Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

What good does letting an asset of that value rot do for the Green Bay Packers? Rodgers has plenty of leverage, it's perceived leverage instead of literal leverage, but he's got plenty of it. 

Understand the point you're making but is it possible you're getting a bit too "nuanced" in your thinking?

"it's perceived leverage instead of literal leverage"  -  or, put another way - it's perceived leverage instead of actual leverage?

If it's not real (or actual) - what? The Packers are gonna make decisions and moves based on...what? Public opinion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

You aren't looking at the evidence. We aren't taking a hardline "come back or retire" stance. We've reached out with a contract offer that pays him more money, that's gross to me.

At this point, I'll call his bluff until we come out of the tunnel at whatever stadium we're playing at week 1 of preseason. If there hasn't been significant progress made, I'm calling Denver, LV, Washington, Carolina, Philly and whoever may need a QB and hearing the offers.

If he shows up at TC, I'm great with that, but I'd have a deadline for him, and it would be the first week of preseason. The Rodgers/Favre thing was done by then. Not fair to Love to carry it into the regular season.

This works 👍

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

How am I not looking at the evidence? I never said GB is taking a hardline stance of come back or retire. They don't have to because that's just how the situation naturally exists. 

There are three options:

(1) Rodgers plays for GB in 2021

(2) GB trades Rodgers

(3) Rodgers retires and doesn't play in the NFL again

All the evidence points to #1 right now. #2 has a very very outside chance of happening this year on GBs terms. #3 is pretty much unbelievable, but certainly a non-zero option. But, that option means Rodgers actually doesn't play football again so he has no trade value if that ends up being his choice.

(4) Pseudo retire

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

Oh the factual "human element" option lolz

(Pseudo retirement is not an option. Teams retain rights contractually, factually)

Retaining right has absolutely nothing to do with my point. It would be Rodgers way of "punting" the trade choice until next year. 

maxresdefault.jpg

Edited by Matts4313
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

I'm not sure what the point is here? The situations are very different regarding contracts and motives (Favre vs Rodgers) and GB still ended up trading Favre on their terms.

The point is your team has a horrible track record with managing HOF QB's.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Retaining right has absolutely nothing to do with my point. It would be Rodgers way of "punting" the trade choice until next year. 

maxresdefault.jpg

So he loses a full year salary, a full season of stats for his legacy, but still owes GB 3 more years on his contract?

That's completely nonsensical. Why are you assuming Rodgers could be that irrational/idiotic and self-harming? That option hurts only Rodgers and he would never choose it.

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

The point is your team has a horrible track record with managing HOF QB's.

Lolwut

GB got compensation for Favre while having a HOF QB to take his place.

What did the Colts get for Manning? Or the Pats for Brady? GB literally played the Favre situation perfectly...

Lmao of "handling HOF QB horribly"

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

So he loses a full year salary, a full season of stats for his legacy, but still owes GB 3 more years on his contract?

That's completely nonsensical. Why are you assuming Rodgers could be that irrational/idiotic and self-harming? That option hurts only Rodgers and he would never choose it.

Rodgers retiring is a "both parties lose" scenario. But if Rodgers is more willing to lose than play for the Packers (which he very well may be willing to), the Packers would be idiots for not trying to get something in return for him.

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

Rodgers retiring is a "both parties lose" scenario. But if Rodgers is more willing to lose than play for the Packers (which he very well may be willing to), the Packers would be idiots for not trying to get something in return for him.

It's completely irrational to think that Rodgers would be willing to give up $100+ million and his legacy JUST to "stick it to GB" or whatever. 

Why is it so difficult to understand that bluffing retirement is not a thing. It's not a thing for that reason. He will be laughed at and nobody will take him seriously because everyone (who matters) also recognizes it's so absurd it would never happen so the threat of it has zero bite.

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

So he loses a full year salary, a full season of stats for his legacy, but still owes GB 3 more years on his contract?

That money will not be the deciding factor. How can you not understand this very simple concept?

4 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

That's completely nonsensical. Why are you assuming Rodgers could be that irrational/idiotic and self-harming? That option hurts only Rodgers and he would never choose it.

Nah, it forces the Packers hands. And if they dont oblige, they are the irrational/idiotic self-harming ones. They are choosing no return instead of any return. Someone mentioned sunk cost, so you clearly understand the concept of even if you only got a 7th rounder (hyperbole, obvi), thats better than not getting a 7th rounder. Again, hyperbole for the example. 

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

It's completely irrational to think that Rodgers would be willing to give up $100+ million and his legacy JUST to "stick it to GB" or whatever. 

Why is it so difficult to understand that bluffing retirement is not a thing. It's not a thing for that reason. He will be laughed at and nobody will take him seriously because everyone (who matters) also recognizes it's so absurd it would never happen so the threat of it has zero bite.

I dont think it would hurt is legacy as much as you seem to think. Rodgers has already made millions. Do I think his ego could stand in the way of making some more millions and preventing a small dent in his "legacy"? Yes, I think its within the realm of something he might do. Especially if he believes he has post-career opportunities available. Although it is hard to gauge at this time just how far his bitterness towards the Packers FO is.

Regardless, its pretty baffling why Green Bay would even want him there if he doesn't want to be there. Him returning to GB would just be a toxic situation that would lead to absolutely nothing good for the franchise. Just trade the man.

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

Am I the only one here who is feeling some deja vu?

giphy.gif

It it always this same guy vs everyone else? If so I can just chalk it up to him being ignorant to the reality of options and move on. 

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

×
×
  • Create New...