Packers News, Transactions, Trades

[MVP2110]

Sounds like everyone is in attendance except for Robert Rochell. Kraft, Tom, & Oladapo are there but not practicing. Enagbare is practicing

[ReasonablySober]

Read on Twitter

[MVP2110]

Read on Twitter

?t=QsA6t9WoBhgNQUCVgIw_LA&s=19

[LatentFrog]

Does Gary look a little bit beefier, maybe for the switch to 4-3 DE?

[ReasonablySober]

The superlative: Team with the most inflated contract leak of the offseason

Part of being an agent in the modern NFL is sending generous contract terms to the media. In the NBA, it's difficult to be too misleading with contracts because a max deal is essentially a max deal. Unguaranteed money is the exception, not the rule. In the NFL, the opposite is true, which leads to some dramatic differences between initial reports on contracts and what actually plays out when the precise terms are reported.

The biggest gap between early reports and reality this year belonged to the Josh Jacobs deal with the Packers. Upon signing, the report was the running back had signed a four-year, $48 million contract to leave the Raiders and join Green Bay. And on paper, if he plays all four years, it is true he will make $48 million.

In reality, though? This is a one-year, $13.2 million contract, with the rest of the money unguaranteed. Jacobs could make about $1 million more this year in workout and roster bonuses, but a quarter of the money originally reported on this deal is actually guaranteed. Even by NFL standards, that's a dramatic outlier. This is basically a second franchise tag for Jacobs (who made $11.8 million on a deal based off the actual tag in 2023), just coming from another team and without the constraints of the real tag.


If anything, signing this four-year deal is worse for Jacobs than the one-year pact. Why? From the Packers' side, they're actually getting more leverage by doing this contract as opposed to a one-year deal. By signing him to a four-year pact in which the final three years are unguaranteed, they're essentially getting three unguaranteed options on the former first-round pick for 2025, 2026 and 2027. If he impresses in 2024, the Packers can re-up for one year and $8.2 million next year. If he's solid again in 2025, GM Brian Gutekunst can get another season at $11.5 million. Jacobs and his representation might want to get a new deal as opposed to these year-to-year pacts if he impresses, but Green Bay would hold the leverage in getting those deals done.

[coolhandluke121]

Does Gary look a little bit beefier, maybe for the switch to 4-3 DE?

He does. Given the way his play dropped off as soon as he got his extension, I'm more than a little concerned that it has a lot more to do with a decline in his training habits than any changes in scheme. We shall see I guess, but it doesn't look good IMO.

[LatentFrog]

Does Gary look a little bit beefier, maybe for the switch to 4-3 DE?

He does. Given the way his play dropped off as soon as he got his extension, I'm more than a little concerned that it has a lot more to do with a decline in his training habits than any changes in scheme. We shall see I guess, but it doesn't look good IMO.

I've never been concerned about his motivation. He was coming off an ACL last year so I didn't expect him to be 100%. It'll be interesting to see how he looks after TC.

[coolhandluke121]

Does Gary look a little bit beefier, maybe for the switch to 4-3 DE?

He does. Given the way his play dropped off as soon as he got his extension, I'm more than a little concerned that it has a lot more to do with a decline in his training habits than any changes in scheme. We shall see I guess, but it doesn't look good IMO.

I've never been concerned about his motivation. He was coming off an ACL last year so I didn't expect him to be 100%. It'll be interesting to see how he looks after TC.

But he looked better earlier in the season than later? I don't see how the ACL could explain that. Maybe because he couldn't work out as much in the summer and ran out of gas.

I hardly remember him making a single play in the second half. Granted, I'm sure he got more attention from blockers than most of the other guys, and it's possible his PFF was fine, but wasn't it like 0 sacks in the last 8 games for him? And his run defense was shaky as always.

Back to your original point, he does look bigger to me, but it doesn't look like muscle. I thought he was extremely tone and ripped last year, as usual. It looks like his body composition isn't as great, but he's got a lot of accessories and loose clothes in those photos so maybe it's my imagination.

[LatentFrog]

Agreed, looks like he's got a Preston Smith belly in those pics.

He had 3 sacks on Thanksgiving, but he definitely seemed more passive or in containment mode the last month. It'll be interesting to see how he does in Hafley's D.

[Finn]

Does Gary look a little bit beefier, maybe for the switch to 4-3 DE?

He does. Given the way his play dropped off as soon as he got his extension, I'm more than a little concerned that it has a lot more to do with a decline in his training habits than any changes in scheme. We shall see I guess, but it doesn't look good IMO.

I'm thinking it's his Samoan ancestry.

[Matches Malone]

Read on Twitter

[jakecronus8]

Read on Twitter

If he brings back The Samurai we stan.

[Reddeye]

https://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2024/05/22/packers-christian-watson-believes-he-has-found-cause-of-leg-injuries/73802710007/

[humanrefutation]

Read on Twitter

[MVP2110]

Read on Twitter

I know nothing when it comes to this stuff, does anyone know what a typical imbalance is? I seem some Twitter docs responding that this might not actually be the cause of hamstring issues and some who say this is massive.

[jakecronus8]

Read on Twitter

I know nothing when it comes to this stuff, does anyone know what a typical imbalance is? I seem some Twitter docs responding that this might not actually be the cause of hamstring issues and some who say this is massive.

No expert by any means but part of my job is adminstering body composition scans. I have never seen someone with 20% difference between 2 extremities. They're either embellishing or that is possibly just a huge anomaly.

[nagawicka]

It's hardly too soon to declare Jordan Love the quarterback of the future. He's the Quarterback of Right Now. Packers were committed long before Love started that 10-game string of starts. There isn't any question here.

That's kind of semantics. Of course he's the QB of now; my point is that it's too early to assume that he will consistently play as well as he did last season, just like it was too early to write him off completely when he played so poorly through most of the first half. This is all being completely misrepresented as me saying they shouldn't give him a big extension or being down on him, which is putting words in my mouth. People were dunking on posters who gave up on Love too early, and I'm just pointing out that it's still early.

It's not semantics. It is early, only in that no one knows how Jordan Love will do this year. He earned the job. Love is the quarterback for this coming year, literally of this future season. No semantics required. I wouldn't try to speak for you. Jordan Love's consistency leading to an emphatic finish last year, his growth curve on top of his standard NFL mixed-bag start to the season, showed on the field the kind of unmistakable stability that are most likely to be continued into the following season by vet qbs. He's a vet and showed none of the late-season instability or inconsistency rookie qbs fail on in late runs . No one has to make claims beyond what he's shown on the field.

It is early and next year's not a done deal.

[Profound23]

Excluding Sterling Sharpe and players like Rodgers/Davante/Bakhtiari who should (or will be in the HOF) if you could bring back any NON-HOF Packer to this team who would it be?

[Finn]

Mason Crosby (though I still like Carlsons' chance at being a good kicker).

[Treebeard]

Too good to pass by:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1207848530593670