Packers Huddle

Can anyone get this?

Someone pay the $7. I want to read this...

Wasnt the hit piece that got him semi famous about McCarthy V Rodgers pretty much debunked other than the simple fact that the whole world knew..."Rodgers stopped liking MM"

Just trying to gauge how credible the guy is.

Not worth the money for Tyler Dumb. He's awful. Used to date someone I went to high school with and he was a complete tool. Don't give him the $7.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 12:34

Wasnt the hit piece that got him semi famous about McCarthy V Rodgers pretty much debunked other than the simple fact that the whole world knew..."Rodgers stopped liking MM"

Just trying to gauge how credible the guy is.

Yeah, he's the guy who only had quotes from Finley and Jennings and all other sources were anonymous. The guy is just writing shock articles to try to make a name for himself.

Dunne knows what he’s doing. The guy is sitting in a gold mine with Rodgers coverage. Packers fans eat this stuff up like a fly on a hunk of &%$@.

He gets a bunch of quotes from anyone saying they like Love better than this guy, that guy. Get some more quotes comparing him to the best ever. Get a few more quotes from people who don’t like Aaron.

All these media dudes are a bunch of Schefter wannabes.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 12:42

All these media dudes are a bunch of Schefter wannabes.

I was going to say, don't they all do the same thing?

Holy shi t show, with time we tend to forget just how hard it is to replace a very good QB, just look at this bunch we went through from Starr to our first bad boy QB Bert Fav're, wooh is me, I'll have to come back for my second incarante ( first time was just after the ice age, I think, but who can be sure about stuff like that ) before we get another.
now Majik and Lynn Dicky seemed very goo9d, but injury's took there toll with both.

https://americanfootballdatabase.fandom ... arterbacks

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 12:53

Holy shi t show, with time we tend to forget just how hard it is to replace a very good QB, just look at this bunch we went through from Starr to our first bad boy QB Bert Fav're, wooh is me, I'll have to come back for my second incarante ( first time was just after the ice age, I think, but who can be sure about stuff like that ) before we get another.
now Majik and Lynn Dicky seemed very goo9d, but injury's took there toll with both.

https://americanfootballdatabase.fandom ... arterbacks

Majik was awesome.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 19:45

Yoop wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 17:55

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.

I would absolutely LOVE to leave everything as is except add a no trade clause and keep Rodgers either for 3 years or until he finds a place he specifically wants to go and asks out if Jordan Love is ready. But if that were the answer, just a simple no-trade clause, this would be resolved by now.

who knows, trade compensation is huge as I said prior, also it has become personal now and you know how stubborn people can be, I still think the FO wants to be able to trade him as soon as there comfortable starting Love, no where have I heard that the FO is willing to do the no trade thing, that still seems to be whats holding this up

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 13:01

I still think the FO wants to be able to trade him as soon as there comfortable starting Love

Was this ever in question? Of course they do.

NCF wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 12:58

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 12:53

Holy shi t show, with time we tend to forget just how hard it is to replace a very good QB, just look at this bunch we went through from Starr to our first bad boy QB Bert Fav're, wooh is me, I'll have to come back for my second incarante ( first time was just after the ice age, I think, but who can be sure about stuff like that ) before we get another.
now Majik and Lynn Dicky seemed very goo9d, but injury's took there toll with both.

https://americanfootballdatabase.fandom ... arterbacks

Majik was awesome.

true, but not as awesome as the top 3, Legs brought up the drafting of Horn to be Starrs replacement, as you can see from this list, he was not, Look at Dicky, a stud prior to us that played dinged up every season with us, it's either mediocre talent or china dolls when it came to replacing Bart Starr.

I like Love so don't take me wrong, but we have almost zero idea who/or how good he will be, all we can do is hope he was a steal at slot 26., and I do, even though I want this addition of bad boy QB back.

NCF wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 13:03

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 13:01

I still think the FO wants to be able to trade him as soon as there comfortable starting Love

Was this ever in question? Of course they do.

some seemed to think so, imo though it's wrong, they gave him a 4 year contract, if Love is better then start Love, let Rodgers sit or ask for a trade at that time, or cut him, likely Love would never be able to do that, however might still be good enough to start, so again I think the sticking point is the no trade issue that the FO doesn't want to give in to.

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 10:02

only 43% of first round QB's play well enough for a 2nd contract from the team that drafted them, so I don't know how or why the Packers would think Love is the exception

I don't deny that there is risk involved in moving forward with Love, but the circumstances are just about ideal for him to succeed: Head Coach with QB background, offensive scheme that QBs tend to thrive in, good all-around supporting cast, a year to sit and learn behind a great player...

It's a risk, but everything within our control to make it succeed has been done. At some point, you need to play the players you drafted.

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 11:08

who here (barring un fore seen injury) doesn't think Rodgers can play near or as well as he did last year through out his existing contract?

I think Rodgers may have another few MVP seasons left in him, and several good ones. The real question in my mind is if we can get "over the hump" with his play at the price (which means minus a few key roster contributors).

2020-21 proved he can still play at a really high level, but did not prove he can get us over the hump.

Labrev wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 13:48

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 10:02

only 43% of first round QB's play well enough for a 2nd contract from the team that drafted them, so I don't know how or why the Packers would think Love is the exception

I don't deny that there is risk involved in moving forward with Love, but the circumstances are just about ideal for him to succeed: Head Coach with QB background, offensive scheme that QBs tend to thrive in, good all-around supporting cast, a year to sit and learn behind a great player...

It's a risk, but everything within our control to make it succeed has been done. At some point, you need to play the players you drafted.

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 11:08

who here (barring un fore seen injury) doesn't think Rodgers can play near or as well as he did last year through out his existing contract?

I think Rodgers may have another few MVP seasons left in him, and several good ones. The real question in my mind is if we can get "over the hump" with his play at the price (which means minus a few key roster contributors).

2020-21 proved he can still play at a really high level, but did not prove he can get us over the hump.

OK, however I look at it a bit differently, Rodgers could not over come losing 2 starters on the OL, pass rush wouldn't allow him time for his receivers to clear, and near zero yak when they did catch a pass, Adams had 11 catches for I think 74 yrds, zero Yak and he was by far open more then any of the others, and we lost our #1 RB early, I know he missed a open receiver or two, and Adams dropped a TD pass, and KIng and the defense couldn't stop there offense.

change Love now, with Rodgers then, and it's hard to say how ugly that game would have been, Love may have the physical readiness to start, but it's a mental game at QB more then any other position on the field, and starting him before that has developed is probably what ruins a lot of Qb's, just bring in a vet, or better yet Kiss Rodgers backside, make up and go with him through 2023.

Labrev wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 13:48

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 11:08

who here (barring un fore seen injury) doesn't think Rodgers can play near or as well as he did last year through out his existing contract?

I think Rodgers may have another few MVP seasons left in him, and several good ones. The real question in my mind is if we can get "over the hump" with his play at the price (which means minus a few key roster contributors).

2020-21 proved he can still play at a really high level, but did not prove he can get us over the hump.

Certainly the question for sure. Tom Brady is really the only QB who has shown he can win post a huge contract.

Most other QB's either need to win on a rookie deal (though catch YoHo on a grumpy day and he will yell at you for an hour writing this) but more likley modest veteran deal (I would genearlly put Tom Brady in the modest veteran deal camp). The cap hit Rodgers is going to have in 21 and 22 are just so high it restricts having players at other spots.

I will say though I do think the Packers are good enough to get over the hump both in 20 and 21. It's just that being good enough and doing it (including injury risk and relying on top performers to play like it) are something the Packers seem to be allergic to.

But we saw Russell Wilson's team decline after his deal and I too wouldn't be surprised if we saw Pat and the Chiefs last February get as far as they ever will again moving forward too.

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 13:01

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 19:45

Yoop wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 17:55

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.

I would absolutely LOVE to leave everything as is except add a no trade clause and keep Rodgers either for 3 years or until he finds a place he specifically wants to go and asks out if Jordan Love is ready. But if that were the answer, just a simple no-trade clause, this would be resolved by now.

who knows, trade compensation is huge as I said prior, also it has become personal now and you know how stubborn people can be, I still think the FO wants to be able to trade him as soon as there comfortable starting Love, no where have I heard that the FO is willing to do the no trade thing, that still seems to be whats holding this up

I mean, duh, why wouldn’t you want to max out Rodgers’ value if they felt Love was ready to roll and had the talent to lead them to the promised land? Trade Rodgers, get a draft pick haul, roll with your low cost 1st contract QB while resigning the high end talent you’ve acquired and/or developed the past few years, then add those high end picks to the roster going forward to make the roster even better. Why wouldn’t you take that road if the org was confident Love was a player??

If anything, that’s just high end GM work! That’s looking out for the short AND long term outlook of the team! Isn’t that what you’d expect Gute to be doing??

APB wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 16:16

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 13:01

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 19:45

I would absolutely LOVE to leave everything as is except add a no trade clause and keep Rodgers either for 3 years or until he finds a place he specifically wants to go and asks out if Jordan Love is ready. But if that were the answer, just a simple no-trade clause, this would be resolved by now.

who knows, trade compensation is huge as I said prior, also it has become personal now and you know how stubborn people can be, I still think the FO wants to be able to trade him as soon as there comfortable starting Love, no where have I heard that the FO is willing to do the no trade thing, that still seems to be whats holding this up

I mean, duh, why wouldn’t you want to max out Rodgers’ value if they felt Love was ready to roll and had the talent to lead them to the promised land? Trade Rodgers, get a draft pick haul, roll with your low cost 1st contract QB while resigning the high end talent you’ve acquired and/or developed the past few years, then add those high end picks to the roster going forward to make the roster even better. Why wouldn’t you take that road if the org was confident Love was a player??

If anything, that’s just high end GM work! That’s looking out for the short AND long term outlook of the team! Isn’t that what you’d expect Gute to be doing??

no, because I don't think Love will ever be better then Rodgers prior to the end of the 23 season, and if he is then cut Rodgers, high end GM work is not screwing over a 16 yr player for draft compensation, honor the contract, he is

I don't think of this as a CEO of some co. or players like commodity's, we gave him a 4 year contract and if he is still the best player to start then he should be allowed to finish it and just leave.

thats the fair way this should end, why should a team get to use a player till his replacement is ready ( but still not as good) then trade the guy for draft capitol even though he is still the best player.

I've never bought into this stuff, teams want players to honor the contracts, yet they want to replace them a year prior to recoup compensation they paid the player in the prior contract, which is what they are doing when they recoup draft picks and players in the trade, teams need to let players finish contracts and walk or write shorter contracts,

I can't believe the players union even puts up with this, same with the removal of the one year retirement and freedom the players caved into, course I can understand that a little better, since one year goes by quick and to many players would break there contracts, sit and go, but this use em then trade em for as much as possible to me not fair to these players, we didn't do it with Favre, NE didn't do it with Brady, and we shouldn't do it with Rodgers.

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 17:22

we didn't do it with Favre

Huh.