Cory's Corner: The Definition Of All-In

Championship teams almost always go all-in.  

I keep hearing it and seeing it. 

The term “all-in.” What the heck is it and why are we obsessed with it now?

I don’t remember seeing or hearing that term when Brett Favre was quarterback in Green Bay for 16 years. 

But that gets back to what all-in means. My hard and fast definition for all-in is to have zero regard for the future with the full amount of resources focused on the present. 

When we talk about all-in, the 1996 Packers showcased what that truly meant. Reggie White was in his fourth year in Green Bay after putting the entire sports world on its ear by choosing the Packers. In addition to arguably the best free agent addition of all-time, the Packers had Santana Dotson, Desmond Howard, Keith Jackson, Don Beebe, Andre Rison, Eugene Robinson and Sean Jones as free agents. That is the perfect definition of all-in. 

Obviously, it helps that the 1996 Packers captured a Lombardi Trophy. Then again, general manager Ron Wolf showed how important he wanted to win by adding a guy like Rison 11 games into the season. It turned out that Rison’s ability to stretch the field was just enough to get a ring as he caught two passes for 77 yards in Super Bowl XXXI, including a 54-yard touchdown bomb on the Packers’ second play from scrimmage. Rison had a reputation for being disruptive and was even caught on camera in a sideline blowup before getting released for the second time in five months. 

That’s all-in. The Packers were willing to swallow that behavior for the prospect of adding a receiver that could take the top off a defense and add another dimension to the offense. 

People want to talk about how last year’s team was all-in. While I like adding Adrian Amos, Za’Darius Smith, Preston Smith, Tyler Ervin and Kingsley Keke, nothing from this list of free agents screams all-in. The two best players from that list were easily Amos and Za’Darius Smith, but Amos had his best season as a pro and Za’Darius Smith had his second-best season — after 2019. 

If the Packers wanted to be all-in, they could’ve traded for someone like Everson Griffen in October to add more punch to the pass rush or Desmond King in November to add more help on the opposite side of Jaire Alexander. 

Are those bold moves? Yes, that’s the point. Winning in the NFL is extremely hard. You need one or two guys that take you over the top. 

Going all-in is sacrificing the future for a ring right now. There were probably a lot of people that weren’t excited about adding Rison back in 1996, but the Packers were willing to live with that because of what he could potentially bring. 

I hate to say it, but the all-in philosophy has been perfected by the Patriots in the last decade. And now the Buccaneers are mirroring that same idea to win it all again in 2021. 

-------------------

Cory Jennerjohn is a graduate from UW-Oshkosh and has been in sports media for over 15 years. He was a co-host on "Clubhouse Live" and has also done various radio and TV work as well. He has written for newspapers, magazines and websites. He currently is a columnist for CHTV and also does various podcasts. He recently earned his Masters degree from the University of Iowa. He can be found on Twitter: @Coryjennerjohn

NFL Categories: 
5 points

Comments (77)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
PF4L's picture

March 27, 2021 at 07:45 am

Let me see what i can do here.
It's a subject worth discussing and it's definitions.
Nice job Corey, this discussion was needed.
.
In the Packers case, since Gute took the GM job, i've wanted to see a "win now" mode more so than going "all in".
There is a difference. Let me explain....
.
Although i disagree with the theory that the Packers went all in picking up Rison. Corey says something else that is a far more accurate qualifier.
.
"Going all-in is sacrificing the future for a ring right now. " - Corey
.
That's the definition right there.
That is different than being in "win now" mode.
.
Mike Ditka went all in, sacrificing a draft to obtain Ricky Williams
.
Teams go "all in" sacrificing multiple draft picks of the future.
.
Teams could also go "all in" putting themselves in a financial burden in future years, to go all in.
.
Those are definitions of going all in.
*****************
I have advocated a "win now" mode. Which is not "going all in".
I didn't advocate that Gute sacrifice the future to win now. Far from it.
.
As a GM, if your strategy is to draft for future years, you are NOT in a "all in" mode, or...a "win now" mode.
I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.
.
Being in a win now mode has nothing to do with sacrificing the future. You draft for "the now" vs drafting for future years.
That isn't sacrificing anything in the future.
.
Gute made choices, his choice was to draft for the future, not to win now. There is no gray area there, it can't be both ways.
.
Gute spent 4 or 5 high draft picks on the future without dispute.
Now if that isn't bad enough.
He did so at the peril of the current team by blatantly making a choice not to use those picks to correct needs on the current roster.
That is undisputed.
.
Now if you want to give me some thumbs down because i have an opinion on Gute, then have it at, enjoy yourself.
After that, pour yourself a big tall glass of kool aid and play with your Brian Gutenkunst bobble head while you tell yourself he's done everything he can to win now.

7 points
8
1
murf7777's picture

March 27, 2021 at 08:09 am

I don’t disagree with your takes on Gutey. GUtey is being prudent by taking care of the present while keeping an eye to the future. Not sure what we call that but I support such prudent management. Win now or all in doesn’t guarantee you a SB, just look at the Saints. There are far more examples of the Saints then Denver. I for one want a good chance to win it all every year.

4 points
6
2
PF4L's picture

March 27, 2021 at 08:24 am

Not doing all you can do to win now in Rodgers short window, is NOT being prudent.

It's being indifferent.

-2 points
2
4
PF4L's picture

March 27, 2021 at 11:55 am

I love you guys!!

None of you own a dictionary?

1 points
2
1
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 28, 2021 at 03:59 am

I suggested that All-In was one end of a spectrum with complete re-build (which usually entails trading veterans for picks and dumping salary) on the other end.

Win-now sounds like something that falls short of "all-in" but is more urgent than business as usual. That's where Gute should be since AR has two or three years, if not more, left. Moreover, those big four FA contracts all end after 2022, or two more seasons.

All-in probably can't be sustained for more than one year, two in a stretch. Win Now mode probably can be sustained for 3, maybe 4 years.

Yeah, I agree. So far, Gute has shown a little too much prudence, but that's just my opinion.

0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

March 27, 2021 at 08:40 am

Gute was brought in to rebuild a roster full of holes and to deliver the vision LaFleur sold to Murphy. Looking at what he has done without recalling both those factors will be misleading.

The Smiths and Amos were big investments to repair gaping holes and keep us competitive. Other picks like Gary were designed to give us a shot at what the team considered a stand out talent.

Murphy, Gute and co have been all about keeping the Packers in the mix while reshaping the team. This year might have been the one where we could add luxury, but then Covid took a bite out of the cap.

If they were not in win now mode, resigning Bakh and Jones seems counter productive, as does what Ball has been doing with the cap. I think we just have unrealistic expectations of what can be done with this cap (we will have to do more anyway) and where we came from with the roster after TT departed.

The team could have blown things up this year. Instead they have decided to gamble on enough of a cap hike next year to ride the storm. It’s a gamble, but it’s one we are taking because they want to go for it not start moving to the post Rodgers era. It may prove to be a mistake. But it’s not one of not trying.

As fans, we mostly wanted Bakh back, many wanted Jones. I was concerned about putting that much into those contracts and still am. They didn’t do those and other moves for Love.

6 points
6
0
PF4L's picture

March 27, 2021 at 10:29 am

"But it’s not one of not trying."

If i asked you to fix something that needed repair.
and you ignored it.
Then i came back later asking if it's fixed...
Are you going to tell me you "tried" fixing it?

0 points
1
1
Coldworld's picture

March 27, 2021 at 01:06 pm

Imposing a context that is subjective makes an answer to a question. Founded on that assumption meaningless.

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 28, 2021 at 04:06 am

I agree with the bulk of your comment. Note that 2021 was a year GB could have added a luxury but for the covid cap crunch: true, but they took the luxury in 2020 when they drafted Love.

0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

March 27, 2021 at 08:41 am

duplicate

0 points
0
0
Archie's picture

March 27, 2021 at 09:03 am

Ironclad logic if you ask me. Good job PF4L.

btw - I am a Gutey supporter until I decide I'm not but you nailed it - last year's draft told us in spades that Gutey/MLF are planning for the future more than trying to win now, let alone go all-in. They are all-in on the future - meaning they were looking to add offensive skill players that fit MLF's offense. With a new DC in town I assume they will do the same this year on the defensive side of the ball.

2 points
3
1
PF4L's picture

March 27, 2021 at 10:43 am

I appreciate that good Sir.

I wanted to be a Gute supporter.

But a funny thing happened almost on his first day on the job, i call it Gutes First Chapter...
.
That's when he let Jordy go (disrespectfully i'll add) and then signed Graham. I didn't like it at all, and i said so back then, and yes, i can damn well prove it.

So that wasn't a great start in my mind.

Since then Gute has done some things well (which i always give credit), and not so well. I just think his tally is more con's than pro's, imo anyway.

Thank you again. it's always nice to converse with people who think below the surface with an open mind.....Respect

0 points
0
0
CoachDino's picture

March 27, 2021 at 11:16 am

This topic can be debated w/o conclusion as one can debate what sacrificing the future is and how much is considered too much?
All in by the word itself "ALL" - Everything list the variables and max them out. So to some , there will always be more that could of been done so that's not all in.

You can't be All In and not be diminishing your chances of winning in the future. It's simply how the cap works. You push money out is nothing more than lessening what you can spend the next year if you didn't (Though there is a Cap Min % that all teams must meet.
Same can be said of win now, whats that mean? Impossible to do everything to win w/o doing things that diminish future winning. Of course "win now" that's 90% of the time

Getting good players through FA doesn't in itself scream all in. Your cap situation determines the players you can get. Hence going all in is building a current roster that surpassing the "subjective definition of damage" to your future ability to win due to cap restraints.

Ps Only desperate GMs draft for the present. All the rest draft for the future. Its a fact that your draft will impact your chances to win very/very little in year 1. Often not much at all in year 2 as well. How could they 99% of draft picks dont even become starters. Maybe 2-3 per team per draft and that's over a course of 4 years.

Its obvious the Packers are in a Win Now / All In status - They have brought back every FA they could and have done so at the cost of the future ability to sign FA, be it their own or others. Quantitative Proof/evidence: Dallas and GB are dead last in cap space for 2022 and the only two teams with a negative cap (over the cap limit) already. 2023 isn't much better. Near the bottom going into this year. By definition they went close to all in last year and have now decided to risk even more to try and get this team a Ring before it falls apart. (Mainly Arod leaving and having to cut starters)

Tough to question the GM that in the course of 3 years he has taken a losing team to 2 NFCCG. That's success no matter how you slice it. I'd say he actually decided to go All-In when he signed the big 4 FAs and paid out all his best players before they hit FA since. He even signed AJ back after he let him reach FA - Thats an ALL In Move....

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 28, 2021 at 05:15 am

I agree with the general tenor of your comment, but if you start talking numbers someone might take a closer look to check on reality.

"99% of draftees don't become a starter." 255 guys were drafted in 2020, so 1% would be 2 to 3 players in the entire draft become starters. You then contradict yourself and say 2 to 3 become starters per team.

In the 2020 draft, GB had a goose egg for starters. It looks like Deguara, Martin, and Dillon will be starters or heavy contributors in 2021. Some chance for one of the OL. In 2019, it was Savage and Jenkins. Gary might become the starter and should be a heavy contributor. Maybe Keke or Hollman make a move up the depth chart.

When we talk about drafting for need or immediate impact, no one is talking about day three picks. People mean primarily first round and second, maybe third and hope for 4th. (Gute's third and fourth round selections have been deserts as well.)

The average first round pick for 2020 played 568 snaps. The median was 709. Gute drafted a goose egg, and a guy he knew would be a goose egg. I didn't do the numbers for the second round, but Dillon played 97 snaps. I suspect that the average and median numbers were much higher. And Gute knew Dillon wouldn't play much behind Jones and Jamaal. I am sure he expected another 50 snaps, but that doesn't alter the general tilt of these two picks from being purely future picks.

Gary played 244 and 456 snaps in his first two years. So he hasn't hit the 2020 average or median. Savage has 865 and 876 snaps. Bingo - immediate impact. Jenkins as well at 964 and 1037.

Going back to 2018, Jaire was an immediate impact draftee, and actually Josh Jackson was as well since he played 718 crappy snaps. But he played just 103 and 331 in the next two years.

One thing that's good is Gute has found plus players, ones that can be difference makers. Jaire, Savage, Jenkins and Gary though only over the last third or half of 2020. He just needs to do better in rounds 3 - 7.

So three of Gute's 5 picks in rounds one and two were immediate impact picks, and two weren't and it was clear that they wouldn't be. That's not all-in.

0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

March 28, 2021 at 06:13 am

"(Gute's third and fourth round selections have been deserts as well.)"

Gute's has use (3) 4ths and (1) 3rd to move up in round 1. He's got to start showing the patience to let things come to him. It's ok to move up here and there. Certainly not arguing with the 3rd used to move for Jaire. But that needs to be the exception, not the rule. And it needs to be counter-balanced with some moves down to replace those picks. So far it is has been the opposite.

If he starts adding extra picks in those round and stops reducing his picks in those round, he will begin to add more legit players from those rounds.

1 points
1
0
ckoski's picture

March 27, 2021 at 07:51 am

I'm not sure Rison really fits your point. He was signed because Brooks and Freeman were both hurt. That was more desperation than all-in free agency strategy. The Packers had tried hard to sign him the year before and were likely happy not to have made the big "all-in" free agency expenditure on Rison after a year and a half of failure in Cleveland and Jacksonville. It's true that Wolf could have just let the injured receiver group go as is, and the Rison signing was important, but it's more like a late season Veldheer signing than spending money on a Watt or whoever else may be on the wish list.

9 points
9
0
murf7777's picture

March 27, 2021 at 07:51 am

“I hate to say it, but the all-in philosophy has been perfected by the Patriots in the last decade.“. If the definition of all in is jeopardizing the future to win now as you state than the Pats never did this. From my recollection they always were in the middle or lower third of SC, very similar to the Packers. Belicheck was the expert at bringing in aging veterans at a small price and utilize what strengths they have left to improve his team. Hardly all in. Also, Tampa is hardly all in as they still have SC remaining...

An example of all in are the Saints who were 90M over the cap weeks prior to the year end. Denver when they went after Peyton Manning were all in. Yes, they won the SB, but at what cost? Years of futility.

I would say the Packers are all in if; they give Rodgers and Adams extensions and use the money to trade major draft picks for a top tier All-Pro veteran player who carries a high cap.

3 points
3
0
murf7777's picture

March 27, 2021 at 07:58 am

Just checked OTC, Tampa is a negative 1M right now, but has 60M in 2022 while the Packers will start in a negative position in 2022. Tampa far from all in.

2 points
2
0
PF4L's picture

March 27, 2021 at 08:48 am

Murf....

A big chunk of the packers deficit is tied in with all the restructuring done with the Packers and their highly paid players. They call it..."Kicking the salary cap can down the road".
Delaying the inevitable.

Keep in mind a few factors, a lot of this (besides covid) stems from the FA buying rampage in 2019.

This is also before Alexander and Adams get new contracts.

This is with only 30 players under contract right now for 2022. (the deficit will get worse).

It's fair to speculate the Packers projected cap number to be in the 250-260 million range, once everyone is signed.

So, how does this get fixed right?

One of the reasons i'm so sure this is Rodgers last season in Green Bay is because dealing him away saves them 22 million in cap hits

But they still have work to do to cut cost. You'll most likely see a reduction in big name players to pick up the rest, along with some more restructuring. Kicking the can.

1 points
1
0
Coldworld's picture

March 27, 2021 at 09:06 am

Just reading around, a ton of teams doing the same that never have before. It clearly indicates both a ready solution to the unexpected cap shrinkage other than blowing teams up, probably combined with a consensus on future cap movement. This time next year a lot of teams may well have been kicking the ball further down the road into the new TV contracts.

2 points
2
0
PF4L's picture

March 27, 2021 at 11:53 am

Good point my man.....

Covid effects more teams than just the Packers, but it all can't be blamed on Covid alone. Plenty of teams had a surplus or were about even coming into the new league year.

We were 30 plus million over the cap because of Covid, and the 2019 spending spree. 5 of our top 8 cap numbers were from our free agent signings.
When they draw up 182 million worth of contracts, these guys weren't preparing for the what ifs....and they knew that.

I don't think they even know yet what the exact cap will be, remember they decided to spread it out instead of taking one big hit.
I'd imagine the NFL has to get together and agree on a cap number for 2022 with the NFLPA after this season, just like they did for 2021.

0 points
0
0
murf7777's picture

March 27, 2021 at 09:59 am

When they signed the four big free agent contracts in 2019 I was one who stated that is too much in one year. most on this board disagreed and I was down voted. Now, Those four contracts have mostly worked out but that is an anomaly in a great job by Gucci picking the right people. If one or two of them failed we would be in a world of hurt.

3 points
3
0
PF4L's picture

March 27, 2021 at 09:05 pm

I don't think Preston's deal has worked out at all, he's already received over 33 million.
Amos and Turner were over paid their first year, but have improved. But both got burned pretty bad against the Bucs sans Amos pick.

Over all, the free agents didn't do much in the NFCCG, which was disappointing. It reminded me back to Mike Daniels tough talk before a playoff game, then pulling zero's across the board during the game.

Hopefully Preston will give a S... enough to come to camp in shape this season, and take it seriously.

-1 points
0
1
Titletown222's picture

March 27, 2021 at 02:38 pm

Tampa has 7 starters (not including Fournette) that will be FA next year which is why they are so far under the 2022 cap. This highlights the fact the Packers are going to have to get better players on their team at a cheaper relative cost. Coming out of this draft with a healthy quantity and quality of players is important.

2 points
2
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 28, 2021 at 05:50 am

Glad I scrolled down. TB has $60M but has:
Chris Godwin
JPP - old
Gronk - old
Suh - old
Jensen - starting center, age 31 in 2022
Gholston, age 31
RB Ronald Jones and Fournette
OJ Howard.

That's way better than GB at -$2.7M though GB has just Davante and Jaire (both $20M guys), MVS and Lucas Patrick.

However, while TB will have the money, they will have to replace most of these players rather than just re-sign them. New players brought in from FA don't always work out. They get two drafts, same as GB, to help them out.

0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

March 28, 2021 at 07:32 am

Pretty sure Tampa was geared around a short window. Brady was actually nothing special in purely QB terms last year. That team was a last hurrah crew on top of years of high drafting. Overt attempt to burn bright for a year or two. However, the afterwards must only have seemed like a return to the prior normal.

0 points
0
0
PF4L's picture

March 27, 2021 at 08:51 am

Murf....isn't it a little late for the Packers to decide to go (in your speak) "all in" now vs during the last 3 years.

The Patriots did the opposite of going all in.
1) They never traded away a bunch of future draft picks, they were the masters at receiving extra picks through trades
2) The Patriots don't overpay, they are frugal. They have your worth set at a number, if you don't agree, they move to plan B.
3) They almost always had money and room to pick up players on the go, without sacrificing their future.
4) They also drafted well, traded well.
5) They were good at picking up a key free agent here and there.
6) They didn't live with their mistakes for years.
7) If they had a problem area, it got addressed.

The Patriots were the farthest thing from going all in. They didn't have to.

4 points
4
0
murf7777's picture

March 27, 2021 at 09:55 am

I’m not advocating all in. Just stating what I think the definition of all in is. You’re right the Pats have never went all in which I described in another post.

1 points
1
0
CoachDino's picture

March 27, 2021 at 11:37 am

The Patriots are an anomaly.
1) They had Tom B willing to play at a reduced salary in order to allow the Patriots an advantage no other team had.
2) The had the GOAT at QB
3) They had arguably the greatest coach of all time

PS they haven't drafted well for years
What mistake have the packers been living with?
They had plenty of problem areas over the years.
No they didn't fix everyone immediately. They worked on the areas that counted the most and let problem areas that don't mean much continue (prioritization by impact)

1 points
1
0
PF4L's picture

March 27, 2021 at 12:19 pm

Bellichick stirred the drink, he was also in charge of personnel. if he wanted someone, he went and got him.
Gute got people also, he got Earvin, T Willy, Snacks, Funchess

Bellichick didn't tolerate you if you couldn't offer the team any value.

He didn't give long, foolish expensive contracts that tied the team up because a player had one good year, or if the players didn't perform.

Comparing the Packers front office to him is a slap in his face. If their were any similarities, it was because the Packers were trying to emulate him and the way they did business

The Packers had some pretty good QB's also

The Patriots didn't go to 9 SB's by accident in the last 20 years, winning 6 of them.

How many SB's have the Packers got to in the last 20 years

1) They had Tom B willing to play at a reduced salary..."

They had Brady playing at a reduced salary because Brady trusted them to spend it wisely and not piss it away on bad contracts.

Maybe Rodgers should have paid Grahams salary,
Maybe Rodgers should have paid Nick Perry's salary.
Should i go on?

-1 points
0
1
PF4L's picture

March 28, 2021 at 08:55 am

I understand.

0 points
0
0
Jlofton83's picture

March 27, 2021 at 12:33 pm

Since 1990 The Packers have won 2 fewer games than the Pats .... not bad for such a poorly run organisation.

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 28, 2021 at 05:55 am

Accurate. Bean-counters will love that stat.

NE has appeared in 9 Super Bowls since 1990.
GB has appeared in 3 super bowls since 1990.

NE has won 6 Super Bowls since 1990.
GB has one 2 super bowls since 1990.

We have a factor of 3 going on here.

0 points
0
0
Leatherhead's picture

March 27, 2021 at 11:11 am

There is nothing that guarantees anything. Put a team on the field that you think can win the division, hope for good luck with injuries and officiating, and that’s about it.

Stating that the Packers know what they’ve got inLove isn’t the same as guaranteeing he’ll be good. I didn’t think it would be necessary to say that, but apparently it is.

5 points
5
0
PF4L's picture

March 27, 2021 at 09:16 am

and.....draft to help your team win now?

Don't mind me, i'm just spit balling.

I havent seen anyone say anything is, should be, or is guaranteed, please don't be a drama queen.

Funny how you say nothing is guaranteed, but then you imply Love will be a good QB because of all the homework the Packers did on him pre draft.
Hmmm.

-1 points
1
2
Lphill's picture

March 27, 2021 at 09:07 am

An example of all in is the patriots every year they would reload then release or trade players and load up again , and we all no how that worked out, they didn’t worry about drafting and developing it was win today don’t worry about tomorrow, seems the Bucs got that memo too .

-2 points
2
4
BuckyBadger's picture

March 27, 2021 at 11:34 am

They did plenty of work in the draft as well. They where always stock piling picks and no one utilized the compensatory picks more. The Pats didn't make the mistake of over paying for veteran players past their prime. Paying out big contracts makes holes in your roster in other areas which means saying good bye those players. They drafted and developed plenty.

0 points
0
0
Archie's picture

March 27, 2021 at 09:15 am

7 Packers will comprise 75% of GB's cap in 2022. Ouch!

The Pack will not be in a position to spend gobs of money on FAs as long as 12 remains a Packer and even with him gone, it will be tough.

The problem with free agency is that if you pay your stars 100+ million contracts you can't afford the talent needed to support the super-stars as football is a team game. The problem with going the opposite direction i.e., trading your stars away, you better be good at draft & develop.

2 points
2
0
Thegravedigger's picture

March 27, 2021 at 09:33 am

I honestly think that gute n lafleur think that the pack can win in lafleurs offense with jordan love and talent around him. All the misdirection, mesh concepts, and play action, who needs an mvp qb?? Why spread his money out and give him some reassurances that he will be a packer, while also freeing up cap space? Thats just one of my thoughts. BUT. Maybe the reason they dont roll rodgers money down the road is about trying to keep him on his toes? Look what happened when they drafted a qb??rodg is all of a sudden the mvp again? Is gute really trying to manipulate rodgers?? Or do they truly want to go to love next year?? Either way, gutes gm life depends on it.

1 points
2
1
murf7777's picture

March 27, 2021 at 10:03 am

It’s fools gold to assume Love will keep this team in contention year in and year out. IMO, if we trade Rodgers we are in for a few year rebuild with hope of being a consistent winner.

2 points
2
0
Leatherhead's picture

March 27, 2021 at 11:15 am

I think we can win as many Super Bowls with Love as we have in the last ten years with Rodgers.

0 points
1
1
Difer's picture

March 27, 2021 at 10:07 am

Gutekunst is following Murphy's sustainable business model, which I believe is supported by the Executive Board - keep the Packers competitive and relevant year in and year out. Let the fans gnash their teeth when the Packers lose their last game in January, knowing that they will be back in the stands the following year, fanatical as always.

1 points
3
2
NickPerry's picture

March 27, 2021 at 10:24 am

I'd still like to see Gute add a CB before the draft but I honestly believe he will add at least one before any TC or whatever it is they'll have. Gute has always attacked a weakness on this team by adding multiple players at that position to the team.

Before the 2018 season they needed WR's and he drafted 3 of them and added Jimmy Graham
Before the 2019 season the Packers needed pass rushers and he signed 2 in Free Agency and added another in the draft with Gary. He also fixed the Safety position with a FA and a high draft pick in 2019.
In the 2020 draft he knew he's need depth on the interior of the O-Line and drafted 3 O-Linemen in addition to adding a FA the year before.

My point is when Gute KNOWS there's a glaring weakness staring him in the face that offseason, or it will be next season, he attacks it with MULTIPLE swings. So far he's signed King and IMO he'll draft at least 2 more CB's in the draft. I also honestly believe he'll add another veteran CB before or after the draft to compete with King. Gute IS NOT DONE YET!

Gute KNOWS this team was one or two plays away from going to a SB...OR one or two brain farts by Redman trying to catch a football like my sister or Rodgers at least not trying to run it in at the end of the game. Well Gute has 21 or the 22 starters in that NFCCG BACK on this roster for 2021. THAT team was more than good enough to win and so will the 2021 Packers.

For those who think he hasn't done enough, please remember the Kenny Clark, David Bahktieri, and Aaron Jones signings he's already made. Just look at the amount of cap dollars the Packers have pushed into NEXT year and beyond to keep together a team good enough to win. Once we do that then tell me the Packers haven't gone "All in".

3 points
4
1
PF4L's picture

March 27, 2021 at 06:36 pm

What season did the Packers have the most sacks...

A) 2018
B) 2019
C) 2020

If you picked A.....you would be correct, while spending a lot less money in the process.
****************
For the last time!!!!
The issue isn't whether he's done enough. The issue is he could have done more...but he chose not to.

If you think the Packers were just one or two plays away from beating the Bucs and going to the SB you might be sadly mistaken.

It would have taken a number of plays, just to tie the game up, Then more plays in overtime....that's if you forget about all the bonehead coverage plays earlier.

But forgive me, i don't mean to go off the deep end with critical thinking and logic. My bad.
******************
"Before the 2018 season they needed WR's and he drafted 3 of them and added Jimmy Graham"
.
How did that work out?

0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

March 28, 2021 at 04:51 am

"If you think the Packers were just one or two plays away from beating the Bucs and going to the SB you might be sadly mistaken."

LOL...What game were you watching?

0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

March 27, 2021 at 10:28 am

Green Bay is in a unique situation when it comes to going "all-in" or even working in a "win now" mode regardless of how you define each of those terms.

Ron Wolf was able to bring in a Reggie White, Santana Dotson, Keith Jackson, Rison, et. al. because he had Brett Favre and to a lesser extent Mike Holmgren. Quality NFL veterans who had not won a Super Bowl saw an opportunity to achieve it with Favre and Holmgren and they took their shot and were well paid while they were at it.

The same has been true for FAs signed during the Rodgers era. Whenever and however the Packers ultimately move on from the Rodgers era could make a huge difference in bringing FAs to Green Bay. If Love or another QB flops and GB goes into a period of losing, similar to the 70s/80s the Packers will have a difficult time bringing top tier FAs to Green Bay.

Without a QB like Favre or Rodgers experienced players will not view GB as an opportunity for reaching the SB. Warmer weather venues will always have a better chance of attracting top tier FAs and that will be increasingly true if the Packers are in a prolonged losing cycle.

Look at it from a player's perspective. I can go play in KC, or Tampa or SD, or LA or I can go to Green Bay and play with Love or whoever. That's why it is a fallacy that moving on from Rodgers after 2021 will free up all this cap space so that we can sign FAs who will make a better overall team. Really, what chance does Love have of bringing the Packers to an SB in '22, '23 or even '24 if ever.

Even if Love follows Rodgers first 3 season as a starter projectory, which is very unlikely, of 6-10, playoffs, then SB in 3rd season we're 3 seasons away at least. Do we really think our next QB is only going to have 3-4 picks in a season like Rodgers has done for most of his career?

Post Rodgers can become a very slippery slope of QB, HC, GM failures until the Packers find that correct combination of GM, HC and QB which are the 3 pillars for building a winning team in the NFL. As for acquiring multiple draft picks the Packers had about 24 years of high round picks in the 70s/80s and we know how that played out until Ron Wolf arrived towards the end of '91.

Bottom line is that Green Bay needs a legitmate QB presence to attract FAs to play for the Packers. If Love is that presence that's great. But if he's not then neither us as fans nor NFL FAs will have much hope for winning in Green Bay and possibly for a long time. Thanks, Since '61

3 points
3
0
PF4L's picture

March 27, 2021 at 11:34 am

'61 is talking about post Rodgers in Green Bay.

But it just isn't about Free agents....it's about, Green Bay, the Packers, Lambeau Field, Title Town District, Hotel and Restaurant sales, Merchandise sales, sled hill rides, hot chocolate sales, HOF ticket sales, etc.

What i'm trying to say is a lot rides on the Green Bay and Packers bottom line if.....they don't have a franchise QB.

Most probably don't think about it....but in the last 30 years...can you imagine what having Favre and Rodgers has meant to Green Bay in economic dollars? I couldn't even guess.

The Packers are one of the financial super powers in the NFL, and that is saying something with a City of 100,000+ people.

There has been a mystique in Green Bay at QB for nearly 3 decades. Fans realistically thinking each year they have a chance of winning a SB....If that disappears with a ho hum average QB and 8-8 seasons, trust me. Things will be changing in our storied Football City.

The magic aura of it's history will remain, but make no mistake, it won't be close to the same, in any manner.

Could Love be our 3rd HOF QB for the next 15 years.....hell yes, anything is possible.

But ponder this.....We've had 2 back to back HOF franchise QB's for almost 30 years.
No team...in NFL history, has come anywhere close to that.
Now we just need.....the 3rd one?

Call me crazy....but i'm thinking, lets use all our resources to win now.
I know, i know....i'm being silly.

1 points
1
0
TarynsEyes's picture

March 27, 2021 at 10:51 am

Whether one calls it 'all-in' or 'win-now' the major sticking point issue to both is nothing having been done to ensure a different hand being played. The Packers are basically standing pat with a hand that everyone playing at that final table has already seen, not once, but twice.

The Packers have the hand that allows them to believe they can simply call any small incremental changes (upgrade bets) by division teams to get them to that final round, but they haven't made any changes to actually beat the other hands being played at that final table.

Sure, they'll likely have a seat, but they're as likely to be exposed again either by a bad play from the obvious suspect, by a play call by a scared HC, or by the failure of the HOF QB to be what a 'winner' always does, want the ball, and know that all are looking at him to make the play needed to be made, as Brady did in his most recent SB win telling the sideline the play he is going to call, and do it.

-1 points
1
2
PF4L's picture

March 27, 2021 at 11:09 am

I don't know if Taryn is a woman, man, or a monster.....

But she, he or it....has a valid message

If you come to the table with a pair of 9's, and lose....

Don't come to the same table next year with a pair of 9's and expect to win.

Well done Taryn

2 points
3
1
TarynsEyes's picture

March 27, 2021 at 12:24 pm

Its 'woman' though many believe me to be a monster because I refuse to eat and drink the garbage of the blind optimist.

Thank you, but as you also can witness, not many here can see the reality of what's going on year, after year, after year in GB, and a major point to why it happens. GB with or without salary cap, cannot induce elite players in their prime to come to GB, even with HOF QBs leading the team.

Draft and develop is and will likely always be the bread and butter for 'ultimate' goal success, and every year they err in the drafting or develop spells 'participation' and not hoisting the Lombardi Trophy, or being close to it. Though close for many still seems to mean 'not' actually being in the final game. Not being in it means you're not able to win it, so you're 'not' close, but just one of the 30 who were then guaranteed to not be able to win it at different times in the season, but all ending up in the same cubical watching the 'winner' and the one who actually came 'close'.

1 points
2
1
jlc1's picture

March 27, 2021 at 03:16 pm

I'll go with this idea that GB fails to attract free agents if you can come up with some examples of FAs that refused a GB offer that was the highest. However that then would go against the idea you express elsewhere that it is a business in which case one would think that if GB made the best offer the player would take the best offer, very business like.
So we just need some examples of players rejecting an offer from GB that is the highest bid which would indeed show us that GB cannot "induce elite players....to come to GB".

0 points
0
0
TarynsEyes's picture

March 27, 2021 at 05:03 pm

Whether GB made an offer or not is moot. Do the Packers not want those players for financial or character reasons? Do those players choose not to come because of personal, nightlife, region etc reasons. We will never truly know, but the main point is they don't come. I choose to believe it the reasons I attach for the players. I mean, who doesn't or wouldn't want to play for/with the QB so many deem the GOAT? What can possibly be the problem? Watt didn't think it so great to take less and come to GB, but chose a 5'9" kid. Others signed elsewhere an hour after being released without an iota of a thought about GB, or perhaps an iota that quickly dissipated from the that half-full glass of bs. Perhaps the FO just wants to keep the hope alive to a point where the finger can always be pointed elsewhere, and fans can dally season after season in the making up of excuses for everything and everything they don't get, and appeared to have every right to expect more, and actually get it. NE and their fans certainly did, and now it looks like Tampa Bay may get more in two years with the oldest man in the league than we have in ten and equal to our 27 years with Favre and Rodgers

0 points
0
0
PF4L's picture

March 27, 2021 at 06:34 pm

I won't argue with you because i like the cut of your jib.
.
But not getting elite free agents falls very, very far down the list of problems ailing the Packers.

0 points
0
0
TarynsEyes's picture

March 27, 2021 at 07:08 pm

Yes, but a main topic every year, and what is GB going to do in it.

0 points
0
0
PF4L's picture

March 27, 2021 at 08:56 pm

Well...not this year, and probably not next year.

0 points
0
0
Swisch's picture

March 27, 2021 at 12:22 pm

I absolutely hate the Patriot Way of discarding favorite players as if they are interchangeable parts.
I like the Packer Way of draft and develop, modified to allow for the signing of a few free agents here and there.
I like getting to know the players as persons and having them around as long as possible. We can't keep everyone forever, and sometimes a trade is in the best interest of all concerned, but I like as much continuity as possible.
The Patriot Way is corporate and calculating and cold and inhuman, and I suspect it doesn't work most of the time, anyway. It is efficient but I would think ineffective in the long run. There may be things that the Patriots have done over the past twenty years that are worthy of emulation, but the way they treat people isn't one of them. I also wonder how much cheating was involved with their success, to the deflation of their worthiness.
The Patriot Way is China, which seems powerful and prolific nowadays, but is already a place of suspicion and savagery and misery. Throughout history, these brutal empires look unstoppable at first, but eventually crash and burn into ashes, or decay and rot into dust.
What we need in America is putting people first, or we will die as a nation as well.
The Packers are beloved in America as a model of doing things the right way, a shining symbol of smallness and localness and neighborliness. We take guys from all colors and backgrounds from all over the country and hold them close to our hearts for all of their lives. Green Bay is Titletown, USA in many years; but even in other seasons a winner in my book.
The results have been amazing on the field and off. We can easily take the awesome intimacy of the Packers for granted. As Joni Mitchell put it so well, "Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you got 'til it's gone. Paved paradise, put in a parking lot."

2 points
2
0
BuckyBadger's picture

March 27, 2021 at 11:37 am

You letting your fandom getting in the way of what is simply smart football moves. Yes the Pats let some players walk but that is because they didn't believe in paying out big money to guys that weren't truly blue chip talent. They kept plenty of players like Gronk, Wilfork and Bruschi. Guys that would earn their keep. Paying out big contracts because you like a guy isn't how you win. You question the effectiveness long term? I think the amount of title runs showed it was the right way to do it.

0 points
0
0
TarynsEyes's picture

March 27, 2021 at 12:22 pm

"I like getting to know the players as persons and having them around as long as possible."

It's a business, and the only players in this business who are of the same thinking about the fans, like you attest to being, are those who understand they have nowhere else to go. They become squatters that consume roster space and valuable dollars because fans and the FO believe them to be enough to keep ticket sales etc, booming. It becomes less and less about the ultimate goal, unless the ultimate goal is, how to keep seats filled with easily satisfied fans that refill the half-full glass of optimistic bs on the team.

If the Packers get 'close' again, by Packer fan definition I posted, will not this very conversation be just a 'copy and paste' one as has been every year? When will the fans stop prohibiting themselves from accepting the 'reality' of the problems with GB and the FO who have done all they can do to make fans believe that the cycle of HOF QBs will continue and that SB wins are coming to you, but can't seem to make an appearance in them.

0 points
0
0
Swisch's picture

March 27, 2021 at 01:26 pm

Loyalty isn't the same as complacency and laziness.
Players have to be ready to compete each training camp, and to be continually committed to excellence, in order to stay with the Packers.
Also, we can't keep even our top players forever. I'm sad to see Linsley and Bulaga go, but I agree with the moves not to re-sign them at their ages and for their prices.
There is so much more to a team than individual statistics, though. The NFL isn't fantasy football and virtual reality.
The Lombardi Packers aren't the only team ever to win three championships in a row, and five in seven years, based on individual talent alone.
Indeed, individual talent flourishes on a healthy team when players feel appreciated by their coaches and work for the good of each other.
Bart Starr and Paul Hornung and Ray Nitschke were flops before the coming of Vince Lombardi. Other players may have been very good with another coach, but in most cases not to the fullness of their achievements under Lombardi.
He was highly temperamental and loud and demanding and at times almost insufferable as a coach, but the key to his success was that he genuinely loved his players -- and they loved him in return.
Although Herb Adderley won a Super Bowl with the Cowboys, he chafed under the coaching because it was too much about the impersonal system. He went into the Hall of Fame identifying with the Packers and devoted to Vince Lombardi.
In a league with lots of talented players and top teams, it's an esprit de corps of going into the arena with real team camaraderie that makes the difference.
Greatness comes not only with grand strategies and clever schemes, but ultimately with people caring about each other. To live otherwise is desolation and defeat.

0 points
0
0
TarynsEyes's picture

March 27, 2021 at 01:58 pm

"Loyalty isn't the same as complacency and laziness."

In time, it becomes as useless, because loyalty to a fault is blinding, therefore the same.

1 points
1
0
Since'61's picture

March 27, 2021 at 04:11 pm

Swisch, I am as big of a Lombardi era Packer fan as you will find. However, the game has changed significantly since those halcyon days both in Green Bay and for the NFL. Those Lombardi Packers played as they did because championships meant more then than they do now both financially and emotionally.

The Lombardi era Packers went home and went to work in regular lunch pail guy type jobs because they needed the money. The championship bonuses they earned literally made a difference for them and their families making it through the year. They depended on their team mates to make the plays that would help all of them earn that championship bonus and that's where the love came from and what it was about.

Today's players make enough money that they don't need off season jobs to get by. They don't need the championship bonuses to survive, although I'm sure they would all like to earn the extra money if possible.
Players like Brady and Rodgers and other big salary players aren't just players they are businesses, big businesses.

If they have success in their rookie contracts they want their payday and they want security. After all that the SBs are fine if they come. The players are part of the NFLPA now which didn't exist in the Lombardi. There is a fellowship among them that didn't exist in the Lombardi era. The players are all in it together now because they could be playing together in the next season or two.

This era is and has been all business at least since the beginning of free agency. It's all about big business for the owners. they don't care about the players or the fans. The players are just high salaried employees who are paid based on the revenue they can generate for their owners and the fans are just a revenue stream. And BTW there are many fans now who are in it just for the gambling, or fantasy football or draft kings, etc. They don't necessarily have loyalty to a team. Their loyalty is to the players they have placed their money on in a particular game, week or season.

It's not about loyalty it's all about money. The NFL has become the perfect reflection of Big business, corporate America. Corporations once built their business around their employees and their customers. Now they build their business around their shareholders and their shareholders want returns. That means the business need to generate profits for their shareholders. Employees are an expense, an employers biggest expense in terms of ROI and shareholder equity. Technology does not need to get paid, works 24/7 and never calls in sick or exposed to pandemics.

Given their choice employers are fine with sacrificing employees for profits. You may believe that China is the inhumane model but the USA has shown them the way a long time ago. In fact the average Chinese working person has full health coverage, free college tuition, subsidized housing, a pension from the government and many other benefits which have been lost to the American worker for nearly 20 years.

I spent a significant amount of time in China consulting with clients there. Their working and middle class are doing pretty well over the last 20-25 years. Their middle class is now as large as our entire US population. I am saddened by recent events in Hong Kong since I have friends there and it is one of my favorite cities in the world but I expect to be able to return there after the pandemic, assuming there is an after the pandemic.

We're not going back to the Lombardi era. We're going forward into an era of diversity, technology, and if we're smart as a species, significant improvement in health and lifestyles. But we need to deal with the climate because that threatens everyone and everything. Thanks, Since '61

0 points
0
0
Swisch's picture

March 27, 2021 at 07:25 pm

I genuinely appreciate your thoughtful reply, Since '61, but sincerely hope you take a long hard look at the nightmare society you seem to be advocating for China, America, and even the NFL.
China can only be described as an abomination of tyrannical cruelty. With a little reflection, would you really want to live there at all, even as a well-to-do member of their middle class -- knowing that all of your freedoms were taken away, and that you were considered as utterly insignificant by the government, to be done away with if ever deemed an inconvenience?
Also, it seems all of the benefits of the middle class in China are financed by a tattered collection of slave labor hidden beneath the glossy surface of society. Yet even the middle class itself is just a higher level of slavery in gilded cages.
To care about the people of China is to do everything possible to weaken their totalitarian government.
The real problems of America will only get worse and worse the more we copy China. All of the superficial splendors of materialism and mechanization and technology are only preludes to regret and isolation and despair. As Mother Teresa said, the poverty of the West is loneliness.
To the extent that things are going wrong in America, it doesn't mean we have to like it or accept it in our hearts. It doesn't mean we don't do whatever little we can to try to change things from the artificial to the authentic, from the greedy to the giving, from the haughty and hardened to the human.
This Holy Week is all about the apparent triumph of worldliness over godliness. It appears that the God of love is extinguished. Easter is the message that the light and warmth of God always wins in the end.
The best of our civilization is the fruit of Christianity, and withers the more we remove ourselves from it. Jesus is the original and unique source of our American belief that all of us are created equal, and thus all deserving of the same human rights.
That belief -- which is the pricelessness of every single human being without exception --was never debated in the pagan world before Christ, because it was never imagined. Without Christ, it is currently the woefulness of China.
I don't want the misery of the ancient world, or of modern China, and I don't think you do either, Since '61. We don't even want that cynical spirit in the NFL, and especially not with our Packers, do we?
Whatever your theological beliefs, the historic truth is that Jesus is the exaltation of the poor. It is the lifting up of the least of our brethren as precious and irreplaceable. It is literally the invention of hospitals and all social services for the common person. It is the transformation of the rabble into we the people and the children of God.
In the classic movie, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," the title character says on the floor of the Senate that we fight for the lost causes harder than all of the others because of one simple rule: Love thy neighbor. We even die for them.

0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

March 27, 2021 at 10:02 pm

Swisch, I would never want to live anywhere but the USA.

I'm not advocating for China at all. I'm just saying that they have made significant progress over the last 20-25 years. It's not that what they have accomplished is better than the US it's just different. Both our countries would benefit much more from working together than opposing each other. As for the US part there are over 47,000 US companies which have either a direct or indirect business interest in China. There are millions of American jobs impacted by relations with China. Most of my work there was to help US companies get their business started in China. Why? Because it helps Americans and creates jobs for Americans there and in the US and quite frankly it pays very well. I had many similar roles in 35 countries around the world. Again more jobs for more Americans. Both in the US and in all of those countries.

As for lost causes I volunteered to serve in Vietnam after the Pentagon Papers were released which pretty much confirmed what many of us already knew, which was, that the war in Vietnam was lost before we committed hundreds of thousands of our troops there. I thought that maybe I could help some of our guys come home and didn't want to think about someone going in my place. I believed that I had enough conviction and commitment to make a difference. That was both youthful ignorance and arrogance on my part. Because when I arrived there I found many people who were more committed and more dedicated than I was. In the end I did help some of our guys make it home and I failed a few others. But at least I can say that I did my part while I was there even if it was only for five months. Don't tell me what people die for because I saw it happen.
I still work with disabled vets and the families of fallen soldiers. Sadly that is not a lost cause but a forgotten cause by the majority of our population.

As for the Packers and the NFL it is a business. A big, corporate business up to $12 billion a year. That will increase significantly when the new TV deals begin in 2022-2023. The bigger the business gets the less personal they become. It's one of the main reasons why my business partner and I kept our business small over the years.
We had enough money and we wanted to take care of our people. When we retired we had phased our equity shares out of our company over a 10 year period and transitioned the companies equity over to our employees over the same period. Now it's their company as it should be. They built it and they earned it. Does that sound cynical to you?

What I'm saying about Corporate America is not cynical it's just a fact. As for the technology, it's already happening. What do you think will happen to all of the truck drivers, bus drivers, taxi drivers, pilots etc. when driverless vehicles and drone aircraft become the mainstream? The same thing that has happened to switch board operators, bank tellers, secretaries, and more recently retail workers. It's already happening and has been happening throughout our lifetimes.

I will not address your religious comments. We all have our own views in that area and I will just say that I respect everyone's thoughts and beliefs as long as they don't include forcing other people to accept their point of view.

I will close with " We cannot despair our humanity for we ourselves are human beings." Albert Einstein

Stay well. Thanks, Since '61

2 points
2
0
Swisch's picture

March 27, 2021 at 10:20 pm

I admire your military service, Since '61, and thank you for it. I'm also impressed with you taking care of your employees by transitioning them into owners.
It does seem like you took some cheap shots at me, though. I didn't try to tell you what people die for, and you know it. You also seem to dismiss some of my comments that I put forth as a matter of history as only being about religion; as an example, go ahead and cite a public hospital anywhere in the world before Christianity.
It's one thing to have respectful disagreement, but please refrain from putting me down or twisting my arguments in the process.
As far as modern China, I don't see how it's any better than Hitler's Germany. I realize that sometimes we have to work within flawed systems and make the best of things, as long as we remain ethical. However, to say that selling out our economy to China is somehow good for America seems a sad rationalization.
Again, just because things are the way they are doesn't mean it's the way things have to be -- and that's even true of the Packers. We don't have to accept crude and cruel materialism, but can stand firm for putting people first.
All the best to you, Since '61. I hope you're not losing your past idealism, and that we have good exchanges in the future.

-1 points
0
1
PF4L's picture

March 27, 2021 at 06:29 pm

Swisch....

The success of draft and develop disappeared 10 years ago.
.
What team are you following?

1 points
1
0
Swisch's picture

March 27, 2021 at 07:48 pm

PF4L, please look again. I wrote in favor of draft and development that is "modified" to allow for the signing of a few free agents here and there.
Signing Reggie White was transformative for the Packers, and even our recent free agents have generally turned out well.
I would use free agency sparingly, however, and focus mainly on draft and development for sustained success in the NFL.
Stick with the basics, allow for some adjustments.

1 points
1
0
PF4L's picture

March 27, 2021 at 09:03 pm

I agree, i highly believe in the philosophy of draft and develop.

But two things have to happen for that to be successful, you have to 1st draft well, and then develop.

Ted many times didn't just want the coaches to develop, he wanted them to convert positions, and then develop.
.
He was outsmarting the other GM's...finding the "treasure's".

1 points
1
0
BuckyBadger's picture

March 27, 2021 at 11:30 am

To go all in you need the roster that just needs a piece or two. Sorry but the Packers are not that team. They need to re-build the OL with Linsley gone and Wagner is not a long term solution. The DL is improved but it isn't as good as several others across the league, 3 that I can think of in the NFC in the Rams, Bucs and 49ers. The LBs need to be better and they need a 2nd CB.

The Bucs where a stacked team. I said before 2019 that you can drop about a dozen QBs on that team and they will be putting video game numbers. Rodgers would toss 60TDs with those receivers. That team has a top 3 WR in Evans and Godwin is as good as most teams #1. Their TE room is also an embarrassment of riches. Than you look at the DL and they have monsters across the board and two of most athletic LBs in the league. All they needed was a QB to not screw things up.

Denver was the same way when Manning joined them. Miller was in his prime and they had a HOF in Ware on the other side. Enough offense of weapons to make Tebow in a few games. Their team that won the SB might have been the worse one.

Packers rosters has far too many holes on it. It doesn't have the D of the other teams that just needed to add a WR or skilled player to put them over the top.

-1 points
0
1
CoachDino's picture

March 27, 2021 at 11:44 am

I'm just glad Packer fandome is finally talking about it in mass. Its behind so many of the decisions that the Packers are making and will have to make.

1 points
1
0
stockholder's picture

March 27, 2021 at 11:50 am

Were not all In. Gute isn't going all in. He's selling Tickets. You want all in? You sign your own and draft for today. Not Tomorrow. He's had 3 yrs. to fix the DL. His solution was to to replace CM3 , Perry, and Ha Ha Dix. Next he had Cbs he didn't want to over-pay. The 3-4-4 was staying. Forget about Raji and Daniels. And just forget about bringing in experience on the DL.( Like TB and NE have done.) You wanted ILbs? Sorry- but his replacements never worked. And he wasn't going to pay Martinez or a worn down OL. The truth is Rodgers saved his Butt. Yes he's paid well. And that is why he has a Target on his back. If Rodgers played on a Rookie contract, Love would never have been drafted. If Jones and Williams weren't FAs. A Rb wouldn't have been taken. And if Tonyan had played well the year before. Deguara wouldn't have been drafted. It All in starts with the draft. Gute didn't go all in. He only wanted to sell tickets and save his own Bacon. And you guys have swallowed it Hook ,Line, and Sinker.

2 points
2
0
Since'61's picture

March 27, 2021 at 08:55 pm

Stockholder, I agree with some of your comments on Gute not really going all in but I don't think that Gute needs to sell tickets because Lambeau is sold out for along time to come. That is part of the problem. The cash is coming in with or without SBs. The only question is how much based on how much the Packers raise the ticket prices every year. Thanks, Since '61

0 points
0
0
CoachDino's picture

March 28, 2021 at 09:33 pm

Stock -
1) They are all in - Take a look at the cap (W/O a quantifiable # there will always be "outs" of could of done that if all in - But if you look at their cap situation in 2020/2021/2022/2023 they have gone all in to a debatable yet high degree. More than 29 or 32 teams over that span according to cap position.
2) draft picks seldom have instant impact - even less if its a good team - even less ones that are taken at the end of the round
3) What teams improved year 1 thru the draft - put them over to the next level - Very few/low % (SB WIN) (Can't even use a WR as their offense was the best - it would make no sense to say by not using a draft pick to make the best in the league better is proof of not All In.
4) JD was a move for the present
5) Yes, Love is a pick for the future but if you look at what SF just did and the Packers current/future cap it makes sense when compare that to the options at the time (NOT with Hindsight) Also look at how the board fell - Do you think Love was the target pick from the start? maybe he was I have no way of knowing.
5a)Yes, AJD was a pick for possibly 2020 but an eye for 2021 (Both JD&AJD were picks to optimize the new scheme. So more immediate than given credit for)
6) look at the FA wagner and kirksey both moves for immediate return that came with risk but he went for it anyway
7) The just be competitive gripe on Gute/Packers is utterly ridiculous - They are and have been sold out for life-times. Even when they stunk for 20 years. Maybe its just me being a fan thru the 70's and 80's. I was just as much of a fan then as I am now - maybe more as with age it just becomes less important. I don't think I'm much different than most so both statically and subjectively the "just good enough" argument is hollow.
8) There's no doubt Favre and Rodgers make a GMs job much easier. It's why teams are willing to pay so much in money and draft/cap resources to do so. BUT - Both those guys were not can't miss prospects that didn't need development. Ar sucked for 3 years sitting on the bench, Favre would of been on the bench longer as well if the Magic man didn't get hurt. point being the Packers FO made great moves both in acquiring them and supplying the coaching. The Packers are doing nothing more than reaping the fruits of their labors. It's unfair not to give all the credit to the GMs for obtaining these guys. Nags actually went off about this and made a lot of sense.
9) Can we get over the IDL hysteria... You have the best NT in the league and play him and 1 other DL on the vast majority of snaps due to scheme and the pass first nature of the League. You have an ascending player in Keke that has looked good but was hurt. You invested heavily in EDGE/OLB that can defend against the run and when evaluating a D line in a 3-4 they are included (not my opinion but NFL Football Standard). You got snacks, how much did that help? You also vastly improved against the run by the Tenn and beyond w/o a IDL addition. Healthy KC/RG and Z and others finally playing with some gap/responsibility discipline was the answer, pettine and Gute seemed to think so as well. Sure DL would be great but other than Baremore there isn't a 3 down prospect for a 3-4 IDL out there. Points is DL is not a top 2 priority OT/CB (Including slot).

0 points
0
0
PatrickGB's picture

March 27, 2021 at 12:27 pm

If the team was all in then they would NOT have drafted a QB in the first round. This team preferred to stay competitive for years rather than to put it all on the line for one year.
That has been the plan all along and reflects the philosophy of the last three GM’s.

-1 points
1
2
stockholder's picture

March 27, 2021 at 06:15 pm

You only need to go to Walter Football to see that Love should not have been drafted in the first rd. He was voted the most over-rated QB in the class. And only projected as a starter because of his workout. Most teams had him mid round. And one even later. Consider him a Reach!

-1 points
0
1
CoachDino's picture

March 28, 2021 at 09:41 pm

Stock, We are on opposite end s it seems on this comment section.

"You need only to go to" Consensus Mock Draft which calculates all the expert mock drafts and big boards (Not Users)

Mock Consensus by experts - Love 23
Mock Big Board by experts - Love 26

Love projects as the 2-3 top QB in 2021 if he would of stayed in school 1 more year.

Once again these are not my opinions but those of the so called experts - 1 of which you cited.

0 points
0
0
Ferrari-Driver's picture

March 27, 2021 at 12:29 pm

One aspect of "Going All In" could be the actions of none other than an rival quarterback who helped to ruin our trip to the Super Bowl last year.
Year after year Brady took salaries much less than he could have gotten so he could be surrounded by better talent. He restructured his contract five times when he was with the Patriots so they could acquire better talent and the guy now has more Super Bowl rings that he can fit on one hand.
We Packer fans may not be too fond of Brady, but IMO he could easily represent "one aspect" of going all in.

0 points
0
0
jlc1's picture

March 27, 2021 at 03:08 pm

In the case of the Patriots though it seems every time they went all in they never really sacrificed the future.

0 points
0
0