Is it time?

[Magooch]

Why would ANY team trade away 2 1st round picks + for a former MVP player for 2 years of service AND pay them top$$? Would you, as a GM, trade 2 1st round picks AND $70+ mil for 2 years of service for Jamaar Chase, AJ Brown, Mc Caffrey? 2 1sts for 2 years for any player is steep, IMHO.

If I had a great "core" in place and felt strongly that Chase, Brown, McCaffrey was the final piece needed* for me to make a strong SB push, sure, I'd do it. Keep in mind also that in outside of the total cost... for the team potentially acquiring Rodgers if they take up his option he would only have a cap hit of ~16m for them in 2023/24.

Anyways though we need not look much further than last season with the Russell Wilson deal. Yes, Wilson is younger (34 vs 39) but he has never won MVP nor Super Bowl MVP while Rodgers is a 4x league MVP and has a SB MVP on top of that. The Broncos had a top defense and some good skill pieces and were quite convinced they were only a QB away. With that in mind here is a refresher on what they were willing to give away for a younger but worse QB than Rodgers:
- 2022 1st (#9 overall)
- 2022 2nd (#40 overall)
- 2022 5th
- 2023 1st (which has turned out to be #5 overall)
- 2023 2nd
- QB Drew Lock
- TE Noah Fant
- DL Shelby Harris

and received:
- QB Russell Wilson
- 2022 4th (#116)

And promptly signed Wilson to a new contract at 5 years, ~243 million with 161m guaranteed (Rodgers' extension was of course 3 years, 150m, fully guaranteed). And the final few years of Russ' contract (25, 26, 27, 28) have a higher cap hit than Rodgers' remaining years at this point too.

I've said before that this may serve as a cautionary tale to some but if there exists a QB-needy team willing to give up that haul for a younger albeit worse QB then I think by the same measure a QB-needy team might give up a surprising amount for Rodgers.

*Of course it's a bit apples to oranges as a top QB stands to influence the game far, far more than even the absolute best WR/RBs.

 

[tynimiller]

I don't believe Aaron Rodgers will ever be happy.

I would change to satisfied, but I 100% believe even his greatest fans are beginning to see there is a lot of truth here.

 

[tynimiller]

ATL makes the absolute most sense to me as a suitor for Rodgers no one is talking about:

-WEAK DIVISION insuring likelihood of playoffs is very high
-$56M in 2023 cap space right now before any other moves
-Weapons Roster wise:
-Drake London phenomenal rookie WR on roster
-Kyle Pitts on roster
-Tyler Allgeier is a 1,000 yard rusher...Cordalle Patterson is there too coming off 695 rushing yards and 122 receiving yards.
-Olamide Zaccheaus is looking like a solid slot producer putting forth 533 yards and 3 TDs in 2022

 

[tynimiller]

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

 

[AKCheese]

If we get a SNIFF at a first round pick and some kind of cap relief I’d grab it in a heartbeat. Rodgers might have to sign some kind of BS extension prior to the trade to make this happen? MAYBE you could get a mid round conditional pick or two thrown in down the road.

 

[AKCheese]

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

Same kind of BS nonsense they pulled with Favre. If you’re ready to move on (which we are a couple years late on) you shouldnt be afraid to face the guy. The NFL/ football should be about lining up and competing. Not trying to figure out how to hide from people. HORRIBLE organizational mentality if this is true

 

[tynimiller]

Same kind of BS nonsense they pulled with Favre. If you’re ready to move on (which we are a couple years late on) you shouldnt be afraid to face the guy. The NFL/ football should be about lining up and competing. Not trying to figure out how to hide from people. HORRIBLE organizational mentality if this is true

I'm attempting to understand how this shows they haven't had face to face discussions with Rodgers? I'm not saying they have or haven't...but I'd bet some serious money there will be no surprises in this whole process to either side as things come out.

 

[Magooch]

I'm attempting to understand how this shows they haven't had face to face discussions with Rodgers? I'm not saying they have or haven't...but I'd bet some serious money there will be no surprises in this whole process to either side as things come out.

If Pat McAfee is to be believed, Rodgers and the Packers FO had some extensive face-to-face meetings early in the week following the Lions loss. I have to think the possibility of a trade might've came up at that point; if nothing else I find it hard to believe they'd have met face-to-face with Rodgers ~3 weeks ago with no intention of trading him and now have changed course and decided to explore a trade without running it by him yet. Doesn't really pass the smell test

 

[tynimiller]

If Pat McAfee is to be believed, Rodgers and the Packers FO had some extensive face-to-face meetings early in the week following the Lions loss. I have to think the possibility of a trade might've came up at that point; if nothing else I find it hard to believe they'd have met face-to-face with Rodgers ~3 weeks ago with no intention of trading him and now have changed course and decided to explore a trade without running it by him yet. Doesn't really pass the smell test

I concur in thought.

 

[OldSchool101]

As I have mentioned before using him more often as a target wouldn't have been an answer to the team's offensive woes.

I didn’t say he was the only answer. He’s 1 of 11 players, so he’s 1 of 11 areas to exploit our competitor. Precept upon precept… Here a little there a little.
Offering nothing is far worse than making changes to what isn’t working. Opposing changes to a known failure is an entirely new low.

 

[longtimefan]

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

 

[AKCheese]

Not face him in someones office in some ayahuasca induced haze as he prattles on about the meaning of iniculation or his mommy/daddy issues …. Face him across the line of scrimmage. TT (and probably McCarthy) were afraid to face Favre, so they tried to ship him to where they’d never have to. If Green Bay decides to move on from Rodgers (2 years too late IMO and I said that when he pulled his jr high girl act ) Green Bay should sack up, trade him to the highest bidder and play ball. Brings to mind all the people saying “ oh woe is us if ONLY we could get playoff games in GB - well how did that whine work out??

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Adding a veteran QB has 100% worked of late for teams (Manning to Denver / Brady to TB / Stafford to Rams) - there is many recent case files to defend the concept of a veteran QB being that final piece to go grab the SB.

Wilson to Denver hasn't worked out at all so far though.

Why would ANY team trade away 2 1st round picks + for a former MVP player for 2 years of service AND pay them top$$? Would you, as a GM, trade 2 1st round picks AND $70+ mil for 2 years of service for Jamaar Chase, AJ Brown, Mc Caffrey?

Rodgers mentioned yesterday that he's aware his deal would most likely need to be restructured this offseason.

And promptly signed Wilson to a new contract at 5 years, ~243 million with 161m guaranteed (Rodgers' extension was of course 3 years, 150m, fully guaranteed).

Just for the record, only the first two years of Rodgers deal are fully guaranteed.

If we get a SNIFF at a first round pick and some kind of cap relief I’d grab it in a heartbeat. Rodgers might have to sign some kind of BS extension prior to the trade to make this happen?

While a team acquiring Rodgers would benefit from his deal being restructured the Packers wouldn't gain any cap relief by it.

I didn’t say he was the only answer. He’s 1 of 11 players, so he’s 1 of 11 areas to exploit our competitor. Precept upon precept… Here a little there a little.
Offering nothing is far worse than making changes to what isn’t working. Opposing changes to a known failure is an entirely new low.

Let me put it this way, I think the Packers targeting Lewis more often would actually be a negative overall.

 

[tynimiller]

Wilson to Denver hasn't worked out at all so far though.

Of course Capt, everyone knows that. Rivers and Ryan didn't work in Indy either.

 

[Krabs]

Just for the record, only the first two years of Rodgers deal are fully guaranteed.

I really have to get my hands on this record at some point.

While a team acquiring Rodgers would benefit from his deal being restructured the Packers wouldn't gain any cap relief by it.

From my understanding, if they trade him they would have $40m of dead money that can be split into two seasons. The last season would then be void. Rodgers cap hit for next season is $31m and in 2024 is $40m. It seems to me that trading him would give some relief to the cap. Now, it would be a huge hit in terms of dead cap. Having that type of dead money would obviously hamper a team in terms of gaining talent.

I also could be wrong about the cap. It's complicated and that's why people work on it full time. In the end, I do think trading Rodgers does give relief, but his contract is an anchor to acquiring talent anyway one looks at it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Of course Capt, everyone knows that. Rivers and Ryan didn't work in Indy either.

Well, you said that adding a veteran QB has 100% worked for teams as of late, therefore I brought up Wilson. My point is that teams might be hesitant to give up a king's ransom in a trade for an aging quarterback who is coming of a subpar season based on what happened with the Broncos this season.

From my understanding, if they trade him they would have $40m of dead money that can be split into two seasons. The last season would then be void. Rodgers cap hit for next season is $31m and in 2024 is $40m. It seems to me that trading him would give some relief to the cap. Now, it would be a huge hit in terms of dead cap. Having that type of dead money would obviously hamper a team in terms of gaining talent.

I also could be wrong about the cap. It's complicated and that's why people work on it full time. In the end, I do think trading Rodgers does give relief, but his contract is an anchor to acquiring talent anyway one looks at it.

A team moving on from a player before the end of a contract close to always results in some kind of cap relief (aside of fully guaranteed contracts like the one Deshaun Watson signed with the Browns). The Packers need to consider if they prefer to take a cap hit of $40 million in dead money for Rodgers to not be on the team next season compared to the additional costs it would take to keep him around for at least another year.

At this point it seems to be uncertain which direction they're headed.

 

[tynimiller]

Well, you said that adding a veteran QB has 100% worked for teams as of late, therefore I brought up Wilson. My point is that teams might be hesitant to give up a king's ransom in a trade for an aging quarterback who is coming of a subpar season based on what happened with the Broncos this season.

I absolutely did not pretend it has a 100% efficiency. When I said 100%, I was meaning that it has without question worked in cases for teams of late. Fully admit not the best wording, but I meant teams have made the move for a veteran quarterback in a similar style and seen not just a division win, or a championship win but a Super Bowl. I can see the way it was taken though.

 

[Dantés]

It is absolutely and unequivocally time. It is past time. They should have traded him for a huge haul last offseason. The value has gone down, but I'm sure they can still get some value for him.

Point 1: Rodgers can still absolutely play at a high level, but he is not consistently elite enough to justify an AAV that wipes out a full quarter of the cap. The Packers aren't going to be able to significantly upgrade around him, meaning they probably can't win a Super Bowl with him at this point. Another team with more infrastructure in place for the next 1-2 seasons would be in better position to get the most out of him.

Point 2: They must fish or cut bait on Jordan Love. And whether Rodgers is "done" now or in a couple years, the transition is going to come soon. So why not make that move when you have a 1st round QB waiting in the wings whom you have been grooming for 3 seasons? What would be the logic in trading Love for a 2nd round pick just so that you can move on from Rodgers in 1-2 seasons?

Point 3: Rodgers used his leverage coming off his MVP seasons to move the offense and personnel back in his direction. That's his prerogative, but the fact is that it's bad for the offense and for the team. There were portions of 2022 in which he abandoned much of what resuscitated his career with LaFleur and went back to the same old bad habits that he developed in the late stages of the McCarthy era. The Packers can't afford for him to keep doing that.

Point 4: If they don't move him now, they're committing for 2 more years-- if not in reality (i.e. keeping him on the roster), then at least financially.

That's why it's time now. And here is why it would be a brilliant move for the team:

For Wilson and a 4th, the Seahawks received: two 1st round picks, two 2nd round pick, one 5th round pick, Noah Fant, Shelby Harris, and Drew Lock.

The Packers probably aren't getting that deal. Rodgers is older and the way that the move worked out for Denver is going to make other teams gun shy. But let's say, to be uber conservative, and just for the sake of argument, that the Packers get two 1st round picks from the Jets. That's it-- nothing else. How does that set them up?

2023: The Packers have pick #13 and pick #15 to bring in two talented, cost-controlled players to support Love. They're also in position to draft a day 2 QB as a hedge. They can move on from some of the older guys on the roster, while still keeping enough talent to make sure they can assess Love. Then in 2023, they have ample opportunity to see if he is the future.

2024: Depending on how Love answers that question, the Packers are ready to respond with two more 1st rounders. If he's bad, then the Packers own pick is probably pretty high. With another 1st on board, they'd be in position to move up (if necessary) and get a new QB in a better draft class. If he's good, they can add two more talented, cost-controlled players to the roster to help mitigate the dead money issues that will be left in the wake of the Rodgers move.

So yes. It's time.

 

[PackerDNA]

Excellent post Dante's. Nail on the head stuff.

 

[Firethorn1001]

2023: The Packers have pick #13 and pick #15 to bring in two talented, cost-controlled players to support Love. They're also in position to draft a day 2 QB as a hedge. They can move on from some of the older guys on the roster, while still keeping enough talent to make sure they can assess Love. Then in 2023, they have ample opportunity to see if he is the future.

In hindsight, this should have been the year that we were sitting in the 1st round either looking to get the QB of the future or heavily stacked with 1st round picks to improve the team around Love. If Rodgers was traded in 2022 to Denver, I would have also traded Adams and, in addition, probably would have tried to trade Alexander also and tried to trade back in hopes of getting 1 more 1st rounder in 2023 given the expected QB heavy draft in 2023. That would have left the Packers with 3 1st rounders.

Love flames out, offseason talks centers around which QB to take. Love does good, they are stacked in round 1 to take a WR, DL, OL and have about $40M in cap space with no Alexander/Rodgers and a Jones restructure.

Missed opportunity.

 

[Mondio]

It is absolutely and unequivocally time. It is past time. They should have traded him for a huge haul last offseason. The value has gone down, but I'm sure they can still get some value for him.

Point 1: Rodgers can still absolutely play at a high level, but he is not consistently elite enough to justify an AAV that wipes out a full quarter of the cap. The Packers aren't going to be able to significantly upgrade around him, meaning they probably can't win a Super Bowl with him at this point. Another team with more infrastructure in place for the next 1-2 seasons would be in better position to get the most out of him.

Point 2: They must fish or cut bait on Jordan Love. And whether Rodgers is "done" now or in a couple years, the transition is going to come soon. So why not make that move when you have a 1st round QB waiting in the wings whom you have been grooming for 3 seasons? What would be the logic in trading Love for a 2nd round pick just so that you can move on from Rodgers in 1-2 seasons?

Point 3: Rodgers used his leverage coming off his MVP seasons to move the offense and personnel back in his direction. That's his prerogative, but the fact is that it's bad for the offense and for the team. There were portions of 2022 in which he abandoned much of what resuscitated his career with LaFleur and went back to the same old bad habits that he developed in the late stages of the McCarthy era. The Packers can't afford for him to keep doing that.

Point 4: If they don't move him now, they're committing for 2 more years-- if not in reality (i.e. keeping him on the roster), then at least financially.

That's why it's time now. And here is why it would be a brilliant move for the team:

For Wilson and a 4th, the Seahawks received: two 1st round picks, two 2nd round pick, one 5th round pick, Noah Fant, Shelby Harris, and Drew Lock.

The Packers probably aren't getting that deal. Rodgers is older and the way that the move worked out for Denver is going to make other teams gun shy. But let's say, to be uber conservative, and just for the sake of argument, that the Packers get two 1st round picks from the Jets. That's it-- nothing else. How does that set them up?

2023: The Packers have pick #13 and pick #15 to bring in two talented, cost-controlled players to support Love. They're also in position to draft a day 2 QB as a hedge. They can move on from some of the older guys on the roster, while still keeping enough talent to make sure they can assess Love. Then in 2023, they have ample opportunity to see if he is the future.

2024: Depending on how Love answers that question, the Packers are ready to respond with two more 1st rounders. If he's bad, then the Packers own pick is probably pretty high. With another 1st on board, they'd be in position to move up (if necessary) and get a new QB in a better draft class. If he's good, they can add two more talented, cost-controlled players to the roster to help mitigate the dead money issues that will be left in the wake of the Rodgers move.

So yes. It's time.

There isn't much to argue against that, especially knowing where we are sitting right now. I'd disagree that it's Rodgers causing the dysfunction in the offense. He shoulders some blame, like everyone, but I think the lack of continuity at the OLine position, injuries, youth and inexperience at playmaking positions, a drop in play from year prior, high draft pick not able to stay at practice or on the field etc all played a much bigger role, but that's how I see it. There were many times we couldn't run block, we couldn't pass block, we couldn't hit an early route or protect for a later breaking route. Couldn't gain more than 2 yards once every 4 runs. How do you run an offense? I don't care what you call.

With hindsight, yes trading last year looks like the best time. But he was also coming off an MVP year, we were a game away, we had everyone coming back other than Adams basically but adding 3 all pros who were injured the prior season. All signs didn't point to drop off. many looked like, add a piece or 2 and we're over the top.

It's also important to remember, we could have moved on and flopped and that flop just leads to more flopping. Not every team just turns it around.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Point 1: Rodgers can still absolutely play at a high level, but he is not consistently elite enough to justify an AAV that wipes out a full quarter of the cap. The Packers aren't going to be able to significantly upgrade around him, meaning they probably can't win a Super Bowl with him at this point. Another team with more infrastructure in place for the next 1-2 seasons would be in better position to get the most out of him.

I truly believe that if Rodgers is capable of performing at the same level as in 2020 and '21 the Packers could surround him with enough talent to be a legit Super Bowl contender. Gutekunst needs to make a difficult decision on if Rodgers is able to do that. As I have mentioned before he better be right about it this time around.

If Rodgers was traded in 2022 to Denver, I would have also traded Adams and, in addition, probably would have tried to trade Alexander also and tried to trade back in hopes of getting 1 more 1st rounder in 2023 given the expected QB heavy draft in 2023. That would have left the Packers with 3 1st rounders.

NFL teams don't get better by trading away all of their blue chip players to accumulate a ton of draft picks. Especially when talking about young ones like Alexander.

 

[Krabs]

The Packers probably aren't getting that deal. Rodgers is older and the way that the move worked out for Denver is going to make other teams gun shy. But let's say, to be uber conservative, and just for the sake of argument, that the Packers get two 1st round picks from the Jets. That's it-- nothing else. How does that set them up?

I really don't see the Packers getting a 1st round pick at all for Rodgers. I see them getting a conditional draft pick much like they got for Brett Favre. He will be 40 next year with a gigantic contract. I just don't see anything more than a 3rd. I've been wrong a lot though.

2023: The Packers have pick #13 and pick #15 to bring in two talented, cost-controlled players to support Love. They're also in position to draft a day 2 QB as a hedge. They can move on from some of the older guys on the roster, while still keeping enough talent to make sure they can assess Love. Then in 2023, they have ample opportunity to see if he is the future.

I don't see us getting the #13 for Rodgers. I totally agree with moving on from some older guys though. Of our free agents, I would like to keep Amos, but I think he is gone due to salary demands.

2024: Depending on how Love answers that question, the Packers are ready to respond with two more 1st rounders. If he's bad, then the Packers own pick is probably pretty high. With another 1st on board, they'd be in position to move up (if necessary) and get a new QB in a better draft class. If he's good, they can add two more talented, cost-controlled players to the roster to help mitigate the dead money issues that will be left in the wake of the Rodgers move.

So yes. It's time.

I don't think this is a bad plan and I overall agree with most of what you said. Sadly, I just don't see any GM in the NFL giving up a fools gold trade for Rodgers.

 

[tynimiller]

I would push back on the concept teams don’t get better trading away their blue chippers….

Eagles.

 

[Mondio]

I would push back on the concept teams don’t get better trading away their blue chippers….

Eagles.

2 things. Hurts is seemingly playing better and AJ Brown gets every single jump ball he's thrown this year it seems. Double, triple, 4 guys standing around him, he's getting it for 1st downs and Touchdowns regularly everytime I've watched them play. When you can hit on that many big plays, everything else gets easy. LOL