QB Talk Once Again.... sigh

[CWood21]

3 hours ago, Bobby816 said:

To piggy back off of this….. just listen to his interview. You can tell he has respect for the organization bc they gave him a 18 year career there. But for sure isn’t happy the way it’s going down. Seemed pretty kissed off that when he came out of his retreat, that they were done with him. He made sure to say that several times. That they chose that they were done with him. So then he had the choice to make to retire or play elsewhere. And that’s when he decided to play and want to play for us.

 

As you stated bc GB made him turn the page. He will do no favors for them. In fact I can see the exact opposite. Longer this drags on and the more he’s on McAfee…. The more he’ll drag GB through the mud. And when there’s no one on GBs side addressing this trade (bc they’re sworn to secrecy)… they’re the bad guys.

If you've listened to any of his interviews beyond the McAfee show, one of the reoccurring issues he's had with the Packers' FO was the way they "handled" outgoing veteran FAs.  He's never used as an examples as far as Im aware.  Using that scenario, which is the "proper" way to handle a veteran FA you're not intending to re-sign.  You can either off them a below-market value which you know they won't accept OR you can thank them for their services and tell them that you're going to move in a different direction.  Neither way lightens the blow of which way the player is leaving.  The only "example" he used was the one himself, but this was a grievance he's aired multiple times without examples.

And the more that Rodgers does interviews with McAfee (and whoever), the more he looks like a scorned wife whose husband left her for a younger women.  She can talk about how he didn't do X, Y, and Z.  But the reality isn't likely there.  And I think the majority of the Packers' fanbase is ready to move on from Aaron Rodgers.  Sure, there will always be that faction of the fanbase that will support Aaron Rodgers no matter what (similar to Brett Favre almost 2 decades ago), but I'd say 75%+ of the fanbase is ready to see what we have in Jordan Love.

[CWood21]

3 hours ago, Bobby816 said:

There 100% was a trade agreed to before we were allowed to talk to AR. Lots of sources have said this.

GREEN BAY after this changed that price. They did this. If the media wants to blow up a story... why isn't it that GB agreed to a verbal agreement with the Jets and since have changed that and are asking for more. A line was drawn and GB tried to move it. GB should be getting drilled in the media for this.

No.  We THOUGHT a deal was agreed to upon the discussion.  Because that was standard practice.  You don't let a player talk to another team without coming up with a trade agreement.  That's exactly what transpired with Derek Carr when the Raiders allowed him to talk to the Saints.  Unfortunately, Carr and the Saints couldn't come to an agreement on a new deal, and the time clock ran out on the Raiders.  But it's been reported by MULTIPLE sources that the Packers and Jets didn't agree to a trade before they allowed Rodgers to talk to the Jets.  Whether this was a slip-up by the Jets or a master move by the Packers remains to be seen.

 

[CWood21]

2 hours ago, jetfuel34 said:

I wish the Jets would start to talk to the Ravens and Rams about Lamar and Stafford. I would use these teams and say "Hey GB you better take the deal or the Jets are going to a diffrent QB." This would make Rodgers get really mad at GB and cause problems. I would start to attack GB instead of waiting. Lamar has even told people he is ready to move on. Now I don't want Lamar but it would put pressure on GB. I could deal with Stafford. 

Because nobody actually believes Lamar Jackson is actually available.  There's a reason why his market is ice cold.  Nobody believes the Ravens are seriously considering not matching a deal for him.  And if you thought Aaron Rodgers' dead cap was bad, you should check out the Rams' dead cap if they trade Stafford.  If the Rams traded Matthew Stafford before June 1st, they'd take on a $48M in dead cap which is an additional $28M from what his dead cap is this year, and a post-June 1st lowers that dead cap to $12M ($8M savings) but a $36M dead cap hit in 2024.  The Rams only have ~$11M in cap space right now, so a pre-June 1st deal isn't feasible financially.  And that doesn't even take into account what the Rams would want for Stafford.  Stafford simply isn't going to get traded.  They'd be trading him when his value is at the lowest AND they'd be eating a TON of dead cap.

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, Bobby816 said:

They’d have to have a conversation with AR 1st and say it would just be a tactic to try and get the ball moving. Where he didn’t actually think we’re done trying to trade for him

Tampering.  That'd be an easy tampering charge to levy at the Jets, and a pretty easy one to prove.  Remember, the Packers only gave the Jets' permission to talk to Rodgers on that specific day.  Even Rodgers' confirmed that.

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, Bobby816 said:

It does matter though, because it’s one side changing up the agreement. All indications from sources say it’s been GB that came out and wanted more after the visit.

 

Slice that however you want. It’s 100% wrong. And if I’m JD… once this deal gets done eventually like it will. I’d blow up how awful GB is as an organization from a FO perspective. How they reneged on their word and such.

What reputable source says they had an agreement on a deal?

[Bobby816]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

If you've listened to any of his interviews beyond the McAfee show, one of the reoccurring issues he's had with the Packers' FO was the way they "handled" outgoing veteran FAs.  He's never used as an examples as far as Im aware.  Using that scenario, which is the "proper" way to handle a veteran FA you're not intending to re-sign.  You can either off them a below-market value which you know they won't accept OR you can thank them for their services and tell them that you're going to move in a different direction.  Neither way lightens the blow of which way the player is leaving.  The only "example" he used was the one himself, but this was a grievance he's aired multiple times without examples.

And the more that Rodgers does interviews with McAfee (and whoever), the more he looks like a scorned wife whose husband left her for a younger women.  She can talk about how he didn't do X, Y, and Z.  But the reality isn't likely there.  And I think the majority of the Packers' fanbase is ready to move on from Aaron Rodgers.  Sure, there will always be that faction of the fanbase that will support Aaron Rodgers no matter what (similar to Brett Favre almost 2 decades ago), but I'd say 75%+ of the fanbase is ready to see what we have in Jordan Love.

But that's an opinion of yours.

Quite frankly this move should've been quick and not drug out. To use your example.... no one wants a divorce to drag out. So the hold up seems to not be AR at all. Its GB and the NYJ. A lot of speculation on who to blame. But it isn't AR we know that.

So......... you guys signed him to a deal knowing the clock on Love. You guys did that. Not the Jets. I assume AR was told he wasn't just a year guy when he signed that. So to go in line with what "my opinion" is. Is GBs FO once again reneged on their agreement. They signed AR to a huge deal thinking it's maybe bring them a SB (which I find odd since you traded Adams) and be around for at least 2-3 years. Now there were outs on the deal. But that deal wasn't designed to be over after 1 year. I say once again... bc  in "my opinion" GB reneged on the trade compensation that was initially discussed to even allow us to talk to AR.

 

I fully know these are my opinions (with some good reasons to back them). But all signs point to your FO is incredibly poorly run. And that is likely something holding up this deal. Something GBs FO has changed and such that just makes no sense for the contract the Jets are taking on, the age of the player, his season last year and no commitment beyond 1 season.

 

I'll stand by that if this deal was done with a normally ran team on the other side of us. It would've been done 10 days ago

[Bobby816]

8 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

No.  We THOUGHT a deal was agreed to upon the discussion.  Because that was standard practice.  You don't let a player talk to another team without coming up with a trade agreement.  That's exactly what transpired with Derek Carr when the Raiders allowed him to talk to the Saints.  Unfortunately, Carr and the Saints couldn't come to an agreement on a new deal, and the time clock ran out on the Raiders.  But it's been reported by MULTIPLE sources that the Packers and Jets didn't agree to a trade before they allowed Rodgers to talk to the Jets.  Whether this was a slip-up by the Jets or a master move by the Packers remains to be seen.

 

That's not what happened actually. Carr said he wasn't accepting a trade to NO bc he didn't want LV to get draft capital for him and didn't want NO to give away draft capital. Which he is allowed to do being he had a no trade clause. So he allowed the verbal agreement to happen so he could visit, but screw over LV in the end.

[Leader]

2 hours ago, jetfuel34 said:

I wish the Jets would start to talk to the Ravens and Rams about Lamar and Stafford. I would use these teams and say "Hey GB you better take the deal or the Jets are going to a diffrent QB." This would make Rodgers get really mad at GB and cause problems. I would start to attack GB instead of waiting. Lamar has even told people he is ready to move on. Now I don't want Lamar but it would put pressure on GB. I could deal with Stafford. 

The Jets having those discussions could leade to this - or - it could lead AR phoning a friend to Woody ask why he doesnt think he's worth a #1. I'd like to hear that conversation in fact. Would start the relationship off nicely.

"No, no Aaron....its not me....it's JD. He's the GM after all...and well, you of all people know how down right slimy and disrespectful GM's can be. No......I love ya! Always have in fact. You're the greatest..................of all time in fact. Sure...Tom kicked our *** lots of times....but you're my fav of all time. So........errrr.......do you have JDs phone number???? If not....I can give it to you" 

[CWood21]

17 minutes ago, Bobby816 said:

Moore didn't handle things correctly and I think he'd even admit to that. He was being used totally wrong by MLF. So while he had a reason to question things... he did it 100% in the wrong way. He had the worst QB play in the league last year. There's actually a breakdown somewhere (maybe someone can help me to link it) that actually Moore was a top5 most open WR in the whole NFL last year... he just had clueless QBs not seeing it. Moore isn't an issue. How about his rookie year with the same awful QB play in just 10 games he had 600yds and 6tds? We ignoring that?

 

And Mims was left out? He was our starter for darn near half the season last year when Davis went down. Which once again our QB play makes it really hard to judge guys correctly.

 

So get the facts right please.

So it's now everyone else's fault now that Elijah Moore didn't play like a top WR except him?  Please.  That's not like a kid breaking glass and blaming it on everyone but himself for playing baseball in the house.  I'm not saying he doesn't have talent, but arguing that he somehow increased his value when he's coming off a worst season than his rookie year, only has 2 years of team control, AND threw his OC under the bus is an odd take to have.

And follow the targets.  Denzel Mims finished NINTH in targets last year among Jets' players.  The Jets' coaching staff pretty much dumped him on the bench, and it took injuries to get him actual PT.  The only reason he got starts when Corey Davis went down was because of his draft status.  He finished behind your back-up TE (CJ Uzomah), backup RB (Michael Carter), and was 5th amongst WRs in targets.  NOTHING about that screams confidence in his abilities.

[CWood21]

5 minutes ago, Bobby816 said:

But that's an opinion of yours.

Quite frankly this move should've been quick and not drug out. To use your example.... no one wants a divorce to drag out. So the hold up seems to not be AR at all. Its GB and the NYJ. A lot of speculation on who to blame. But it isn't AR we know that.

So......... you guys signed him to a deal knowing the clock on Love. You guys did that. Not the Jets. I assume AR was told he wasn't just a year guy when he signed that. So to go in line with what "my opinion" is. Is GBs FO once again reneged on their agreement. They signed AR to a huge deal thinking it's maybe bring them a SB (which I find odd since you traded Adams) and be around for at least 2-3 years. Now there were outs on the deal. But that deal wasn't designed to be over after 1 year. I say once again... bc  in "my opinion" GB reneged on the trade compensation that was initially discussed to even allow us to talk to AR.

 

I fully know these are my opinions (with some good reasons to back them). But all signs point to your FO is incredibly poorly run. And that is likely something holding up this deal. Something GBs FO has changed and such that just makes no sense for the contract the Jets are taking on, the age of the player, his season last year and no commitment beyond 1 season.

 

I'll stand by that if this deal was done with a normally ran team on the other side of us. It would've been done 10 days ago

Yet you've already said it was the Packers asking for more.  With absolutely no proof of that.  For all that we know, it could have been the Jets that changed their offer.  You choose to assume it's the Packers because it fits your narrative.  You choose to see what you want to see.  I get it.  Nobody wants to say their FO is incompetent, but you can't sit here and complain that I'm using opinions to support myself and you turn around do the same thing.

[CWood21]

5 minutes ago, Bobby816 said:

That's not what happened actually. Carr said he wasn't accepting a trade to NO bc he didn't want LV to get draft capital for him and didn't want NO to give away draft capital. Which he is allowed to do being he had a no trade clause. So he allowed the verbal agreement to happen so he could visit, but screw over LV in the end.

Exactly.  And what caused that to not drag on?  The deadline for Carr's salary to guaranteed.  When is that deadline for Aaron Rodgers?  Not until Week 1 of the regular season.  That's why the Packers can afford to wait if the Jets aren't offering what they want.  It's at the very least mutually assured destruction for both franchises if they wait that late.

[Rockice_8]

18 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Bradley Chubb.  He was traded at the deadline as an expiring contract.  Granted, he agreed to an extension 2 days later, but he was traded as an expiring contract.

Because they clearly had the terms of the extension worked out so saying it was an expiring contract for a 1st is a technicality at best.  Good try though.

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, Rockice_8 said:

Because they clearly had the terms of the extension worked out so saying it was an expiring contract for a 1st is a technicality at best.  Good try though.

They had an agreement on an extension, but it wasn't announced until 2 days later?

[jetfuel34]

4 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

They had an agreement on an extension, but it wasn't announced until 2 days later?

So what deal do you think is fair for Rodgers

This years first and next years first with Moore?

This years first and Garrett Wilson?

The next 3 first round picks?

This years first with Sauce?

This is all crazy talk to me. 

[fattlipp]

10 hours ago, NYJets4716 said:

What a ridiculous trade for us. If we trade a WR, it's going to be Denzel Mims or Corey Davis.  We are supposed to give up a 2nd round pick, Elijah Moore, and a conditional 1st? Ridiculous. 

This idea that Elijah Moore will be traded because he requested a trade is ridiculous, he is most likely going to be happy with Rodgers throwing him the ball. He didn't like LaFleur, and apparently players really like Hackett, so he might be more happy now. 

It’s your Jets writer that worked it out with ours….so total neutral bargaining…..it’s probably similar to what it will end up being.