Rodgers miffed about loss of Van Pelt

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Of course they do different stuff, they have different players. They have Gronk, and when they didn't they had Bennett. We had Finely he went down and have had trouble getting another TE. But don't confuse that with not being a productive offense. We have been. It's just not the same. And while the Pats do different things, they aren't new things.

This. I suspect Aaron Jones will probably be used in more passing option capacities this next season, but up until he came on-board this last season we kinda had a slew of RBs that weren't exactly explosive pass catchers in the way that Ajayi, Clement or Deion Lewis are.

 

[Mondio]

This. I suspect Aaron Jones will probably be used in more passing option capacities this next season, but up until he came on-board this last season we kinda had a slew of RBs that weren't exactly explosive pass catchers in the way that Ajayi, Clement or Deion Lewis are.

It's been a while since we've had a reliable back like that. Franklin was drafted for that purpose, but we know how that ended. They got Lacy involved one season and then he got overweight and his entire game diminished.

I do think we're finally at a point where we have at least 2 guys to incorporate back there and expect to see more of it in the future.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

There is a difference between "consulting with" and "communicating with". Rodgers publicly stated that he wasn't happy that the Packers didn't "consult" with him about the decision on Van Pelt.

The definition of consult: "seek information or advice from (someone with expertise in a particular area)."

I get it, Rodgers is THE #1 player on the team, but consulting with him about decisions other than ones that players are typically consulted with, is going down a slippery slope in my opinion. Like I said before, if the Packers didn't inform AR of their decision before it was made public, I can see where he would be slightly put off, but should understand, he was being treated the same as the other 52+ players in the organization.

And if that's the case then Rodgers deserves to be ticked off because he's not the other 52 guys on the team. Treating him as such might make the average Joe fan feel better but it's a ridiculous position to take in today's world of how athletes get treated.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

And if that's the case then Rodgers deserves to be ticked off because he's not the other 52 guys on the team. Treating him as such might make the average Joe fan feel better but it's a ridiculous position to take in today's world of how athletes get treated.

How does treating him "special" make the other 51 guys on the team feel? How do the coaches feel if AR is now given consulting privileges? Where do you draw the line for Rodgers or for the next star player?

You and I just disagree is all. While I find it fine to inform Rodgers and other players of an upcoming move that might affect them, before it goes public, I don't agree that any player should have to be consulted with before such moves are made.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

How does treating him "special" make the other 51 guys on the team feel? How do the coaches feel if AR is now given consulting privileges? Where do you draw the line for Rodgers or for the next star player?

You and I just disagree is all. While I find it fine to inform Rodgers and other players of an upcoming move that might affect them, before it goes public, I don't agree that any player should have to be consulted with before such moves are made.

In my opinion there's actually more reason to be worried about Cignetti's track record coaching quarterbacks in the NFL than Rodgers being miffed about Van Pelt moving on.

 

[sschind]

If Rodgers lets something like not being consulted on the firing of a coach affect anything (performance, desire to stay, negotiating tactics etc.) then he is not the type of person so many fans think he is.

Has he ever been asked about or said anything more about his comments. Maybe all he meant was it would have been nice if they had consulted/informed me beforehand but I don't expect it and its not a big deal. After all it was a relatively minor comment and people rushed to the conclusion that Rodgers was mad and already planning his exit strategy. IMO with the amount of money the Packers are going to throw at him he ain't going anywhere even if someone else would give him more.

 

[OldSchool101]

Had Hundley been the Vikings or Eagles backup QB from week 7 on, I highly doubt either of them make the playoffs.

While I certainly agree that Hundley didn't live up to expectations starting at the Minnesota game, I disagree with this statement. The Eagles are built completely differently than the Packers and I think Doug Pederson would have had Brett Hundley much more adequately prepared. I do not believe the Eagles would've had the degree of success that Nick Foles brought to the table, but I think they would've made the playoffs. The 2017 Eagles Offense is more well rounded than GB and the Eagles Defense is 10X better than the 2017 GB Packers and that does not rest solely on the shoulders of Brett Hundley. Nick Foles wasn't some great QB I believe he had a team that knew how to adapt around him

https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/nick-foles-player-stats

I believe it's human nature to find a scapegoat when things aren't going right but it takes an entire team and coaching staff to fail

 

[Deleted member 6794]

While I certainly agree that Hundley didn't live up to expectations starting at the Minnesota game, I disagree with this statement. The Eagles are built completely differently than the Packers and I think Doug Pederson would have had Brett Hundley much more adequately prepared. I do not believe the Eagles would've had the degree of success that Nick Foles brought to the table, but I think they would've made the playoffs. The 2017 Eagles Offense is more well rounded than GB and the Eagles Defense is 10X better than the 2017 GB Packers and that does not rest solely on the shoulders of Brett Hundley. Nick Foles wasn't some great QB I believe he had a team that knew how to adapt around him

https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/nick-foles-player-stats

I believe it's human nature to find a scapegoat when things aren't going right but it takes an entire team and coaching staff to fail

I'm not convinced Pederson would have had Hundley better prepeared to be successful but there's definitely reason to believe both the Eagles and Vikings would have fared way better than the Packers did with him as the starter.

 

[PackAttack12]

If Rodgers lets something like not being consulted on the firing of a coach affect anything (performance, desire to stay, negotiating tactics etc.) then he is not the type of person so many fans think he is.

His performance will not be altered by this. And his desire to stay/negotiating tactics will depend on what upgrades are made to the team to give Rodgers the best chance to win.

If it proves to be more of the same, I wouldn't blame Rodgers for wanting to move on. As a fan of the Packers I would obviously hate it, but in no way would I have any ill feelings towards Rodgers for wanting better than what he's had to work with over the past few seasons.

The situation with Van Pelt, in my opinion, is a combination of other factors that have happened previously that makes Rodgers so irritated. And I don't blame him in the slightest.

The team might feel as if it doesn't have to consult with Rodgers on a personnel decision like what happens with the QB coach. And it's fine for them to have that mindset. But they also better keep in mind that, whether they, or any of the fans like it or not, Aaron Rodgers quite simply IS the Green Bay Packers right now, as evidenced by what happened after he went down. And whether they think it's right or wrong or whatever, at the end of the day, that's a guy you don't want to **** off. He's your meal ticket.

 

[Dblbogey]

You see any of those guys available in FA? You make it sound like it's easy, snap your fingers and done. I think it's a bit more complex than you realize.

He's probably the guy who says stuff like trade Quinton Rollins and Jason Spriggs for a couple of 2nd rounders.

 

[swhitset]

He's probably the guy who says stuff like trade Quinton Rollins and Jason Spriggs for a couple of 2nd rounders.

Or Janis (who is a free agent btw) straight up for Julio Jones.

 

[Mondio]

He's probably the guy who says stuff like trade Quinton Rollins and Jason Spriggs for a couple of 2nd rounders.

that does sound like a pretty nice idea, get it done Ted, errr, Gute!

 

[Mondio]

Or Janis (who is a free agent btw) straight up for Julio Jones.

the offseason strategy is sounding better with every post.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

His performance will not be altered by this. And his desire to stay/negotiating tactics will depend on what upgrades are made to the team to give Rodgers the best chance to win.

If it proves to be more of the same, I wouldn't blame Rodgers for wanting to move on. As a fan of the Packers I would obviously hate it, but in no way would I have any ill feelings towards Rodgers for wanting better than what he's had to work with over the past few seasons.

The situation with Van Pelt, in my opinion, is a combination of other factors that have happened previously that makes Rodgers so irritated. And I don't blame him in the slightest.

The team might feel as if it doesn't have to consult with Rodgers on a personnel decision like what happens with the QB coach. And it's fine for them to have that mindset. But they also better keep in mind that, whether they, or any of the fans like it or not, Aaron Rodgers quite simply IS the Green Bay Packers right now, as evidenced by what happened after he went down. And whether they think it's right or wrong or whatever, at the end of the day, that's a guy you don't want to **** off. He's your meal ticket.

I agree that Rodgers will be happy as long as Gutekunst improves the overall talent level on the roster. While it seems he was miffed about the team moving on from Van Pelt in my opinion it was the right decision to not consult with him on it as that would have set a terrible precedent for the entire team moving forward.

 

[XPack]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles...-emotional-over-packers-lack-of-communication

https://sports.yahoo.com/heres-things-can-get-contentious-aaron-rodgers-packers-044920881.html

Seems this still is simmering.... I find it strange that a team would not have better communication with its franchise QB over key decisions that directly affect the QB. It's not like they need AR12 to approve it, but more effective communication would make things easier for everyone and keep the key players involved in the team.

From what I read, MM says AvP was looking for OC opportunities...and he signed for Bengals who got another brand new OC. Perhaps it's some tussle between MM and AvP that led to AR12 being cut out of the loop? It'd be weird and plain bad to have this issue between MM and AR12 affecting this season.

 

[Mondio]

“I think it’s pretty clear that players play and coaches coach and personnel people make their decisions,” Rodgers told Milwaukee radio station 102.9 The Hog. “That’s the way they want it.”

Good, it appears he understands how it operates. now he can focus on what he needs to do to be ready for the season. But in case he wants it any other way, I'd gladly pay him Front office lower man on the totem pole money for his personnel advice over having to pay him top QB in the league money. I'd let him sit in on every meeting if that was the case.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Good, it appears he understands how it operates. now he can focus on what he needs to do to be ready for the season. But in case he wants it any other way, I'd gladly pay him Front office lower man on the totem pole money for his personnel advice over having to pay him top QB in the league money. I'd let him sit in on every meeting if that was the case.

Uhmm, you'd happily take the best QB in the NFL off the field to get personnel advice to free up cap space and turn the Packers into the Bears 2.0? When, instead, you could keep the best QB in the NFL ON the field and get personnel advice for FREE (which is INPUT, we're not talking he gets to make the decisions)? I fail to understand this logic.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I agree that Rodgers will be happy as long as Gutekunst improves the overall talent level on the roster. While it seems he was miffed about the team moving on from Van Pelt in my opinion it was the right decision to not consult with him on it as that would have set a terrible precedent for the entire team moving forward.

How is "best QB in the NFL gets to talk about his position coach" a precedent applying to the entire team? Or are you laboring under the false impression that "all players should be treated equally"? Seems like an interesting way for the Packers to try and get Rodgers to sign a team-friendly deal.

 

[AmishMafia]

Uhmm, you'd happily take the best QB in the NFL off the field to get personnel advice to free up cap space and turn the Packers into the Bears 2.0? When, instead, you could keep the best QB in the NFL ON the field and get personnel advice for FREE (which is INPUT, we're not talking he gets to make the decisions)? I fail to understand this logic.

Where does he say AR wont play?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

How does treating him "special" make the other 51 guys on the team feel? How do the coaches feel if AR is now given consulting privileges? Where do you draw the line for Rodgers or for the next star player?

You and I just disagree is all. While I find it fine to inform Rodgers and other players of an upcoming move that might affect them, before it goes public, I don't agree that any player should have to be consulted with before such moves are made.

The other guys on the field would probably feel the same way they feel when Rodgers gets a contract that's FAR larger than anyone else on the team. Players are businessmen, they are very aware that great players get more leeway and power on the team. Any thoughts that all players are equal and should be treated the same is just silly and unrealistic.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Where does he say AR wont play?

When he states that we'd pay Rodgers a low-end management salary and NOT the QB salary and then have him come to all management meetings. Or was I to assume that his logic was that Rodgers would, for some strange reason, be ok with playing for the lowest salary among in the entire NFL (a salary that, by the way, would violate CBA rules if he was actually playing).

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The other guys on the field would probably feel the same way they feel when Rodgers gets a contract that's FAR larger than anyone else on the team. Players are businessmen, they are very aware that great players get more leeway and power on the team. Any thoughts that all players are equal and should be treated the same is just silly and unrealistic.

So you are saying there should be a "hierarchy of decision making duties" for each player based on their pay? Aaron Rodgers being the #1 guy, gets input on coaching decisions and player transactions. Clay Matthews gets input on defensive schemes being run? Randall Cobb gets to sit in on meetings to decide what UDFA WR's should be signed........all the way down to DeAngelo Yancey getting to decide the team snack for Monday?

A line has to be drawn somewhere between Players and "staff". If you blur that line, I just don't think anything good comes from it. Who is running the team, the players or others?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

So you are saying there should be a "hierarchy of decision making duties" for each player based on their pay? Aaron Rodgers being the #1 guy, gets input on coaching decisions and player transactions. Clay Matthews gets input on defensive schemes being run? Randall Cobb gets to sit in on meetings to decide what UDFA WR's should be signed........

A line has to be drawn somewhere between Players and "staff". If your blur that line, I just don't think anything good comes from it.

Nope. I specifically stated that Rodgers doesn't DECIDE. He gets to provide input though. Or the team could go the route they've chosen and you support, the route which asserts management dominance over the lowly player (put that darn star in his place!). Sure, you end up aggravating and angering the player but hey, we can force the player to play for the team for multiple years! I'm sure that also won't affect team chemistry or anything, or create a distraction.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Nope. I specifically stated that Rodgers doesn't DECIDE. He gets to provide input though. Or the team could go the route they've chosen and you support, the route which asserts management dominance over the lowly player (put that darn star in his place!). Sure, you end up aggravating and angering the player but hey, we can force the player to play for the team for multiple years! I'm sure that also won't affect team chemistry or anything, or create a distraction.

I also used the word "input" by each player. In the case of APV and Jordy, do you think the people making the decisions weren't aware of how Rodgers would probably feel about the moves?

Let's go your Route. Rodgers gets "input" and states "I would totally not be on board with letting AVP walk or cutting Jordy Nelson". The next day, the team does it anyway. Now where are you? You think Rodgers will be happier because somehow they placated his ego with allowing his "input"? Rodgers did give his input, after the decisions were made, which he should be "allowed" or encouraged to do. But that input shouldn't have any bearing on the actual decisions made by the people running the franchise.

 

[GleefulGary]

Again, Rodgers is kind of a diva and this is for contract talks.

Worst case scenario, he has two years left, and an additional two franchise tags. He would be 38 after that. Works for me.