Willis Value

[sharpe1027]

We traded away a seventh round pick, which will be near the end of the draft if we keep winning.

What does everyone think we could get for him from a team that either has their QB go down with injury or is giving up on their starter and wants someone for the future?

[Joemailman]

Packers finally have a quality backup. I don't think they'd be looking to trade him.

[sharpe1027]

Packers finally have a quality backup. I don't think they'd be looking to trade him.
I don't either. I'm just thinking about how much his value might have increased.

Also, he's only got two years left on his contract. Next year he's probably traded or we get nothing in return when he becomes a FA.

[red]

i was thinking a long these lines too

i joked that we should trade him now for a first in the game thread, but we still need him this year. and the locker room seems to like him

but does this revive his career? like does this maybe earn him a shot at starting somewhere next season?

he just showed he can win games in the NFL and be a decent dual threat QB in the right system and with the right coaches

he can at least be a solid backup

[run pMc]

Willis played better than I expected today. I think he exceeded a lot of expectations, tbh.
They won't trade him (this year) unless someone makes GB a stupid offer. I could see someone maybe asking Gute about him at the Combine as a throw in for a trade of picks a la Hasselbeck.

I think the question is whether some team thinks he can be a 17 game starter for them. He has some way to go with developing as a pro QB. Coming out of Liberty, I thought he was at least 3 years away from being NFL ready. Maybe be is ready, but you'd want him to have a full offseason to absorb your system and playbook.

GB probably wants to keep him and see if he can develop. If his contract expires and he signs elsewhere, odds are it will be for quite a bit and they get a comp pick for it. I'm not really worried about it.

As for his value, assuming he stays on the roster and plays decently next year in preseason, I could see them deal him for a R3-4 pick if a team panics at their QB situation. These 2 wins have basically guaranteed he'll be in the league for a few more years.

GB has roster talent and an above average HC to help make games against bottom half teams competitive if not winnable. It's a great feel-good story, he seems like a genuinely good dude (his parents should be proud), and winning with your backup QB is rare. Let's not get too carried away though.

[red]

his stock has for sure gone up the last 2 weeks

the question is how much

[RashanGary]

Willis is running an awful lot. As a full time starter, unless you have a great backup, you don’t want to live that way. But as a backup who can come in for 2 or 3 games and put his body on the line for key victories. He sure seems like an asset to me.

[George Cumby]

I can see LaFleur bringing him in once in a while as a running threat to make defenses have to plan for that angle, as well.

[MadScientist]

The limiting factor is that Willis is signed for this year and next, and is a FA after that. If he looks decent enough to be a starter, it will be hard to keep him after next year, and they won't get anything except maybe a '27 comp pick. That still might be the route they take to have a reliable backup next year, but they will trade if the offer is good enough.

[smuggler]

He provides more value to the team as the backup than he would get back in a trade.

[RashanGary]

He provides more value to the team as the backup than he would get back in a trade.

Yes. No one wants their starting qb running as much as he has been. It works. It wins. But it’s not sustainable and everyone knows it.

[sharpe1027]

He provides more value to the team as the backup than he would get back in a trade.

This year. Going into next year's draft, knowing he's only got one year left on his contract, do you take what you can get rather than lose him for a lower compensatory pick?

[Patler]

If this is all he plays this year, or maybe another game or two, no one is going to give up more than a third day draft pick for him next offseason anyway. He hasn't PROVEN anything yet.

The Packers have a good young roster that should have real playoff potential the next two years. A capable, inexpensive backup QB is invaluable to them, as we have seen already. Where would this season be if they were at 0-3 right now?

If they lose him in FA in a couple years, so be it. They will at least get their investment back, but likely more if he continues to show well, even if it is just in preseason games. Having him for security the next two seasons is worth whatever the difference is between a possible trade and the comp pick they will get.

Of course, all this presumes he continues on the path he seems to be on.

[sharpe1027]

So he's worth more than a third round pick to the Packers as a backup but not worth more than that to any other team, including teams that think he might start for them?

That math doesn't work for me.

[Patler]

So he's worth more than a third round pick to the Packers as a backup but not worth more than that to any other team, including teams that think he might start for them?

That math doesn't work for me.

Who said he is worth more than a third to the Packers, but not to other teams?
I don't understand your comment.

[RashanGary]

There is a big miscalculation on his value here. Nobody wants a starting QB who plays that style. It works in the short term, but nobody wants to pay 45M per year (going rate of a good starting Qb with upside) for a guy who plays such an injury prone style of football.

[Fritz]

Josh Allen? Jalen Hurts?

I think having a good backup QB the next two years and then getting a compensatory pick is worth more than trading him after this season for a pick that likely isn’t much better than what the comp pick would be. I doubt that two games starting this year is enough to tempt a team to give up even a second round pick, so what’s the difference between getting a third (at best) after this season versus getting a fourth or fifth after the next two seasons, when some team signs him to a big-but-not-too-big contract to see if he’ll be The Guy?

The Packers are contenders. As we know from experience, having a competent backup QB is crucial.

[Patler]

If this is all he plays this year, or maybe another game or two, no one is going to give up more than a third day draft pick for him next offseason anyway. He hasn't PROVEN anything yet.

The Packers have a good young roster that should have real playoff potential the next two years. A capable, inexpensive backup QB is invaluable to them, as we have seen already. Where would this season be if they were at 0-3 right now?

If they lose him in FA in a couple years, so be it. They will at least get their investment back, but likely more if he continues to show well, even if it is just in preseason games. Having him for security the next two seasons is worth whatever the difference is between a possible trade and the comp pick they will get.

Of course, all this presumes he continues on the path he seems to be on.


Josh Allen? Jalen Hurts?

I think having a good backup QB the next two years and then getting a compensatory pick is worth more than trading him after this season for a pick that likely isn’t much better than what the comp pick would be. I doubt that two games starting this year is enough to tempt a team to give up even a second round pick, so what’s the difference between getting a third (at best) after this season versus getting a fourth or fifth after the next two seasons, when some team signs him to a big-but-not-too-big contract to see if he’ll be The Guy?

The Packers are contenders. As we know from experience, having a competent backup QB is crucial.


Exactly, Fritz. You said it more clearly than I did, but I was trying to say exactly the same thing. I may have confused some by referring to "a third day draft pick", meaning rounds 4 thru 7.

They only have a 7th invested in him. If they lose him in FA, the compensatory value should be at least that. Even if the Packers themselves are active in FA, and so get no compensation for him, I don't care. Having a backup QB who is inexpensive and yet can win games is very valuable to a team that thinks it is a Super Bowl contender.

Keep him as long as you can, and be satisfied with what you get when he leaves, even if it is nothing.

The only thing that could make me consider trading him next year is if catastrophe hits this year, Willis plays another 8 or 10 games, looks like a legit starting QB, and someone offers a first or second for him; but even then, only if whatever took Love out for this year would not limit him next year.

[sharpe1027]

Who said he is worth more than a third to the Packers, but not to other teams?
I don't understand your comment.

Sorry, you said third day, not third round. I suspect you knew what happened and are asking rhetorically to prove a point?

My point is it's hard to imagine he has more value to the Packers as a backup than to a team that thinks he might start. The Packers are committed to Love for the foreseeable future. Willis looks like he could be an upgrade for several teams as a starter. Not guaranteed, but even the possibility means more value than what the Packers can get.

[sharpe1027]

Josh Allen? Jalen Hurts?

I think having a good backup QB the next two years and then getting a compensatory pick is worth more than trading him after this season for a pick that likely isn’t much better than what the comp pick would be. I doubt that two games starting this year is enough to tempt a team to give up even a second round pick, so what’s the difference between getting a third (at best) after this season versus getting a fourth or fifth after the next two seasons, when some team signs him to a big-but-not-too-big contract to see if he’ll be The Guy?

The Packers are contenders. As we know from experience, having a competent backup QB is crucial.

They only get that high of a compensatory pick if someone values him and gives him a big contract, right?

I don't know what his value is in terms of round, but if he's got any value as a starter, the value should be higher with those teams than for the Packers, right?

[Fritz]

Any team that bothers to sign a free agent quarterback whom they think will be their starter is going to pay a relatively high salary, so I'd imagine if that is the case, the Packers would at least get a fourth rounder for the compensatory pick. QB's are that valuable.

And I wonder about your second point: after seeing Willis for two games as a starter, given that he has hardly had time to get acclimated, isn't it possible the Packers value him more now than they did when they spent a mere seventh for him three weeks ago? And IF he doesn't start again for Green Bay this year, is a two-game span enough for a team to give up much more than maybe a fourth for him next off-season?

For me, overall, having a competent backup for the next two years for a team that fancies itself a SB contender is quite important - more important than picking up an extra third or fourth round pick next draft, and starting over in the search for a backup QB.

[sharpe1027]

A team offers a trade based on their perceived value of Willis to their team. The Packers almost certainly value him higher than a 7th rounder, but that's different than them valuing him higher than any other team.

If even one team thinks he's starting material, won't they almost certainly place a higher value than the Packers, who only value him as a backup? Won't it be at least possible that leads to a situation where the Packers are offered more value in a trade than the see in him as a backup?

[MadtownPacker]

These past two games would convince me to find a way to keep him if I was signing the checks. A true backup is needed so who cares about a draft pick.

[sharpe1027]

These past two games would convince me to find a way to keep him if I was signing the checks. A true backup is needed so who cares about a draft pick.
At some point, if you get enough, you trade him though, right?

[Joemailman]

Why does everybody want to trade a guy now that we found out he's actually a good football player?

[ThunderDan]

At some point, if you get enough, you trade him though, right?

I think every GM is making that decision about every player. And then they have to take into consideration cap hit.

My son asked if someone offered 4 1st for Love would you trade him. The answer is no. He would be a $110,000,000 cap hit.

[MadtownPacker]

At some point, if you get enough, you trade him though, right?
If he is that good the other team will make it worth it not late shit or moving up.

I don’t know man. He has been so good I think Love should take another week off.

[MadtownPacker]

Why does everybody want to trade a guy now that we found out he's actually a good football player?So they can complain about it down the road.

[sharpe1027]

Why does everybody want to trade a guy now that we found out he's actually a good football player?

It's because he plays at a the premium position where a backup doesn't play absent injury. If they are offered enough that they can most likely use the trade gains to get players that will see the field as starters, you should probably take the deal.

Put it this way, if in two years it comes out we turned down an early first round pick, he never starts another game in that time, and all we get is a fourth round compensatory pick, trading him next year is the better option for the team.

[sharpe1027]

If he is that good the other team will make it worth it not late shit or moving up.

I don’t know man. He has been so good I think Love should take another week off.

That's my point, though. We say he's worth so much as a backup. Whatever that value is, he's worth more at a team where he's got a legitimate chance to start. That means someone should be willing to offer more than he's worth to us.

Now, if every other team thinks he's nothing more than a backup, you keep him.

[sharpe1027]

So they can complain about it down the road.

That's completely false.

[sharpe1027]

I want whatever helps them put the best team on the field. I don't even know if trading him is the right thing. It just seems like keeping him as a backup might be missing out on getting players that will be more likely to see the field.

[George Cumby]

Why does everybody want to trade a guy now that we found out he's actually a good football player?

Right?

We now know the team can win if 10 goes down.

Helluva' nice insurance policy.

[Patler]

Put it this way, if in two years it comes out we turned down an early first round pick, he never starts another game in that time, and all we get is a fourth round compensatory pick, trading him next year is the better option for the team.

...on the other hand, if he helps GB win two games this year, avoiding the virtual kiss of death 0-3 start, plays next year and maybe preserves a playoff game lead and the Packers win back-to-back Super Bowls, not taking your proposed trade looks a lot smarter.

The point is, with a backup QB you never know if he won't play a single meaningful snap or have to start a significant portion of your season. The Packers have a very young, ascending roster that could be legitimate SB contenders for the foreseeable future. The opportunity this year could already have been sunk by incompetent back-up QB performances.

Unless Willis plays a lot more games this year, I seriously doubt any team will offer anything close to the value I think he has to the Packers in 2025 as a backup who could, if needed, keep playoff hopes alive.

[sharpe1027]

...on the other hand, if he helps GB win two games this year, avoiding the virtual kiss of death 0-3 start, plays next year and maybe preserves a playoff game lead and the Packers win back-to-back Super Bowls, not taking your proposed trade looks a lot smarter.

The point is, with a backup QB you never know if he won't play a single meaningful snap or have to start a significant portion of your season. The Packers have a very young, ascending roster that could be legitimate SB contenders for the foreseeable future. The opportunity this year could already have been sunk by incompetent back-up QB performances.

Unless Willis plays a lot more games this year, I seriously doubt any team will offer anything close to the value I think he has to the Packers in 2025 as a backup who could, if needed, keep playoff hopes alive.

Understood. Would you agree that it's implicit in you're assessment that no other team sees him as a likely starter? If they did, they'd see more value than the Packers and might offer enough to make the trade work for both teams.

It then comes down to whether or not at least one team sees him as a likely starter. Based on past history, teams will sometimes make that assessment even with only limited gametime experience.

He's a former third round pick with great measuables that just proved he can play within himself and win games with both his legs and his arm.

Someone out there might see enough.

[Fritz]

Let's say the Packers get lucky and Love starts the rest of the games this year. This spring, would a team really give up a first-round pick for a guy who has only one year left on his contract to make him a starter after seeing him in only two games this year? That wouldn't make sense unless they locked him down for a long-term contract as soon as they acquired him. If they spend a first-rounder to get him, they're likely not going to let him play out that last year and start negotiating a long-term deal during the season if they like how he's playing. He'd have all the leverage.

Now, take the above and replace "first round" with "second round." Is that much more likely? I'm not so sure.

I mean, there are those few nutjob owners out there who might, so it's possible. But if you're the Packers and after the season someone offers you a second-rounder for Willis, you'd then be back to square one - no backup QB who is competent enough to carry the team for a few games should Love miss time. So do you draft a rookie and make him the backup? If so, you're probably spending at least a fourth or fifth round pick. Or you're going to sign a re-tread, though who knows who'll be out there?

I don't know what's best. I just am of the opinion that when a team is in a contending position, as the Packers are, the backup QB becomes much more important than usual.

[Sparkey]

Would they trade him this year ? No chance. But would they trade him in the offseason ? If the right deal was offered I'd be shocked if they didn't.

Now I get the whole thing about wanting a really good backup qb, but in all honesty, a good backup QB is not going to win you a superbowl, and that is the goal right ? Unless of course your TPB. Then kicking ass in the regular season is king.

So hear me out. The current Packers team is really loaded with talent. For a lot of that talent, the bill will be coming due in around 2 years and that is a great problem to have. Reality, however, is that they can not afford to pay all the talent. That is wear trading a backup QB comes into play. The Pack needs to constantly be replenishing the talent on the team and the best way to do that is thru the draft. Getting an extra pick, say a 3rd or 4th gives you the ability to add said talent. Let us not forget that guys like Bahktiari, Tom, Doubs, Sitton and Lang were all 4th rounders. All guys that made a larger impact on the field than any back qb would ever make.

Do all picks end up being good? Nope, but that is another reason why adding an add'l pick in say the 4th is important. It basically gives them an xtra chance to add some talent to the team. More lines in the water equals a better change of catching a "big fish".

[sharpe1027]

Fritz, the team would trade for him with the intention of getting a contract extension in place if he did well. They have things like the franchise tag to protect themselves somewhat.

The Packers once gave up a first rounder for some guy named Farve. How much starting experience did he have?

[Joemailman]

Would they trade him this year ? No chance. But would they trade him in the offseason ? If the right deal was offered I'd be shocked if they didn't.

Now I get the whole thing about wanting a really good backup qb, but in all honesty, a good backup QB is not going to win you a superbowl, and that is the goal right ? Unless of course your TPB. Then kicking ass in the regular season is king.

So hear me out. The current Packers team is really loaded with talent. For a lot of that talent, the bill will be coming due in around 2 years and that is a great problem to have. Reality, however, is that they can not afford to pay all the talent. That is wear trading a backup QB comes into play. The Pack needs to constantly be replenishing the talent on the team and the best way to do that is thru the draft. Getting an extra pick, say a 3rd or 4th gives you the ability to add said talent. Let us not forget that guys like Bahktiari, Tom, Doubs, Sitton and Lang were all 4th rounders. All guys that made a larger impact on the field than any back qb would ever make.

Do all picks end up being good? Nope, but that is another reason why adding an add'l pick in say the 4th is important. It basically gives them an xtra chance to add some talent to the team. More lines in the water equals a better change of catching a "big fish".

You're probably not winning a Super Bowl with a backup QB. (Although 7 years ago the Eagles did). But in the event of your starting QB missing several games, a good backup QB can win you enough games while the starting QB is out to keep you in playoff contention. The Packers went into this season considered to be a Super Bowl contender. Because they managed to win a couple games with their backup QB, they're still considered a contender. It would feel a lot different if they were 0-3 right now. The Packers should be Super Bowl contenders at least the next 2 years. You want to risk throwing that away for a Day 3 pick in 2026?

[run pMc]

You keep him as the backup. First of all, no team is going to offer an early first round pick for him. It's not considered a great QB class coming out in the draft this year, but I don't think anyone is confusing Willis with a franchise QB. Kyle Shanahan managed to win games with guys like Garopolo, Beathard, and Mullens... and teams can find those guys.

Second, you could extend the argument of trading backups to other positions like CBs, WRs, etc. -- why do we need Valentine when we could just play Jaire, Stokes and Nixon? Players get hurt, even QBs, so you need capable backups to fill in if you want to win games. Trading away your depth isn't smart, unless you get a crazy offer (not happening, see argument 1) or you have an absolute embarrassment of riches at one position.

Third, they've had draft classes of 11, 13, and 11 players. What do they need more, another Day 3 pick, or a competent backup QB? (Joshua Dobbs and a conditional R7 went to MIN for a R6 pick.)

I get this is essentially a hypothetical -- what is Willis's value in trade, or even in FA? I just don't think they are going to turn around and flip him for a mid-round pick. They'll want to keep him around for at least a little while first. Rasul lasted what - 1.5 seasons? Willis will get that long.

[sharpe1027]

He's not likely to be resigned after his rookie contract expires. Next year you have to ask if one year of a backup is worth what another team offers. We traded a first round pick for Favre. Matt Flynn signed a $28?M contract. Willis is a third round pick that was drafted as a project looks like he's turned the corner. Why do we think we can't even get a mid round pick for him?

[sharpe1027]

You're probably not winning a Super Bowl with a backup QB. (Although 7 years ago the Eagles did). But in the event of your starting QB missing several games, a good backup QB can win you enough games while the starting QB is out to keep you in playoff contention. The Packers went into this season considered to be a Super Bowl contender. Because they managed to win a couple games with their backup QB, they're still considered a contender. It would feel a lot different if they were 0-3 right now. The Packers should be Super Bowl contenders at least the next 2 years. You want to risk throwing that away for a Day 3 pick in 2026?

Risk missing out? That's not really a balanced assessment. Maybe by not trading him they miss out on a key contributor to the SB run. Maybe he comes in as a backup and loses three games straight. Etc.

You maximize your odds and hope for the best. If a team offers something decent, you decide which risk you're willing to take and don't look back.

[Patler]

Understood. Would you agree that it's implicit in you're assessment that no other team sees him as a likely starter? If they did, they'd see more value than the Packers and might offer enough to make the trade work for both teams.



No, I do not agree with that.

[sharpe1027]

No, I do not agree with that.

So another team would see him as a starter, but the Packers would see him as having even more value to them as a backup?

That's hard to wrap my head around.

[NewsBruin]

So another team would see him as a starter, but the Packers would see him as having even more value to them as a backup?

That's hard to wrap my head around.

That's a nice rhetorical touch, but the Packers would only care about the compensation, not whether the Raiders see him as the next evolution of long snapper.

We've only had one game with Willis and Love both dressed out, so we haven't seen what our offense will do with both of them together. Will they have Malik QB Power packages drawn up? Will MLF go the Full Taysom with both Willis and Love in the huddle? Would he be our FG holder? You're not gonna see Love and Sean Clifford on the field together, but Malik would either waste opposing DCs' planning time or offer something completely unexpected in a crucial drive. So he could be more to us than just a backup if that's what he and MLF want.

[sharpe1027]

That's a nice rhetorical touch, but the Packers would only care about the compensation, not whether the Raiders see him as the next evolution of long snapper.

We've only had one game with Willis and Love both dressed out, so we haven't seen what our offense will do with both of them together. Will they have Malik QB Power packages drawn up? Will MLF go the Full Taysom with both Willis and Love in the huddle? Would he be our FG holder? You're not gonna see Love and Sean Clifford on the field together, but Malik would either waste opposing DCs' planning time or offer something completely unexpected in a crucial drive. So he could be more to us than just a backup if that's what he and MLF want.
Agreed on the added value. This is the exact discussion I had with someone asking my opinion on the situation yesterday.

If the Raiders thought he was a starter, it makes sense that they would offer trade value representing that fact. Why do you think that is rhetorical?

I recognize it's possible no other team values him enough to offer enough that the Packers bite. I just think the QB position is valued so high that's unlikely if someone sees him as a starter.

[MadtownPacker]

You math doesn’t use common sense. Packers got lucky on a quality backup and look at that had to use him less than a month later. ADD in the winning and I think he has to stay. If he get away later and Packers get nothing, well that’s kinda how insurance works. That’s pretty much what he is. Insurance to keep the team contending while Love is in the shop. If a team does some dumb shit and offers a very high pick maybe but I would say his value to the Pack is very high. Let him best MN and we might have a different story next week. :lol:

[bobblehead]

Doesn't willis have a year left? Wouldn't we maximize his value if he balls out in fake games for a second year after the way he performed in the previous 2 games? No reason to trade him now unless you actually believe it was a fluke and he will look bad next spring.

[sharpe1027]

To me, it's as simple as whether you think another team might see him as a starter. If yes, then the Packers could receive an offer that's consistent with the value higher than the value of a pure backup.

If they receive this offer, then next year (not this year) they'd be stupid not to seriously consider the offer.

Seems pretty common sense to me.

[Fritz]

To me, it's as simple as whether you think another team might see him as a starter. If yes, then the Packers could receive an offer that's consistent with the value higher than the value of a pure backup.

If they receive this offer, then next year (not this year) they'd be stupid not to seriously consider the offer.

Seems pretty common sense to me.

So what does a team offer after this season, if they see Willis as a starter? Any prospective trade partner will have, if we Packer fans are lucky, only two regular-season games this year upon which to judge the guy. But let's say they think he's a starter. How much would a team be willing to give up for a guy with a limited track record of success who they'll need to sign to a longer-term, big-paying contract pretty much right away?

If you're the Packers, would a mid-to-late first round pick be enough? You're then without a backup, so, given what Guter has publicly said, you're going to draft another rookie, and likely not in the seventh round range again. So maybe fourth or fifth? For an unknown quantity? And that first - what does that get you? Quay Walker or Devonte Wyatt?

Of course they'll entertain offers. If someone really wants to give up a first - which I'm not sure at all would be the case - the Packers would have to weigh that. But given that they'll get a compensatory pick in two years, and probably a fairly high one, given that in your own metrics someone will sign him to a big deal, why not just have him for two years, and get that third round pick at the end of it all?

[sharpe1027]

I don't understand the compensatory argument coupled with the argument nobody would give much in trade. It seems internally inconsistent. I think the ompensatory formula ranks players based on the size of their contract and the number of snaps they played. Willis hopefully won't have a lot of snaps.

I don't know what other teams value him at, but if they are going to give him a huge contract necessary to trigger a higher compensatory pick, they would probably send a high pick to not have to wait an entire year and to kick the tires on him before committing to a huge contract.

[Fritz]

I thought the formula has become more weighted toward the contract.

But why not, if you're the Packers, wait until the end of this year and see if anyone wants to take the kind of risk it would be to trade a first for a mostly-unproven guy who'd be getting a big contract right away.

[bobblehead]

So what does a team offer after this season, if they see Willis as a starter? Any prospective trade partner will have, if we Packer fans are lucky, only two regular-season games this year upon which to judge the guy. But let's say they think he's a starter. How much would a team be willing to give up for a guy with a limited track record of success who they'll need to sign to a longer-term, big-paying contract pretty much right away?

If you're the Packers, would a mid-to-late first round pick be enough? You're then without a backup, so, given what Guter has publicly said, you're going to draft another rookie, and likely not in the seventh round range again. So maybe fourth or fifth? For an unknown quantity? And that first - what does that get you? Quay Walker or Devonte Wyatt?

Of course they'll entertain offers. If someone really wants to give up a first - which I'm not sure at all would be the case - the Packers would have to weigh that. But given that they'll get a compensatory pick in two years, and probably a fairly high one, given that in your own metrics someone will sign him to a big deal, why not just have him for two years, and get that third round pick at the end of it all?

If he balls out in the spring next year (he did this year, showing growth, add in the last 2 games) then I could easily see a 2nd. Alex smith was much older with limited upside and he went for a 2nd. Jimmy G had a little more experience, but also somewhat less upside to willis and I think he went for a 2nd.

[sharpe1027]

I thought the formula has become more weighted toward the contract.

But why not, if you're the Packers, wait until the end of this year and see if anyone wants to take the kind of risk it would be to trade a first for a mostly-unproven guy who'd be getting a big contract right away.

You absolutely wait until after this year. That's what I've been saying all along.

I don't agree with people saying there's no way we get offered enough to make a trade make sense next year. I think it's quite possible, but not guaranteed.

[Fritz]

So for you, if Bobble’s right and someone offers a second rounder next spring, say mid-second, do you take it?

[bobblehead]

So for you, if Bobble’s right and someone offers a second rounder next spring, say mid-second, do you take it?

You hope Pratt advances enough to be a backup and you take it. If you have no other options maybe not.

[texaspackerbacker]

Do we even still have Pratt? I thought somebody else signed him.

Willis is decent, but his quality level is inflated by the fact that the whole team is loaded. Great if we can get a fairly high pick for him. I doubt it would be a 1 or 2. Just keep him around until he needs to get paid too much. Then let him go - finding an adequate back up isn't that hard to do, especially if you consider the unlikelihood that the back up would get much use.

[run pMc]

Pratt signed with Tampa. Clifford in on GB's PS.
Agree you keep Willis this year, see what you have with him after a full offseason in MLF's playbook, and if someone bowls you over with an offer, take it. I'm also assuming they draft another QB or make another corresponding move. Clifford basically exceeded expectations last year because everyone hated the pick and thought he was a UDFA, this year he showed no growth and possibly regression with higher expectations. I think he is what he is and you like him as a QB3 but will look for better at backup.

If Willis never plays another meaningful regular season snap for GB and his contract expires, he either signs with GB or nets them a comp pick by signing with another team. It's certainly possible some team becomes enamored with him and offers a Day 2 pick, but I think that's unlikely.

For this year, he's good enough insurance. He's more likely to play mistake free than Clifford, based off recent play, and that's about all you can ask of a backup (i.e., not to lose a game with a bad mistake)

[sharpe1027]

He only nets a compensatory pick if he gets a large contract and we don't sign anyone ourselves to cancel his departure out

[sharpe1027]

So for you, if Bobble’s right and someone offers a second rounder next spring, say mid-second, do you take it?

Absolutely.

[MadtownPacker]

So for you, if Bobble’s right and someone offers a second rounder next spring, say mid-second, do you take it?
Excuse me sir for interrupting all the smart white man talk but I think a 2 would be an instant yes.

[Fritz]

You say that because you think they can find a Mexican to do the job at a lower cost.

[sharpe1027]

Excuse me sir for interrupting all the smart white man talk but I think a 2 would be an instant yes.

Smart isn't accurate.

[ThunderDan]

Do we even still have Pratt? I thought somebody else signed him.

Willis is decent, but his quality level is inflated by the fact that the whole team is loaded. Great if we can get a fairly high pick for him. I doubt it would be a 1 or 2. Just keep him around until he needs to get paid too much. Then let him go - finding an adequate back up isn't that hard to do, especially if you consider the unlikelihood that the back up would get much use.

Yet that highly loaded team lost to PHI with Love starting.

Not saying that Willis is better or that PHI isn’t leaps and bounds better than IND and Tenn. You can only play the teams you are scheduled with the players available that week.

[run pMc]

He only nets a compensatory pick if he gets a large contract and we don't sign anyone ourselves to cancel his departure out

True.

And yes, if someone offers Gute a R2 next offseason for Willis you take it and scour for another project. I think someone in their pro personnel department is really good based on activity under Gute (The Smiths, Amos, Campbell, Rasul, McKinney, Willis)

Many teams draft talented QBs and ruin them. There are a number of QBs on their 3rd or 4th team who are winning games because they have better coaching and surrounding talent.
Also, maybe players are going to see what GB helped Willis do and want to come to GB for that coaching/support structure/potential opportunity to revive their career. Few players play all 17 games in a season.