Rodgers Watch 2023

[go pak go]

I am reposting the "offending" response so that an accurate take can had.

I didn't find it all that offending either. Rodgers is almost 40 and might be almost the same age as Romeo's parents (Doubs is 22 years old). Outside of football there probably isn't much they have in common.

The tweet was in response to Doubs from budfox saying how immature and unprofessional Romeo Doubs was for saying he never really hung out with Aaron outside the facility to have a funny story.

BTW. I hate those questions.

[BF004]

I am reposting the "offending" response so that an accurate take can be had.

Thank you, was just gunna repost this for [mention]Yoop[/mention] as well.

Just nothing there and I'm sure he by no means thought he was going to be starting some kind of weird controversy that people with agendas exploit.

[TheSkeptic]

I am reposting the "offending" response so that an accurate take can be had.

I think there IS something in this report and the problem is NOT Doubs. It would be very interesting to ask Doubs if he ever hung out with Jordan Love or for that matter with Mercedes Lewis who IS in the same generation as Rodgers. Odds are pretty good that he has, that most of the players have hung out with most of the other players regardless of age or race.

Rodgers does not have a wife and kids in Green Bay to go home to. He could have invited all the O rookies to dinner. That is what a good leader would have done. There is no excuse.

[APB]

Rodgers definitely has a no trade clause. Its called retirement. He mentions that word to any team trying to trade for him and that deal over.

He doesn't tell the Packers. He tells other teams and they pull their offers.

Ingalls is an idiot.

I think what Ingall's (and I earlier) was trying to highlight is Rodgers doesn't have a no-trade clause, he basically has a retirement option. If he doesn't like the team he's being dealt to, his only option is to retire. I'm sure there'd be some clause involved outlining no trade compensation would be rendered if Rodgers is a no-show but a new team could take on his contract along with his rights and there is nothing Rodgers could do about it.

Now, that said, I'm sure the Packers would try and make an amicable deal that benefits both the team AND Rodgers but to say Rodgers has final say in a deal, or a no-trade clause, is overstating things.

Side note: I think this tangent has been explored (trade/draft pick compensation) about as far as it needs to go, relative to the topic. We can continue this conversation in the Rodgers thread if you all care to continue to explore the trivialities of his trade/no-trade status.

Mod edit: post moved to this thread from the 2023 Draft Discussion thread.

[Labrev]

I don't believe for a second that Mgmt is not including Rodgers in any of their conversations about his future. I'm sure they are having -some- internal (and external, i.e. trade offer) conversations that he is not a part of, but the idea that Rodgers isn't part of the talks at all is ludicrous.

It sounds to me like Rodgers sees some other team(s) he would rather play for, but doesn't want the legions of fans that still admire him to think he'd choose another team over theirs, that would break their hearts, or maybe even (worse yet) sour their opinion of him.

I think he wants to promote the idea that the team just does not want him back in GB, much as he *wants* to be back, so don't hate/blame me for asking to go to [__insert his eventual next team here__].

[Yoop]

Thank you, was just gunna repost this for @Yoop as well.

Just nothing there and I'm sure he by no means thought he was going to be starting some kind of weird controversy that people with agendas exploit.

what agenda? I never saw this clip before, if I had, my opinion may have been different, I rarely go to packer wire, or other football related media sources, I get most football info right here, so naturally I'am a day behind often, which is the case concerning what Doubs actually said.
I wish when people would read something like this they would post it right away, that way we would all be more informed when we discuss or voice our opinions I know I fail to do so too.

I thought someone here said he has hung out after hours with Love and some of the other younger players.
but over all it is a nothing burger, and is a lousy question to ask a rookie.

[Yoop]

I don't believe for a second that Mgmt is not including Rodgers in any of their conversations about his future. I'm sure they are having -some- internal (and external, i.e. trade offer) conversations that he is not a part of, but the idea that Rodgers isn't part of the talks at all is ludicrous.

It sounds to me like Rodgers sees some other team(s) he would rather play for, but doesn't want the legions of fans that still admire him to think he'd choose another team over theirs, that would break their hearts, or maybe even (worse yet) sour their opinion of him.

I think he wants to promote the idea that the team just does not want him back in GB, much as he *wants* to be back, so don't hate/blame me for asking to go to [__insert his eventual next team here__].

why because he said " there are conversations going on that I'am not a part of" ? obviously thats true, Packer Beat writers have Rodgers packing his bags already, your assuming something Rodgers never said to my knowledge, and this front office has a history of not informing players till after the deal is done.

actually the TEAM is on record for saying they want him back, the loudest voice not to are you and Skeptic

[BF004]

Thank you, was just gunna repost this for @Yoop as well.

Just nothing there and I'm sure he by no means thought he was going to be starting some kind of weird controversy that people with agendas exploit.

what agenda? I never saw this clip before, if I had, my opinion may have been different, I rarely go to packer wire, or other football related media sources, I get most football info right here, so naturally I'am a day behind often, which is the case concerning what Doubs actually said.
I wish when people would read something like this they would post it right away, that way we would all be more informed when we discuss or voice our opinions I know I fail to do so too.

I thought someone here said he has hung out after hours with Love and some of the other younger players.
but over all it is a nothing burger, and is a lousy question to ask a rookie.

If you look two posts above your post I am quoting here, you will find an agenda.

And I believe that exact tweet was posted like 2 days ago, which sparked the topic.

[Yoop]

Thank you, was just gunna repost this for @Yoop as well.

Just nothing there and I'm sure he by no means thought he was going to be starting some kind of weird controversy that people with agendas exploit.

what agenda? I never saw this clip before, if I had, my opinion may have been different, I rarely go to packer wire, or other football related media sources, I get most football info right here, so naturally I'am a day behind often, which is the case concerning what Doubs actually said.
I wish when people would read something like this they would post it right away, that way we would all be more informed when we discuss or voice our opinions I know I fail to do so too.

I thought someone here said he has hung out after hours with Love and some of the other younger players.
but over all it is a nothing burger, and is a lousy question to ask a rookie.

If you look two posts above your post I am quoting here, you will find an agenda.

And I believe that exact tweet was posted like 2 days ago, which sparked the topic.

again, post the tweets, Bud probably didn't see it either, point is without actually hearing what he said, it did come off as disrespectful of Rodgers, which if your honest seems like the intent of the question in the first place, she was baiting him to diss Rodgers, and to his credit he didn't

no one had a agenda, just mis informed.

which wont end unless members bring what they read so that everyone can form a valid opinion.

[Pckfn23]

BF posted this VERY video/tweet Friday of last week. [mention]bud fox[/mention] posted 3 posts later in reference to it. [mention]Yoop[/mention] posted right after bud fox quoting bud's post. Click the little up arrow right next to "BF004 wrote:" to jump to the post.

[Labrev]

why because he said " there are conversations going on that I'am not a part of" ? obviously thats true, Packer Beat writers have Rodgers packing his bags already, your assuming something Rodgers never said to my knowledge, and this front office has a history of not informing players till after the deal is done.

re: "history" of not informing players till after... more recently than said history, Rodgers has said that the FO's communication with him has been great.

And when communication was bad, Rodgers was so angry over it that he wanted out.

So if communication is still good, the idea that they are not communicating with him about his future on the team is not credible.

But if you would have us believe that the communication has gotten bad again (as before), then that is more reason to believe Rodgers wants to go somewhere else, because that's what he wanted last time communication was bad.

actually the TEAM is on record for saying they want him back

I mean yeah, what else are they gonna say?

Either they really do want him back, so acting like they are open to moving him will just risk alienating the guy to a point where he may not want to play for them.
-OR-
They do want to move on, in which case, all they do by admitting it in public is lose leverage.

the loudest voice not to are you and Skeptic

[bud fox]

He doesn't tell the Packers. He tells other teams and they pull their offers.

Ingalls is an idiot.

I think what Ingall's (and I earlier) was trying to highlight is Rodgers doesn't have a no-trade clause, he basically has a retirement option. If he doesn't like the team he's being dealt to, his only option is to retire. I'm sure there'd be some clause involved outlining no trade compensation would be rendered if Rodgers is a no-show but a new team could take on his contract along with his rights and there is nothing Rodgers could do about it.

Now, that said, I'm sure the Packers would try and make an amicable deal that benefits both the team AND Rodgers but to say Rodgers has final say in a deal, or a no-trade clause, is overstating things.

Side note: I think this tangent has been explored (trade/draft pick compensation) about as far as it needs to go, relative to the topic. We can continue this conversation in the Rodgers thread if you all care to continue to explore the trivialities of his trade/no-trade status.

Ingalls whole point was Rodgers can threaten gb he will retire to influence trade options.

However it is completely wrong because he wouldn't threaten gb, he would threaten the other team and they would pill their offer.

Mod edit: post moved to this thread from the 2023 Draft Discussion thread.

[bud fox]

Can't believe a nobody 4th Rd receiver made those comments about starting hof qb.

In 90s or earlier you wouldn't be hearing about that wr again.

Shows how unprofessional and immature these kids are.

If you watch his interview, I don’t think he did anything wrong. He was asked point blank a question.

It’s just this 24/7 media cycle, we just hear and see everything. To be a nobody and make the news in the 90’s, you’d have to do something really big. This was a nothing, imo.

Yeah I don't think he intended it to be bad but it was. It is a mistake that shouldn't happen.

Next he will say he can't wait until stenavich is the head coach as he is so good and he has never spent any time with MLF

[bud fox]

Anyway in other news with Brady retiring Rodgers is definitely back.

He doesn't want to be inducted same year as Brady.

[Crazylegs Starks]

If you watch his interview, I don’t think he did anything wrong. He was asked point blank a question.

It’s just this 24/7 media cycle, we just hear and see everything. To be a nobody and make the news in the 90’s, you’d have to do something really big. This was a nothing, imo.

Yeah, in the 90's, if you wanted to know anything at all about the inner goings-on or non-star players, you had to put in the work, so to speak. I loved reading Packers Plus in those days just to get the info that didn't make ESPN or the nightly sports. That was before Bob McGinn got all cranky, too, so his articles were among the best.

[Yoop]

my bad for not actually reading what 004 brought last friday concerning what some rookie said about Rodgers, the purpose of the question was to get Doubs to smear his QB, I doubt I'll ever pay attention or read anything that gal ever has to say about anything, and probably why I didn't bother to this time.

[Pckfn23]

It was a video. It was a fairly innocuous question. I do not believe there was any nefarious motive behind the question. I do not believe there is anything wrong with the answer Doubs gave. I do not believe the answer implicated Aaron Rodgers in anything or cast him a poor light.

[Yoop]

why because he said " there are conversations going on that I'am not a part of" ? obviously thats true, Packer Beat writers have Rodgers packing his bags already, your assuming something Rodgers never said to my knowledge, and this front office has a history of not informing players till after the deal is done.

re: "history" of not informing players till after... more recently than said history, Rodgers has said that the FO's communication with him has been great.

And when communication was bad, Rodgers was so angry over it that he wanted out.

So if communication is still good, the idea that they are not communicating with him about his future on the team is not credible.

But if you would have us believe that the communication has gotten bad again (as before), then that is more reason to believe Rodgers wants to go somewhere else, because that's what he wanted last time communication was bad.

actually the TEAM is on record for saying they want him back

I mean yeah, what else are they gonna say?

Either they really do want him back, so acting like they are open to moving him will just risk alienating the guy to a point where he may not want to play for them.
-OR-
They do want to move on, in which case, all they do by admitting it in public is lose leverage.

the loudest voice not to are you and Skeptic

we don't really know who he was referring to, just there are conversations, and just like this one we are having right now, it's just speculation, basically another nothing, nothing Burger, we'll know whether it's edible once the condiments are on the table

[Yoop]

It was a video. It was a fairly innocuous question. I do not believe there was any nefarious motive behind the question. I do not believe there is anything wrong with the answer Doubs gave. I do not believe the answer implicated Aaron Rodgers in anything or cast him a poor light.

are you serious? so then you think it's the norm for news people to be inquisitive about whether rookies spend after hour time with HOF QB's twice there age, that was a totally off the wall question, what Doubs should have said is, what did Rodgers say, I don't want to put my QB on the spot.

Maggie and Perlof

[Pckfn23]

I think it is fairly common for reporters to ask players about their personal lives and their interactions with other players. Doubs' answer does nothing to tarnish Aaron Rodgers or tarnish himself. Should he have answered it as suggested it would have created a different buzz that also meant nothing. While the question may have been unfair and put Doubs on the spot, neither that or the answer are indicative of anything.