Rodgers wants out

[Yoop]

yep, Rodgers wants the security to be able to play for the same team for the next few years

How does he get this security?

I don't know if I should even bother to answer a question you already know the answer to.

real simple, a no trade clause, or guarantee his contract provided he isn't injured or his play declines, or trade Love, plenty of avenues the FO could take that would appease Rodgers.

[YoHoChecko]

Agreed. But it goes back to my original question. Do you want Rodgers in that locker room when he's openly saying in interviews that there is a "People/Culture" issue in the organization? Do you trust that if Rodgers comes back that he will be able to put that aside and still be a positive leader for the locker room. If yes, then I'm all about him coming back in 2021, but I have my concerns.

So yeah, this is a really good point.

I think this was the issue with Sitton, honestly. Sitton IS a leader. He WAS a leader. A disgruntled leader leads to disgruntled followers. They decided to get him out sooner rather than later.

Already we're seeing some disgruntled followers of Rodgers with Adams and Amos tweets. So I get it.

BUT, if you're the organization, you CAN use this. Now that Rodgers has publicly said it's a people and culture issue, you come up with some ways that you more acutely honor the humanity of the players on the team. Now fortunately, I think the Packers' org does a good job of this on the whole. The team is full of good people and friendships and last year's team had all-time chemistry.

BUT, Gutey and Murphy need to make a show of some people skills and make some changes and announce them, and let the team feel that RODGERS won them more respect. Rodgers, their leader, got the team to agree to better communication; got the team to take on an additional staffer focused on ensuring it; Rodgers got the team to guarantee a phone call to pending free agents to discuss the future plans. Rodgers got the team to add a standard rider in the contract that does some nice thing for people.

Let Rodgers "win" some concessions. Let Gutey face the team and admit shortcomings and promise to do better. Let the team view their leader as someone who wanted to make work a better place for all of them. Boom, we're good.

Now we just have to get Rodgers and Gutey and Murphy to agree to it.

[Drj820]

Michael with his HOF coach and Scotty and Rodman and 5 men on the court at once, and Brady with his HOF coach and perfect special teams and top ten defenses.

I agree Rodgers has leadership issues, but not everything is a good comparison

Agreed. But it goes back to my original question. Do you want Rodgers in that locker room when he's openly saying in interviews that there is a "People/Culture" issue in the organization? Do you trust that if Rodgers comes back that he will be able to put that aside and still be a positive leader for the locker room. If yes, then I'm all about him coming back in 2021, but I have my concerns.

I think, if he comes back, that is him saying it's either fixed or that he can put it aside. His goal isn't to poison the locker room. If anything, he's unifying it more. Players tend to stick together on stuff like this.

I still believe besides the young guys who may not have been around long enough to see how it works..that most are on his side. All of the ex packers that were close to Rodgers seem to agree with him (besides Craig Jennings), Adams has come out in strong support, Amos hints at support, Linsley confirms they treated him like trash.

I agree that if Rodgers comes back he will still have a goal of winning a ring and that goal will take priority while in the locker room.

This stuff could affect contracts for guys like Jaire and Jenkins though.

[Yoop]

Michael with his HOF coach and Scotty and Rodman and 5 men on the court at once, and Brady with his HOF coach and perfect special teams and top ten defenses.

I agree Rodgers has leadership issues, but not everything is a good comparison

Agreed. But it goes back to my original question. Do you want Rodgers in that locker room when he's openly saying in interviews that there is a "People/Culture" issue in the organization? Do you trust that if Rodgers comes back that he will be able to put that aside and still be a positive leader for the locker room. If yes, then I'm all about him coming back in 2021, but I have my concerns.

agreed, Rodgers coming back unify's the locker room, right now I'am sure it's divided, heck past and present players have already spoken out in Rodgers favor.

I think, if he comes back, that is him saying it's either fixed or that he can put it aside. His goal isn't to poison the locker room. If anything, he's unifying it more. Players tend to stick together on stuff like this.

[Pckfn23]

yep, Rodgers wants the security to be able to play for the same team for the next few years

How does he get this security?

I don't know if I should even bother to answer a question you already know the answer to.

real simple, a no trade clause, or guarantee his contract provided he isn't injured or his play declines, or trade Love, plenty of avenues the FO could take that would appease Rodgers.

A no-trade clause does not guarantee he plays through the end of the contract. He can be cut.

Guaranteeing his contract does not guarantee security to play through the end of the contract. He can be cut.

Trading Love does not guarantee he plays through the end of the contract. We could draft a QB next offseason and cut him at the end of 2022.

That's the issue, you want something for Rodgers that does not exist anywhere in professional sports.

[Yoop]

Agreed. But it goes back to my original question. Do you want Rodgers in that locker room when he's openly saying in interviews that there is a "People/Culture" issue in the organization? Do you trust that if Rodgers comes back that he will be able to put that aside and still be a positive leader for the locker room. If yes, then I'm all about him coming back in 2021, but I have my concerns.

So yeah, this is a really good point.

I think this was the issue with Sitton, honestly. Sitton IS a leader. He WAS a leader. A disgruntled leader leads to disgruntled followers. They decided to get him out sooner rather than later.

Already we're seeing some disgruntled followers of Rodgers with Adams and Amos tweets. So I get it.

BUT, if you're the organization, you CAN use this. Now that Rodgers has publicly said it's a people and culture issue, you come up with some ways that you more acutely honor the humanity of the players on the team. Now fortunately, I think the Packers' org does a good job of this on the whole. The team is full of good people and friendships and last year's team had all-time chemistry.

BUT, Gutey and Murphy need to make a show of some people skills and make some changes and announce them, and let the team feel that RODGERS won them more respect. Rodgers, their leader, got the team to agree to better communication; got the team to take on an additional staffer focused on ensuring it; Rodgers got the team to guarantee a phone call to pending free agents to discuss the future plans. Rodgers got the team to add a standard rider in the contract that does some nice thing for people.

Let Rodgers "win" some concessions. Let Gutey face the team and admit shortcomings and promise to do better. Let the team view their leader as someone who wanted to make work a better place for all of them. Boom, we're good.

Now we just have to get Rodgers and Gutey and Murphy to agree to it.

well said Yoho, and you know I wouldn't be me if I didn't include the " HE's our HERO" thingie

I sure hop the 3 can sit down and voice there grievances like grown ups, get past this and on with contending for a SB.

[Drj820]

How does he get this security?

I don't know if I should even bother to answer a question you already know the answer to.

real simple, a no trade clause, or guarantee his contract provided he isn't injured or his play declines, or trade Love, plenty of avenues the FO could take that would appease Rodgers.

A no-trade clause does not guarantee he plays through the end of the contract. He can be cut.

Guaranteeing his contract does not guarantee security to play through the end of the contract. He can be cut.

Trading Love does not guarantee he plays through the end of the contract. We could draft a QB next offseason and cut him at the end of 2022.

That's the issue, you want something for Rodgers that does not exist anywhere in professional sports.

none of those things may fix the issue. But offering them are certainly olive branches from the org to Rodgers. So far, the org could still be firm in showing they do not want to offer those things because they continue to insist on keeping their options open.

If they have offered all of those things and Rodgers is still unhappy..probably time to prepare to trade him, start Love, and fire Gutey if Love stinks.

The cost of blowing up the relationship with the HOF QB that just won MVP if the replacement stinks should be Guteys job.

[Yoop]

How does he get this security?

I don't know if I should even bother to answer a question you already know the answer to.

real simple, a no trade clause, or guarantee his contract provided he isn't injured or his play declines, or trade Love, plenty of avenues the FO could take that would appease Rodgers.

A no-trade clause does not guarantee he plays through the end of the contract. He can be cut.

Guaranteeing his contract does not guarantee security to play through the end of the contract. He can be cut.

Trading Love does not guarantee he plays through the end of the contract. We could draft a QB next offseason and cut him at the end of 2022.

That's the issue, you want something for Rodgers that does not exist anywhere in professional sports.

your just looking for aq way around that the Packers can reneg on there commitment, why would or should the Packers do anything that you just proposed? makes no sense, a no trade clause or Guaranteed contract means the Packers will keep paying him if they cut him.

like I said, you ask a question you have no intention of arguing sensably about.

[Drj820]

I don't know if I should even bother to answer a question you already know the answer to.

real simple, a no trade clause, or guarantee his contract provided he isn't injured or his play declines, or trade Love, plenty of avenues the FO could take that would appease Rodgers.

A no-trade clause does not guarantee he plays through the end of the contract. He can be cut.

Guaranteeing his contract does not guarantee security to play through the end of the contract. He can be cut.

Trading Love does not guarantee he plays through the end of the contract. We could draft a QB next offseason and cut him at the end of 2022.

That's the issue, you want something for Rodgers that does not exist anywhere in professional sports.

your just looking for aq way around that the Packers can reneg on there commitment, why would or should the Packers do anything that you just proposed? makes no sense, a no trade clause or Guaranteed contract means the Packers will keep paying him if they cut him.

like I said, you ask a question you have no intention of arguing sensably about.

To think that those things arent concrete examples of the org offering olive branches to Rodgers and practical ways to show him that they plan to keep him around is beyond obtuse.

[go pak go]

heres what I think about this, and Andy Brandt did nail it, Rodgers doesn't want to play on a yearly basis, obviously like all older players/workers not even he can depend on his ability going forward, his trade value is best right now, after this season he'll have a years less value, and so on, so in essense he'd rather leave now, unlike Brady it may take his new team a year or even two (if ever) to be a SB contender, so the longer this takes to happen the less chance he has, he seems convinced that Guty just wants him to be a Packer for just this season, he has zero trust in Guty.

Why would Rodgers give two sh*ts about his trade value? He doesn't get anything from his trade value outside of a lot of teams wanting to trade for him.

The entity that wins with a high trade value Rodgers scenario is the Packers. The higher the trade value, the more teams have to give up to to the Packers to acquire him. The more that is given up to acquire Rodgers, the less likely Rodgers is on a team can build a SB run.

That's what makes no sense to me. TB did it absolutely right. Go to a team that needs to give up little to acquire the QB so they then have the resources to surround that QB.

A high trade value primarily helps the Packers. Not Rodgers.

[go pak go]

yep, Rodgers wants the security to be able to play for the same team for the next few years

How does he get this security?

I don't know if I should even bother to answer a question you already know the answer to.

real simple, a no trade clause, or guarantee his contract provided he isn't injured or his play declines.

Oh. So the deal he is currently on.

Got it.

[go pak go]

Now we just have to get Rodgers and Gutey and Murphy to agree to it.

And this is the million dollar question.

What does Rodgers want and can the Packers actually do it. Not only that, but does it make sense to do it.

[Drj820]

heres what I think about this, and Andy Brandt did nail it, Rodgers doesn't want to play on a yearly basis, obviously like all older players/workers not even he can depend on his ability going forward, his trade value is best right now, after this season he'll have a years less value, and so on, so in essense he'd rather leave now, unlike Brady it may take his new team a year or even two (if ever) to be a SB contender, so the longer this takes to happen the less chance he has, he seems convinced that Guty just wants him to be a Packer for just this season, he has zero trust in Guty.

Why would Rodgers give two sh*ts about his trade value? He doesn't get anything from his trade value outside of a lot of teams wanting to trade for him.

The entity that wins with a high trade value Rodgers scenario is the Packers. The higher the trade value, the more teams have to give up to to the Packers to acquire him. The more that is given up to acquire Rodgers, the less likely Rodgers is on a team can build a SB run.

That's what makes no sense to me. TB did it absolutely right. Go to a team that needs to give up little to acquire the QB so they then have the resources to surround that QB.

A high trade value primarily helps the Packers. Not Rodgers.

A high trade value makes it more likely his goal of getting out of town will be achieved

[Yoop]

heres what I think about this, and Andy Brandt did nail it, Rodgers doesn't want to play on a yearly basis, obviously like all older players/workers not even he can depend on his ability going forward, his trade value is best right now, after this season he'll have a years less value, and so on, so in essense he'd rather leave now, unlike Brady it may take his new team a year or even two (if ever) to be a SB contender, so the longer this takes to happen the less chance he has, he seems convinced that Guty just wants him to be a Packer for just this season, he has zero trust in Guty.

Why would Rodgers give two sh*ts about his trade value? He doesn't get anything from his trade value outside of a lot of teams wanting to trade for him.

The entity that wins with a high trade value Rodgers scenario is the Packers. The higher the trade value, the more teams have to give up to to the Packers to acquire him. The more that is given up to acquire Rodgers, the less likely Rodgers is on a team can build a SB run.

That's what makes no sense to me. TB did it absolutely right. Go to a team that needs to give up little to acquire the QB so they then have the resources to surround that QB.

A high trade value primarily helps the Packers. Not Rodgers.

Rodgers being a 10 year vet gets to say NO if the team wants to trade him to a crap team, so the more teams that are interested the better, or was that provision taken out of this last contract too?

whatever, you know what the point is I was trying to make, Rodgers doesn't want to stay until his play does decline, would you?

[Yoop]

Now we just have to get Rodgers and Gutey and Murphy to agree to it.

And this is the million dollar question.

What does Rodgers want and can the Packers actually do it. Not only that, but does it make sense to do it.

whatttttt? of course it makes sense to do it, and it's not as though Rodgers is asking the impossible.

[Drj820]

Gutey and Murphy were on an ill advised mission to show the world that Rodgers was not in charge and show the world they could get along with out him. Now, Rodgers has won MVP and Rodgers is saying "you boys sure you can get along without me?" Gutey and Murph in their arrogance started a war with a temperamental HOFer. If they cant repair this, and Love stinks...bye bye Gutey.

[Pckfn23]

I don't know if I should even bother to answer a question you already know the answer to.

real simple, a no trade clause, or guarantee his contract provided he isn't injured or his play declines, or trade Love, plenty of avenues the FO could take that would appease Rodgers.

A no-trade clause does not guarantee he plays through the end of the contract. He can be cut.

Guaranteeing his contract does not guarantee security to play through the end of the contract. He can be cut.

Trading Love does not guarantee he plays through the end of the contract. We could draft a QB next offseason and cut him at the end of 2022.

That's the issue, you want something for Rodgers that does not exist anywhere in professional sports.

your just looking for aq way around that the Packers can reneg on there commitment, why would or should the Packers do anything that you just proposed? makes no sense, a no trade clause or Guaranteed contract means the Packers will keep paying him if they cut him.

like I said, you ask a question you have no intention of arguing sensably about.

That is not the reality of professional sports contracts and especially NFL contracts. They are not seen to their end on a regular basis. To bash an organization "renegging" on a commitment is not living in reality.

I didn't say the Packers SHOULD do anything above. I was pointing out that those things do not guaranteed job security or that Rodgers will play through the end of his contract. While a no trade clause or guaranteed contract means the Packers would continue playing him if they cut him, it does not preclude them from doing so.

Let's get away from this notion that all Rodgers wants is guarantees to play out his contract. There are no guarantees.

[NCF]

If they cant repair this, and Love stinks...bye bye Gutey.

More insulated from that in Green Bay than anywhere else. Murphy decides Gutey's fate. If he is on team Gutey, I could see him giving Gute a second chance... but otherwise, duh. That is the way the NFL works. Get it right or your gone. Gotta stick to your guns in that position.

[Pckfn23]

I don't know if I should even bother to answer a question you already know the answer to.

real simple, a no trade clause, or guarantee his contract provided he isn't injured or his play declines, or trade Love, plenty of avenues the FO could take that would appease Rodgers.

A no-trade clause does not guarantee he plays through the end of the contract. He can be cut.

Guaranteeing his contract does not guarantee security to play through the end of the contract. He can be cut.

Trading Love does not guarantee he plays through the end of the contract. We could draft a QB next offseason and cut him at the end of 2022.

That's the issue, you want something for Rodgers that does not exist anywhere in professional sports.

none of those things may fix the issue. But offering them are certainly olive branches from the org to Rodgers. So far, the org could still be firm in showing they do not want to offer those things because they continue to insist on keeping their options open.

If they have offered all of those things and Rodgers is still unhappy..probably time to prepare to trade him, start Love, and fire Gutey if Love stinks.

The cost of blowing up the relationship with the HOF QB that just won MVP if the replacement stinks should be Guteys job.

I don't believe the Packers organization should do any of those thing however. It would make any already bad situation worse.

BTW, I did not say they were not olive branches. I wasn't even talking about olive branches... I was simply talking about mechanisms that guarantee a player plays through a contract. Obtuse, no.

Out of Rodger's mouth, this was a year in the making. Which is interesting because 1 year ago he was coming off 2 average seasons.

[NCF]

and it's not as though Rodgers is asking the impossible.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HE'S ASKING FOR!!!!!!!