Rodgers Contract

[Pokerbrat2000]

You know, McCarthy doesn't always talk up his players. Last season we had the Randall issue with no defense from the coach. McCarthy also called out Spriggs for his work effort.

One recent development is the McCarthy phraseology of the "second year jump" morphing into the "second or third year jump", perhaps in deference to the former GM or perhaps wishful thinking.

True, but when pressed by the media about the development of a player, he is more likely to talk about the positives than the negatives, which is what most coaches do. We saw that with Janis, until it started to become obvious MM was getting impatient about him as a WR.

I was as disappointed in Hundley's play as most, but I also accepted that he was going to be a big drop off from #12. Let's not forget he was a 5th round pick who did some good things during his preseason work, probably the same in practices, but only had 10 passing attempts prior to replacing the injured Rodgers. People who think he should have been a ton better in his first stint as a full time starter were expecting too much. If you want to point a finger, it should be at TT for not providing MM and the Packers with a more experienced and capable backup in the event AR went down.

 

[Heyjoe4]

He's got to be looking at 5-$155-160M with $95-100M guaranteed right?

Hey Ace. With Ryan getting $100 mil guaranteed, I gotta believe ARod’s guaranteed amount will be closer to $125 mil, with a contract average of $32 mil/year. As someone else pointed out, the guaranteed amount is what matters most. It’s a huge cap hit, but ARod all by himself pretty much guarantees 10 wins. If other guys step up - Adams, Graham, Jones, an improved D, that means 12 to 13 wins. Time to pay the man. We learned (the hard way) last year what the team is without him.

 

[Heyjoe4]

True, but when pressed by the media about the development of a player, he is more likely to talk about the positives than the negatives, which is what most coaches do. We saw that with Janis, until it started to become obvious MM was getting impatient about him as a WR.

I was as disappointed in Hundley's play as most, but I also accepted that he was going to be a big drop off from #12. Let's not forget he was a 5th round pick who did some good things during his preseason work, probably the same in practices, but only had 10 passing attempts prior to replacing the injured Rodgers. People who think he should have been a ton better in his first stint as a full time starter were expecting too much. If you want to point a finger, it should be at TT for not providing MM and the Packers with a more experienced and capable backup in the event AR went down.

Totally agree about Hundley. A backup QB should be expected to at least play .500 ball until the starter returns. Not every team has the luxury of a Nick Foles on the bench, and even with him, he was a $5 mil cap hit. Hundley was good in pre-season, personally, I just don’t think he can handle the real thing. He isn’t the first. Let’s see what Kizer brings, at least he’s played in real NFL games, albeit poorly (well, he was with the Browns.....).

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Totally agree about Hundley. A backup QB should be expected to at least play .500 ball until the starter returns. Not every team has the luxury of a Nick Foles on the bench, and even with him, he was a $5 mil cap hit. Hundley was good in pre-season, personally, I just don’t think he can handle the real thing. He isn’t the first. Let’s see what Kizer brings, at least he’s played in real NFL games, albeit poorly (well, he was with the Browns.....).

Agree, with the sentiment of the post, but I think any team expecting at least .500 ball from a back would require a pretty solid team, a pretty good backup or a combination of the 2. Unfortunately, last year the Packers had a crappy defense and a not very solid backup, as well as some might question just how strong the 10 guys around Hundley were.

When you have a team like the Packers, that rely mostly on #12 to be the difference maker, you are setting yourselves up for losses when he either can't play or has a bad game. But that is the team TT built and hopefully Gute will be able to build a stronger team around #12.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not every team has the luxury of a Nick Foles on the bench, and even with him, he was a $5 mil cap hit.

Only teams that have a starting quarterback still on their rookie deal have the luxury of paying a backup several millions a year.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Only teams that have a starting quarterback still on their rookie deal have the luxury of paying a backup several millions a year.

Or you are a team like the Vikings last year and you have Bradford, Keenum and Bridgewater. But yes, generally speaking, you don't want to allocate too much money to the QB position. However, if you are a team like the Packers, that heavily rely on their QB, might not be a bad idea to invest a bit more into an experienced vet. Not saying the Packers would have done a ton better with Keenum in 2017, but I think they would have won more games and been in the playoffs, which might have been worth the $2M investment.

 

[sschind]

Not sure if this has been addressed but does anyone think the potential fallout from Rodgers' new deal had any influence on Teds decision to step down? In spite of what some fans feel I think Ted is still pretty highly thought of in Packerland and knowing that he probably wouldn't be around to see it through maybe he decided to get out before he had to make the tough decision. Knowing how the Favre decision split the packer faithful maybe he didn't want to go through that again.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Or you are a team like the Vikings last year and you have Bradford, Keenum and Bridgewater. But yes, generally speaking, you don't want to allocate too much money to the QB position. However, if you are a team like the Packers, that heavily rely on their QB, might not be a bad idea to invest a bit more into an experienced vet. Not saying the Packers would have done a ton better with Keenum in 2017, but I think they would have won more games and been in the playoffs, which might have been worth the $2M investment.

The Vikings quarterback situation last season was a pretty unique one because of Bridgewater suffering a devastating knee injury in 2016.

I guess the Packers would have made the playoffs if Keenum had performed at the same level in Green Bay like he did for Minnesota.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Agree, with the sentiment of the post, but I think any team expecting at least .500 ball from a back would require a pretty solid team, a pretty good backup or a combination of the 2. Unfortunately, last year the Packers had a crappy defense and a not very solid backup, as well as some might question just how strong the 10 guys around Hundley were.

When you have a team like the Packers, that rely mostly on #12 to be the difference maker, you are setting yourselves up for losses when he either can't play or has a bad game. But that is the team TT built and hopefully Gute will be able to build a stronger team around #12.

You make good points. Even though the Pack was 4-1 when #12 went down, that one loss was a beating by the Falcons. Even if #12 had stayed healthy, they would have had trouble making it to 10 wins. It’s the responsibility of the GM to put a team in place around the QB, and it would take a good team to play .500 ball absent the starter. Let’s just hope a corner has been turned, and Gutekunst realizes the urgency of getting better coaches and players around Rodgers. He only had so much to work with this year, and while I’m pleased with the FAs and the draft, the Pack needs an impact player on D, and I don’t know who that is right now. Let’s hope it gets figured out soon, because #12 has 4 or 5 years left. We’d all like at least one more SB.

 

[McKnowledge]

Agree, with the sentiment of the post, but I think any team expecting at least .500 ball from a back would require a pretty solid team, a pretty good backup or a combination of the 2. Unfortunately, last year the Packers had a crappy defense and a not very solid backup, as well as some might question just how strong the 10 guys around Hundley were.

When you have a team like the Packers, that rely mostly on #12 to be the difference maker, you are setting yourselves up for losses when he either can't play or has a bad game. But that is the team TT built and hopefully Gute will be able to build a stronger team around #12.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Well, that's not quite what I contend.

I'm opposed to any contract extension until Rodgers demonstrates his shoulder is sound. I will be further opposed to a fully guaranteed contract regardless. Otherwise, sign him up with the limits of sanity.

Why the opposition to fully guaranteed contracts? I mean, I kinda think Shazier is a great example of why the players should bebe fighting for more guaranteed money.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Ever think of changing your name to "Darkcloud"

Show me where MM isn't doing what most coaches in sports do, talk up their players. How does this make him a pathological liar? When he was talking about Rodgers back in the day, was he lying?

Go look at my defense of numerous players and coaches. You can probably tell that I'm not the biggest McCarthy fan. For some, one Super Bowl appearance with the greatest QB in NFL history is enough to make McCarthy's job sacrosanct. For me, he's underwhelmed quite a bit. As for his comments on the QB, that's a sore spot. Last year MM got angry and offended when people suggested the team needed to look elsewhere for a QB. Still haven't heard him apologize for being condescending and pretending he knew more than the average fan when it came to adequacy of the QB position in Green Bay last year.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Why the opposition to fully guaranteed contracts? I mean, I kinda think Shazier is a great example of why the players should bebe fighting for more guaranteed money.

Shazier is a great, yet very small scale example of the dangers of the NFL. However, you shouldn't have to drastically overpay every player because of it. There are other ways to compensate players and their families for situations like that. Players can take out insurance policies, each team or the NFL itself could set up a fund to pay out of to injured players. Does every individual firefighter and cop get paid a large extra sum of money each year due to the risks they face while on the job? When your health insurance provider calculates your premiums, do they base the amount you pay on everyone that they insure having a catastrophic event? Does your job have risks that you are compensated really well for taking? BTW Shazier should financially be just fine, his $9.5M contract was fully guaranteed.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You make good points. Even though the Pack was 4-1 when #12 went down, that one loss was a beating by the Falcons. Even if #12 had stayed healthy, they would have had trouble making it to 10 wins.

I'm quite sure the Packers would have won at least 10 games and challenged the Vikings for the division crown last season if Rodgers stayed healthy.

Why the opposition to fully guaranteed contracts? I mean, I kinda think Shazier is a great example of why the players should bebe fighting for more guaranteed money.

Shazier is also a great example on why teams should be reluctant to hand out fully guaranteed contracts.

Go look at my defense of numerous players and coaches. You can probably tell that I'm not the biggest McCarthy fan. For some, one Super Bowl appearance with the greatest QB in NFL history is enough to make McCarthy's job sacrosanct. For me, he's underwhelmed quite a bit.

McCarthy has mostly done a great job on the offensive side of the ball over his tenure. He should have held other coaches, especially on defense, more accountable though as that unit has most likely prevented the team of returning to another Super Bowl.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Shazier is also a great example on why teams should be reluctant to hand out fully guaranteed contracts.

WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER!

 

[sschind]

Why the opposition to fully guaranteed contracts? I mean, I kinda think Shazier is a great example of why the players should bebe fighting for more guaranteed money.

I understand why players want more guaranteed money but it used to be they gave up overall contract money for more guaranteed money. Now they want more money than everyone else and they want more guaranteed.

If the trend starts going to fully guaranteed contracts and contracts keep going up I think a few things need to happen. Some of these would be controversial and some could be highly subjective but some protections would need to be in place. I haven't really taken the time to think all these through so some will undoubtedly be full of problems but these are just some general concerns I have with fully guaranteed contracts.

As long as the player can physically play the contract money is paid and counts against the cap.

If a situation like Shazier comes up the player still gets paid but the money doesn't count against the cap.

Teams can take out insurance policies for injuries on guaranteed contracts. Won't help for salary cap issues but it will help the team from taking a loss.

The league steps in and pays the contract money in the event of a career ending injury.

Players must attend every team training function, even the voluntary ones, for the length of the contract even if he can not play anymore. In essence if the team is paying him he can't have another job (as a commentator for example)

If the player is not active anymore he doesn't count against the cap or the roster limit but it has to be career ending. He can't sit out year 4 of a 5 year deal and play in year 5.

Any career ending injury outside of football voids the contract and if a player retires for anything other than injury it voids the contract.

IMO in some way shape or form these issues would need to be addressed.

 

[rmontro]

You make good points. Even though the Pack was 4-1 when #12 went down, that one loss was a beating by the Falcons. Even if #12 had stayed healthy, they would have had trouble making it to 10 wins.

Going into last year, those first five games were thought to be the toughest part of the schedule. Coming out of those at 4-1 was quite satisfying. Even though there are always surprise teams, I can't believe they would have a hard time going 6-5 the rest of the way with Rodgers.

Obviously when Rodgers went down, the team got exposed quite a bit, but hopefully that will be a positive thing in the long run. Considering the weakness of the team around him, I don't think they would have had a hard time getting to 10-6, but I don't think they would have gotten out of the playoffs.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm not saying guaranteed money will absolutely cause a player to put less effort into his training, preparation and actual play, but I can see a "fat cat" argument make sense and play out when it comes to fully guaranteed money.

Personally, I have always been on the side of performance pay. I know it will probably never happen in Football, but I still think you would see guys playing a lot harder if every block, pass, run, pass defensed, etc. put money in their pockets. Instead, the NFL mainly pays players on what they did and are hopefully are still capable of doing, after that contract is signed.

 

[sschind]

I'm not saying guaranteed money will absolutely cause a player to put less effort into his training, preparation and actual play, but I can see a "fat cat" argument make sense and play out when it comes to fully guaranteed money.

Personally, I have always been on the side of performance pay. I know it will probably never happen in Football, but I still think you would see guys playing a lot harder if every block, pass, run, pass defensed, etc. put money in their pockets. Instead, the NFL mainly pays players on what they did and are hopefully are still capable of doing, after that contract is signed.

I like incentive based contracts as well but the downside to contracts that are highly incentive based is that it could cause resentment when players feel they are not being given the ball just to save money. If its first and goal at the 1 and you have a decent backup RB why not give him 3 chances to score or make an ill advised pass rather than give it to the one who is going to cost you another 50 grand if he scores. Heck some coaches are stupid like that even when there is no money on the line.

The QB might just be going to the open guy but the other guy could see it as the team directing the QB to not throw to him to save money.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Why the opposition to fully guaranteed contracts? I mean, I kinda think Shazier is a great example of why the players should bebe fighting for more guaranteed money.

The players can fight for their interests in 2021 with next CBA. The NFLPA is advising players to start saving money now; they evidently intend to play hardball with the leverage of a possible strike.

I object to a fully guaranteed Rodgers contract for the following reasons:

1. Whatever bump Rodgers might deserve over Ryan from a market standpoint, a fully guaranteed contract is not it. It is unecessarily excessive.

2. If Rodgers gets tackled again on that right shoulder the team may be cooked for years to come. It would be bad enough trying to replace him even without, say, $30 million per year over 5 years going out the window.

Again, at this point we don't know if Rodgers can still make ALL the throws with the same accuracy and velocity: 3 quarter, side arm, cross body, on the move. A new contract at this juncture should be a moot point. I've noted before his mechanics looked fine on in-the-pocket overhand throws in that last game; the others not so much. I don't think you'd want to pay that money for a pocket passing game manager.

There's a simple thing you can try. Place your left hand on your collarbone and simulate a variety of throws with the right arm. Visa versa for lefties. Feel the variety of movements? There are some fine mechanisms at work in there. Now imagine slapping a plate and a bunch of screws in there. Kind of interesting, don't you think? And any mechanical adjustments to the throwing motion as a result any limited motion or discomfor can then manifest in shoulder or elbow issues.

 

[rmontro]

Personally, I have always been on the side of performance pay. I know it will probably never happen in Football, but I still think you would see guys playing a lot harder if every block, pass, run, pass defensed, etc. put money in their pockets..

That's an interesting (and somewhat radical) idea. I like it, but the problem is that obliterates the salary cap. No team would know going into the season what their payroll would be. That might not be a problem for most teams, but a poorer team might not be able to afford a team that performed well. If a team played out of their heads for a season, they'd get a lot of money.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

That's an interesting (and somewhat radical) idea. I like it, but the problem is that obliterates the salary cap. No team would know going into the season what their payroll would be. That might not be a problem for most teams, but a poorer team might not be able to afford a team that performed well. If a team played out of their heads for a season, they'd get a lot of money.

It isn't too radical. There would be ways to still play within a salary cap with base salaries plus expected incentives to be earned counting against the cap. With technology and computers, wouldn't be that hard to still keep teams from being able to over leverage with the best players.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I like incentive based contracts as well but the downside to contracts that are highly incentive based is that it could cause resentment when players feel they are not being given the ball just to save money. If its first and goal at the 1 and you have a decent backup RB why not give him 3 chances to score or make an ill advised pass rather than give it to the one who is going to cost you another 50 grand if he scores. Heck some coaches are stupid like that even when there is no money on the line.

The QB might just be going to the open guy but the other guy could see it as the team directing the QB to not throw to him to save money.

While I understand that rationale but first, I doubt a team "throws" a game by using lessor paid incentive guys in key spots, scoring a touchdown in your example. Second, what if scoring a TD paid Player A-Z the same amount of money? Incentive paid contracts would almost have to be a universal thing across each and every team. The Cowboys couldn't start offering guys $1M/TD, just because they have more money. Base salaries + expected bonus = Salary Cap would still keep the market competitive.

I haven't worked this whole thing out yet, but I would love if someone in the NFL would!

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Shazier is a great, yet very small scale example of the dangers of the NFL. However, you shouldn't have to drastically overpay every player because of it. There are other ways to compensate players and their families for situations like that. Players can take out insurance policies, each team or the NFL itself could set up a fund to pay out of to injured players. Does every individual firefighter and cop get paid a large extra sum of money each year due to the risks they face while on the job? When your health insurance provider calculates your premiums, do they base the amount you pay on everyone that they insure having a catastrophic event? Does your job have risks that you are compensated really well for taking? BTW Shazier should financially be just fine, his $9.5M contract was fully guaranteed.

I get what you're saying but why is a guaranteed deal being overpaid? Comparing NFL jobs (or any entertainment industry job) to normal jobs is nonsensical, they just don't compare. In a perfect world teachers and other public servants would be the highest paid. Shazier was an example to others being injured.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Shazier is also a great example on why teams should be reluctant to hand out fully guaranteed contracts.



McCarthy has mostly done a great job on the offensive side of the ball over his tenure. He should have held other coaches, especially on defense, more accountable though as that unit has most likely prevented the team of returning to another Super Bowl.

It's weird how people are against employees (players) in sports making more money so billionaires can keep more of their money.

You have great reasons for MM to be an offensive coordinator. Sadly, that's not his job.