Packers Huddle

The stage is set. He’s gonna come back, act like he doesn’t understand why everyone seems to be overreacting, claim he has been oblivious and unplugged as he has been working on his mental health.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

07 Jul 2021 17:29

The stage is set. He’s gonna come back, act like he doesn’t understand why everyone seems to be overreacting, claim he has been oblivious and unplugged as he has been working on his mental health.

He's been working on his "mental health". Whatever the hell that means.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

07 Jul 2021 17:29

The stage is set. He’s gonna come back, act like he doesn’t understand why everyone seems to be overreacting, claim he has been oblivious and unplugged as he has been working on his mental health.

sure gave fans a lot to talk about this off season, and pointed a finger at a FO that treats departing players like &%$@, maybe now when we cut a player like Linsley they will at least give them a phone call.

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 06:04

sure gave fans a lot to talk about this off season, and pointed a finger at a FO that treats departing players like &%$@, maybe now when we cut a player like Linsley they will at least give them a phone call.

I really don't understand why you continually overstate things in your attempts to make a point. All it does is give those who disagree with you ammunition to refute those points by pointing out your falsehoods.

Linsley is on record as having conversations with the Packers leading up to his pending free agency, just "nothing of substance."

On Monday, Linsley confirmed that his agent has yet to have any substantive conversations with the Packers about returning next year.

“That’s not to say something couldn’t happen, but up this point, it’s been complimentary but nothing of substance,” Linsley said per Rob Demovsky of ESPN.

The Packers were clearly well aware of their cap situation and likely made the early decision they would not be able to offer Linsley anything close to his All-Pro level market value. Whether they were blunt about that position with him is anyone's guess but, to me, the fact he states the Packers have had "complimentary discussions with him but have not made an substantive offer" leads me to believe that was likely the case. In any regard, for you to state they didn't even bother to make a phone call is clearly disingenuous and false.

And, once again, Linsley wasn't cut, his contract was honored through it's timeline and he was not resigned. Exactly the thing you're demanding of the Packers FO in Rodgers' case but, in the case of Linsley, even that isn't good enough.

I get it that, as a career unionist, your first impulse is to find fault in management. It's in your nature. In this case, tho, you seem to be searching for something (anything) to gripe about - even if you have to manufacture it yourself.

Side note: please don't see this post as yet another need to rehash the arguments you've already made a bazillion times over in countless threads demonizing the FO and idolizing Rodgers. We are all well, well versed in your position on Rodgers and the FO.

APB wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 07:00

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 06:04

sure gave fans a lot to talk about this off season, and pointed a finger at a FO that treats departing players like &%$@, maybe now when we cut a player like Linsley they will at least give them a phone call.

I really don't understand why you continually overstate things in your attempts to make a point. All it does is give those who disagree with you ammunition to refute those points by pointing out your falsehoods.

Linsley is on record as having conversations with the Packers leading up to his pending free agency, just "nothing of substance."

On Monday, Linsley confirmed that his agent has yet to have any substantive conversations with the Packers about returning next year.

“That’s not to say something couldn’t happen, but up this point, it’s been complimentary but nothing of substance,” Linsley said per Rob Demovsky of ESPN.

The Packers were clearly well aware of their cap situation and likely made the early decision they would not be able to offer Linsley anything close to his All-Pro level market value. Whether they were blunt about that position with him is anyone's guess but, to me, the fact he states the Packers have had "complimentary discussions with him but have not made an substantive offer" leads me to believe that was likely the case. In any regard, for you to state they didn't even bother to make a phone call is clearly disingenuous and false.

And, once again, Linsley wasn't cut, his contract was honored through it's timeline and he was not resigned. Exactly the thing you're demanding of the Packers FO in Rodgers' case but, in the case of Linsley, even that isn't good enough.

I get it that, as a career unionist, your first impulse is to find fault in management. It's in your nature. In this case, tho, you seem to be searching for something (anything) to gripe about - even if you have to manufacture it yourself.

Side note: please don't see this post as yet another need to rehash the arguments you've already made a bazillion times over in countless threads demonizing the FO and idolizing Rodgers. We are all well, well versed in your position on Rodgers and the FO.

blah, blah blah, Linsley isn't the first player to comment that the FO didn't bother to say good bye to after years of service, Sitton, Lang, Jennings, Jenkins, the list goes on and on, unless a player has the notoriaty of a Favre or Rodgers no one pays attention, Rodgers actions this year brought that to light.

my first impulse is to see who is at fault, and not to be redundent but when you give a person a contract it should be binding to both sides unless one or the other is unable to fulfill it, player has career ending injury, or skills go into decline, the team goes into bankruptcy, other wise honor the damn contract.

course you being a company man, you side with whatever the company line is, which to this point has been double messaging, the FO can say they want Rodgers for this season and beyond, but drafting Love when Rodgers was only 1 year into a 6 year contract says other wise.

I bet even uncle sam gave you a retirement party, did me and I was only in a little while, heck most of my employers called me into the office when they let me go, The Packers on the other hand let people go with a text message.

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 07:29

APB wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 07:00

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 06:04

sure gave fans a lot to talk about this off season, and pointed a finger at a FO that treats departing players like &%$@, maybe now when we cut a player like Linsley they will at least give them a phone call.

I really don't understand why you continually overstate things in your attempts to make a point. All it does is give those who disagree with you ammunition to refute those points by pointing out your falsehoods.

Linsley is on record as having conversations with the Packers leading up to his pending free agency, just "nothing of substance."

On Monday, Linsley confirmed that his agent has yet to have any substantive conversations with the Packers about returning next year.

“That’s not to say something couldn’t happen, but up this point, it’s been complimentary but nothing of substance,” Linsley said per Rob Demovsky of ESPN.

The Packers were clearly well aware of their cap situation and likely made the early decision they would not be able to offer Linsley anything close to his All-Pro level market value. Whether they were blunt about that position with him is anyone's guess but, to me, the fact he states the Packers have had "complimentary discussions with him but have not made an substantive offer" leads me to believe that was likely the case. In any regard, for you to state they didn't even bother to make a phone call is clearly disingenuous and false.

And, once again, Linsley wasn't cut, his contract was honored through it's timeline and he was not resigned. Exactly the thing you're demanding of the Packers FO in Rodgers' case but, in the case of Linsley, even that isn't good enough.

I get it that, as a career unionist, your first impulse is to find fault in management. It's in your nature. In this case, tho, you seem to be searching for something (anything) to gripe about - even if you have to manufacture it yourself.

Side note: please don't see this post as yet another need to rehash the arguments you've already made a bazillion times over in countless threads demonizing the FO and idolizing Rodgers. We are all well, well versed in your position on Rodgers and the FO.

blah, blah blah, Linsley isn't the first player to comment that the FO didn't bother to say good bye to after years of service, Sitton, Lang, Jennings, Jenkins, the list goes on and on, unless a player has the notoriaty of a Favre or Rodgers no one pays attention, Rodgers actions this year brought that to light.

my first impulse is to see who is at fault, and not to be redundent but when you give a person a contract it should be binding to both sides unless one or the other is unable to fulfill it, player has career ending injury, or skills go into decline, the team goes into bankruptcy, other wise honor the damn contract.

course you being a company man, you side with whatever the company line is, which to this point has been double messaging, the FO can say they want Rodgers for this season and beyond, but drafting Love when Rodgers was only 1 year into a 6 year contract says other wise.

I bet even uncle sam gave you a retirement party, did me and I was only in a little while, heck most of my employers called me into the office when they let me go, The Packers on the other hand let people go with a text message.

In both instances - Linsley and Rodgers - who is the party honoring the contract? Who is not living up to their contractual obligations?



Is that where your gripe lies? The Packers aren't throwing these departing players - players they've paid millions to - a going-away shindig as they, the players, opt to seek further riches elsewhere? Seriously...?

APB wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 07:43

In both instances - Linsley and Rodgers - who is the party honoring the contract? Who is not living up to their contractual obligations?

at the moment no one, if Rodgers doesn't play then he isn't, if the team peddles him prior to 2023 then they didn't.

any player thats been here for a few seasons deserves to be let go on a personal basis, or at least with video conference, lis, the only players that get that level of attention are players the team can't afford to lose or want to retain, the rest find out in some unpersonal way, was it Lang or Sitton that said they learned it through the media?

I care far more about the players then I ever will about management, management is the reason we have only 2 SB trophys in the last 30 plus years with 2 first ballot HOF QB's, management is why we went to one playoff game in 2 decades between 1968 and 1991, so when one of those HOF QB's points out a problem with management, you bet I pay attention.

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 08:17

so when one of those HOF QB's points out a problem with management, you bet I pay attention.

You mean when one of those QB's acts like an entitled jackass and the media speculates endlessly as to what the problem with management actually is, you pay attention. It's about people, no wait, it's about control, no, no, it's about something. IT IS ABOUT $$$ MONEY $$$.

A lot of points maybe playing a part here, but I think Rodgers is actually fine being a year-to-year QB at this point. But, since he just went out and won an MVP, another year is going to cost us. He knows he has us by the short ones. I don't blame him for flexing. I just wish, through back channels or whatever, he would admit it. If I'm wrong, same point remains, just let it be known what the hell the problem is and he would probably have a lot more support.

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 08:17

management is the reason we have only 2 SB trophys in the last 30 plus years with 2 first ballot HOF QB's

I dunno, man; when you play in 9 Conference Championship games between 1995 and 2020 and only win 3 of them, sometimes you gotta point to the players on the field and say "hey, step up and do your part." Not any one player individually. But tough for me to say that "management" has held the team back when the players play the game and the team was good enough to be in prime position.

I mean this is the crux of the whole thing, though, right? Some people believe that having Hall of Fame QBs entitles you to Super Bowls with even baseline competent management. And the rest of us live in reality where HoF QBs on good teams lose games and playoff games all the time. The only exception is Brady.

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 07:29

when you give a person a contract it should be binding to both sides unless one or the other is unable to fulfill it, player has career ending injury, or skills go into decline, the team goes into bankruptcy, other wise honor the damn contract.

The NFL and the players' union have between them agreed the rules of contracts. If you think the players' union is not looking after its players properly by allowing breakable contracts, that isn't the Packers' fault.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 08:28

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 08:17

management is the reason we have only 2 SB trophys in the last 30 plus years with 2 first ballot HOF QB's

I dunno, man; when you play in 9 Conference Championship games between 1995 and 2020 and only win 3 of them, sometimes you gotta point to the players on the field and say "hey, step up and do your part." Not any one player individually. But tough for me to say that "management" has held the team back when the players play the game and the team was good enough to be in prime position.

I mean this is the crux of the whole thing, though, right? Some people believe that having Hall of Fame QBs entitles you to Super Bowls with even baseline competent management. And the rest of us live in reality where HoF QBs on good teams lose games and playoff games all the time. The only exception is Brady.

with most of the PO losses we had near complete lack of talent at one position or another, or lack of coaching, throughout all of it our QB was one of our most consistent players, I have a poor memory these days, I'am sure you can remember better then me, just look at 2011, one year after we had the number 2 defense, we dropped to #32 rated defense, look at 016 till last year, our WR group rated some where in the 20's, we've had season where we didn't field a starting caliber CB cept for Randall ( Lupe with pan fried noodles), we went 3 seasons without a bone fid RB, 3 with mediocre safety's, and look at ILB, a train wreck for a decade.

the point of having a Rodgers is NOT to rely on him for success, but rather to fill the roster with talent so you are loaded up enough so you don't have to rely on him so much to succeed, and it's real hard to do that when all you care about is D&D, ya have to draft and use UFA to win NOW, and to often imo we lost sight of that.

the reason Brady won so often is that Belichick realized that, and every year he brought in UFA to make sure he'd help Brady by giving him a stingy defense, our defense almost seemed like a after thought.

dsr wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 08:52

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 07:29

when you give a person a contract it should be binding to both sides unless one or the other is unable to fulfill it, player has career ending injury, or skills go into decline, the team goes into bankruptcy, other wise honor the damn contract.

The NFL and the players' union have between them agreed the rules of contracts. If you think the players' union is not looking after its players properly by allowing breakable contracts, that isn't the Packers' fault.

aint Rodgers fault either, he and a lot of vets said NO to this contract.

NCF wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 08:52

only if Rodgers wants to leave next year,( team willing) or LOve proves he's the next great QB, otherwise the FO will want to keep Rodgers another season, he's been there get out of jail free card for almost ever, why would they throw that away?

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 09:19

why would they throw that away?

Because they pretty much have to from a cap standpoint. This is the Last Dance, Packers version.

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 07:29

APB wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 07:00

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 06:04

sure gave fans a lot to talk about this off season, and pointed a finger at a FO that treats departing players like &%$@, maybe now when we cut a player like Linsley they will at least give them a phone call.

I really don't understand why you continually overstate things in your attempts to make a point. All it does is give those who disagree with you ammunition to refute those points by pointing out your falsehoods.

Linsley is on record as having conversations with the Packers leading up to his pending free agency, just "nothing of substance."

On Monday, Linsley confirmed that his agent has yet to have any substantive conversations with the Packers about returning next year.

“That’s not to say something couldn’t happen, but up this point, it’s been complimentary but nothing of substance,” Linsley said per Rob Demovsky of ESPN.

The Packers were clearly well aware of their cap situation and likely made the early decision they would not be able to offer Linsley anything close to his All-Pro level market value. Whether they were blunt about that position with him is anyone's guess but, to me, the fact he states the Packers have had "complimentary discussions with him but have not made an substantive offer" leads me to believe that was likely the case. In any regard, for you to state they didn't even bother to make a phone call is clearly disingenuous and false.

And, once again, Linsley wasn't cut, his contract was honored through it's timeline and he was not resigned. Exactly the thing you're demanding of the Packers FO in Rodgers' case but, in the case of Linsley, even that isn't good enough.

I get it that, as a career unionist, your first impulse is to find fault in management. It's in your nature. In this case, tho, you seem to be searching for something (anything) to gripe about - even if you have to manufacture it yourself.

Side note: please don't see this post as yet another need to rehash the arguments you've already made a bazillion times over in countless threads demonizing the FO and idolizing Rodgers. We are all well, well versed in your position on Rodgers and the FO.

blah, blah blah, Linsley isn't the first player to comment that the FO didn't bother to say good bye to after years of service, Sitton, Lang, Jennings, Jenkins, the list goes on and on, unless a player has the notoriaty of a Favre or Rodgers no one pays attention, Rodgers actions this year brought that to light.

my first impulse is to see who is at fault, and not to be redundent but when you give a person a contract it should be binding to both sides unless one or the other is unable to fulfill it, player has career ending injury, or skills go into decline, the team goes into bankruptcy, other wise honor the damn contract.

course you being a company man, you side with whatever the company line is, which to this point has been double messaging, the FO can say they want Rodgers for this season and beyond, but drafting Love when Rodgers was only 1 year into a 6 year contract says other wise.

I bet even uncle sam gave you a retirement party, did me and I was only in a little while, heck most of my employers called me into the office when they let me go, The Packers on the other hand let people go with a text message.

As for Linsley, it's hard for me to imagine what the Packers did wrong. Picked him in the draft, gave him a fair money extension, honored it until the end and let him walk in UFA to sign the 3rd biggest contract ever for a center.

For players who become UFAs, it's real hard to do going away parties or even good bye calls. Especially if you're not sure that they're gone for good. For example, had some team given Aaron Jones a ludicrous offer, GB might have elected to spend that money and cap on Linsley. And once a player signs with another team, the new team usually doesn't want the player to have contact with the former one.

There are examples of the Packers FO being coldly calculating and less-than-courteous when it comes to letting veterans go, but Linsley's case isn't that.

NCF wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 09:33

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 09:19

why would they throw that away?

Because they pretty much have to from a cap standpoint. This is the Last Dance, Packers version.

I disagree, before the team lets Rodgers go ( provided they lack faith with Love) the FO will do everything it can to keep Rodger around again next season.

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 07:29

blah, blah blah, Linsley isn't the first player to comment that the FO didn't bother to say good bye to after years of service, Sitton, Lang, Jennings, Jenkins, the list goes on and on, unless a player has the notoriaty of a Favre or Rodgers no one pays attention, Rodgers actions this year brought that to light.

I like to believe facts matter. I think it's very important that facts matter.

Josh Sitton - the Packers absolutely said goodbye to him. They cut him. They told him he was cut. Sounds like it was a locker room issue. Josh Sitton understood it was a business decision and still comes to GB for alumni gigs and has nothing but positive things to say about his experiences in GB.

TJ Lang - Lang was going into his 3rd contract. The Packers hardly ever give out 3rd contracts. Especially TJ who had injury histories. TJ too says countless times that it was a business decision and has no hard feelings for the Packers. He is now a Detroit Lions media guy (he is basically their John Kuhn) and yet still comes on Cheesehead TV and does guest appearances on the Packer Radio Network. He also constantly talks about how clear of a difference the culture is in GB over DET as GB is a winner and you as a player know it. It is also important to note that NOT signing Lang to an extension was a very smart business move. He didn't last long in DET.

Greg Jennings - The Packers offered Jennings a nice deal in 2012. Jennings turned it down. Then Jennings got injured which lowered his value and the Packers offered less. Jennings ultimately went to MN. Jennings was a moron. The Packers were not. Jennings lost a LOT of money (both from contracts and lost TV deals) by deciding to no longer play with GB. Also, Jennings repeatedly has stated that it was AARON RODGERS who told the 49ers they should sign Jennings during the 2012 season week 1 which made Greg and Aaron's relationship crumble.

This is from your boy McGinn.

An average salary $9 million is nice, but it ain't $12 million. But, at the top of this game in 2012, Jennings passed up a chance to earn $11 million a year on a multi-year extension offered up by the Packers, a source told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Bob McGinn.

Jennings then suffered a concussion in training camp, and a subsequent abdominal injury sidetracked the 2012 season and deflated his value. But the Packers still wanted to keep him, just not at his suggested retail price. Instead, they reportedly had an offer on the table that would pay Jennings roughly $8 million a season.

The moment came when Green Bay hosted the San Francisco 49ers in 2012, and cornerback Carlos Rogers asked Jennings why he was running so many short routes. Jennings said it was a contract year, which is when Rodgers stepped in saying, per Jennings, "You guys should get him at the end of the year."

"I don't think he realizes what he said and the impact that it had," Jennings said. "Had the shoe been on the other foot and I said, 'Hey, man, I should come and play with your quarterback,' he would've been so offended by that. But when it comes out of his mouth—and we all know there's truth behind jokes—for him to say that and just act as though everything was the same? It just wasn't."

Jennings told his position coach, Edgar Bennett, that he knew it was his last year with the Packers.

Cullen Jenkins - Jenkins joined GB as a UDFA in 2004. Jenkins played for the Packers for 7 years. 2010 Jenkins went through a lot of injuries but we all knew he was very good and was pivotal in returning healthy during the 2010 playoff run. However, he also had 7 years of accrued service. The Eagles offered Jenkins a very large contract at the time and it was for 5 years. That's a big contract to a player who saw injuries and already had 7 years in the league. We just got outbid by the Eagles and again the Packers were consistent that they rarely sign players in their 3rd contract. Looking back it would have been great that we could retain Jenkins but even Cullen said it was a business decision. Jenkins also flopped in Philly. Also, Cullen Jenkins has come on many shows saying the Packers were the greatest days of his playing career.

salmar80 wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 09:35

Linsley's case isn't that.

Exactly.

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 09:11

dsr wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 08:52

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2021 07:29

when you give a person a contract it should be binding to both sides unless one or the other is unable to fulfill it, player has career ending injury, or skills go into decline, the team goes into bankruptcy, other wise honor the damn contract.

The NFL and the players' union have between them agreed the rules of contracts. If you think the players' union is not looking after its players properly by allowing breakable contracts, that isn't the Packers' fault.

aint Rodgers fault either, he and a lot of vets said NO to this contract.

Aaron Rodgers literally signed his contract he has with the Packers when Kirk Cousins signed a fully guaranteed contract a little bit later.