Willis Value

[sharpe1027]

So they can complain about it down the road.

That's completely false.

[sharpe1027]

I want whatever helps them put the best team on the field. I don't even know if trading him is the right thing. It just seems like keeping him as a backup might be missing out on getting players that will be more likely to see the field.

[George Cumby]

Why does everybody want to trade a guy now that we found out he's actually a good football player?

Right?

We now know the team can win if 10 goes down.

Helluva' nice insurance policy.

[Patler]

Put it this way, if in two years it comes out we turned down an early first round pick, he never starts another game in that time, and all we get is a fourth round compensatory pick, trading him next year is the better option for the team.

...on the other hand, if he helps GB win two games this year, avoiding the virtual kiss of death 0-3 start, plays next year and maybe preserves a playoff game lead and the Packers win back-to-back Super Bowls, not taking your proposed trade looks a lot smarter.

The point is, with a backup QB you never know if he won't play a single meaningful snap or have to start a significant portion of your season. The Packers have a very young, ascending roster that could be legitimate SB contenders for the foreseeable future. The opportunity this year could already have been sunk by incompetent back-up QB performances.

Unless Willis plays a lot more games this year, I seriously doubt any team will offer anything close to the value I think he has to the Packers in 2025 as a backup who could, if needed, keep playoff hopes alive.

[sharpe1027]

...on the other hand, if he helps GB win two games this year, avoiding the virtual kiss of death 0-3 start, plays next year and maybe preserves a playoff game lead and the Packers win back-to-back Super Bowls, not taking your proposed trade looks a lot smarter.

The point is, with a backup QB you never know if he won't play a single meaningful snap or have to start a significant portion of your season. The Packers have a very young, ascending roster that could be legitimate SB contenders for the foreseeable future. The opportunity this year could already have been sunk by incompetent back-up QB performances.

Unless Willis plays a lot more games this year, I seriously doubt any team will offer anything close to the value I think he has to the Packers in 2025 as a backup who could, if needed, keep playoff hopes alive.

Understood. Would you agree that it's implicit in you're assessment that no other team sees him as a likely starter? If they did, they'd see more value than the Packers and might offer enough to make the trade work for both teams.

It then comes down to whether or not at least one team sees him as a likely starter. Based on past history, teams will sometimes make that assessment even with only limited gametime experience.

He's a former third round pick with great measuables that just proved he can play within himself and win games with both his legs and his arm.

Someone out there might see enough.

[Fritz]

Let's say the Packers get lucky and Love starts the rest of the games this year. This spring, would a team really give up a first-round pick for a guy who has only one year left on his contract to make him a starter after seeing him in only two games this year? That wouldn't make sense unless they locked him down for a long-term contract as soon as they acquired him. If they spend a first-rounder to get him, they're likely not going to let him play out that last year and start negotiating a long-term deal during the season if they like how he's playing. He'd have all the leverage.

Now, take the above and replace "first round" with "second round." Is that much more likely? I'm not so sure.

I mean, there are those few nutjob owners out there who might, so it's possible. But if you're the Packers and after the season someone offers you a second-rounder for Willis, you'd then be back to square one - no backup QB who is competent enough to carry the team for a few games should Love miss time. So do you draft a rookie and make him the backup? If so, you're probably spending at least a fourth or fifth round pick. Or you're going to sign a re-tread, though who knows who'll be out there?

I don't know what's best. I just am of the opinion that when a team is in a contending position, as the Packers are, the backup QB becomes much more important than usual.

[Sparkey]

Would they trade him this year ? No chance. But would they trade him in the offseason ? If the right deal was offered I'd be shocked if they didn't.

Now I get the whole thing about wanting a really good backup qb, but in all honesty, a good backup QB is not going to win you a superbowl, and that is the goal right ? Unless of course your TPB. Then kicking ass in the regular season is king.

So hear me out. The current Packers team is really loaded with talent. For a lot of that talent, the bill will be coming due in around 2 years and that is a great problem to have. Reality, however, is that they can not afford to pay all the talent. That is wear trading a backup QB comes into play. The Pack needs to constantly be replenishing the talent on the team and the best way to do that is thru the draft. Getting an extra pick, say a 3rd or 4th gives you the ability to add said talent. Let us not forget that guys like Bahktiari, Tom, Doubs, Sitton and Lang were all 4th rounders. All guys that made a larger impact on the field than any back qb would ever make.

Do all picks end up being good? Nope, but that is another reason why adding an add'l pick in say the 4th is important. It basically gives them an xtra chance to add some talent to the team. More lines in the water equals a better change of catching a "big fish".

[sharpe1027]

Fritz, the team would trade for him with the intention of getting a contract extension in place if he did well. They have things like the franchise tag to protect themselves somewhat.

The Packers once gave up a first rounder for some guy named Farve. How much starting experience did he have?

[Joemailman]

Would they trade him this year ? No chance. But would they trade him in the offseason ? If the right deal was offered I'd be shocked if they didn't.

Now I get the whole thing about wanting a really good backup qb, but in all honesty, a good backup QB is not going to win you a superbowl, and that is the goal right ? Unless of course your TPB. Then kicking ass in the regular season is king.

So hear me out. The current Packers team is really loaded with talent. For a lot of that talent, the bill will be coming due in around 2 years and that is a great problem to have. Reality, however, is that they can not afford to pay all the talent. That is wear trading a backup QB comes into play. The Pack needs to constantly be replenishing the talent on the team and the best way to do that is thru the draft. Getting an extra pick, say a 3rd or 4th gives you the ability to add said talent. Let us not forget that guys like Bahktiari, Tom, Doubs, Sitton and Lang were all 4th rounders. All guys that made a larger impact on the field than any back qb would ever make.

Do all picks end up being good? Nope, but that is another reason why adding an add'l pick in say the 4th is important. It basically gives them an xtra chance to add some talent to the team. More lines in the water equals a better change of catching a "big fish".

You're probably not winning a Super Bowl with a backup QB. (Although 7 years ago the Eagles did). But in the event of your starting QB missing several games, a good backup QB can win you enough games while the starting QB is out to keep you in playoff contention. The Packers went into this season considered to be a Super Bowl contender. Because they managed to win a couple games with their backup QB, they're still considered a contender. It would feel a lot different if they were 0-3 right now. The Packers should be Super Bowl contenders at least the next 2 years. You want to risk throwing that away for a Day 3 pick in 2026?

[run pMc]

You keep him as the backup. First of all, no team is going to offer an early first round pick for him. It's not considered a great QB class coming out in the draft this year, but I don't think anyone is confusing Willis with a franchise QB. Kyle Shanahan managed to win games with guys like Garopolo, Beathard, and Mullens... and teams can find those guys.

Second, you could extend the argument of trading backups to other positions like CBs, WRs, etc. -- why do we need Valentine when we could just play Jaire, Stokes and Nixon? Players get hurt, even QBs, so you need capable backups to fill in if you want to win games. Trading away your depth isn't smart, unless you get a crazy offer (not happening, see argument 1) or you have an absolute embarrassment of riches at one position.

Third, they've had draft classes of 11, 13, and 11 players. What do they need more, another Day 3 pick, or a competent backup QB? (Joshua Dobbs and a conditional R7 went to MIN for a R6 pick.)

I get this is essentially a hypothetical -- what is Willis's value in trade, or even in FA? I just don't think they are going to turn around and flip him for a mid-round pick. They'll want to keep him around for at least a little while first. Rasul lasted what - 1.5 seasons? Willis will get that long.

[sharpe1027]

He's not likely to be resigned after his rookie contract expires. Next year you have to ask if one year of a backup is worth what another team offers. We traded a first round pick for Favre. Matt Flynn signed a $28?M contract. Willis is a third round pick that was drafted as a project looks like he's turned the corner. Why do we think we can't even get a mid round pick for him?

[sharpe1027]

You're probably not winning a Super Bowl with a backup QB. (Although 7 years ago the Eagles did). But in the event of your starting QB missing several games, a good backup QB can win you enough games while the starting QB is out to keep you in playoff contention. The Packers went into this season considered to be a Super Bowl contender. Because they managed to win a couple games with their backup QB, they're still considered a contender. It would feel a lot different if they were 0-3 right now. The Packers should be Super Bowl contenders at least the next 2 years. You want to risk throwing that away for a Day 3 pick in 2026?

Risk missing out? That's not really a balanced assessment. Maybe by not trading him they miss out on a key contributor to the SB run. Maybe he comes in as a backup and loses three games straight. Etc.

You maximize your odds and hope for the best. If a team offers something decent, you decide which risk you're willing to take and don't look back.

[Patler]

Understood. Would you agree that it's implicit in you're assessment that no other team sees him as a likely starter? If they did, they'd see more value than the Packers and might offer enough to make the trade work for both teams.

No, I do not agree with that.

[sharpe1027]

No, I do not agree with that.

So another team would see him as a starter, but the Packers would see him as having even more value to them as a backup?

That's hard to wrap my head around.

[NewsBruin]

So another team would see him as a starter, but the Packers would see him as having even more value to them as a backup?

That's hard to wrap my head around.

That's a nice rhetorical touch, but the Packers would only care about the compensation, not whether the Raiders see him as the next evolution of long snapper.

We've only had one game with Willis and Love both dressed out, so we haven't seen what our offense will do with both of them together. Will they have Malik QB Power packages drawn up? Will MLF go the Full Taysom with both Willis and Love in the huddle? Would he be our FG holder? You're not gonna see Love and Sean Clifford on the field together, but Malik would either waste opposing DCs' planning time or offer something completely unexpected in a crucial drive. So he could be more to us than just a backup if that's what he and MLF want.