Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

QB Aaron Rodgers, GB


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, moleculo said:

As a bronco fan, I don't there is a price that is too high.  Rodgers would instantly make this team a contender.  I mentioned the skill position offensive players above, but then remember Munchak with a non-COVID season to work with the OL and a top 5 defense (on paper, anyway) and Broncos are legit SB contenders with a top QB.

Three #1s is well worth a few years of SB runs.  I'd trade Sutton, Chubb, Jeudy, etc.  My only limit is no more than 1 guy from any position group.

What i heard on radio is the thinking is it would take at least the next two #1s, plus throwing in Teddy B to bridge to Love, plus a player like Chubb or another 2nd year or so player on a rookie contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

What i heard on radio is the thinking is it would take at least the next two #1s, plus throwing in Teddy B to bridge to Love, plus a player like Chubb or another 2nd year or so player on a rookie contract.

I'd do it.

Chubb, btw, got his 5th year tender today.  Don't know if that means anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, moleculo said:

I'd do it.

Chubb, btw, got his 5th year tender today.  Don't know if that means anything.

Im sure it wouldn’t hurt.

I mean of I had to choose him retiring or that deal.  Give me that type of deal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Im sure it wouldn’t hurt.

I mean of I had to choose him retiring or that deal.  Give me that type of deal.

 

I think if I were Paton, i'd make the value of the picks contingent on games played or something like that...3rd round picks for the next 3 years that turn into 1st round if Rodgers starts at least 9 games.

Edited by moleculo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take Disgruntled QBs in the NFL for $800

"He plays in the State of Texas"

-Who is DeShaun Watson?

"Correct, select again"

I'll take Disgruntled QB in the NFL for $1,200

"This QB resides in the Pacific Northwest"

-Who is Russell Wilson?

"Correct, select again"

I'll take Disgruntled QBs in the NFL for $1600

"Daily Double" 

I'd like to risk it all please, Aaron 

  • Like 4
  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ministry of Pain said:

I'll take Disgruntled QBs in the NFL for $800

"He plays in the State of Texas"

-Who is DeShaun Watson?

"Correct, select again"

I'll take Disgruntled QB in the NFL for $1,200

"This QB resides in the Pacific Northwest"

-Who is Russell Wilson?

"Correct, select again"

I'll take Disgruntled QBs in the NFL for $1600

"Daily Double" 

I'd like to risk it all please, Aaron 

Nicely played.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, moleculo said:

They stay above the garbage because they have needed just 2 QB's in 30 years.  Unheard of.  I don't give the Pack any kind of credit for doing it the right way...its not like they knew Rodgers would be a 15 year guy when they drafted him.

As you know, having a QB in place makes everything else much easier.  Lucking into two QB's who were capable of playing at a high level for that long really made the org. look better.

Well, consider the Chargers:

  • Brees 2001-2005 - didn't play in 2001 and wasn't good in 2002-2003; very good starter in 2004-2005
  • Rivers 2004-2019 - starter 2006-2019
  • Herbert 2020-TBD - will presumably be the Chargers starter for the next 10-15 seasons

The Packers have had Favre and/or Rodgers for 29 seasons to date. They made the playoffs in 21 of those seasons, made the NFC championship game in 9 of those seasons, made the Super Bowl in 3 of those seasons, and won 2 Super Bowls.

The Chargers have a run of 17 seasons of great QB play and counting. Not at the same level as Favre/Rodgers, but in the next tier. They have made the playoffs 7 times, made the AFC championship game 1 time, and made 0 Super Bowls.

IMO the Packers have been pretty good at building contenders, including both players and coaches. The Chargers' track record shows that it could be much worse.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sho nuff said:

No it won’t.  Like Favre going to the Jets.   If they work a deal...they choose where.   The threat is then against a new team.   He can try that...but again hurts him.  Without a clause in his contract...he doesn’t dictate where he goes.

No one is going to trade for Rodgers without having spoken with him and gotten at minimum a verbal that he's on board.  If DET calls him and he tells them to pound sand you expect the Lions to just ignore that and give up draft equity anyway?  Not happening ever in history.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

So does Rodgers have a case here or is he being a petulant DBag with his trade demand & now retirement threat? 

I’m having a hard time coming to a conclusion here. 

Probably not one or the other completely, but I'd lean towards more of the latter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, moleculo said:

They stay above the garbage because they have needed just 2 QB's in 30 years.  Unheard of.  I don't give the Pack any kind of credit for doing it the right way...its not like they knew Rodgers would be a 15 year guy when they drafted him.

As you know, having a QB in place makes everything else much easier.  Lucking into two QB's who were capable of playing at a high level for that long really made the org. look better.

Ahh yes, Ron Wolf "lucked" into trading for Favre, and Ted Thompson "lucked" into making the ballsy pick of Rodgers when Favre was still a top QB. What a ridiculous thing to say. Those were both fantastic decisions by bold, smart GMs that turned out unbelievably well for the organization.

  • Like 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Leroy's Aces said:

Ahh yes, Ron Wolf "lucked" into trading for Favre, and Ted Thompson "lucked" into making the ballsy pick of Rodgers when Favre was still a top QB. What a ridiculous thing to say. Those were both fantastic decisions by bold, smart GMs that turned out unbelievably well for the organization.

It’s just like how Dan Devine was just really unlucky when he made the Lawrence Welk Trade for John Hadl, not in any way a desperate move by a GM who hadn’t planned well and ended up in dire need of a QB to save his job and then the Packers got really unlucky having only 2 winning seasons in the next 20 years because they traded 2 firsts, 2 seconds and a third for a long shot at a guy they needed but who ended up sucking. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Leroy's Aces said:

Ahh yes, Ron Wolf "lucked" into trading for Favre, and Ted Thompson "lucked" into making the ballsy pick of Rodgers when Favre was still a top QB. What a ridiculous thing to say. Those were both fantastic decisions by bold, smart GMs that turned out unbelievably well for the organization.

Give him a break. If you are a donkey fan you have to cling to the idea QB's working out are just luck. It was bad luck that den passed on Josh Allen. This year it may one day turn out to be bad luck that they passed on Fields falling into their lap. Terrible luck that team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Leroy's Aces said:

Ahh yes, Ron Wolf "lucked" into trading for Favre, and Ted Thompson "lucked" into making the ballsy pick of Rodgers when Favre was still a top QB. What a ridiculous thing to say. Those were both fantastic decisions by bold, smart GMs that turned out unbelievably well for the organization.

They lucked into two guys who were healthy enough to have long careers.  No Bridgewater/Alex Smith/Tom Brady knee injuries, no Peyton Manning neck problems, no Drew Brees busted ribs, no eroding skills 5 or 6 years down the road like most QB's, no loss of desire like Andrew Luck.

Seriously, if the Pack knew what kind of player Rodgers was going to be, they wouldn't have let 23 teams have a chance to draft him before their pick.  

The pack made a couple good moves that turned out extraordinarily well.  15 year, MVP, Superbowl winning QB's are really, really rare, and having 2 back-to-back is even more rare.  Closest comp I can think of is 49ers with Montana/Young but neither of those guys had anywhere near the longevity of Favre/Rodgers.  In the 55 gear history of Modern-era NFL, these two are unique.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, BoltBacker said:

Give him a break. If you are a donkey fan you have to cling to the idea QB's working out are just luck. It was bad luck that den passed on Josh Allen. This year it may one day turn out to be bad luck that they passed on Fields falling into their lap. Terrible luck that team.

I have not forgotten what the Bolts were like between Fouts and Brees. 

Edited by moleculo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, moleculo said:

They lucked into two guys who were healthy enough to have long careers.  No Bridgewater/Alex Smith/Tom Brady knee injuries, no Peyton Manning neck problems, no Drew Brees busted ribs, no eroding skills 5 or 6 years down the road like most QB's, no loss of desire like Andrew Luck.

Seriously, if the Pack knew what kind of player Rodgers was going to be, they wouldn't have let 23 teams have a chance to draft him before their pick.  

The pack made a couple good moves that turned out extraordinarily well.  15 year, MVP, Superbowl winning QB's are really, really rare, and having 2 back-to-back is even more rare.  Closest comp I can think of is 49ers with Montana/Young but neither of those guys had anywhere near the longevity of Favre/Rodgers.  In the 55 gear history of Modern-era NFL, these two are unique.  

Steve Young played for 15 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Alex P Keaton said:

Steve Young played for 15 years.

True but he only had maybe 8 years as a starter once Montana left.  Quite a lot of overlap with Montana.

Eta: Montana played 15 years too.  

Maybe a closer comp than I assumed.

Edited by moleculo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, moleculo said:

True but he only had maybe 8 years as a starter once Montana left.  Quite a lot of overlap with Montana.

Eta: Montana played 15 years too.  

Maybe a closer comp than I assumed.

It’s fair to say Young say a bunch of years and Montana had both had their elite years shortened more than Favre/Rodgers.  Different era for QB safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, moleculo said:

True but he only had maybe 8 years as a starter once Montana left.  Quite a lot of overlap with Montana.

Eta: Montana played 15 years too.  

Maybe a closer comp than I assumed.

It's a good comparison, yours is longer. 

Miami went from Griese to Marino(Almost 30 years) but did have a David Woodley bridge of 1-2 seasons and your point is 100% accurate. The staple of most dynasty or I'll expand it to teams that win a lot of games over a long period of time, a decade or more, usually there is a very good QB in the middle of all those wins. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alex P Keaton said:

It’s fair to say Young say a bunch of years and Montana had both had their elite years shortened more than Favre/Rodgers.  Different era for QB safety.

Technically, Favre and Young are the same era.  Montana and Rodgers - absolutely different eras but Favre and Young...their careers overlapped by 8 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, moleculo said:

They lucked into two guys who were healthy enough to have long careers.  No Bridgewater/Alex Smith/Tom Brady knee injuries, no Peyton Manning neck problems, no Drew Brees busted ribs, no eroding skills 5 or 6 years down the road like most QB's, no loss of desire like Andrew Luck.

Seriously, if the Pack knew what kind of player Rodgers was going to be, they wouldn't have let 23 teams have a chance to draft him before their pick.  

The pack made a couple good moves that turned out extraordinarily well.  15 year, MVP, Superbowl winning QB's are really, really rare, and having 2 back-to-back is even more rare.  Closest comp I can think of is 49ers with Montana/Young but neither of those guys had anywhere near the longevity of Favre/Rodgers.  In the 55 gear history of Modern-era NFL, these two are unique.  

Agreed.  The Packers have had 30 years of Favre and Rodgers and made it to a whopping 3 Super Bowls. That is kind of pathetic when you think about it.  They'd probably be the Detroit Lions without those two all-timers at QB. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, moleculo said:

Technically, Favre and Young are the same era.  Montana and Rodgers - absolutely different eras but Favre and Young...their careers overlapped by 8 years.

8 years is a small fraction of Favre’s career. ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schlereth feels like Denver has the total inside track to pull this trade off. Green Bay won't move him until after June 1st, they simply will not with all that cap implication and even then it won't be what they really want to do. 

-What is the upside of going to Denver and having to get past Mahomes just to make the Playoffs? Justin Herbert is looming over there with Los Angeles as well but they have work to do. 

-New England in this conference too and getting better by the minute I might add. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ministry of Pain said:

It's a good comparison, yours is longer. 

Miami went from Griese to Marino(Almost 30 years) but did have a David Woodley bridge of 1-2 seasons and your point is 100% accurate. The staple of most dynasty or I'll expand it to teams that win a lot of games over a long period of time, a decade or more, usually there is a very good QB in the middle of all those wins. 

That's a pretty good comp too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ministry of Pain said:

Schlereth feels like Denver has the total inside track to pull this trade off. Green Bay won't move him until after June 1st, they simply will not with all that cap implication and even then it won't be what they really want to do. 

-What is the upside of going to Denver and having to get past Mahomes just to make the Playoffs? Justin Herbert is looming over there with Los Angeles as well but they have work to do. 

-New England in this conference too and getting better by the minute I might add. 

1. To me this feels like the russel Wilson trade rumors, or perhaps something Rodgers leaked out there so GB would address the offense in the draft. More media speculation than actually a chance Rodgers gets traded or retires. 
2. As you point out, packers are an easy favorite in the nfc north, and would have more competitive teams in the afc west. If getting to a super bowl is the goal, I don’t see Rodgers forcing a trade.

3. I’m not sure New England is going to the playoffs this year. Buffalo and Miami are better teams, and while Mac Jones gets compared to Tom Brady, he isn’t just going to get there and suddenly win 11 games a year. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ministry of Pain said:

A lot of money. You may not know this but the Packers save a lot after June 1st. Something along the lines of $32M vs $15-$16M although they will likely pay the remainder the following season. That is the sad reality of the situation, it's not like Aaron Rodgers doesn't get paid enough to put up with the Packers FO, he has made quite a penny over his career. 

They can agree to terms now and make the trade official after June 1 - I suppose that could allow some one to back out though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ministry of Pain said:

I'll take Disgruntled QBs in the NFL for $800

"He plays in the State of Texas"

-Who is DeShaun Watson?

"Correct, select again"

I'll take Disgruntled QB in the NFL for $1,200

"This QB resides in the Pacific Northwest"

-Who is Russell Wilson?

"Correct, select again"

I'll take Disgruntled QBs in the NFL for $1600

"Daily Double" 

I'd like to risk it all please, Aaron 

“Tell him what he’s won, Bob!”

  • Laughing 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ghost Rider said:

Agreed.  The Packers have had 30 years of Favre and Rodgers and made it to a whopping 3 Super Bowls. That is kind of pathetic when you think about it.  They'd probably be the Detroit Lions without those two all-timers at QB. 

That is why I lean towards Rodgers side in this battle.   It. Is one thing for GB to take a player on D over a player on O if they feel that player is the BPA and will improve the team most.   That should be explained easily by the GM brass to Rodgers and then proceed to promise him to be patient and help for the O is coming.  Of course, you then follow through and do what it takes to get those weapons.   

GB set this whole fiasco in motion by not just ignoring WR and TE.   They ignored the improvement of the team on the field while drafting the next QB first.   Rodgers is in his prime and GB should win their division every season.  GB should have seen their mistake and obtained weapons for Rodgers immediately.   Instead, they are letting their egos get in the way and are playing a losing game.  They aren’t winning the SB without a better team around Rodgers and are not getting in the playoffs without Rodgers.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DocHolliday said:

That is why I lean towards Rodgers side in this battle.   It. Is one thing for GB to take a player on D over a player on O if they feel that player is the BPA and will improve the team most.   That should be explained easily by the GM brass to Rodgers and then proceed to promise him to be patient and help for the O is coming.  Of course, you then follow through and do what it takes to get those weapons.   

GB set this whole fiasco in motion by not just ignoring WR and TE.   They ignored the improvement of the team on the field while drafting the next QB first.   Rodgers is in his prime and GB should win their division every season.  GB should have seen their mistake and obtained weapons for Rodgers immediately.   Instead, they are letting their egos get in the way and are playing a losing game.  They aren’t winning the SB without a better team around Rodgers and are not getting in the playoffs without Rodgers.  

Especially when he looks at Brady on TB.  They have essentially gone out and gotten every single player to make him comfortable in his O

Rodgers is one of the few all time greats that doesn't seem to have any control like a Brady or a Manning or a Brees

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different sport, different rules, but the Marlins are good at trading away current and future MVPs.

The Branch Richie rule:

"Trade a player a year too early rather than a year too late."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SoBeDad said:

Different sport, different rules, but the Marlins are good at trading away current and future MVPs.

The Branch Richie Rickey rule:

"Trade a player a year too early rather than a year too late."

fyp

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/05/01/report-aaron-rodgers-wants-the-packers-to-fire-g-m-brian-gutekunst/

So why is quarterback Aaron Rodgers upset with the Packers? He’s specifically disenchanted with one person.

According to Charles Robinson of Yahoo Sports, Rodgers won’t return to the Packers as long as Brian Gutekunst serves as the team’s General Manager. Rodgers is willing to consider “hardline options” to get what he wants, from skipping the entire offseason to holding out of training camp, to possibly retiring.

Robinson reports, citing an unnamed source in Rodgers’ camp, that a reconciliation may not be possible if Gutekunst continues to be the G.M. Also, Robinson reports that team CEO Mark Murphy is aware of Rodgers’ position on Gutekunst.

“The ball is in Mark’s court,” the unnamed source said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/05/01/report-aaron-rodgers-wants-the-packers-to-fire-g-m-brian-gutekunst/

So why is quarterback Aaron Rodgers upset with the Packers? He’s specifically disenchanted with one person.

According to Charles Robinson of Yahoo Sports, Rodgers won’t return to the Packers as long as Brian Gutekunst serves as the team’s General Manager. Rodgers is willing to consider “hardline options” to get what he wants, from skipping the entire offseason to holding out of training camp, to possibly retiring.

Robinson reports, citing an unnamed source in Rodgers’ camp, that a reconciliation may not be possible if Gutekunst continues to be the G.M. Also, Robinson reports that team CEO Mark Murphy is aware of Rodgers’ position on Gutekunst.

“The ball is in Mark’s court,” the unnamed source said.

The GM will go...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering Gutekunst is the genius who traded up to take Jordan Love last year, which was all but a middle finger at Rodgers, I can't say I blame Aaron for taking this stance.  No clue how good of a GM he really is, but if this comes down a game of chicken, Mark Murphy is out of his mind if he doesn't ultimately side with keeping and making his MVP QB happy.  An ultimatum like that sucks, but Rodgers is still on top of his game and the team is a top contender still as a result.  Losing Rodgers would set back the franchise big time.  They would become the Detroit Lions. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

I mean Murphy can get rid of the GM now...or both he and the GM be out of a job in a couple years if they get squat for Rodgers and Love sucks.

I'm not sure that any amount of compensation for Rodgers will be enough.

Maybe on paper, but not in reality or perception.

Sure, if they won a couple Super Bowls without him...

LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, sho nuff said:

I mean Murphy can get rid of the GM now...or both he and the GM be out of a job in a couple years if they get squat for Rodgers and Love sucks.

"Love Stinks" would have been a better phrase.

Also, I though Mike McCarthy was the problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Packers coach Matt LaFleur said he "wants nothing more" than to see Aaron Rodgers back with the team.

“I’d like to keep every conversation that Aaron and I have had up to this point between us,” LaFleur said. “I know the report’s out there. But this guy’s our quarterback. He’s our leader. I want nothing more than to see him back in a Packer uniform. In my eyes, he’s the greatest to ever do it. I don’t care about Super Bowls or what not. But we want him back here.” LaFleur also said he "can’t imagine" Rodgers on a different team. The Packers have made multiple trips to meet with Rodgers in California but there's been no change to the situation. Rodgers has threatened to retire rather than return for another season. Green Bay will need to decide whether to trade Rodgers or force him to hold out. There's rumors Rodgers will only return if the Packers fire GM Brian Gutekunst.

SOURCE: packers.com

May 2, 2021, 9:36 AM ET

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FMIA: On Drama In Green Bay, The 49er Fakeout And The ’21 NFL Draft

Excerpt:

Quote

Rodgers’ discontent, as has been well-documented, is real. Charles Robinson of Yahoo! Sports reported much of it is focused on GM Brian Gutekunst, and a source said Rodgers is adamant that he won’t return to the Packers with Gutekunst as GM.

I have heard that Rodgers has not demanded the ouster of Gutekunst. But maybe Robinson’s right and I’m wrong. Regardless, this is more, I believe, about the traditional structure of the Packers, a structure that hasn’t bent much to give influence to players, that hasn’t changed much in the last 30 years.

“Do you think Aaron’s relationship with the Packers is irretrievably broken?” I asked Gutekunst on Sunday afternoon.

“No, I don’t think so at all. That’s my opinion and that’s the organization’s opinion,” Gutekunst said. “We want Aaron to be our quarterback. We’re pretty resolute with that . . . We want to leave every avenue open for that to happen.”

As for Rodgers’ reported feelings about him, Gutekunst said “you never want to see those things or read those things. He’s never said that to me and he never said that publicly . . . At the same time, I’m a lifelong scout, and we work all year for these three days. We couldn’t let this distract us from the task at hand.”

Rumors floated Thursday and then over the weekend about multiple teams contacting the Packers to try to deal for Rodgers. Though it’s possible president Mark Murphy or coach Matt LaFleur could have fielded a call or two, it’s hard to envision any discussion going anywhere without the GM knowing about it. When I asked Gutekunst about any trade talks for Rodgers, he said:

“I had no [trade] discussions with any team. I received one call from a team Thursday night, after all the news came out. I said no. That was the end of the conversation.”

It seems impossible to think Rodgers’ enmity for the Packers has come so far, so fast. But remember this about Rodgers: He’s principled. He’s different. If he feels like he’s been wronged, he could stay away regardless of any external pressure, and losing his scheduled $22-million compensation this year wouldn’t bother him nearly enough to change his mind. Remember this about the Packers: They have a traditional structure—players play, coaches coach, GM picks players—and have had such a structure since Ron Wolf built his championship team a quarter-century ago.

If, as I suspect, Rodgers feels unappreciated by the Packers, is displeased that Gutekunst picked his potential heir instead of a receiver last year, and doesn’t think he’s valued by the franchise as much as a three-time MVP should be, it’s going to be tough to build a bridge to make him return. Tough, but not impossible.

Gutekunst wouldn’t discuss the team’s next move, but somehow, the embattled GM said he remains optimistic that bridge can be built. “I think every day we’re very open to working through everything, all the different issues, and trying to get to get him back in here and moving forward,” Gutekunst said.

Takes two to make a deal, though, and one party is far from the table right now. Historically far. As ESPN pointed out, no MVP in the 64-year history of the award has ever been traded the following season, and only two (Norm Van Brocklin, 1960, and Jim Brown, 1965, both retired after winning) have not played the following season. Rodgers has always been a different guy.

As many have pointed out over the weekend, this is mindful of a story from exactly 10 years ago. In the spring of 2011, Carson Palmer decided he would rather not play football than play for the Cincinnati Bengals, his team of seven years. The Bengals didn’t budge, and Palmer started the season on the reserve/did not report list. Six weeks into the season, when the Raiders had a quarterback injury, the Bengals traded him to Oakland.

I would expect Rodgers to not participate in any offseason work with the Packers, and to hope the Packers would change their minds about trading him. Denver would still be an option, I think, and maybe Las Vegas. (Rodgers-Mahomes twice a year for the next four years, maybe?) Or, maybe with four to six weeks to simmer, and an olive branch from Green Bay brass (Rodgers loves Packer franchise history), he’ll go back. But right now I doubt it. My gut feeling—and that’s all it is—is he’d prefer to not play football this year than to play for the Packers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/30/2021 at 6:00 PM, Hot Sauce Guy said:

So does Rodgers have a case here or is he being a petulant DBag with his trade demand & now retirement threat? 

As a lifelong Packers fan, I don't think those are mutually exclusive.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gruecd said:

As a lifelong Packers fan, I don't think those are mutually exclusive.

Yeah, that seems to be the conclusion others have offered in another topic. That ARod is a PITA, but the front office screwed up in so many ways to make the situation so much worse.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gruecd said:

As a lifelong Packers fan, I don't think those are mutually exclusive.

Right. Both sides have a nunch of fault here.  And IMO if they cant figure it out together...we may and probably shoukd see all three of the main people involved gone.

Rodgers, Gute, and Murphy.

Rodgers because he will not get along with Gute and I get that you can’t just give in to players demanding a team fire a GM.

Gute for that draft and awful communication and Murphy as being overseeing all of it...just a complete dereliction of duty.

  • Like 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Right. Both sides have a nunch of fault here.  And IMO if they cant figure it out together...we may and probably shoukd see all three of the main people involved gone.

Rodgers, Gute, and Murphy.

Rodgers because he will not get along with Gute and I get that you can’t just give in to players demanding a team fire a GM.

Gute for that draft and awful communication and Murphy as being overseeing all of it...just a complete dereliction of duty.

I agree, if you have to get rid of any of them, get rid of all of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Joe Bryant changed the title to QB Aaron Rodgers, GB

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
  • Create New...