Jump to content

Gutey or Rodgers?  

91 members have voted

  1. 1. Which side are you on?



Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, SSG said:

Given AJ Hawk's comments (one of 12's best friends) I think we can put this ridiculous "Rodgers wants Gute fired" garbage to bed.  

I’m relieved if that’s the case. Getting a GM fired, even while he’s infinitely more replaceable than AR12, would only have me wondering what Rodgers would demand next. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, 15412 said:

I haven't heard what Hawk said, but regardless.  You don't do long term guaranteed contracts with 38 year old players, or any player in my opinion.  Let's say Gute isn't at issue.  The team needs to stand strong, we don't bury ourselves long term in an aging QB.  We have him under a contract he signed that pays him piles of money for another 3 seasons.

Such a bad take.  Players get destroyed when they don't play every second of their contract regardless if their under paid or not.  Then these same fans celebrate when teams treat contracts in the same manner.  I've never heard a team get criticized for not honoring a contract.  The double standard is sickening.  

38 year olds don't carry franchises on their back to the NFCC game and win MVPs either but it happened last year.  Lots of things you shouldn't do... like telling a league MVP to pound sand and get bent.  

Edited by SSG
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SSG said:

Such a bad take.  Players get destroyed when they don't play every second of their contract regardless if their under paid or not.  Then these same fans celebrate when teams treat contracts in the same manner.  I've never heard a team get criticized for not honoring a contract.  The double standard is sickening.  

Players don't carry franchises on their back to the NFCC game and win MVPs either but it happened last year.  Lots of things you shouldn't do... like telling a league MVP to pound sand and get bent.  

I agree that the contracts are one sided in favor of the team, but I disagree with the bolded part.

Look at fan reaction when Josh Sitton was cut, or Mike Daniels for that matter.  Fans were really put out at those two moves.  When historically important players get to the end of their contracts or careers it can get ugly, and fan reactions can go either way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't seem to understand how contracts work.  It is in the contract that the team can cut a player with no further treasure owed, both sides sign to that fact.  THAT is the reason nobody chides the team when a player is cut.  Both sides signed to that fact.  Rodgers is being paid piles of money to produce.  He is the 6th highest paid at his position in the league at age 38 in the coming season.  He is 1-4 in NFC Championship games and 1-7 in playoff games where we are behind at halftime.  Games great QB's find a way to win more.  He has a pretty QB rating in his last game, and he lost it.  Lost it because he left 3 TD's on the field that were sitting there waiting for him to make the play on.  Granted, he is a great QB.  But he's not a god.  He is approaching declining years and in no way should this team put themselves in a position where we are buried in his contract well into his 40's.  He has a contract he signed that carries him past 40 now.  In no way would I pay him more, but absolutely the team needs to have options in coming years with no guarantees.  Perform and you will receive, as Brady has proven.  Perhaps Rodg knows he's not the winner Brady is.

He needs to honor his signature and play the season at his best.  If he still wants out the team will honor that in the off season.  The team has tried to work with him, likely offering him more money but no guarantees.  He can sit if he doesn't like his options.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SSG said:

Such a bad take.  Players get destroyed when they don't play every second of their contract regardless if their under paid or not.  Then these same fans celebrate when teams treat contracts in the same manner.  I've never heard a team get criticized for not honoring a contract.  The double standard is sickening.  

Do you....know how contracts work?

Teams literally honor every contract...

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

I agree that the contracts are one sided in favor of the team, but I disagree with the bolded part.

Look at fan reaction when Josh Sitton was cut, or Mike Daniels for that matter.  Fans were really put out at those two moves.  When historically important players get to the end of their contracts or careers it can get ugly, and fan reactions can go either way.

A substantial amount of of the fan base celebrated the release of Jordy Nelson, Mike Daniels and Josh Sitton as great decisions.  Sure, some were upset but the majority had no issues with the business decisions.  This offseason we watched the franchise cut multiple players that signed multi-years contracts without a peep.  It's ONLY players that get destroyed for not honoring contracts.  

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

A substantial amount of of the fan base celebrated the release of Jordy Nelson, Mike Daniels and Josh Sitton as great decisions.  Sure, some were upset but the majority had no issues with the business decisions.  This offseason we watched the franchise cut multiple players that signed multi-years contracts without a peep.  It's ONLY players that get destroyed for not honoring contracts.  

Teams pay every.single.penny they promise to pay the player in every contract unless the player breaches the contract first...

Link to post
Share on other sites

"It's ONLY players that get destroyed for not honoring contracts."

And that clinches it.  You don't understand how contracts work.  That explains the confusion.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, incognito_man said:

Do you....know how contracts work?

Teams literally honor every contract...

That's a laughable take that can be discredited with dozens of examples every offseason.

Rick Wagner signed a 2 year 11 million dollar deal last offseason and was cut prior to making it to his one year anniversary with Green Bay.  In what alternate universe is that considered honoring a contract?

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

That's a laughable take that can be discredited with dozens of examples every offseason.

Rick Wagner signed a 2 year 11 million dollar deal last offseason and was cut prior to making it to his one year anniversary with Green Bay.  In what alternate universe is that considered honoring a contract?

Whats the Guaranteed money?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 15412 said:

You don't seem to understand how contracts work.  It is in the contract that the team can cut a player with no further treasure owed, both sides sign to that fact. 

Exactly. There are special situations, where sitting-out is understandable (ie. you are an elite rookie-contract RB in the final yr of your deal and the team is wanting to run the tires off of you and not re-sign you, etc), but other than that, players are getting a fair deal in all this. It’s written into the contract that they can be cut w/o further compensation. 
 

Rodgers is already in the middle of a contract paying him boatloads of money, not to mention already having had another contract that also paid him boatloads of money. He has 3 whole years left on the deal. 

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

That's a laughable take that can be discredited with dozens of examples every offseason.

Rick Wagner signed a 2 year 11 million dollar deal last offseason and was cut prior to making it to his one year anniversary with Green Bay.  In what alternate universe is that considered honoring a contract?

There are zero examples. The only example you'd ever find would end up at the supreme court probably.

Rick Wagner received every penny from his contract that the team promised him.

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

There are special situations, where sitting-out is understandable (ie. you are an elite rookie-contract RB in the final yr of your deal and the team is wanting to run the tires off of you and not re-sign you, etc)

I definitely side w/ players on this. RB is definitely one position that is harmed badly by rookie contracts relative to value provided to teams.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SSG said:

That's a laughable take that can be discredited with dozens of examples every offseason.

Rick Wagner signed a 2 year 11 million dollar deal last offseason and was cut prior to making it to his one year anniversary with Green Bay.  In what alternate universe is that considered honoring a contract?

It was written into his contract that they could cut him without further compensation after yr-1. Otherwise it would have been fully guaranteed. He and his agent knew that going-in, and that assumption is baked into each contract, from a monetary perspective. 
 

Essentially, Wagner signed a deal that was EITHER a 1yr-$6.75m deal OR a 2yr-$11m deal, granting the team the option to pick.

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...