Aaron Rodgers and new contract

[SSG]

14 hours ago, pacman5252 said:

AR has two years on his deal. His deal shouldn’t be anyone’s concern. My argument is if wasn’t for talking heads (who can get ratings by saying Rodgers in a sentence), this topic wouldn’t be on anyone’s radar. 

Don't think this is the case.  AR12's contract is a talking point for the same reason AJ Green and Julio Jones have been talking about their respective contracts (they've got different views on their respective deals which both have multiple years left on them).  Anytime a great player is grossly underpaid it's going to be discussed.  

[Siman08/OH]

Is this thing going to get done?

[driftwood]

38 minutes ago, Siman08/OH said:

Is this thing going to get done?

you know this is a weird situation where you have to wonder if it pays off to wait (assuming AR will only command more guaranteed the more time it takes to get a deal done) or getting a deal done sooner to cash in on 'new money' which will arguably be roughly 10 mill more per year to what hes currently averaging? also hes not getting younger so i imagine this isnt something thats gonna wait till 2019 when he enters his current final deal year (obviously if he suffers another significant injury in the next season or 2 that could bite him on an overall value standpoint if for whatever reason he chooses to wait it out)

him & his camp have never really struck me as a guy that wants to break the bank/ruin the packers cap... hes always took team friendly deals in the past but at the same time the packers have always rewarded him well in advance seemingly on a good faith standard which hes always delivered on

i wonder if its different this time around because he knows its likely the last 'big deal' he'll get since i cant see him commanding a record breaking deal in 5+ more years as he approaches 40

& i also worry this time around that he'll have a 'get out trade clause' worked into his next deal in case he starts to get 'sensitive about something' which hes shown a little over the years

as a selfish fan i wanna see him get a 'retire here' deal but i know those things dont often go smoothly anymore

[MacReady]

3 hours ago, Siman08/OH said:

Is this thing going to get done?

Hope not.  Let him help us win the Super Bowl this year, have him demand 18% of the cap every year, have Gute know that's not gonna cut it, trade him for a King's ransom, have like 4 first round picks next year, 2 the year after, control the draft for the next four years and build a dynasty with the QB who makes us forget about Rodgers the way Rodgers helped us forget Favre.

[Arthur Penske]

5 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Hope not.  Let him help us win the Super Bowl this year, have him demand 18% of the cap every year, have Gute know that's not gonna cut it, trade him for a King's ransom, have like 4 first round picks next year, 2 the year after, control the draft for the next four years and build a dynasty with the QB who makes us forget about Rodgers the way Rodgers helped us forget Favre.

[Packerraymond]

10 minutes ago, ArthurPensky said:

Tempted to make 10 usernames just to like it 10 times.

[Scoremore]

17 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Hope not.  Let him help us win the Super Bowl this year, have him demand 18% of the cap every year, have Gute know that's not gonna cut it, trade him for a King's ransom, have like 4 first round picks next year, 2 the year after, control the draft for the next four years and build a dynasty with the QB who makes us forget about Rodgers the way Rodgers helped us forget Favre.

I'd actually be ok with that scenario.  It's unlikely though.  Have to remember how hard it is to find franchise QB's.  We have been very fortunate in GB.  Next time around we might not be so lucky.  If we sign him to a top deal that's ok.  The opt out clause is not.  If they want the opt out is pretty much negates a long term deal anyway.  No incentive for the Packers to do that.  If they do I will quickly lose faith in the front office.  Ideally would love for Aaron to finish his career in GB.  Still want him to get a few games under his belt before committing to a deal.  If he's the same old Aaron then sure make him the highest paid guy now and lock him up for the rest of his career.  High early on in the deal but reap the benefit on the back end.  An opt out clause would make any kind of deal like this pointless.  If they insist on opt out then at that point it's time to draft a replacement.  Make him play out his contract tag and trade him away.

[SSG]

1 hour ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Hope not.  Let him help us win the Super Bowl this year, have him demand 18% of the cap every year, have Gute know that's not gonna cut it, trade him for a King's ransom, have like 4 first round picks next year, 2 the year after, control the draft for the next four years and build a dynasty with the QB who makes us forget about Rodgers the way Rodgers helped us forget Favre.

The idea that you can build a dynasty around any warm bodied QB is down right hysterical.  You honestly believe that we're going to have back to back to back HOF QBs?  No team in  NFL history has done it and we're going to be the first? 

You really want to flush the immediate future of the franchise down the toilet and hand an unproven GM the keys to franchise's future?  

[OneTwoSixFive]

Has someone been messing with that dial on HorizontoZenith's head ?

[Siman08/OH]

Listen. Anyone who wants Aaron Rodgers gone is an idiot and has no valid opinion here.

Brett Favre was my, and a good amount of Packers fans all time favorite players. The man was a legend for more than just football. As a beer swillen’ deer hunting country boy, he was the perfect NFL player. Hes a top 10 ALL TIME NFL QB.

But...Aaron Rodgers litteraly does everything better at QB than Favre. He has 4-5 years of prime football left, and he single handedly takes us to the playoffs every year. Take it from a Cavs fan...you dont want the King to leave. The Packers were rough to watch without Rodgers last year (and 2013) and will be rough to watch again when he leaves. 

Pay him a fair deal making him the highest paid ever and just roll with it.

Gute...please get this done soon.

[Arthur Penske]

18 hours ago, SSG said:

The idea that you can build a dynasty around any warm bodied QB is down right hysterical.  You honestly believe that we're going to have back to back to back HOF QBs?  No team in  NFL history has done it and we're going to be the first? 

You really want to flush the immediate future of the franchise down the toilet and hand an unproven GM the keys to franchise's future?  

Well, it's gotta be pretty easy to find a franchise or HOF QB. Chicago, Cleveland, et al have done such a good job at it over the years.

[MacReady]

18 hours ago, SSG said:

You honestly believe that we're going to have back to back to back HOF QBs?  No team in  NFL history has done it and we're going to be the first?

Lol.  L... Lol.  Lol, what?  I'll take back-to-back Hall of Fame quarterbacks for 200, 400 and 600, Alex.

Who is Joe Montana and Steve Young, Alex?
Who is Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers, Alex?
Who is Norm Van Brocklin and Sony Jurgenson, Alex?

25 minutes ago, ArthurPensky said:

Well, it's gotta be pretty easy to find a franchise or HOF QB. Chicago, Cleveland, et al have done such a good job at it over the years.

These are teams that are constantly hiring/firing coaches, making poor drafting and personnel decisions.  You can all choose to act like it's impossible to build a team and that you need that franchise QB, but it's simply not true.

The Eagles built up draft revenue, got their QB, won a Super Bowl without him.  You think Carson Wentz would have been Carson Wentz with the Browns or Bears?  You're wrong.

The Seahawks built up draft revenue, got their QB, won a Super Bowl without even needing him.

The Ravens built up draft revenue, got their QB, won a Super Bowl with him being the alrightest QB in the league. 

Everybody is acting like this is the late 90's and early 2000's.  It isn't.  This is 2018 when the NFL desperately wants quarterbacks and does everything to help build quarterbacks. 

In or around 2007, passing in the NFL Changed forever.  It made the search for quarterbacks significantly easier. 

Watson, Goff, Wentz, Winston, Mariota, Bortles, Luck, Griffin, Tannehill, Newton, Stafford, Ryan. 

12 quarterbacks drafted in the top half of the draft since 2007 who have shown tremendous talent and/or made it to the playoffs. 
Goff - Sucked with a crap system.
Winston - Performed well in spite of having no brain.
Mariota - Has won a playoff game in spite of having Wisenhunt and Mularkey as a head coach.
Bortles - Made it to the Championship game. 
Griffin - Was one of the best young QBs in the league until he got hurt and lost Shanahan. 
Tannehill - consecutive 4,000 yard seasons and a playoff appearance.

Even the questionable on this list have had success. 

Trubisky, Manuel, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder, Bradford, Sanchez, Russell. 

8 quarterbacks drafted in the top 16 since 2007 that have been busts. 
Trubisky - Could very well become a franchise QB, jury still out.
Manuel - Drafted by a team that sucked and had no business drafting any QB (much less Manuel).
Locker - Drafted by a team that sucked at drafting and sucked period. 
Ponder - Bust who happened to make it to the playoffs twice.
Bradford - Bust who managed to have success once he got out of a crap team with a crap system.
Sanchez - The second biggest bust on the list and he still managed to get to the NFC Championship game two years in a row.  Imagine that.  Rodgers hasn't done that. 
Russell - Nobody had any business drafting him. 

So if it's so damn impossible to find a franchise QB, why is it that over the past ten years, more franchise quarterbacks have been drafted in the top half of the draft than have busted?  Look at the teams that have drafted busts:

Bears, Bills, Titans, Jaguars, Vikings, Rams (with Fisher, who just had Keenum, Foles and Goff turn their careers around in his absence), Jets and Raiders.

It's almost like bad teams draft bad quarterbacks and good teams draft good quarterbacks.  What tremendous luck. 

 

It's so easy to accuse me of being the unrealistic one, and yet the facts are clearly available for anyone who wants to see them. 

The NFL right now is the best coach in the league (Belichick) with the second best QB in the league.  People need to remember that Belichick won three Super Bowls with Brady before Brady ever threw for 4,000 yards OR 30 touchdowns, under 12 interceptions or over a 92.6 QB rating. 

He was beaten three times in the Super Bowl by teams with inferior quarterbacks, better teams.  Why does nobody get and understand this?  If it was all about QB, why in the actual eff did Eli effing Manning beat Brady twice, and why in the damn actual damn effing hell did Nick Foles beat Tom Brady? 

If it was all about the QB, Rodgers would have gotten to the Super Bowl more than once. 

Everybody in the league overrates the QB position when it's clearly draft capital and top half QB play that provides the best route to Super Bowl wins. 

While you're all laughing at me saying I'm crazy, I'm over here watching 7 straight years of inferior quarterbacks on superior teams winning Super Bowls due to better draft capital and better teams. 

I pity all of you because I was in the same spot you're all at with Brett Favre making fun of the same people saying the same things I'm saying about Rodgers about Favre.  It sucks when you realize that the NFL isn't about the QB, so I understand why none of you want to accept it, but the Packers will never win a Super Bowl with Rodgers taking up 15% of the salary cap.  Fact is Rodgers is 1/9 in getting to Super Bowls and I'm the crazy one for wanting to replicate 5/10 Super Bowl odds. 

 

[KingOfTheNorth]

You pity us, and we laugh at your arrogance. We have all learned  that stats tell an incomplete tale. Sure, Flacco is a below average QB. But he showed up and played at a Franchise QB level when it mattered. Even when you brought up the Seahawks SB with Wilson. You said they didn't need him to win the SB. Which is a mislead, because they don't get to the SB without Wilson. So they did need that Franchise QB to get to where they wanted.

 

 

 

[MacReady]

Just now, KingOfTheNorth said:

You pity us, and we laugh at your arrogance. We have all learned  that stats tell an incomplete tale. Sure, Flacco is a below average QB. But he showed up and played at a Franchise QB level when it mattered. Even when you brought up the Seahawks SB with Wilson. You said they didn't need him to win the SB. Which is a mislead, because they don't get to the SB without Wilson. So they did need that Franchise QB to get to where they wanted.

How well have the Seahawks done since they've paid Wilson? 

How well have the Ravens done since they've paid Flacco?

Is it a coincidence that Brady and Eli Manning have been paid low salaries relative to what they're worth and are the only two quarterbacks to win multiple Super Bowls in the last 11 years? 

I'm not opposed to keeping Rodgers.  I'm opposed to giving Rodgers a contract that will cripple our ability to put a team around him good enough to win a Super Bowl.

It's not about the QB in this league, and anyone who thinks otherwise is flat wrong.  If it was all about QB, Peyton Manning would have won a Super Bowl without sucking in the playoffs.  He never won a Super Bowl without a horrible postseason.  Ever.  If it was about the QB, Brady and Rodgers would have won each of the last X amount of Super Bowls.  Rodgers has been there once. 

[KingOfTheNorth]

You cannot say that the falloff for the Seahawks and Ravens are directly related to the salaries of the 2. No stat in the world will prove this because there are just too many variables. You can give me a stat saying it does prove it and I will throw one right back at you disproving it.

 

Its not ONLY about the QB , but the QB has the most impact on a game. You can't dispute that.

 

My biggest issue with your posts are you always have to try and validate everything you say by acting like its fact. Your opinion is not fact. It is only an opinion, and we have just as much right to one as you do. Saying that if someone disagrees with you they are wrong is just being close minded.