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

[DHonks]

I don't know why Love is viewed by some fans as a replacement for Rodgers. I viewed him as shoring up a major weakness and increasing depth. I've learned that while the starting QB is the most important player on the team, the backup QB isn't far behind. Having a projectable backup that could possibly start one day, fill in for injuries (Rodgers has had several), or be traded like Brunell, Brooks, and Hasselback. Even using a 1st rounder on a QB, then trading that player for a 2nd rounder 2 years later is a shrewd move. It gave you depth for 2 years, then was turned into a fairly high draft pick.

[MrTPlush]

I don’t think you trade up for depth...I get what you are saying and ever since the pick I never thought Love HAD to replace Rodgers (like you I thought he could just be traded eventually if Rodgers excelled)...but your don't trade up for Love to simply be depth. Clearly he was drafted with the thought he could be a big time QB if Rodgers continued to decline.

 

Love was definitely viewed as a potential and even likely successor to Rodgers much like Rodgers was for Favre.

[SomewhereInTime]

I don't know why Love is viewed by some fans as a replacement for Rodgers. I viewed him as shoring up a major weakness and increasing depth. I've learned that while the starting QB is the most important player on the team, the backup QB isn't far behind. Having a projectable backup that could possibly start one day, fill in for injuries (Rodgers has had several), or be traded like Brunell, Brooks, and Hasselback. Even using a 1st rounder on a QB, then trading that player for a 2nd rounder 2 years later is a shrewd move. It gave you depth for 2 years, then was turned into a fairly high draft pick.

 

The backup quarterback is likely not in the top 30 of positional importance on any team in the NFL. In fact in many seasons they will play few if any meaningful snaps.

 

We've got to be honest here, a quarterback doesn't get drafted in the first round unless they're expected to be a starter within a year or two.

[adambr2]

Yeah I really don't think you use a 1st and a 4th on a guy that you plan to have hold a clipboard in your best case scenario. You use a 1st+4th on a guy you think can be your future starting QB.

 

It's always possible that plans change along the way, but you can't just assume that because a guy has high draft pedigree, that you can recoup most of your original investment eventually. That didn't work with Brian Brohm, and it didn't work for guys recently like DeShone Kizer and Paxton Lynch. Some guys just turn out to be busts.

[CheezWizHed]

Well, there is precedent of having that guy hold a clipboard for 3 years. When you draft Love, you give yourself options:

A) Rodgers' play declines (or he retires), we have a possible starting QB

B) Rodgers gets hurt, we have a backup QB with actual talent to keep winning (potentially)

 

You essentially have a 5 year window where either A or B could go into effect. That seems pretty valuable to me. It is highly unlikely that neither case would occur in 5 years.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I don't think anyone is saying that such a player is not valuable. I think what (most) people are saying is trading up and using a 4th to get a guy who probably won't start or contribute (but might!) During his first three years is not a great allocation of assets for a team on the brink of the super bowl

[pacopete4]

Julio to the Titans for a 2nd rounder.

[PeaveyFury]

Julio to the Titans for a 2nd rounder.

 

Full details are a 2nd and a 4th, with Julio and a 6th back.

[CheezWizHed]

I don't think anyone is saying that such a player is not valuable. I think what (most) people are saying is trading up and using a 4th to get a guy who probably won't start or contribute (but might!) During his first three years is not a great allocation of assets for a team on the brink of the super bowl

 

Until Rodgers gets hurt and our playoff hopes are in the hands of a UDFA.

 

Also, remember that Rodgers was declining for a couple of years prior to the pick (still playing well, but declining). And at his age, the Packers were right to have some concerns. But, if all Love did was light a fire under Rodgers, it was worth it.

[adambr2]

I don't think anyone is saying that such a player is not valuable. I think what (most) people are saying is trading up and using a 4th to get a guy who probably won't start or contribute (but might!) During his first three years is not a great allocation of assets for a team on the brink of the super bowl

 

Until Rodgers gets hurt and our playoff hopes are in the hands of a UDFA.

 

Also, remember that Rodgers was declining for a couple of years prior to the pick (still playing well, but declining). And at his age, the Packers were right to have some concerns. But, if all Love did was light a fire under Rodgers, it was worth it.

 

To be honest if Rodgers goes down I don't think it really matters whether your hopes are in the hands of a UDFA or Jordan Love. And if he just misses a couple games and you need someone to give you a chance for those games, I doubt it makes much difference whether that someone is a guy like Jordan Love or journeyman Blake Bortles type.

[CheezWizHed]

Well, I'm guessing the people who run the team do think it matters.

[Jopal78]

 

Also, remember that Rodgers was declining for a couple of years prior to the pick (still playing well, but declining). And at his age, the Packers were right to have some concerns. But, if all Love did was light a fire under Rodgers, it was worth it.

 

Exactly, an NFL team has zero chance of winning year in and year out without excellent play from the Quarterback position.

 

(While not having to deal with an "owner" per se, with their Titletown District and $500/night luxury hotels, etc. you could argue the GM/front office is still under intense pressure to win both now, and in the future in order to keep money flowing into those revenue generators).

 

Therefore, if a GM has evaluated an available player as having the ability to play QB at a high level in the NFL; they should take them---always. Especially when the starter is in his late 30s.

 

That somehow, Rodgers has taken offense to this philosophy is still a puzzler; especially when he knows that his own play will dictate whether that QB ever sets foot on the field as the starting QB for Green Bay. For a guy who holds himself out has having supreme confidence in his ability one would think this stuff would roll like water off a duck's back.

[wallus]

Rodgers not expected to attend camp on Tuesday per the Twitters. I would fine him if I were the Packers.

[CheezWizHed]

I doubt they would. Similar to Favre skipping minicamp back in the day too.

[SeaBass]

There's literally no reason to fine him. It just comes off as childish. If there's even a sliver of a hope for reconciliation you overlook $93k.

[PeaveyFury]

Well, the main reason to fine him would be to show the other players that no one is above the rules. But yeah, they won't fine him.

 

Lombardi would have.

[adambr2]

Well, the main reason to fine him would be to show the other players that no one is above the rules. But yeah, they won't fine him.

 

Lombardi would have.

 

Entirely different era though. Lombardi would have gotten away with it too, Gute would probably be ostracized in Green Bay for it.

 

It's still more in the interests of the Packer organization to make amends one way or another with Rodgers than it is to send a message to the other players that might just cause further division anyway.

[SeaBass]

Well, the main reason to fine him would be to show the other players that no one is above the rules. But yeah, they won't fine him.

 

Lombardi would have.

Rodgers doesn't care about the fine, clearly. He's already bypassed half a million dollars, he's not going to suddenly start squirming over $93k. Here you have a player threatening to retire, it's a more unique situation than most holdout instances so it really isn't about "the rules". To suggest the other players don't understand what's going on is a big stretch. Waiving these fines is also a pretty common thing even in more typical holdout situations.

 

The Packers not fining him is much more productive than fining him, even if it's only mind games. Rodgers has drawn a line in the sand that says, "I'm so serious about this I left half a million bucks on the table and I'm willing to forfeit $100k more." What do the Packers look like if they start demanding their $93k fine?

 

It's only minicamp, he will 100% be fined when training camp comes around, that's when the big battle of wills really starts. All this stuff that's happened over the last few months is peanuts to him holding out of training camp and regular season games. In the meantime, whether it's mind games or just a small token of goodwill not putting up a stink over $93k makes so much more sense than being obstinate for obstinance sake.

[PeaveyFury]

To suggest the other players don't understand what's going on is a big stretch.

 

Where was that suggested? Of course they know what's going on. But you'd be showing them that when you have a contract that says you must do 'X', there's consequences for not doing 'X', regardless of whether you're a HOF QB or the 53rd guy. No different really than the Jets making Brett Favre run laps after a fumbled snap, since that was the team's policy (and they did make him).

 

The Packers not fining him is much more productive than fining him, even if it's only mind games. Rodgers has drawn a line in the sand that says, "I'm so serious about this I left half a million bucks on the table and I'm willing to forfeit $100k more." What do the Packers look like if they start demanding their $93k fine?

 

It's only minicamp, he will 100% be fined when training camp comes around

 

Why, in your mind, are they different?

[adambr2]

To suggest the other players don't understand what's going on is a big stretch.

 

Where was that suggested? Of course they know what's going on. But you'd be showing them that when you have a contract that says you must do 'X', there's consequences for not doing 'X', regardless of whether you're a HOF QB or the 53rd guy. No different really than the Jets making Brett Favre run laps after a fumbled snap, since that was the team's policy (and they did make him).

 

The Packers not fining him is much more productive than fining him, even if it's only mind games. Rodgers has drawn a line in the sand that says, "I'm so serious about this I left half a million bucks on the table and I'm willing to forfeit $100k more." What do the Packers look like if they start demanding their $93k fine?

 

It's only minicamp, he will 100% be fined when training camp comes around

 

Why, in your mind, are they different?

 

I think it's mandatory to do so. Teams aren't allowed to waive fines for missing training camp.

[SeaBass]

To suggest the other players don't understand what's going on is a big stretch.

 

Where was that suggested? Of course they know what's going on. But you'd be showing them that when you have a contract that says you must do 'X', there's consequences for not doing 'X', regardless of whether you're a HOF QB or the 53rd guy. No different really than the Jets making Brett Favre run laps after a fumbled snap, since that was the team's policy (and they did make him).

 

The Packers not fining him is much more productive than fining him, even if it's only mind games. Rodgers has drawn a line in the sand that says, "I'm so serious about this I left half a million bucks on the table and I'm willing to forfeit $100k more." What do the Packers look like if they start demanding their $93k fine?

 

It's only minicamp, he will 100% be fined when training camp comes around

 

Why, in your mind, are they different?

 

I think it's mandatory to do so. Teams aren't allowed to waive fines for missing training camp.

And the fines represent significantly more money, $50k accrued daily. $93k in the grand scheme isn't a huge needle mover and is much easier to disregard.

 

I'm not sure what the length of training camp technically is but isn't the team pretty much together from that point until the beginning of the season?

 

As to your earlier question Peavy, you certainly suggested it. I'm not sure how else to take "Well, the main reason to fine him would be to show the other players that no one is above the rules." My point is that this really isn't about the rules so that reason doesn't really amount to anything. That's how I took it anyway.

[PeaveyFury]

As to your earlier question Peavy, you certainly suggested it.

 

There's not a single player that doesn't understand what the situation is. If you interpreted my statement as suggesting anything to the contrary, you interpreted incorrectly.

 

And still, the Packers can impose a fine to show the other players that when you don't honor the commitments agreed to in your contract, you get fined. Regardless of "what the situation is."

[Fear The Chorizo]

I think they should fine Rodgers and cite his own recent quote about how they made that decision in effort to change the "team philosophy and do things the right way"..."it's the people that make the thing go. It's about character, it's about culture, it's about doing things the right way." Gute should just state that it's tough to do things the right way and improve the perceived culture problem around the building if people who are supposed to be there willfully aren't - particularly the one player who apparently isn't happy with the culture and is grousing about it in the media.

 

All WRs at minicamp today, btw...

[adambr2]

I think they should fine Rodgers and cite his own recent quote about how they made that decision in effort to change the "team philosophy and do things the right way"..."it's the people that make the thing go. It's about character, it's about culture, it's about doing things the right way." Gute should just state that it's tough to do things the right way and improve the perceived culture problem around the building if people who are supposed to be there willfully aren't - particularly the one player who apparently isn't happy with the culture and is grousing about it in the media.

 

All WRs at minicamp today, btw...

 

I'm sure this would feel very good for him but it would accomplish nothing. At the end of the day Gute has a responsibility to look out for the best interests of the franchise, not get into an ego standoff with Rodgers which would only deepen the chasm between Rodgers and the franchise.

[sveumrules]

I'm sure this would feel very good for him but it would accomplish nothing. At the end of the day Gute has a responsibility to look out for the best interests of the franchise, not get into an ego standoff with Rodgers which would only deepen the chasm between Rodgers and the franchise.

 

I'm guessing Rodgers feels very good about his trade demand/threat to retire, but so far it too has accomplished nothing.