Page 5 of 13
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 16 Mar 2022 10:47
by British
BF004 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 10:41
British wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 10:33
BF004 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 10:11
Probably kind of cool for Ingalls to be quoted by Brandt. Not sure if that has happened before.
I was kind of looking at this contract as vehicle that allows Aaron the ability to retire if he wishes, but he’ll half to pay money back, but stops the packers from releasing or trading him.
Ingalls says that Rodgers won't need to pay back the prorated money like he would if it was a signing bonus because it's an option bonus.
So if Rodgers retires next year, we can grab the pitchforks?
Something like that
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 16 Mar 2022 10:50
by paco
British wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 10:47
BF004 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 10:41
British wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 10:33
Ingalls says that Rodgers won't need to pay back the prorated money like he would if it was a signing bonus because it's an option bonus.
So if Rodgers retires next year, we can grab the pitchforks?
Something like that
Exactly like that. A 1 year and done at this point is definitely pitchfork time.
But don't expect me to burn my jersey or my stock or anything.
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 16 Mar 2022 11:00
by Yoop
British wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 10:33
BF004 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 10:11
Probably kind of cool for Ingalls to be quoted by Brandt. Not sure if that has happened before.
I was kind of looking at this contract as vehicle that allows Aaron the ability to retire if he wishes, but he’ll half to pay money back, but stops the packers from releasing or trading him.
Ingalls says that Rodgers won't need to pay back the prorated money like he would if it was a signing bonus because it's an option bonus.
how often is Ken Ingalls right? he throws out opinions as though there fact and go against anything that makes sense. why would Gute do a deal with huge up front money in the form of a signing bonus that Rodgers could walk away with after just one season, that doesn't make sense at all.
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 16 Mar 2022 11:01
by Yoop
paco wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 10:50
British wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 10:47
BF004 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 10:41
So if Rodgers retires next year, we can grab the pitchforks?
Something like that
Exactly like that. A 1 year and done at this point is definitely pitchfork time.
But don't expect me to burn my jersey or my stock or anything.
I'am shocked that you or anyone here would believe Ken Ingalls
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 16 Mar 2022 11:10
by paco
Yoop wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 11:01
paco wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 10:50
British wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 10:47
Something like that
Exactly like that. A 1 year and done at this point is definitely pitchfork time.
But don't expect me to burn my jersey or my stock or anything.
I'am shocked that you or anyone here would believe Ken Ingalls
Why? Ingalls has been right on with most of the cap situation. His analysis and guesses on what it means...whatever. I post his stuff only to share what the Packers cap situation is.
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 16 Mar 2022 11:18
by BF004
Yeah, he doesn't really speak as if it is though fact. In fact he often prefaces posts with, I need to see more before knowing for sure. He even did that in the tweet you quoted.
He will correct people when they are definitively wrong.
He does about as good as an amateur can do with information we are privy to.
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 16 Mar 2022 11:31
by Yoop
paco wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 11:10
Yoop wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 11:01
paco wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 10:50
Exactly like that. A 1 year and done at this point is definitely pitchfork time.
But don't expect me to burn my jersey or my stock or anything.
I'am shocked that you or anyone here would believe Ken Ingalls
Why? Ingalls has been right on with most of the cap situation. His analysis and guesses on what it means...whatever. I post his stuff only to share what the Packers cap situation is.
didn't mean to imply that I didn't like the info, but this last info from him goes against my impression of our GM and what he would do, Gute impresses me as someone who would protect his investments.
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 16 Mar 2022 11:32
by British
Yoop wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 11:00
British wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 10:33
BF004 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 10:11
Probably kind of cool for Ingalls to be quoted by Brandt. Not sure if that has happened before.
I was kind of looking at this contract as vehicle that allows Aaron the ability to retire if he wishes, but he’ll half to pay money back, but stops the packers from releasing or trading him.
Ingalls says that Rodgers won't need to pay back the prorated money like he would if it was a signing bonus because it's an option bonus.
how often is Ken Ingalls right? he throws out opinions as though there fact and go against anything that makes sense. why would Gute do a deal with huge up front money in the form of a signing bonus that Rodgers could walk away with after just one season, that doesn't make sense at all.
My understanding is that it's just the signing bonus that he wouldn't have to pay back which is only 20m.
What I'm more interested in is the option bonusses which trigger each year and prorate out through the deal. I have a feeling they also don't need to be paid back if he retired - but they don't trigger until each year is passed.
I think they act like fully guaranteed mini signing bonuses each year. Rodgers gets the money up front, but the cap hit is spread out over the future of the contract. But Rodgers can retire the following year and not pay back any of the prorated money.
Rodgers has the freedom to retire (or ask for a trade) each year if he's not happy with the way things are going and he'll be able to keep all the money from that year's bonus. The Packers though will have to deal with a dead cap hit the year after.
Seems to me Gute feels he's won Rodgers round and they both want to win another ring in Green Bay.
I can see why Packers signed on. While Rodgers is here, and his cap number is around 13% of the cap, there is a Superbowl window. That's pretty priceless.
Whilst Rodgers is happy, the cap will be manageable. If Rodgers is happy and playing well beyond 2024 then no reason not to restructure it again.
Once Rodgers is gone the Packers will need a new QB. Best way to get one is to be really bad and get a high pick. The dead cap year after Rodger's leaves will likely ensure this.
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 16 Mar 2022 11:33
by paco
Yoop wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 11:31
paco wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 11:10
Yoop wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 11:01
I'am shocked that you or anyone here would believe Ken Ingalls
Why? Ingalls has been right on with most of the cap situation. His analysis and guesses on what it means...whatever. I post his stuff only to share what the Packers cap situation is.
didn't mean to imply that I didn't like the info, but this last info from him goes against my impression of our GM and what he would do, Gute impresses me as someone who would protect his investments.
Things are changing. The Packers have done a lot of things they've never done the last couple of years. And anything having to do with Rodgers throws conventional wisdom out the window. Plug Ingalls isn't the only one to have reported those things.
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 16 Mar 2022 11:44
by YoHoChecko
The more I learn about this contract the more clear it is that this is a MASSIVE gamble.
Rodgers basically holds the keys to the kingdom now. If it doesn't work out, this goes down as one of the worst contracts (even though people will caveat it with "but they had to) in professional football. It could be absurdly, absurdly, historically bad for us.
If things go well and he just is happy and playing, no one will really notice much about it.
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 16 Mar 2022 12:15
by Drj820
The only reason it “had” to be done was because Love can’t play. Guteys errant draft selection forced him into the position where he had to bend over and let Rodgers give him his whippin
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 16 Mar 2022 12:29
by BF004
Drj820 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 12:15
The only reason it “had” to be done was because Love can’t play. Guteys errant draft selection forced him into the position where he had to bend over and let Rodgers give him his whippin
Why do people get so adamant about things it is clearly impossible to know?
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 16 Mar 2022 12:34
by Yoop
Drj820 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 12:15
The only reason it “had” to be done was because Love can’t play. Guteys errant draft selection forced him into the position where he had to bend over and let Rodgers give him his whippin
oh shut up, and I'am not going to apologize to Diana either
I can't even remember who Diana was lol
I think Gute trust Rodgers to play out this contract, it makes sense for Rodgers to do so, I've never had the impression that Rodgers is the type of guy to take the money and run.
almost every contract report I've read is different, so who knows what to believe, lots of smoke, no fire, all we really know is it's a boat load of money
WE should have never drafted Love, but thats water over the bridge now, he lost his first season to the covid pandemic, so really only one season of grooming, Rodgers got 3 years, and about 70% of QB's that start as rookies bust out, probably 50% that start year two as well, so when someone as yourself says the GM was a chicken &%$@ for not going with his still raw recruit it falls on deaf ears to anyone that has watched the progress and failures of young QB's over the years
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 16 Mar 2022 12:45
by Drj820
BF004 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 12:29
Drj820 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 12:15
The only reason it “had” to be done was because Love can’t play. Guteys errant draft selection forced him into the position where he had to bend over and let Rodgers give him his whippin
Why do people get so adamant about things it is clearly impossible to know?
Because it can be known through deductive reasoning? If Love was ready to roll it would have been awesome to get massive loot for 12, save massive amounts of cap space, and let him go play where he wants.
We rejected all those options bc we didn’t have anymore options
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 16 Mar 2022 13:08
by wallyuwl
Drj820 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 12:45
We rejected all those options bc we didn’t have anymore options
It was either this or tear it down and get a top qb in 2023 with an expected good qb class. Instead we will get two or three years if the same thing 2019-2021 and two years of 3-14 because of the deferred cap hits. Lost some respect for AR by not taking any home team discount, like Brady, in exchange for some personnel control (or maybe it was discussed Gute balked at that).
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 16 Mar 2022 13:35
by go pak go
Drj820 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 12:45
BF004 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 12:29
Drj820 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 12:15
The only reason it “had” to be done was because Love can’t play. Guteys errant draft selection forced him into the position where he had to bend over and let Rodgers give him his whippin
Why do people get so adamant about things it is clearly impossible to know?
Because it can be known through deductive reasoning? If Love was ready to roll it would have been awesome to get massive loot for 12, save massive amounts of cap space, and let him go play where he wants.
We rejected all those options bc we didn’t have anymore options
Or it could be that Aaron Rodgers has been league MVP two years in a row after drafting Love and the Packers want to retain a quarterback who has once again found his mojo and playing his best ball in a long, long time.
Love may not be to the level that they are comfortable. I can get behind that. But I think another huge variable here is Rodgers ain't playing like 2015 - 2019 Rodgers.
He is actually playing really, really good outside of the standard 3 clunker games he has each year.
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 16 Mar 2022 14:00
by Labrev
Drj820 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 12:15
The only reason it “had” to be done was because Love can’t play. Guteys errant draft selection forced him into the position where he had to bend over and let Rodgers give him his whippin
They still could have done it. New England let a better (indeed the best-ever) QB walk and had less than Love when that happened. They signed Cam later, but point still stands; we could have done the equivalent if Love could not play. They had a down year, but have bounced back with a new QB.
Blowing things up is always an option.
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 16 Mar 2022 14:39
by Yoop
this was a no brainer from the beginning, NE didn't send Brady packing, it was Toms choice to leave, and he wanted out so bad he took a lower then market value contract to do so, thats about the only difference here, Rodgers wanted a huge guaranteed contract to stay, both examples here show a lack of trust on the players part, Brady with the direction Belechick was taking the team, and Rodgers being able to depend on the FO to honor there commitment to him so he can finish his career here, but Rodgers decision to play here or leave always seemed to be in his court, the FO never ever even hinted that they where thinking of trading him.
Also is there any such thing as a great class of QB's? I mean just as many highly rated College QB's bust as succeed , actually more bust, far more, it's not as though where talking about WR's here.
though we probably should be, one of the easier positions to replace gets no attention from you guys, yet ya want to gamble trying to replace the hardest one
I love Tae as much as any of you here, I really would hate to see him go, but heck we are seeing quality WR play from countless rookies every season now, Tae's production is easier to replace I think then people realize.
also, many have a grip that Rodgers targets Adams, and minus Adam he would have to spread the ball around more, well imo that is at least partly do to not having another dependable receiver that gets open on schedule, Lafluer pass schemes don't feature Adams as the first route read on every pass play, if others that are the number one where open Rodgers would throw them the ball, just as he did years ago with Nelson etc.
just saying if we do tag and trade Adams it's recoverable, use what we get for Adams and take one of the best in this class, maybe one more later, or pick up a cheaper one in UFA, I just can't get with paying a WR as much as Adams seems to want.
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 16 Mar 2022 14:40
by Drj820
Labrev wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 14:00
Drj820 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 12:15
The only reason it “had” to be done was because Love can’t play. Guteys errant draft selection forced him into the position where he had to bend over and let Rodgers give him his whippin
They still could have done it. New England let a better (indeed the best-ever) QB walk and had less than Love when that happened. They signed Cam later, but point still stands; we could have done the equivalent if Love could not play. They had a down year, but have bounced back with a new QB.
Blowing things up is always an option.
It’s an option when you are HOFer Billy B, not so much when you are third year coach and newish GM with a HOFe in house and unsure how things would go for you without him.
I don’t understand the hesitancy to recognize that Love blows
No doubt in my mind Gutey would execute his plan to move on from 12 if he thought the team could win with Love
Re: Aaron Rodgers V2022
Posted: 16 Mar 2022 14:44
by British
Yoop wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022 14:39
this was a no brainer from the beginning, NE didn't send Brady packing, it was Toms choice to leave, and he wanted out so bad he took a lower then market value contract to do so, thats about the only difference here, Rodgers wanted a huge guaranteed contract to stay, both examples here show a lack of trust on the players part, Brady with the direction Belechick was taking the team, and Rodgers being able to depend on the FO to honor there commitment to him so he can finish his career here, but Rodgers decision to play here or leave always seemed to be in his court, the FO never ever even hinted that they where thinking of trading him.
Also is there any such thing as a great class of QB's? I mean just as many highly rated College QB's bust as succeed , actually more bust, far more, it's not as though where talking about WR's here.
though we probably should be, one of the easier positions to replace gets no attention from you guys, yet ya want to gamble trying to replace the hardest one
I love Tae as much as any of you here, I really would hate to see him go, but heck we are seeing quality WR play from countless rookies every season now, Tae's production is easier to replace I think then people realize.
also, many have a grip that Rodgers targets Adams, and minus Adam he would have to spread the ball around more, well imo that is at least partly do to not having another dependable receiver that gets open on schedule, Lafluer pass schemes don't feature Adams as the first route read on every pass play, if others that are the number one where open Rodgers would throw them the ball, just as he did years ago with Nelson etc.
just saying if we do tag and trade Adams it's recoverable, use what we get for Adams and take one of the best in this class, maybe one more later, or pick up a cheaper one in UFA, I just can't get with paying a WR as much as Adams seems to want.
I'd be very happy to tag and trade Adams, but I don't think assistant GM, Rodgers agrees.
This could be a great draft to take up to 3 WRs. Lots of good ones in there.