From Lambeau to Lombardi, Holmgren, McCarthy and LaFleur and from Starr to Favre, Rodgers and now Jordan Love we’re talking Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers football. This Packers Forum is the place to talk NFL football and everything Packers. So, pull up a keyboard, make yourself at home and let’s talk some Packers football.
We know Rodgers has publically praised Hackett, but its not like i consider them any more bros or joined at the hip than Lafleur and Rodgers. I guess the perk with Hackett is he can move to Denver and if 12 comes, 12 doesnt have to learn a new system...everyone else on the roster does though.
Adams, MVS, Tonyan and Lucas Patrick wouldn't have to learn anything new.
My main concern is if Rodgers and Hackett stitch up the Packers and Rodgers says he will only accept a trade to Denver.
No team will give up multiple 1sts if Rodger's agent tells them he won't sign for them.
What kind of market will we have if there's only one bidder?
that could def be happening. Packers rebuttal to that would be to refuse to accept the trade. Broncos have to reach some threshold that the Packers see as worth moving him for.
In a way Denver is already a bit out on a ledge by hiring Hackett.
Connect the dots all you want, but I assure you, if Aaron Rodgers doesn't end up in Denver they are not going to be kicking themselves for hiring Hackett. This decision, to me, is completely based on merit and they are getting a great football coach regardless of who their QB ends up being.
There is already precedence with the Stafford trade last year. Gutey isn’t going to trade Rodgers for less. Or much less.
Staff is almost 5 years younger than Rodgers. People forget that.
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
2 MVPs in the last 2 years for Rodgers. So age shouldn’t be much of a factor.
Oh, I get it, but I think 9 years left on a career is more valuable than 3. It will make a substantial difference. We might should probably get 2 1sts for Rodgers, but probably not much more.
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
There is already precedence with the Stafford trade last year. Gutey isn’t going to trade Rodgers for less. Or much less.
In a way Denver is already a bit out on a ledge by hiring Hackett.
I hope you're right, but the "precedence" isn't much use of Denver are the only bidders.
Keeping a disillusioned Rodgers for a year at a cap number that destroys your squad only to lose him for nothing is a non starter for the Packers.
Rodgers has a ton of leverage it seems to me.
I don't see anything actually stopping Rodgers telling the Packers the price will be 1 first round pick. Faced with the above situation I bet the Packers would take it.
There is already precedence with the Stafford trade last year. Gutey isn’t going to trade Rodgers for less. Or much less.
In a way Denver is already a bit out on a ledge by hiring Hackett.
I hope you're right, but the "precedence" isn't much use of Denver are the only bidders.
Keeping a disillusioned Rodgers for a year at a cap number that destroys your squad only to lose him for nothing is a non starter for the Packers.
Rodgers has a ton of leverage it seems to me.
I don't see anything actually stopping Rodgers telling the Packers the price will be 1 first round pick. Faced with the above situation I bet the Packers would take it.
I think you are overestimating Rodgers' power here. There will be an agreement sure. But he's not going to dictate the return the Packers get to that degree.
And there will be plenty of suitors. It's not 31 teams, but I don't get the thinking it's Broncos or no one.
There is already precedence with the Stafford trade last year. Gutey isn’t going to trade Rodgers for less. Or much less.
In a way Denver is already a bit out on a ledge by hiring Hackett.
I hope you're right, but the "precedence" isn't much use of Denver are the only bidders.
Keeping a disillusioned Rodgers for a year at a cap number that destroys your squad only to lose him for nothing is a non starter for the Packers.
Rodgers has a ton of leverage it seems to me.
I don't see anything actually stopping Rodgers telling the Packers the price will be 1 first round pick. Faced with the above situation I bet the Packers would take it.
I think you are overestimating Rodgers' power here. There will be an agreement sure. But he's not going to dictate the return the Packers get to that degree.
And there will be plenty of suitors. It's not 31 teams, but I don't get the thinking it's Broncos or no one.
Hopefully Rodgers is reasonable and allows at least two teams to bid.
But if it was me, I would get my agent to tell the other 30 teams that I won't play for them. I would then get my agent to tell the Broncos they are the only bidder.
Broncos offer a 1st, final offer.
Rodgers tells the Packers he wants to go to Denver and he's not interested in extending his contract in Green Bay.
That way he'd get his preferred move and his new team wouldn't be cleared out of draft picks. Those picks will help him to win. If we take 3 firsts+ off Denver it makes his job that much harder.
It seems so easy for Rodgers with very little downside.
AR has said his legacy in GB is important to him. If he does that, that legacy is gone. But GB would call his bluff in that scenario and not trade him and force him to retire. I don't think it will go down in a hostile way, whatever the result (stay or go).
AR has said his legacy in GB is important to him. If he does that, that legacy is gone. But GB would call his bluff in that scenario and not trade him and force him to retire. I don't think it will go down in a hostile way, whatever the result (stay or go).
Why would he be forced to retire? Wouldn't he just play out 2022 with packers and then move on as a free agent?
AR has said his legacy in GB is important to him. If he does that, that legacy is gone. But GB would call his bluff in that scenario and not trade him and force him to retire. I don't think it will go down in a hostile way, whatever the result (stay or go).
Why would he be forced to retire? Wouldn't he just play out 2022 with packers and then move on as a free agent?
It's assumed neither side wants that. Packers definitely not, and it's a risk for Rodgers.
This is the year to line up a situation he wants. Can't assume it'll be there next season.
