Report: Rodgers wants new contract (Update: May not want to return in 2021)

[MrTPlush]

Don't believe any of the crap from ESPN.

 

Rodgers hasn't done anything to defuse the situation. Not a single tweet, etc. His only comment was he was disappointed the issues came out.

 

So even if Rodgers and his "team" are not the source, the lack of a denial means Rodgers OWNS the leaks...

 

Packers didn’t say anything to refute or really even defuse the situation...so do they OWN the leaks too?

[reillymcshane]

Don't believe any of the crap from ESPN.

 

Rodgers hasn't done anything to defuse the situation. Not a single tweet, etc. His only comment was he was disappointed the issues came out.

 

So even if Rodgers and his "team" are not the source, the lack of a denial means Rodgers OWNS the leaks...

 

Packers didn’t say anything to refute or really even defuse the situation...so do they OWN the leaks too?

I think they did say some things that were good - like 'Aaron gives us the best chance to win' 'we're talking with him' 'he's our leader' and stuff like that.

 

I don't think (but could be wrong) they said specifics about how long they see him here until after a lot of the poop had hit the fan and had flown around the internets for a day or two. At that point, I think they said stuff like they wanted him in GB 'for 2021 and beyond' or something like that.

 

I think both sides are using the media at this point. Stories about Rodgers mocking Gute. And stories saying the Packers had offered Rodgers a new contract or extension or whatever and rebuffed. That all goes with the Rodgers is disrespected by Gute, that sort of thing. Each side is playing the PR games. I think the Packers are winning - but 'winning' might be the person standing on top of a pile of poop.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Don't believe any of the crap from ESPN.

 

Rodgers hasn't done anything to defuse the situation. Not a single tweet, etc. His only comment was he was disappointed the issues came out.

 

So even if Rodgers and his "team" are not the source, the lack of a denial means Rodgers OWNS the leaks...

 

Packers didn’t say anything to refute or really even defuse the situation...so do they OWN the leaks too?

I think they did say some things that were good - like 'Aaron gives us the best chance to win' 'we're talking with him' 'he's our leader' and stuff like that.

 

I don't think (but could be wrong) they said specifics about how long they see him here until after a lot of the poop had hit the fan and had flown around the internets for a day or two. At that point, I think they said stuff like they wanted him in GB 'for 2021 and beyond' or something like that.

 

I think both sides are using the media at this point. Stories about Rodgers mocking Gute. And stories saying the Packers had offered Rodgers a new contract or extension or whatever and rebuffed. That all goes with the Rodgers is disrespected by Gute, that sort of thing. Each side is playing the PR games. I think the Packers are winning - but 'winning' might be the person standing on top of a pile of poop.

 

Not to mention Lafleur was directly quoting stating that "I can't fathom fathom [him] not being in Green Bay. That's where my mind's at. I don't only love the player, but I love the person." That was 5 days ago.

[SeaBass]

Don't believe any of the crap from ESPN.

 

Rodgers hasn't done anything to defuse the situation. Not a single tweet, etc. His only comment was he was disappointed the issues came out.

 

So even if Rodgers and his "team" are not the source, the lack of a denial means Rodgers OWNS the leaks...

 

Packers didn’t say anything to refute or really even defuse the situation...so do they OWN the leaks too?

The Packers are ahead infinity to zero in terms of answering questions about this situation. They have even said things that could be viewed as defending Aaron Rodgers like when Gutekunst denied ever hearing that Rodgers demanded he be fired.

[MrTPlush]

I’m exaggerating, but at the end of the day it isn’t like they are really explaining the situation.

 

Rodgers could come out and say a bunch of sappy I love you stuff too...but without the situation being resolved one way or the other it doesn’t matter a whole bunch.

 

Rodgers doesn’t really need to say anything. The best thing he can do is work on a resolution as fast as possible. Really, that is better for all parties involved versus talking about it.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I just can't see a resolution on Rodgers's terms that doesn't involve trading Jordan Love. Rodgers will not show up if it's obvious this is a one year and dump, and the Packers will not sit Love down for 4 years.

 

If you're Gute and you want to be GM for 20 years, you're probably not going to trade Jordan Love. Something has to happen this summer.

[MrTPlush]

I’m guessing Rodgers would just require the extension that would effectively make it impossible to dump him in the next 3-4 years. That would pretty much squash Jordan Love drama and I’m guessing the Packers would probably trade Love next off season. Seem like they would get better value from trading Love in the offseason when more teams are scrambling for a QB versus now where many have a “guy” picked out.

 

That’s just my guess on how that would go down.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

If the stories about Jordan Love being Plan C or D on draft day are accurate, it's weird to me that the Packers are digging their heels on him. Unless they know something about him we don't, which is totally possible.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

If the stories about Jordan Love being Plan C or D on draft day are accurate, it's weird to me that the Packers are digging their heels on him. Unless they know something about him we don't, which is totally possible.

 

We don't even know that they are digging their heels in on him, though. So much of what is going on is pure speculation. All anyone knows about Love right now is that he's an extremely raw but very talented 22-year-old QB. If they hit on him, his value is enormous. It makes no sense to dump a 22-year-old QB simply to make a 38-year old QB feel better.

[CheezWizHed]

If Rodgers didn't say he wanted Gute fired, he could've easily refuted that comment. That seems to be one of the more egregious rumors flying around. He also could've done something similar to what the Packers said - yes, there are some issues we are working out, but we are talking as a team.

 

But I'm guessing that will come out in another 2 weeks or so... Seems like these dramas have a similar pattern.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

We don't really know anything for certain but if one believes Rodgers can be really, really good for 3 years, I would say the time to trade Love is now. If Gute thinks he is the next great thing, then not trading him makes sense. If you're not certain, I think the tail end of Rodgers career is still worth a lot. Even if you traded Love, he became a star, and Rodgers still put together a good 3 or 4 years, it's hard to fault the team for doing it.

 

But the Packers seem to be playing both sides of it and pushing that decision until the last possible second. It's prudent, but you can get why Rodgers is putting the brakes on that, even if he's being a bit of a diva. It's not all that dissimilar to what happened with Jimmy G in New England. I believe Belichick was enraged with that trade.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that I just don't see a resolution where Rodgers and Love are both on the roster.

 

Gute getting fired is the most pointless piece of gossip in this whole thing. There's a 0% chance it happens. It's more likely Favre comes back to fight for the starting job again.

[PeaveyFury]

If Rodgers didn't say he wanted Gute fired, he could've easily refuted that comment. That seems to be one of the more egregious rumors flying around.

 

I guess TECHNICALLY (and again, through one of his minions) he did sort of refute that by dispatching AJ Hawk to deny that part after they saw each other last weekend.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

We don't really know anything for certain but if one believes Rodgers can be really, really good for 3 years, I would say the time to trade Love is now. If Gute thinks he is the next great thing, then not trading him makes sense. If you're not certain, I think the tail end of Rodgers career is still worth a lot. Even if you traded Love, he became a star, and Rodgers still put together a good 3 or 4 years, it's hard to fault the team for doing it.

 

But the Packers seem to be playing both sides of it and pushing that decision until the last possible second. It's prudent, but you can get why Rodgers is putting the brakes on that, even if he's being a bit of a diva. It's not all that dissimilar to what happened with Jimmy G in New England. I believe Belichick was enraged with that trade.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that I just don't see a resolution where Rodgers and Love are both on the roster.

 

Gute getting fired is the most pointless piece of gossip in this whole thing. There's a 0% chance it happens. It's more likely Favre comes back to fight for the starting job again.

 

I just don't understand why Jordan Love can't exist as a young, talented backup QB for the next 2-3 seasons. Fans act like they need to do something with him, but they really don't. He's on his rookie contract that has three more years, then a 5th year option. I don't get the idea that the Packers aren't allowed to have a young, talented backup QB waiting in the wings should their 38-year-old superstar suffer an injury. After some of the pure crap they have trotted out there in the seasons Rodgers has gotten hurt (Seneca Wallace, Brett Hundley and DeShone Kizer), it makes me happy knowing that they are putting some effort into the QB position beyond Rodgers. If Love had to play a stretch for Rodgers and looks good, then you deal with perhaps finding a deal for one of them to get good value back. But not now.

[pacopete4]

We don't really know anything for certain but if one believes Rodgers can be really, really good for 3 years, I would say the time to trade Love is now. If Gute thinks he is the next great thing, then not trading him makes sense. If you're not certain, I think the tail end of Rodgers career is still worth a lot. Even if you traded Love, he became a star, and Rodgers still put together a good 3 or 4 years, it's hard to fault the team for doing it.

 

But the Packers seem to be playing both sides of it and pushing that decision until the last possible second. It's prudent, but you can get why Rodgers is putting the brakes on that, even if he's being a bit of a diva. It's not all that dissimilar to what happened with Jimmy G in New England. I believe Belichick was enraged with that trade.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that I just don't see a resolution where Rodgers and Love are both on the roster.

 

Gute getting fired is the most pointless piece of gossip in this whole thing. There's a 0% chance it happens. It's more likely Favre comes back to fight for the starting job again.

 

I just don't understand why Jordan Love can't exist as a young, talented backup QB for the next 2-3 seasons. Fans act like they need to do something with him, but they really don't. He's on his rookie contract that has three more years, then a 5th year option. I don't get the idea that the Packers aren't allowed to have a young, talented backup QB waiting in the wings should their 38-year-old superstar suffer an injury. After some of the pure crap they have trotted out there in the seasons Rodgers has gotten hurt (Seneca Wallace, Brett Hundley and DeShone Kizer), it makes me happy knowing that they are putting some effort into the QB position beyond Rodgers. If Love had to play a stretch for Rodgers and looks good, then you deal with perhaps finding a deal for one of them to get good value back. But not now.

I'm with you here. Why is the QB position the only one that is truly treated this way? If Love provides us a cheap backup who looks promising while Rodgers is finishing his career, all the more power to the Packers for being proactive in that department. Rodgers thin-skin is a major issue and probably has been his entire career.

[CheezWizHed]

Someone else mentioned that Rodgers had a better relationship with his backup QBs than Favre (some pages back), but that is pure revisionist history.

 

Favre had far more quality QBs as his backup - even to the point where Mark Brunnell nearly supplanted him as starter. When he was younger, he had a great relationship with many of them. It was really only Rodgers that he didn't. I can't think of a single Rodgers backup QB that went on to be a regular starter on another team.

 

For both of them, I believe it is far more a "mid-life crisis" (i.e. clearly seeing they are getting to the end of their career) issue than relationship with a backup QB.

[SeaBass]

It's been a heck of a merry-go-round. If they can work things out with Rodgers I still think that's the best thing for the team. Hopefully that would include the airing of grievances and stabilizing the relationship between Rodgers and the front office as well. If that all happens I don't care what they do with Love. I think arguments can be made for trading him or not but we'll have committed to Rodgers and anything else really shouldn't matter.

 

If they trade Love they will have likely picked up a veteran to be the backup for this season already anyway so they'll be covered. If they keep Love I don't think it will be for longer than a year, get him on tape for pre-season games, maybe some garbage time, let teams simmer over if they want to trade for him and go from there. I think his value will be highest in the off season with 2 years remaining on his rookie contract and the 5th year option still in play.

[MrTPlush]

Obviously in a perfect world the Packers would love to play out Rodgers contract like it is a bunch of one year deals. It would be a fantastic situation to sit on an MVP QB like that till he gets injured, sucks, or retires. Then you have a high ceiling groomed QB waiting in the wings. I’ve never thought they have to make a Love decision after three years or whatever just to make a decision. I have always thought they should just ride Rodgers till he sucks whether that be next year or in 4 years. Of course it’s understandable Rodgers doesn’t want that, what veteran QB playing as good as they ever had would? I understand both side of this, but eventually the Packers have to accept they can’t have the perfect world situation or move on.

 

I have always thought the whole needing Love to play after three years is BS. Too much focus on him playing a few years on his rookie contract. Does it really matter that much? I have always thought Love would never even need to play a down on his rookie contract. If you think he is that good sign him before he ever starts a full year or just franchise tag him till you figure out if he is good or not. If he sucks the franchise will be put back years anyway so the money wasted will be irreverent.

 

I know it would never happen that way, but it seems like it could and be a perfectly fine of a way to do it.

[PeaveyFury]

I have always thought the whole needing Love to play after three years is BS. Too much focus on him playing a few years on his rookie contract. Does it really matter that much?

 

From a financial standpoint? Absolutely. One of the largest reasons a team like Seattle was able to make back-to-back super bowls, putting together a crazy good defense was that they didn't have a QB eating up $30-40million of their cap each year. The value of having a cheap QB on a rookie contract is substantial, as if you even get just above-average (non-elite) level play from that QB, you can fill in so many more gaps around him, thus lessening the learning curve and pressure on his play.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I have absolutely no problem with the Packers committing to Rodgers long-term, but that has to be with the caveat that he also commit to the success of the franchise as well. This team is not going to be able to take the next step anytime in the next 4-5 seasons (which is the logical timeframe of Rodgers staying effective in a perfect world) if he continues to count for $30-35+ million against the salary cap. The only reason late-career Brady's Patriots were able to win several more Super Bowls a few years ago was his willingness to sign discounted deals, enabling the Patriots to build talent around him both offensively and defensively.

 

I love what Aaron Rodgers has done in his career, and he was superb last season. But if Rodgers is unwilling to sacrifice some of his huge cap hit to allow the team to put the pieces around him to compete for a title, what's the point?

[MrTPlush]

I have always thought the whole needing Love to play after three years is BS. Too much focus on him playing a few years on his rookie contract. Does it really matter that much?

 

From a financial standpoint? Absolutely. One of the largest reasons a team like Seattle was able to make back-to-back super bowls, putting together a crazy good defense was that they didn't have a QB eating up $30-40million of their cap each year. The value of having a cheap QB on a rookie contract is substantial, as if you even get just above-average (non-elite) level play from that QB, you can fill in so many more gaps around him, thus lessening the learning curve and pressure on his play.

 

Sure, in theory....but how likely is that in general and especially so on a guy sitting for three years? Probably more realistic and hopeful to win in their first contract after their rookie one.

 

If Love signed a contract after a year of starting or even before the money is not going to be that insane. The problem is when they become a Top 5 or Top 10 QB and you have to pay record rate.

 

I just think it is mightily overblown.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

 

I just don't understand why Jordan Love can't exist as a young, talented backup QB for the next 2-3 seasons.

 

Because the second Rodgers signs a new deal that guarantees he's going nowhere for 2-3 more years, Jordan Love demands a trade. And rightfully so. Players don't enter drafts as projected 1st rounders, then get selected as first rounders, and accept not playing until their 5th year in the league.

[xisxisxis]

I love what Aaron Rodgers has done in his career, and he was superb last season. But if Rodgers is unwilling to sacrifice some of his huge cap hit to allow the team to put the pieces around him to compete for a title, what's the point?

Yep. I agree and have stated so before. The issue is from Rodgers perspective. Any team friendly deal makes him even more likely to be traded so why should he help them make it possible to trade him? (Assuming he truly does want to play out his career in GB). So the only way this works from Rodgers POV is if he has a full or significant restricted no trade clause. If Rodgers would leave money on the table to keep/get personnel around him, would the Packers give him the no trade clause?

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

 

I just don't understand why Jordan Love can't exist as a young, talented backup QB for the next 2-3 seasons.

 

Because the second Rodgers signs a new deal that guarantees he's going nowhere for 2-3 more years, Jordan Love demands a trade. And rightfully so. Players don't enter drafts as projected 1st rounders, then get selected as first rounders, and accept not playing until their 5th year in the league.

 

Let him demand all he wants. He really can't force the Packers to do anything. He really has no options other than to not report. Rodgers may have some leverage here. Jordan Love has none.

[homer]

If Rodgers didn't say he wanted Gute fired, he could've easily refuted that comment. That seems to be one of the more egregious rumors flying around. He also could've done something similar to what the Packers said - yes, there are some issues we are working out, but we are talking as a team.

 

But I'm guessing that will come out in another 2 weeks or so... Seems like these dramas have a similar pattern.

 

If he hates Gute I could see him just letting this thing carry on for a while to make Gute look bad.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

 

I just don't understand why Jordan Love can't exist as a young, talented backup QB for the next 2-3 seasons.

 

Because the second Rodgers signs a new deal that guarantees he's going nowhere for 2-3 more years, Jordan Love demands a trade. And rightfully so. Players don't enter drafts as projected 1st rounders, then get selected as first rounders, and accept not playing until their 5th year in the league.

 

Let him demand all he wants. He really can't force the Packers to do anything. He really has no options other than to not report. Rodgers may have some leverage here. Jordan Love has none.

 

Love wouldn't be as publicly vocal about it since he doesn't have the stature but the demand no doubt would be made by his agent. He and Rodgers share the same agent so the agent would be working the extension angle and then immediately follow with the trade Jordan angle. And the Packers would accommodate. There would be no point keeping around a QB who if not traded nor allowed an opportunity to play would vow not to sign with them after his contract expires. I don't think a first rounder has ever been blocked from playing throughout the duration of their entire rookie contract. I honestly think over time there would be outcry from the player's union and other advocates pressuring the Packers to find a trade partner who will afford Love the chance to play. You may not give two craps about Jordan Love but it would be not only unfair but an incredible waste of resources for the Packers to use a 1st round pick on a player who never sees the field for them and then departs in free agency. If the reports today about the Packers offering Rodgers a massive extension are true, then they're essentially admitting their mistake in drafting Love. And then the next step is logically to trade Love and salvage something for the wasted investment.