Rodgers reportedly disgruntled, does not want to return to the Packers

[longtimefan]

At the time, I didn't think they should trade him within the division. I'm not sure I remember the three firsts for him though. Certainly in hindsight at least, it should have been a no brainer to take that offer. Especially since he ended up playing there anyway.

Of course it is possible that the Vikings might have ended up winning the Super Bowl had that happened. Would we ever have forgiven ourselves?

Huh?

Nooo way 3 1st

Is a trade to Vikings next step for Brett Favre?

GREEN BAY, Wis. — The Green Bay Packers welcomed back quarterback Brett Favre from the reserve-retired list Sunday knowing full well that they’ve already taken the first step toward tra…

www.twincities.com

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Rodgers will sign a new contract after the 2024 season if he decides to continue playing at that time.

2025/2026 are in his current deal for cap purposes. Essentially just so they could spread prorated bonus money out over the maximum 5 years allowed by the NFL.

The Packers could have added void years to spread out the signing and option bonuses as well without the contract running through 2026. With that being said I agree there's no way Rodgers agrees to play for that kind of money in 2025 and '26. Actually I fully expect him to not play at that point anymore anyway.

Exercising the option prior to a trade would allow the team trading for Love to control him at a reasonable number for 2 seasons. 20 million for a starting qb who might be the one is cheap. Obviously any team willing to trade for Love would be of the opinion that he has a very good chance of being a starter in the league for a decade plus. And if he turns out they get 2 seasons before they have to pay him 40 m plus per

Why on earth would a team trade for an unknown quarterback guaranteed to make $20 million in a single season when they could draft one costing them less money over his entire rookie deal?

The only way the Packers will exercise that 5th year option is if they are pretty certain that Love IS a starting QB with more talent than just the back QB that has thrown only 83 passes in 3 years. Add to that, they would need a sense that Rodgers is ready to move on this or next year. Otherwise, Love is still a backup and in 2024, one that is being paid $20M to carry a clip board.

In my opinion Rodgers not being with the Packers for the upcoming season is the only scenario in which it might make sense to exercise the option on Love.

If his goal is for the Packers to win the Super Bowl, then even if Jordan Love can't win the Super Bowl, that's still the same result that Rodgers has given us for the past 12 seasons.

The Packers rank second over the past 12 seasons in winning percentage in the league and are tied for second most playoff appearances over that span. You might have to realize that the team could do much, much worse without an elite quarterback.

 

[Magooch]

This already happened once before, the Vikings offered 3 firsts for Favre and the Packers instead took a 2nd from the Jets. Going so far as to add a poison pill in the trade preventing the Jets from turning around and trading him to the Vikings

The Packers were idoits not to take the Vikings offer. Did Favre make the Vikings better, yeah absolutely. Should the Packers have been so afraid of naking the Vikings a better team, absolutely not

I don't know about this. Think you may have it mixed up - the "poison pill" in the Jets deal was reportedly said to be that the Jets would have to give up 3 1sts if they turned around and traded him to Minnesota, but I don't recall anything suggesting that Minnesota ever actually offered anything near that and was rejected. Happy to be corrected but I just don't have any recollection of that...

 

[GreenNGold_81]

I don't know about this. Think you may have it mixed up - the "poison pill" in the Jets deal was reportedly said to be that the Jets would have to give up 3 1sts if they turned around and traded him to Minnesota, but I don't recall anything suggesting that Minnesota ever actually offered anything near that and was rejected. Happy to be corrected but I just don't have any recollection of that...

This is my recollection as well. Poison pill was 3 firsts. I don't think any offer from the Vikes was ever published if it happened.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think there were some of us that were ready for Rodgers to be traded last offseason. In hindsight, had they pulled it off with Denver and Denver paid the same price they did for Russell Wilson, the Packers would have been in better shape today.

oh what if....they had and Denver had the same season.....

2022: 1st round pick #9
2nd round pick #40
5th round pick #145
Noah Fant, Shelby Harris and Drew Lock
Gave up Wilson and a 4th rd. pick #116


2023: 1st round pick #5
2nd round pick #37


I think the Seahawks came out on the winning side of that!

Would have been a great reboot for the Packers too, especially given the results of 2022. Love would have had a full season under his belt, the cap would be on its way to normalcy and the Packers would have used those picks in 2022 and the upcoming picks in 2023 to restock the shelves with some high draft capital.

One has to wonder how long you hang on to Rodgers, until his trade value is nothing?

 

[Magooch]

I think there were some of us that were ready for Rodgers to be traded last offseason. In hindsight, had they pulled it off with Denver and Denver paid the same price they did for Russell Wilson, the Packers would have been in better shape today.

oh what if....they had and Denver had the same season.....

2022: 1st round pick #9
2nd round pick #40
5th round pick #145
Gave up Wilson and a 4th rd. pick #116

2023: 1st round pick #5
2nd round pick #37

Noah Fant, Shelby Harris and Drew Lock

I think the Seahawks came out on the winning side of that! Would have been a great reboot for the Packers.

I had actually just typed out a long post on this exact scenario but somehow got erased...

Of course hindsight is 20/20 but with that said even IF it's true that Rodgers gave us the best chance to win in 2022 (rather than trading Rodgers, starting Love, and investing all those assets as needed), I have to think making that deal would've been the better long-term solution...

Now to be fair it's certainly possible that Denver has a better season with Rodgers at the helm. That means the picks we'd receive in 2023 would be worse than they presently are, but still - say we make that trade AND go ahead and get the same deal to move Davante, too. That gives us 5 picks inside the top 6 in the 2022 draft, and potentially 4 inside the top 50 in 2023.

Lock I consider mostly a non-factor but Fant and Harris had solid seasons for Seattle IIRC. We brought back Tonyan, added Reed in FA, and drafted Wyatt. Perhaps if we receive Fant at TE and Harris at DT we are able to approach those positions differently in the draft/free agency. Maybe we don't have to trade our two seconds to move up to get Watson - at #9 I believe all receivers except Drake London were still on the board. That means we could've had our pick of Wilson, Olave, Williams, Dotson, Burks, or still Watson.

If nothing else given Love's contract situation it gives you the ability to absolutely load up around him for 2022 and assess if you want to move forward with Love as your starter. If he shows enough to make you want to keep going with him, that's great. Sign that 5th year / extension and continue to build the team around him. If not, so be it - you have the assets to move around and bring in whoever you want at QB in 2023 and should still have a solid foundation (From your loaded 22 draft) to surround whoever that is with.

And of course that doesn't even address any of the cap implications...

 

[Mondio]

while all true, had we done that, Denver goes on to win super bowl with standout defense and Rodgers and we muddle thru a crap season we'd could just as easily be lamenting why we unloaded on our best option to get back to the super bowl coming off an MVP season, a narrow loss due to special teams gaffs to go to the Super bowl and getting 3 all pro level players back from injury why we chose to take such a huge step backwards.

But then everyone just knew how this season was going to go...

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I had actually just typed out a long post on this exact scenario but somehow got erased...

Of course hindsight is 20/20 but with that said even IF it's true that Rodgers gave us the best chance to win in 2022 (rather than trading Rodgers, starting Love, and investing all those assets as needed), I have to think making that deal would've been the better long-term solution...

Now to be fair it's certainly possible that Denver has a better season with Rodgers at the helm. That means the picks we'd receive in 2023 would be worse than they presently are, but still - say we make that trade AND go ahead and get the same deal to move Davante, too. That gives us 5 picks inside the top 6 in the 2022 draft, and potentially 4 inside the top 50 in 2023.

Lock I consider mostly a non-factor but Fant and Harris had solid seasons for Seattle IIRC. We brought back Tonyan, added Reed in FA, and drafted Wyatt. Perhaps if we receive Fant at TE and Harris at DT we are able to approach those positions differently in the draft/free agency. Maybe we don't have to trade our two seconds to move up to get Watson - at #9 I believe all receivers except Drake London were still on the board. That means we could've had our pick of Wilson, Olave, Williams, Dotson, Burks, or still Watson.

If nothing else given Love's contract situation it gives you the ability to absolutely load up around him for 2022 and assess if you want to move forward with Love as your starter. If he shows enough to make you want to keep going with him, that's great. Sign that 5th year / extension and continue to build the team around him. If not, so be it - you have the assets to move around and bring in whoever you want at QB in 2023 and should still have a solid foundation (From your loaded 22 draft) to surround whoever that is with.

And of course that doesn't even address any of the cap implications...

Seems like we were on the same wave length for sure. I even went back and added a few things to my post, as I sat with it more.

This whole "gives us the best chance of winning now" thing can be a real poison pill. I would prefer to look long term (1-4 years) and try to determine what gives us a chance of being on top for those years and more after. 2022 wasn't a season that the Packers actually went "all in", they once again underestimated Rodgers ability to elevate an offense without a lot of weapons.

I have really liked what Gute has done since he arrived, but this back and forth with Rodgers and not cutting the cord soon enough, may end up costing him his job.

 

[Magooch]

2022 wasn't a season that the Packers actually went "all in", they once again underestimated Rodgers ability to elevate an offense without a lot of weapons.

I have really liked what Gute has done since he arrived, but this back and forth with Rodgers and not cutting the cord soon enough, may end up costing him his job.

I'm sure I've said it before but this is the big issue for me.

If the team wants to stick with Rodgers that's fine. I honestly don't have any problem with us mortgaging the future and selling out to throw everything at winning right now with Rodgers. I'm pretty confident if they'd done that and won the Super Bowl this year just about everyone would be okay with having a few lean years to follow.

And if the team wants to move on and have Love take over that's fine too. I suspect that would be a bit less popular, but I don't have any problem with this either. Trade Rodgers for all the assets you can get, and like I said surround Love with talent and ride with him OR if he's not panning out then use those assets to find your next QB.

But trying to do both at the same time... we won't go all-in on the present with Rodgers but also won't go all-in on the future with Love. And my fear is that in doing so we've hampered our ability to win now with Rodgers while at the same time keeping Rodgers around and pushing contracts to try and mostly "keep the band together" will potentially limit hamper our ability to win with Love in the near future.

I guess ultimately what I'm getting at is that I'd rather simply see us make a decision and see it through with confidence/conviction. I'd respect it more either way - if we decide to stick with Rodgers and go all-in that route and it doesn't work out, so be it. And if we decide to move on and go all-in for the future with Love and he flops, it is what it is.

There's a cliche you hear a lot in the music world that basically says if you're going to play a wrong note, at least do it confidently/boldly/etc. A wrong note played with conviction often ends up sounding "right" (or at least intentional) while the guy who plays timid to avoid every wrong note ends up putting in a pretty dull and lifeless performance, even if it has less mistakes. Just kind of what it reminds me of.

 

[ExpatPacker]

Frankly at this point I don't see the Packers as a SB team in 2023. Sure, a lot can happen between now and July 2023, but I'm feeling more and more that the Packers need to rebuild. If the Packers traded Rodgers to the Jets for this year's 13th pick and next year's 1st rounder I'd be fine with it.

I certainly can't make a hard case, but hoping for just one more MVP-type season from Rodgers to carry us into the championship game just doesn't seem like one that's worth going all in for.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm sure I've said it before but this is the big issue for me.

If the team wants to stick with Rodgers that's fine. I honestly don't have any problem with us mortgaging the future and selling out to throw everything at winning right now with Rodgers. I'm pretty confident if they'd done that and won the Super Bowl this year just about everyone would be okay with having a few lean years to follow.

And if the team wants to move on and have Love take over that's fine too. I suspect that would be a bit less popular, but I don't have any problem with this either. Trade Rodgers for all the assets you can get, and like I said surround Love with talent and ride with him OR if he's not panning out then use those assets to find your next QB.

But trying to do both at the same time... we won't go all-in on the present with Rodgers but also won't go all-in on the future with Love. And my fear is that in doing so we've hampered our ability to win now with Rodgers while at the same time keeping Rodgers around and pushing contracts to try and mostly "keep the band together" will potentially limit hamper our ability to win with Love in the near future.

I guess ultimately what I'm getting at is that I'd rather simply see us make a decision and see it through with confidence/conviction. I'd respect it more either way - if we decide to stick with Rodgers and go all-in that route and it doesn't work out, so be it. And if we decide to move on and go all-in for the future with Love and he flops, it is what it is.

There's a cliche you hear a lot in the music world that basically says if you're going to play a wrong note, at least do it confidently/boldly/etc. A wrong note played with conviction often ends up sounding "right" (or at least intentional) while the guy who plays timid to avoid every wrong note ends up putting in a pretty dull and lifeless performance, even if it has less mistakes. Just kind of what it reminds me of.

Strongly agree on the part I bolded. As you said, it seems like Gute and the Packers are trying to do both things, but only half-assed. While nobody could have predicted Rodgers thumb injury, many of us knew that without replacing Adams, with more than a cast off vet (Watkins) and some rookies, the offense was going to have issues. So not only did Gute's half attempt suck in 2022, it put us further into both scenarios, without reaping any of the rewards (Super Bowl win, playing time for Love and others, higher draft picks).

I actually can see where Rodgers is frustrated with what Gute has done with trying to win it all, not enough. Not that Rodgers salary is helping things either. Nor is his career waffling each offseason.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, time to choose one or the other for the Packers.

 

[Jayzee1981]

I just have this gut feeling that this Hackett signing and that owner really wanting a vet QB points to 12. Lotta smoke here. If he’s dumb enough to give us 2 1st rounders and whatever, then the hell with him. I’ll take it lol!

 

[weeds]

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

 

[Mondio]

I like guys with a sense of humor. You know all these rumors are humorous to them LOL


anway, I don't think Gute was "half-assing" it. There are a lot of moving parts. They did a lot of things last offseason to prepare for this one, and yes, one of those things was rely on youth at WR position. They moved around a lot of money, re-signed a lot of extremely important pieces from the season before etc. We saw the change Watson made in the last 1/3 of the season. They were counting on that. Losing him to most of the preseason and TC and then much of the regular season in and out with injury hampers things. It's no different than going out and signing a 7 year vet who has extensive experience and was a pro bowler who checks out, gets hurt, or just doesn't get it and doesn't perform in the new place. All are possibilities and realities we see on this team and every other team every season.

 

[pacmaniac]

a narrow loss due to special teams gaffs to go to the Super bowl

We lost in the divisional round.

 

[thequick12]

Why on earth would a team trade for an unknown quarterback guaranteed to make $20 million in a single season when they could draft one costing them less money over his entire rookie deal?

Ok, you keep saying "unknown." Hes not as unknown as you're saying. We know the Packers really liked his potential coming out of college. Presumably a handful of other teams did too. Likely at least one of those teams is in dire need of a qb for the next 10 to 15 years

We also know that Love has spent 3 years learning how to be an NFL qb from a FHOF qb arguably the most talented to ever play the position. A guy who himself spent 3 years learning behind a FHOF qb.

Yes they can draft a guy who will be cheaper but Im betting at least a couple teams qpuld like the chances of taking a guy who has the physical talent and has learned from the best

 

[OldSchool101]

Ok, you keep saying "unknown." Hes not as unknown as you're saying. We know the Packers really liked his potential coming out of college. Presumably a handful of other teams did too. Likely at least one of those teams is in dire need of a qb for the next 10 to 15 years

We also know that Love has spent 3 years learning how to be an NFL qb from a FHOF qb arguably the most talented to ever play the position. A guy who himself spent 3 years learning behind a FHOF qb.

Yes they can draft a guy who will be cheaper but Im betting at least a couple teams qpuld like the chances of taking a guy who has the physical talent and has learned from the best

Sure. Plus it’s a 1 year deal.
Teams pay second rate WR’s $20m
so it’s not inconceivable to trade a Draft selection for a QB showing poise and first right of refusal if he He looks Purdy. Imagine telling a team to go kick Rocks for Mr Irrelevant. Here he is 1 game from the Super Bowl.

While Love is still relative unknown, spending $20m for a QB who on a coin toss is 50/50 a potential career starter? I’d call drop in the bucket.

 

[rmontro]

I don't know about this. Think you may have it mixed up - the "poison pill" in the Jets deal was reportedly said to be that the Jets would have to give up 3 1sts if they turned around and traded him to Minnesota, but I don't recall anything suggesting that Minnesota ever actually offered anything near that and was rejected.

That would explain why I don't remember it lol. The three firsts poison pill for the Jets sounds familiar though.

I think thequick12 might also have been thinking of the Herschel Walker deal, they gave three firsts in that.

 

[thequick12]

At the time, I didn't think they should trade him within the division. I'm not sure I remember the three firsts for him though. Certainly in hindsight at least, it should have been a no brainer to take that offer. Especially since he ended up playing there anyway.

Of course it is possible that the Vikings might have ended up winning the Super Bowl had that happened. Would we ever have forgiven ourselves?

I would, absolutely, because I bet those 3 first round picks would of really helped Rodgers out likely leading to more than just the one SB we ended up with

That would explain why I don't remember it lol. The three firsts poison pill for the Jets sounds familiar though.

I think thequick12 might also have been thinking of the Herschel Walker deal, they gave three firsts in that.

Yes there was the poison pill of 3 firsts which prevented the Jets from trading him to the Vikings. But word on the street at the time and I cant reveal my source now, was the Vikings were more than willing to give up those 3 firsts, obviously the Jets were not. Which prevented Favre from reaching the Vikings for 1 season

 

[Mondio]

We lost in the divisional round.

that's right, I forgot about that. Wasn't afraid of the rams at all that year, probably why I think it was the NFCCG. My mistake.

 

[longtimefan]

This already happened once before, the Vikings offered 3 firsts for Favre and the Packers instead took a 2nd from the Jets. Going so far as to add a poison pill in the trade preventing the Jets from turning around and trading him to the Vikings

The Packers were idoits not to take the Vikings offer. Did Favre make the Vikings better, yeah absolutely. Should the Packers have been so afraid of naking the Vikings a better team, absolutely not

Rodgers will sign a new contract after the 2024 season if he decides to continue playing at that time.

2025/2026 are in his current deal for cap purposes. Essentially just so they could spread prorated bonus money out over the maximum 5 years allowed by the NFL.

Jordan Love is not a completely unknown qb. The Packers having watched him practice have the most info on him but other teams have their opinion of him going into the draft and their opinion of him now.

Exercising the option prior to a trade would allow the team trading for Love to control him at a reasonable number for 2 seasons. 20 million for a starting qb who might be the one is cheap. Obviously any team willing to trade for Love would be of the opinion that he has a very good chance of being a starter in the league for a decade plus. And if he turns out they get 2 seasons before they have to pay him 40 m plus per

I call bs

I had an “in” at that time and no way was it 3 1st

i can tell you, he for sure used cell phones to discuss with vik coaches things

he used his own and not the nfl supplied cell phone

 

[rmontro]

But word on the street at the time and I cant reveal my source now, was the Vikings were more than willing to give up those 3 firsts

If that's true, you would have thought the Vikings would have learned their lesson the first time.

 

[thequick12]

I call bs

I had an “in” at that time and no way was it 3 1st

i can tell you, he for sure used cell phones to discuss with vik coaches things

he used his own and not the nfl supplied cell phone

Fair enough...our sources disagree. I trust mine you trust yours

As for the cell phone stuff...that was common even back then and is even more common now. No one follows tampering rules. How do you police that if youre the NFL?

Although I didnt know the NFL supplied cell phones to the players

 

[Pugger]

I think there were some of us that were ready for Rodgers to be traded last offseason. In hindsight, had they pulled it off with Denver and Denver paid the same price they did for Russell Wilson, the Packers would have been in better shape today.

oh what if....they had and Denver had the same season.....

2022: 1st round pick #9
2nd round pick #40
5th round pick #145
Noah Fant, Shelby Harris and Drew Lock
Gave up Wilson and a 4th rd. pick #116


2023: 1st round pick #5
2nd round pick #37


I think the Seahawks came out on the winning side of that!

Would have been a great reboot for the Packers too, especially given the results of 2022. Love would have had a full season under his belt, the cap would be on its way to normalcy and the Packers would have used those picks in 2022 and the upcoming picks in 2023 to restock the shelves with some high draft capital.

One has to wonder how long you hang on to Rodgers, until his trade value is nothing?

Looking back at the 2021 offseason why would Denver make a deal with us? The asking price for AR after an MVP season would have been steeper than Seattle asked for Wilson. If I were the Broncos' GM I'd make the deal for a 33 year old SB winning QB for less than get a 39 year old QB for a lot more picks and players.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Looking back at the 2021 offseason why would Denver make a deal with us? The asking price for AR after an MVP season would have been steeper than Seattle asked for Wilson. If I were the Broncos' GM I'd make the deal for a 33 year old SB winning QB for less than get a 39 year old QB for a lot more picks and players.

I never heard if there was an asking price for Rodgers last year. If the 2 sides talked, which various people say they did and some say they didn't, would it have been more to get Rodgers? I doubt it. As you point out, there is an age gap, which by the way, is less than 5 years, not 6. Other factors might have played into each QB's level as well.

After this last season, the Broncos probably wished they had made that trade for Rodgers, if it was ever possible and the price was right.