Jump to content

Trading Rodgers: A Down Year Discussion


MacReady

Which do you take?  

37 members have voted

  1. 1. Which do you take?

    • Option 1 (Garrett, two first round picks)
      9
    • Option 2 (Rodgers)
      28


Recommended Posts

Disclaimer:

I understand the risk, I 97% wouldn't do it, if you use this against me in the future like that one "donkey" did a couple years back when I was clearly doing it as a reverse jinx type thing I swear I will hate you for the rest of my life.  I think and I believe that Bitcoin is gonna go up a lot in value, but I'm not about to put my life savings into it just like I wouldn't put my franchise's next 7 years into the risk/reward of trading Rodgers.  That said, I 100% believe it's the right thing to do in terms of winning a Super Bowl, I just wouldn't do it. 

AGAIN... I'm 3% serious.  Do not want to trade Rodgers, I get he's the best QB of my lifetime and more.  Repeat, would not do it.  Even though I believe we'd win at least A Super Bowl if we did. 

End Disclaimer:

Everybody is disagreeing with trading Rodgers because it's become a repeated phrase in the NFL.  "Can't win without a QB..." it's not true.  Especially in today's NFL where there are three elite quarterbacks, and two of those elite quarterbacks are two years away from retiring.  Brady went 8 years between Super Bowl wins because his defense went 8 years without being a top defense.  Aaron Rodgers has gone 7 years without winning a Super Bowl because he hasn't had an elite defense.

Every single year, the Seahawks are closer to competing for a Super Bowl than the Packers.  Why?  Because the Seahawks have a defense.  And don't tell me Russell Wilson is as good a QB or close enough as Rodgers.  Russell Wilson is a Potato Brain that believes in miracle water.  He's not an elite QB, but an elite competitor. 

This team could win a Super Bowl THIS YEAR if it added Myles Garrett and Brett Hundley managed to be Ryan Tannehill.  Add Garrett, the first overall pick next year, the Texan's first round pick and our first round pick and you have a dynasty team if half the picks are hits. 

So here are two hypothetical scenarios:

1. Packers current roster minus Aaron Rodgers, plus Myles Garrett, first overall pick, Texans first pick, Packers first pick
2. Packers current roster, plus Packers first round pick

I can't be crazy for preferring the first option.  You could literally take two first round quarterbacks and still end up with a franchise pass rusher and another potential franchise defensive player while having two shots at a franchise QB. 

How is that a bad idea?  It's a risk, but Garrett doesn't look like a risk.  3 sacks in 2 games this year. 

And consider the six times the #1 defense went up against the #1 offense in Super Bowl history.  The #1 defense is is 6-0 with such "memorable" "classics" as 43-8, 55-10, and 38-16 final scores. 

The only way Aaron Rodgers will win another Super Bowl for the rest of his career is if the Packers defense transforms into a top 10 scoring defense.  Can that happen next year with a first and second round pick in the 8-14 range of the draft?  Keeping in mind we might actually go offense? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, {Family Ghost} said:

No, I wouldn't do it now ... but in a few years I'd sure think about it.  I think at 36, 37, or 38 years of age you could still get a huge return.  I think these next couple years are still prime seasons for winning a super bowl .. after that it is time to think about the future.

I am one hundred percent serious about the idea of trading him late in his career.  I do not want a Peyton Manning or Brett Favre situation with him, and if we could trade him before his last two years and get a first round pick in return, I would do that in a heart beat.  I'd love to see us win one, maybe two more Super Bowls with him, but then use him to get a head start on the rebuilding process.  Riding off into the sunset seasons are very rare with quarterbacks.  Almost unheard of if it's not the Broncos. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really haven't heard any arguments for why it's good to keep Rodgers compared to that trade.  Two first round draft picks and a franchise pass rusher for a franchise QB who has 6-7 years left is not a bad trade to me.  Regardless of the circumstances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

I really haven't heard any arguments for why it's good to keep Rodgers compared to that trade.  Two first round draft picks and a franchise pass rusher for a franchise QB who has 6-7 years left is not a bad trade to me.  Regardless of the circumstances. 

Again, why would Cleveland do that deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Disclaimer:

I understand the risk, I 97% wouldn't do it, if you use this against me in the future like that one "donkey" did a couple years back when I was clearly doing it as a reverse jinx type thing I swear I will hate you for the rest of my life.  I think and I believe that Bitcoin is gonna go up a lot in value, but I'm not about to put my life savings into it just like I wouldn't put my franchise's next 7 years into the risk/reward of trading Rodgers.  That said, I 100% believe it's the right thing to do in terms of winning a Super Bowl, I just wouldn't do it. 

AGAIN... I'm 3% serious.  Do not want to trade Rodgers, I get he's the best QB of my lifetime and more.  Repeat, would not do it.  Even though I believe we'd win at least A Super Bowl if we did. 

End Disclaimer:

Everybody is disagreeing with trading Rodgers because it's become a repeated phrase in the NFL.  "Can't win without a QB..." it's not true.  Especially in today's NFL where there are three elite quarterbacks, and two of those elite quarterbacks are two years away from retiring.  Brady went 8 years between Super Bowl wins because his defense went 8 years without being a top defense.  Aaron Rodgers has gone 7 years without winning a Super Bowl because he hasn't had an elite defense.

Every single year, the Seahawks are closer to competing for a Super Bowl than the Packers.  Why?  Because the Seahawks have a defense.  And don't tell me Russell Wilson is as good a QB or close enough as Rodgers.  Russell Wilson is a Potato Brain that believes in miracle water.  He's not an elite QB, but an elite competitor. 

This team could win a Super Bowl THIS YEAR if it added Myles Garrett and Brett Hundley managed to be Ryan Tannehill.  Add Garrett, the first overall pick next year, the Texan's first round pick and our first round pick and you have a dynasty team if half the picks are hits. 

So here are two hypothetical scenarios:

1. Packers current roster minus Aaron Rodgers, plus Myles Garrett, first overall pick, Texans first pick, Packers first pick
2. Packers current roster, plus Packers first round pick

I can't be crazy for preferring the first option.  You could literally take two first round quarterbacks and still end up with a franchise pass rusher and another potential franchise defensive player while having two shots at a franchise QB. 

How is that a bad idea?  It's a risk, but Garrett doesn't look like a risk.  3 sacks in 2 games this year. 

And consider the six times the #1 defense went up against the #1 offense in Super Bowl history.  The #1 defense is is 6-0 with such "memorable" "classics" as 43-8, 55-10, and 38-16 final scores. 

The only way Aaron Rodgers will win another Super Bowl for the rest of his career is if the Packers defense transforms into a top 10 scoring defense.  Can that happen next year with a first and second round pick in the 8-14 range of the draft?  Keeping in mind we might actually go offense? 

If Rodgers wasn't injured and the defense got healthy I think we had an excellent chance to win the SB this year even with this defense.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CWood21 said:

Again, why would Cleveland do that deal?

It's an example.  Anything less than a defensive player and two first round picks wouldn't make sense, but a player like Garrett plus two first round picks (as long as one was top 10) would make sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pugger said:

If Rodgers wasn't injured and the defense got healthy I think we had an excellent chance to win the SB this year even with this defense.   

Well we didn't.  Not with the defense we have this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

It's an example.  Anything less than a defensive player and two first round picks wouldn't make sense, but a player like Garrett plus two first round picks (as long as one was top 10) would make sense. 

We're talking about the former #1 overall pick and one of the best players to come out in recent years PLUS what's a guaranteed top-5 pick.  I'm not sure there's any team that could even offer that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HorizontoZenith said:

Well we didn't.  Not with the defense we have this year. 

How do you know for certain?  I think this defense, when healthy, is a lot better than you believe.  It isn't a top defense but I think it was good enough.  With Rodgers we don't need the '85 Bears.  I guess we'll never know now, will we? 

One good thing about all of this - let's say Hundley struggles like I think he will and we don't win more than a handful of games going forward we  might get a top 10 pick next spring.  Then we can get a real difference maker on D (plus draft higher in every round than we have in eons) along with #12.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CWood21 said:

We're talking about the former #1 overall pick and one of the best players to come out in recent years PLUS what's a guaranteed top-5 pick.  I'm not sure there's any team that could even offer that.

Doesn't have to be a former #1 overall pick or even a top 5 pick.  Just a blue chip defensive player and two first round picks, one of which being a top 10.  Joey Bosa and two firsts from the Chargers.  Jalen Ramsey and two first round picks from the Jaguars as examples.  Quarterback is insanely overvalued in the NFL, and Rodgers is the best, so that's the only type of value where it's even worth talking about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...