Jump to content

Aaron Rodgers officially begins holdout by skipping Packers mandatory mini-camp


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers has the full support of his All-Pro wide receiver Davante Adams. Adams spoke to the media on Tuesday and left no room for interpretation on how he feels about the situation between Rodgers and the Packers.

“I got his back through everything,” said Adams. “He knows where I stand, I’ll stand on a (expletive) mountain and scream on the mountain top that I want him back.”

--------------------------------------------

Adams made it clear that he not only supports Rodgers as a teammate but as a friend. He also believes he isn’t the only member of the Packers who shares his stance.

“Obviously, I’m praying that he comes back,” said Adams. “I think we all want him back…when and if he comes back, we’ll welcome him with open arms.”

https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2021/06/08/packers-wr-davante-adams-goes-to-bat-for-aaron-rodgers/

 

I think we all know that the anonymous former GM  @incognito_manposted about was Ron Wolf. He just really despises those young kids thinking things. And by young, I mean anyone under the age of 75.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, showtime said:

I haven't closely followed this story. What is it exactly that Rodgers wants that will make him come back and be happy in Green Bay?

For @incognito_man to be nice to him

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a fan outside the GB area, and outside of their division (I have no dog in this discussion), the perception by in large...is that the front office in GB does not connect well with players when a contract issue like this arises. True or not, that is the general consensus I have read.

 

I see the term legacy used a lot in this thread. IF....AR was to follow through with his desire to not play for GB....AND he was forced to pay back $$$, it would hurt the Packers legacy far more than AR's. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GSUeagles14 said:

is it bingo though? I wonder how good GBs offense is with a league average QB instead of the reigning MVP and a likely top 5 of all timer. Lets think critically, why was GBs offense top 3? Because of the genius of Aaron Rodgers, or because of the duo of Davante Adams and Allen Lazard?

Do you really wonder that? Obviously it wouldn't be nearly as good. Obviously the QB is the most important player on the offense and the entire team. No one argues that, so it's such a silly strawman. That doesn't mean his supporting cast was bad. And supporting cast doesn't just mean WR1 and WR2

Edited by childofpudding
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Warhorse said:

As a fan outside the GB area, and outside of their division (I have no dog in this discussion), the perception by in large...is that the front office in GB does not connect well with players when a contract issue like this arises. True or not, that is the general consensus I have read.

 

I see the term legacy used a lot in this thread. IF....AR was to follow through with his desire to not play for GB....AND he was forced to pay back $$$, it would hurt the Packers legacy far more than AR's. 

Counterpoint:

As a fan outside the GB area, and outside of their division (I have no dog in this discussion), my perception is that this is all Aaron's doing. I would add that there is no track record to point to with not paying guys. In fact, they've paid so many guys that they are trying to restructure Rodgers to fit even more contracts. If the only thing anyone can point to is not getting a better #2 receiver, the blame is Rodgers >>>>>> the Packers FO.

I wouldn't hold it against Green Bay to trade him to the highest bidder if that's what Aaron wants. Him sitting does nothing but harm the team and his image, as he already has a big contract and had a better supporting cast than most years Brady had in New England. It looks like selfishness and me-me-me. My guess is he wants to go to a team more in his sociopolitical demographic (like Denver).

tl;dr if Rodgers sits and retires, bye, Felacia

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, NudeTayne said:

Counterpoint:

As a fan outside the GB area, and outside of their division (I have no dog in this discussion), my perception is that this is all Aaron's doing. I would add that there is no track record to point to with not paying guys. In fact, they've paid so many guys that they are trying to restructure Rodgers to fit even more contracts. If the only thing anyone can point to is not getting a better #2 receiver, the blame is Rodgers >>>>>> the Packers FO.

I wouldn't hold it against Green Bay to trade him to the highest bidder if that's what Aaron wants. Him sitting does nothing but harm the team and his image, as he already has a big contract and had a better supporting cast than most years Brady had in New England. It looks like selfishness and me-me-me. My guess is he wants to go to a team more in his sociopolitical demographic (like Denver).

tl;dr if Rodgers sits and retires, bye, Felacia

Your perception matches reality.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

Do you really wonder that? Obviously it wouldn't be nearly as good. Obviously the QB is the most important player on the offense and the entire team. No one argues that, so it's such a silly strawman. That doesn't mean his supporting cast was bad. And supporting cast doesn't just mean WR1 and WR2

well no, do you really think it was meant literally? Really? People are arguing that Rodgers should just be happy with the #3 offense, when he is far and away the biggest reason they were #3, which is just silly. Its not a strawman at all. Rodgers pass catching group is at best average. Adams is amazing, and the next best thing you can say is that their TE is an average(ish) option there. Jones is a capable pass catcher but hes not out there running the full route tree consistently. Their line was great, but that only allows for so much and its looking to be significantly worse this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ET80 said:

That too 3 offense is because of a QB playing as well as he is. After a while, you can't base it on rankings, you have to look at it in a vacuum - can it be better, regardless of ranking? Are you content with how the offense performed?

 

there are finite resources.   Draft picks, cap space, etc.  Sure it can be better.  But are you willing to risk something else being worse?

If you are adding somewhere, you are subtracting somewhere else.   Yes, I am happy with how the offense performed in games when Rodgers uses the weapons that he has at his disposal.  Lets check to see how that works out and subtract Adams from the game in the last 2 years in the current offense.

GB played 2 games in 2020 without Adams.

at NO and put up 37 points
vs ATL and put up 30 points

GB played 4 games without Adams in 2019
at Dallas and put up 34 points
vs Detroit and put up 23 points
vs OAK and put up 42 points
at KC and put up 31 points

****************

Small sample size, but a 6-0 record (yes Mahomes was out in the KC game), but averaged just under 33 points per game.  But apparently there are just no weapons outside of Adams so GB just have to add more recognizable names so casual fans have an easier time.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, showtime said:

I haven't closely followed this story. What is it exactly that Rodgers wants that will make him come back and be happy in Green Bay?

He seems to have a very rocky relationship with the FO. So it might be hard to repair this no matter what. If they fire their GM it would be a step in the right direction. Some seem to think that he just wants a monster extension but the reports are that he has already turned that down. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, squire12 said:

there are finite resources.   Draft picks, cap space, etc.  Sure it can be better.  But are you willing to risk something else being worse?

If you are adding somewhere, you are subtracting somewhere else.   Yes, I am happy with how the offense performed in games when Rodgers uses the weapons that he has at his disposal.  Lets check to see how that works out and subtract Adams from the game in the last 2 years in the current offense.

GB played 2 games in 2020 without Adams.

at NO and put up 37 points
vs ATL and put up 30 points

GB played 4 games without Adams in 2019
at Dallas and put up 34 points
vs Detroit and put up 23 points
vs OAK and put up 42 points
at KC and put up 31 points

****************

Small sample size, but a 6-0 record (yes Mahomes was out in the KC game), but averaged just under 33 points per game.  But apparently there are just no weapons outside of Adams so GB just have to add more recognizable names so casual fans have an easier time.  

yes, Rodgers is extremely good, this isnt news to most people. He can make a lot of things like good. an example of this would be in 2017 (the last time he missed games), where he improved GB's scoring output by over 60% from when he was playing compared to when he wasnt. Maybe ROdgers should have just a little it more to help him out sometimes. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, squire12 said:

there are finite resources.   Draft picks, cap space, etc.  Sure it can be better.  But are you willing to risk something else being worse?

We've seen the ROI on a RB on a 2nd contract, and AJ Dillon was just drafted the year before. Is re-signing Aaron Jones REALLY necessary? If so, is drafting Dillon instead of trying to move around to get a WR in a very deep WR draft necessary? 

I think Aaron Jones is a good RB, but he's a position that is easily replaceable and already has a younger guy behind him to take over the starting role. Why give him a new contract? Is Kenyan Drake at 2/$14.5mm really that much of a decline to a QB who is the reigning MVP - especially that the presence of Dillon basically ensures a timeshare?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ET80 said:

We've seen the ROI on a RB on a 2nd contract, and AJ Dillon was just drafted the year before. Is re-signing Aaron Jones REALLY necessary? If so, is drafting Dillon instead of trying to move around to get a WR in a very deep WR draft necessary? 

I did not like the Jones re-signing.   I think that might have been a move to try to keep Rodgers "happy".  you know, trying to give him weaponz

8 minutes ago, ET80 said:

I think Aaron Jones is a good RB, but he's a position that is easily replaceable and already has a younger guy behind him to take over the starting role. Why give him a new contract? Is Kenyan Drake at 2/$14.5mm really that much of a decline to a QB who is the reigning MVP - especially that the presence of Dillon basically ensures a timeshare?

see above.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...