• leehouse@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    No guarantee that the Packers plan at receiver works out, and there have been plenty of rough stretches this year, but I’ll take cheap, developing, and young over expensive, old, and bad.

    • theskittz@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Agreed. With Lazard, The whole “yeah it’s 40 million but he’s a good blocker” copium from the preseason was astounding to me.

      • Hog_and_a_Half@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Only the first two years are guaranteed.

        It’s a short term deal that they can get out of, and it’s really not too far off what other WR3-tier players are getting in FA, which I think Lazard is.

        Not a good deal, but not as bad as people are making it out to be.

        • Sir_Carrington@alien.topB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Brother, Lazard was a healthy scratch. The guy didn’t even make it to Christmas, it is as bad as people are making it out to be

    • psstein@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m a big advocate of taking WRs with 3rd/4th/5th rd picks, letting them play for a few years, re-signing the ones who are actually good, and then rinse/repeat.

      You can get good WR value in the later rounds.