Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="OldSchool101" data-source="post: 969328" data-attributes="member: 10086">While much of that is true and I agree with, it’s not the same situation. One absence was voluntary and one really was not voluntary. Literally! <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":laugh:" title="Laugh    :laugh:" data-shortname=":laugh:" />  I’m sorry I couldn’t resist !One would’ve represented a QB being 100% committed after getting a nice extension and a new platoon of Wideouts. Is it the end of the world?  Nope.Does it speak to his character? In my opinion it does, especially after the ongoing feud and what transpired to begin last season. This was a simple opportunity to offer an olive branch.  I know it and Matt knows it as he said as much.The truth is and this is speculation.I think Rodgers is tiffed about a contract that is a possible 1 year Deal + a 1 year + a 1 etc.. I don’t know what was said in negotiations, but I do not feel like he felt totally respected. The Packers have to be delicate with his situation as he’s somewhat volatile from an employment standpoint (that part is similar to Brady)  Both sides (Packers FO-Rodgers) were partly to blame though. It is what it is.</blockquote>

No members online now.

Total: 100 (members: 0, guests: 100)