Jump to content

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Peppers, Woodson, Nelson.  Top of my head.

If we take Aaron at his word, Peppers and Woodson wanted to retire as a Packer.  JP at what, $3M/year?  Seems like a nice salary for him, even if it was for EDGE #3.  Woodson, I don't think he put a number on it, but he said he would take less to stay in GB.  70% of Woodson is much better than 100% of MD Jennings.  

Then yah got Jordy.  Again, I'm not sure that Rodgers put a number on it, but I thought it was floated that he'd play for $1M.  Hard to argue against Jordy at that number.  

Sitton and Lang were mentioned.  Yah, can't argue against those moves at all.  Sitton sealed his own fate.  Lang was just flat out done.

Hyde, Heyward....  We've rehashed this a thousand times.  We thought we were good without them.  We were wrong.  Oh well.

Rodgers point in all of that, to me, was that GB didn't even talk about reduced deals.  They were just gone.  And despite those being perceived as "correct" business decisions, those guys brought a lot to the locker room.  

His other point was that you can't point at production somewhere else, versus what they would have done in GB.  On the field and in the locker room.  Changing teams is tough, is what he said.  

I'm not saying Rodgers is "right" or "wrong" here.  It's probably somewhere in the middle.  

Nelson, Woodson and Peppers we let go one year early as opposed to one year late. I have no issue with those decisions and looking back they were still the correct decisions IMO. The fact we didn't make a good personnel decision on replacements is another topic IMO. 

Heyward was never healthy when he was here and nobody was upset he got away until he became really good in San Diego. I concede Hyde although it was known at the time we weren't paying him and do not remember anybody being upset about it. Again, a guy we didn't use correctly IMO. 

As for what players 'would' have taken, that is here say. I don't believe it and the reason it's all being brought to the forefront now is Rodgers is in the situation of being the next guy it happens to. He probably has 3 or 4 really good years left though. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Nelson, Woodson and Peppers we let go one year early as opposed to one year late. I have no issue with those decisions and looking back they were still the correct decisions IMO. The fact we didn't make a good personnel decision on replacements is another topic IMO. 

Heyward was never healthy when he was here and nobody was upset he got away until he became really good in San Diego. I concede Hyde although it was known at the time we weren't paying him and do not remember anybody being upset about it. Again, a guy we didn't use correctly IMO. 

As for what players 'would' have taken, that is here say. I don't believe it and the reason it's all being brought to the forefront now is Rodgers is in the situation of being the next guy it happens to. He probably has 3 or 4 really good years left though. 

 

No, it is not here say, or hear say.  It is Rodgers speak.  He mentioned Peppers at $3M.  Swear I heard that it was $1M for Jordy.  Not sure about Woody.

You are right, those guys (with the possible exception of Woodson) were cooked as starters at a high level.  With those salaries, we are talking about veteran role players.

I find no fault with what GB did concerning those guys.  There is an argument to be made that each made more money elsewhere than they would have in GB, so maybe GB actually did them a favor.  Money wise.

But I also can understand where Rodgers is coming from.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rodgers told us all we need to know in his presser yesterday.

"It was NEVER ABOUT the money." Aaron Rodgers. 

"I thought after an MVP season they would come to me and talk about an extension." also Aaron Rodgers. 

It's all about the money. 

This dude got 98.7 million dollars paid to him already in year 1 of a four year contract. He had three years left on the deal his agent negotiated and he signed, gladly. 

The team structured it to have flexibility, smart move. 

Rodgers wanted new money and an extension but it was never about the money. He always wanted to be the highest paid player at his position. He was the top player at his position and therefore nobody would begrudge him that BUT......... that means some of your buddies are going to get shipped down the road because of fiscal responsibility and diminishing talents. 

Edited by Old Guy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Nelson, Woodson and Peppers we let go one year early as opposed to one year late. I have no issue with those decisions and looking back they were still the correct decisions IMO. The fact we didn't make a good personnel decision on replacements is another topic IMO. 

Heyward was never healthy when he was here and nobody was upset he got away until he became really good in San Diego. I concede Hyde although it was known at the time we weren't paying him and do not remember anybody being upset about it. Again, a guy we didn't use correctly IMO. 

As for what players 'would' have taken, that is here say. I don't believe it and the reason it's all being brought to the forefront now is Rodgers is in the situation of being the next guy it happens to. He probably has 3 or 4 really good years left though. 

 

I still think Woodson would of been big for us in 14. He moved to safety in Oak... No reason he wouldn't do so here IMO. Personally, I would've taken Jordy over Graham easily. Of course this is all easier in hindsight, but you can't act like every move the Packers made was the right one... Maybe with some input these don't happen? No idea, but I get what he is trying to convey. 

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

I still think Woodson would of been big for us in 14. He moved to safety in Oak... No reason he wouldn't do so here IMO. Personally, I would've taken Jordy over Graham easily. Of course this is all easier in hindsight, but you can't act like every move the Packers made was the right one... Maybe with some input these don't happen? No idea, but I get what he is trying to convey. 

I don't think every move the Packers made was the right one and you pointed to a big mistake in Graham. I do believe that was made at Aaron behest if memory serves me correctly. You remember Aaron, the guy who never had any input. 

BTW, not every vet is shuttered down the road. Marcedes Lewis is still here at 100 years old. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaron, make them bring back Clay Matthews for the playoffs.

If Clay starts training now, he could be fresh enough for ten rushes per game and he could have another moment in him.

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

Rodgers told us all we need to know in his presser yesterday.

"It was NEVER ABOUT the money." Aaron Rodgers. 

"I thought after an MVP season they would come to me and talk about an extension." also Aaron Rodgers. 

It's all about the money. 

This dude got 98.7 million dollars paid to him already in year 1 of a four year contract. He had three years left on the deal his agent negotiated and he signed, gladly. 

The team structured it to have flexibility, smart move. 

Rodgers wanted new money and an extension but it was never about the money. He always wanted to be the highest paid player at his position. He was the top player at his position and therefore nobody would begrudge him that BUT......... that means some of our buddies are going to get shipped down the road because of fiscal responsibility and diminishing talents. 

We've known, ever since Love was drafted, that it wasn't about the money.  It was about the structure of the money.

Look it up.  See when Rodgers inked that extension, then look at the other QB's on the roster.  This became a big deal where there was an obvious succession plan.

Signed, August 18, 2018.  Qb's on the roster besides him.  Kizer?

Love drafted on April 23, 2020. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vegas492 said:

We've known, ever since Love was drafted, that it wasn't about the money.  It was about the structure of the money.

Look it up.  See when Rodgers inked that extension, then look at the other QB's on the roster.  This became a big deal where there was an obvious succession plan.

Signed, August 18, 2018.  Qb's on the roster besides him.  Kizer?

Love drafted on April 23, 2020. 

Honestly, that is a good point but somewhat irrelevant to the conversation. The Packers had had open discussions about finding 'the next guy.' They would be foolish not too. 

It has been mentioned repeatedly here that Love was not the plan going into the 2020 draft but when he feel and the two WR's they wanted were taken they went and got him. 

Also, by 'the structure of the money.' He means enough guaranteed money for enough years where the Packers can't move on from him. Well, his agent should have asked for a fully guaranteed contract then. They extended Rodgers after 3-4 pretty mediocre years by his standards and still made him the highest paid QB. 

It is all about the money because if he could have forced the Packers to give him additional years this off season with guarantees making it impossible to move on from him, that was his goal. Don't fault him for trying. Don't fault them for saying no. I do fault him for all the off season drama. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else find it funny that all the guys he is upset over leaving... who all drafted or brought them into GB?

Maybe trust the front office to restock good people...

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Rodgers told us all we need to know in his presser yesterday.

"It was NEVER ABOUT the money." Aaron Rodgers. 

"I thought after an MVP season they would come to me and talk about an extension." also Aaron Rodgers. 

It's all about the money. 

I'd say it's about LONGEVITY more than $. Yes that is a part of a contract, but it's not so much the $ part.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Green19 said:

Anyone else find it funny that all the guys he is upset over leaving... who all drafted or brought them into GB?

Maybe trust the front office to restock good people...

You mean like they've done? One of the best rosters in football top to bottom right now, in spite of Aaron's burdensome contract. 

Edited by Old Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

I don't think every move the Packers made was the right one and you pointed to a big mistake in Graham. I do believe that was made at Aaron behest if memory serves me correctly. You remember Aaron, the guy who never had any input. 

BTW, not every vet is shuttered down the road. Marcedes Lewis is still here at 100 years old. 

Sorry, I worded that poorly. I didn't mean you individually. Just the overall concept. 

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

Sorry, I worded that poorly. I didn't mean you individually. Just the overall concept. 

Nothing to be sorry about. I didn't take it personally.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Aaron being lonely and not being able to make friends with 26 year olds is now impacting our roster building decisions. 

Lovely

See this is why I don’t see Rodgers doing what Brady did or has done. Brady discussed how he would look into things that 20 something are into so he can better relate etc.

Rodgers isn’t doing that. Heck in retro spec I remember Z Smith being mic’d up and like coming up to Rodgers and it was literally a painful exchange.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

I'd say it's about LONGEVITY more than $. Yes that is a part of a contract, but it's not so much the $ part.

Yes the new money, guaranteed brings long-term security/longevity. The only way to get that is to have enough guaranteed money in coming years. 

Again, his agent probably could have negotiated a fully guaranteed contract two years ago. Kirk Cousin's guy did it a few years back. 

 

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

×
×
  • Create New...