Official Free Agency/Offseason/Non-Draft Thread

[HarveyWallbangers]

What I think is going on, and what makes the most sense, is actually a mistake by Gutey IMHO. I don't think Rodgers is going douche bag like late career Favre. He's a smart dude. He realizes restructuring is good for him financially, would provide more security, and would allow the Packers to build a better team around him this year. It makes no sense that Rodgers would be upset by that. He's not going to get an extension at his age with three years left on his contract.

I've been a Gutey supporter, but I think Rodgers played well enough that you give him an extra year security. Even if he were to get injured or struggle more this year, I'd want to go into 2022 with him at the helm. Making Love wait until 2023 wouldn't be that big of deal. It would be the same timeframe that Rodgers got. At the cost of being tied to Rodgers for an extra year, they could have signed a good player (like Fuller). I think that made the most sense.

[texaspackerbacker]

If they lose Rodgers after '21, '22, '23, or probably '24 or '25 too, the bottom falls out and they go down the toilet - and this comes from the biggest optimist in the forum. I have to HOPE Gutekunst has better sense than to let that happen. It would be a damn shame if his ego gets in the way/doubling down on the mistake of drafting Love last year. Why would he not get a max extension? In 5 or 6 years, he reaches the age Brady is now. If he's not as least as good then as Brady is now, well, it's beyond belief - barring career threatening injury.

Assuming the Z. Smith restructure has been done, the $10 or 12 million from that alone would cover Aaron Jones, $3-4 million for the RFAs, and most of the what? $4-5 million for draft picks? Extending Adams would relieve the cap to the tune of $8-10 million or more. So yes, we could sign somebody decent even without - or let's say before the Aaron Rodgers extension.

[Joemailman]

Kyle Fuller to Broncos. Reunited with former coaches.

[Bretsky]

Why is this clear?

I've pointed this out numerous times, but here goes again. If the Rodgers contract is like almost every other contract, the Packers could have unilaterally converted his roster bonus into a signing bonus. They wouldn't need Rodgers consent. The idea that Rodgers prevented them from doing something like this seems very far-fetched.
This was all about Gutekunst not wanting to lose that flexibility--unless he needed to use that money.

Personally, I would have converted some of that money. Enough to give Rodgers security through 2022, but no longer. I would have extended Adams also, I would have used that money to sign a FA who will make a difference (e.g. Kyle Fuller).

How is this clear ? Have you heard AROD's comments and soft messages he throws the Packer brass. Or maybe your of the view that he's not sending any messages. If you are several of the Packer beat reporters in media heads and talk show guys who are close to the situation do not agree.

You pointing this out is really a non issue. I've read it a few times and I get it. And I don't think anybody ever said Rodgers is preventing them from doing anything. I am of the train of thought that GB should extend Rodgers, give him a longer term commitment, and create salary cap flexibility to sign a guy like Fuller or the ex Rams QB for the same deal he agreed to. I also agree with much of the WI Packer beat guys in believing this is what Rodgers wants and the breakup could be ugly down the road. But I think Jordan Love is a mixed bag and hopefully I'm wrong.

I just wanna win another SB or two before Rodgers leaves and I don't think we are that far away with Rodgers as our QB.

[Bretsky]

Fuller signs with Denver, 1y/$9.5m. Seems reasonable. Ugh! I’m having flashbacks to TT.

Between the Rams CB getting signed for 6 MIL/year and now Fuller those are a could big DAMMIT'S

[HarveyWallbangers]

Why in the world would they extend an old QB with three years left on his contract?

[wist43]

It's philosophical... the mentality is never now, at the possible expense of the future.

They'll play with contracts to keep some players, but not to fill holes.

Unfortunately the philosophy of not filling holes also extends to the draft and you end up with last year's draft.

2011 was a fart in the wind. The Packers don't build to win championships, they build to be consistently good, and for them that's good enough.

[sharpe1027]

How many Superbowl teams were the result of a team loading up to win now at the expense of future years? How many Superbowl winners where teams that were taking a longer view of their cap?

I want someone to show me it's a good idea by actual results. Seems like loading up for one or two years is a terrible plan that appeals to the fan but doesn't give good odds of winning it all.

I'll take the odds of a team that makes the playoffs every year for ten years over a team that signs a bunch a free agents in anyone one year so they have to rebuild after two or three years and only make the playoffs five times in ten years.

[wist43]

How many Superbowl teams were the result of a team loading up to win now at the expense of future years? How many Superbowl winners where teams that were taking a longer view of their cap?

I want someone to show me it's a good idea by actual results. Seems like loading up for one or two years is a terrible plan that appeals to the fan but doesn't give good odds of winning it all.

I'll take the odds of a team that makes the playoffs every year for ten years over a team that signs a bunch a free agents in anyone one year so they have to rebuild after two or three years and only make the playoffs five times in ten years.

It isn't a matter of "loading up"... it's a matter of filling holes when you're close enough to make a run at it.

We have 1 title in the last 25 years - all that time having two HOF QB's. What's wrong with that picture??

[Tony Oday]

Tampa Bay

[bobblehead]

Tampa Bay

a) We absolutely should have beaten TB
b) They are an example of a team that drafted very high several times, then with rookies under cap got a good QB...good, not great. They didn't really "load up" any more than we did when we signed Amos, Smith x2 and Turner.

As to Wists point, there is nothing wrong with that picture. Show me all the multiple super bowl winning QBs. I can point out exactly how our own wonderful QBs over the last 25 years disappointed in the playoffs. I'll say it ONE MORE TIME. If Rodgers had shown the heart to run the endzone on both 2nd and/or 3rd down, he 1) might have scored and 2) would have made going for it on 4th down and easy call.

This is a superbowl contenders roster as is. No reason to put the team in cap hell. Adding a player in FA isn't going to assure us anything other than being.....a superbowl contender.

[Zool]

a) We absolutely should have beaten TB
b) They are an example of a team that drafted very high several times, then with rookies under cap got a good QB...good, not great. They didn't really "load up" any more than we did when we signed Amos, Smith x2 and Turner.

As to Wists point, there is nothing wrong with that picture. Show me all the multiple super bowl winning QBs. I can point out exactly how our own wonderful QBs over the last 25 years disappointed in the playoffs. I'll say it ONE MORE TIME. If Rodgers had shown the heart to run the endzone on both 2nd and/or 3rd down, he 1) might have scored and 2) would have made going for it on 4th down and easy call.

This is a superbowl contenders roster as is. No reason to put the team in cap hell. Adding a player in FA isn't going to assure us anything other than being.....a superbowl contender.

Especially with the draft still coming. If you make it to GM of a pro sports team, odds are you're pretty good at your job. Yeah I understand about Millen, but every rule has an exception. Tampa takes the approach of shoot the load and make a run, then rebuild for 5-10 years and do it again. The Packers are on a sustained run of success that only Pit and NE can match. Put the Packers in the AFC East, and they might be the dynasty of the 2000s.

[wist43]

a) We absolutely should have beaten TB
b) They are an example of a team that drafted very high several times, then with rookies under cap got a good QB...good, not great. They didn't really "load up" any more than we did when we signed Amos, Smith x2 and Turner.

As to Wists point, there is nothing wrong with that picture. Show me all the multiple super bowl winning QBs. I can point out exactly how our own wonderful QBs over the last 25 years disappointed in the playoffs. I'll say it ONE MORE TIME. If Rodgers had shown the heart to run the endzone on both 2nd and/or 3rd down, he 1) might have scored and 2) would have made going for it on 4th down and easy call.

This is a superbowl contenders roster as is. No reason to put the team in cap hell. Adding a player in FA isn't going to assure us anything other than being.....a superbowl contender.

This is the way to look at it...

Since we won SB XXXI, there have been 24 Superbowls.

Of those 24 Superbowls, 17 have been won by HOF QB's.

I included Russel Wilson as an eventual HOF QB, but did not include Mahomes.

So that is a record of 17-7 for HOF QB's in the SB. A winning percentage of .708

Elway won 2, Rothliesberger won 2, Peyton Manning won 2, Brady won 7, and non-HOF QB Eli Manning won 2.

That accounts for 15 of the 24 SB's. A winning percentage of .625

There are 2 other HOF QB's who won 1 SB each, Kurt Warner and Drew Brees.

------------------------------

The Packers winning percentage over 24 years of having HOF QB play is 1 for 24. A winning percentage of .042

----------------------------------

I rest my case

[HarveyWallbangers]

This is the way to look at it...

Since we won SB XXXI, there have been 24 Superbowls.

Of those 24 Superbowls, 17 have been won by HOF QB's.

I included Russel Wilson as an eventual HOF QB, but did not include Mahomes.

So that is a record of 17-7 for HOF QB's in the SB. A winning percentage of .708

Elway won 2, Rothliesberger won 2, Peyton Manning won 2, Brady won 7, and non-HOF QB Eli Manning won 2.

That accounts for 15 of the 24 SB's. A winning percentage of .625

There are 2 other HOF QB's who won 1 SB each, Kurt Warner and Drew Brees.

------------------------------

The Packers winning percentage over 24 years of having HOF QB play is 1 for 24. A winning percentage of .042

----------------------------------

I rest my case

19 with Rodgers and Mahomes. Elway and Eli would have 1 each, if Favre had played better in the playoffs. Favre would have at least 2 and maybe 3 (maybe 4, if you count the meltdown with the Vikings). Late career Favre sucked in big playoff games. He can blame himself for the lack of titles. I won't even mention the terrible interception against the Eagles.

Rodgers could have had 2, if Rodgers had played better in the 4th quarter of last year's game.

And there are plenty of Hall of Fame QBs with 0 or 1 titles (Marino, Kelly, Moon, Fouts, Ryan, Rivers, Romo, Brees, Wilson, Warner).

Proves nothing.

[run pMc]

It's a team game... a HOF QB guarantees nothing. Having one sure helps your odds.

Let's be very clear -- they have NOT wasted Rodgers. He's been in multiple NFCCG's, so he's had plenty of chances to get to the SB.
This is vastly different from some of the other QB Harvey listed, where they sometimes toiled on terrible teams -- Marino didn't even play in the playoffs from 86-89 (4 seasons), for example.

With the exception of the McCarthy/Philbin season (I'm ignoring the prior season when he was hurt), Rodgers and GB were playoff perennials.