Packer 2021 Team Discussion (Rodgers Out Vs. Chiefs)

[pacopete4]

There's obviously sound business reasons not to restructure Rodgers. But it's also fully clear that are actively choosing as they have done before to prioritize flexibility on the future of Rodgers over putting the best possible team around Rodgers right now. That much is clear, and it's not lost on Rodgers.

 

As they should be. Not saying your statement is 100% accurate but it is the case, I am glad the FO is doing just that. The Packers will be around a lot longer than #12.

[CheezWizHed]

I agree with the general direction of the discussion about Rodger's longevity, but think there is low risk in planning for a two year window. I think Rodger's poison pill (cap hit) comes next year. If they were to extend him so that the big increase gives us two more years of Rodgers, while adding more weapons around him, I think that would be the sweet spot.

[adambr2]

There's obviously sound business reasons not to restructure Rodgers. But it's also fully clear that are actively choosing as they have done before to prioritize flexibility on the future of Rodgers over putting the best possible team around Rodgers right now. That much is clear, and it's not lost on Rodgers.

 

To play devil's advocate, it is sort of a two-way street, though, especially when we've seen plenty of other QBs around the NFL accept substantial pay cuts over the last few years to allow their teams to fit weapons in around them. Not saying Rodgers would or should do that, just that it is another way of looking at the situation.

 

Plenty of others? Who? Not saying you're wrong, I'm just not aware of any other than Tom Brady.

[PeaveyFury]

I agree with the general direction of the discussion about Rodger's longevity, but think there is low risk in planning for a two year window. I think Rodger's poison pill (cap hit) comes next year. If they were to extend him so that the big increase gives us two more years of Rodgers, while adding more weapons around him, I think that would be the sweet spot.

 

The problem is, they basically pushed a cap woe from 2021 to 2022 at this point. Say what you will about the cap in 2022, but it's undeniable that there's uncertainty about what it will be. Will it go up? Yes. But how much? The Packers are at $202 million, I believe, without their best defensive player and arguably best offensive player under contract as of yet. If that cap number only goes up to, say, $215 or $220, they've again got to finagle a mess of contracts. As such, I'm sure the option of going the 'Seattle' route to extending the window is on the table- surround a young, cheap QB with a solid overall team and hope to win a title that way. You use the $23 million you save on Rodgers to avoid a cap disaster, and you use whatever capital you get as a result from moving him as an additional way to solidify the team.

 

It's a viable, potential way to keep their window of contention open. If the cap number goes up more significantly, then they can truly choose between that and keeping Rodgers. But it keeps your hand from being somewhat forced if it doesn't.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

There's obviously sound business reasons not to restructure Rodgers. But it's also fully clear that are actively choosing as they have done before to prioritize flexibility on the future of Rodgers over putting the best possible team around Rodgers right now. That much is clear, and it's not lost on Rodgers.

 

To play devil's advocate, it is sort of a two-way street, though, especially when we've seen plenty of other QBs around the NFL accept substantial pay cuts over the last few years to allow their teams to fit weapons in around them. Not saying Rodgers would or should do that, just that it is another way of looking at the situation.

 

Plenty of others? Who? Not saying you're wrong, I'm just not aware of any other than Tom Brady.

 

Well, Roethlisberger just recently for one. Peyton Manning famously did in 2015. Donovan McNabb did during his career. Brees did last year.

 

But if Brady's longevity is going to be the standard that fans hold Rodgers to, should they also hold him to Brady's salary structure. I don't know? Brady accepting less for MVP level play almost definitely led to all of his late Patriots career Super Bowl wins.

[CheezWizHed]

I agree with the general direction of the discussion about Rodger's longevity, but think there is low risk in planning for a two year window. I think Rodger's poison pill (cap hit) comes next year. If they were to extend him so that the big increase gives us two more years of Rodgers, while adding more weapons around him, I think that would be the sweet spot.

 

The problem is, they basically pushed a cap woe from 2021 to 2022 at this point. Say what you will about the cap in 2022, but it's undeniable that there's uncertainty about what it will be. Will it go up? Yes. But how much? The Packers are at $202 million, I believe, without their best defensive player and arguably best offensive player under contract as of yet. If that cap number only goes up to, say, $215 or $220, they've again got to finagle a mess of contracts. As such, I'm sure the option of going the 'Seattle' route to extending the window is on the table- surround a young, cheap QB with a solid overall team and hope to win a title that way. You use the $23 million you save on Rodgers to avoid a cap disaster, and you use whatever capital you get as a result from moving him as an additional way to solidify the team.

 

It's a viable, potential way to keep their window of contention open. If the cap number goes up more significantly, then they can truly choose between that and keeping Rodgers. But it keeps your hand from being somewhat forced if it doesn't.

 

Somewhere I posted the numbers for the last 20 years for QBs that have won the SB on their rookie contract and it was pretty low. The higher common thread was having a HOF level QB (which we have). Nearly all of the QBs that won the SB on their rookie contracts were HOF level QBs. So what is more probable? That Love will be a HOF level QB (statistically that is very low) or winning with Rodgers (who is already a HOF level QB playing at a MVP level)?

 

But I'm sure everyone would hope Rodgers would give us a discount double-check! The Rodger's rate certainly doesn't help.

 

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

For what it's worth:

 

Michael Silver

@MikeSilver

The @packers are trying to negotiate a restructured contract with Aaron Rodgers that could free up cap space... the deal (if it happens) might also inform us about how they view his future in Green Bay.

[PeaveyFury]

Somewhere I posted the numbers for the last 20 years for QBs that have won the SB on their rookie contract and it was pretty low.

 

How many of those guys started for teams that were very good overall when they took over, though? Most guys who start within a year or two do so on crappy teams that usually rush them in for PR/jersey sales...

[HiAndTight]

The Packers might want to see what Love looks like too before making financial commitments. Maybe Love looks like the real deal after this season and they start preparing for that transition. In all reality, that would be the hope of the franchise I'm sure. Finding the "next" QB is always the hardest.

 

 

I'm probably as high on Love as anyone. But I think the BEST you can hope for is that he puts it together and he becomes a franchise QB. When you have an MVP caliber QB still playing at that level and you can reasonably predict he will still play at a high level for 4-6 more years, then I'm just not a fan of hedging your bets like that.

 

 

There are a lot of talented QB's available all the time if you're smart. Sam Darnold is likely available this year and there are 4 QB's in this class who have at least as much upside as Love. There were 3 last year.

 

 

When Gutekunst said the Packers think it's smart to draft and develop QB's and it probably wouldn't be the last time they did it while they had Rodgers, I'd hoped that was a sign that they were going to be more aggressive this year.

 

And maybe they still will, we'll see. But watching the Saints, a team that was 100 million over the cap be more aggressive than us in the opening week of Free Agency, it's a bit discouraging. Watching real impact players like Shelby Harris or Dalvin Tomlinson sign relatively modest FA contracts at positions of need when we're constantly so close...I'd just like once, the Packers to go all in like the Saints. They're not the only example, just the most recent and most obvious.

[adambr2]

There's obviously sound business reasons not to restructure Rodgers. But it's also fully clear that are actively choosing as they have done before to prioritize flexibility on the future of Rodgers over putting the best possible team around Rodgers right now. That much is clear, and it's not lost on Rodgers.

 

As they should be. Not saying your statement is 100% accurate but it is the case, I am glad the FO is doing just that. The Packers will be around a lot longer than #12.

 

It's great that the FO is always forward thinking.

 

It's also probably true that one of the reasons we keep coming up short in our goal of getting back to the Super Bowl is that our team building style often sacrifices short term gains and the teams that we're coming up against in January are usually the most talented ones on the field.

[HiAndTight]

I agree with the general direction of the discussion about Rodger's longevity, but think there is low risk in planning for a two year window. I think Rodger's poison pill (cap hit) comes next year. If they were to extend him so that the big increase gives us two more years of Rodgers, while adding more weapons around him, I think that would be the sweet spot.

 

The problem is, they basically pushed a cap woe from 2021 to 2022 at this point. Say what you will about the cap in 2022, but it's undeniable that there's uncertainty about what it will be. Will it go up? Yes. But how much? The Packers are at $202 million, I believe, without their best defensive player and arguably best offensive player under contract as of yet. If that cap number only goes up to, say, $215 or $220, they've again got to finagle a mess of contracts. As such, I'm sure the option of going the 'Seattle' route to extending the window is on the table- surround a young, cheap QB with a solid overall team and hope to win a title that way. You use the $23 million you save on Rodgers to avoid a cap disaster, and you use whatever capital you get as a result from moving him as an additional way to solidify the team.

 

It's a viable, potential way to keep their window of contention open. If the cap number goes up more significantly, then they can truly choose between that and keeping Rodgers. But it keeps your hand from being somewhat forced if it doesn't.

 

 

That number is pretty artificially inflated though. The Smith's combine for about 50 million in cap hits next year. We know there's no way they're going to eat a 20+ million dollar cap hit on Preston Smith. Even if he's the DOPY, they'd likely get that number down or trade him. Same with Za'Darius who's at ~30 million.

 

So it's at 213 with Alexander 5th year option. That's 51 players who are already accounting for 213 million. It's not great and I would guess due to the money they pushed off this year, you're 215-220 is as accurate as any guess at this point, but those are giants chunks they can save.

 

Dean Lowry's another 8. So while they obviously did push some of their cap issues down the road, they should be in MUCH better shape next year.

 

There are two flaws in my opinion with the "Seattle plan." First, Seattle got good quickly because they had incredible drafts. Wagner, Sherman, Kam, I believe they were all 5th round picks or later. Wilson was a 3rd. They traded a mid-round pick for Lynch. Earl Thomas was the only really high pick that I can recall from those teams, but I'm sure there will be more.

 

Those players were almost directly responsible for 5 straight years they finished 1st in the NFL in defense(or 4 years and one 2nd, I can't recall exactly). THEN you add a very good young QB, likely a better QB than we've got in Love and it starts to seem far less likely that they'll be able to make that move.

 

The other is we're all expecting extensions for Adams and probably Za'Darius Smith. in 2023, Smith will be 32 and Adams will be 31. Bahk will also be in his 30's. So you're not really giving Love the opportunity to grow with his core that Wilson had. You're more likely hoping lightning will strike and Love will be good enough to win while those players are still playing at a high level.

 

Again, I like Love...but I think even keeping that option open and NOT making a move right now is a bigger risk than restructuring Rodgers and not trying to sign a player like Schwartz or any number of players who could help us out because you want to keep your options open.

 

Teams can escape Salary Cap Hell in ONE year(and retain their young core talent). It can take a Century to find a QB of Rodgers Caliber....ask our Friends to the South.

[BillScottCanRake]

Since age vs first contract was brought up, here is a a list... make of it what you will.

 

Aaron Rodgers will be 38 in December. Here is a list of all the quarterbacks to lead their team to the Super Bowl at age 38 or older.

 

John Elway (XXXIII)

Peyton Manning (50)

Tom Brady (LI, LII, LIII, and LV)

3 unique players, 6 out of 110 starters.

 

Jordan Love will be 25 in November 2023. Here is a list of quarterbacks who lead their team to the Super Bowl at age 25 or less.

 

Joe Namath (III)

Vince Ferragamo (XIV)

Joe Montana (XVI)

David Woodley (XVII)

Dan Marino (XIX)

Drew Bledsoe (XXXI)

Tom Brady (XXXVI)

Ben Roethlisberger (XL)

Colin Kaepernick (XLVII)

Russell Wilson (XLVIII)

Jared Goff (LIII)

Patrick Mahomes (LIV, LV)

 

12 unique players, 13 out of 110 starters. Of those, I believe Tom Brady would be the first to fall under current salary cap and rookie contract rules.

[HiAndTight]

 

Well, Roethlisberger just recently for one. Peyton Manning famously did in 2015. Donovan McNabb did during his career. Brees did last year.

 

But if Brady's longevity is going to be the standard that fans hold Rodgers to, should they also hold him to Brady's salary structure. I don't know? Brady accepting less for MVP level play almost definitely led to all of his late Patriots career Super Bowl wins.

 

 

 

Peyton Manning was completely washed at that point. Brock Osweiler was the better QB that year. He threw 17 picks and just 9 TD's and literally got benched in the middle of the season in favor of Brock Osweiler.

 

Big Ben...the Steelers were stuck with him. He didn't take a pay cut to help the team out, he took one because it was the only way he'd be back with the Steelers this year.

 

Brees last year? I don't recall him taking pay cuts. He was an aging QB who took more bonus money so that his cap hit would only be 25 million. That's not really taking a pay cut for the team.

 

And that's also more similar to what Brady has done. They give him a signing bonus regularly and he tacks on a couple years to spread it out, but the actual cash is more important than the hit when giving these guys credit for how much they're giving up for the team.

 

As for McNabb, I don't recall him taking Pay-Cuts. I know he signed the richest contract in NFL history at the time. A 12 year deal.

 

 

So for the most part, these are all guys who signed at the end of their career, still got paid a lot.

 

Not the best comp for Rodgers who just threw 48 TD's last season and was the runaway MVP.

[HiAndTight]

There's obviously sound business reasons not to restructure Rodgers. But it's also fully clear that are actively choosing as they have done before to prioritize flexibility on the future of Rodgers over putting the best possible team around Rodgers right now. That much is clear, and it's not lost on Rodgers.

 

As they should be. Not saying your statement is 100% accurate but it is the case, I am glad the FO is doing just that. The Packers will be around a lot longer than #12.

 

It's great that the FO is always forward thinking.

 

It's also probably true that one of the reasons we keep coming up short in our goal of getting back to the Super Bowl is that our team building style often sacrifices short term gains and the teams that we're coming up against in January are usually the most talented ones on the field.

 

 

Sure. I just don't understand what the big risk is here. That if you extend to restructure Rodgers to create room to add players now, then you're ruining your chances to really take advantage of Jordan Love's play while he's still on a rookie contract?

 

Does anyone really believe we stand a better chance by playing it safe now, thereby giving Jordan Love's teams another 20 or so million dollars to work with? That Love's play+ whoever they may sign for 20 million dollars, and that's, of course, assuming they spend the difference between Rodgers salary and Love's on players instead of rolling those cap savings over year to year as they did with much of Rodgers career, but will that be enough to get the Packers to the SB in the near future?

 

 

It's the NFL, not the NBA. I know I've said it already, but one year and you can clear your cap hits. You're not locked in for 6 years if you go all-in for a season or two.

 

 

Remember this fan base when we moved on from Favre before he was ready? We were lucky to have Aaron Rodgers who actually became better and won a SB early on in his career. Now imagine the fan bases reaction if or when Rodgers is traded so we can add a few first round picks and throw Love out there. He's going to have to be great and we're going to have to win a SB or most of us are going to wonder, "what if." What if we'd had just gone for it.

 

4 heartbreaking NFCCG losses, losses to the Giants, Cardinals....a 20-17 Playoff Loss to the 49'ers. Just about every team that beats us, as you pointed out, put more resources into the team.

 

 

And it's still possible the Packers are working on doing just that right now. But I don't think it's better at this point for the Packers to prioritize future stability over doing EVERYTHING they can to build a SB winning team right now.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

The Packers might want to see what Love looks like too before making financial commitments. Maybe Love looks like the real deal after this season and they start preparing for that transition. In all reality, that would be the hope of the franchise I'm sure. Finding the "next" QB is always the hardest.

 

 

I'm probably as high on Love as anyone. But I think the BEST you can hope for is that he puts it together and he becomes a franchise QB. When you have an MVP caliber QB still playing at that level and you can reasonably predict he will still play at a high level for 4-6 more years, then I'm just not a fan of hedging your bets like that.

 

4-6 more years? 2021 will be Rodgers age 38 season. I think you are looking at this through some serious Rodgers-tinted green-and-gold glasses if you think Rodgers is still going to be slinging it at an MVP level in his age 42-44 years. That just doesn't happen.

 

I know .... but, but Tom brady! Tom Brady is the outlier of outliers. Please don't think that just because Brady played well as a 43-year-old (after having some down years that led many to believe he was near done) that Rodgers is going to do the same thing. It simply hasn't worked that way. Tom Brady is a robot.

 

The Packers are going to have to make the decision to move on from Rodgers at some point. Hopefully it is before he becomes a shell of the great player he was, and still is. He's already defying science and history. The chances of him continuing to do that get longer with each passing year.

Edited March 23, 2021 by Ron Robinson's Beard

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

 

Well, Roethlisberger just recently for one. Peyton Manning famously did in 2015. Donovan McNabb did during his career. Brees did last year.

 

But if Brady's longevity is going to be the standard that fans hold Rodgers to, should they also hold him to Brady's salary structure. I don't know? Brady accepting less for MVP level play almost definitely led to all of his late Patriots career Super Bowl wins.

 

 

 

Peyton Manning was completely washed at that point. Brock Osweiler was the better QB that year. He threw 17 picks and just 9 TD's and literally got benched in the middle of the season in favor of Brock Osweiler.

 

Big Ben...the Steelers were stuck with him. He didn't take a pay cut to help the team out, he took one because it was the only way he'd be back with the Steelers this year.

 

Brees last year? I don't recall him taking pay cuts. He was an aging QB who took more bonus money so that his cap hit would only be 25 million. That's not really taking a pay cut for the team.

 

And that's also more similar to what Brady has done. They give him a signing bonus regularly and he tacks on a couple years to spread it out, but the actual cash is more important than the hit when giving these guys credit for how much they're giving up for the team.

 

As for McNabb, I don't recall him taking Pay-Cuts. I know he signed the richest contract in NFL history at the time. A 12 year deal.

 

 

So for the most part, these are all guys who signed at the end of their career, still got paid a lot.

 

Not the best comp for Rodgers who just threw 48 TD's last season and was the runaway MVP.

 

Manning was playing his age 39 season. Rodgers is entering his age 38 season. They are apt comparisons. So what's the answer? Keep paying Rodgers a huge sum, and not have the resources to surround him with ideal talent? Keep kicking the can down the road so that you are still paying him a huge amount after he's retired?

 

No, you lay it out there. You tell him "Aaron, we can get you talent, but we need you to accept $20 million instead of $30 million." Aaron Rodgers has made hundreds of millions in his career between salary and endorsements. If he wants to go out on top, he should want the team to get the best talent to help him do that. Not be stubborn and refuse to work with the team out of spite.

 

Aaron Rodgers is a great player. I hope he continues to perform at a high level for several years. But if and when he loses it, they cannot be afraid to move on. And at his age, that fall is likely to happen fast, and it could happen at any time.

[HiAndTight]

The Packers might want to see what Love looks like too before making financial commitments. Maybe Love looks like the real deal after this season and they start preparing for that transition. In all reality, that would be the hope of the franchise I'm sure. Finding the "next" QB is always the hardest.

 

 

I'm probably as high on Love as anyone. But I think the BEST you can hope for is that he puts it together and he becomes a franchise QB. When you have an MVP caliber QB still playing at that level and you can reasonably predict he will still play at a high level for 4-6 more years, then I'm just not a fan of hedging your bets like that.

 

4-6 more years? 2021 will be Rodgers age 38 season. I think you are looking at this through some serious Rodgers-tinted green-and-gold glasses if you think Rodgers is still going to be slinging it at an MVP level in his age 42-44 years. That just doesn't happen.

 

I know .... but, but Tom brady! Tom Brady is the outlier of outliers. Please don't think that just because Brady played well as a 43-year-old (after having some down years that led many to believe he was near done) that Rodgers is going to do the same thing. It simply hasn't worked that way. Tom Brady is a robot.

 

The Packers are going to have to make the decision to move on from Rodgers at some point. Hopefully it is before he becomes a shell of the great player he was, and still is. He's already defying science and history. The chances of him continuing to do that get longer with each passing year.

 

 

It just doesn't happen? Except that it is. You might have noticed we're playing in the era where literally tapping a QB on the helmet with your hand is a penalty.

 

They've literally changed the rules because of Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers past injuries on top of a long list of rules changes that predate that. But it just doesn't happen...as we're coming off a season that saw two QB's play who were both in their 40's. So what athletic ability does Tom Brady possess that would make it unlikely Rodgers would be able to play through the same age? Does Brady have a stronger arm? Does that make Rodgers a more likely candidate to age poorly like Drew Brees for example, who just finished his age 41 season and there were questions going back to College about his arm strength.

 

There's absolutely no Rodgers tinted glasses, it's just common sense. QB's are able to play longer with the very limited hits they take.

 

Man...talk about condescending though. I think everyone understands that because Tom Brady did something, that in and of itself without any other outside factors does not also mean other QB's will be able to do that same thing. Yes. Good note. What I'm talking about is more about the extraordinary changes that have taken place in the rules over the last 20 years specifically designed to limit the number of hits a QB takes.

 

There is a very obvious reason players are not aiming to play into their mid 40's. It's not because Tom Brady did it. It's because they're not getting hit helmet to helmet by the likes of Greg Lloyd. It's because they're not finishing their careers with 5 or 6 vicious concussions at age 37 as Steve Young did.

 

So, again, it has nothing to do with Rodgers. Had Steve Young played with the same rules, I have no doubt he or a very long list of other QB's could have as well.

[HiAndTight]

 

Well, Roethlisberger just recently for one. Peyton Manning famously did in 2015. Donovan McNabb did during his career. Brees did last year.

 

But if Brady's longevity is going to be the standard that fans hold Rodgers to, should they also hold him to Brady's salary structure. I don't know? Brady accepting less for MVP level play almost definitely led to all of his late Patriots career Super Bowl wins.

 

 

 

Peyton Manning was completely washed at that point. Brock Osweiler was the better QB that year. He threw 17 picks and just 9 TD's and literally got benched in the middle of the season in favor of Brock Osweiler.

 

Big Ben...the Steelers were stuck with him. He didn't take a pay cut to help the team out, he took one because it was the only way he'd be back with the Steelers this year.

 

Brees last year? I don't recall him taking pay cuts. He was an aging QB who took more bonus money so that his cap hit would only be 25 million. That's not really taking a pay cut for the team.

 

And that's also more similar to what Brady has done. They give him a signing bonus regularly and he tacks on a couple years to spread it out, but the actual cash is more important than the hit when giving these guys credit for how much they're giving up for the team.

 

As for McNabb, I don't recall him taking Pay-Cuts. I know he signed the richest contract in NFL history at the time. A 12 year deal.

 

 

So for the most part, these are all guys who signed at the end of their career, still got paid a lot.

 

Not the best comp for Rodgers who just threw 48 TD's last season and was the runaway MVP.

 

Manning was playing his age 39 season. Rodgers is entering his age 38 season. They are apt comparisons.

 

No, you lay it out there. You tell him "Aaron, we can get you talent, but we need you to accept $20 million instead of $30 million." Aaron Rodgers has made hundreds of millions in his career between salary and endorsements. If he wants to go out on top, he should want the team to get the best talent to help him do that. Not be stubborn and refuse to work with the team out of spite.

 

Aaron Rodgers is a great player. I hope he continues to perform at a high level for several years. But if and when he loses it, they cannot be afraid to move on. And at his age, that fall is likely to happen fast, and it could happen at any time.

 

 

They're not great comparisons. Manning was playing out a contract that he signed after suffering a career threatening neck injury. He had a cap charge of 21.5 and he dropped it to 19.5...but the Broncos were able to because very little of his salary was guaranteed...again, due to the career threatening neck injury he suffered just a couple years before that.

 

But that's a 19 million dollar cap hit with a 143 million dollar cap and Manning didn't actually make any less that season, they just turned it into incentives...that even as poorly as he was playing, he met. Team based incentives.

 

So his cap hit dropped less than the Packers could have done without even asking Rodgers and he still collected all the money.

 

I'm also quite sure Manning did pretty well with salaries and endorsements during his NFL career. In fact...even with the inflated contracts, Manning made more in his NFL career than Rodgers has in his.

 

So what's the answer? Keep paying Rodgers a huge sum, and not have the resources to surround him with ideal talent? Keep kicking the can down the road so that you are still paying him a huge amount after he's retired?

 

 

Yes. Absolutely. Because why not? I don't know what other team in the NFL other than one owned by Mike Brown perhaps, would not be willing to exchange a SB run for having some dead cap space when Rodgers is retired or leaves.

 

Just as the Saints are eating dead cap space from Brees this year. The difference is they kept going all in. They even tried to trade for Clowney before last year by asking a 3rd team to sign him, pay his signing bonus and trade a high draft pick to that team.

 

 

But the idea of the Packers possibly having dead cap space at some point after Rodgers is done is really not worth the potential pay-off to some people? I guess it's just a fundamental difference of opinion. It seems more likely than not to me the Packers will probably struggle and have at LEAST one bad season after Rodgers leaves. Even after Favre left, we went 6-10. That one year. You clear the cap then. That's one risk. The other is going 30+ years with 2 HOF QB's and 2 SB wins as we fall short year after year to teams who were far more willing to be aggressive to add talent than the Packers.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Yeah, I guess I do have a difference of opinion. I loved Favre then, and I love Rodgers now. But I love the Packers more. The team is more important than any one player.

 

Also, I disagree that the Packers haven't put talent around Rodgers. The 2020 team had arguably the best WR in the game, a top 3 RB, a top 5 TE, and the best offensive line in football. I can think of perhaps one or two seasons or so where the talent was substantially subpar and Rodgers had to play hero ball to get them to the playoffs. Otherwise he's had plenty of talent on offense. Defense has been this team's biggest downfall since 2010, but even then, they've had defenses good enough to win a Super Bowl. But for various reasons, Rodgers included, they haven't been able to take that last necessary step.

 

But don't misconstrue that just because I'm not all-in on Aaron Rodgers being the QB of this team into his mid-40s that I don't long for this team to win a Super Bowl. I'd love for them to go out and acquire the talent needed to shore up the roster. But I just see them having a hard time doing that as long as Rodgers is at the huge cap hit that he's at. Hopefully the rumors from today are correct and they are coming up with a way to get that cap hit lower, whether it means they extend him or add dummy years or whatever. It's going to be hard for them to be competitive with the QB taking up more than 20% of their cap.

[HiAndTight]

Yeah, I guess I do have a difference of opinion. I loved Favre then, and I love Rodgers now. But I love the Packers more. The team is more important than any one player.

 

 

Right, but I'm arguing they should invest more while they have the historically great QB and you seem concerned about dead cap space that may hinder their chances after the QB leaves...when a significant drop off is virtually inevitable(Even if Love is a great QB).

 

So I'm advocating they act more aggressively now...like pretty much every other contender in the NFC(though not even AS aggressively, and you're talking about dead cap space after Rodgers retires...which somehow infers you love the Packers more I guess?

 

Ok.

[HiAndTight]

Yeah, I guess I do have a difference of opinion. I loved Favre then, and I love Rodgers now. But I love the Packers more. The team is more important than any one player.

 

Also, I disagree that the Packers haven't put talent around Rodgers. The 2020 team had arguably the best WR in the game, a top 3 RB, a top 5 TE, and the best offensive line in football. I can think of perhaps one or two seasons or so where the talent was substantially subpar and Rodgers had to play hero ball to get them to the playoffs. Otherwise he's had plenty of talent on offense. Defense has been this team's biggest downfall since 2010, but even then, they've had defenses good enough to win a Super Bowl. But for various reasons, Rodgers included, they haven't been able to take that last necessary step.

 

But don't misconstrue that just because I'm not all-in on Aaron Rodgers being the QB of this team into his mid-40s that I don't long for this team to win a Super Bowl. I'd love for them to go out and acquire the talent needed to shore up the roster. But I just see them having a hard time doing that as long as Rodgers is at the huge cap hit that he's at. Hopefully the rumors from today are correct and they are coming up with a way to get that cap hit lower, whether it means they extend him or add dummy years or whatever. It's going to be hard for them to be competitive with the QB taking up more than 20% of their cap.

 

 

Right..this bit you added, that's a fair assessment of my argument. I definitely argued that because you aren't "all-in on Aaron Rodgers being the QB of this team to his mid-40's, that you don't long for this team to win a Super Bowl."

 

That almost word for word what I said. I said if you don't 100 pct believe Rodgers will be the QB at age 45, you must not be all in. That's a perfect characterization of my position.

 

I'm also not sure where I argued they didn't have talent on offense, but you're really making no effort to even approximate my arguments, so, this seems fruitless.

[adambr2]

I honestly would be perfectly happy with eating 100 million of dead cap in Love's first season if it meant starting with a nearly clean slate in his second, and maximizing Rodgers' last years. Who cares if we go 4-12? Then if Love looks like the real deal you've got a top 5 pick and a ton of money to spend in his second year. I don't see the downside.

 

I know eating that much dead cap in a single season just isn't done, but I don't really know why.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Yeah, I guess I do have a difference of opinion. I loved Favre then, and I love Rodgers now. But I love the Packers more. The team is more important than any one player.

 

 

Right, but I'm arguing they should invest more while they have the historically great QB and you seem concerned about dead cap space that may hinder their chances after the QB leaves...when a significant drop off is virtually inevitable(Even if Love is a great QB).

 

So I'm advocating they act more aggressively now...like pretty much every other contender in the NFC(though not even AS aggressively, and you're talking about dead cap space after Rodgers retires...which somehow infers you love the Packers more I guess?

 

Ok.

 

I never once tried to say that I love the Packers more than you or anyone else. I said I love the TEAM more than I love a player who plays on the team. That is my way of being a fan. Everyone is entitled to their own fandom. I just still have a sour spot for the 2008 offseason when a huge majority of Packers fans decided they loved Brett Favre more than the team, and treated Aaron Rodgers like crap.

 

I agree with you on getting more aggressive. I'd love to see an all-in year. I thought they'd be active this offseason in acquiring players. Unfortunately that hasn't been the case, and its to the point where, while there are still solid NFL players available, the true difference makers are gone. I thought they would have done something with Rodgers contract by now, but for whatever reason, that hasn't happened. It is unfortunate that a little bit of that 2008 deja vu is starting to creep into this situation. I don't want to see a Rodgers/Packer divorce. That would be an ugly, terrible thing. But the longer these little games of chicken between him and the organization go on, the more the chances of a divorce are inevitable.

 

You are correct that they can afford to carry some dead cap after Rodgers is gone, because Love (or whatever young QB they have) will likely be on a cheap contract. I'm just really leery about a long extension and hitching the wagon to a guy entering his 40s. While you are correct that QB careers are lasting longer than ever, Father Time will catch up with Rodgers, and I'd hate to see it happen sooner rather than later, and have the Packers on the hook for a huge extension.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Right..this bit you added, that's a fair assessment of my argument. I definitely argued that because you aren't "all-in on Aaron Rodgers being the QB of this team to his mid-40's, that you don't long for this team to win a Super Bowl."

 

That almost word for word what I said. I said if you don't 100 pct believe Rodgers will be the QB at age 45, you must not be all in. That's a perfect characterization of my position.

 

I'm also not sure where I argued they didn't have talent on offense, but you're really making no effort to even approximate my arguments, so, this seems fruitless.

 

We both want the same things for this team, but have some differences of opinion on how to accomplish it. I am skeptical that Aaron Rodgers will continue to be able to perform at a high level for 4-5 more years. I think the Packers are as well, or they wouldn't have spent a 1st round pick on a QB. Now if Love never leaves the bench during his time as a Packer, that is the best case scenario, because that means Rodgers not only stayed healthy, he performed at a high level. That would certainly be my preference. I just think that Packer fans should probably prepare themselves for the idea of the Rodgers era coming to a conclusion in the next few years. Hopefully it will have a storybook finish.

[CheezWizHed]

Previously, I said that a 2 year window on Rodgers should be the goal. 4-5 is very optimistic, but if you open the 2 year window, you still have options of extending it further if he continues to play at a high level. As adambr2 mentioned, you may have a down year once Rodgers retires/leaves because you are in cap jail, but I think it is our best opportunity to winning another SB in the near future.