The Aaron Rodgers performance thread

[Deleted member 6794]

If Rodgers is a "problem" then what is Spriggs or Cobb sitting in the hot tub, or only one veteren wr or a journeyman rg? I'll take 2 interceptions from my starting qb in any day of the week. Rodgers played the whole season with a injured left knee. He rarely transferred his weight onto that knee all season but still played extremely well. The udea that a new coach neefs to "fix" Rodgers is ludicrous. What he needs to do is fix the offense around him.

I agree that it's ludicrous to suggest Rodgers was the problem in 2018 but there's no denying he deserves part of the blame for the offense struggling last season.

 

[Do7]

For the record ... I don’t think anybody owes you an explanation. You are free to disagree... but I don’t believe anyone is obligated to “shut up” if you are not convinced.

Alright I was gone for about a week in a half due to some personal matters, as a result I wasn't able to respond to this so here's my reply.

OBVIOUSLY no one owes me an explanation, but I believe it's called defending your argument in a debate. If someone freely gives out their opinion, then it's equally right for someone else to challenge and criticize their opinion. And if you can't defend your point, then chances are it was a lousy opinion that wasn't well thought out and chances are they were wrong and don't want to fess up. If people disagree with your opinion and challenge you and choose not to defend it then you face the possibility of not being taken seriously. I love debating sports. I like hearing other opinions, but when I don't agree or ask for clarity (in this case challenge). Just like I'm expected to defend my points since I'm openly expressing them. That's just my two cents.

Also dude we were in a debate, clearly. So you have two options: Either defend your points (Put up) or Don't (Shut up). Don't take things so literally, of course he doesn't OWE ME an answer. It's all in good fun in having a debate.

 

[swhitset]

Alright I was gone for about a week in a half due to some personal matters, as a result I wasn't able to respond to this so here's my reply.

OBVIOUSLY no one owes me an explanation, but I believe it's called defending your argument in a debate. If someone freely gives out their opinion, then it's equally right for someone else to challenge and criticize their opinion. And if you can't defend your point, then chances are it was a lousy opinion that wasn't well thought out and chances are they were wrong and don't want to fess up. If people disagree with your opinion and challenge you and choose not to defend it then you face the possibility of not being taken seriously. I love debating sports. I like hearing other opinions, but when I don't agree or ask for clarity (in this case challenge). Just like I'm expected to defend my points since I'm openly expressing them. That's just my two cents.

Also dude we were in a debate, clearly. So you have two options: Either defend your points (Put up) or Don't (Shut up). Don't take things so literally, of course he doesn't OWE ME an answer. It's all in good fun in having a debate.

Whatever... as you said... you’ve been gone for a bit ...but still feel the need to dredge this back up. I don’t use the ignore feature often... I’m going to in this case though.

 

[Do7]

Whatever... as you said... you’ve been gone for a bit ...but still feel the need to dredge this back up. I don’t use the ignore feature often... I’m going to in this case though.

Meh. You can't please everyone. I was simply explaining myself is all. If that's how you feel, you do you man. I hold no ill will.

 

[JoePack]

Could trade AR for a boatload of future picks and sign Fole's to a decent contract.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Could trade AR for a boatload of future picks and sign Fole's to a decent contract.

His new contract has pretty much made that a no go.

 

[JoePack]

His new contract has pretty much made that a no go.

Never know. Elway might. He needs a big time QB to get to the big show.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Never know. Elway might. He needs a big time QB to get to the big show.

I was talking more about the fact that it wouldn't be a go for the Packers because of what it would create in the way of dead cap. I have a feeling there are quite a few teams that would gladly trade for Rodgers.

 

[XPack]

Trade Rodgers? Will this insanity never die?

He probably lost faith in MM and new coach may get the train back on track.

 

[rmontro]

I was talking more about the fact that it wouldn't be a go for the Packers because of what it would create in the way of dead cap.

I don't like these rules. It doesn't make sense that if you trade a player, he still ends up counting against your cap number. He's frigging gone.

 

[Poppa San]

Never know. Elway might. He needs a big time QB to get to the big show.

Elway would be getting Rodgers for $15-20m per year for 4 years. He better be offering his entire draft for those four years. Plus Von Miller. Meantime GB would be eating a $46m dead cap this season, $20m more than it costs to keep AR12. Just a stupid idea.

 

[Do7]

Elway would be getting Rodgers for $15-20m per year for 4 years. He better be offering his entire draft for those four years. Plus Von Miller. Meantime GB would be eating a $46m dead cap this season, $20m more than it costs to keep AR12. Just a stupid idea.

I hope people were joking in regards to actually wanting to trading Rodgers. Then again probably not.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't like these rules. It doesn't make sense that if you trade a player, he still ends up counting against your cap number. He's frigging gone.

The Packers paid Rodgers a $57.5 million bonus to sign the contract last offseason. Of course that money has to count against their cap at some point but the CBA allows teams to prorate it out over five seasons to make it work in the first place. That's actually a positive for most clubs.

 

[JoePack]

I hope people were joking in regards to actually wanting to trading Rodgers. Then again probably not.

I completely understand your post. I'm not as well versed regarding the financial requirements. My point is that regardless of how good someone is, they are part of a team and all are expendable. All, owners, gm's, coaches and players cannot tolerate mediocrity or become complacent, as has been stated.
The next season will be interesting in how it unfolds.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

My point is that regardless of how good someone is, they are part of a team and all are expendable.

The Packers can't afford to lose Rodgers under any circumstances at this point.

 

[PackAttack12]

I completely understand your post. I'm not as well versed regarding the financial requirements. My point is that regardless of how good someone is, they are part of a team and all are expendable. All, owners, gm's, coaches and players cannot tolerate mediocrity or become complacent, as has been stated.
The next season will be interesting in how it unfolds.

Rodgers is the only reason the Packers have had a chance to win Super Bowls over the years. Suggesting to trade him for any reason is insane.

He's one of the best to ever do it and at 35, he's got plenty of game left.

 

[rmontro]

The Packers paid Rodgers a $57.5 million bonus to sign the contract last offseason. Of course that money has to count against their cap at some point but the CBA allows teams to prorate it out over five seasons to make it work in the first place. That's actually a positive for most clubs.

I get the point, but I still don't like it. The cap is essentially forcing you to mortgage your future to sign your biggest stars.
I understand it doesn't work this way, but it seems to me that if you trade off the player, you should be unloading all the baggage associated with him.

If anything, maybe the team who trades for him should take on that cap burden, although that would make trades very difficult. It would probably be fairer to just see that cap number go away, but then the team trading for the player would be getting a greater deal.

 

[Do7]

I get the point, but I still don't like it. The cap is essentially forcing you to mortgage your future to sign your biggest stars.
I understand it doesn't work this way, but it seems to me that if you trade off the player, you should be unloading all the baggage associated with him.

If anything, maybe the team who trades for him should take on that cap burden, although that would make trades very difficult. It would probably be fairer to just see that cap number go away, but then the team trading for the player would be getting a greater deal.

Let me get this straight. So in other words, you would've prefered the organization to be cheap and had us not pay the guy for what he's rightfully earned. And you'd be willing to ship him off b/c of some petty "baggage" issue?

 

[rmontro]

Let me get this straight. So in other words, you would've prefered the organization to be cheap and had us not pay the guy for what he's rightfully earned. And you'd be willing to ship him off b/c of some petty "baggage" issue?

No, you're not following the conversation.

All I was saying is that I don't like the way the cap rules are set up. I was telling Pokerbrat2000 that.
So CaptainWIMM was explaining how the cap rules works.
And I was replying that I still don't like them

Of course I don't think we should trade Rodgers.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

No, you're not following the conversation.

All I was saying is that I don't like the way the cap rules are set up. I was telling Pokerbrat2000 that.
So CaptainWIMM was explaining how the cap rules works.
And I was replying that I still don't like them

Of course I don't think we should trade Rodgers.

I understand you and personally I like the cap rules to keep all 32 teams on an equal playing field, what I don't like is the guaranteed money and how it effects the cap, but it is the way it is. Something that both sides bargained for. In regards to your desire for a team to just be able to "erase any future cap hit" if a team trades or cuts a player, remember that the remaining guaranteed or cap money represents what has been promised to said player by that team through a contract. So lets say Rodgers contract was back loaded with $100M due in his 4th and 5th years, in your world, the Packers would probably just trade/cut him after his 3rd year just to avoid that hit and then does Rodgers get paid?

I would love football so much more if no contracts were guaranteed and players were paid pretty much all of their money based on their performance. But that only happens in Golf and Poker, to name a the few.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I get the point, but I still don't like it. The cap is essentially forcing you to mortgage your future to sign your biggest stars.
I understand it doesn't work this way, but it seems to me that if you trade off the player, you should be unloading all the baggage associated with him.

If anything, maybe the team who trades for him should take on that cap burden, although that would make trades very difficult. It would probably be fairer to just see that cap number go away, but then the team trading for the player would be getting a greater deal.

The Packers paid Rodgers that money to sign the contract, it's only logical it counts against the team's cap at some point. If that rule wasn't in place #12 would have counted $66.9 million towards the cap in 2018.

 

[swhitset]

The Packers paid Rodgers that money to sign the contract, it's only logical it counts against the team's cap at some point. If that rule wasn't in place #12 would have counted $66.9 million towards the cap in 2018.

To take that a step further, imagine the ramifications to the cap if as rmontro suggests that money could still be wiped clean from a team’s
cap simply by getting rid of the player. Signing bonuses could potentially become ridiculously high on the very rich teams and yet those same teams could effectively just cut said player after a year or two creating a revolving door of players coming in and out. The teams with less money would not be able to compete as easily in free agency... making the cap somewhat pointless. on the other hand, players like Mathews, Cobb, and Perry would make out like bandits because they could be cut earlier and some other team would probably pay them even more. I could see a lot of players simply grabbing that signing bonus and then playing like lazy garbage. That already happens in many cases... this would just encourage more of it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I could see a lot of players simply grabbing that signing bonus and then playing like lazy garbage. That already happens in many cases... this would just encourage more of it.

Correct and I think it happens a lot more than we would like to know. With the size of contracts and upfront money, football players are suddenly becoming instant millionaires, some as soon as their rookie contracts. On top of that, add in the more publicized physical long term dangers of playing football running in the back of a players mind and complacency is inevitable for some.

I'm sure coaches see it when the first workouts of the year begin. There are probably guys who worked there tails off during the off season and guys who just coasted. We see varying outcomes from those who just start phoning it in. They may be out of football quickly or due to their salary structure and/or natural abilities to still play ok football, they stick with their team.

 

[rmontro]

what I don't like is the guaranteed money and how it effects the cap, but it is the way it is. Something that both sides bargained for. In regards to your desire for a team to just be able to "erase any future cap hit" if a team trades or cuts a player, remember that the remaining guaranteed or cap money represents what has been promised to said player by that team through a contract.

Agree that it's the guaranteed money where things get sticky. But to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that a player not get paid, I just didn't like the way it affects the cap. If you no longer have the player, I don't like that he still affects the cap. That's why I said maybe if you trade the player, the new team would have to take on all the cap implications. That seems fair if a player is worth x amount of money, and his value is spread across several years cap-wise.

Signing bonuses could potentially become ridiculously high on the very rich teams and yet those same teams could effectively just cut said player after a year or two creating a revolving door of players coming in and out.

That's a good point, we don't want the rich teams dominating. Maybe the cap hit would still be in effect in the case of a cut?
The next thing that comes to mind is what if the player gets injured and has to retire, does the team get some compensation, or are they just stuck in cap hell for years?

And just to be clear, I just said I didn't like the way the rules are, I wasn't saying that I had any solutions

 

[rmontro]

I think I could have gotten a "creative" on my post above