Packers Huddle

BSA wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022 17:52

If you look at the top of the All Time Career TDs list, you can see a potential reason why Rodgers wants to play more this year

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... career.htm

He's currently sitting at # 5, needs another 38 TDs to surpass his predecessor- and I'm guessing that's meaningful to Aaron.
He's not likely to get all 38 next year, so he wants to notch a few more TDs vs the bears and others in 2022.

Tarkenton and Unitas were the greatest TD throwing machines in their era. Tarkenton was an innovative scrambler as well, before scrambling was in vogue. Now pure drop back / rollout QBs are a dying breed.

Labrev wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022 21:49

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022 21:15

Labrev wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022 19:06

Yeah that's a great point; especially considering that individual accolades seem more important to Rodgers than team success.

why wouldn't you think thats true of all players, or actually anyone in every job there is, that take one for the giffer thing is only true in movies

TB12 and MJ cared more about winning championships. Brady took a pay cut to win more rings. MJ could have played and padded stats for way longer.

Rodgers wasn't married to a woman was worth almost double the amount of his worth so it was easy for Brady to take a pay "cut".

Pugger wrote: ↑

02 Dec 2022 09:04

Labrev wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022 21:49

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022 21:15

why wouldn't you think thats true of all players, or actually anyone in every job there is, that take one for the giffer thing is only true in movies

TB12 and MJ cared more about winning championships. Brady took a pay cut to win more rings. MJ could have played and padded stats for way longer.

Rodgers wasn't married to a woman was worth almost double the amount of his worth so it was easy for Brady to take a pay "cut".

I mean are we really splitting hairs and justifying whether $250 million household net worth or $500 million household net worth is the reason why a person is willing to take a pay cut? (don't actually look into my math. I just did some high level estimates based on 15 years of contract at over $25 million a year or so)

It's not about the actual dollars at that level. It's about the personality and perceived justification of the employer valuing their services and weighing the cost benefit of winning vs losing compared to paycheck size.

I am very confident Aaron Rodgers could be married to Oprah and he'd still go for the max dollar because the dollar value isn't actually about what the money can buy you but instead the worth and validation the money labels you.

$100 Million Net Worth even at 5% return is $5 million a year for doing absolutely nothing. Even your super rich fancy guys can live happily on $5 million a year (and that's not even taking from the actual nest egg itself)

No. I don't believe it's about needing the money to spend. I believe it is about what the money represents in terms of respect. And I can confidently say this because Aaron Rodgers has literally said this on shows like Pat McFee. He said something to the tune of "it isn't about the money. It's about the respect"

Labrev wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022 21:49

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022 21:15

Labrev wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022 19:06

Yeah that's a great point; especially considering that individual accolades seem more important to Rodgers than team success.

why wouldn't you think thats true of all players, or actually anyone in every job there is, that take one for the giffer thing is only true in movies

TB12 and MJ cared more about winning championships. Brady took a pay cut to win more rings. MJ could have played and padded stats for way longer.

Both did what they did for personal glory, Jorden retired after his father died and his coach retired

And Brady, just like Rodgers continue to play because of love for the game, that Brady took a lesser dollar to keep the team together to win a SB is no less pad stating then Bree's, more SB's more personal glory.

obviously they care about the team, same as a worker for a small business, the worker does it mostly for a paycheck, the player for money or glory, same thing, this is a me first world and thats true for everyone

Yoop wrote: ↑

02 Dec 2022 09:41

Labrev wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022 21:49

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022 21:15

why wouldn't you think thats true of all players, or actually anyone in every job there is, that take one for the giffer thing is only true in movies

TB12 and MJ cared more about winning championships. Brady took a pay cut to win more rings. MJ could have played and padded stats for way longer.

Both did what they did for personal glory, Jorden retired after his father died and his coach retired

And Brady, just like Rodgers continue to play because of love for the game, that Brady took a lesser dollar to keep the team together to win a SB is no less pad stating then Bree's, more SB's more personal glory.

obviously they care about the team, same as a worker for a small business, the worker does it mostly for a paycheck, the player for money or glory, same thing, this is a me first world and thats true for everyone

winning super bowls for personal glory >>>>>>> winning MVPs for personal glory

go pak go wrote: ↑

02 Dec 2022 09:26

I mean are we really splitting hairs and justifying whether $250 million household net worth or $500 million household net worth is the reason why a person is willing to take a pay cut? (don't actually look into my math. I just did some high level estimates based on 15 years of contract at over $25 million a year or so)

It's not about the actual dollars at that level. It's about the personality and perceived justification of the employer valuing their services and weighing the cost benefit of winning vs losing compared to paycheck size.

I am very confident Aaron Rodgers could be married to Oprah and he'd still go for the max dollar because the dollar value isn't actually about what the money can buy you but instead the worth and validation the money labels you.

$100 Million Net Worth even at 5% return is $5 million a year for doing absolutely nothing. Even your super rich fancy guys can live happily on $5 million a year (and that's not even taking from the actual nest egg itself)

No. I don't believe it's about needing the money to spend. I believe it is about what the money represents in terms of respect. And I can confidently say this because Aaron Rodgers has literally said this on shows like Pat McFee. He said something to the tune of "it isn't about the money. It's about the respect"

You know what I think it is? I think it's the athlete's competitive drive.

If you are as great as Rodgers, are you okay with someone who's good-not-great, like a Matt Stafford, getting paid more than you?

Me personally, I would be very bothered by the idea of inferior players getting paid more than me. I could desire exactly 0 of the things that more money could bring me, just perfectly content with my finances and lifestyle, yet for that reason alone would want to be paid more money.

Labrev wrote: ↑

02 Dec 2022 10:00

go pak go wrote: ↑

02 Dec 2022 09:26

I mean are we really splitting hairs and justifying whether $250 million household net worth or $500 million household net worth is the reason why a person is willing to take a pay cut? (don't actually look into my math. I just did some high level estimates based on 15 years of contract at over $25 million a year or so)

It's not about the actual dollars at that level. It's about the personality and perceived justification of the employer valuing their services and weighing the cost benefit of winning vs losing compared to paycheck size.

I am very confident Aaron Rodgers could be married to Oprah and he'd still go for the max dollar because the dollar value isn't actually about what the money can buy you but instead the worth and validation the money labels you.

$100 Million Net Worth even at 5% return is $5 million a year for doing absolutely nothing. Even your super rich fancy guys can live happily on $5 million a year (and that's not even taking from the actual nest egg itself)

No. I don't believe it's about needing the money to spend. I believe it is about what the money represents in terms of respect. And I can confidently say this because Aaron Rodgers has literally said this on shows like Pat McFee. He said something to the tune of "it isn't about the money. It's about the respect"

You know what I think it is? I think it's the athlete's competitive drive.

If you are as great as Rodgers, are you okay with someone who's good-not-great, like a Matt Stafford, getting paid more than you?

Me personally, I would be very bothered by the idea of inferior players getting paid more than me. I could desire exactly 0 of the things that more money could bring me, just perfectly content with my finances and lifestyle, yet for that reason alone would want to be paid more money.

That's a really nice, long way of saying big ego. I agree with what you said, but let's call it what it is.

I think of lot of it goes into the NFL fraternity, fighting for dollars and top dollars is fighting for your fellow players, teammates and players at your position, and your agents, and even your sport to get their worth.

I don't understand that part of it, but the players and players union look down on players not taking fair market value.

Super easy for us to just say whats the difference between 35 and 45 million, but the business of it just doesn't seem to work that way.

Yet at one point, Brady was also the highest paid player in the league, the same time New England had their championship drought. Then he stopped seeking the top QB contract and started going back to the 'Bowl game every couple of years.

To me, that looks like Brady consciously deciding that winning championships made him happier than money/MVPs.

So the idea that I was responding to, that individual achievement matters more than team success is "true of all players"<sic>, is if not false then a moot point. Sure, Brady seeking more championships may be inherently selfish, but if your selfishness makes you invested in the team's performance, then it's a pretty helpful/pro-social selfishness.

By comparison, I'm sure Rodgers ~wants~ to win another championship... just not badly enough to take (any) less money. Not a bad gamble, seeing as he got pretty close a few times and could have had both, but alas. Just selfishness, not the good kind.

BF004 wrote: ↑

02 Dec 2022 10:14

I think of lot of it goes into the NFL fraternity, fighting for dollars and top dollars is fighting for your fellow players, teammates and players at your position, and your agents, and even your sport to get their worth.

I don't understand that part of it, but the players and players union look down on players not taking fair market value.

Super easy for us to just say whats the difference between 35 and 45 million, but the business of it just doesn't seem to work that way.

The more and more I think about that, the more and more I don't buy that.

It isn't helping your NFL fraternity. It is only helping certain positions or the top players in your fraternity.

I could see the argument that giant a$$ contracts means teams are willing to push the cap limits more and therefore players get more money than they should, but overall from a 30k foot view, you are just robbing Peter to pay rich Paul because the cap already requires a 90% minimum. Like teams have to spend the money no matter what. All this does is just widen the player pay gap and force teams to REALLY pay the veterans they want and cut loose other veterans earlier than they want and fill it with cheap street players instead.

Labrev wrote: ↑

02 Dec 2022 10:00

go pak go wrote: ↑

02 Dec 2022 09:26

I mean are we really splitting hairs and justifying whether $250 million household net worth or $500 million household net worth is the reason why a person is willing to take a pay cut? (don't actually look into my math. I just did some high level estimates based on 15 years of contract at over $25 million a year or so)

It's not about the actual dollars at that level. It's about the personality and perceived justification of the employer valuing their services and weighing the cost benefit of winning vs losing compared to paycheck size.

I am very confident Aaron Rodgers could be married to Oprah and he'd still go for the max dollar because the dollar value isn't actually about what the money can buy you but instead the worth and validation the money labels you.

$100 Million Net Worth even at 5% return is $5 million a year for doing absolutely nothing. Even your super rich fancy guys can live happily on $5 million a year (and that's not even taking from the actual nest egg itself)

No. I don't believe it's about needing the money to spend. I believe it is about what the money represents in terms of respect. And I can confidently say this because Aaron Rodgers has literally said this on shows like Pat McFee. He said something to the tune of "it isn't about the money. It's about the respect"

You know what I think it is? I think it's the athlete's competitive drive.

If you are as great as Rodgers, are you okay with someone who's good-not-great, like a Matt Stafford, getting paid more than you?

Me personally, I would be very bothered by the idea of inferior players getting paid more than me. I could desire exactly 0 of the things that more money could bring me, just perfectly content with my finances and lifestyle, yet for that reason alone would want to be paid more money.

Haaaaaa, competitive drive>>>>>>>>> personal glory

BF004 wrote: ↑

02 Dec 2022 10:14

I think of lot of it goes into the NFL fraternity, fighting for dollars and top dollars is fighting for your fellow players, teammates and players at your position, and your agents, and even your sport to get their worth.

I don't understand that part of it, but the players and players union look down on players not taking fair market value.

Indeed. There have been multiple reports of the NFLPA and agencies getting after guys who want to offer a hometown discount for the reasons you mentioned. They can't have the league MVP getting paid at below-market rates because that impacts all the other QBs.

Rodgers current contract is just a place holder with one main job- to give Rodgers the leverage he needs to control his future. The deal is structured to make it unbearable to trade or cut him without his blessing. It will get re-worked, very little chance he he plays on the current deal in 2023.

The contract structure also gives us a hint at how Rodgers feels about Love- if Love wasn't a viable option- then you don't need a scorched-earth contract to protect against trade/cut.

BSA wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022 17:52

If you look at the top of the All Time Career TDs list, you can see a potential reason why Rodgers wants to play more this year

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... career.htm

He's currently sitting at # 5, needs another 38 TDs to surpass his predecessor- and I'm guessing that's meaningful to Aaron.
He's not likely to get all 38 next year, so he wants to notch a few more TDs vs the bears and others in 2022.

He also wants to be a member of the 500 club, which no one else on this list will achieve, Maybe Stafford or Ryan have a slim chance, but it's doubtful mother time will allow.

with the increase of the run game, the 500 club will consist of these 5 QB's for many years to come

go pak go wrote: ↑

02 Dec 2022 10:44

BF004 wrote: ↑

02 Dec 2022 10:14

I think of lot of it goes into the NFL fraternity, fighting for dollars and top dollars is fighting for your fellow players, teammates and players at your position, and your agents, and even your sport to get their worth.

I don't understand that part of it, but the players and players union look down on players not taking fair market value.

Super easy for us to just say whats the difference between 35 and 45 million, but the business of it just doesn't seem to work that way.

The more and more I think about that, the more and more I don't buy that.

It isn't helping your NFL fraternity. It is only helping certain positions or the top players in your fraternity.

Those top players have an outsized say in negotiations however.

BSA wrote: ↑

02 Dec 2022 11:04

Rodgers current contract is just a place holder with one main job- to give Rodgers the leverage he needs to control his future. The deal is structured to make it unbearable to trade or cut him without his blessing. It will get re-worked, very little chance he he plays on the current deal in 2023.

The contract structure also gives us a hint at how Rodgers feels about Love- if Love wasn't a viable option- then you don't need a scorched-earth contract to protect against trade/cut.

Been harping that first point over and over. Comeback, retire, or trade, that contract gunna get ripped and stuff move around, but needs to be mutual.

Interesting take on the 2nd paragraph I didn't quite consider.

The idea that Brady took less to help his team doesn't fly. The Pats NEVER overspend on anyone. This forum bitches about not getting the top free agents and then praise Brady for taking less to help the team. What top free agents did the Pats get with all this money he saved them?

https://theathletic.com/786605/2019/01/ ... -bowl-lii/ - 2018
https://www.reddit.com/r/Patriots/comme ... ere_built/ - 2016
https://www.nfl.com/news/super-bowl-li- ... 0000780784 = 2014

Tomorrow (Monday) night against the Rams will be interesting to watch. Will Rodgers play well in the cold? He should. He will have, for the first time in 2022, ALL of his skill players in place. His OLine, while still wanting more consistency, has been good. This QB needs to put on a show against the Rams, especially since Aaron Donald will not be suiting up.

[quote=packman114 post_id=113511 time=1670003648 user_id=107]
The idea that Brady took less to help his team doesn't fly. The Pats NEVER overspend on anyone. This forum bitches about not getting the top free agents and then praise Brady for taking less to help the team. What top free agents did the Pats get with all this money he saved them?
[/quote/]



I'am sure some of Brady's table money was spent to bring in plenty of 3rd contract cheap talent, Belechick is/was the best in the league at finding those players, it's one of the reasons his defenses where top 5 for a decade, to go along with the expensive UFA brought in.

I give Credit to Brady for not having to use the size of his contract to somehow say I'am great, he did it by making sure he'd have help to establish that fact, and his lower contract certainly helped the Pats retain Gronk, Welker, Edlman, and I'am sure a host of others

Meanwhile, Adams plays for the Raiders, and Rodgers was one of the many establishing that contract's equal statues symbols and took all he could get, I had to get that out before someone else did Adams went to Vega because he intended to, had nothing to do with Rodgers contract, still, it would have been nice if Rodgers didn't feel the need to be the most expensive player in the league every time we had to resign him

BSA wrote: ↑

02 Dec 2022 11:04

BF004 wrote: ↑

02 Dec 2022 10:14

I think of lot of it goes into the NFL fraternity, fighting for dollars and top dollars is fighting for your fellow players, teammates and players at your position, and your agents, and even your sport to get their worth.

I don't understand that part of it, but the players and players union look down on players not taking fair market value.

Indeed. There have been multiple reports of the NFLPA and agencies getting after guys who want to offer a hometown discount for the reasons you mentioned. They can't have the league MVP getting paid at below-market rates because that impacts all the other QBs.

Rodgers current contract is just a place holder with one main job- to give Rodgers the leverage he needs to control his future. The deal is structured to make it unbearable to trade or cut him without his blessing. It will get re-worked, very little chance he he plays on the current deal in 2023.

The contract structure also gives us a hint at how Rodgers feels about Love- if Love wasn't a viable option- then you don't need a scorched-earth contract to protect against trade/cut.

The NFLPA cannot dictate what deal a player takes. I doubt Brady or Rodgers for that matter, would really care what they think as they have no authority.

As far as Rodgers stating it's about respect and not money - that's ironic because I am fairly certain he would be universally more respected by fans, teammates, and packer organization if he took less money to help the team.

I believe it's all ego.