Rodgers wants out

[Labrev]

Rodgers is upset and threatening to leave because he doesn't feel the FO is or has done enough to win it all,

Nothing recent that I can see supports the notion that Rodgers wants to leave for this reason. It seems to have much more to do with him wanting an extension with built-in job security and/or general control of his destiny... which would indicate that Rodgers thinks the FO *has* done enough, -or- he doesn't, but that's not a motivating factor for him.

[APB]

This player is not available for trade.

This player is not available for trade.

This player is not available for trade.

Player traded....

Management is always going to say he is unavailable, until he's traded.

June 8th is a big day I remember right. First mandatory stuff.

I agree it is the best company line even if it is not true... I don't think the Packers brass is bluffing, though.

While Ghost's point is true, I think I agree with NCF in this instance. We haven't even heard a sniff of any actual deal as June 2 approaches. Secrets that big don't typically hold this long. The Schefter's of the world are too ego driven to not bust a storyline that big once they catch even a hint of a deal.

Side note: pretty sure Schefter caught enough flack in his original breaking of this story to make him think twice about breaking anything new without rock solid sourcing.

[Yoop]

Keep believing the Brady myth if you want. Brady would not be anywhere near the winning QB he is today without the defenses he had in New England. Does his play contribute to some of that defensive attributes? I'm sure it does. But can you imagine Rodgers's records if the Packers gave up an average of 18 ppg instead of 23 ppg? That's the difference in Brady's and Rodgers's defense over their careers.

spot on, minus a Rodgers miracle finish and we go home with out tails between our legs, heck put Rodgers with a couple zona teams, DEnver, the Ravens, and for sure NE and the kid has multiple rings, people that wont accept these almost sure things, just don't want to. silly

whats relavent is that most SB winner this last 10 years had a very expensive QB.

[Scott4Pack]

And Rodgers was not the reason this team lost that game to the Bucs.

He wasn't the reason we lost, but if he had played even ~25% better (ahem, RED ZONE OFFENSE), we probably win that game...

Considering there are at least 21 other players (more with special teams) that go onto the field, I don't know if your 25% better idea floats.

If Z plays better...
If any number of other players plays better...
If coach doesn't take the ball from Aaron and settles for a figgy...
That conversation shouldn't be about Rodgers.

[Acrobat]

Keep believing the Brady myth if you want. Brady would not be anywhere near the winning QB he is today without the defenses he had in New England. Does his play contribute to some of that defensive attributes? I'm sure it does. But can you imagine Rodgers's records if the Packers gave up an average of 18 ppg instead of 23 ppg? That's the difference in Brady's and Rodgers's defense over their careers.

spot on, minus a Rodgers miracle finish and we go home with out tails between our legs, heck put Rodgers with a couple zona teams, DEnver, the Ravens, and for sure NE and the kid has multiple rings, people that wont accept these almost sure things, just don't want to. silly

whats relavent is that most SB winner this last 10 years had a very expensive QB.

You simply can't predict Super Bowl rings by playing revisionist history. I have the same gripe with everyone who says if we hadn't choked against Seattle in 2014, that we would have definitely won the Super Bowl. There's no way of knowing how that game would have gone, especially with Rodger's calf.

[Raptorman]

Keep believing the Brady myth if you want. Brady would not be anywhere near the winning QB he is today without the defenses he had in New England. Does his play contribute to some of that defensive attributes? I'm sure it does. But can you imagine Rodgers's records if the Packers gave up an average of 18 ppg instead of 23 ppg? That's the difference in Brady's and Rodgers's defense over their careers.

spot on, minus a Rodgers miracle finish and we go home with out tails between our legs, heck put Rodgers with a couple zona teams, DEnver, the Ravens, and for sure NE and the kid has multiple rings, people that wont accept these almost sure things, just don't want to. silly

whats relavent is that most SB winner this last 10 years had a very expensive QB.

No, it's not. If that was the case, Rodgers would have more than one. Ben more than two and Ryan and Stafford would have at least one. Tell us, if it the expensive QB, why is it the QB that made the least the last 10 years is the only one on the list that has not only won a Super Bowl but has won 4 in that time period?

It is a team game. And without the whole team playing, one player is not going to make or break the team. No QB has ever taken his team to win the Super Bowl with out help from the defense.

[Yoop]

Keep believing the Brady myth if you want. Brady would not be anywhere near the winning QB he is today without the defenses he had in New England. Does his play contribute to some of that defensive attributes? I'm sure it does. But can you imagine Rodgers's records if the Packers gave up an average of 18 ppg instead of 23 ppg? That's the difference in Brady's and Rodgers's defense over their careers.

spot on, minus a Rodgers miracle finish and we go home with out tails between our legs, heck put Rodgers with a couple zona teams, DEnver, the Ravens, and for sure NE and the kid has multiple rings, people that wont accept these almost sure things, just don't want to. silly

whats relavent is that most SB winner this last 10 years had a very expensive QB.

No, it's not. If that was the case, Rodgers would have more than one. Ben more than two and Ryan and Stafford would have at least one. Tell us, if it the expensive QB, why is it the QB that made the least the last 10 years is the only one on the list that has not only won a Super Bowl but has won 4 in that time period?

Brady's contract is in no way cheap, why is it that you'd think just because it's not the most expensive that Brady's contract of what 20 plus mil is irrelevent to this convo?

this convo is about the struggle to build a quality team because the QB cost to much, I pointed out that almost every SB winner has had a expensive QB yet still built a team good enough to win it all, so tired of these arguments where people like you want to twist any freaking part of the conversation so you can disagree with the basic context of the convo.

[wallyuwl]

Saw something on tv yesterday that AR has told the FO that he doesn't want to come back to the Packers. It didn't say anything about being traded, but that is the obvious conclusion.

[Yoop]

Keep believing the Brady myth if you want. Brady would not be anywhere near the winning QB he is today without the defenses he had in New England. Does his play contribute to some of that defensive attributes? I'm sure it does. But can you imagine Rodgers's records if the Packers gave up an average of 18 ppg instead of 23 ppg? That's the difference in Brady's and Rodgers's defense over their careers.

spot on, minus a Rodgers miracle finish and we go home with out tails between our legs, heck put Rodgers with a couple zona teams, DEnver, the Ravens, and for sure NE and the kid has multiple rings, people that wont accept these almost sure things, just don't want to. silly

whats relavent is that most SB winner this last 10 years had a very expensive QB.

You simply can't predict Super Bowl rings by playing revisionist history. I have the same gripe with everyone who says if we hadn't choked against Seattle in 2014, that we would have definitely won the Super Bowl. There's no way of knowing how that game would have gone, especially with Rodger's calf.

I didn't, how does me saying almost all SB winners these last 10 seasons had expensive second or 3 contract QB's making 10 to 20% of cap money have to do with if we would have beaten so and so we would have went on to win......?

nothing, thats what.

the point of Rodgers playing for team with a top 5 defense is that he would have had a better chance to win, hell give Rodgers one more offensive impact player in the NFCCG last year and we actually may have been able to finish that come from behind game when that drive stalled, you don't know that we wouldn't have won either.

[Yoop]

Saw something on tv yesterday that AR has told the FO that he doesn't want to come back to the Packers. It didn't say anything about being traded, but that is the obvious conclusion.

unless you have some sort of link to a vid of that conversation, your comment is just a rumor, and we sure have plenty of those floating about.

[Raptorman]

spot on, minus a Rodgers miracle finish and we go home with out tails between our legs, heck put Rodgers with a couple zona teams, DEnver, the Ravens, and for sure NE and the kid has multiple rings, people that wont accept these almost sure things, just don't want to. silly

whats relavent is that most SB winner this last 10 years had a very expensive QB.

No, it's not. If that was the case, Rodgers would have more than one. Ben more than two and Ryan and Stafford would have at least one. Tell us, if it the expensive QB, why is it the QB that made the least the last 10 years is the only one on the list that has not only won a Super Bowl but has won 4 in that time period?

Brady's contract is in no way cheap, why is it that you'd think just because it's not the most expensive that Brady's contract of what 20 plus mil is irrelevent to this convo?

this convo is about the struggle to build a quality team because the QB cost to much, I pointed out that almost every SB winner has had a expensive QB yet still built a team good enough to win it all, so tired of these arguments where people like you want to twist any freaking part of the conversation so you can disagree with the basic context of the convo.

The QB's not named Brady who won the Super Bowl in the last 10 years and their pay the year they won.

Code: Select all

P Manning	19,000,000
E Manning        9,000,000
Wilson.	           526,000
Flacco	         6,700,000
Mahomes	         2,000,000
Wentz	         1,600,000

[Ghost_Lombardi]

I don't recall Wentz winning a SB.

I do remember Foles catching a TD.

[Raptorman]

I don't recall Wentz winning a SB.

I do remember Foles catching a TD.

Wentz was the QB for most of the year. Foles finished out the year and the playoffs. The point is how much was the QB being paid and how it affected the rest of the team.

[wallyuwl]

Saw something on tv yesterday that AR has told the FO that he doesn't want to come back to the Packers. It didn't say anything about being traded, but that is the obvious conclusion.

unless you have some sort of link to a vid of that conversation, your comment is just a rumor, and we sure have plenty of those floating about.

I think it was on a show on FS1. I just caught the last 30 seconds of the segment. The caption on the screen said AR informed the Packers he wants out.

[YoHoChecko]

I think it was on a show on FS1. I just caught the last 30 seconds of the segment. The caption on the screen said AR informed the Packers he wants out.

That's just been the generic chyron on the screen when they discuss Rodgers and the Packers since the draft. It's not new, but is misleading in its way that people expect things to be new when they are reported and displayed.

[YoHoChecko]

I've gone over this QB nonsense before.

Rookie QB contracts have won twice: Mahomes and Russell Wilson

QBs in the below-market, low-cap years of their second contracts have won a handful of times: Ben Roethislberger, Joe Flacco, Aaron Rodgers

Top contract players (guys whose cap values are in the top 5-7, say), have won a couple times: both Mannings

Tom Brady has won on undeniably below-market value (particularly within the year that he won) contracts the rest of the times


The key through piece here is that you need a HoF-caliber QB playing on a contract outside of the elite, top 10 cap figures to maximize your shot at a Super Bowl. This rarely happens on a rookie contract because QBs rarely play that well in their first 3-4 years, but we have a couple exceptions. That is just as likely as winning with a top-value QB, statistically--a couple exceptions.

The middle ground is what do Tom Brady and all these second-contract guys have in common? And it's that their cap numbers are lower than the elite players but their experience level and performance have reached peak or prime.

The rest is just arguing over levels of degree.

Tom Brady's contracts may be expensive, but he's on a 2-year $50 deal in Tampa and Rodgers is on a 6-year $180 million deal in Green Bay. Brady's cap number in 2021 is $25 million, Rodgers' is $38 million. There are degrees of an "expensive" contracts. Brady has throughout his career been operating on cap and cash values that are middle grounds between the top tier and the mediocre starters. I don't think that's THE reason he won the most Super Bowls, but it's silly to dismiss it or to lump all deals into one "expensive" category without detailing the nuance in that term

[go pak go]

I've gone over this QB nonsense before.

Rookie QB contracts have won twice: Mahomes and Russell Wilson

QBs in the below-market, low-cap years of their second contracts have won a handful of times: Ben Roethislberger, Joe Flacco, Aaron Rodgers

Top contract players (guys whose cap values are in the top 5-7, say), have won a couple times: both Mannings

Tom Brady has won on undeniably below-market value (particularly within the year that he won) contracts the rest of the times


The key through piece here is that you need a HoF-caliber QB playing on a contract outside of the elite, top 10 cap figures to maximize your shot at a Super Bowl. This rarely happens on a rookie contract because QBs rarely play that well in their first 3-4 years, but we have a couple exceptions. That is just as likely as winning with a top-value QB, statistically--a couple exceptions.

The middle ground is what do Tom Brady and all these second-contract guys have in common? And it's that their cap numbers are lower than the elite players but their experience level and performance have reached peak or prime.

The rest is just arguing over levels of degree.

Tom Brady's contracts may be expensive, but he's on a 2-year $50 deal in Tampa and Rodgers is on a 6-year $180 million deal in Green Bay. Brady's cap number in 2021 is $25 million, Rodgers' is $38 million. There are degrees of an "expensive" contracts. Brady has throughout his career been operating on cap and cash values that are middle grounds between the top tier and the mediocre starters. I don't think that's THE reason he won the most Super Bowls, but it's silly to dismiss it or to lump all deals into one "expensive" category without detailing the nuance in that term

Yup. And to concur with you, there is no single THE reason. Like everything, there are multiple variables at play. The problem is multiple variables is a boring answer and don't allow people to say "it's all the Packers fault or Rodgers didn't do enough". Which makes sense to a degree because ultimately decisions need to be made, but that sort of absolute thinking is just bad thinking.

I feel kind of bad as I guess I helped start this rabbit hole based on a comment I made a few pages back about the Packers investing more than any other team into the QB position over the last 10 years.

I certainly did not expect that comment to blow up into these last few pages.

[Raptorman]

I've gone over this QB nonsense before.

Rookie QB contracts have won twice: Mahomes and Russell Wilson

QBs in the below-market, low-cap years of their second contracts have won a handful of times: Ben Roethislberger, Joe Flacco, Aaron Rodgers

Top contract players (guys whose cap values are in the top 5-7, say), have won a couple times: both Mannings

Tom Brady has won on undeniably below-market value (particularly within the year that he won) contracts the rest of the times


The key through piece here is that you need a HoF-caliber QB playing on a contract outside of the elite, top 10 cap figures to maximize your shot at a Super Bowl. This rarely happens on a rookie contract because QBs rarely play that well in their first 3-4 years, but we have a couple exceptions. That is just as likely as winning with a top-value QB, statistically--a couple exceptions.

The middle ground is what do Tom Brady and all these second-contract guys have in common? And it's that their cap numbers are lower than the elite players but their experience level and performance have reached peak or prime.

The rest is just arguing over levels of degree.

Tom Brady's contracts may be expensive, but he's on a 2-year $50 deal in Tampa and Rodgers is on a 6-year $180 million deal in Green Bay. Brady's cap number in 2021 is $25 million, Rodgers' is $38 million. There are degrees of an "expensive" contracts. Brady has throughout his career been operating on cap and cash values that are middle grounds between the top tier and the mediocre starters. I don't think that's THE reason he won the most Super Bowls, but it's silly to dismiss it or to lump all deals into one "expensive" category without detailing the nuance in that term

Now don't go making sense. If QB is being paid top dollar he should be able to overcome all the shortfalls of the rest of the team. That is basically what I have been hearing for the last 4 years. You have now it going on with the Packers and I have been hearing about it since Cousins came to MN. Yet when asked, not one person could name a player the Vikings didn't sign because of the cap. It's a team game and better players on both sides are the key. I've been saying it for years. A good QB that doesn't make stupid mistakes and a good defense is better than a Top 5 QB that is overpaid and has no other team around him. Brady gets that. A lot of other players don't. We shall see if Rodgers's issue is about money or really about the team. Because if he comes back because they throw more money at him, then it's all about him.

[go pak go]

Now don't go making sense. If QB is being paid top dollar he should be able to overcome all the shortfalls of the rest of the team. That is basically what I have been hearing for the last 4 years. You have now it going on with the Packers and I have been hearing about it since Cousins came to MN. Yet when asked, not one person could name a player the Vikings didn't sign because of the cap. It's a team game and better players on both sides are the key. I've been saying it for years. A good QB that doesn't make stupid mistakes and a good defense is better than a Top 5 QB that is overpaid and has no other team around him. Brady gets that. A lot of other players don't. We shall see if Rodgers's issue is about money or really about the team. Because if he comes back because they throw more money at him, then it's all about him.

Right. Except where the conversations gets ridiculous is "lumping" narratives when they don't deserve to be lumped. No team can touch what the Patriots and Brady have done. But the Packers are clearly in that next tier below what NE has done and could be argued to be the top team in that next tier the past decade. Only New Orleans and Seattle are close to having the same consistency.

The Packers roster hasn't been SB quality each year but yet no team has. The Packers have however had SB quality rosters in 2011, 2014, 2019 and 2020 (lumping in 2019 with 2020 because it is honest to god the same roster). The Packers also likely had a good chance in 2013 before it got derailed by injuries.

So when the narrative of the FO is screwing Rodgers, that too is just not a correct narrative when in fact the Packers have had capable rosters anywhere from 4 to 5 years out of a decade. That to me is honestly a very good job.

The only real difference between what NE and Brady have done compared to what GB and Rodgers have done the past decade is NE/Brady won when they should have and stole others when they shouldn't have. They did likely lose two they should have in 2011 and 2017.

The Packers on the other hand only lost when they shouldn't have and that is at the hand of a variety of reasons.

What brings even further incorrect narratives to the conversation is when it is stated, "the Packers are only going to the NFCCG because Rodgers carried them there" which is based on one season, the 2016 season.

[Yoop]

I feel kind of bad as I guess I helped start this rabbit hole based on a comment I made a few pages back about the Packers investing more than any other team into the QB position over the last 10 years.

you made it a either, OR position, expensive QB, team can't build SB contender, cheap QB's like Mahomes means a team can become Kansas city, or the first contract Rodgers team , thing is, and I blame myself for not explaining myself better, but for the last 10 years as I said, most SB winners where paying a lot for there QB, maybe not what we've paid the last couple years, but still enough that GM's had to be creative with Cap to find FA's and pay second contracts to there star players, so my point is Rodgers cap # didn't hold this team back, poor draft picks did, finally now this defense has star caliber players at enough positions that it should be more consistent and hopefully reach top 5 or so ability, if Rogders walks where going to need it.