Packer 2021 Team Discussion (Rodgers Out Vs. Chiefs)

[GAME05]

Even minus the hometown fan in me as well as that Watt has been such a hugely positive community member, he'd be such a great addition to the team. A stronger pass rush would afford the Packers a better opportunity to go with a younger guy at CB to replace King.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Watt just makes sense for the Packers and vice versa. It makes so much sense that I've already prepared myself for the disappointment when it doesn't happen.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I hope that Packers are taking the marketing opportunities they would have with Watt on the team into account as well. Watt's #99 Packers jersey would immediately become the top selling jersey in the NFL. After a year of major financial hits to the franchise, I don't think that is an insignificant factor.

[SeaBass]

Yeah I think Watt immediately jumps to 2nd most popular Packer with fans the moment he signs. For many he will be #1. Clay Matthews was hugely popular here, Watt eclipses him easily.

[CheezWizHed]

I'm not sure how much jersey sales would compare to his salary, though...

 

Certainly our D would benefit from a legit DE (3-4 DE, not a Reggie White DE - sorry couldn't resist...) next to Clark. Both pass rush and run D. But I get the feeling that his role as a leader could equally benefit the team. Charles Woodson, Reggie White, Brett Favre, Leroy Butler... they were all leaders that held people accountable. I'm not sure we have anyone on this team that does that. For all of Rodger's positives, he has admitted to being more introverted when it comes to leadership.

[PeaveyFury]

I'm not sure how much jersey sales would compare to his salary, though...

 

Certainly our D would benefit from a legit DE (3-4 DE, not a Reggie White DE - sorry couldn't resist...) next to Clark.

 

Since yesterday I’ve been dreaming about a Watt-Clark-Short line, with Keke rotating in. Might be the best front we’d have had since White-Dotson-Brown-Jones.

[nate82]

Apparently Watt is seriously considering the Browns?

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/02/16/report-j-j-watt-seriously-considering-browns/?utm_tags=nbcsemail1001&mi_u=443677C2-DBB5-41EE-9C5D-94AACD3A61B4

[PeaveyFury]

I expect about 31 more 'Watt is seriously considering...' stories over the next month. Well, maybe 30. Sorry Jets.

[pacopete4]

If he does a money grab, I don't want to see any more iPhone videos sobbing and whining.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Apparently Watt is seriously considering the Browns?

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/02/16/report-j-j-watt-seriously-considering-browns/?utm_tags=nbcsemail1001&mi_u=443677C2-DBB5-41EE-9C5D-94AACD3A61B4

 

Not too shocking. They have money, he would form a nice tandem with Garrettt and they are certainly up and coming. Lots of talent and ready to take another step up with Pitt probably taking a step back. He'd get to play his brothers twice a year too.

[tmwiese55]

Browns are a legit contender too. If they stick to ground and pound vs KC they might've won that game, and don't forget the goalline fumble through the end zone that flipped the game a bit too.

 

If I'm Watt and picking purely on 'contender-ness' though I'm generally going to lean heavily towards the NFC just to avoid KC until you have to play them and hope someone else knocks them off.

[HiAndTight]

Every time I see any article about the Packers it's the same "they have serious cap issues" and I want to just start banging my head on the keyboard. That issue is being waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overblown. There are a handful of obvious moves to make cap space. Then there are the ones they clearly have a plan for that nobody else has thought of.

 

I think this is true, though I think it's important to push back on both extreme viewpoints on this as I've done in this thread/discussions on their cap. It's irresponsible for journalists to say that the Packers are in some sort of devastatingly insurmountable cap mess, as Herman did over the weekend. That's blatantly false. Things looked much bleaker when they were looking at $176, but now that the expectations are for mid-$180s or up to $196m, the Packers have a workable situation. I get that writers can only write so many 'should the Packers sign JJ Watt?' articles right now, so I'm not surprised that some are choosing to make this a story to fill space...

 

Still, the 'There are no problems, they can just kick the can down the road a few years' folks are equally wrong. The Packers' cap situation is probably the worst it's been in over 15 years (which is a testament to the skill of the Russ Balls of the world in and of itself). It's not Thompson having to move on from 3 All-Pro caliber players as he had to in 2005 level bad, but the Packers are almost certainly going to have to A)cut a couple of guys like Smith/Wagner that are productive players that are scheduled to start on week 1, and B)involuntarily let the bulk of their UFAs walk without much chance to retain them. That's something they really haven't had to do.

 

But, as it has been clearly noted, they've got plenty of ability to both get under the cap and free up the ability to do a few things with the roster, and that's something that teams like New Orleans don't have the ability/flexibility to do. Add in the teams that have room but need to add a QB, and you end up with a lot of teams with issues.

 

 

The Cap is the worst it's been in for 15 years because the Packers were very conservative under Thompson. That and...obviously Covid, which has put most contenders in a similar situation.

There are no problems, they can just kick the can down the road a few years' folks are equally wrong.

 

 

Isn't this you pushing back against a non-existent viewpoint? They certainly CAN kicks their problems down the road to a degree, and they should, but I don't recall anyone saying there were no problems. I've been arguing all year that it's unlikely the cap would actually be the lowest possible number, which was the cap floor that they set before the season.

 

Now there are people around the league suggesting they'll try and spread the hit over the next two years and the cap could be 200 or 201 million this off-season.

 

And yet I certainly never said there were no problems. I believe this started with the "there is no chance the Packers can re-sign Jones," argument that was made after the Bahk extension and went from there.

The whole point was always the "Packers are in cap hell," or, "the Packers are 20 million over the cap," talking points have been wrong.

 

As for letting the "bulk" of their FA's go, again, that's another part that's largely ignored in these discussions. The Packers have relatively few URFA's relative to most other teams. And they've got very good replacements in-house. They drafted a RB who looks very good, not to mention RB's are often the most capable of producing early in their careers.

 

So they might lose Linsley and Jones, but they drafted three interior OL last year, one of whom was projected to go much higher before tearing his ACL and basically treated last year as a redshirt type year. They also have an elite center on the roster in Jenkins.

 

 

Speaking of New Orleans though...they're an obvious outlier. The victim of very bad timing with the Cap not going up nearly as much as it was expected to next year, and they were probably the most aggressive team in the NFL the past couple seasons. This past year they tried trading a 2nd round pick to have another team sign Clowney to a contract and then pay him his signing bonus. They've added players all over the place in an attempt to get Brees another ring.

 

That's an extreme example of how you can push your hits down the road(but it can be done). Even then, they'll go through one year of cap hell, again, in part due to a fluke circumstance, but after that, they'll be in good shape with a lot of young talent on the roster. They could even trade Ramcykz and Lattimore and probably add 3 1sts, + and go through a very quick mini-rebuild.

 

I don't think anyone's even suggesting the Packers act like the Saints. The argument has merely been, they'll be able to create cap room and now, in the twilight of Rodgers career, is the time for the organization to be more aggressive. Which it sounds like they're planning on being.

[HiAndTight]

Why is it that Carson Wentz is seen as some valuable potentially franchise changing quarterback and Jared Goff was seen as some junk to throw in to get Matthew Stafford?

 

 

Wentz has played at a MUCH higher level in the NFL than Goff. Goff played in a QB friendly system with a loaded group of WR'ers.

 

Wentz has had next to no help and he'd still been very good up until this past year.

 

I don't think Wentz is a top 10 or maybe even a top 15 QB right now, but it makes sense to me why teams would think they can fix him. And I SOOO hope the Bears are one of those teams. To see them go all in on Trubisky and then trade for Wentz, I'd be feeling pretty good about those two games.

[HiAndTight]

Well, certainly he isn't a 250-280lb edge rusher that gets the EDGE title today. But he was a 4-3 DE and threw RTs around like rag dolls for a living. I don't recall him rushing inside (over G or C) very often at all. Seems odd to relabel him a DT when he didn't play there.

 

Donaldson isn't a bad comparison for talent but their games and styles were very different.

 

It was just different times. Barely any team plays a base 4-3 anymore. Most teams are in sub packages all the time, with stand-up edge rushers. I don't know if there is any edge rusher who regularly puts his hand on the ground. Za'Darius at times I suppose. If Reggie played in today's NFL, he'd likely be a 3-technique DL in the JJ Watt mold.

 

 

Reggie would probably be a 3 like Watt was, but I think a closer comp would be Myles Garrett. We tend to remember Reggie with a little belly, but coming out of UT, he was a freak who ran a ~4.6 40.

 

He was also long, strong and 6'5, so he moved all over our line, but he was primarily a DE.

 

Philly Reggie though, he could play DE in Cleveland or Tampa or he could play DE in any 3-4. He's arguably the greatest defensive player of all time. JJ Watt if he stayed healthy is the closest comp to Reggie and Reggie was more athletic than him.

 

As for Edge rushers who put their hand on the ground, there's still some. Watt is considered an "edge," though...I'm not sure why. But JPP, Mack does quite a bit, Myles Garrett.

 

 

I don't know, I'm just kinda skimming through this. Reggie White and Watt played the same position to me. Dominant, bad arse DL who could stop the run or the pass. The rest is really splitting hairs(though Reggie was a DE;)

[HiAndTight]

I think sometimes it's obvious but with Love there is just no way to know yet. You have to get him into a game situation. Alex Smith made a Pro Bowl and the Chiefs shipped him out, that's confidence in your guy. The Packers, too, knew in practice what Rodgers was capable of. The fans never really heard it, but after the fact, there are lots of stories of the receivers and coaches sometimes wondering if the best QB was starting.

 

 

It's kinda funny, I remember before the season Todd McShay was talking about how Wilson was really going to surprise people this year. He said he was a similar talent to Jordan Love, but in a better situation(remember Love lost his top 7 pass catchers and his entire OL after his Soph year and got his 3rd OC in 3 years).

 

In fact, I just looked back at this web site that takes all the mock drafts and prospect rankings and puts a "Surplus" value on a pick based on their overall rank.

 

The only two the Packers have picked recently who had positive rankings were Love, +12, which I guess means a lot of people/teams had him rated higher. And Gary was a +. Otherwise Savage was a -13, Jaire a -10, Jenkins a - as well.

 

It was on this site, but I couldn't find the actual values for the Packers recent drafts. They did do a pretty damn good job.

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/nfl-draft/2020/grinding-mocks-meta-mock-draft

[PeaveyFury]

Isn't this you pushing back against a non-existent viewpoint?

 

Non existent where? Here? No one has suggested this here recently, though it has been suggested in the past. But it's literally all over twitter.

 

And yet I certainly never said there were no problems.

 

I never referenced you in my post, either directly or indirectly. Not sure why you appear to have taken my post as some sort of commentary on what you specifically have said previously.

[Outlander]

So much for the salary cap experts knowing the cap will be at $175 million next year, LOL. Will be at least $180 million but is not a final number and can only go up.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I got the sense the last time Gute spoke on it that he knew it wasn't going to be quite as low as everyone was saying.

[pacopete4]

The cap going down is a joke to me anyways. I get COVID but the NFL is still raking in the money.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I mean there was next to zero attendance. That matters, no matter what. Not even a preseason. And they still don't know for sure the fall will be like, so I get wanting to scale it back.

[pacopete4]

With the amount of money they've had come in over the years, I would have thought a salary cap freeze would be in order. Not go backward.

[adambr2]

I think the part the players might not be anticipating is that lower salary cap leads to lower salaries. Salaries almost have to be deflated for a year or two, you can't just defer everything or you'll have artificially high cap numbers in the future even for a "normal" cap.

 

There's a market of guys out there who are going to face a little bit of a "sticker shock" when it comes to their offers.

[Fear The Chorizo]

So much for the salary cap experts knowing the cap will be at $175 million next year, LOL. Will be at least $180 million but is not a final number and can only go up.

 

Everything points to the final number being between 180-185 million, which is still a significant reduction to last season and still a hurdle for many teams to work roster management around. It bumped up from 175M solely because they added a 17th game and are working on adding the TV money that would come from that.

 

Had they not agreed to initially set the 2021 floor to 175m last summer, last seasons revenues would have put the cap down to 160m.

 

Raising the floor now means a slower overall cap increase in future years when revenues do jump back up. This is good news, but not great news for the packers' manageable but tricky cap situation.

[HiAndTight]

 

Non existent where? Here? No one has suggested this here recently, though it has been suggested in the past. But it's literally all over twitter.

 

I assumed you meant on here. Otherwise, the pushing back is against what people somewhere are saying?

 

I never referenced you in my post, either directly or indirectly. Not sure why you appear to have taken my post as some sort of commentary on what you specifically have said previously.

 

I didn't. Again, when you take a long post and take one sentence, it can fit many different narratives.

 

Like most discussions, there's nuance involved. I said I believed they could push the problems down the road, but that I didn't think there were "no problems." I just haven't heard this narrative from really any Packers fans. It's possible I missed them, but the vast majority of fans seem to be in the "we're in cap hell," segment and have been stuck on the argument that the cap will be 175 all season(or at least most of it).

[HiAndTight]

So much for the salary cap experts knowing the cap will be at $175 million next year, LOL. Will be at least $180 million but is not a final number and can only go up.

 

 

It never made sense. They set the floor and it was taken for granted that was going to be the cap.

 

https://pressboltnews.com/nfl-wants-to-finalize-new-tv-deals-before-setting-2021-salary-cap-in-march/

 

Seems like we might have to wait a while for the final number. I'm also guessing the front office was concerned about a potential strike if the cap was going to go down given the number of big name vets that would have been cut if the cap would have dropped to 175.

 

But the TV money, the fact that it was expected to see a huge jump this year...which teams no doubt factored in, a 20 million dollar cut was highly unlikely.