Packers Huddle

Pugger wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2023 12:00

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2023 02:30

Pugger wrote: ↑

11 Feb 2023 23:21

I don't know if Love needs to leave if Rodgers comes back. I truly think 2023 will be AR's last year if he decides to continue playing (it is just a guess on my part) and Love should be ready to take over in 2024.

Love does not need to leave but he is not a Packer after this season unless the Packers exercise the 5th year option. But that 5th year option costs over $20 million dollars and the Packers simply don't have that much cap room this season. So Love is an UDFA after this season and can go wherever he wants.

Why would he want to stay in GB when the Packers have screwed him over so many times? He should have started at least 4 games this season when AR broke his hand. Instead AR played, looked terrible and the Packers lost. And then when the Packers only had to beat the Lions to make the playoffs, they let AR lose that game too.

Why would Love choose to sign with the Packers when there are at least 8 other teams in desperate need of a good QB and GB has screwed him over so many times? I suppose the Packers could pay $10 million a year more than any other team is offering but no one gets respect by bending over and it is hard to be a leader when you have no self respect. If Love wants to be a good QB, he can start by respecting himself and telling GB to take a hike.

Evidently MLF and company did not believe they had a better chance to win those games with Love instead of Rodgers, even with a broken thumb. You aim a lot of your displeasure at AR so perhaps you should direct your angst at management instead.

well said Pugger, I wish I was able to be more polite, sometimes I just lose it over comments people make though, I think people here go to other forums or listen to the nim rods in the press and come here and spout the most non sensical opinions, please don't be offended with my ragging over average QB's being good enough, they may have average seasonal passing stats, but they where well about that as game managing QB's, snake stabler was well know for heroic play, same with Hurts this season, or Purdy, he will likely beat out Lance to start for the Niners next season, cool under pressure and a snappy release, gets the job done, and thats not average in my book at all, I apologize if I offended you.

They never should have let Rodgers play the Jets game. Long trip back from London, thumb damaged, non-conference opponent. Let the damn thing heal for a couple of weeks at least. Funny how the training staff kept Bak out of games or had him rotate but Rodgers gets cleared. Can't tell me it wasn't Rodgers decision to keep playing. His decision to keep playing probably cost him what could be his last chance as a Packer to win it all.

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2023 13:22

Pugger wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2023 12:00

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2023 02:30

Love does not need to leave but he is not a Packer after this season unless the Packers exercise the 5th year option. But that 5th year option costs over $20 million dollars and the Packers simply don't have that much cap room this season. So Love is an UDFA after this season and can go wherever he wants.

Why would he want to stay in GB when the Packers have screwed him over so many times? He should have started at least 4 games this season when AR broke his hand. Instead AR played, looked terrible and the Packers lost. And then when the Packers only had to beat the Lions to make the playoffs, they let AR lose that game too.

Why would Love choose to sign with the Packers when there are at least 8 other teams in desperate need of a good QB and GB has screwed him over so many times? I suppose the Packers could pay $10 million a year more than any other team is offering but no one gets respect by bending over and it is hard to be a leader when you have no self respect. If Love wants to be a good QB, he can start by respecting himself and telling GB to take a hike.

Evidently MLF and company did not believe they had a better chance to win those games with Love instead of Rodgers, even with a broken thumb. You aim a lot of your displeasure at AR so perhaps you should direct your angst at management instead.

well said Pugger, I wish I was able to be more polite, sometimes I just lose it over comments people make though, I think people here go to other forums or listen to the nim rods in the press and come here and spout the most non sensical opinions, please don't be offended with my ragging over average QB's being good enough, they may have average seasonal passing stats, but they where well about that as game managing QB's, snake stabler was well know for heroic play, same with Hurts this season, or Purdy, he will likely beat out Lance to start for the Niners next season, cool under pressure and a snappy release, gets the job done, and thats not average in my book at all, I apologize if I offended you.

There is another consideration Yoop (and Pugger).

Sometimes when a player does amazing things for a very, very long time, a team will establish that player as the foundation of the team. The Packers have done that with Rodgers (and arguably with Favre too). Once a team tags a player as such a foundation, they are going to then “ride that horse” until the horse drops dead of exhaustion. Whether the team has a “better” player behind that foundational player can actually be pointless, because the starter (Rodgers in this case) has proven himself time and time again. He has proven himself in good times and bad. So even if his skills have declined or he is limited by injury, or both, that doesn’t weigh as heavily in the minds of the HC as it probably should. That’s why they go with the “proven” starter, no matter how quickly the ship is sinking.

As an example, Rodgers was twice MVP and won 39 names with the Pack prior to this virtually miserable 2022 season. That means a LOT. Add the salary that the Pack is playing him and then you realize that he is going to play unless his legs drop off and his throwing arm is shredded in a kitchen appliance. No HC is going to bench him. And he wasn’t hurt enough to put him on IR. Any other consideration is a non-starter.

And if Rodgers returns in 2023, the same will apply.

That’s what happens when you have iconic players. They only way out is if they quit or if you trade them. Or, if they simply get hurt enough that they truly cannot play.

Smart play by Carr I guess

BF004 wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2023 19:08

packman114 wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2023 14:40

They never should have let Rodgers play the Jets game. Long trip back from London, thumb damaged, non-conference opponent. Let the damn thing heal for a couple of weeks at least. Funny how the training staff kept Bak out of games or had him rotate but Rodgers gets cleared. Can't tell me it wasn't Rodgers decision to keep playing. His decision to keep playing probably cost him what could be his last chance as a Packer to win it all.

I get what you are saying but the effect a QB has on a game compared with even a LT is huge.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2023 14:51

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2023 13:22

Pugger wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2023 12:00

Evidently MLF and company did not believe they had a better chance to win those games with Love instead of Rodgers, even with a broken thumb. You aim a lot of your displeasure at AR so perhaps you should direct your angst at management instead.

well said Pugger, I wish I was able to be more polite, sometimes I just lose it over comments people make though, I think people here go to other forums or listen to the nim rods in the press and come here and spout the most non sensical opinions, please don't be offended with my ragging over average QB's being good enough, they may have average seasonal passing stats, but they where well about that as game managing QB's, snake stabler was well know for heroic play, same with Hurts this season, or Purdy, he will likely beat out Lance to start for the Niners next season, cool under pressure and a snappy release, gets the job done, and thats not average in my book at all, I apologize if I offended you.

There is another consideration Yoop (and Pugger).

Sometimes when a player does amazing things for a very, very long time, a team will establish that player as the foundation of the team. The Packers have done that with Rodgers (and arguably with Favre too). Once a team tags a player as such a foundation, they are going to then “ride that horse” until the horse drops dead of exhaustion. Whether the team has a “better” player behind that foundational player can actually be pointless, because the starter (Rodgers in this case) has proven himself time and time again. He has proven himself in good times and bad. So even if his skills have declined or he is limited by injury, or both, that doesn’t weigh as heavily in the minds of the HC as it probably should. That’s why they go with the “proven” starter, no matter how quickly the ship is sinking.

As an example, Rodgers was twice MVP and won 39 names with the Pack prior to this virtually miserable 2022 season. That means a LOT. Add the salary that the Pack is playing him and then you realize that he is going to play unless his legs drop off and his throwing arm is shredded in a kitchen appliance. No HC is going to bench him. And he wasn’t hurt enough to put him on IR. Any other consideration is a non-starter.

And if Rodgers returns in 2023, the same will apply.

That’s what happens when you have iconic players. They only way out is if they quit or if you trade them. Or, if they simply get hurt enough that they truly cannot play.

This is kinda what happened with Favre and MN in 2010.

BF004 wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2023 19:08

I doubt we'll hear anything until AR comes out of his hole and sees his shadow. I'm sure Packers' management is waiting to find out Aaron's decision before any move is made one way or another.

Would be funny if packers just did what they should do…make the deal that is best for the org, not rodgers…and when rodgers comes out of his hole, he finds out he is on a new team.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023 11:04

Would be funny if packers just did what they should do…make the deal that is best for the org, not rodgers…and when rodgers comes out of his hole, he finds out he is on a new team.

I don't think they can, as a tenured vet he has right of first refusal, think I read that anyway.

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023 11:13

Drj820 wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023 11:04

Would be funny if packers just did what they should do…make the deal that is best for the org, not rodgers…and when rodgers comes out of his hole, he finds out he is on a new team.

I don't think they can, as a tenured vet he has right of first refusal, think I read that anyway.

He does not have a no trade clause. But he could always refuse to play.

BF004 wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023 11:17

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023 11:13

Drj820 wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023 11:04

Would be funny if packers just did what they should do…make the deal that is best for the org, not rodgers…and when rodgers comes out of his hole, he finds out he is on a new team.

I don't think they can, as a tenured vet he has right of first refusal, think I read that anyway.

He does not have a no trade clause. But he could always refuse to play.

got that but I think he has a right to say NO, find a different team to trade me to, my point is that it's not either go there or retire as some seem to think.

actually I think this is a pointless conversation, the main reason the FO is leaving this up to Rodgers imo is because they know when it comes to ability Rodgers has more then Love, and the reason I say this is because they know what happened last season was not as much do to Aarons (perceived around here) decline in ability, as it was the cumulative affect of Thumb, OL and inexperience at WR, not to mention a defense that was as inconsistent as it became.

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023 12:08

actually I think this is a pointless conversation, the main reason the FO is leaving this up to Rodgers imo is because they know when it comes to ability Rodgers has more then Love, and the reason I say this is because they know what happened last season was not as much do to Aarons (perceived around here) decline in ability, as it was the cumulative affect of Thumb, OL and inexperience at WR, not to mention a defense that was as inconsistent as it became.

I think both parties are trying their darndest to make the public perception feel they both are trying to play nice and doing everything possible to keep the legend quarterback in the hometown but also open to the possibility of it not working out.

It's an image thing. No party wants to be viewed as the bad guy forcing the issue. Both are trying to set themselves up as not the bad guy and more of an amicable divorce.

So both are using language of "open to conversations" "we want to keep all our players" "I love the Packers and the fans" We love Aaron and think he can be a great player for us"

We now also heard both parties use, "I want to stay together if the other party is willing to be all in". I think that ultimately is going to be the sticking point that ends up splitting the parties up. It's very easy to say we aren't at the same spot for the best interest of the parties moving forward.

go pak go wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023 12:18

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023 12:08

actually I think this is a pointless conversation, the main reason the FO is leaving this up to Rodgers imo is because they know when it comes to ability Rodgers has more then Love, and the reason I say this is because they know what happened last season was not as much do to Aarons (perceived around here) decline in ability, as it was the cumulative affect of Thumb, OL and inexperience at WR, not to mention a defense that was as inconsistent as it became.

I think both parties are trying their darndest to make the public perception feel they both are trying to play nice and doing everything possible to keep the legend quarterback in the hometown but also open to the possibility of it not working out.

It's an image thing. No party wants to be viewed as the bad guy forcing the issue. Both are trying to set themselves up as not the bad guy and more of an amicable divorce.

So both are using language of "open to conversations" "we want to keep all our players" "I love the Packers and the fans" We love Aaron and think he can be a great player for us"

We now also heard both parties use, "I want to stay together if the other party is willing to be all in". I think that ultimately is going to be the sticking point that ends up splitting the parties up. It's very easy to say we aren't at the same spot for the best interest of the parties moving forward.

Yeah. When an official/player says that he is “open” to something the first time, that’s usually just out of respect. But if we start to hear them say that time and again, then I think they are hinting at something, or at least trying to do the PR thingy if/when a trade does occur.

go pak go wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023 12:18

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023 12:08

actually I think this is a pointless conversation, the main reason the FO is leaving this up to Rodgers imo is because they know when it comes to ability Rodgers has more then Love, and the reason I say this is because they know what happened last season was not as much do to Aarons (perceived around here) decline in ability, as it was the cumulative affect of Thumb, OL and inexperience at WR, not to mention a defense that was as inconsistent as it became.

I think both parties are trying their darndest to make the public perception feel they both are trying to play nice and doing everything possible to keep the legend quarterback in the hometown but also open to the possibility of it not working out.

It's an image thing. No party wants to be viewed as the bad guy forcing the issue. Both are trying to set themselves up as not the bad guy and more of an amicable divorce.

So both are using language of "open to conversations" "we want to keep all our players" "I love the Packers and the fans" We love Aaron and think he can be a great player for us"

We now also heard both parties use, "I want to stay together if the other party is willing to be all in". I think that ultimately is going to be the sticking point that ends up splitting the parties up. It's very easy to say we aren't at the same spot for the best interest of the parties moving forward.

who knows, unless we hear something more firm, it can be taken any way a person wants to take it, I expect you to take it as though the FO office would want to trade him, because that is what you want to happen, me, on the other hand just want to reload and keep firing, it's just a difference of opinion.

I also have to scoff a bit at "but the THUMB!" as if to say next year will be better because he will be healthy.

Injuries are part of the game. 12 was never built to take punishment as well as a Favre or a Big Ben and has battled some injury or another in many years. That issue does not get better with age, quite the opposite.

It's a mistake to treat the thumb injury as an anomaly that will just self-correct next year; it could be a sign that Rodgers cannot physically withstand a full year as starter without some injury that will hurt his play.

Also, if you think Rodgers's play at QB was fine and it was the play of people around him that hurt, then the thumb injury does not matter. An injury only matters if it hurts the play.

Labrev wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023 13:08

I also have to scoff a bit at "but the THUMB!" as if to say next year will be better because he will be healthy.

Injuries are part of the game. 12 was never built to take punishment as well as a Favre or a Big Ben and has battled some injury or another in many years. That issue does not get better with age, quite the opposite.

It's a mistake to treat the thumb injury as an anomaly that will just self-correct next year; it could be a sign that Rodgers cannot physically withstand a full year as starter without some injury that will hurt his play.

Also, if you think Rodgers's play at QB was fine and it was the play of people around him that hurt, then the thumb injury does not matter. An injury only matters if it hurts the play.

Labrev your arms grow a inch with every comment lol

Rodgers for most of his tenure has been injury free, specially so when ya consider all the extended play scenarios of vertical spread schemes, where most of his game loss injury's occurred.

when the first couple reads are covered Rodgers has been forced to scramble, however when the blocking holds up, or one of those first couple receivers gets open he gets rid of the ball, so it does become a complimentary supporting cast problem, either with the pass pro, or the receivers.

your painting him as a player who will continue to be injured and again absolving the reason why he was injured in the first place, the reason Rodgers scrambles has to do with receivers not getting open.

No more fan-fiction, yoop, put your money where your mouth is. Prove to me that what you're saying is correct. Go bring the evidence here.

No "go ask someone with football IQ." No "go back and watch __." Your claim, your burden. You bring the video and show that what you say happened actually happened.