Rodgers to the Jets Trade Discussion

[Striker]

25 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Normally, I'd agree with you.  But after watching the Commanders pony up for Carson Wentz and the Colts paying for Matt Ryan, there's a market there.

It does hurt a little that Brady will be a UFA and I doubt he's going to retire. But maybe it will make the teams that lose out on the Brady sweepstakes even more desperate. 

[pgwingman]

23 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

Telomeres, my friend, telomeres. They just keep shortening. That's why all great athletes have to retire eventually. The body ages. There is no cure. Is Rodgers still capable of being a good QB? Sure, for another few years, if he trains his @ss off. Is he capable of being elite again. I highly doubt it. Is he worth $50 million? No. 

And that's just the physical part of it. Mentally, he has shown time and again that he can't win with a big game on the line. Someone posted on one of these threads Rodgers' fourth quarter QB ratings for the second Detroit game this year, and the last few playoff games. They were pretty bad. Time to move on. 

Denial - (I don't believe Rodgers is really no longer elite.) 

Anger - (I'm so angry that people think Rodgers is not elite.) 

Bargaining - (Rodgers can still be elite if he works hard enough.) 

Depression - (I feel hopeless about my Packers without Rodgers.) 

Acceptance - (The Packers can go on with next season without Rodgers.)

Let me be in Stage 3 Bargaining in peace!

[vegas492]

56 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said:

Ya I’m not counting on a 2x MVP rebound again like the last time he had a down year but I think people are writing off any sort of improvement from 2022 could be eating some crow.

Im all for Rodgers coming back for 1 more year if it works out but he needs to stop semi demanding all these guys come back when he took too big of contact to keep them all and then saying in an interview he’d walk away from 50 mil. If you’d walk away from because you’ve already made so much you should have taken a discount to make a serious run at the chip.

Your post is interesting because I view it as being correct.

There are many "sides" the Rodgers issue/argument.

One is certainly financial.  One is certainly ego.  One is his play.  And I'm sure there are more.

My post above had nothing to do with ego or finances.  Simply about his play.  Which is what you are driving at as well.

[vegas492]

43 minutes ago, LacyIsGood said:

Huh, not sure why I thought he was at 1m.  

Edit: Tonyan had a 1m signing bonus.  

I would take him back again, but at another low guaranteed money deal

 

 

Heck I'd like him on that deal like he had this past year, too.  But...it was an injury "prove it" year.  And he did.

Again, go to Spotrac or OTC and do a search by tight ends, average value.  Then look at those guys and see where he slots in.

Hint...it is not 4m/year.  

So you either pony up and pay a going rate for Tonyan, or you are looking to replace him on the roster.  And if you try to do it via free agency...well....check the contract values for the player and you will get what you pay for.

[AlexGreen#20]

I know the McCarthy v Rodgers thing is more than played out, but what a contrast of personality types.

McCarthy goes out of his way to get to know the players on his new team and foster good relationships with them. 

Meanwhile Rodgers is actively holding the team hostage if the Packers dare to let go of anybody over 32 and seems to have no relationship with the young guys. 

[LacyIsGood]

32 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Heck I'd like him on that deal like he had this past year, too.  But...it was an injury "prove it" year.  And he did.

Again, go to Spotrac or OTC and do a search by tight ends, average value.  Then look at those guys and see where he slots in.

Hint...it is not 4m/year.  

So you either pony up and pay a going rate for Tonyan, or you are looking to replace him on the roster.  And if you try to do it via free agency...well....check the contract values for the player and you will get what you pay for.

I would look to replace him then.  Tonyan doesn’t have the athleticism to stress the defense.  I was disappointed they didn’t have the cap room for Engram last year.  Was surprised at his deal too, even though he lived up to it 

[deltarich87]

The more Rodgers talks about player personnel, the more it makes sense WHY GB's FO ignored his input all those years prior. Dude would be such a horrible GM. Having locker room guys is nice and all, but in the end you need talent to win on the field, and you can't complain about not having the right pieces when you're campaigning to keep a bunch of your washed buddies on the roster.

No, I'm not talking about DBak

[AJAK]

Rodgers was also not present at OTAs so I guess you didn't care about about building a chemistry with his receivers during the offseason. His heart hasn't been in it for a while now.

[packfanfb]

38 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I know the McCarthy v Rodgers thing is more than played out, but what a contrast of personality types.

McCarthy goes out of his way to get to know the players on his new team and foster good relationships with them. 

Meanwhile Rodgers is actively holding the team hostage if the Packers dare to let go of anybody over 32 and seems to have no relationship with the young guys. 

Rodgers does annoy me on that front, more so from the standpoint that he skips OTAs, etc., which is a bad look, but I think a lot of this stuff is also overblown. I remember days after the Russell Wilson trade, there were videos from his media team of him doing private workouts with some of the Broncos WRs, etc. and that didn't amount to ****. They sucked all year. 

[Packerraymond]

38 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I know the McCarthy v Rodgers thing is more than played out, but what a contrast of personality types.

McCarthy goes out of his way to get to know the players on his new team and foster good relationships with them. 

Meanwhile Rodgers is actively holding the team hostage if the Packers dare to let go of anybody over 32 and seems to have no relationship with the young guys. 

More rhetoric from you. Rodgers personally gets to know most players on our roster, he's still close to this day with guys like Andy Mulumba, Tom Crabtree and Lucas Patrick. You've kind of blown your ability to have a valid Rodgers opinion as your bias so blatantly shows.

[AlexGreen#20]

3 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

More rhetoric from you. Rodgers personally gets to know most players on our roster, he's still close to this day with guys like Andy Mulumba, Tom Crabtree and Lucas Patrick. You've kind of blown your ability to have a valid Rodgers opinion as your bias so blatantly shows.

Andy Mulumba . . . who is 32

Tom Crabtree . . . who is 37

Lucas Patrick I guess is the one exception, him being 29, but considering Lucas was the back end Center for a long while, hard to not have some kind of relationship.

+++

Listen to the guys Rodgers mentions in that McAfee interview. The guys he NEEDS to have around him:

Marcedes Lewis who will be 39 next year.

Randall Cobb who will be 33 next year.

David Bakhtiari who will be 32 next year.

Mason Crosby who will be 39 next year. 

+++

Anybody who is saying that Rodgers isn't trying to influence our roster building so that he can have a team of his friends on the team is being blatantly dishonest. 

Rodgers doesn't give a **** that it's a young man's league. He wants his friends around him, and damn the consequences. 

Look me in the eye and tell me that Randall Cobb should be on this team next year. Tell me that and I'll call you a god damn liar. 

[AlexGreen#20]

20 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Rodgers does annoy me on that front, more so from the standpoint that he skips OTAs, etc., which is a bad look, but I think a lot of this stuff is also overblown. I remember days after the Russell Wilson trade, there were videos from his media team of him doing private workouts with some of the Broncos WRs, etc. and that didn't amount to ****. They sucked all year. 

Spending extra time with Russell Wilson isn't going to make you like him any more lol. 

[Packerraymond]

7 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Andy Mulumba . . . who is 32

Tom Crabtree . . . who is 37

Lucas Patrick I guess is the one exception, him being 29, but considering Lucas was the back end Center for a long while, hard to not have some kind of relationship.

+++

Listen to the guys Rodgers mentions in that McAfee interview. The guys he NEEDS to have around him:

Marcedes Lewis who will be 39 next year.

Randall Cobb who will be 33 next year.

David Bakhtiari who will be 32 next year.

Mason Crosby who will be 39 next year. 

+++

Anybody who is saying that Rodgers isn't trying to influence our roster building so that he can have a team of his friends on the team is being blatantly dishonest. 

Rodgers doesn't give a **** that it's a young man's league. He wants his friends around him, and damn the consequences. 

Look me in the eye and tell me that Randall Cobb should be on this team next year. Tell me that and I'll call you a god damn liar. 

Your post above had absolutely nothing to do with roster construction, I agree with everything you state here. You posted an article and stated:

"I know the McCarthy v Rodgers thing is more than played out, but what a contrast of personality types.

McCarthy goes out of his way to get to know the players on his new team and foster good relationships with them."

"What a contrast" insinuates that Rodgers doesn't build relationships with his coaches and teammates and that's a blatant lie. He's done that his entire career, even with some of the most irrelevant players in the roster.

Rodgers desire to keep his buddies on the team isn't a character flaw to me, it's a business flaw. "He wants to work at the same company with his friends." OMG what a ****ty human being!! Now it's poor business practice and could lead to his departure from our team, but I'm not going to fault the guy for doing something any one of us would want to do.

[AlexGreen#20]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Your post above had absolutely nothing to do with roster construction, I agree with everything you state here. You posted an article and stated:

"I know the McCarthy v Rodgers thing is more than played out, but what a contrast of personality types.

McCarthy goes out of his way to get to know the players on his new team and foster good relationships with them."

"What a contrast" insinuates that Rodgers doesn't build relationships with his coaches and teammates and that's a blatant lie. He's done that his entire career, even with some of the most irrelevant players in the roster.

Rodgers desire to keep his buddies on the team isn't a character flaw to me, it's a business flaw. "He wants to work at the same company with his friends." OMG what a ****ty human being!! Now it's poor business practice and could lead to his departure from our team, but I'm not going to fault the guy for doing something any one of us would want to do.

Rodgers doesn't seem to build relationships with the NEW players on the team is the point. Ever listen to our WRs talk in interviews? They don't talk like Rodgers is a teammate. They talk like he's their boss and they're terrified of him. There's no camaraderie. **** man, Davante took less to get the hell away from him, and that's the WR he's supposed to be close with. 

**** man, even the players you listed, Lucas Patrick is from 2016, Tom Crabtree is from 2010. Andy Mulumba is from 2013. Those are a LONG time ago. 

+++

Rodgers desire to keep his buddies on the team isn't a character flaw. Rodgers lashing out at others because they're trying to run an organization that is benefited by moving on from geriatrics, is a character flaw. Rodgers ego in thinking he could run the team better than the professionals is ABSOLUTELY a character flaw. 

I WANT to do a lot of things, that I don't do because it's morally or professionally wrong? You think I don't want to just stamp my seal on something without checking the calcs some days? I absolutely do. But much like sabotaging an NFL team so I can have my friends around me, I don't do that because it's professionally and morally wrong. 

You absolutely fault people for falling to temptation, even if you understand the appeal of the temptation. 

[Packerraymond]

4 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Rodgers doesn't seem to build relationships with the NEW players on the team is the point. Ever listen to our WRs talk in interviews? They don't talk like Rodgers is a teammate. They talk like he's their boss and they're terrified of him. There's no camaraderie. **** man, Davante took less to get the hell away from him, and that's the WR he's supposed to be close with. 

**** man, even the players you listed, Lucas Patrick is from 2016, Tom Crabtree is from 2010. Andy Mulumba is from 2013. Those are a LONG time ago. 

+++

Rodgers desire to keep his buddies on the team isn't a character flaw. Rodgers lashing out at others because they're trying to run an organization that is benefited by moving on from geriatrics, is a character flaw. Rodgers ego in thinking he could run the team better than the professionals is ABSOLUTELY a character flaw. 

I WANT to do a lot of things, that I don't do because it's morally or professionally wrong? You think I don't want to just stamp my seal on something without checking the calcs some days? I absolutely do. But much like sabotaging an NFL team so I can have my friends around me, I don't do that because it's professionally and morally wrong. 

You absolutely fault people for falling to temptation, even if you understand the appeal of the temptation. 

Simple human psychology is an easy explanation why a 40 year old man isn't "bros" with the 21 year old rooks. Of course they're "starstruck" and nervous about meeting the standard he sets for the team, that's human nature to me as well. Don't think you can fault him there, not like he's Favre having a separate locker and taking a private shuttle to practice.

Gute, Murphy, Ball and LaFleur have freewill. They could've moved on or stood up for themselves at any point. Is Rodgers acting selfishly here? Sure, so I guess I'll cave that it should be considered a flaw there. Is the total lack of nads by 4 dudes supposedly "in charge" of this organization also a character flaw? Yeah. I don't look at it as hostage, I look at it as 4 whipped dudes cowering to their QB.