Cheesehead
Well-known member
- Mar 19, 2019
- 2,854
- 0
Wags from Marinette, WI
Who was your favorite Packers draft pick before they played a down?
I loved this question and Spoff's response. I just wanted to add in Aaron Rodgers. I know, I know, I'm not exactly going out of the box there, but I've told the story before about being at UW-Whitewater when I heard about Rodgers' draft-day fall in 2005. When Rodgers was still there at No. 24, I thought it a no-brainer for the Packers draft him. The rest was history. I've been wrong on plenty of players (e.g. Jake Locker), but Green Bay taking Rodgers will forever be a meaningful memory for me. Because I don't think the draft would play out like that in 2021 – not after a QB was discussed initially as a potential No. 1 overall pick.
Steven from Silver Spring, MD
In all three of the drafts he's run, Gute has traded up within the first round. How does our draft capital measure up this year?
It's the most draft capital Gutekunst has had to work with since trading back in 2018 with the Saints. With 10 picks, the Packers have more than enough picks to play the draft board as they see fit.
Sawyer from Simpsonville, SC
I've got a thought and a question. In regard to Joel, could the Packers not being committal to Aaron Rodgers, and additionally, only be making moves as needed, to make space with an eye on the cap next year? If you restructure Rodgers this year, it's gonna be harder to restructure that hit next year in a tight cap. Also, could you imagine a Jaguars-Packers game in London?! They're basically the UK Jaguars, so they've got that going for them, which is nice, I guess.
Correct. The Packers and Rodgers would need to agree on an extension to lower his cap number for 2021 without inflating the cap number in '22 and '23. To your question, Jacksonville blocked the Packers game from going overseas in 2016, so I don't see why 2024 would be any different. My guess is the NFL will send the Packers to London in 2022 in that "extra" ninth home game spot.
Mike from Ames, IA
Being a Packers fan, I haven't paid too much attention to how international games have worked over the past while, but seeing all the talk about London in II confused me. Is the game guaranteed for there or are other places that have hosted like Mexico City also an option?
I said this last week to a buddy of mine – the NFL hasn't waited this long to send the Packers anywhere other than London to play. Green Bay is the only team that has yet to play in England. That's the first domino that needs to fall for the Packers when it comes to the international series. The sooner Green Bay plays an international regular-season game, the quicker the league can schedule the next one.
Guy from Telford, UK
I have been lucky enough to go to Lambeau to see the Packers. Green Bay has to be the biggest attraction for an international game. I think the next time I see them it will involve a lot less traveling. Is there a bigger and better venue than Wembley for them to grace?
It's gotta be at Wembley, right? I mean, Anthony Joshua didn't come to the United States to box Andy Ruiz in any old arena. They wanted that fight at Madison Square Garden.
Bryce from Kenosha, WI
Regarding the suggestion of Fariborz from Flower Mount, TX, that the 17th game pit teams against each other 1-16 based on the previous year's record, wouldn't the concern be that, not only could you end up playing the same interconference team twice in one year (OK, I suppose), but also that both games could be at the same location? Imagine being LA and having to travel to NY twice in one year.
I get having teams face an opponent from the other conference that finished in the same place in standings the previous year is the fairest way to do it. I just find it very coincidental the league added a 17th game and immediately squeezed in a Rodgers-Mahomes matchup out of thin air.