Aaron Rodgers and new contract

[MacReady]

Just now, incognito_man said:

I'm not against moving in from Rodgers when the situation is right.

That time is immediately after we win the Super Bowl this coming season. 

[squire12]

It is almost like there was a mock about this contract thing being a potential  issue

 

[Gopher Trace]

27 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

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.

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 two han 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. 

3

Yet also never forced a punt all game for the first time in SuperBowl history. A few plays made here and there does not change the fact that both defenses got lit up by good QB'ing.

What I object to is treating this like something black-and-white. Sure, you can win with decent QB play and an elite D, but you can also win with decent defense and elite QB play.

And what I meant about Pats D not being dominant is that they never field historically-good defenses ala "Legion of Boom" Seahawks or the Broncos in Peyton's last year. It's always a rock-solid unit with no real holes, but not an overwhelmingly stacked unit either.

More to the point, I don't think anyone here disagrees that the defense needs to be about Top-10 good to go all the way and win; I think what we disagree with the idea that we need to mortgage it by offloading a franchise QB.

Also, Foles is a starting-caliber QB in this league. He was just another victim of Jeff Fisher's incompetence. Joe Backup does not light up Pats' D, much less the Vikings' even better unit. Eagles were damn lucky to have a QB that good on their bench, but that just goes back to the value of good QB play. I'm sure they will offload him soon for a solid haul, but the fact they are waiting until Wentz is 100% back kinda says it all.

[MacReady]

Just now, Gopher Trace said:

What I object to is treating this like something black-and-white. Sure, you can win with decent QB play and an elite D, but you can also win with decent defense and elite QB play.

If this is true, you could point to at least five times when a team allowed an average of 23 points a game in their postseason run and win a Super Bowl.  I say 23 because that is the average points scored in an NFL game.  The Patriots allowed 25 points per game this year in the playoffs.  The Eagles averaged 17 per game. 

I feel like this is a very fair challenge and I will accept any results you find.  Prove me wrong. 

I will take care of the last thirteen years for you. 

Eagles - 17
Patriots - 20
Broncos - 15
Patriots - 18
Seahawks - 13
Ravens - 18
Giants - 14
Packers - 19
Saints - 20
Steelers - 20
Giants - 16
Colts - 16
Steelers - 16

As you can see, for the past THIRTEEN years, there has been no "decent" defensive play to win a Super Bowl.  If you allow over 20 points a game in your postseason defensively, you are not winning a Super Bowl. 

But I'm true to my word.  If you can find five examples of decent defenses (23 point average in postseason play) winning a Super Bowl, that will be around 10% of Super Bowl winners who have won a Super Bowl off of decent defensive play. 

[Leader]

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

15% of the cap is $26,600,000 this year.

That makes Rodgers the 4th highest paid QB this year behind: Cousins, Garoppolo, and Stafford. 15% is basically the Franchise Tag value for QBs.

I'm not saying I disagree with your main point, but 15% isn't as insane as it sounds. 

This is a good point. Lost in irrational thought as I was, I'd failed to actually quantify it.

Thanks for the dose of rational thought.

[Gopher Trace]

39 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

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.

 

Hehe, I remember that. Polaris was the reason why I was firmly in favor of moving forward with Rodgers over Favre (well, that, and the fact we had already begun moving forward without him with our offseason free-agency/draft anyway). He quite clearly articulated how Favre cost us the NFCCG that past season and has been doing so in the playoffs for years. I was a Favre shmuck like many others were, but open-minded enough to follow the truth where it led.

And I still am. If that can be similarly clearly articulated with Rodgers, then I will be willing to accept that maybe we should move on, because as far as I am seeing, he's not the problem but the solution. His play is best-ever good and he maintains a high level of play in big games.

I wish Rodgers would take less than his value like Brady does, too, but I have not seen enough to suggest that that's what's holding us back. His play is more than worth a few lost players, and he is not to blame for us not even bothering to offer Casey Hayward a new contract.

[Kepler]

10 minutes ago, Gopher Trace said:

Hehe, I remember that. Polaris was the reason why I was firmly in favor of moving forward with Rodgers over Favre (well, that, and the fact we had already begun moving forward without him with our offseason free-agency/draft anyway). He quite clearly articulated how Favre cost us the NFCCG that past season and has been doing so in the playoffs for years. I was a Favre shmuck like many others were, but open-minded enough to follow the truth where it led.

And I still am. If that can be similarly clearly articulated with Rodgers, then I will be willing to accept that maybe we should move on, because as far as I am seeing, he's not the problem but the solution. His play is best-ever good and he maintains a high level of play in big games.

I wish Rodgers would take less than his value like Brady does, too, but I have not seen enough to suggest that that's what's holding us back. His play is more than worth a few lost players, and he is not to blame for us not even bothering to offer Casey Hayward a new contract.

I believe the biggest factor to accept moving on would be to have the heir apparent onboard. Maybe they pick someone this year if negotiations begin to trend downward. 

[MacReady]

11 minutes ago, Kepler said:

I believe the biggest factor to accept moving on would be to have the heir apparent onboard. Maybe they pick someone this year if negotiations begin to trend downward. 

I think this is less likely since we traded for Kizer.  If Kizer could lead the Browns to... Wait... Crap.  

[Gopher Trace]

52 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

If this is true, you could point to at least five times when a team allowed an average of 23 points a game in their postseason run and win a Super Bowl.  I say 23 because that is the average points scored in an NFL game.  The Patriots allowed 25 points per game this year in the playoffs.  The Eagles averaged 17 per game. 

I feel like this is a very fair challenge and I will accept any results you find.  Prove me wrong. 

I will take care of the last thirteen years for you. 

Eagles - 17
Patriots - 20
Broncos - 15
Patriots - 18
Seahawks - 13
Ravens - 18
Giants - 14
Packers - 19
Saints - 20 
Steelers - 20
Giants - 16
Colts - 16
Steelers - 16

As you can see, for the past THIRTEEN years, there has been no "decent" defensive play to win a Super Bowl.  If you allow over 20 points a game in your postseason defensively, you are not winning a Super Bowl. 

But I'm true to my word.  If you can find five examples of decent defenses (23 point average in postseason play) winning a Super Bowl, that will be around 10% of Super Bowl winners who have won a Super Bowl off of decent defensive play. 

1

Okay, now you're just stacking the deck -- arbitrarily valuing "decent" (my words) as >20pts/game (your definition) -- but I already said what "decent" means to me in relation to other ("dominant") defenses: good, even very much so, just not historically so, or even #1 in the league that year. Whereas I define "dominant" as a defense like Legion of Boom or the Broncos with Miller and Ware (and, more often than not, field such defenses in the absence of a franchise QB's contract).

If you're big into stats, rock on. That's not really my thing, though, and I lack the will to go digging through stats to see if anything meets your demands (especially since I suspect you chose that metric expressly to reinforce your conclusion anyway). So, sure, you got me; I cannot disprove your assertion. I don't think you're really arguing any point being made here, though. We all seem to generally accept that the defense has to be good to get very far: like, Top-10, to use your earlier words.

I (and others, by the look of it) disagree with the conclusion that we have to ship Rodgers out to achieve the necessary D/QB balance (and there *is* a balance needed, otherwise the Broncos would not need to improve their QB situation over what they had after Manning as badly as they have).

[MacReady]

17 points a game in a postseason IS dominant defensive play.  It's an entire touchdown under the NFL average.  7 of the last 13 teams have literally had dominant defensive play to win the Super Bowl.  The other 6 were above average.  20 points a game is above average.  Whichever words you use, no average or anything below above average defense has won a Super Bowl over the past 13 years.

Nobody is saying we need to trade Rodgers to get that defense.  It would be about ten times easier to get that defense if we did trade Rodgers, and no matter how good Rodgers is, he's not winning a Super Bowl without that defense.

Our defensive roster right now is not a 20 points a playoff game good.  

[St Vince]

The problem I have with Rodgers is that his ego's been inflated with all the stardom with the commercials, dating hot celebrity women and fan and league worship. He has to be the highest paid player in the league every year? No one can make more money than you, really? So it's all about the money now? This is a what have you done for me lately business.

If he wants to be the highest paid player every year how about starting out winning some NFC championships first. He has no more rings than Joe Flacco and Nick Foles. He's not Brady.

If Rodgers is only focused on his personal economy I'd be ok with parting ways. It's proven you don't need a hall of fame QB to win a championship. Let him take his pursuit of money, his large ego and talents to another city. I'm a Packers fan first players fan second.

[AlexGreen#20]

14 minutes ago, St Vince said:

The problem I have with Rodgers is that his ego's been inflated with all the stardom with the commercials, dating hot celebrity women and fan and league worship. He has to be the highest paid player in the league every year? No one can make more money than you really? So it's all about the money now? This is a what have you done for me lately business.

If he wants to be the highest paid player every year how about starting out winning some NFC championships first. He has no more rings than Joe Flacco and Nick Foles, He's not Brady.

If Rodgers is only focused on his personal economy I'd be ok with parting ways. It's proven you don't need a hall of fame QB to win a championship. Let him take his pursuit of money, his large ego and talents to another city. I'm a Packers fan first players fan second.

Something your basing your accusations of an inflated ego on?

Has Rodgers given us any reason to doubt his dedication to the team and to football? 

We live in a free and capitalist country. There's nothing wrong with getting paid what you're worth. He doesn't owe the team a discount. If the team doesn't think he's worth the money he's asking, they can choose to not pay him or to trade him. This is how negotiations work. 

Rodgers is just as good of a QB as Tom Brady. The Joe Flacco and Nick Foles comparisons are stupid. If Rodgers had defenses of the caliber that either of those guys had, he would have more than one superbowl.  

If you don't think having Rodgers on the Packers is good for the Packers, I don't know if you're as much of a Packer fan as you claim to be because you clearly didn't watch last year. 

Getting emotionally invested and pissed off because a player doesn't give you a hometown discount is ******* dumb and you're not going to have anybody on your team if that's the thought process. 

Were you appalled when the guy in your avatar demanded to be the highest paid coach, have complete roster control and be made part owner? He then left and joined another team that would give him those things even though the Packers would meet the first two conditions?

It's one thing to be like HTZ and have good reasons for thinking a contract like Rodgers is requesting will harm the team. I disagree, but there is at least some reasoning behind it.

You're just acting like an old man sitting on the porch bitching about how it isn't like it was in the old days even though the old days were the same way. 

[Kepler]

25 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

If Rodgers had defenses of the caliber that either of those guys had, he would have more than one superbowl.

IF, and yes I'll admit it's still a big IF, that Rodgers gets close to a deal that would scale his pay to remain the top paid QB every season, it will most definitely curtail his chance to ever have that caliber of defense.

His career track record in the playoffs, apart from 2010, really isn't what I would consider world beating, or deserving of the top paid QB every season. Brady had almost always gotten it done in the playoffs, and almost brought his team back to win another super bowl this year. He's the guy who should be paid more than anybody else, but has repeatedly provided discounts in the past to keep giving championships to the fans. 

I really think Gute would be able to make the moves he seems to want to if there were some give there. I get the players want to max their salaries, but the team will need some wiggle room to bring home some championships. 

[St Vince]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Something your basing your accusations of an inflated ego on?

Has Rodgers given us any reason to doubt his dedication to the team and to football? 

We live in a free and capitalist country. There's nothing wrong with getting paid what you're worth. He doesn't owe the team a discount. If the team doesn't think he's worth the money he's asking, they can choose to not pay him or to trade him. This is how negotiations work. 

Rodgers is just as good of a QB as Tom Brady. The Joe Flacco and Nick Foles comparisons are stupid. If Rodgers had defenses of the caliber that either of those guys had, he would have more than one superbowl.  

If you don't think having Rodgers on the Packers is good for the Packers, I don't know if you're as much of a Packer fan as you claim to be because you clearly didn't watch last year. 

Getting emotionally invested and pissed off because a player doesn't give you a hometown discount is ******* dumb and you're not going to have anybody on your team if that's the thought process. 

Were you appalled when the guy in your avatar demanded to be the highest paid coach, have complete roster control and be made part owner? He then left and joined another team that would give him those things even though the Packers would meet the first two conditions?

It's one thing to be like HTZ and have good reasons for thinking a contract like Rodgers is requesting will harm the team. I disagree, but there is at least some reasoning behind it.

You're just acting like an old man sitting on the porch bitching about how it isn't like it was in the old days even though the old days were the same way. 

Rodgers has become a celebrity QB. His ego has shown by his behavior lately. He wants to be a part of front office matters. He had say on the GM, he didn't want Ball. He want's to be notified when his position coach or WR is let go. He's over stepping his bounds. The GM or head coach doesn't have to consult with Aaron when they make personnal moves. 

You're right he doesn't have to give a hometown discount but he's the one that said he wanted the front office to be "all in" You can't be "all in" if he's wants 33 mil per year.

I don't know about you but giving a QB in his mid 30's that kind of money fully guaranteed is risky. Rodgers wants fully guaranteed contracts to be the norm in the NFL. That's gonna set a bad precedent. Who wants to pay for a broken player if he suffers a career ending injury?

[Pugger]

4 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

If this is true, you could point to at least five times when a team allowed an average of 23 points a game in their postseason run and win a Super Bowl.  I say 23 because that is the average points scored in an NFL game.  The Patriots allowed 25 points per game this year in the playoffs.  The Eagles averaged 17 per game. 

I feel like this is a very fair challenge and I will accept any results you find.  Prove me wrong. 

I will take care of the last thirteen years for you. 

Eagles - 17
Patriots - 20
Broncos - 15
Patriots - 18
Seahawks - 13
Ravens - 18
Giants - 14
Packers - 19
Saints - 20
Steelers - 20
Giants - 16
Colts - 16
Steelers - 16

As you can see, for the past THIRTEEN years, there has been no "decent" defensive play to win a Super Bowl.  If you allow over 20 points a game in your postseason defensively, you are not winning a Super Bowl. 

But I'm true to my word.  If you can find five examples of decent defenses (23 point average in postseason play) winning a Super Bowl, that will be around 10% of Super Bowl winners who have won a Super Bowl off of decent defensive play. 

This is only up to 2015.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/2zltuy/offensive_and_defensive_ranks_for_superbowl/