Jump to content

Aaron Rodgers and new contract


Golfman

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, HorizontoZenith said:

It would be.  How many times has an "all time great" QB under 36 years old hit the trade block?  The Broncos would give us their first round pick for the next ten years based on how seriously Elway takes the QB position.  

We could build a dynasty based on what we get from trading Rodgers.  Rodgers and 6 more years of 20-30th overall picks and very little cap space is not going to be a dynasty. 

 

I like how you trade away Rodgers and put sheer faith in an organisation that has had a mixed at best draft and develop program for a number of years. Gute was part of that drafting team and Ted is still here. McCarthy the vastly overrated stubborn fecker of a coach is still here.

I say from the evidence I have seen that if they traded Rodgers away for cap space and draft picks they will likely **** it up. You have way too much faith in this organisation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're currently in the middle of the negotiating phase of this contract. Each side is throwing out crazy demands. Eventually they'll settle around 4/116 with like 80% guaranteed and escalators if the cap goes up too quickly. 

It would be nice to get Rodgers a 10 million dollar (injury protected) incentive bonus for the pro bowl seeing as he missed it last year and two of the last 5 years. You might slide that through without taking the cap hit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jontat83 said:

I like how you trade away Rodgers and put sheer faith in an organisation that has had a mixed at best draft and develop program for a number of years. Gute was part of that drafting team and Ted is still here. McCarthy the vastly overrated stubborn fecker of a coach is still here.

I say from the evidence I have seen that if they traded Rodgers away for cap space and draft picks they will likely **** it up. You have way too much faith in this organisation.

The McCarthy point is spot on, but Gute's been trying at least. Only so much he can do without knowing if your QB wants to win the super bowl or the money bowl. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Yes it has been.  It's simple math:

Thompson liked having a certain amount of money to roll over, he liked having a certain amount of money spent.  If you add 1-2% of 170 million dollars, that's an extra 3.4 million dollars.  That's an extra 3.4 million dollars that could be used to negotiate with a big free agency acquisition.  That's an extra 3.4 million to pay to an impending free agent to keep them.  3.4 million dollars when you have a planned amount of spending is a lot of dollars. 

Look at Brady and the Patriots as a really easy example.  Brady has a 14 million dollar hit this year and last year.  Rodgers has a 20 million hit the next two years.  I think they signed their deals at around the same time.  Brady took less.  That 6 million dollars nearly pays for Gronkowski.  Patriots can't sign Gilmore without that 6 million.  Patriots signed Gilmore, Packers signed House.

Brady's cap hit this year and next is 22m, more than Aaron's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

Brady's cap hit this year and next is 22m, more than Aaron's.

I still can't believe they shipped out Garrapolo with Brady running on the fumes of his latest stem cell injection. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Brady's cap hit this year and next is 22m, more than Aaron's.

This year?  The year the Patriots lost a franchise left tackle, a starting corner, their best running back, a huge postseason performer WR and a backup tackle who started 6 games for them in free agency?  It's almost like the more you pay a QB, the worse the rest of your roster looks.  Imagine if the Packers had lost Bakhtiari. 

EDIT: And don't point to them signing Clayborn.  They seriously overpaid for Clayborn.  Everybody says Clayborn was this big deal for them to sign.  He got one sack against the Packers when I'm pretty sure Bakhtiari was out, then he got 6 sacks against the Cowboys when their starter was out.  He's not some major improvement.  McCourty was a nice addition for the Patriots, but I don't think he's that much better than Butler, and he's certainly not younger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

This year?  The year the Patriots lost a franchise left tackle, a starting corner, their best running back, a huge postseason performer WR and a backup tackle who started 6 games for them in free agency?  It's almost like the more you pay a QB, the worse the rest of your roster looks.  Imagine if the Packers had lost Bakhtiari. 

EDIT: And don't point to them signing Clayborn.  They seriously overpaid for Clayborn.  Everybody says Clayborn was this big deal for them to sign.  He got one sack against the Packers when I'm pretty sure Bakhtiari was out, then he got 6 sacks against the Cowboys when their starter was out.  He's not some major improvement.  McCourty was a nice addition for the Patriots, but I don't think he's that much better than Butler, and he's certainly not younger. 

First off, we will lose Bahk in his 30s because our FO isn't paying him, just like New England.

Second off, you sound like everyone when they lost Chandler Jones and Jamie Collins. How's that gone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 We really need to shiv this "Defense wins championships" cliche, IMO, especially after this past one. Defense CAN win championships, but there are many ways to skin the cat. We were pretty much a SuperBowl team in 2015 without one. We beat that year's eventual winner in the regular season and I think we would have again if not for... well, you know.

Patriots have not even been dominant on D in many of their wins. It has been Solid D + HOF QB, and they have outperformed the rest of the league with it. I have no problem with that being our blueprint, too. Well, one problem: our HC is a moron, not nearly on Belichick's level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Second off, you would like everyone when they lost Chandler Jones and Jamie Collins. How's that gone?

I'm not sure what your point is.  It's gone poorly.  They have zero talent in that front seven.  They have the least-talented front seven in the NFL. 

Also, Solder is not in his thirties.  He turned 29 a month ago. 

Additionally, the Patriots are going to crash and burn so hard when Brady retires.  It was a stupid decision for them to keep a 40-year-old Brady and trade away a 26-year-old franchise QB, who they could have re-signed for a fraction of the price of Brady's last two years.  They could have gotten the same return if they'd traded Brady, too.  Probably more. 

The Patriots killed their franchise for five-ten years.  I don't want the Packers to. 

@Polaris was one of the only people speaking out against Favre the last few years of Brett's career and everybody (myself included) called him absolutely insane for suggesting we move on from Favre early.  The same thing is happening again with Rodgers and it's sad.

If I'm GM, I tell Rodgers he can play out his contract or we can trade him to the Browns.  See what he thinks about that.  Since I don't think Aaron is completely stupid, I'd say he'd play out his final two years of his contract.  At which point we tag him once, then sign him to a contract fitting a 36-year-old QB, or we trade him.  I'm not letting Rodgers control the Packers.  He's one person. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gopher Trace said:

 We really need to shiv this "Defense wins championships" cliche, IMO, especially after this past one.

The Eagles allowed 17 points in two games to get to the Super Bowl.

The Patriots allowed 34 points in two games to get to the Super Bowl.

Quit acting like a high-scoring Super Bowl means defense doesn't win Championships, and quit acting like a great QB wins Super Bowls.  The Patriots and Eagles were both top 5 scoring defenses throughout the season.  A forced fumble, an incredible 3rd down tackle on Cooks and a batted down Hail Mary won the Super Bowl when the patriots defense couldn't stop a backup QB.

Quote

Patriots have not even been dominant on D in many of their wins. It has been Solid D + HOF QB, and they have outperformed the rest of the league with it.

This is categorically false.  They have been a top 10 scoring defense in each of the past four years.  They were the number one scoring defense the year they beat the Falcons, who were the number one scoring offense.  You're wrong.  They have missed the top ten in points allowed less than five times for Brady's entire career, and they have allowed an AVERAGE of 20 points a game in the playoffs for Brady's entire career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

I'm not sure what your point is.  It's gone poorly.  They have zero talent in that front seven.  They have the least-talented front seven in the NFL. 

Also, Solder is not in his thirties.  He turned 29 a month ago. 

Additionally, the Patriots are going to crash and burn so hard when Brady retires.  It was a stupid decision for them to keep a 40-year-old Brady and trade away a 26-year-old franchise QB, who they could have re-signed for a fraction of the price of Brady's last two years.  They could have gotten the same return if they'd traded Brady, too.  Probably more. 

The Patriots killed their franchise for five-ten years.  I don't want the Packers to. 

@Polaris was one of the only people speaking out against Favre the last few years of Brett's career and everybody (myself included) called him absolutely insane for suggesting we move on from Favre early.  The same thing is happening again with Rodgers and it's sad.

If I'm GM, I tell Rodgers he can play out his contract or we can trade him to the Browns.  See what he thinks about that.  Since I don't think Aaron is completely stupid, I'd say he'd play out his final two years of his contract.  At which point we tag him once, then sign him to a contract fitting a 36-year-old QB, or we trade him.  I'm not letting Rodgers control the Packers.  He's one person. 

The Pats have won 2 SBs and been to a 3rd since then. That weak roster is killing them.

We've discussed your views enough, I don't agree with them, very few do. I'm not going to discuss them further. The Pats are going to be just fine with Brady and the Packers with Rodgers. When both those players move on, our franchises won't be as good, they'll have more draft capital and thus a better chance to become good again. Such is the natural ebb and flow of the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Packerraymond said:

The Pats have won 2 SBs and been to a 3rd since then. That weak roster is killing them.

Chandler Jones was a Patriot until 2016.  He had a sack against the Seahawks in one of those two Super Bowls you say he wasn't a part of helping the Patriots win.  Jamie Collins was a Patriot until midway through 2016.  He had 8 tackles in one of those Super Bowls you say he didn't help the Patriots win. 

Malcolm Butler won the 2014 Super Bowl for the Patriots.  He helped them win the 2016 Super Bowl.  The Patriots didn't get a single sack in a Super Bowl they lost by 8 points.  They got to that Super Bowl while Brady counted 14 million dollars against the cap. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

@Polaris was one of the only people speaking out against Favre the last few years of Brett's career and everybody (myself included) called him absolutely insane for suggesting we move on from Favre early.  The same thing is happening again with Rodgers and it's sad.

Hey now, I was on team Polaris very early too :)

I'm also outspoken about keeping the team above any individual player. I'm not against moving in from Rodgers when the situation is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...