Upcoming contracts

[RashanGary]

We have such a nice window now with Clark, Z, Gary, Alexander

AR Adams Lizard a great RB group, a te group really showing up and a line.....

Now is.kind. of the time. Next two years too if you push the cap hits back and then do a rebuild. I just would.hate to see 40 year old AR in a rebuild. I'd rather see him go and finish on top and get some picks for him. Plus if we shoot our shot now we could get one or two rings in three years and that's better than zero if we kept him for 5 but let his best guys go.

An aggressive shot then a rebuild with a young guy makes.more sense than losing with 12

[Joemailman]

If the guy is still good, though, you can restructure him a second time, and do it all over again. Dead money only becomes and issue if he deteriorates and needs to be cut.

Running backs can sometimes decline pretty quickly though as they move onto late 20's.

[RashanGary]

Running backs can sometimes decline pretty quickly though as they move onto late 20's.

Yeah, and other than QBs you don't see a lot of it. To get a guy enough money to make it worth it.to the player and still.push it back. There's a limit to how much you can push without the dead cap eventually being unmanageable

[texaspackerbacker]

Running backs can sometimes decline pretty quickly though as they move onto late 20's.

hahahahaha I thought we were talking about Bakhtiari.

[texaspackerbacker]

RG, if it is handled in the best possible way, there will not be a "rebuild", and Rodgers WILL be around well past 40. As for the young guy, it was a mistake to draft him. It's remotely possible we just keep him 7 years or so as a second stringer, then he succeeds Rodgers. It is far more likely, though, that at some point before his rookie contract ends, he gets traded.

[RashanGary]

If you make tough business decisions today, there will always be enough money that you don’t have to lose a bunch at the same time. New England and Green Bay (less the time they weirdly let Heyward and Hyde go and didn’t even spend the money they had) have been pretty good at making decisions on who to keep and who to let go and not turning it into a situation where they lose a bunch at the same time.

But we’ve been talking about really going after 1 more for AR and selling out to get that one. Obvioulsy the danger is injuries. Injuries and you spend all your money, have to cut guys later and don’t win anyway because of a bad injury run or a shockingly peaking buzz saw of a team or horrible matchup.....

You’re not guaranteed to win a sb even if you sell out. But right now, Near end of ARs career.... he’s playing elite. Wouldn’t be the worst thing to take a shot right now and cut a bunch for rebuild in three years once the money catches up.

It’s an option. One I condone. Best for AR because he gets absolute best chance of a SB in his last three best years. Best for AR cuz whoever would trade for him would give him a great chance too.

Best for Packers cuz I think we would get one of the next three or even two vs zero if you always worry about the future. Best because AR would fetch a real nice pick or two in that last year. Best because it’s better to rebuild with a young QB than an old one.

[texaspackerbacker]

"really going after 1 more for AR and selling out to get that one" should not be, and I think is not the goal. The goal should be perpetual or at least long term excellence. I don't see any reason why we can't win several more Super Bowls with Rodgers. Whether we do or we don't, though, it's a helluva lot more important IMO to keep the team at or very near the top - as it has been since the early '90s. I really don't want my favorite team(s) to be like the Giants in the NFL or Marlins or Astros in MLB and various other teams that are "feast or famine" - tear down to absolutely horrible, rise back and win a championship, then tear down again, etc. I would hate that.

I absolutely want something closer to 7 years for Rodgers instead of 3 or less, and that should be very doable, cap-wise.

[Joemailman]

All year long I've been debating whether it makes sense to give big money to Aaron Jones, or let him go and have a tandem of Jamaal Williams and A.J. Dillon. After the Detroit game I was leaning toward Jones. After last night I could definitely see the alternative. You can't sign Jones and Williams. The salary cap wouldn't allow for it, and Williams would probably want to leave if they sign Jones. Williams is good enough to go elsewhere and either start or be part of a tandem.

[Upnorth]

I want to see more of dillion. But my instinct is Williams plus dillion plus cap savi vs is greater than or equal to jones plus dillion -

[Guiness]

I want to see more of dillion. But my instinct is Williams plus dillion plus cap savi vs is greater than or equal to jones plus dillion -

Don't understand why Dillon isn't getting a few more reps. Of course you're going to keep giving the ball to Jones, but is Dillon so much of a liability right now that they don't want him on the field? That doesn't bode well from a position that is supposed to be instant gratification through the draft.

[texaspackerbacker]

It's the absolute top priority to sign Aaron Jones. Jamal Williams is damn good, but he's very replaceable. Jones is not. The team gets a lot worse if we don't have a breakaway threat like him. I think if the cap is handled right, though, we could retain Jones and Williams both, as well as that sacred cow, Bakhtiari and Linsley too.

[RashanGary]

Jones is good at everything except goal line. Annoying to not put the battering ram in there when we only need a yard. But the running back coach is loyal to jones and williams so he doesn’t want to give Dillon the easy touchdowns.

But Dillon should absolutely get short yardage snaps. Absolutely.

[Upnorth]

Don't understand why Dillon isn't getting a few more reps. Of course you're going to keep giving the ball to Jones, but is Dillon so much of a liability right now that they don't want him on the field? That doesn't bode well from a position that is supposed to be instant gratification through the draft.

That is my concern as well and why I want to see more of him. But like rg said perhaps it is a rb coach thing. At least I hope so. The more I see our line play and how poor Williams was running the more I see jones as a priority tex until we can see more of dillion.

[texaspackerbacker]

Jones is good at everything except goal line. Annoying to not put the battering ram in there when we only need a yard. But the running back coach is loyal to jones and williams so he doesn’t want to give Dillon the easy touchdowns.

But Dillon should absolutely get short yardage snaps. Absolutely.

Dillon might be better there than Williams, but if the blocking isn't there like on the 4th and 1 play, nobody is going straight in. Jones, however, gives you another dimension even there - bouncing to somewhere that there is an opening.

I say again, Jones is unique and much harder to replace than Williams. An offense with nothing but plodders is a lot less effective and a lot less of a threat to set up the passing game than having that breakaway threat in there.

[Fritz]

You know how it is. If Dillon can't figure out the blocking, he won't be out there. And Williams is a lights-out blocker, and Jones has gotten much better. Until the kid learns the blocking schemes and shows ability and willingness, he won't play much.

I'd sign Bahk, Jones, King, in that order. Let Linsley walk, as good as he is.