Jump to content

OneTwoSixFive

Members
  • Content Count

    1,959
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

798 Pro Bowl

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

1,207 profile views
  1. Extending your thinking - Well, all the decisions and struggles you yourself endure through life, that lead you to......wherever you go, end in death, your death, right ? So what's the point of all the nonsense of living. Answer: You do it for the journey, not for where you end up. You can be one of those idiots that maintain every season that doesn't end in a superbowl win is worthless...............or you can enjoy each year, game by game, celebrating the wins, commiserating over the losses, enjoying the journey to whatever conclusion unfolds. Right now, as someone fairly fa
  2. ..................true, except that this wasn't his (Rodgers) point. It was about how you go about letting guys go, ones that were a real benefit to the Packers over time, rather than who the Packers brought in.
  3. I'd say it's about LONGEVITY more than $. Yes that is a part of a contract, but it's not so much the $ part.
  4. I'll just add a thought my above post. Sometimes the front office gets it right and they pick the right time to move on from a player - in fact I'd say they got it right more often than not. It seems though, the problem was less about the choice to move on, than the way they execute the changeover. For me, its about making an already good organisation better, not trying to sort out a dysfunctional front office.
  5. At long last Rodgers has articulated fairly clearly what he thinks. He made a number of telling points and I give credit to him for going to contact the many guys he thought were let go in a rather cavalier manner, and finding what they all thought, so he fully understood the many viewpoints. If the front office has the least uncertainty about a move (and there are often conflicting viewpoints, plusses and minuses on a decision) why not get his input for a viewpoint coming from a different angle ? You don't have to do what he advises, but given his intelligence, longevity and connection w
  6. I don't have to declare any one side a winner or loser relative to the other. I'm happy Rodgers is back this year, I'm happy the front office hasn't messed things up once things got difficult (it all could have been much worse). Most of the speculation was built on shifting sand anyway, the principles said very little. The media chose to push the agenda of Rodgers leaving more than him staying, simply because that is a much bigger story. For me, hating on Rodgers is stupid. Hating on the front office is stupid. That makes a lot of people round here stupid, so they probably
  7. That sentiment seems fine and dandy the first year, when you win the Superbowl, then it's a whole, endless year of sucking, then another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another - with no surety we are much better after that. I'd rather leave that monkey's paw alone, have a team that is regularly hitting postseason, and take my chances that they might go all the way sometime.
  8. Rodgers wants out of Green Bay................or does he ? Many of those that commented on whether Rodgers is leaving Green Bay have a baked-in assumption that he knows what he wants, but here is another take. Even he does not know if he wants to stay or not. What many of us take as him playing games with the front office might actually be him tasting the idea of a change or retirement. He put his dissatisfaction out there so it becomes public and because it IS public, it pushes him to making one decision or another, makes him consider the alternatives over time, so he can resolve th
  9. News value if Rodgers stays with Packers.......................pretty modest News value if Rodgers goes to another team........................huge. Which way do you think media outlets will want to push it ?
  10. Totally missed my point again, chasing strawmen. Hint: If they aren't moving, they are probably scarecrows.
  11. You are talking about good to very good players. The ones that are generally too expensive are the great players. Garrett Boles is a very good left tackle, but he earns $5m pa less than Bakhtiari (Boles is on about $17m pa). WR DeAndre Hopkins is on $27m pa, everyone else is $5-7m less (which is why signing Adams will be a big challenge). Green Bay can (and has) fitted a number of good players into the team, partly because they seldom sign top price free agents (the year of the Smiths and Amos is an exception). Even so, 7-8 big contracts (at this time $10m+ pa) is about the li
  12. It IS a tough call @Old Guy The Packers were lucky Jenkins looked so good in year 1 - at least they get the best of his rookie years. While paying him what he deserves would be tough if he stayed at guard, he might be worth big money if he shifts to RT. Even if he doesn't move, his exceptional positional versatility makes him worth more than a pure guard.
  13. Ok, you are being flippant, but i will expand my thinking to make it clearer. A good or better player at ANY position drafted in round 1 WILL give up to five years at a relatively modest cost, so if the player is as good as, or better than what you might expect from their draft position, it isn't wasted. It is when the second contract comes due the position the player plays matters, particularly if your team is one of the best in the NFL. For those teams, you just have to accept the possibility of only getting to keep the very best players at non-premium positions, for one contract. If y
  14. ..............and if you are drafted as high as Iupati was and play as well as they hoped you would, you tend to end up as a guard that is too expensive to keep on a second contract (as he was).
  15. I'd say its more about tenure. The financial side (in this case) only comes into it in how a contract affects tenure.
×
×
  • Create New...