2019 NFL Free Agency/A Busy Day for Green Bay

[HiAndTight]

I saw him say that as well on likely the same show. But either shortly before or after, I saw it happen on a recording of one of those MACC fund events or something. The guy who said it was totally just a deer in headlights fan, he didn't mean anything insulting, and it really bothered Rodgers.

 

I used to really prefer Rodgers to Favre because I thought he was a better guy. Over time I've just sort of accepted they're both different kinds of jerks. I love watching both play but I don't really like either guy.

 

 

Yeah...pretty much exactly my thoughts. I could take everything they've said about Rodgers with a grain of salt and say it's just that Jordan, Kobe-esque type mentality, but cutting your folks out of your life? And this isn't some kid who came up rough and whose parents weren't around. That just made it more obvious that he's got deeper issues.

 

It's not like it breaks my heart like when I was a kid and right as I was leaving for school I heard about Molitor signing with the Jays, it just sucks when your superstar is a diva.

 

We're all pretty sure that while Giannis is hyper competitive, he's NOT a diva, right? We might have the best players in all 3 major sports on our team this year. It'd be nice if a couple of them were good guys.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I've thought Rodgers was a bit of a nut for a few years now. The thing that swayed me was, I can't remember what it was, some kind of charity event where a fan shook his hand and said something like "Wow you look so much taller on TV" and Rodgers replied "I don't appreciate that." I just thought, god, this guy is really insecure and just kind of a twerp.

 

 

Where was this(if you happen to recall)? I remember Rodgers actually saying on I think the Mike McCarthy show that he doesn't like it when people say that to him, but I never actually knew if or when that happened. In fact, I thought there was a segment where guys talked about Aaron and they talked about how sensitive he was and they even brought this up. I'm thinking it was Clay and another guy, but I don't remember exactly.

 

What a stupid thing to worry about though. You're regarded as the most physically gifted person to play the position. Who cares if Bar guy #3 thinks you look taller on TV. Get over it.

 

And I guess I'd counter with, why do you care that he cares? If somebody came up to you on the street and commented on something regarding your appearance or the way you look, do you have a right to react negatively to that? Yep. Does he lose that right because he's an athlete? I don't think so. He didn't slug the guy, he politely told him that he didn't appreciate it. Couldn't be less of an issue, IMO.

 

I don't care beyond it making him seem not very relatable. It just makes him look a bit of a tool IMO. I'm bald and people make bald jokes all the time. Couldn't care any less about it. I was glad I didn't have to get haircuts or fix it when I left the house. And I'm just a guy. He is a superstar athlete praised all over the country and some joe blow fan says he looks smaller on TV and that gets under his skin? Just kinda pathetic.

[JimH5]

The reason for that is cultural. You can burn some coach in NYC - he is small fish, not royalty. There are a hundred other things to write about that day about maybe 7% of the population cares. That is obviously not the case in Green Bay. Like I said, I think some of that is just life in GB. It's never going to change because that team is life. You can walk outside in NYC while the Yankees are playing in the World Series and have no idea it's even going on.

 

I don't see any realistic way that stops being the case.

 

 

Cultural as in Cult-ural. The Packers influence over this whole state is absurd. I think the only way to break that is with a few 3-13 seasons. That might knock their halo askew.

[HiAndTight]

I've thought Rodgers was a bit of a nut for a few years now. The thing that swayed me was, I can't remember what it was, some kind of charity event where a fan shook his hand and said something like "Wow you look so much taller on TV" and Rodgers replied "I don't appreciate that." I just thought, god, this guy is really insecure and just kind of a twerp.

 

 

Where was this(if you happen to recall)? I remember Rodgers actually saying on I think the Mike McCarthy show that he doesn't like it when people say that to him, but I never actually knew if or when that happened. In fact, I thought there was a segment where guys talked about Aaron and they talked about how sensitive he was and they even brought this up. I'm thinking it was Clay and another guy, but I don't remember exactly.

 

What a stupid thing to worry about though. You're regarded as the most physically gifted person to play the position. Who cares if Bar guy #3 thinks you look taller on TV. Get over it.

 

And I guess I'd counter with, why do you care that he cares? If somebody came up to you on the street and commented on something regarding your appearance or the way you look, do you have a right to react negatively to that? Yep. Does he lose that right because he's an athlete? I don't think so. He didn't slug the guy, he politely told him that he didn't appreciate it. Couldn't be less of an issue, IMO.

 

You realize I'm not the one who brought this up?

 

But ask me why I care? Because I do, doesn't have to be any more to it than that. But then I stated why. I think it's petty. If we're not all just basking in the light that is Rodgers, he gets upset.

 

And he wasn't very polite about it.

Why did that send Rodgers into a full-on sulk?

 

 

"You know I— I just that, that's one of the more ridiculous comments that could be thrown at me is that. Especially coming from somebody who's 5'7"."

 

-Sounds a bit snippy now doesn't it? Especially since the guy wasn't close to 5'7, so Rodgers is being intentionally rude there in mocking him.

 

https://deadspin.com/aaron-rodgers-is-very-sensitive-about-his-height-5957852

[OldSchoolSnapper]

That piece is kind of funny now. Jennings and Matthews drew no ire calling him sensitive back then. He does it now and he must be lying because he's salty. Peculiar.

[HiAndTight]

You are just totally conflating totally different issues here.

 

You're comparing what was presented to us as a feud and some issues with personalities within a business to people breaking the law, rape accusations, domestic violence and the like. That's a ridiculous comparison.

 

First of all, any business has every right in the world to simply decline to speak with a reporter who has negative things to say about that business and can cause financial harm that business. This isn't politics. As I said, the Brewers have done this with a large personality in the Milwaukee media market due to comments he made about a couple of players on the team.

 

 

And both things CAN be true. The reporter has every right to REPORT what he finds and what he knows or believes to be true. And the business has every right to then simply refuse to grant him interviews.

 

In this particular case, we're also making the giant assumption that this information would have been available at the time it was going on. There's a reason this didn't come out until after McCarthy was gone. Because people felt free to speak about it. Everyone heard about rumblings inside the organization, but that was it. He almost certainly wasn't going to get people to go on record and provide detailed anecdotes and rebuttals as Dunne does in this article(he does a good job in my opinion of trying to tell the whole story in so much as a reporter writing a piece like this can).

 

 

But at the end of the day, there were no players put in harm's way here, there were no women abused or raped, there was no PED suspension that was already made public because the league announced it. It was an article based entirely on the opinions of people involved in the 4 most prominent people in an organization and how they interacted.

 

Again, if that reflects badly on the business and hurts their reputation or finances or performance on the field as this almost certainly would have had it been written 4 years ago, then how are the Packers or the people directly involved at fault in any way for simply NOT speaking with the reporter who wrote an article in which almost all of his sources were anonymous and that caused harm to the organization?

 

Wanting to know something doesn't mean you're entitled to know it and I just can't understand how you can compare rape allegations of domestic violence allegations, things that are public by the very fact that we're entitled to know when a crime has been committed or when someone is accused of a crime by an opens records act. You're comparing those things to a QB and a Head Coach not liking each other. And that's primarily what this article was about. They didn't like each other, the QB may not have respected each other. It may have been sensationalized or it may not have. But it's still got absolutely nothing in common with ANY of the issues you listed.

 

Not only is there nothing that says you have to talk to a reporter after he writes an extremely negative article about you, it's every bit their right to simply refuse to talk to him after that and it's human nature to not talk to him anymore.

 

This is the biggest Packers story of the offseason. It's on every talk show, tv station, news site. It's being discussed in offices all around the state, and is the subject of several posts in this string.

 

And it was reported by a respected guy who used to work the beat, next to colleagues from the Press Gazette and Journal Sentinel. And with the local tv sports men and women who deliver us the "news".

 

I just find it disturbing that he wouldn't have been allowed to write this story if he worked locally, but since he has the distance of working for Bleacher Report, that gave him the freedom to write it. Presumably, the toxic relationship between Rodgers and McCarthy was known by other reporters. But they couldn't dare write it, for fear of angering the team they are supposed to write about. This story would have driven traffic to whichever news organization published it, but locals apparently aren't allowed to.

 

The Packers are treated like royalty in this state, and we're all treated like the kids who let them ride their bikes after practice. Again, read how James Dolan, Woody Johnson, the Wilpons, etc. are treated by the NY media. When those guys deserve to be taken to task, they are taken to task.

 

And until yesterday, the Packers mostly hadn't been. And it took the safety of a national sports website to do it.

 

 

 

I don't disagree with an of this. I only disagreed that we were in some way entitled to know what was going on or that the Packers weren't well within their rights to no longer talk to a particular writer if he wrote an article. Especially one like this that is incredibly controversial, would have been far-far more controversial during the season or the McCarthy era and is only slightly less so now that Rodgers has a new coach and the GM who was getting sick is out and we have a new GM.

 

I WANT to know lots of stuff. I want to know exactly what our offer is to Kimbrel. But this is a corporation. If they don't want to allow interviews to someone after this type of article, I don't think that's the least bit outlandish.

 

Someone keeps bringing up the Knicks owner Dolan. I honestly could not care less about that guy. I won't care about him if/when Durant signs there this summer. I don't think I'll ever care about him. But he denied interviews to the press for an extended period of time because he was getting bad publicity. Exactly what I'm talking about. The difference there is the rest of the org leaked like a sieve.

 

Plus this has been compared to the reporting on rape accusations and domestic violence and really, just the most astoundingly ridiculous comparisons you can possibly make.

 

Let's not get it twisted. This isn't about if the Paper is allowing you to cover accusations that you raped a college girl in the bathroom. Mainly because once there is a police report, that's public record, so there's almost zero chance it stays sealed due to open record laws. But rather this is an article about why a team that was very good wasn't great and the conclusion they came to.....the HC and the star didn't like each other. So yeah, I'm just not of the mind that this is something we're entitled to. That this is something that the 4th estate is required to ensure that we all know about. It's a workplace issue at a corporation. We just happen to care more about the production of this particular corporation.

[HiAndTight]

That piece is kind of funny now. Jennings and Matthews drew no ire calling him sensitive back then. He does it now and he must be lying because he's salty. Peculiar.

 

 

I was thinking maybe it was Cobb...I couldn't remember the second one, but I knew it was supposed to be one of his close friends on the team.

 

I don't blame people who don't find that type of cold standoffish reaction and then ensuing smartass comment and insult about the guy who insulted him's height. I try to find reasons to defend him also(for what little that's worth).

 

I hope he gives me more in the future.

[PeaveyFury]

 

You realize I'm not the one who brought this up?

 

But ask me why I care? Because I do, doesn't have to be any more to it than that. But then I stated why. I think it's petty. If we're not all just basking in the light that is Rodgers, he gets upset.

 

I do realize you didn’t bring it up, but you offered your criticism on the topic and thus I responded to it. You can care if you like, but I also think that’s a bit unfair. I think criticizing someone who responds the way 99% of people do when your personal appearance or the way you look is joked about is just looking for a way to find something wrong with a public persona.

[JimH5]

I don't disagree with an of this. I only disagreed that we were in some way entitled to know what was going on or that the Packers weren't well within their rights to no longer talk to a particular writer if he wrote an article. Especially one like this that is incredibly controversial, would have been far-far more controversial during the season or the McCarthy era and is only slightly less so now that Rodgers has a new coach and the GM who was getting sick is out and we have a new GM.

 

I WANT to know lots of stuff. I want to know exactly what our offer is to Kimbrel. But this is a corporation. If they don't want to allow interviews to someone after this type of article, I don't think that's the least bit outlandish.

 

It's not so much that we're entitled to know this stuff, as it is that a reporter should be entitled to tell it without fear of retaliation against himself or his news organization. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE reading this kind of stuff. Mostly because it's so rare to see it amongst the boring game stories and draft analysis and contract stuff. That Rodgers has hated McCarthy his whole career and was calling plays in the huddle because he thought his coach was a clueless dope--that's the most delicious thing I've read about this team in years. I'm just bothered that the locals felt compelled to sit on the story.

 

Someone keeps bringing up the Knicks owner Dolan. I honestly could not care less about that guy. I won't care about him if/when Durant signs there this summer. I don't think I'll ever care about him. But he denied interviews to the press for an extended period of time because he was getting bad publicity. Exactly what I'm talking about. The difference there is the rest of the org leaked like a sieve.

 

I've brought him up twice. And if Dolan doesn't want to talk to a specific reporter, that's fine. But he shouldn't be able to use his position as owner to deny press privileges to reporters or newspapers who rip him. Papers there don't tolerate being bullied like that and it shouldn't happen in Milwaukee or Green Bay. The media's duty is to the public, not the Packers.

 

I've reached the end of my rant on this, so I'll let you have the last word if you want.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I guess I don't see what course of action you'd recommend. If someone from the GB Press Gazette runs this 12 months ago their credential is likely revoked. Nobody is really going to care about that besides them. 98% of the fans would side with the Packers on damn near anything, and the Packers could make their own kool-aid serving newspaper and nobody would really care.

 

If the mayor of Green Bay did something there would be public outrage to help turn the tide, but if you're a Packer you can get away with pretty much anything. The Packers are such an entity here that nobody wants to hear anything bad.

[xisxisxis]

The worst part of the whole stuff is that guys like Jennings and Finley finally get the attention they've been craving since they played for the Packers. Rodgers is probably a prick. It shouldn't shock anyone. But he's far from the first great QB to be one. McCarthy had his faults as well. He was a good football coach that doesn't deserve this utter crap that is being aired out right now. Could they have won more SB's? Sure, maybe. But so many things have to go right for them to happen. Saying they should have been NE over the past 15 years is just stupid. There is a reason that there has only been one team to have the success that NE is having.

Disclaimer: I thought he should have been replaced or castrated back when he lost to Seattle (NFC champ game) for more reasons than just that game.

 

I think it really isn't so black and white. I disagree with those who said he never had anything innovative, I think pre-GB and early on as HC his offense was unstoppable. For whatever reason, as teams began to understand how to adjust and stop that offense, McCarthy didn't innovate further. From that point on he was basically trying to put a square peg in a round hole. That isn't smart/good. As noted in the BR article, his moving assistants around, detachment from pre-game day preparation, pitting the defense as a poor step-child, and, and, and are all things that in a vacuum don't matter too much, but add in an offensive scheme that was stalled, gameplans that were as predictable as the Lions record, and clear management issues of his offensive leader really make it hard to say for half of his stay in Green Bay he was anything but bad. I think the balance finally shifted to his assets no longer overcome his deficits and that isn't good. But to say he wasn't a good coach for 4-5 years ignores the success and I disagree with BR that it was all due to the talent. it was a combination of talent and an offense that was well designed to take advantage of that talent. If he had adapted his offense and play calling to the changing talent, we wouldn't be even having this conversation.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I don't think BR said he wasn't a good coach; they merely gave a mouthpiece to some folks who said talent carried him. One of things that I thought made the article pretty good was they got perspective from all over. They had some people saying Rodgers was too sensitive, and Ryan Grant saying his sensitivity made him good. They had multiple people saying they had nothing but respect for MM, and a couple that said he was a goon.

 

I think he was and is a good coach. I think GB let him overstay a welcome by about six years. IMO nobody should coach anywhere that long unless your name is Bill Belichick. I think he can still be a good coach somewhere else. I hope he does, personally, just to stick it to Rodgers a little.

[HiAndTight]

 

It's not so much that we're entitled to know this stuff, as it is that a reporter should be entitled to tell it without fear of retaliation against himself or his news organization. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE reading this kind of stuff. Mostly because it's so rare to see it amongst the boring game stories and draft analysis and contract stuff. That Rodgers has hated McCarthy his whole career and was calling plays in the huddle because he thought his coach was a clueless dope--that's the most delicious thing I've read about this team in years. I'm just bothered that the locals felt compelled to sit on the story.

 

Ok, I guess it depends on your opinion of retaliation. I don't view just simply NOT talking to him or granting him interviews retaliation. It's the silent treatment.

 

I think the single more important thing in this country is a free press. The only point I'm making is that I think you have a responsibility if you're running an corporation, one that's even more difficult when it's a professional sports organization. You don't have legitimate share holders, but you want your messaging to be positive and when it comes to the product on the field, well this could be an issue that would have hurt that as well. So I agree I don't think he should have been made to do anything. And in the end, he wasn't. He wrote the article.

 

Ok, I guess it depends on your opinion of retaliation. I don't view just simply NOT talking to him or granting him interviews retaliation. It's the silent treatment basically, and it's the responsible move when you're talking about something as relatively minor as people not liking each other at work....I would have a totally different take if you were talking about them not reporting on ANY of the issues that were similar to what were mentioned in that other thread. The over medicating players, doing anything illegal. That becomes an entirely different issue.

 

I'd have liked to know all this as well and spent about an hour on the article. I read it...then just kept going over it. It really pisses me off. That while New England is building a dynasty with inferior talent because you have BB, the Packers with the most unique QB ever(I think John Elway would have been even closer had he not been hobbled his entire career by a bad knee, but even as talented as he was, he wasn't the accurate passer Rodgers is. Steve Young at his height is as close as I can come to an apt comparison and maybe in a few more years Mahomes) and a lot of talent elsewhere.

I just disagreed when it sounded like you believed we should be entitled to this type of information. That's all.

 

I've brought him up twice. And if Dolan doesn't want to talk to a specific reporter, that's fine. But he shouldn't be able to use his position as owner to deny press privileges to reporters or newspapers who rip him. Papers there don't tolerate being bullied like that and it shouldn't happen in Milwaukee or Green Bay. The media's duty is to the public, not the Packers.

 

WHY THOUGH? We're back. Why as the owner of a private business shouldn't he be able to refuse press privileges to people who have a negative impact on his business? And while the Packers are literally a private business, they run like one.

 

Again, if this was the White House Press Corp and you're shutting down legitimate News Outlets, that's a HUGE problem. There's been a lot of talk about the press that's been VERY dangerous to what may be the single most important aspect of our democracy. But that's not this. This is you saying an owner or an organization shouldn't be able to stop granting interviews to a guy who writes a bad story and....with respect, you haven't really given a why yet other than just because you don't think it's fair.

 

The Press Needs to be protected above just about all else in this country, but I'm just not seeing the same issues as you are. A reporter should be expected to be cut out when he writes a piece that absolutely shreds an entire organization.

 

And real investigative journalist deal with this every single day. It's part of their job description. Get the story about people who don't want you to have the story. There's no reason that this should be easy.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I think one pretty strong argument the other way is that most if not all teams benefit from taxpayer subsidies and as such should have an obligation to the media.

[HiAndTight]

I think one pretty strong argument the other way is that most if not all teams benefit from taxpayer subsidies and as such should have an obligation to the media.

 

 

I can see your point, and the Packers, in particular, are technically publicly owned...and as I've said, I like the access as much as anyone else. I just don't see how you can enforce it or why anyone would want to continue speaking with someone who just said/wrote something scathing about you.

 

 

Speaking of which, I just saw one of the most asinine clips I've ever seen on ESPN.com. Marcus Spears...the former Cowbow is calling Arod a "Toxic player" because of "all the former players coming out with all these stories."

 

We all agree he's sensitive. We have varying opinions on how important that is, ie, the height issue and the condescending remark he made to the guy who met him.

 

But toxic? And then lets break down the "stories" from "all these players."

 

Finley-His complaint was LITERALLY that Rodgers wouldn't throw you the ball unless you ran your routes right all the time. Go back and look at it. I don't believe he EVER cites a single thing that Rodgers said or did. I believe he's become bitter because his football career ended and he came off as obsessed with how much Rodgers was making in the article.

 

Jennings-Rodgers made ONE comment, I believe in passing, others believe it was more deliberate, but it was inbetween plays. One comment in 7 years and THAT is his problem with Aaron Rodgers.

 

Jeff Janis-I'm not a big Stephen A Smith fan, but if I was, I'd be doing that voice he does when he repeats a irrelevant players name over and over.

 

But in fairness, this is the ONLY legitimate issue I've heard a former player actually bring up. That he's too hard on the young guys, he rides them and then they get in the dog house and he won't throw to them. As others have said, you can see it at times.

 

Of course I have a very vivid memory or Janis running a terrible route on 3rd and goal from inside the 5 his last year in GB. It was probably dependant on the coverage. If the DB opens his hips up, you hit him wth that out. If he stays square, you run the fade. Whatever it was, I don't know what the hell he ran. He ran about 4 yards in the endzone and instead of putting foot in the ground, planting and cutting, he kinda rounded off his route, so when Rodgers threw a bullet with a guy in his face, the ball was about 3 feet out of his hands because he ran a sloppy route. That was long enough for him to have developed his route running.

 

But I do believe that Rodgers is likely too tough on the young guys and that he probably didn't give Janis the fair shake he earned at times, particularly when we were running short. Rodgers didn't make great throws at the end of that Arizona playoff game. He threw the ball far and did a great job of creating more time.

 

 

ON the other side, you've had a LOT of players come out and say a helluva lot of great things about Rodgers. Woodson and Nelson for example.

 

 

So I believe that he's petty, I believe that he's extremely sensitive, I believe that he can be too hard on young guys. Guess what? Lots of great athletes are like that. Remember how gracious Michael Jordan's Hall of Fame speech was? And that's a guy that's universally lauded as the greatest of all time. Issues with teammates? The stories about him punching Steve Kurr and Robert Parish are well known, particularly the Kerr one, and Rodman says he didn't talk to Jordan in his years with the Bulls. How'd a lot of Kobe's teammates like him?

 

 

 

 

Oh, and by the way, of the THREE players(that I know of), GREG JENNINGS has said that more of the blame falls on McCarthy's shoulders for not winning more.

 

He talks about how McCarthy wasn't willing to change or be creative or innovative.

 

 

So now the MOST critical of those players....is the one who says that McCarthy has limited Rodgers and Rodgers was obviously going to grow frustrated because McCarthy wasn't evolving.

 

 

 

So please Marcus Spears, you ignorant clown...a guy who probably hadn't heard a single thing about this issue before he's asked to come on one of ESPN's 15 shows that repeat the same thing and says something outrageously stupid just so he can get people like me worked up.

 

 

There are a lot of issues here....but the Packers losing DAMN SURE isn't because Aaron Rodgers is toxic or THEE problem. There are SOME problems with him, but he's carried this team long enough and willed them to the playoffs year after year. This year was so shocking because time after time Rodgers has gone on runs at the end of the season in order to get this team into the playoffs even with talent like this team has.

 

Sorry, this turned into a rant, but some of the Rodgers bashings is getting stupid.

 

Don't tell me that we can't win with Rodgers or that he is the reason why we're not winning more Super Bowls.

 

That is beyond asinine.

[CheezWizHed]

Frankly, I hate these expose' type of articles as both MM and Rodgers get blasted without ever having any of their input. I'm sure a good portion of these comments are pretty true, but when presented out of context its hard to say what is accurate.

 

It was obvious that something was wrong the last couple years. Play calling and execution was horrible. Something certainly needed to be done about it. And yes, the HC was going to get the axe when you pay your QB $200M.

 

So Rodgers' real chance to redeem himself will be on the field this year. And he has more material for a shiny new chip on his shoulder.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Nice to see Cole Madison reported for the off-season program today. I really liked him coming out last year, and hopefully he's been able to work through his issues.

[CheezWizHed]

Yeah, that is very good news. I think our need at G really diminished then. It wouldn't surprise me to see a OT/G but in reality, we have decent starters and depth for this year now.

[jjfanec]

The first time Jennings said anything it came off as sour grapes. Almost everybody thought that. Now more things continue leaking out that are lending quite a bit of credibility to the stuff he says. I basically never see anyone say he's wrong either. They just say something about how he's salty. That strategy is usually used when you know there's truth in what someone's saying.

 

Actually many people have said Jennings is wrong and it is easy to find that. You just dont seem to look for it. And many of these players are not current players who seem like they would have to say it - Casey Hayward, Chris Banjo, John Kuhn, HaHa, James Jones, even Ryan Grant

 

https://247sports.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/LongFormArticle/Aaron-Rodgers-good-teammate-current-former-Packers-players-support--130985476/#130985476_8

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The first time Jennings said anything it came off as sour grapes. Almost everybody thought that. Now more things continue leaking out that are lending quite a bit of credibility to the stuff he says. I basically never see anyone say he's wrong either. They just say something about how he's salty. That strategy is usually used when you know there's truth in what someone's saying.

 

Actually many people have said Jennings is wrong and it is easy to find that. You just dont seem to look for it. And many of these players are not current players who seem like they would have to say it - Casey Hayward, Chris Banjo, John Kuhn, HaHa, James Jones, even Ryan Grant

 

https://247sports.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/LongFormArticle/Aaron-Rodgers-good-teammate-current-former-Packers-players-support--130985476/#130985476_8

 

 

Oh, ok then...

 

None of those guys say Jennings is wrong. None. They just either make a generic statement or say something that has nothing to do with him/they like Rodgers. Both can be true, you know. Jennings, on ESPN last week, said he never heard about the massage and that it was beyond anything he saw or heard.

 

Again, Packer fans continue to misconstrue the things he says.

 

Grant, on your list, said Rodgers is overly sensitive. Clay Matthews has said it. IMO, it is about the harshest thing Jennings has said. For some reason, when he says it, people act like he's the only guy saying it.

[OnTheBlack]

 

Actually many people have said Jennings is wrong and it is easy to find that. You just dont seem to look for it. And many of these players are not current players who seem like they would have to say it - Casey Hayward, Chris Banjo, John Kuhn, HaHa, James Jones, even Ryan Grant

 

https://247sports.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/LongFormArticle/Aaron-Rodgers-good-teammate-current-former-Packers-players-support--130985476/#130985476_8

 

 

Oh, ok then...

 

None of those guys say Jennings is wrong. None. They just either make a generic statement or say something that has nothing to do with him/they like Rodgers. Both can be true, you know. Jennings, on ESPN last week, said he never heard about the massage and that it was beyond anything he saw or heard.

 

Again, Packer fans continue to misconstrue the things he says.

Grant, on your list, said Rodgers is overly sensitive. Clay Matthews has said it. IMO, it is about the harshest thing Jennings has said. For some reason, when he says it, people act like he's the only guy saying it.

 

 

That's all I've ever seen Jennings say. That and then the comment he made during a game that I believe shows Jennings to be just as sensitive. But I don't see a single comment on there suggesting that Jennings was wrong in any of those comments either. Jennings always has talked about what a good off the field relationship he and Rodgers had prior to that comment.

 

 

I'm taking all of this article with a grain of salt. I believe McCarthy lost the team and as everyone knows, people like Madden, Walsh and others have said a coach usually does after about 10 years. He was a good coach for a good chunk of his time here.

 

Rodgers is a sensitive diva. So is just about every other QB. I'd like to hear about Brady and BB's issues. We know that Robert Kraft had to jump in the middle and basically overrule BB to trade a backup QB away. Think about that. A backup QB to the most accomplished QB in NFL history caused that much friction between the HC and the QB.

 

I agree with others that Rodgers does seem to be a tough guy for young players to play with because he expects too much too quickly and I'll buy that. Especially since Finley talked about how "it was crazy" how Rodgers wouldn't throw it to you unless you ran the "exact right routes." Sorry J-Mike, it's not.

 

But I agree OldSchool, I see basically a bunch of prominent Packers who played on other very well run teams basically say this article is garbage, but none say that what Greg Jennings said was wrong.

[OnTheBlack]

The first time Jennings said anything it came off as sour grapes. Almost everybody thought that. Now more things continue leaking out that are lending quite a bit of credibility to the stuff he says. I basically never see anyone say he's wrong either. They just say something about how he's salty. That strategy is usually used when you know there's truth in what someone's saying.

 

Actually many people have said Jennings is wrong and it is easy to find that. You just dont seem to look for it. And many of these players are not current players who seem like they would have to say it - Casey Hayward, Chris Banjo, John Kuhn, HaHa, James Jones, even Ryan Grant

 

https://247sports.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/LongFormArticle/Aaron-Rodgers-good-teammate-current-former-Packers-players-support--130985476/#130985476_8

 

 

Maybe I am missing something, but I read these comments to say that the article as a whole was wrong and that Rodgers wasn't a bad teammate and that McCarthy wasn't this absent coach as was suggested. I didn't see one person dispute Jennings comments. Comments that are frankly relatively mundane and have been grossly exaggerated in my opinion, but all the same. If I'm wrong and there's someone saying Rodgers has thick skin or that Jennings is lying, by all means, post a link. It just doesn't seem like it's that important though. What Jennings has to say.

 

 

By the way, look at what people have said about LeBron and how they're saying now how the big time stars don't want to play with LeBron. Usually, if you're the best at what you do, they try and chip away at you. In Rogers case....he's given them some ammunition and they seem to have created some more on their own.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I don't care much for Rodgers as a guy, but my thing from day one is that this ego, sensitive BS has never changed. People only care when you're losing. He's the same dude he always was. Insanely good, and very likely a pain in the rear, like Kobe, MJ, etc.

 

I dismiss Finley. He's mad about something, and has not handled his career being cut short very well. Jennings has been very transparent about his beef stemming from Rodgers not fighting to keep him in GB. That's honest. If he were trying to smear him, he wouldn't admit that.

[OnTheBlack]

Yeah, that is very good news. I think our need at G really diminished then. It wouldn't surprise me to see a OT/G but in reality, we have decent starters and depth for this year now.

 

 

Great news. People were speculating that he could start at guard for us last season. Probably won't this year after taking a year off, but as he works himself back into shape, he adds good depth. College tackle also, so more depth there.

 

And as we've seen before, that depth can disappear quickly. Hopefully Spriggs can turn it around this year and stay healthy and whatever it is that the Packers saw in Turner and other teams didn't, lets hope they were right.

[Point Beer Is Best]

Grant, on your list, said Rodgers is overly sensitive. Clay Matthews has said it. IMO, it is about the harshest thing Jennings has said. For some reason, when he says it, people act like he's the only guy saying it.

 

I think with Jennings there's two things going on there in terms of fan perception. One, he took the "Ryan Longwell" approach to his departure which was to take a verbal dump on the city of Green Bay and why Minneapolis was much better. That's obviously going to rub people the wrong way. Secondly, there's such a hypocrisy when Jennings calls Rodgers overly sensitive. It comes off as "Rodgers is so overly sensitive and needs to let things go AND ALSO CAN YOU BELIEVE THE MEAN JOKE HE TOLD TO CARLOS ROGERS 7 YEARS AGO? I KNEW I WAS DONE IN GB AFTER THAT." And then does nothing but tell the same stories for years after that.

 

The narrative is that Rodgers is so sensitive, and it's usually the same two has-beens (Finley & Jennings) banging that drum, while Rodgers has remained mostly silent on the issue up until his interview response released last night. He finally went scorched-earth on Finley and Jennings, and it was long overdue: "If it’s not an article about me, do you ever hear their names anywhere else? … You talk about me being sensitive and petty, at what point do you move on or stop telling the same stories?"