Packer 2021 Team Discussion (Rodgers Out Vs. Chiefs)

[adambr2]

 

Right, and they lost in the exact game they did the prior year. That's how it played out already.

 

I never said they weren't better. They were better, and they exceeded my expectations. Don't sit there and make me sound like some kind of simpleton who is saying they were the same just because they won 13 again and lost in the same game again.

 

I didn't call you a "simpleton" nor do I even know what that would mean in this context, but these were your words.

 

My point, again, wasn't that we didn't get better. I think Rodgers playing on an entirely different planet in '20 than '19 had a lot to do with it, but that's neither here nor there.. My point was that a little bit more aggressive of an offseason could have tilted things just enough in a close NFCCG to maybe we don't lose that game this time.

[SeaBass]

I think I lean more to "sometimes good teams lose" rather than "good teams lose because they didn't make enough moves."

 

Different sport but the same premise, the Dodgers and Yankees are going to outspend most other teams in the league year over year but chances are they're not going to win, or even make it to, the World Series every year. At some point you have to win with what you've got.

[adambr2]

I also want to be clear that I'm not saying this team CAN'T win the Super Bowl. I wish they'd do more to maximize their opportunities right now, that is all. I know there's a huge element of luck involved in getting there and I think they rely a little too much on Aaron Rodgers + luck when I think they could put a little more on our side of the scale.

 

This is my team and I will go into '21 with hope and excitement regardless but as with many decisions in professional sports there's always going to be things we feel could be done differently.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I think I lean more to "sometimes good teams lose" rather than "good teams lose because they didn't make enough moves."

 

Different sport but the same premise, the Dodgers and Yankees are going to outspend most other teams in the league year over year but chances are they're not going to win, or even make it to, the World Series every year. At some point you have to win with what you've got.

 

Precisely, and "bad luck" is not really accepted as the reason why, in sports or otherwise. When you objectively look at some of the Packers losses in years they came really close, it's hard to to explain it in any other way. When you force five TOs in the NFCCG, when you're ahead 12, with the ball, and 5 minutes left, you should win. The winning QB shouldn't be able to throw 3 INTs in the second half. All-Pro LTs don't typically tear their ACL...in practice.

 

Stuff just happens sometimes. To everybody, but it does truly seem to hit the Packers more than most.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

My point was that a little bit more aggressive of an offseason could have tilted things just enough in a close NFCCG to maybe we don't lose that game this time.

 

The issue with that approach, though, is that "on-paper" improvements are almost 100% hypothetical. That's why no one cares which team "won" March once the actual games begin in September. Sure, adding proven talent can help increase a team's odds to a point, but there's just too many variables that come into play to say definitively that the moves a team makes in March free agency can tilt a game that won't happen until next January.

[pacopete4]

I know there's a huge element of luck involved in getting there and I think they rely a little too much on Aaron Rodgers + luck when I think they could put a little more on our side of the scale.

 

This just isn't true and it really never has been. While Aaron Rodgers is great at football, he has PLENTY of talent around him which is a big reason for that MVP season.

 

Here is just from the offensive side of things so far:

-Resigned best LT in the game.

-Consistently have one of the best offensive lines in the NFL

-Have a top 3 WR, if not the best WR on their team, and probably will for years to come.

-Resign Jones who is one of the best backs in the NFL and fits our scheme perfectly.

-Put a 2nd round tendy on Rodgers best red zone target ensuring he will be a Packer.

-Invested in another stud RB to center around Rodgers in last year's draft who will now play a bigger role.

-Restructured Funchess to see if that is fit within what we already have at the WR position. I see MVS continuing to improve, Lazard doing what he does, etc...

 

I'm sure there is more to put in here but the Packers are consistently making some pretty smart moves and it is a big reason why they've won 13 games each in the past two seasons.

[PeaveyFury]

recent history we're unlikely to draft for instant impact.

 

Darnell Savage and Jaire Alexander say hey.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

recent history we're unlikely to draft for instant impact.

 

Darnell Savage and Jaire Alexander say hey.

 

Yeah, if there is one position where a rookie pick can make an almost immediate impact, it would be at DB, specifically at CB. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see them go CB in round 1.

 

In this case, the "recent history" he is referring to is likely the 2020 draft, or perhaps the Gary selection in 2019. But if they draft a CB in rounds 1 or 2 this year, I would expect that player to get substantial snaps.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I think his point there is fair. It would shock nobody if the Packers draft a WR or LT in the first round. It's just the sort of thing they've done plenty of.

[BillScottCanRake]

In the 11 seasons between 2010 and 2020, a conferences number 1 seed made the Super Bowl 12 times out of 22 chances, about 55% of the time. A number 1 seed won the Super Bowl in five of those games, or about 46% of the time.

 

In 6 games that involving disparate seeds, the lower seed is 5-1. In three games where a 1 seed played a 2-6 seed, the lower seeded team is 2-1.

 

About the only thing I can make of this chaos is:

• In most seasons, being a 1 seed means it is 50/50 you will make the Super Bowl.
  
• If you make the Super Bowl as a 1 seed, it is less than 50/50 you will win the Super Bowl.
  
• 4-6 seeds have won more Super Bowls (4) than 2 seeds (2)

 

Looking at the 10 best point differential seasons since 1970 (

), 8 made the Super Bowl, but only 5 won the Super Bowl, with Super Bowl XIX being between 6 and 10 on that list.

 

The only thing I can make of this is getting to the Super Bowl is really hard, and winning it is even harder. Some really good teams- five of the best ever by one metric- fail to win a Super Bowl. Every team has holes and has to deal with things outside of their control which make them vulnerable in a lose and your out playoff system. This huge variability makes it is a fine balance between "make the playoffs and anything can happen" and "go all in, screw the future".

[CheezWizHed]

A team with an average QB rarely wins the SB. A team with an average QB on a rookie contract rarely, rarely wins the SB.

 

Sorry, I must disagree. Just since 2000, you've got guys like Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Joe Flacco, and Nick Foles as average guys. and Russell Wilson/Patrick Maholmes on rookie contracts. That's six super Bowls of the last 21 or 30%.

 

There'll be a lot of debate about the level of play out of guys like Eli Manning or Roethlisberger, but they're NOT elite-level QBs, so that's another 4. Basically, 48%, or half of the recent Super Bowls have been won by either young QB's or non-elite level guys. It's all about the team you put around the guy most of the time, and being on a rookie contract gives you a better chance to put a championship-caliber team on the field.

 

Your group of QB that got you to 30% confuses me. Dilfer, Johnson, and Foles were all past their rookie contract and would be considered average QBs at best. Wilson and Maholmes were on rookie contracts and are HOF probable QBs. Flacco was a rookie and an average QB overall. So are you looking for inexpensive contracts here? You also missed 2x when Tom won on his rookie contract.

 

If you want to look at low cost QBs vs high cost, I think that comes down to 10 of 22 (Brady 2x, Rothlisberger, Wilson, E Manning, Mahomes, Flacco as rookies and Dilfer, Johnson, and Foles/Wencz as "inexpensive"). So that is 45%, which is still less likely than winning with a high priced, HOF level QB (55%).

 

I'd agree that neither Eli Manning or Ben are elite QBs, but that wasn't my qualifier. I had to draw a line and HOF (while not great) does show delineation of skill sets from other QBs; especially when compared to Foles, Johnson and Dilfer.

 

So I'll stick to my mantra - if you don't have a HOF level QB, go get one; if you have one, build around him as much as possible. Since dumping a HOF level QB in hopes that Love or some one else will reach that level (or just luck out...) seems like a foolish choice given how difficult it is to find excellent QBs.

 

BTW, the numbers came from one very boring day when I sat down and made a spreadsheet of the SB winning/losing QBs and looked up when they finished their rookie contracts, so I'm not just WAG-ing numbers.

[PeaveyFury]

I think his point there is fair. It would shock nobody if the Packers draft a WR or LT in the first round. It's just the sort of thing they've done plenty of.

 

I was responding to the idea that they don't draft for immediate impact, which has been incorrect with 2/4ths of our starting secondary in Gute's three drafts. But, if you'd like to argue that they may not draft a DB, of course that's fair.

[PeaveyFury]

Your group of QB that got you to 30% confuses me. Dilfer, Johnson, and Foles were all past their rookie contract and would be considered average QBs at best. Wilson and Maholmes were on rookie contracts and are HOF probable QBs. Flacco was a rookie and an average QB overall. So are you looking for inexpensive contracts here? You also missed 2x when Tom won on his rookie contract.

 

I was purely looking at 'QB talent level,' not contract status, so apologies for the confusion. Merely pointing out that the QBs were either A)Young and not established yet, or B)decidedly not elite.

 

And your response touches on the inevitable debate about whether guys like Eli or Big Ben are 'HOF caliber', or whether it's far too soon to call guys like Wilson or Maholmes "HOF Probable", of which I am firmly in the 'too soon' camp.

 

Simply put, 48% of the SB-winning QBs were not established as elite-level QBs, which I think directly proves the point that you truly CAN win a SB with a young or non-elite QB if the rest of the team is good.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I don't think the Packers are short-sighted to where they really draft for impact. I think they still mostly go after the best player, and sometimes that happens to be at a position they are bare and that player is making an impact because no one else is any good. It's why I never react very strongly to who they pick. I have no idea what their plans are for those guys. I don't have any problem with them taking a guy early to fill a hole a season or two later like they did with AJ Dillon. I liked that pick a lot, even though someone else could have, maybe, stepped in earlier. It's such a crapshoot of a process that I just don't get caught up on who they take.

[Fear The Chorizo]

recent history we're unlikely to draft for instant impact.

 

Darnell Savage and Jaire Alexander say hey.

 

Recent history actually says the Packers are very likely to draft for instant impact unless people need a rookie to have a pro bowl season under their belt before they are drafted. Jordan Love was the exception to this - kind of doubt GB picks another quarterback in round 1, and Gute's 1st-2nd round history since he's been GM is looking pretty solid in terms of picking good players capable of playing significant roles right away.

 

2020 - Love and Dillon, Deguara showed plenty as a 3rd rounder before injury - tough to gauge Love, but Dillon sure looks the part of being a good back

2019 - Gary, Savage, Jenkins - found 3 players all capable of being perennial pro bowlers in the top 44 picks, especially if Gary keeps developing.

2018 - Alexander, Josh Jackson (meh) - found an all pro corner in the middle of round 1 who's been a starter since the day he signed his first contract.

[CheezWizHed]

I think that King's resigning is a decent band-aid solution. With him and Sullivan (well, potentially) returning, it closes the glaring hole of a need. It is interesting that it levels the playing field a bit between which position is our greatest need:

CB: Jaire/King/Sullivan - Both King and Sullivan had down years compared to 2019, so there is some upside available, but precious little in depth behind the three. Long term starter still needed

WR: Adams/MVS/Lazard - MVS and Lazard continued to develop (with another Lazard injury holding him back). MVS has high reward, but with high risk. Similar to CB, very little depth behind these three.

OT: Bahk/Turner/Nijman - If Bahk was healthy, there'd be less concern. But right now, we probably need a week 1 starter at Tackle. We could move Jenkins over, but that would just move a hole around. Again, depth is a need even if Bahk is healthy.

DE: Lowry/Keke - Lowry is solid if he gets decent play around him. Keke is coming on, but some questions remain about his run support or if he is more of a role player. Depth needed.

 

OT is probably the biggest need with Bahk's injury, but all four positions have average/below average starters that could be upgraded or at least first-level depth needed.

[adambr2]

I knew someone was going to bring up Alexander and Savage when I brought up instant impact, and I suppose that's fair.

 

I was referring more to drafting Love and Gary with their first pick the last couple years, which were obviously future guys rather than immediate impact. But yes, they've drafted guys that have contributed as rookies.

 

I still expect Kevin King to be starting on opening day.

[adambr2]

I know there's a huge element of luck involved in getting there and I think they rely a little too much on Aaron Rodgers + luck when I think they could put a little more on our side of the scale.

 

This just isn't true and it really never has been. While Aaron Rodgers is great at football, he has PLENTY of talent around him which is a big reason for that MVP season.

 

Here is just from the offensive side of things so far:

-Resigned best LT in the game.

-Consistently have one of the best offensive lines in the NFL

-Have a top 3 WR, if not the best WR on their team, and probably will for years to come.

-Resign Jones who is one of the best backs in the NFL and fits our scheme perfectly.

-Put a 2nd round tendy on Rodgers best red zone target ensuring he will be a Packer.

-Invested in another stud RB to center around Rodgers in last year's draft who will now play a bigger role.

-Restructured Funchess to see if that is fit within what we already have at the WR position. I see MVS continuing to improve, Lazard doing what he does, etc...

 

I'm sure there is more to put in here but the Packers are consistently making some pretty smart moves and it is a big reason why they've won 13 games each in the past two seasons.

 

I've never said they haven't had talent around Rodgers. I said there's been situations where they could been a little bit more aggressive in doing more in the short-term (like Tampa Bay did last year for example) and have actively chosen not to.

[homer]

Well, it's great news for Tom Brady and Scottie Miller, in any event.

 

There's no way you can convince me that Kevin King being our #2 in 2021, at any dollar amount, is a good thing. And make no mistake, he is our #2. I don't see us finding his replacement at #29 and judging by recent history we're unlikely to draft for instant impact.

 

That wasn't King's fault.

[PeaveyFury]

I guess I just don't know how fair it is to assume that he'll be the only option at CB 2. They'll likely draft someone at some point, and it remains to be seen if that person will start, or if it will be in that person's best interest to start. If his cap number is low, I don't think it excludes them from signing someone else if they want to.

 

It's also fair to wonder if a new scheme will help him, as it seems plausible.

 

And for the record, that's coming from me as someone who doesn't like King as a player. Or at least the King we've seen thus far.

[wildcat83]

I would be really curious to see the actual details of the contract. At $6 million it's a drastic overpay for King, but the ESPN story says "up to" $6 million. I'm guessing it's about a $2 million dollar contract with signing bonus and incentives to make the max potentially $6 million. That's a lot easier to stomach at a position that we needed depth at. They still probably need to add at least 1 and probably 2 more CB either in the draft or free agency.

[PeaveyFury]

I would be really curious to see the actual details of the contract. At $6 million it's a drastic overpay for King, but the ESPN story says "up to" $6 million. I'm guessing it's about a $2 million dollar contract with signing bonus and incentives to make the max potentially $6 million. That's a lot easier to stomach at a position that we needed depth at. They still probably need to add at least 1 and probably 2 more CB either in the draft or free agency.

 

I think you're going to be proven correct.

 

Between the Packers' typical secrecy and the ultra-off the beaten path ways they've manipulated the cap this off season, details have been slow coming. It took DAYS for the final Turner details to get reported for his restructure.

[OldHeidelberg]

LTBE incentives count against the cap so hopefully these are not them but he still hits them. They sure love their own players/draft picks, that doesn't seem to have changed under Gutes. I don't mind bringing him back, at least it is a position where we didn't have a replacement like we do with RB. But the $6 million amount floored me, hope it is about half that.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

LTBE incentives count against the cap so hopefully these are not them but he still hits them. They sure love their own players/draft picks, that doesn't seem to have changed under Gutes. I don't mind bringing him back, at least it is a position where we didn't have a replacement like we do with RB. But the $6 million amount floored me, hope it is about half that.

 

That $6 million number was likely a figure leaked by his agent, and would be the max he can make should every incentive be reached. Never believe the first contract number that is leaked this time of year.

[adambr2]

4M in incentives on a 2M base seems extreme. I would think he's getting at least double that with perhaps 2M in incentives, but I sure hope I'm wrong.