Packers Huddle

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 May 2021 10:45

how do you know it wasn't money issues with Sitton? (less I'am wrong) his contract was up, he was a FA when he left, he simply pointed out some flaws when leaving.

You are. His contract was not up. He was not a FA. I don't even recall him pointing out any flaws when he left. Just signed with the Bears and went on with his life.

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 May 2021 10:45

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 May 2021 10:33

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 May 2021 10:29

right

heck Linsley, Sitton, Lang, etc. etc. probably new we could not afford to extend them, however a simple explanation saying so is in order, our people skills need to be better then that.

Sitton wasn't for money reasons but apparrently different reasons.

I am not willing to go on your side though fully that Rodgers is a crusader for the laborer. Because the optics with him up to this point shows he is not for the everyday common player and I don't liken his issues with what the FO did for lunch pale guys like Linsley at all.

how do you know it wasn't money issues with Sitton? (less I'am wrong) his contract was up, he was a FA when he left, he simply pointed out some flaws when leaving.

We cut him on roster cut down day in early September 2016. Rumors of him talking back to McCarthy were reasons he was cut. He then went to the Bears. It wasn't contract issue. We saved a little bit by cutting Sitton before the season on the cap but not enough to justify something bigger in the background for the breakup.

It wasn't his contract was up. He was cut in September on final roster cut down day.

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 May 2021 10:45

and you also don't know what was said between Rodgers, Murph or Guty, for all we know Linsley's name could have been brought up, and the manor in which the FO has cut loose players,

And neither do you. So that's why this stuff doesn't make sense to talk about. It's making stuff up.

All we know is the rumor of Rodgers was mad that Kumerow got cut. We also know Kumerow has been a true sense of the word Journeymen (as you like to call it) and his best season was for like 230 yards with no more than 2 catches in a game.

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 May 2021 10:45

the optics actually do support Rodgers relations with other players, when have you ever heard him chastise one for anything other then being as prepared to play as possible? I can't ever think of a occasion when he has talked poorly of any, look how often he has said he likes his receivers (including the 3 mid rounders I called the stooges, of course openly this looks like it's all about him, obviously he can't stand up and bellow I'am doing this for the team, even though his actions will help player FO relations going forward, Guty even said as much when he said he should have been more transparent.

We are talking about two different things here. My point on the optics on the common player is how Rodgers continues to bring up how stupid the players were to vote for the CBA that brought more benefits to the common player and alumni because he didn't want to play a 17th game.

If I'm a common player, I will gladly add another game if it means we have an agreement and we get more benefits (and the common players agreed with me because they voted for it). But to Rodgers...he is set and that 17th game is just a higher cost to him because he will have to play it.

That's where I come from on the optics thing and just think overall he is fighting a different battle with the FO and none of his actions will be a crusade for the "common man" in the NFL.

NCF wrote: ↑

12 May 2021 10:51

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 May 2021 10:45

how do you know it wasn't money issues with Sitton? (less I'am wrong) his contract was up, he was a FA when he left, he simply pointed out some flaws when leaving.

You are. His contract was not up. He was not a FA. I don't even recall him pointing out any flaws when he left. Just signed with the Bears and went on with his life.

K but he did point out that our offensive schems and game plans where ancient and every DC in the league new what to expect.
I had thought his contract was up, thanks for waking me to the fact it was insubordination, seems Rodgers and Sitton have/had something in common, both where fed up with McCarthy's offense, however they differ, Rodgers still has something the FO wants, and with Sitton they felt they could do without.

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 May 2021 11:06

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 May 2021 10:45

the optics actually do support Rodgers relations with other players, when have you ever heard him chastise one for anything other then being as prepared to play as possible? I can't ever think of a occasion when he has talked poorly of any, look how often he has said he likes his receivers (including the 3 mid rounders I called the stooges, of course openly this looks like it's all about him, obviously he can't stand up and bellow I'am doing this for the team, even though his actions will help player FO relations going forward, Guty even said as much when he said he should have been more transparent.

We are talking about two different things here. My point on the optics on the common player is how Rodgers continues to bring up how stupid the players were to vote for the CBA that brought more benefits to the common player and alumni because he didn't want to play a 17th game.

If I'm a common player, I will gladly add another game if it means we have an agreement and we get more benefits (and the common players agreed with me because they voted for it). But to Rodgers...he is set and that 17th game is just a higher cost to him because he will have to play it.

That's where I come from on the optics thing and just think overall he is fighting a different battle with the FO and none of his actions will be a crusade for the "common man" in the NFL.

players caved on the contract, thats why Rodgers and many older vets didn't vote for it, the 17 game season will shorten careers, taking away a PS game which are not near as intense doesn't equate to adding another regular season game, it was done to increase revenue, I don't have the contract in front of me to argue the other stuff, but imo the players ended up on the short end of the stick.

I hate the 17 game season. Just seems like one more opportunity for a player we need in the post season to get hurt to me

Drj820 wrote: ↑

12 May 2021 11:29

I hate the 17 game season. Just seems like one more opportunity for a player we need in the post season to get hurt to me

I think kvetching over an expanded season is SUPER overrated and will have a minimal impact on injuries. Remember, preseason will be reduced and we had our most-important injury in a non-contact practice (Bakh).

I think adding a second bye week and not allowing any Thursday night games without a bye beforehand would do a LOT more for injury reduction that "stick with 16 games."

But the 17th game, while PART of the opposition, pales in comparison to the offseason stuff and how elite players who don't need the extra time to earn their careers have no interest in the offseason while younger, more fringe players who make up the majority of the league benefit GREATLY from the development and learning and training opportunities that come with a more consistent offseason presence. That's the dividing line. That's why Rodgers and Richard Sherman and a number of loud player voices were on one side of the vote, but the majority went the other way.

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 May 2021 11:16

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 May 2021 11:06

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 May 2021 10:45

the optics actually do support Rodgers relations with other players, when have you ever heard him chastise one for anything other then being as prepared to play as possible? I can't ever think of a occasion when he has talked poorly of any, look how often he has said he likes his receivers (including the 3 mid rounders I called the stooges, of course openly this looks like it's all about him, obviously he can't stand up and bellow I'am doing this for the team, even though his actions will help player FO relations going forward, Guty even said as much when he said he should have been more transparent.

We are talking about two different things here. My point on the optics on the common player is how Rodgers continues to bring up how stupid the players were to vote for the CBA that brought more benefits to the common player and alumni because he didn't want to play a 17th game.

If I'm a common player, I will gladly add another game if it means we have an agreement and we get more benefits (and the common players agreed with me because they voted for it). But to Rodgers...he is set and that 17th game is just a higher cost to him because he will have to play it.

That's where I come from on the optics thing and just think overall he is fighting a different battle with the FO and none of his actions will be a crusade for the "common man" in the NFL.

players caved on the contract, thats why Rodgers and many older vets didn't vote for it, the 17 game season will shorten careers, taking away a PS game which are not near as intense doesn't equate to adding another regular season game, it was done to increase revenue, I don't have the contract in front of me to argue the other stuff, but imo the players ended up on the short end of the stick.

But it was overall really good for the common man. Practice Squad size increased. Roster size is expected to increase. Minimum salary is going to go from like $500k to $600k. Practice squad salary minimums are going to go up a lot. I also believe health insurance benefits for retired players is going to increase significantly.

A big part of the CBA was to increase league revenue to pay for the guys who aren't Rodgers or Richard Sherman. Yes Rodgers and Richard Sherman will have to "bear the cost" because they are the ones (meaning elite players) who will have to play the extra game and they are the ones who are disproportionally generating the extra league revenue.

But a $100k pay raise for a guy making a half million a year is a huge, huge deal.

And as a unionist, I would want my union to look out for the lunch pale guys rather than only the stars.

Aaron Rodgers was one of the 14 dissenters among the 32 NFL player representatives who narrowly voted to send the new collective bargaining agreement to the full NFL Players Association membership.

NFL players voted to approve a proposed new collective bargaining agreement with the league's owners, ensuring NFL labor peace through at least 2030. The vote was tight, with 1,019 "yes" votes and 959 "no" votes.

wasn't a land slide victory, only 18 team reps voted to take it to a player vote, and then it only passed by 60 votes, and Rodgers, Sherman and older vets wanted younger players to get increased benefits, seems this vote cradled on the extra game for the older guys, and they probably wanted a extra bye week to and lost that.

in the real world typically young workers opt for instant gratification, which is more money on the check, and extra vacation days, older workers, Pension and healthcare, and work place safety, or the stuff that workers need as they age.

hey I'am all for a longer season, but it's easy to understand why guys like Rodgers don't

The young players that haven’t made generational wealth yet will always be more likely to take the crumbs the owners dangle in front of their faces.

Players: We want life time health insurance
Owners: no but we won’t make you wear pads much
Players: okay!

Players: We don’t want to play 17 games
Owners: but we will let you smoke weed.
Players: Okay!!

In the end there are more guys in the nfl who don’t making tens of millions that are unwilling to sit for what they want than guys who are willing to sit.

So the owners dangle some crumbs in their face and the league keeps playing ball.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

12 May 2021 15:24

The young players that haven’t made generational wealth yet will always be more likely to take the crumbs the owners dangle in front of their faces.

Players: We want life time health insurance
Owners: no but we won’t make you wear pads much
Players: okay!

Players: We don’t want to play 17 games
Owners: but we will let you smoke weed.
Players: Okay!!

In the end there are more guys in the nfl who don’t making tens of millions that are unwilling to sit for what they want than guys who are willing to sit.

So the owners dangle some crumbs in their face and the league keeps playing ball.

In all fairness, I'd totally take a 17th game if it meant I could smoke weed.

I believe the union vote was something like 1030 to 960 or close to it. A difference of 2 votes per team I read somewhere.

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 May 2021 15:02

in the real world typically young workers opt for instant gratification, which is more money on the check, and extra vacation days, older workers, Pension and healthcare, and work place safety, or the stuff that workers need as they age.

hey I'am all for a longer season, but it's easy to understand why guys like Rodgers don't

And it's easy why the young guys voted the way they did.

Lot easier to strike or hold out on employment when you already have $100's Million in the bank and accrued most of your years as a career.

Most NFL players have 2 - 5 years in this league to earn their lifetime earnings. If you lose a year, it means another college class is coming up to take your job.

I would honestly vote to take crumbs too at this stage because the cap is already so large. I am not risking anywhere from $500k to $1.5 million (most of the NFL salaries) to sit out due to a dispute about one game.

The NFLPA is a mess. They always get bulldozed by the owners. They should pay the MLBPA to teach them how to play hard ball and negotiate.

Rodgers not rallying the troops to get his will isn’t really his fault tho. The leadership is weak from the top down and all around. The only thing that the 17th game would have contributed to Rodgers leaving is when he saw it was the Chiefs they added for us he thought the schedule would be too tough to set up a repeat of last year.

Welcome to Green Bay, Blake Bortles!

Now we have more 1st round talent on Offense.

Holy crap.

Is Rodgers really not going to be a Packer this fall?

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 May 2021 16:46

Holy crap.

Is Rodgers really not going to be a Packer this fall?

Sure looks like he is gone. Now the only question is to where and how much the Packers get in return.

Any idea how the Packers fit Bortles into their cap?