Last I'm saying on this or on Brandt. But here's from his latest newsletter on Sunday.
3. What I’m thinking about Aaron Rodgers contract numbers…
I actually really do want to stop talking about Aaron, but now that the contract structure is out, it screams out for me to be the contrarian once again. While reports blare about guarantees of $150 million over three years, I view this contract as a one-year deal for $42 million. Next year, in 2023, there are two guaranteed option bonuses, but these bonuses (1) only trigger if exercised, and (2) travel to a new team upon a trade.
With this option bonus structure, the dead money actually goes up, not down, the longer the contract goes on. Were Rodgers to retire or be traded before the option next year, there would be roughly $40 million of dead money but credit of $59 million in non-exercised bonuses. If he were to play again for the Packers next year, the dead money would rise to never-seen proportions. The Packers knew this in negotiating this contract, as did Rodgers agent. In my humble opinion, this contract suggests a one and done for Rodgers and Jordan Love will ascend to the Packers starting quarterback job after three years of apprenticeship, the same term that Aaron waited years ago.
Wouldn't mind a list of experts or analysts that you guys actually believe. Every damn person I'm posted info from this year is laughed off as irrelevant, dumb, a boomer, or you haven't heard of them. Is there anyone worth listening to? Because it sure isn't any of you.
I do like Brandt, he has actual experience at Russ Ball's job. Sets him apart from us coach GMs. But even Brandt has a fraction of the info Gutey and Ball have. He's not in the rooms, he's not a fly on the wall of the discussions. He has to form his opinions on very limited info, and while he's better than most at interpreting that info, the situation is much different from when he was an insider. He's bound to be wrong at times.
I don't believe anyone's correct all the time on the NFL beat. And when it comes to the draft, if there were a scout who was correct every time, a team would pay him more than AR.
I like Andy Herman. Unapologetically a fan but has a fine head for analysis.
JT O'Sullivan's QB analysis YouTube channel is great. No bias, just one QB's analysis of other QBs, and lots of good teaching.
Last I'm saying on this or on Brandt. But here's from his latest newsletter on Sunday.
3. What I’m thinking about Aaron Rodgers contract numbers…
I actually really do want to stop talking about Aaron, but now that the contract structure is out, it screams out for me to be the contrarian once again. While reports blare about guarantees of $150 million over three years, I view this contract as a one-year deal for $42 million. Next year, in 2023, there are two guaranteed option bonuses, but these bonuses (1) only trigger if exercised, and (2) travel to a new team upon a trade.
With this option bonus structure, the dead money actually goes up, not down, the longer the contract goes on. Were Rodgers to retire or be traded before the option next year, there would be roughly $40 million of dead money but credit of $59 million in non-exercised bonuses. If he were to play again for the Packers next year, the dead money would rise to never-seen proportions. The Packers knew this in negotiating this contract, as did Rodgers agent. In my humble opinion, this contract suggests a one and done for Rodgers and Jordan Love will ascend to the Packers starting quarterback job after three years of apprenticeship, the same term that Aaron waited years ago.
Wouldn't mind a list of experts or analysts that you guys actually believe. Every damn person I'm posted info from this year is laughed off as irrelevant, dumb, a boomer, or you haven't heard of them. Is there anyone worth listening to? Because it sure isn't any of you.
why are you getting so upset because myself and others believe the actual words 2 year guarantee versus what Andrew Brandt says isn't one? the contract is spelled right out as cap money of 42 this year and 59 next year, and also the dead money does not increase after next year unless Rodgers retires then.
seriously Paco, why would Rodgers do a contract that would allow the Packers to trade him next year? that would go against everything Rodgers has said prior, which was he wanted to be able to have control of where he would finish his career, why Brandt wont acknowledge that doesn't make sense, why would Rodgers hang here to help Love be more ready so the Packers can replace him which basically this amounts to.
You guys are kidding about Brandt, right? Gosh, the guy has made a pretty good living doing the things that he wrote about. And pretty much all of what Ive seen him write, he’s been correct. The exception is that the Pack didn’t trade Rodgers THIS year. Yet, according to many that I’m seeing, the contract is set so that GB can trade Rodgers NEXT year. Then, Brandt would only have the timing wrong, but not the anticipation of Rodgers being traded.
Honestly, take your pick of who you want to listen to.
The first guy (Brandt) is a guy who worked the contracts for the Packers and other teams. He had intimate, daily, working knowledge of the motives of the GMs and staffs.
The second guy is me or you who play GM from our couch and have never been a janitor for an NFL team, let alone a GM.
When that first guy writes about what he thinks is going to happen, HE is the guy I’m gonna listen to. It doesn’t mean he’s right every time. But he should easily know a lot more of the reality than I or you guys ever will.
Nothing against Brandt but like anyone he can swing and miss. His experience in the FO was over a decade ago. Times have rapidly change. He’s a well intentioned boomer.
I hear ya. But the philosophy from Wolfe to Thompson to Guty has hardly changed. The three of them would concur that you “draft a round 1 guy to play him.” That has been the basis of Brandts opining about this all along. And nothing has proven him wrong on that particular point.
what do you draft the others for?
no no, every first rounder we've drafted had to earn there start, even Rodgers, cripes Thompson drafted two more QB's the year Rodgers started for insurance, Love has not earned the right to start, not yet anyway, and may never, we aint sending Rodgers packing based on a dream from Brandt.
Last I'm saying on this or on Brandt. But here's from his latest newsletter on Sunday.
3. What I’m thinking about Aaron Rodgers contract numbers…
I actually really do want to stop talking about Aaron, but now that the contract structure is out, it screams out for me to be the contrarian once again. While reports blare about guarantees of $150 million over three years, I view this contract as a one-year deal for $42 million. Next year, in 2023, there are two guaranteed option bonuses, but these bonuses (1) only trigger if exercised, and (2) travel to a new team upon a trade.
With this option bonus structure, the dead money actually goes up, not down, the longer the contract goes on. Were Rodgers to retire or be traded before the option next year, there would be roughly $40 million of dead money but credit of $59 million in non-exercised bonuses. If he were to play again for the Packers next year, the dead money would rise to never-seen proportions. The Packers knew this in negotiating this contract, as did Rodgers agent. In my humble opinion, this contract suggests a one and done for Rodgers and Jordan Love will ascend to the Packers starting quarterback job after three years of apprenticeship, the same term that Aaron waited years ago.
Wouldn't mind a list of experts or analysts that you guys actually believe. Every damn person I'm posted info from this year is laughed off as irrelevant, dumb, a boomer, or you haven't heard of them. Is there anyone worth listening to? Because it sure isn't any of you.
why are you getting so upset because myself and others believe the actual words 2 year guarantee versus what Andrew Brandt says isn't one? the contract is spelled right out as cap money of 42 this year and 59 next year, and also the dead money does not increase after next year unless Rodgers retires then.
seriously Paco, why would Rodgers do a contract that would allow the Packers to trade him next year? that would go against everything Rodgers has said prior, which was he wanted to be able to have control of where he would finish his career, why Brandt wont acknowledge that doesn't make sense, why would Rodgers hang here to help Love be more ready so the Packers can replace him which basically this amounts to.
Have you been around the last 2 offseasons? Do you not think Rodgers and the Packers would do something like this? I'm not saying Brandt is right. But if those guarantees and dead cap are as they say, which several other people have come on board as saying it does look that way, then we are looking at doing this again next season. Not sure why you can't look at this and see that.
None of this stops Rodgers from still potentially getting what he wants. It might be 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, it doesn't matter. NOTHING is guaranteed. I'm open to any possibility. I'm not the one pigeonholing myself into a firm idea.
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 25 May 2022 11:38
by Drj820
Im ñot a big fan of Rodgers teaming up with Brady for this televised golf match. Brady has whipped Rodgers along the way and stole his dreams in the NFCCG very recently. Rodgers should save the buddy buddy stuff until after they retire. As for right now, they both should be focusing on how to get past the other in the playoffs. As for Brady, he can focus on it alittle less as he already owns the upper hand.
I will say this, no way Brady plays the match with Rodgers if Rodgers had beat him in the NFCCG. Rodgers taking a whipping from Brady and then signing up to be golf buddies with him is subservient.
Im ñot a big fan of Rodgers teaming up with Brady for this televised golf match. Brady has whipped Rodgers along the way and stole his dreams in the NFCCG very recently. Rodgers should save the buddy buddy stuff until after they retire. As for right now, they both should be focusing on how to get past the other in the playoffs. As for Brady, he can focus on it alittle less as he already owns the upper hand.
I will say this, no way Brady plays the match with Rodgers if Rodgers had beat him in the NFCCG. Rodgers taking a whipping from Brady and then signing up to be golf buddies with him is subservient.
Maybe he has a little Bob Barker in him. He wanted to be a game show host.
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 25 May 2022 11:59
by BF004
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 25 May 2022 12:18
by Yoop
big deal, it's only a par 3 hole in one, golf long enough and you'll get one, now if he'd made one on a par 4 that would be impressive
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 25 May 2022 12:20
by go pak go
Is that really a Tea Box?
Looks like a normal iron shot off a fairway to me.
Looks like a normal iron shot off a fairway to me.
That's what I was thinking too...
could be staged, the ball is headed off the left side of the green, then miraculously turn back right, and makes a bee line for the hole, so who knows
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 23 Jun 2022 09:13
by salmar80
Hate to do this, but gotta appreciate when a person who actually knows his stuff does a deep dive like this:
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 23 Jun 2022 11:42
by YoHoChecko
"It can be questioned and appreciated at the same time"
- JT O'Sullivan, 8:45
Might be a sig-worthy quote there
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 23 Jun 2022 12:06
by YoHoChecko
That video was great. It is also likely to be considered "propaganda" by the "elite" on this board who take "any opportunity to bash Rodgers."
But again, to the quote: you can question and appreciate at the same time. I think JT struck a great tone of understanding why you'd rely on Adams to win more often than not, but also illustrating how the coverage was telling you (the QB) to go somewhere else and Rodgers seemed, on several key plays, to keep his eyes on Adams just a liiiiiitttle too long before moving to the next read.
The first red zone sack and the last 3rd down post were particularly egregious, in that the coverage, according to Sullivan's read, very clearly shut down the Adams routes as the play was drawn up, and the read should have been elsewhere from the start. The others you can say "hey, I bet there are a dozen plays when Rodgers hung on Adams a hair longer than he 'should' and it worked out to our advantage." Those plays, though, just didn't happen in the 49ers game.
Anyway, thanks for bringing the video [mention]salmar80[/mention]. Good content from you, as always.
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 23 Jun 2022 12:15
by BF004
To be honest, breaking each play down very intimately, I am viewing Aaron in better light after watching that.
OL was even worse than I remembered.
I would give kind of give the only 'mistake' to Aaron on maybe that Davante double coverage throw late.
The rest are maybe some missed opportunities you would normally expect, and he made up a for a few of those missed opportunities with a few typical wow Aaron plays.
He has kind of made a living of extending plays an holding onto the ball, we get so much good out of that, so not always the worst thing if we take an occasional sack, IMO. But when the OL is that bad, yeah.
To be honest, breaking each play down very intimately, I am viewing Aaron in better light after watching that.
OL was even worse than I remembered.
I would give kind of give the only 'mistake' to Aaron on maybe that Davante double coverage throw late.
The rest are maybe some missed opportunities you would normally expect, and he made up a for a few of those missed opportunities with a few typical wow Aaron plays.
He has kind of made a living of extending plays an holding onto the ball, we get so much good out of that, so not always the worst thing if we take an occasional sack, IMO. But when the OL is that bad, yeah.
Wow, I could not disagree more with that take. I agree that the OL was bad, but the reads were equally as bad and would have gotten the ball out in time had he not sat in a collapsing pocket waiting for Adams to get free of double coverage when the guys who should have been his primary reads on the play were open.
The issue people had stated was that we were too reliant on Adams to the extent that when he was taken away, no one else could win their matchups. That has proven to be untrue. The schemes and players got the right guys open and the ball simply wasn't delivered on multiple key plays. The 3rd and 11 was the worst one, but also it was the worst scenario--3rd and 11. The red zone sacks, the 3rd and 8s, they all added up. Any one of those mistakes, played correctly, likely wins us the game--any ONE of them. And there were, what, 6 of them?
You have to be better than that. You have to adjust to the coverage and throw to single-covered guys when the double team becomes clear. I think only one play was bad enough that I can just say "well the OL wasn't good enough and no one other than Adams was open anyway" and that was the second red zone possession when Adams got contacted on the first break of his double move. JT showed some guys who he could have looked to instead, but only Jones broke open and that was too late due to the blocking. Every other play they showed it was clear that Rodgers simply didn't deliver the ball where and when he needed to--and often on plays when the design of the play and the pre-snap defensive alignment made it pretty clear that Adams shouldn't be a target, let alone a primary read. And that's exactly what he's the highest-paid player in the league to do.
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 23 Jun 2022 12:36
by Pckfn23
Great look into the game. Thanks for bringing it!
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 23 Jun 2022 13:08
by Yoop
Sullivan made special note that it's easy to pick Rodgers apart using all 22 to do so.
Rodgers on most plays had to keep a eye on the pass rush because he rarely had a clean pocket, and as always Adams was the #1 read on most passing plays.
we didn't hire Clements to help Love, we hired him to help Rodgers, seriously our front office must be a bunch of stooges, first they give him a kings ransom for refusing to throw to checkdowns just prior to giving McCarthy a 1 year prove it deal, which Rodgers had to be fuming over, then do it again now after he almost single handidly lost another play off game this off season, instead of sending him packing they get rid of his partner in the fiasco who purposely ran into double team coverage constantly.
lis, if ya want Rodgers to spread the ball around then get receivers Rodgers actually can build respect for, when ya have a guy like Adams, and after him the rest are at best #3 or 4 receivers, who don't get open on schedule it doesn't take a genius to know who Rodgers will be throwing to.
as Sullivan said some of those receivers people think where open where to close to call, the [pocket was collapsing, Rodgeras doesn't have a arial view that sullivan has, more blame game, could Rodgers have played better, sure, but that can be said for half the team.
Sullivan made special note that it's easy to pick Rodgers apart using all 22 to do so.
Rodgers on most plays had to keep a eye on the pass rush because he rarely had a clean pocket, and as always Adams was the #1 read on most passing plays.
we didn't hire Clements to help Love, we hired him to help Rodgers, seriously our front office must be a bunch of stooges, first they give him a kings ransom for refusing to throw to checkdowns just prior to giving McCarthy a 1 year prove it deal, which Rodgers had to be fuming over, then do it again now after he almost single handidly lost another play off game this off season, instead of sending him packing they get rid of his partner in the fiasco who purposely ran into double team coverage constantly.
lis, if ya want Rodgers to spread the ball around then get receivers Rodgers actually can build respect for, when ya have a guy like Adams, and after him the rest are at best #3 or 4 receivers, who don't get open on schedule it doesn't take a genius to know who Rodgers will be throwing to.
as Sullivan said some of those receivers people think where open where to close to call, the [pocket was collapsing, Rodgeras doesn't have a arial view that sullivan has, more blame game, could Rodgers have played better, sure, but that can be said for half the team.
Wow, Yoop.
You've got a former Packers QB, who simply, undoubtedly, definitely knows how to analyze tape better than you. They're putting in the work for long form and deep analysis you NEVER get on the networks.
And your response is redundant, prideful parroting of yourself, which actually makes you look like you know nothing. You've now lost me on this topic. AR is to blame.
