The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
I've worked for my employer for 12 years. They still don't remember where I live or what my job is.BF004 wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 08:37Wait, you guys have had employers that believed in you? And treated you like a human being and not an asset?lupedafiasco wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 05:22How would you feel if your employer no longer believed in you?
Success is the perfect blend of execution and attitude though. If his attitude sucks and the team implodes, that's an issue.
I agree with both of you. I want Aaron here, but he has to be all in. Can't let poison into the locker room. He has to be OK with being a lame duck or it would be irresponsible to let him come back.
lots of stuff can go against our success, which could be Rodgers success, or we could win a SB and in turn the FO decides to move on from costly contracts and go into rebuild mode to some degree, to say Rodgers should just accpet that he is on basically one year deals and will keep his job as long as he is the best QB for the job is a complete unknown, specially after the GM brought in his replacement, and the chances that we could have drafted a player comparable to LOve next year is that we probably could have, rating all these QB's to show Love was a steel in that draft is so ambiguous to what we see year after year, I don't buy that at all.NCF wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 08:32First, yes, I agree so much with the last statement.Drj820 wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 08:21My point in saying this is that...yes, the FO did give up on Rodgers when they drafted Love. Yes, that move was egregious and the cause for all this. No, it was NOT justified. Yes, if Love stinks then heads must roll. The FO started thinking anyone could win at QB under Lafleur and they got tired of dealing with Rodgers Diva ways..well now they get to see if they should have just dealt with him.
Again..that said..Rodgers signed the deal and he should have demanded to sign a deal that he could live with at the time he demanded a new contract.
Second, I have only really seen @Waldo come to a similar stance, but I DO NOT believe the Packers bet against Aaron Rodgers. They covered their bases and drafted a QB in the 1st-round. Traditional sense says that guy HAS to play. Does he? Why? If Rodgers keeps the job and Jordan Love never plays a snap that is a wasted 1st-round pick. So what? Then Love is Datone Jones. He's Dumbarious Randall. He's Harrell. He's Sherrod. You can find good players throughout The Draft, but no position is more difficult than QB. When you have a chance and have the conviction, you have to pull the trigger and live with the consequences. Again, so what?
But maybe the Packers scouts were so high on Love that they truly think he's the guy for the next 10-15 years after Rodgers retires. Hard to blame them if that's the case. Sure maybe they could have called Rodgers, sent him flowers, licked his toes, etc. but ultimately it's a business. If we don't have a replacement for Rodgers and the team sucks for the next 10 years, that's devastating to the franchise and city.Yoop wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 08:58lots of stuff can go against our success, which could be Rodgers success, or we could win a SB and in turn the FO decides to move on from costly contracts and go into rebuild mode to some degree, to say Rodgers should just accpet that he is on basically one year deals and will keep his job as long as he is the best QB for the job is a complete unknown, specially after the GM brought in his replacement, and the chances that we could have drafted a player comparable to LOve next year is that we probably could have, rating all these QB's to show Love was a steel in that draft is so ambiguous to what we see year after year, I don't buy that at all.NCF wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 08:32First, yes, I agree so much with the last statement.Drj820 wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 08:21My point in saying this is that...yes, the FO did give up on Rodgers when they drafted Love. Yes, that move was egregious and the cause for all this. No, it was NOT justified. Yes, if Love stinks then heads must roll. The FO started thinking anyone could win at QB under Lafleur and they got tired of dealing with Rodgers Diva ways..well now they get to see if they should have just dealt with him.
Again..that said..Rodgers signed the deal and he should have demanded to sign a deal that he could live with at the time he demanded a new contract.
Second, I have only really seen @Waldo come to a similar stance, but I DO NOT believe the Packers bet against Aaron Rodgers. They covered their bases and drafted a QB in the 1st-round. Traditional sense says that guy HAS to play. Does he? Why? If Rodgers keeps the job and Jordan Love never plays a snap that is a wasted 1st-round pick. So what? Then Love is Datone Jones. He's Dumbarious Randall. He's Harrell. He's Sherrod. You can find good players throughout The Draft, but no position is more difficult than QB. When you have a chance and have the conviction, you have to pull the trigger and live with the consequences. Again, so what?
I, too, am in this camp; not quite as strongly as [mention]Waldo[/mention], but still definitely there.NCF wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 08:32Second, I have only really seen @Waldo come to a similar stance, but I DO NOT believe the Packers bet against Aaron Rodgers. They covered their bases and drafted a QB in the 1st-round. Traditional sense says that guy HAS to play. Does he? Why? If Rodgers keeps the job and Jordan Love never plays a snap that is a wasted 1st-round pick. So what? Then Love is Datone Jones. He's Dumbarious Randall. He's Harrell. He's Sherrod. You can find good players throughout The Draft, but no position is more difficult than QB. When you have a chance and have the conviction, you have to pull the trigger and live with the consequences. Again, so what?
I think maybe i wasnt clear. I think RIGHT NOW Rodgers wants to win an MVP in '21 or '22 for another team and not Murphy. However, if he was to come back and put on our uniform then I think he would have lost his battle and it would be time try to not waste a year, not tarnish his legacy, and go try to win. I dont think he wants to win anything that the FO can take credit for right now, but if he comes back I do not expect him to sand bag or intentionally sabotage the team.
And that is why the timing of this makes no sense to me. If this was all about Aaron being pissed that the Packers drafted Jordan Love, wouldn't this hissy fit have come last year?YoHoChecko wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 09:03That was EASILY as likely an outcome as Rodgers being traded right up until Rodgers threw this hissy fit.
The notion that drafting Love set off an immovable, pre-determined path of QB succession is nonsense.
seriously how could they possibly know that, 50% are basically busts, and of the other 50% only about 10% are above average starters.Acrobat wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 09:02But maybe the Packers scouts were so high on Love that they truly think he's the guy for the next 10-15 years after Rodgers retires. Hard to blame them if that's the case. Sure maybe they could have called Rodgers, sent him flowers, licked his toes, etc. but ultimately it's a business. If we don't have a replacement for Rodgers and the team sucks for the next 10 years, that's devastating to the franchise and city.Yoop wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 08:58lots of stuff can go against our success, which could be Rodgers success, or we could win a SB and in turn the FO decides to move on from costly contracts and go into rebuild mode to some degree, to say Rodgers should just accpet that he is on basically one year deals and will keep his job as long as he is the best QB for the job is a complete unknown, specially after the GM brought in his replacement, and the chances that we could have drafted a player comparable to LOve next year is that we probably could have, rating all these QB's to show Love was a steel in that draft is so ambiguous to what we see year after year, I don't buy that at all.NCF wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 08:32
First, yes, I agree so much with the last statement.
Second, I have only really seen @Waldo come to a similar stance, but I DO NOT believe the Packers bet against Aaron Rodgers. They covered their bases and drafted a QB in the 1st-round. Traditional sense says that guy HAS to play. Does he? Why? If Rodgers keeps the job and Jordan Love never plays a snap that is a wasted 1st-round pick. So what? Then Love is Datone Jones. He's Dumbarious Randall. He's Harrell. He's Sherrod. You can find good players throughout The Draft, but no position is more difficult than QB. When you have a chance and have the conviction, you have to pull the trigger and live with the consequences. Again, so what?
Right, I got it. My response was a long-winded way of saying if Rodgers backs down and comes back, I think we are all set for 2021.Drj820 wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 09:04I think maybe i wasnt clear. I think RIGHT NOW Rodgers wants to win an MVP in '21 or '22 for another team and not Murphy. However, if he was to come back and put on our uniform then I think he would have lost his battle and it would be time try to not waste a year, not tarnish his legacy, and go try to win. I dont think he wants to win anything that the FO can take credit for right now, but if he comes back I do not expect him to sand bag or intentionally sabotage the team.
I can 3rd this as well and that's been one of my main arguments. If Jordan Love never plays a snap with the Packers because Rodgers gives us 5 more years of MVP level QB play, then do we really care that much? I mean, yeah, it'll be considered a "bust" draft pick. Every GM has those, even the elite ones. But we can draft another QB 3 years from now. I just wish Rodgers would cut the crap out and show up. Seems like the Packers want him long term, so again, I just don't see what the issue is.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 09:03I, too, am in this camp; not quite as strongly as @Waldo, but still definitely there.NCF wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 08:32Second, I have only really seen @Waldo come to a similar stance, but I DO NOT believe the Packers bet against Aaron Rodgers. They covered their bases and drafted a QB in the 1st-round. Traditional sense says that guy HAS to play. Does he? Why? If Rodgers keeps the job and Jordan Love never plays a snap that is a wasted 1st-round pick. So what? Then Love is Datone Jones. He's Dumbarious Randall. He's Harrell. He's Sherrod. You can find good players throughout The Draft, but no position is more difficult than QB. When you have a chance and have the conviction, you have to pull the trigger and live with the consequences. Again, so what?
The Patriots drafted Jimmy G in the early second round and Tom Brady bristled, played well, won some Super Bowls, and Jimmy G wound up getting traded. That was EASILY as likely an outcome as Rodgers being traded right up until Rodgers threw this hissy fit.
The notion that drafting Love set off an immovable, pre-determined path of QB succession is nonsense. It set off a possible succession plan, but left all options on the table. And there is nothing egregious about it.
Also, the idea that they traded up for a first-round QB under the idea that "anyone could play QB" for this team is absolutely foolish. If that were the case they'd have waited on Jacob Eason in the 3rd.
Same logic is that we don't know how much longer Rodgers is going to be elite. History proves that QB's generally hit a wall around 40, with Brady being the one exception. So you gotta play your cards accordingly.Yoop wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 09:07seriously how could they possibly know that, 50% are basically busts, and of the other 50% only about 10% are above average starters.Acrobat wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 09:02But maybe the Packers scouts were so high on Love that they truly think he's the guy for the next 10-15 years after Rodgers retires. Hard to blame them if that's the case. Sure maybe they could have called Rodgers, sent him flowers, licked his toes, etc. but ultimately it's a business. If we don't have a replacement for Rodgers and the team sucks for the next 10 years, that's devastating to the franchise and city.Yoop wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 08:58
lots of stuff can go against our success, which could be Rodgers success, or we could win a SB and in turn the FO decides to move on from costly contracts and go into rebuild mode to some degree, to say Rodgers should just accpet that he is on basically one year deals and will keep his job as long as he is the best QB for the job is a complete unknown, specially after the GM brought in his replacement, and the chances that we could have drafted a player comparable to LOve next year is that we probably could have, rating all these QB's to show Love was a steel in that draft is so ambiguous to what we see year after year, I don't buy that at all.
This, I am not so sure of. This is one of [mention]Yoop[/mention]'s big gripes, but I think it's pretty clear that the Packers want year-to-year flexibility to transition whenever they see the best fit... next year, the year after, or never. It is crystal clear that the organizational stance is that they DO want him back this year, though.
He didn't have the leverage last year because the last time he played awesome was the 2nd half in Week 1 2018 and before that one good game vs Dallas in 2017 and before that the 2016 Run the Table.NCF wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 09:05And that is why the timing of this makes no sense to me. If this was all about Aaron being pissed that the Packers drafted Jordan Love, wouldn't this hissy fit have come last year?YoHoChecko wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 09:03That was EASILY as likely an outcome as Rodgers being traded right up until Rodgers threw this hissy fit.
The notion that drafting Love set off an immovable, pre-determined path of QB succession is nonsense.
Yeah, early in the process guys like Andrew Brandt and some others seemed to indicate that the Packers were not willing to make guarantees that really ensured his place beyond the next two years ('21 and '22), while Rodgers wanted at least three (through the end of his contract in '23)NCF wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 09:10This, I am not so sure of. This is one of @Yoop's big gripes, but I think it's pretty clear that the Packers want year-to-year flexibility to transition whenever they see the best fit... next year, the year after, or never. It is crystal clear that the organizational stance is that they DO want him back this year, though.
OK, but Rodgers in no way appeared to be slowing down last year or really the year before in MLF's new offense, and prior the whole offense was a complete mess.Acrobat wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 09:09Same logic is that we don't know how much longer Rodgers is going to be elite. History proves that QB's generally hit a wall around 40, with Brady being the one exception. So you gotta play your cards accordingly.Yoop wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 09:07seriously how could they possibly know that, 50% are basically busts, and of the other 50% only about 10% are above average starters.Acrobat wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 09:02
But maybe the Packers scouts were so high on Love that they truly think he's the guy for the next 10-15 years after Rodgers retires. Hard to blame them if that's the case. Sure maybe they could have called Rodgers, sent him flowers, licked his toes, etc. but ultimately it's a business. If we don't have a replacement for Rodgers and the team sucks for the next 10 years, that's devastating to the franchise and city.
And that is the issue. There it is for those that are still unsure. Rodgers feels he has earned the right to not play year to year. He wants security for several years without ever having to look over his back or consider that he may be traded, cut, or replaced.NCF wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021 09:10This, I am not so sure of. This is one of @Yoop's big gripes, but I think it's pretty clear that the Packers want year-to-year flexibility to transition whenever they see the best fit... next year, the year after, or never. It is crystal clear that the organizational stance is that they DO want him back this year, though.