Come on, we all know that they are going to win the Super Bowl and after that all the players will be so giddy, they will all agree to pay cuts and team friendly discounts, this is the way it works.
I agree. There's not a chance in hell Rodgers agrees to come back without Davante. No chance. Unless Davante expresses a desire to go to another team offering way more money. But if it's the Packers telling Rodgers they can't/won't bring Davante back, Rodgers is bouncing.
I doubt the Packers don't keep Rodgers and Davante because they don't want to, it might end up being because they can't afford/justify what it would take to keep them both, while keeping the rest of the team competitive. If Rodgers doesn't see that for what it is, then he doesn't fully understand the business side of football.
i actually think that is why he has subtly floated the idea out there that retirement is a possibility. He knows the Packers still have that leverage for next year. I doubt he wants to retire, but he most definitely wants control of his future.
Financially, Rodgers retiring could do the Packers more good than if he stays or is traded, but in either of those cases, you are getting a lot in exchange for him still playing, his performance if he stays, his trade value if they trade him. The worst scenario for the Packers is letting him walk as a FA in 2023.
I agree… and I suspect that is ultimately what Rodgers wants, but I think he also wants a contract that shows commitment to him by the Packers. Floating a possible retirement out there is his subtle leverage… which also assumes that the Packers want this as well.
With Rodgers' cap number, I don't think it's feasible for him to come back without him agreeing to an extension or restructure. And if he doesn't agree to anything, he holds all of the cards in his hands.
7 Months ago, I would have been more nervous about this. You are right, Rodgers is in a much better position than he was back then. However, it appears that he is trying to very subtly repair things on his side. That could mean one of 2 things: He truly is happy again and wants to stay in Green Bay and will work with the Packers front office to make things work with his contract. Or, it could just be to repair some of the damage that he did and in the end make it look like he was good to go, but this time it was the Packers front office that wasn't. I tend to think its a little bit of both.
The more I watch this thing play out, I believe it hinges on them making it to the Super Bowl. If they do, and win it, we'll see guys rework contracts to try to get a return visit next year. If we don't get there, I think it's going to be house cleaning. It all depends on what happens from here on in.
Agreed. Winning heals all wounds. There is some good and bad that will come out of a very successful season. Players like Douglas, Campbell, Patrick and obviously the big one, Davante Adams, are going to raise some eyebrows in Free agency and going to be very hard to resign. But I don't think an early exit or a Super Bowl win changes that.
I think the decision to pursue keeping the band together hinges on how well this playoff season goes. If they go all the way, they pull out all the stops and do whatever they can to keep it rolling. If they're beaten in their first game, I don't think they try too hard, to keep it together.
I agree. However, a SB win could have several effects and be different from player to player. First, the one you describe... "This was great, let's try to repeat by keeping as much of this team together as we can." The second effect might possibly be.... "We did it, I have my SB ring, now its time to go get the money" or for some like Rodgers, Lewis, Cobb..."That was great, time to end my career on a high note and retire."
I'm fine with Sullivan, Lowry, MVS and 1 of the Smiths not on the Packers next season. I think it is more important to prioritize resigning Campbell and Douglas. Turner is an easy cut and save and replaceable. I'll take Lazard over MVS, based on total contribution and expected price.
