Packers Huddle

Drj820 wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 12:21

We know Rodgers has publically praised Hackett, but its not like i consider them any more bros or joined at the hip than Lafleur and Rodgers. I guess the perk with Hackett is he can move to Denver and if 12 comes, 12 doesnt have to learn a new system...everyone else on the roster does though.

Adams, MVS, Tonyan and Lucas Patrick wouldn't have to learn anything new.

Kinda starting to feel like it's already been agreed on Denver.

Makes too much sense now.

My main concern is if Rodgers and Hackett stitch up the Packers and Rodgers says he will only accept a trade to Denver.

No team will give up multiple 1sts if Rodger's agent tells them he won't sign for them.

What kind of market will we have if there's only one bidder?

British wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 14:07

My main concern is if Rodgers and Hackett stitch up the Packers and Rodgers says he will only accept a trade to Denver.

No team will give up multiple 1sts if Rodger's agent tells them he won't sign for them.

What kind of market will we have if there's only one bidder?

that could def be happening. Packers rebuttal to that would be to refuse to accept the trade. Broncos have to reach some threshold that the Packers see as worth moving him for.

There is already precedence with the Stafford trade last year. Gutey isn’t going to trade Rodgers for less. Or much less.

In a way Denver is already a bit out on a ledge by hiring Hackett.

Foosball wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 14:45

In a way Denver is already a bit out on a ledge by hiring Hackett.

Connect the dots all you want, but I assure you, if Aaron Rodgers doesn't end up in Denver they are not going to be kicking themselves for hiring Hackett. This decision, to me, is completely based on merit and they are getting a great football coach regardless of who their QB ends up being.

Foosball wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 14:45

There is already precedence with the Stafford trade last year. Gutey isn’t going to trade Rodgers for less. Or much less.

Staff is almost 5 years younger than Rodgers. People forget that.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 15:02

Foosball wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 14:45

There is already precedence with the Stafford trade last year. Gutey isn’t going to trade Rodgers for less. Or much less.

Staff is almost 5 years younger than Rodgers. People forget that.

MVPs - Rodgers 4; Stafford 0
SBs - Rodgers 1; Stafford 0

2 MVPs in the last 2 years for Rodgers. So age shouldn’t be much of a factor.

Foosball wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 15:27

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 15:02

Foosball wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 14:45

There is already precedence with the Stafford trade last year. Gutey isn’t going to trade Rodgers for less. Or much less.

Staff is almost 5 years younger than Rodgers. People forget that.

MVPs - Rodgers 4; Stafford 0
SBs - Rodgers 1; Stafford 0

2 MVPs in the last 2 years for Rodgers. So age shouldn’t be much of a factor.

MVP is a popularity contest not based upon a QB's ability or production. Stafford is the more valuable player

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 16:06

Foosball wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 15:27

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 15:02

Staff is almost 5 years younger than Rodgers. People forget that.

MVPs - Rodgers 4; Stafford 0
SBs - Rodgers 1; Stafford 0

2 MVPs in the last 2 years for Rodgers. So age shouldn’t be much of a factor.

MVP is a popularity contest not based upon a QB's ability or production. Stafford is the more valuable player

I hope you're kidding.

Foosball wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 15:27

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 15:02

Foosball wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 14:45

There is already precedence with the Stafford trade last year. Gutey isn’t going to trade Rodgers for less. Or much less.

Staff is almost 5 years younger than Rodgers. People forget that.

MVPs - Rodgers 4; Stafford 0
SBs - Rodgers 1; Stafford 0

2 MVPs in the last 2 years for Rodgers. So age shouldn’t be much of a factor.

Oh, I get it, but I think 9 years left on a career is more valuable than 3. It will make a substantial difference. We might should probably get 2 1sts for Rodgers, but probably not much more.

Foosball wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 14:45

There is already precedence with the Stafford trade last year. Gutey isn’t going to trade Rodgers for less. Or much less.

In a way Denver is already a bit out on a ledge by hiring Hackett.

I hope you're right, but the "precedence" isn't much use of Denver are the only bidders.

Keeping a disillusioned Rodgers for a year at a cap number that destroys your squad only to lose him for nothing is a non starter for the Packers.

Rodgers has a ton of leverage it seems to me.

I don't see anything actually stopping Rodgers telling the Packers the price will be 1 first round pick. Faced with the above situation I bet the Packers would take it.

British wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 17:37

Foosball wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 14:45

There is already precedence with the Stafford trade last year. Gutey isn’t going to trade Rodgers for less. Or much less.

In a way Denver is already a bit out on a ledge by hiring Hackett.

I hope you're right, but the "precedence" isn't much use of Denver are the only bidders.

Keeping a disillusioned Rodgers for a year at a cap number that destroys your squad only to lose him for nothing is a non starter for the Packers.

Rodgers has a ton of leverage it seems to me.

I don't see anything actually stopping Rodgers telling the Packers the price will be 1 first round pick. Faced with the above situation I bet the Packers would take it.

I think you are overestimating Rodgers' power here. There will be an agreement sure. But he's not going to dictate the return the Packers get to that degree.

And there will be plenty of suitors. It's not 31 teams, but I don't get the thinking it's Broncos or no one.

paco wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 17:49

British wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 17:37

Foosball wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 14:45

There is already precedence with the Stafford trade last year. Gutey isn’t going to trade Rodgers for less. Or much less.

In a way Denver is already a bit out on a ledge by hiring Hackett.

I hope you're right, but the "precedence" isn't much use of Denver are the only bidders.

Keeping a disillusioned Rodgers for a year at a cap number that destroys your squad only to lose him for nothing is a non starter for the Packers.

Rodgers has a ton of leverage it seems to me.

I don't see anything actually stopping Rodgers telling the Packers the price will be 1 first round pick. Faced with the above situation I bet the Packers would take it.

I think you are overestimating Rodgers' power here. There will be an agreement sure. But he's not going to dictate the return the Packers get to that degree.

And there will be plenty of suitors. It's not 31 teams, but I don't get the thinking it's Broncos or no one.

Hopefully Rodgers is reasonable and allows at least two teams to bid.

But if it was me, I would get my agent to tell the other 30 teams that I won't play for them. I would then get my agent to tell the Broncos they are the only bidder.

Broncos offer a 1st, final offer.

Rodgers tells the Packers he wants to go to Denver and he's not interested in extending his contract in Green Bay.

That way he'd get his preferred move and his new team wouldn't be cleared out of draft picks. Those picks will help him to win. If we take 3 firsts+ off Denver it makes his job that much harder.

It seems so easy for Rodgers with very little downside.

AR has said his legacy in GB is important to him. If he does that, that legacy is gone. But GB would call his bluff in that scenario and not trade him and force him to retire. I don't think it will go down in a hostile way, whatever the result (stay or go).

I think it will be reasonable compensation but nothing crazy.

Packers paid a price to bring Rodgers back this season and part of that is this apparent agreement that Rodgers has a say on where he goes.

I think it will go through quite smoothly.

wallyuwl wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 18:01

AR has said his legacy in GB is important to him. If he does that, that legacy is gone. But GB would call his bluff in that scenario and not trade him and force him to retire. I don't think it will go down in a hostile way, whatever the result (stay or go).

Why would he be forced to retire? Wouldn't he just play out 2022 with packers and then move on as a free agent?

I'm assuming Denver is the place. But it would be hilarious if they aren't one of the teams he wants to go to.

It's all assumption at this point. He hasn't said a word.

bud fox wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 18:09

wallyuwl wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 18:01

AR has said his legacy in GB is important to him. If he does that, that legacy is gone. But GB would call his bluff in that scenario and not trade him and force him to retire. I don't think it will go down in a hostile way, whatever the result (stay or go).

Why would he be forced to retire? Wouldn't he just play out 2022 with packers and then move on as a free agent?

It's assumed neither side wants that. Packers definitely not, and it's a risk for Rodgers.

This is the year to line up a situation he wants. Can't assume it'll be there next season.

paco wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2022 18:12

I'm assuming Denver is the place. But it would be hilarious if they aren't one of the teams he wants to go to.

It's all assumption at this point. He hasn't said a word.

6 games a year against two top 6 QBs and IMO a vastly underrated Carr. Not a great situation.