Jump to content

football guy

Members
  • Posts

    2,634
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

football guy last won the day on January 20

football guy had the most liked content!

Reputation

6,995 Ready For Flight

Recent Profile Visitors

58,695 profile views
  1. Rodgers is a WCO lifer, whereas McDaniels runs the Erhardt-Perkins offense. As you point out, a lot of play schemes blend together now, but that's more based on philosophy (i.e. read & react vs. attack, risk vs. conservative, how to attack defenses), player responsibility/understanding of playbook, play design, and personnel packages. For instance, two different teams can have the same desired identity, approach, and philosophy while implementing totally different schemes (i.e. the Ravens and 49ers). Where the schemes differ is how its taught, the player's expected thought process, concept implementation, blocking scheme, intended progression, situational response, and terminology. Think about it this way: a WCO and EPO offense may have the same desired result on a play, but their means and methods to achieve that result differ. Any good coach can design at scheme to their player's strengths whether it be the WCO, EPO, or something else. For instance, the WCO is traditionally known as a "horizontal offense", but its more than capable of being altered to attack deeper portions of the field. Good coaches can also find ways to ease the transition for players too. But if you're a 39 year old Aaron Rodgers, do you want to go to learn a whole knew offense and new terminology? Bruce Arians ran his own scheme that implemented many different influences. They ended up blending a lot of the EPO philosophy and terminology into it because Brady was struggling to adjust. In retrospect, it was a blessing that Arains ran a "multiple" scheme - his scheme was results oriented, and it was built around how to attack defenses rather than the means & methods that go into achieving the result. So not only would Aaron be going into a new scheme, he would have to play for a coach that puts the scheme > outcome and would likely be less willing to adjust the teachings and terminology of that scheme to a player's preference... I personally don't take Rodgers as the type who would embrace a whole new scheme, and given how thoughtful/nuanced he is, I think he would feel the process of mastering a new scheme would take at least 1 year (a year he may not be willing to sacrifice). For those reasons, I mainly see the Jets and Titans (maybe the Dolphins) would be the teams Rodgers would be focused on if he were to leave the Packers, assuming of course he's limited to AFC teams. You may be able to throw the Texans and Colts in there for scheme reasons, but I'm not convinced Rodgers would look at them as "win now" situations.
  2. I don't think Becton will be here beyond the 2023 season. It'll take a truly remarkable year out of him for the Jets to commit long-term, and even then he'd probably be franchise tagged. I don't think the Jets will feel much remorse if he's upset about playing RT next year. As much as Bakhtiari has dealt with injury, he's elite when healthy (0 sacks in 11 starts in 2022) and will be 32 years old week 1. You should get two 2 years out of him, possibly more. Injury history is not ideal when you consider what we've gone through, but the Jets want to make a blue-chip investment at T and go into next season with "4 starting-caliber tackles" on the roster. My guess is it will be Becton, Mitchell, a rookie (possibly a T/G), and a veteran. Acquiring Bakhtiari in a trade with Rodgers would kill two birds with one stone and a huge boost IMO. Packers want to re-sign Jenkins and I'm sure some in that organization feel he can thrive at LT if they gave him that job full-time, which probably plays into this some as well. As far as Zach, I've been pretty vocal about how they're handling it. Jets want to see how he responds this year. There's a long and detailed plan for him that I won't elaborate on right now (happy to share with those interested), but by no means are they flushing him down the drain. I wouldn't say they're "banking" on him long-term either, but they feel he has the kind of talent and work ethic to be an elite QB and they would rather see if it can be with them than someone else... if he ends up sitting for 1-2 years, regains the starting job and were to play at a high level for the next 10 years, whose to say they gave up on him? If they determine he can't be any more than a low-end starter, they will move on and find someone else If they're unsure, they'll probably go year-to-year and see how he plays as a starter while hedging their bet with another young QB. Have to remember: if Douglas and Saleh build a legitimate contender this year and next, they're going to boost their own credibility and will have longer leashes to do as they please.
  3. The Packers and Jets are already discussing deal frameworks—as I’m sure other teams are—and would expect to have compensation “agreed upon” prior to Rodgers making a decision one way or another. He’ll likely speak with the Packers next week or the following and come to a decision on (1) whether he will return; and (2) where he wants to play. Still think we’re a few weeks out from knowing how it will all pan out
  4. 2020 CBA Article 7, Section 7(g). Don’t have an aneurysm over it
  5. I stopped reading at “$22 million” because you clearly are misinformed... Do the research first, make the argument second. 2020 CBA Article 7, Section 7(g)
  6. People are acting like they can't sign him to a deal before then. Last I checked the Seahawks have been signing Geno to one-year deals for the last 4-years. Take it a step further: if they decided Zach took a big jump and they feel he has the potential to be a franchise QB and didn't want to risk losing him in free agency, why would it be dumb to pick up his 2025 option for $20 million if they anticipated Rodgers retiring after the 2024 season? $20 million in 2025 is what a low-end starter will be making. I wouldn't call this the likely outcome but don't think its nearly as crazy as people make it out to be
  7. Easy for you to say lol you have zero skin in the game. What would you do if he goes to another team and became a franchise QB? Their approach (for once rational): everything to gain, nothing to lose Your approach (emotional/bias): everything to lose, nothing to gain
  8. They want Zach to be the long-term option but it will not be given to him. They are treating 2023 as a clean slate, and want to move forward with him as if he were a flawed yet talented 23-year-old rookie. They will look to use this year to allow him to develop, with a decision on his long-term future coming at a later date. If he shows significant improvement, they will look to keep him and potentially give him an opportunity to be the long-term starter in 2025 or earlier. If he doesn't show significant improvement, they will go find someone else. I cannot comprehend what is so dumb about that strategy.
  9. Garoppolo is going to have a bigger market than people anticipate, but I think the advantage we have over LV is guaranteed $ and team around him. Vegas may very well be fine going with Stidham and a rookie
  10. The expectation is that NJ will be his "home base" March onward. He'll make trips back and forth (his QB coach will as well) but the anticipation is he'll spend more time "working out" at the facility
  11. I think the Jets would rather wait on Rodgers and pursue Garoppolo as the backup plan > Carr. The Rodgers decision will come around the same time if not after we receive clarity on Carr (Feb 15). If Carr gets traded/signs elsewhere, that gives them 2-4 weeks to figure out where things stand with Rodgers, while also courting Jimmy G through the backchannels.
  12. Whether its Carr or Rodgers the approach doesn't change. Their approach to developing Wilson will remain the same this year. If Wilson gives them reason to believe he can be salvaged as a potential franchise QB, they would happily let either of them walk; the only difference would be that Rodgers would likely retire after two years whereas Carr would get cut/traded. If Wilson did not give them reason to believe he can be salvaged, they would likely try to convince those players to return in 2025 or find a different QB to replace them. Settling for Carr because you don't want Wilson to have any chance of getting an "opportunity" to "potentially" be the team's QB in the future is cutting off your nose to spite your face; its one of the more irrational arguments I can think of. If you're logic is that you feel Carr is a younger player who can develop into a long-term franchise QB, that's a far more rational argument.
  13. The fact that Rodgers would be good for Wilson is just an added advantage, but I've read and heard fans on here/radio waves who seem to suggest they would rather have Carr because it's less of a chance of seeing Wilson play again lol. That's why I say its cutting off one's nose to spite their face
  14. Rodgers’ cap hits for 2023-24 would be significantly less than Carr’s
×
×
  • Create New...