Packers News, Transactions, Trade Talk - Watson 1 Year Extension Through 2026

Ayt · Post #1541 » by **Ayt** » Sat Sep 6, 2025 8:51 pm

I'd absolutely rather have Parsons given his age and ability. The trade was a bargain.

RRyder823 · Post #1542 » by **RRyder823** » Sat Sep 6, 2025 9:15 pm

Which wouldve been a better trade is actually pretty close

As players Parsons is probably better although Hendrickson is a beast still in his own right.

Age obviously goes to Parsons

Cost to aquire is obviously Hendrickson (a mid round pick versus 2 1sts with Clark gone in both)

Age and cost to aquire are pretty intertwined

Really I think whether Hendrickson wouldve been the better idea depends a lot on what type of contract we wouldve needed to hand him. Yeah he agreed to 30 million for 1 year with Cincy but considering he was wanting a long term deal id imagine it would of been something like 3 years 125 million

So I guess it comes down to is the age difference worth 2 1st rounders versus a mid rounder. Its not an easy question to answer.

That said im skeptical it wouldve actually been a "mid round pick" and not a "day 2 pick"

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

BUCKnation · Post #1543 » by **BUCKnation** » Sat Sep 6, 2025 9:52 pm

Getting 5, maybe 10 more years of Parsons is worth it vs 4-5 years at most of Hendrickson

CWoodfan · Post #1544 » by **CWoodfan** » Sun Sep 7, 2025 6:14 am

Guess Gutey was not as convinced about that big 3rd year leap from LVN that the Packer press wrote so much about this summer.

Hopefully he can contribute as a #3 or #4 Edge or offer something in the pass rush from the interior.

Post #1545 » by **humanrefutation** » Sun Sep 7, 2025 8:02 am

Send Clark and a mid round pick for Hendrickson.
Send LVN and two 1s for Parsons.

Profit.

MikeIsGood · Post #1546 » by **MikeIsGood** » Sun Sep 7, 2025 2:50 pm

I floated this question about a month ago and said I didn't know which I'd do. I'm still not totally sure, but I'm damn happy with Parsons because he was cheaper than I expected, honestly.

Matches Malone · Post #1547 » by **Matches Malone** » Sun Sep 7, 2025 6:44 pm

Read on Twitter

MVP2110 · Post #1548 » by **MVP2110** » Mon Sep 8, 2025 5:32 pm

Read on Twitter

?t=aWahR-orp0A0QjWKtaGIKA&s=19

Post #1549 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Sep 8, 2025 8:02 pm

Read on Twitter

Post #1550 » by **humanrefutation** » Mon Sep 8, 2025 8:14 pm

MVP2110 wrote:

Read on Twitter
?t=aWahR-orp0A0QjWKtaGIKA&s=19

That is incredibly weird. And it also isn't consistent with what has been reported - that we did offer a trade for Mack, but the Bears beat us out with the same package by virtue of the Raiders' projection that their picks would end up higher than ours.

MVP2110 · Post #1551 » by **MVP2110** » Mon Sep 8, 2025 8:17 pm

humanrefutation wrote:
MVP2110 wrote:

Read on Twitter
?t=aWahR-orp0A0QjWKtaGIKA&s=19

That is incredibly weird. And it also isn't consistent with what has been reported - that we did offer a trade for Mack, but the Bears beat us out with the same package by virtue of the Raiders' projection that their picks would end up higher than ours.

Yea. It's the first reporting I've ever heard that the board would have direct say in transactions. I get maybe the need to approve big money deals or whatever, but assuming Gutey made a substantial offer I can't imagine he didn't have approval to do so

Post #1552 » by **humanrefutation** » Mon Sep 8, 2025 8:20 pm

MVP2110 wrote:
humanrefutation wrote:
MVP2110 wrote:

Read on Twitter
?t=aWahR-orp0A0QjWKtaGIKA&s=19

That is incredibly weird. And it also isn't consistent with what has been reported - that we did offer a trade for Mack, but the Bears beat us out with the same package by virtue of the Raiders' projection that their picks would end up higher than ours.

Yea. It's the first reporting I've ever heard that the board would have direct say in transactions. I get maybe the need to approve big money deals or whatever, but assuming Gutey made a substantial offer I can't imagine he didn't have approval to do so

Agreed. He only needed to run it by Murphy/Policy. If they want to run it by the full board, that's their prerogative, but it boggles my mind that they'd have a say in football transactions.

HKPackFan · Post #1553 » by **HKPackFan** » Tue Sep 9, 2025 6:09 am

This was great completely detaching from sports for the summer.

#1 The Packers have Parsons and look like a strong contender. They look young and fast with more experience this year.

#2 Giannis is dominating Europe and rekindles my love of basketball. Seeing Giannis be immortal amongst humans is one of my favorite things.

#3 I don't follow baseball that much, but seeing the brewers as the #1 team in the league is wild and one of their best seasons ever (so far).

What a time to be a WI sports fan.

Post #1554 » by **MickeyDavis** » Tue Sep 9, 2025 5:36 pm

Read on Twitter

Post #1555 » by **MickeyDavis** » Tue Sep 9, 2025 7:49 pm

Read on Twitter

MVP2110 · Post #1556 » by **MVP2110** » Tue Sep 9, 2025 11:24 pm

Read on Twitter

?t=Fu2gBNXyhdtwCXsJuTXCyA&s=19

MVP2110 · Post #1557 » by **MVP2110** » Wed Sep 10, 2025 12:06 am

I'm a fan. Watson is a game changer for the offense when healthy

Read on Twitter

?t=3kJa4Pb3SK9Qbx6FKyEcOQ&s=19

Post #1558 » by **ReasonablySober** » Wed Sep 10, 2025 12:09 am

He got the Brandon Woodruff deal. I like it a lot.

MoMM · Post #1559 » by **MoMM** » Wed Sep 10, 2025 12:26 am

Too much for a guy who can't stay on the field.

RRyder823 · Post #1560 » by **RRyder823** » Wed Sep 10, 2025 12:30 am

Not a bad deal. Allows him not to feel the need to rush back before hes healthy this season.

Kinda suprised when I saw extension it wasn't Quay being the one that got inked

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app