If Rodgers wanted Adams back at close to what Adams has said that he was looking for, one wonders where he would have found the cap room to do so.

That's not what that indicates to me at all.

What it indicates to me is that the Packers and Rodgers are waiting to finalize the deal until the 16th so they know exactly what they need to do in order to get under the cap.

Maybe that includes less in a signing bonus and more in a '23 Roster Bonus, maybe it includes void years.

But Rodgers knew that the Packers were going to tag Adams all along. I really doubt he's not signing because he's upset they're trying to keep their best WRer around and used the mechanisms available to them at the time.

A few things. 1st, I don't know that players have "too much power." I think the absolute best have a say in where they go and that's how it should be. There's a franchise tag because the Union bargained for it and they got an increased pct of revenue.

The last thing I'd describe Adams as however is a "prima donna."

I'd also argue that Adams did NOT sign for less than his worth last time. I WOULD argue that the Packers have been overly conservative and they're too stuck on 4 year deals when I think the Cowboys route of longer deals would be more advantageous. Had the Packers given Bakh a record setting 8 year deal like the Cowboys gave Tyron Smith, he'd cost a helluva lot less. Same with Adams(Cooper would be the comp there).

But when Adams signed that deal, he was the 4th highest paid WRer in the NFL behind Hopkins, AJ Green and...probably AB. Just remember it made him the 4th highest paid.

But he hadn't broken out yet. He was in his 4th year. He'd struggled with drops so bad that there were rumors he may be cut going into his 3rd year(they were silly, but it was a big enough issue that legitimate writers wrote about it). He had a couple nice seasons, but he was FAR from the unquestionable #1 that he's developed into. I think he had 850 yards the year before he signed.

Now if the Packers had given him a 8 year deal at that time for 110M with 40M guaranteed(again, loosely based on Cooper's deal) they'd have him locked up.

Now you shouldn't hand those out to everyone, but Jaire, Gary, Jenkins...those are the types of players you should. It help keeps the cap down and what seems outrageous now will be a bargain in 2024 when the cap hits 300M, or when it hits 350 in '26(whatever the exact number will be).

As for Turner, I really doubt the ~4.5M they saved was due to Rodgers holding things up. In fact...I really doubt Rodgers IS holding things up. I'm guessing he and the Packers are waiting until the 16th to determine exactly how they need to structure his contract to keep them under the cap so they don't end up losing draft picks or get a big fine.

When he announced he was coming back and then through McAfee announced it'd be a team friendly cap hit this year, I'm sure they had the general outline of a deal done...they just had to figure out the finer points and exactly what his cap hit has to be by the 16th.

As of now, a simple restructure and cutting Cobb would get them under the cap with a little room to spare.

Tbh - I really don't care about the money part. It's not my money. I figure Gutey/Ball has the Packers interests at heart, and want to be fair, especially for players that make a difference. I thought they paid Turner too much money when they signed him, but he ended up alright. Cost of doing business is going up.

Hope Davante doesn't shoot himself in the foot though.

Looks like they're getting most of the Band back together. I know you hate it, but if we can have a decent draft, a bit of luck, and the Pro Player guys keep grinding, we could actually be better than last year. ( :

Not quite the same. Last year it was missing an All-Pro CB in Jaire. Also, Stokes was learning as a rookie. The D was only rounding into shape after Douglas was signed. It will be considerably better this year, especially if they draft or add a decent DL so there will no longer be a need for Lancaster to play meaningful minutes.

This is great news!!

Jaire was out most of the year. Stokes was a rookie adjusting to the NFL from college. Douglas was only here half the year. It will be the 2nd year for everyone in this system, so more playing on instincts and less of a learning curve.

I didn't think this needed explaining, but I hope it helps.

Really? It's the same defense as last year? Did Jaire play all year for the Packers? Was it Slaton's 2nd year after starting his CFB career as a Guard?
Was Rasul Douglas on the field vs the Bengals last year?

But lets say it IS the same defense and that it's NOT common for players to improve between their 1st year to 2nd year and 2nd to 3rd(Stokes, Slaton, Banres, etc...) and then lets also pretend year 2 in a system doesn't help a defense. Lets ALSO pretend that bringing back your entire core DOESN'T help a team. Lets assume ALL those things are true.

How did this DEFENSE play in the post-season when they were all on the field? Even with Ja playing very limited snaps. They held SF to 6 points.

This was a defense that played particularly well when they were remotely healthy...and they're not only bringing back that same team, they're almost certain to add at least SOME talent via the draft.

So no, paying them more does not make them better. Being healthy, the young players developing, year 2 in the system...AND bringing back virtually the entire unit, THOSE things would suggest they'd be better.

Not really.....year two for Stokes and at least as important.....Jaire is back after missing 2/3 of the season....plus, probably a new draft pick or two..... AND, it certainly wasn't the defense that let us down in the playoffs....

He's almost NOTHING like Perry. Perry was constantly injured and didn't have a big year until his contract year in GB, then got hurt again.

He's been constantly healthy and reliable, he just hasn't performed well until last year.

Demario Davis was a similar player. Average until the late 20s and then he became a perennial Pro Bowl/All Pro player. Sometimes it just clicks later.