Rodgers miffed about loss of Van Pelt

[Deleted member 6794]

zero wins? no way. i'd take mayfield though but that's just me. darnold is fine. suddenly you should see us way better than we were last year. you'd see a ton of cap room too. no more cap worries holding us back. FA signings, another draft, etc. etc. etc. 2020 would be pretty exciting...a team on the up. more exciting than the path we're on...but hey, let's drop it. it ain't happenin and repeating myself has gotten boring. GoPack!

The Packers definitely wouldn't be any better by trading away the most valuable player in the league and replace him with a rookie even by adding another two first round picks. In addition the move wouldn't result in an exorbitant amount of cap space. I wonder which players you would like the Packers to spend those $20 million on as well.

No way could we replace Rodgers, but we could put together a nice foundation of young players for a rebuild, especially if we got some second round picks as well (as I believe was discussed). The QB spot would be weaker, but the team around him would be stronger. The two teams that were in the NFCCG last year were both playing with backup quarterbacks, but the teams around them were solid.

The Packers don't need to rebuild with Rodgers as he gives the team a chance to win another Super Bowl though. The Packers roster isn't talented enough to be only two moves away from putting together a team as talented as the Eagles or Vikings aside of the quarterback position.

 

[XPack]

This forum has gone mental!

Bring back football!

 

[rmontro]

The Packers don't need to rebuild with Rodgers as he gives the team a chance to win another Super Bowl though. The Packers roster isn't talented enough to be only two moves away from putting together a team as talented as the Eagles or Vikings aside of the quarterback position.

Again, I'm against trading Rodgers. But I'm not sure where you get the "two moves" bit. I think in the scenarios I had heard being discussed, we were getting Cleveland's first and second round picks both this year and next. That's at least five picks.

This forum has gone mental!
Bring back football!

This may disappoint you, but it's only April.

 

[XPack]

This may disappoint you, but it's only April.

Sigh.

I can only endure so much of more of "we can rebuild by selling Rodgers".

 

[rmontro]

Sigh.

I can only endure so much of more of "we can rebuild by selling Rodgers".

As I've said multiple times, I'm not in favor of trading Rodgers either. But it doesn't bother me to hear people's opinions. I can see their side of it. Recently, the league seems to be favoring teams that have rebuilt quickly. Doesn't hurt to consider all the possibilities. Bottom line, I don't believe there is any chance the Packers trade Rodgers anyway, so IMO it's just harmless offseason talk.

 

[Poppa San]

Sigh.

I can only endure so much of more of "we can rebuild by selling Rodgers".

Really, I mean, we haven't discussed which method the top perceived draft picks use to tie their shoes. There has to be a stat whether the bow tie method is better than the rabbit ear style.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Again, I'm against trading Rodgers. But I'm not sure where you get the "two moves" bit. I think in the scenarios I had heard being discussed, we were getting Cleveland's first and second round picks both this year and next. That's at least five picks.

In my opinion that doesn't change the fact that it's a stupid idea to even think about trading Rodgers, especially as those first and second round picks in 2019 would most likely end up being in the bottom of each round.

 

[XPack]

IMO it's just harmless offseason talk.

I understand, but it just defies common sense. Why pay big money to Graham, Cobb and Adams and then sell the one who is throwing to all of them?

Most teams will sell their grandmother to get AR12 and here we are discussing about selling him to "rebuild". A spoilt lot, some here have become.

 

[rmontro]

In my opinion that doesn't change the fact that it's a stupid idea to even think about trading Rodgers

I certainly don't think it's an advisable move. But that doesn't mean that it couldn't work...

 

[gbgary]

lol

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

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

lol

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

Warning.....I am sooooo stealing that emoticon!

Mods can we PLEASE petition to include that as an option?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I certainly don't think it's an advisable move. But that doesn't mean that it couldn't work...

The Packers trading Rodgers won't work out well for them as long as they don't find themselves in a situation similar to the 2008 offseason. With only Kizer and Hundley on the roster there aren't anywhere close to having another future HOF quarterback. With the draft being a crapshoot I don't like the chances of finding another even while having the first overall pick either.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Packers trading Rodgers won't work out well for them as long as they don't find themselves in a situation similar to the 2008 offseason. With only Kizer and Hundley on the roster there aren't anywhere close to having another future HOF quarterback. With the draft being a crapshoot I don't like the chances of finding another even while having the first overall pick either.

Well at some point, it will happen, Rodgers will be gone. So the Packers will eventually have to find his replacement, whether that is through the draft (Rodgers) or obtaining a guy they see hidden talent in (Favre) from another team. So I get some posters desire to want to trade him while he has value. However, Rodgers value is known and almost a sure thing for at least the next 3-5 years, while any and all draft picks we would acquire by trading him, are a huge wildcard in value.

 

[Mondio]

Well at some point, it will happen, Rodgers will be gone. So the Packers will eventually have to find his replacement, whether that is through the draft (Rodgers) or obtaining a guy they see hidden talent in (Favre) from another team. So I get some posters desire to want to trade him while he has value. However, Rodgers value is known and almost a sure thing for at least the next 3-5 years, while any and all draft picks we would acquire by trading him, are a huge wildcard in value.

Exactly, Rodgers' value is known and barring the catastrophic, he'll have a lot of value in 5 years as well. At this point there isn't a team that has enough draft capital to even make this interesting for what he has in value right now and for the future. I don't care if the Browns have 2 top 5 picks this year. Even if we took 2 QB's in the top 5 this year, odds are that QB never becomes half of what Rodgers has become. We could pick 2 top 5 QB's for the next decade and odds are 1 or 2 become even close to what Rodgers has become and on an inconsistent at best basis. WhyTF are we thinking of trading? and in 5 years should we decide that paying him isn't worth it anymore there will still be some team who thinks they're "close" with the team they've built and will believe Rodgers will have a season or 2 to put them over the top and will pay for it.

IF it even comes to that. Regardless, there is no way in hell I want to trade Rodgers now and forfeit the next 5 years of some of the best QB play this league has known, to see if we can hit the QB lottery again and remain relevant.

 

[swhitset]

Exactly, Rodgers' value is known and barring the catastrophic, he'll have a lot of value in 5 years as well. At this point there isn't a team that has enough draft capital to even make this interesting for what he has in value right now and for the future. I don't care if the Browns have 2 top 5 picks this year. Even if we took 2 QB's in the top 5 this year, odds are that QB never becomes half of what Rodgers has become. We could pick 2 top 5 QB's for the next decade and odds are 1 or 2 become even close to what Rodgers has become and on an inconsistent at best basis. WhyTF are we thinking of trading? and in 5 years should we decide that paying him isn't worth it anymore there will still be some team who thinks they're "close" with the team they've built and will believe Rodgers will have a season or 2 to put them over the top and will pay for it.

IF it even comes to that. Regardless, there is no way in hell I want to trade Rodgers now and forfeit the next 5 years of some of the best QB play this league has known, to see if we can hit the QB lottery again and remain relevant.

I shouldn't be.... but I am utterly amazed that this needs to be said.

 

[rmontro]

The Packers trading Rodgers won't work out well for them as long as they don't find themselves in a situation similar to the 2008 offseason.

Again, I feel it necessary to point out that I am NOT in favor of trading Rodgers. But to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to take a bunch of extra picks (including the #1 and #4 overall) and rebuild with them, I can't agree with that. Teams have done it with a lot less.

 

[Mondio]

Again, I feel it necessary to point out that I am NOT in favor of trading Rodgers. But to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to take a bunch of extra picks (including the #1 and #4 overall) and rebuild with them, I can't agree with that. Teams have done it with a lot less.

Of course teams have done it with less. Essentially what you're saying is we don't need the 1st and 4th overall pick to rebuild with? Sweet. We already have the toughest position to fill with the best in the league. Let's get some other guys

 

[rmontro]

Of course teams have done it with less. Essentially what you're saying is we don't need the 1st and 4th overall pick to rebuild with? Sweet. We already have the toughest position to fill with the best in the league. Let's get some other guys

I'm pretty sure that's the plan.

But the reason that I can see the other side here is that Rodgers is likely going to get a huge pay raise with his next contract. No team has won a Super Bowl with a quarterback who has taken up more than 13.1% of his team's salary cap. If someone thinks keeping Rodgers is going to price us out of the Super Bowl, I could see why they might go for the apocalyptic trade. AGAIN, I don't agree with that, but I can see their point.

I think TT got a little complacent over the years, and many fans had the same viewpoint: Rodgers is fairly young, the window isn't closing, as long as he can get us into the playoffs, we have a shot at the championship. But without fielding a good defense, they really weren't able to advance that far. So they weren't giving the team the best chance after all. And now, we've got Pettine, so there's hope, but if Rodgers' contract becomes a cap problem, the window may not have been open as wide or for as long as some have thought.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Well at some point, it will happen, Rodgers will be gone. So the Packers will eventually have to find his replacement, whether that is through the draft (Rodgers) or obtaining a guy they see hidden talent in (Favre) from another team.

It's true that the Packers will have to replace their HOF quarterback at some point. It doesn't make any sense to force themselves doing it at least five years earlier though.

But to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to take a bunch of extra picks (including the #1 and #4 overall) and rebuild with them, I can't agree with that. Teams have done it with a lot less.

The Packers aren't in a rebuilding mode though.

 

[rmontro]

The Packers aren't in a rebuilding mode though.

They would be if they traded Rodgers

 

[XPack]

Was thinking about this when posting in other thread, but how much of the MM/AR rift was due to absence of Alex van Pelt? He seemed to be the grease that oiled the engine and kept it well and potentially...we are seeing the impact of his loss. Perhaps his firing was the tipping point...

 

[longtimefan]

Was thinking about this when posting in other thread, but how much of the MM/AR rift was due to absence of Alex van Pelt? He seemed to be the grease that oiled the engine and kept it well and potentially...we are seeing the impact of his loss. Perhaps his firing was the tipping point...

Rumors saying mm let avp go cuz of his friendship

 

[XPack]

Rumors saying mm let avp go cuz of his friendship

Looks to be a stupid decision in hindsight (or even than in all honesty).

 

[Heyjoe4]

Looks to be a stupid decision in hindsight (or even than in all honesty).

Did MM ever give a reason for firing AVP? Seems like years ago, even on this forum. I do remember Rodgers was NOT happy about it. So I (still) don’t get why MM would dump a QB coach that the QB liked, especially when the QB is ARod. I didn’t get it when it happened, and I still don’t get it. If anyone can shed light or a theory on why AVP was dumped, I’d appreciate it. Thanks all.

 

[swhitset]

Did MM ever give a reason for firing AVP? Seems like years ago, even on this forum. I do remember Rodgers was NOT happy about it. So I (still) don’t get why MM would dump a QB coach that the QB liked, especially when the QB is ARod. I didn’t get it when it happened, and I still don’t get it. If anyone can shed light or a theory on why AVP was dumped, I’d appreciate it. Thanks all.

Maybe read through this thread... I don’t see any reason to retype what is already here.