@Henry posted:My bad on the verbiage. Extension, not restructure. Again, no issues having to grind it out for a few years after the dust settles.
Again, I don't disagree with your approach of going all in now. I'm just not convinced it will be successful unless the QB is willing to also go all in and reduce their salary.
I don't disagree with that either, but that's the reality.
Well fuck you then, and fuck Pakrz too.,
There are 21 QBs in the hall of fame who played at least 5 years in the Super Bowl era after 1967. Of those, only 6 won more than 1 Super Bowl - Starr, Bradshaw, Aikman, Montana, Elway and Manning. Do you see a theme with those 6 QBs? They all played on incredible teams with multiple hall of fame players and coaches. That's really hard to put together.
It's hard to win a Super Bowl, even with a hall of fame QB. IMO Brady has ruined the standard, where we now think one Super Bowl is nothing special for these guys since we now have a guy who's won 7.
Still have to try. Leaving huge holes with scrubs as starters and no depth is not trying.
Great post, CU. Totally true.
The simple fact is since the advent of free agency it’s nearly impossible to keep dynasties and good teams together for extended periods of time.
Prior to the early 1990s, teams and QBs winning multiple Superbowls was fairly common. The Packers (Starr), Dolphins (Griese), Steelers (Bradshaw), Raiders (Stabler and Plunkett), 49ers (Montana) are some examples. Since then? There have been some but not nearly as many or as common w/notable exception to Brady and the Pats.
The primary reason the Pats were able to maintain was Brady kept his salary in line to allow for them to keep or sign other guys. Rodgers could forego part of his salary, but I doubt he will. You can only extend or restructure so much.
@Henry posted:Or that he had sick, motivated talent around him. That defense was stupid.
If Nick Collins doesn't get hurt, I think they win in 2011 even with the Phibin tragedy affecting them in the playoffs.
You could also argue that if TT would have given up a 3rd round pick for Marshawn Lynch when they had the chance that that would have won them another title or two. Starks and R. Grant were both Jamaal Williams types - good, but not difference makers.
Finally, I don't think anyone can make an argument that the Packers didn't win more titles because Aaron Rodgers wasn't motivated enough. Favre, sure. Rodgers, no way in hell.
@Tschmack posted:The simple fact is since the advent of free agency it’s nearly impossible to keep dynasties and good teams together for extended periods of time.
Prior to the early 1990s, teams and QBs winning multiple Superbowls was fairly common. The Packers (Starr), Dolphins (Griese), Steelers (Bradshaw), Raiders (Stabler and Plunkett), 49ers (Montana) are some examples. Since then? There have been some but not nearly as many or as common w/notable exception to Brady and the Pats.
The primary reason the Pats were able to maintain was Brady kept his salary in line to allow for them to keep or sign other guys. Rodgers could forego part of his salary, but I doubt he will. You can only extend or restructure so much.
The other thing was that on many of these teams the QB was not their best player or even in the top 3. We loved Starr and rightfully so, but he was maybe the 5th best player on that team (Gregg, Nitschke, Adderly, Wood, however you rank Hornung and Taylor at that point). Griese had three HOF offensive lineman in front of him. The Steel Curtain had HOFers at every level on defense and those Raiders teams weren't QB driven. Montana was the best of this bunch, but Jerry Rice, Ronnie Lott, and a loaded lineup made it easier and there is an argument that for some of those titles, Montana wasn't even the best QB on the roster (Steve Young).
@Tschmack posted:rimary reason the Pats were able to maintain was Brady kept his salary in line to allow for them to keep or sign other guys. Rodgers could forego part of his salary, but I doubt he will. You can only extend or restructure so much.
Yoou forgot to mention the cheating the Pats/Belicheck did too. How many wins did that lead to?
@ammo posted:Yoou forgot to mention the cheating the Pats/Belicheck did too. How many wins did that lead to?
Also,
Nothing to do with a new contract but this made me laugh...
A first round pick at QB can often be a crap shoot. Just because a team uses it does not mean he is the franchise QB of the future. I think that the team wanted to make sure that they had a decent backup and possibly a starter. Rodgers saw the pick as premature. He had been talking about playing into his 40’s. I believe that he has mixed feelings on the subject. Aaron has long supported this team and Wisconsin sports so the draft pick of Love has got to sting a bit. My guess is that he will weigh options and see what happens in TC before he decides anything. Right now he is probably golfing and goofing off and leaving any salary questions to his agent and the team FO.
Some people enjoy punching themselves in the nuts over and over. Makes the off-season go by quicker.
Shocking the opinion is What Me Murphy made the situation worse with his non-answer.
@Chongo posted:Shocking the opinion is What Me Murphy made the situation worse with his non-answer.
By saying "no comment" he's implying that he has some say in the decision. He should have just said that his role is to represent the Packers at the league level and get the best people in place to run the football operations and then let them handle these decisions.
His way of answering seemed to be a way of letting people know that he's ultimately in charge of the decision. Can you imagine Bob Harlan doing the same thing to Ron Wolf? No chance.
Murphy isn't smart.
I wonder what Aaron is thinking through ALL the BS. DAMN. At least he’s having a blast doing Jeopardy......and I can watch a replay of previous episodes dvr’d at 1:00am. I think he’s wonderful, AND doing a fantastic job. 🥰 🥰 🥰
It is crazy how little "news" has actually come out about this in comparison to the analysis being done. Was there anything other than Rodgers questioning his future with the Packers in an interview? And Rodgers answer was dead on, he doesn't control his future with the Packers so don't even blame Rodgers for creating a controversy (unlike Favre).
My favorite "news" pieces lately are when some new analyst explains how Rodgers has all the leverage so the Packers have to do a new deal. And my favorite derivation of this "news" is that if Jeopardy hosting goes well, he can use that opportunity to leverage to the front office for a new deal. He does have some leverage because he's great but he has three years left on his deal so if he wants to play football again, it will be with the Packers. And if he does sit out, the Packers do have a first round pick and an offense that seems to make QBs look better than they are (ie: Garrapolo and Goff under Shanahan and McVay, respectively).
@Goldie posted:I wonder what Aaron is thinking through ALL the BS. DAMN. At least he’s having a blast doing Jeopardy......and I can watch a replay of previous episodes dvr’d at 1:00am. I think he’s wonderful, AND doing a fantastic job. 🥰 🥰 🥰
He's been great!! And he's only going to get better. It would be very cool to see him retire from football to become the Jeopardy host. And if that offer came this summer, I would not blame him if he decided to retire from football to host Jeopardy. That opportunity may not come by again.
I keep going back to this point. It's worth noting here (if it hasn't already been):
– Think of this thought experiment. Would you rather move on from Aaron Rodgers too soon, or move on from Jordan Love too soon? Think about it hard. It assumes the unknowable (Love is really good), but it’s fascinating to discuss. Moving on from Rodgers too soon would probably be sacrificing 3-4 more really good seasons. Moving on from Love too soon could mean sacrificing 10-15 good years. I don’t think there’s a wrong answer here, but it’s still a situation analysis the Packers might have to complete at some point soon. Once again, staying with the status quo provides more time to complete the analysis fully.
– The Packers are probably trying to have it both ways. They have a very good situation at the game’s most important position right now. No other team has a three-time MVP and a first-round pick at quarterback. They have a guy they know they can win big with, and they have a guy they think could develop into something special. Individually, for the two quarterbacks, it’s a delicate situation. But for the team? I’d bet the majority of the NFL would love to have this problem.
Why Packers would want to keep all options open at QB (usatoday.com)
reminds me of when the local paper reported that lombardi was a scholar at fordham.
Exactly, who knew?
I thought he was a Block of Granite
It is better to let a player go a year too early than a year too late. We get Rodgers for at least 2 years. That is a long audition period for Jordan Love.
Not if he doesn’t audition.
@Tschmack posted:The simple fact is since the advent of free agency it’s nearly impossible to keep dynasties and good teams together for extended periods of time.
Prior to the early 1990s, teams and QBs winning multiple Superbowls was fairly common. The Packers (Starr), Dolphins (Griese), Steelers (Bradshaw), Raiders (Stabler and Plunkett), 49ers (Montana) are some examples. Since then? There have been some but not nearly as many or as common w/notable exception to Brady and the Pats.
The primary reason the Pats were able to maintain was Brady kept his salary in line to allow for them to keep or sign other guys. Rodgers could forego part of his salary, but I doubt he will. You can only extend or restructure so much.
It also helps they didn't have to build against their division most years and could just build for the playoffs.
Anyone think this would be a good haul going into the draft in a couple of weeks?
Schrager proposes the Raiders give up quarterback Derek Carr, wideout Henry Ruggs, defensive end Maxx Crosby and a first-round pick in 2021 and 2022 and a second-round pick in 2022. That might be enough for the Packers to actually consider making a move.
That’s a move that announces you’re certainly not chasing a Super Bowl in ‘21 or ‘22 probably.
Do it. Rodgers will become the villain as Gunt continues to "build for the future". Pick a fucking lane, trade Rodgers and build for the future with a shit ton of end of round picks.
Why would we want Car when we got Luv??
@Henry posted:Do it. Rodgers will become the villain as Gunt continues to "build for the future". Pick a fucking lane, trade Rodgers and build for the future with a shit ton of end of round picks.
Rodgers too may become a villain if he keeps interviewing and spouting this beautiful mystery bs.
Both sides would do well to keep everything behind closed doors.
@tsr86free posted:Why would we want Car when we got Luv??
I'd imagine the thought process is that Carr gives the Packers a vet QB going into the season which allows Like (I don't yet luv the pick) one more season of grooming. Carr has an option year in 2022 before becoming a UDFA in 2023. I also think the Raiders would require the Packers to take Carr to get the $20+ million in salary off their books.
@Pikes Peak posted:Rodgers too may become a villain if he keeps interviewing and spouting this beautiful mystery bs.
Both sides would do well to keep everything behind closed doors.
GB must really be pushing his buttons because of the way he’s negotiating in public. He’s usually so private.
@Pikes Peak posted:Rodgers too may become a villain if he keeps interviewing and spouting this beautiful mystery bs.
Both sides would do well to keep everything behind closed doors.
I certainly haven't paid attention to all of the buzz about Rodgers but when I have seen it I see him saying that the contract situation is out of his control. I don't see a problem with him saying that. It's nothing like when Favre kept talking about retiring/unretiring. I still hate the Love pick and think Gute is over his head. I hope I am wrong.
There’s nothing wrong with Rodgers pushing for more guarantees and commitment from the team. Players easily get screwed when they don’t play their hand when their leverage is the highest. No one and everyone is the “bad guy” in this situation. Favre’s sin wasn’t waffling on retirement, it was un-retiring right before training camp when the team was squarely Rodgers and trying to force the team to allow him to play for the Vikings. I do recall there was talk that off-season of him wanting to go to the Vikings or Bears. Rodgers is just trying to get some security, nothing wrong with it, but he’s creating a ton of annoying media hype and intrigue.
I don't think the Packers should entertain trades for Rodgers right now. They still have a championship roster right now so not sure why Rodgers or Gute would want to part ways. I do think there is a good chance that Rodgers asks for a trade next offseason though, as the Packers are going to have cap issues and guys like P Smith, Amos, Turner, etc. may be cap casualties. And it may be mutual, as Gute has to tell Rodgers that he's gutting the team to deal with the cap, then Rodgers replying that he wants to compete for a championship. Gute understands then allows Rodgers to seek a trade.
I still think Rodgers plays here in 2021 and 2022 but the above could definitely happen. I just hope it stays cordial between Rodgers and the Packers (like Manning and the Colts, and Rivers and the Chargers).
