Top 3 Reasons To Keep Aaron Rodgers

If you thought last year's offseason was full of Rodgers drama, just wait to see what this year has in store! There's really only two options: trade him or keep him. Today, we're looking at the Top 3 reasons to keep him.

There's a lot of news and rumors flying around about Aaron Rodgers, what he's thinking, and where he might end up.

Unless he retires, the Packers either have to keep him or trade him. Yes, Rodgers will have some say in what happens, since he could refuse to report to the Packers or any other team, but for now, let's focus on the Packers thought process.

Here are the top reasons why the Packers should keep him:

  1. He's the best player in the game at the most important position: This is the most obvious one. Teams don't have to have a superstar quarterback to win, but they absolutely cannot win without at least a decent one. We don't know what Jordan Love is at this stage, but we know what Aaron Rodgers is: the Most Valuable Player in the league. Keeping him basically ensures they will be in contention.
  2. Old quarterbacks are having more success: Brady has won games in the latter stages of his career with help from his team. Peyton Manning is the poster child for an old quarterback winning a title on little more than veteran savvy. Rodgers has more talent left than either of those guys when they won their last title. The game has made things easier on older quarterbacks and Rodgers can continue to benefit.
  3. It's the Packers Way: This isn't some sappy nostalgia about hanging on to an old-timer, I'm talking about precedent-setting front office moves that define the team culture. If the front office sends a message to players that when they're unhappy, the team will ship them wherever they want to go, it sets a bad precedent. It will deplete the team of talent over time and trade partners will come with lower offers, knowing how the team operates. 

Here's the kicker: The Packers have a crazy cap situation this year and a lot of their best players have big contracts tying up a lot of guaranteed money from past restructures. This is a daunting scenario, but the new TV deal will kick in in 2023, dramatically increasing the salary cap. If the Packers wanted, they could get really silly aggressive with some restructures, drive a ton more money into 2023, and go all in one more time.

Now, this would put them at a huge disadvantage in 2023, as contract demands across the league will explode and the Packers would be unable to compete for a lot of talent, but if they want to go all in again, they're in a unique place in the history of the salary cap to be able to pull off one last shot. 

 

Bruce Irons has played, coached, and studied football for decades. Best-selling author of books such as A Fan's Guide To Understanding The NFL Draft, A Fan's Guide To Understanding The NFL Salary Cap, and A Fan's Guide To NFL Free Agency Hits And Misses, Bruce contributes to CheeseHeadTV and PackersForTheWin.com.

Follow Bruce Irons on Twitter at @BruceIronsNFL.

 

NFL Categories: 
4 points

Comments (99)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
Johnblood27's picture

February 20, 2022 at 06:53 am

flaw... reason number 1... Aaron Rodgers is no longer the best player in the game, if he ever even was.

Let's start by being honest with ourselves and everyone else and take off the green and gold goggles.

The GBP made him the highest paid in the past, and that contract was a year too soon, if the GB FO is not logged into reality the franchise is in big trouble. There is no need to make AR the highest paid player of all time, not at this stage of his career. Acknowledge reality and move forward accordingly in terms of contract or trade compensation.

2 points
19
17
Big_Mel_75's picture

February 22, 2022 at 10:47 am

So the green and gold googles must have been on all 39 AP voters that voted him the Most Valuable Player in the league right? Yes he has been off in the playoffs but he gives us the best chance to win.

0 points
1
1
stockholder's picture

February 20, 2022 at 07:16 am

1. Yes the magical word is contention. And Rodgers is the face of this franchise.- With the retirement talk. The smart play is to let it play out. But kicking the can down the road has to stop. I like my credit card too. But the fees suck. Debt ruins a business. Contracts are a binding agreement. And if they keep breaking them. Your going to get an unfair labor practice. Rodgers is coming back. He's earned that right. I like are chances.

2 points
8
6
Coldworld's picture

February 20, 2022 at 11:07 am

Agree up to the let it play out statement. Get what you can and move on if the first part is indeed correct, as I believe it is.

A non guaranteed contract provides the team with a right to terminate at any point in the NFL. This is not Baseball. That’s what nearly all NFL contracts are and it’s known by both parties when they sign them, hence the power of up front money. There will be no unfair dismissal actions arising out of Rodgers contract if they move him or release him (which they won’t).

1 points
2
1
dobber's picture

February 21, 2022 at 09:30 am

Absolutely. What we're seeing postulated for the Packers is the norm in 2020s cap management. If the Packers want to live in the 1990s in terms of contract management, they're operating with one hand tied behind their backs and will be stuck with an old, fading, and undertalented roster.

Only players who know they have no value on the market are wanting teams to honor their deals. Everyone else is looks at that as an opportunity to get another bolus of guaranteed signing money (up front).

0 points
0
0
jurp's picture

February 20, 2022 at 09:28 am

"But kicking the can down the road has to stop. I like my credit card too. But the fees suck. Debt ruins a business."

"Rodgers is coming back... I like are (sic) chances."

These two statements are in opposition. The first one states that you're in favor of not extending any players if that requires large cap hits in future years. The second one states that you like the idea of Rodgers re-signing with the team. You cannot have the second scenario happen without the first scenario happening.

You are opposing the only way in which Rodgers by his own admission will come back (remember, he doesn't want to be part of a rebuilding team, which GB will be if it lets a ton of players walk to afford Rodgers). I STRONGLY suggest that you reread TGR's excellent columns about Rodgers and the salary cap.

7 points
7
0
pack69go's picture

February 20, 2022 at 11:40 am

Smart teams leverage their salary cap space and get current talent with tomorrows $!

0 points
2
2
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

February 20, 2022 at 07:58 am

Well, I have finished the article on solving the puzzle of the salary cap. So, that should help explicate Bruce's point. That article should come out some time today.

As a note, the contracts of King, Tonyan, Sullivan and Campbell void today. They must be extended today or their dead money hits will be charged now (not on March 16th) to the cap. King has $3M, Tonyan $1.8M, and Campbell and Sullivan just under $1M each.

5 points
5
0
Thegooddr's picture

February 20, 2022 at 08:06 am

Any indication that something is happening on these fronts. King and Tonyon seem logical targets with nearly wash types of scenarios. King should not get more than 3 mil on the open market. Tonyon would be the preferred add and it would seem his deal could be multiple years with a wash for next season.

3 points
4
1
croatpackfan's picture

February 20, 2022 at 11:19 am

This post you can find on the other earlier article and I'm copying here because I'm not sure that you'll see it.

TGR as I like a lot your explanation about salary cap and all those maths you do, I have to disagree with your explanation how rising up the salary cap in future, will able Packers to push the money in to the future.

I agree that SC will be higher a lot from 2023 due to the new contract for TV rights. But, as salary cap rise there are still limits for players salaries. Any important or impact player will not demand the same salary as today. If they will demand av 30 mills today they will demand av 50 mills because SC is much higher. If you are not willing to pay player that amount of money, there will be the team with lesser dead money in their books which will sign him to that demand. Who might be from Packers? Let say Rashan Gary, Jaire Alexander, Kenny Clark, E. Jenkins, AJ Dillon etc.

If you have 40% of SC bound in dead money, you will not be able to keep your important and/or impact players, because you will still be short for the demands. Davante Adams knows that and that is the reason he demands av 30 mill per season. Not because this is today's value, but that will be tomorrow's value and if he will be signing multi year deal, he wants adequate money.

That is how business is functioning. And that is how you can sink any company, if you are not thinking about future and if you are not ready to undrgo some "bad year(s)".

I will not go in the direction "what if...", but after all if Jordan Love become possible 3rd in the row HOF QB for the Packers, you will need to trade him or release him, because you will not be able to give him contract he deserve...

1 points
2
1
Leatherhead's picture

February 20, 2022 at 11:37 am

😎Campbell would be my primary target. Given his age, earnings history, and career trajectory, I’d think he could be retained without breaking the bank.

😔. I don’t think Tonyan is going to be any help until the middle of next year. 2020 was probably his career season.

🤨😑. Sullivan and King are DBs, and you can never have too many of them, but I’d pass on King because he just misses too many games. I’d rather keep Sullivan as our #4 CB.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

TGR, I do appreciate all the effort you put into the salary cap details and I’m looking forward to your article. As you know, I’m a fan of simplicity. I see that Spotrac has us nearly $50 million over the cap.

1). Trade Rodgers to Denver for Jeudy, the #9 pick, and $20 million in cap relief.
2). Trade/release ZSmith for another $15 million.
3). Trade/release Cobb for another $7 million.

Those three moves reduce the cap deficit to $8 million. At that point, there’s a couple of different directions you could go, but those first three are mandatory……unless we want to mortgage the future. I don’t

2 points
4
2
Hematite's picture

February 20, 2022 at 02:05 pm

I agree with you Leatherhead.
Well said!

1 points
1
0
dobber's picture

February 21, 2022 at 10:23 am

While Jeudy is athletic and was a high draft pick, I think he's not a great fit for this offense. I don't know how he holds up (6'1", 190) to the beating required to put his body out there to block as much as the Packers ask for. Maybe Fant is the guy you ask for in that case. I've been thinking they might be reluctant to let Fant go, but more and more I'm thinking he'd be just as viable if you're looking for a player in return.

0 points
0
0
Gee's picture

February 24, 2022 at 11:06 am

Thanks dobber for looking at Jeudy and if he fits. I for one never really thought about until you brought it up, but yeah if you are sending Rodgers out, just getting their best wr, may not be the best choice. Especially as you say he does not fit what MLF wants to run.

0 points
0
0
pack69go's picture

February 20, 2022 at 11:45 am

You can effectively push out salary cap $ out over 4 years not just 23 and with the cap going up dramatically with the new TV deals, legalized sports betting etc. It's a smart way to keep competitive now and in the future!

-3 points
1
4
Leatherhead's picture

February 20, 2022 at 12:00 pm

You can take out a second mortgage on your house and it gives you more money right now. You can smoke cigarettes now and worry about cancer later. But sooner or later, everything has a cost. In my experience, it’s better to fix things sooner instead of later.

I certainly wouldn’t bet on the cap going up. What if Covid 22, variant X occurs and we panic and close down the stadiums? Where is all this extra revenue coming from then? Or something else happens?

Pay your bills. Avoid debt when possible.

6 points
7
1
Hematite's picture

February 20, 2022 at 02:06 pm

NOOO!
Bad idea!

1 points
1
0
SanLobo's picture

February 20, 2022 at 12:29 pm

Just saw where Z Smith has deleted all his GB posts from social media, so he’s probably out now.

2 points
2
0
Leatherhead's picture

February 20, 2022 at 01:18 pm

Yeah. I never thought he'd be here this season. We won 13 games without him so it's hard to make the argument he's essential.

It does put a hole in our 3 man OLB rotation. Now it's just Gary and PSmith.

3 points
3
0
Gary Fritzmeier's picture

February 20, 2022 at 07:24 pm

From what I heard is that he didn't delete his GB posts but rather he completed all his social media.

1 points
1
0
Thegooddr's picture

February 20, 2022 at 08:00 am

This is such a challenging situation. It literally is the crossroads for the team…more like a T on the road. You either go rebuild or you wax nostalgic and see what happens. This is not like the BF situation. QBs can play longer because they don’t get the crap kicked out of them like they once did….and GB Oline is as good as there is in the NFL….at Min. Top 5 when full strength. AR has significant value on the trade market, he likely is deciding between GB for the rest of his career or one last run elsewhere. Add to all this the cap situation…a bandaid ripoff and reset or multiple years of cap manipulation.

Oh yeah…JL has not shown to be AR…it does not mean he can’t become a good NFL player, but his lack of accuracy and arm strength are concerning. He also has not benefited from QB camps of the past or normal off season programs…so who knows long term.

As a fan, I am torn. If he is traded, the draft will be fun…but October and November may be months of pain. Stay with AR and success will be had in the regular season, but the NEw Orleans model will follow.

There is pain ahead…the question is when it comes. After the way BF ended his time in GB…I am in favor of the romantic ending and ultimate farewell tour down the road. However, if they go the other route…it will be a fun Spring!

4 points
6
2
BirdDogUni's picture

February 20, 2022 at 10:17 am

*The draft will be fun whether or not AR will be traded! I can't wait until Gutey doesn't pick a WR in round one again! ; P

3 points
4
1
Coldworld's picture

February 20, 2022 at 11:08 am

He will pick an ILB.

1 points
1
0
fastmoving's picture

February 20, 2022 at 08:00 am

12 put the Q in qb and he is no play off player. Can hit the wall any time.........

-1 points
6
7
Handsback's picture

February 20, 2022 at 08:02 am

One more bite of the apple, one more shot at the title, one more oh forget it. Rather get the cap under control and have multiple picks for 2023 then hope for a different outcome with Rodgers.

10 points
14
4
Hematite's picture

February 20, 2022 at 02:13 pm

👍👍👍

2 points
2
0
NickPerry's picture

February 20, 2022 at 08:21 am

I've posted it a dozen times already, I'm totally ready to move on from Rodgers. Yes, I understand the Packers would be be lucky to win 10 games, but you just CAN'T continue to kick the can down the road.

The Saints did it with Drew Brees and are $80 million OVER the cap going into year TWO without Brees. Unless Rodgers is playing for $25 million a year AT THE MOST, the Packers will have to pay a similar price the Saints are paying for years after Rodgers hangs it up. That's a lot to risk for a QB who's 0-4 in his last 4 NFCCG, went out last season without a whimper, and looked like a guy who wanted NO PART of being out on that field despite saying for the last several years he wanted it at Lambeau for a chance to go to the SB. He asked for it, got it, and couldn't even get out of the divisional round on a night where his defense didn't even give up a TD! Blame ST's all you want and I'll even agree with you to a point, but the facts are Rodgers had MULTIPLE opportunities to get it done, and looked like a guy who didn't want to be there.

No offense, but the precedent was sent LAST year when they renegotiated his contract making it for 2 years instead of 3. Now, they have a opportunity to get a haul of picks and players for a player who's not getting it done. I know losing sucks and will Love we just don't know what will happen. But I've lost faith in Aaron Charles Rodgers, and I lost it when he looked like he wanted no part of the 49ers on that frigid Saturday night.

14 points
20
6
NickPerry's picture

February 20, 2022 at 08:36 am

Let is...IF Rodgers was to sign a team friendly deal, then perhaps I'd be more willing to give it a try. IF that happens the Packers sign Campbell, Douglas, and perhaps another WR or TE who MAKES A DIFFERENCE in the offense. Maybe a guy who wants to win a SB and is nt worried about the fatest contract he can get. Are there such players? I hope so.

5 points
5
0
Hematite's picture

February 20, 2022 at 02:15 pm

👍👍👍👍!

1 points
1
0
Coldworld's picture

February 20, 2022 at 09:33 am

One is debatable. The now you reference is in fact last season. Beyond that, Rodgers is one of the best and certainly the most statistically efficient QBs, but he’s slowing and consistently struggles against certain defenses.

Two is dubious. Brady is an outlier, but he won grafting on to a hugely stacked roster, not because of stellar QB play. He’s also in a league of his own in terms of tactical awareness. That didn't age. Manning is hardly indicative of a current trend and, in fact, 2 data points seldom are. This point is simply not sustainable in my view.

Three is just rubbish. It’s equally true to say that players know how the league works. Moreover they want to play for a team that has the ability to make hard choices that breed confidence in success. Look at the Pats appeal in the Brady/BB era. Ceding control to a star player is seldom popular for long or successful. This reason is not one at all.

There is only one legitimate reason to pay the huge amount forward required to return Rodgers and an only somewhat diluted roster. That is a credible belief that Rodgers plus the resulting roster gives us a strong chance to get to a Super Bowl and win it. That is the only thing that justifies the inevitable pain and loss of draft capital.

After 3 years of similar flameouts on offense and in coaching too, I see very little that justifies the belief that Rodgers a year older can beat good teams who now know how to paralyze him all too well without a very strong roster around him. The cap essentially removes that eventuality and even a draft for the ages likely takes 3 years to really pay full dividends. So the hugely statistically improbable would payout after he’s done or with him in his 40s

There is no valid reason but the belief that Rodgers has a strong chance to carry a weaker roster to a Super Bowl. Few I’ve seen really believe there’s more than an outside chance, at best, that he gets us a Super Bowl. That’s not enough to qualify as a reason and even less so to hamstring the team for most of the rest of the decade.

PS: A note on the cap.
The first really big tranche of cap expansion is anticipated to hit in 2024 (not next year), based on timing and past practice. Typically it feeds in over about three years. It’s worth noting that this time the players are guaranteed a bigger share than the last time this happened (CBA). Most commentators expect a more rapid and dramatic increase in player costs as a result.

The second caution is that the increases that I’ve seen speculatively projected for 2024 would be swallowed by various proposals to shove cap forward to retain Rodgers and others. So, little help next year, maybe a net loss with player costs after. Not going to do much to help restock the roster around Rodgers while he’s still playing.

It may help speed the rebuild through the second half of the decade potentially, depending on how far out the void years run, not necessarily immediately. Either way, it is unlikely to be the “get out of jail” card some seem to think during Rodgers remaining playing career.

8 points
10
2
jurp's picture

February 20, 2022 at 09:34 am

I was going to post something similar, but this is much better than anything I would've written. Thanks for saving me the time!

3 points
3
0
LambeauPlain's picture

February 20, 2022 at 10:18 am

CW, I think most logical fans would strongly agree with you. It is the emotional fans that will insist the only way to another Lombardi is with Rodgers.

Emotions are driven by narratives and opinions, rarely by facts.

Facts are stubborn things...Rodgers has been a prolific QB for most of his regular seasons. But a great Playoff QB? Nope. Even Eli Manning has outperformed him in Playoff success.

4 points
6
2
Hematite's picture

February 20, 2022 at 02:21 pm

👍👍👍

0 points
1
1
Michael Nault's picture

February 20, 2022 at 09:02 am

I love how every one wants to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. The dude has a big blind spot and he will never change.

10 points
14
4
13TimeChamps's picture

February 20, 2022 at 09:31 am

"Now, they have a opportunity to get a haul of picks and players for a player who's not getting it done."

That sentence makes no sense. Why would a team give up a haul of picks and players for a player who, in your own words, is not getting it done in the playoffs? I've been saying for months that this "boatload" of picks/players is just wishful thinking. I just don't see how any GM of a team that feels it's "one player away", would trust Rodgers to be that one player with his playoff history. Bill O'Brien is no longer a GM and Dan Devine is dead.

4 points
7
3
jurp's picture

February 20, 2022 at 09:35 am

I agree that we won't see a "boatload" of picks at all in a trade - more likely a 2 and 3 if we're lucky. I'd take them without a second thought just to stop the incessant Aaron Rodgers articles.

3 points
7
4
Leatherhead's picture

February 20, 2022 at 11:46 am

I think that Jeudy and the #9 pick are fair compensation fora 38 year old MVP, if Denver thinks he gives them a shot. That division has Mahomes, Herbert, and Carr , and Denver isn’t competitive with Bilgewater at QB. With Rodgers (and Adams). they surely are.

-1 points
3
4
barutanseijin's picture

February 20, 2022 at 09:14 pm

Do you think they’d stop? We’d be subjected to Rodgers nostalgia articles, Rodgers retrospectives, Rodgers in Packer history, What if We Kept Rodgers speculation, commentary on the cattiness of his parting remarks, furor & apologetics from the Rodgers diehards, comparisons of Love to Rodgers …

1 points
1
0
Johnblood27's picture

February 21, 2022 at 09:12 am

This may be your best post ever...

Congrats!

0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

February 20, 2022 at 09:39 am

There may be a team where Rodgers + Roster = a real chance of winning it all, as was the case with the 2020 Bucs + Brady. That may be real or imagined, but either may make a buyer. Just because it doesn’t add up here doesn’t mean it might not somewhere else.

2 points
3
1
BirdDogUni's picture

February 20, 2022 at 10:33 am

We've all seen that GM or Coach who thinks he can change a player too. The only way to make Rodgers look for someone other than DA is to trade him or let DA walk. Or to draft a guy high enough (1st Round) that Rodgers has to throw to when he's open.

If Lazard would've been a 1st round pick instead of an UDFA, you can guarantee AR would've seen him when he was open.

My point is: The only way to force AR to look for someone other than DA is have someone on the roster with more juice. Think AR would've thrown to OBJ on that 3rd down play?

I do.

3 points
5
2
BirdDogUni's picture

February 20, 2022 at 10:33 am

We've all seen that GM or Coach who thinks he can change a player too. The only way to make Rodgers look for someone other than DA is to trade him or let DA walk. Or to draft a guy high enough (1st Round) that Rodgers has to throw to when he's open.

If Lazard would've been a 1st round pick instead of an UDFA, you can guarantee AR would've seen him when he was open.

My point is: The only way to force AR to look for someone other than DA is have someone on the roster with more juice. Think AR would've thrown to OBJ on that 3rd down play?

I do.

2 points
2
0
13TimeChamps's picture

February 20, 2022 at 11:20 am

Brady was a free agent. He only cost Tampa his salary. No picks/players were involved. Totally different scenario.

3 points
4
1
Coldworld's picture

February 20, 2022 at 11:51 am

In terms of how he got there and cap impact yes. In terms of why it was a good gamble and marriage, no.

1 points
3
2
Oppy's picture

February 20, 2022 at 10:35 am

The thing to remember here is that only one team in the NFL is a not-for-profit, and that's the Green Bay Packers.

The other 31 teams in the league are privately owned by an individual.

In Green Bay, the end goal is sustainability and winning. In 31 other cities, the ultimate goal is revenue and profit, and winning is just the pathway to revenue and profit.

There are, I'm sure, plenty of owners who would take a swing at a player like Rodgers simply because it will sell jerseys and put butts in seats.

5 points
6
1
Bitternotsour's picture

February 21, 2022 at 09:52 am

The reason Mark Murphy has his job is revenue and profit. That's why the restructure of football operations happened. Green Bay is collectively owned but they are members of the NFL and that is a corporate brand.

Thinking the Packers do business differently than the other teams in the league is laughable. Our fanbase is different because of the collective nature, but the business is the business.

It's not personal, it's business, Sonny.

1 points
1
0
Oppy's picture

February 22, 2022 at 10:10 am

That's literally not true, and you should probably look into how the Packers are structured, grandpa.

It is, literally, a not-for-profit. Excess profits go into a coffer that are used for improvements to facilities, training/personnel, investments in communities and charities, and to otherwise serve as a lockbox for lean times if needed.

If the Packers are ever "sold", all proceeds go not to the board members, or the share holders.. they go to a local American Legion post to build a memorial. That's in the charter. It would be one hell of a memorial.

1 points
1
0
Oppy's picture

February 22, 2022 at 10:12 am

To be more accurate, the reason why Mark Murphy has a job, is to ensure the financial viability of the Packers for the next 50 years and on. It's not to make anybody rich. That's the difference between the Packers and the other 31 teams in the league.

That's not hype, hyperbole, wishful thinking or otherwise. That's how it actually is.

1 points
1
0
NickPerry's picture

February 20, 2022 at 08:23 pm

The Rams sent 2 firsts, a 3rd, and Goff. Wentz was trade for a 2nd and a 3rd which turned out to be a first rounder.. Look what the Bears gave up to move up for Trubisky.

Now I don't buy into the 3 firsts some are suggesting, but 2 firsts and maybe a 2nd or 3rd aren't out of the question by any means. That's a boatload to me. I also think they'd get a decent starter out of it too.

Trust and BELIEVE there's a GM and HC out there who honestly believe Aaron Rodgers would get them to the promised land. How about 2 firsts and Derek Carr? Personally I'd JUMP on that. I think Carr could be top 10 QB in MLF's offense and with Carr, and Davante would stay in a heartbeat.

1 points
1
0
13TimeChamps's picture

February 21, 2022 at 09:32 am

If it's Denver, I'd take their 1st (#9) and Fant and call it a day. For some reason, people want to just gloss over the fact that Stafford was 33 when that trade went down. Rodgers turns 39 this year, with a not insignificant injury history and a not very impressive recent playoff history as well.

This could all be moot anyway, as GB is saying all the right things to indicate they don't want to trade AR. Is it just posturing to gain a negotiating advantage? I guess we'll find out soon enough....and we can all move on from these incessant will he/won't he articles!

0 points
0
0
jurp's picture

February 20, 2022 at 09:46 am

Bruce, you forgot this reason: If you're in the FO, you keep Aaron Rodgers because it's the easy thing to do and will keep your job secure for at least two years which, if you're Murphy, is when you'll retire, and, if you're anyone else, is when you'll have bailed out of the Packers to work for a different team.

5 points
8
3
Coldworld's picture

February 20, 2022 at 09:48 am

The tendency is to assume that leaders have vision and self conviction that justifies their position. Sadly that’s actually very far from the norm, which is why the world is such a mess in part. Most will do anything to take the easy way out and not tick the boat or simply go catatonic and thus continue the status quo. It seldom succeeds and it usually presages the end of an era eventually.

Murphy ignored TT’s unfortunate decline for years in public and only acted when forced by obvious decline in the roster and performance and increasing internal dissension. Deja vu would not be shocking. Willful blindness can be very comforting in the short term.

4 points
5
1
splitpea1's picture

February 20, 2022 at 11:42 am

Further down the hierarchy, you could say the same about the ST coach, and the year before, the DC. Instead of getting a handle on the situation when it might have made a difference later, the Packers didn't make a change until it cost them dearly. It's an unfortunate pattern that's become a part of the organization.

6 points
6
0
jannes bjornson's picture

February 20, 2022 at 11:49 am

I agree , clean haus.

1 points
2
1
Qoojo's picture

February 20, 2022 at 09:38 am

I would trade him if given enough draft capital, otherwise keep him. But AR (the part-time GM) has to understand that his buddies (Cobb and Adams, possibly Crosby) have to go or he needs to take a big pay cut to keep Cobb. I really like the idea of getting a jump on the rebuild with a H. Walker like trade.

Either way, I would try to improve the WR speed. I think two factors that open up the offense are a very fast WR (MVS, most likely gone) and Dillon pounding the ball. MVS was missing for the whole SF game, and Dillon for second half.

Given the previous, AR really is the best bet to win the superbowl for the next couple of years. For older QBs, you really need a good OL. Old guys don't recover from the hits near as fast. Both the examples given (Brady and Manning), the teams were more about the defense, and a QB that didn't screw it up.

3 points
5
2
Coldworld's picture

February 20, 2022 at 09:52 am

MVS was injured playing in a meaningless game in Detroit with a nagging back injury so that Rodgers could play with the starters. A stupid decision that arguably also precluded Bakh helping against the 49ers. Bakh said Rodgers insisted he and they play. So yes, MVS was not on the field in the playoff loss. The 49ers were able to flatten their D as a result. LaFleur doesn’t get enough criticism for allowing that.

2 points
4
2
jurp's picture

February 20, 2022 at 10:04 am

"LaFleur doesn’t get enough criticism for allowing that."

You're assuming that MLF had a choice in the matter. As coach, one would HOPE that he made that decision and therefore deserves the criticism, but given the Packers (stupid) org chart, who knows? Maybe he was told to do what AR wanted. This lack of transparency really pisses me off.

2 points
3
1
Coldworld's picture

February 20, 2022 at 11:53 am

That kind of lack of transparency is deliberate and a classic red flag for bad management. The sort in fact that makes the current rumors credible despite the abject lack of a case for them. I couldn’t agree with you more on that point.

I was not assuming, by the way, I just left it hanging, Personally, I don’t care, it comes back to the fact that a HC that doesn’t stand up to players or his FO meddling in coaching or player usage decisions isn’t going to be a winner. Ultimately it’s on LaFleur to stand up and be a true HC.

4 points
5
1
croatpackfan's picture

February 20, 2022 at 11:44 am

I agree CW. I already stated that if MLF has balls he would collect the money and resign because he is unabled to do his job. I bet in a lot of money he would find new job in 2 days after he would run away from Green Bay.

MLF is also the problem, not solution. I assume he accepted job because he thought that he will be able to work with players as true HC. Now team has 2 HC and at least one who is support HC 2 and disparage HC 1 (MLF). It looks like Mike Murphy picked up MLF because of his inexperience, so that he can manipulate with him and his responsibilities.

1 points
2
1
jurp's picture

February 20, 2022 at 02:26 pm

"Ultimately it’s on LaFleur to stand up and be a true HC."

Yep, otherwise he's just a milquetoast with the word "Welcome" tattooed on his back. I was really high on him when we hired him, and it seems really stupid to say this after three successful regular seasons (but, three very unsuccessful playoff appearances), but I'm really starting to sour on him.

4 points
4
0
Lphill's picture

February 20, 2022 at 09:39 am

Packers can get 90 million under the cap and lose only Z Smith , Lewis and Cobb a lot of restructuring for many players but can be done the breakdown is on another site but it’s valid, down vote away 13 .

-3 points
4
7
Coldworld's picture

February 20, 2022 at 09:56 am

The US government can make us all Billionaires over night if it chooses. It wouldn’t mean any of us would be rich, in fact the opposite as it would destroy the economy, but it can be done. Just because something is possible doesn’t make it rational.

1 points
4
3
jurp's picture

February 20, 2022 at 10:06 am

Yeah, kind of like the idea occasionally floated in Washington that the government could simply print enough trillion-dollar bills to cancel the national debt.

4 points
6
2
LambeauPlain's picture

February 20, 2022 at 10:34 am

Many in DC and the press actually believe if the government spends $trillion more of printed money and the Fed buys up Treasuries and injects even more money into the economy, that it will cool inflation and get it under control. That delusion can destroy America.

I hope the Packer front office is not talking themselves into delusions that kicking the can...er, oil drum...down the road will have no long term consequences for a great franchise.

0 points
3
3
Oppy's picture

February 20, 2022 at 10:44 am

When people who aren't accountants try to play accountant, it usually doesn't add up. Not trying to be pun-y here, just literal.

TGR has some of the most comprehensive articles on cap management for the Packers you can find. If I'm not mistaken he's looked at the article you're referring to and said he doesn't see it being realistically attainable.

Either way, this isn't just numbers on a spreadsheet that you can manipulate at will. You don't just restructure players' contracts and notify them by email. Every restructure requires the team and the player/agent to agree to terms.

The idea that because something is proposed on paper that it is feasible is ignoring the reality that people's individual interests are involved- similar to saying "the Packers should trade and get "x" player." Yeah, it'd be nice, but it takes two to tango... much less getting half of your starting players to agree to a renegotiation of terms.

7 points
7
0
HarryHodag's picture

February 20, 2022 at 09:52 am

While subject to debate, I think Mahomes is above Rodgers at this point. Stafford always was a good QB at Detroit but showed he deserves top-flight consideration in the league. Burrow isn't far behind.

4 points
5
1
PatrickGB's picture

February 20, 2022 at 10:08 am

1. Extend Rodgers and restructure the team and probably make the playoffs. 2. trade him and plan for the future and hope for the team to remain competitive. 3. Bitch about someone’s opinions.

7 points
7
0
jhtobias's picture

February 20, 2022 at 11:10 am

Whether he stays or wants a trade the packers will benefit. If he retires than the packers are screwed no rodgers no compensation.

-2 points
2
4
Coldworld's picture

February 20, 2022 at 03:49 pm

If he retires, we aren’t screwed for the medium term, but this year would be carrying his hit in large part because it’s already been paid and I think there is an agreement not to seek to recoup after last year.

We would have a slightly lower cap issue this year (not significant). We would recover cap much more quickly without any extension and probably avoiding others. A down year followed by rapidly improving cap and probably a better pick while Love auditions and either shows his value or we pick a QB from next year’s class.

I don’t see it happening, but I don’t see it as overly daunting if it were to.

3 points
3
0
nstewart1's picture

February 20, 2022 at 11:14 am

Rogers' recent playoff performances have been disappointing, but he is still a very, very good QB. Green Bay with Rogers for a couple more years would have a good shot at a Super Bowl - but, maybe we don't need those games in frigid GB. IF we can keep him on a reasonable contract, we should be happy, and hope lightening strikes again. On the other hand, we can't compromise too much of our future; so IF we are offered a haul, we should take it. I bet most of the people whining that Rogers can only win 13 regular season games do not know what half the league is living with.

0 points
3
3
Coldworld's picture

February 20, 2022 at 11:19 am

Personally, I prefer the chance of improvement over the inevitability of decline as a fan. That’s one reason why, although Rodgers is the fulcrum of the immediate pivot here, I think it’s just as important to consider what this implies to us about the FO and HC.

3 points
4
1
BirdDogUni's picture

February 20, 2022 at 03:16 pm

Not trying to be a dick here, but there is a chance we're actually a better team next year even if we bring Rodgers back. Granted, right this second it doesn't seem probable, but there is a chance.

Gutey and company have a plan right now. Maybe several different plans. My point is, this team may very well look totally different than last season, but it doesn't mean we won't be better.

(Our cap situation is going to suck no matter what we do, but it will definitely suck more if we bring AR/DA back for sure.)

Even if we bring AR & DA back, we still have no idea who we'll draft, if Gutey will trade for someone, or who will be on our 90 man roster come August. It is possible we're actually a better team overall, even if we can't see how we're going to get there.

Rodgers usually concentrates on one thing each off-season, and I pray this off-season he works on seeing the field better and finding the open receiver. If AR does that one thing, he'll be better than he was last year.

If our STs are improved, we're much better off than we were.

Money wise, the cap is screwed to the Nth degree if we bring back AR.DA, but our team could possibly be better than last year. Say we draft a difference maker on defense. A DL or OLBer. Or a WR/TE combination that actually improves our offense just enough.

Personally, I trade AR and tag-n-trade DA, but that's just me. It seems like the FO has other ideas, but we really don't know that yet either. All the AR is not for trade talk could just be talk. Besides, AR might request a trade and then it's a whole other ball game.

The unknown is what makes it all interesting A% though... ; )

1 points
1
0
jurp's picture

February 20, 2022 at 02:28 pm

"Green Bay with Rogers for a couple more years would have a good shot at going one-and-done in the playoffs"

Fixed it for you.

3 points
3
0
beerandbrats's picture

February 20, 2022 at 11:49 am

This is a re-post because we are at a critical juncture in Packers history and I believe we absolutely must consider the January weather conditions before making a decision! What good is a frozen tundra if we cannot defend it?

We cannot discount the elements! Football is a young man's game and the frozen tundra is no place for old men. Brett Favre (1996) and Aaron Rodgers (2010) were awesome on the frozen tundra as young men but the frozen tundra won in the end (2008/2022)! I understand AR12 and his Green Bay legacy. Unfortunately, he can no longer get it done in the elements. Put him in a dome and he could sling precision guided missiles for many years to come...

With that being said, I trade AR12 to Washington because they are giving up Chase Young, 2021 defensive rookie of the year! As a bonus, he comes from the OSU so he and Gary will be competing every day to outperform each other! Then I take the best DT in this draft (Jordan Davis, UGA) with Washington's 11 pick. So now our defensive front consists of Chase Young, Jordan Davis, Kenny Clark, Rashan Gary. With TJ Slaton in reserve. Think about that! That makes a scary 4 man front which makes the whole defense better! With a young, strong defensive front for many years to come, it takes a lot of pressure off of the offense. I don't know what JL10 will give us but I do believe now is the time to move on from AR12.

-1 points
2
3
cheesehead1's picture

February 20, 2022 at 11:49 am

Our salary cap is a mess. I hate to say it, but I’d trade him for a boat load and build up a top 5 D. Love is the wild card. Not very impressed with him so far but his sample size is so small. Maybe draft a top prospect QB in 2023.

2 points
3
1
canadapacker's picture

February 20, 2022 at 03:23 pm

Not getting a boatload - no teams that he will go to has a boat load - get that out of your mind. We wont get what the Rams got for Stafford.

1 points
2
1
Alberta_Packer's picture

February 20, 2022 at 12:46 pm

Actually, I would interpret # 3 "It's the Packers Way" - as a reason to move on from Rodgers.

There is a glaring fault with the FO - that is they are usually slow to make key football decisions. For instance, not replacing sooner Ted Thompson or Mike McCarthy. And then there has been the STs fiasco. It seems that the FO is more reactive than proactive - which has setback the development and success of the team over the years.

If the FO brings backs Rodgers - that decision will likely go into the FOs Hall of Bad Decisions. I hope that I'm wrong. However, the history on the FO shows that they generally do things one year late than one year early.

6 points
7
1
jurp's picture

February 20, 2022 at 02:30 pm

"... the history on the FO shows that they generally do things one year late than one year early."

You're not wrong; anti-Belichecks, all of them.

4 points
4
0
Nobody's picture

February 20, 2022 at 12:43 pm

Packers upper organization only wants Rodger's back because like John Madden said, your gonna get 10 wins with Brett Favre or Aaron Rodger's. The upper organization doesn't want to work. Let's sign Rodger's and we're all in to go play golf.

4 points
6
2
Alberta_Packer's picture

February 20, 2022 at 01:11 pm

Unfortunately none of those 10/13 wins includes the playoffs. Should Rodgers return, this has Murphy's fingerprints all over it - last (desperate) attempt for a SB as he nears retirement. Would look real good on his c.v.

6 points
6
0
Packerlifer's picture

February 20, 2022 at 12:48 pm

We shouldn't put too much stock at this time in anything any of the parties- the Packers, A Rod or other NFL clubs- say about Rodgers' future. To quote a phrase from the old "Seinfeld" show, "It's the timeless art of seduction."

All parties are meneuvering for best advantage and wearing their poker face. We really won't know anything for sure until the new league year and free agency commences next month.

I can think of only one reason for the Packers to go out to keep Rodgers, though. They have concluded that Jordan Love is a bust. Not only not ready but never going to be. If that's the case we can question Gutey's judgment in aggressively going out to get him in the first place.

-3 points
1
4
Coldworld's picture

February 20, 2022 at 02:15 pm

In which case welcome to the Benkert/Marriott/whomever. Shrug, bad pick, move on. Won’t be the first or the last time. If it’s not Rodgers, Love is just the first up. Not a reason to shape keeping or moving on from Rodgers. In any case, none of us really know what Love is or will be at this point.

4 points
4
0
Since'61's picture

February 20, 2022 at 01:07 pm

At this point there is only one reason to bring Aaron Rodgers back. That is the team believes they can still win an SB with him at some point during the next 2-3 seasons. Having said that, if the Packers do in fact extend Rodgers the team's management is basically saying, "Damn the salary cap, full speed ahead!"

Remember they may have seen enough of Love (in practice) to know that they can't win with him. They may also already know that they will not receive an offer from another team commensurate with the value they believe that they should get for Rodgers. If nothing else they may believe that Rodgers gives them at least a chance to win over the next few seasons while they continue to search for the next franchise QB via the draft. Of course the wild card remains that Rodgers decides to retire. But they probably already know what Rodgers wants to do next.

In any case I don't expect the same crew that got the Packers into this mess can successfully get them out of it. Thanks, Since '61

4 points
4
0
Coldworld's picture

February 20, 2022 at 02:18 pm

This mess made sense up until January: go for it till the enforced roster decline. If they do try to do a rerun, I fear that they will indeed have lived down to your fears.

1 points
1
0
jannes bjornson's picture

February 20, 2022 at 05:58 pm

As we have seen before with a three pick going to Ted for the Favre deal. It is all about Value. No L.A. deal rising for the Sunshine Crowd.

0 points
0
0
canadapacker's picture

February 20, 2022 at 10:37 pm

My point is this - I am not a fan of #12's antics over the last few years. Leaked rumors on draft day - covid misinformation - all crap. Now I blamed MM and TT for our lack of success prior to MM's getting kicked down the road ( and it reflected in #12's attitude on the field). But I was not a fan of #4's attitude his last few years - I am going to retire - no I am not. But he did lead us to a NFC championship game in his last season only to throw a pick to allow the Giants to go onto the Superbowl. The point of this whole scenario is that everyone needs to put their hatred of #12 aside and evaluate the actual facts. First fact - he just won 13 games 3 years in a row. He just won back to back MVP's because he was just that - passing yards passing efficiency lack of INT's winning games. Finally - he has 3 less hard years on his body than all other at 38. Ben Preston Brady Rivers all started from the start of their career - #12 sat 3 years. So the likelihood of him completing a 3 year term is high. So the idea has to be this - and I think that Gute and the boys recognize it - get the team and salary cap in order for a 3 year run. There may be a few guys who need to go find a better deal - but that always happens. Can we do what Tampa did this year - bring everybody back? That depends on #12 and how much he is willing to give and take on his contract negotiation. But one needs to realize - if he is traded - no matter who they bring in we will probably see 3 or 4 years minimum on the bottom of the NFC North - guaranteed. Does anybody want to see that - I dont.

0 points
4
4
Rebecca's picture

February 20, 2022 at 04:01 pm

Who’s #16?

1 points
2
1
barutanseijin's picture

February 20, 2022 at 10:01 pm

Was that Scott Hunter?

0 points
0
0
Straya's picture

February 20, 2022 at 06:45 pm

"no matter who they bring in we will probably see 3 or 4 years minimum on the bottom of the NFC North"

I doubt this, given the strength of the defense, the o-line and the RBs. Even a semblance of a passing game would keep us competitive.

1 points
2
1
canadapacker's picture

February 20, 2022 at 07:26 pm

This defense played well - but it is not a Ravens/Steelers type or even a Vikings /Bears ( under Urlacher) type . So I think that with an offense under Love or even another second tier we will be behind - the Bears and Vikings and probably even the Lions the way they are improving in their passion.

0 points
1
1
Jordan's picture

February 20, 2022 at 11:15 pm

I like some of your comments, but you may not even recognize the Packers 3 years from now. Hard to predict that far in to the future. Might have different coaches, lots of different players. The frustrating part of the 49ers game is the Packers defense only gave up 6 points. They did amazingly great. With that kind of defensive effort, you'd sure think an MVP, Hall of Fame QB could easily lead the Packers to a victory at home (Lambeau Field).

2 points
2
0
canadapacker's picture

February 22, 2022 at 02:31 pm

Except the not so Special Teams allowed a long drive turn into a blocked field goal and then allowed a punt to be returned for a TD. So everybody blames the Quarterback. The other team plays defense. And maybe Lafeur didnt have a good game plan and maybe we had too many players injured - like the Rams did last year when we beat them. All water under the bridge. Brady won a Superbowl game because Seattle threw an interception on the 2 yard line - he should have lost that game. The NFL is full of ya buts but 13 wins 3 years in a row is not a ya but. Getting into the dance is all that matters and despite what your comments or opinion and I agree with not liking AR's stuff over the last few years - but he gives us the best chance of getting into the dance - and management needs to reflect that in their negotiations along with the long term future of the team. But the likelihood that Love is the next AR is probably less than 5% - given what he has shown so far and the fact that he wasnt rated as a top end prospect. I would like to see a 3 year contract and if Love develops fine - make that decision when his options come up. Do what the Pats did with Jimmy. There will always be the next QB of the future. How many did we draft and send packing to nowhereland during AR's tenure - NOBODY. Unlike the number that were drafted and upgraded under Favre's time with the Pack.

1 points
1
0
urlawncare's picture

February 20, 2022 at 07:54 pm

Let's sign Rodger's and we're all in to go play golf!

0 points
1
1
urlawncare's picture

February 20, 2022 at 07:55 pm

Let's sign Rodger's and we're all in to go play golf!
https://www.urlawncare.com/

0 points
0
0
ImaPayne's picture

February 20, 2022 at 08:29 pm

I don't think AR wants to go anywhere. Reasoning, he has it all here and knows what he has. Going elsewhere he my not rule the roost. Second if he was retiring he would know by now. No my take he told the pack he will be back if he can have Adams and as many others they can keep. Last if Denver was in play he would not have split with his girl who lives in colo.. no he is coming back and the deal will bankrupt this team down the road.
Hey our mn wild are paying 18 mil in salaries to two players not even on the team. They will do this for two more years for writing terrible 10 year contracts to two players who were the promised Land. Hate to see packer fans end up in similar shit for some short term benefit. (2 years)
They could get some nice picks for rodgers and rebuild quickly but they fear losing and being fired

0 points
1
1
canadapacker's picture

February 20, 2022 at 09:14 pm

What kind of picks do you think that they are going to get. I would say that there are probably 2 candidate teams for AR . As of today - 2 teams that he would agree to go to. Now 1 is San Fran. Now they have already mortgaged their future with the 49ers spending three first round picks and a third round pick on Trey Lance . Now if they ship him to GB and maybe their running back Ayiuk or Kittle. That might be the minimum. The other team is Tennessee - that is maybe the most doable. Tannehill and a bunch of draft picks and as long as Adams comes along. But Tennessee doesnt have a 2 this year. The Pack has always done a good job by not having a whole bunch of dead money. They can get creative enough and some D guys ( Smiths) may go - but one didnt play this year and the other played horrible last year under contract and kind of only plays when in an incentive contract and may have to do that again this year. The Pack has done a great job of not having a bunch of dead cap money - 29th of the 32 teams only 9 mill - just look at the Bears and Vikes and especially the Lions.

1 points
1
0
BirdDogUni's picture

February 20, 2022 at 11:23 pm

The most doable for the Packers is Denver, by far. They have Hackett as a HC, plenty of cap space, and the #9 Overall pick...

0 points
1
1
canadapacker's picture

February 21, 2022 at 09:16 am

Why would anybody go play against chargers chiefs raiders?

1 points
1
0
dobber's picture

February 21, 2022 at 10:22 am

Without the motivating factor to go to Colorado, it opens things up if they decide to deal. It's hard to say what they could get if there are more bidders 12 would be willing to play for.

0 points
0
0