Given the recent news about sportsbooks taking NFC North bets off the board, what's your best guess on the percent chance Rodgers is the Week 1 starter in GB this year?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
7.24.21 - Percent Chance Aaron Rodgers Is the Week 1 GB Starter This Year? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
Team Chaos
Footballguy
I accidentally posted this in the wrong thread, but…..Personally, I get the impression that Rodgers is set on not playing for the Packers and this is just more confirmation of that. I would say 25% chance he is on the field week 1 for the Packers.
Team Chaos
Footballguy
Of course, that could just be the wishful thinking of a Bears fan.
King of the Jungle
Footballguy
With what is public knowledge 0-24% seems like the logical choice. I would be surprised if Aaron swallows his pride (or does anything that makes it appear he swallowed his pride) and comes back.
Tau837
Footballguy
Would have voted 90-100% if an option.
If the Packers are open to trading him, why wait until now (or later), when June 1 was the date that allowed them to shift a substantial portion of the dead cap hit into 2022? Seems like it would have been more valuable to the acquiring team to have gotten him before training camp started.
Despite his posturing, if the Packers don't trade him, I can't believe Rodgers would sit out. His number of years remaining to play competitive football are dwindling, and the Packers were very close last season. Plus, while he may not truly need the money, sacrificing $21.5M (his scheduled cash payout in 2021) plus any portion of his bonuses the team would try to reclaim plus incurring substantial fines is not something we see players do very often. I guess Bell did it, and Gordon did it to a lesser extent, and it was clearly a mistake for both of them.
If the Packers are open to trading him, why wait until now (or later), when June 1 was the date that allowed them to shift a substantial portion of the dead cap hit into 2022? Seems like it would have been more valuable to the acquiring team to have gotten him before training camp started.
Despite his posturing, if the Packers don't trade him, I can't believe Rodgers would sit out. His number of years remaining to play competitive football are dwindling, and the Packers were very close last season. Plus, while he may not truly need the money, sacrificing $21.5M (his scheduled cash payout in 2021) plus any portion of his bonuses the team would try to reclaim plus incurring substantial fines is not something we see players do very often. I guess Bell did it, and Gordon did it to a lesser extent, and it was clearly a mistake for both of them.
Very different for a QB and a RB.
I do think Green Bay is being stupid by not trading him. I've seen some arguments that if they deal him it should be next offseason, so that he won't be playing for the acquiring team this year and making their draft pick higher, but while I get that idea, its not particularly logical. Rodgers will never have more value than he has right now. If they wait, he's only another year closer to 40, and another year removed from being NFL MVP.
I picked 25%, but to me its 50% traded, and 25% retires too.
rockaction
Footballguy
Despite the public posturing, I went with more likely than not. Just a feeling based on what Just Win Baby said. That's a lot of guaranteed money to leave on the table. Nobody really does that. Not even Gordon and Bell did that for a year's worth of work, I don't think. Maybe Gordon, but Bell's contract was all roster bonuses.
BigJim®
Footballguy
I’m generally a cynic on huge moves at a sports book. I have no detail, but find it highly unlikely a sports book would have ‘news’ sufficient to drive pulling W/L line off the board. Occam’s razor leads me to think it was planted to lower the line.
Capella
Footballguy
Books have the best information in the world. This is not just some schmuck calling this in in order to get a good bet placed. They would never take those odds down and then leave them down unless they have a good reason to do so.
BigJim®
Footballguy
I understood they pulled the bet off the board entirely. Doing that instead of lowering/leaving available is not a vote in confidence on the number, JMHO.
BigJim®
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I still think better than 50% chance he’s the QB for the packers.
I think it’s better then 90% chance he’s enjoying every second of this “will he/won’t he” schtick regardless.
I think it’s better then 90% chance he’s enjoying every second of this “will he/won’t he” schtick regardless.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I’d think it would be about not losing $ on the “under” type bets.
Under X# of TD, yardage, games played, etc.
if they took all those bets down, wouldn’t that signal that they don’t think he’s gonna play?
just taking a guess at the answer here, but that makes sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
Capella
Footballguy
People not hammering the under on wins and the Vikings and Bears giant + bets to win the division.
BigJim®
Footballguy
I thought only the Pack W/L was off the board. Can’t people still hammer the bets you mention? If so, wouldn’t lines adjust to account for that? I’m admittedly ignorant about gambling. Just seems like the true sign of real info is a lowered W/L and leaving the line on the board.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
I think their concern is minimizing risk. They already have a ton of bets they know will make them money, why give away free money in uncertain situations.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
8.6%.
Vegas doesn't do stuff like this unless they know something, as Vegas is almost always smarter than the rest of us, which tells me that someone in-the-know, likely close to Rodgers, told certain people something on purpose to get it out there. My guess is that Rodgers is ready to retire, but is hoping that rumors that he will retire will maybe force the Packers to finally consider trading him, but the Packers organization seems like the "cut off my nose to spit my face" kinda organization, which is why they have two freaking Super Bowl wins in 30 years despite having had two of the greatest QB's ever for practically that entire run, so my guess is they will call his bluff and Rodgers will retire.
Or I am dead wrong and Rodgers will show up and play.
Vegas doesn't do stuff like this unless they know something, as Vegas is almost always smarter than the rest of us, which tells me that someone in-the-know, likely close to Rodgers, told certain people something on purpose to get it out there. My guess is that Rodgers is ready to retire, but is hoping that rumors that he will retire will maybe force the Packers to finally consider trading him, but the Packers organization seems like the "cut off my nose to spit my face" kinda organization, which is why they have two freaking Super Bowl wins in 30 years despite having had two of the greatest QB's ever for practically that entire run, so my guess is they will call his bluff and Rodgers will retire.
Or I am dead wrong and Rodgers will show up and play.
Capella
Footballguy
My understanding was no futures bets on the North were currently posted. I could be wrong but that was what was originally reported.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pip's Invitation
Footballguy
Zero consensus from the SP on this topic. After 68 votes, no option has more than 30% or less than 19%.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
shockingly even poll results.
Team Chaos
Footballguy
Pip's Invitation
Footballguy
And now the four options are almost identical. Nothing lower than 24% and nothing higher than 27%.Pip's Invitation said:
Wisdom of the Crowd (tm)And now the four options are almost identical. Nothing lower than 24% and nothing higher than 27%.
Similar threads
