Re: Whose Side Are You On?
Posted: 18 Jun 2021 12:07
Absolutely, but it's probably a good idea not to fabricate things as well.
Absolutely, but it's probably a good idea not to fabricate things as well.
Packers Huddle
The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
Whose Side Are You On?
Page 18 of 18
Absolutely, but it's probably a good idea not to fabricate things as well.
Re: Whose Side Are You On?
Posted: 18 Jun 2021 13:26
whaaaaa? everyone thinks the FO is going to trade Rodger prior to 2023, almost any sports show doesn't think Rodgers will get to play out his contract and then just ride off to any team he choses, most people ( and obviously this includes Rodgers) think it will happen after this season, your listening to guys like Murphy and Guty, who only use the word beyond to describe how long Rodgers will play for us, rather then talking specifics, they say this year and beyond, beyond is a vague term that really means nothing.APB wrote: ↑18 Jun 2021 11:40I see.Yoop wrote: ↑18 Jun 2021 11:07we all get the legality's of this thing APB, what your not getting is that Rodgers doesn't give a &%$@ about the legality's of a NFL: contract, and as you know, the contracts protect the team, not the player, as I said, and not to be redundent, but Rodgers doesn't trust the team to honor him or the length of it.
this could be solved very easily, Guarantee the length of the contract, I'd bet that was discussed even before the draft and the FO refused to do so, now here we are and they still havn't, and if what I say is true, then the FO is acting like a horses ass, and if he sits it will be on this FO for the results this season brings. legal or not it doesn't mean much, Rodgers isn't some 3rd year vet, tanking Rodgers is the same thing as tanking this season, just quarantee the dang contract, real simple.
Rodgers doesn't give a &%$@ 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.
Re: Whose Side Are You On?
Posted: 18 Jun 2021 13:30
the only fabrication here is the FO saying this year and Beyond, beyond is not being specific, beyond could mean anything, such as after this season and then the playoffs, then he's on the trade block, Guaranteeing the remainder of the extension is specific, and that is something the FO hasn't offered, at least to my knowledge.
Re: Whose Side Are You On?
Posted: 18 Jun 2021 13:31
This is like when the USA bombs a terrorists outpost because intelligence suggests an attack is imminent from the terrorists. Did the USA bomb first? Yes. But if the threat was legit was the purpose of the attack to prevent the terrorists from carrying out their plans? YesYoop wrote: ↑18 Jun 2021 13:26whaaaaa? everyone thinks the FO is going to trade Rodger prior to 2023, almost any sports show doesn't think Rodgers will get to play out his contract and then just ride off to any team he choses, most people ( and obviously this includes Rodgers) think it will happen after this season, your listening to guys like Murphy and Guty, who only use the word beyond to describe how long Rodgers will play for us, rather then talking specifics, they say this year and beyond, beyond is a vague term that really means nothing.APB wrote: ↑18 Jun 2021 11:40I see.Yoop wrote: ↑18 Jun 2021 11:07we all get the legality's of this thing APB, what your not getting is that Rodgers doesn't give a &%$@ about the legality's of a NFL: contract, and as you know, the contracts protect the team, not the player, as I said, and not to be redundent, but Rodgers doesn't trust the team to honor him or the length of it.
this could be solved very easily, Guarantee the length of the contract, I'd bet that was discussed even before the draft and the FO refused to do so, now here we are and they still havn't, and if what I say is true, then the FO is acting like a horses ass, and if he sits it will be on this FO for the results this season brings. legal or not it doesn't mean much, Rodgers isn't some 3rd year vet, tanking Rodgers is the same thing as tanking this season, just quarantee the dang contract, real simple.
Rodgers doesn't give a &%$@ 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.
Rodgers knew the FOs plan for him, everyone did. Rodgers just metaphorically bombed the FO to foil their plan and prevent it from coming to fruition.
Re: Whose Side Are You On?
Posted: 18 Jun 2021 13:38
So once again.
Rodgers demands to be traded. Because he didn't want to be traded.
Let that sink in.
Rodgers demands to be traded. Because he didn't want to be traded.
Let that sink in.
Re: Whose Side Are You On?
Posted: 18 Jun 2021 13:55
Re: Whose Side Are You On?
Posted: 18 Jun 2021 13:59
And if that's what he wants...I'd probably do it.
But we don't know if that is what he wants. That is only projection on your end.
Re: Whose Side Are You On?
Posted: 18 Jun 2021 13:59
Unfortunately you have been fabricating a lot of things that have not even been said in the media let alone by Rodgers or the Packers.Yoop wrote: ↑18 Jun 2021 13:30the only fabrication here is the FO saying this year and Beyond, beyond is not being specific, beyond could mean anything, such as after this season and then the playoffs, then he's on the trade block, Guaranteeing the remainder of the extension is specific, and that is something the FO hasn't offered, at least to my knowledge.
Re: Whose Side Are You On?
Posted: 18 Jun 2021 14:20
but it's a logical projection now isn't it.
and 23 I havn't fabricated anything, if you want to act dumb about this then thats on you, we gave him a contract, and now what seems obvious is that we don't plan to honor it, according to some of you, Rodgers just up and decided to screw over everyone including himself, don't be so naive.
Re: Whose Side Are You On?
Posted: 18 Jun 2021 14:30
Because literally nobody in Aaron's circle has said that I would say no it is not a logical projection.
It honestly doesn't make much sense to me at all.
1. If it was about "legacy and staying in GB" Rodgers wouldn't threaten to leave GB while not really saying anything public during that time.
2. If it was about wanting the best chance to win a SB, Rodgers wouldn't threaten to leave a team who is a top 4 team primed to win the SB to potentially to go a team like Denver who wouldn't be the favorite in the division.
3. If it is about continuity with a team, Rodgers was likely guaranteed a spot with the Packers for at least 21 and 22 and possibly 23. Now he wants to end that prematurely which again is leading him to being taken away from his legacy team that was his best shot at a title in 2021 and instead being possibly shipped to a team who won't be able to compete until 2022 at the earliest. Oh and he still would be traded and not outright released meaning he can't just choose where he lands but would be contractually obligated to the traded team for 3 years rather than 1 year if traded in 2023 and then getting to go wherever he wants to go.
Like none of it makes sense if I am looking at it from Rodgers's angle. Literally the best outcome for Rodgers is to play to your contract. Everything else would have worked itself out.
Re: Whose Side Are You On?
Posted: 18 Jun 2021 14:31
Re: Whose Side Are You On?
Posted: 18 Jun 2021 14:59
your really good at twisting any convo to what ever it is you want it to be, here you are saying Rodgers can probably play here this year, next year and also 2023, if thats true, (and it is not true) then why doesn't the FO guarantee that, that they have not is why Rodgers is threatening to sit out, thats how this started, Guty took LOve and that destroyed Rodgers trust that he would be allowed to finish his extension, this legaqcy stuff your throwing out now isn't worth a thing if the team trades in in a year or two and he doesn't win here, or where we trade himgo pak go wrote: ↑18 Jun 2021 14:30Because literally nobody in Aaron's circle has said that I would say no it is not a logical projection.
It honestly doesn't make much sense to me at all.
1. If it was about "legacy and staying in GB" Rodgers wouldn't threaten to leave GB while not really saying anything public during that time.
2. If it was about wanting the best chance to win a SB, Rodgers wouldn't threaten to leave a team who is a top 4 team primed to win the SB to potentially to go a team like Denver who wouldn't be the favorite in the division.
3. If it is about continuity with a team, Rodgers was likely guaranteed a spot with the Packers for at least 21 and 22 and possibly 23. Now he wants to end that prematurely which again is leading him to being taken away from his legacy team that was his best shot at a title in 2021 and instead being possibly shipped to a team who won't be able to compete until 2022 at the earliest. Oh and he still would be traded and not outright released meaning he can't just choose where he lands but would be contractually obligated to the traded team for 3 years rather than 1 year if traded in 2023 and then getting to go wherever he wants to go.
Like none of it makes sense if I am looking at it from Rodgers's angle. Literally the best outcome for Rodgers is to play to your contract. Everything else would have worked itself out.
you know why I repeat myself, it's because you deny the simplest of explanations to anything, it's the same thing with these Rookies that start every year, you called me when I said Rookies start, and have to start, or teams would take forever to improve, and I was right about that, just like I think Rodgers just wants to know where he's gonna finish the last 3 or maybe 4 years of his career, and you thinking that is with the Packers is obviously the cornerstone of this debate, we don't know how he would do in Denver, or the additional moves or trades Denver would make, or any other team we'd trade him to, your guessing.
Re: Whose Side Are You On?
Posted: 18 Jun 2021 16:00
When the projector projects...Yoop wrote: ↑18 Jun 2021 14:59your really good at twisting any convo to what ever it is you want it to be,go pak go wrote: ↑18 Jun 2021 14:30Because literally nobody in Aaron's circle has said that I would say no it is not a logical projection.
It honestly doesn't make much sense to me at all.
1. If it was about "legacy and staying in GB" Rodgers wouldn't threaten to leave GB while not really saying anything public during that time.
2. If it was about wanting the best chance to win a SB, Rodgers wouldn't threaten to leave a team who is a top 4 team primed to win the SB to potentially to go a team like Denver who wouldn't be the favorite in the division.
3. If it is about continuity with a team, Rodgers was likely guaranteed a spot with the Packers for at least 21 and 22 and possibly 23. Now he wants to end that prematurely which again is leading him to being taken away from his legacy team that was his best shot at a title in 2021 and instead being possibly shipped to a team who won't be able to compete until 2022 at the earliest. Oh and he still would be traded and not outright released meaning he can't just choose where he lands but would be contractually obligated to the traded team for 3 years rather than 1 year if traded in 2023 and then getting to go wherever he wants to go.
Like none of it makes sense if I am looking at it from Rodgers's angle. Literally the best outcome for Rodgers is to play to your contract. Everything else would have worked itself out.
Re: Whose Side Are You On?
Posted: 18 Jun 2021 17:25
You 100% have fabricated things without any shred of evidence. Every time you state, "if that's the case," or "if so," you just fabricated something to fit a narrative. Has happened a bunch during this sage.Yoop wrote: ↑18 Jun 2021 14:20but it's a logical projection now isn't it.
and 23 I havn't fabricated anything, if you want to act dumb about this then thats on you, we gave him a contract, and now what seems obvious is that we don't plan to honor it, according to some of you, Rodgers just up and decided to screw over everyone including himself, don't be so naive.
Case in point:
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.
Re: Whose Side Are You On?
Posted: 18 Jun 2021 17:26
Re: Whose Side Are You On?
Posted: 18 Jun 2021 18:01
I do agree that my number was lower than my guess (you never stated a guess just a vague "lots of rookies start"). But I don't think that supports any assertion "or teams would take forever to improve"
The Packers improve immediately and it was during the year of your Gary complaints of his butt riding the pine.
Re: Whose Side Are You On?
Posted: 19 Jun 2021 08:56
we improved so much, never prior had we given up so many run yards in a PO game, and Gary watched, for some reason I fail to see the improvement that drafting Gary brought that made us so much better.go pak go wrote: ↑18 Jun 2021 18:01I do agree that my number was lower than my guess (you never stated a guess just a vague "lots of rookies start"). But I don't think that supports any assertion "or teams would take forever to improve"
The Packers improve immediately and it was during the year of your Gary complaints of his butt riding the pine.