Official Free Agency/Offseason/Non-Draft Thread

[RashanGary]

Media pukes are obsessed with the need to extend Rodgers? Good for them if true, but I haven't seen or heard any. It's more like Upnorth said - mostly it's the media pukes stirring up crap on this and other topics. As for Jordan Love, correct, nobody can say at this point he's nothing but crap. It's just as correct, though, that nobody can say he ain't. What is pretty sure is that he ain't Aaron Rodgers or even close - virtually nobody is. As for the Packers being a whole lot better now than when Rodgers was hurt for a fairly long time, maybe a little bit but not all that much. We still can't win games with defense; Our O Line arguably is overrated because of Rodgers; I like our receivers but a lot of people don't; It boils down to Aaron Jones being the only significant improvement from before, and for a while it looked like they were gonna lose him. And is LaFleur that much better a coach than McCarthy? I'm generally with the yeses on that, but I'm not sold on the idea that his system can win much without Rodgers. I think we have a sub-.500 team without Rodgers.

Assuming Love is average or worse (a statistical probability) yeah, .500 at best without 12.

However, Ron Wolf disciples have a much better than average hit rate on quarterbacks, and great ones too. Favre, Rodgers, Wilson, Mahommes and even Carr/Mayfield are decent. So we might have the next great QB behind Rodgers and be just fine.

[texaspackerbacker]

ok, RG, you out-optimisted me hahahahaha.

I think even if Love is above average, they team will be way below average without Rodgers.

Wolf and his disciples had a lot of misses on QB picks too.

[Upnorth]

Even if they pick a qb this year it isnt a nail in the love muffin. When I dated I used the machine gun method. Shoot enough and you are bound to hit something. I think qb drafting is the same.
And I think an above average love gets us to 9-8 or 10-7.
Rodgers gets us to 12-5 at worst.
Unless Barry is as bad as I think he can be. Then we are screwed and we should kick some gute balls.

[bobblehead]

ok, RG, you out-optimisted me hahahahaha.

I think even if Love is above average, they team will be way below average without Rodgers.

Wolf and his disciples had a lot of misses on QB picks too.

If Rodgers is that dominant and the roster is shit, why do we need to free up cap space? Rodgers will win it himself or he won't.

Lets just be clear here. I am too lazy to look it up, but how many QBs have LONGER than 3 current years on their contract. Dak just signed for 4 years and he is young. Wilson has 3 years remaining. Matt Ryan is at 3 years left in contract. Hell, outside of Maholmes and Dak who JUST signed who has more than 3 years on their contract?

Rodgers is under contract and there is no reason to do anything.

[Upnorth]

If Rodgers is that dominant and the roster is shit, why do we need to free up cap space? Rodgers will win it himself or he won't.

Lets just be clear here. I am too lazy to look it up, but how many QBs have LONGER than 3 current years on their contract. Dak just signed for 4 years and he is young. Wilson has 3 years remaining. Matt Ryan is at 3 years left in contract. Hell, outside of Maholmes and Dak who JUST signed who has more than 3 years on their contract?

Rodgers is under contract and there is no reason to do anything.

I agree. Unless they chose to do things to buy a fa or two. But I would prefer to see them do something with Adams contract first. If they can minimize 2022 cap impact on Adams there is no more important contract right now.
I think most people keep forgetting he is 2 years into a 5 year extension that is catching up right now.

[texaspackerbacker]

The reason to free up cap space is that a lot of people aren't satisfied with 13-3 and getting to the NFC finals. To me, that ain't too bad, but whatever.

There is more reason to extend him - in order to keep him a lot more years and to make it less easy to dump him within the three years. Adding cap space while doing that is frosting on the cake.

[run pMc]

If Rodgers is that dominant and the roster is shit, why do we need to free up cap space? Rodgers will win it himself or he won't.

Lets just be clear here. I am too lazy to look it up, but how many QBs have LONGER than 3 current years on their contract. Dak just signed for 4 years and he is young. Wilson has 3 years remaining. Matt Ryan is at 3 years left in contract. Hell, outside of Maholmes and Dak who JUST signed who has more than 3 years on their contract?

Rodgers is under contract and there is no reason to do anything.

Agree. 3 years is plenty of time left on a contract, especially for a 37 year old QB. Yes, he had a great season. At the end of the season, even MURPHY admitted they'd be dumb to get rid of Rodgers. I don't think anything has changed. Unless Rodgers gets pissy and demands a trade, he'll be a Packer. Cutting him would be stupid, trading him would reap a lot of picks and imply Jordan Love was ready to play, and much much more than a talented but raw benchwarmer. They won't extend Rodgers unless they have to for cap space because it doesn't make sense to. Tom Brady is the unicorn as far as playing healthy past 41. Nobody else has done it with much efficacy, including Favre, Brees, et al. Rodgers might be different, but why lock up $30-40 million well in advance when you can slow play it out?

[sharpe1027]

The reason to free up cap space is that a lot of people aren't satisfied with 13-3 and getting to the NFC finals. To me, that ain't too bad, but whatever.

There is more reason to extend him - in order to keep him a lot more years and to make it less easy to dump him within the three years. Adding cap space while doing that is frosting on the cake.

If they don't win the SB, people will say it's because they didn't spend more in free agency or that they spent too much on the wrong players in free agency.

Those arguments feel right, but that doesn't make them sound. They make judgements in how to field the best team. There's no guarantees no matter what they do. It's not a binary decision of winning the Superbowl or just being consistently good.

[Bretsky]

If they don't win the SB, people will say it's because they didn't spend more in free agency or that they spent too much on the wrong players in free agency.

Those arguments feel right, but that doesn't make them sound. They make judgements in how to field the best team. There's no guarantees no matter what they do. It's not a binary decision of winning the Superbowl or just being consistently good.

Of course it's not an exact decision

But you can choose to hedge your bets on way or the other

It seems like GB alwasy chooses the be good route over the Go for the Gold

[bobblehead]

Of course it's not an exact decision

But you can choose to hedge your bets on way or the other

It seems like GB alwasy chooses the be good route over the Go for the Gold

They reap similar results to be honest. Being good (very) will let you sneak into the owl once in awhile and keep the fans happy. Going for the gold fails often, but gets you a ring about the same % of the time, but results in you being shitty often. The only outlier in this equation is the Patriots. Look at the Rams desperation to get a ring after coming oh so close. When is their next draft pick? 2027 ??

[sharpe1027]

They reap similar results to be honest. Being good (very) will let you sneak into the owl once in awhile and keep the fans happy. Going for the gold fails often, but gets you a ring about the same % of the time, but results in you being shitty often. The only outlier in this equation is the Patriots. Look at the Rams desperation to get a ring after coming oh so close. When is their next draft pick? 2027 ??

Do they really? 31 teams fail every year. What percentage "go for it all" each year?

[sharpe1027]

Of course it's not an exact decision

But you can choose to hedge your bets on way or the other

It seems like GB alwasy chooses the be good route over the Go for the Gold

I challenge the notion that there are even two distinct philosophies. They are trying to win it all each year. They also make some long term investments. Same as every team, really.

Is the primary measure how much money is spent in free agency for a particular year? If so, I have a hunch going for it all will have poor results from a pure statistical analysis.

[sharpe1027]

https://www.nbcsports.com/edge/article/offseason-research/super-bowl-champions-use-free-agency-correctly

The red trendline conveys that spending in free agency is inversely correlated with winning. The more teams spend in free agency the less they win.

[sharpe1027]

From the same article:

Not a single team was above average in free agency spending in the three years leading to their Super Bowl.

But none of these teams were at the extreme in terms of spending next to nothing in free agency.

Most spent close-to but just under the NFL average in free agency over that period leading to their Super Bowl.

[bobblehead]

Do they really? 31 teams fail every year. What percentage "go for it all" each year?

5-7. Teams that have "gone for it and won" recently are the Bucs and Denver. Both of them had the benefit of signing a good over the hill QB to complete a really good roster. Neither of them had a QB under a long contract causing them to draft at the back of every round.