Jump to content

Report: Rodgers Wants Out of Green Bay


Jaire_Island

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Nick_gb said:

You don’t think Adams is worth Hopkins money? With Aaron Rodgers likely playing his last season, you don’t think that kind of player would be beneficial to the development of Love and therefor you can’t put a price tag on it.

First 2 years ? Borderline. Last 2 years ? Very Doubtful

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said:

I don't think they caved .. they still retain everything they really wanted.  Aaron plays for them this year and they will still get a massive return next year in a trade if that is what they want.

If 2023 is voidable they really don't. In 2022 you have to trade him to a place of his liking. The new team has to extend him prior to agreeing to the trade. Otherwise, it's a one year rental for them. Nobody is giving up value for Rodgers on a one year rental. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nick_gb said:

You don’t think Adams is worth Hopkins money? With Aaron Rodgers likely playing his last season, you don’t think that kind of player would be beneficial to the development of Love and therefor you can’t put a price tag on it?

I don't think any WR is worth Hopkins money or close to Hopkins money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said:

I don't think they caved .. they still retain everything they really wanted.  Aaron plays for them this year and they will still get a massive return next year in a trade if that is what they want.

Packers FO got what they wanted.  They even let Rodgers save a little face.

I am Gute!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Old Guy said:

I don't think any WR is worth Hopkins money or close to Hopkins money. 

I agree.  But if there is one, it is Adams.  Especially if we are breaking in a newer QB and need a safety blanket.  Not just for catching passes, but also by understanding the offense and more importantly, the defenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think this is a win-win agreement. 
 

 GBs side: If Rodgers lights it up and or Love doesn’t give them any confidence they’re likely to give him what he wants .

 

Rodgers’: he plays one more year on a top tier AB contender and if he still doesn’t like things, he gets a say in where he’s traded. 
 

The only bad I see is if GB offers him what he wants and still turns it down ( I don’t see that as likely but it is a possibility)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cannondale said:

First 2 years ? Borderline. Last 2 years ? Very Doubtful

If there’s one thing the Packers are notorious for in their contracts, it’s front loading them and giving them easy outs on the back end. A 4 year contract that he only plays 3 of isn’t entirely out of the question and would be more beneficial to this team them trotting Love out there and depending on MVS / Rodgers / Lazard / Funchess and ESB to aid in his development. jmo
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, cannondale said:

Which is why the report makes no sense

The same people have been giving BS reports for months and this one is now suppose to make sense?    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, deltarich87 said:

This likely sums up the situation

Problem is that GB loses leverage next offseason in trade talks with teams so they no longer will get as big a return as they would have if they just moved him earlier this offseason

But more teams will be in on the bidding, which likely more than makes up for any issues with deteriorating control value. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nick_gb said:

If there’s one thing the Packers are notorious for in their contracts, it’s front loading them and giving them easy outs on the back end. A 4 year contract that he only plays 3 of isn’t entirely out of the question and would be more beneficial to this team them trotting Love out there and depending on MVS / Rodgers / Lazard / Funchess and ESB to aid in his development. jmo
 

 

I'm far from a contract guru, but I'm guessing that would require lesser guaranteed money or massive front end of the contract. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...