Good point JB. Put everything out there and if you get good value with aging vets make it happen. Play the odds, it’s unlikely Love will get this team to the promise land in year 1 or even year 2. Few HOF QB’s have done that. So, let’s get value and build a great young team if Rodgers is traded.

Agree a Bazillion %.

Bak wasn’t restructured for a reason, and he’s headed to NYJ with Aaron. No surprises there, and the time is now to make such changes.

The Packers are in an enviable position to facilitate the filling of many of the Jets remaining needs. All they have to do is cough up the picks, which is all they really have in trade. And, their OL needs are real.

Can easily see Runyan also traded to them along with Bak/AR. And if you think that’s nuts, GB could also make Hansen a part of the haul,, as they need Center help too. I am not kidding.

Altogether, how many R1s + for affordable starters there? QB1, LT, OG? This is not pie in the sky stuff. I count 4 1st Round picks: 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026. Including Hansen could return an R2.

Before scoffing, remember in April, a 2024 R1 = R2 value. That devaluation extends 2025, 2026. Don’t put it past Woody Johnson to trade that away for the now. Also keep in mind, NYJ has no other means to acquire talent. FA is out w their projected cap.

Most amazing thing is the Packers can readily make this happen. It would go down as one of the biggest trades in NFL history, with both teams retooling. One for the now. One for the future.

You know I never am very critical of others and respect their opinions but some of your posts lately make me wonder if your really a fan of the Packers. Personally I think you are but God damn SH.

Why is it ALWAYS "Gutey" and never Mark Murphy? I mean we get it, you HATE Jordon Love. You HATED the pick in 2020, but GET OVER IT!

"Honor a players contract". "Without being shown the highway". "CLASS"

Really? I mean have you been watching the last THREE YEARS? The Packers have bent over backwards for this arrogant asshole. They MADE him the $151 million dollar man at 38 where Rodgers CRIED, "I want to be the highest paid QB!"

The Packers have given into EVERY whim of Rodgers yet EVERY fucking year we're right here...Will he / won't he? Hell if my employer gave me a raise like that I'd have shown up for OTAs, Mini Camp, AND had invited all those new players to Malibu and spent some time with them. You know, like Mahomes and other QBs do.

2 things if I may suggest... Blame the RIGHT guy and it ain't Gutey. Look at Rodgers role in ALL of this. He's ALWAYS the problem...

"Article after Article.
Cheap shot, After Cheap shot."

There are no cheap shots in this article.

Players are traded and released all the time. I don’t know what “honor a players contract” means, but players get traded and realesed from their original contracts all the time.

The Silage does carry a certain fermented stench. This cluster in the top tier next to the sledding hill will lead to an Epic Failure, no return to glory.

What cheap shot? Example, please. Rodgers is only a peripheral topic of this article, with no comment on him personally. If you're referring to other articles, saying that Rodgers' year in 22 was only average is correct, when using passer rating as the scale. Because it was. FACT. Do not confuse facts with opinion, like so many of us (including me sometimes!) do nowadays.

"To do the right moral ,decent, thing.
Honor a players contract.
Without being shown the highway."

Honoring a contract means paying out the contract per the contract's terms. The Packers will honor AR's contract because they legally have to. "Morality" and "contract" are not mutually inclusive. Countless immoral/unethical contracts have been written over the centuries. AR's contract does not have a no-trade clause, yet the Packers are allowing AR to talk with the Jets when they could easily have just traded his ass to NY without any contract repercussions. This is NOT being immoral, but is treating AR with the respect he deserves as the longest tenured player.

You've done well keeping off the Bonkers Scale recently, but this post is a strong 8 on the Scale.

Agree with everything you said here, Nick.

When they picked Rhyan, I thought it signalled a plan to start Nijman at LT and Rhyan at RT, because DB's inability to recover from his knee injury (at the time) needed to be proactively dealt with. It turns out, I now have more hopes for Caleb Jones than Rhyan, but that's a good thing.

I've been firmly in the "shop him" camp wrt Bakhtiari. If the interest and return are there, I think they'd be foolish not to consider it. I've also been pretty firmly in the "draft picks are lottery tickets" camp, meaning that if you're going to assume you're going to plug-and-play a guy through the draft, you're rolling the dice. I think the Packers have several in-house options who are capable, but dealing 69 all but commits them to a day 1 or day 2 OT in the draft.

There is no reason to move Bhaktiari to save a couple of shekels. Love will need HIM to cover his backside. If they do not upgrade the RT, Love will face the same threats Rodgers had to deal with coming in his Face. Duane Brown is still holding the fort. Age is irrelevant. Skillset and experience push the accountants out of the room. Playing games with one ALL PRO guy is bad enough, you do not want to water down the rest of the roster. Gutedkunst is the problem.

“The Packers would have 4 picks in the first 45 picks then. Hell, they could fix the Edge, WR, TE, and Tackle or Safety position all before the dreaded 3rd round.”

NP, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning….LOL…you’re on a roll. I think you know draft picks are a crap shoot and don’t always fix your problems. If they did you would never see perennial losers like Cleveland, Detroit, Houston, etc…..They’re always picking in the top 10 and still have problems.

That said, I’d still love the opportunity to try and get some great players with those 4 picks.

As much as I like Love, it’s very unusual for a QB to do very good in their first year as well. It happens, but it’s against the odds.

The problem is everyone has to realize the trading of AR is a PR nightmare for the Packers. It is bad enough they are getting rid of him, but they NEED to at least in appearance get sufficient trade value.

I mean the whole NFL world & fans will monitor for years whether the Jets screwed the Packers, or vice-versa. Jobs and reputations are on the line. The Jets only have a window of time to be considered a potential SB team. They do not have the draft capital to trade up and get one of the top QB's, and even if they did it would take several years for the QB to develop...and that is only if the QB is going to develop into a top flight QB

Rodgers is very talented & experienced & ready to go right now. I believe Gutey has more negotiation power because of that than many on here believe. The Packers do not need to trade Rodgers.

If you read the Jets sporting news they desperately need OL help & particularly at OT. Meaning they NEED their #13 pick in round 1 for the OT. Now the Packers want that #13 pick, so what gives? The Jets get DB for OT, and now the Packers get their #13 (and hopefully their #2). I am going to say look for the Packers to end up with the Jets TE, Jeremy Ruckert, and maybe a WR like Corey Davis, or preferably Elijah Moore. The Jets just revised one TE's contract this week, but not Ruckerts who is considered their best TE. Ruckerts restructure would save the Jets $5 million but just like Bachtiari his contract wasnt restructured. I think I agree with GreenGold somewhat and everything just may be on the table. Each team providing players who can help each other out with the Packers getting draft picks. This could end up a block buster trade. If correct and done right this could really benefit the Packers in rebuild.

I think you're right. DB69 is worth almost as much as AR12 in a trade...

I could see them both going to the Jets and both retiring at the same time.

Lets just hope Gutey reaps the rewards.

When Denver traded for Wilson they not only gave great picks to the Seahawks but also some really good players also. 1st round TE Noah Fant and a Edge Shelby Harris as well as a QB. I'm sure the Seahawks requested the first 2 players and the Broncos were over the QB. The Jets have been saying for a year that they would like to move on from 2020 first rounder OT Mecki Becton. They have the same time to move on feelings about Denzel Mims and Elijah Moore-wide receivers. The Packers should ask for all 3 players since they would help us fill holes and they are not in love with them anymore, like the QB Denver jettisoned. All 3 had really high draft grades but haven't really taken off with the Jets. The 2 WRs didn't have anyone good to throw to them and the Packers were high on both in their respective drafts. We should ask for all 3 and TE jeremy Ruckert as well. I get the impression from reading all available Packers news that we might not be getting anywhere near what we could have gotten last year. I hope they are wrong but I would be happier getting picks and scoring potentially good players at positions of need that could easily make our roster. I think any of the 4 would be upgrades and Becton could be a real steal. Players also wouldn't hurt as much as picks for the Jets.

"I say keep Bakhtiari to protect Love's blindside for now. "

I think Bakhtiari has more value than people give him credit--both to the Packers on the field and to other teams looking to shore up weaknesses. His injury situation bothered me less as the season wore on last year. Vets of his age and stature often have their practice reps monitored and reduced, anyway.

I also agree that the Jets have a capable LT, though. I don't know if Brown can play on the right side.

One thing that I will point to that would (or could) mitigate a change from Bakhtiari to NIjman/Tom/Jenkins is the likelihood that the Packers will embrace play action and more called rollouts and moving pockets to help support and take advantage of Love (or whomever the next QB would be). Those are all things that 12 didn't want to do. It doesn't change the fact that they would be moving to a capable, but lower-end LT, but it shifts how they think about the position in the grand scheme.

I agree. Bakht would make Love's learning curve as a starter less steep. I do note David refused to the "void years" K's twice before. And if it looks like Rodgers is going, Bakht is probably even less likely to renegotiate unless it is for more money. Pack FO would be foolish to dig the cap hole deeper. Never count them out!

The interesting notion is the Jets need to upgrade at LT and bringing him along with Rodgers would greatly solidify the O to join an outstanding D. Very tempting for the Jets...and might tilt the deal toward the Packers if tempting enough.

Very interesting scenario. But as a Packer fan, I still want David protecting Love's left flank.

"then swapping tackles would sweeten the deal. And become a real possibility."

Remember that adding players in return adds to the Packers' cap problems...and sending additional players to the Jets compounds a tight cap situation for them, as well. They've made some moves and are now $3M in the black, but will need to do more to open their cap to anyone they might acquire in trade--not to mention draft picks, FAs, PS players, and other 2023 operating costs.

The Packers won’t try to extort the Jets. I have read that they just want a fair trade. Some think that may be a 2nd this year and conditional 2nd/1st next year. I think a first this year and a conditional 2nd/1st next year is fair. Throw in an extra 3rd if Bakhtiari goes along

"But to absorb all the dead money in one year seems unlikely."

Absorbing the dead money is one year might be the best thing to do, assuming they can field a team. That would make 2023 a rebuilding year and having a bunch of cap space in 2024. At that point you can resign players like Gary and have their cap hit be bigger in 2024 and then smaller after that.

Agreed Croat. Trading Bahk would leave the Packers with four quality O-linemen, one promising second year player (Tom) and a bunch of question marks (Newman, Rhyan, Walker, and Jones). Since you need seven quality O-linemen due to injury issues, the Packers would have to be awfully confident in the development of at least one of the Rhyan - Walker- Jones grouping and their ability to land a quality O-lineman in the draft to trade Bahk.

I think it is likely they keep Bahk.

Instead of a 2nd this year, I would say a 3rd is more likely, but otherwise I agree.

I've been pretty vocal about this bundling of big-contract players plan being unreasonable (and mostly unprecedented) in the hard-cap NFL. Happens a lot in the NBA, but not to this point in football. Some point to the Wilson deal last year, but that was one high contract player moving in return for a series of picks and cheap roookie-contract guys. The more reputable sources ponder it, the more I need to re-think it.

I firmly believe that the Packers get more in return if they move players separately as opposed to bundling them (how much capital is one team going both have available AND to be willing to part with?), but if the bundle is what it takes for the Packers to achieve their goals maybe that's what you gotta do.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that a trade might be made initially and prior to the 2023 draft, and a follow up trade (post Jun 1 for cap purposes) could happen to finish the overall transaction and mitigate the hits. I'll point to Michael Brockers who was dealt to the Lions by the Rams shortly after the Stafford deal (and after the initial stages of FA) for a song (7th rounder)...while not a Jun. 1 transaction, it was clearly the Rams making cap adjustments and sweetening the Lions pot.

As for the Packers OL plans, we'll see at what level they tender Nijman. That might be a good indicator of what they plan to do with Bakhtiari--but something with Bakhtiari might happen prior to the tender date next week. I think Nijman is a capable LT, and that Tom held up in spot duty, but I'm not nearly so high on Caleb Jones or Rasheed Walker as LT candidates. Maybe Walker develops, but they'd have to be really high on one or both of those players to not have to use an early pick in the upcoming draft on an OT.

Jersy Al stated yesterday that he didn't think it was a good year for tackles. Did you dispute that, and I missed it? If so, what was his reply?

I have to get to the bottom of this. LOL.

"Blow it up"

Exactly what a fan from another team would say. All the Vikings and Bears fans would definitely be encouraging the Packers to blow the team up.

" If people are very hopeful that all these moves would be made, to just be careful what you wish for."

Buyer beware.

I don't think these would be moves made for 2023, but further down the road....and 2-3 years is an eternity in pro sports.

...because a knee that has been problematic could pop again in the physical world of pro football and the Packers would be on the hook for a lot of dinero and cap space. Knees are not like Tommy John surgery in baseball. There the elbow-arm are stronger after the surgery. Knee surgery means the knee is functional but it is never stronger and might be more prone to injury.

Because he's old, expensive, injury prone, and his replacement is already on the roster. They should explore every possible option at this point.

Bingo. The very plan I've been calling for for the last year. Take a year to get the cap right so they can be spenders in 2024.

Yes. That was a big mistake. But woulda, coulda, should’ve won’t fly without a team willing to make a trade THIS year. I think that other teams have us over a barrel because Rodgers is at the very end of his career, did not do as well last year, has a huge cap hit and might not want to sign for more than a year. Our team does not have much bargaining power.

There are definitely reasons. Just review the drafting since 2017.

The team needs cap space and draft capital to build for the future with Love. And they already have Bakhtiari's replacement on the roster. It makes sense to move on while Bakh still has value. They got 10 good years out of him. No shame in moving on now.