Wicks, Reed and Musgrave are combined cheaper than Lazard.
this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
NFL
111 readers
2 users here now
A place for NFL news, game highlights and everything that excites you about American Football.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
Agreed. With Lazard, The whole “yeah it’s 40 million but he’s a good blocker” copium from the preseason was astounding to me.
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.
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
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.
Translation "he's only here as long as Aaron is"
I really wanted JSN and Brian Branch, but I am glad we got Reed, Wicks and Brooks with the Lions trade.
The crazy thing is that with hindsight idk if JSN fits Matt’s offense at all but Reed definitely does, and I’ll take Wicks and Brooks over Branch in the long run if they continue to develop (Wicks has serious WR2 potential and Brooks looks like a dangerous 3rd down threat on the DL).
Brooks looks like he can be a long term player for us
I couldn’t believe that Lazard contract. Glorified TE with below average WR ability