Random Packer News & Notes

[{Family Ghost}]

45 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I wouldn't be shocked to see him retire, but then unretire later. Just like Favre.

I think Rodgers at least sounds like he's planning on being an adult about things and does not want to follow the Favre path.  I think when he calls it a career he's done for good. 

I think he's going to see the writing on the wall in GB and ask for a trade.  He will be renewed with a change of scenery and will have a new chip on his shoulder.  He probably plays another 2-3 years for someone.  

Once he commits to playing and says all the right things the teams will start lining up to get him on board. 

[coachbuns]

5 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said:

I think Rodgers at least sounds like he's planning on being an adult about things and does not want to follow the Favre path.  I think when he calls it a career he's done for good. 

I think he's going to see the writing on the wall in GB and ask for a trade.  He will be renewed with a change of scenery and will have a new chip on his shoulder.  He probably plays another 2-3 years for someone.  

Once he commits to playing and says all the right things the teams will start lining up to get him on board. 

This .. he isn't retiring at 50 mil a year.  He's a smart guy and still wants to play .. Packer brass hasn't been very smart previously but thinking they are "getting it" pretty fast.  He will play - get traded - Packers move on.

[incognito_man]

8 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said:

I think Rodgers at least sounds like he's planning on being an adult about things and does not want to follow the Favre path.  I think when he calls it a career he's done for good. 

I think he's going to see the writing on the wall in GB and ask for a trade.  He will be renewed with a change of scenery and will have a new chip on his shoulder.  He probably plays another 2-3 years for someone.  

Once he commits to playing and says all the right things the teams will start lining up to get him on board. 

To me it's VERY clear he wants to be wanted in GB. But he is not. So he is actually debating a new team vs retirement. My long-view is that permanent retirement for him is a vanishingly small probability. However, he's emotional, and a temporary retirement (if he doesn't love any other situations around the league) is not unlikely to me. 

60% chance traded by draft

30% chance retires and unretires and is then traded this summer 

9% chance he plays in GB in 2023

1% chance he never plays again

[Leader]

14 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

To me it's VERY clear he wants to be wanted in GB. But he is not. So he is actually debating a new team vs retirement. My long-view is that permanent retirement for him is a vanishingly small probability. However, he's emotional, and a temporary retirement (if he doesn't love any other situations around the league) is not unlikely to me. 

60% chance traded by draft

30% chance retires and unretires and is then traded this summer 

9% chance he plays in GB in 2023

1% chance he never plays again

If he retires.......how long would GB hold his rights?
So if he decides to un-retire after this season....who owns his rights? He's under contract for years to come.

[vegas492]

42 minutes ago, 15412 said:

Well, you're walking backwards tail first.   It doesn't matter in the least that it never happened before.  It also is doubtful there ever was a QB facing 40 who was under contract pouting at home and whining to the press after failing the past decade in late season big games, while on very talented teams.  There was also never a team that let their drafted QB with 6 Super Bowl wins walk away from the team to go win another one with some other team.  Right?   Oh there was, because it was time.  It was also time before Murph and Gute made the fatal mistake to rim the old man.  Now, they have a chance not to fix it, because they can't, but mitigate it.

Say what you want, I get what point you are driving at.

Because I can play that game, too.  If you are diving into very specifics, there HAS NEVER BEEN A 4X MVP, COMING OFF OF TWO BACK TO BACK MVPS THAT HAS EVER BEEN TRADED.  See?  The more narrow I make it, the easier it becomes to defend.

But the facts are irrefutable.  There has never, ever been an MVP in professional football that was traded after having an MVP season.  Period.  End of story.

You bring up a drafted QB who was released who won another title on a different team.  Manning.  Without even doing any research, Manning.  So he didn't win 6 with the Colts, but still that had happened.

 

But, still no MVP has ever been traded.  And the reason is simple, it is bad business.  Say what you want, reach at some some straws, but it has NEVER happened.

Now, if you want to say the front office was dumb to give him THAT deal?  I'm there with yah.  

[15412]

It was bad business to give the pouting toad that bloated insane deal.  It would have been good business to move him for a D Watson or R Wilson kind of return.  What personal "trophies" he won possibly at the teams expense in the long run are completely irrelevant and meaningless.  

[Toddfather]

I don't know why I watched it. I already knew it was going to offer nothing, but the way Rodge and that dude talked it sounded like a cult. I can't pretend to know what the people close to him think, like Bak and Cobb and so fourth. If he was my good friend I would be a little worried about the guy...

Oh, and shocker! He's going to play this year. I am proud that the Packers are standing tall and not kissing his ***. If he wants to come back he needs to be all in and stop with the passive aggressive crap on his media outlet choices. We gave him the keys to the kingdom, and it's time to take them back.

[vegas492]

12 minutes ago, 15412 said:

It was bad business to give the pouting toad that bloated insane deal.  It would have been good business to move him for a D Watson or R Wilson kind of return.  What personal "trophies" he won possibly at the teams expense in the long run are completely irrelevant and meaningless.  

Has Russel Wilson or Deshaun Watson ever even received a single MVP vote?  I know Wilson has not.  I'm not sure about Watson.

And we are talking a single vote, here, let alone 4 MVP's and 2 back to back MVP's and 3, 13 win seasons in a row.

It makes little sense to move on from that kind of QB/MVP.  Had he won an MVP and we won 8-9 games?  Different story.  But that wasn't the case.  39 wins in 3 seasons.

The contract?  Again, I'm with yah.  But you are reaching at straws concerning the other guys.  

[Brat&Beer]

20 minutes ago, Leader said:

If he retires.......how long would GB hold his rights?
So if he decides to un-retire after this season....who owns his rights? He's under contract for years to come.

I think Green Bay would hold his rights indefinitely. Unless he can convince Packers to release him. 

[vegas492]

17 minutes ago, 15412 said:

It was bad business to give the pouting toad that bloated insane deal.  It would have been good business to move him for a D Watson or R Wilson kind of return.  What personal "trophies" he won possibly at the teams expense in the long run are completely irrelevant and meaningless.  

I feel bad...too much arguing on this subject.  And I do respect you as a poster, I hope you understand that.

I'm going to let you off the hook here.  

If you want to save a "win" here, I'll tell you how...at least in my book.

Your stance of getting rid of Rodgers when he had extreme value (and removing the MVP stuff) is pretty easy to understand.  I'd opine that if GB wanted to do that...trade Adams earlier.  Get more in the return for him, because of his contract and possible control via a franchise tag.  The second you remove Adams (because in this scenario, let's assume we know he won't re-up here), we all know that Rodgers stats go down.  Team wins go down.  He'd still get a good return, because of his talent and maybe because of that old contract.

But linking Adams into all of this create a new set of data that seems pretty solid to me.  

We all thought that a QB of Rodgers caliber could survive without someone like Adams.  Other guys step up, rookies come in....etc.  But Adams was really the glue to that offense.  Despite them winning those games when he wasn't in the line up.

[15412]

49 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

I feel bad...too much arguing on this subject.  And I do respect you as a poster, I hope you understand that.

I'm going to let you off the hook here.  

If you want to save a "win" here, I'll tell you how...at least in my book.

Your stance of getting rid of Rodgers when he had extreme value (and removing the MVP stuff) is pretty easy to understand.  I'd opine that if GB wanted to do that...trade Adams earlier.  Get more in the return for him, because of his contract and possible control via a franchise tag.  The second you remove Adams (because in this scenario, let's assume we know he won't re-up here), we all know that Rodgers stats go down.  Team wins go down.  He'd still get a good return, because of his talent and maybe because of that old contract.

But linking Adams into all of this create a new set of data that seems pretty solid to me.  

We all thought that a QB of Rodgers caliber could survive without someone like Adams.  Other guys step up, rookies come in....etc.  But Adams was really the glue to that offense.  Despite them winning those games when he wasn't in the line up.

I'm not going to let you off the hook, it's just too much fun.

So, a personal hero badge is why Murph and Gute could NOT trade ol Rodg when he was pouting and leaking a stream.  But yet the Patriots could allow a QB they drafted and won 6 Super Bowls for them with 5 Super Bowl MVP's walk away and win another one for a different team.   Man, this guy must be licking the same toads ol Rodg is!

[15412]

The truth not only could have the old man been traded back then , he obviously should have.  My point with Watson and Wilson is if they brought that much, how much would have the old guy brought?  It would have been buying the stock low and selling high on blue sky.  Now, we'll get a tiny fraction of that haul.  But, it's worth it so we can begin the recovery.  We need to dump that horrible bloated contract and start our new shiny pony.  Maybe he can even win a MVP!

[{Family Ghost}]

1 hour ago, Leader said:

If he retires.......how long would GB hold his rights?
So if he decides to un-retire after this season....who owns his rights? He's under contract for years to come.

I think forever.

[vegas492]

24 minutes ago, 15412 said:

I'm not going to let you off the hook, it's just too much fun.

So, a personal hero badge is why Murph and Gute could NOT trade ol Rodg when he was pouting and leaking a stream.  But yet the Patriots could allow a QB they drafted and won 6 Super Bowls for them with 5 Super Bowl MVP's walk away and win another one for a different team.   Man, this guy must be licking the same toads ol Rodg is!

Man, I gave you the out.

But......the Patriots did not control Brady via a contract.  He was a free agent.  It was not their choice.  

[vegas492]

23 minutes ago, 15412 said:

The truth not only could have the old man been traded back then , he obviously should have.  My point with Watson and Wilson is if they brought that much, how much would have the old guy brought?  It would have been buying the stock low and selling high on blue sky.  Now, we'll get a tiny fraction of that haul.  But, it's worth it so we can begin the recovery.  We need to dump that horrible bloated contract and start our new shiny pony.  Maybe he can even win a MVP!

Okay, so now the viewpoint is changing again to comp packages?

Let's forget the trading of the 4X MVP...and reigning 2X MVP at the time which hasn't happened in the NFL.

  Let's move the goalposts to a QB whose never ever received one single MVP vote (Wilson) and another one who may have (Watson).

Let's forget about having 3, 13 win seasons in a row.

And why again?  Because you don't like Rodgers.  Got it.

I don't much like him either, but saying he should have been traded because you thought so is just the most basic armchair hindsight analysis that there has ever been.