These kinds of articles annoy me because they completely ignore the financial side of the transaction and focus only on the player connections. Adams' contract with the Packers would have been huge (the Raiders signed Adams to a five year, $140 million contract which is $28 million AAV). The author suggested the Packers should have added $5 million per year to that or around $33 million AAV to keep Adams. How many other players would the Packers have to cut to accommodate Adams contract?

The Packers could never have afforded Xavier McKinney and likely would have had to release Preston Smith to accommodate Adams contract. So...the Packer receivers with Adams and without Watson and no McKinney or Smith versus the present roster. Thank you Gute for making the right decision.

If it was time to move on.
It still is.

STAHP IT.

Davante Adams own words:

"June 9th 2022 Sports Illustrated After Davante Adams was traded to the Raiders on March 17 after eight seasons with the Packers, the five-year deal he signed with his new squad worth $141.25 million. It later came out that the Packers were willing to offer their star receiver the same amount or more in order to keep him in Green Bay. But, Adams decided to leave the only organization he had played for. The California native admitted on Thursday to media members that the Packers had indeed offered him more money than Las Vegas. Ultimately, the trade meant more to him than money. He said wanted to be near where he grew up and be close to his family. “I’ll say it, it was true, O.K.,” Adams said in the Raiders’ press conference. “But, like I said, there’s more that goes into it. Family is a big part of it for me, so geographically being here it makes it a lot easier for me to stay connected to my family year round. This isn’t Year 2. I’m not necessarily trying to ‘fight for a job’ or anything like that to where you gotta do what you gotta do to stay out there. I had the choice, and the choice was for me to come here and raise my family on the west coast and come out here and have some fun in the sun. It’s hard to explain.”

It wasn't about money.
It wasn't about respect or lack thereof.
After 8 years in Green Bay, he wanted to play closer to his family.

Two articles in two days about a player who no longer plays here, no longer wants to play here and will never play here again. Maybe time to move on and stop trying to create controversy where there isn't any?

" Recently, Adams stated that he would have stayed in Green Bay and rolled with Jordan Love had the Packers given him the money he wanted." If I remember correctly, we matched the Raiders offer and Adams said um no!

I read an article recently on another site about Adams possibly coming back to the Packers. That would be a terrible move. Why would we want to upset what we have now which to me is a winning combination with our current receivers.

Conclusion: Adams can stay where he is.

We are better off without Adams. He had his chance(s) to show he could make the difference for us, and he didn't.

XXXXXXXXXXX

Edit. I'm not understanding the down votes. Is it that

you disagree that we are better off without Adams.

He had his chance(s)

He didn't make the difference for us (didn't get us to the Super Bowl).

I would appreciate some clarification and/or elaboration on that.

There's a whole lot of "If that had happened, then this would have happened," in the article. Those things are impossible to know.
Adams will go down as one of the best ever, but I wouldn't put much on his ability to rate QB's. He left AR to go play with Derek Carr. He obviously would increase the talent level tremendously, but he also would decrease the playing time and targets of the younger guys. That's just numbers.
I loved Davante when he was here, but I don't want him back. I'm excited as all get out to watch this young receiver squad develop this year.

For some reason, the author stopped just short of mentioning the highly relevant fact that Brett Favre and the Packer offense actually got better when Sterling Sharpe left. That's all anyone really needs to know. In the long run, it's better for a young QB to have multiple targets rather than one dominant veteran receiver.

Of course Love is better off without Adams. He'd be on the Raiders instead of the potential 2024 season Super Bowl winning Packers. End of discussion.

Is there an official Statute of Limitations on how long we can indulge in what-if obsession about former Packer players? If not, there should be.

They certainly wouldn't have drafted so many receivers over the last two years if Adams had stayed so it worked out perfectly. I loved Adams but I'd rather have the group they have now than Adams and the collection of misfit toys they had at receiver in Rodgers' last years.

I’m against having ANY receiver that would live in the ear of a QB and f-ing with the progression of reads he’s been taught to go through organically. Let’s put one more thing on the QB plate by being a #1 receiver on the food chart that reminds him…NOT! Let the guy play the game his way, he kinda has a full plate.

I love articles that argue that teams are better with average players than with good players. Right, the Patriots are way better off now than when they had Brady and Randy Moss. And just think how good the Chiefs would be if they could just dump Mahomes, Kelce, and Chris Jones and play their backups.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, YES! The benefit of our current lineup is that from week to week, the Number One guy changes.

Just imagine being a DC and having to deal with that.

Contrast that last Rodger's playoff game where they doubled and tripled Adams and Rodgers still threw it to him.

I guess we'll never know. I think Matt's system works incredibly well with multiple weapons at every position I'll take that approach any day. The guys have shown they are all in with Jordan. I am really looking forward to watching this team. They have what it takes to win It all. GPG!!!