Packers Huddle

go pak go wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 07:41

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 07:27

go pak go wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 07:20

Yeah. Pretty sure that has been offered.

Like that is an insanely small ask that the Packers would have happily obliged to do. If that's all it took....I will state it again.

This thread would not exist.

NO, that is huge, thats why teams do it, thats why there is no sit for one year and be free to go anywhere with only a league awarded comp pick any more, which the players will fight to reinstate with the next contract

being able to trade Rodgers as soon as Guty and Lafluer think Love is ready to step in could gain us a couple first rounders, so you bet it's a sticking point and I'd contend the major issue, as I've always said when Guty says Rodgers is our QB this year and Beyond, beyond needs to de defined.

Good ole bar talk.

Where nobody can prove they are right but are convinced they are. The smart phone and google largely destroyed bar talk. But it can't destroy this conversation because there is no way of knowing who is actually right.

it's not bar talk, if he plays out his contract and walks we get a 3rd compensatory pick, if we trade him prior we get draft picks and possibly players, I'd bet you right now that the no trade clause is what is holding this all up

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 07:47

go pak go wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 07:41

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 07:27

NO, that is huge, thats why teams do it, thats why there is no sit for one year and be free to go anywhere with only a league awarded comp pick any more, which the players will fight to reinstate with the next contract

being able to trade Rodgers as soon as Guty and Lafluer think Love is ready to step in could gain us a couple first rounders, so you bet it's a sticking point and I'd contend the major issue, as I've always said when Guty says Rodgers is our QB this year and Beyond, beyond needs to de defined.

Good ole bar talk.

Where nobody can prove they are right but are convinced they are. The smart phone and google largely destroyed bar talk. But it can't destroy this conversation because there is no way of knowing who is actually right.

it's not bar talk, if he plays out his contract and walks we get a 3rd compensatory pick, if we trade him prior we get draft picks and possibly players, I'd bet you right now that the no trade clause is what is holding this all up

Okay this is where you are wrong. You are wrong on the 3rd compensatory pick. The Packers will get a 5th round Comp pick when Rodgers leaves because of the Alan Faneca rule because Rodgers has accrued 10 more seasons.

I understand how trade and value work. I understand the Packers will likely get more than a 1st if they were to trade him in the 2023 offseason. (likely not to the amount they would get either this summer or next spring). But putting in a no trade clause, if it were to make Aaron happy and give the Packers two likely seasons at a SB, I believe GB management wouldn't hesitate for a second to offer that.

And I have my reasonings for that belief which I have dissed many times on this thread.

But make no mistake yoop. This is bar talk. You have no way of knowing if the Packers already offered that or not. You are assuming they aren't budging on that and that is why Rodgers is pissed. Just like you assume basically every other one of your theories.

I am assuming too because there is no way for me to know that the Packers have in fact offered that and Rodgers has said he was wanted more. I just can't wrap my head around that if that is the only sticking point here....the cost is mighty low to not reach a resolution.

go pak go wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 07:59

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 07:47

go pak go wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 07:41

Good ole bar talk.

Where nobody can prove they are right but are convinced they are. The smart phone and google largely destroyed bar talk. But it can't destroy this conversation because there is no way of knowing who is actually right.

it's not bar talk, if he plays out his contract and walks we get a 3rd compensatory pick, if we trade him prior we get draft picks and possibly players, I'd bet you right now that the no trade clause is what is holding this all up

Okay this is where you are wrong. You are wrong on the 3rd compensatory pick. The Packers will get a 5th round Comp pick when Rodgers leaves because of the Alan Faneca rule because Rodgers has accrued 10 more seasons.

I understand how trade and value work. I understand the Packers will likely get more than a 1st if they were to trade him in the 2023 offseason. (likely not to the amount they would get either this summer or next spring). But putting in a no trade clause, if it were to make Aaron happy and give the Packers two likely seasons at a SB, I believe GB management wouldn't hesitate for a second to offer that.

And I have my reasonings for that belief which I have dissed many times on this thread.

But make no mistake yoop. This is bar talk. You have no way of knowing if the Packers already offered that or not. You are assuming they aren't budging on that and that is why Rodgers is pissed. Just like you assume basically every other one of your theories.

I am assuming too because there is no way for me to know that the Packers have in fact offered that and Rodgers has said he was wanted more. I just can't wrap my head around that if that is the only sticking point here....the cost is mighty low to not reach a resolution.

3rd or 5th comp pick is chicken feed compared to at minimum ( providing he doesn't decline to much) a number 1, and a #2 and possibly even a player prior to the 2023 season, I'am convinced with info we have now that Rodgers wants to play through the 23 season, so the no trade clause is the sticking point.

as I said, the difference is huge.

There is no chance the Packers and Rodgers are stuck on a no trade clause and that is it...

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 14:16

There is no chance the Packers and Rodgers are stuck on a no trade clause and that is it...

but its so obvious 23....

go pak go wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 14:43

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 14:16

There is no chance the Packers and Rodgers are stuck on a no trade clause and that is it...

but its so obvious 23....

is to me

From the beginning, Schefter chose to NOT use any credible quotes. None. Not one.

But from the beginning, NFL and Packer fans have clamored over this “story” and argued about it and more. It’s the power of a rumor. That doesn’t mean there isn’t some truth to it. It just means that this “story” was ripe for what we are seeing now. It’s out of control. And a “reporter” reported it, without any truthful foundation.

If a “reporter” can’t bring credible evidence or in-person comments (first person), they should not report that “news” story.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 00:34

From the beginning, Schefter chose to NOT use any credible quotes. None. Not one.

But from the beginning, NFL and Packer fans have clamored over this “story” and argued about it and more. It’s the power of a rumor. That doesn’t mean there isn’t some truth to it. It just means that this “story” was ripe for what we are seeing now. It’s out of control. And a “reporter” reported it, without any truthful foundation.

If a “reporter” can’t bring credible evidence or in-person comments (first person), they should not report that “news” story.

It is true, Schefter is no longer a credible reporter and his career should be finished. But why didn't either Rodgers or his agent or the Packers refute it? Call it BS? Maybe because the Packers thought that Rodgers or his agent leaked to Schefter and Rodgers and his agent thought the Packers had leaked to Schefter.

Schefter had no proof and very little evidence, but both sides, in their lack of denial, said volumes. Even a blind squirrel (Schefter) finds an acorn sometimes.

I believe it is a very real possibility that Schefter did indeed receive credible sourcing for his original tweet/story but he is now, after significant anti-Rodgers blowback from the public, being pressured to walk back some of his reporting so that there can be some maneuver space in the aftermath.

Schefter lives and dies by getting inside info on players. David Dunne and his agency represent a significant block of high profile players not only in the NFL but throughout the entire pro sports spectrum. It is certainly viable that Dunne leaked the info to Schefter, expected a public outpouring of support but when it turned the other way he then used his significant leverage - i.e. access to his entire agency portfolio - over a rumor mongering reporter to force him to walk back his story in order to give Dunne and Co some maneuver space to save face.

Nothing about this story so far has been presented straight laced although Schefter had been, up until very recently, considered a reliable source of inside info. What makes anyone believe this latest turn - Schefter’s unusually public admission of a lack of direct sourcing - is completely honest? Does anyone truly believe Schefter, a reporter of many years, would have been so careless as to report on a story so big without any kind of direct source knowledge? Seems carelessly far-fetched to me.

The fact there have been a multitude of other Rodgers’ allies also coming forward to downplay the severity of the rift only lends credence to the above. There is a shift in framing going on and I don’t necessarily think anything should be taken at face value, especially from the Rodgers camp who has been taking the brunt of public criticism.

APB wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 07:11

I believe it is a very real possibility that Schefter did indeed receive credible sourcing for his original tweet/story but he is now, after significant anti-Rodgers blowback from the public, being pressured to walk back some of his reporting so that there can be some maneuver space in the aftermath.

Schefter lives and dies by getting inside info on players. David Dunne and his agency represent a significant block of high profile players not only in the NFL but throughout the entire pro sports spectrum. It is certainly viable that Dunne leaked the info to Schefter, expected a public outpouring of support but when it turned the other way he then used his significant leverage over a rumor mongering reporter to force him to walk back his story in order to give Dunne and Co some maneuver space to save face.

Nothing about this story so far has been presented straight laced although Schefter had been, up until very recently, considered a reliable source of inside info. What makes anyone believe this latest turn - Schefter’s unusually public admission of a lack of direct sourcing - is completely honest? Does anyone truly believe Schefter, a reporter of many years, would have been so careless as to report on a story so big without any kind of direct source knowledge? Seems carelessly far-fetched to me.

The fact there have been a multitude of other Rodgers’ allies also coming forward to downplay the severity of the rift only lends credence to the above. There is a shift in framing going on and I don’t necessarily think anything should be taken at face value, especially from the Rodgers camp who has taking the brunt of the public criticism.

I think you are on the right track.

Journalists who rely on inside sources have to protect those sources lest the well run dry. A journalist without access is an unemployed journalist.

Rodgers wanted to be traded. There was probably some agent initiated tampering with SF. Rodgers agent was probably feeding info to Schefler, but when it didn't come out fast enough he then leaked to other sources, and at that point Schefler had to print or lose the scoop.

for all we know the leak could be the result of someone from the 49'ers after the FO told them NO we are not trading Rodgers, knowledge of there interest excites there fans, and also creates havoc for us on draft day.

none of us took Rodgers comments seriously when he said my future here is unknown, but obviously the media and other teams did, thats all schefter had to go on except the knowledge that SF had reached out to the FO offering a trade for Rodgers, everything else is speculation, rumor and inuendo.

and Schefter, like Rapoport and the rest of these guys are rumor mongrels, they spread false or half truths all the time, Schefter was forced this time to admit he put this out there with almost zero evidence to back it up, except Rodgers open comment that he didn't know his future, possible knowledge that Guty, Murph, and MLF had taken a trip to console AR and the knowledge that SF called GB, and he did it during the draft windup so ESPN could get a jump on NFL.Net for ratings



people are all upset with Rodgers, I'am just as much or more upset with this rumor mongrel, hell bent on starting a chaotic situation for us just prior to the draft, that could end up destroying our chances for another run at a SB.

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 03:38

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 00:34

From the beginning, Schefter chose to NOT use any credible quotes. None. Not one.

But from the beginning, NFL and Packer fans have clamored over this “story” and argued about it and more. It’s the power of a rumor. That doesn’t mean there isn’t some truth to it. It just means that this “story” was ripe for what we are seeing now. It’s out of control. And a “reporter” reported it, without any truthful foundation.

If a “reporter” can’t bring credible evidence or in-person comments (first person), they should not report that “news” story.

It is true, Schefter is no longer a credible reporter and his career should be finished. But why didn't either Rodgers or his agent or the Packers refute it? Call it BS? Maybe because the Packers thought that Rodgers or his agent leaked to Schefter and Rodgers and his agent thought the Packers had leaked to Schefter.

Schefter had no proof and very little evidence, but both sides, in their lack of denial, said volumes. Even a blind squirrel (Schefter) finds an acorn sometimes.

If that was the standard, there would be a lot of reporters out of jobs at major news and sports news organizations throughout the country. See, they don't have to be right, just first. It's all about who is first. Get the clicks.

I don't get the angst at Schefter.

I mean what he reported has a lot of substance behind it.

People calling it fake news clearly didn't read or watch any of the pressers and statements from Mark Murphy, Gute or MLF over draft weekend.

Rodgers sighted in Green Bay

paco wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 11:03

Rodgers sighted in Green Bay

that picture doesn't do him justice

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 03:38

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 00:34

From the beginning, Schefter chose to NOT use any credible quotes. None. Not one.

But from the beginning, NFL and Packer fans have clamored over this “story” and argued about it and more. It’s the power of a rumor. That doesn’t mean there isn’t some truth to it. It just means that this “story” was ripe for what we are seeing now. It’s out of control. And a “reporter” reported it, without any truthful foundation.

If a “reporter” can’t bring credible evidence or in-person comments (first person), they should not report that “news” story.

It is true, Schefter is no longer a credible reporter and his career should be finished. But why didn't either Rodgers or his agent or the Packers refute it? Call it BS? Maybe because the Packers thought that Rodgers or his agent leaked to Schefter and Rodgers and his agent thought the Packers had leaked to Schefter.

Schefter had no proof and very little evidence, but both sides, in their lack of denial, said volumes. Even a blind squirrel (Schefter) finds an acorn sometimes.

I appreciate your question. I really do. To that, my answer is this.
When a "reporter" claims something that he knows is a rumor is true, what obligation does any GM or owner or coach have to give him any reply? To me, the answer is none. Next question.

Schefter's comments later indicated that his choice to publish this "news" was only a "culmination of things" and not any one particular event. That is the epitome of rumor and that is exactly what should never be reported. But that's what Schefter did. And he is making a name for himself in the process. Shame.

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 10:53

I don't get the angst at Schefter.

I mean what he reported has a lot of substance behind it.

People calling it fake news clearly didn't read or watch any of the pressers and statements from Mark Murphy, Gute or MLF over draft weekend.

Um, no. There is not any substance to it. Substance is stuff that is in the public view. What do you have that is in the public view right now? When Schefter reported this, he had nothing in public. Not a thing.

Ya know, it's amazing how many people will believe there's a fire when enough other people say that they smell smoke.

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 11:15

paco wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 11:03

Rodgers sighted in Green Bay

that picture doesn't do him justice

It must be real. I swear I see some bears in the background readying to give chase.
;-)

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 10:53

I don't get the angst at Schefter.

I mean what he reported has a lot of substance behind it.

People calling it fake news clearly didn't read or watch any of the pressers and statements from Mark Murphy, Gute or MLF over draft weekend.

I don't think it was fake news at all. It was clearly real news.

But reporting it as information obtained Thursday, then waiting a full week to clarify that it was his decision to break the news Thursday because he thought so much of the info was out there that it would get out eventually soon anyway so, naturally, he wanted to be the one to break it and to draw eyes to ESPN.

The angst is that the initial news break was misleading. And that he waited a full week for a follow-up to clarify what has really happened instead of initially breaking the news by explaining that this was a constant swirling story this offseason, not a story that had been passed to him deliberately on Thursday. It's fine if he broke it vaguely, not knowing exactly how it would be interpreted.

But once it became a well-known story that one side or the other planted this for a specific purpose--once the timing of the story became a large part of the story, all while Schefter was on TV every day providing updates.... taking the timing of the news out of the story should have happened earlier. UNLESS, one of the two versions Schefter broke was intentionally misleading or a lie or a backpedal. And THAT suspicion drives more angst.

So now reports a big, multi-year extension offer has been made to Rodgers and there is back and forth. Nothing imminent.