Rodgers wants out

[go pak go]

5

[go pak go]

see I think this is where we have communication break downs, I didn't say that Brady had amazing offensive weapons his whole career, I said he had some very good TE's and a slot receiver that produced, and offensive schemes that took advantage of the skills those players brought to bare, big difference,

Yoop. I appreciate this post because I agree. I think there are major communication breakdowns.

When you say things like below (which is your quote), this is where communications start to breakdown.

OK but NE has had one of the best short WC style offenses in the league year in and year out, Gronk and Hernandez was a great TE tandem, and there slot receiver was a 90 catch 1000 yrd producer yearly, there offense was a work of art, rarely made mistakes, I was hoping McCarthy would copy cat what they do since 016.

and when did Rodgers have as good a talent to work with? minus last year, maybe 019, 014 and 15,

It's that wrap up of the last sentence that brings the appearance that Brady always had a superior offense in terms of roster outside of the 3 year period. I think a lot of the breakdowns and arguments are honestly due to communication barriers. And this is a good example.

[Yoop]

And it is honestly because you really care and are incredibly emotionally attached to your hero. I get it. You're a mama bear.

here we go with extremes again, it really got you and others here when I called him our hero for getting McCarthy &%$@ canned, you'd rather blame Rodgers for the incompetence level McCarthy had declined to, along with Ted neglecting to rebuild the WR position with either a decent UFA vet or a high draft pick, as NE did for Brady.

and again, it's not so much that Brady had a better supporting cast ( which he did at times) it's that Belichick schemes helped them to perform better, instead we are trying to run time consuming deep routes which puts more pressure on Rodgers, the OL, and the receivers to try and get open, past players aren't lying when they say our offense is to hard, now under Lafluer it's obvious that this offense makes it easier for players to succeed.

the reason I consider Rodgers our hero is he kept us winning with a offensive scheme that lacked the talent for it to excel since 016 till 19, say what you want but we lacked talent or didn't properly use who we did have at TE, RB, and WR ( Adams)

and your taking my emotional attachment to extremes to, I've seen a whole lot of stars come and go, again, I defend him because you and others here are always ripping him, and thats your privilege, but it cause me to double up my defense probably a little much, course maybe when/if ya go a couple decades with the likes of Whitehurst you'll know why I defend Rodgers so fervently.

[Yoop]

It's that wrap up of the last sentence that brings the appearance that Brady always had a superior offense in terms of roster outside of the 3 year period. I think a lot of the breakdowns and arguments are honestly due to communication barriers. And this is a good example.

I must have said several times that Belichick got more out of his roster then McCarthy got out of ours since about 016, probably earlier, I tried to point that out because it's important, the commo problem is you gave that no quarter, and that is actually a tad more important then who has the best talent wouldn't you agree?

[Raptorman]

Has Rodgers grown the balls to retire yet? Or, will he cave and come back? My bet, he will show up for camp. Money talks, and he doesn't want to part with any of his.

[BSA]

The argument about the talent surrounding Rodgers is dumb.

Agreed

[Drj820]

It is in 2021, it hasn’t always been.

[salmar80]

Has Rodgers grown the balls to retire yet? Or, will he cave and come back? My bet, he will show up for camp. Money talks, and he doesn't want to part with any of his.

I think it's time for final predictions. Do y'all think AR comes to camp under existing contract? Is he "retiring"? Is he holding out? Is GB trading him? Is GB extending his contract or guaranteeing his deal prior to camp?

I think he'll be at camp and will be our QB for 2021. If there's an extension or trade in the cards, it'll be after the season. During and after the initial media storm on draft weekend, AR has had plenty of opportunities for bridge-burning, and has chosen not to.

[bud fox]

Has Rodgers grown the balls to retire yet? Or, will he cave and come back? My bet, he will show up for camp. Money talks, and he doesn't want to part with any of his.

I think it's time for final predictions. Do y'all think AR comes to camp under existing contract? Is he "retiring"? Is he holding out? Is GB trading him? Is GB extending his contract or guaranteeing his deal prior to camp?

I think he'll be at camp and will be our QB for 2021. If there's an extension or trade in the cards, it'll be after the season. During and after the initial media storm on draft weekend, AR has had plenty of opportunities for bridge-burning, and has chosen not to.

I think based on his most recent comments he will be at camp with an extension. I think it will be either an extension or some agreement to split next year.

[Raptorman]

Has Rodgers grown the balls to retire yet? Or, will he cave and come back? My bet, he will show up for camp. Money talks, and he doesn't want to part with any of his.

I think it's time for final predictions. Do y'all think AR comes to camp under existing contract? Is he "retiring"? Is he holding out? Is GB trading him? Is GB extending his contract or guaranteeing his deal prior to camp?

I think he'll be at camp and will be our QB for 2021. If there's an extension or trade in the cards, it'll be after the season. During and after the initial media storm on draft weekend, AR has had plenty of opportunities for bridge-burning, and has chosen not to.

I think he will come to camp and end up with a new deal before the end of the year.

[Drj820]

I think he will be back at camp.

I still think his instincts are correct that the Packers want to move him after this season.

I am not sure how that plays out in terms of a new deal, but I could see something meaningless being announce just to let both sides save face.

But initially, I just think he comes back under his existing deal.

[go pak go]

I predict Rodgers comes to camp and will be a Packer in 2021 and traded after the season.

I never dreamed he would be moved in 2022, but his actions have sped up the ship Rodgers out of Green Bay action.

[Drj820]

Interesting situation if my prediction and others like andrew brandt and GPG are correct.

If Rodgers has a bad year, makes the decision to move on to Love easier, yet hurts his value.
If Rodgers has another great year, makes his value in a trade sky high, yet makes the Packers look like they are moving off an elite QB who is showing no signs of slowing down, and makes you wonder if its neccesary at all.

[TheSkeptic]

I would prefer if they trade him now and take the hit now. For this they would get 2 1st round picks

If he returns and is not traded, the most likely situation is that he has neither a good nor bad year. The Packers make the playoffs but do not get to the SB. His age is obvious and when they trade him after the season ends, all they get is a 2nd round pick

[Yoop]

The argument about the talent surrounding Rodgers is dumb.

Every team that has won the Super Bowl for the past 40 years has proven themselves capable of being beaten; they had weaknesses, they had off days, they made mistakes. Every. Single. One of them.

You can point to a weakness and say "this is why we lost," but every winner looks back on their roster and says "we won despite [something]." In 2010, we won despite a rash of injuries and a very weak running game. We overcame the injuries. Starks stepped up in the running game. But even then, we still BARELY won.

of course we can point to reasons we lost or positional weakness, GM's spend resources every season to fix positional weaknesses, every year we see a team loading up with better talent hoping to win it all, just as we have these last couple years, of course we can blame King for giving up 14 points, his two bone headed plays forced Lafluer to rethink his game plan.
ya make your own breaks, or ya don't, you act like there is some football GOD that just decides to change the course of a game and the team has no control, yes luck does play a part, but again I think it's vastly over rated, yes refs screw up, but imho most of the time they get it right, so I rarely blame them either (sometimes).

your right the past (prior to Lafluer) is old news, I wish I'd never mentioned that Rodgers might be using the past to punish the present FO, but as has been said he is a complicated person who tends to hold a grudge, so I threw it out there.

but the talent surrounding Rodgers is absolutely pertinent, the better a team, the higher the odds for success, the better the bench the better chance ya have to obsorb injury's, certain types of players allow a more diverse play book, meaning you can keep the opponent off balance, which helps a team win, of course the supporting cast matters, that teams do win minus some of these things shouldn't cloud our judgment that ya don't need them to get to the dance, if you want to over come injury's ( bad luck) then you need the most complete roster possible, as some attest, the healthiest teams tend to win PO games, we know that to be true often, our well rounded roster in 010 is why we won that SB.

[NCF]

Interesting situation if my prediction and others like andrew brandt and GPG are correct.

If Rodgers has a bad year, makes the decision to move on to Love easier, yet hurts his value.
If Rodgers has another great year, makes his value in a trade sky high, yet makes the Packers look like they are moving off an elite QB who is showing no signs of slowing down, and makes you wonder if its neccesary at all.

I think the decision has already been made, though. This might be part of Rodgers' beef, but maybe he really cannot do anything to force the Packers hand next year and is essentially our lame-duck QB. With our salary cap issues, I think getting Rodgers off the books next year is almost a necessity and begins a mini rebuild that will give us enough wiggle-room to re-set the core of our team which may or may not include big extensions for Adams, Jenkins, Gary, Savage, and most pressing, Jaire.

[YoHoChecko]

but the talent surrounding Rodgers is absolutely pertinent, the better a team, the higher the odds for success, the better the bench the better chance ya have to obsorb injury's, certain types of players allow a more diverse play book, meaning you can keep the opponent off balance, which helps a team win, of course the supporting cast matters, that teams do win minus some of these things shouldn't cloud our judgment that ya don't need them to get to the dance, if you want to over come injury's ( bad luck) then you need the most complete roster possible, as some attest, the healthiest teams tend to win PO games, we know that to be true often, our well rounded roster in 010 is why we won that SB.

I say it's not pertinent because it has nothing to do with why Rodgers is upset. There is a portion of this argument that focuses on who is to blame, and a segment of that debate that says Rodgers is right to be upset because the team is not good enough. That's how this keeps coming up.

What I am saying is that I am 99% sure that Rodgers' complaints have nothing to do with the quality of the team and nothing he has said has changed my mind about that. And if Rodgers IS upset about the quality of the team, then he is wrong and he is dumb. So when, in 2021, after the team has just won 14 games two straight years and led the league in Pro Bowl selections and Rodgers is potentially holding out, discussing a decade of "was the team good enough to win," as it pertains to Rodgers' present situation is dumb. Either y'all are barking up the wrong tree or Rodgers is totally wrong--or a little of both.

So I stand by it. There is nothing about, I dunno, pages 100 to 106 of this thread that has anything to do with how Rodgers feels, why, or if he is coming back.


As for final predictions, Rodgers is back this year, traded next year, and I'm not even sure if he gets anything more than superficial concessions

[Drj820]

Interesting situation if my prediction and others like andrew brandt and GPG are correct.

If Rodgers has a bad year, makes the decision to move on to Love easier, yet hurts his value.
If Rodgers has another great year, makes his value in a trade sky high, yet makes the Packers look like they are moving off an elite QB who is showing no signs of slowing down, and makes you wonder if its neccesary at all.

I think the decision has already been made, though. This might be part of Rodgers' beef, but maybe he really cannot do anything to force the Packers hand next year and is essentially our lame-duck QB. With our salary cap issues, I think getting Rodgers off the books next year is almost a necessity and begins a mini rebuild that will give us enough wiggle-room to re-set the core of our team which may or may not include big extensions for Adams, Jenkins, Gary, Savage, and most pressing, Jaire.

I agree with you, and I think I have a problem with making a final call on a guy playing at an MVP level. I mean what, you just get tired of having that level of consistency at the position? The FO just gets tired of dealing with him so they want someone they can control even if they dont know his level of quality? Seems like a big risk. But we will see if they are right or not on that..time will certainly tell the moment Rodgers moves on and we see how his career plays out vs how Loves career plays out in GB.

The main thing I wanted to comment on your post about tho is that I agree with you that the Packers already planned to move on from Rodgers after '21, he snuffed this out and wanted to take matters into his own hands though. There are people on the forum like Yoho who have said they do not believe the Packers know what they will do, they just wanted to get to the place where they have an option to move on if Rodgers declines or Love is ready...I disagree and think they chose Love because they WANTED to move on after '21, and they would do that unless Love was just a total buster.

One perspective sees love as simply an insurance policy in case things go bad with Rodgers due to age or injury, one perspective intends on Love replacing Rodgers while Rodgers is still under contract. Both plans may never come to fruition due to Love sucking, Rodgers winning super bowls and multiple MVPs, but the draft pick had an intention...i do believe it was to replace Rodgers, and Rodgers knows this...not just to let them compete.

[YoHoChecko]

The main thing I wanted to comment on your post about tho is that I agree with you that the Packers already planned to move on from Rodgers after '21, he snuffed this out and wanted to take matters into his own hands though. There are people on the forum like Yoho who have said they do not believe the Packers know what they will do, they just wanted to get to the place where they have an option to move on if Rodgers declines or Love is ready...I disagree and think they chose Love because they WANTED to move on after '21, and they would do that unless Love was just a total buster.

One perspective sees love as simply an insurance policy in case things go bad with Rodgers due to age or injury, one perspective intends on Love replacing Rodgers while Rodgers is still under contract. Both plans may never come to fruition due to Love sucking, Rodgers winning super bowls and multiple MVPs, but the draft pick had an intention...i do believe it was to replace Rodgers, and Rodgers knows this...not just to let them compete.

Just wanted to comment that this pretty accurately depicts my disagreement on this issue. That selecting Jordan Love set in motion only the possibility to move on, not the assurance that they would. But this offseason has altered that, and I do think they are now fairly locked into moving on. But I don't see much reason to think that the outcome was definitely going to be Mahomes-Alex Smith more than Jimmy G-Tom Brady. Teams prepare for the future and adapt to circumstances as they play out.

[Yoop]

who can say exactly why Rodgers is upset, but the stats from last years playoff loss to the Bucs shows our receivers where less then stellar, why anyone would think a quality slot receiver wouldn't or couldn't have made a difference is being less then honest, these stats show that Adams needed more then his WR buddies where able to deliver, sure eliminating the drops could have delivered a victory to, same with increasing the run touches, but sticking to the point I'am 99% sure that Rodgers would have rather seen a WR drafted two years ago versus Jarren Love, so ya, I think the talent issue or lack of good be at least part of the reason Rodgers is upset.

Wide Receivers
Davante Adams 68, Allen Lazard 58, Marquez Valdes-Scantling 46, Equanimeous St. Brown 17

The Packers tried to get Davante Adams going, but could only find production from him on a few quick-breaking routes or on some smoke screens. He finished with nine catches for 67 yards and one score on 15 targets, with three of those incompletions coming on back-to-back-to-back plays with goal-to-go in the second quarter.

While Adams struggled with his efficiency, MVS was tremendous in the game. He got the Packers’ offense kick-started with a 50-yard touchdown on Green Bay’s second series, then caught three more passes for some big plays. All told, he finished the day with four grabs for 115 yards.

Lazard was a third-down machine again, catching three passes for 62 yards, two coming on big third down conversions including a 23-yard gain on 3rd-and-15 from the shadow of the Packers’ own end zone. However, he was the target on Rodgers’ interception; Sean Murphy-Bunting had a clear hold on Lazard’s shoulder pad throughout his route but was not flagged as he undercut the route and intercepted the pass with a little bit of time left in the first half. St. Brown caught his only target for ten yards, but dropped a two-point conversion in the second half that might have changed the scoring equation late in the game (though the ball was ever-so-slightly tipped by Ndamukong Suh at the line of scrimmage).

Tight Ends
Robert Tonyan 47, Marcedes Lewis 29, Dominique Dafney 17

The Packers got a typical game from Tonyan — four catches for 22 yards and a touchdown. Lewis pitched in with a few big plays, catching three passes for 28 yards.

MVS is the only one with over 67 yrds receiving, 67 yrds


https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/by-t ... ng-absence