with the Packers and does not go way of John Runyan JR? The Packer way almost always is never to overpay. I don't think Myers would command an elite/great player salary because I don't think he's anywhere near that category.

But because GB has decent cap room doesn't mean they should go hog wild and overpay players IMO. And I can't see them doing that. But plenty of other teams and owners will do just that. I heard this morning the Pat's sit at 120mil in cap space.

Which is insane and no team ever wants to have that much to find talent.

@packerboi posted:

So does mean a Josh Myers is now re-signed with the Packers and does not go way of John Runyan JR? The Packer way almost always is never to overpay. I don't think Myers would command an elite/great player salary because I don't think he's anywhere near that category.

The fanboy media seems to think it's a forgone conclusion they move on from Myers...perhaps they think his injury is more problematic and they need to address OC1 more urgently...and as much as they are D&D, rookie centers are seldom the best scenario.

They'd likely need a veteran on some short term basis, unless the plan is to move EG there and play Morgan at LG or some such nonsensery...

Nobody seems to know what Monk's status is.  Pre and post draft discussion was he was the next C.  I have heard no updates on that prospect since then.

Sorry for thinking this way, but, I would gladly give up a few of those winning seasons we’ve had over the 30+ years and have a couple more Lombardis in our trophy case

Bring in Howie Roseman by any means necessary.  Have Big Balls help

@YooperPackfan posted:

Sorry for thinking this way, but, I would gladly give up a few of those winning seasons we’ve had over the 30+ years and have a couple more Lombardis in our trophy case

Oh don't be sorry for thinking that way.  I woud also trade a few seasons to win even one more SB in the last 30 years. 

@Chongo posted:

The fanboy media seems to think it's a forgone conclusion they move on from Myers...perhaps they think his injury is more problematic and they need to address OC1 more urgently...and as much as they are D&D, rookie centers are seldom the best scenario.

They'd likely need a veteran on some short term basis, unless the plan is to move EG there and play Morgan at LG or some such nonsensery...

How about playing Monk, at C? Is he ready for prime time?

Monk is a mystery. He was getting some First Team reps at guard in training camp https://www.si.com/nfl/packers...ng-camp-01j4t693yym5 and then must have fallen out of favor with the coaching staff since i don't think he was active for any game this season. Myers seems to be more highly thought of by the Packers organization that he is by anyone outside of it. last August Demovsky reported that people inside the organization believed that Zack Tom could be a hall-of-fame center https://packerswire.usatoday.c...potential-at-center/. The problem is that he is a pro bowl RT. If Jordan Morgan improves could they move him to RT and Tom to center?  

Tom only goes to Center IF they pay him Tackle money. He's an established good right tackle and would grudgingly resist a move to Center without tackle compensation. JMHO

That Monk couldn't get in the game after Myers got hurt is pretty damning...

I want too see what Hafley's version of 'hog wild' looks like on the D'Line.

@FLPACKER posted:

Monk is a mystery. He was getting some First Team reps at guard in training camp https://www.si.com/nfl/packers...ng-camp-01j4t693yym5 and then must have fallen out of favor with the coaching staff since i don't think he was active for any game this season. Myers seems to be more highly thought of by the Packers organization that he is by anyone outside of it. last August Demovsky reported that people inside the organization believed that Zack Tom could be a hall-of-fame center https://packerswire.usatoday.c...potential-at-center/. The problem is that he is a pro bowl RT. If Jordan Morgan improves could they move him to RT and Tom to center?  

I saw Monk prepping to come into a game, last season. It may have been the Eagles playoff game, or the 2nd Lions' game, but I'm not sure. He never saw the field, though, but he was snapping the ball, on the sideline.

Really damning that he was getting starting reps at guard in training camp and ended up with both Glover and Telford ahead of him.

Yeah...we saw that Glover and Telford were not NFL centers. You just never know until the bullets are real. Sometimes you get Zach Tom, sometimes you get Jason Spriggs.

@YooperPackfan posted:

Sorry for thinking this way, but, I would gladly give up a few of those winning seasons we’ve had over the 30+ years and have a couple more Lombardis in our trophy case

I would give up a lot more than a few winning seasons to have even one more Lombardi.

I was getting at that there’s some people on here that would rather have the status quo of “winning” seasons than have a few more Lombardis, some have even insinuated that it’s the closest thing to a dynasty you can have this day and age. Dynasty is based on both winning and championships

I've never liked the idea of going "all-in" because to me it means "please overpay and trade for aging vets who were good 2 years ago to produce slightly better than younger players we already have". I just prefer draft and develop for the core of the team and use free agency/trades for major holes that need to be filled. Like last season was perfect - drafted and provided opportunities to a number of young guys but filled major holes at S and RB in free agency.

This offseason I'd like to see them get a legit #1 WR in free agency/trade, and a solid day 2 guy on the OL and DL then draft to fill the roster. But I don't think that's going all in.

All in just isn't in Packers DNA.

And that’s why we only had 3 SB  appearances with 30+ years of HOF QB play

@lovepack posted:

All in just isn't in Packers DNA.

For those of us old enough to remember Ron Wolf trading a 1st round pick for a QB few were familiar with, signing perhaps the biggest free agent ever to lead the defense in Reggie White, signing other big-time free agents like Santana Dotson and Sean Jones, trading a 2nd round pick for TE Keith Jackson, making lesser-remembered signings of guys like Don Beebe and Eugene Robinson and having a willingness to add vets like Andre Rison, Bruce Wilkerson, and Seth Joyner when a need on the roster arose, the notion of the Packers going all-in is not that far-fetched.

However, Wolf stopped being the GM 25 years ago and the current GM, like his mentor, seems wedded to the idea of staying young and remaining competitive above all else.

Have the Packers traded a single pick in rounds 1-5 for a player on another team over the last 20+ years? Can’t recall one.

Compare that to the last 4 Super Bowl winners that all traded away 1st round picks for players (and the Rams & Chiefs traded away multiple 1st round picks) on their way to the Lombardi trophy.

Pretty strong evidence in support of your assertion that going all in is just not in the DNA of the Pack under its current management.

GB currently has the 8th best odds to win the 2025 SB and, as others have noted, that seems to be perfectly fine for management and that portion of the fan base that doesn’t think that just 1 SB appearance this century (and none over the past 14 years) is that big of a deal.

Exactly. Something about draft capital just turns their stomachs..we could've spent several first round picks without losing a thing, but haven't.

Just keep pressing that EASY Button. It's so easy to be a Monday morning armchair GM.

I don't think you can throw a blanket statement on "all in". There are too many outliers, probably most specifically the culture and stability of the organization's hierarchy, quality of coaches, surrounding team, etc. I can remember a lot of years when teams like Washington appeared to be "all in" under Daniel Synder and we know how that worked out, since by all appearances that organization was a shit show behind the scenes. Conversely,  I think the LA Rams would have seemed to go "all in" with the trade for Stafford and subsequent FA signings. I think that's worked out pretty well for them because they appear to be a well ran organization with a good head coach and surrounding coaches to support him.

I think if you asked the Packers FO and MLF they'd say they've been "strategically all in" with the draft and develop philosophy overall running the show, and basically plugging in key FA signings here and there rather than building your team around them. Duh. I don't see this changing anytime soon, so I think that's what we're left with. It's all about how those in charge value the talent and ability of everyone from the coaches down to the players.

if you held my balls to the fire, I'd say I'll take the 2 rings so far in my lifetime with the way GB has run things, rather than the alternative. Look at the Milwaukee Bucks over the past few years since they won a Championship. How has that worked out for them? I'm all over the place, but you get my point.