Official Packers Offseason/Free Agency Thread

[run pMc]

Arguably, EVERYTHING about the Packers is LaFleur's "area".

I'd argue NOT everything about the Packers is his area. He's the head coach. He has no input over the Titletown district, the recent stock sale, marketing, or what happens on multiple floors in the building.

Also: saying the Packers have a dire cap situation is not negativity, it's reality. I hope they find a way out of cap hell without being a terrible team -- how's that for being positive?

[texaspackerbacker]

Seems like you're kinda grasping at straws there hahahaha. Even on those things, to the extent that they bring money to the team, I would think he is involved, though. Things don't happen in a vacuum. As you know (or should), paying big bonuses is a key to working the salary cap, and having a lot of money available (as maybe some teams do not) is what makes that possible.

I'll give you credit for positive hoping hahaha, but you gotta believe in what you hope for - or it's all negativity. A lot of teams in the present and even more so, a lot of teams in the past have been characterized as having a "dire" cap situation, and in almost every case (probably some truth squadders will dig up one or two exceptions), virtually nothing bad happens. I've explained over and over and over how it works, and it's gonna work out favorably in this case - just wait and see - another post Bretsky can save and use against me if I'm wrong hahahaha.

[Joemailman]

The Green Bay Packers signed QB Kurt Benkert, WR Chris Blair, CB Kabion Ento (kay-be-on N-toe), QB Danny Etling, S Innis Gaines, LB La'Darius Hamilton, C Michal Menet (Michael MEN-et), K JJ Molson, T/G Cole Van Lanen and LB Ray Wilborn. General Manager Brian Gutekunst announced the transactions Tuesday.

All of the players spent time on the Packers' practice squad this season.

.

[kcpackman]

You're right, the cap is gonna go way up, and with extensions and stretched out signings, the cap absolutely is not gonna be a problem. Where you are dead wrong, though, is saying it wouldn't be dire without Rodgers. We could get everybody else back, even Davante, and the team would still be in the toilet without Rodgers. After listening to LaFleur's video conference and A.J. Hawk on the Macafee show, I'm fairly optimistic that the dire future without Rodgers ain't gonna happen next year or a good deal longer.

I cussed out a lot of people and unfollowed several in Facebook today over idiotic comments about losing Rodgers, the cap, etc.

There's a LOT of haters and fools out there and in here with regard to the Rodgers situation.

Assuming Adams comes back as well as Lazard and MVS, and if Love starts - would the Packers have a 14-3 record, no. What I dont get is how anyone can say how Love is a bust and wont develop into a good starting QB, based off of the 1 starts he has had. Love will run MLFs offense (the one run his first 2 years as HC) - which is QB friendly. No one has a clue if Love is a bust or not at this point. Because someone disagrees with your viewpoint on Rodgers does not make the a hater and fool - just someone that has a different opinion.

[George Cumby]

Something I wonder about is what happens to Love's headspace if Rodgers isn't in the room. Even if Rodgers is cool with him, which I question, that's got to be tough for the kid.

[kcpackman]

Something I wonder about is what happens to Love's headspace if Rodgers isn't in the room. Even if Rodgers is cool with him, which I question, that's got to be tough for the kid.

Yeah - sometimes I forget at 23/24 y/o these guys are kids and things affect them differently that an old fart like me.

[Bretsky]

COBB really needs to go though

Deep down, over 17 game season I thought he might pickup about 500 yards and 50 catches given he was AROD's Manlove and I hope he had something left.

Amari Rodgers may be our typical good for shit 3rd round bust. We need to find out

[texaspackerbacker]

Try 4-13 with Love and most of the rest of the current team. And it isn't just because Love kinda bombed out. Literally any other QB we might have would likely throw at least three times the interceptions of Rodgers. Put this past season into a context of that - a QB throwing 12-15 picks if not more. How many more losses would we have had? A lot, I would guess. That IMO would be the high water mark of a future without Rodgers, probably a lot worse.

[Bretsky]

Try 4-13 with Love and most of the rest of the current team. And it isn't just because Love kinda bombed out. Literally any other QB we might have would likely throw at least three times the interceptions of Rodgers. Put this past season into a context of that - a QB throwing 12-15 picks if not more. How many more losses would we have had? A lot, I would guess. That IMO would be the high water mark of a future without Rodgers, probably a lot worse.

GB's defense is still good; I would be betting 7-10 with Love

[call_me_ishmael]

GB's defense is still good; I would be betting 7-10 with Love

Generous. 4-13 IMO. Rodgers was better, on an equally good team and only won 6.

[Joemailman]

Really? You guys think when the Packers no longer have Rodgers they're going to turn into the Jets? If the Packers lose Rodgers but retain Adams, they remain the favorite in the NFCN. Just not the overwhelming favorite they would be with Rodgers.

[RashanGary]

I agree more with CMIs logic. The Packers were 13-3 with Favre in 2007 and then 6-10 with the green Rodgers. Rodgers is playing better now than Favre did in 2007 and odds are Love is worse than Rodgers in 2008. 4 wins sounds more likely than 8. But that might be a good thing. We could luck into a good QB in the draft and the Rodgers transition would be almost seamless.

[Joemailman]

I agree more with CMIs logic. The Packers were 13-3 with Favre in 2007 and then 6-10 with the green Rodgers. Rodgers is playing better now than Favre did in 2007 and odds are Love is worse than Rodgers in 2008. 4 wins sounds more likely than 8. But that might be a good thing. We could luck into a good QB in the draft and the Rodgers transition would be almost seamless.

The Packers went from 13 wins in 2007 to 6 in 2008 because their defense went from 6th in points given up to 22nd. It didn't have anything to do with the QB situation. The Saints this year went 9-8 with mediocre (at best) QB play because they had a good defense. If the Packers retain Adams and their defense remains strong the Packers will be fine without Rodgers. Just not 13-4 fine.

[Thirteen Below]

The Packers went from 13 wins in 2007 to 6 in 2008 because their defense went from 6th in points given up to 22nd. It didn't have anything to do with the QB situation. The Saints this year went 9-8 with mediocre (at best) QB play because they had a good defense. If the Packers retain Adams and their defense remains strong the Packers will be fine without Rodgers. Just not 13-4 fine.

Yeah, I think that citing the dropoff from Favre's last year to Rodgers' first year is kind of a stretch. The personnel were completely different, it was McCarthy not LaFleur, the competition in the NFC North is completely different (except for the Lions)... there are just way too many variables. I'll be honest, so far I haven't seen a damned thing from Love that impresses me, but with three years of training camps and NFL offseason programs, a couple of live games' experience to show the coaches what his strengths and weaknsesses are, and an entire offseason for LaFleur to install a system suited to... well... whatever the hell he's good at, plus the traditional weakness of the Norris Division, I don't think a .500 season is out of the question. Mediocre, yeah, but not disastrous. We're goinna have to expect a couple-few bad years at some point very soon anyway; does it really matter that much whether it starts in 2022, or 2023/24?

[Bretsky]

Really? You guys think when the Packers no longer have Rodgers they're going to turn into the Jets? If the Packers lose Rodgers but retain Adams, they remain the favorite in the NFCN. Just not the overwhelming favorite they would be with Rodgers.

I seem to have more confidence in Love that some in here (to my surprise) but I'm taking your Kool Aide outside and freezing it. I would not consider us the favorites with Love