Guessing you directed this at me and that you misunderstood my post.
I want a $%@# Super Bowl as bad as everyone here. But I was talking from the organization's standpoint, consistent winning seasons brings in the $$$ for the team and city. So just because #1 overall QB picks haven't gone to the Super Bowl as much as you'd think, with our scouting I believe we'd find a franchise QB that could get us there.
yeah ive said this same thing for a long time. the people that run the Packers run it like managing a trust fund. There top priority is to stay employed as managers of the trust fund. The way to do that is to put a winning team on the field, keep the fans coming to games and keep them filled with hope, and to be able to raise ticket prices every now and then. Also, they prioritize not crashing the car. They have done a great job at all of those things. I dont think for the last twenty years their TOP priority has been a super bowl, although of course they want one.
Some will not like hearing this and pretend I am saying this as a bad thing. I am not. Its just the reality I see.
100%. I almost think their viewpoint has been that if they make it to the playoffs enough times, the chances are that they'll win the Super Bowl, which I guess has kind of paid off, just not as much as us fans would have liked.
Coincidentally that is usually the best plan to win a Super Bowl. Put together a consistently good team and try to make one of those good years great. Thompson took that to the extreme, but Gutekunst seems to be more free wheeling.
The Andy Herman video about Jordan Love -- where he talks about the org's statements about Rodgers -- has convinced me that they really will bring Rodgers back for one more year.
what leads you to believe Rodgers would come back for ONE more year? from all indications in order to come back it would include a restructure so he would retire in 2 or 3 years as a packer, plus after just next year he would become a FA, we would lose out on a lot of trade compensation.
what leads you to believe Rodgers would come back for ONE more year?
The chance to hit the market as a true free agent would be the main appeal. Of course, we have the franchise tag, but I am sure there would be some kind of agreement (in writing or otherwise) that would take this off the table. Would that be enough? I am not sure, but it's clearly the most appealing part of that scenario from Rodgers' standpoint.
I agree, and that's why I had the tirade set. However, I then decided that debating with someone who actually states that the Lombardi is 'nice to have' just isn't going anywhere.
Guessing you directed this at me and that you misunderstood my post.
I want a $%@# Super Bowl as bad as everyone here. But I was talking from the organization's standpoint, consistent winning seasons brings in the $$$ for the team and city. So just because #1 overall QB picks haven't gone to the Super Bowl as much as you'd think, with our scouting I believe we'd find a franchise QB that could get us there.
Certainly, if that's what you meant, I'm fine with it. The reason I was flailing was that you said "we", not the FO/management, and I couldn't see any other way to interpret that than meaning you/other fans were OK with butts in the seats over a SB win.
The Andy Herman video about Jordan Love -- where he talks about the org's statements about Rodgers -- has convinced me that they really will bring Rodgers back for one more year.
care to share?
And would you say that is because they are scared to go forward without Rodgers at the moment?
As for the second question: probably, yes.
To me, Love does look like he has some talent, but he's still got some ways to go. It is quite possible he just does not have it, no matter how much time we give him. That said, I do see the appeal of giving it one more year for it to "click" for him.
I also don't mind doing what we did in Rodgers's first year and draft a QB early again just to hedge our bets, but this time, the reverse outcome seems more likely than it did the first time (i.e. the assumed starter flops, the rookie ends up being the QBotF).
Then again, it's hard to pass up shipping Rodgers out of town for a king's ransom knowing that it will set us up nicely for the future if we just find a QB, so you throw Love into the deep-end to sink or swim (and if he sinks, you start over, with the help from the draft capital you got from sucking and trading Rodgers). And just generally "blow up" the roster by getting rid of every player who will not still be in their prime years four years after their current contract expires.
Blowing up the roster seems to be an inevitably due to our cap situation, the question being when rather than if, and I would prefer to do it after having traded a QB for a massive draft-pick haul. But the way the Packers organization operates, I am thinking we will go the first route.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 09 Feb 2022 10:30
by Drj820
I think if you arent scared of the future without Rodgers, you have to take the opportunity to get a kings ransom for an older QB. Almost any other outcome is admitting that you dont feel confident in going it alone without him. It just makes too much sense to take the draft picks, the people you can resign without him, and all the flexibility it gives you.
Unless of course you think your success as an org is solely in his hands.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 09 Feb 2022 10:33
by Pckfn23
How about Rodgers can still play good ball and he is up for signing an extension that is team friendly that also allows cap flexibility for the next 3 years similar to Tom Brady?
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 09 Feb 2022 10:47
by Drj820
if fantasy land were to merge with reality then yes, I suppose that could be an amicable solution. Never say never.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 09 Feb 2022 10:50
by Pckfn23
How would that be fantasy? There was extensive talk weeks ago about how Rodgers might see the light in his older age and money would not be the main driver for him. Legacy would be what he covets and thus would take an under market value deal to allow the team to sign quality players around him. [mention]YoHoChecko[/mention] specifically argued against this take because nothing Rodgers has exhibited thus far points that he would do this. A possible reality? Yes. Fantasy land? Nah, it just conflicts with narrative land.
How would that be fantasy? There was extensive talk weeks ago about how Rodgers might see the light in his older age and money would not be the main driver for him. Legacy would be what he covets and thus would take an under market value deal to allow the team to sign quality players around him. @YoHoChecko specifically argued against this take because nothing Rodgers has exhibited thus far points that he would do this. A possible reality? Yes. Fantasy land? Nah, it just conflicts with narrative land.
It's not just putting words in his mouth, though. Rodgers has said enough to surmise that he is not taking a discount without specifically saying those words.
How would that be fantasy? There was extensive talk weeks ago about how Rodgers might see the light in his older age and money would not be the main driver for him. Legacy would be what he covets and thus would take an under market value deal to allow the team to sign quality players around him. @YoHoChecko specifically argued against this take because nothing Rodgers has exhibited thus far points that he would do this. A possible reality? Yes. Fantasy land? Nah, it just conflicts with narrative land.
It's not just putting words in his mouth, though. Rodgers has said enough to surmise that he is not taking a discount without specifically saying those words.
I agree with Yoho's take, but Rodgers specifically said he would not take a discount? I've heard Adams say that...
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 09 Feb 2022 11:21
by Drj820
Nothing has pointed to this being a possibility. If it happens, great!
Currently reality, not narrative, is that the Packers will pay Rodgers and keep him while losing others or trade Rodgers, get loot, and use that money to keep other players.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 09 Feb 2022 11:22
by Yoop
I think Rodgers cares more about his brand then he does anyone elses, I'am sure now that he's been in position multiple times to return to the SB and for whatever reason failed to get there, that league recognition as one of the very best to ever play, will most likely only be reflected with contract money, in the future the ability to gain more fame winning SB's sure isn't going to get easier.
the window from now till the end for him is closing fast, he wont waste another year here so we can groom up his replacement and lose a year of that closing window, he'll want a 3 or 4 year extension from us, or a trade to a team that will give him that, the prior seems like what the FO wants.
after watching so many QB's fail over the years I think it is impossible to know how any young QB will turn out, even some that where thought of as can't miss prospects have busted out, so it's not a matter of being scarred to move on from a great one, it's the reality that your odds are so bad to strike gold again, or even be so lucky that the new guy isn't a complete bust.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 09 Feb 2022 11:23
by Pckfn23
the Packers will pay Rodgers and keep him while losing others or trade Rodgers, get loot, and use that money to keep other players.
Those are the most likely outcomes, yes, but not the only possible ones (assuming pay Rodgers means pay him top QB money).
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 09 Feb 2022 11:26
by Drj820
yes, most of the discussion on Rodgers future will center around the most likely outcomes.
How would that be fantasy? There was extensive talk weeks ago about how Rodgers might see the light in his older age and money would not be the main driver for him. Legacy would be what he covets and thus would take an under market value deal to allow the team to sign quality players around him. @YoHoChecko specifically argued against this take because nothing Rodgers has exhibited thus far points that he would do this. A possible reality? Yes. Fantasy land? Nah, it just conflicts with narrative land.
It's not just putting words in his mouth, though. Rodgers has said enough to surmise that he is not taking a discount without specifically saying those words.
I agree with Yoho's take, but Rodgers specifically said he would not take a discount? I've heard Adams say that...
That is why I chose my words very carefully. I don't think Rodgers has clearly stated it, but reading between the lines, I think he has. You know how calculated he is.