Rodgers Contract

[GleefulGary]

Well the coaches have seen him in training and practice, so I would assume they all have a pretty good idea of whether his arm is working or not.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Well the coaches have seen him in training and practice, so I would assume they all have a pretty good idea of whether his arm is working or not.

That is the consensus as well as every Packer fans assumption and hope, but if you were the one opening up your wallet, would you dole out that kind of money on a guy you still have for at least 2 more years on a contract?

 

[gbgary]

Well the coaches have seen him in training and practice, so I would assume they all have a pretty good idea of whether his arm is working or not.

not since the Car game they really haven't. first i was saying they might think about trading him. then i said wait until at least mid year before resigning him. i'd like to see him land ******* that right side and pop right up ready for the next play myself. nobody around here, including me, wants to see me post "i told you so." lol

 

[Deleted member 6794]

By no means am I saying Rodgers doesn't deserve the money. But with 2 years left on a contract he agreed to, what is the rush to get a long term deal to make him the highest paid player ever? Hes not getting younger and he has had his fair share of injuries. Technically they can still tag him 2 years after that at probably the rate he will make now.

I just dont see the rush to dump a bunch of money on a guy coming off an injury

The Packers definitely want their franchise quarterback to be happy. I wouldn't mind waiting until the end of camp to extend him though with him proving his shoulder isn't an issue. Gutekunst should pull the trigger at that point as re-signing #12 would get more expensive after that.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Packers definitely want their franchise quarterback to be happy. I wouldn't mind waiting until the end of camp to extend him though with him proving his shoulder isn't an issue. Gutekunst should pull the trigger at that point as re-signing #12 would get more expensive after that.

Agreed, but in the unlikely event his shoulder is an issue, re-signing him might get more inexpensive.

 

[RRyder]

Appears you did not read my previous post. I will include it below so as not to be redundant. Most people with your opinion have a similar response "Geez man, it is what it is, the money is there and you contributed to it, get over it." If that is all you see, then it probably isn't a worthwhile discussion for you and I to have.

Oh no I understood. I just disagree with you arguing against a free market in the way that you are

Thinking we as a society value sports too much is one thing. Thinking that since they generate so much money, due to having a product that generates it on its own, that they should somehow limit the amount of money everyone makes in order to redistribute the excess wealth is another and pretty much the first line in the socialist manifesto.

 

[swhitset]

Oh no I understood. I just disagree with you arguing against a free market in the way that you are

Thinking we as a society value sports too much is one thing. Thinking that since they generate so much money, due to having a product that generates it on its own, that they should somehow limit the amount of money everyone makes in order to redistribute the excess wealth is another and pretty much the first line in the socialist manifesto.

I definitely have an opinion on this, but it seems that we have left the football arena and jumped head first into a political discussion of the most basic kind. I will pass.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Oh no I understood. I just disagree with you arguing against a free market in the way that you are

Thinking we as a society value sports too much is one thing. Thinking that since they generate so much money, due to having a product that generates it on its own, that they should somehow limit the amount of money everyone makes in order to redistribute the excess wealth is another and pretty much the first line in the socialist manifesto.

Again, this a personal struggle for me, I don't expect you to understand or agree, nor do I expect to change your opinion. I gave up Baseball and basketball because of it. I contribute to the NFL as little as I can, while still maintaining and fighting in my head, my passion for the Packers. I understand Capitalism, Socialism and a free market, but it doesn't mean I have to be happy about individuals being paid ungodly sums of money to play a game, while the rest of the world is facing life and death struggles centered around lack of funds.

 

[azrsx05]

Another thing to take into consideration a new Cba will be put into place I feel that QBs are being overpaid and there might be some discussion then. In addition, viewership is trending down, so we may start getting to a point where salary cap wont be increasing at the same rate or even possibly decreasing.
Again there's a big rush for someone who is under contractfor 2 years and can be tagged for 2 more who just missed a big chunk of time due to a shoulder injury and will be 39 at the end of those 4 years

 

[HardRightEdge]

...with him proving his shoulder isn't an issue.

Why not?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Again there's a big rush for someone who is under contractfor 2 years and can be tagged for 2 more who just missed a big chunk of time due to a shoulder injury and will be 39 at the end of those 4 years

I highly doubt Rodgers would sign the franchise tag.

Why not?

I'm not sure what's your point as I mentioned that I would be fine with waiting to extend Rodgers contract until he has proven his shoulder is not an issue.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I highly doubt Rodgers would sign the franchise tag.

I'm not sure what's your point as I mentioned that I would be fine with waiting to extend Rodgers contract until he has proven his shoulder is not an issue.

You said, "him proving his shoulder is not an issue." I asked why you thought that. The question could not be clearer.

Refusal to sign a franchise tag requires the player to sit unpaid and not playing for a year. Has anybody ever done that? I can't think of one and it must be very rare. Rodgers would be turnning 38 in his "comeback" year after the layoff. That would be problematic. In any case, it's a debate over extremes--extend now vs. franchise in 2020. There's two years of middle ground to be plowed if the extension is not immediately forthcoming.

 

[Alex]

can be tagged for 2 more

Well that's a good way to **** off one of the greatest QB's of all time. Is this real life? You don't play around with retaining your legends. His shoulder will be fine.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You know, I hope Rodgers shoulder is and will be just fine too, but imagine if it wasn't and we locked him into the big contract people are talking about. I have a sneaky feeling that some of the people who are pushing for the contract would be back here blasting the Packer organization for sinking the team financially. This isn't your everyday contract we are talking about here.

If Rodgers doesn't understand the gravity of this business decision and the timing of it, then he isn't as smart of a guy as I thought he was.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You said, "him proving his shoulder is not an issue." I asked why you thought that. The question could not be clearer.

Once again, I would be fine with the Packers waiting to extend him until the team is sure Rodgers' shoulder won't be an issue moving forward. Got it now???

Refusal to sign a franchise tag requires the player to sit unpaid and not playing for a year. Has anybody ever done that? I can't think of one and it must be very rare. Rodgers would be turnning 38 in his "comeback" year after the layoff. That would be problematic. In any case, it's a debate over extremes--extend now vs. franchise in 2020. There's two years of middle ground to be plowed if the extension is not immediately forthcoming.

Washington DT Sean Gilbert (1997) and Chiefs DT Dan Williams (1998) are the only two players who missed an entire season because of not signing the franchise tag.

While it seems to be unlikely Rodgers would agree to sit out an entire season it would be a PR nightmare for the Packers and definitely result in another ugly divorce with a star quarterback.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Once again, I would be fine with the Packers waiting to extend him until the team is sure Rodgers' shoulder won't be an issue moving forward. Got it now???

If you say so, after directly contradicting yourself.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Washington DT Sean Gilbert (1997) and Chiefs DT Dan Williams (1998) are the only two players who missed an entire season because of not signing the franchise tag.

While it seems to be unlikely Rodgers would agree to sit out an entire season it would be a PR nightmare for the Packers and definitely result in another ugly divorce with a star quarterback.

Two decades ago. That's ample evidence that the ballclub has considerable leverage when they find salary demands to be excessive. Take for example the abusurd proposition that Rodgers contract would be fully guaranteed. If that happened to be the Rodgers demand, I would never under any circustances agree to such a thing without a significant chop in the per year number, PR be d*amned. Acquiring Kizer is some form of insurnace against that eventuality, a player who, coincidentally, has 3 years left on his rookie deal. Evidently McCarthy is quite high on him, ranking him with the first round QBs in this draft, though I have not seen anything on the field to justify that high opinion.

One would hope it doesn't come to that; there's 2 years before franchising becomes an issue. But there is a limit and sometimes parties cannot agree on what that is.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Two decades ago. That's ample evidence that the ballclub has considerable leverage when they find salary demands to be excessive. Take for example the abusurd proposition that Rodgers contract would be fully guaranteed. If that happened to be the Rodgers demand, I would never under any circustances agree to such a thing without a significant chop in the per year number, PR be d*amned. Acquiring Kizer is some form of insurnace against that eventuality, a player who, coincidentally, has 3 years left on his rookie deal. Evidently McCarthy is quite high on him, ranking him with the first round QBs in this draft, though I have not seen anything on the field to justify that high opinion.

One would hope it doesn't come to that; there's 2 years before franchising becomes an issue. But there is a limit and sometimes parties cannot agree on what that is.

So, your idea is to anger the sole bright spot on the team? Sure, the Packers can force Rodgers to play; granted, contracts aren't expected to be fulfilled until they end by either the club or the player so doing so in this case is going against the spirit of NFL contracts, if not the letter of the contract. I'm sure that other NFL free agents and players on the roster, upon seeing the club treat the best QB in NFL history like he's nobody, will just be lining up to join such a wonderful team with a front office that is out to help the players.

As for MM's comments on Kizer, he is a pathological liar when it comes to backup QBs and anybody believing anything that comes out of his mouth regarding the backup QBs deserves all the disappointment coming their way.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If you say so, after directly contradicting yourself.

??? In my last three posts I mentioned that I would be fine with the Packers waiting to extend Rodgers until the team is comvinced his shoulder isn't an issue. I have absolutely no idea how you come up with the idea that I contradicted myself.

Acquiring Kizer is some form of insurnace against that eventuality, a player who, coincidentally, has 3 years left on his rookie deal. Evidently McCarthy is quite high on him, ranking him with the first round QBs in this draft, though I have not seen anything on the field to justify that high opinion.

Kizer first has to win the backup job before anyone should even think about him being Rodgers eventual successor.

 

[HardRightEdge]

So, your idea is to anger the sole bright spot on the team? Sure, the Packers can force Rodgers to play....

Well, that's not quite what I contend.

I'm opposed to any contract extension until Rodgers demonstrates his shoulder is sound. I will be further opposed to a fully guaranteed contract regardless. Otherwise, sign him up with the limits of sanity.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So, your idea is to anger the sole bright spot on the team? Sure, the Packers can force Rodgers to play; granted, contracts aren't expected to be fulfilled until they end by either the club or the player so doing so in this case is going against the spirit of NFL contracts, if not the letter of the contract. I'm sure that other NFL free agents and players on the roster, upon seeing the club treat the best QB in NFL history like he's nobody, will just be lining up to join such a wonderful team with a front office that is out to help the players.

As for MM's comments on Kizer, he is a pathological liar when it comes to backup QBs and anybody believing anything that comes out of his mouth regarding the backup QBs deserves all the disappointment coming their way.

Have you read comments made by Rodgers on the subject? He knows it will get done and is being patient himself. Waiting this long has probably been better for Rodgers in that some of the top QB's were just signed and with each signing, Rodgers money went up. The NFL is a business, where smart business decisions still have to be made, including the one with your FHOF QB that is coming off of a major injury and still has 2 years remaining on a contract. Rodgers is an intelligent guy, I bet he understands this more than some fans and the media, who seem to want to pump it up into an epic drama of some sort.

How do you think Rodgers would take this kind of offer. "Well Aaron, we love you man and we know you, the fans and the media want to get this done, but because we aren't 100% sure about your shoulder, we are going to pay you less than you want and probably would deserve if that shoulder was guaranteed to be back to 100%."

 

[HardRightEdge]

As for MM's comments on Kizer, he is a pathological liar when it comes to backup QBs and anybody believing anything that comes out of his mouth regarding the backup QBs deserves all the disappointment coming their way.

Could be. Like I said, I don't think much of Kizer. But you never know. Nearly all rookie QBs stink it up; a few develop.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Kizer first has to win the backup job....

If I had to guess, which I don't, Hundley will not survive final cut downs.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

As for MM's comments on Kizer, he is a pathological liar when it comes to backup QBs and anybody believing anything that comes out of his mouth regarding the backup QBs deserves all the disappointment coming their way.

Ever think of changing your name to "Darkcloud"

Show me where MM isn't doing what most coaches in sports do, talk up their players. How does this make him a pathological liar? When he was talking about Rodgers back in the day, was he lying?

 

[HardRightEdge]

Ever think of changing your name to "Darkcloud"

Show me where MM isn't doing what most coaches in sports do, talk up their players. How does this make him a pathological liar? When he was talking about Rodgers back in the day, was he lying?

You know, McCarthy doesn't always talk up his players. Last season we had the Randall issue with no defense from the coach. McCarthy also called out Spriggs for his work ethic. There are usually a couple of such instances per yer. If a player is not onboard with the "process" or lacks effort, i.e., "not a Packer guy", he'll call him out. We had the Janis playbook and catch radius call-outs, Shields not tackling, etc. etc. Just a few examples that come to mind at the moment.

If a guy is working at his craft with only marginal results but shows enough to at least stay on the roster, why would anybody make a public issue of disappointing performance? That's not just dumb; it's being a d*ck.

One recent development is the change in McCarthy phraseology from "the second year jump" to the "second or third year jump", perhaps in deference to the former GM or perhaps wishful thinking with regard to the "Packer guys".