Packers 2022 Offseason Thread - Adams Traded to Raiders for 2022 1st and 2nd Rd Picks

[ReasonablySober]

Rosen fetched a 2nd and a 5th. I'd guess the Packers could get that.

[sdn40]

For those that are angry the Packers didn't trade Rodgers for draft picks that could very well end up being busts, look at the Colts. A very well run organization, with a very good GM, and a solid foundation of players, and they are dead in the water. Three years since Luck's retirement, and they are very lucky to have dumped Wentz to Washington, another team dead in the water who can't find a QB. A first and a third round pick flushed down the toilet in that desperation trade. Before that, it was a desperation signing in Rivers. So the Colts are left with Sam Ehlinger and James Morgan just ahead of a terrible QB draft, no first round pick, and no answers in sight after 3 years. Be careful what you wish for.

[JayMKE]

You don’t draft a QB in the first to sit them for the entirety of their rookie contract, #42 would be a great haul all things considered. Time for everybody involved to move on.

[ReasonablySober]

For those that are angry the Packers didn't trade Rodgers for draft picks that could very well end up being busts, look at the Colts. A very well run organization, with a very good GM, and a solid foundation of players, and they are dead in the water. Three years since Luck's retirement, and they are very lucky to have dumped Wentz to Washington, another team dead in the water who can't find a QB. A first and a third round pick flushed down the toilet in that desperation trade. Before that, it was a desperation signing in Rivers. So the Colts are left with Sam Ehlinger and James Morgan just ahead of a terrible QB draft, no first round pick, and no answers in sight after 3 years. Be careful what you wish for.

The Colts went from Peyton Manning, sucked for exactly one year, then got the #1 and Andrew Luck.

[sdn40]

For those that are angry the Packers didn't trade Rodgers for draft picks that could very well end up being busts, look at the Colts. A very well run organization, with a very good GM, and a solid foundation of players, and they are dead in the water. Three years since Luck's retirement, and they are very lucky to have dumped Wentz to Washington, another team dead in the water who can't find a QB. A first and a third round pick flushed down the toilet in that desperation trade. Before that, it was a desperation signing in Rivers. So the Colts are left with Sam Ehlinger and James Morgan just ahead of a terrible QB draft, no first round pick, and no answers in sight after 3 years. Be careful what you wish for.

The Colts went from Peyton Manning, sucked for exactly one year, then got the #1 and Andrew Luck.

That team aged all at once and they did a re-set - and got lucky. They are in no mans land this time around. Just as the Packers would be. 3 years, a First and a Third, and counting

[ReasonablySober]

For those that are angry the Packers didn't trade Rodgers for draft picks that could very well end up being busts, look at the Colts. A very well run organization, with a very good GM, and a solid foundation of players, and they are dead in the water. Three years since Luck's retirement, and they are very lucky to have dumped Wentz to Washington, another team dead in the water who can't find a QB. A first and a third round pick flushed down the toilet in that desperation trade. Before that, it was a desperation signing in Rivers. So the Colts are left with Sam Ehlinger and James Morgan just ahead of a terrible QB draft, no first round pick, and no answers in sight after 3 years. Be careful what you wish for.

The Colts went from Peyton Manning, sucked for exactly one year, then got the #1 and Andrew Luck.

That team aged all at once and they did a re-set - and got lucky. They are in no mans land this time around. Just as the Packers would be.

I'm just saying, if you want to make a case that a reset might be a bad idea (and it might be!) the Colts are one of the last examples I'd use. Even if you wanted to use the more recent example, Luck retired at 30. Of course the Colts weren't prepared for something like that. It'd be like Rodgers retiring before the 12-4 season that had a load of dudes in their prime and turning the team over to Flynn.

[sdn40]

The Colts went from Peyton Manning, sucked for exactly one year, then got the #1 and Andrew Luck.

That team aged all at once and they did a re-set - and got lucky. They are in no mans land this time around. Just as the Packers would be.

I'm just saying, if you want to make a case that a reset might be a bad idea (and it might be!) the Colts are one of the last examples I'd use. Even if you wanted to use the more recent example, Luck retired at 30. Of course the Colts weren't prepared for something like that. It'd be like Rodgers retiring before the 12-4 season that had a load of dudes in their prime and turning the team over to Flynn.

My only point is that re-set or not, finding a QB isn't as easy as snapping your fingers. For every Colts team that found a QB after one year there are dozens that haven't found one in a decade plus, and counting. And the Colts are the perfect example because they have a very good organization and GM and are dead in the water

[M-C-G]

For those that are angry the Packers didn't trade Rodgers for draft picks that could very well end up being busts, look at the Colts. A very well run organization, with a very good GM, and a solid foundation of players, and they are dead in the water. Three years since Luck's retirement, and they are very lucky to have dumped Wentz to Washington, another team dead in the water who can't find a QB. A first and a third round pick flushed down the toilet in that desperation trade. Before that, it was a desperation signing in Rivers. So the Colts are left with Sam Ehlinger and James Morgan just ahead of a terrible QB draft, no first round pick, and no answers in sight after 3 years. Be careful what you wish for.

So succession planning at the QB position is important, especially once your QB get up there in age. I concur.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ReasonablySober]

That team aged all at once and they did a re-set - and got lucky. They are in no mans land this time around. Just as the Packers would be.

I'm just saying, if you want to make a case that a reset might be a bad idea (and it might be!) the Colts are one of the last examples I'd use. Even if you wanted to use the more recent example, Luck retired at 30. Of course the Colts weren't prepared for something like that. It'd be like Rodgers retiring before the 12-4 season that had a load of dudes in their prime and turning the team over to Flynn.

My only point is that re-set or not, finding a QB isn't as easy as snapping your fingers. For every Colts team that found a QB after one year there are dozens that haven't found one in a decade plus, and counting. And the Colts are the perfect example because they have a very good organization and GM and are dead in the water

I think their situation is unique, combined with dumb moves everyone said were mistakes when the moves were made. They had a contender and their QB abruptly quit, something basically unprecedented. You could barely justify signing Rivers, and then they traded what ended up being the #16 overall pick for Wentz. As good as a roster as they've put together, that front office has done brain dead stuff at QB that no one liked in the moment.

[sdn40]

I'm just saying, if you want to make a case that a reset might be a bad idea (and it might be!) the Colts are one of the last examples I'd use. Even if you wanted to use the more recent example, Luck retired at 30. Of course the Colts weren't prepared for something like that. It'd be like Rodgers retiring before the 12-4 season that had a load of dudes in their prime and turning the team over to Flynn.

My only point is that re-set or not, finding a QB isn't as easy as snapping your fingers. For every Colts team that found a QB after one year there are dozens that haven't found one in a decade plus, and counting. And the Colts are the perfect example because they have a very good organization and GM and are dead in the water

I think their situation is unique, combined with dumb moves everyone said were mistakes when the moves were made. They had a contender and their QB abruptly quit, something basically unprecedented. You could barely justify signing Rivers, and then they traded what ended up being the #16 overall pick for Wentz. As good as a roster as they've put together, that front office has done brain dead stuff at QB that no one liked in the moment.

It's easy to label something as brain dead, until you put yourself in their shoes. It's desperation, and there's a difference. Was San Francisco brain dead to give away the farm to move up 9 spots for a lottery ticket scratch off in Lance ??? Only if it fails. We've seen bad organizations make bad decisions. The importance of the QB spot in recent years, and teams desperation to find one has escalated. We are now seeing good organizations reaching, because your team, and your job, suffocates without one. You could literally spend 20 years trying to find a QB good enough to put you in the conversation for a Super Bowl.

Fans scream for a trade and 3 First Round picks. The Colts have spent 3 years, a First and a Third so far and have zero. SF has spent 2 Firsts and a Third so far and have a lottery ticket. Those are well respected organizations desperate to stay relevant.

Oh - and GB has spent a First and a Fourth so far and have zero. Again, be careful what you wish for.

[DrWood]

Keeping Rodgers is the choice if you want to maximize the chance you'll win 12 or 13 games during the next couple of seasons.
The thing is, past history tells us 13 wins doesn't even assure us of one playoff win. So if the point is to win a Super Bowl, the last 11 years suggests we should move on. Is it that much more enjoyable to win 13 instead of 10 games if you don't go anywhere in the playoffs?
So I would have taken the Broncos offer if it was equal or greater than what the Seahawks got. I might structure it differently (not the same players, go for more 2022 picks, ideally all of their 1-3rd round picks), but I'd take that quality of package.

[JayMKE]

Keeping Rodgers is the choice if you want to maximize the chance you'll win 12 or 13 games during the next couple of seasons.
The thing is, past history tells us 13 wins doesn't even assure us of one playoff win. So if the point is to win a Super Bowl, the last 11 years suggests we should move on. Is it that much more enjoyable to win 13 instead of 10 games if you don't go anywhere in the playoffs?
So I would have taken the Broncos offer if it was equal or greater than what the Seahawks got. I might structure it differently (not the same players, go for more 2022 picks, ideally all of their 1-3rd round picks), but I'd take that quality of package.

Why cut it off at 11? Why not 12 or 30? I'm pretty sure the Bears or the Vikings would have loved back to back 15 years of HOF QB play, how many Superbowl rings do they have in that time? Its just dumb to apply NBA tanking logic to the NFL, doesn't work that way. If this organization can't win with Aaron Rodgers at QB then I'm not that confident that they'd be able to "reset" into anything besides a perennial loser, suddenly they're going to start nailing picks when he's gone? Implying Rodgers is the main reason this org hasn't won a Superbowl the last decade is the epitome of being disingenuous, go grind that axe elsewhere.

[coolhandluke121]

And I see it as Love has only gotten better in two years in the league practicing behind AR.

That part is definitely not to be dismissed. All it would take is one random-ass lucky poor man's version of the Matt Flynn game and you're looking at a potential haul. Grooming QB's in a highly successful system can be great for asset management. I can't think of any other position in any sport where you can potentially increase a player's trade value by "wasting" their rookie contract years on the bench, but it can happen at QB. And you can understand why GM's might convince themselves he's the answer. Look at guys like Steve Young, Brunell, Hasselback, Brady, and Rodgers himself over the years, and I'm sure there are more. Sitting behind a great QB might have ultimately helped them be successful. There are some duds too, but it can work, and the important thing is just finding one GM who sees the appeal.

All that said, and not to contradict myself too much, but they're really not in a position to think long-term like that. They've gone all-in, and they've done so in a way that makes worrying about the long-term future foolish at this point. They're officially no longer in the 90's Braves strategy of sustainable success and making the playoffs every single season in hopes of the occasional breakthrough title. They are now officially using the scorched-earth Lebron-as-GM Cavs/Lakers title strategy.

[DrWood]

Keeping Rodgers is the choice if you want to maximize the chance you'll win 12 or 13 games during the next couple of seasons.
The thing is, past history tells us 13 wins doesn't even assure us of one playoff win. So if the point is to win a Super Bowl, the last 11 years suggests we should move on. Is it that much more enjoyable to win 13 instead of 10 games if you don't go anywhere in the playoffs?
So I would have taken the Broncos offer if it was equal or greater than what the Seahawks got. I might structure it differently (not the same players, go for more 2022 picks, ideally all of their 1-3rd round picks), but I'd take that quality of package.

Why cut it off at 11? Why not 12 or 30? I'm pretty sure the Bears or the Vikings would have loved back to back 15 years of HOF QB play, how many Superbowl rings do they have in that time? Its just dumb to apply NBA tanking logic to the NFL, doesn't work that way. If this organization can't win with Aaron Rodgers at QB then I'm not that confident that they'd be able to "reset" into anything besides a perennial loser, suddenly they're going to start nailing picks when he's gone? Implying Rodgers is the main reason this org hasn't won a Superbowl the last decade is the epitome of being disingenuous, go grind that axe elsewhere.

I guess you're a sky is falling kind of guy.

[Finn]

Keeping Rodgers is the choice if you want to maximize the chance you'll win 12 or 13 games during the next couple of seasons.
The thing is, past history tells us 13 wins doesn't even assure us of one playoff win. So if the point is to win a Super Bowl, the last 11 years suggests we should move on. Is it that much more enjoyable to win 13 instead of 10 games if you don't go anywhere in the playoffs?
So I would have taken the Broncos offer if it was equal or greater than what the Seahawks got. I might structure it differently (not the same players, go for more 2022 picks, ideally all of their 1-3rd round picks), but I'd take that quality of package.

Why cut it off at 11? Why not 12 or 30? I'm pretty sure the Bears or the Vikings would have loved back to back 15 years of HOF QB play, how many Superbowl rings do they have in that time? Its just dumb to apply NBA tanking logic to the NFL, doesn't work that way. If this organization can't win with Aaron Rodgers at QB then I'm not that confident that they'd be able to "reset" into anything besides a perennial loser, suddenly they're going to start nailing picks when he's gone? Implying Rodgers is the main reason this org hasn't won a Superbowl the last decade is the epitome of being disingenuous, go grind that axe elsewhere.

Just as it's disingenuous to not admit that Rodgers has contributed to those losses by playing below (well below?) his norm.

[VooDoo7]

Not that stats tell the whole story. And I know QB rating isn't the end-all, be-all when it comes to comparing QBs. But Aaron Rodgers career QB rating in the playoffs is 100.1. Tom Brady's is 90.4. Lets not act like Rodgers was a playoff bum. He hasn't had the defenses backing him like Brady has had his whole career.

[Big Dog Yank]

Not that stats tell the whole story. And I know QB rating isn't the end-all, be-all when it comes to comparing QBs. But Aaron Rodgers career QB rating in the playoffs is 100.1. Tom Brady's is 90.4. Lets not act like Rodgers was a playoff bum. He hasn't had defenses backing him like Brady had his whole career.

Yeah, I'm sorry, but I just don't understand this whole Rodgers being a playoff choker narrative that has developed over the past couple of months. He absolutely has culpability for January's loss to the Niners, but the special teams' epic pants crapping and the offensive line playing like a sieve are well documented.

Beyond that, you've gotta go pretty far back to find a playoff game that was clearly subpar for him...and when you do that, you'll come across plenty of outstanding postseason performances and some absolute dogsh*t rosters he dragged into the playoffs.

So much of this conversation illustrates how absolutely spoiled we are as a fan base that we'll chose to obsess over the outlier poor performances while willfully overlooking a dozen plus years of playoff excellence.

[sdn40]

IIRC Rodgers has had a Top 10 scoring defense to help him out once. One damn time. In 2010.
Brady had a Top 10 scoring defense help him 700 times.

Some idiot called the local sports talk show today and said he was sick of Rodgers throwing the ball out of bounds and was really hoping for a trade that netted a 5th Rounder and cash. I really do hate people.

[M-C-G]

You guys are crazy. Maybe give it some more time after our defense was incredible and our offense sucked to give rodgers another free pass.

[M-C-G]

IIRC Rodgers has had a Top 10 scoring defense to help him out once. One damn time. In 2010.
Brady had a Top 10 scoring defense help him 700 times.

Some idiot called the local sports talk show today and said he was sick of Rodgers throwing the ball out of bounds and was really hoping for a trade that netted a 5th Rounder and cash. I really do hate people.

How many times was Brady the highest paid QB? It is almost like there was some kind of trade off with his teams being able to add and keep additional talent that helped the team on defense and in other areas.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk