Packers Huddle

[mention]Yoop[/mention] - don't you see the irony in your defense of Rodgers, though?

You continue to vilify the front office for not honoring Rodgers' contract based upon what you and what you assume Rodgers thinks might happen in the future. To this point, though, the FO has done nothing to breech said contract.

Unlike Rodgers.

What seems obvious to me is you're willing to forgive your self-admitted hero's trespasses against the same contract you continue to hold the FO accountable to. You continue to levy criticisms at Murphy, Gutekunst, et al despite their public proclamations of support for Rodgers and, thus far, complete honoring of his contract.

If the actions by the party's involved were reversed, you'd have a solid argument. They're not, though, and from my perspective the very defense you continue to put fourth is specifically undermined by the very person you continue to defend!

The FO is certainly to blame for the drama. If they didnt cut 12s pals, let his pals find out they were gone via media reports, and didnt draft a QB in Rd 1 this would NOT be happening. Almost guaranteed.

But 12 is still under contract. The method he is using to get back at the team is one I would support if he played for the bears, but cannot support as a packers fan. So I guess I am on the Packers side. Because the G rises above any one player.

But still, i get it.

APB wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 07:35

@Yoop - don't you see the irony in your defense of Rodgers, though?

You continue to vilify the front office for not honoring Rodgers' contract based upon what you and what you assume Rodgers thinks might happen in the future. To this point, though, the FO has done nothing to breech said contract.

Unlike Rodgers.

What seems obvious to me is you're willing to forgive your self-admitted hero's trespasses against the same contract you continue to hold the FO accountable to. You continue to levy criticisms at Murphy, Gutekunst, et al despite their public proclamations of support for Rodgers and, thus far, complete honoring of his contract.

If the actions by the party's involved were reversed, you'd have a solid argument. They're not, though, and from my perspective the very defense you continue to put fourth is specifically undermined by the very person you continue to defend!

well your leaving out my point that Guty says he was interested in several WR's but other teams beat him to the punch by trading up and taking them, my question is, why didn't Guty fore see that happening and beating them to make a trade quicker for one, what seems likely is Guty (unlike with previous trade ups for players like Alexander and Savage) sat at slot 30 waiting for one of those receivers to keep dropping, when they didn't ( which I'd bet he new they wouldn't) he took his QB, even though there where still players on the board that would have helped us as Rookies, imho he took Love in hopes that he would be ready to play prior to the end of Rodgers contract, possibly this year even, or at the latest next, so they can cash in on some trade compensation, and thats whether Love can beat him out or not.

Rodgers obviously doesn't believe the FO when they say they want him to be the QB this year and BEYOND, and I don't either, ya don't use slot 26 on a QB you intend to sit for 4 years, Rodgers read between the lines and figured he'd get out when he was at his best, I bet he asked for a trade months before the draft it simply didn't leak out, and Murphy and the FO simply refused to trade him, so here we are.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 07:56

The FO is certainly to blame for the drama. If they didnt cut 12s pals, let his pals find out they were gone via media reports, and didnt draft a QB in Rd 1 this would NOT be happening. Almost guaranteed.

But 12 is still under contract. The method he is using to get back at the team is one I would support if he played for the bears, but cannot support as a packers fan. So I guess I am on the Packers side. Because the G rises above any one player.

But still, i get it.

The thing about this that bugs me, like... every single player when interviewed about other players' contract situations compartmentalizes--says that's his business, you let business be business, friendships be friendships, on field be on field. Every player asked this offseason says this is between Rodgers and the FO, and it's none of their business.

All that stuff the FO did that Rodgers is upset about--even if we understand it to an extent, even if the communication sucked which we all agree, even if the FO made some of the wrong moves... that's not supposed to be Rodgers' business. It's none of his concern. The FO is doing their jobs, and even if they're doing it wrong, Rodgers is STILL the one who declared war. So when you say the FO "is to blame for the drama," they're not. They have a role in the underlying circumstances. They have made mistakes. But the DRAMA is the war. The DRAMA is what Rodgers is doing about it. None of what happened before was drama, it was business. Plain and simple. The breech is Rodgers'. He declared war. And only he can end it. The drama is Rodgers'.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 09:30

Drj820 wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 07:56

The FO is certainly to blame for the drama. If they didnt cut 12s pals, let his pals find out they were gone via media reports, and didnt draft a QB in Rd 1 this would NOT be happening. Almost guaranteed.

But 12 is still under contract. The method he is using to get back at the team is one I would support if he played for the bears, but cannot support as a packers fan. So I guess I am on the Packers side. Because the G rises above any one player.

But still, i get it.

The thing about this that bugs me, like... every single player when interviewed about other players' contract situations compartmentalizes--says that's his business, you let business be business, friendships be friendships, on field be on field. Every player asked this offseason says this is between Rodgers and the FO, and it's none of their business.

All that stuff the FO did that Rodgers is upset about--even if we understand it to an extent, even if the communication sucked which we all agree, even if the FO made some of the wrong moves... that's not supposed to be Rodgers' business. It's none of his concern. The FO is doing their jobs, and even if they're doing it wrong, Rodgers is STILL the one who declared war. So when you say the FO "is to blame for the drama," they're not. They have a role in the underlying circumstances. They have made mistakes. But the DRAMA is the war. The DRAMA is what Rodgers is doing about it. None of what happened before was drama, it was business. Plain and simple. The breech is Rodgers'. He declared war. And only he can end it. The drama is Rodgers'.

Those other guys say that because they know if they say anything they will be on the chopping block. Rodgers says what he says with Kenny Mayne because he sees himself as powerful enough to potentially bring change. He thinks he has the power to reform, or just that he has the power to say "Those things pissed me off" and the Packers will still want him back for 2021. What I mean when I say the FO is to blame for the drama is just that the FO made all the wrong moves that led to this, up until Rodgers responded in a way that we all dont like. Rodgers doesnt respond the way he did, without egregious missteps by the FO. Missteps that include putting the league MVP in a position to be discarded at any time, like his pals have been.

Its like if someone flicks your ear repeatedly and you respond by picking up a ball bat and hitting them in the head with it.
Your response would not be proportionate, and far more devastating to the ear flicker than he ever could have planned for.
But when reviewing the case, it must be recognized that the victim did antagonize and flick your ear endlessly and you never would have hit him with the ball bat if he hadnt been flicking you in the ear.

The FO can pick their choices, not their consequences.

No, I get it. Rodgers is flexing because he can while others can't. Rodgers has some legitimate gripes and some less legitimate gripes; which would be clearer if he told anyone what those specific gripes were.

But it doesn't change the fact that the front office kept things to a low simmer and Rodgers is the one the tossed a pot of boiling water on them. It doesn't change the fact that the best chance either side has at winning a Super Bowl this year (or next) can only be achieved through Rodgers' actions and decisions about whether to return to the team this season.

He is the primary actor in this drama. He preemptively violated his contract because he doesn't trust the team to honor it. And he is the one who can end it. It's impossible for me to assign blame to anyone other than the person who struck first and the person who has the power to end it--especially when they're both the same person.

If Rodgers wins and the FO caves and increases Rodger's pay, this season will be the last one in a long time when the Packers make the playoffs.

Bounced i the playoffs again when Rodgers plays poorly.

6-10 on 2022/23 with Rodgers

2-14 for the next 5 years dealing with cap issues and trying to find a competent replacement for MLF and Gute and Murphy

GB will again be the place where no one wants to go, just as they were in the 70's and 80's.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 09:54

No, I get it. Rodgers is flexing because he can while others can't. Rodgers has some legitimate gripes and some less legitimate gripes; which would be clearer if he told anyone what those specific gripes were.

But it doesn't change the fact that the front office kept things to a low simmer and Rodgers is the one the tossed a pot of boiling water on them. It doesn't change the fact that the best chance either side has at winning a Super Bowl this year (or next) can only be achieved through Rodgers' actions and decisions about whether to return to the team this season.

He is the primary actor in this drama. He preemptively violated his contract because he doesn't trust the team to honor it. And he is the one who can end it. It's impossible for me to assign blame to anyone other than the person who struck first and the person who has the power to end it--especially when they're both the same person.

I also have assigned final blame in the current situation to Rodgers.

I just wager that what you have deemed to be a "low simmer" (all the things, plus essentially making Rodgers expendable at any time) is not just a low simmer to Rodgers, those moves became boiling water to him, Rodgers just removed the veil and made the boiling water public, and retaliated to the ear flickers in a way that seems disproportionate, yet still not unprovoked.

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 09:57

If Rodgers wins and the FO caves and increases Rodger's pay, this season will be the last one in a long time when the Packers make the playoffs.

Bounced i the playoffs again when Rodgers plays poorly.

6-10 on 2022/23 with Rodgers

2-14 for the next 5 years dealing with cap issues and trying to find a competent replacement for MLF and Gute and Murphy

GB will again be the place where no one wants to go, just as they were in the 70's and 80's.

Your theory works great if Love can play. No FAs will want to come to GB anyway tho if Love is only average. They come to GB now (its rare but when they do), because of the chance to win a SB, and a major piece of that opportunity is Aaron Rodgers.

I wonder why everyone seems to think the first time Rodgers asked for a trade was the day before this last draft, I think he asked for it right after the season was over, no time frame has been given for when Murphy, Guty or Lafluer went to see him hoping to change his mind, was it prior or post draft?, I think prior, if so that was the time to cash in, Rodgers highest trade value was during this last draft.

no the team decided to play hard ball, and even said " we are not going to trade Rodgers" sounds like now they wished they should have.

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 10:09

I wonder why everyone seems to think the first time Rodgers asked for a trade was the day before this last draft, I think he asked for it right after the season was over, no time frame has been given for when Murphy, Guty or Lafluer went to see him hoping to change his mind, was it prior or post draft?, I think prior, if so that was the time to cash in, Rodgers highest trade value was during this last draft.

no the team decided to play hard ball, and even said " we are not going to trade Rodgers" sounds like now they wished they should have.

It's weird that "hard ball" is saying "we want the MVP to be our QB"

What's softball? Dispose of the dude for picks? Doesn't seem better or more respectful to me.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 09:58

I also have assigned final blame in the current situation to Rodgers.

I just wager that what you have deemed to be a "low simmer" (all the things, plus essentially making Rodgers expendable at any time) is not just a low simmer to Rodgers, those moves became boiling water to him, Rodgers just removed the veil and made the boiling water public, and retaliated to the ear flickers in a way that seems disproportionate, yet still not unprovoked.

That's the thing though. That stuff ain't Rodgers' business. None of it. Jordy getting released, Linsley walking, Sitton getting cut. That's the business. That's the NFL. If Rodgers interprets that stuff as a boil, he's in the wrong. That's what I'm saying. Rodgers' reaction is disproportionate. His complaints and grievances are unclear, but still amount mostly to things he doesn't like about OTHER PEOPLE'S business. The same exact thing Davante Adams and David Bakhtiari and Aaron Jones are compartmentalizing away, saying "hey, we're friends, I miss my teammate, I want him here, I support him as a person and teammate and friend, but that's none of my business." Adams even clarified that his relationship with the front office is good and won't suffer or even "be awkward" because of this.

Rodgers is preventing the team from trying to win Super Bowls because he wishes his friends didn't get cut? He wishes the front office kept different OL or different WR4s? That's his prerogative. But it's also HIS decision. HE is the one acting out. HE is the one violating the deal. HE is the one who obviously told enough people that it leaked. HE is the one whose texts trashing his front office leadership leaked. HE is the one refusing to play. It is ALL HIM.

I know you assigned "ultimate blame," and that's good. But these rationalizations of why it's ok or understandable to do this is just insulting to fans. Rodgers gives zero Fs about winning a Super Bowl or Packers fans. He can say he loves them all he wants. But the only thing standing in the way of a Packers Super Bowl run is Aaron Rodgers. He's the only thing. If he wants to win and he likes the fans, play the danged game. Flex to change the culture if you want. But you don't hold out because Corey Linsley wasn't offered a contract. You hold out because you want something for yourself. And what Rodgers seems to want is a place that worships him a little more thoroughly a little bit closer to California. If he wanted to win, he'd be looking at the Colts or the WFT or Steelers. But he wants the Raiders or Broncos because they get him halfway across the country. Nothing more, nothing less.

The man isn't some benevolent overlord of the working laborers. He quit on the union when the young guys and low money players got their way instead of Rodgers' way. And he's trying to quit on the Packers when the team makes calculations balancing the current needs and future needs of the team, as they are paid to do.

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 09:57

If Rodgers wins and the FO caves and increases Rodger's pay, this season will be the last one in a long time when the Packers make the playoffs.

Bounced i the playoffs again when Rodgers plays poorly.

6-10 on 2022/23 with Rodgers

2-14 for the next 5 years dealing with cap issues and trying to find a competent replacement for MLF and Gute and Murphy

GB will again be the place where no one wants to go, just as they were in the 70's and 80's.

This is insane.

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 08:11

APB wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 07:35

@Yoop - don't you see the irony in your defense of Rodgers, though?

You continue to vilify the front office for not honoring Rodgers' contract based upon what you and what you assume Rodgers thinks might happen in the future. To this point, though, the FO has done nothing to breech said contract.

Unlike Rodgers.

What seems obvious to me is you're willing to forgive your self-admitted hero's trespasses against the same contract you continue to hold the FO accountable to. You continue to levy criticisms at Murphy, Gutekunst, et al despite their public proclamations of support for Rodgers and, thus far, complete honoring of his contract.

If the actions by the party's involved were reversed, you'd have a solid argument. They're not, though, and from my perspective the very defense you continue to put fourth is specifically undermined by the very person you continue to defend!

well your leaving out my point that Guty says he was interested in several WR's but other teams beat him to the punch by trading up and taking them, my question is, why didn't Guty fore see that happening and beating them to make a trade quicker for one, what seems likely is Guty (unlike with previous trade ups for players like Alexander and Savage) sat at slot 30 waiting for one of those receivers to keep dropping, when they didn't ( which I'd bet he new they wouldn't) he took his QB, even though there where still players on the board that would have helped us as Rookies, imho he took Love in hopes that he would be ready to play prior to the end of Rodgers contract, possibly this year even, or at the latest next, so they can cash in on some trade compensation, and thats whether Love can beat him out or not.

Rodgers obviously doesn't believe the FO when they say they want him to be the QB this year and BEYOND, and I don't either, ya don't use slot 26 on a QB you intend to sit for 4 years, Rodgers read between the lines and figured he'd get out when he was at his best, I bet he asked for a trade months before the draft it simply didn't leak out, and Murphy and the FO simply refused to trade him, so here we are.

This isn't Madden though. Just because we want to trade up doesn't mean that it's always going to work. Teams beat other teams to the punch. Unfortunately Gutey didn't get it done. I wish we had drafted Jefferson instead of Jordan Love too, but it just didn't work out.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 10:25

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 10:09

I wonder why everyone seems to think the first time Rodgers asked for a trade was the day before this last draft, I think he asked for it right after the season was over, no time frame has been given for when Murphy, Guty or Lafluer went to see him hoping to change his mind, was it prior or post draft?, I think prior, if so that was the time to cash in, Rodgers highest trade value was during this last draft.

no the team decided to play hard ball, and even said " we are not going to trade Rodgers" sounds like now they wished they should have.

It's weird that "hard ball" is saying "we want the MVP to be our QB"

What's softball? Dispose of the dude for picks? Doesn't seem better or more respectful to me.

OK, poor choice of words, still if he asked for a trade then ya have to take that seriously, and if all he wanted was to finish his contract and start provided Love didn't out perform him, then why the hassel with not giving in to those demands, thats the hardball part of what I said, and that would have been the fo respecting there HOF QB.

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 08:11

APB wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 07:35

@Yoop - don't you see the irony in your defense of Rodgers, though?

You continue to vilify the front office for not honoring Rodgers' contract based upon what you and what you assume Rodgers thinks might happen in the future. To this point, though, the FO has done nothing to breech said contract.

Unlike Rodgers.

What seems obvious to me is you're willing to forgive your self-admitted hero's trespasses against the same contract you continue to hold the FO accountable to. You continue to levy criticisms at Murphy, Gutekunst, et al despite their public proclamations of support for Rodgers and, thus far, complete honoring of his contract.

If the actions by the party's involved were reversed, you'd have a solid argument. They're not, though, and from my perspective the very defense you continue to put fourth is specifically undermined by the very person you continue to defend!

well your leaving out my point that Guty says he was interested in several WR's but other teams beat him to the punch by trading up and taking them, my question is, why didn't Guty fore see that happening and beating them to make a trade quicker for one, what seems likely is Guty (unlike with previous trade ups for players like Alexander and Savage) sat at slot 30 waiting for one of those receivers to keep dropping, when they didn't ( which I'd bet he new they wouldn't) he took his QB, even though there where still players on the board that would have helped us as Rookies, imho he took Love in hopes that he would be ready to play prior to the end of Rodgers contract, possibly this year even, or at the latest next, so they can cash in on some trade compensation, and thats whether Love can beat him out or not.

Rodgers obviously doesn't believe the FO when they say they want him to be the QB this year and BEYOND, and I don't either, ya don't use slot 26 on a QB you intend to sit for 4 years, Rodgers read between the lines and figured he'd get out when he was at his best, I bet he asked for a trade months before the draft it simply didn't leak out, and Murphy and the FO simply refused to trade him, so here we are.

Your response completely ignores the point. You have made the contractual obligation issue a central theme in your defense of Rodgers and criticism of the FO. What Gute or Murphy did or didn't do during the draft(s) is completely irrelevant to whatever contractual obligation they have toward Rodgers.

Also, whether Rodgers does or does not believe the front office will, in the future, (what you define as) honor the contract is also irrelevant. They have honored it to this point and have pointedly voiced they want him back. Now, whether their intention is to trade Rodgers at some point does not invalidate the contract, as you clearly contend. The contract is valid whether Rodgers is playing for the Packers or any other team as established by the CBA and historical precedence of about a million other trades that have happened over the years. The only argument you have on whether the FO is not living up to their contractual obligation is if they release Rodgers outright which, ironically, is exactly what many here believe Rodgers wants.

I mean, there are so many levels or irony/hypocrisy here that it's hard to keep them all straight.

The only one NOT living up to their end of the contract in this situation is Rodgers. It's that simple. His actions are in complete violation of his contractual terms regardless of what he thinks might happen in the future and/or how butt hurt he is over the treatment of players completely unrelated to his current contract status - outside of the fact those other players may have been released as a direct result of cap shortages realized by Rodgers' top tier contract demands.

APB wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 10:51

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 08:11

APB wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 07:35

@Yoop - don't you see the irony in your defense of Rodgers, though?

You continue to vilify the front office for not honoring Rodgers' contract based upon what you and what you assume Rodgers thinks might happen in the future. To this point, though, the FO has done nothing to breech said contract.

Unlike Rodgers.

What seems obvious to me is you're willing to forgive your self-admitted hero's trespasses against the same contract you continue to hold the FO accountable to. You continue to levy criticisms at Murphy, Gutekunst, et al despite their public proclamations of support for Rodgers and, thus far, complete honoring of his contract.

If the actions by the party's involved were reversed, you'd have a solid argument. They're not, though, and from my perspective the very defense you continue to put fourth is specifically undermined by the very person you continue to defend!

well your leaving out my point that Guty says he was interested in several WR's but other teams beat him to the punch by trading up and taking them, my question is, why didn't Guty fore see that happening and beating them to make a trade quicker for one, what seems likely is Guty (unlike with previous trade ups for players like Alexander and Savage) sat at slot 30 waiting for one of those receivers to keep dropping, when they didn't ( which I'd bet he new they wouldn't) he took his QB, even though there where still players on the board that would have helped us as Rookies, imho he took Love in hopes that he would be ready to play prior to the end of Rodgers contract, possibly this year even, or at the latest next, so they can cash in on some trade compensation, and thats whether Love can beat him out or not.

Rodgers obviously doesn't believe the FO when they say they want him to be the QB this year and BEYOND, and I don't either, ya don't use slot 26 on a QB you intend to sit for 4 years, Rodgers read between the lines and figured he'd get out when he was at his best, I bet he asked for a trade months before the draft it simply didn't leak out, and Murphy and the FO simply refused to trade him, so here we are.

Your response completely ignores the point. You have made the contractual obligation issue a central theme in your defense of Rodgers and criticism of the FO. What Gute or Murphy did or didn't do during the draft(s) is completely irrelevant to whatever contractual obligation they have toward Rodgers.

Also, whether Rodgers does or does not believe the front office will, in the future, (what you define as) honor the contract is also irrelevant. They have honored it to this point and have pointedly voiced they want him back. Now, whether their intention is to trade Rodgers at some point does not invalidate the contract, as you clearly contend. The contract is valid whether Rodgers is playing for the Packers or any other team as established by the CBA and historical precedence of about a million other trades that have happened over the years. The only argument you have on whether the FO is not living up to their contractual obligation is if they release Rodgers outright which, ironically, is exactly what many here believe Rodgers wants.

I mean, there are so many levels or irony/hypocrisy here that it's hard to keep them all straight.

The only one NOT living up to their end of the contract in this situation is Rodgers. It's that simple. His actions are in complete violation of his contractual terms regardless of what he thinks might happen in the future and/or how butt hurt he is over the treatment of players completely unrelated to his current contract status - outside of the fact those other players may have been released as a direct result of cap shortages realized by Rodgers' top tier contract demands.

we all get the legality's of this thing APB, what your not getting is that Rodgers doesn't give a &%$@ about the legality's of a NFL: contract, and as you know, the contracts protect the team, not the player, as I said, and not to be redundent, but Rodgers doesn't trust the team to honor him or the length of it.

this could be solved very easily, Guarantee the length of the contract, I'd bet that was discussed even before the draft and the FO refused to do so, now here we are and they still havn't, and if what I say is true, then the FO is acting like a horses ass, and if he sits it will be on this FO for the results this season brings. legal or not it doesn't mean much, Rodgers isn't some 3rd year vet, tanking Rodgers is the same thing as tanking this season, just quarantee the dang contract, real simple.

Guaranteeing the contract still does not guarantee he will be a Packer for the length of the contract. Were we not told it wasn't about the money?

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 11:07

we all get the legality's of this thing APB, what your not getting is that Rodgers doesn't give a &%$@ about the legality's of a NFL: contract, and as you know, the contracts protect the team, not the player, as I said, and not to be redundent, but Rodgers doesn't trust the team to honor him or the length of it.

this could be solved very easily, Guarantee the length of the contract, I'd bet that was discussed even before the draft and the FO refused to do so, now here we are and they still havn't, and if what I say is true, then the FO is acting like a horses ass, and if he sits it will be on this FO for the results this season brings. legal or not it doesn't mean much, Rodgers isn't some 3rd year vet, tanking Rodgers is the same thing as tanking this season, just quarantee the dang contract, real simple.

I see.

Rodgers doesn't give a &%$@ about the legality of his contract, and that's ok, but we should still hold the FO accountable to said contract for future actions they may take - albeit have not yet done - to justify current actions by Rodgers and still blame to the FO.

And the layers of irony grow thicker...

As far as guaranteeing the remainder of the contract: As I said, I don't think there is a soul on this planet who doesn't think his contract will be fulfilled by the Packers or whatever team he may play for in the future. Just because you don't agree with the CBA/Owner agreed upon trade policy does not make it any less true.

It is becoming apparent the issues you have a problem with are outside of any contractual obligation and, instead, are more personal in nature - just like Rodgers.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 11:34

Guaranteeing the contract still does not guarantee he will be a Packer for the length of the contract. Were we not told it wasn't about the money?

I wouldn’t believe everything we are told