Jump to content

Report: Rodgers Wants Out of Green Bay


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

Lemme give you some flip side examples of how teamish is not all good:

Johnny Jolly, That 6th round CB from a while ago who got into trouble - when players like this get into trouble the "team decision" is to completely distance themselves and cut them off.  If they manage to rehab, as in the case with Jolly, they might get a 2nd chance.  But in the meantime, these young players are cut off from valuable support networks which could potentially affect these outcomes for the individuals.

Making "teamish" decisions is not in any way morally right/wrong, it's just good business.  Same for Rodgers making "selfish" decisions.  It's just business and you can't fault the player for it simply bc they represent an individual rather than a collective.

you gotta be kidding me...

Johnny Jolly is the best evidence to counter your claim that the team doesn't support players. Like literally, it was a big story about just HOW supportive the entire team was of Johnny Jolly. This, despite being suspended (i.e. the team could not interact with him in any official capacity) and yet...

Quote

 

And when Jolly finished his rehab, Packers director of player programs Rob Davis and personnel executive Alonzo Highsmith were there for his graduation.

"It's unexplainable," Jolly said of what the support meant. "For me to be in the situation that I'm in and they're still worried about me while they're working and doing what they're supposed to do, I can't explain it."

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2013/06/04/johnny-jolly-returns-to-packers-drug-policy-suspension/2390291/

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

Lemme give you some flip side examples of how teamish is not all good:

Johnny Jolly, That 6th round CB from a while ago who got into trouble - when players like this get into trouble the "team decision" is to completely distance themselves and cut them off.  If they manage to rehab, as in the case with Jolly, they might get a 2nd chance.  But in the meantime, these young players are cut off from valuable support networks which could potentially affect these outcomes for the individuals.

Making "teamish" decisions is not in any way morally right/wrong, it's just good business.  Same for Rodgers making "selfish" decisions.  It's just business and you can't fault the player for it simply bc they represent an individual rather than a collective.

Sure, but re:Rodgers, the packers have ALREADY made massive concessions in the past to keep him happy- most notably, giving him the most recent extension despite the team having 4 years of control (With tags) at the time of the deal.   There was no good reason for the packers to give Rodgers a massive raise just as his cap hit was dropping to the point where they would have additional flexibility.  They did- and I agree they should have- in order to keep Aaron happy.

I am 100% convinced this is more about the packers letting Rodgers friends go- Jordy, Cobb, James Jones, Matthews etc. it’s hard to see those guys be cast aside harshly by the organization as fans, now imagine that you are teammates/close friends.  

Tom Brady going to Tampa and winning the whole thing with his friends that had been cast aside by other organizations is having a MASSIVE influence on Rodgers this offseason (Even though the core of that team was already in place via top 15 draft choices the last 5 years).

Edited by Cpdaly23
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vegas492 said:

You give this team two good, young players and 4 extra draft picks and there is no way that Love falls on his face.  Not in this offense.

This is the best stable of running backs in Green Bay that I can remember, well, second best to what we had last year.

We have a good o-line with a lot of young kids in there competing.

We have talent all across the defense.

And that is without considering the return for trading Rodgers.

I agree with you, but the tone the Packers have taken is that Love is not close to being ready.  I would have liked to hear Gute and LaFleur welcome the challenge, but they are also trying not to further piss off Rodgers.  At some point you have to quit groveling and give Rodgers an ultimatum.  Sink or swim for Love .. he might far exceed expectations given the talent on hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

Lemme give you some flip side examples of how teamish is not all good:

Johnny Jolly, That 6th round CB from a while ago who got into trouble - when players like this get into trouble the "team decision" is to completely distance themselves and cut them off.  If they manage to rehab, as in the case with Jolly, they might get a 2nd chance.  But in the meantime, these young players are cut off from valuable support networks which could potentially affect these outcomes for the individuals.

Making "teamish" decisions is not in any way morally right/wrong, it's just good business.  Same for Rodgers making "selfish" decisions.  It's just business and you can't fault the player for it simply bc they represent an individual rather than a collective.

I don't think morals come into play here. Not much really. Teamish decisions at the end of the day are also selfish decisions based around what is best for the business/team.

Rodgers reneging on his deal is borderline immoral but that depends on where you stand? From a players perspective the thinking is I can be cut or traded at any time so I will leverage my strength (level of play) to strong-arm the team into more guarantees.

From a team perspective what Rodgers is doing can be judged as immoral simply because he signed on the dotted line agreeing to the contract and knowing that he could be traded or cut at any time. Now he is backtracking on what he had signed. That being said, the team at some level always knows that there is a chance of a holdout. Its just that those situations are not quite as often and not normally done by players of Rodgers caliber.

The other thing I feel is that the Packers are run as a very unique team because of the lack of that 1 person who is answerable to that state of the company. We have no owner. I do feel that making a decision for the team would be a lot easier if we had one person who said, 'Give him what he wants' OR 'Let us move on'. Owners cannot be fired for this decision. On the other hand, a GM can.

Honestly, as a fan, I am just ready to move on from Rodgers because even though he gives us the best chance to win a SB right now I feel that giving him a long term contract could hurt us financially now and long term. I don't think Rodgers can play at an elite level for more than 1 year of that new contract and handicapping us is not the way I want to go.

Edited by fistfullofbeer
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

you gotta be kidding me...

Johnny Jolly is the best evidence to counter your claim that the team doesn't support players. Like literally, it was a big story about just HOW supportive the entire team was of Johnny Jolly. This, despite being suspended (i.e. the team could not interact with him in any official capacity) and yet...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2013/06/04/johnny-jolly-returns-to-packers-drug-policy-suspension/2390291/

That's free support though. Cost nothing to the team, just the morally right thing to do. Who besides Aaron Rodgers is going to look out for Aaron Rodgers financially? If Aaron said in his prior negotiations, "I want to win some rings, let's lock me down at 15m per year on this extension for cap flexibility." Would the team come back and say "oh no you're the best QB in the league, we will be paying you to set the market for QBs." Obviously no.

By definition that is selfish, but the connotation of that word doesn't really fit the situation. Rodgers will end his career the way Mark Murphy and Gutey want it to end if he doesn't intercede, that's a 100% guarantee.

As a Packers fan, I've been on the organization's side of this because I want what's best for the organization. However parlaying an MVP performance, and one of the best we've ever seen at that, into enormous pressure on the organization to commit to your timeline versus their own, or face the PR repercussions...is kind of a brilliant plan on his part to achieve what he's worked for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vegas492 said:

Someone on here once said it would be best to trade a QB before their rookie deal is up, take the picks and re-load.

And here we are, only it isn't a rookie deal.  But it is similar.

A big part of me wants Rodgers back, because on the field, he is so much fun to watch.

But man, another part of me wants Jeudy, Risner, 3 firsts and a second for Rodgers.  We could build a great future with that core around Love.

Jeudy would replace Adams in the lineup after this year when he follows Aaron somewhere.

Risner solidifies the line even more than what it is currently.

Then we would have 4 extra picks to package around if we want to add more playmakerz.

For an old QB who has been known to coast for a while, this seems like a great thing for the franchise.

 

That's a good way to end up turning into the Browns given the high failure rate of QBs.  A franchise QB gives you stability.  If Green Bay were to select multiple Drew Locks, Deshone Kisers, JP Losmans, Kyle Bollers,  Jake Lockers, Blaine Gaberts, Christian Ponders...... we'd likely be looking at an entirely new front office and coaching staff because of the amount of losing. 

Chicago  has had an awful lot of high end defenses over the last 20 years and the franchise has nothing to show for it because they've failed to secure a QB worth a **** despite countless attempts.  

IMO this method of building a team is taking a franchise QB for granted.  The list of teams that have spent long stretches as trash heaps because of their inability to secure a franchise QB is long.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

That's free support though. Cost nothing to the team, just the morally right thing to do. Who besides Aaron Rodgers is going to look out for Aaron Rodgers financially? If Aaron said in his prior negotiations, "I want to win some rings, let's lock me down at 15m per year on this extension for cap flexibility." Would the team come back and say "oh no you're the best QB in the league, we will be paying you to set the market for QBs." Obviously no.

By definition that is selfish, but the connotation of that word doesn't really fit the situation. Rodgers will end his career the way Mark Murphy and Gutey want it to end if he doesn't intercede, that's a 100% guarantee.

As a Packers fan, I've been on the organization's side of this because I want what's best for the organization. However parlaying an MVP performance, and one of the best we've ever seen at that, into enormous pressure on the organization to commit to your timeline versus their own, or face the PR repercussions...is kind of a brilliant plan on his part to achieve what he's worked for.

I literally said that I recognize that his strategy to get what he wants is rational. It's also selfish. It's both.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

you gotta be kidding me...

Johnny Jolly is the best evidence to counter your claim that the team doesn't support players. Like literally, it was a big story about just HOW supportive the entire team was of Johnny Jolly. This, despite being suspended (i.e. the team could not interact with him in any official capacity) and yet...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2013/06/04/johnny-jolly-returns-to-packers-drug-policy-suspension/2390291/

appears I misremember the jolly situation.

Anyway, team makes plenty of moves which aren't in the interest of the individual.  There's no "right" side in this fight and trying to paint Rodgers as the bad guy here is just myopic  and bringing your emotions into it.  Everything he's doing right now is, by definition, bad for the team.  But that doesn't make him entitled or whiny or really anything but shrewd/savvy.

Some of the context that I think is overlooked:

  1. Rodgers was too good to actually lose under McCarthy, but MM was too bad for the team to have success, so he took matters into his own hands and had mccarthy fired.  And it was the best move for the organization since the Ted Thompson hire.  Now here he is trying something again.  Are we even certain he's in the wrong about Gute?

If Adams, who is pretty level-headed and experienced in the workings of the league, is siding with Rodgers then it's not as if Rodgers is way out there in la la land on this.

Also, if Rodgers didn't have a valid gripe about his contract the team wouldn't be offering him any sort of extension and pay raise.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

appears I misremember the jolly situation.

Anyway, team makes plenty of moves which aren't in the interest of the individual.  There's no "right" side in this fight and trying to paint Rodgers as the bad guy here is just myopic  and bringing your emotions into it.  Everything he's doing right now is, by definition, bad for the team.  But that doesn't make him entitled or whiny or really anything but shrewd/savvy.

Some of the context that I think is overlooked:

  1. Rodgers was too good to actually lose under McCarthy, but MM was too bad for the team to have success, so he took matters into his own hands and had mccarthy fired.  And it was the best move for the organization since the Ted Thompson hire.  Now here he is trying something again.  Are we even certain he's in the wrong about Gute?

If Adams, who is pretty level-headed and experienced in the workings of the league, is siding with Rodgers then it's not as if Rodgers is way out there in la la land on this.

Also, if Rodgers didn't have a valid gripe about his contract the team wouldn't be offering him any sort of extension and pay raise.

I wouldn't care if he just shut up and played. He's "entitled" to want whatever he wants. It's the disconnection between his monetary greed and legacy-building he wants. He can't have both, but he wants both. He can realistically only choose one, and every fan would prefer the latter option (ala Tom Brady) - but he's digging in on the former and it will cost him legacy points.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, fistfullofbeer said:

I don't think Rodgers can play at an elite level for more than 1 year of that new contract

why not?  I get that there's a chicken/egg thing with the MLF/Rodgers offense and what makes it tick.  But I'd be really leery of making a change now with how well it's been working.

 

For some reason there's this perception that hall of fame level players will suddenly decline in their late 30s because that's what used to happen and that Tom Brady is the exception.  Phil Rivers just had a really Phil Rivers season at age 39, and he's a very borderline HOF player.

Drew Brees had a pretty bad season at age 41  marred by significant decline, but he was coming off injury, to his arm I think.  Do you really want to pass on the Aaron Rodgers version of Drew Brees from 37-40?  Because those are 2 great seasons followed by an injury and Brees has never had Rodgers' arm.

Peyton Manning - also marred by a serious injury - still managed 2 excellent seasons at at 37 and 38.

Warren Moon - closest to Rodgers from an arm/athlete perspective of these HOF players, had great seasons at age 38/39, then got injured.

Obviously, the injury thing will loom over the end of Rodgers' career.  But Love is on the team.  He's here to take over if/when.  But if it doesn't happen, I don't see why Rodgers can't do what Brady does.

3 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I literally said that I recognize that his strategy to get what he wants is rational. It's also selfish. It's both.

It seems to me you consistently gloss over the nuance between connotation and denotation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

appears I misremember the jolly situation.

Anyway, team makes plenty of moves which aren't in the interest of the individual.  There's no "right" side in this fight and trying to paint Rodgers as the bad guy here is just myopic  and bringing your emotions into it.  Everything he's doing right now is, by definition, bad for the team.  But that doesn't make him entitled or whiny or really anything but shrewd/savvy.

Some of the context that I think is overlooked:

  1. Rodgers was too good to actually lose under McCarthy, but MM was too bad for the team to have success, so he took matters into his own hands and had mccarthy fired.  And it was the best move for the organization since the Ted Thompson hire.  Now here he is trying something again.  Are we even certain he's in the wrong about Gute?

If Adams, who is pretty level-headed and experienced in the workings of the league, is siding with Rodgers then it's not as if Rodgers is way out there in la la land on this.

Also, if Rodgers didn't have a valid gripe about his contract the team wouldn't be offering him any sort of extension and pay raise.

And his treatment of Jeff Janis and other Rodgers whipping boys, is that creating good “culture” of “people”? Like I get it... who cares about Jeff Janis? But it’s not like Rodgers is clean in this “beautiful mysterious culture” in GB. He activity was shopping Jennings off to another team in the middle of a game.

Fact is when you look at everything... does Rodgers have a point? To a certain degree yes. Has he been terribly wronged by the franchise... not at all. Is he one of the last guys that should be complaining about how the packers do business... absolutely.

Heck Corey Linsey had more grounds to be pissed honestly.

The terrible part in all of this is Rodgers will continue this passive aggressive attacks without committing to anything and will ultimately be back for a year or two more with GB. It’s so stupid and unnecessary 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

It seems to me you consistently gloss over the nuance between connotation and denotation.

Not sure what to tell you. I've explicitly stated it several times now. It's not an issue between connotation and denotation; it's an issue of some readers subscribing their own emotions/definitions to my words that I've consistently (and repeatedly) explained.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

But if it doesn't happen, I don't see why Rodgers can't do what Brady does.

Hard to argue that Rodgers doesn't look like he's in the best shape of his career.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SSG said:

Hard to argue that Rodgers doesn't look like he's in the best shape of his career.  

Really? I thought at the derby he didn’t look healthy at all. He looked too skin and weak.

I think he over did it with the weight lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...