Rodgers Watch 2023

[BF004]

So where do we want and not want Derek Carr to sign?

Differing if we trade Rodgers or Love, probably just want him in the AFC if we keep both.

[RingoCStarrQB]

So where do we want and not want Derek Carr to sign?

Differing if we trade Rodgers or Love, probably just want him in the AFC if we keep both.

Cleveland.

[Pugger]

Carr may have a bigger market for his services than Rodgers when you consider that carr prolly wants to play for several more years and hel be cheap to pay and free to acquire

Yes. Rodgers' age and high salary could make some GMs pause. Plus a team can sign Carr and not have to give up any assets ( draft picks and/or players) and have him for more than just a couple of years.

[Labrev]

So as we know, the Packers say they will take Rodgers back if he is "all-in" on being back. And as I have said before and will say again, we don't get to keep both Rodgers and Love, Love is in a contract year and has to play or he misses out on tens of millions (trust me, we don't want to be the a-hole org that does him dirty by denying that).

I think one of the things our Mgmt will want Aaron to agree to is, in addition to him accepting that some guys he likes like Cobb are not gonna be here, that they are going to want to get a new developmental QB to groom behind him, and that he has to be okay with that.

On the one hand, I don't think Rodgers is too unreasonable to accept that. On the other hand, it means our Round 1 pick is not being used to win now, and that could be tough to swallow (reminds me of how Ben Roethlisberger complained about PIT drafting Mason Rudolph in Round 2 because it doesn't help them win now, even though it was like the third or fourth year in a row he flirted with retiring... QB1s are such divas).

[APB]

I think one of the things our Mgmt will want Aaron to agree to is, in addition to him accepting that some guys he likes like Cobb are not gonna be here, that they are going to want to get a new developmental QB to groom behind him, and that he has to be okay with that.

On the one hand, I don't think Rodgers is too unreasonable to accept that. On the other hand, it means our Round 1 pick is not being used to win now, and that could be tough to swallow

I don't know if I'd categorize a top 15 QB pick as "developmental". To me, that'd be admitting they're not confident in Love and they basically begged Rodgers back to cover their butts another year.

[Drj820]

So as we know, the Packers say they will take Rodgers back if he is "all-in" on being back. And as I have said before and will say again, we don't get to keep both Rodgers and Love, Love is in a contract year and has to play or he misses out on tens of millions (trust me, we don't want to be the a-hole org that does him dirty by denying that).

I think one of the things our Mgmt will want Aaron to agree to is, in addition to him accepting that some guys he likes like Cobb are not gonna be here, that they are going to want to get a new developmental QB to groom behind him, and that he has to be okay with that.

On the one hand, I don't think Rodgers is too unreasonable to accept that. On the other hand, it means our Round 1 pick is not being used to win now, and that could be tough to swallow (reminds me of how Ben Roethlisberger complained about PIT drafting Mason Rudolph in Round 2 because it doesn't help them win now, even though it was like the third or fourth year in a row he flirted with retiring... QB1s are such divas).

Few things...first off, you make good points.

Now:

The contract the Packers gave Rodgers last year was beyond egregious. Absolutely ridiculous to put ourselves in cap hell for such an unstable dance partner. There should be absolutely no decision for Rodgers based on the contract he signed. It should just be understood that when he signed it, he was committed for a two year process. That thinking would also give some justification for drafting rookies and bringing in only hammy watkins..because the plan all along was to give the rookies two years to develop with Rodgers

Next, I agree now is the time for Love to either play here or somewhere else. We have to give him the chance to earn his bag next year. The decision is simple..if we think Love can play..he should be our QB, despite the bad contract we gave 12. If we do not think he can play, then we have to once again beg 12 back, and we should just cut bait with Love. You see, I dont believe the coaches should have to see Love for a year on the field before they judge him. That would be nice, but its not necessary. Theyve seen him for three years now. He run the PS offense every day. They know what he is. They have enough information to make a decision.

Finally, if the decision is that "we have to placate Rodgers because we dont trust Love"...I demand some accountability because the decision to draft Love has cost division, pain, and real assets. It cost us a 4th rounder that we dont know who it would be, and it cost us a player that could have been helping us all along. A player that could have helped us beat Tampa two years ago.

That was a legacy defining move for Gutey, if he whiffed, he should be held to account.

[APB]

Add this anonymous scout's assessment of Rodgers' play when contemplating whether he should be welcomed back. I guarantee that other teams have their own scouts offering similar viewpoints.

[Scott4Pack]

Good points DrJ. But I think the decision is only part of what Rodgers or Love can or cannot do at this point. The other side is the fact that Rodgers is only getting older. Guty needs to make a guess as to how much career this guy has remaining and go from that point forward. Once he decides that, then it’s about whether you want to let go of a great QB too early or too late. (We know what Lombardi would say about that.)

I really think there is not a wrong decision for Guty to make here. That said, we need to adjust expectations for whatever his decision will be.

This team might be a playoff team in 2023 either way. That probably depends upon what the defense will do, as much or more than what the QB will do. We have a good roster. If ever there were a time for a GM to let go of a great QB, it’s when he has a strong roster.

[Labrev]

I think one of the things our Mgmt will want Aaron to agree to is, in addition to him accepting that some guys he likes like Cobb are not gonna be here, that they are going to want to get a new developmental QB to groom behind him, and that he has to be okay with that.

On the one hand, I don't think Rodgers is too unreasonable to accept that. On the other hand, it means our Round 1 pick is not being used to win now, and that could be tough to swallow

I don't know if I'd categorize a top 15 QB pick as "developmental". To me, that'd be admitting they're not confident in Love and they basically begged Rodgers back to cover their butts another year.

I actually believe the org would let Rodgers return even if they think Love can play, with the idea that Rodgers has earned the right to remain QB1 given how much he has done for the 'org. And for them to be Classy Organization[TM].

[Labrev]

Add this anonymous scout's assessment of Rodgers' play when contemplating whether he should be welcomed back. I guarantee that other teams have their own scouts offering similar viewpoints.

I saw this, was going to post it as well.

They seem to have observed a lot of the same things that I did, which a few folks mindlessly denied. Such as, the arm has lost some juice. It's still the arm of a viable QB1, it's just not elite anymore. Another point I made was that Rodgers's magic comes largely from plays *outside* the pocket, but that now he's lost a step in foot speed and it's made him considerably less formiddible. The scout saw that too.

The claim that Rodgers doesn't put in the work is new, and a pretty bold one. I haven't heard anything like that before. That said, this is a guy who skips OTAs/minicamp and says "I'm not all ball all the time" so it would not exactly be out-of-character, either.

[Yoop]

another attempt to claim Rodgers lost it, never mind the lack of experience at WR, or poor pass pro which forced him to evade, Lafleur has dialed back the pitch point of our routes, which should have helped Rodgers get rid of the ball quicker ( when receivers get open on schedule his release is near quickest in the league), again the receiver situation last season ( not getting open, dropped passes, wrong routes) added to the broken thumb would make any QB look worse then they actually are.

He doesn't need to be the player he was 5 years ago.

personally I can't stand this media posing Rodgers, if he actually is this guy he portrays I've lost a ton of respect for him, but I aint some dummy to buy into all this BS

[BSA]

Add this anonymous scout's assessment of Rodgers' play when contemplating whether he should be welcomed back. I guarantee that other teams have their own scouts offering similar viewpoints.

There's some interesting comments in there - but I gotta say- the comments the article leans on are pretty lame.Take this one for example:

“He probably doesn’t put the work in,” the scout thought. “He thinks he knows everything, so he doesn’t put the work in to really understand what teams are doing to him."

This isn't based on anything factual - its what some random dude "thinks". WTF ?
And the writer uses the fact that its coming from a scout to give it credibility. It doesn't in this case. Show me some supporting data that Rodgers was unprepared on Sunday. You can't. The anonymous scout 100% just made that up. That's pretty lame

Everybody and their brother has an opinion on Rodgers, but way too much of it is lousy quality and reeks of an agenda.
I don't care if you want AR in GB or someplace else, but kindly stop throwing imaginary &%$@ at the wall just to get clicks.

NFL teams all have a multi-million $$ pro personnel group, they'll review the film and make the call. And sometimes GMs listen to the pro personnel guys and sometimes they disagree with them and go in a different direction. When I look at the corpse of Payton Manning SB 50 and compare that to 2022 Rodgers- I don't see the same level of dropoff in # 12. But 12 was always a better athlete than Manning.

[Pckfn23]

Add this anonymous scout's assessment of Rodgers' play when contemplating whether he should be welcomed back. I guarantee that other teams have their own scouts offering similar viewpoints.

I saw this, was going to post it as well.

They seem to have observed a lot of the same things that I did, which a few folks mindlessly denied. Such as, the arm has lost some juice. It's still the arm of a viable QB1, it's just not elite anymore. Another point I made was that Rodgers's magic comes largely from plays *outside* the pocket, but that now he's lost a step in foot speed and it's made him considerably less formiddible. The scout saw that too.

The claim that Rodgers doesn't put in the work is new, and a pretty bold one. I haven't heard anything like that before. That said, this is a guy who skips OTAs/minicamp and says "I'm not all ball all the time" so it would not exactly be out-of-character, either.

Interesting article. Unfortunately it won't be well received by some and they will dismiss it out of hand without critically looking at it.

I did find that put in the work part interesting. I took it to mean film dive, but I can also see where it means taking care of himself physically. I am not sure if he is known for working on his body as Tom Brady was, for example.

[go pak go]

Add this anonymous scout's assessment of Rodgers' play when contemplating whether he should be welcomed back. I guarantee that other teams have their own scouts offering similar viewpoints.

I saw this, was going to post it as well.

They seem to have observed a lot of the same things that I did, which a few folks mindlessly denied. Such as, the arm has lost some juice. It's still the arm of a viable QB1, it's just not elite anymore. Another point I made was that Rodgers's magic comes largely from plays *outside* the pocket, but that now he's lost a step in foot speed and it's made him considerably less formiddible. The scout saw that too.

The claim that Rodgers doesn't put in the work is new, and a pretty bold one. I haven't heard anything like that before. That said, this is a guy who skips OTAs/minicamp and says "I'm not all ball all the time" so it would not exactly be out-of-character, either.

Interesting article. Unfortunately it won't be well received by some and they will dismiss it out of hand without critically looking at it.

I did find that put in the work part interesting. I took it to mean film dive, but I can also see where it means taking care of himself physically. I am not sure if he is known for working on his body as Tom Brady was, for example.

The largest issue I had last year was defensive coordinators knew how Rodgers and the Packers would respond to their looks (think Jets, Pats, Washington, Lions). Last year was the first time I felt our offense truly got outsmarted by the opposing defense and I think that is where this comment comes from.

I feel there is an aura of "I'm the smartest in the room" when he has gotten surpassed as the smartest in the room and didn't put in the work to regain that smartest in the room spot.

[Labrev]

another attempt to claim Rodgers lost it, never mind the lack of experience at WR, or poor pass pro which forced him to evade, Lafleur has dialed back the pitch point of our routes, which should have helped Rodgers get rid of the ball quicker ( when receivers get open on schedule his release is near quickest in the league), again the receiver situation last season ( not getting open, dropped passes, wrong routes)

The observations made about Rodgers here relate to things that exist independently of the players around him.

His deep ball accuracy or passes not having enough air under them is not a WR or OL thing, it's an age/arm thing.

His legs not being able to evade defenders DL/LBs he could once evade is not a supporting cast thing, it's an athleticism thing.


By the way, nobody is claiming he is washed/done here, or even that he is not still "good," just that he is not Elite.

[Pckfn23]

Add this anonymous scout's assessment of Rodgers' play when contemplating whether he should be welcomed back. I guarantee that other teams have their own scouts offering similar viewpoints.

There's some interesting comments in there - but I gotta say- the comments the article leans on are pretty lame.Take this one for example:

“He probably doesn’t put the work in,” the scout thought. “He thinks he knows everything, so he doesn’t put the work in to really understand what teams are doing to him."

This isn't based on anything factual - its what some random dude "thinks". WTF ?
And the writer uses the fact that its coming from a scout to give it credibility. It doesn't in this case. Show me some supporting data that Rodgers was unprepared on Sunday. You can't. The anonymous scout 100% just made that up. That's pretty lame

Maybe it is lame, but maybe it does have SOME credibility. If defenses are changing to take advantage of Rodgers' skill set, but Rodgers is not changing the way he plays to combat that, wouldn't that kind of mean he isn't putting in the work? Doesn't that kind of go along with everything the article is talking about?

Everybody and their brother has an opinion on Rodgers, but way too much of it is lousy quality and reeks of an agenda. I don't care if you want AR in GB or someplace else, but kindly stop throwing imaginary &%$@ at the wall just to get clicks.

Would you say Rodgers' play this season was inexplicable at times? Like, things happened that you didn't expect from a 4 time MVP? While I agree with you to a point, there may be something to it, and then again, there may not be.

[Yoop]

So as we know, the Packers say they will take Rodgers back if he is "all-in" on being back. And as I have said before and will say again, we don't get to keep both Rodgers and Love, Love is in a contract year and has to play or he misses out on tens of millions (trust me, we don't want to be the a-hole org that does him dirty by denying that).

I think one of the things our Mgmt will want Aaron to agree to is, in addition to him accepting that some guys he likes like Cobb are not gonna be here, that they are going to want to get a new developmental QB to groom behind him, and that he has to be okay with that.

On the one hand, I don't think Rodgers is too unreasonable to accept that. On the other hand, it means our Round 1 pick is not being used to win now, and that could be tough to swallow (reminds me of how Ben Roethlisberger complained about PIT drafting Mason Rudolph in Round 2 because it doesn't help them win now, even though it was like the third or fourth year in a row he flirted with retiring... QB1s are such divas).

Few things...first off, you make good points.

Now:

The contract the Packers gave Rodgers last year was beyond egregious. Absolutely ridiculous to put ourselves in cap hell for such an unstable dance partner. There should be absolutely no decision for Rodgers based on the contract he signed. It should just be understood that when he signed it, he was committed for a two year process. That thinking would also give some justification for drafting rookies and bringing in only hammy watkins..because the plan all along was to give the rookies two years to develop with Rodgers

Next, I agree now is the time for Love to either play here or somewhere else. We have to give him the chance to earn his bag next year. The decision is simple..if we think Love can play..he should be our QB, despite the bad contract we gave 12. If we do not think he can play, then we have to once again beg 12 back, and we should just cut bait with Love. You see, I dont believe the coaches should have to see Love for a year on the field before they judge him. That would be nice, but its not necessary. Theyve seen him for three years now. He run the PS offense every day. They know what he is. They have enough information to make a decision.

Finally, if the decision is that "we have to placate Rodgers because we dont trust Love"...I demand some accountability because the decision to draft Love has cost division, pain, and real assets. It cost us a 4th rounder that we dont know who it would be, and it cost us a player that could have been helping us all along. A player that could have helped us beat Tampa two years ago.

That was a legacy defining move for Gutey, if he whiffed, he should be held to account.

yep, I've never understood either of his last 2 contracts, the first seemed a way to pacify him when Ted and Mike, Capers where replaced, and this last one because they didn't want to start Love, right now I think they'd like to trade him, but there fo sure not wanting to do it with zero comp, imho they know what went wrong last season was not as much Rodgers but a culmination of several other big issues, so if they can't find a trade partner ( Rodgers comments tend to mean he doesn't want them to) he will stay and be the starting QB, thats how I see it.

[Pckfn23]

He doesn't need to be the player he was 5 years ago.

This is an interesting comment and one the article does explicitly comment on. 100%, Rodgers does not need to be the player he was 5 years ago, but he does need to change his game to match the player he is now to remain at the top of the game.

[BSA]

I am not sure if he is known for working on his body as Tom Brady was, for example.

I think you can find plenty of articles and quotes talking about how AR works on his body all year round and has a full routine to get himself physically ready for the season. He also trains in the offseason at ProActive Performance with Bakh, Clark, Love ( and Matthews ) and others in Westlake Village. Not sure about the TB12 avocado toast, but there's plenty of info on Rodgers training/nutrition to keep his body & mind sharp over the course of his 18 yr career. No chance you can last that long in this league if you're slacking.

[BSA]

there may be something to it, and then again, there may not be.

This is exactly my point.
IF you're going to make that unsupported comment AND you're going to give it credibility...then it needs to be stronger than "maybe"
"Maybe" doesn't mean &%$@ if you're going to print it. Maybe I'm the King of England. Maybe not.