Rodgers wants out

[go pak go]

why would they throw that away?

Because they pretty much have to from a cap standpoint. This is the Last Dance, Packers version.

I disagree, before the team lets Rodgers go ( provided they lack faith with Love) the FO will do everything it can to keep Rodger around again next season.

Yeah they can do "everything they can" but the honest assessment is everything they can is not much. The 2022 Packers cap situation is BRUTAL because the Packers tried to field a winner for 2021.

Honest to goodness I cannot see a formula to how the Packers can keep both Adams and Rodgers after this season.

The Packers have 44 players under contract for 2022. The Packers are $30 Million over the cap in 2022 already. That means we have to sign another 10 players and Davante Adams AND Robert Tonyan are not part of those 44 players.

And cutting guys like Preston Smith or Dean Lowry to make "cap room" will only clear up $16 million.

I mean we have a LONG ways to go just to field a 53 man squad in 2022 if Rodgers is the starting QB.

[Yoop]

blah, blah blah, Linsley isn't the first player to comment that the FO didn't bother to say good bye to after years of service, Sitton, Lang, Jennings, Jenkins, the list goes on and on, unless a player has the notoriaty of a Favre or Rodgers no one pays attention, Rodgers actions this year brought that to light.

I like to believe facts matter. I think it's very important that facts matter.

Josh Sitton - the Packers absolutely said goodbye to him. They cut him. They told him he was cut. Sounds like it was a locker room issue. Josh Sitton understood it was a business decision and still comes to GB for alumni gigs and has nothing but positive things to say about his experiences in GB.

TJ Lang - Lang was going into his 3rd contract. The Packers hardly ever give out 3rd contracts. Especially TJ who had injury histories. TJ too says countless times that it was a business decision and has no hard feelings for the Packers. He is now a Detroit Lions media guy (he is basically their John Kuhn) and yet still comes on Cheesehead TV and does guest appearances on the Packer Radio Network. He also constantly talks about how clear of a difference the culture is in GB over DET as GB is a winner and you as a player know it. It is also important to note that NOT signing Lang to an extension was a very smart business move. He didn't last long in DET.

Greg Jennings - The Packers offered Jennings a nice deal in 2012. Jennings turned it down. Then Jennings got injured which lowered his value and the Packers offered less. Jennings ultimately went to MN. Jennings was a moron. The Packers were not. Jennings lost a LOT of money (both from contracts and lost TV deals) by deciding to no longer play with GB. Also, Jennings repeatedly has stated that it was AARON RODGERS who told the 49ers they should sign Jennings during the 2012 season week 1 which made Greg and Aaron's relationship crumble.

This is from your boy McGinn.

An average salary $9 million is nice, but it ain't $12 million. But, at the top of this game in 2012, Jennings passed up a chance to earn $11 million a year on a multi-year extension offered up by the Packers, a source told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Bob McGinn.

Jennings then suffered a concussion in training camp, and a subsequent abdominal injury sidetracked the 2012 season and deflated his value. But the Packers still wanted to keep him, just not at his suggested retail price. Instead, they reportedly had an offer on the table that would pay Jennings roughly $8 million a season.

The moment came when Green Bay hosted the San Francisco 49ers in 2012, and cornerback Carlos Rogers asked Jennings why he was running so many short routes. Jennings said it was a contract year, which is when Rodgers stepped in saying, per Jennings, "You guys should get him at the end of the year."

"I don't think he realizes what he said and the impact that it had," Jennings said. "Had the shoe been on the other foot and I said, 'Hey, man, I should come and play with your quarterback,' he would've been so offended by that. But when it comes out of his mouth—and we all know there's truth behind jokes—for him to say that and just act as though everything was the same? It just wasn't."

Jennings told his position coach, Edgar Bennett, that he knew it was his last year with the Packers.

Cullen Jenkins - Jenkins joined GB as a UDFA in 2004. Jenkins played for the Packers for 7 years. 2010 Jenkins went through a lot of injuries but we all knew he was very good and was pivotal in returning healthy during the 2010 playoff run. However, he also had 7 years of accrued service. The Eagles offered Jenkins a very large contract at the time and it was for 5 years. That's a big contract to a player who saw injuries and already had 7 years in the league. We just got outbid by the Eagles and again the Packers were consistent that they rarely sign players in their 3rd contract. Looking back it would have been great that we could retain Jenkins but even Cullen said it was a business decision. Jenkins also flopped in Philly. Also, Cullen Jenkins has come on many shows saying the Packers were the greatest days of his playing career.

I think Sitton was the first player to say McCarthy had his head up his ass, and every DC in the league new what our offense was planning to do.


we didn't even offer Jenkins a contract extension

that Jennings burned out after leaving doesn't mean he would have burned out here, and any ruffling of the feathers with Rodgers could have been worked out.

every player you just mentioned complained about the way the team cut the cord, that latter they say good things is normal, most people don't hold grudges, it makes them look foolish and gives a bad impression to there new team.

[go pak go]

I think Sitton was the first player to say McCarthy had his head up his ass, and every DC in the league new what our offense was planning to do.


we didn't even offer Jenkins a contract extension

that Jennings burned out after leaving doesn't mean he would have burned out here, and any ruffling of the feathers with Rodgers could have been worked out.

every player you just mentioned complained about the way the team cut the cord, that latter they say good things is normal, most people don't hold grudges, it makes them look foolish and gives a bad impression to there new team.

This is what I don't get. If I'm going to put effort into my post with my own words, support of timelines and article quotes to support my assertion, it is the respectful thing to try and do the same if you disagree or not respond.

Come on yoop.

[Yoop]

Because they pretty much have to from a cap standpoint. This is the Last Dance, Packers version.

I disagree, before the team lets Rodgers go ( provided they lack faith with Love) the FO will do everything it can to keep Rodger around again next season.

Yeah they can do "everything they can" but the honest assessment is everything they can is not much. The 2022 Packers cap situation is BRUTAL because the Packers tried to field a winner for 2021.

Honest to goodness I cannot see a formula to how the Packers can keep both Adams and Rodgers after this season.

The Packers have 44 players under contract for 2022. The Packers are $30 Million over the cap in 2022 already. That means we have to sign another 10 players and Davante Adams AND Robert Tonyan are not part of those 44 players.

And cutting guys like Preston Smith or Dean Lowry to make "cap room" will only clear up $16 million.

I mean we have a LONG ways to go just to field a 53 man squad in 2022 if Rodgers is the starting QB.

I don't presume to know what the Packers will do concerning cap next year, I just know that Rodgers gives them the best chance to win over every other player on the roster

[go pak go]

I don't presume to know what the Packers will do concerning cap next year, I just know that Rodgers gives them the best chance to win over every other player on the roster

And I'm saying the reality of the Packers situation is they literally won't have a completed roster if Rodgers is on the team at his current cap hit (I'm sure Andrew Brandt knows this too).

The only real options the Packers have for 2022 is to move on from Rodgers or extend Rodgers to be able to reduce 2022 cap hit on Rodgers. Now they very well could decide to do that.

But that is why I want Rodgers back for 2021 so badly. Because it gives us a real shot at the title 2021 (we are contenders this year with Rodgers) and it gives the Packers another year to see if it makes sense to move on from either Love or Rodgers.

2015 and 2018 also showed me that Rodgers and a crappy roster does not mean the Packers will be winners. Even the 2016 Jared Cookless Packers were garbage.

[Yoop]

I think Sitton was the first player to say McCarthy had his head up his ass, and every DC in the league new what our offense was planning to do.


we didn't even offer Jenkins a contract extension

that Jennings burned out after leaving doesn't mean he would have burned out here, and any ruffling of the feathers with Rodgers could have been worked out.

every player you just mentioned complained about the way the team cut the cord, that latter they say good things is normal, most people don't hold grudges, it makes them look foolish and gives a bad impression to there new team.

This is what I don't get. If I'm going to put effort into my post with my own words, support of timelines and article quotes to prove my facts were correct, it is the respectful thing to do the same or not respond.

Come on yoop.

I stand by what I just said, you said facts matter, and then spout opinions that are half truths, Ted didn't offer Jenkins a contract, and every player that left here was angry with the team, you gloss over that to say they all new it was a business decision, of course all transactions are BUSINESS decisions.

and I don't type as fast as you, and I don't have the time to do a long convo, sorry.

[go pak go]

I think Sitton was the first player to say McCarthy had his head up his ass, and every DC in the league new what our offense was planning to do.


we didn't even offer Jenkins a contract extension

that Jennings burned out after leaving doesn't mean he would have burned out here, and any ruffling of the feathers with Rodgers could have been worked out.

every player you just mentioned complained about the way the team cut the cord, that latter they say good things is normal, most people don't hold grudges, it makes them look foolish and gives a bad impression to there new team.

This is what I don't get. If I'm going to put effort into my post with my own words, support of timelines and article quotes to prove my facts were correct, it is the respectful thing to do the same or not respond.

Come on yoop.

I stand by what I just said, you said facts matter, and then spout opinions that are half truths, Ted didn't offer Jenkins a contract, and every player that left here was angry with the team, you gloss over that to say they all new it was a business decision, of course all transactions are BUSINESS decisions.

and I don't type as fast as you, and I don't have the time to do a long convo, sorry.

and every player that left here was angry with the team, you gloss over that to say they all new it was a business decision, of course all transactions are BUSINESS decisions.

This is the quintessential definition of half truth and opinion to drive a narrative. And this is a good example why people argue and have problems with your posts.

Like there are lots and lots of posts from me, YoHo, 23, APB, Salmar etc. stating that there does appear to be some evidence of the Packers FO needing to do a better job in certain situations when it comes to interaction with players as they exit or even with players surrounding the draft. Overall the evidence isn't insanely strong but there is evidence and I hope that the FO learns from this as it doesn't cost any money to give that extra phone call or exit meeting.

Like we are in agreement with that. But that is completely different that then statement above which is being used to justify all of Rodgers actions and the team has had this coming for years. Because the evidence also doesn't support that. And the action of holding out during a potential championship run season also does not support the response because the Packers didn't call Corey Linsley (even though they did).

I think the Jennings response irked me the most. I stated that the Packers offered Greg Jennings a contract extension. The Packers offered him an extension TWICE. The first offer was significantly more than what the Vikings ultimately offered Jennings. I also noted that Jennings said he wasn't going to be a Packer based on what Rodgers said in 2012 (this is a direct quote from Jennings) and that Jennings died in the league after GB. Jennings passing on contract offers from the Packers was on Jennings. That was Jennings fault and he suffered the consequences yet your wording still try to make it the Packers fault even in the retort by only stating, "we don't know if Jennings would have crashed and burned had he stayed in GB".

[salmar80]

Because they pretty much have to from a cap standpoint. This is the Last Dance, Packers version.

I disagree, before the team lets Rodgers go ( provided they lack faith with Love) the FO will do everything it can to keep Rodger around again next season.

Yeah they can do "everything they can" but the honest assessment is everything they can is not much. The 2022 Packers cap situation is BRUTAL because the Packers tried to field a winner for 2021.

Honest to goodness I cannot see a formula to how the Packers can keep both Adams and Rodgers after this season.

The Packers have 44 players under contract for 2022. The Packers are $30 Million over the cap in 2022 already. That means we have to sign another 10 players and Davante Adams AND Robert Tonyan are not part of those 44 players.

And cutting guys like Preston Smith or Dean Lowry to make "cap room" will only clear up $16 million.

I mean we have a LONG ways to go just to field a 53 man squad in 2022 if Rodgers is the starting QB.

It's doable, but you can't realistically do all of the below in one go, or we'll be in an unescapable cap mess in a few years.

Cut Preston for 12.5M cap space, maybe Lowry for 4M more. Extend AR and guarantee a lot of it. Could create 10M+ or so in 2022 cap space. Give Davante and Tonyan new deals after the season, again high guarantees can make the year 1 cap hit very low. Extend Z, Jaire and Amos after the season.

In short, there's a lot of cap space theoretically available for 2022, but if we do that, one shouldn't be surprised when we hit some crippling cap trouble in 2023 or 2024 at the latest.

Also, extensions of the type and timing needed are far from automatic, and it's very probable not all the players above wanna accommodate the team.

[YoHoChecko]

I don't presume to know what the Packers will do concerning cap next year, I just know that Rodgers gives them the best chance to win over every other player on the roster

If Rodgers matters more to winning than every other player on the roster, how have we had Rodgers for 16 years and you blame every other player on the roster for the lack of Super Bowls?

You can't have it both ways. Either Rodgers needs an ideal supporting cast to win, or he is so good that he should win without one.

When it comes down to the cap, we are paying high-value players high-value, fair-market contracts in order to give Rodgers the best chance to win. If the cap forces us to pick between Rodgers and several other high-value contracts, then Rodgers better be able to win with the replacements, also. Since he has not shown the ability to do that, I would imagine we might try sticking with the high-value roster and the cheaper QB.

[go pak go]

I don't presume to know what the Packers will do concerning cap next year, I just know that Rodgers gives them the best chance to win over every other player on the roster

If Rodgers matters more to winning than every other player on the roster, how have we had Rodgers for 16 years and you blame every other player on the roster for the lack of Super Bowls?

You can't have it both ways. Either Rodgers needs an ideal supporting cast to win, or he is so good that he should win without one.

When it comes down to the cap, we are paying high-value players high-value, fair-market contracts in order to give Rodgers the best chance to win. If the cap forces us to pick between Rodgers and several other high-value contracts, then Rodgers better be able to win with the replacements, also. Since he has not shown the ability to do that, I would imagine we might try sticking with the high-value roster and the cheaper QB.

The 2015 and 2016 seasons are really the only seasons I can attribute the Packers going farther than their roster should have taken them and the 2015 season is a stretch at saying that. Honestly 2015 was much more about a great defense early and winning a lot of games only to limp into the postseason.

2016 absolutely was Rodgers carrying a poor squad on his back.

I think the rest the roster was in line with where the Packers ended up.

[Yoop]

This is what I don't get. If I'm going to put effort into my post with my own words, support of timelines and article quotes to prove my facts were correct, it is the respectful thing to do the same or not respond.

Come on yoop.

I stand by what I just said, you said facts matter, and then spout opinions that are half truths, Ted didn't offer Jenkins a contract, and every player that left here was angry with the team, you gloss over that to say they all new it was a business decision, of course all transactions are BUSINESS decisions.

and I don't type as fast as you, and I don't have the time to do a long convo, sorry.

and every player that left here was angry with the team, you gloss over that to say they all new it was a business decision, of course all transactions are BUSINESS decisions.

This is the quintessential definition of half truth and opinion to drive a narrative. And this is a good example why people argue and have problems with your posts.

Like there are lots and lots of posts from me, YoHo, 23, APB, Salmar etc. stating that there does appear to be some evidence of the Packers FO needing to do a better job in certain situations when it comes to interaction with players as they exit or even with players surrounding the draft. Overall the evidence isn't insanely strong but there is evidence and I hope that the FO learns from this as it doesn't cost any money to give that extra phone call or exit meeting.

Like we are in agreement with that. But that is completely different that then statement above which is being used to justify all of Rodgers actions and the team has had this coming for years. Because the evidence also doesn't support that. And the action of holding out during a potential championship run season also does not support the response because the Packers didn't call Corey Linsley (even though they did).

I don't justify everything Rodgers does, My point was and has been that which you and others agree with, how the FO interacts with players, you just don't like that I hold the FO responsible for the actions Rodgers has taken this off season to correct it.

I also pointed out that had Ted taken the approach Guty has this team may have won another SB or two, and why Brady and NE have, ya have to use more then just the draft to win, NE stocked the cupboard with UFA yearly, Guty to has fixed weak positions doing so, Ted rarely did and we lost big games as a result.

[Yoop]

I don't presume to know what the Packers will do concerning cap next year, I just know that Rodgers gives them the best chance to win over every other player on the roster

If Rodgers matters more to winning than every other player on the roster, how have we had Rodgers for 16 years and you blame every other player on the roster for the lack of Super Bowls?

You can't have it both ways. Either Rodgers needs an ideal supporting cast to win, or he is so good that he should win without one.

When it comes down to the cap, we are paying high-value players high-value, fair-market contracts in order to give Rodgers the best chance to win. If the cap forces us to pick between Rodgers and several other high-value contracts, then Rodgers better be able to win with the replacements, also. Since he has not shown the ability to do that, I would imagine we might try sticking with the high-value roster and the cheaper QB.

I didn't say Rodgers can win it all minus a quality supporting cast, whats obvious though is with a decent squad Rodgers gets us farther then any lesser talented QB, this is a very talented team this year, or at least it seems to be, minus Rodgers is it talented enough to win a SB?

I hope I don't have to find out because I think I already know the answer, also what QB's have won it all with a average team?

30 years, 2 HOF QB's, 2 SB trophy's to me that sounds like a lot of management complacency.

[go pak go]

I stand by what I just said, you said facts matter, and then spout opinions that are half truths, Ted didn't offer Jenkins a contract, and every player that left here was angry with the team, you gloss over that to say they all new it was a business decision, of course all transactions are BUSINESS decisions.

and I don't type as fast as you, and I don't have the time to do a long convo, sorry.

and every player that left here was angry with the team, you gloss over that to say they all new it was a business decision, of course all transactions are BUSINESS decisions.

This is the quintessential definition of half truth and opinion to drive a narrative. And this is a good example why people argue and have problems with your posts.

Like there are lots and lots of posts from me, YoHo, 23, APB, Salmar etc. stating that there does appear to be some evidence of the Packers FO needing to do a better job in certain situations when it comes to interaction with players as they exit or even with players surrounding the draft. Overall the evidence isn't insanely strong but there is evidence and I hope that the FO learns from this as it doesn't cost any money to give that extra phone call or exit meeting.

Like we are in agreement with that. But that is completely different that then statement above which is being used to justify all of Rodgers actions and the team has had this coming for years. Because the evidence also doesn't support that. And the action of holding out during a potential championship run season also does not support the response because the Packers didn't call Corey Linsley (even though they did).

I don't justify everything Rodgers does, My point was and has been that which you and others agree with, how the FO interacts with players, you just don't like that I hold the FO responsible for the actions Rodgers has taken this off season to correct it.

I also pointed out that had Ted taken the approach Guty has this team may have won another SB or two, and why Brady and NE have, ya have to use more then just the draft to win, NE stocked the cupboard with UFA yearly, Guty to has fixed weak positions doing so, Ted rarely did and we lost big games as a result.

Yup. Agreed the FO can work on things on player communication (though I do think this narrative is FAR overblown). Disagree that Rodgers is doing what he is doing to "correct it" or the FO is responsible for Rodgers actions. Particularly if we are only talking about the space of how the team breaks up with players.

I also agree that Ted used the D&D too often. Particularly the DEVELOP part where he didn't sign his players for a 2nd contract after the Packers developed them. But again, Gutey did sign UFA's and is very aggressive on retaining players and yet it still didn't net a SB and it also isn't good enough for this season, when the Packers went all in, for Rodgers to be 100% on board of a SB winning roster.

There's a lot of holes in making a powerful defensive stance for Rodgers and his 2021 actions. One second it's contract. Another second it's being a white knight for his teammates. Another second it's all the disrespect the Packers have given Rodgers and the crappy rosters (which is not true). It is why I can't get myself to side with him. I just don't see a good argument for Rodgers. At this point I just hope he comes back because he knows he doesn't have a choice. Wins a ring and Jordan Love ends up being #3 in a great line of Packer QBs.

[Yoop]

Yup. Agreed the FO can work on things on player communication. Disagree that Rodgers is doing what he is doing to "correct it" or the FO is responsible for Rodgers actions. Particularly if we are only talking about the space of how the team breaks up with players.

I also agree that Ted used the D&D too often. Particularly the DEVELOP part where he didn't sign his players for a 2nd contract after the Packers developed them. But again, Gutey did sign UFA's and is very aggressive on retaining players and yet it still didn't net a SB and it also isn't good enough for this season, when the Packers went all in, for Rodgers to be 100% on board of a SB winning roster.

There's a lot of holes in making a powerful defensive stance for Rodgers and his 2021 actions. It is why I can't get myself to side with him. At this point I just hope he comes back because he knows he doesn't have a choice. Wins a ring and Jordan Love ends up being #3 in a great line of Packer QBs.

who knows exactly the reasons Rodgers has acted this way, the drafting of Love after just getting a extension couldn't have made him happy though, specially when this MLF offense features a motion slot type receiver so much.

his other obvious complaint is the lack of (perceived) respect Guty has shown him with personal matters, say what you will but at least a few other QB's and players have sided with Rodgers, players of his standing should be included with some team decision making, or at least the conversation leading up to it.

then there are the interaction with players no longer in team plans, they deserve respect and some have not been shown it.

[go pak go]

Yup. Agreed the FO can work on things on player communication. Disagree that Rodgers is doing what he is doing to "correct it" or the FO is responsible for Rodgers actions. Particularly if we are only talking about the space of how the team breaks up with players.

I also agree that Ted used the D&D too often. Particularly the DEVELOP part where he didn't sign his players for a 2nd contract after the Packers developed them. But again, Gutey did sign UFA's and is very aggressive on retaining players and yet it still didn't net a SB and it also isn't good enough for this season, when the Packers went all in, for Rodgers to be 100% on board of a SB winning roster.

There's a lot of holes in making a powerful defensive stance for Rodgers and his 2021 actions. It is why I can't get myself to side with him. At this point I just hope he comes back because he knows he doesn't have a choice. Wins a ring and Jordan Love ends up being #3 in a great line of Packer QBs.

who knows exactly the reasons Rodgers has acted this way

Exactly!

We have zero clue what Rodgers's true beef is. Up to this point, he hasn't offered any reason why he is holding out. There can and has been reasons trying to justify why Rodgers has been mad but overall those reasons are few and far between and isolated. It is why I cannot at this point get behind defending Rodgers.

I have no qualms bringing up reasons of why Rodgers might be mad and things the FO can do different moving forward.

But I do have major qualms when it becomes, "it is justified why Rodgers is mad the Packers FO is a laughing stock" etc. etc. Which is predominately what you and other Rodgers defenders have made your stance on. It is a weak stance based on isolated evidence and ultimately without any knowledge again of why Rodgers is mad or has acted the way he has in the first place.

Also, when the stance, evidence and arguments constantly shift to support the overall narrative that Rodgers is in the right and the FO is a laughing stock....it further waters down and weakens the position. It comes more and more apparent it is about the narrative of being right rather than trying to form a conclusion of what is right.

[YoHoChecko]

If Rodgers matters more to winning than every other player on the roster, how have we had Rodgers for 16 years and you blame every other player on the roster for the lack of Super Bowls?

You can't have it both ways. Either Rodgers needs an ideal supporting cast to win, or he is so good that he should win without one.

When it comes down to the cap, we are paying high-value players high-value, fair-market contracts in order to give Rodgers the best chance to win. If the cap forces us to pick between Rodgers and several other high-value contracts, then Rodgers better be able to win with the replacements, also. Since he has not shown the ability to do that, I would imagine we might try sticking with the high-value roster and the cheaper QB.

I didn't say Rodgers can win it all minus a quality supporting cast, whats obvious though is with a decent squad Rodgers gets us farther then any lesser talented QB, this is a very talented team this year, or at least it seems to be, minus Rodgers is it talented enough to win a SB?

I hope I don't have to find out because I think I already know the answer, also what QB's have won it all with a average team?

30 years, 2 HOF QB's, 2 SB trophy's to me that sounds like a lot of management complacency.

My point is that when you blame "management complacency," you are overlooking two things: tradeoffs and luck.

The biggest point I was making is that in the name of "doing everything they can to keep Rodgers," the team could, say, let Tonyan and Adams walk. If that happened, you would complain that management gutted the team around Rodgers and how is he supposed to succeed like that?

But if Rodgers leaves, and the team uses the excess money to extend their core players and maybe even nets a high-quality WR in the trade for Rodgers, the line would be that the team is giving Rodgers' replacement the sort of weapons they've denied Rodgers for years.

It is a tradeoff. In another thread, there is a graph of QB spending and non-QB spending. The Packers are 3rd in QB spending and look to be 8th in non-QB spending. That is unsustainable. Something has to give. In that same chart, the next 5-highest paid QB teams are also paying below-median for non-QBs. The Bucs, fresh off a Super Bowl win, have the HIGHEST non-QB spending in the league on that chart. This is possible because their QB spending is closer to 10th or 11th in the league, rather than top 3, like ours. But it is ALSO unsustainable. They, too, will need tradeoffs.

And that leads us to my next point, which is luck. The Packers are, by and large, doing things right. They have an elite QB, they have spent to ensure that he has a competent defense (we WERE top 10, btw), a very good OLIne, an innovative coach, and a high-functioning offense based on a strong running game, play action, and good WR schemes--not to mention a top 3 WR in the league. In the past, aside from a few down years, they have ALSO done a lot right. Not perfect, but right. The team is successful because we have strong QB play AND a sustained high-quality roster.

But in a 1-and-done system, a lot comes down to luck. The Giants haven't been the NFL's best team in my lifetime, but they've won two Super Bowls. The Patriots were EXTREMELY average the first year they won with Brady, and were again on a couple other occasions. Sometimes the plays come through, and sometimes they don't. Two Super Bowls in 30 years with great QB doesn't mean SOMEONE is to blame. It, in fact, seems perfectly reasonable, considering all the great QBs who have ever played the game that never won more than one ring. I believe only 12 have won more than one, and two of those guys are Eli Manning and Terry Bradshaw, who are on nobody's all-time lists.

Sometimes it's the QB. Sometimes it's the supporting cast. Sometimes it's the coaching. And always it's also luck.

[go pak go]

Fantastic post YoHo.

[TheSkeptic]

And Bak getting hurt was very bad luck

[Acrobat]

Yeah after Yoho's post, there really isn't much else to argue. Hopefully we all know what's actually happening soon.

[Yoop]

If Rodgers matters more to winning than every other player on the roster, how have we had Rodgers for 16 years and you blame every other player on the roster for the lack of Super Bowls?

You can't have it both ways. Either Rodgers needs an ideal supporting cast to win, or he is so good that he should win without one.

When it comes down to the cap, we are paying high-value players high-value, fair-market contracts in order to give Rodgers the best chance to win. If the cap forces us to pick between Rodgers and several other high-value contracts, then Rodgers better be able to win with the replacements, also. Since he has not shown the ability to do that, I would imagine we might try sticking with the high-value roster and the cheaper QB.

I didn't say Rodgers can win it all minus a quality supporting cast, whats obvious though is with a decent squad Rodgers gets us farther then any lesser talented QB, this is a very talented team this year, or at least it seems to be, minus Rodgers is it talented enough to win a SB?

I hope I don't have to find out because I think I already know the answer, also what QB's have won it all with a average team?

30 years, 2 HOF QB's, 2 SB trophy's to me that sounds like a lot of management complacency.

My point is that when you blame "management complacency," you are overlooking two things: tradeoffs and luck.

The biggest point I was making is that in the name of "doing everything they can to keep Rodgers," the team could, say, let Tonyan and Adams walk. If that happened, you would complain that management gutted the team around Rodgers and how is he supposed to succeed like that?

But if Rodgers leaves, and the team uses the excess money to extend their core players and maybe even nets a high-quality WR in the trade for Rodgers, the line would be that the team is giving Rodgers' replacement the sort of weapons they've denied Rodgers for years.

It is a tradeoff. In another thread, there is a graph of QB spending and non-QB spending. The Packers are 3rd in QB spending and look to be 8th in non-QB spending. That is unsustainable. Something has to give. In that same chart, the next 5-highest paid QB teams are also paying below-median for non-QBs. The Bucs, fresh off a Super Bowl win, have the HIGHEST non-QB spending in the league on that chart. This is possible because their QB spending is closer to 10th or 11th in the league, rather than top 3, like ours. But it is ALSO unsustainable. They, too, will need tradeoffs.

And that leads us to my next point, which is luck. The Packers are, by and large, doing things right. They have an elite QB, they have spent to ensure that he has a competent defense (we WERE top 10, btw), a very good OLIne, an innovative coach, and a high-functioning offense based on a strong running game, play action, and good WR schemes--not to mention a top 3 WR in the league. In the past, aside from a few down years, they have ALSO done a lot right. Not perfect, but right. The team is successful because we have strong QB play AND a sustained high-quality roster.

But in a 1-and-done system, a lot comes down to luck. The Giants haven't been the NFL's best team in my lifetime, but they've won two Super Bowls. The Patriots were EXTREMELY average the first year they won with Brady, and were again on a couple other occasions. Sometimes the plays come through, and sometimes they don't. Two Super Bowls in 30 years with great QB doesn't mean SOMEONE is to blame. It, in fact, seems perfectly reasonable, considering all the great QBs who have ever played the game that never won more than one ring. I believe only 12 have won more than one, and two of those guys are Eli Manning and Terry Bradshaw, who are on nobody's all-time lists.

Sometimes it's the QB. Sometimes it's the supporting cast. Sometimes it's the coaching. And always it's also luck.

your making it tough for me to stick with my opinion concerning the complacency of about 4 or 5 years ending when Rodgers forced Guty and Murphy to &%$@ can McCarthy, finally, and Murphy sitting on his hands the last few years with Ted, now before you accuse me of being a hater, I think you know I loved both of them when they where in there prime years, Murphy, not so much.

I always revert back to 2011 to illustrate the ability of Rodgers to carry this team but thats not the only year he's done it, just that it was so obvious, we went 15-1 with the 32 ranked defense in the league and minus a decent running game.

then there was 2015 ( think????) when Nelson and Cobb combined for 2600 yrds receiving, Rodgers threw bullets into tight coverage all year.

it's very hard to win a SB even with a great QB, doubly hard without one, and if your always picking late every round as we have usually, then it's hard to build a great team, even harder when ya avoid UFA like the plague as Ted was prone to.

I wondered why Murphy extended Rodgers when he did, specially so with the HC situation the way it was, and just after demoting Ted, course giving McCarthy that one year prove it contract didn't make any sense either, and only seemed to pro long the inevitable.

water over the bridge now, we win this year with Rodgers, or any number of things could change for 2022, and none look very promising, one thing for sure imho, Rodgers didn't wake up one day whenever it was and decide to just become a jerk, something the FO did spurred him to react this way.