Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

which trade package would you choose for rodgers?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FR Tim
    replied
    Originally posted by broncolee View Post
    I would give Lock, Surtain, and three future firsts. That would be the equivalent of four firsts and a quarterback to compete with Love.
    Fair enough. I could stomach that deal ( barely) but without Surtain included.

    Also, prefer his extension is closer to $25m then $35m.

    Leave a comment:


  • broncolee
    replied
    I would give Lock, Surtain, and three future firsts. That would be the equivalent of four firsts and a quarterback to compete with Love.

    Leave a comment:


  • armedequation
    replied
    Originally posted by FR Tim View Post
    It is a tough call for me. I’m not as enthusiastic for the trade as most others.

    There are unknowns that could dramatically effect the overall outcome. Most are simply thinking adding Rodgers is a easy transition and path to a SB from day one. Is it?

    How well does he get along with Shurmur, system, other players? Seamless fit or does it take a couple seasons to figure out fit and chemistry. How a many years can or will he play?

    As for the contract extension, how many other players will need to be moved to make cap space? Is Rodgers so unhappy he is willing to sign for $25m or going for the max because he has the leverage.

    As I stated, I liked Stokes in the draft. A talented player. But he is a poor replacement to Surtain. I wouldn’t trade Surtain.

    But I’m also a realist. Rodgers becomes available and the Broncos will go well beyond my acceptable line in the sand in trade/ contract assets I’d be willing to send.
    i think aaron would do fine under shurmers system. shurmer seems to do better with vets than he does rookies.

    i would include glasgow in this trade but that was before the james incident. we might need him if they try dalton at tackle. If they would take teddy then include him as theres no reason to keep him and he would have a chance to start in gb.

    I doubt aaron would go max but i also doubt that hed go cheap too.

    as far as fit goes i think it would be fine. hes had a lot less in gb than what he would have here even if patrick is gone and hes made that work in gb.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spice 1
    replied
    Originally posted by darryn16 View Post

    I posted this in another forum, so please excuse the repetition.
    What if Rodgers retires? If hge then unretires and plays for Denver, does the team have to give up anything at that point? I don't know how these things work.....
    They have to release him. That, or trade him.

    Leave a comment:


  • darryn16
    replied
    Originally posted by armedequation View Post
    these are the supposed trade packages (possible) for rodgers:

    QB Drew Lock, 2022 first-rounder, 2023 first-rounder, 2024 first-rounder, 2022 second-rounder, 2023 third-rounder

    WR Courtland Sutton, 2022 first, 2023 first, 2024 first, 2022 second

    OG Graham Glasgow, 2022 first, 2023 first, 2024 first, 2022 second, 2023 second

    OLB Von Miller, 2022 first, 2023 first, 2024 first, 2022 second, 2023 fifth


    of all of them id probably go glasgow and hope that rodgers can play at a high level for at least 3 years. maybe you can throw in another player to lessen it but it wouldnt be much impact on what youd send.

    which would you pick?

    edit to add that these are not my idea:

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.si....e-offers-rumor
    I posted this in another forum, so please excuse the repetition.
    What if Rodgers retires? If hge then unretires and plays for Denver, does the team have to give up anything at that point? I don't know how these things work.....

    Leave a comment:


  • Spice 1
    replied
    Originally posted by BiscuitBronco View Post

    I hope that's a rhetorical question..
    Just checkin, bud. You never know around here.

    Leave a comment:


  • BiscuitBronco
    replied
    Originally posted by Spice 1 View Post

    What if GB wants Lock? Would that be a deal breaker for you?
    I hope that's a rhetorical question..

    Leave a comment:


  • Spice 1
    replied
    Originally posted by BiscuitBronco View Post
    If we trade for Rodgers I want to keep Lock, let him hold the clipboard and learn. In a couple of years if we haven't won it all, we can plug Lock back in and see if he's matured and improved.
    What if GB wants Lock? Would that be a deal breaker for you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Spice 1
    replied
    Originally posted by armedequation View Post

    well leaving out surtain and stokes...would you replace him with a 2nd or 3rd round pick?

    theres speculation that surtain was picked as part of a trade package but im not so sure. fullers on a 1 year deal, callahan is too and is never healthy for a full season. I liked stokes too...dont know if id trade surtain for him though
    I would trade Surtain for Stokes if it made up for adequate pick value. The thought of trading Surtain for Stokes in the effort to get Rodgers first crossed my mind right after the Packers took him. Stokes is a trajectory player (like Zach Wilson and Micah Parsons are), and there's no reason to think he won't continue getting better. He's a better tackler than Campbell, stronger and faster than Campbell, and plays the ball better. Campbell is more polished, more fluid athlete, but I think he's closer to being tapped out as far as ceiling goes. Watch Stokes play, and tell me he wouldn't be great in off coverage. He's made for it, I think. He began showing improvement at playing the ball downfield while chasing. That was the biggest concern for him I think, but you have to take into account his experience at the position. That's why Green Bay took him in the 1st round. The trajectory of where he's going to be. Parsons is a player like that. Where Parsons is going to be, or where he can be in a few years blows every other linebacker in this class out of the water. The only one who has upside even close to Parsons, I believe, is Davis, and Davis would have to fill out his frame first before even starting that discussion. Washington isn't going to use him like Parsons should be used anyway. They're going to let him run free and shoot gaps.

    Anyways, I'm off topic, because all the "Parsons is just a great athlete who needs to be kept clean" takes hurt my soul. So, yes, I would include Surtain for Stokes if it amounted to 1st round pick value. I think Green Bay likes Stokes for the same reasons I do though, so I don't know if they would accommodate. I'm not saying Stokes will be as good as Surtain. I'm just saying there's a good chance he was well worth the 1st rounder Green Bay spent on him, and that's how they're going to value him in trade talks anyway.

    With all that said, we got pretty good value on Vincent, and he has upside, but I'm going to be rooting for McCain to stick and have an impact for us down the road. If they were to trade Surtain w/o getting a corner in return, it wouldn't be the end of the world. I just don't see them trading a player they like as much as Surtain regardless. I would be very reluctant to do it unless we got really good value towards Rodgers. Surtain has a chance to be a perennial pro bowl caliber corner. He should be treated as such in any trade negotiations. I expect him to be on our roster next season, Rodgers or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • broncolee
    replied
    They can have the first one minus the second round pick. Not giving them a second round quarterback and a second round pick.

    Leave a comment:


  • BiscuitBronco
    replied
    If we trade for Rodgers I want to keep Lock, let him hold the clipboard and learn. In a couple of years if we haven't won it all, we can plug Lock back in and see if he's matured and improved.

    Leave a comment:


  • FR Tim
    replied
    It is a tough call for me. I’m not as enthusiastic for the trade as most others.

    There are unknowns that could dramatically effect the overall outcome. Most are simply thinking adding Rodgers is a easy transition and path to a SB from day one. Is it?

    How well does he get along with Shurmur, system, other players? Seamless fit or does it take a couple seasons to figure out fit and chemistry. How a many years can or will he play?

    As for the contract extension, how many other players will need to be moved to make cap space? Is Rodgers so unhappy he is willing to sign for $25m or going for the max because he has the leverage.

    As I stated, I liked Stokes in the draft. A talented player. But he is a poor replacement to Surtain. I wouldn’t trade Surtain.

    But I’m also a realist. Rodgers becomes available and the Broncos will go well beyond my acceptable line in the sand in trade/ contract assets I’d be willing to send.

    Leave a comment:


  • armedequation
    replied
    Originally posted by FR Tim View Post
    Just read ESPNs Bill Barnwell’s contribution to the trade discussion.

    He proposes Broncos send Surtain, Lock, Patrick, next two 1sts for Rodgers and just drafted Stokes.

    Still consider it a steep price but more acceptable than some others posted. Hate to lose Surtain a projected star of the secondary. But Stokes is a nice player. Not a foundation player like Surtain but a solid development player to develop this year.

    Lock being part of the trade is expected. Rumors of Patrick being moved since before the draft. The two picks are understandable.

    Intriguing if any potential trade were to go along this proposal outline. Still concerned about Rodger’s expected contract extension and fit with current system and Shurmur. But if it were possible, I can get behind this.
    well leaving out surtain and stokes...would you replace him with a 2nd or 3rd round pick?

    theres speculation that surtain was picked as part of a trade package but im not so sure. fullers on a 1 year deal, callahan is too and is never healthy for a full season. I liked stokes too...dont know if id trade surtain for him though

    Leave a comment:


  • FR Tim
    replied
    Just read ESPNs Bill Barnwell’s contribution to the trade discussion.

    He proposes Broncos send Surtain, Lock, Patrick, next two 1sts for Rodgers and just drafted Stokes.

    Still consider it a steep price but more acceptable than some others posted. Hate to lose Surtain a projected star of the secondary. But Stokes is a nice player. Not a foundation player like Surtain but a solid development player to develop this year.

    Lock being part of the trade is expected. Rumors of Patrick being moved since before the draft. The two picks are understandable.

    Intriguing if any potential trade were to go along this proposal outline. Still concerned about Rodger’s expected contract extension and fit with current system and Shurmur. But if it were possible, I can get behind this.

    Leave a comment:


  • myoung
    replied
    Originally posted by armedequation View Post
    these are the supposed trade packages (possible) for rodgers:

    QB Drew Lock, 2022 first-rounder, 2023 first-rounder, 2024 first-rounder, 2022 second-rounder, 2023 third-rounder

    WR Courtland Sutton, 2022 first, 2023 first, 2024 first, 2022 second

    OG Graham Glasgow, 2022 first, 2023 first, 2024 first, 2022 second, 2023 second

    OLB Von Miller, 2022 first, 2023 first, 2024 first, 2022 second, 2023 fifth


    of all of them id probably go glasgow and hope that rodgers can play at a high level for at least 3 years. maybe you can throw in another player to lessen it but it wouldnt be much impact on what youd send.

    which would you pick?

    edit to add that these are not my idea:

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.si....e-offers-rumor
    I don't think Glasgow, Miller, and Sutton would be attractive options for the Packers. They have a really tight cap situation. They would want young players that can still play out their rookie contract. Sutton is a injury risk that comes up for contract too soon.

    My guess is that they would likely want players like Jeudy, Dremont Jones, Noah Fant, or Patrick Surtain. If they want players I think it costs us a young guy with an attractive contract. And Yes, I realize these were not your ideas... Not trying to argue with you just pointing out my opinion on the guys included.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X