Rodgers wants out

[Yoop]

when did you ever say you'd give Rodgers a no trade clause? a no trade clause is diff. then saying Rodgers would have choice of teams, again thats the same as Murphy's this year and beyond comment, that stuff means nothing unless it's in writing, we've said a lot on this so my memory isn't to clear Yoho, but mostly from you all I've heard is the Packers need to get max compensation, you also said in the heat of the moment you'd like to see the team really stick it to Aaron, send him to a bottom feeder or whichever team can give us the most picks and players.

Let's do this...

May 6th:

why not just leave everything as is, and simply have him win the starting job till the contract is finished in 2023 with a no trade clause and resign him or let him walk as they do most players.

I would absolutely LOVE to leave everything as is except add a no trade clause and keep Rodgers either for 3 years or until he finds a place he specifically wants to go and asks out if Jordan Love is ready. But if that were the answer, just a simple no-trade clause, this would be resolved by now.

Also May 6th:

I’d offer a replacement, 4 year fully guaranteed contract, under the assumptions that the cap part of it has to make sense for us in ‘21 and ‘22, then also not nearing the highest paid player money. The 45 million per from Mahomes isn’t a fair comparison given the duration of that contract.

I’d even throw in a no trade clause, at a bit of a price.

Aaron has to sacrifice some things, money, security, control, or duration. Just can’t have them all.

But also if I’m Aaron, I do want that control to not be traded. Don’t want to have the Packers pick your destination and have that team gutted on picks and a player or two. Bucs gave up nothing other than cap. If they had to give up their top 10 pick for the tackle, and subsequent picks, and a quality veteran last year, they likely aren’t winning.

I agree with this completely; especially the top part (I would rather not do 4 guaranteed years, more like three) but the Mahomes payment level is a literally impossible ask on a 38 year old QB's timeline.

More May 6th:

So the general consensus seems to be a no trade clause, no extension but more security through the end of the current deal, figure out what to do with Love, and maybe give him some sort of opt out shifting the decision from a de facto team option to a de facto player option.

May 5th:

I really think it's a no-trade clause, a restructure that makes it nearly impossible to cut him before 2023, and an extra year (24) at the end that helps spread out and puff up the deal into a bit of an extension, more like a raise. Still very limited dead money in 2024.

That's what I got from a quick search of the words no trade clause and my name

I stand corrected

[NCF]

That's what I got from a quick search of the words no trade clause and my name

That's debatable...

yoop, probably.

[lupedafiasco]

As for wanting to stick it to him, yeah.

I think I said if he retired or sat out his whole season, then next year I'd burn that bridge and trade him to the worst scenario I could think of for him as retribution for blowing up a Super Bowl shot and violating his contract which does NOT contain a no-trade clause. I've also criticized him for not negotiating a no trade clause in his deal in the first place, since it's relatively easy to secure if you insist on it, and since he specifically said at the time of his signing that he thought this only guaranteed him 3 more years (rather than the 6 year life of the new extended deal).

OR if we traded him THIS year, which would mean damaging our ability to compete this year, under his current deal without a no-trade clause, I would maximize compensation.

But in terms of how to RECONCILE, I always was fine with adding a no-trade clause because it only makes official what is de facto true already. He will only play for a team he is willing to play for.

I think when Rodgers signed his deal the thought never crossed his mind the Packers were intending to move on. Definitely naive but all Rodgers was talking about up until the Love pick was being a Packer for life. That conversation all changed with that pick.

[dsr]

thanks for making my point, very few drafted QB's no matter what round there taken turn out to be Good, in fact most bust, so for people to think Love will become even a shadow of Rodgers should stay clear of vegas or any casino, is that better.

nonsense is thinking differently.

Your facts may be right but the conclusion you draw from it is oh so wrong. If indeed most drafted quarterbacks flop, then that isn't a reason not to draft them. A team without a quarterback is worse than a team with a bad quarterback. Denver Broncos proved that last season.

If most quarterbacks flop, then the correct conclusion is that we draft more of them. We absolutely have to have a viable quarterback, so draft a few to improve the odds of striking lucky. And if one turns out to be available, at a reasonable price, who just might turn out to be great - think Favre, or Rodgers - then you would be a fool not to sign him.

[NCF]

thanks for making my point, very few drafted QB's no matter what round there taken turn out to be Good, in fact most bust, so for people to think Love will become even a shadow of Rodgers should stay clear of vegas or any casino, is that better.

nonsense is thinking differently.

Your facts may be right but the conclusion you draw from it is oh so wrong. If indeed most drafted quarterbacks flop, then that isn't a reason not to draft them. A team without a quarterback is worse than a team with a bad quarterback. Denver Broncos proved that last season.

If most quarterbacks flop, then the correct conclusion is that we draft more of them. We absolutely have to have a viable quarterback, so draft a few to improve the odds of striking lucky. And if one turns out to be available, at a reasonable price, who just might turn out to be great - think Favre, or Rodgers - then you would be a fool not to sign him.

Good points, [mention]dsr[/mention].

To take it a step further, it's why you have to take one if you have conviction. I'm not even talking about Love, specifically, right now, so let's not re-open this in this thread, but I think where teams get in trouble is taking the guys they don't have conviction about. They take them because they are there or because they are "supposed to" and that, more than anything else, is recipe for disaster.

It's really hard to take a QB when you don't need one and the Packers have now shown that twice.

Even if Love sucks, I respect the process.

[Yoop]

thanks for making my point, very few drafted QB's no matter what round there taken turn out to be Good, in fact most bust, so for people to think Love will become even a shadow of Rodgers should stay clear of vegas or any casino, is that better.

nonsense is thinking differently.

Your facts may be right but the conclusion you draw from it is oh so wrong. If indeed most drafted quarterbacks flop, then that isn't a reason not to draft them. A team without a quarterback is worse than a team with a bad quarterback. Denver Broncos proved that last season.

If most quarterbacks flop, then the correct conclusion is that we draft more of them. We absolutely have to have a viable quarterback, so draft a few to improve the odds of striking lucky. And if one turns out to be available, at a reasonable price, who just might turn out to be great - think Favre, or Rodgers - then you would be a fool not to sign him.

that was not my conclusion, actually I'd take a QB in practically every draft class, which you seem to agree with, whats possible, even likely is that LOve wont be the player we hoped when we drafted him and we'll pick another when we find that out, I'd rather as you said take more so that we have more then one so they can compete against each other some and we have more then one to chose from when Rodgers does retire or leave.

[go pak go]

thanks for making my point, very few drafted QB's no matter what round there taken turn out to be Good, in fact most bust, so for people to think Love will become even a shadow of Rodgers should stay clear of vegas or any casino, is that better.

nonsense is thinking differently.

Your facts may be right but the conclusion you draw from it is oh so wrong. If indeed most drafted quarterbacks flop, then that isn't a reason not to draft them. A team without a quarterback is worse than a team with a bad quarterback. Denver Broncos proved that last season.

If most quarterbacks flop, then the correct conclusion is that we draft more of them. We absolutely have to have a viable quarterback, so draft a few to improve the odds of striking lucky. And if one turns out to be available, at a reasonable price, who just might turn out to be great - think Favre, or Rodgers - then you would be a fool not to sign him.

Good points, @dsr.

To take it a step further, it's why you have to take one if you have conviction. I'm not even talking about Love, specifically, right now, so let's not re-open this in this thread, but I think where teams get in trouble is taking the guys they don't have conviction about. They take them because they are there or because they are "supposed to" and that, more than anything else, is recipe for disaster.

It's really hard to take a QB when you don't need one and the Packers have now shown that twice.

Even if Love sucks, I respect the process.

Shoot. Add Favre to that list too. From what I hear, people weren't too happy that Wolf gave up a 1st rounder for a QB picked in the 2nd round when the Packers already had Majik Man.

In my lifetime, the Packers never made a selection at QB to be a starter where the fans/league were happy about it.

[lupedafiasco]

thanks for making my point, very few drafted QB's no matter what round there taken turn out to be Good, in fact most bust, so for people to think Love will become even a shadow of Rodgers should stay clear of vegas or any casino, is that better.

nonsense is thinking differently.

Your facts may be right but the conclusion you draw from it is oh so wrong. If indeed most drafted quarterbacks flop, then that isn't a reason not to draft them. A team without a quarterback is worse than a team with a bad quarterback. Denver Broncos proved that last season.

If most quarterbacks flop, then the correct conclusion is that we draft more of them. We absolutely have to have a viable quarterback, so draft a few to improve the odds of striking lucky. And if one turns out to be available, at a reasonable price, who just might turn out to be great - think Favre, or Rodgers - then you would be a fool not to sign him.

I have absolutely no problem with drafting a QB to develop behind Rodgers. For years Ive been putting QBs in my mocks in mid to late rounds as developmental guys that could either take over or flip for a trade. A wouldnt have been happy about a 2nd round QB either but that still makes sense. You could get a really talented guy in the 2nd who has processing issues. Happens every year. I think Rodgers even would have understood that.

Trading up in the 1st round for one is beyond dumb. And no Rodgers and Favre are not even in the same category. Favre was talking retirement every off season and his skills were clearly diminishing as he was a turnover machine late in his career. On top of the Rodgers was considered by some the top prospect.

Love was never considered the top prospect. Rodgers skills werent slipping. The team around him certainly was as well as the scheme he was under with MM. Rodgers only talked about extending career in Green Bay and doing what it takes to keep his body available to play.

[lupedafiasco]

Your facts may be right but the conclusion you draw from it is oh so wrong. If indeed most drafted quarterbacks flop, then that isn't a reason not to draft them. A team without a quarterback is worse than a team with a bad quarterback. Denver Broncos proved that last season.

If most quarterbacks flop, then the correct conclusion is that we draft more of them. We absolutely have to have a viable quarterback, so draft a few to improve the odds of striking lucky. And if one turns out to be available, at a reasonable price, who just might turn out to be great - think Favre, or Rodgers - then you would be a fool not to sign him.

Good points, @dsr.

To take it a step further, it's why you have to take one if you have conviction. I'm not even talking about Love, specifically, right now, so let's not re-open this in this thread, but I think where teams get in trouble is taking the guys they don't have conviction about. They take them because they are there or because they are "supposed to" and that, more than anything else, is recipe for disaster.

It's really hard to take a QB when you don't need one and the Packers have now shown that twice.

Even if Love sucks, I respect the process.

Shoot. Add Favre to that list too. From what I hear, people weren't too happy that Wolf gave up a 1st rounder for a QB picked in the 2nd round when the Packers already had Majik Man.

In my lifetime, the Packers never made a selection at QB to be a starter where the fans/league were happy about it.

The trade for Favre is one of the all time craziest trades in NFL history. Like insane from a GM perspective. Not only did they pay a 1st round pick for a player taken in the 2nd round but Favre was a raging alcoholic in Atlanta that was just partying away his career.

[Pckfn23]

https://stathead.com/tiny/KBJKd

Let me enlighten here a bit on actually drafting a successful QB and just look at draft position. I am going to set good QB career at 40 Career Approximate Value. It's kind of arbitrary, but does seem to be a good line with the vast majority of good QBs above that line. That means there are 111 QBs drafted since 1970 we will look at:

54 of the 111 were 1st round picks.
44 of the 111 were taken before pick 15.
51 of the 111 were taken before pick 27.

Trying to say Jordan Love is already likely to fail simply by pigeon holing him due to his draft position is crazy. While most draft picks don't live up to expectations regardless of position or draft slot. Almost a majority of successful QBs comes from the 1st round.

[Pckfn23]

Trading up in the 1st round for one is beyond dumb.

No, not all.

[YoHoChecko]

WATCH IT AND LFG

[BF004]

WATCH IT AND LFG

Good lord, 90 seconds of ads to watch a 45 second video.

[YoHoChecko]

WATCH IT AND LFG

Good lord, 90 seconds of ads to watch a 45 second video.

It's an 8-minute video?

(I also had either no ads or a 15 second ad)

[BF004]

WATCH IT AND LFG

Good lord, 90 seconds of ads to watch a 45 second video.

Ok, the video was good. Really glad we have Cobb back for a potential week 18 NFC North Championship game.

And no freaking way is the Hail Mary his best play or moment. Such an overrated play from where it really should go. Probably top 10, but should not be top 5.

[go pak go]

WATCH IT AND LFG

Good lord, 90 seconds of ads to watch a 45 second video.

Ok, the video was good. Really glad we have Cobb back for a potential week 18 NFC North Championship game.

And no freaking way is the Hail Mary his best play or moment. Such an overrated play from where it really should go. Probably top 10, but should not be top 5.

I will always put the 2010 Falcons playoffs and 2016 Cowboys playoffs as my best Aaron Rodgers moments.

[texas]

thanks for making my point, very few drafted QB's no matter what round there taken turn out to be Good, in fact most bust, so for people to think Love will become even a shadow of Rodgers should stay clear of vegas or any casino, is that better.

nonsense is thinking differently.

Your facts may be right but the conclusion you draw from it is oh so wrong. If indeed most drafted quarterbacks flop, then that isn't a reason not to draft them. A team without a quarterback is worse than a team with a bad quarterback. Denver Broncos proved that last season.

If most quarterbacks flop, then the correct conclusion is that we draft more of them. We absolutely have to have a viable quarterback, so draft a few to improve the odds of striking lucky. And if one turns out to be available, at a reasonable price, who just might turn out to be great - think Favre, or Rodgers - then you would be a fool not to sign him.

I have absolutely no problem with drafting a QB to develop behind Rodgers. For years Ive been putting QBs in my mocks in mid to late rounds as developmental guys that could either take over or flip for a trade. A wouldnt have been happy about a 2nd round QB either but that still makes sense. You could get a really talented guy in the 2nd who has processing issues. Happens every year. I think Rodgers even would have understood that.

Trading up in the 1st round for one is beyond dumb. And no Rodgers and Favre are not even in the same category. Favre was talking retirement every off season and his skills were clearly diminishing as he was a turnover machine late in his career. On top of the Rodgers was considered by some the top prospect.

Love was never considered the top prospect. Rodgers skills werent slipping. The team around him certainly was as well as the scheme he was under with MM. Rodgers only talked about extending career in Green Bay and doing what it takes to keep his body available to play.

I don't usually disagree with you but I disagree with this.

First, you just don't get good QBs late anymore. Doesn't happen. You want developmental prospects? Draft them in the 1st or 2nd round like every other team. Wilson is like the only elite QB that's mid-round (I'm not counting Dak yet but he may become elite), but I could easily be overlooking someone. Either way, the vast majority of good QBs are early round picks now.

When we picked Love, Rodgers had been below average for 2 years. Not below average for Rodgers, but below average for all NFL starters. Favre and Rodgers were both clearly declining. And then we picked their replacements and they both ended up having resurgences. So your point about this is just incorrect.

Finally, you're also simply not correct when you say Love was never considered the top prospect. He was usually not ranked as the very top prospect but I do remember at times during the previous college season his name being mentioned as a possible top QB taken. He was almost always rated among the top tier or second tier.

[texas]

Why is everyone convinced Rodgers is gone after this year? We haven't even heard him talk yet. There's an entire year ahead of us too so anything can happen.

[paco]

Why is everyone convinced Rodgers is gone after this year? We haven't even heard him talk yet. There's an entire year ahead of us too so anything can happen.

Because that's what is going to happen.

[Raptorman]

You and every other NFC North team are just praying he leaves.

We appreciate your generous donations is the win column over the last decade and a half.

I'm actually more concerned with the Bears at this point.

You are either stupid or a liar.

Oh yeah, fear the great Rodgers.