Packers close to agreement with Aaron Rodgers for 2021 season (Aaron Rodgers thread v3)

[Malfatron]

2 minutes ago, ifeelasleep said:

 

weird way to spell Jordy Nelson, thats how Rodgers gets back in good graces with the fans

How about Ed West. bring him back

[Arthur Penske]

7 hours ago, Uncle Buck said:

Green Bay isn't even going to win the division.  The Vikings will win 12 games this year.  I've been saying it all off season.

Mark my words.

Vikings fans say this stuff EVERY off season. 

[incognito_man]

32 minutes ago, Malfatron said:

How about Ed West. bring him back

The toooooooolbox

[Scoundrel]

2 hours ago, Uncle Buck said:

Thanks Nudie.  With friends like you, who needs an enema? 

 

2 hours ago, NudeTayne said:

Fify

 

Let the allegations run wild.

[Malfatron]

43 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said:

8 hours ago, Uncle Buck said:

Green Bay isn't even going to win the division.  The Vikings will win 12 games this year.  I've been saying it all off season.

Mark my words.

Vikings fans say this stuff EVERY off season. 

But Jags fans rarely do

[GSUeagles14]

7 hours ago, vegas492 said:

Look.  I wanted a WR as well.  But there was no one there to step in and get meaningful snaps over what we had.

As has been pointed out, as a WR in this offense, you need to run block and run block really, really well.  Lazard is excellent at it, and was inserted into a game a few years ago because #12 wanted him on the field.  He had already earning Rodgers' trust.  No rookie was playing over Lazard.  And Lazard may not be fast, but he works really well in our offense.

MVS knew the system, could block, and offered a great size/speed option.  No rookie was getting snaps over him.  And he got better as the year went on.  He's the guy that I think gets a "surprise" extension during the season.

Then you have Adams.  No rookie was taking snaps away from him.

About the only way a rookie makes an impact at WR last year was via injury.  Even then, the rookie would have had to of beat out ESB.  I don't have a lot of use for ESB, so it may have happened.  So maybe via injury a rookie would have seen the field.

Then we are left with our jet motion WR/RB.  Ervin had that role and was fine.  But got hurt.  Austin did it, and didn't do it very well.  Maybe a rookie WR could have taken over that role and been a returner.  Which is exactly what GB got this past draft with Rogers.  Not sure that role is worth a second round pick, though I do think Shenault could have done that and done it well.  That role isn't Higgins, and it isn't Pittman.  I really liked Claypool, but that isn't a role for him either.  And maybe Shenault was more power than speed and quickness.  But if there was one that could have been drafted that could have gotten some meaningful snaps, it's Shenault.

I still would have preferred Claypool.  Bring him around slowly so that we have a developing WR on the roster for the future.

And I'm not taking any of those receivers over Love.  Also, I would have loved trading down to acquire picks and then taking Claypool.  I would have preferred that over taking Love how they did.

Not going to engage in a back and forth about WR blocking or if ____ rookie would have seen snaps over MVS or Lazard. You dont think so, cool. I disagree. Youre not providing anything more than your personal opinion. And Lazard got hurt last year.

[Les Punting]

23 hours ago, Norm said:

You have no understanding of the media versus what goes on that we never hear. 

Take a nap?

What does that even mean? It sounds like something spit out of malfunctioning language translator.

"Take a nap" confuses you? Take a nap, Norm. 

Unless of course you think the idea that Rodgers was going to leak info shared with him in good faith by management and disseminate it to the media in an attempt to short-circuit the teams attempts to draft that player is reasonable. 

In that case, take a pill.

 

[Pool]

well this is interesting 

 

[CriminalMind]

17 minutes ago, Pool said:

well this is interesting 

 

I would need clarification on what "GB still owes him" means if he decides to retire if a trade doesn't happen after this season

[diamondbull424]

15 hours ago, Uncle Buck said:

If Rodgers manages to whine his way into staying for 2-3 more years while largely doing nothing but put up regular season stats and take up a huge amount of cap space, and Love goes on to be a very good quarterback for the next 15 years somewhere else, what would the optics be in that scenario?

Personally, I think the odds of that happening are a lot better than Rodgers winning another Super Bowl before he retires.

I didn’t mention anything about Rodgers whining his way to a few more years in GB.

The Packers front office appear to know what they have in Rodgers from a toxic perspective and thus already have his potential replacement  in house.

So there’s no point in us discussing the optics of some random scenario that isn’t particularly relevant.

However, the chances that Love both becomes a very good QB for the next 15 years AND he does this for a team other than the Packers… I highly doubt those odds are greater than the odds of an elite QB (fresh off an MVP), with maybe 3-4 quality playing years left, winning another SB.

The chances of a HOF tier QB winning 2 SBs in their career I would expect to be far higher than the chances of a 1st round QB being a 15 year starter for a team that didn’t draft for him. How many times has that ever happened in NFL history? Heck even just QBs drafted regardless of round, I’m only off the top of my head thinking about Drew Brees.

Edited July 28, 2021 by diamondbull424

[squire12]

4 hours ago, diamondbull424 said:

 

The chances of a HOF tier QB winning 2 SBs in their career I would expect to be far higher than the chances of a 1st round QB being a 15 year starter for a team that didn’t draft for him. How many times has that ever happened in NFL history? Heck even just QBs drafted regardless of round, I’m only off the top of my head thinking about Drew Brees.

Rivers, Eli.  Each never played a down for their original team.

Farve, thought was a 2nd round pick

[vegas492]

16 hours ago, GSUeagles14 said:

Not going to engage in a back and forth about WR blocking or if ____ rookie would have seen snaps over MVS or Lazard. You dont think so, cool. I disagree. Youre not providing anything more than your personal opinion. And Lazard got hurt last year.

I don't much care for "blocking" WR's either.  But our coach really, really does.  And a couple of our beat reporters post video clips about WR's blocking and what that does for the offense.  Not just a clip here or a clip there, but full segments highlighting the blocks and how they are set up.  As well as how the play action works off of those blocking patterns.

All we have here is personal opinion.  Only I know my team, the offense they run and what our head coach deems as important.  I may not agree with it, but I hear about it, and see it constantly.   What your opinion tells me is that you do not know or really understand the Packer offense.  Like my opinion for every other team in the NFL except the Packers.  And I'm good with that, I do not mean to offend you in any way with that statement.  Apologies if I did.

This is an offense that has not lost in like 6 or 7 games over the past two seasons when Davante Adams is out with an injury.  "Vante is awesome.  He is simply an amazing WR, all phases of the game.  But the run game makes this offense go.  And the run game truly sets up the pass game.

[GSUeagles14]

10 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

I don't much care for "blocking" WR's either.  But our coach really, really does.  And a couple of our beat reporters post video clips about WR's blocking and what that does for the offense.  Not just a clip here or a clip there, but full segments highlighting the blocks and how they are set up.  As well as how the play action works off of those blocking patterns.

All we have here is personal opinion.  Only I know my team, the offense they run and what our head coach deems as important.  I may not agree with it, but I hear about it, and see it constantly.   What your opinion tells me is that you do not know or really understand the Packer offense.  Like my opinion for every other team in the NFL except the Packers.  And I'm good with that, I do not mean to offend you in any way with that statement.  Apologies if I did.

This is an offense that has not lost in like 6 or 7 games over the past two seasons when Davante Adams is out with an injury.  "Vante is awesome.  He is simply an amazing WR, all phases of the game.  But the run game makes this offense go.  And the run game truly sets up the pass game.

NO offense. What deep dive did you do on Higgins/Pittman/SHenualts blocking? Do you have any consistent evidence of them being bad?  How much evidence do we have of Lazard or MVS being exceptional. GB runs hundreds of run plays throughout the year, a clip of showing 6 good blocks doesnt really tell us much.

[vegas492]

3 hours ago, squire12 said:

Rivers, Eli.  Each never played a down for their original team.

Farve, thought was a 2nd round pick

Tannehill is on his way.  Maybe Cousins will fall into that category as well.

And that really means nothing against the original statement.  Just having fun trying to think who else fits the bill.

[vegas492]

16 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

NO offense. What deep dive did you do on Higgins/Pittman/SHenualts blocking? Do you have any consistent evidence of them being bad?  How much evidence do we have of Lazard or MVS being exceptional. GB runs hundreds of run plays throughout the year, a clip of showing 6 good blocks doesnt really tell us much.

That you mention "6 good blocks" shows that you do not follow the team like those of us who do.  MVS and especially Lazard have 6 good blocks a half, let alone an entire game.  Lazard's entire game is based off of how well he blocks inside and his physicality.  We aren't talking about blocking a corner or safety here, Lazard blocks ILB's, OLB's and DE's.  MVS gets a few inside blocks, but not to the extent that Lazard does.  MVS gets more outside blocks.  And to be fair, MVS is not at the blocking or physicality level of Lazard.

I looked at Shenault a lot coming out.  I thought he was one of the guys physical enough to play well in the system.  I liked him a lot.  I saw plenty of film on Shenault's physicality coming out that told me he could fit.  And despite not having great perceived speed, Shenault ran like a running back and I thought he could have fit in that jet-motion role that we used Ervin in last year.  Yah, I liked him a lot and I'll easily give it to you that he was one that I thought could come in right away and contribute.  Claypool was the other one that I thought could as well, though I didn't see the same level of physicality that Shenault had.  Potential was there, though.  

I did not see it out of Higgins (college).  Didn't watch him last year either to know if he could or could not block to the level that GB needs it's receivers to block.

I didn't look at Pittman at all.  

As I said earlier, I'm not taking any of them where Love was taken.  I'll take a QB over that kind of WR.  But, I'll also admit that I would have preferred a trade down scenario that would have landed Shenault or Claypool.