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

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Do people wish Rodgers ran to the three yard line because MLF said he would have went for it then? I can't recall.

 

If you are Rodgers and think 4th down will be a thing regardless it makes complete sense to take a shot at a throw instead of getting to the three yard line. Once you get that close to the endzone it is almost better to be on the ten instead of the three. Being on the three yard line doesn't really open up the play book because you aren't going to run it from that far away. You have such little space to work with and there isn't much space for receivers to get open.

 

No, being on the 10 is way way worse than being on the 3. The window you need to fit a pass in from 3 yards out is pretty small compared to at 10 yards out and a QB run from 3 yards out is always an option. In fact if there's any spot where it's most difficult to gain 10 yards it's from the 10 yard line because the endzone endline works as an extra safety over the top.

 

Not sure I agree. I've heard a lot of analysts and coach-analysts say the same thing. That 5 yard penalties on 1st and goal actually help the offense because the back of the defense isn't sitting with their heels on the back of the end zone. Especially when a team is almost for sure passing, it becomes a tight space full of defenders.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Packers with Chubb, Lock and Risner would go 9 - 7. Broncos with Rodgers would go 8-8.

 

I'll take it.

 

I think they'd win at least 11 games with Rodgers and immediately be in contention. The skill group isn't bad and the defense would be a ton better with Rodgers playing offense.

[adambr2]

Do people wish Rodgers ran to the three yard line because MLF said he would have went for it then? I can't recall.

 

If you are Rodgers and think 4th down will be a thing regardless it makes complete sense to take a shot at a throw instead of getting to the three yard line. Once you get that close to the endzone it is almost better to be on the ten instead of the three. Being on the three yard line doesn't really open up the play book because you aren't going to run it from that far away. You have such little space to work with and there isn't much space for receivers to get open.

 

No, being on the 10 is way way worse than being on the 3. The window you need to fit a pass in from 3 yards out is pretty small compared to at 10 yards out and a QB run from 3 yards out is always an option. In fact if there's any spot where it's most difficult to gain 10 yards it's from the 10 yard line because the endzone endline works as an extra safety over the top.

 

Not sure I agree. I've heard a lot of analysts and coach-analysts say the same thing. That 5 yard penalties on 1st and goal actually help the offense because the back of the defense isn't sitting with their heels on the back of the end zone. Especially when a team is almost for sure passing, it becomes a tight space full of defenders.

 

So why don't teams always take a 5 yard penalty anytime they want to go for 2?

 

From the 2 or 3 yard line, the defense at least needs to respect the possibility of a run. In fact I believe the percentage of successful 2 point conversions is much higher on running plays.

[SomewhereInTime]

Do people wish Rodgers ran to the three yard line because MLF said he would have went for it then? I can't recall.

 

If you are Rodgers and think 4th down will be a thing regardless it makes complete sense to take a shot at a throw instead of getting to the three yard line. Once you get that close to the endzone it is almost better to be on the ten instead of the three. Being on the three yard line doesn't really open up the play book because you aren't going to run it from that far away. You have such little space to work with and there isn't much space for receivers to get open.

 

No, being on the 10 is way way worse than being on the 3. The window you need to fit a pass in from 3 yards out is pretty small compared to at 10 yards out and a QB run from 3 yards out is always an option. In fact if there's any spot where it's most difficult to gain 10 yards it's from the 10 yard line because the endzone endline works as an extra safety over the top.

 

Not sure I agree. I've heard a lot of analysts and coach-analysts say the same thing. That 5 yard penalties on 1st and goal actually help the offense because the back of the defense isn't sitting with their heels on the back of the end zone. Especially when a team is almost for sure passing, it becomes a tight space full of defenders.

 

I've never heard that in my life and it defies all logic.

[BillScottCanRake]

Every team has a selection of four or five plays in their game plan to use on 2-point conversions, plays they will have practiced during the week and are put in for that opponent.

 

I am sure they could have used one of those plays on 4th down and then another to go for 2 with a reasonable chance of converting.

[adambr2]

Every team has a selection of four or five plays in their game plan to use on 2-point conversions, plays they will have practiced during the week and are put in for that opponent.

 

I am sure they could have used one of those plays on 4th down and then another to go for 2 with a reasonable chance of converting.

 

Well assuming you have a 50/50 shot of converting the 4th, then a 50/50 shot of converting the 2, then a 50/50 shot of keeping Brady from driving into FG range, then a 50/50 shot of winning in OT, that only leaves you with a 6.25% chance of all 4 happening. Obviously those are just rough estimates and there are other small variables and possibilities but it illustrates how many things you still need to go right to win a game down 8 and what I meant by there were no good options.

[adambr2]

Every team has a selection of four or five plays in their game plan to use on 2-point conversions, plays they will have practiced during the week and are put in for that opponent.

 

I am sure they could have used one of those plays on 4th down and then another to go for 2 with a reasonable chance of converting.

 

Well assuming you have a 50/50 shot of converting the 4th, then a 50/50 shot of converting the 2, then a 50/50 shot of keeping Brady from driving into FG range, then a 50/50 shot of winning in OT, that only leaves you with a 6.25% chance of all 4 happening. Obviously those are just rough estimates and there are other small possibilities and variables but it illustrates how many things you still need to go right to win a game down 8 and what I meant by there were no good options.

[BillScottCanRake]

Every team has a selection of four or five plays in their game plan to use on 2-point conversions, plays they will have practiced during the week and are put in for that opponent.

 

I am sure they could have used one of those plays on 4th down and then another to go for 2 with a reasonable chance of converting.

 

Well assuming you have a 50/50 shot of converting the 4th, then a 50/50 shot of converting the 2, then a 50/50 shot of keeping Brady from driving into FG range, then a 50/50 shot of winning in OT, that only leaves you with a 6.25% chance of all 4 happening. Obviously those are just rough estimates and there are other small possibilities and variables but it illustrates how many things you still need to go right to win a game down 8 and what I meant by there were no good options.

 

Yeah, my comment was more about having 4th and goal from the three-ish was a better position to try to score 8 points and 4th and goal from the 8+.

 

But you are right, even getting the game to even leaves them a ways to go. The Seattle game from 2014 shows that.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

 

I've never heard that in my life and it defies all logic.

 

It doesn't "defy all logic," and you must not watch a lot of televised NFL football then. Because a color analyst usually says it every single time there's a false start inside the 10, that the offense really doesn't mind those kinds of penalties because they have more room to work with. I'm honestly kind of surprised the other person's comment met this kind of resistance because this gets brought up in games all the time. When an offense is right up to the goal line and can't, or is unlikely to throw, the defense can more or less float 9 guys in a tight space and it can be very hard to throw into. When you have 20, 25 yards to work with, you have more options.

 

As far as a team not taking a false start on a 2-pt conversion, that's not the same thing. The clock is of no consequence on a 2-pt conversion, the run is an option, there is no next play or field goal alternative, etc., and those plays are practiced all the time. I specifically emphasized when there is no option to run as a caveat.

[adambr2]

 

I've never heard that in my life and it defies all logic.

 

It doesn't "defy all logic," and you must not watch a lot of televised NFL football then. Because a color analyst usually says it every single time there's a false start inside the 10, that the offense really doesn't mind those kinds of penalties because they have more room to work with. I'm honestly kind of surprised the other person's comment met this kind of resistance because this gets brought up in games all the time. When an offense is right up to the goal line and can't, or is unlikely to throw, the defense can more or less float 9 guys in a tight space and it can be very hard to throw into. When you have 20, 25 yards to work with, you have more options.

 

As far as a team not taking a false start on a 2-pt conversion, that's not the same thing. The clock is of no consequence on a 2-pt conversion, the run is an option, there is no next play or field goal alternative, etc., and those plays are practiced all the time. I specifically emphasized when there is no option to run as a caveat.

 

Why would running not be an option from the 3? Maybe from the 5. It's definitely an option from the 3.

 

To me anything inside the 5 you at least force the thought of a run, and that makes a difference. Not sure how having 20-25 yard windows with 1 play to run is ever a good thing, those are extremely tight windows to try to fit a pass into from that far out and will be killed by a good zone defense almost every time.

 

Being at the 10 or 11 versus the 5 or 6 maybe is better, I don't know? I doubt it makes much difference right there. I realize announcers frequently say things like the offense doesn't mind that false start down there but announcers blurt out cliches all the time.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Yeah, what I meant was that on 3rd down, or any down really you can't always run in scenarios in which you are trying to conserve clock, which MLF must have at least been thinking about given that he kicked a FG on 3rd down. I never specifically mentioned the Packers game, just replied to the other poster that referenced offenses sometimes preferring larger windows vs. throwing in "and goal" situations.

 

On your last point, being at the 10 yard line is a 25-30 yard window with the snap/drop and space in the end zone, so that is likely around the mark we are referring to. Sometimes being at the 7 is preferable for a pass than being at the 1.

 

I think it's being into a bit bigger of a deal than it is. The other poster said it, someone else said it made no sense, another said it defied all logic...I just jumped in because it's not something that's never been suggested before.

[SomewhereInTime]

 

I've never heard that in my life and it defies all logic.

 

It doesn't "defy all logic," and you must not watch a lot of televised NFL football then. Because a color analyst usually says it every single time there's a false start inside the 10, that the offense really doesn't mind those kinds of penalties because they have more room to work with. I'm honestly kind of surprised the other person's comment met this kind of resistance because this gets brought up in games all the time. When an offense is right up to the goal line and can't, or is unlikely to throw, the defense can more or less float 9 guys in a tight space and it can be very hard to throw into. When you have 20, 25 yards to work with, you have more options.

 

As far as a team not taking a false start on a 2-pt conversion, that's not the same thing. The clock is of no consequence on a 2-pt conversion, the run is an option, there is no next play or field goal alternative, etc., and those plays are practiced all the time. I specifically emphasized when there is no option to run as a caveat.

 

I don't know, I only played the game for 13 years and have watched on TV since I was 5. This is the first I'm hearing of anyone not wanting to have the ball as close to the goal line as possible. I've certainly heard announcers say how bad of a penalty it is to have a false start inside the 5 but never heard of it being a good thing.

 

It defies logic because you would assume the closer you are to the endzone, the easier it would be to score.

 

After a quick google search here's a reddit post with some numbers

 

It is a little interesting that it seems the three yard line is a little more preferable than the two yard line and that the four and the two yard line are about equal.

[Mr Southpaw]

New Prediction...

 

Packers trade Preston Smith, Adrian Amos, a WR not named Adams and Rodgers and a future 1st pick for Julio Jones.

 

Aaron Rodgers is now happy and the Pack wins the next Super Bowl. The defense takes a little hit, but Gary steps up and Stokes helps offset some of the lose of Amos (I know it is CB vs Safety).

 

We could throw in Jordan Love which would make Rodgers really happy, but I don't like the irony of trading an unproven QB back to the Falcons.

 

Any takers?

[Outlander]

That looks like a NBA trade, I doubt the Packers would make a move like that.

[Mr Southpaw]

That looks like a NBA trade, I doubt the Packers would make a move like that.

 

I am not a big NFL financial person, so I made the trade money neutral.

[DHonks]

Scenarios:

-kick FG, nearly 3 minutes to hold Patriots, then drive and score

 

-Go for TD and don’t get it, then you have 3 minutes to get a stop (albeit deep in their territory), drive for TD, go to OT, win coin toss, score a TD (or potentially give then chance to win)

 

-go for TD, get it. Now stop them with under 3 minutes, win coin toss, drive down and get TD in OT

 

Your third scenario forces them to go to overtime, why? If they stop the Patriots why can't they 'drive and score' to win the game in regulation? Not to mention all Rodgers would need then is a field goal. Why are they forced to win the coin toss? Way to make that scenario seem more complicated than kicking the field goal when it is not. .

 

Two things:

For the third scenario, we needed the 2-point conversion as well...forgot that. But yes, we could have stopped them in regulation just like in scenario 1.

Secondly, with no timeouts we wouldn’t have gotten the ball back in regulation all likelihood. we need to win the toss in OT because teams that don’t win the toss are at a major disadvantage with tired defenses, not to mention the Packers’ history with losing big games in OT in somewhat recent history.

Lastly, scoring a TD on an opening drive is hugely important to avoid the opponent winning. Remember, the max possible points in OT in the NFL is 12...kicking a FG doesn’t guarantee anything.

 

Still to me, the one that gave the highest probability of winning in regulation was kicking the FG. I’m normally really aggressive with my thoughts, and I’d want to try to win in regulation.

[adambr2]

Do people wish Rodgers ran to the three yard line because MLF said he would have went for it then? I can't recall.

 

If you are Rodgers and think 4th down will be a thing regardless it makes complete sense to take a shot at a throw instead of getting to the three yard line. Once you get that close to the endzone it is almost better to be on the ten instead of the three. Being on the three yard line doesn't really open up the play book because you aren't going to run it from that far away. You have such little space to work with and there isn't much space for receivers to get open.

 

He wasn’t going to get in, but maybe the 3-yard line. But he was also something like 1-10 in the red zone in the game. I still stand by LaFleur’s decision from that yard line as it would have set them up to win with the fewest necessary things going their way.

 

Scenarios:

-kick FG, nearly 3 minutes to hold Patriots, then drive and score

 

-Go for TD and don’t get it, then you have 3 minutes to get a stop (albeit deep in their territory), drive for TD, go to OT, win coin toss, score a TD (or potentially give then chance to win)

 

-go for TD, get it. Now stop them with under 3 minutes, win coin toss, drive down and get TD in OT

 

You said 3 minutes three different times; however there was not 3 minutes left, there was 2:02 left. Huge difference. In fact we were very fortunate that they were tackled quickly on the kickoff and not able to burn another 2 seconds off the clock or part of the entire strategy of kicking the FG would have been totally moot.

 

It was not a particularly well thought out kickoff given the scenario.

[CheezWizHed]

Boy, I hope something...anything...happens in the offseason so we can stop rehashing the TB game.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Boy, I hope something...anything...happens in the offseason so we can stop rehashing the TB game.

 

Wow ... AMEN!

[worm81]

Boy, I hope something...anything...happens in the offseason so we can stop rehashing the TB game.

 

Please more what if scenarios

[young guns]

Saw an article that says Rodgers has been golfing with Elway and that could be considered tampering.

[reillymcshane]

I'm kind of surprised the Raiders aren't discussed more as a possible trade partner - simply for the reason you could get Derek Carr back.

 

Now, I'm not saying Carr is a great QB - but he would seem like a top 10-12 type QB in the NFL. Add in a couple of 1st round and a couple of 2nd round picks - maybe a player or two. That gives you a good QB with a pretty solid all around team, and a lot of future draft capital. Carr can be QB for a year or two (he has two years on his contract remaining), and gives you plenty of time for Love to (hopefully) be readied as starter.

 

Now, I don't know that much about Carr other than his stats - which are quite good. If I recall, a lot of the criticism is that he never elevated his game into that top tier of QBs. He has been good - not great - and teams want great. Add in the fact that his teams have not won - only one winning season in seven seasons as the starter. Is that a product of bad teams? Carr's play?

 

I want to stress that I'm not advocating for trading Rodgers - just wondering about the Raiders as a destination. The Broncos (the most commonly noted destination for Rodgers) can offer Bridgewater and Lock. The former is meh in my book. The latter was nothing special last season - but perhaps the club would want him over Carr despite his lack of success.

 

Plus, you think that with Jon Gruden running the Raiders, they'd be the prime candidate to overpay for Rodgers (who Gruden loves). It would kill Gruden to see Rodgers playing for a division rival - especially the Broncos.

 

Just killing some time thinking about this stuff.

[nodakfan17]

Today’s ‘Ask Vic’ column pointed out how the Packers’ history is littered with betrayal:

 

- Curly Lambeau wanted to move the team to LA

- Vince Lombardi left to coach the WFT

- The Packers fired Bart Starr as HC

- Mike Holmgren bolted to be HC/GM in Seattle

- Favre found his way to the Vikings

 

We’re just on the next chapter.

 

https://www.askvic.us/

[CheezWizHed]

Plus, you think that with Jon Gruden running the Raiders, they'd be the prime candidate to overpay for Rodgers (who Gruden loves). It would kill Gruden to see Rodgers playing for a division rival - especially the Broncos.

 

[sarcasm]Plus the two can share their favorite Favre stories..[/sarcasm]

[Jopal78]

I'm kind of surprised the Raiders aren't discussed more as a possible trade partner - simply for the reason you could get Derek Carr back.

 

Now, I'm not saying Carr is a great QB - but he would seem like a top 10-12 type QB in the NFL. Add in a couple of 1st round and a couple of 2nd round picks - maybe a player or two. That gives you a good QB with a pretty solid all around team, and a lot of future draft capital. Carr can be QB for a year or two (he has two years on his contract remaining), and gives you plenty of time for Love to (hopefully) be readied as starter.

 

Now, I don't know that much about Carr other than his stats - which are quite good. If I recall, a lot of the criticism is that he never elevated his game into that top tier of QBs. He has been good - not great - and teams want great. Add in the fact that his teams have not won - only one winning season in seven seasons as the starter. Is that a product of bad teams? Carr's play?

 

I want to stress that I'm not advocating for trading Rodgers - just wondering about the Raiders as a destination. The Broncos (the most commonly noted destination for Rodgers) can offer Bridgewater and Lock. The former is meh in my book. The latter was nothing special last season - but perhaps the club would want him over Carr despite his lack of success.

 

Plus, you think that with Jon Gruden running the Raiders, they'd be the prime candidate to overpay for Rodgers (who Gruden loves). It would kill Gruden to see Rodgers playing for a division rival - especially the Broncos.

 

Just killing some time thinking about this stuff.

 

But maybe that is just it, Carr is good enough to win with, is on a cap friendly contract. The potential cost in acquiring Rodgers in terms of draft picks and salary cap problems might not be that enticing for a team who has good enough but not elite talent at QB.

 

Or maybe the converse is true, if the Packers soften in their stance and consider trading Rodgers, if they got Derek Carr in return they would get substantially less draft capital in the deal as opposed to a team that doesn't have a QB to begin with.