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

[PeaveyFury]

Also, to the comments on wanting to give the front office input on who they should bring in each year: they literally did that with Jimmy Graham, and it was a massive failure. Hard pass.

[pacopete4]

Yeah, he did not make a great case for being a smart guy with player personnel. It was great he provided context around much of the off-season but boy, he’s been dead wrong a lot with players.

[jjfanec]

Initial thoughts

1. I get the frustration of the Packers not commiting to him longer term after the season. The team didn't have to commit but as a person and competitor I can see that being annoying

2. Rodgers wants to be a part of the recruiting process and that makes sense. However he needs to commit to recruiting who they want not just who he wants

3. The stuff about veterans was cute but a horrible way to run and organization.

4. i can see listening to his thoughts on the roster but he needs to understand they won't always listen to him

5. It doesn't seem like the front office was as clear as the could have been this off season

6. We will never know who leaked the info

[homer]

Yeah, he did not make a great case for being a smart guy with player personnel. It was great he provided context around much of the off-season but boy, he’s been dead wrong a lot with players.

 

he was asked specifically about that.

 

it's sped up to condense time. Don't think Rodgers talks this fast

[jjfanec]

Yeah, he did not make a great case for being a smart guy with player personnel. It was great he provided context around much of the off-season but boy, he’s been dead wrong a lot with players.

 

he was asked specifically about that.

 

it's sped up to condense time. Don't think Rodgers talks this fast

 

He keeps saying he wants to be a part of conversations. The key is he fine when the decision isn't what he wants. Woodson was a mistake to not keep but man his other examples and his reasoning for keeping this guy's is sentimental at best but not how to run a team.

[HarveysWBs]

For those who prefer to read the transcript, here is the heart of what Rodgers said:

[pacopete4]

Yeah, he did not make a great case for being a smart guy with player personnel. It was great he provided context around much of the off-season but boy, he’s been dead wrong a lot with players.

 

he was asked specifically about that.

 

it's sped up to condense time. Don't think Rodgers talks this fast

 

He keeps saying he wants to be a part of conversations. The key is he fine when the decision isn't what he wants. Woodson was a mistake to not keep but man his other examples and his reasoning for keeping this guy's is sentimental at best but not how to run a team.

 

Yeah, his wanting to keep certain players is like me hoping Braun is taking a lot of BP right now getting ready to return. Is it in the best interest of the team? Probably not. Especially in football where age catches you so quickly. But I appreciate his perspective on why he thinks the way he does. I can understand it.

[PeaveyFury]

Yeah, he did not make a great case for being a smart guy with player personnel. It was great he provided context around much of the off-season but boy, he’s been dead wrong a lot with players.

 

he was asked specifically about that.

 

it's sped up to condense time. Don't think Rodgers talks this fast

 

He keeps saying he wants to be a part of conversations. The key is he fine when the decision isn't what he wants. Woodson was a mistake to not keep but man his other examples and his reasoning for keeping this guy's is sentimental at best but not how to run a team.

 

Woodson and Hayward are about it. The Packers simply don’t let guys go and have it come back to bite them. They’re extraordinarily good in that regard- they know when a guy is done.

[MrTPlush]

Part of it (which was apart of what he said) isn't just that they didn't bring them back, but how they got treated on the way out. Not being offered any kind of contract or being pathetically low balled and a few other things I can't remember that he said. Obviously Rodgers is close with many of the high profile guys on the team and when they get treated 'poorly' Rodgers hears about it. Maybe it didn't bother Rodgers that much at the time at 30 years old...but once you get old and you start getting treated 'poorly' yourself I think that probably spiraled things quickly.

 

I think it is somewhat another example of pro-players not really liking the cutthroat attitude of front offices these days. As others have said the Packers have had good luck getting rid of players when they do.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

In fairness to Rodgers he conceded several times that some of the old vets were not worth their deals, but that the Packers were unwilling to meet guys even willing to take huge cuts. The rumor at the time was that they offered Nelson the league minimum. Also, Rodgers was adamant about the mentorship role and simply having guys like that in the hallways; he did not appear so delusional that he thought they were all still fantastic players.

 

I'll give Rodgers some wiggle room here: He's a football player, that's literally his life. It's hard to fault somebody living the life who goes to bat for players with far shorter careers and empathizes with them and pulls for them to be treated more like actual people and not cogs in a machine. I don't know what could have been done though. I'm highly skeptical that "inviting him into the room" when they decided to release Jordy Nelson would have made a lick of difference.

[PeaveyFury]

Why in the WORLD should they be offered a contract when they’re no longer useful?

 

That’s a guy who is upset that his friends are leaving. Sad personally, but a horrendous way to base personnel decisions on.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Well, to Rodgers, they were still useful, just not at the rate of pay they were sitting at...and the Packers did not appear willing to meet them in the middle. I could be mixing up players but at one point he said something like, "Maybe not at the $9 million he was scheduled to make, but what about $3 million? And those conversations didn't take place."

 

I think he has a point here even if in the end you don't keep players like that. I think it's a generational difference in players. Athletes aren't as warm to the cutthroat nature of the industry as they were 20 years ago.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

In fairness to Rodgers he conceded several times that some of the old vets were not worth their deals, but that the Packers were unwilling to meet guys even willing to take huge cuts. The rumor at the time was that they offered Nelson the league minimum. Also, Rodgers was adamant about the mentorship role and simply having guys like that in the hallways; he did not appear so delusional that he thought they were all still fantastic players.

 

I'll give Rodgers some wiggle room here: He's a football player, that's literally his life. It's hard to fault somebody living the life who goes to bat for players with far shorter careers and empathizes with them and pulls for them to be treated more like actual people and not cogs in a machine. I don't know what could have been done though. I'm highly skeptical that "inviting him into the room" when they decided to release Jordy Nelson would have made a lick of difference.

 

How in the world do you take a guy like Nelson, for instance, and put him on the bench as your 4th WR, and play guys like MVS or Lazard over him without the fanbase coming down on you? Nelson was a very good WR in his prime, but to a good portion of this fanbase, the guy was Don Hutson reincarnated. It would have been drama on top of more drama, while fans and media called for an old guy to play when the younger guys should have been developed. Sometimes a clean slice is better than a death by a thousand cuts.

 

It's a tough situation because I totally get both sides.

[jjfanec]

But if the team doesn't think the guy is worth that why should they even offer them the lower deal? Teams need to be able to make the decision to move on even from nice guys

[homer]

I think I'd have to go back and see what the replacements for these guys did in the year or two after they left.

[reillymcshane]

Why in the WORLD should they be offered a contract when they’re no longer useful?

 

That’s a guy who is upset that his friends are leaving. Sad personally, but a horrendous way to base personnel decisions on.

I think he feels the guys do have use and can contribute. Maybe not as they had in previous years - but at least in some meaningful way.

 

I'm not agreeing with this. For the most part, I'd rather get rid of a guy a year early than a year late.

 

I think football is a pretty brutal reality for most players. It's make millions - or nothing. And youth usually trumps age. It's gotta be hard on these guys when the end is in sight.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Re: Nelson not playing - it is essentially what happened to Driver as far as the fandom's hero being cast aside. He barely played his final year and wasn't activated for his last couple games including a playoff loss. Hard to see Rodgers handling that situation with Nelson any better than this one.

[homer]

Jordy actually had a decent year in Oakland. He would have easily still been GB's #2 receiver.

[reillymcshane]

It's obvious Rodgers is seeing things through the prism of a player with his discussion about players we have lost.

 

As people have noted, there's a reason guys go. Does Jordy Nelson want to be the 4th WR? And does the team want to spend a roster spot - even on the cheap - for a guy like him as opposed to a younger guy who has the potential to be a much greater contributor?

 

The upside of Nelson (or whomever) is limited as an older player. Yes, he might contribute. Yes, he might be a valued mentor and so forth. But then we have to give up someone in his place. There's a trade off there. Not to mention the potential grumbling of other players (and fans) when the guy doesn't play much. Plus the expectation of the player comes into play. It's hard for guys who have started their whole lives to watch from the bench. I'm sure many of them will say they are okay with it - yet they'll stew on the sidelines when the 4th round pick gets their reps. Does a team want to deal with that?

 

And there's also the honesty factor. Many older players refuse to believe they have lost it. Coaches don't need a guy who - while he can still contribute - believes they should be playing over other guys. It's just hard.

 

That's why management can be difficult. They have to make tough calls. And it's not easy - for anyone. Staying detached - so you're not playing favorites - is a way to deal with things objectively.

 

On the flip side of all this, I don't have a problem with the team discussing potential moves with key players. I mean, to understand how letting a player walk (or adding a player) might affect the offense or the locker room vibe or whatever - is not a bad thing. But it's not the only way to come to a decision. It's just one aspect of any move.

[PeaveyFury]

Well, to Rodgers, they were still useful, just not at the rate of pay they were sitting at...and the Packers did not appear willing to meet them in the middle. I could be mixing up players but at one point he said something like, "Maybe not at the $9 million he was scheduled to make, but what about $3 million? And those conversations didn't take place."

 

I think he has a point here even if in the end you don't keep players like that. I think it's a generational difference in players. Athletes aren't as warm to the cutthroat nature of the industry as they were 20 years ago.

 

Sorry, though I absolutely follow you, I can’t agree with this. This is the stuff that makes fans and, apparently, other players feel good, but gets teams into both cap trouble and a talent issue when you’re suppressing young talent to play a fan-favorite that doesn’t have it anymore.

 

If the team thinks a guy is worth $3 million and the player can get 10 on the open market, they shouldn’t pay him 6 just to make Aaron feel better.

[tmwiese55]

Good posts by most here. I haven't watched but see the summary and but getting the vibe based off these posts, thanks. Thought some of OSS's after watching this seemed good even keeled perspectives.

 

One small thing to add to some comments generally about them deeming players not worthy of the pay, etc. Another factor is them knowing how key Rodgers is to their performances. I mean, it's not surprising they drop off when they leave due to age, but also because they're no longer playing with the best QB in the league, and possibly ever. Essentially, they know they can replace them for much cheaper because Rodgers will make the next guy better too. And these are the shrewd decision that need to be made when paying the QB this much money, and it's also why the QB is worth that much money.

 

Could they have handled it smoother and treated the guys better, more cordial, or with more 'class' or whatever you want to call it. IDK, I guess so if they and Rodgers think so. But when it comes down to it, the result was gonna be the same, they weren't going to be on the team. So maybe management doesn't have the best people skills, but seems their assessment skills on offense are pretty spot on (other than on D for like 8 years) and that's what matters.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

There are all kinds of variables that go into whether Nelson should have been brought back that has more to do with the box scores of games. If he's playing, somebody else isn't, and the Raiders WR group was terrrrrrrrible that season.

 

Also, I could be mixing up by years, but I believe Jordy was comeback player of the year in 2016. In 2017, it was very apparent via eye test that he had lost a step. I think that was the year he struggled a ton getting separation and became a total non-factor.

[PeaveyFury]

There are all kinds of variables that go into whether Nelson should have been brought back that has more to do with the box scores of games. If he's playing, somebody else isn't, and the Raiders WR group was terrrrrrrrible that season.

 

Also, I could be mixing up by years, but I believe Jordy was comeback player of the year in 2016. In 2017, it was very apparent via eye test that he had lost a step. I think that was the year he struggled a ton getting separation and became a total non-factor.

 

Without looking back officially, your recollection is the same as mine.

[homer]

There are all kinds of variables that go into whether Nelson should have been brought back that has more to do with the box scores of games. If he's playing, somebody else isn't, and the Raiders WR group was terrrrrrrrible that season.

 

Also, I could be mixing up by years, but I believe Jordy was comeback player of the year in 2016. In 2017, it was very apparent via eye test that he had lost a step. I think that was the year he struggled a ton getting separation and became a total non-factor.

 

The Packers receiving corps was Adams (111), Graham (55), MVS (38). They could have used Nelson.

[homer]

But larger point, I don't get the sense Rodgers necessarily thought letting all those guys go was a mistake. I think he felt that he should have been consulted on the transaction. Subtle distinction but I think he is smart enough to understand there's a cap and you can't sign everyone.