Jump to content

What to do at QB?


What is your preference for the QB spot?  

51 members have voted

  1. 1. What is your preference for the QB spot?

    • Keep Drew Lock as the starter for 2021
      19
    • Draft a rookie in the 1st round and make him the starter
      13
    • Trade for/sign an established vet (Stafford, Wentz, Ryan)
      13
    • Trade for/sign a journeyman vet (Fitz, Tyrod) to compete with Lock
      6


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

So...it's speculation if it comes to Packers' fans, but specific costs from Denver?  That makes no sense.

Read my LAST LINE, I clearly stated it's what ANY fan would do. MY point is unless you have seen an offer from the actual Packers or Broncos, it all speculation other than the Broncos would/could be trading for Rodgers.....and yes, it does come from both side, lowest possible offer from Broncos side, the frickin' moon from the Packers side. 

 

As I've said before , it's all moot until Jun 2 IMO, nothing will happen before that

Edited by Cutler06
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

So...it's speculation if it comes to Packers' fans, but specific costs from Denver?  That makes no sense.

I think you misread his post. He mentioned a "specific prize" , that being Rodgers, not a specific cost. That's absolutely true.

The only speculation is regarding compensation for Rodgers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, CWood21 said:

He really doesn't hold any cards.  Right now, he's got 2 options.  He can either retire and go host Jeopardy or he can show up for the Packers offseason.

Yeah, I just don’t see that.

At the end of the day if Rodgers is back playing for GB it’s because the organization has more than likely caved in someway.  They made concessions to get Rodgers back, which again is where he holds all the cards.

Don’t get me wrong.  I hope GB has the cajones to hold their ground and say you either come play for us or you retire.  I don’t think QBs deciding they want to leave and then holding organizations hostage is good for the game.  

However, the above stance of you’re with us or you’re out is one more out of spite (which by loads of reports is how Rodgers lives is life so it would be hilarious to see it flipped) than it is what’s best for the future of the GB Packers.  

If I were GB management it would be hard not to stick it to Rodgers and just refuse, but the sound football decision is to go get 2-3 1st round picks and some other young assets and move on.

Edited by germ-x
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, broncosfan_101 said:

We better get Rodgers, you guys, because I SURE AS HELL DON’T WANT ANOTHER 105 PAGES ABOUT THE QB POSITION OVER THE NEXT YEAR

Blame Paton for being conservative lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, CWood21 said:

He really doesn't hold any cards.  Right now, he's got 2 options.  He can either retire and go host Jeopardy or he can show up for the Packers offseason.

Something tells me the Packers will get something out of him rather than pushing him to retirement. Its going to be resovled in one way or another. The problem is, there is a short list of potential suitors for Rodgers at this point. Its basically the Broncos/Raiders. 

Since there isnt a huge pool of teams begging to give up multiple 1s + good players for a few good seasons of Rodgers--I have a feeling that the selling price for him is going to be a lot lower than most Packers fans expect.

1) The market for him isnt there. The pool is small. Less bidders = lower price.

2) The Packers FO wont let Rodgers just retire and get nothing for him as they would be going into a rebuild. They would sell him off for pennies on the dollar rather than get nothing. 

3) The Packers dont hold the power here. The player and the teams bidding for the player do.

Bonus) This is the EXACT same situation that happened with Kyrie Irving and the Cavs. He wanted a trade or threatened to sit out the season. The Cavs tried to play hardball, in the end they caved and shipped him to the Celtics for a horribly low offer because it was better to get something than nothing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, germ-x said:

Yeah, I just don’t see that.

At the end of the day if Rodgers is back playing for GB it’s because the organization has more than likely caved in someway.  They made concessions to get Rodgers back, which again is where he holds all the cards.

Don’t get me wrong.  I hope GB has the cajones to hold their ground and say you either come play for us or you retire.  I don’t think QBs deciding they want to leave and then holding organizations hostage is good for the game.  

However, the above stance of you’re with us or you’re out is one more out of spite (which by loads of reports is how Rodgers lives is life so it would be hilarious to see it flipped) than it is what’s best for the future of the GB Packers.  

If I were GB management it would be hard not to stick it to Rodgers and just refuse, but the sound football decision is to go get 2-3 1st round picks and some other young assets and move on.

But if you're Green Bay, why would you believe for a second that Aaron Rodgers would seriously consider retiring?  He's said multiple times he wants to play into his 40s.  If your trump card isn't a believable one, you lose leverage.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

But if you're Green Bay, why would you believe for a second that Aaron Rodgers would seriously consider retiring?  He's said multiple times he wants to play into his 40s.  If your trump card isn't a believable one, you lose leverage.

This is the crux of it all...does AR prefer retirement over playing for GB? We'll know soon enough. If the former, GB is in a pickle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, The Helicopter said:

This is the crux of it all...does AR prefer retirement over playing for GB? We'll know soon enough. If the former, GB is in a pickle.

To expand on the Q completely - is the strength of resolve greater on AR's side vs. GB FO's side on this issue?   Because waiting a year decreases A-Rod's value no matter what.  

History has shown 2 examples where the org's resolve was greater for 1 year, then they conceded - ARI & Carson Palmer, WFT & Trent Williams.  Every other situation, the team concedes year 1.

Edited by Broncofan
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

But if you're Green Bay, why would you believe for a second that Aaron Rodgers would seriously consider retiring?  He's said multiple times he wants to play into his 40s.  If your trump card isn't a believable one, you lose leverage.

Definitely possible.  You follow him closer than I do, but from my perspective he seems like the type that if he’s done, he’s done.  This is the same guy who has cut off family members, friends, and teammates.  He’s supposedly hyper sensitive to criticism and slights.  I think drafting Love round 1 started it and then not putting the ball in his hands with the game on the line ended it.

From my perspective Rodgers seems like the exact type capable of giving GB 2 middle fingers and never playing another down of football again unless he gets what he wants either in GB or in a trade.  Again, just my feeling but he doesn’t seem the type that would have this public falling out and then come back and say “called my bluff.”  With his sensitivity and ego he’s going to have to come out looking like the winner.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, germ-x said:

Definitely possible.  You follow him closer than I do, but from my perspective he seems like the type that if he’s done, he’s done.  This is the same guy who has cut off family members, friends, and teammates.  He’s supposedly hyper sensitive to criticism and slights.  I think drafting Love round 1 started it and then not putting the ball in his hands with the game on the line ended it.

From my perspective Rodgers seems like the exact type capable of giving GB 2 middle fingers and never playing another down of football again unless he gets what he wants either in GB or in a trade.  Again, just my feeling but he doesn’t seem the type that would have this public falling out and then come back and say “called my bluff.”  With his sensitivity and ego he’s going to have to come out looking like the winner.

And this is the guy everybody wants to give up the farm for?

Sounds like a great guy and team mate, just the right addition for a :high character" locker room.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, broncosfan_101 said:

We better get Rodgers, you guys, because I SURE AS HELL DON’T WANT ANOTHER 105 PAGES ABOUT THE QB POSITION OVER THE NEXT YEAR

Well, so far it's been Watson, Fields and now Rodgers. We're 0-2 right now, soon heading to 0-3. That's a lot of incorrect speculation.

I guess nobody believes Paton when he says he likes the QB room.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2021 at 1:51 PM, rcpbawler said:

I've never seen someone so reluctant to upgrade at QB lol.

 

Nah, not really. I'm just a bit of a skeptic by nature and also by training. As a retired engineer, I'm a professional skeptic.

Where you see daffodils and roses I'm looking at soil content, climate, average rainfall, etc. 

Trust me, trading for Rodgers is definitely not all roses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

Nah, not really. I'm just a bit of a skeptic by nature and also by training. As a retired engineer, I'm a professional skeptic.

Where you see daffodils and roses I'm looking at soil content, climate, average rainfall, etc. 

Trust me, trading for Rodgers is definitely not all roses.

Well what's the solution then?   I could be wrong but you were against drafting one, previously you've been an advocate for signing a veteran to QB the team.

 

I for one am not content to sit and watch talented rosters get little to no traction because our QB play is so shoddy.

 

Bad QB play in 2016 tanked our SB winning defense, we need an upgrade at that spot and it isn't on the roster currently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, broncofan48 said:

Well what's the solution then?   I could be wrong but you were against drafting one, previously you've been an advocate for signing a veteran to QB the team.

 

I for one am not content to sit and watch talented rosters get little to no traction because our QB play is so shoddy.

 

Bad QB play in 2016 tanked our SB winning defense, we need an upgrade at that spot and it isn't on the roster currently.

Well, that makes me two for two then. We did sign a solid veteran in Bridgewater, one that's spent two years with Shurmer and knows the offense. Career 67% completion and 89.5 QB rating. Whether or not he wins the job, he'll at least be a solid mentor and excellent backup.

Lock is in a "make or break" year. He's finally taking it seriously but whether or not he makes the leap is any ones guess. 

Bottom line, we're much better at QB than we were last year right now. Much better.  Why you say an upgrade isn't on the roster now is beyond me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

Well, that makes me two for two then. We did sign a solid veteran in Bridgewater, one that's spent two years with Shurmer and knows the offense. Career 67% completion and 89.5 QB rating. Whether or not he wins the job, he'll at least be a solid mentor and excellent backup.

Lock is in a "make or break" year. He's finally taking it seriously but whether or not he makes the leap is any ones guess. 

Bottom line, we're much better at QB than we were last year right now. Much better.  Why you say an upgrade isn't on the roster now is beyond me.

If teddy can’t beat out Lock he’s not much of an upgrade.  You seem confident that Lock will make a jump but there’s plenty of players who haven’t.  
 

If you think Lock can make a Josh Allen style jump that’s fine, but I don’t and if he doesn’t we are right back to square 1 - needing a QB to compete in this division and conference 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...