QB Talk Once Again.... sigh

[drew39k]

2 hours ago, jetjuice said:

You should send your application to 1JD then.

Seriously though, take your emotions out of the equation and realize that we are the ONLY trade suitor, GB has their balls in a vice. Behind ARod himself, it's us who holds the cards, not GB. Overpaying out of impatience would be a stupid, unnecessary move.

The interesting thing about this negotiation is that both team feel like they have the other backed into a corner.

The Jets know the Packers don't want to sit on 30+ million and the headache of Rodgers around. They also know there aren't any other strong bidders.

Conversely the Packers know the Jets have left themselves with no other serious option at QB. The Jets cannot go into the season with just ZW or ZW and a rookie. Once Carr signed, the Jets lost their only leverage option at QB.

 

 

[Bobby816]

11 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Again, I'll ask what is the Jets' fallback option?  Assuming Rodgers doesn't use his leverage to force a trade to New York, who would the Jets turn to if they miss out on Aaron Rodgers?  The Jets don't appear to be in on Lamar Jackson, and signing Jimmy G instead of trading for Rodgers seems like something that the Jets' FO would want to avoid.

Again... Jimmy G is a fallback option.

What's GBs fall back option? Paying a guy who's retired 60mill?

 

 

Jimmy G at the end of the day is still a massive upgrade for us at QB. You guys paying a guy who's not even on your roster is WAY worse.

[jetjuice]

4 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Again, I'll ask what is the Jets' fallback option?  Assuming Rodgers doesn't use his leverage to force a trade to New York, who would the Jets turn to if they miss out on Aaron Rodgers?  The Jets don't appear to be in on Lamar Jackson, and signing Jimmy G instead of trading for Rodgers seems like something that the Jets' FO would want to avoid.

We don't need a fallback option. Who's going to steal Rodgers from us at this point?

[doumeyer]

2 hours ago, Jag68Sid87 said:

I wouldn't have drafted Zach Wilson, so sometimes the armchair GM wins. In fact, I would have fired the scouts who thought we should have drafted that fraud.

 

 

I  have been saying that for years, our scouting staff sucks. Baseball;; scouts are far superiors than football scouts., a lot of  people should have been fired over this Zach Wilson pick. We should all be thankful that Joe Douglas makes all the player moves.

[jetfuel34]

11 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Again, I'll ask what is the Jets' fallback option?  Assuming Rodgers doesn't use his leverage to force a trade to New York, who would the Jets turn to if they miss out on Aaron Rodgers?  The Jets don't appear to be in on Lamar Jackson, and signing Jimmy G instead of trading for Rodgers seems like something that the Jets' FO would want to avoid.

You might have a QB on the market that we don't know about. kirk Cousins, Kyler Murray, Goff, Prescott, Russell Wilson, Tua, are just a few that could find a new team IF things change. You have new HC and GM that want to rebuild or teams not sold on them brining a Super Bowl. Heck even phil Rivers thought about coming back last year. Then you Tom Brady who can show up at anytime. Now are they Rodgers leave no but some are pretty darn close. 

[jetjuice]

6 minutes ago, drew39k said:

The interesting thing about this negotiation is that both team feel like they have the other backed into a corner.

The Jets know the Packers don't want to sit on 30+ million and the headache of Rodgers around. They also know there aren't any other strong bidders.

Conversely the Packers know the Jets have left themselves with no other serious option at QB. The Jets cannot go into the season with just ZW or ZW and a rookie. Once Carr signed, the Jets lost their only leverage option at QB.

 

 

The Packers can not just sit and hold Rodgers, unless another trade suitor emerges, we aren't backed into anything.

[Bobby816]

Just now, jetjuice said:

We don't need a fallback option. Who's going to steal Rodgers from us at this point?

Retirement. And it would appear the only hold up in him not being a Jet (from reports) would be finalizing compensation. And you'd have to imagine if Rodgers has indeed made a decision to want to go to the Jets that now all the leverage is on our side. We're the only team he's willing to talk to. He wants a trade to us. GB has no team to go to for them to say well x is offering this, you need to beat it. We are in fact bidding against ourselves. And the second Rodgers makes up his mind and there's no trade imminent. He can play the card that if you don't trade me there for what's offered. I'm retiring. And that changes everything.

 

And this isn't all hypothetical. These are the facts that we know.

 

1. GB granted us permission to speak and visit with Rodgers. 99% of the time that means that they felt comfortable in a  trade compensation vaguely talked about.

2. Rodgers has interest in the Jets or else he never would've accepted a visit from them.

3. We know Rodgers is likely leaning more towards playing if he's listening to our pitch.

4. Per reports the jets brass feels the talks went very well.

5. Reports suggest there's little to no chance Rodgers can come back to GB. It would appear it's NYJ or retirement.

 

Where in any of those things does it at all point to GB having any leverage?

I get it... if someone said they wanted Quinnen Williams from us... I'd say I nee your teams 2 best non players and 3 1st rounders. Fully knowing that's not we'd get.

 

This is a classic case of GB fans just thinking they'll get A LOT more bc they in fact know how good Rodgers still is. But when you take his contract, age, retirement looming, only 1 team interested and such all into consideration.... there's just not going to be this massive return like they all think.

 

I think it's still something along the lines of like 2 2nds or something. 

 

[CWood21]

21 minutes ago, Bobby816 said:

Again... Jimmy G is a fallback option.

What's GBs fall back option? Paying a guy who's retired 60mill?

 

 

Jimmy G at the end of the day is still a massive upgrade for us at QB. You guys paying a guy who's not even on your roster is WAY worse.

What makes you think Jimmy G can do something he couldn't do in San Francisco?  If your goal is simply to make the playoffs, go sign Jimmy G and hold onto all your picks.  He's not winning a Super Bowl.  And if Rodgers really is "retire or Jets" like I've seen mentioned, why would the Packers want to take a mediocre return AND pay some of the option bonus due to him rather than just let him retire?  This isn't a situation in which the Packers save substantial money this year.  This is about saving future money, because his contract becomes more cumbersome the longer he is under contract.

[CWood21]

25 minutes ago, jetjuice said:

We don't need a fallback option. Who's going to steal Rodgers from us at this point?

Retirement.  If it's still retirement or Jets, the Packers would probably rather let Rodgers retire then take a mediocre package from the Jets.  In fact, I think it might be preferred if we're being honest.  I think the Packers' FO is very leery about having the optics that they're forcing out Rodgers in any way.

[CWood21]

23 minutes ago, jetfuel34 said:

You might have a QB on the market that we don't know about. kirk Cousins, Kyler Murray, Goff, Prescott, Russell Wilson, Tua, are just a few that could find a new team IF things change. You have new HC and GM that want to rebuild or teams not sold on them brining a Super Bowl. Heck even phil Rivers thought about coming back last year. Then you Tom Brady who can show up at anytime. Now are they Rodgers leave no but some are pretty darn close. 

It's interesting you bring this scenario up.  Is it not possible that there are other suitors besides the Jets by that logic?

[NYJets4716]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

What makes you think Jimmy G can do something he couldn't do in San Francisco?  If your goal is simply to make the playoffs, go sign Jimmy G and hold onto all your picks.  He's not winning a Super Bowl.  And if Rodgers really is "retire or Jets" like I've seen mentioned, why would the Packers want to take a mediocre return AND pay some of the option bonus due to him rather than just let him retire?  This isn't a situation in which the Packers save substantial money this year.  This is about saving future money, because his contract becomes more cumbersome the longer he is under contract.

Because from all reports the Packers just want to move on from Rodgers and start Love. They aren't going to tell Rodgers if he says "I'd like to play for the Jets" "No you retire because the Jets didn't offer us the 13th pick"

[CWood21]

18 minutes ago, Bobby816 said:

Where in any of those things does it at all point to GB having any leverage?

I'm not arguing that the Packers have leverage, I'm just arguing that the Jets don't have leverage either.  There's a MASSIVE gap between Aaron Rodgers and Jimmy G, and arguing otherwise is futile.  Jimmy G couldn't win in San Francisco with a strong supporting cast.  Unless you have some reason to argue otherwise, that's not going to change in New York.  Especially when Shanahan would run laps on Hackett, and that's coming from someone who think Hackett isn't as bad as he appeared in Denver.

The reality is that teams rarely let a player talk to another team for a trade unless A) they're not a very valuable player themselves or B) already have a relative framework of a trade in place.  Look at the Raiders and Carr situation from a few weeks ago.  The Raiders weren't going to allow Carr to talk to any team until the Raiders agreed to a trade package with that team, which is why the Saints were allowed to talk to Carr.  Unfortunately, Carr and the Saints couldn't agree to a deal, so the Raiders were forced to release him which is why it wasn't surprising that he signed with the Saints.

LIS, I'm guessing they have a couple of variations of the trade compensation package based on a number of scenarios and they're working through them and trying to figure out if Aaron Rodgers is going to veto the trade by threatening to retire and/or how long he plans on playing.

[CWood21]

6 minutes ago, NYJets4716 said:

Because from all reports the Packers just want to move on from Rodgers and start Love. They aren't going to tell Rodgers if he says "I'd like to play for the Jets" "No you retire because the Jets didn't offer us the 13th pick"

Yet Gute had MULTIPLE opportunities to make it very clear he views Love as QB1, and he chose not to.  In fact, his comments made it very clear that he wasn't trying to alienate either Love or Rodgers.  If they were so dead set on getting rid of Rodgers, why wouldn't he have came out and said "Love is our QB1"?

EDIT: And for the record, I've said from the beginning that I don't think the 13th pick is coming back to Green Bay unless it's some part of a pick swap scenario.

[Jag68Sid87]

Why would anybody think that the Packers are "forcing Rodgers out"? 

From the time that Jordan Love was drafted, this was always going to be the outcome because Aaron Rodgers was never going to be done as an NFL QB by the time Love was ready to take over. 

Then there is the whole "commitment" issues re: Rodgers' 2022 campaign with the Packers, which suggests much more so that he quit the Packers well before they quit on him. Especially when you consider the contract they gave him.

So if Packers fans still really truly feel that the team is forcing Rodgers out, they were simply not paying attention or refuse to believe the inevitable.

[KingOfNewYork]