Henry posted:Who said all time?
No one claimed he is the greatest of all time. He does rank top 10 in many statistical categories.
Hells Bells, I think he is the best of all time. I cannot think of one QB in the history of the game in his prime that I would want over Rodgers. Vikings fans are saying the same thing about Rodgers that they said about Favre. Until He joined their team. Bunch of hypocrites.
I get the sense there is a faction of GB fans, though it may be small, that actually think trading AR and drafting a QB this year is sensible risk because "it worked with Favre". That is the lone down side to what turned out to be a once in a generation transition from one first ballot HOF QB to one that is even better.
DH13 posted:I get the sense there is a faction of GB fans, though it may be small, that actually think trading AR and drafting a QB this year is sensible risk because "it worked with Favre". That is the lone down side to what turned out to be a once in a generation transition from one first ballot HOF QB to one that is even better.
Yep there are Packers fans who think that and they are insane. Unless the Packers draft HOF QB in the next year or so we better brace ourselves for life after #12. Me? I will just enjoy it while it lasts and laugh at people who think trading him is a good idea.
It will be very interesting to see what life after AR looks like if the current regime stays status quo 5-8 years from now. Even if it's just the front office. It doesn't need to look like Hundley, there are many ways to get a better starting QB. But to see how the rest of the team would be tweaked to offset the loss of a QB that is such a field tilter. This organization has built their rosters around the one towering constant of elite QB play for 25 years. How different does that team have to look without an AR? Many of today's starters would no longer be here anyway but would the roster building process look any different and how?
Hey admins, take control your forums and clean them up.
I’ll come back next month and see if anything’s changed.
DH13 posted:It will be very interesting to see what life after AR looks like if the current regime stays status quo 5-8 years from now. Even if it's just the front office. It doesn't need to look like Hundley, there are many ways to get a better starting QB. But to see how the rest of the team would be tweaked to offset the loss of a QB that is such a field tilter. This organization has built their rosters around the one towering constant of elite QB play for 25 years. How different does that team have to look without an AR? Many of today's starters would no longer be here anyway but would the roster building process look any different and how?
Time will tell on that I guess. I kind of get this feeling that the new front office regime isn't going to be as status quo as it has in the past. Of course I could be wrong but I see a more aggressive take on things.
Who knows what the team will look like in 5-8 years since rosters turn over so fast this team could be radically different. Shoot, for all we know in 8 years the Packers could be a defense first team that keeps the team in the game and the offense is inept.
I think a lot will depend on what the roster looks like, who is at QB, who is in the front office, and who is coaching the team. I know that is a lot of what ifs but I think the team will look very different because the chances of them hitting on THREE hall of fame QB's in row? I am hopeful but that is a long long shot. But I also think this organization has a plan and I don't think it will include too many Jerry Taggee's, John Hadl's, or David Whitehursts many of us remember.
Sources close to #Packers QB Aaron Rodgers say he’s growing frustrated with management freezing him out of decisions that impact him. And it may already be weighing on contract extension talks. https://t.co/yHx55tRAuc
— Charles Robinson (@CharlesRobinson) April 17, 2018
What decisions, other than hiring his QB coach, have been made that impact him directly? He's seen WRs, even starting ones, come and go so I have a hard time believing he's freaking out about Jordy getting cut that it's affecting contract negotiations. This sounds like his agent negotiating in the media. Based on what's been said about Russ Ball and his preference for contracts, I'm guessing the dispute is over guaranteed money (especially after seeing what Kurt Cousins and Stat Padford got). Just speculating, but I bet Rodgers wants around 3 years, 90 mil all guaranteed and Ball is balking at the guaranteed part.
yep, hope that ain't true. AR, you're the QB of the team. Buckle up and play your position - you are not in management.
“Aaron, we’re seriously considering not bringing back Morgan Burnett, Joe Thomas, and Jeff Janis. Any thoughts.
”Who the **** is Jack Janis?”
I think GD is spot on. I think he’s still upset about Van Pelt. Rodgers has always had a thing about his coaches. He went on a mini internet crusade after Telford was fired at Cal 7 years after Rodgers became a Packer. The angle about his agent playing this up seems reasonable as well.
I think he wants to get traded to Cleveland or Jacksonville.
#1 & #4 overall for Rodgers
The Pack would have 3 first rounders in 2018 - Sound good?
Looks like the Jets do not need to draft a QB.
I discussed this at length on the free agency thread, so I won't revisit all of those points. However, I'll say this: on one hand, I agree that Rodgers needs to understand that this is a business, and many decisions are made from a business perspective. Jordy wasn't producing like a player that earns $10M+/year, so we're not going to pay him like it. On the other hand, I think it's a good idea to have a open lines of communication with your franchise player. He doesn't need to call the shots, but I don't see the harm in talking about the team's vision, plan, and key moves that impact him. Moving on from Van Pelt and cutting Nelson certainly fall into that category.
Maybe Danica can take Rodgers for a long drive. That usually stops babies from crying.
Lambeau Lobo posted:I discussed this at length on the free agency thread, so I won't revisit all of those points. However, I'll say this: on one hand, I agree that Rodgers needs to understand that this is a business, and many decisions are made from a business perspective. Jordy wasn't producing like a player that earns $10M+/year, so we're not going to pay him like it. On the other hand, I think it's a good idea to have a open lines of communication with your franchise player. He doesn't need to call the shots, but I don't see the harm in talking about the team's vision, plan, and key moves that impact him. Moving on from Van Pelt and cutting Nelson certainly fall into that category.
Keep him informed of what's happening? Listening to his input? Fine. He's earned that. Giving him any say on final decisions. Never going to happen. GB does need to make sure Aaron understands that.
If your trying to land the richest guaranteed deal in NFL history you're going to have to do a little public lobbying. Rodgers and Dunn know what they're doing.
Troy posted:Aaron Favre?
I think he's got a ways to go before earning that title.
My understanding is he also was pretty close with DickRod. Has to be difficult to build personal relationships with coaches and teammates only to have them disappear basically overnight. Strikes me as more basic human nature than a significant issue that's going to impact contract negotiations in a meaningful way. Think this probably represents frustration on his part more than any attempt to gain leverage.
Brainwashed Boris posted:I think he wants to get traded to Cleveland or Jacksonville.
#1 & #4 overall for Rodgers
The Pack would have 3 first rounders in 2018 - Sound good?
If Gute and Co. think one of these QB's in the draft is the ****. And you could layer in Chubb, Nelson or Barkley along with someone like Ward, James, or Fitzpatrick in the first round.....
You gotta' at least have that conversation internally, right? And it's only a wild hypothetical because Rodgers is going to be 35 in December looking for $100 plus million guaranteed.
I said back in the day that Favre should not play GM, and now I will say Rodgers should not pretend to be the GM. The reason is the Packers would have to pay him the GM salary too.
#Packers QB Aaron Rodgers asked how much input he wants, and how much he should have, in personnel decisions: "I know my role, and that's to play as well as I possibly can at quarterback." Acknowledges some departures are personally tough for him, but "those are team decisions."
— Ryan Wood (@ByRyanWood) April 17, 2018
Pretty much nips that potential controversy in the bud.
michiganjoe posted:#Packers QB Aaron Rodgers asked how much input he wants, and how much he should have, in personnel decisions: "I know my role, and that's to play as well as I possibly can at quarterback." Acknowledges some departures are personally tough for him, but "those are team decisions."
— Ryan Wood (@ByRyanWood) April 17, 2018Pretty much nips that potential controversy in the bud.
Well that's no fun.....
ChilliJon posted:Brainwashed Boris posted:I think he wants to get traded to Cleveland or Jacksonville.
#1 & #4 overall for Rodgers
The Pack would have 3 first rounders in 2018 - Sound good?
If Gute and Co. think one of these QB's in the draft is the ****. And you could layer in Chubb, Nelson or Barkley along with someone like Ward, James, or Fitzpatrick in the first round.....
You gotta' at least have that conversation internally, right? And it's only a wild hypothetical because Rodgers is going to be 35 in December looking for $100 plus million guaranteed.
If you're the new GM and want to make your mark, that would be one helluva way to do it. But if it doesn't pan out you will only be known as the GM that traded away Aaron Rodgers.
ChilliJon posted:Brainwashed Boris posted:I think he wants to get traded to Cleveland or Jacksonville.
#1 & #4 overall for Rodgers
The Pack would have 3 first rounders in 2018 - Sound good?
If Gute and Co. think one of these QB's in the draft is the ****. And you could layer in Chubb, Nelson or Barkley along with someone like Ward, James, or Fitzpatrick in the first round.....
You gotta' at least have that conversation internally, right? And it's only a wild hypothetical because Rodgers is going to be 35 in December looking for $100 plus million guaranteed.
Throw in #33 as well, or a first in 2019 and maybe I would listen.
Ghost of Lambeau posted:I said back in the day that Favre should not play GM, and now I will say Rodgers should not pretend to be the GM. The reason is the Packers would have to pay him the GM salary too.
The GM salary isn't under the salary cap. UNLIMITED!
All of your responses are hilarious 
AVP left because the Packers offer did not meet his wants/plans. Right?
FA come and go all the time.
Smart guy like AR knows this. I'd like to hear full interviews where these comments come from. Context matters.
Hungry5 posted:AVP left because the Packers offer did not meet his wants/plans. Right?
FA come and go all the time.
Smart guy like AR knows this. I'd like to hear full interviews where these comments come from. Context matters.
Fair or not, AVP was judged largely on the performance of Brett Hundley.
MichiganPacker posted:Hungry5 posted:AVP left because the Packers offer did not meet his wants/plans. Right?
FA come and go all the time.
Smart guy like AR knows this. I'd like to hear full interviews where these comments come from. Context matters.
Fair or not, AVP was judged largely on the performance of Brett Hundley.
I think that was fair.
It should have been MM judged on the performance of Hundley.
#12 doesn't miss a beat - He really is the GOAT
MichiganPacker posted:Hungry5 posted:AVP left because the Packers offer did not meet his wants/plans. Right?
FA come and go all the time.
Smart guy like AR knows this. I'd like to hear full interviews where these comments come from. Context matters.
Fair or not, AVP was judged largely on the performance of Brett Hundley.
MM doesn't allow his assistant coaches to look for/accept other jobs while under contract. AVP didn't sign a contract extension at the start of last year, because he didn't want to be trapped in Green Bay if an opportunity to be an offensive coordinator came up. http://host.madison.com/wsj/sp...ae-8bee89057ea3.html
The other coach to do that was Ben McAdoo, and he was shown the door after the season ended in 2014. (although he did move to be an OC). http://archive.jsonline.com/sp...15z1-240223411.html/
AVP was already one foot out the door with MM before the season started because of his refusal to sign an extension, and I bet in MM's world that played a bigger role than anything else.
I too believe it was more on AVP "QB room is fine" than McCarthy. While he may be a Glorified OC to some, as HC he gets stretched across all aspects of the team.
DH13 posted:Troy posted:Aaron Favre?
I think he's got a ways to go before earning that title.
So far no unwanted dong pics sent, and no sexual harassment accusations by any Packers' personnel just yet.
There's no doubt Rodgers has a little bit of diva in him, but while Favre was an 11 on the 1-10 diva scale, Rodgers probably is at a 5 right now and rising.
Ghost of Lambeau posted:I said back in the day that Favre should not play GM, and now I will say Rodgers should not pretend to be the GM. The reason is the Packers would have to pay him the GM salary too.
I sure would have liked to have seen Randy Moss catching passes from Favre.
IMO, i know this isn’t popular sentiment here but there is a minimum amount of listening that they should be doing for a player like Rogers. If they moved him and it didn’t work out the dog population in GB would go down. Gute knee what he had when he accepted the job, now he needs to deal with it and make the guy happy.
Doubt there is anything in Gute's contract about making players happy. If he can't make the tough/unpopular decisions, he shouldn't have the job.