Rodgers wants out

[German_Panzer]

Somehow I feel this will end up as dirty as the Favre drama back then. Really sad because Rodgers could become a very special one to GB if he'd follow Starr as a loyal player that starts and finishes as a Packer player. But such kind of legacy does not count anymore it seems (Manning, Brady, Favre...they all leave to get cheap rings with loaded teams). I do not like that because I think this mercenary attitude of today makes a bad blueprint for younger people - loyality should mean something. Aaron has changed, he's definitely become this celebrity kind of guy who likes himself as a VIP. He didn't show this attitude till 17/18.

[TheSkeptic]

The primary reason I am fine letting Rodgers walk...

In my opinion, from my observation, the main reason you are fine with punting Rodgers is because you think the success we have had with him, can be found without him. You seem to think the recent success is due to the toys around him, so you want to keep the toys.

To that I say, good luck.

You mean like the success the Saints had this season as a result of paying an aging QB too much and having to lose good players because of the cap, only to have that old QB hit the wall and retire?

[Yoop]

The primary reason I am fine letting Rodgers walk if he doesn't take significant concessions in making it work is because I already have seen the movie of how Rodgers and the Packers do without strong support on the roster from 2011 - 2019. (And there were some really good rosters in this window)

It involves a lot of 4 to 6 word posts from bud fox complaining about how management screwed Rodgers and how the Packers have no talent.

If they couldn't get it done before, there is no reason for me to believe they can do it again. So get the resources you can get, give Rodgers the opportunity at another crack and wipe the slate clean.

If Rodgers wants to stay I'd be elated. But he has to mean it by putting his money where is mouth is.

can you imagine what our win/lose record would have been minus Rodgers from 2011 through 2019? we did as well as we did because Rodgers was a Packer.

I constantly brought up the WR issues, and that we needed to be able to run more successfully, and almost everyone here complained about the defense, what Guty has done is remarkable, he's done almost everything WE had hoped Ted would have done for years prior, and a big reason for our 13 win seasons, ( player talent matters) we can also blame some of the past on McCarthy and obviously plenty of this success on Lafluer, still it's anyones guess how well this bunch of stud athletes would/could be minus Rodgers, so my question is can a average QB accomplish enough to still win play off games? and thats hoping Love can be average next year.

Imo, these are all tough questions that we lack answers to, it's not enough to just be a great running team and have a great defense, plenty of teams have had that and never did well in the PO's, ya still have to be able to pass the ball and get some big chunk plays.

I'am fine either way, I'd like to keep Rodgers around, but not at the cost of gutting this team, I just wish Love would have shown a bit more progress then he has.

[APB]

Reading the last two pages of this thread was like witnessing a conversation between intelligent sober people conversing with guys who have had too much to drink and just spewing out stuff to see what sticks.

Nice. Thanks for sharing.

[British]

The primary reason I am fine letting Rodgers walk...

In my opinion, from my observation, the main reason you are fine with punting Rodgers is because you think the success we have had with him, can be found without him. You seem to think the recent success is due to the toys around him, so you want to keep the toys.

To that I say, good luck.

I honestly think it's not that, but rather they think the success we've had this year is unlikely to be had next year regardless of who is at QB. Either it's Rodgers at 40 on a depleted team or it's rebuild and lay the ground work for the next 5-10 years.

The Rodgers believers think he can overcome all obstacles (despite not being able to for the past decade) and are happy to risk being the Saints and Steelers of the past few years.

The rebuilders accept that 2021 is likely the peak and say better off selling high and using those resources to build around Love or find his replacement in the '23 draft.

I can see how you could make the case for both positions.

[Yoop]

Somehow I feel this will end up as dirty as the Favre drama back then. Really sad because Rodgers could become a very special one to GB if he'd follow Starr as a loyal player that starts and finishes as a Packer player. But such kind of legacy does not count anymore it seems (Manning, Brady, Favre...they all leave to get cheap rings with loaded teams). I do not like that because I think this mercenary attitude of today makes a bad blueprint for younger people - loyality should mean something. Aaron has changed, he's definitely become this celebrity kind of guy who likes himself as a VIP. He didn't show this attitude till 17/18.

I liked Mike Sherman as a person and a coach, as GM he was terrible except when it came to drafting OL, Favre had Shermans ear, and ya have to wonder how much influence he had with Shermans drafts, once Ted took control Favre threatened to retire if Ted wouldn't listen to his demands, my point is Favre did then what Rodgers has been doing the last couple years, that seems common with older more successful QB's, they know a lot about what it takes for personal and team success, as fans we frown on that, thinking along the lines of, players, play, coaches teach, and GM's pick the players, in reality that is how it usually works best, however lending a ear to the opinion of seasoned vet QB's has proven to be useful, Guty took Aarons advise and brought back Cobb, and he's played well for us this season.

[go pak go]

The primary reason I am fine letting Rodgers walk...

In my opinion, from my observation, the main reason you are fine with punting Rodgers is because you think the success we have had with him, can be found without him. You seem to think the recent success is due to the toys around him, so you want to keep the toys.

To that I say, good luck.

It's that I know what a Rodgers led Packers devoid of a supporting cast looks like. We have seen it.

The 2015 - 2018 Packers was it.

What we are looking at is a franchise who is a top 6 to top 18 team in the league. There will always be 3 or 4 teams superior to us in the conference at the least and we will go into each season honestly knowing winning it all is not a realistic outcome.

I would rather take the chance to rebuild a new team and new era than just have a farewell tour. Because that vis what we would look at. A team who wins the division at 11 wins or less and exits in the Divisional Round because of playing a far superior team on the road.

Do I think we can replicate without Rodgers? Yes. Do I think we will?....I think it is reasonable to accept risk we certainly could be a team outside looking for a a few years until we get that next QB. But that is your tradeoff of regrouping and trying to build a new era of a championship contending teams.

[YoHoChecko]

The primary reason I am fine letting Rodgers walk...

In my opinion, from my observation, the main reason you are fine with punting Rodgers is because you think the success we have had with him, can be found without him. You seem to think the recent success is due to the toys around him, so you want to keep the toys.

To that I say, good luck.

This is particularly frustrating because he literally made a post to explain his rationale, and you responded by saying "in my opinion, your rationale is..." and then just filled in bias and gobbledegook.

Like here's the thing. Aaron Rodgers has been our starting QB for 14 seasons now. Two of those seasons have been injury-shortened. In that time period we have seen the highest of highs (MVP performances, Super Bowl win), and the middlingest of lows (our lows are usually pretty danged good, only occasionally missing the playoffs). MOST of that time has been spent in the in-betweenland.

When you look back at the years where Rodgers was on the team but the team's output and Rodgers' output sank down into the land of mediocrity (in terms of stats, wins, and losses) you ask "why isn't this team doing better with Rodgers on the team? And so the team replaces the General manager, fires and replaces the head coach, signs 3-4 high-value free agents, identifies players from the previous regime that count as building blocks for the future, drafts a handful of young emerging stars, and finds some free agent bargains.

These changes have led to three 13-win seasons, a 2-seed, two 1-seeds, two (and counting) trips to the NFC championship, a return of Rodgers to MVP levels for the first time since 2014, but in consecutive years, and hopefully a Super Bowl this year.

And then people say "our success is because of Rodgers"


Obviously, Rodgers being the best QB enhances every outcome of every game. But Rodgers being great at QB wasn't enough to escape mediocrity for half a decade. So OBVIOUSLY the changes we made to the team around him mattered. We are getting better play from Rodgers and better results from Rodgers because we surrounded him with better coaching and better playing.

Go Pack Go explicitly stated that his belief is that if we keep Rodgers, while we may still have the coaching, the salary cap will push the state of his supporting cast back to where it was prior to all of these changes and acquisitions. His view is that we have seen that movie, and we know that Rodgers without a strong supporting cast is a waste of his talent and unlikely to result in championships, if even playoff wins, if even playoffs. We know this because we all, every one of us, watched it happen. For years. We watched Aaron Rodgers not be enough.

So when people start talking about gutting the team of high-value players in order to keep Rodgers, we simply ask: how will that yield better outcomes and results than 2018 and 2017? Why do you believe that 39, 40, and 41-year old Rodgers is better able to overcome personnel and supporting cast shortcomings than 35 and 36 year old Rodgers was?

It's a very clear point of view. It's well reasoned, and it's been explicitly articulated. And then DrJ comes in and just says "nah, I don't think that's your rationale; I've observed you, and in my opinion, you think we can be just as good as we are now without Rodgers"

Like gimme a break.

[Yoop]

so we keep Rodgers and lose some of the players that helped us become as good as we've been the last 3 years

we trade Rodgers, but struggle to replace him with even mediocre play at the position for 2 or 3 years, and in that time frame still lose the talented player that helped Rodgers and the team become as great as they and Rodgers made us.

seems like a coin flip to me.

[Pckfn23]

The primary reason I am fine letting Rodgers walk...

In my opinion, from my observation, the main reason you are fine with punting Rodgers is because you think the success we have had with him, can be found without him. You seem to think the recent success is due to the toys around him, so you want to keep the toys.

To that I say, good luck.

This is particularly frustrating because he literally made a post to explain his rationale, and you responded by saying "in my opinion, your rationale is..." and then just filled in bias and gobbledegook.

Like here's the thing. Aaron Rodgers has been our starting QB for 14 seasons now. Two of those seasons have been injury-shortened. In that time period we have seen the highest of highs (MVP performances, Super Bowl win), and the middlingest of lows (our lows are usually pretty danged good, only occasionally missing the playoffs). MOST of that time has been spent in the in-betweenland.

When you look back at the years where Rodgers was on the team but the team's output and Rodgers' output sank down into the land of mediocrity (in terms of stats, wins, and losses) you ask "why isn't this team doing better with Rodgers on the team? And so the team replaces the General manager, fires and replaces the head coach, signs 3-4 high-value free agents, identifies players from the previous regime that count as building blocks for the future, drafts a handful of young emerging stars, and finds some free agent bargains.

These changes have led to three 13-win seasons, a 2-seed, two 1-seeds, two (and counting) trips to the NFC championship, a return of Rodgers to MVP levels for the first time since 2014, but in consecutive years, and hopefully a Super Bowl this year.

And then people say "our success is because of Rodgers"


Obviously, Rodgers being the best QB enhances every outcome of every game. But Rodgers being great at QB wasn't enough to escape mediocrity for half a decade. So OBVIOUSLY the changes we made to the team around him mattered. We are getting better play from Rodgers and better results from Rodgers because we surrounded him with better coaching and better playing.

Go Pack Go explicitly stated that his belief is that if we keep Rodgers, while we may still have the coaching, the salary cap will push the state of his supporting cast back to where it was prior to all of these changes and acquisitions. His view is that we have seen that movie, and we know that Rodgers without a strong supporting cast is a waste of his talent and unlikely to result in championships, if even playoff wins, if even playoffs. We know this because we all, every one of us, watched it happen. For years. We watched Aaron Rodgers not be enough.

So when people start talking about gutting the team of high-value players in order to keep Rodgers, we simply ask: how will that yield better outcomes and results than 2018 and 2017? Why do you believe that 39, 40, and 41-year old Rodgers is better able to overcome personnel and supporting cast shortcomings than 35 and 36 year old Rodgers was?

It's a very clear point of view. It's well reasoned, and it's been explicitly articulated. And then DrJ comes in and just says "nah, I don't think that's your rationale; I've observed you, and in my opinion, you think we can be just as good as we are now without Rodgers"

Like gimme a break.

[Yoop]

So when people start talking about gutting the team of high-value players in order to keep Rodgers, we simply ask: how will that yield better outcomes and results than 2018 and 2017? Why do you believe that 39, 40, and 41-year old Rodgers is better able to overcome personnel and supporting cast shortcomings than 35 and 36 year old Rodgers was?

I have to take exception here, your trying to watch a movie with no supporting cast changes, we saw Rodgers struggle under McCarthys schemes that required excellent receivers, and basically had minimal run success, thats a ton for any QB to carry, put Lafluer in place back in 2016 and simply that alone would provide a different picture show, MLF schemes don't require as much receiver talent, run the ball far more, and rely on getting the ball out of the QB's hands quicker.

We have been as productive as any team in the league the last 3 years, our failure last year came down to player mistakes, now keeping Rodger and losing a few stars does not imho mean this team will become those teams of the last 4 years of McCarthy, not even close, true we may not be as dominate as we have been in 2020 or this season, but I expect we'll still challenge and compete in the play offs.

[go pak go]

so we keep Rodgers and lose some of the players that helped us become as good as we've been the last 3 years

we trade Rodgers, but struggle to replace him with even mediocre play at the position for 2 or 3 years, and in that time frame still lose the talented player that helped Rodgers and the team become as great as they and Rodgers made us.

seems like a coin flip to me.

It depends on what you want.

If you want a high floor, you stick with Rodgers. You do what you need to do to bring him back. You are at lowest looking at probably that 7-10 season but the cost is at highest you are probably looking at that 11-6 to 12-5 season if the variances tilt your way.

Someone your age may want to go with a higher floor and I understand why you would want that. The Packers would at least be relevant. We would be in the hun each year until Week 17.

But going this route means a lower ceiling.

I personally would rather go after the low floor and high ceiling option. We did that with MLF and it worked brilliantly. And I am okay with the risk if it means we experience a low floor for a season or two.

[go pak go]

So when people start talking about gutting the team of high-value players in order to keep Rodgers, we simply ask: how will that yield better outcomes and results than 2018 and 2017? Why do you believe that 39, 40, and 41-year old Rodgers is better able to overcome personnel and supporting cast shortcomings than 35 and 36 year old Rodgers was?

I have to take exception here, your trying to watch a movie with no supporting cast changes, we saw Rodgers struggle under McCarthys schemes that required excellent receivers, and basically had minimal run success, thats a ton for any QB to carry, put Lafluer in place back in 2016 and simply that alone would provide a different picture show, MLF schemes don't require as much receiver talent, run the ball far more, and rely on getting the ball out of the QB's hands quicker.

I could make this argument that a lower talented QB could also yield similar results in an MLF scheme.

It's QB friendly.

[Yoop]

So when people start talking about gutting the team of high-value players in order to keep Rodgers, we simply ask: how will that yield better outcomes and results than 2018 and 2017? Why do you believe that 39, 40, and 41-year old Rodgers is better able to overcome personnel and supporting cast shortcomings than 35 and 36 year old Rodgers was?

I have to take exception here, your trying to watch a movie with no supporting cast changes, we saw Rodgers struggle under McCarthys schemes that required excellent receivers, and basically had minimal run success, thats a ton for any QB to carry, put Lafluer in place back in 2016 and simply that alone would provide a different picture show, MLF schemes don't require as much receiver talent, run the ball far more, and rely on getting the ball out of the QB's hands quicker.

I could make this argument that a lower talented QB could also yield similar results in an MLF scheme.

It's QB friendly.

IOh I'am sure you'll try, but there is a extreme shortage of the Rodgers type, as well as a shortage of even average QB's that can handle the pass rush, now I'am pulling for Love to being able to do so, but we havn't seen that yet, in reality we could go years in the cycling process to find one.

[go pak go]

I have to take exception here, your trying to watch a movie with no supporting cast changes, we saw Rodgers struggle under McCarthys schemes that required excellent receivers, and basically had minimal run success, thats a ton for any QB to carry, put Lafluer in place back in 2016 and simply that alone would provide a different picture show, MLF schemes don't require as much receiver talent, run the ball far more, and rely on getting the ball out of the QB's hands quicker.

I could make this argument that a lower talented QB could also yield similar results in an MLF scheme.

It's QB friendly.

IOh I'am sure you'll try, but there is a extreme shortage of the Rodgers type, as well as a shortage of even average QB's that can handle the pass rush, now I'am pulling for Love to being able to do so, but we havn't seen that yet, in reality we could go years in the cycling process to find one.

No. Not lower QB with MLF compared to high QB with MLF. That won't happen.

But lower QB with MLF compared to Rodgers 2015 - 2018 (minus the last 8 game run of 2016) under MM and low caliber WRs.

[Yoop]

so we keep Rodgers and lose some of the players that helped us become as good as we've been the last 3 years

we trade Rodgers, but struggle to replace him with even mediocre play at the position for 2 or 3 years, and in that time frame still lose the talented player that helped Rodgers and the team become as great as they and Rodgers made us.

seems like a coin flip to me.

It depends on what you want.

If you want a high floor, you stick with Rodgers. You do what you need to do to bring him back. You are at lowest looking at probably that 7-10 season but the cost is at highest you are probably looking at that 11-6 to 12-5 season if the variances tilt your way.

Someone your age may want to go with a higher floor and I understand why you would want that. The Packers would at least be relevant. We would be in the hun each year until Week 17.

But going this route means a lower ceiling.

I personally would rather go after the low floor and high ceiling option. We did that with MLF and it worked brilliantly. And I am okay with the risk if it means we experience a low floor for a season or two.

like I said imho Guty will side with extending Rodgers, but if Rodgers doesn't impress that he's all in then I think he'll trade him, for me I could get into rolling the dice with Love, keeping as many players as possible, and rebuild the positional players we lose with compensation we get for Rodgers, and if Love doesn't seem like the guy with Guty and Matt then hit the draft again to replace him.

as to the money to keep Rodgers and some of the others I'll leave that up to you and others to conjur, I have trouble balancing my check book

[British]

so we keep Rodgers and lose some of the players that helped us become as good as we've been the last 3 years

we trade Rodgers, but struggle to replace him with even mediocre play at the position for 2 or 3 years, and in that time frame still lose the talented player that helped Rodgers and the team become as great as they and Rodgers made us.

seems like a coin flip to me.

Your second scenario allows us to retain many of the talented players in the short term, and lock up the younger ones which will still be playing in 2 or 3 years time.

It also gives us draft assets which could be hitting their prime in 2-3 years.

Gute's ability to find the players that have elevated the Packers to our current height could actually be our greatest asset.

As the saying goes, give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.

[williewasgreat]

So when people start talking about gutting the team of high-value players in order to keep Rodgers, we simply ask: how will that yield better outcomes and results than 2018 and 2017? Why do you believe that 39, 40, and 41-year old Rodgers is better able to overcome personnel and supporting cast shortcomings than 35 and 36 year old Rodgers was?

I have to take exception here, your trying to watch a movie with no supporting cast changes, we saw Rodgers struggle under McCarthys schemes that required excellent receivers, and basically had minimal run success, thats a ton for any QB to carry, put Lafluer in place back in 2016 and simply that alone would provide a different picture show, MLF schemes don't require as much receiver talent, run the ball far more, and rely on getting the ball out of the QB's hands quicker.

I could make this argument that a lower talented QB could also yield similar results in an MLF scheme.

It's QB friendly.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it's pure supposition to say a it's a QB friendly scheme. The only other QB we've ever actually seen run it is Love. The results so far do not back up this claim.

[Yoop]

so we keep Rodgers and lose some of the players that helped us become as good as we've been the last 3 years

we trade Rodgers, but struggle to replace him with even mediocre play at the position for 2 or 3 years, and in that time frame still lose the talented player that helped Rodgers and the team become as great as they and Rodgers made us.

seems like a coin flip to me.

Your second scenario allows us to retain many of the talented players in the short term, and lock up the younger ones which will still be playing in 2 or 3 years time.

It also gives us draft assets which could be hitting their prime in 2-3 years.

Gute's ability to find the players that have elevated the Packers to our current height could actually be our greatest asset.

As the saying goes, give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.

the world is full of lousy fisherman

another saying goes that a bird in hand is worth two in the bush, being a over the hill bird killer I know the reality is that one bird in hand is often worth dozens of birds in the bush, same goes for QB's and our GM is well aware of that, for every drafted QB that does well, there are dozens that never amount to any more then backup talent.

As I said British, this situation is to tough for me to take a stand either way, obviously I would miss Rodgers, he's the best the team has had in our lifetimes, on the other hand this team is built for life after Rodgers, we run well, and have a very good defense when it's healthy, so it's possible we can get along well minus Rodgers, it would be a tough decision for me to make thats for sure.

[Pckfn23]

QB:
Rodgers
Love

RB:
Taylor
Hill
Dillon
Jones

TE:
Lewis
Deguara
Davis

WR:
Cobb
Rodgers
Winfree

OL:
Bakhtiari
Jenkins
Newman
Runyan
Myers
Turner

DL:
Clark
Slaton
Lowry
Keke
Heflin

OLB:
Z. Smith
P. Smith
Gary
Galeai
Garvin

ILB:
Summers
McDuffie

CB:
Alexander
Stokes
Jean-Charles

S:
Amos
Savage
Scott

LS:
Wirtel

K:
Crosby

With a restructure situation, the roster would look like above maybe with the addition of a low level FA or 2. We are going to be super young to fill out the roster in 2022. Moving on to 2023, 2024, and 2025, Rodgers cap number goes up again, each year. During those years it also makes it hard for us to sign our young challenge. It is hard for me to imagine us being able to retain these guys and build up the talent to 2021 levels without having exceptionally good to unimaginably good drafts. That's where I get stuck.