Aaron Rodgers contract

[HardRightEdge]

A day when a 6th round draft pick who breaks his leg in training camp isn't called a bust and TT expected to explain himself.

Did Ricky Elmore break his leg? I never read that.

Seriously though, TT has picked Jolly, Bishop, Starks and D.J. Smith in the 6th. That's pretty decent yield out of 12 picks in that round.

 

[AmishMafia]

Did Ricky Elmore break his leg? I never read that.

Seriously though, TT has picked Jolly, Bishop, Starks and D.J. Smith in the 6th. That's pretty decent yield out of 12 picks in that round.

Just throwing **** together. No specific player in mind.


Come on, lighten up. There was an entertainment aspect at the heart of my intention.

 

[HardRightEdge]

There was an entertainment aspect at the heart of my intention.

Me too. I thought the Elmore crack was kinda funny if I do say so myself.

 

[rodell330]

You don't think Woodson would be overpaid at 10M? You do realize that the 32/33 year old Woodson of 2009 is a completely different player than the 36/37 year old Woodson in 2013, right?

Dude, im done with the whole Woodson debate, i've said my peace...and Yes i do realize it's a different player btw.

 

[texaspackerbacker]

Some day, I have a dream, that some day, all Packer fans will understand and appreciate TT.

It may take another decade of NFL dominance. I may take another decade of draft/develop/keep core for some of the GB fans to finally understand it. But some day we will get there.

We need to be patient Bothers and Sisters!


I dream of a day when a 34 year old broken down former pro-bowl CB gets cut by his team and a thread doesn't get started 10 minutes later saying 'we should bring him in'.

A day when the most shy man in Pro Football history is not criticized for being an egomaniac.

A day when a 6th round draft pick who breaks his leg in training camp isn't called a bust and TT expected to explain himself.

A day when prudent and careful player selection isn't viewed as being cheap or 'sitting on your hands'.

A day when a discontented super star making trouble in another locker room isn't seen as a savior for some perceived Packer weakness.

A day when not every draft pick who isn't starting is considered a bust.


A day when a FA player will be evaluated on where he is at currently, and not the player he was 5 years ago.

A day when it is finally understood that a salary cap limits how much you can spend.



Packer fans - I HAVE A DREAM!!!!!!


.

That day came and went - after we won the Super Bowl, after the 15-1 season. I posted about 5-8 years ago, before getting burnt out and stopping until earlier this year. Back 5 or so years ago, Thompson was a real pariah - hated for his perceived cheapness, ridiculed in some pretty disgusting ways even for rumors of his personal life. Fast forward to this off-season when I started posting again. I had the gall to suggest Thompson fell just less than "great" as a GM, and people in here went ballistic. I am just guessing, but probably TT bottomed out in public opinion before Aaron Rodgers became a star and the Packers won that Super Bowl. Now, after peaking, he has fallen just slightly, but still is way nearer to what Amish dreams about than his low point. Through it all, Thompson has been the same guy - for better or worse. The EXTREME success of his Aaron Rodgers pick has made his whole philosophy seem like THE way to go. Could things be even better if he had a slightly more proactive policy on signing free agents or if he did better/had better luck with first round picks? Yeah, maybe, but how in the hell are you gonna prove something like that? I say what I said the day I returned to this forum: TT is a very good but not great GM.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Trouble in paradise? Here's a note from rotoworld, via Racine Journal Times, 4/7:

"Club president Mark Murphy indicated that the Packers' forthcoming extension with Aaron Rodgers may not be as imminent as media reports suggest. The deal is going to happen, but perhaps not until after the draft. "It’s a priority for the organization," Murphy said. "I’ve kept in touch and we’re hopeful it will be soon, but these things have a life of their own sometimes." Rodgers' new deal is expected to be worth roughly $100 million over four years."

The 4 year, $100 million continues to be echoed, same as in the OP. That would be a tack-on deal. With 2 years remaining at $20 mil, that would total 6 years, $120 mil, or $20 mil per year out to age 35.

Those are about the right numbers. About the same as Brees per year, but longer in consideration of the age difference. More than Brady ever made, or anybody else for that matter. Unfortunately, the Ravens and Cowboys overpaid their guys by about $5 mil per year. On the other hand, Rodgers is worth about $5 mil more than those guys.

There is a gap to be crossed, to be sure.

 

[HardRightEdge]

That day came and went - after we won the Super Bowl, after the 15-1 season. I posted about 5-8 years ago, before getting burnt out and stopping until earlier this year. Back 5 or so years ago, Thompson was a real pariah - hated for his perceived cheapness, ridiculed in some pretty disgusting ways even for rumors of his personal life. Fast forward to this off-season when I started posting again. I had the gall to suggest Thompson fell just less than "great" as a GM, and people in here went ballistic. I am just guessing, but probably TT bottomed out in public opinion before Aaron Rodgers became a star and the Packers won that Super Bowl. Now, after peaking, he has fallen just slightly, but still is way nearer to what Amish dreams about than his low point. Through it all, Thompson has been the same guy - for better or worse. The EXTREME success of his Aaron Rodgers pick has made his whole philosophy seem like THE way to go. Could things be even better if he had a slightly more proactive policy on signing free agents or if he did better/had better luck with first round picks? Yeah, maybe, but how in the hell are you gonna prove something like that? I say what I said the day I returned to this forum: TT is a very good but not great GM.

C'mon. You shared a couple of hundred words on the history of TT hatred and you couldn't bring yourself to utter "Favre"? If you leave the elephant in the corner and cover him with a sheet, we still know he's there.

Picking Aaron Rodgers in preparation for Favre's eventual departure, and then dumping Favre when enough was more than enough, showed foresight, brilliance and balls.

That was not TT deciding on Favre in isolation, though...certainly MM with his obsessive preparation had had his belly full of the sand lot QB showing up 5 minutes before kickoff, figuratively speaking. Murphy's the guy who signs the papers. But right or wrong, TT would get the credit or blame. And still, his stamp is on the Rodgers pick and bringing in MM.

But that's not philosophy. Those are isolated career-making decisions. The drafts have zigged up and down over the 8 years but the general pattern is down; some keep-our-own contracts have been overly generous; avoiding mid-market FAs like the plague has it's downside. Take out the Rodgers/Favre decisions, and TT is good, not great...but for those two decisions I shall be forever grateful.

Rodgers, MM, Woodson, Favre, Matthews, ??? It's been several years since TT has done anything dramatically good.

 

[texaspackerbacker]

C'mon. You shared a couple of hundred words on the history of TT hatred and you couldn't bring yourself to utter "Favre"? If you leave the elephant in the corner and cover him with a sheet, we still know he's there.

Picking Aaron Rodgers in preparation for Favre's eventual departure, and then dumping Favre when enough was more than enough, showed foresight, brilliance and balls.

That was not TT deciding on Favre in isolation, though...certainly MM with his obsessive preparation had had his belly full of the sand lot QB showing up 5 minutes before kickoff, figuratively speaking. Murphy's the guy who signs the papers. But right or wrong, TT would get the credit or blame. And still, his stamp is on the Rodgers pick and bringing in MM.

But that's not philosophy. Those are isolated career-making decisions. The drafts have zigged up and down over the 8 years but the general pattern is down; some keep-our-own contracts have been overly generous; avoiding mid-market FAs like the plague has it's downside. Take out the Rodgers/Favre decisions, and TT is good, not great...but for those two decisions I shall be forever grateful.

Rodgers, MM, Woodson, Favre, Matthews,??? It's been several years since TT has done anything dramatically good.

The old "but what have you done for me lately" concept hahaha. What you say is true, but the reason I didn't mention the Favre situation is that all took place after I kinda retired from posting and finished before I came out of retirement this year.

 

[HyponGrey]

Hayward, Cobb, several years

 

[TJV]

Boy are you guy's gullible haha... Like i said before....someone here has to keep the pot stirred until the season starts. I'll do whatever it takes to "mix' thing's up a bit.

IMO gullible would be buying this.

…however i won't go overboard tho.

Too late.

I have a dream...

Wake up!! J/K, but your dream may also include reducing the traffic on this site to about 1/10th of what it is now.[

Back 5 or so years ago, Thompson was a real pariah - hated for his perceived cheapness,

C’mon tell the truth – whether you were posting here or not that was your opinion at the time, wasn’t it? And you were upset with how he treated Favre, right?

 

[HardRightEdge]

Hayward, Cobb, several years

Yeah. Those are nice picks, but not nearly as impactful as the string of events I mentioned concluding with the Matthews pick. Don't get me wrong, I like Hayward as much as the next guy, but he is after all a nickel back who makes hay in zone but struggles a bit in man. I'd place the Heyward pick a bit below pulling Bishop out of the sixth round based on level of difficulty. Picking Collins in the 2nd. round right behind Rodgers was a superior pick

Cobb has Pro Bowl potential. We'll have to see where that goes. He needs to step up his route running another notch.

You're supposed to get a couple of very good players out of the first two rounds over the period of 3 years. Everybody pretty much does.

 

[texaspackerbacker]

.[C’mon tell the truth – whether you were posting here or not that was your opinion at the time, wasn’t it? And you were upset with how he treated Favre, right?[/quote]

I honestly didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other on the Favre situation. When it was a question of re-signing Rodgers or losing him, I favored signing him, even knowing that kinda sealed Favre's fate. Picking Rodgers over Favre was the right call, and Favre basically made that decision necessary. I hate the idea that the greatest player in the history of the NFL got alienated by the team I love, but he pretty much brought it on himself by not being able to make up his mind or accept compromise or whatever. When it comes right down to it, I care more about the Packers winning than Favre's feelings.

 

[HardRightEdge]

[quote="texaspackerbacker, post: 495895, member: 25"I honestly didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other on the Favre situation. When it was a question of re-signing Rodgers or losing him, I favored signing him, even knowing that kinda sealed Favre's fate. Picking Rodgers over Favre was the right call, and Favre basically made that decision necessary. I hate the idea that the greatest player in the history of the NFL got alienated by the team I love, but he pretty much brought it on himself by not being able to make up his mind or accept compromise or whatever. When it comes right down to it, I care more about the Packers winning than Favre's feelings.[/quote]

Your facts are little off. There was no "re-sign Rodgers or lose him". His rookie deal was for 5 years, running through 2009. He wasn't extended until after his first year starting, a year after Favre was gone.

You said, "I hate the idea that the greatest player in the history of the NFL got alienated by the team I love..."

OK, lets stop right there.

First, your mis-remembering the "re-sign Rodgers" thing is evidence of your Favre denial...there was no make-or-break necessity with respect to the long term future with Rodgers at the time of Favre's departure. You cannot use that excuse. That's "Favre denial" at work. It was just time to move on to a disciplined, less angst-ridden and tear-wracked approach to football where the QB actually shows up for work.

Second, he wasn't the greatest player in the history of the NFL. I'm beginning to think somebody is pulling our leg here. We sometimes joke that Favre is "the one whose name shall not be spoken", a somewhat complex and ironical designation since that could refer to either a deity or to Satan. In your case, I guess it's the former; I noted that you scrupulously avoiding using his name in your first post!

Unless you're pulling my leg, I can only express my condolences for the painful loss of having gone through 2010 without the full enjoyment of it.

 

[TJV]

Your response was very revealing texaspackerbacker, as HardRightEdge pointed out. Using phrases like "greatest player" and "alienated by the team" - and frankly being misinformed about that part of Packers history makes your response look very much like that of a "Favre-first" fan who is attempting to hide that "affiliation".

 

[ivo610]

.[I honestly didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other on the Favre situation. When it was a question of re-signing Rodgers or losing him, I favored signing him, even knowing that kinda sealed Favre's fate. Picking Rodgers over Favre was the right call, and Favre basically made that decision necessary. I hate the idea that the greatest player in the history of the NFL got alienated by the team I love, but he pretty much brought it on himself by not being able to make up his mind or accept compromise or whatever. When it comes right down to it, I care more about the Packers winning than Favre's feelings.

[/quote]



The packers alienated don Hutson or are you a browns fan upset about how the treat Jim brown?

 

[texaspackerbacker]

[quote="texaspackerbacker, post: 495895, member: 25"I honestly didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other on the Favre situation. When it was a question of re-signing Rodgers or losing him, I favored signing him, even knowing that kinda sealed Favre's fate. Picking Rodgers over Favre was the right call, and Favre basically made that decision necessary. I hate the idea that the greatest player in the history of the NFL got alienated by the team I love, but he pretty much brought it on himself by not being able to make up his mind or accept compromise or whatever. When it comes right down to it, I care more about the Packers winning than Favre's feelings.

Your facts are little off. There was no "re-sign Rodgers or lose him". His rookie deal was for 5 years, running through 2009. He wasn't extended until after his first year starting, a year after Favre was gone.

You said, "I hate the idea that the greatest player in the history of the NFL got alienated by the team I love..."

OK, lets stop right there.

First, your mis-remembering the "re-sign Rodgers" thing is evidence of your Favre denial...there was no make-or-break necessity with respect to the long term future with Rodgers at the time of Favre's departure. You cannot use that excuse. That's "Favre denial" at work. It was just time to move on to a disciplined, less angst-ridden and tear-wracked approach to football where the QB actually shows up for work.

Second, he wasn't the greatest player in the history of the NFL. I'm beginning to think somebody is pulling our leg here. We sometimes joke that Favre is "the one whose name shall not be spoken", a somewhat complex and ironical designation since that could refer to either a deity or to Satan. In your case, I guess it's the former; I noted that you scrupulously avoiding using his name in your first post!

Unless you're pulling my leg, I can only express my condolences for the painful loss of having gone through 2010 without the full enjoyment of it.[/quote]

Like I said, my memory is a little hazy on this - I was out of the loop and really didn't have any strong opinion on the Favre situation except that then, as now, keeping Aaron Rodgers was the priority.

I stand by the idea that Favre is the greatest player in NFL history - taking the entire body of work. Durability and length of career indeed are factors. He holds all the important records at the most important position. That to me makes him the greatest, although I do consider Aaron Rodgers a better QB than BRETT Favre or anybody else, and if he lasts long enough, he will be the greatest. We are blessed to have had both of them, and I hate to see all this bickering about it.

What did you even mean about not enjoying the 2010 season?

I guess I casually walked into an emotional shitstorm here hahaha. I didn't realize how passionate some of you guys are either pro or con on Favre.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Like I said, my memory is a little hazy on this - I was out of the loop and really didn't have any strong opinion on the Favre situation except that then, as now, keeping Aaron Rodgers was the priority.

I stand by the idea that Favre is the greatest player in NFL history - taking the entire body of work. Durability and length of career indeed are factors. He holds all the important records at the most important position. That to me makes him the greatest, although I do consider Aaron Rodgers a better QB than BRETT Favre or anybody else, and if he lasts long enough, he will be the greatest. We are blessed to have had both of them, and I hate to see all this bickering about it.

What did you even mean about not enjoying the 2010 season?

I guess I casually walked into an emotional shitstorm here hahaha. I didn't realize how passionate some of you guys are either pro or con on Favre.

I repeat: Rodgers' rookie deal was for 5 years, through 2009. The connection between Favre departing and "keeping Rodgers" is in your imagination.

You are unaware of the passions surrounding Favre's depature? Now I know you're pulling our legs.

 

[texaspackerbacker]

I didn't make a connection of the second Rodgers contract to Favre, which as you said, was after Favre was gone. I repeat, my memory is hazy of Favre leaving. My only concern would have been for the future of the team winning, and I wasn't all that worried then I guess. Yeah, of course I knew you guys were passionate or whatever about all things Favre just not how much hahaha. I have generally avoided that debate because I'm not. I don't give a damn about his feelings or how he was treated - just, as Vince Lombardi said, WINNING IS THE ONLY THING.

 

[paulska]

Since we're talking Favre, perhaps this is fortuitous. There may not be a better comparable for the contract we're trying to nail down with ARod. There were other elite talents in the NFL at QB at the time Brett got his megadeal, but Brett had an extended run of dominant play and 3 MVP trophies either in hand or on the way.

ARod is arguably, based on his play the last three seasons, the single best QB in all of football, bar none. He has a lot of football left ahead of him, like Favre did when he got his megadeal.

Did Favre's deal hamstring us cap wise? Not to the degree that $25 mil per year will relative to our cap for the duration of the contract, but it still represented the single biggest chunk of our salary cap for a very long time. It meant Favre was the foundation and soul of the team.

You say, Favre never did squat payoff wise after we lost to Denver in the SB. True, but his play after than reminds me a lot of Tom Brady since NE's last SB win- he may not have played to former glorious levels in the post-season, but his regular season play and cachet were the reason a lot of guys wanted to stay with the team rather than leave, and reason why we made the postseason consistently to even have a chance at winning another championship.

We were spoiled by ARod's SB run and subsequent MVP season- we may NEVER again in the NFL see a player be that dominant at QB- he was that good. Is he that good now? No, but he's close, and consistently so, and that one fact means the single biggest factor in winning football games is moot for us, and you can attach a price tag to that. It's the cost of being a team with a legitimate chance on a regular basis or not- ask any woe-ridden Browns fan. Any Chargers fan. Any Raiders fan. Any Jets fan.

You pay ARod his record breaking sum, like Brett's deal set the new standard. Other QB's will come along and exceed his contract's annual value- Cam Newton likely will. RGIII and Andrew Luck will. But ARod will have set the bar for them, and still be in the top 10 or so paid players, period, and be the factor that magnetically attracts players to stay in GB to win. You can't put a price on that- look at how Brady has transformed NE from an NFL backwater to a destination franchise. ARod's next deal puts us in that frame.

The trick will be to see TT manage that window better than Belicheat once it's signed. Based on draft record? I like our chances...

 

[HardRightEdge]

When Favre signed his landmark 10 year / $100 million deal in 2001, the salary cap was $67 million. His $10 mil per year average represented about 15% of the cap figure during the initial year.

For Rodgers, at $25 mil per year against a cap of $123 mil, his take will be 20% of the initial year cap figure. $20 mil per year would be a 16% take.

Everything I see would indicate $20 mil per year, with more years than Brees, would be a fair number. The Ravens and Cowboys screwed the pooch, and perhaps us in the process. We'll see. I don't think Rodgers will get to $25, but we'll have to pay him more than Flacco's $20.

I wonder if Brady ever feels like a chump for never having been the highest paid.

 

[Raptorman]

When Favre signed his landmark 10 year / $100 million deal in 2001, the salary cap was $67 million. His $10 mil per year average represented about 15% of the cap figure during the initial year.

For Rodgers, at $25 mil per year against a cap of $123 mil, his take will be 20% of the initial year cap figure. $20 mil per year would be a 16% take.

Everything I see would indicate $20 mil per year, with more years than Brees, would be a fair number. The Ravens and Cowboys screwed the pooch, and perhaps us in the process. We'll see. I don't think Rodgers will get to $25, but we'll have to pay him more than Flacco's $20.

I wonder if Brady ever feels like a chump for never having been the highest paid.

Well since his wife makes more money than him, I'm sure he is not that all upset by it. That, and those Super Bowl rings go a long way.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Well since his wife makes more money than him, I'm sure he is not that all upset by it. That, and those Super Bowl rings go a long way.

The answer, I guess, is getting Rodgers hooked with a super model instead of a broke party girl.

 

[texaspackerbacker]

When Favre signed his landmark 10 year / $100 million deal in 2001, the salary cap was $67 million. His $10 mil per year average represented about 15% of the cap figure during the initial year.

For Rodgers, at $25 mil per year against a cap of $123 mil, his take will be 20% of the initial year cap figure. $20 mil per year would be a 16% take.

Everything I see would indicate $20 mil per year, with more years than Brees, would be a fair number. The Ravens and Cowboys screwed the pooch, and perhaps us in the process. We'll see. I don't think Rodgers will get to $25, but we'll have to pay him more than Flacco's $20.

I wonder if Brady ever feels like a chump for never having been the highest paid.

Good Points. What you didn't say, though, is that $123 million figure will continue to rise. It slightly less than doubled in 12 years according to your figures. I have said over and over, the key to making the Rodgers deal work is making it long term enough - I'm talking 10 years or more. I sincerely HOPE this figure of 4 years at $22 - 25 million per year is nothing more than media ********. The model I wrote up in a different thread was $258 million for 10 years, and the cap hit for the first several years was actually less than with his current contract. And by those later years when it seems so ridiculous, not only will the cap be MUCH higher, but undoubtedly what Rodgers gets will seem like a bargain next to future big QB contracts.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Good Points. What you didn't say, though, is that $123 million figure will continue to rise. It slightly less than doubled in 12 years according to your figures. I have said over and over, the key to making the Rodgers deal work is making it long term enough - I'm talking 10 years or more. I sincerely HOPE this figure of 4 years at $22 - 25 million per year is nothing more than media ********. The model I wrote up in a different thread was $258 million for 10 years, and the cap hit for the first several years was actually less than with his current contract. And by those later years when it seems so ridiculous, not only will the cap be MUCH higher, but undoubtedly what Rodgers gets will seem like a bargain next to future big QB contracts.

I think you've made a poor assumption that the salary cap will double again in the next 12 years. The NFL has exploited nearly all of the TV opportunities and big seat price increases the market can bear. There are not a lot of unexploited revenue sources left. I think we can also expect going forward an increasing portion of the player pie going to pension and benefits as we saw in this last CBA. If the league has to start paying extended disability benefits for brain trauma, the entire business model could be compromised.

Goodell's latest hobby horse is how to get people to continue to pay for ever more expensive seats when they can watch at home in high def on big screens. His current efforts focus on finding ways to build unique "content" into the stadium experience. His most recent initiative is requiring all teams to broadcast the locker room to the stadium score board; this feed will be stadium only. No, that's not a joke. Moves like this do not paint a picture of an enterprise with an unlimited revenue growth horizon.

Their best idea for another revenue jump is the 18 game schedule...but that should continue to be a non-starter with the union. International expansion has gone nowhere; maybe they should try flag football in Europe. Legalized on-line gambling might spark another leg up in interest, but the negative byproducts may be unreconcilable.

There should be a bump in salary cap in 2015 with the new TV contracts, at least that's what we're led to believe, but there's no indication the NFL's revenue "golden age" of the last 2 decades can continue at the same pace. ESPN is loaded up to the gills now with NFL coverage; the NFL Network is in place now with 24/7 coverage; the available days of the week that make sense for broadcast are mostly saturated. At the same time, 1/3 of the teams are having trouble selling out from time to time...for a few it's a weekly struggle.

Assuming your 10 year / $258 mil is fairly clean without a lot of gimmicks and outs, I hope Rodgers is not asking for that kind of deal because he shouldn't get it, and he won't get it. The only way anything like those numbers works is if it has gimmick $30 mil+ base salaries in the out years, or some like back load mechanism, whereby that money will never be paid but looks pretty on paper.

 

[Raptorman]

Good Points. What you didn't say, though, is that $123 million figure will continue to rise. It slightly less than doubled in 12 years according to your figures. I have said over and over, the key to making the Rodgers deal work is making it long term enough - I'm talking 10 years or more. I sincerely HOPE this figure of 4 years at $22 - 25 million per year is nothing more than media ********. The model I wrote up in a different thread was $258 million for 10 years, and the cap hit for the first several years was actually less than with his current contract. And by those later years when it seems so ridiculous, not only will the cap be MUCH higher, but undoubtedly what Rodgers gets will seem like a bargain next to future big QB contracts.

I would not bet on that. A lot of people are dumping live TV from their homes. I dumped mine last July. Don't miss it at all. Any show I want to watch I can watch online pretty much whenever. Only thing I miss is live football. But, then I found a website for that. I actually watched more of my teams games this past year than at anytime since I lived in Superior, WI. TV stations are going to have to take a hard look at what people are doing in the future as far as were they are getting their TV signal from and viewing habits. I would be willing to bet that in 10 years how we watch TV is not how we watch it now.