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

[OldSchool101]

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

The Raiders are 1 of only a few AFC teams leaguewide that fit into these criteria.

1. Have a definitive QB need
2. have both the draft capital AND cap ability to make it work
3. Are Regional to one of Rodgers more obvious comfort zones

 

[Mondio]

I remember last year when Rodgers was going to be a Bronco and the year before when he wasn't going to be a Packer because he hated them so much. I guess he could be a Raider, because just the other day I heard he was going to the Jets to follow Hackett. I guess one of these times people's "sources" will be right.

I don't put much stock in what GB says publicly about this. I'm sure they'd have Rodgers if that's the way it works out. But if they feel Love has it, and there are decent trade offers for Rodgers, which I believe there will be, and Rodgers still wants to play, he will be somewhere else.

It all kind of hinges on what the think of Love, and then it basically comes down to Rodgers. Is his will to play stronger than his will to stay a Packer?

The Raiders might have the need, the draft picks and Adams, but they also have a stooge for a HC.

 

[Heyjoe4]

The Packers are awaiting AR's decision whether he's retiring or wanting to play in '23. Makes no sense for Gute to be shopping AR in a trade of nobody knows if he'll continue. I think management is confident that Love is ready & willing to start him in '23.

Correct. And with Brady retiring this year (well, most likely), Rodgers will want to play at least one more year to avoid going into his HOF induction as a back story to Brady. I don't blame him for that. He deserves his day too.

 

[Mondio]

First, I think this notion Rodgers won't retire because he doesn't want to share it with Brady is another media fueled loaded crock of you know what LOL. as if there wouldn't be an amount of stuff in the media about both of them this offseason if both were to retire and a nauseating amount of coverage on both of them on how different this season will be with no Brady and No Rodgers in the NFL.

When was the last time any of you remember a HOF class because of 1 person? anybody, anybody? Bueller? Do they give one guy longer at the podium or something?

2nd, why wouldn't be getting feelers for what teams are interested and what their buying price might be? While there likely isn't a deal in the works that's solid, I'd be surprised if GB wasn't getting a feel on the market already. Same as car buying, if you are interested you come in with a solid offer. If you're just looking for a deal you don't. You can separate the wheat from the chaff fairly easy. It might be all you're left with is deal makers and that's what you do. It might just be you ID 3-4 serious guys and drive the cost up. It would be silly not to get a feel for things if you ask me, regardless of what Rodgers decides.

 

[Heyjoe4]

First, I think this notion Rodgers won't retire because he doesn't want to share it with Brady is another media fueled loaded crock of you know what LOL. as if there wouldn't be an amount of stuff in the media about both of them this offseason if both were to retire and a nauseating amount of coverage on both of them on how different this season will be with no Brady and No Rodgers in the NFL.

When was the last time any of you remember a HOF class because of 1 person? anybody, anybody? Bueller? Do they give one guy longer at the podium or something?

2nd, why wouldn't be getting feelers for what teams are interested and what their buying price might be? While there likely isn't a deal in the works that's solid, I'd be surprised if GB wasn't getting a feel on the market already. Same as car buying, if you are interested you come in with a solid offer. If you're just looking for a deal you don't. You can separate the wheat from the chaff fairly easy. It might be all you're left with is deal makers and that's what you do. It might just be you ID 3-4 serious guys and drive the cost up. It would be silly not to get a feel for things if you ask me, regardless of what Rodgers decides.

Do you think Tom Brady's induction in the NFL HOF will be just like any other player?

 

[Mondio]

Do you think Tom Brady's induction in the NFL HOF will be just like any other player?

Do I think anybody is going to remember him any more or the others any less because of it? No, I don't. In fact I think 95% of NFL fans don't even watch the HOF inductions at all. Do you think they're going to do anything special for Brady? Give his induction on a different day? Maybe play another HOF game for him? rename the Lombardi the Brady that day? as if stories aren't going to be told about both of them.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Do I think anybody is going to remember him any more or the others any less because of it? No, I don't. In fact I think 95% of NFL fans don't even watch the HOF inductions at all. Do you think they're going to do anything special for Brady? Give his induction on a different day? Maybe play another HOF game for him? rename the Lombardi the Brady that day? as if stories aren't going to be told about both of them.

I can see some of your points. Just seems that for the consensus "GOAT" there might be a few more viewers, or the NFL would commission or create a documentary around his career timed with his induction. 7 SB rings is unlikely to be matched for many lifetimes. Is that "must see TV"? Certainly yes for Pats' fans, but Brady kind of transcends the game.

I'm still sticking with my opinion that Rodgers will play this year. Of course that could be for the tens of millions of $$$ that await him....... And I think he'll be traded. That's just a hunch.

 

[tynimiller]

I remember last year when Rodgers was going to be a Bronco and the year before when he wasn't going to be a Packer because he hated them so much. I guess he could be a Raider, because just the other day I heard he was going to the Jets to follow Hackett. I guess one of these times people's "sources" will be right.

I don't put much stock in what GB says publicly about this. I'm sure they'd have Rodgers if that's the way it works out. But if they feel Love has it, and there are decent trade offers for Rodgers, which I believe there will be, and Rodgers still wants to play, he will be somewhere else.

It all kind of hinges on what the think of Love, and then it basically comes down to Rodgers. Is his will to play stronger than his will to stay a Packer?

The Raiders might have the need, the draft picks and Adams, but they also have a stooge for a HC.

To be fair, GB isn’t saying anything publicly, and Rodgers is saying VERY LITTLE.

Neither side is out here publically gossiping on the situation.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Currently hold outs are finicially not possible except for by the most prestigious players. ie guys the team is never going to make pay those daily fines. Love is probably close to that level due to his draft status, position, and potential

The league forces teams to fine every single player for each day they don't show up for mandatory work. It doesn't matter if it's the franchise quarterback or any player on the roster bubble.

Andrew Brandt: Jordan Love the future, Aaron Rodgers the present for Green Bay Packers

Andrew Brandt is no stranger to the potentially rocky quarterback transition likely to face the Green Bay Packers in the coming years.

www.skysports.com

Didnt read this article but it seems from the first paragraph he probably does mention it in this article. Otherwise If I recall correctly which im pretty sure I do. He uses the same story as in the screenshot tweet, in an article that he also mentions Rodgers was to demand a trade prior to the 2008 season

Sorry not the best info but should help you find it...im in the middle of a bunch of work stuff

I'm sorr but nothing in that article suggest Rodgers threatened toask for a trade in 2008 if the Packers held on to Favre for that season.

Agree. I do want any R tackle to be able to run block effectively. Would rather have that even if I had to go down a half step in pass pro.

The Packers definitely need improvement in pass protection from their right tackle next season.

 

[Mondio]

To be fair, GB isn’t saying anything publicly, and Rodgers is saying VERY LITTLE.

Neither side is out here publically gossiping on the situation.

I don’t expect them too either.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I don’t expect them too either.

No I think this is an example of us looking for something to comment on now that the Packers’ season is kaput!

 

[Pkrjones]

No I think this is an example of us looking for something to comment on now that the Packers’ season is kaput!

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

 

[Heyjoe4]

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

This is more entertaining than anything I've seen on Pro Bowl weekend. Kick Tak Toe anyone? Didn't think so.

 

[Heyjoe4]

The Raiders are 1 of only a few AFC teams leaguewide that fit into these criteria.

1. Have a definitive QB need
2. have both the draft capital AND cap ability to make it work
3. Are Regional to one of Rodgers more obvious comfort zones

Interesting. The situation in NYC is better - more talent, he knows the OC, good HC, better chance at getting to the SB.

In Vegas, there isn't as much talent (although lots of impact players on offense). But the head coach is Josh McDaniels, the kryptonite of HCs. McDaniels is a loser. But Rodgers calls his own game anyway, and his buddy Adams is there. And it's a LOT closer to So Cal. And they have a real TE - that is, one who can stretch the field.

I don't know. Seems like the odds are about even he'll play in GB, NYC, or LV. I don't think there's a chance he'll retire.

Or maybe he'll just move to Peru, sit with his plant, and hallucinate about playing all positions on one of these teams.

 

[thequick12]

I'm sorry but nothing in that article suggest Rodgers threatened toask for a trade in 2008 if the Packers held on to Favre for that season.

As I said I didnt read that article but you can definitely find an Andrew Brandt article where he does say it...just depends if you wanna soebd the time looking, I don't. But as @longtimefan said Brandt has said that numerous times

Honestly just shoot him a tweet, he'll probably reply

 

[thequick12]

There are rumors going around that the Packers are thinking about trading him. But you make a good point. If that's what they're doing, why are they waiting for a decision from Rodgers? Maybe to see if he'll be available to trade to someone? My guess is they are looking to see what they can get for him, and decide from there whether or not it's worth it.

Well because Rodgers has a no trade clause and if he decides to retire they can't trade him at that point. So up to him to first decide to play and then agree to be traded

 

[longtimefan]

As I said I didnt read that article but you can definitely find an Andrew Brandt article where he does say it...just depends if you wanna soebd the time looking, I don't. But as @longtimefan said Brandt has said that numerous times

Honestly just shoot him a tweet, he'll probably reply

I might be mistaken, but I believe he said it over the air on WSSP the time that Jordan love was drafted . But I heard it from people on inside at same time

 

[Magooch]

Well because Rodgers has a no trade clause and if he decides to retire they can't trade him at that point. So up to him to first decide to play and then agree to be traded

FTR - Rodgers does *not* have a no trade clause

 

[Deleted member 6794]

As I said I didnt read that article but you can definitely find an Andrew Brandt article where he does say it...just depends if you wanna soebd the time looking, I don't. But as @longtimefan said Brandt has said that numerous times

Honestly just shoot him a tweet, he'll probably reply

As I have mentioned before I've read a lot of stuff from Brandt but never came across anything about him saying Rodgers would have asked to be traded if the Packers didn't name him the starter in 2008.

Since you were the one stating that like it's a fact the burden of proof is on you.

 

[thequick12]

Since you were the one stating that like it's a fact the burden of proof is on you.

Look you can believe whatever you'd like, as I said I heard it way before I ever heard it from Andrew Brandt. I know what I believe and I dont really care if you do. If you'd like to know the truth then the burden of proof is on you because I already know. If youd like to just keep believing what you think while ignoring the facts, go for it.

 

[Mondio]

I remember reading after that his agent was pressuring GB to name him the starter, or move on and trade him. How serious that was, or what would have come of it is all speculation obviously at this point. I put it in the same camp as the reports that Love's agent has told GB it's time to play him or he'll seek a trade this year as well. It's part of the game. I didn't feel sorry for Rodgers having to sit, and I don't feel sorry for Love either. You'll get your time kid, when it's time. Keep working and keep the desire, your time is coming sooner than later.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I remember reading after that his agent was pressuring GB to name him the starter, or move on and trade him. How serious that was, or what would have come of it is all speculation obviously at this point. I put it in the same camp as the reports that Love's agent has told GB it's time to play him or he'll seek a trade this year as well. It's part of the game. I didn't feel sorry for Rodgers having to sit, and I don't feel sorry for Love either. You'll get your time kid, when it's time. Keep working and keep the desire, your time is coming sooner than later.

Well said. I think it's good for these rookie QBs, event top 5 picks, to get time on the bench behind a starter. Of course a rookie will learn more from HOFers like Rodgers or Brady, but they still have to adapt that to their individual strengths. But in terms of getting ready to play at NFL speed, what to expect, developing a "mental clock", how to read defense, when and how how to audible, getting rid of the ball to avoid sacks - these are best learned on the field, but some time without that pressure and still being able to watch a pro QB work, well that's ideal.

As for whether or not Rodgers' and Love's agents demanded "play or trade" at some point, well I guess I'd want my agent to do that.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Look you can believe whatever you'd like, as I said I heard it way before I ever heard it from Andrew Brandt. I know what I believe and I dont really care if you do. If you'd like to know the truth then the burden of proof is on you because I already know. If youd like to just keep believing what you think while ignoring the facts, go for it.

Well said. This is an opinion forum. We all remember data points from the past, some documented, some not - and who cares? I'm not gonna grill anyone like a lawyer. ****in eh.

 

[Voyageur]

We went to the Shareholders meeting the summer that Favre was traded. We heard rumors that Rodgers discussed being traded, but a conversation I had with someone in the organization said that wasn't the truth. But, I was told that he asked the organization if they were planning on trading him, if Favre came back. I think that's where the story comes from.

Some reporters decided that it would read better by making it sound like Rodgers said "play me or trade me," not actually wondering if they were going to trade him.

It's too bad that the water gets murky because some of these reporters want to create a story of their own.

 

[GBkrzygrl]

There is one thing I don't understand about trades. Does Rodgers have to agree to the trade before it can happen?

I could be wrong but I just have a feeling that Rodgers will be back. Don't know why, but I do.