Las Vegas Raiders Trade for WR Davante Adams

Las Vegas Raiders WR Davante Adams
Las Vegas Raiders WR Davante Adams
Photo: USA Today Sports Images

NFL Offseason - Yesterday, the Las Vegas Raiders made a huge addition to their defense with the free-agent signing of Chandler Jones. Today they made a big splash on offense, sending two draft picks to the Green Bay Packers in exchange for wide receiver Davante Adams.

Adams, who doesn't turn 30 until December, has made five straight Pro Bowls and been named a first-team All-Pro in each of the last two seasons. He set career highs last season with 123 catches for 1,553 yards … and that may have been a step down from his 2020 campaign, when he led the NFL with 18 touchdown grabs and added 1,374 yards in only 14 games. He was second in DYAR last season after finishing first in 2020, and has ranked 16th or higher five times in the last six seasons. However, his contract expired this month, and the Packers named him as their franchise player to ensure he could not sign somewhere else. Adams responded by informing the team he would not be playing without a new contract, but now that's not going to be a problem.

Terms of the trade have yet to be disclosed. ESPN's Adam Schefter reports that the Packers will receive "two prime 2022 picks." NFL Network's Ian Rapoport says that Las Vegas will lose "a first-round pick, potentially more picks, and a player."

UPDATE:

Rapoport also has reports on the new deal Davante Adams will get: five years, $141.3 million. That will certainly help Adams pay his mortgage—he reportedly bought a $12-million mansion in Las Vegas a few weeks ago.

The addition of Adams gives the Raiders one of the deeper sets of weapons in the league. Hunter Renfrow, last year's top wideout, bumps down to No. 2, where he should get to exploit easier matchups as a top possession receiver. Bryan Edwards (16.8-yard average on 34 catches last season) is the designated deep threat. At tight end, while Darren Waller's DYAR and DVOA slipped last season (he had finished first in both categories in 2019 and third in 2020), he was still fifth at the position with 60.5 yards per game. They are also deep at running back, with free-agent addition Brandon Bolden joining incumbents Josh Jacobs and Kenyan Drake. That's quite the arsenal Derek Carr will have to work with. Speaking of Carr, we should point out that he's familiar with Adams: they played college football together for two seasons at Fresno State. Adams' numbers in those two seasons: 26 games, 233 catches, 3,031 yards, 38 touchdowns.

As for Green Bay … hoo, that's complicated. Quarterback Aaron Rodgers had reportedly contemplated retirement and a possible move to Denver before accepting a three-year deal worth over $150 million to stay with the Packers. Rapoport reports that Rodgers signed his deal (and yes, he has signed the deal) knowing that Adams would be gone. Now, though, with Adams joining Equanimeous St. Brown (who signed with the Bears earlier today) on the ex-Packers wide receivers list, the top Green Bay wideouts under contract include Allen Lazard, Randall Cobb, and 2021 third-rounder Amari Rodgers. Marquez Valdes-Scantling remains unsigned; one would think that his price tag just went up a notch.

Davante Adams Overall Impact: The AFC West arms race keeps getting scarier and scarier. Following the Jones signing, Mike Tanier wrote that the Raiders were still a fourth-place team in their own division. Now? Well, one of these powerhouses has to finish in last place, but trying to predict who that will be (or who will finish in first, for that matter) is a fool's errand.

Davante Adams Fantasy Impact: Adams was already WR1 or very close to it, and that shouldn't change, especially not in PPR formats. Carr's draft value goes up, but Renfrow and Waller's likely go down. No matter how successful your offense is, there's still only one football, and Adams figures to soak up a lot of catches that would have otherwise gone to his new teammates.

 

Comments

135 comments, Last at 24 Mar 2022, 5:22pm

1 Hate this trade for the…

Hate this trade for the Raiders. Huge money committed to a nearly 30 year old receiver and that's not considering the draft capital. And this move does not nudge the raiders above the Clippers or Chiefs. 

For the Packers, I get this move but I am still not a fan. You are in win now mode and this move makes you worse for next year. Unless they have a plan for a veteran replacement, I can't imagine Rodgers was happy doing this.

15 Irresponsible of the Raiders…

Irresponsible of the Raiders, probably, but you gotta love the effort and the AFC West has become super interesting all of a sudden. For the Packers, it made more sense to go all in and keep him, but if Adams wasn't playing ball it makes sense to get something for him. They really need to shore up the WR room, though.

2 Rare lose-lose deal. Packers…

Rare lose-lose deal.

Packers should be in win-now mode, going all-in to make the most out of their HOF quarterback's last elite seasons, and instead they just traded away their top (and basically only good) receiver for picks.

Raiders are spending both high-end money and high-end picks on Adams, and they shouldn't be in win-now mode.

The one winner is Adams, who gets a huge contract, and in a tax-free state.

3 Why not?

Raiders were a playoff team with:

 

1. Actively toxic head coach

2. Unreal (and unpredictable) loss of a top WR

3. Gus Bradley static as hell D

 

Carr is young, wtf would they blow it up for a buster like Pickett? Also I think they match up well with the Clippers on the gridiron

4 Forget the draft picks for a…

In reply to by sharky19

Forget the draft picks for a second. I was debating with Packers fans about the merits of handing over a huge contract to a 29-year-old receiver when receiver age curves suggest Adams has maybe one or at the most two more peak years left. 

That conundrum is more palatable when you don't have to fork over draft picks and you have an obvious ticking time clock with Aaron Rodgers on your roster.

 

With the Raiders, he's an obvious upgrade but the question is is it enough to justify the long-term contract consequences. The Raiders have a huge amount of cap space so maybe iy is, but to then fork over a huge draft haul is much worse.

33 I'm curious to see the…

I'm curious to see the contract terms for Adams. Yes, this is a "long term" deal on its face, but it also averages $28M per year, which is 40% higher than the next-closest average value for a WR on a long-term deal (it's only slightly higher than DeAndre Hopkins, but Hopkins' deal is only two years). Given his age, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some funny money on the back end that Adams will never see.

6 :-)

In reply to by sharky19

Must confess I didn't notice the "Clippers" part till your post.

9 All Good

In reply to by BigRichie

Didn't mean to be snarky, my b

5 Btw, it's clear to me that…

Btw, it's clear to me that the Rams have had a culture shock on the rest of the league. In the past giving away first rounders was something teams were loathe to do. 

Now...? F them picks!

7 If so, actually

If Rodgers did sign knowing Davante was indeed gone, my respect for him as a legitimate adult increases some.

10 Mine hasn't

In reply to by BigRichie

I said early on when he started his whining that this was about one thing: money. Hard to argue I was wrong.

85 If it really was about money…

In reply to by Tutenkharnage

If it really was about money...so what? Shouldn't one of the all-time greats at the most important position in a dangerous game be entitled to prioritize his earnings over all else?

Don't get me wrong, I can't stand Rodgers as a person, I think his anti-vax shenanigans should have earned him a lengthy suspension, and I also think there is a great argument that a lot of how he has conducted himself with respect to the Packers has been selfish and detrimental to the team. But I don't think "he cares more about money than winning" is especially sharp criticism when every single owner in professional sports feels the exact same way. And the owners have a basically zero risk investment and are a whole lot less talented or unique than the athletes.

86 Tend to agree...

...and I feel as you do about the person. That said, I cheekily linked to Charles Barkley's criticism of Rodgers below, and one tangential argument that came to mind relates to recruiting. Packers fans give the FO all the grief for lack of FA signings...but how much of that is players just not wanting to play on a team dominated by such a weird, aloof, feel-bad personality? (Compare to the NBA, where star players openly campaign for FA signings all the time. I have to think that happens to some degree in the NFL too.) It is curious that Green Bay had enough left to make Adams a competitive offer (so they say), and he opted to leave town. So it apparently wasn't all about the money.  

104 It's fine for him to prioritize money

What I object to is his pretending it's primarily about something else. Both times he's squabbled with them, he's talked about everything except the one thing that ultimately got him to stop running his mouth: a huge new number in his contract.

8 Straight horrible.

Gute stans need to be shut up forever. Amazing a box safety named Adams gets more than the best WR named Adams. Horrible. More playoff losses incoming when they pick Travis Jones at 22. Kill me. 

Legit pathetic WR room (hmmm maybe should've picked one in the 2020 draft like people were saying!) that'll now be relying on rookies. Thankfully we re-signed a one hit wonder at the super valuable position of LB!!! And can't forget this mornings mediocre punter!!!

IDC anymore. 

13 But they might bring Cobb…

In reply to by ImNewAroundThe…

But they might bring Cobb back! Also Mason Crosby sticking around!

I had been reserving judgement on Gute till he had more of a track record but I'm with you. Not been a huge fan. I may not have always agreed with Thompson's plan but it was pretty clear what it was and it was executed solidly for what it was. Thompson was solid with drafts and dealing with internal free agents but very poor with external free agents, but the philosophy of what the team was trying to be was clear and the players they went after fit without costing a premium.

So they moved to someone who doesn't seem to have a draft plan (has a few good picks, but there doesn't seem to be a plan with how to use the picks like Thompson had). He's done way better with external free agency, but the decisions on who to keep and who to let walk with internal free agency doesn't seem solid so far. If there is a plan I can't really figure it out beyond figuring Rodgers was gone after 2020. To try and be fair how much of that is tied to keeping a HoF QB with strong opinions happy after realizing he wasn't done is a factor. I can blame him for the cap situation that didn't leave them with enough flexibility to give Adams the money he wanted though. Thompson didn't saddle him with any crazy contracts or dead money, the cupboard was getting bare, yes but the money was still there. Gute's regime generated pretty much all of the cap issues (even if you give them a break on COVID).

I hope I'm proven wrong and a plan and execution emerge, I have no real hope for that.

We're still in the NFC North, we still have a HoF QB, we still have a coach who I think is above average (and may prove to be even better than that but again needs more time and we'll see what this season does). So yeah we'll still make the playoffs. If Favre could make Schreoder a 1000 yard receiver Rodgers can make Lazard do the same without a better option to throw to. So they'll still get the lottery ticket in the post season but with worse odds.

18 Glad to see ya back DPF.

I don't hate Gute but it's quite clear he and I (and so many others) have different priorities. I don't and won't even call for his job because there were some decent moves. But he simply needs to be better. And it happens all the time for GMs. Look at Licht. Went from picking a K in the 2nd after a trade up to securing Brady, Godwin, Evans, etc. It's not hard for GMs to learn. Well...it shouldn't be. 

He's trying too hard to have his cake and eat it. And from what I can tell, he has just about as much job security as any other top GM. And with the news that Davante still wanted to pack up all his belongings and family to go play for a worse team in a tougher division (and entire conference) despite the same deal being offered by GB...add in the things Rodgers said last year about some players being treated wrong, and it just seems like they're bad at handling relationships. Maybe salvaged with Rodgers (whos probably motivated by not turning fully into Favre) but that's not everyone. FO just seems too cold interpersonally. I remember they them not even throwing Clay the min. Jordy I believe would've taken a pay cut. Mike Daniels was just straight negligence (Detroit paid more then he would have cost to trade for him, IDC trade a guy you didn't believe in for at least some scrub or conditional 7th!) 

The will still win the NFCN but they gotta do more then what they'll likely end up doing (trusting rookies) if they want to go far. They gotta get Jarvis and Julio, idc about their injuries or age. Play the comp pick game and bet on them refinding their peak at a cost effective number. Lol who am I kidding, they're bringing back MVS tomorrow for $11m AAV. I will still root for them as always but I throw up more and more everyday with the passes Gute gets for just...IDK, always falling short despite some clear things that could've been avoided to give us a better chance (*stares in bewilderment at the $3m in dead...for Kevin King...who's unemployed right now for a reason*) when it's all added up.

Just frustrating to see them punt on a wide open NFC for some mystery boxes. Like I said, they don't know how to balance win now and the future. It's needs to be slanted to win now but this just isn't that type of move. Looking back going from 2018 #207 (ESB) to 2021 #85 (Amari) was a horrible plan. Always knew skipping 2020 was bad. But I convinced myself that all 3 of the day 3 WRs (JMon, MVS, ESB) would improve enough and they just didn't. MVS carved out a role but it wasn't as much as you'd hope. Going 642 straight picks w/o a WR in todays passing league has to be an all time blunder. And Gute isn't gonna catch any heat for it! Especially when you picked a now unemployed LS in between there instead (please never draft ST again). 

Long story short, I don't need to reach Ted slander levels of copium ("TeD wOuLd'Ve LeT DaVanTe wAlK") to make sense of it. They pissed him off and got less than what the Dolphins got for Tunsil. They simply need to be better from here on out. I don't cost that much for consulting. 

26 The biggest problem

The biggest problem is probably the communication and the people skills. I am a big fan of Brandon Beane, but he's missed plenty of times; no one's perfect, and whiffing is part of the job. But players want to come to Buffalo, players who left want to come back, everyone acknowledges the great atmosphere, and players don't leave and slander the organization on the way out the door. I give Gutekunst a pass on Rodgers, who is acknowledged as a prickly individual, but given that Adams declined the same offer, it's easier to assume that Rodgers was correct when he said some players weren't being treated right. And that falls on Gutekunst directly if he's the responsible party and indirectly if he's allowing it to happen on his watch.

Anyway, the Packers can still keep this window open. They have 7 of the top 140 picks, the Rams have arguably gotten worse (or at least haven't gotten better yet), the Bucs have probably lost half a step, and the rest of the North is still asleep. But it's hard to think that they aren't just the Chargers in a much softer environment—a dark horse now, rather than a top-tier contender.

44 Adams is amazing.  He wasn't…

Adams is amazing.  He wasn't always but he grew into it.  In the past few years when Adams has been injured I don't think we have lost.  And the defense might be able to retain Douglas now with Alexander coming back.

Trading him away will force rodgers to go through progressions and use the full roster.  Plus the extra draft capital and not destroying the cap to the tune or around 20 million savings per year (assuming they throw 10 mil per at wr between 2nd teir fa and draft picks).

Maybe i'm insane but I think this improves the team as a whole by quite a bit.

57 This (bolded) deserves some consideration

"Trading him away will force rodgers to go through progressions and use the full roster.  Plus the extra draft capital and not destroying the cap to the tune or around 20 million savings per year (assuming they throw 10 mil per at wr between 2nd teir fa and draft picks)."

Anecdotally, the few games Adams has missed since La Fleur arrived, Rodgers remained efficient and didn't appear to lose much. This may not be as big a loss as it appears on its face, if those other team elements remain a strength. I wouldn't go as far as saying it improves the team, but Rodgers is the kind of quarterback who doesn't necessarily need one go-to guy in order to function at the usual level. Carr probably does, and I think this improves Carr's prospects more than it impoverishes Rodgers'.     

87 140 is a weird cutoff

In reply to by Tutenkharnage

Only the top ~55 interest me. Flip the rest for known commodities . 

The Rams added Robinson. The Bucs got Shaq Mason for a 5th and Russell Gage. I don't see the Packers making those moves but they'll still win the NFCN and be top 3 seed. But it seems like the FO is content with winning the division and nothing more. Sure SB would be cool but it's not necessary for job security. They prioritized keeping the 22nd best defense together instead of the best WR. That's a month after watching the OPOTY win the SB MVP...at WR. And a year removed from Brady cracking down on us with a plethora of weapons (including the game winning play by...a rookie WR! Someone Packers homers said can't contribute right away)

But it's alright, they've thoroughly convinced enough people that it's Rodgers that Davante hates. The guy that gave him all the throws to get paid so well. Fantastic PR from their ivory castle. 

115 Winning the division and…

Winning the division and getting a top 3 seed is probably the best path to winning the Super Bowl. Once you're in that position the "any given day" odds are in your favor. There's way too much variability in player performance to say any set of players is guaranteed to push you beyond that.

117 I mean

Ok? Idk what to do with this because it just defaults to get in, no matter how rubbish you are, no need to try and get better because the 7-9 WFT i don't think has a right to be complacent. Heck even watching the Bucs run it ALL back didn't work beyond the WC.

This just goes back to last year where they had weird priorities on their own guys, valuing the likes of King and Jones over Linsley because multiple?

Maybe im wrong and they're only the 4th seed. Haven't checked the odds since this all went down. But the team could certaintly do more. We had this complacent attitude for a decade with 4 MVP seasons since our last ring and we can't even get back to the big game. Probably time to be more aggressive. 

12 As a Cowboys fan, big fan of…

As a Cowboys fan, big fan of this trade.

I get why the Raiders are doing this, arguably this is the best chance they have with their current roster. It's just... that division is brutal. But what's the alternative to pushing all the chips in... stay a step behind and just accept mediocrity until Carr is too old to reasonably hope for anything? If you're gonna miss the playoffs you might as well go down swinging, because it's not like any of the other 3 teams in your division look likely to get worse any time soon.

14 Bingo

Exactly, turtling until Mahomes and Herbert retire isn't an option, you gotta fight back. The Dolphins taking Tua over him was a major butterfly effect lol

17 I agree with both of you

In reply to by sharky19

It's ballsy and risky and might be a bit crazy, but what's the alternative? Wander the wilderness until you stumble into your own version of Herbert or Mahomes, or trade for a HoF talent like Wilson? They could have done a lot worse than to land one of the league's best pass rushers and (arguably) its top receiver, even if he's already 29. He should be motivated and was college teammates with his new quarterback. The Raiders might actually be ... fun this year?

29 Christian Kirk was a big move for its own sake

By contrast, the Raiders landed a receiver who is arguably the best in the NFL and reunited him with his college quarterback. One can argue that Adams’s age and the contract and the second-round pick make it worse than the Diggs trade, but almost everyone would agree that the Raiders got a better player. That move was a win for Buffalo for the first two years, and I don’t see any reason this move couldn’t pay off similarly for the Raiders. Because the cap is very likely to go up by quite a bit in the next few years, the value will depend heavily on whether Adams can age gracefully. He seems to take great care of himself and is just as dominant as ever right now, so it’s not an unreasonable risk to take in, IMO. Not all receivers follow the same value arc, and he seems as likely as anyone else to beat the odds. 

30 But what difference does it make?

You MAY be right (although the college QB thing seems rather irrelevant) that they may get play from Adams which matches the value they've given - although they may not.

But that's only of use if it is likely to materially improve their chances of getting deep in the playoffs. And given their current division and QB that seems unlikely.

That's why I don't like the trade for either side - the exchange is a fair one, but the Raiders are prioritising the short-term when they should be prioritising the long-term; while the Packers are prioritising the long-term when they should be prioritising the short-term.

34 What does prioritize mean?

Prioritize the long term by..........blowing it up and praying your blank slate hit's the 5% chance of exceeding Herbert/Mahomes? I swear none of y'all watch Carr or the offensive weapons on this team, it would be very unlikely to immediately upgrade on this without cycling through multiple rebuilds. Gruden tried and failed in 2018 with that very approach.

51 So I get it, but also... are…

So I get it, but also... are the Raiders really just supposed to roll over and give up for at least the next 3 years? Because obviously Mahomes and Herbert aren't going anywhere for a long time, if ever. And how long is it going to take to get a new QB even at Carr's level, much less better? So you're essentially advocating for a 76ers level of tanking hard for multiple years, in a sport where that is both riskier and more difficult while also being less impactful except for a single position. 

71 The Long Term

Part of this depends how you assess Carr's upside. If you think he could be a top 10 QB I agree the calculus is a bit different.

If you don't think that then I struggle to see how you win this division in the next 2-3 years; and you should be looking, if not blowing it all up, to at least conserve your picks to be in a position to get a top QB and to have young talent.

[Ps - none of that requires 76ers level tanking. I'm just saying that using future picks to go "all in" at this point seems an odd choice given the immediate level of competition]

101 It’s not irrelevant

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/amp/nfl/news/derek-carr-davante-adams-college-fresno-state/o2xdn6gifsqtz34lwgjrvrhk
Carr and Adams led the FBS in passing yards and receiving yards, respectively. No one on Vegas has to cross their fingers and hope these two players click; they’ve clicked with record-setting clickiness in the past. 

19 Rare case when one of the…

Rare case when one of the league's best players really wants to be a Raider. Wouldn't be surprised if the owner put his thumb on the scale. (in b4 McDaniels did it again...)  

23 Lose-Lose-Lose

Seems like a potential triple losing trade.

For the Raiders it feels like there is a lot more chance that they don't get value from this trade than they do. Does he really make them into a top team (esp in this division) over the next 2 years? If not then they are wasting the future (in which they might have upgraded Carr) for little tangible present gain.

For the Packers, by contrast, with the very short Rodgers window it feels like they would have been better staying all-in with Adams. Especially doing this trade late when many of the best FA receivers (plus Cooper in a trade) are now off the market. It's unlikely those draft picks will add very much in the next 2 years.

Adams gets a lower state income tax but a worse QB, a worse team and a stronger division. Warmer weather but you're a long time retired and can live anywhere you want at that point....

27 He gets the long term deal…

In reply to by LondonMonarch

He gets the long term deal he quite reasonably thought was the highest priority, one the Packers could/would not offer him. The Packers, pretty reasonably, either took him at his word that he wouldn't play with the franchise tag, or thought having a completely disgusted player forced to play with it was a bad idea.

I kind of congratulate both parties for dealing with the abomination of the franchise tag in this manner.

(edit) I see it's been reported that the Packers offered something similar, maybe something better. Maybe that's true, maybe not, and if it is, maybe the Packers screwed things up by trying to use the FT as leverage. As you can tell, I really hate the FT.

 

45 RE: Packers/Adams/FT

I do not speak for management, but based on my understanding the FT approach was a means to retain exclusivity in discussions giving the most senior folks of the organization a chance to make one remaining 'pitch' to Adams and those around him.  Davante thanked Mark and Russ for their time but said he would prefer to play elsewhere.  So they traded him.

 

In this matter Brian had stepped away to focus on the other contract efforts leaving Adams to the president and the cap guy.  I do not know Matt's role other than yes, he wanted Davante on the team.

28 RE: Adams trade

First, thanks to the player for his wonderful performance/contribution while a Packer.  Amazing.  And by all accounts a good guy/teammate.

 

Second, best of luck to him.  

 

Finally, to move in a different direction.  Facts related to the Green Bay Packers since the current GM has been in his role.  None of the below are meant to suggest that this individual was solely responsible for the facts shared.  Just that he has been in this role while these things transpired.

 

Team drafted Jaire Alexander.  Named to 2020 All Pro team

Team drafted Rashan Gary.  Improving edge rusher

Team drafted Elgton Jenkins.  Named to 2020 Pro Bowl

Team drafted Darnell Savage.  Multi year starter in NFL

Team drafted AJ Dillon.  Improving running back who rated well in efficiency metrics

Team drafted Eric Stokes.  Starting cornerback as a rookie.  Assessed as an above average corner

Team drafted Josh Myers.  Starting center as rookie prior to injury

Acquired Za'Darius Smith prior to 2019 season.  Named to 2019 and 2020 Pro Bowl teams.  2020 All Pro team

Acquired Preston Smith prior to 2019 season.  Multi year starter at OLB

Acquired Adrian Amos prior to 2019 season.  Multi year starter at safety

Acquired Billy Turner prior to 2019 season.  Multi year starter at guard and tackle

Did not resign Bryan Bulaga after 2019 season.  Bulaga has started 11 games since leaving GB including 1 game in 2021.

Re-signed Kenny Clark prior to 2020 season

Acquired Corey Bojorquez prior to 2021 season.  Starting punter

Acquired De'Vondre Campbell prior to 2021 season.  Named to 2021 All Pro team

Re-signed Aaron Jones prior to 2021 season

Acquired Rasul Douglas off Cardinals practice squad during 2021 season.  

Three straight division titles (2019-2021)

Back to back appearances in NFC championship game (2019-2020)

Hired head coach that was a participant in generating the above team results

Folks can now list the negatives.  The ongoing struggles with special teams.  The resigning of Bakh who has now spent a season plus injured.  The resigning of Kevin King with no discernible return to the team.  Folks can gripe about not retaining Linsley but his replacement, Myers, is capable and far less expensive.  The poor performances in the playoffs.  The weirdo quarterback acting weirder by the day.

 

Green Bay management is not perfect.  Maybe they are not actually any good.  Maybe the above facts would have happened no matter who was making the decisions.  But still, that's a pretty solid track record.  I know it's apparently hip and cool to be contrarian and try and explain why facts are 'fake news' and black is actually white. 

 

Me, I recognize facts for just that, facts.  And no matter how many 'lol' comments get tossed in my direction it with the facts that I base my assessment.  And my assessment is that management has earned the right to take this risk.  Maybe it blows up in spectacular fashion.  Or maybe the team comes out the other side a better overall organization.  

 

47 Great post.     Deep wr…

In reply to by big10freak

Great post.  

 

Deep wr class, lots of drafts picks and less pressure on cap.  We have proven every year for 3 years We can win with out Adams.  Perhaps our 'window' closed a little this year (even though we are getting an all pro CB and numerous solid oline players back) but it certainly opened up more the next 2 years, and possibly further.

 

Our cap situation was getting worse every year and losing Adams greatly helps that.  In a vacuum losing Adams for a 1st and 2nd is a loss.  But when you factor in we can now possibly retain Douglas and tonyon and mvs, or maybe add a juju or a patterson, well I think in total we are far ahead.

49 RE: Packers-sans Adams

Thanks for the compliment!

I would not put too much stock in such a small sample size.  Too many factors at work to know long term if the team can be as effective without a great player who was in the lineup regularly (Health may not be a skill but it has value)

 

Separately I would have traded both Rodgers and Adams.  I think Rodgers is only going to get more odd plus his physical skills can only decrease in effectiveness.  Certainly his football intellect can compensate to an extent but again, he's a weirdo. 

 

I would have loaded up on draft picks in 2022/2023 plus maybe acquire a young starter of quality (or two if possible) and then weathered the blowback.

 

 

56 Through many twists and…

In reply to by big10freak

Through many twists and turns, I agree that Gutekunst has built a really good roster. They wouldn't be in the position to go "all-in" if they hadn't rebounded so well from what the roster had fallen to in 2017-18. Credit to the new coaching staff for developing a lot of the young players, too.

It's extremely tough to lose Adams for sure. You can debate (as everyone is here and probably will for awhile) whether this was the right move to make philosophically given where the team is at right now, but it's not like 5 top-100 rookies can't make very meaningful contributions to the team over the next couple of seasons, assuming they do choose to hold on to all or most of their picks.

My major immediate concern with this trade is that the fact that the WR room is a black hole right now. Even aside from the fact that Adams was the 2nd best player on the team, this could become a major problem next season because he was leading one of the most important position groups, and one where they happened to have little depth behind him. They also badly need a TE who can contribute on passing downs. It was fun in that one game vs Atlanta in 2020 when LaFleur was putting 22 and even 13 personnel on the field and they still rolled up 320+ passing yards, but they need to re-shape this area of the roster very quickly to make sure it doesn't become an outsize drag on the entire team.

118 This is going to be another…

In reply to by big10freak

This is going to be another one of my long ones so I'll put some "headers" in.

Abstract
My issues isn't that they are taking the risk in letting Adams go. I think Adams pretty much decided he was going and did exactly what a player should do and maximized the limited leverage a player has. I said the same about Rodgers last year. He maximized what little leverage he had to get the money he felt he deserved. Adams reportedly bought a 12 million mansion in Las Vegas weeks before the trade happened. So trading a player who was not going to cooperate makes sense even if I don't like it. He was fun to watch, fun to root for and I hope he continues to be awesome for another team.

My issue is that I worry about how they relate to players and how they use the tools they have to build a team. I felt they were too reactionary and not proactive enough. As this post will show I may have been wrong and armchair GMing too much.

The team building toolbox and how they use it
I've already stated in earlier in this comment seciont that I feel this front office does a better job of acquiring outside talent. I'm good with that and I like the process they use. Thompson was almost entirely draft and develop, or go for bargain basement outside free agents and develop. He had a few very good mid and high range FA signings but even his best have already been eclipsed by the current FO.

We also don't have enough data to show how good the draft evaluation of player talent is. But that holds true for nearly every GM for any team for the history of the league. So living with small sample size and judging on hindsight based on what we've seen the quality of players is on par with what Thompson and Wolf did early in their tenures. Maybe a bit worse maybe a bit better depending on how you want to weight values.

As I've been thinking about this all a bit for a few days after stating that I can't seem to figure out the plan and that was something that really bothered me, I think I've narrowed in more on what my issues are. I'm going to go into detail because it might help others get a handle on it too.

Team building plan
2018 - Restock talent and evaluate coaching and the QB
It seems pretty clear when they took the reins in 2018 that they were in a "Prove It" mode for McCarthy and Rodgers. They were listening to the criticism McCarthy had been getting for awhile and wanted to know if Rodgers really was back from the injuries. McCarthy obviously flamed out and was booted. So a new coach is brought in for 2019. One who runs a system that in theory allows you some flexibility on offense. If you've got a weak QB you should be able to hide him behind a solid running game and passing game that can scheme people open or take advantage of a player that can get themselves open for the shots. A system that would help you move on from a HoF QB who might be done.

The first draft threw premium picks at a major need point in the secondary and took a bunch of fliers on wider receivers who were raw but had potential. I was good with this approach. Downside to that draft it also wasted a 5th round pick on a punter and a 7th on a long snapper. I don't like using any draft capital on long snappers. I can live with a 7th on punters and kickers as getting them instead of dealing with potentially losing them as UDFAs is fine. I don't think it's ideal but I can understand it. I would rather take a flier on a development project or 3rd on the depth chart somewhere. Heck grab a gunner or returner who might also have a chance to crack the line-up as WR 4 or CB 4 or RB 3. It's not that punters, long snappers, and kickers have no value or that having a crappy one won't hurt you, but they are players you don't want on the field because if they are you did something else wrong (other than the XP) and they are common enough that you can just grab one off the street in the middle of the season sometimes. Use the lottery that is the draft on other assets.

2019 - Restock and shift player talent to fit new coach, finish evaluations on QB and expiring contracts.
The better use of outside free agents vs previous front offices is clearly evident bringing in the Smith "brothers" as edge rushers, Adrian Amos at safety, as well as Billy Turner who was projected to be an interior lineman. The draft then used 1st round picks on a raw edge rusher who likely needed seasoning and a safety. A 2nd round pick on an interior lineman. Then a 3rd round pick on a questionable TE. Like the 5th rounder used on a punter it felt like too much capital for a questionable value. The rest of the draft was again fine 4th-7th round picks on potential talent and development projects / depth at positions of need.

So doing more looking at things, what I hadn't really seen before is they do take a shotgun to things sometimes. I'm actually OK with this. 3 later round WR picks in 2018 hoping to get 1 or 2 to stick at the WR 2 or 3 level because you already have Adams is fine. 3 edge rushers at fairly high resource expenditure hoping to get a couple starters is fine. Gary may have taken longer to develop than many would like for a first rounder but there were questions about both of the Smiths too so my initial thoughts of too many resources at the problem were misguided using only hindsight. Grabbing 2 safeties wasn't just a shotgun it was needed because what they had was not serviceable. Grabbing a couple of interior linemen because you've got some contracts that are expiring and a new coach who has a different weights on what talents he values makes sense. So again feels like good process there.

The new coach and HoF QB you had questions about had some issues. It's not a secret that Rodgers didn't buy into the new system that he actively worked against it at times in some games. But the results on the field worked. Perhaps the FO approach to restocking the talent at a few key positions paid off bigger than expected. Perhaps because the system really isn't super dependent on the QB always doing the right thing; LaFleur is from the Mike Shanahan coaching tree. A combination of both of those factors.

But it definitely feels like the front office decided that it was time to make the plan to move on from Rodgers. His 2018 stats under McCarthy weren't that different from the 2019 stats under LaFleur even if the results on the field were. If that was because Rodgers didn't buy into the system or because age/injury/whatever had caused a real decline he was playing at the edge of the top 10, not like what he was getting paid for and he was under a contract that was very friendly to move on after the 2021 season and doable after the 2020 season. It is very fair to argue this was a bad assessment, but following actions make it seem pretty clear that was what they decided.

2020 - We're going in a new direction
More free agent moves. The offense wants either one TE that can block and catch or a couple of specialized TE that block OR catch well. It still didn't have it. So bring in Lewis who definitely could block and while he didn't have the speed anymore still had good hands. Throw another 3rd round pick at a TE, they wanted starters they were using starter resources. Throw a short term contract at an injury risk ILB to replace your steady but not spectacular internal free agent. Grab a WR who might be a legit #2 but may also be the same level as the 2018 shotgun blast draft picks. It's fine. Grab a serviceable RT who has a skill set the new coach likes better and jettison your pro bowl right tackle who is looking for a bigger pay day. Again fine.

Then you get to the draft and the FO having decided to move on after the 2020 season becomes very clear. Trade up for a QB in the first round. Grab a running back with a 2nd rounder that should complement your ascending 2017 pick very nicely in a system that likes to rotate running backs and believes it can function and win even without a great QB. Grab another TE in the 3rd because the system wants one. Grab a MLB in the 4th because you let your previous starter go and your FA is an injury risk so you need to spend a bit more resources to make sure that doesn't completely crater. Then take fliers on offensive linemen that have skill sets your new coach likes, grab a development project edge rusher and safety depth.

So in the context of we are moving on from our HoF QB in a year or two that draft makes sense. Again the reasons why they decided that could be multiple. So the team building process doesn't seem that flawed when that's the decision that was made. Taking a RB and TE higher than people think you should, trading up for a QB who you know is going to sit for a year (maybe 2) isn't great but you are trying to retool and not miss a step. This is part of what ImNewAroundHere sums up as "They are trying to have their cake and eat it too." 2021 may be a bigger part of his feelings though.

After spending a few days looking at this stuff off and on, I don't think that's it. I think at this point it was a "We have a QB with a weird personality who had issues with our new coach who still got us to the NFCCG, he has 2 years in two systems now with edge of the top 10 stats and a contract that lets us move on. So we move on." As mentioned leveling criticism at them for that assessment is perfectly valid.

Then COVID happened. That depth WR they brought in opted out of the season. This may be why Dillon didn't see the playtime you expect from a 2nd round running back who showed in 2021 that he can play like you expected him to when he was drafted. The Jones / Williams rotation worked

The results on the field were excellent too. The HoF QB bought into the system and thrived. The offense was one of the best points per drive offenses in NFL history. The defense and special teams still had issues and the team fell just short of going to the Super Bowl for the 2nd year in a row.

2021 - Everything is upside down now.
Well now you've got a HoF QB who just won the MVP, had full system buy in and a solid relationship with the new coach and clearly was not in decline. So the plan enacted in 2020 isn't going to work. The QB wants to get paid, wants more input, and probably wants you to publicly admit your plan was wrong but likely will settle for 2 of those.

So how do you assess the team building strategy in light of that?

The talent thrown at the defense and the results it produced in 2020 didn't line up. The D has top 10 talent, but was giving 14th - 20th results. So get a new coordinator for that. Here is another one of my often mentioned negative assessments of the front office. We find out the team has a self imposed salary cap for the coaching staff. That system bothers me because that is one area where you don't have to restrict yourself to get value at the margins and value at the margins can mean going to the Super Bowl or losing the NFCCG. Leonhard may not have left Wisconsin for any price but we know he wouldn't leave for the self limited price. Barry may have been the 3rd or 4th choice. I agree with the process, it was time to move on, but a system that may force you down to your 2nd, 3rd, or Xth choice bothers me when you don't need a system like that in place.

FA and the draft. I did not like the Kevin King contract at all. I did not like resigning Aaron Jones. I did not like deciding it was time to move on at Center. This isn't about what I like this is about figuring out what the FO was doing and the FO uses FA and the draft to fix problems. This all gets more complicated because how much is the HoF MVP QB you decided to keep influencing all of that?

But they still weren't happy at corner so they brought back King for too much and threw another 1st round and 5th round pick at it since the 2019 6th round pick didn't pan out. Shotgun a couple positions a year and hope you get enough to keep it working for 2 to 4 years They bring in another MLB who fits what the new DC likes better. As mentioned they were moving on from their center so they were going to draft a lineman high. They took a center at the end of the 2nd but if they didn't like what was there they had been getting a lot of see if it works linemen in previous drafts and had options, heck people still think Jenkins should be their starting center. Hindsight says they took the wrong one with Myers over Humphrey but it's the process I'm trying to get at and if Myers when he wasn't injured played fine if he stays healthy nothing wrong with the value they get for a 2nd rounder. I liked the Amari Rodgers pick at the time felt he was a player that could contribute as a rookie with nice potential to grow. The trade for Cobb was fine, the pick and what Cobb was expected to be matched and if it made Rodgers happier that's a bonus.

But this is also where I get frustrated. If you don't re-sign Jones and just roll with Dillon and some late round draft pick, if you don't bring back King you have the money and you can bring back your all pro center who while about to turn 30 still had multiple years left. You then don't need to use a premium pick on lineman. You can get the best WR/CB and then whatever else with those first picks in whatever order makes sense for how the players fall. It was pretty clear WR/CB/OL were the main targets but OL didn't need to be. In a WR rich draft you could have gotten 2 WR to shotgun the problem. You could have traded one of those picks and just gotten a CB and WR for the 3 picks but had a WR you liked more than Rodgers. I didn't like limiting flexibility because you needed to deal with letting an internal FA go.

But a lot of that could have been driven by Rodgers behind the scenes. Maybe he didn't like Linsley. Maybe he really like Jones and demanded they do what they could to bring him back.

Conclusion
So it's not that they don't have a plan or process. They do and it's on me I didn't see it better. They fire a lot of rounds at a couple of major areas of need hoping to hit something. I'm OK with that. They take fliers on late round picks at multiple positions. They spend premium draft and FA resources for their biggest needs. So I'm expecting a couple WR in the 1st-3rd and probably a late round as well, an offensive lineman somewhere in the first 3 rounds as well since they let some of that got in FA and Bakh is still an injury question mark. Because they do spend on external free agents they limit flexibility with what they can do with their own FAs. Gotta remember that Teddy always had cap because his FA were the priority.

I still worry about how some departed players discuss the front office. True or not if the reputation builds that the players don't like the GB front office then all FA might start costing more which limits flexibility to deal with the ever shifting health and skill of rosters even more. GB may already have to pay a bit of a premium because it's GB and some players just may not want to go there over cities. That is likely a small effect but why magnify it by getting a reputation, rightly or wrongly, for not dealing well with players?

I never thought the FO was horrible, I just couldn't follow them. Last year during the Rodgers drama I posted several times on here that I thought both Rodgers and the FO were handling it about as well as they could. After my mulling all of this over I'm actually less mad about the mistake in the assessment of Rodgers and deciding after 2019 that it was time to move and implementing the plan. That cost them. They lost a lot resources in the short term on multiple players that won't give them much of anything or in the case of Dillon lost a year or so of value at short shelf life position. But when you think you are going to need a healthy running back that can carry the load for your young QB I get spending a late 2nd even though Jones proved you can get production from a 5th. I suspect they are drafting another TE even though Tonyan is back on a 1 year deal. LaFleur really wants that threat in the passing game and I think they are going to keep throwing resources at it till they get it.

If they spend some late round picks on guys that really seem to be destined to help special teams I'll eat even more crow than I already have. Though if all the resources go to the defense again (which has resigned Campbell and Douglas) I'll have to question the process again.

This is not Mike Sherman GM. But it can be better. Now that I understand what they are doing I can focus my thoughts on the results a little better.

121 The decision to draft Love…

The decision to draft Love is one of the most interesting fork in the road moments.

People won't care to admit this, but there was a justification. 

Rodgers, to that point, had been injured and softly declining since his halcyon days. As you noted, the 2019 Packers were overachievers and there was a real sense that Rodgers was becoming overpaid for what he was. In that sense, if you believe Rodgers is experiencing a continued soft decline, Love could step in right at the exit point.

The part that was wrong in this calculus was what if Rodgers wasn't declining and instead reverted back to his prior days. I remember at the time of the decision thinking the probabilities were almost 50 50 since nothing appeared physically wrong with him. 

But there are examples of it going the other way. I think the Falcons taking Pitts was belief that Ryan could revert back to his glory days with a new coach and new weapons. And Philip Rivers bumpy middle career serves as another. 

 

123 To tie in the Raiders. 2018…

To tie in the Raiders. 2018 and 2019 Rodgers was an older Carr by stats. People are saying the Raiders need to move on from Carr. I'm not sure they do and I didn't think the Packers needed to move on from Rodgers. 

Like you said there was still a chance for a bounce back, and even without the bounce back you already proved you had a chance with an edge of the top 10 QB that he was likely to at least hold at since he didn't show signs there would be a cliff.

It was a mistake even if Rodgers didn't get back to back MVPs after it. It was amplified by the COVID effects on the cap and everything else.

It may or may not have impacted the ability to keep Adams, but it has cost them flexibility by limiting resources. Getting done of those back in the Adams trade helps. But it still feels like you can balance it out and say the decision to move on from Rodgers cost them Adams, because what they got for him is basically what they lost when implementing the plan to move on. Quantifying that as Adams instead of just picks and cap space highlights it better though.

That aside I was letting that decision really color my impression and treat other decisions unfairly. Mistakes happen, understanding why they happen helps me forgive them and let's me see other things more clearly. 

So I still have my worries about some resource usage and player evals and I still have my worries about how the FO and players relate. But I don't have my worry about not knowing what they want to do or being aggressive enough when enacting a plan. The rest of this off season will be interesting.

126 To be clear, and this will…

To be clear, and this will come off as contradictory, the decision was understandable even if I happen to think it was a mistake in hindsight.

The part that is justifiable is what happens after 2021 and Rodgers is a fringe top 10 guy looking to get a big extension at an age where QBs start to fall apart. If you are queasy about committing dollars in that situation, the Love pick makes sense.

Where I think the pick is a mistake is that it assumed that Rodgers WAS in decline, whereas that part was still uncertain. They should have factored in the chance of him reverting back, at which point the Love decision became an epic organizational blunder. Suddenly, moving on from Rodgers looked like madness and cost them probably an extra 10 million per year in salary in the form a teary eyed apology 

That being said, I feel like the rest of the decisions that fans are griping over feel like nitpicking that every other organization is guilty of. I'd be curious if there is another front office that has been markedly better than GB over this period. 

How different would we be viewing this FO if they won the SB?? If the answer is all sins get washed away, then that's just bad process. Frankly, the last three years of success should highlight the job they've done. 

129 Not contradictory at all,…

Not contradictory at all, that's basically what I was saying. I also admit I was part of the nitpicky fan base before I sat with it all some more. Though as my long post highlights at times there are still some things to question even without the Rodgers stuff.

Also I don't think it was all worry about decline. There was worry about the QB and the head coach not getting along and the FO sided with the HC there too. So while I still think it was a mistake, at the evaluation of the player level and with the process itself that led to the decision, I at least understand why they went all in on a transition plan. I don't mind the process implemented for the transition after the decision was made. 

Rodgers is a weird dude as Gutekunst said last off season. That has played a part in both making the decision to move on as well as some of the issues with dealing with pivoting back. 

This whole sub thread started with BigTenFreak pointing out good things the FO has done. That made me realize I've both praised and pummeled the FO and made me want to sort out my thoughts. As I stated in the novel I own up to my misjudgements.

130 Fair enough. I think if any…

Fair enough.

I think if any team runs counter to the Rams, it's GB. And so the current zeitgeist influenced by the Rams winning it all only exacerbates the outside perceptions of the front office.

31 RE: Short term vs Long term

I see these comments across the internet about how teams need to go long-term vs short-term.  Where is it written in sacred text that this is a binary decision?  Why can't teams both have short term and long term visions?  This happens in pretty much any other venture.  Namely because it is well established that if do one at the exclusion of the other you end up getting neither.  

 

 

32 Long Term makes no sense

I'm very confused by the consensus of this being short sided for the raiders. They have no control over having two (maybe three) cyborg QB's in their division. Within this reality, what value is there in waiting? Just crash and burn if your risks fall through, but I'll be damned to wait until 2030 to try

38 Right! It makes no sense…

Right! It makes no sense. For starters, the Raiders are still in great cap position after this year, it's not like Adams signed a one year deal. It's not SB or bust for 2022-2023. And they're still making a push for Gilmore, it's not a if this signing did irreparable damage to their cap space to make any further moves even this season. The reality is, prior to this off season, they were arguably in the 2nd toughest division in football, and still made the playoffs even after losing their head coach, their number 1 receiver in Ruggs and dealing with their biggest offensive threat Waller missing significant time due to injury. Now they should have everyone healthy, now have at worst, the second best receiver in the league, a offensive minded head coach in Josh McDaniels, and an improved pass rush. There's no reason for the Raiders to not go all in. If they make any improvements on the O-line they could shoot right to division favorites. 

 

If you watched the Raiders last year, one of their biggest issues was scoring TDs. They moved the ball very effectively, but always had to end up settling for FGs. Josh McDaniels is one of the most creative minds when it comes to play calling, and super effective when it comes to getting the ball in the endzone. He did it last year with a rookie QB who isn't good and not an elite receiving corp. Now has a HOF receiver, top 5 TE in the league, another top 20 receiver, and a top 12-14 QB? This is gonna be fun to watch. 

40 Waiting

Big values in waiting are (i) replacing Carr - if he is not good enough to compete in this division (and he probably isn't despite being probably a top-16 QB) then there is little point using future assets to prop him up; and (ii) Wilson getting older and Herbert and Mahomes getting more expensive.

It's not about waiting for 2030, but it might about waiting for 2024-5.

63 how can mahomes get more…

In reply to by LondonMonarch

how can mahomes get more expensive? (relatively speaking).  Chiefs have cap issues now hence their lack of action, lack of re-signing honey badger etc. 

Carr "probably" a top-16 QB?  He's on the edge of top 10 and clearly he IS good enough to compete in this division because we did last year.  Wilson and Herbert are good QBs, Wilson was great, Herbert looks like he will be - but neither were good enough to take their team to the playoffs last year. 

There's no such thing as successful tanking in football. There are too many unknowns from year to year, let alone game by game. 

46 Sometimes you get lucky…

Sometimes you get lucky.

Every NFC South team made a Super Bowl between 2009 and 2020. In the mid-teens, it looked for all the world like Tampa had zero chance. Now, they are the divisional juggernaut because they got lucky in free agency. 

Between 1980 and 1995, every NFC East team aside from the Cardinals at least made a SB and three teams won at least two. (And yes, the Cardinals were dreadful -- but even they eventually found Warner)

Point being, they tended to not tear everything down because fortunes change quickly.

58 For sure...

... but this is not a question of tearing things down but of positively spending significant future resources on a 29yo at a point where you are 4th favourites for your own division.

65 They were 4th favourites…

In reply to by LondonMonarch

They were 4th favourites last year and made the playoffs.  What were the Bengals favourites for at this point last season? Football is hard to predict. 

73 What were the Bengals…

What were the Bengals favourites for at this point last season?

#1 pick.

Which isn't entirely true; they were predicted to be the #5 pick.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2021-nfl-predictions/
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-analysis/2021/way-too-early-2021-dvoa-projections
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/2021-nfl-win-totals-odds-predictions-best-bets-proven-expert-picks-under-six-wins-for-jets/

68 Football teams don't and…

In reply to by LondonMonarch

Football teams don't and shouldn't build their roster around prognostications from outside sources. Because betting odds have them in 4th place is literally the worst reason ever to NOT improve your roster and spend money on high quality talent. You set up your roster to compete every year. The Raiders went 10-7 last year with a depleted roster and made proper reinforcements to contend. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but it doesn't make sense to not try and wait. Nobody on earth would've said 2021 was the Bengals season going into it. 

84 Indeed. KC, GB, BUF, look to…

Indeed. KC, GB, BUF, look to be perennial threats because they've built good teams to go along with their QBs. Tampa had the good team and found the QB to go with it, and Denver may have just done the same. Seems to me Vegas is doing this the right way.

91 I agree as well. It seems…

I agree as well. It seems like this team will go as far as Carr can take them. And I'm curious to see where that is. I think we'll find out just how good he is. My only problem is the head coach. I don't trust McDaniels at this point. I know he can do crazy, I want to see him do practical as well.

36 Time Horizons

Obviously it isn't a binary decision - no team decides to tank 0-17 and no team trades all its future picks.

But there are obvious reasons applying to the NFL which don't apply in the same way to other businesses, including the salary cap and including the importance and timespan of QB play, as to why teams should be on different points of the sliding scale as to long-termism vs short-termism.

37 RE: Clarification

In reply to by LondonMonarch

Well, the Browns seemingly 'did' choose to try and win very few if any games a few years back.  And the Rams 'have' traded many draft picks. So not trying to nitpick but this comment seems a bit off

 

As to the second paragraph, there are no perfect analogies.  But there are many businesses where the window of opportunity is known but finite, etc.  So I don't think football is that 'special' relative to other markets.  It just gets a LOT more attention.

 

Getting back to GB the only thing about management that has me concerned is that Z Smith left on bad terms and apparently Adams was not keen on management either.  I don't need management to be all kissy face with players but alienating well-liked guys in the clubhouse can have bad long term consequences for retaining talent.  

 

 

39 That's the point...

In reply to by big10freak

... indeed, but the Browns didn't stop signing any decent players, and the Rams didn't trade away all future picks. They were, for a variety of reasons, towards opposite ends of the sliding scale (with most other teams in between). Probably both took broadly the right approach.

And you're probably right that there are other businesses where certain windows are key and it may make sense either to spend hard now to take an opportunity, or to hoard your cash for a future moment (eg to market a new product once it is ready).

But again, that is the Packers-Raiders position. Packers have 2/3 years left of an extremely prime asset, in a weak NFC. Broadly speaking and without entirely mortgaging the future, their optimal strategy would seem to be maximising the short-term and taking some pain 4 years from now in a "rebuild". They're the drug company who should be spending big on marketing to maximise sales during the last 2-3 years of a patent.

Whereas the Raiders are towards the other end of the scale, they are an OK team but with their QB and tough division they are v unlikely to make a Super Bowl at the moment. Their optimal strategy is to maximise future opportunity by hoarding draft picks and younger players. They're the drug company which doesn't have anything great on the market right now, but should be spending on R&D and saving some cash to market their next big thing when it arrives.

41 RE: GB market approach

Well, GB has retained the bulk of its talent core focusing on guys either entering or in their primes save for the weirdo quarterback.  So that accounts for the short-term.  

 

But GB fundamentally dating back to Ron Wolf has always, A-L-W-A-Y-S, kept an eye on the long term.  That is the organizational culture.  And it is not going to change.  

 

Folks can complain about it.  Mock it.  But this is how GB management rolls.  

 

And I think the approach should be commended.  For all the playoff frustrations and the opportunities missed over the years the Packers have been in the mix pretty much every season since 1993.  That ain't nothin'

42 If you're not in the mix…

If you're not in the mix with a qb capable of playing at a HOF level, you've really screwed up. The Packers management has really screwed up very few times since they were smart enough to trade for Favre, and then lucky enough for the 2nd qb drafted to be as late in the 1st as it was. Not really screwing up is an underappreciated virtue.

43 RE: Packer management 'screwups'

The three major strategic blunders by Packer senior management since the Favre acquisition:

 

--Deciding Mike Sherman should be GM (along with HC)

--Not confronting Ted Thompson's failing health

--Lack of investment in special teams

Sherman was a disaster as a GM and only Thompson's bold action plus luck allowed the team to recover so quickly.

 

The team allowed its personal feelings toward Ted to cloud its judgement as his health was clearly negatively impacting his job performance.

 

Special teams failures have repeatedly undermined the team's efforts in the postseason.  

 

50 Why is it always the Raiders…

Why is it always the Raiders? By yardage, half of our top 6 franchise leaders (#2 Lofton, #4 Adams, #6 Nelson) all left for them, and Hutson (#5) didn't even get the option. #14 James Jones went there, too, and even Javon Walker made it there eventually. Over 1/8th of the Packers' total receiving yardage left for the Raiders.

But in all seriousness, I don't understand the hate for the Raiders side of this trade.

1. People complaining about giving a 30-year old receiver a 5 year deal: He turns 30 this year, but it's not until Christmas Eve, so he's "young" compared to other 30-year olds. 2022 is also going to be Robert Woods' age-30 season, but he's 258 days older than Adams. If Adams plays out the deal, 2026 will technically be his age-34 season, but he'll play most of it at 33. Old for receivers, yes, but getting production at that age isn't insane.

2. People hating on the amount of money: We don't have full contract numbers yet, but we can't assume it's a completely backloaded deal. Before Adams' contract, the Raiders have almost $50M in space this year (I think...OTC is a little behind), and their cap space after this year is wide open; Ziegler basically has a blank slate with only 20 players under contract for 2023. If Adams' contract is backloaded, then that makes it something that can be worked with instead of around. If that's not the case (which, IMO it shouldn't be), it's entirely possible the Raiders front-loaded the deal in a way the Packers couldn't have. Adams' cap hits could be something like $40M this year, $30M next, and then $27M, $24M, $20M. If the reports are true the Packers offered the same AAV, the guaranteed money up front might have been the difference. While $20M is crazy right now for an old receiver, by 2026 it might turn out that's it simply just a lot rather than prohibitively a lot. We're probably going to see huge increases in cap space from inflation, post-COVID times, the revamped media deals, and possibly from an 18th game. With all that, imagine what someone like Ja'Marr Chase will get when he's eligible for an extension in 2024 and compare that to the end of Adams' contract. To contradict all that, front-loaded deal means they could just cut Adams by the end of it without much dead money anyways.

3. People complaining about the picks sent: How many years are you expecting Adams to play at his level? Personally, I'd put the break-even at 3 years - if you can get guaranteed pro bowl-level play for at least that long then I would gladly pay a 1st and 2nd (mid-late picks, too, for that matter). It hurts your draft this year, but it's only this year. I think the trade could've just as easily been 1sts in 2022 and 2023. While it would be nice to develop guys to have ready for 2023, maybe the Raiders are looking at Carr's contract expiring after this year and the weak quarterback class, and keeping an eye on next year's quarterbacks. Plus, people are also saying the Packers could've gotten more for Adams, so it could've been worse.

2 and 3 are assuming a whole lot of the Raiders' plans (since at some point it's just me playing GM), but I can see the potential logic.

All that being said (and thank you if you actually read it), as a Packers fan, I am a sad Packers fan. Please stop leaving us for the Raiders, receivers.

52 This is fun

Can we please stop, for one second, trying to figure out cap ramifications, or how this affects the team 3-4 years down the road, and appreciate that there have been actual, bona fide, league-shaking trades this offseason? They say it's a copycat league; I guess we can thank the Rams for laying out an "all-in" blueprint that, if nothing else, is making the NFL as eventful as the NBA, in terms of major-player movement. And, I'm just going to say it: fans seem to care a whole lot more about the salary cap than many owners, based on recent evidence. Moves such as this suggest a tacit understanding that long-term planning is tenuous; careers are brief and extreme attrition is the norm. Adams is getting older, but he can help the team next year and probably the year after that (Green Bay apparently felt the same, reportedly offering Adams more money than Las Vegas). Beyond that, who knows? Enjoy, if not as a fan of the teams in question, then as the spectacle of owners throwing their cash around in a bid to keep pace. It's not my money, the salary cap is liquid, it will be raised soon, and contracts are revisable. Bottom line is the best WR in the NFL was just traded, and the day before that, one of the best pass-rushers of his generation switched conferences, and the week before that, one of the best deep-ball passers of recent vintage migrated to the thin air of Denver. As a kid, I would have loved this. It's fun!     

53 RE: Rodgers influence or lack thereof

Allegedly when Rodgers notified Adams that Rodgers was staying with GB Adams’ reaction was “so?”  Adams supposedly told 12 that Rodgers decision was irrelevant to Adams 

54 Semi-serious question

Do you agree with Charles Barkley viz. Aaron Rodgers? https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2022/03/04/charles-barkley-says-aaron-rodgers-is-like-pretty-girl

(I'm speaking more in terms of "greed" and not leaving enough money to sign players who could potentially improve the team. Although it seems like Adams was just done with GB, so perhaps it's irrelevant.)

64 I don't think it's fair for…

I don't think it's fair for others to count another person's money. And it's not up to anyone to decide another person's priorities.

Also, in basketball, theres a max salary so players are capped on what they can earn. I wonder how Barkley would feel if Lebron could be paid 80 million a year and field a version of the Lakers he has now.

62 Responding to many here…

Responding to many here. Adams is a star, but my biggest issue is you can't assume the player you are paying today is going to be the player he is next year and the year after. And I mentioned this above but it bears repeating, receiver age curves imply Adams is either out of his prime or at the very tail end. You don't fork over these assets and this cap space for a non elite, 8-10 best receiver in the NFL.

People are saying...what is the alternative, roll over and die? Not necessarily. The point is to build a complete roster that can overwhelm these teams with great QBs. Be equivalent to the 2012-2014 or the 2019/2021 49ers. As those teams showed, being an overall stronger roster can mitigate the QB disadvantage. The question is, does Adams(especially future Adams) get you there in lieu of the picks and whatever else you could have had in free agency this year and the next? Me personally, I would say no

 

67 Wait

"And I mentioned this above but it bears repeating, receiver age curves imply Adams is either out of his prime or at the very tail end. You don't fork over these assets and this cap space for a non elite, 8-10 best receiver in the NFL."

You could say the exact same thing about Aaron Rodgers (notwithstanding the anomaly that is Tom Brady)...in which case, wouldn't it have behooved GB to either a) retain Adams (perhaps an impossibility), or b) not sign Rodgers to as many years or as much money as they did? Green Bay maybe could have learned something from the Bucs' approach, no? Shouldn't the goal be to surround him with as much ready-made, high-end talent as possible?       

74 Yes you could. But Rodgers…

In reply to by ALauff

Yes you could. But Rodgers leaving completely sinks the Packers. That's why it's sort of justified to rise the Rodgers car until the wheels fall off.

76  Green Bay maybe could have…

In reply to by ALauff

 Green Bay maybe could have learned something from the Bucs' approach, no?      

Hope to get lucky with an aging QB with something to prove?

82 Guys, this isn't that hard.

I answered my own question with the last sentence in the post to which you're replying: Surround the aging QB with proven talent, if the goal is to maximize a short-term window. You might have noticed Brady isn't throwing to a bunch of jabronis. Ironically, you aren't wrong--the purpose is not to leave the heavy lifting to the old man. That help can be in the guise of all-pro receiver help (ideally) or talented linebackers playing the best ball of their lives (fortuitously). Green Bay would appear to have neither asset in abundance, but it's important to recognize that none of us knows how these teams are going to look on the field, six months hence. That certainly goes for me forecasting talent, and those who pretend at playing junior accountant for NFL teams in their spare time. Let's see how it plays out. As Will is fond of noting, the NFL is ultimately a place where effectively applied violence makes the difference.       

70 You can't assume the player…

You can't assume the player you are paying today is going to be the player next year and after, but there isn't a better indicator of this. Certainly not vs untested rookies.  The signing of Adams fills an absolute #1 current need (as anyone who watched the post-Ruggs offense could tell you),  the chemistry between QB and WR is already there and its also a great statement of intent about the franchise. 

Meanwhile, Adams is 2 & 4yrs younger than Mack and Wilson respectively.... (& only 15mths older than Tyreek Hill) 

 

75 Sure. I think in the ideal…

Sure. I think in the ideal circumstance, you are acquiring a receiver at 26 and ready to burst into his peak years, not leave them.

I just worry this move will look truly awful unless the Raiders win the sb or Adams bucks the traditional age curves. That's certainly possible.

79 Mack was young. That…

Mack was young. That decision is more defensible and I think a good trade decision. I also feel the same way about the Ramsey decision now, though I admit not when it happened.

Those players are both younger at their acquisition date than Adams.

80 Mack was young. That…

Mack was young. That decision is more defensible and I think a good trade decision. I also feel the same way about the Ramsey decision now, though I admit not when it happened.

Those players are both younger at their acquisition date than Adams.

89 Since neither team has won a…

Since neither team has won a playoff game since the trade, I'd argue neither team really got anything out of it. LV definitely drafted poorly with the picks they received, but I also think it's silly to judge a trade by what the team acquiring picks does with those picks later on. It's like if I buy a used car and I determine whether or not I got a good deal by what the seller actually does with my money.

I think the Raiders are in a bad situation. They're clearly the 4th best team in their division right now, and 2 of the teams ahead of them will stay ahead of them for a decade or so unless either their QB regresses a ton/forces his way out of town, or the Raiders luck into a truly great QB. Anything they do to try to compete in the next couple of years is likely to fail. However, even if they could choose to openly tank: have a fire sale, acquire draft picks, go 0-17 and secure the #1 pick, they'd still be unlikely to be any better than 4th in their division in the near term.

Now, I'm not arguing that the Raiders are well run or that trading for Adams is part of a cohesive plan to optimize their chances of being successful in the next few years. But given playoff expansion, the frequency of upsets in the playoffs, and of course injuries, it's not crazy to me for them to think "well, we'll do the best we can and maybe some things will break our way." I don't see a likely path out of them being on paper the 4th best in their division, but it's not hard to see them making the playoffs and beating a better team while they're there.

93 That puts a lot of faith in…

That puts a lot of faith in the Chargers and Herbert.

The Chargers have had good to great QBs for forever. They have had the best or the second-best QB in the division basically since 1972, when Lamonica and Dawson left (and even then, Hadl was good!). They've basically had Brees or Rivers or Herbert in the last 20 years, and they've had maybe 10 bad QB years in 50. Yet they haven't done any better than their divisional competition. (The AFC West is hilariously balanced. The Chargers, Broncos and Chiefs have 15 division titles; the Raiders have 16)

Yet ironically, they won the division and went to the SB with Stan Humphries, when he may have been the 4th best guy in the division. (Elway and Montana, and what you think about Hostetler)

100 For the Bears trade, Mack…

For the Bears trade, Mack was a great player for them. That they didn't win is more because of Trubisky than anything he didn't do. The raiders whiffing on picks is also irrelevant, because it's about the process. I think it's basically asking, are two first rounders minus a second + cap savings worth trading away Khalil Mack? To me it's a no.

The other part, to Aaron Brooks' point, it's not set in stone that the Chargers and the Chiefs will become the Patriots and the Colts of the 2000s, where every year it's their division. The Saints were not perptual division overlords and even the Packers had a few hiccups. It requires the franchise building and retooling successfully. In that sense, the Raiders are not predestined for the cellar every year. it just means their road is much harder. In that light, their most stable path would have to keep acquiring pieces and become an overall better team. I think that road, hard as it is, is better to strive for than this move.

66 The thing with this trade is…

The thing with this trade is:

For the packers: Even if Adams played under the tag, they probably couldn't do it again next year.  So they got a first and a second and cap space for 1 year of Adams....so not terrible for them. (that's excluding any "locker room" issues from a guy who is unhappy...sometimes happens, sometimes not). And great QBs can get away with lesser WR talents (NE did this for years).

For the raiders: While they clearly improved with this, it's not clear if this was the best way to spend those resources to improve the team. Committing all that stuff here makes it much harder to fix other weaknesses.  Mostly, they get the intangible benefit of "showing their fans they arn't the only team in the division standing still". Arm's races are like that I guess.  

So would tentatively call this a minor win for the packers. 

69 You can't say it will be…

You can't say it will be harder to fix their weaknesses without knowing his contract is structured and the Raiders cap situation. It's a lot of projecting without many facts. The Raiders biggest weakness is at corner and O-line. From last reports, they're going heavy for Gilmore, so clearly this hasn't impacted their ability to still potentially add another big player. O-Line is a much more delicate situation and isn't a 1 year fix. It'll take multiple drafts and some other trades and signings over the next year or two. 

88 I wonder if Adams, seeing…

I wonder if Adams, seeing Rodgers break the bank at 50, decided to stay in GB, he wanted FU money just like his qb got. He certainly can credibly justify it.

The other angle for the Packers is, Rodgers at some point is going to suffer a decline where he can't carry and turn an offense good by himself. We saw that with Brady in 19. Great receivers can help forestall that decline, but the Pack are back to square one there.

90 Taxes should be irrelevant

A few posters have commented that Nevada is a desirable destination for free agents because it has no state income tax.  Adams is getting $141 million dollars. Even if he were to sign in a state with a tax rate of 10% (which is higher than most), he still ends up with $127 million dollars.  If a guy can't live on $127 million dollars, he's doing something wrong.  At those kind of numbers, the tax rate seems irrelevant to me.

94 In a very real way, NFL…

In a very real way, NFL players are trading their health for money. If you can get that extra 10%, you should take it. Because you're not getting your knees back.

95 Here are a few issues that…

Here are a few issues that people don't realize when it comes to these things.

Even if we assume Adams is going to collect every penny, he is in the highest tax bracket, which means he's going to be paying at least 30 percent of that income into taxes without then factoring in all of the other taxes he has to pay.

But the more relevant point is this. His earnings effectively stop after this contract. That means he's not going to sniff another payday anywhere close to what he's earning now, so this really does represent lifetime earnings for him of sorts. On top of that, if he doesn't scale down his lifestyle, he's effectively going to have a large portion of his life with almost no income coming in and lots of income going out. This is markedly different from a CEO of a company who collects a big salary every year for the next 20 years or so.

 

Naturally there are ways to smooth out all of this so you don't put yourself in a bad situation, but most athletes and most people don't know how to do that.

It's also worth noting. It's remarkable how easy it is to blow through money and that's not meant as a snark. A nice house and nice cars become remarkably expensive beyond the up front sales cost 

92 Raiders:

Unless they were getting similar offers for Carr, this will let them know once and for all, whether Carr is it. The connection is there so it should be instantly good and impactful. They can't hide forever because there's 10 years left of Mahomes. 2 years + a 5YO + 3 tags of Herbert. There's 2 years + 3 tags of Russ. Maybe one or even multiple of them are traded but being realistic, they won't be. And being even more realistic they're probably going to be there even longer that. 

And to be fair to Carr he might be a Stafford, instead of a Kirk (2016 was truly impressive with what he had, and has overcome his checkdown woes, which might come from trusting his body again, which also reminded me of Rodgers for the rough part of his career a few years back, even though that too was truly overblown as well) 

And this doesn't preclude them from perhaps finding someone better. It's the last of Carrs contract. 31st in the league in cap hit. 14th among QBs. That's fine. Because they can (and should, unless something changes, which it probably shouldn't) draft someone this year and that can fit in their potential timeline smoothly (as they currently have no backup, which is indeed fine, backup QBs don't matter). Unlike GB who decided too early to find their successor and the timelines simply didn't match up (surprise surprise).

For GB it doesn't make sense to extend Rodgers at his age (the right thing to do still) and get rid of the next best player on the team for a bottom half 1st and 2nd. It just doesn't. He was 4th in non-QB WAR last year despite missing a game. It's the FO simply trying to have their cake and eat it too. The NFC is wide open and you see your biggest conference rivals (the last two SB champs btw) go in at pass catcher. Kupp, Robinson, Woods/Van Jefferson vs Evans, Godwin, Gage vs Lazard, Cobb (weird how they aren't worried about his age), Amari. I wonder which is the worst. Oh sorry did I forget the rookies? So reliable right? It's like they want Rodgers to keep winning MVP with little help. When it should be the exact opposite! That's what's frustrating. They want to get into the playoffs and that's it. Anything else is a bonus to them because a SB is not their ultimate goal. Just get there and who cares if you flame out of the divisional/NFCCG game again, you're not getting fired. 

96 Poor process. Unlike GB who…

In reply to by ImNewAroundThe…

Poor process.

Unlike GB who decided too early to find their successor

That they failed to find it with Love is why they started so early. With this contract, they have time to try again without having to find that guy.

98 RE: Drafting qbs

Ron Wolf would draft a qb every few years because he believed that barring a guy who was an obvious talent you never really knew who would and would not make it.  So GB in the 90's churned out qbs to the league.  Burnell.  Your namesake, Brooks.  Matt Hasselbeck

 

I think teams should engage this approach.  Every 2-3 years draft a guy who you think has the possibility to be a starter.  In the later rounds depending on context.  Cause you never know

99 I've heard it all before.

Started so early that they had no choice but to keep Rodgers 2 years in Loves contract because it wasn't financially possible to get rid of him before then, whether Love was ready or not. Got cute with it when QB was on nooooooo ones mind because it wasn't that time. 

Go in then shed and suck. You aren't finding Rodgers again. You're just wasting the final years of Steve Young with Jim Druckenmiller instead of Jason Taylor. 

102 I think the Favre-Rodgers…

I think the Favre-Rodgers switch showed that GB was perfectly willing to cut a guy early if his replacement looked up to the task and the guy he was replacing was a sufficient pain in the ass.

It's just Love wasn't that guy and Rodgers was.

103 It wasn't Favre Rodgers

One was constantly considering retirement. The other professed constantly he wanted to finish in GB in his 40s

One was #1 overall worthy. The other was a 2nd round talent.

One was coming off 10-6 and WC defeat to an 8-8 team who would lose to a team that would lose to the SB champs. The other was 13-3 and lost in the NFFCG to another 13-3 team that was 7 min away from a SB. 

The CBA was completely different and of course there was the trade. 

It was bad process. The only way to get use out of the pickS (better not forget the plural) is if you're recently signed and restructured big money QB flat out sucked. Horrible use of a 1st (AND 4th).  And the plan backfired as expected. It was a bad plan. Just like it would be a bad plan for KC to trade 30 and 135 to TN to pick fellow MWC QB Carson Strong. Completely asinine use of resources due to timeline. 

105 One was #1 overall worthy…

One was #1 overall worthy. The other was a 2nd round talent.

  1. They went 9 picks apart.
  2. Are you arguing Brady was only a 6th round talent?

Get out of here with that weak shit.

106 Make more sense please.

What was 9 picks apart??? What are you talking about Brady for???? 

Sorry but does the fact that people thought #1 should been Rodgers really surprise you after all these years and him proving them right?

I'm talking to a guy that doesn't follow college so I shouldn't be too surprised. 

109 justanothermistake

In reply to by justanothersteve

No where did I imply Favres draft status. That'd literally make no sense. I CLEARLY said Rodgers should've went #1 overall, a very common opinion back in 2005 and LOVE was a 2nd rounder, a very common opinion back in 2020. Geez. 

Why yall think I would bring up draft status from 1991...is exactly something you would obtusely mistake and hone in on instead of the facts on hand. Rodgers was a legit fall and Love was not, for a reason if you couldn't tell either by now. 

110 WTF are you talking about???

In reply to by ImNewAroundThe…

You failed logic, right? You stated, "What was 9 picks apart???" I pointed out what was being referenced. That's it. Nothing else. It is irrelevant to anything else, just a quick answer to your question. I guess that means you go off on another of your irrational, demented rants because any response to you is a reason to go off while bringing up more irrelevant crap that I've not talked about. I never mentioned Love so I have no fucking idea what batshit crazy acid trip has possessed you. 

116 You said math was hard

Math isn't hard but it is when you reference things I wasn't talking about ya tool.

I mentioned Love. YALL brought up Favre draft status despite it not making ANY SENSE TO IN THE DISCUSSION. Was CLEARLY talking about the stupid talking point that Rodgers Love is just another Favre Rodgers when it CLEARLY ISNT.

Weirdo Bears fan. That's why you dont butt in with "mAth Is HaRd" 

119 Put on your big boy pants

I answered a question. That's it. I have no idea what you're talking about with Love because I didn't go back to read your irrational BS. Any argument with you in it isn't worth my time joining. I only noticed the 9 picks question because after I posted my comment I saw an question I could quickly answer. This, of course, is a reason for an immature person like you to then lash out because that's all you know how to do. But I know now you're really a bandwagon Packers fan and will be following some other team as soon as the Packers don't win enough for your spoiled Gen Z ass and not a real fan. Maybe by then you'll have moved out of your parents home. 

122 You deserve whatever "iRrAtIoNaL Bs" comes your way

when you interpret incorrectly with snark...again. But yeah "MaTh Is HaRd" sure is mature. 

More incorrect statements, surprise. As if 2017/2018 wasn't long ago.

 Maybe by then you'll have moved out of your parents home. 

What douchey (wrong) statement. All you had to do with not open with the corniest sarcastic comment as if you knew how to read. 

127 And I'm NOT the mature one

In reply to by justanothersteve

Getting worked up over something YOU started.

But yeah I've disrespected you by calling out your math skills (incorrectly). The fact that I did something before sure shows how mature you are holding a grudge. Can't wait to see Rodgers own yall again crybaby. 

131 The irony of you complaining about maturity

You've been disrespecting others here since you showed up with all the maturity of a five-year-old. Start acting like an adult and I'll start treating you as such. Until then, I will continue this feud (it's only a grudge if one person is holding it and you clearly have not let it go) and continue to call you a spoiled little shit as long as you are here spewing your juvenile shit. You're a fake Packers fan, just along for the ride until people start jumping off and then you'll go off to be a Cowboys fan or whatever the new bandwagon is. 

BTW, I'm a Packers fan, moron. One who has been a Packers fan through the 70's and 80's when it wasn't easy. "Steve in WI" is a Bears fan. Maybe if you paid attention to who is who you might be able to hold your own in an argument with more than one person. But that would require effort that a lazy bandwagon fan like you would never expend. 

132 Disrespect like telling others you don't care about them

But no, YOU'RE the adult here. And it certainly is a grudge because I don't remember why you came in with a sarcastic attitude. Imagine openly admitting to continue a "feud" and calling the other person immature lol.

Ooooh called me a fake fan again. That'll sure make things true. What an absolute INSULT saying I'll become a Cowboys fan. Certainly won't be a Bears fan that's for sure lol but congrats boomer, you sat through bad times, you want a cookie? You see me jump in 17/18? Oh no, Im still here. Sorry I don't remember every generic steve here and hold petty grudges like you. Only TRUE fans spend their time remembering EVERYONE online. 

Grow up and stop taking things personally when YOU'RE the one who starts stuff because...I hurt your little feelings who knows how long ago lol 

Look how little you've contributed to this thread. Spent your whole time yelling at me like a hypocrite. How sad that is.

133 Yes, I'm the adult here

Wow. That's a lot of words in response to someone who says I'm the one holding a grudge. And yes, you're a fake fan. I will continue to call you that because it's a fact. Your treatment of other Packers fans shows that. 

And I know I'm in your head now. You can't let go because you're obsessed with getting the last word in. I'm treating you with exactly the same level of respect as you treat others and you don't like it. That's not disrespect; that's just karma. I may be a boomer but you're still a little shit who likes to taunt and dish out to others but has a skin thinner than an onion. 

Grow up boy. Or I will continue to call you the immature wannabe that you are. 

134 Boy?

Packers fan named steve? No racial undertones in that from the guy STILL crying at all!

My treatment of Packers fan, like above where DPF was a fine interaction. Amazing you only come on here to bash me though! Your treatment is great! Telling a guy on the internet you don't care about them because...grudges! You spent 0 posts in here on topic, you're just sad at this point. But yeah in my head while you comment on no other article and only come back for this. 

I would love to know EXACTLY what I did to for you be THIS mad. But you're the mature one so...you'll just keep calling me names in the name of "karma" and "fake fan" etc.? 

Seek help.

 

135 Yes, BOY

In reply to by ImNewAroundThe…

The boy can't let go, can he? Still making up shit, this time with some bizarre racial comment that comes out of nowhere. Still making up shit to throw at the wall to see what sticks, aren't you? You're pathetic. I feel sorry for your parents. 

125 Even though you have…

Even though you have subsequently cleared it up, it made plenty of sense for people to think you were talking about Favre because he's the only one that went in the 2nd round out of Favre/Love/Rodgers, and the comparisons you made in the sentences both immediately before and immediately after were both between Favre and Rodgers.

128 AGAIN

WHY would I bring up Favres 1 9 9 1 draft status TALENT when he clearly outplayed it at that point? That makes no sense. I was comparing the SITUATIONS of 05 and 20 because "well they did it before" isn't a good justification when...the situations were totally different! What did you think the legit fall from #1 was being compared to? Makes no sense (nor does it justify being butting in and being snarky). 

And I'm still waiting for the explanation for bringing up Brady.

107 Packers were 6-0 over the…

Packers were 6-0 over the last couple years with Rodgers as QB and Adams missing the game. Rodgers has shown he just needs bodies that can run routes and catch the ball. Adams was a luxury. A really nice luxury to be sure, but a luxury nonetheless. I'm guessing at least one first round pick goes to a WR along with at least one Day 2 or 3 pick. 

112 The full details of Adams…

The full details of Adams contract makes this even more favorable to the Raiders. In real terms it's 3 years for 67.5. 

113 Not sure about that....

... the fact that you (rightly) regard it is a good thing that in effect it's a 3 year contract also demonstrates the age point. If you're thinking it's great that they only have to pay him for 3 years, that tells you they're giving up a lot for not all that long...

114 Are they going to try to…

Are they going to try to turn into the Dan Fouts Chargers without a Dan Fouts quality quarterback? Carr is above average, but not Fouts good.