Create Account

Or log in with Facebook


Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Packers Agree to Five-Year Extension with LB Clay Matthews

By Category

Packers Agree to Five-Year Extension with LB Clay Matthews

The first of the mega deals negotiated by the Green Bay Packers this offseason has been completed.

According to several published reports, the Packers and linebacker Clay Matthews have finalized a five-year deal worth $66 million, leaving only Aaron Rodgers and his eventual record-breaking deal left to accomplish in Green Bay's offseason negotiation queue.

Ian Rapoport of NFL Network broke the news early Wednesday afternoon.

Shortly after, Matthews tweeted out a photo of him signing the deal.

Tom Silverstein of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported that the deal is worth $66 million over five years, leaving Matthews with an average of $13.2 million in new money.

The deal will make Matthews the highest paid linebacker in the NFL, slightly ahead of DeMarcus Ware.

Matthews, 26, has 42.5 sacks—the fifth-most in the NFL since 2009—plus seven forced fumbles and four interceptions in four seasons. He's been named to four Pro Bowls and two All-Pro teams since the Packers moved up in the first round of the 2009 NFL draft to take him with the 26th overall pick.

Without an extension, Matthews would have entered 2013 in the last year of his rookie deal.

The five-year extension will add on to Matthews' one remaining year, leaving him under contract with the Packers through the 2018 season.

Zach Kruse is a 24-year-old sports writer who contributes to Cheesehead TV, Bleacher Report and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. He also covers prep sports for the Dunn Co. News. You can reach him on Twitter @zachkruse2 or by email at [email protected].

  • Like Like
  • 9 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (83) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

Tony's picture

Clap clap clap clap. Now for one more.

Evan's picture

Love. It.

So, it's 5 years added on to the 1 year he has left, correct? Locking him down through the 2018 season.

Derek in CO's picture

Awesome news. Take that Cutler, Ponder, Stafford.

Evan's picture

Tightwad Teddy strikes again...right, guys?

Morgan Mundane's picture

He deserves the money. I see Mr Stafford does not want ot break the Detroit bank and prefers to take a lesser contract to have better players around him. Smart and noble.
Wonder if Rogers heard that? His contract will break the bank. Lets all thank the Ravens for that ridicoulous contract they gave Flackvest. How stupid are they?

Evan's picture

Seeing as Mr. Stafford has about as much chance of becoming the NFL's highest paid player as I do, I'd say that's an awfully convenient concession for him to make.

Pack fan from ATL's picture

Not to mention, Stafford has been paid far more than Rodgers has to this point due to his #1 overall before the rookie pay scale and has delivered far less because of injuries and overall bad teams. A-Rod deserves whatever they are likely to agree to.

Lou's picture

Believe it or not he is an under rated player. He rushes so well that his ability to hold the point and to cover when asked has been under reported. He contains like a defensive end and in coverage has reflexes like Woodson. He is part of a great family heritage of production and longevity in the NFL. To lock him up for 6 years (prime years) is great news. Only Aaron Kampmann sold out on every play like Clay does.

Loomis McDooger's picture

He's made some memorable plays so far. Some of my favorites are when he's making a tackle, and he gives the guy that extra twist on the way down to make sure his face hits the turf a little faster than gravity would have done it. Or that one time, AP was being held up by two defenders, clay comes in, and just muscles the ball from his arms like taking candy from a baby and takes off the other way.

Rocky70's picture

We'll see what kind of team GB can field the next few years with both AR & CM3 getting mega-contracts. ---- One thing's for sure: TT is going to have to pay attention during the draft next week. --- GB can't afford to have another lackluster draft with very little $$$ left under the cap.

I get this funny feeling that TT is basically sacrificing season 2013 & crossing his fingers again. (just as he did in 2005)

Zach Kruse's picture

Let's hear how he's "sacrificing" the 2013 season.

Rocky70's picture

Both AR & CM3 were already on the 53 before any extensions. --- Therefore, signing them to extensions now has "zero" effect on the team in 2013. However, in order to extend, TT had to skip on every FA. Some were very affordable including SJ & Huff.

Now the draft becomes ultra-important --- again.

Zach Kruse's picture

You didn't answer my question. You made an outlandish (and, frankly, ridiculous) statement when you said Thompson was "sacrificing" the 2013 season. Care to defend that part?

Rocky70's picture

It's really quite simple. Affordable FAs aren't signed so a team can sign their core. Happens all the time.

You need to examine many of the actions TT made in his first year as GM in GB. It's not at all unusual for GMs to plan past an upcoming season & make present-day sacrifices as a result.

Hopefully, with a little more time & experience (on your part) this will become clear to you.

Point Packer's picture

Of course not.

As CM3 is another in a family full of production and longevity in the NFL this is yet another ridiculous comment from Rocky70 in a long and well documented history of utter BS.

Stroh's picture

Rocky... sorry go have to break this to you. But your an idiot! Just no 2 ways about it.

Rocky70's picture

Who am I to argue with such an esteemed expert such as Stroh. Here's his most famous GEM.

"I think I know as much or more as anyone and as a former strength and conditioning coach, w/ a background in sports performance I think I have pretty strong basis for having my opinions."

BTW, please bring back "kathy". She was good.

Charlie M's picture

I think keeping Finley completely contradicts the point you're making, Rocky.

PackersRS's picture

I believe you've never had any education regarding business administration, nor runs any kind of successful business, am I right?

Clearly the concept of future planning is lost to you (or planning for that matter). And apparently you don't follow closely enough the NFL's free agency.

Else you wouldn't be saying what you're saying.

NoWayJose's picture

This is proof that people can complain about anything.

Great, the Packers signed a beloved, high-character, future hall-of-famer on the most important position on defense, a leader on and off the field, and locked him up through the prime of his career?

But what about Michael Huff???????

PackersRS's picture

When this kind of shortsighted complain gets aired the agenda of the poster is made very clear, I think. Now, take his posting history into account...

I get complaining about the structure or the money of the deal. But the timing was perfect. Not having CM3 signed right now would not only affect his play in 2013, but with him hitting FA next year, the only plausible scenarios would be:

1) He walks away
2) He gets an even bigger deal from the Packers (see Flacco, Joe)

So, not signing Matthews, an A+ player (franchise, difference maker on one of the prime positions in the sport (pass rusher) yet to enter his prime, with at least 5 more years of elite play) right now, this offseason, would be a sign of incompetence beyond measure by the GM.

Rocky70's picture

You have no idea what the future will hold, so quit pretending you do. --- But it is a very real fact that the closer a team is to the cap limit, the more restrictions exist. --- I suppose you prefer Boykins to Greg Jennings??

PackerBacker's picture

So you would prefer that we not sign our elite players in deference to the 2nd (or third in free agency) tier players? It's ridiculous. If we had signed a free agent this year of CMIII's caliber, you would have shit a brick and called it the best offseason ever. You want to possibly sacrifice CMIII in a year or have to pay him even more, just to keep Jennings? That's stupid.

Rocky70's picture

Except one thing --- CM3 wasn't going anywhere (using tags) for the next three seasons.

GB used to have the strongest WR corp in the NFL. --- They don't anymore. That's a real risk when their game is predicated on AR & the forward pass. Cobb, Nelson or Jones could easily go down. Do you feel confident that AR to Boykins & Ross will do the trick?? --- I'm not.

PackersRS's picture

It shouldn't surprise me the kind of suppositions you make, nor the fact that you completely misses the point, but it does. It's pointless to try and argue with someone that's not willing to listen, so I won't anymore.

I'll just say this: have you heard what will be Clay Matthews' cap space in 2013? 6,71M. Approx. 3M more than what he would make before the deal.

Which would leave the Packers approx. 15M under the cap.

So much for the argument, eh?

Drealyn Williams's picture

Rocky,I'm sure RS doesn't prefer Boykins over Jennings,but when the team has depth at that position they can afford to let 1 go. I'm sure we all prefer Clay over...who else do we have at OLB?????

mark's picture

Not to speak for RS, but I DO prefer Boykins (at whatever minimal salary he makes) over Jennings, with concussions, knee and abdominal injuries at ~$10 million/year.

Cobb, Nelson, and Jones are all on the ascent. And I wouldn't be shocked at all to see TT add another WR in the draft. I've said it before, I think Hopkins could even be the pick at 26.

PackersRS's picture

I don't. He's not half the player Jennings is or will ever be.

However the issue was never Jennings vs Boykin (without the s), no matter what Rocky70 says. It was Jennings vs Matthews (it's much bigger than that but for the sake of this logic let's keep it as simple as that. If anyone doesn't get what would be the full implications of keeping Jennings, I'll gladly answer it in another post...).

But there's no contest in that, is there? That wouldn't help Rocky70's argument. So he chose another comparison, one that suited his needs...

These are the kind of "argumental tactics" that a troll uses. Attacking the poster and not the post is another one...

al's picture

ya lets here it ????????????

al's picture

i say again best player availabule de,te,wr,ss,olb,ot,g,lt.

Erik's picture

Great! Spend most of your money on just two players. Green Bay is without any team concept and won't win again.

Erik's picture

Great! Spend most of your money on just two players.

mark's picture

30% of the cap isn't "most" I don't think. 51% is the lowest end of "most". Furthermore, I'm happy to drop 30% on the two most important positions, especially given that the two guys playing those positions are the best in the business.

I'm tired of the lunacy. Dude, what do you want? Give up on Rodgers and Matthews? Hope to draft another Super Bowl QB and then he gets a 3 year window before, if he actually plays like a Super Bowl QB, you have to pay him just as we're now paying Rodgers.

Basically, my point is that you have no plan except to complain.

Jer's picture

Zach Kruse is still only 24 years old? ;)

Oh, and very happy to have Clay locked up for the next 6 years. :)

Zach Kruse's picture

Yep, but only for a few more months (end of July). CheeseheadTV better start negotiating my next deal, huh? ;)

jeremy's picture

What and sacrifice the whole 2013 blogging season!?!?

California Cheesehead's picture


PackerBacker's picture


MarkinMadison's picture

Yo Zach,you're a big boy now, you don't need to list your age. Telling us your age is almost like an excuse. "Aw shucks, he's only 24." You're a pro. You know your stuff. Just roll. And if it's about the ladies, all they want to see is your abs, your mug and your ring finger (and maybe your savings balance, but that depends on who you date).

PackerBacker's picture

That's no good, my abs look like a mug ... or is that a keg. Either way, not helping.

MarkinMadison's picture

You and me both brah. Good thing I'm married.

FITZCORE 1252'S EVO's picture



Norman's picture

It. Was. Time.

cow42's picture

love clay.

while i don't think TT is "sacrificing the 2013 season" (seriously, '70 - not even i can get behind that one) i do still believe that the Packers are 2 years away from being a true contender again.

2013 is for the next group of hopeful impact players to get their feet wet... perry, moses, manning, mcmillian, house, daniels, quarless, sherrod, harris, boykins, ross, this year's rookies.

2014 might be the season to focus on... 2015 is more likely, though... as long as a few of those guys become playmakers.

i also think this year's draft MUST be better than the last 2. TT needs to find 1 superstar.

Rocky70's picture

'Sacrifice' can hardly be completely explained in any one post. --- I don't owe anyone here a detailed explanation. However, there are more knowledgable people (than here) who believe that exactly. I place the Pack akin to the Chargers. --- They have failed to replace too many key contributors.

All on your list (perry, moses, manning, mcmillian, house, daniels, quarless, sherrod, harris, boykins, ross, this year’s rookies) are untested & unproven. Pro-Bowlers have left since 2010. They haven't been replaced.

That's alot of "crossing your fingers", even by season 2015.

cow42's picture

what else can we do but cross our fingers?

and, hey - i didn't predict that any of those guys will pan out. just saying that for the Packers to get back to contender status some of them will have to be heavily involved.

murphy's picture

"However, there are more knowledgable people (than here) who believe that exactly"

Why don't you stay with them and not come back here? We of the untouchable caste would be devastated to know that we dragged you down to our level.

Please. We don't want to lessen you more than we already have. We are not worthy of your presence.

MarkinMadison's picture

One year left on the deal is the perfect time to extend, so score -1 for Rocky. The Pack did pass on other free agents, and it's not unfair to assume that they saved the money for ARod and CM3, so cut Rocky some slack there folks.

The real question, the one I've never seen answered, is what are the number of Super Bowl victories by teams with X% of $ locked into two players. That's all I have been asking. Wilde commented the other day that he spoke to some guy who said Rodgers' cap % will not be out of line for QBs in their Peak contract historically. That's fine. How many QBs in their Peak contract then were able to go win the big one with what the team had left to spend around them. I don't think I'm asking an unreasonable question.

jmac34's picture

I think that would be a pretty difficult question to answer as that's a lot of teams with a lot of players over a long period of time. I am sure Manning took up a large amount of cap when his team won it all and there are other variables to consider too like how many teams in history have had two players take up that % of their teams cap space each year or ever

markinmadison's picture

I think all you need to do is look at the SB winners and look at their cap distributions. Ravens, Flacco, X % of cap. Roll back from there. The numbers wont lie, and the numbers over time will even out the stories. Either it works to dump a ton on the QB position or it does not. Moneyball.

Jamie's picture

Using Rockie's logic, I could make a case that TT Needs to miss on every draft pick over the next few years to ensure we don't have to pay any more elite players we can sign other people's garbage.

This guy can't seriously be this obtuse...must be putting us on.

Rocky70's picture

Thanks, Stroh.
Now bring back "kathy".
She's one of the best posters all-time.
Come-on, bud. Do it.

Stroh's picture

Is that you or CowPie?

cow42's picture

can we stop with connecting me to rocky, please?

i may be an over-emotional idiot... but i'm not a prick.

by the way, stroh - you do come off awfully "snooty" yourself.

Rocky70's picture

Stroh is the name caller amongst his IDs. ---- Evan, BeddarCheddar, Jamie, mark, murphy, Devil Doc, California Cheesehead, hayward4president, trvs, kathy, kgnfl1, Pack Morris, RC Packer Fan, etc. etc.

A prick !! --- Come on. --- I'm the only poster who has ever defended your right to be an over emotional idiot.--- Kidding. ---LOL.

Evan's picture

Rocky is full of shit. But that's nothing new. Apparently there are all of, what, six unique posters on here? Himself, cow, Nagler, Brian and Zach. The rest are all just Stroh's multiple personalities.

That reminds me, do you keep that Stroh quote saved somewhere on your computer? That's more than a little obsessive, dude.

As I said before, I like the new cow. Basically the same opinions, but more reasonable and open to discussion.

And Stroh can be snotty.

Rocky70's picture

Abracadabra !

Evan shows again within minutes to deny any culpability. ---LOL.

Evan's picture

Here I am. Awaiting your proof....

Still waiting...

Whenever you're ready...

Evan's picture

I'm back.

Still nothing?

Stroh's picture

I am Stroh and ONLY Stroh... Here and EVERYWHERE. I always use.

If there is a person w multiple names its Rocky and Cowpie!!

JimTalkBox's picture

Glad to hear that one of the best defensive players in the NFL is going to continue being a Packer for a while!

So strange to hear people b***h about the contracts that Matthews and Rodgers are getting. There are multiple ways to move money around for cap space, people.

Rocky70's picture

"There are multiple ways to move money around for cap space, people."

Enlighten everyone (if you actually can). The truth is alot different than your vauge, general statement. Teams do what's allowed. None like to lose draft picks.

BTW, great 1st post. --- LOL.

JimTalkBox's picture

Are you friggin' 12? Get lost...

Rocky70's picture

The cap rules are rigid & pretty transparent. The CBA has nearly 50 pages that deal directly with the salary cap.

Or try this. Again, just 'real' information.

Stroh's picture

He's 12 AND he has multiple personality disorder. Cow and rocky are the same person! Kinda pathetic isn't it?!

PackersRS's picture

The mods can know which IP is being used in every post. They would know if that was the case.

Unless he uses a different IP to post. Which would be an all-time low...

Evan's picture

Dunne just tweeted that the Pack had Steve McClendon, Steelers RFA nose tackle in for a visit. No draft pick protection.

"With experience in a 3-4 scheme, McLendon would appeal to the Packers. At 6-foot-4, 325 pounds, the nose tackle offers a lot of size up front. In 16 games last season, McLendon finished with seven tackles and two sacks in 16 games. In three years total, he has 22 tackles and three sacks."


Evan's picture

Also, Steelers only have $800,000 in cap room. So if the Packers were to sign him to an offer sheet, they'd be hard pressed to match.

RC Packer Fan's picture

From what I have heard from a few Steelers fan, they were shocked he didn't receive a higher tender, and said they felt he played better then Casey Hampton. I honestly don't know McClendon, so I am referring to their judgments on him.
I believe the Packers need to come away with a NT after the draft. Raji is a free agent next year, Pickett is getting old and might not have much left.
If the Packers signed McClendon, that would relieve the pressure from having to draft a NT in the draft, and would allow them to focus on other positions.

RC Packer Fan's picture

Ohh and Rocky... I can assure you that I am not Stroh... Can't say about the other people you mentioned...

Stroh's picture

Signing Mcclendon would shore up the LDE spot where we need another power player. This would cut down on Raji's snaps at DE snd allow a true rotation at NT w Raji and Pickett, both of which will be back next season.

Lucky953's picture

Finding a franchise QB is a big problem for NFL teams. Finding a premier 3 down LB sack maker is another. We got 'em. Building a team around two cap-eating playmakers is an inevitable problem subsequent to solving the first two. I agree we need to draft well and catch a freakin' break with the injuries. We can make the playoffs, no question. Can some second and third year guys emerge as bona fide NFL starters? If do, we can win in the post-season. There's plenty of good reasons to hope. That's more than most franchise fans can do, even before the draft. Preseason favorites rarely capture the trophy at the end. Keep the faith bros.

The TKstinator's picture

Why is Clay locked up? What law did he break?

Nononsense's picture

Rocky70 is just a drama queen plain and simple. How else can you explain him taking something positive like signing our 2 best players to contract extensions and turning it into "Sacrificing 2013"

TT has never been a player in UFA except 06 with Woodson and Pickett. Why all of a sudden does hes need a reason to not pursuit UFAs. Its nonsense. Hes no more sacrificing this year than any other where he almost completely ignored free agency.

Yes 2013 rides on whether we can get some 2nd and 3rd year players to step up and some new draft choices to pan out but whats new about that?

hump's picture

well boys,as much as you probably dont want to admit it,rocky 70 is not far off the path,although i doubt thompson has given up on 2013,the result will most likely be the same if he cant replace nick coollins and charles woodson with m.d jennings and mcmillian and replace cullen jenkins with c.j. wilson and mike neal and expect to be better than the teams who have already surpassed us and ALSO have widened the gap this off season! Ted is a great talent evaluator but unfortunately i think hs has fallen for his own hipe!THERE ARE NO RESONS FOR NOT INVESTING SOME SMALL AMOUNTS OF CASH IN SOME DECENT F/A VETS!!! but ted thinks he can turn every rock into a diamond and though we have been close, 1 superbowl in the last 3 is underachieving because we were the best team in the nfl minus two or so moderate priced f/a. guess what? arod and clay were never going anywhere so why not give them a little extra help

Rocky70's picture

Throw in Newhouse for Clifton, EDS for Wells, DuJuan for any previous RB, Lang for Colledge, Boykins/Ross for GJ, even G. Harrell for Flynn. --- All of these moves are downgrades from the 2010 roster.

Stroh's picture

Rocky responding to himself again I see!

PackerBacker's picture

Wow, where to start ...

There is so much wrong with this post, that I don't even know where to start.

"you cant replace nick coollins and charles woodson with m.d jennings and mcmillian and replace cullen jenkins with c.j. wilson and mike neal and expect to be better"

First, Nick Collins wasn't Probowl Nick Collins his rookie season, or his second season. In fact, it took quite a while for him to start playing at PB level. How about we let those guys develop. you have no clue if M.D. and Mcmillian are going to be any good.

Cullen Jenkins was a calculated risk. He was getting older and had a history of injuries. It ended up not paying off and the replacements have been unsuccessful.

"expect to be better than the teams who have already surpassed us and ALSO have widened the gap this off season! "

Can you please point out to me one single team that has won a game this season? Please? Better than what? How do you know that any of the traded / signed players are going to be any good? Or that they will fit in thier new scheme, or if they will mesh with thier new teammates? I'll point out the Eagles "dream team" from 2 years ago as an example of this being bullsh!t.

Until games are played, and players suit up, there is no way for you to say that any free agent would make teams better. When you take into account that teams also lose players to free agency, it can sometimes be a wash.

"Ted is a great talent evaluator but unfortunately i think hs has fallen for his own hipe!"

If you've read anything about TT, it's that he doesn't give a flying F about what others think of him. If there were reports that he was working less and doing less homework, I might agree with you. But this is just BS. If he's a great talent evaluator, then he's a great talent evaluator.


First, decent free agents don't cost "small amounts of cash" they cost significant amounts of cash. You're looking at 3 - 4 million, minimum for most veteran free agents. We simply do not have enough cap room to do that type of deal and sign AR and CMIII to large, team-friendly contracts. They need to put as much $ in those two contracts in the early years as possible. They can't push the cap hits down the road like the Steelers did with out seriously sacrificing future teams.

Don't kid yourself. The ultimate goal for the Packers team is to win a Superbowl, but a much larger, overall goal for the Packers and management is to have a consistently good team that gets to the playoffs. That's where the $ is. If they can do that, and win a Superbowl every 5 - 10 years, they're golden.

"1 superbowl in the last 3 is underachieving because we were the best team in the nfl minus two or so moderate priced f/a"

This is BS. They did hav as good a chance as any team to get to the Superbowl, but there are so many variables in winning the big game that there is no way to tell if they will win it every year. That's why it's so much fun to watch.

I would like yout to point out any two free agents that they Packers could have picked up, that would have fixed all their problems and given them the trophy. Name the magic two. And I want two names for weaknesses that we saw in the preseason, not that we know about now, looking back.

"arod and clay were never going anywhere so why not give them a little extra help"

Never going anywhere?!? If you don't pay them, they'll leave. I'll assume you mean in 2013 since their current contract hav them signed for this year. If I'm making that assumption:

CMIII - He is in the final year of his contract. That means that after this year, he will be a free agent. You have now allowed arguably the BEST OLB in the league to be a free agent. I'm sure no one else would be willing to pay him more than 13 million to steal him away (sarcasm). If we were to let him go to free agency, we would either lose him to another team, or pay much more to keep him.

AR - He has 2 years left on his contract and we could leave this for another year. However, we are DRASTICALLY underpaying him right now, and we run the significant risk of pissing him off. He is an elite NFL QB playing on a playoff / superbowl caliber team. If we showed him so little respect as to not re-negotiate his contract for a higher #, he could easily tell us to go to hell and sign whereever he wants in two years. Every team in the league would give thier left nut to have a QB of his caliber. You don't sacrifice that for the possibility to get one or two mediocre free agents who may, or may not help the team.

Holy crap, that was TMI. Ladies and gentlemen, my manifesto.

MarkinMadison's picture

Manifesto indeed. But aren't blogs supposed to be about conversation?

Re Jenkins, that move has been debated ad nauseum. I agree with you that it was a calculated risk, and it was the right call. But TT expressed regret after the fact, which tells me he would have signed Jenkins if he had known how low the dollars would be. When Jenkins got to FA the money was not what he expected, much like JJ found the market. JJ came back. Jenkins did not. My hunch is the Pack learned from losing Jenkins and probably do a little better job now on reaching out to their FAs who are testing the market if they think they might come back at the right price. I think this is why Jennings played out a little more slowly too, with the Pack reportedly "in the running" in the last week. TT learned from the Jenkins situation.

And really, that is my whole problem with the "we have to pay them" argument. Everyone assumes the market will be astronomically high. For Rodgers, I think that is true; too many QB hungry teams. For CM3, it may or it may not be as high as we assume. Certainly the Jenkins and Jones sagas taught us that. Heck, weren't some people here expecting Jennings to go for over $10M/yr as well?

And then there is the Moneyball aspect folks. Does it work as a team? How many dollars for how much production. QB. Pass rushing OLB. Passing and sacks. The most important aspects of the modern NFL game. But where is the tipping point?

PackerBacker's picture

Yeah, i went all CD Angeli on this mother ;)

But CMIII is more than just the 5th most sacks. He is very good against the run and above average in coverage. I definitely think he would have created a bidding frenzy.

Evan's picture

Agreed. Jones and Jennings aren't really apt comparisons at all. Jones had been inconsistent by the time he hit free agency and Jennings was on the edge of 30 and had a recent injury history. And then there is also the possible (mis)conception that both were products of the system.

I have no doubt Matthews would have ignited a feeding frenzy in free agency.

mani2packers's picture

You would complain if Pack paid Matthews and Rodgers or if they didnt. You would be the first person laughing at Pack for letting those two walk. Your not a GM or a professional coach Rocky. Stop complaining. I bet you cant even manage a fantasy team much less anything else. I am sure you think you can run this country better too and create more jobs. Everyone is a critic. So easy. Can u tell me where u work? I bet I can find 50 things u do wrong.

GREEN's picture

This is great!!

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos 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.

Or log in with Facebook



"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "
"The Bears still suck!"
"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."