What Should They Do?

Should the Packers fire Gutey and give Rodgers the extension that ties him to the team for the next

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 18.9%
  • No

    Votes: 43 81.1%

  • Total voters
    53

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,362
Reaction score
4,087
Location
Milwaukee
Good points but I’m not sure it would matter one way or another to an established vet like Adams. Adams is a 4 time pro bowler without a ring and he knows that Rodgers is his best shot to get one in G.B. Would he sign if he knows Rodgers is on his way out and will have to play with an unknown commodity at QB?
Would lewis have signed 2 years?

Baktiarhi?.
 

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
2,157
I've said for years and some have laughed at me, it's not hard to give common courtesy or a heads up to your star quarterback on things that are developing.

You get rid of Alex Van Pelt without letting Rodgers know (it was very public that he liked him a lot). You release Kumerow the very day after Rodgers praises him, you draft his replacement and let him find out that you're doing so from the mouth of Roger Goodell on live television (Gute admittedly stated that was a mistake, a year later of course), you hire LaFleur with zero input whatsoever from Rodgers, Murphy reportedly tells him not to be the problem when Rodgers has always been the solution for this franchise. Releasing Jordy. Releasing Cobb.

Just a few examples of where a little bit of respect and common courtesy of giving Rodgers a heads up (again...not giving him personnel authority, just a heads up or a simple conversation) could have avoided any controversy and you don't even get this point in the first place.

And once again...I'm not absolving Rodgers from this. For all I know, he's been a pain in the ***. But what I do know is that he won the MVP this past season. He kept his mouth shut last offseason and thought to himself I need to go out there and respond with my play.

So yeah. If Gute came to Rodgers initially and didn't offer an extension, but a simple restructure, then I understand the frustration from Rodgers. His current contract makes it such that the Packers can move on from him after 2022 for virtually no penalty if I am understanding his dead cap hit correctly. And really can move on fairly painlessly next year.

So we can talk all day long about "well Rodgers is under contract for three more years", but in reality, that's far from a given and Rodgers knows that he could potentially be a lame duck quarterback this season. Instead of leaving his fate in the hands of the Packers, he's trying to create more security for himself.

If either of you had the leverage in your profession to try to negotiate an extension for yourself, knowing that your employer could get rid of you in a year if they wanted to, would you not explore that opportunity? Every single one of you would.
 

Sanguine camper

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 14, 2014
Messages
1,897
Reaction score
563
I really, REALLY don't understand why GB is destined for 5-12, or 4-13 seasons without a HOF QB? How many HOF QB's have the Bears had since 1980? Their record in the last 40 years is 330-318 and we can all agree that their QB's have been garbage. How many HOF QB's has Minnesota had? Their record since 1980 is 344-304 and with the exception of a PO'd Brett their QB's have been garbage, also.

The Bears are hovering at average and have leveraged their future giving away picks in '22. Minnesota is on the decline for a few years. Detroit is on the rise but may take a few years to rebuild their roster but need a new QB to excel. IF Love can be above average this is still an NFC winning team in the playoffs if AR isn't around.
How many Super Bowls gave the Bears won with their middling qb's? They have been mediocre with plenty of losing seasons. It's a qb driven league. I don't like it but that's the way it is. Gute, Murphy and LaFleur are expendable, a HOF isn't if you want good odds of winning a SB.
 

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
2,157
And the last point that I'll make. We're still assuming that Rodgers is the one who leaked this information. It could very well be the case, but I'm not going to say it's impossible that the Packers put this information out there to make Rodgers look bad. Because he's getting a lot of backlash from Packers fans specifically. Is it impossible that Gute wants to move on to his guy, and is trying to create a narrative in the media that the Packers would be justified in doing so? It's more than possible, in my opinion. Yet many are talking in absolute terms that Rodgers is the sole party of blame, here. I just don't see it that way and until we get more information, I'm going to give at least some benefit of the doubt to both parties.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,015
Reaction score
2,945
And the last point that I'll make. We're still assuming that Rodgers is the one who leaked this information. It could very well be the case, but I'm not going to say it's impossible that the Packers put this information out there to make Rodgers look bad. Because he's getting a lot of backlash from Packers fans specifically. Is it impossible that Gute wants to move on to his guy, and is trying to create a narrative in the media that the Packers would be justified in doing so? It's more than possible, in my opinion. Yet many are talking in absolute terms that Rodgers is the sole party of blame, here. I just don't see it that way and until we get more information, I'm going to give at least some benefit of the doubt to both parties.

I've got no problem with you balancing the discourse. And I'm not going to assume dogmatically that all the blame belongs on one side. We don't know.

But I just wanted to point out that the assumption that all/most of the stuff leaked in the media is from Rodgers' camp is an assumption that seems to be shared by virtually all insiders that I'm aware of.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,796
And the last point that I'll make. We're still assuming that Rodgers is the one who leaked this information. It could very well be the case, but I'm not going to say it's impossible that the Packers put this information out there to make Rodgers look bad. Because he's getting a lot of backlash from Packers fans specifically. Is it impossible that Gute wants to move on to his guy, and is trying to create a narrative in the media that the Packers would be justified in doing so? It's more than possible, in my opinion. Yet many are talking in absolute terms that Rodgers is the sole party of blame, here. I just don't see it that way and until we get more information, I'm going to give at least some benefit of the doubt to both parties.
I think it's possible in the way that it's possible I'm a billionaire by the end of the day. I do not think the Packer front office and HC would be playing this game at all. Like I said before, they didn't say jack when that Marty guy was here to even hint and making him look bad. It's not what they do. There is nothing in any of their pasts that would make me think they'd be putting on an act up front, especially to move on from a QB that just won the MVP. When they say Love needs a lot of work, I believe them. WHen they say they want Rodgers as the QB, I believe them. I absolutely believe he'd be the QB this, next year and likely even the year after that if he keeps playing like he just did.

I also think it's smart of the front office to keep options open when it comes to very highly paid players closer to the end than the beginning. All this about them pushing Rodgers anywhere is not true IMO. I think its nothing more than they're fine moving forward with status quo and that will rely on Rodgers continuing to avoid injury and playing well, but they retain the option to move on if he should decline. Rodgers doesn't want that option to exist. I don't think anybody is pushing anybody else out the door. I don't think Rodgers wants Gute fired, I don't think Gute and Co. are lying to make fans rebel against their best player.

A GM doesn't push more money out, re-sign the RB, keep Lewis etc if he wants to push the vet QB out. He lets those people go, he makes cap room and trades expensive pieces to take hits now, to build for that future. Nothing they did signals that at all.
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
3,808
Reaction score
1,728
Location
Northern IL
How many Super Bowls gave the Bears won with their middling qb's? They have been mediocre with plenty of losing seasons. It's a qb driven league. I don't like it but that's the way it is. Gute, Murphy and LaFleur are expendable, a HOF isn't if you want good odds of winning a SB.
The Bears won 1 with a middling QB, great RB and great D. Green Bay has won 2 with 2 HOF QB's, very good OL's, WR's & RB's and very good defenses. With AR the offense has had a chance at being SB-worthy since 2011. Gute knows that the D hasn't been SB-worthy since 2010/11 and is using a disproportionate amount of draft capital to get it there. That may not be AR's favorite approach but the D needs the work to get over the top, IMHO.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,355
Reaction score
1,740
Coaches spend most of the practice time implementing game plans. Love was inactive. He was probably watching the vast majority of practice while the guys expected to play were throwing the ball around.
Good grief. This is a football team that spent 6 months together. The players see enough and talk enough to know what Love’s strengths and weaknesses are right now.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
Good grief. This is a football team that spent 6 months together. The players see enough and talk enough to know what Love’s strengths and weaknesses are right now.

Uh, talking to guys doesn't show how quickly and well Love reads defenses. You are aware that the CBA limits practice time and covid screwed with the off-season, right? Seriously, how much time do you think coaches spend during the season letting inactive players participate in live practice?
 

gbgary

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
3,420
Reaction score
185
Location
up the road from jerrahworld
Adams is a 4 time pro bowler without a ring and he knows that Rodgers is his best shot to get one in G.B. Would he sign if he knows Rodgers is on his way out and will have to play with an unknown commodity at QB?
how's that worked out for him? Adams will get a huge extension deal in GB but if he doesn't want to see the money, he doesn't need to be in GB either. he's not the only good receiver in the nfl. they need guys who want to play there and run their system.
 

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
2,157
I think it's possible in the way that it's possible I'm a billionaire by the end of the day. I do not think the Packer front office and HC would be playing this game at all. Like I said before, they didn't say jack when that Marty guy was here to even hint and making him look bad. It's not what they do. There is nothing in any of their pasts that would make me think they'd be putting on an act up front, especially to move on from a QB that just won the MVP. When they say Love needs a lot of work, I believe them. WHen they say they want Rodgers as the QB, I believe them. I absolutely believe he'd be the QB this, next year and likely even the year after that if he keeps playing like he just did.

I also think it's smart of the front office to keep options open when it comes to very highly paid players closer to the end than the beginning. All this about them pushing Rodgers anywhere is not true IMO. I think its nothing more than they're fine moving forward with status quo and that will rely on Rodgers continuing to avoid injury and playing well, but they retain the option to move on if he should decline. Rodgers doesn't want that option to exist. I don't think anybody is pushing anybody else out the door. I don't think Rodgers wants Gute fired, I don't think Gute and Co. are lying to make fans rebel against their best player.

A GM doesn't push more money out, re-sign the RB, keep Lewis etc if he wants to push the vet QB out. He lets those people go, he makes cap room and trades expensive pieces to take hits now, to build for that future. Nothing they did signals that at all.
There's a lot of reasonable points here. At the same time though, and this is a point that many aren't acknowledging, if you were in Rodgers' shoes and feared that your employer would move on from you after another year (in this case, it's due to the cap hits becoming far more manageable), why would Rodgers be okay with potentially being in a lame duck situation? It's not a situation that anyone in the real world would feel comfortable with, especially when you know you have other options for employment like Rodgers does.

Belichick was going to try moving on from Brady if Brady wouldn't have went over Belichick's head and went to Kraft to get him to move Garoppolo.

These things happen.

I understand the Packers mindset. But they didn't handle it the right way by Gutekunst's own admission, and now they have a situation on their hands.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,796
I understand where Rodgers is coming from concerning guarantees.

But I also think the team gave him a lot up front when it wasn’t a sure thing he was going to be the same after that shoulder injury and he was ok with taking that money then.

He’s also not powerless after this season. I don’t think GB moves on unless his play dictates it.
 

ARPackFan

Knock it off with them negative waves
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
725
Reaction score
262
Location
Arkansas
how's that worked out for him? Adams will get a huge extension deal in GB but if he doesn't want to see the money, he doesn't need to be in GB either. he's not the only good receiver in the nfl. they need guys who want to play there and run their system.

Let's be realistic - The vast majority of players in the NFL just want to be paid as they subject their bodies to the same risk regardless of where they play. Also, how many former receivers under Favre or Rodgers left the team and enjoyed the same level of success on their new team. Having a great QB throw you the ball skews the stats.
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
3,808
Reaction score
1,728
Location
Northern IL
At the same time though, and this is a point that many aren't acknowledging, if you were in Rodgers' shoes and feared that your employer would move on from you after another year (in this case, it's due to the cap hits becoming far more manageable), why would Rodgers be okay with potentially being in a lame duck situation?
EVERY player wants to play and their competition is usually sitting right next to them in meetings & at practice. If they're fearful of their place on the team the way to keep it is to play very well, which is what AR did. If he's afraid of what the team will do in '22 he should keep playing lights-out and keep Love on the bench, not cry & pout asking for guarantees that the front office will keep Love on the bench or that they remove AR's competition. The front office task is to get & keep as much talent as possible on the team, not trade talent away because of fear of competition. In this respect Terry Bradshaw is correct and it makes AR look weak. Fend-off your replacement by doing your job and playing well.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,298
Reaction score
2,408
Location
PENDING
. . . if you were in Rodgers' shoes and feared that your employer would move on from you after another year (in this case, it's due to the cap hits becoming far more manageable), why would Rodgers be okay with potentially being in a lame duck situation? It's not a situation that anyone in the real world would feel comfortable with, especially when you know you have other options for employment like Rodgers does.
I would feel very comfortable having $200M in the bank. If I wanted to play some more, being a recent MVP, I'm reasonably sure I could find another gig. Another gig with some freedom to chose my location and employer. May get the best situation for a SB or maybe to play with my old buddy MM in Dallas. Who knows?
 

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
2,157
I would feel very comfortable having $200M in the bank. If I wanted to play some more, being a recent MVP, I'm reasonably sure I could find another gig. Another gig with some freedom to chose my location and employer. May get the best situation for a SB or maybe to play with my old buddy MM in Dallas. Who knows?
Ah, yes. The same tired "who cares, they are millionaires" argument.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,988
Reaction score
1,256
I've said for years and some have laughed at me, it's not hard to give common courtesy or a heads up to your star quarterback on things that are developing.

You get rid of Alex Van Pelt without letting Rodgers know (it was very public that he liked him a lot). You release Kumerow the very day after Rodgers praises him, you draft his replacement and let him find out that you're doing so from the mouth of Roger Goodell on live television (Gute admittedly stated that was a mistake, a year later of course), you hire LaFleur with zero input whatsoever from Rodgers, Murphy reportedly tells him not to be the problem when Rodgers has always been the solution for this franchise. Releasing Jordy. Releasing Cobb.

Just a few examples of where a little bit of respect and common courtesy of giving Rodgers a heads up (again...not giving him personnel authority, just a heads up or a simple conversation) could have avoided any controversy and you don't even get this point in the first place.

And once again...I'm not absolving Rodgers from this. For all I know, he's been a pain in the ***. But what I do know is that he won the MVP this past season. He kept his mouth shut last offseason and thought to himself I need to go out there and respond with my play.

So yeah. If Gute came to Rodgers initially and didn't offer an extension, but a simple restructure, then I understand the frustration from Rodgers. His current contract makes it such that the Packers can move on from him after 2022 for virtually no penalty if I am understanding his dead cap hit correctly. And really can move on fairly painlessly next year.

So we can talk all day long about "well Rodgers is under contract for three more years", but in reality, that's far from a given and Rodgers knows that he could potentially be a lame duck quarterback this season. Instead of leaving his fate in the hands of the Packers, he's trying to create more security for himself.

If either of you had the leverage in your profession to try to negotiate an extension for yourself, knowing that your employer could get rid of you in a year if they wanted to, would you not explore that opportunity? Every single one of you would.

It couldn't hurt. I'm not sure how much it would help and if it did help I'm not sure what it says about the player to whom it matters but it costs nothing to make a phone call and say just so you know we are doing this.
 

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
2,157
It couldn't hurt. I'm not sure how much it would help and if it did help I'm not sure what it says about the player to whom it matters but it costs nothing to make a phone call and say just so you know we are doing this.
Common courtesy. That's it.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,796
Releasing Jordy was the right move, so was releasing Cobb. and your QB doesn't get to have an in on roster decisions because then the doubt and behind the scenes stuff among teammates, some who are right up there in importance etc starts to creep in too. He's not involved in personnel, as he shouldn't be.

Kumerow wasn't released because he praised him. He was released because we saw his ceiling for 2 years and it was nothing. Here or anywhere else.

Unless you're in a draft room, you're going to find out from TV. Nobody is calling Rodgers when they're on the clock to give him a heads up. It sounds all nice and simple to just say, give your QB a heads up, have the conversation.

Great, you did. now the rest of the team knows. Now the rest of the team wonders why Rodgers is going in for meetings and THEIR friend is cut. "hey, I heard Rodgers told them to bench so and so" "hey, why is he so nice to my face on the practice field, but I hear he's talking to MLF or Gute about my future?"

There's a really, really good reason personnel guys are personnel guys, coaches coach and players play.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,015
Reaction score
2,945
Alright, everyone stop bickering and watch this. It's a way better take on the whole situation than anything we've said in here.

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

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
2,157
Releasing Jordy was the right move, so was releasing Cobb. and your QB doesn't get to have an in on roster decisions because then the doubt and behind the scenes stuff among teammates, some who are right up there in importance etc starts to creep in too. He's not involved in personnel, as he shouldn't be.

Kumerow wasn't released because he praised him. He was released because we saw his ceiling for 2 years and it was nothing. Here or anywhere else.

Unless you're in a draft room, you're going to find out from TV. Nobody is calling Rodgers when they're on the clock to give him a heads up. It sounds all nice and simple to just say, give your QB a heads up, have the conversation.

Great, you did. now the rest of the team knows. Now the rest of the team wonders why Rodgers is going in for meetings and THEIR friend is cut. "hey, I heard Rodgers told them to bench so and so" "hey, why is he so nice to my face on the practice field, but I hear he's talking to MLF or Gute about my future?"

There's a really, really good reason personnel guys are personnel guys, coaches coach and players play.
It all sounds good in theory, but reality doesn't work that way.

I don't know how many times I have to say it on this forum. Gutekunst acknowledged that he should've given Rodgers a heads up. Or that the sequence of events should have been handled better. You can have this tough line in the sand approach all you want to, but then it leads to crap like what the Packers are dealing with right now.

Ariens says "we aren't in the Antonio Brown business". Guess what? They ended up signing him to appease Brady. Pretending that superstar quarterbacks don't get treated differently is just an alternate reality.
 

Schultz

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
2,688
Reaction score
1,548
If this wasn't happening Gute wouldn't be acknowledging anything. You know why? Because he still does not believe he owed any player an explanation on the teams draft process.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,796
It all sounds good in theory, but reality doesn't work that way.

I don't know how many times I have to say it on this forum. Gutekunst acknowledged that he should've given Rodgers a heads up. Or that the sequence of events should have been handled better. You can have this tough line in the sand approach all you want to, but then it leads to crap like what the Packers are dealing with right now.

Ariens says "we aren't in the Antonio Brown business". Guess what? They ended up signing him to appease Brady. Pretending that superstar quarterbacks don't get treated differently is just an alternate reality.
oh, they get treated differently, they still don't get to make personnel decisions.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top