Packers Huddle

BF004 wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 11:50

I’d offer a replacement, 4 year fully guaranteed contract, under the assumptions that the cap part of it has to make sense for us in ‘21 and ‘22, then also not nearing the highest paid player money. The 45 million per from Mahomes isn’t a fair comparison given the duration of that contract.

I’d even throw in a no trade clause, at a bit of a price.

Aaron has to sacrifice some things, money, security, control, or duration. Just can’t have them all.


But also if I’m Aaron, I do want that control to not be traded. Don’t want to have the Packers pick your destination and have that team gutted on picks and a player or two. Bucs gave up nothing other than cap. If they had to give up their top 10 pick for the tackle, and subsequent picks, and a quality veteran last year, they likely aren’t winning.

I agree with this completely; especially the top part (I would rather not do 4 guaranteed years, more like three) but the Mahomes payment level is a literally impossible ask on a 38 year old QB's timeline.

Packers don't owe Rodgers anything past what they have already negotiated. It is not in the best interest of the organization to extend or guaranty anything more to Rodgers than what is already on the table. The current contract was structured the way it was for a specific purpose. To protect the franchise against a potentially declining, aging player. The Packers did it right to begin with. Aaron agreed. We move on. Players bet on themselves all the time by doing shorter term deals in hopes of leveraging their performance down the road. If this was important to Rodgers to begin with he should have angled for this.

I fully understand why Rodgers wants what he wants in terms of a contract but I don't think the Packers should budge. The Packers have an asset in Rodgers now (to play in 2021) and then own his rights to trade him after this season if they so choose.

If Rodgers wants to sit out the season, let him.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

05 May 2021 21:53

I really think it's a no-trade clause, a restructure that makes it nearly impossible to cut him before 2023, and an extra year (24) at the end that helps spread out and puff up the deal into a bit of an extension, more like a raise. Still very limited dead money in 2024.

Annnnnnnnd I think he'd make them trade Love. Which would undoubtedly net no better than a 2nd round pick next year and thus wind up as a loss.

I'll say this though, how many teams have 1st round busts and get nothing for it.

Trading Love could be the ultimate solution to keep Rodgers happy, and net us at least something back. And the FO can save face by simply stating fact that they weren't sure how many years Rodgers had left, but after 2020, we now realize that he's still our solution at QB for the future.

Boom done.


PS. It's not my opinion that we should do this. I'm in the "$%@# Rodgers" camp and ready to move onto Love.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 11:51

I genuinely believe that Rodgers will, eventually, see that he has no good options. But he will not tuck tail, admit he's wrong, and bow down to the org; it's neither in his nature nor in most people's nature. Once a dispute goes public, if you want it resolved, even the side that gets their way and wins, if it truly wants reconciliation and not outright victory, needs to put forth the appearance of a cordial, mutual arrangement to the public.

Thing is, the incentives, should it comes to a sitting out situation, are squarely on the side of the team.

GB moves into a new era. Is Lambeau suddenly not going to be sold out anymore? Is the league not going to give them TV revenue anymore? So the fans boo hoo for a bit until you start winning and give them hope, and the institution moves on.

Aaron has a handful of years left to win a championship in his career, maybe. Time is fast running out.

A lost season is much, much worse for him than the team.

Acrobat wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 12:41

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

05 May 2021 21:53

I really think it's a no-trade clause, a restructure that makes it nearly impossible to cut him before 2023, and an extra year (24) at the end that helps spread out and puff up the deal into a bit of an extension, more like a raise. Still very limited dead money in 2024.

Annnnnnnnd I think he'd make them trade Love. Which would undoubtedly net no better than a 2nd round pick next year and thus wind up as a loss.

I'll say this though, how many teams have 1st round busts and get nothing for it.

Trading Love could be the ultimate solution to keep Rodgers happy, and net us at least something back. And the FO can save face by simply stating fact that they weren't sure how many years Rodgers had left, but after 2020, we now realize that he's still our solution at QB for the future.

Boom done.


PS. It's not my opinion that we should do this. I'm in the "$%@# Rodgers" camp and ready to move onto Love.

I don't understand what the deal is with Love honestly. Again, we are talking about the 26th overall pick, the tail end of rd 1. Nothing is going to be handed to him. We need a backup QB. Somehow people have made this political, but the hyperbole only works when QB is coach/front office killing value. Yes, you will be starting your top 10 pick QB. There's a reason you'd need another late 1st along with #26 to trade into the top 10, late 1's just aren't worth that much, you basically get first dibs on the 2nd round talent.

Gute would not be fired nor would MLF, nor would fans riot if Love is still a backup QB to Rodgers in 3 years when the team declines his option and lets him leave in FA for a comp pick. Or if the team just cuts him after next year and picks up a new backup QB.

I mean seriously, the Packers organization and fans have proven that they can be extremely patient when they have a first round pick at backup QB, with no urgency to play him. Love is just not a real threat to the end of Aaron's career.

Not getting too good of a backup QB because it will offend your starter is just not good GMing. Everyone on the 53 matters.

I agree with you [mention]Waldo[/mention] about the Love pick not being a sure thing and having nothing handed to him and serves more as a "just in case" for Rodgers and as a backup than as a surefire heir...

...however I also think the team management could have more clearly articulated and explained that in the wake of the pick last year. He did assert generally that Rodgers was their guy and Love has a lot to prove and nothing is a given...

but I could see him saying something more direct, such as saying that the pick allowed them to develop a back-up plan in case Rodgers decides he wants to retire in the next 4-5 years, and while Rodgers says he can see himself playing longer, we've all learned the hard way in this league that at some point, those decisions become year-to-year decisions made by the player whether or not to return and go through this, and the team can't put themselves in the position of being unprepared for that eventuality.

Just like really explain the Rodgers-centric reasons why this pick, while not providing immediate offensive help while Rodgers is healthy, can also serve to empower the Rodgers and the team to part when/if he is ready without forcing the team into scramble mode.

I'm not wording this as well as I'd like, either. BUT I think the reasons why this does not start a ticking clock--the exact mentality behind not starting a ticking clock--they could have been more up front.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 14:08

...however I also think the team management could have more clearly articulated and explained that in the wake of the pick last year. He did assert generally that Rodgers was their guy and Love has a lot to prove and nothing is a given...

But Rodgers was not the reining MVP last year, he was a guy that had been a slump production wise since 2015 and had an injury on his throwing arm. The organization was moving out of we will kiss your butt forever mode at that time.

NCF wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 06:36

Honestly, I'm out. No longer interested. Trade him.

Waldo wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 14:56

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 14:08

...however I also think the team management could have more clearly articulated and explained that in the wake of the pick last year. He did assert generally that Rodgers was their guy and Love has a lot to prove and nothing is a given...

But Rodgers was not the reining MVP last year, he was a guy that had been a slump production wise since 2015 and had an injury on his throwing arm. The organization was moving out of we will kiss your butt forever mode at that time.

Rodgers learns a new offense under Matt LaFleur. The Packers make it to the NFC Championship game and get whipped by the Niners. Packers are close but have some holes to fill. The GM trades up in the first round and drafts a QB.

Back to the reconciliation idea as per programme.

From what I can gather, it seems that what Rodgers is after is job security. He wants to be assured that in two or three years time, even if Love is better than Rodgers, Rodgers will still be starting. Again, this is not reconcilable. The Packers cannot make that promise.

If in two years time Love is looking like another Favre or another Rodgers, then any suggestion that he should be cut and Rodgers still play, would be lunacy. IF Love is as good as hoped - it's a big IF - then he can be kept back another season or two, but no more.

But as we have no evidence on which to judge Love since he was drafted, it's a bit of an unproductive argument.

With the Favre-Packers rift, the rift couldn't be repaired (short term) because the Packers didn't want Favre back. This one looks like the other way round, and there is a better chance simply because the Packers were happy they had a better option than Favre, no matter what. Rodgers does not have a better option than playing for the Packers, so he should be more willing than the 2005 Packers to compromise.

How about if we give him a promise that he will be traded, if he likes, at the end of the season? At the very least it will incentivise him to have a storming season, because the trade value for a 38 year old coming off a storming season is miles higher than a 38 year old coming off a down year.

Take the last offer or retire. Sick of this &%$@. Remember, the guy has brought us ONE super bowl. The same amount as Trent Dilfer. Same as Joe Flacco. Less than Eli. And there are a whole host of Jimmy G's who were a few plays short.

This is a team sport and even totally ignoring the current stink, it's just not very common to win it all with a QB hogging that much salary.

A Super Bowl is a tremendous accomplishment but you don't crown a guy King for that. So to reconcile, I'm assuming the reports are true that we did give him like 2 guaranteed years or whatever. If that's the case then that's as far as I'll go. Honestly we should be telling him to take a smaller salary if he wants to keep all his friends. If Jeopardy is actually a sticking point then I am totally okay with him hosting that and taking whatever time he needs.

Ghost_Lombardi wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 08:23

NCF wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 06:36

Honestly, I'm out. No longer interested. Trade him.

The part about telling FAs he was leaving so they shouldn't sign is what rubs me wrong.

Yeah all the free agents wanting to come to Green Bay in a year where the team didn’t have the money to sign free agents.

That’s the most BS report out of all of them.

Bogey wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 15:11

NCF wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 06:36

Honestly, I'm out. No longer interested. Trade him.

Same as NCF ...... no longer interested.

I just bid on an autographed Lynn Dickey #12 Packers jersey on eBay. If I don't win it, I'll continue to be content with my Nitschke, Hornung, Starr, Favre combo jersey (4 numbers on one jersey). And all of my non-Aaron Rodgers Packers stuff

He can stay if he rips up the contract and plays for $5mil/per so they can afford Davantae and Jaire. A true leader would take a bullet for his teammates!

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 11:52

BF004 wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 11:50

I’d offer a replacement, 4 year fully guaranteed contract, under the assumptions that the cap part of it has to make sense for us in ‘21 and ‘22, then also not nearing the highest paid player money. The 45 million per from Mahomes isn’t a fair comparison given the duration of that contract.

I’d even throw in a no trade clause, at a bit of a price.

Aaron has to sacrifice some things, money, security, control, or duration. Just can’t have them all.


But also if I’m Aaron, I do want that control to not be traded. Don’t want to have the Packers pick your destination and have that team gutted on picks and a player or two. Bucs gave up nothing other than cap. If they had to give up their top 10 pick for the tackle, and subsequent picks, and a quality veteran last year, they likely aren’t winning.

I agree with this completely; especially the top part (I would rather not do 4 guaranteed years, more like three) but the Mahomes payment level is a literally impossible ask on a 38 year old QB's timeline.

why not just leave everything as is, and simply have him win the starting job till the contract is finished in 2023 with a no trade clause and resign him or let him walk as they do most players.

This might not be that hard.

It seems Schefter report on draft day didn't even have a source. It was a feeling he had based on the drafting of Love, Rodgers comments to media previously and post NFC Championship game.

The guy essentially just made the story up.

bud fox wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 18:32

This might not be that hard.

It seems Schefter report on draft day didn't even have a source. It was a feeling he had based on the drafting of Love, Rodgers comments to media previously and post NFC Championship game.

The guy essentially just made the story up.

No, that's not the case.

If the story was made up, GB's management and Rodgers would have denied it. They would be having ice cream together right now instead Rodgers has already said he was sorry it came up, thereby admitting the truth of it -- and otherwise stayed silent except through mouthpieces and leaks.

Rodgers was likely in communication with SF, which is why he was so pissed GB turned them down, and why GB is calling this tampering.

And GB is leaking info about ARs dickish behavior to rattle their own saber.

Ghost_Lombardi wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 18:40

bud fox wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 18:32

This might not be that hard.

It seems Schefter report on draft day didn't even have a source. It was a feeling he had based on the drafting of Love, Rodgers comments to media previously and post NFC Championship game.

The guy essentially just made the story up.

No, that's not the case.

If the story was made up, GB's management and Rodgers would have denied it. They would be having ice cream together right now instead Rodgers has already said he was sorry it came up, thereby admitting the truth of it -- and otherwise stayed silent except through mouthpieces and leaks.

Rodgers was likely in communication with SF, which is why he was so pissed GB turned them down, and why GB is calling this tampering.

And GB is leaking info about ARs dickish behavior to rattle their own saber.

Schefter just reported he had no sources - there is a clip on the McAfee show on youtube if you want to go watch. Why would he say that if that is not the case?

What we know is what Green Bay has come out and said at the draft press conferences. All we know what Aaron has said is through Mike Tirico that Aaron loves the team, fans etc but there is an issue with management. That is all.

Sorry and also Green Bay had to address it.

It is a bomb of a story. Even if it is a story on assumption it is massive and partly accurate. There is an issue between management and Rodgers but who didn't know this - it was obvious.

No doubt GBs PR team and Rodgers PR team would have been working post the initial story but it seems the initial story was a media play to make money.

bud fox wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 18:57

Sorry and also Green Bay had to address it.

It is a bomb of a story. Even if it is a story on assumption it is massive and partly accurate. There is an issue between management and Rodgers but who didn't know this - it was obvious.

No doubt GBs PR team and Rodgers PR team would have been working post the initial story but it seems the initial story was a media play to make money.

No, he said he had accumulated sources and information and was holding back on the story, but then when it broke in Minny he ran with what he had.

That's the way journalism works sometimes.