Rodgers: Thompson\'s Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
By PackerAaron
That's the determination from Ross Tucker over at CNNSI. He makes this point in his latest column and I have to admit, it is something I've often thought about in terms of Thompson, Rodgers and the timing of Rodgers' deal last season.
From Tucker:
Rodgers had proven he was a competent starting quarterback over the first half of the season and eventually finished with 28 touchdowns and only 13 interceptions while throwing for over 4,000 yards...you have to imagine Thompson was hoping he would be able to sign Rodgers to a deal that validates him as the franchise quarterback for the Packers. After the messy Brett Favre divorce, Thompson would have been toast in the minds of the Lambeau faithful if Rodgers had faltered. So Rodgers contract not only establishes him as the quarterback of the future in Green Bay, it also becomes the backbone for Thompson's reasoning for moving forward without Favre in the first place. In effect, the Rodgers deal validates him and the entire Packers front office.Critics will point out the team was only 6-10 last season and Rodgers showed a chronic inability to find a way to lead his team to a game-winning drive in the fourth quarter. Lucky for him, it doesn't matter. Thompson was itching to place the stamp of approval on his Favre decision as soon as possible. So as soon as a new contract for Rodgers was reasonable, he pulled the trigger.
I think this is spot on.
I think most observers were surprised, not by the size of the deal, but the timing of it. I mean, really, what was the rush? What had Rodgers accomplished? And yet Thompson felt compelled to make a statement with Rodgers' contract. (And make no mistake - that's exactly what it was - a statement.) Yes, people will say that Thompson got a steal signing Rodgers when he did. After all, if he continues to play at a high level, and really, there's no reason to think he won't, then his value surely would have continued to climb. That being the case, the argument is that the Packers got a bargain signing him when they did.
Perhaps.
Or perhaps Thompson was feeling the heat of watching Favre continue to play (and play well) in New York. Don't forget, before Rodgers signed his contract, Favre was still injury-free and throwing a record six touchdown passes in one game. No, it wasn't all smooth sailing in New York, even before the injury. (One need look no further than the Monday night game against the Chargers, a game that saw all the good and all the bad Favre still has to offer) But the buzz on Favre was definetly positive at that point. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to learn that Thompson wanted Rodgers' contract extension to be the final exclamation point in his ushering Favre out the door.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Comments (23)
June 19, 2009 at 04:40 am
This argument, however, assumes one thing that is largely untrue: the Packers needed to validate doing something they had no choice about. They "moved forward" from Favre because Favre retired. They couldn't not "move forward." So to say that they needed to validate something that wasn't a choice, but a necessity, seems pretty bad logic.
June 19, 2009 at 06:58 am
One can tell that AR is still playing in the shadow of BF & probably will for some time. AR was a "competent' QB thus the long-term contract. Do you realize how many NFL teams would be over-joyed with a 1st year starter that goes 28-13-4000+ ?? Even with a modest improvement in 2009, AR will be in the elite category. We'll see if the media recognizes that BF to AR may very well be the equal of Montana to Young.
PackerAaron
June 19, 2009 at 07:10 am
Erik - "...to say that they needed to validate something that wasn’t a choice, but a necessity, seems pretty bad logic."
-
This is fine, as long as the Packers are located on planet Vulcan. Here on Earth, things other than logic come into play. Thompson, for all his automaton ways, is a man. He is as prone to feelings of insecurity as anyone else. To say that giving Rodgers a huge extension "wasn't a choice" is pretty silly. Of course it was a choice. In my opinion, a choice that Thompson made to further validate his decision, in the face of a very public backlash, that he had made the right choice.
June 19, 2009 at 07:17 am
BF to AR the same as Montana to Young? I like the sound of that!
June 19, 2009 at 07:30 am
WoodyG - Unless Rodgers wins 2 Super Bowls and 4 MVPs, he will be in Favre's shadow for the rest of his career. Since he replaced a legend, or as some would say, forced a legend out, he'll have to become a legend himself in order to stop the comparisons to Favre. I still wouldn't put Favre/Rodgers into the Realm of Montana/Young. Rodgers, although he's been very good, has not won anything yet.
June 19, 2009 at 07:47 am
jayme- valid point but is still early days for rodgers (hopefully). I just think he is a good quarterback and i am glad he plays for the packers! i reckon their is plenty of nfl teams that would probelly offer him more than the packers signed him for or at least have him as their starter. especially the vikings mid 2009!
June 19, 2009 at 07:47 am
I agree with the need to win the two Super Bowls but the MVPs are irrelevant. Most fans view an MVP award as a popularity contest & only significant to that player's next contract. On the other hand, winning a SB is final & can't really be contested.
_____
Who wouldn't trade BFs 3 MVP awards for 1 more SB victory ?? I know I would but I doubt the 'diva' would.
June 19, 2009 at 08:48 am
Every time I read words to this effect: "Rodgers showed a chronic inability to find a way to lead his team to a game-winning drive in the fourth quarter" it drives me nuts.
Didn't Rodgers do just that two or three times only to see the defense forget to go back on the field for the final couple of minutes? If the defense show up at the end of those games, no one would be talking about Rodgers inability to win in the fourth quarter.
June 19, 2009 at 09:28 am
Thats why statistics are so great....you can make them say anything you want! What i say last year was a defense that chronically failed to stop a team from scoring in the last two minutes. It got to the point where you KNEW it was going to happen next game. And it always did. Arod did his job...the defense didnt. You can cite statistics all you want but go back and watch the games consecutively. It was the same exact story almost every game they lost. When an opposing offense put on the heat the defense crumbled. Wasnt it the panther game where we had them backed up behind their own 20 and they still managed to score with less than 2 minutes? Dont want to make it sound like none of the cases were his fault but all you have to do is watch the game and see it for yourself.
PackerAaron
June 19, 2009 at 09:51 am
Nick - that was the Texans game where they had them pinned inside the 20 (indeed, inside the 10)
-
I understand what you and Rich are saying, and I tend to agree with your sentiment Rich about those types of blanket statements about Rodgers 4th Quarter performance.
But that said.
Rodgers, regardless of what he did before the defensive collapses, simply did not get it done on numerous occasions when given the opportunity to go win the game. Against Tampa, (admittedly he was hurt) Atlanta, Jacksonville - those were all games he could have won with better play on his part. Yes, there were a lot of other things working against him and the team. But had he played better at the end of any of those games, the Packers would have won.
June 19, 2009 at 11:57 am
Aaron,
Can you say the same for D. Brees ??
Here are the scores of six of New Orleans losses in 2008. -- 24-29, 32-34, 27-30, 20-23, 24-27, 31-33. That's six losses by 5 points or less. Without examining each individual game, I'd contend that the Saints had a chance to win at least some or not all of these games if Brees had only stepped up late in the game when the opportunity surfaced.
_____
You don't hear a whisper about this in the media when talking about Brees. The story is always how the New Orleans defense needs to improve to support the stellar play of their QB. IMO, it's comparable to AR & the Packers.
PackerAaron
June 19, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I can't say the same for Brees because I haven't watched every game he played in last year. In fact, I watched two - the Packers game and their second game against the Bucs.
-
And you don't hear a whisper about it from the media because Brees has done it. Rodgers has not.
June 19, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Of course, Favre was not exactly a great come-from-behind QB, either. That is another aspect of the Favre Legend that is BS.
----
But with that said, he had some very memorable come from behind victories in 2007. But overall, his Favre's ability to come back from a deficit is a complete fiction. Favre played his worst when the team was losing.
June 19, 2009 at 01:18 pm
There might be an uncapped year in 2010 or 2011.Thats the reason for signing Rodgers to a deal so early.Mcnab just recieved an 3 year extension on his contract.The small market Packers can't be competitve with no cap remember the 80's.
June 19, 2009 at 01:21 pm
About the Montana/Young Favre/Rodgers comparison, it'll take a SB to put Rodgers in the talk, but not 2. Favre didn't won 2. And Montana won more than Young.
-
About the article, I also think it's dead on, but it sends the message that TT only did that because of need of validation. He did that ALSO because of that, but he DEFINITELY wouldn't do it if Rodgers wasn't at least very good (great is still premature). Remember, the guy's been here for 4 year. There has been enough evaluation of him to determinate how good he would eventually be, and what kind of money would be acceptable. To sum it up, though I agree it was a stamp of approval, it was also a great deal.
June 19, 2009 at 01:35 pm
PackersRS - I think the Legend of Favre, as DDD likes to say, has exploded to the point that, unless Rogers exceeds what Favre has done, he will never be considered as good. This is only exacerbated by the way that Favre left and the vitriol that remains in his wake. One must also remember that there were those who were quietly rooting for Rodgers to fail even before the Favre unretirement fiasco because they wanted the Packers to go after more weapons for Favre with their first pick in that draft instead of drafting his replacement, thus they felt the need to be vindicated.
June 19, 2009 at 02:12 pm
DDD - could not agree more. Yes, he had the Charger and Bronco games in 07. He also had Dallas and the second Giants game. I think the bulk of the 'Favre 4th quarter magic' myth got cemented at the beginning of the Rhodes year. Starting the season off the way he did, for the first time without Holmgren, and all the press that followed (he was on the cover of ESPN's mag during this time, leading SportsCenter in a teary eyed presser, etc) Of course, after all that, he could do no wrong, though he did. A lot.
June 19, 2009 at 02:14 pm
I have to agree with the assessment on Thompson, and it strikes me as another one of those "behind the scenes" politics we'll never know the full scoop on. While I've been supportive of Rodgers as our starter, the timing of his extension was eyebrow-raising, and I thought he might have lost a little steam after that point.
One thing Favre and Rodgers have in common, at least in their younger years, is a need to prove themselves with a bit of a chip on their shoulder. They both seem to welcome doubters and want to prove them wrong (of course, in their own ways).
Even Rodgers seemed a little taken aback by the extension. More power to him, and I think he's deserving, but he might have been better served by playing a whole season through and proving to everyone (including his critics) that he was worthy of it...not for their sakes, but his own.
So, I do agree...the extension may have had more to do with Thompson anointing him as "worthy" and essentially, giving us a quarterback salary-cap hit commensurate with Favre's.
June 19, 2009 at 04:20 pm
Jayme, IMHO you're parcially right. Yes, I agree, for some people, he ought to do more than Favre. To erase ANY questions about him, he needs to win more than Favre. But for most fans, and specially analysts, the requirements I listed will be enough to put him in the talk of great Packers QB. Only Favre and Starr have SB rings...
June 19, 2009 at 08:23 pm
ARs agent was pretty savvy to hook up a deal before the end of year 1 for Romo money. Takes two to tango.
June 19, 2009 at 08:32 pm
AR may get a rare, maybe unprecedented, opportunity to confront the shadow head on if BF signs with the Vikings. A pivotal season, perhaps?
June 21, 2009 at 11:24 pm
As a Packer fan, I am more than happy with the way things have turned out. We have a young starting QB who was able to learn before he had to play and proved to be effective in the offensive scheme. I was a Packer fan long before i was a Favre fan. GO PACK GO!!!
June 24, 2009 at 03:16 pm
Nothing has been mentioned about the timing of the deal being due to the deadline for using money towards the '08 cap. The Packers approached both Jennings and Rodgers with offers to discuss an extension before the deadline, Jennings passed, Rodgers accepted. This was the key to the whole timing of the deal and everything else had very little to do with it.