Packers 2023-24 Season Thread

Cheesedog said:
At this point this year needs to be aquire some impact players with your picks. This draft shouldn’t be about quantity. This draft should be about instant impact playmakers. So no to the moving down to get more picks. Someone who can be a playmaker should be there in rd 1 and 2…
Click to expand...
I think only instant playmaker might be Harrison. To me LT are not playmakers.
 
Cheesedog said:
A team like the Packers doesn’t say, pay an obscene amount of money to an aging LT because they don’t make plays….
Click to expand...
The contract to Bak I can't put that on Gute. At the time Bak was one of the top if not the top LT heading into his FA year. No one could predict 6 weeks later he would have a knee injury he would never recover from.
 
GBP4EVER said:
The contract to Bak I can't put that on Gute. At the time Bak was one of the top if not the top LT heading into his FA year. No one could predict 6 weeks later he would have a knee injury he would never recover from.
Click to expand...
Murphy's Law. It inevitably shows up on a regular basis. The question isn't how big it was, it was more along the lines of how much the Packers could afford at the time, and a lot of people believed they did pay too much.

I'm not going to say that's the case, because most people believe they did the right thing. I'm just leery of these huge contracts. It's like the Mahomes contract. Some day that's going to come back and haunt the Chiefs I believe, if Mahomes ends up with a serious injury and can't return to the level he plays at now.
 
rpiotr01 said:
What’s the alternative? Spend high draft picks and acquire good players and let them walk for their best years?
Click to expand...
In some cases, yes. It depends on a lot of factors. One is how good the guy is that you have in house, that can take his place. If the guy you are thinking about giving big bucks is a 90 rating, and the guy you'd use to replace him is a 40, you think about giving him more money. If the guy you'd use is a 75, hell no! Get the pick, or trade him. Do what you can because you won't lose that much and have cap money for other needs.

There's no firm recipe for this.
 
TW said:
In some cases, yes. It depends on a lot of factors. One is how good the guy is that you have in house, that can take his place. If the guy you are thinking about giving big bucks is a 90 rating, and the guy you'd use to replace him is a 40, you think about giving him more money. If the guy you'd use is a 75, hell no! Get the pick, or trade him. Do what you can because you won't lose that much and have cap money for other needs.

There's no firm recipe for this.
Click to expand...
Spending money on good players is the least of my concerns. There is a ton of league money to go around, there's a ton of franchise money to go around, and none of it is my money anyway so just as well see it spent on players.

I guess my issue is that under TT GB had the practice of moving on from players when their contract balloon years came along, and rather than do that, Gute/Russ Ball have been extending the stay of players and kicking the can of the cap burden down the road. Maybe it makes sense for a franchise LT or something but they did it for too many mid-level guys.
 
rpiotr01 said:
Spending money on good players is the least of my concerns. There is a ton of league money to go around, there's a ton of franchise money to go around, and none of it is my money anyway so just as well see it spent on players.

I guess my issue is that under TT GB had the practice of moving on from players when their contract balloon years came along, and rather than do that, Gute/Russ Ball have been extending the stay of players and kicking the can of the cap burden down the road. Maybe it makes sense for a franchise LT or something but they did it for too many mid-level guys.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. They've reverted to the old Mike Sherman method of handling the cap. He got us in hell over it. Thompson changed that immediately. He may have made mistakes, but he knew how to control the money flow, even though it wasn't always popular.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top