Yeah, get Valdez-Scantling too. He, Adams, Reed, Doubs, and Wicks would be a top of the line and diverse receiver corps.
Printable View
Yeah, get Valdez-Scantling too. He, Adams, Reed, Doubs, and Wicks would be a top of the line and diverse receiver corps.
Not bad, that means goodbye Watson?Quote:
Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker
According to The Browns GM, the Browns have zero interest in trading Garrett. Also: Garrett supposedly turned down a contract extension offer from CLE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deputy Nutz
That fully guaranteed QB contract plus Garrett cap number make it almost impossible for CLE to move Garrett. Rumor is CLE is looking into finding a clause in Deshaun Watson's contract that can get them out of it based on the legal stuff, but I think they're stuck with him.
Acquiring Watson will basically screw that franchise for half a decade if not longer.
Not necessarily. Watson is supposed to be out for a large part of the season. The way the Packers usually drag out injuries, he won't be back for much if any of it. This might turn out to be a good thing if they can then extend him for less money. Besides, he'd be the sixth, and six WRs is not too many.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadtownPacker
Why I don't want the Packers to trade for Metcalf
https://www.seasidejoe.com/p/seahawk...arket-draft-oc
Packers are bringing back ERFA's Zayne Anderson, Emanuel Wilson, Kadeem Telfort, Daniel Whelan and Bo Melton. Aaron Mosby is only ERFA not to receive an offer.
I don't think that article makes any sense. Doug Baldwin was a good player. But you don't get a Doug Baldwin just for letting Metcalf go.
GREEN BAY, Wis. – Barring an unexpected turn of events, the Green Bay Packers will not be re-signing starting center Josh Myers, a source told Packers On SI just before the unofficial start of free agency on Monday.
This likely means the Packers have a good idea of what his market value is, and aren't going to pay it.
Thats a good take on the situation. Keep him around a bit longer if it is cheap to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker
Watson go hurt in January probably had surgery in February, he will be on the pup list until week 6 if he has a normal recovery
Packers usual timetable for bringing players back from ACL is 10 months, some teams rush players faster.
Re: Myers, I'm a bit relieved, especially after seeing Drew Dalman get $14M a year. Myers can probably get 8-10M somewhere, and I'd rather Gute spend the money extending Tom.
That said, Myers played thru a bunch of injuries (wrist, pectoral) and personal stuff, and the vomit game vs. Indy was fun. Wish him well, but don't want to overpay him to stay.
9 months is when it is recommended for athletes to return to full participation after ACL reconstruction. so 10 months is about right in terms of getting completely back to football shape. For athletes younger than 18 years old most surgeons won't clear them regardless of their progression until 9 months have gone by. Usually athletes can return to athletics after 6 months if they have the patella tendon graft instead of the hamstring but the likely hood of re-injuring is higher with the patella tendon graft.
According to Ian Rapoport of NFL Network, the Packers have agreed to a contract with Aaron Banks, who previously played for the San Francisco 49ers. Early indications put the contract at $77 million over four years, a $19.25 million average that would make Banks the sixth-highest-paid guard in the NFL.
A 2nd-round pick in the 2021 NFL Draft out of Notre Dame, Banks has been a full-time starter for the 49ers for the past three seasons, playing primarily left guard. That position was already occupied by Elgton Jenkins, but Jenkins is a candidate to move to center with the Packers expected to let Josh Myers sign elsewhere in free agency.
Defensive lineman T.J. Slaton will not return to the Packers, instead signing with the Cincinnati Bengals on what’s reported to be a two-year, $15.1 million move. NFL Network’s Tom Pelissero was the first on the news.
GREEN BAY – The interior of the Green Bay Packers offensive line will look different next year.
After signing San Francisco free-agent guard Aaron Banks, the Packers are going to play him on the left side, which is where he played the past three seasons for the 49ers. The 6-foot-5, 325-pound Banks adds some size to the interior of the line and allows for left guard Elgton Jenkins to move to center.
The Packers will then have the choice of whether to start Sean Rhyan or 2024 first-round draft pick Jordan Morgan at right guard. If the Packers don’t like the way things are headed with Jenkins at center, they could move right tackle Zach Tom there and move Jenkins to right tackle, but general manager Brian Gutekunst has said repeatedly he thinks Tom fits well as a tackle.
For Jenkins, the move to center shouldn’t be a problem. He has played center in college and in the pros. When he first came out of Mississippi State, some scouts projected him as a center because of his quickness off the ball, but the Packers had a need at left guard and inserted him there during his rookie season.
Over his six-year career, Jenkins has made 85 starts: 67 at left guard, eight at left tackle, six at right tackle and four at center.
Signing Banks feels like an overpay, but he's young and overall would appear to raise the overall floor of the OL. Probably means they are going to extend Tom but not Walker, and I wonder if Morgan continues to learn G and also swing tackle.
Lessens the urgency to draft OL, but I think they still will - there's some decent OL talent in the draft outside Day 1. Banks is a good signing if they have Jenkins at C and Rhyan at RG; that's a big strong interior for Jacobs to run behind, and should also be solid in pass pro.
A little surprised they went this route but GB has done some surprising things in FA and along the OL before, usually with good results so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
I think the Banks signing, and moving Jenkins to Center makes the Packers OL more stout in the running game at 2 positions. Packers started transitioning to more of a gap system last year, but Myers was ill-suited for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by run pMc
Both moves seems like overpays. Wonder if Morgan is not as highly thought of by the coaches as Gutebag. I too don't think they want to give Wallace a huge contract. I think PFF had him rates 32 out of likee 65 OG's last season. They are not the end off but it gives us an idea of what we are getting. Thinking they figure Myers will get 12MILish per year and didn't want him at that price. So paying this guy more hopefully improves our line and hopefully we don't have any athletic reach with our 1st round draft picks last year like so many others
I kinda like the Banks signing. It makes sense to me - Jenkins to center, let Rhyan and Morgan duke it out for the RG spot, train Morgan also as a RT. Extend Tom. And then draft a couple tackles in April, maybe in the mid-to-later rounds, as you're looking for Rasheed Walker's eventual replacement.
The Hobbs signing was more of a head-scratcher to me, but clearly Green Bay has a plan for how that position will shake out. I do think the moves, both of them, impact the draft strategy. You don't need to take a corner in round one now; you could conceivably wait until even the third round to draft a guy to develop over the next year or two. And you can take a swing or two in the mid rounds at drafting Rasheed Wallace's replacement. So the draft can focus on - I think - defensive tackle, defensive end, and wide receiver.
Banks will add a little bit of edginess and exuberance to the OL, which I have thought they lacked at times. A bit of feistiness. Said to have an energetic personality and to be a player who is always looking for someone to hit. Said to be massive and broad, virtually immovable by power rushers.
Why wouldn't they train Morgan as the replacement for Walker? Tom isn't going to move to Left Tackle. Rhyan isn't a terrible player in fact he is pretty good in the run game, not sure why they need to replace him with Morgan. I think Morgan's value now that the Packers signed Banks is at Left Tackle. If they thought Morgan was ready to start at guard they would have never signed Banks. Maybe the problem with Morgan is that the Packers shouldn't have drafted him in the first place and he isn't the player they thought he was going to be, which is crazy because he was injured most of 2024 and he was a rookie.
Agree with all of this. We will know a lot about how they feel about Morgan based on if they resign Walker this summer or certainly by October.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deputy Nutz
I think Morgan will be given the opportunity to compete for the LT job. Whether he wins the job this year or not, I think they see him as the future there and Walker will be gone after this year.
Only if he wins the job or looks the part though (I know this is obvious, but I don't think this is a foregone conclusion yet). I think some steps need to be taken to ensure that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joemailman
Yeah, I have to think they will give Morgan another shot at tackle. I don't think they want to sign Walker unless they have no option; having 4 OL on 2nd (expensive) contracts with Banks, Jenkins, Tom and Walker would be a lot of cap space allocated to OL.
Hobbs is getting paid outside corner money, that's where they are going to play him. He's an upgrade over Stokes, but that's a lot of money they're paying him. CB still looks like a need, but it's not a gaping hole anymore...they can rotate 3 guys at the 2 spots (assuming Jaire will be gone).
I think Nutzy is correct - I'm still a bit mystified by the pick myself, especially especially if they end up making him a guard. I think of a first-round offensive lineman as being a tackle, preferably left tackle.
I'm still hoping they take an offensive tackle in the middle rounds somewhere. Need to have a pipeline for that offensive line.
Clearly Morgan will get opportunities at tackle, that's what he was drafted for, OT potential.
Don't remember if it was Gute or LeFleur who flat out admitted this off season that they made a mistake by not giving Morgan more opportunities at tackle last year, but justified it by saying the need at guard was more significant. Players and practice observers commented about Morgan's noticeable athleticism in drills. I am not concerned at all about Morgan...yet.
It is never wrong to draft a high potential, versatile OL; 22% of your starters are OL. It was clear from the playoff game last year that GB needs OL depth. Guys who can perform competently at 2, 3 or 4 of the positions are invaluable on game days.
Sounds like pack might cut jaire today? Why not keep him and make him play (and then trade him)?
If everyone knows you don’t want something - why would they give you more than a 7th for him?
Post 6/1 cut designation doesn’t save a whole lot of cap.
And ffs we know he’ll just sign w/ the queens…
Pre 6/1 and there is $18M in dead cap this year. Post 6/1 there is ~$8M this year and $10M next year. That's significant enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fosco33
Keeping him until late in FA or even after the draft could boost interest. With what's left out there at CB, he'd get a lot of interest if they cut him now.
The draft doesn't fall in favor of some team's board and they need a good CB, they might make a trade.
If they don't dick him around there's not much downside for GB to keep Jaire in the short-term. His value probably fluctuates by the day, they will sell when it's high.
Jaire will get traded hours before Day 3 of NFL Draft starts.
I think the reason Morgan never was tried at LT was he was leap years behind Wallace last year. Not a good thing. Hopefully he improves as we've had too many strikeouts in round one
The reason was because they felt Rasheed Walker was better than Sean Rhyan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bretsky
agree to disagreeQuote:
Originally Posted by Joemailman
I don't think there has been any evidence for that all. On the other hand, who would play RG was an open question last year. Some suggested Tom would be moved inside because of the "pro-bowl tackle, all-pro guard, HoF center" comment by the coaches. Others even suggested Meyers would get a shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bretsky
Hey Rats, here's a non-paywall link to the interview with Nate Hobbs from The Athletic titled: "Nate Hobbs Q&A: Packers’ new CB explains why Rich Bissacia ‘changed my life’ with Raiders"
I've heard and even said "This , that and the other" in my lifetime, but I've never heard it this way before: "This, that and the third." He used it a couple times in the interview.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate Hobbs
The most interesting part was he said Jaire reached out to him.
Hmm.
Thanks for the link.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainKickass
It would be a dumb mistake to get rid of J-Alex. You do not get rid of a shutdown corner in his prime, unless he commits some heinous crime. Sure, J-Alex is cocky as fuck, but guess what? The shutdown corner is supposed to be cocky as fuck!
Alexander was a top end corner, and then his attitude and injuries hampered his career. He can't stay healthy and it's a shoulder, a knee, a hamstring....
He used to be super aggressive in his tackling then he popped his shoulder. I am not sure he is worth 17 million especially if he doesn't want to be in GB and is trade value with the injuries and attitude has plummeted. He is doing his best to get out of GB, let him go. I don't wish him the worst, but his time is over in GB.
What makes you think J-Alex doesn’t want to be a Packer? And what attitude? By all accounts, he’s well liked by his teammates. Ain’t no so-called locker room cancer, hombre.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deputy Nutz
Sure, the injury issue is an issue. But I bet he’s super motivated to shed that injury-prone label.
Packers have no problems paying Clark a shitload of frogskins to make a play every blue moon. When healthy, Alexander is a bona fide shutdown corner. Keep J-Alex!
I sorta agree about Jaire, but he's due a lot of money compared to what he has been worth recently. If he ain't a cancer and wants to stay a Packer, as you say, then I'd say a restructuring is in order - fixing it to where he gets a whole lot less, but maybe with performance incentives to keeping making some or all of it.