Aaron Rodgers and new contract

[salmar80]

Players can ask for fully guaranteed contracts. Teams could even accommodate them. But guarantees = risk for team (conversely guarantees = insurance for player), so total contract numbers would be on a lot lower level than they currently are. Both sides know there's a chance of a career-ending injury, and teams have been burned by players losing motivation/effectiveness when given big guarantees. 

The reason an extension for Arod would be more affordable now than later is exactly guarantees. Extend now, and in addition to new money, Arod would essentially trade "conditional" last two contract years to get guaranteed money. Plus team has extra leverage with tags. 

Jordy did this a couple of times. He chose to take early extensions and security coming with it, and ended up with "team friendly" deals that were small compared with top UFAs. With hindsight, he could've/should've waited until he was UFA to max the cash. Then again, had he not taken the extension and had blown his ACL in 2014, he would've lost a TON of money.

Overall, there's no reason to think teams would just bend over and accept giving fully guaranteed contracts to many/all players without the players trading something in return. It COULD be done with the next CBA, but it would be a helluva fight.

[vegas492]

Hit me this weekend that GB actually has money under the cap still.  I wouldn't mind it if they front loaded the structure and sucked up all remaining cap space (except for rookie allotment).  There likely isn't going to be a free agent of much worth come due now, so might as well pay as much to Aaron as you can in 2018 and lessen that hit in future years when the money may actually be used.

[Gopher Trace]

 While the athletes seem to be making crazy money, it's not really all that much relative to the amount their teams are raking in. And those that are lucky enough to play for a while only really have that income for some 10 years or so of their lives before retiring from the sport and having basically no income. Sure, some can go into TV or whatnot but not all of them have that ability. Often they run into financial problems down the road.

In light of that, I actually think the cap should be higher and players should be getting paid more (particularly lower-level players that do not see big paydays, although realistically, that will raise it for all), and/or they should have a better pension system. JMO!

[Pugger]

17 hours ago, Kepler said:

That's the thing though. If he was truly carrying the whole team wouldn't he have more championships? His play in the postseason hasn't been great.

How can he carry the team to playoff exits? Either he carries the team or he doesn't. 

One guy shouldn't be carrying a team sport.  If it wasn't for him we wouldn't even sniff the playoffs.  His absence last season should be evidence enough.

 

[Packer_ESP]

2 hours ago, vegas492 said:

Hit me this weekend that GB actually has money under the cap still.  I wouldn't mind it if they front loaded the structure and sucked up all remaining cap space (except for rookie allotment).  There likely isn't going to be a free agent of much worth come due now, so might as well pay as much to Aaron as you can in 2018 and lessen that hit in future years when the money may actually be used.

Any remaining cap space rolls over to the next year anyway so it doesn't make a difference.

[MacReady]

Just now, Pugger said:

One guy shouldn't be carrying a team sport.  If it wasn't for him we wouldn't even sniff the playoffs.  His absence last season should be evidence enough.

 

The Packers held the Seahawks to how many short fields, how many points and forced how many turnovers in that Championship game?  Rodgers was able to turn five turnovers - FIVE TURNOVERS - in that Seahawks game into 22 points.  On 34 attempts, Rodgers threw for 178 yards, 1 touchdown and 2 interceptions. 

In the 2010 Championship game, he had a QB rating of 55.  2 interceptions, 0 touchdowns. 

Aaron Rodgers hasn't carried this team to Super Bowls. 

[Joe]

3 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

The Packers held the Seahawks to how many short fields, how many points and forced how many turnovers in that Championship game?  Rodgers was able to turn five turnovers - FIVE TURNOVERS - in that Seahawks game into 22 points.  On 34 attempts, Rodgers threw for 178 yards, 1 touchdown and 2 interceptions. 

In the 2010 Championship game, he had a QB rating of 55.  2 interceptions, 0 touchdowns. 

Aaron Rodgers hasn't carried this team to Super Bowls. 

I have to shoot this argument down. First, we were on the road in Seattle against one of the best defenses of all time. If it isn't for our repeated liability on ST's, we go to the Super Bowl and win. Against Chicago, we had no running game and the condition of the field was quite poor which usually helps the running game; something we didn't have that year. Rodgers' elusiveness was taken away due to the conditions of the field so he couldn't extend plays.

Rodgers has been able to carry this team because we've been playing on the road in domes, which significantly helps the offense. That's why we've been in a ton of shootouts.

[Kepler]

34 minutes ago, Joe said:

I have to shoot this argument down. First, we were on the road in Seattle against one of the best defenses of all time. If it isn't for our repeated liability on ST's, we go to the Super Bowl and win. Against Chicago, we had no running game and the condition of the field was quite poor which usually helps the running game; something we didn't have that year. Rodgers' elusiveness was taken away due to the conditions of the field so he couldn't extend plays.

Rodgers has been able to carry this team because we've been playing on the road in domes, which significantly helps the offense. That's why we've been in a ton of shootouts.

That isn't really shooting down his argument as much as it's excusing Aaron's poor playoff performances. If he's a guy that expects to be the highest paid player in the league for as long as he's playing, then he must do better than those paltry performances when the games matter most. Just getting the packers into the playoffs doesn't automatically justify being the highest paid player ever year after year. He has to carry the team on his back, in the playoffs, and provide super bowls. Otherwise he's the just second best player, to you know who, with the highest salary. 

[MacReady]

Rodgers has had poor playoff performances quite frequently, actually.  The worst of which might have been the 2011 season considering the receiving talent he had and the game he produced.  Then he had two poor losses against the Niners.  He isn't carrying this team.  2016 is the only season you could say Rodgers carried the team. 

[Packerraymond]

5 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Rodgers has had poor playoff performances quite frequently, actually.  The worst of which might have been the 2011 season considering the receiving talent he had and the game he produced.  Then he had two poor losses against the Niners.  He isn't carrying this team.  2016 is the only season you could say Rodgers carried the team. 

Every player has poor games, the rate at which Rodgers does is less frequent than others. I'm still not sure your point. Amazing defenses have poor games, see Minnesota and Jacksonville in the playoffs and Philly in the SB. 

The best total team performance wins, but QB is the most important piece to that equation.

[MacReady]

The only point I'm trying to make is that Rodgers isn't carrying this team the way people act like he is.  He's not consistently putting up 30 point games in the playoffs or anything.  I'm not saying we should expect that out of him because that's too much to expect out of any QB.  Just don't act like he's been carrying this team since day one. 

 

[skibrett15]

On 3/25/2018 at 10:38 AM, spilltray said:

Hasn't his current contract worked out to 14-16% every year?

no, last year he was 12%, this year 13%. he is 15th in qb cap hit.

 

As I mentioned over and over in the early parts of this thread, qb salaries are not even close to being maxed out.  There's no reason you can't field a competitive team with allocating 20%+ to the QB position so long as that player is actually an elite QB (one of the top 2-3 in the game at the time).  If that player is an all time great elite player like Rodgers or Brady, I think 25% could be justified from an economic point of view.

[mikemike778]

I'm Ok with a guaranteed contract for Rodgers if the year average is OK.

If he goes down with a career ender or has a disastrous slump then you are probably in full rebuild mode anyway. Cut, pay out the mother and father and dead money hit the next year and decide what you want to do with the Number 1 overall. 

If he wants a yearly average that is going to cripple the cap then just let him play out the next 2 years and if he hasn't gone downhill get out the franchise tags.

[Kepler]

1 hour ago, Packerraymond said:

Every player has poor games, the rate at which Rodgers does is less frequent than others. I'm still not sure your point. Amazing defenses have poor games, see Minnesota and Jacksonville in the playoffs and Philly in the SB. 

The best total team performance wins, but QB is the most important piece to that equation.

I don't know about that. I'd have to do some looking, but if I was a betting man I'd wager Rodgers is about a 50/50 toss up as to whether he has a good playoff game or not. 

[TheBitzMan]

Rodgers playoff numbers are better than Brady in every category except WINZ. The games that we have lost are all defensive failures. Could he have played better in Seattle? of course. It is more nuanced than that though. Was he playing on one leg? yes. Did MM get extra conservative? yes. Did we lose an onside kick? yes. Aaron did enough to win that game. 

Every other playoff loss we have had under Rodgers can basically be attributed to the defense. He doesn't owe anyone a discount and his wife isn't worth $350 million.