The Future Of The Packers
Speaking of Rodgers . . . So it’s May 31, and I’d say this little staredown between the quarterback and the team that swears it won’t trade him is 60 days from getting real. It’s unlikely Rodgers will attend the June 15-17 mandatory minicamp. He’d incur a $95,877 fine for that boycott. It’s one thing to be rock-solid in your position on May 31, with the season three months away. But it’s another thing when the reality of the stances—both by Rodgers and the team that insists there will not be a trade—reach the real time of training camp, and the season. I don’t know how this turns out. No one does. What I’d do if I were president Mark Murphy and GM Brian Gutekunst: set up a half-hour every week for Gutekunst and/or Murphy to clear calendars for Rodgers and perhaps other team leaders to bring grievances/concerns to them. Or just simply to get to know them better.
Beyond Rodgers, I think this should be about Rodgers’ concerns. If, as has been reported, the Packers never notified Rodgers they were drafting Jordan Love and he found out on TV, shame on them. Even if you’re not going to seek Rodgers’ input on team decisions (that’s a tricky subject, and I’m not sure I’d want to open that window either), you can hear him out about concerns. The NFL used to be a league in which GMs pick the players, coaches coach the players and players simply play. But if smart players want more than that, and the alternative is that smart players (Russell Wilson, Rodgers and who knows in the future) want out if they’re ignored, why not allow players to give input? If the alternative is alienating great players to the point where they want out, wouldn’t you consider a different way of doing things? The Packers should.