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

[ilikewisco]

I'm happy he showed on time and addressed his issues straight forward. At least I can respect that. I don't really feel he should be that involved in personnel decisions, have some input, fine. But as others have noted, most of the moves and veterans that have been let walk away have been good moves by the front office. They don't need to be second guessed in their personnel decisions imo based on their history.

[LouisEly]

I like how nearly every name Rodgers rattled off would've been a bad idea to bring back. You can't afford to overpay veteran free agents when you already have over 20mil in cap eaten up every year by your QB. Sustained success requires a front office to look to the future.

And even if they take massive pay cuts, the backups (especially at WR) have to play special teams. Would those guys have played special teams, and if they were slow/injured, would they have even been effective at special teams?

 

(Although, an argument could be made that the special teams play couldn't have been any worse.)

 

Curious how much Brady is consulted in personnel matters.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Safe to say that Brady got Gronk and AB in NE and Tampa. Likely was involved in getting Moss to New England from what I remember.

 

This is where I think Rodgers has a point. It's not just saying sign this guy, sign that guy. It's that Brady can recruit guys to where he plays and if the financials work they can do it. But it doesn't sound like the Packers have even given Rodgers freedom to do even that. They just don't care for him to be involved at all. It's a bit puzzling to me why you wouldn't want Rodgers telling JJ Watt or something to come play here. And yeah, there were financial issues, but from the sounds of it, Rodgers was willing to work around those and that conversation didn't even take place.

 

I don't think signing his washed up friends to feel-good deals was great for the Packers. But it is a little odd to me that you're not utilizing the best player in the league to recruit players.

[LouisEly]

There's a difference between recruiting a guy to come there and being involved in making the decision to keep a guy there.

 

Can we at least say that it really didn't have much to do with drafting Love?

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Being involved in FA and recruiting was one of his specific grievances though.

 

I think the wheels were in motion and drafting Love expedited things. Once that happened, Rodgers reassessed the situation and felt like, ok, if this is where you are, let's both move on. Because a lot of these feelings were clearly present before Love was ever on the roster.

 

I have to say that even though I still think he's wrong on most of things he brought up, I do see better where he's coming from after today. So I wish he had just said so 2 months ago.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Safe to say that Brady got Gronk and AB in NE and Tampa. Likely was involved in getting Moss to New England from what I remember.

 

This is where I think Rodgers has a point. It's not just saying sign this guy, sign that guy. It's that Brady can recruit guys to where he plays and if the financials work they can do it. But it doesn't sound like the Packers have even given Rodgers freedom to do even that. They just don't care for him to be involved at all. It's a bit puzzling to me why you wouldn't want Rodgers telling JJ Watt or something to come play here. And yeah, there were financial issues, but from the sounds of it, Rodgers was willing to work around those and that conversation didn't even take place.

 

I don't think signing his washed up friends to feel-good deals was great for the Packers. But it is a little odd to me that you're not utilizing the best player in the league to recruit players.

 

It's much easier to make the financials work if said franchise QB has no qualms about taking huge pay cuts and contract restructuring to provide salary cap space to make that happen - Brady has done that repeatedly throughout his career in both New England and in Tampa. Rodgers most definitely hasn't.

 

And what's the point of taking input/getting roster recommendationsabout about retaining aging veterans if the guy making the case for them doesn't want to rework his deal and the team is salary cap-strapped with obvious younger all pro-caliber players they need to extend very soon before risking losing them? Would I rather have a handful of aging wideouts and offensive lineman Rodgers is friends with on the roster next year, or would I rather give Jaire Alexander franchise CB money to play corner through his prime years in Green Bay? Not really a tough decision as a GM in my book....

[DuWayne Steurer]

It sounds like (as it has all along) that the biggest hurdle here is communication. And yes, just because Rodgers is an "employee" doesn't mean that Gute or whoever shouldn't feel obligated to communicate with the employees.

 

Does that mean they need to run every roster cut by the guy? No. By no means am I saying that. But after hearing him open up a bit today, it definitely does sound like just overall communication has been lacking (from both sides). I get Rodgers side of it, even if I don't fully agree with his line of thinking.

 

I hope they can get through this season and be a cohesive unit on the field and in the office and make a strong push to the SB, because I think 2021 is gonna be it here.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Safe to say that Brady got Gronk and AB in NE and Tampa. Likely was involved in getting Moss to New England from what I remember.

 

This is where I think Rodgers has a point. It's not just saying sign this guy, sign that guy. It's that Brady can recruit guys to where he plays and if the financials work they can do it. But it doesn't sound like the Packers have even given Rodgers freedom to do even that. They just don't care for him to be involved at all. It's a bit puzzling to me why you wouldn't want Rodgers telling JJ Watt or something to come play here. And yeah, there were financial issues, but from the sounds of it, Rodgers was willing to work around those and that conversation didn't even take place.

 

I don't think signing his washed up friends to feel-good deals was great for the Packers. But it is a little odd to me that you're not utilizing the best player in the league to recruit players.

 

It's much easier to make the financials work if said franchise QB has no qualms about taking huge pay cuts and contract restructuring to provide salary cap space to make that happen - Brady has done that repeatedly throughout his career in both New England and in Tampa. Rodgers most definitely hasn't.

 

And what's the point of taking input/getting roster recommendationsabout about retaining aging veterans if the guy making the case for them doesn't want to rework his deal and the team is salary cap-strapped with obvious younger all pro-caliber players they need to extend very soon before risking losing them? Would I rather have a handful of aging wideouts and offensive lineman Rodgers is friends with on the roster next year, or would I rather give Jaire Alexander franchise CB money to play corner through his prime years in Green Bay? Not really a tough decision as a GM in my book....

 

I'm not Rodgers's biggest fan but I don't think we're in a position to say Rodgers has or hasn't been willing to take pay cuts. The team would have to approach him with that idea or at least be willing to hear his thoughts on a FA for him to broach it. From the sound of it, neither of those has happened.

 

There would need to be a line of communication open for that to take place and it doesn't sound like it has ever existed.

[Jopal78]

Seems like Rodgers intends to replicate Favre’s course of conduct and be noncommittal about playing in 2022 while waiting to see what moves they make, and skipping OTAs before deciding if he’s going to play or retire. Like Favre, he can then change his mind and force his way out.

 

That being said, it still boils down to a cat and mouse game of the team not wanting to commit long term to a player heading into his 40s, and a player convinced he’ll remain productive not his 40s and deserving of such a commitment

[reillymcshane]

Seems like Rodgers intends to replicate Favre’s course of conduct and be noncommittal about playing in 2022 while waiting to see what moves they make, and skipping OTAs before deciding if he’s going to play or retire. Like Favre, he can then change his mind and force his way out.

 

That being said, it still boils down to a cat and mouse game of the team not wanting to commit long term to a player heading into his 40s, and a player convinced he’ll remain productive not his 40s and deserving of such a commitment

While that's certainly a possibility - I would add that the team has set themselves up to trade Rodgers if the situation presents itself.

 

If the team feels Love is ready, they can trade Rodgers and move on to the much cheaper Love. Plus add some draft picks and/or players to the mix. They can do this whether Rodgers wants to be traded or not.

[SomewhereInTime]

Safe to say that Brady got Gronk and AB in NE and Tampa. Likely was involved in getting Moss to New England from what I remember.

 

This is where I think Rodgers has a point. It's not just saying sign this guy, sign that guy. It's that Brady can recruit guys to where he plays and if the financials work they can do it. But it doesn't sound like the Packers have even given Rodgers freedom to do even that. They just don't care for him to be involved at all. It's a bit puzzling to me why you wouldn't want Rodgers telling JJ Watt or something to come play here. And yeah, there were financial issues, but from the sounds of it, Rodgers was willing to work around those and that conversation didn't even take place.

 

I don't think signing his washed up friends to feel-good deals was great for the Packers. But it is a little odd to me that you're not utilizing the best player in the league to recruit players.

 

It's much easier to make the financials work if said franchise QB has no qualms about taking huge pay cuts and contract restructuring to provide salary cap space to make that happen - Brady has done that repeatedly throughout his career in both New England and in Tampa. Rodgers most definitely hasn't.

 

And what's the point of taking input/getting roster recommendationsabout about retaining aging veterans if the guy making the case for them doesn't want to rework his deal and the team is salary cap-strapped with obvious younger all pro-caliber players they need to extend very soon before risking losing them? Would I rather have a handful of aging wideouts and offensive lineman Rodgers is friends with on the roster next year, or would I rather give Jaire Alexander franchise CB money to play corner through his prime years in Green Bay? Not really a tough decision as a GM in my book....

 

We have a bingo!

[SomewhereInTime]

I like how nearly every name Rodgers rattled off would've been a bad idea to bring back. You can't afford to overpay veteran free agents when you already have over 20mil in cap eaten up every year by your QB. Sustained success requires a front office to look to the future.

And even if they take massive pay cuts, the backups (especially at WR) have to play special teams. Would those guys have played special teams, and if they were slow/injured, would they have even been effective at special teams?

 

(Although, an argument could be made that the special teams play couldn't have been any worse.)

 

Curious how much Brady is consulted in personnel matters.

 

The other issue too is making trades like they just did for Randall Cobb. Now the team has to pay more money to a washed up old receiver who likely will not make it through the entire season healthy while the younger, cheaper, quicker guy may ride the bench. (Amari Rodgers)

[craigharmann]

Seems like Rodgers intends to replicate Favre’s course of conduct and be noncommittal about playing in 2022 while waiting to see what moves they make, and skipping OTAs before deciding if he’s going to play or retire. Like Favre, he can then change his mind and force his way out.

 

That being said, it still boils down to a cat and mouse game of the team not wanting to commit long term to a player heading into his 40s, and a player convinced he’ll remain productive not his 40s and deserving of such a commitment

 

I'm not so sure on that. Favre waffled on retirement for about 5 years before he did it the first time. I appreciate Aaron's honesty and candor. I didn't quite agree with everything he said, but I can understand his perspective. I'm looking forward to this season, and will pay far more attention than I have in the past, just because it could likely be the last season we see #12 in the green and gold. And if we get more, great. I'm going to soak this season in.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

They're not going to bench Amari Rodgers for Randall Cobb if he's better. The reality is that a first-year WR seldom makes a significant impact and if I had to guess, it just means St. Brown or Funchess is getting cut. I don't think for a second they got Cobb solely for Rodgers. I think they probably thought it was a benign idea that might benefit them anyway.

 

Tee Martin, Rodgers's dad, also coached Cobb at Kentucky. Cobb's old, and oft-hurt, but he's got a deep understanding of Rodgers and the offense that almost no first-year WR is going to have.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

They're not going to bench Amari Rodgers for Randall Cobb if he's better. The reality is that a first-year WR seldom makes a significant impact and if I had to guess, it just means St. Brown or Funchess is getting cut. I don't think for a second they got Cobb solely for Rodgers. I think they probably thought it was a benign idea that might benefit them anyway.

 

Tee Martin, Rodgers's dad, also coached Cobb at Kentucky. Cobb's old, and oft-hurt, but he's got a deep understanding of Rodgers and the offense that almost no first-year WR is going to have.

 

They haven't had a true slot receiver for two seasons, and while the offense hasn't really suffered greatly because of that, it has certainly been noticed, especially against tough defenses with good pass rushes. Now they have Cobb, who has historically been one of the better slot guys in the league, and Amari, who is a much younger, albeit inexperienced version of Cobb. If you were looking for a pure slot type to mentor Amari, you couldn't really find someone better than Cobb. Cobb should also be relatively productive this season as well, provided he can stay out of the training room for the most part.

[xisxisxis]

I don't think Gute and Murphy in roughly 30 minutes and aided by a top 10 public relations firm could have made a better argument than Aaron Rodgers that Aaron Rodgers should never be involved in any Packer personnel decisions/discussions. That's what we waited to hear about after 6 months of pouty Aaron? Roster and personnel decisions even an unpaid intern wouldn't put on his resume letter. If an anonymous poster came here and posted that those decisions were the reason the Packers were a bad organization, they'd be summarily rejected, laughed at and dismissed out of hand. Now if Aaron Rodgers says it... 'well I see what he's trying to say'... Yeah he's saying crap. Left, Right, and Center...

[MrTPlush]

Its incredibly likely Randall Cobb will be a more impactful player than Amari Rodgers would have been THIS year. So I really don't see an issue there.

 

Also, people continuously bring up Rodgers never taking a pay cut or altering his contract to help the cap. Yah, I wouldn't either if the team never listens to me, treats me like a robot just playing football, and cares nothing about what I think. Can you imagine the Packers coming to Rodgers and saying, "Hey Aaron, can you take a paycut for us? For what? None of your business, whatever we want."

 

I mean, why would someone take a paycut with the kind of relationship those two sides had? I think it is overblown anyway. Good for Tom Brady for taking paycuts, most players want max money. I think we can stop pretending Tom Brady is the expectation or the norm.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Exactly. Rodgers would have to offer that up first, and with a specific reason in mind. If the Packers don't want his FA advice and haven't been warm to his "ideas," there is no reason that would ever have materialized.

[tmwiese55]

I don't know Funchess's contract situation, but I know I'd rather have Cobb than him. Definitely prefer to keep the young guys who showed tools last year, but Funchess is a nothing to me so I don't mind that as a swap at all. Plus all accounts are Cobb is a top notch guy, he'll probably be a big help to Rodgers the WR as a mentor/coach, etc.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

St. Brown is probably as likely as Funchess to be out. He appeared to be on thin ice last season.

[HarveysWBs]

I don't think for a second they got Cobb solely for Rodgers. I think they probably thought it was a benign idea that might benefit them anyway.

You wouldn’t have been able to tell this from Gute’s presser this morning. I suggest watching or listening to his remarks once they’re posted online to get the full impact, but his comments in response to the Cobb question had about as much genuine enthusiasm as a coerced message in a hostage situation. And he flat out said they wouldn’t have made the move except for Aaron Rodgers. My goodness. Guess we’re all just letting it hang out now.

 

Any doubt I had about 12 being gone next year has just been erased.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

There's clearly a limit to what they're going to allow Rodgers to do in player acquisition and I'm just not too busted up if that means a slot WR that will be the 4th or 5th option when all is said and done. And quite possibly get hurt anyway. I don't think Cobb is on the Packers without Rodgers, I don't think that's even a question. But it's just a nothingburger move in the end for a guy that just might contribute enough anyway.

[xisxisxis]

You wouldn’t have been able to tell this from Gute’s presser this morning. I suggest watching or listening to his remarks once they’re posted online to get the full impact, but his comments in response to the Cobb question had about as much genuine enthusiasm as a coerced message in a hostage situation. And he flat out said they wouldn’t have made the move except for Aaron Rodgers. My goodness. Guess we’re all just letting it hang out now.

 

Any doubt I had about 12 being gone next year has just been erased.

Well if someone, who clearly doesn't have the ability to do your job, publicly backed a truck of manure and dumped it on you while you have been doing a very good to excellent job then you might be less than enthusiastic about their continued input on how to do your job.

 

Gute should be happy. They got what they wanted. They called Rodgers bluff and he came back for the 2021 season. Another year of Rodgers with the current roster to try for a SB. Hopefully Rodgers performs to a level that they need and the Packers can trade him for the best deal in the spring. Rodgers had his say and now can shut up and play.

[KeithStone53151]

You wouldn’t have been able to tell this from Gute’s presser this morning. I suggest watching or listening to his remarks once they’re posted online to get the full impact, but his comments in response to the Cobb question had about as much genuine enthusiasm as a coerced message in a hostage situation. And he flat out said they wouldn’t have made the move except for Aaron Rodgers. My goodness. Guess we’re all just letting it hang out now.

 

Any doubt I had about 12 being gone next year has just been erased.

Well if someone, who clearly doesn't have the ability to do your job, publicly backed a truck of manure and dumped it on you while you have been doing a very good to excellent job then you might be less than enthusiastic about their continued input on how to do your job.

 

Gute should be happy. They got what they wanted. They called Rodgers bluff and he came back for the 2021 season. Another year of Rodgers with the current roster to try for a SB. Hopefully Rodgers performs to a level that they need and the Packers can trade him for the best deal in the spring. Rodgers had his say and now can shut up and play.

 

I pretty much 100% echo your sentiments. I'm even fine bringing Cobb back to appease Rodgers for this year. But after this year, I think you cut ties to the best offer. Rodgers will be 38 closing in on 39, trading him now is probably a max value move. Especially considering Jordan Love will probably at least be developed to the point that you can give him controls and see if he's got it or not.

 

And generally speaking, teams with a very highly paid QB tend not to be the teams that win superbowls. Lately it's either been QB's on a rookie deal or Tom Brady on a team friendly deal to allow more cap space for a complete roster.

[Underachiever]

Its incredibly likely Randall Cobb will be a more impactful player than Amari Rodgers would have been THIS year. So I really don't see an issue there.

 

Also, people continuously bring up Rodgers never taking a pay cut or altering his contract to help the cap. Yah, I wouldn't either if the team never listens to me, treats me like a robot just playing football, and cares nothing about what I think. Can you imagine the Packers coming to Rodgers and saying, "Hey Aaron, can you take a paycut for us? For what? None of your business, whatever we want."

 

I mean, why would someone take a paycut with the kind of relationship those two sides had? I think it is overblown anyway. Good for Tom Brady for taking paycuts, most players want max money. I think we can stop pretending Tom Brady is the expectation or the norm.

Were they talking pay cut? Or were they talking about a restructure? Usually they mean the latter where the money gets converted to a signing bonus. The player gets more guaranteed money today, and the team gets cap relief. I mean, if people were talking pay cut, that's silly, but if it was restructure, yes, Rodgers could have been open to that. And of course, because I am cynical, I don't believe for one second that Brady took a true pay cut. I am sure Kraft was getting him his money somehow. No, I don't have proof. Brady was probably getting all the money from the fifth blade they added to the Gillette razor.