How Rodgers' Contract Modification Might Have Looked (Since You Asked)

This article is well-designed to make me unpopular in many quarters.  Below are some contract structures for Aaron Rodgers that require some sacrifice by the player, a dollop of trust between the parties, and a repression of ego and/or of philosophy by the front office.

Contract #1:












Yr.

Base

SB 

Pro

Roster

Option 

W/O

Re-

Struc

Cap

Dead

Save

21

1.075M

11.5M

6.8M

 

.5M

$2.852M

$22.727M

   

22

1.2M

11.5M

 

13.16M

.5M

$2.852M

$29.212M

$58.34M

-41.8M

23

25M

  •  
 

13.16M

.5M

$2.852M

$41.512M

$29.172M

$12.34M

24

41M

  •  
 

13.16M

.5M

  •  

$54.66M

$13.16M

$41.5M

2021: Reduces Rodgers’ base salary from $14.7M to the minimum to save $13.625M.  $13.652M plus $850K in escalators already earned ($14.475M) gets converted to an option bonus in 2022.  Rodgers agrees to delay getting the $14.475M he is due in 2021 until 2022.  The Packers pay interest and his pay for playing the 17th game ($837K = 1/16th of his base salaries, net) but not until 2022.  This generates $14.475M in cap savings for 2021.  There is no law that says GM Gutekunst has to spend any of the $14.475M unless there is a cap casualty too good to pass up.  That would pay for the PS, draft picks, and operating cushion for the season and with the Packer’s current $2.7M in cap space leaves $7M or so in spendable cap space (plus space generated by any other moves like releasing Lowry, an extension for Adams, or getting a pay cut from Lowry). 

An unfortunate part is that reducing Rodgers’ base salary to the minimum in 2021 costs Rodgers $837K in income; moreover, that $837K would not have counted against the cap per a side agreement between the NFL and the union to make the 17th game workable.

2022 (Age 39): Reduce Rodgers’ base from $25M to $1.2M, a $23.8M reduction.  Repay him the $14.475M plus $1.2M adjustment for the 17th game in 2021 and interest, add in the $23.8M reduction for an option bonus of $39.475M, prorated over three seasons at $13.16M per year.  [An option bonus is a planned signing bonus; it is not guaranteed but if not exercised/paid by the team, there is always a provision that requires the amount to become guaranteed base salary.  Yes, it is still not considered technically guaranteed, but one needs a law degree to follow that line of reasoning.]  That leads to a $29.212M cap number and a cap savings for 2022 of $10.64M. 

Note that Love has to get to play not just in preseason games in 2021 and 2022 but he needs to get some regular season action as well because  the Packers will have to make a decision on his fifth-year option by May of 2023, or failing that, just to showcase him for a trade.  Two full seasons is a long time in the NFL: it is likely that the opportunity for Love to play will arise organically (Rodgers misses some time or there is a blowout win or two in which Love can show what he can do).  

2023 (Age 40):  Rodgers is tradable given his $12.34M cap savings.  He is attractive (assuming he is still somewhere between a very good to elite quarterback) since his cap number to the acquiring team would be $25.5M.  If Love has not developed, the Packers could just keep Rodgers.  His $41.5M cap number is a little high but not wholly prohibitive.  The Packers could convert some of Rodgers’ base salary to knock that cap number down if they are willing to increase his dead money in 2024.

2024 (Age 41):  I was going to put this in as a void year.  Instead, I put in a $41M base salary as that is the current market for the top quarterback in the NFL.  The $54.66M cap number means that the cap would have to be $364M in 2024 for Rodgers’ share of the cap to be 15%.  I could have put in some other number for a base salary since this is meant to force a release, trade, or renegotiation/extension.

Something like this is what I suspect would have happened had the Packers not drafted Love: that is, if Tim Boyle were the heir apparent.  It is why I wrote elsewhere that the presence of Love on the roster is the single biggest reason why the Packers have been unable to sign a significant free agent.  Maybe the Packers really are working right now on modifying Rodgers' contract so they can sign a 2nd stage free agent or a cap casualty in September.  If that is not happening or the two sides cannot reach an agreement, the Packers do have auto-conversion rights (see the Pro Football Talk/Demovsky article in which he notes PFT has actually seen Rodgers' contract and the team does not need Rodgers' consent), so the team can generate anywhere from $1 to about $9M in cap space if it is willing to dump dead money into 2022.

Now, it is time to fess up.  The contract probably would not look like that but that is how it might work out.  I put it in for clarity.  The deal above virtually guarantees that Rodgers will be the quarterback for the Green Bay Packers in 2021 and 2022, and it still has $29M in dead money for 2023.  I think that is about all that Rodgers should expect in the way of a commitment.  In reality, the deal below (Deal #2) is exactly the same as the one above but it affords the team with more options.

Deal #2:










Yr.

Base

SB 

Pro

Roster

WO

Re-

Struc

Cap

Dead

Save

21

1.075M

11.5M

6.8M

.5M

$2.852M

$22.727M

   

22

25.0M

11.5M

$15.675M

.5M

$2.852M

$55.527M

$17.204M

$38.323M

23

25M

  •  
 

.5M

$2.852M

$28.352M

$2.852M

$25.5M

24

41M

  •  
 

.5M

  •  

$41.5M

$0

$41.5M

2021: Exactly the same as the paragraph for Contract #1 describing 2021.

2022: The Packers (using an auto-conversion provision) can reduce Rodgers’ base pay to $1.2M and convert that amount plus the roster bonus to a signing bonus: the contract now is exactly the same as the structure in Contract #1.  The Packers can keep Rodgers for 2022 at a cap number just under $30M if Love has not developed.

However, the Packers could choose to make Rodgers’ cap number be $33M or some other number: if the cap is $220M in 2022, $33M is 15% of the cap.  To do that, instead of converting all $39.475M, convert almost $33M or so to get a cap number of $33.6M (that means pay $6.675M of the roster bonus to Rodgers and convert the $23.8M plus the remaining $9M of the roster bonus to a signing or option bonus.  

Rodgers is completely tradable.  The Packers can convert some or all of the base pay and roster bonus to a signing bonus, and just pay Rodgers.  Gutekunst could negotiate with the trade partner as to what the exact amount that Rodgers’ cap number would be for the acquiring team.  It might be that at a cap number of $33M, the Packers get pick A, B, and C, but if the Packers eat some extra dead money to make his cap number $25.5M, then the Packers get Picks A, B, C, and C1.      

2023: If we are dealing with this season, then the Packers did not trade or release Rodgers prior to the start of the 2022 season.  The team would have been forced to convert a ton of money to push Rodgers’ cap number down to something bearable.  Note that under contract #1, GB saved $14.4M plus on the cap in 2021 which could have been rolled over into 2022 and saved $10.64M in 2022, a total of over $25M, which should have gone a long way towards solving the cap liability problem in 2022.    

No doubt the Packers did something to reduce his cap number from $55M to the low thirties or upper twenties in 2022.  Still, the Packers could just keep him, or they could trade or release him.  Rodgers would be 40 in 2023.

 

This structure does not guarantee that Rodgers would be the quarterback even in 2022.  Most four-year NFL contracts give the team a reasonable out after two years (like Contract #1 does), but this structure has an out (albeit a little painful) after just a year.  I do not see why Rodgers would defer a year's pay to sign such a contract.  [Deferring pay is not that uncommon: Kenny Clark is playing for $2.1M in cash this year despite his $17.1M AAV.  When Matt Ryan signed his most recent deal with a $46M signing bonus, he deferred $23M of it until the following April.  It still would be a large concession by Rodgers.]

I am not as sanguine about the prospects of getting a haul of draft picks for Rodgers in a trade, and obviously the older he is the less the Packers can expect.  Moreover, it seems likely that the Jaguars, Jets and 49ers will select quarterbacks with the top three picks in the 2021 draft, and Atlanta or Denver likely takes QB 4 in the top ten picks.  I expect Mac Jones to go in the first round as well.  I imagine that there will be one or two highly regarded quarterback prospects in the 2022 draft as well.

Still, the market for Rodgers was always a limited one.  It is possible that the stars will align such that a good team which only needs a franchise quarterback to go deep into the playoffs will have the draft picks, perhaps the cap space, and the willingness to trade for Rodgers in 2022 or 2023  It is possible: Sam Darnold fetched a sixth-rounder in 2021 and a second and a fourth round pick in 2022. 

I do not expect much in the way of news out of the front office until after the draft. Tonyan and/or Sullivan might get an offer sheet between now and April 23.  I expect the Packers to wait to see which players they select in the draft.  If they select a defensive lineman, that might put Lowry on the hot seat.  Some of the players at the end of the roster might become replaceable.  And we shall see what transpires with Rodgers.  The Packers do not need any additional cap space until September, after all.

   

 
NFL Categories: 
3 points

Comments (76)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
jeremyjjbrown's picture

April 12, 2021 at 07:01 am

I see the success ot Brady in TB as a warning to teams letting go of thier franchise QB. It may be better to move on from a player a year too early, but not if they are a franchise QB.

+ REPLY
4 points
5
1
Leatherhead's picture

April 12, 2021 at 11:32 am

I see Brady as a unique anomaly who really is not very useful as a point of reference that you can use to draw a broad conclusion. From being a college backup, to being drafted at #199, to all those championship games and Super Bowl rings, he doesn’t compare.

+ REPLY
0 points
2
2
Thegravedigger's picture

April 12, 2021 at 11:22 pm

you dont think rodgers is an anomaly? howbout peyton manning? colts moved on from him. you remember how that turned out? for the colts and the broncos? yes. tom is the goat. no question. no debate. but rodgers was the mvp like 2 weeks ago. sti;; is. you dont trade the mvp. you restructure him and you get off your fucking high horse and admit you fucked up drafting a qb. but hey. maybe jordan love turns out to be great. i just wouldnt risk it. but imagine if he is great one day... gute would be king. not just in packer world but in the nfl world period. and lets be honest. you know he dreams about that shit. maybe im buyest. i know i am. i love aaron. but come on. somethin funny is going on in gb, its not just smoke. sorry for the rant. ehh fuck it. no im not.

+ REPLY
-1 points
0
1
jannes bjornson's picture

April 12, 2021 at 12:14 pm

Pay him and play him until he can't. Only a collection of pencil-pushers would nickel and dime a HOF level QB. As noted by others, Rodgers didn't select some of the dead weight on this squad that came from the draft after whiffs and the over-pay to Graham, Bennett and P Smith. Management has to hit on some blue chips in these next couple of drafts. Alexander was gold, now fill in the rest of the gaps.

+ REPLY
5 points
5
0
CoachDino's picture

April 12, 2021 at 03:26 pm

?
To make such a statement one would have to know what the NFL avg is for ROI. I agree Grahams contract was a miss, Prestons wasn't. He Played over his contract in yr 1, under it in yr 2 and had his Salary cut in half in year 3, down to 8M. The monster contract is ARod (40M). Not saying he shouldn't get paid that much but the Packers are the last team known for being burdened with high price players who are delivering low ROI. Probably the exact opposite of your statement. PFF and Spotrak have some figures that display this.

The Packers have been golden in the last 4 years of the draft. It will be tough to keep it up.
Savage, JA, RG, EJ That's 4 hits in 4 years and who knows what last years class could end up doing.

Gaps are filled through FA, the Packers have no cap space. Drafts are for Critical Positions and future.

Of the 400 Draft picks in the last 3 years, using only the first 3 rds, can anyone name 1st year difference makers that took a team to the next level.

How about the 100 1st rd draft picks? Any of those make a big difference for a SB winner?

If a 1st rd pick is expected to make a sizable difference, what % of the time is that? 75% or 75 players over the last 3 years making a big impact in yr 1. Doesn't happen. Just the #'s

+ REPLY
3 points
3
0
Thegravedigger's picture

April 13, 2021 at 11:49 pm

i got one. trystan wirfs. tampas left tackle. rookie first round pick. contributed to tom staying clean that entire game against green bay and in the super bowl against kc. so i dont Want to hear about drafts just being for future. because last i checked the packers had only one sack in a crucial game at home, against a team with a rookie left tackle. The numbers can be deceiving. and fyi. tampas second rounder was antoine winfields kid. Started all year and produced at a high level. so theres 2, for the team that whooped our ASS twice. and i dont want to hear about cap space. they couldve rolled rodgers money down the road. they chose not to. they are taking this time right now for granted.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
CoachDino's picture

April 14, 2021 at 11:49 am

1) I'm going to 100% agree with wirfs, he was a 1st rd pick and was an impact player.
2) It's not what put them over by any means - not even close.
3) Tom Brady signed with them on a team friendly deal.
4) Weak point on my part as I didn't specify but wirf was a high 1st rd pick unlike where the Packers are and most teams that are supposedly a "player" away from winning.

Bottom line I like your response on wirf but he wasn't the guy, not even close, Tom Brady was the what made the difference for TB
5) Tom Brady was a Free agent - Kinda solidifies the rest of my point. FA for immediate needs drafts for long term.

6) Your grasping on Winfield
7)The #1 reason the packers lost that game was Bakh getting hurt a few weeks earlier. The packers or even KC with Mahomes isn't good enough to beat a TB defense with 2 startres out (Bakh and Lang) and one guy playing hurt (Wagner). Facts

If you don't want to hear about cap space then you don't want to have an intelligent discussion, not saying your unintelligent, not at all, just saying when the whole Roster is based on a Capped Salary then that situation is going to dictate/impact a teams roster moves immensely.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Harold Drake's picture

April 12, 2021 at 07:28 am

Did the Green Bay Packers offer thegreatreynoldo free cheeseburgers for this biased puff piece? Further, how could PFT have seen Rodgers' contract? Did they hire a special ops team to break into the Packers' offices or bribe someone at the law firm handling the paperwork? Further, why would Rodgers' or his agent ever have agreed to allow the Packers to restructure his contract without his consent? Obviously the writer is living out his phantasy of jettisoning Rodgers as soon as possible as opposed to dealing with the reality that the Packers' shoddy treatment of AR12 may very well cost the team his services simply to satisfy GM Gutekunst's reckless gamble on Jordan Love.

+ REPLY
-11 points
2
13
Guam's picture

April 12, 2021 at 07:54 am

I believe the NFL/ NFLPA contract allows teams to convert salary to signing bonus without the player's consent. As long as the player gets paid his money, the salary cap bookkeeping is not material to the player - hence no need for his consent.

TGR doesn't need to justify whether or not PFT saw Rodgers' contract, just provide the source of his information, which he did (Demovsky's article).

TGR is one of the fairest contributing authors at CHTV and usually takes great pains to separate his comments from his articles. I saw no agenda in his article, just an effort to explain what might happen with Rodgers' contract. Which has been a topic of much discussion on this site recently.

And is case you are questioning my motives - I have been in the "keep Rodgers, never should have drafted Love" camp from the start. And I believe your critique of TGR and this article is grossly misguided.

+ REPLY
9 points
10
1
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 12, 2021 at 08:47 am

I am in the keep AR, should not have drafted Love camp. If there is a bias in the article, that's it. [Yes, I realize that the CHTV draft guide last year suggested possibly trading up for Love - the writer thought they would have to move into the teens - so Love was good value according to CHTV's guide.]

The whole point of the article is that the Packers' apparent (time will tell) unwillingness to commit to AR contractually by pushing money out into the future is why GB likely will need to win with last year's personnel. It seems to me that the presence of Love is the underlying cause for their disinclination to generate cap space - but there's always the chance there are other reasons not apparent to fans.

It does not look like GB will have the relationship with AR that Brees had with the Saints. Every year he agreed to add another year to his deal, usually at roughly a fair price. Now he is waiting to submit his retirement papers until after June because that's better for the team he is no longer a part of.

That said, it may well be that LH is correct in what actually will happen. LH may be proven correct that moving on is what should be done.

+ REPLY
4 points
5
1
Harold Drake's picture

April 12, 2021 at 08:57 am

Dear TGR, I am glad you are not toeing the Packers' front office party line! But I did not get that impression from your article which stacks the restructuring deck entirely in the team's favour!

Not a single football analyst or commentator outside the ideological bubble of CHTV and similar Packers fan sites supports the anti-Rodgers line. The Packers are trying to have it both ways which according to CHTV's Gutekunst-friendly commentators is euphemistically described as "keeping the team's options open."

It is obvious to everyone outside the Packers' ecosphere that the team is at loggerheads with Rodgers over restructuring his contract and giving him more guaranteed money.

The real scandal is WHY the Packers are refusing to commit to Rodgers??? I would say the odds of the Packers winning the Super Bowl WITH Rodgers at QB over the next three years is 100 times greater than with Love. The current Gutekunst Hubris Strategy is threatening the team's chances and does an immense disservice to Packer Nation.

+ REPLY
1 points
3
2
Thegravedigger's picture

April 13, 2021 at 11:58 pm

tgr is the man. hes all for keeping rodg, and giving us packer fans contract information, thats what he does. all the research we dont feel like doing. WIth that being said, i have to agree with you that gute is full of hubris. YOU were wrong gute, its okay. you still have time to fix it. get it done please. we watched tom win one last year on his new team and we watched peyton do it a few years ago. i dont want to watch aaron do it in 2023 in a purple uniform.

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
Thegravedigger's picture

April 13, 2021 at 11:58 pm

tgr is the man. hes all for keeping rodg, and giving us packer fans contract information, thats what he does. all the research we dont feel like doing. WIth that being said, i have to agree with you that gute is full of hubris. YOU were wrong gute, its okay. you still have time to fix it. get it done please. we watched tom win one last year on his new team and we watched peyton do it a few years ago. i dont want to watch aaron do it in 2023 in a purple uniform.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Leatherhead's picture

April 12, 2021 at 12:27 pm

Thanks for the article, as always TGR.

I cannot predict the future, in football or anything else, but I can follow and interpret trajectories. I don't like to play coulda/shoulda.

We shoulda done this, drafted this, traded this. We coulda done this. Water under the bridge, turn the page.

If you're a Packer fan, you have to be hoping that the 1265 Brass knows what they're doing, and that the trade up to draft Love (who by your own admission, was a good value at that spot) was not an accident, but rather part of an overall plan.

And that Plan certainly involves getting another QB ready. The BEST CASE scenario for the Packers is that Love gets a bunch of good snaps in practices and training camp and looks competent enough that you could put him in the game and he wouldn't fumble the snap. (cough-grahamharrell--cough)

But you definitely are hoping Rodgers stays healthy and plays well and we win. If we go to the Super Bowl, that's one thing, but if we come up short again, that's another.

You acknowledge the timeline mechanics....that May 2023 is when we need to exercise the 5th year option. That means we'd like to know what we've got before we do that, and that means he'll need to start some games for us in 2022. That's next season.

This isn't about the gas in Rodger's tank, or feeling butthurt, or whatever. The simple combination of economics and time dictate that at some point, you have to replace old expensive players with younger, cheaper versions. The decision has been made that Love is that version, and the sooner he's able to put points on the board, the better.

If we were to trade Rodgers after this season, making Love the starter, we gain a lot of operating space against the cap in addition to whatever pick (s) were involved. We could put a very good team around him, with backs that can carry the load and a line that gets it done. And a defense.

This is happening now, and it's been happening for over a year, and it's a factor in all the offseason stuff we did. This is the last shot with this group of Rodgers, Adams, Jones.
2022 might well be Love, Dillon, MVS

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
Nate-1980's picture

April 12, 2021 at 03:14 pm

You don’t move on from a hof qb that just won the mvp after a year if he doesn’t win the super bowl, I don’t understand your “ logic”.. If love is the starter in 2022 they better know without a doubt he can play, but I don’t know how they’ll know that for sure with one preseason and maybe a few mop up games..

“If we were to trade Rodgers after this season, making Love the starter, we gain a lot of operating space against the cap in addition to whatever pick (s) were involved. We could put a very good team around him, with backs that can carry the load and a line that gets it done. And a defense.”
Yeah have a lot of cap space/picks for a bum of a qb that can’t win anything, that defense better be the 2001 ravens or it’s a step backwards in getting another trophy.. I’ll never understand posters on here that don’t give Rodgers the respect he’s earned by not only his elite play but commitment to the packers..He’s carried this mediocre team on his back for most of his career..Y’all should be ashamed of yourselves, and if this Love situation turns out to be a dumpster fire and we get rid of Rodgers, just remember you supported the Fo and were part of the problem.. Years of horrible football is what we’ll all have to suffer through, but at least I didn’t ask for it..

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
Leatherhead's picture

April 12, 2021 at 06:22 pm

How would they “know he can play” if he hasn’t played? And wouldn’t you want to know before exercising the 5th year option?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
CoachDino's picture

April 12, 2021 at 08:48 pm

The packers owe AR nothing other than what's in the contract. AR owes the Packers nothing other than what's in the contract.The packers took a chance on him, developed him, and paid him record amounts of money. Arod has in return played up to his contract.

Teams move on from HOF QBs ALL the TIME. Its probably harder to find one that stayed than it is to find those that didn't.

The packers aren't moving away from an MVP QB in 2022 unless he wins it again.
He will be 40yo when his current contract expires. Other than TB who played at drastically reduced cap price there is only Warren Moon that has played "well" past the age of 40yo.

Arod has had plenty of SB level teams while playing for the Packers. Between injuries, freak plays and his own poor performance they have won "only" 1 SB. Still not bad at all.

When you take up 20% of the cap space you better carry the team and he has to a point. Sure if he has a good game the packer beat TB but he didn't suck and was under a lot of pressure due to the Bakh injury. Still he didn't "Step Up" in the big game and its not the 1st time.

The packers haven't cut him yet so why get ahead of ourselves, but the cap situation, his age, salary demands are not positives. If he plays another MVP season than maybe you keep him or trade him at his peak. I root for the Packers not Gute or Arod but the Team.

+ REPLY
1 points
3
2
Leatherhead's picture

April 13, 2021 at 06:48 am

Well stated, Coach Dino.

We have put SB caliber teams on the field, and we’ve had some bad luck and bad plays. We’re going to put another one on the field this season and hope that Arod can get us there. I would expect substantial changes if we fall short again.

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
Harold Drake's picture

April 13, 2021 at 12:11 am

Thanks again, Nate. It looks like it's you and me against the slavish CHTV commentariat which is terrified of arguing against anyone who writes for the site. I agree 100% with your comments. It's too bad that the lunatic fringe mob (probably MAGA people - sorry, but I couldn't resist) is unable to think clearly about how critical Rodgers is to the success of the Packers. It's hilarious to see people defending the Love pick and otherwise operating under the delusion that Love can suddenly step in and perform at an extremely high level. He had virtually no practice time last season and therefore the 2021 season is essential his "rookie" season and will likely need a minimum of one if not two years before he would be anywhere near ready to take a shot as a starter. Once again, it is the height of insanity to fail to give Rodgers the guaranteed money that will be necessary to keep him on the team beyond this season. And if Rodgers wants to throw his weight around, he could hold out for precisely that reason prior to stepping on the field this season.

+ REPLY
-2 points
1
3
Leatherhead's picture

April 13, 2021 at 06:51 am

That’s a lot of insults to read through, but I do like the use of “commentariat.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
CoachDino's picture

April 12, 2021 at 05:53 pm

It's not a puff piece but an opinion pc using hypotheticals.
Same statement I always make, who extends a contract of a guy turning 40 3 years before it expires? The answer is none. Goeff and Wentz are the last ones I know of that were extended years early,after Career years, but they were still on their rookie contracts.
Name a QB other than TB that was successful past the age of 40? Statistically only Warren Moon? Favre had a good year at 40 then bombed.

The CHTV Draft guide wasn't the only place that had Love going in rd 1. The consensus was pick 21 with the range of Picks from #5 into 2nd rd.
If AR is so worth keeping, than why the statement of limited trade value?

Remember: The packers drafted Love before Arods resurgence - having an MVP season. IMO he has always been a good QB even in the last few years with MM and yr 1 with ML

Why take a player like Love in the back 1/3 of the draft and use a Late #4 to trade up? Look no further than SF trading 3 firsts and a 3rd to obtain a QB of Love's potential or less.

Once again he was drafted before Arods MVP season. Arod said it best when he stated how his MVP season put a wrench in the packers plans. Can't say for sure but it would seem that way.

The problem isn't just Love, to me it's the impact ARod has on the cap this year and next year. pushing money out only makes it worse. This example just pushed most of it out to 2024. OK, the cap should be very high by then but that also means ARods agrees on a 1 yr extension if I'm reading this correctly. I'd think he's looking for at least 3 years. So in 2024 you have a 41 yo QB that takes a huge hit on your cap and no other options.

Problem is sooner or later that cap is gonna catch up and there's no way of getting around the fact that as long as Arod, one of the best QB's in the game, is on the squad being paid like he deserves the rest of the roster will suffer. That's why teams try to win with QBs still on their Rookie contracts.

I still don't see how Arod can be on the roster in 2022 and keep DA and extend JA.

Personally, I enjoyed the exercise, its just about options and it does show one way of maybe making it work but I still don't think it's enough..

+ REPLY
1 points
3
2
Leatherhead's picture

April 13, 2021 at 06:53 am

Again, on target. I, also , don’t see how those three guys are all on the roster next year.

+ REPLY
-1 points
0
1
dobber's picture

April 13, 2021 at 07:45 am

ARod is a commodity. People don't like to think of him that way, but he is. He has value on the market...he has value to the Packers. At some point, the combination of his skills, cap hit, and market demand will mean that it's no longer in the best interest of the Packers to keep him around. His popularity might mitigate that, somewhat, and it might be that he retires before that time, who knows? But HR in most mega corporations is a cold business...it's true in the NFL, too.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
CoachDino's picture

April 14, 2021 at 11:56 am

Well put. People, including myself, like to only remember that when it suits us but when your honest with yourself it is true all the time and works both ways. As people first and fans second we get emotional and tend to relate more with the human side (players). Its natural, problem is it's intellectually dishonest and leads to poor decision making.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Harold Drake's picture

April 12, 2021 at 09:00 am

Dear Guam,
Please see my reply to TGR.

+ REPLY
0 points
2
2
Guam's picture

April 12, 2021 at 03:56 pm

Had your initial post been as reasoned as your response to TGR, I would have not been nearly as caustic in my response. Unfortunately your initial post assailed what was a reasonable attempt to explain what the Packer FO might be thinking. Whether you like what the Packer FO might be thinking or not is not TGR's responsibility.

+ REPLY
1 points
2
1
PF4L's picture

April 12, 2021 at 08:18 am

How Rodgers Super Bowl record....might have looked

4 SB wins...0 losses
3 SB MVP's

+ REPLY
0 points
3
3
croatpackfan's picture

April 12, 2021 at 08:51 am

Yeah, and Packers team are guilty because Aaron Rodgers did not win more than 1 SB. Sure...

But, did you ever consider that the main culprit was Rodgers, if nor sole, but in large extend. I know that lot of fans was angry on MLF for picking to kick the field goal this year NFCCG, but what do you think would happened if Aaron was get the ball for 4th down? Another pushy throw to the well covered Davante Adams while he will have 2 other players completely open and alone at the end zone?

Why Packers had problems with 3rd Q the whole season? Is there possibility that 3rd Q was Aaron's play ground when he was calling or was changing called plays by his preferences? Or he believes that he is always right? Why Aaron believes he is so smarter than other players that he can get them all the time to made mistakes (like offsides, 12 man on the field, encroachment etc). With that habbit he puts his OL in bad position, because opponent DL knows exactly when the ball will be snapped (at the last second!).

What I saw in his 3 losses of NFCCGs he was playing under his standards. In all 3 loses!

+ REPLY
-3 points
2
5
Leatherhead's picture

April 12, 2021 at 01:46 pm

Criticizing the Packers QB is going to be met with a lot of resistance.

Look at the games that ended our seasons since our last Super Bowl. How many points did the offense score in those losses? Did they underperform in the loss? Did we have turnovers?

Last year, we scored 30 or more 13 times, going 12-1 in those games, with the only loss being a 4 turnover game. But our season ended when we scored 26 and had two turnovers.

That’s why I’m glad we’re giving this group one more shot.

+ REPLY
4 points
4
0
PF4L's picture

April 12, 2021 at 03:15 pm

Lets see....NFCCG against the Bucs....
Did any of our 182 million dollars worth of free agents make a play?
Amos had a pick, but then again he also had horrid coverage letting Brate in the end zone for an easy TD, and also whiffed on Fournette's 20 yard TD run.
They also had a sack, but that was by Kenny Clark.
I heard Kevin King did well also.

Lets see...NFCCG (49ers)....
Well....Did any of our 182 million dollars worth of free agent muscle make any plays?
Hmmm...not that i can see.
Although Kyler Fackrell did had a sack.
But give the defense credit, they kept the 9ers under 300 yards rushing and 40 points.

Lets see...NFCCG..(Falcons)
The Packer defense kept the Falcons under 500 yards (493 yards)
The Packer defense kept the Falcons under 50 points (44 points)
The Packer defense had....0 sacks.
The Packer defense kept Ryan from throwing for 400 yards (394 yards)
The Packer defense held Ryan under a 140 passer rating (139.4)

Lets see....NFCCG (Seattle)
The Packer defense...showed up?
5 sacks?...a forced fumble?
WOW!!!
Packers up by 12 with 5:30 left on the clock
(what could go wrong?)
A comedy of errors?
Do i have to go through all of them?
None...had anything to do with Aaron Rodgers.
******************************
But croatpackfan ask.....
"But, did you ever consider that the main culprit was Rodgers"

Yes Sir, it's almost always ...Rodgers.

I LOVE YOU GUYS!! :)
*************************
Let me ask you this croatpackfan.....
Did you ever consider the possibility of the Packers not getting to those NFCCG's....without Rodgers?

+ REPLY
1 points
4
3
Nate-1980's picture

April 12, 2021 at 03:20 pm

Nailed it with truth again, you will be downvoted my friend..:)

+ REPLY
2 points
3
1
PF4L's picture

April 12, 2021 at 08:09 pm

T Y good Sir...:)

+ REPLY
-1 points
0
1
CoachDino's picture

April 12, 2021 at 09:26 pm

I'm not blaming Arod for any losses. Though i would say he the facts show he didn't play up to his standards either.

1st half Flop against SF he was awful - IMO they just lost to a better team
Arods: TO, Missed scores, some poor decisions cost the Packers dearly against TB
Seattle Game came down to a boneheaded play.
I don't see his stats displayed in the Atl game either,

When you make up the highest Cap space $ of any player and at times by extreme margins you better carry the team. He hasn't.

It's seldom always or never but a combination - ARod certainly, just considering the facts, hasn't played to his standards in the biggest games, (not always, not never but overall)

Remember ARod takes up more cap space than any other player. Also remember they don't get there w/o him playing well.

free your mind, the rest will follow....

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
croatpackfan's picture

April 13, 2021 at 05:22 am

Well, I can say several things to answer your question. But there is several opinion from other fans (not much, I admit), like Coach Dino, that gave you the answers on some of your questions.

We can talk how Packers came to several NFCCGs or at the postseason. I remember that 2013 Aaron was injured and Packers still played postseason - almost complete season w/o Aaron. That season another player than Aaron carried team to the playoff - rookie Eddie. Not Jordy, not Randall, not James - rookie did!

Second, I like how Aaron Rodgers play QB very much, but that does not mean I'm blind for his mistakes and shortcomings every person has. For me he would win 4 SB, all of that what you mention if he were just a little bit more humble and listen to the play caller. Or, playing complete game, not just offensive side. No, I do not mean that he need to play defense on defense, but very often he need to play O and D while he is playing O. His famous 3 and outs that eat only 1 minute from the clock in multiple sequences tells you that he did not play game to help D, he just push D over the physical limits and it always looks like D is bad.

Third, there was multiple throws behind receiver or overthrowing them, or underthrowing them and for you it is always mistake by receiver. Well, for your information, I always consider that kind of throws QB mistake, not receiver mistake. We can discuss if receiver was not at his position, but neither of us could know the truth. We do not know what play was called and how it is executed.

When I posted my answer to you, I knew I will get many downvotes. But that is OK. I understand that for many Packers fans Aaron Rodgers is higher that God itself. He is unerring. I was not follow Packers in the time of Brett Favre, but I can imagine how many fans consider Favre similar to how you consider Aaron today. But do not forget that whole Lambeau Field was booing Aaron Rodgers in his first game as starter! The same guy you are now consider unerring. Love does not means to be blind for the beloved shortcomings. It means you accept them and still love the person.

So, no matter what, I will cite Coach Dino: "When you make up the highest Cap space $ of any player and at times by extreme margins you better carry the team. He hasn't."

I respect your opinion, but why did you not gave QBR of all Aaron's postseason games, as well as only NFCCGs he played, completion percentage, TO, sacks (many times QBs are guilty for sacks), balls thrown away, etc. ... That would be also nice figures to discuss, especially comparing them to the regular season games, do you think?

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
PF4L's picture

April 12, 2021 at 03:11 pm

"What I saw in his 3 losses of NFCCGs he was playing under his standards. In all 3 loses!" - croatpackfan.

Yes that's what you saw...ever wonder why?

Could it be it's because the defense's get tougher in NFCCG's and SB's

Maybe that's why Russell Wilson won that NFCCG with a rating of 44.
Maybe that's why Ben Roethlisberger won a Super Bowl with a passer rating of 22.6
Maybe that's why Tom Brady won a Super Bowl with 0 Td's, 1 interception and a passer rating of 71.3
Maybe that's why Peyton Manning won a SB with a passer rating of 55.6

You're welcome.

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
Nate-1980's picture

April 12, 2021 at 03:23 pm

No PF4L those qbs can suck in the playoffs or super bowl, they’re allowed that.. Rodgers has to play his best football every game regardless of the circumstances ha.. God you never think do you hahaha

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
Since'61's picture

April 12, 2021 at 07:39 pm

Let's not forget that he needs to score a TD on every possession otherwise it's all his fault.

In 4 NFCCG losses the Packers defense has allowed an average of 35 points per game. In the one NFCCG the Packers have won with Rodgers as QB the defense allowed only 14 points. Anyone see a correlation between the NFCCG won and the 4 losses?

Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
PF4L's picture

April 12, 2021 at 08:07 pm

Good call 61

The 2010 defense was ranked 5th and gave up something like 15 points/game.

+ REPLY
-1 points
0
1
Leatherhead's picture

April 13, 2021 at 08:36 am

Did you happen to know how many points were a result of offensive or special teams turnovers?

When you build a team that wins with offense, and then in big games it turns the ball over and scores below their average , why are you indicting the defense ?

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
PF4L's picture

April 13, 2021 at 02:41 pm

Lets see....NFCCG against the Bucs....
Did any of our 182 million dollars worth of free agents make a play?
Amos had a pick, but then again he also had horrid coverage letting Brate in the end zone for an easy TD, and also whiffed on Fournette's 20 yard TD run.
They also had a sack, but that was by Kenny Clark.
I heard Kevin King did well also.

Lets see...NFCCG (49ers)....
Well....Did any of our 182 million dollars worth of free agent muscle make any plays?
Hmmm...not that i can see.
Although Kyler Fackrell did had a sack.
But give the defense credit, they kept the 9ers under 300 yards rushing and 40 points.

Lets see...NFCCG..(Falcons)
The Packer defense kept the Falcons under 500 yards (493 yards)
The Packer defense kept the Falcons under 50 points (44 points)
The Packer defense had....0 sacks.
The Packer defense kept Ryan from throwing for 400 yards (394 yards)
The Packer defense held Ryan under a 140 passer rating (139.4)

Lets see....NFCCG (Seattle)
The Packer defense...showed up?
5 sacks?...a forced fumble?
WOW!!!
Packers up by 12 with 5:30 left on the clock
(what could go wrong?)
A comedy of errors?
Do i have to go through all of them?
None...had anything to do with Aaron Rodgers.

+ REPLY
-2 points
0
2
PF4L's picture

April 13, 2021 at 06:48 pm

Listen up people....

Again....my goal of 1,000 thumbs down by draft day is falling short.

All that typing of the truth and all i get is just 1 thumbs down.....that isn't going to cut it!!

Lets try and pick up the pace ok people?

So far, you've got smiling, happy go lucky PF4L.

You don't want to see the dark side.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 14, 2021 at 02:12 am

LOL. Looks like you need about 5 down votes per day to reach your goal. My money is on you easily surpassing your goal.

I'm not going to down vote you though for this comment: you've got to earn it, after all!

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
PF4L's picture

April 14, 2021 at 08:00 am

Lol....i don't have any problem earning it, but then i'd have to lie....and that will never happen my friend. I live in a no bs zone

I spread some more truth in Jersey Al's latest "Confession" article...so that should help :)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PF4L's picture

April 12, 2021 at 08:16 pm

First of all.....Nate

Stop calling me God. Neither of us care for that.

Am i a little slow on the uptake sometimes?...possibly.

But i'm learning and the more time i spend in here,
the smarter i get with the help of all you fine people.

:)

+ REPLY
-2 points
0
2
dobber's picture

April 13, 2021 at 07:50 am

I would argue that QBs can suck in the playoffs/SB and it's allowed--if their team still wins. QBs are always lightning rods: always given too much credit or too much blame. But winning key games mitigates a lot of that.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
CoachDino's picture

April 12, 2021 at 09:46 pm

the master of exclusion.

1)Peyton manning and TB both went to teams with great Defenses and weren't sucking up 20% of the salary Cap.
2) PM was missing his OL - makes a difference - just like it did with the packers game.
3) Russell Wilson had a 122 passer rating throwing fro 2td and no interceptions. Not sure where your got your info. Also RW playing on a Rookie contract
4) ben rating was over 90 in one win and 22 in the other which was dominated buy the run. I think it was his second year in the league.

What about the other 50 some games.

Your point seems to favor dumping Arod and focusing on using the money spent on him for a better defense. Certainly is a theory that is implemented as seen with the examples you supplied.

"You're Welcome"

yes, Thank-you for proving the opposite of your point....

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PF4L's picture

April 13, 2021 at 05:37 am

Dino....i don't have the time to correct you every time you make mistakes. This is getting way too time consuming.

Please......try to read (and understand what you are reading) more carefully in the future.

This is what i wrote......

"Maybe that's why Russell Wilson won that NFCCG with a rating of 44."

If that is still confusing to you in any way, i will explain it to you one more time. But that is it, we can't keep going on like this.

You're welcome

+ REPLY
-1 points
0
1
PF4L's picture

April 13, 2021 at 02:37 pm

This is what i wrote......

"Maybe that's why Russell Wilson won that NFCCG with a rating of 44."

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
CoachDino's picture

April 14, 2021 at 12:15 pm

Your right my bad,
the reason he won the game was a bonehead play on an onside kick. Why was Seattle in that position? ARod had another terrible NFCCG with 2 Int and a 53 Passer rating.

Either way your point is proven wrong. But please accept my apologies for the time spent correcting my misunderstanding of your wrong conclusions.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

April 12, 2021 at 09:59 am

And what might it look like if they redo it next year, a time that might actually carry him through to the end and provide cap space.

We know you don’t like the Love pick, but this ignoring potentially compelling rationales (numerical and strategic) in order to highlight your take, and that’s without taking Rodgers’ positions into account.

None of us know what they plan. We don’t even know if they have settled on one. This would have largely tied everybody’s hands. Perhaps that would have come to be been looked back on as unwise for many reasons, including cap management.

Post script: by coincidence, and for what it is worth, some relevant rumor today on PFT suggesting it may in fact be Rodgers who has prevented reworking thus far:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/04/11/unnamed-agent-says-pack...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 12, 2021 at 09:57 am

1. I'd like to cite space limitations but it actually never occurred to me to consider waiting until 2022. I wanted to put in a contract where AR doesn't defer money but that got cut for length.

2. What about this year (the 2021 season)? Ignoring potentially compelling rationales that favor doing nothing this year with AR's contract also ignores moves that might improve the 2021 team.

3. Waiting to redo AR's deal until next year ignores the undoubted fact that the Packers still need to generate almost $4M more just to sign draft picks, the PS and the 52nd and 53rd contracts, and should have another $3M ($5M would be more prudent) as a cushion to operate/pay for IR and PUP even if no other significant acquisitions are contemplated. Where else can GB get it?

3a. I'll provide my answer: extending Adams, cutting Lowry or getting a paycut out of him, or letting Tonyan walk are about what's left in the arsenal. The top players have $3.9M in game-active bonuses and another $4.4M in W/O bonuses that could be converted to signing bonuses.

So, my answer is that while waiting until 2022 is just possible from a pure numbers perspective, it sure looks to me like it might not be feasible, or at least requires some cooperation from Davante Adams and/or Lowry, or a willingness on GB's behalf to part with Lowry and Tonyan (Sullivan might be in the mix as well).

What are these compelling rationales (of any kind)? I know only of making it easier to trade AR in 2022. The longer GB waits the harder it is to control AR's cap number.

What is AR's position? Is waiting until next year to modify his contract something he favors? I don't know but I kinda %ing doubt it. Does he favor GB just taking via auto conversion the bare minimum necessary to get by in 2021? I'd propose the same answer.

Grammarly indicates my tone is friendly and informal, BTW.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Coldworld's picture

April 12, 2021 at 10:13 am

If we give any credence to the PFT article ( seems to have derived from Demovsky) that I added in my post script above, the issue may not be a result if the Packers’ desires to a greater or lesser extent and may yet develop this off season.

That would perhaps explain Murphy saying what he did so obviously equivocally and in contrast with his tone early in the off season.

As you point out, the Packers aren’t done with moves because they can’t be. At this point, I suspect (Rodgers aside) they are waiting for the draft and post draft transactions.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 12, 2021 at 10:57 am

Thanks for the article. Pretty interesting. It seems to say that AR should not expect more than a two-year contractual commitment (that is, the structure makes it difficult to impossible to move from a player for 2 seasons), something I suggested in the article.

I don't quite see where it indicates that AR is the stumbling block to a really revamped deal reached in the near future. It does indicate that AR might not tolerate it next year, but he'd probably have to really cause a stink to force his way out, something that would tarnish his image.

I do see where it refers to Mark Murphy but never to Gutekunst. LOL, more drama in that line of speculation. It could be just a reference to Murphy's recent presser.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
flackcatcher's picture

April 12, 2021 at 03:22 pm

More like Demovsky trying to stay on Murphy's good side. It is part of being a reporter that is not much talked about. Sometimes you have to suck up (to be blunt) to your sources. Demovsky's a good reporter, being nice to a source is good journalism. And CW is far kinder than I am in describing the PFT article. As usual, they did not credit Demovsky. Par for the course.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
PF4L's picture

April 12, 2021 at 03:30 pm

Coldworld

Ahhh...Mike Florio riding piggyback on Demovsky's shoulders...Always a pleasure,

So Florio is citing Demovskys experts of NON BIASED opinions. Lets review a quote to examine the intelligence of the article.

“They’ve called me about one of my players and said, ‘Hey, this is where we are now, and until we get something big done — hint, hint — we don’t have any space,'”- unnamed source.

lol...let's try to understand that.....
Are we to believe, that Gute made a call to a players agent, to tell him that they aren't interested?

Gute: Hi players agent...."Gute here....i'm just calling you to tell you that i won't be calling you about your player because of our cap situation.

Players agent: " Who is this, and why are you calling to tell me you won't be calling? I'm kinda busy...Don't you have more important things to do?"

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 12, 2021 at 04:41 pm

That's pretty funny. I suppose Gute might call just to get a ballpark number on the agent's player: if the number is right, perhaps Gute might make the cap space available.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PF4L's picture

April 12, 2021 at 07:33 pm

That's a possibility great one....

Gute: "Hi players agent..Gutey here, i'm calling about player x, what would it take to sign him?"

Players agent: "Hi Cutey...we're looking for 7 mil/year minimum for 4 years."

Gute: "Well, we can do 1.75 million/year 3 years, due to our cap situation (hint hint)"

Players agent: CLICK

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Coldworld's picture

April 12, 2021 at 07:20 pm

I don’t need a lesson in cynicism, or in the probity of Florio or his thinking. Moreover, I think all it does is suggest that the near unanimous assumption that the Packers aren’t talking is likely not entirely true. Just think there is a surfeit of tunnel vision: the gossip happened to appear coincidentally.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
PF4L's picture

April 12, 2021 at 07:46 pm

I looked up surfeit and found out it has something to do with eating a lot of chocolate custard from Culvers.

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 13, 2021 at 02:38 am

Is that called suet?

Re above: that's a call TT made often.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PF4L's picture

April 13, 2021 at 05:55 am

I love $20 dollar words :)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

April 12, 2021 at 08:52 am

TGR thank you for your work and explanation. Excellent!

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
dobber's picture

April 12, 2021 at 09:03 am

" Moreover, it seems likely that the Jaguars, Jets and 49ers will select quarterbacks with the top three picks in the 2021 draft, and Atlanta or Denver likely takes QB 4 in the top ten picks."

Teams have definitely shown a willingness to bypass previous high picks in favor of a new QB in recent years...Rosen, Darnold, Haskins, Trubisky...all have been given fairly short leashes and all are now on second (or third...) teams. GMs (especially new GMs who aren't invested in picks made by old management teams) are quick to judge whether or not a QB has "it". I don't think that there will be a dearth of teams thinking they can pull a "Tom Brady rabbit-out-of-the-hat" run with a vet QB in any given year should the Packers decide its time to move on.

+ REPLY
3 points
3
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 12, 2021 at 10:33 am

Fair enough. Darnold, the top 5 QB, got a 3-year look while Haskins was released after twice breaking Covid protocol and having his work ethic questioned by management (and not perhaps coincidently, playing poorly), but indeed Rosen got something closer to the Brohm treatment.

I was thinking of the Ken Lass article wherein AR's trade price was suggested at three 1sts and a QB. Looking at those comments, quite a few folks thought GB would get less.

I agree it is likely to be some market for AR as long as he still looks at least good.

https://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/what-could-packers-actually-get-for-aaron-...

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
dobber's picture

April 12, 2021 at 09:02 am

Boop.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
PatrickGB's picture

April 12, 2021 at 09:38 am

We have a QB who have given his all to this team and earned multiple MVP’s. He has often carried this team with lesser talent at many other positions. He has survived a knucklehead of a coach and fans who booed him when he replaced Favre. He has supported Wisconsin sports and is a great leader. He easily earned his due and was highly paid only to see less talented QB’s pass him up on the pay scale. He expressed a desire to be a Packer for life yet now sees his possible replacement may already be in the works. The clock is ticking while the cap is limited. I can understand his point of view if he wants to hold off on any long term decisions. The Packers are blessed to have him yet they must also plan for the future without him. It’s going to be sticky until it’s not. I hope he plays for less money yet understands if he won’t.

+ REPLY
3 points
4
1
Lphill's picture

April 12, 2021 at 02:33 pm

No need Rodgers is gone after this season , this move will go down in sports as the biggest blunder ever made , Rodgers will lead another team to a Super Bowl victory and Love will lead the Packers to the bottom of the north.

+ REPLY
1 points
2
1
JohnnyLogan's picture

April 12, 2021 at 02:33 pm

I'm in the keep Rodgers camp. Also not angry about the Love pick. Insurance is a good thing. QB insurance is expensive. That's how I see Love. As long as Rodgers performs like he has, at MVP level, do everything you can to keep him. Restructure, even extend. QB is the most important position in sports. You have maybe the greatest of all time still playing at the highest level. Don't be a knucklehead.

+ REPLY
3 points
3
0
PF4L's picture

April 13, 2021 at 05:50 am

Insurance is only as good as the settlement.

If a QB comes in and doesn't play well. You bought the wrong insurance. Not saying he wont play well, but we don't know. 2nd round pick Deshone Kizer was insurance also.

Insurance is indeed expensive....especially when you figure in the loss of service of a 1st round and 4th round pick, that never got a chance to get on the field to help you get to a Super Bowl.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

April 12, 2021 at 02:41 pm

When Gute drafted Love many of saw the writing on the wall and expected Rodgers to be gone after 2021. It is beginning to look more and more like that will be the case with each passing day as the Packers continue to do nothing.

As I have posted on numerous occasions previously, new regimes want their guys. It doesn't matter how well the previous regime's player has played or is currently playing. Wolf and Holmgren put Favre in and he remained the starter even after Majik recovered from his injuries. TT & MM tied themselves to Rodgers with Favre's help of course. Now we're seeing the same with Gute and MLF concerning Love.

I still believe that if Rodgers remains healthy moving on from him will be one the stupidest moves in the history of sports and very likely will be remembered as the stupidest move in Packer history. Besides who will many of the fans here blame for the Packers losses once Rodgers is gone? After all it's his fault that the defense has allowed an average of 36 points in our playoff losses.

I hope I'm wrong but the upcoming draft and a contract restructure or not will tells us much about Rodgers future in Green Bay after 2021. I hope that for all those who want Rodgers gone that they have kept their 70s outfits because we're likely heading back there rather than going forward to an SB once Rodgers is gone.

TGR as always your excellent work is appreciated. Stay well. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
2
2
JohnnyLogan's picture

April 12, 2021 at 02:52 pm

Agree completely '61! They'll justify moving on from Rodgers by citing the pirate's chest of gold they'll get for him, but it will mean nothing unless Love turns into Patrick Mahomes or Rodgers. Betting on Love ever reaching their level of play is a risk and a sucker's play. Gute needs to stifle his ego and realize that the idea is to win the SB, even if it's with your predecessor's QB.

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
Harold Drake's picture

April 13, 2021 at 12:18 am

You actually make sense for once. Yet you still praise TGR for an article which is clearly toeing the Packers' party line and is completely biased against Rodgers. But you are absolutely correct in stating that it would be one of the "stupidest moves in the history of sports" were the Pack to dump Rodgers while he's still healthy and productive. It's too bad that there are so few CHTV site writers and fans who share this sentiment.

+ REPLY
-2 points
1
3
flackcatcher's picture

April 12, 2021 at 03:54 pm

Good article TGR. Covers the Rodgers contract situation fairly in my view. For us fans this is hard. We are seeing the beginning of the end of a historic era in Packer History. Letterhead has covered the why well in his comment. If Covid-19 had not hit, the NFL Cap might have remained slightly below its 2019 number. But it did, forcing the Packers to make decisions far earlier than I think they intended. Gutekunst has done well with the hand he was left with by Thompson and Murphy. He's put us in a position to win it all. Again.

+ REPLY
1 points
2
1
PF4L's picture

April 13, 2021 at 04:00 pm

"He's put us in a position to win it all. Again."

Can we have a parade? Can we celebrate the success of our General Manager.

We can invite players like Josh Jackson, Jimmy Graham, Jordy Nelson, Preston Smith,
Jordan Love, Wilkerson, Cole Madison, Dequara, J'Mon Moore, ESB, Oren Burks, Devin Funchess, Snacks Harrison, Sternberger, and any other non effective free agents and non contributing draft picks.

Aaron Rodgers is not invited....as flackcatcher has recently pointed out..."That ship has sailed"

To some...GUTE...has put us in a position to (win it all).

To others....being in a position to (win it all) sounds warm and fuzzy.
But those people believe that being in a position to win it all,
means being in the actual SB game. The game where teams decide.....who wins it all.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
flackcatcher's picture

April 13, 2021 at 10:57 pm

(smiles) Nice to see you can still dance on the head of a pin....dash.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PF4L's picture

April 14, 2021 at 08:05 am

"Rodgers ship has sailed" - flackcatcher

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0

Log in to comment and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.