data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/90633/90633b2214049ab14913f06451fe481dc00a1fd0" alt="Capture"
Green Bay, we have an issue.
For the past two months, I’ve been convinced that the Packers would bring Davante Adams back. Things did not go well in New York, and Adams is now seeking for his next employment. The Packers urgently need a dependable #1 wide receiver – just ask Josh Jacobs – and, while I’m not sure that applies to Adams anymore, his name is still associated with that kind of output.
Plus, it’s an entertaining story! Back in Green Bay to complete his career and usher in a new era of outstanding pass catchers. The story basically wrote itself. Unfortunately, a foolish thing called “American currency” may stand in the way of your dream.
In a recent ESPN article, NFL analyst Bill Barnwell attempts to predict what different free agent markets will look like in a few weeks, and the group he includes Adams in comes with a BIG OL’ number.
Davante Adams’ market could be a little too rich for the Packers’ taste.
ESPN’s average yearly pay forecast is $26.1 million to $32 million.
Here’s what Barnwell said about Adams earlier this month:
“Adams remains a useful player. He’s just not worth almost $36 million per season, and it likely mean the end of his tenure with the Jets, considering that the primary reason they brought Adams to New York will be to hit the road.
Welpppppp. The whole point of bringing Adams in was that they wouldn’t have to pay him nearly $30 million. Even the lower end of that wage range is most likely not where the Packers want to go. I’m surprised Barnwell believes Adams will be comparable to Tee Higgins, who is six years younger, but NFL teams have a habit of overpaying for names in free agency, so who knows?
Perhaps this is all part of the Packers’ strategy to deter other teams from chasing Adams. Perhaps they already have a handshake deal (hypothetically, of course), and nothing I just written about is relevant. That is my tale for the next two weeks, and I will stick to it.
Leave a Reply