I'm calling it now, I think Aaron Rodgers forces a trade from the Packers

[epatmythes]

Originally Posted by Adskie

Yeah, definitely agree with this. No different than when I've moved jobs in the past or just straight up quit because the work environment or bosses were absolute #@#@#@#@. It's honestly a miracle he stuck around as long as he did.

I'm still holding out hope we get him in Denver, but honestly I can see him avoiding it because of the stacked QBs in the AFC (and our division alone). Though if Hackett gets hired maybe, also his fiance DOES live part time in Boulder, so there's that. Here's to hoping!

I don't get the stacked AFC QB argument at all. If Aaron Rodgers has proven anything time, after time, after time... he is smarter than everyone else and is as good, if not better, than everyone else. Given his ego, I don't think he'd shy away at all from going to, say, the AFC West and wanting to prove he's the Top QB dog in that division.

[vthobby]

No matter where he lands, he'll still be a drama queen and ultimate choke artist when it counts.

[jplarson]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

Another thought.

I've been having a ton of conversations with friends/coworkers about the Packers' season, Aaron Rodgers, and where we all go from here. And as a Packer fan, I've come to this conclusion - I don't think the Packers need a QB the caliber of Favre/Rodgers. In fact, if I were the Packers, I would begin a complete revamp of our team philosophy. We have seen over the years, teams come in and end the Packers' season with a lesser QB, but better overall pieces around them. So why shouldn't the Packers try to replicate that? I believe they should. What I mean is, the Packers run an offense too similar (in my taste) to warm weather teams, so when we get home-field advantage, we're playing in 0-degree weather, snow, icy conditions, etc. and as we've seen for multiple seasons, it ain't working. The Packers' offense, as constructed, is built for playing in warm weather. I'd start changing that.

Originally Posted by erock28

I've been simmering on the bolded for a couple of years now...and have reached the same conclusion.

Isn't that what Minnesota tried to do? Dalvin Cook at RB then a rotating cast of Diggs, Thielen, Jefferson at WR then a "lesser" QB like Cousins. I dunno, I'd rather have a HOF QB than not.

[Grid]

Originally Posted by jplarson

Isn't that what Minnesota tried to do? Dalvin Cook at RB then a rotating cast of Diggs, Thielen, Jefferson at WR then a "lesser" QB like Cousins. I dunno, I'd rather have a HOF QB than not.

Yes and no. Yes, Cousins is a "lesser" QB. But no, that is not the sentiment.

It goes, dont put all your money into a big QB contract. Then, you will have money left over to put better pieces on the field.

With Cousins, he costs the Vikings $30MIL per year. And that doesn't free up money to go elsewhere.

[erock28]

Originally Posted by jplarson

Isn't that what Minnesota tried to do? Dalvin Cook at RB then a rotating cast of Diggs, Thielen, Jefferson at WR then a "lesser" QB like Cousins. I dunno, I'd rather have a HOF QB than not.

Minnesota could never field all facets of the game at once though. The couple years pre Cousins they had an elite defense but middling O. The Keenum year they ticked upward on O and the D was at it's peak. Since adding Cousins the O has gotten incrementally better but their D has slipped into being a terrible unit. Why? Because they paid Cousins a bazillion dollars a year and can't afford other key roster pieces. What I'm saying re: the Packers is many of the other key pieces are currently there, the cupboard is still plenty full. With Love on his rookie deal they can add 6-10 more key pieces and become even better all around. Again, all assuming Love can be a league average quarterback. If he's Sam Darnold 2.0 it won't matter how good the rest of the roster is, lol.

[lambeauleap87]

Originally Posted by Soxrule111

Ill probably be wrong, but I dont think Rodgers nets 2 Firsts, Maybe a First and a Second with a 4th going back.

the Stafford comparison isn't that strong. They basically paid a first to get ride of Goff.

Rodgers is also worth substantially more than Stafford - one of the closest equivalents to Stafford's season this year was...2018 Jared Goff.

Green Bay isn't trading Rodgers to New Orleans (can't afford him), San Francisco (no first round picks until 2024 - and just spent three on Trey Lance), or Indianapolis (no first round pick until 2023). Those are all non-starters and nowhere near the equation.

[Grid]

Originally Posted by erock28

Minnesota could never field all facets of the game at once though. The couple years pre Cousins they had an elite defense but middling O. The Keenum year they ticked upward on O and the D was at it's peak. Since adding Cousins the O has gotten incrementally better but their D has slipped into being a terrible unit. Why? Because they paid Cousins a bazillion dollars a year and can't afford other key roster pieces. What I'm saying re: the Packers is many of the other key pieces are currently there, the cupboard is still plenty full. With Love on his rookie deal they can add 6-10 more key pieces and become even better all around. Again, all assuming Love can be a league average quarterback. If he's Sam Darnold 2.0 it won't matter how good the rest of the roster is, lol.

Yup. And the longer they let Love sit, the more years tick away from his cheap rookie contract.

The Packers are $40MIL+ over the cap. If they franchise Adams, they wont have the $20MIL to do so without massive cuts. They can pay Adams, trade Aaron, and start Love and still have tens of millions to throw around.

Plus the picks they would get from dealing Aaron, to really set the team up for the future.

[lambeauleap87]

Originally Posted by Grid

Yup. And the longer they let Love sit, the more years tick away from his cheap rookie contract.

The Packers are $40MIL+ over the cap. If they franchise Adams, they wont have the $20MIL to do so without massive cuts. They can pay Adams, trade Aaron, and start Love and still have tens of millions to throw around.

Plus the picks they would get from dealing Aaron, to really set the team up for the future.

They could also extend Aaron and get the same cap relief. There are a lot of uncertainties in Green Bay, but the one thing you can say with 100% confidence is that Rodgers doesn't play there under his current contract that includes a $45 million cap hit next year.

[Viking6]

Originally Posted by lambeauleap87

Rodgers is also worth substantially more than Stafford - one of the closest equivalents to Stafford's season this year was...2018 Jared Goff.

Green Bay isn't trading Rodgers to New Orleans (can't afford him), San Francisco (no first round picks until 2024 - and just spent three on Trey Lance), or Indianapolis (no first round pick until 2023). Those are all non-starters and nowhere near the equation.

GB is going to net sizable compensation in the Rodgers trade... but I don't think you can really compare the 2 trades with Stafford and Rodgers. Stafford is like 5 years younger and also involved Goff's contract. Rodgers is also clearly better with a better resume but also has floated retirement rumors.

I would not count out Indy so quick. They seem to be in desperation mode and GB would be wise to think years out. If they could somehow pull a 1st in 2023/2024 and a 2nd in 2022/2023... They would be wise to look into the deal.

The best option would really be Denver with the top 10 pick. That pick is also a lot more valuable than Detroit's Ram's late 1st rounders. I could see Denver's #9 and a 3rd this year and a conditional 3rd next year with escalators to a 2nd for playoffs and 1st for AFCCG or something like that..

I am expecting GB to move on from Rodgers and Adams to try and manage the cap better. They will be set up for the future with the compensation they get back however it happens to turn out

[lambeauleap87]

Originally Posted by Viking6

GB is going to net sizable compensation in the Rodgers trade... but I don't think you can really compare the 2 trades with Stafford and Rodgers. Stafford is like 5 years younger and also involved Goff's contract. Rodgers is also clearly better with a better resume but also has floated retirement rumors.

I would not count out Indy so quick. They seem to be in desperation mode and GB would be wise to think years out. If they could somehow pull a 1st in 2023/2024 and a 2nd in 2022/2023... They would be wise to look into the deal.

The best option would really be Denver with the top 10 pick. That pick is also a lot more valuable than Detroit's Ram's late 1st rounders. I could see Denver's #9 and a 3rd this year and a conditional 3rd next year with escalators to a 2nd for playoffs and 1st for AFCCG or something like that..

I am expecting GB to move on from Rodgers and Adams to try and manage the cap better. They will be set up for the future with the compensation they get back however it happens to turn out

No, I don't think there's a real viable trade comparison here, especially when you consider a consecutive MVP winner at this stage in his career. But when you look at the QB trades from last year, you can use those as a measuring block: Wentz for a first (I know it was conditional, but they were very low conditions), Stafford for two firsts with the Goff caveat, and even Sam Darnold for a 2nd/4th.

Denver's #9 is what, IMO, makes them a significant favorite. Green Bay knows that whatever picks they get for Rodgers, beyond this year, are going to be late in the round - and I'd expect something similar to your Denver valuation (#9, a first in '23 or '24, and then another B-level asset). If he goes to somewhere else (say, Pittsburgh), that price easily becomes three #1s and then some because of the obvious nature of where they'd be picking - which is also why Indy would be so far down the list.

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by tjforce

Actually, this would be a Kevin Durant more than anything...

Bail for the team that knocked you out of the playoffs.

At least LeBron took teams that weren't title contenders the year before and turned them into winners.

I figured you come in a say something like this. #1 - The NFL ain't the NBA; everyone knows this. #3 - He actually has won a SB with the Packers so I'm not sure I see the correlation.

This also reminds me of Frenzy's bumped post regarding internet trolls. Specifically,

"1. BO members do not read threads. They may read the 3 previous posts, but that's a stretch for the average member.

2. Instead, BO members typically post comments based upon what they feel other posters must be feeling and how they must be behaving."

You can troll Rodgers in the other thread if you so choose. My posts are meant to start an honest dialogue of potential moves the Packers and Rodgers may or may not make when considering both parties' interests. I mean, you know you're trolling when you're throwing unwarranted shots at Stafford in a Packers/Rodgers relationship discussion.

[2010GBPackers]

Seeing that Sean Payton is now out of NO, I think we can take them off of the board. Yes, I'm aware of their cap situation, but I'm a big believer that in business you can always get things done.

Indy makes sense as well, but as a Packers fan, I'd wish they'd have more to offer in the form of draft picks. I think that is what makes this so tricky - a lot of the destinations for Rodgers have already given them away.


And to circle back to Stafford. That man gave Detroit over a decade of his career and was cheated out of success by an inept organization. And now he's a "Lebron-type" ring chaser?! What a shallow take. Fortunately for us, he's now been able to show the type of player he's always been, which is great. My God, have some perspective.

[blackbears86]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

Seeing that Sean Payton is now out of NO, I think we can take them off of the board. Yes, I'm aware of their cap situation, but I'm a big believer that in business you can always get things done.

Indy makes sense as well, but as a Packers fan, I'd wish they'd have more to offer in the form of draft picks. I think that is what makes this so tricky - a lot of the destinations for Rodgers have already given them away.


And to circle back to Stafford. That man gave Detroit over a decade of his career and was cheated out of success by an inept organization. And now he's a "Lebron-type" ring chaser?! What a shallow take. Fortunately for us, he's now been able to show the type of player he's always been, which is great. My God, have some perspective.

I know draft wise, Indy might not be able to put much of a package together with GB, but from a player standpoint, for A-Rod it's a no brainer for the reasons I posted earlier.

[blackbears86]

Originally Posted by blackbears86

Colts would be epic.



Dome? check
running game? check
good defense? check
pretty good receiving core? check
play Jags/Texans 4 x a year? check
pretty favorable 2022 schedule? check



Just imagine his numbers on the Colts. I'd love to see it.

plus, as another member posted #2 in special teams

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

Seeing that Sean Payton is now out of NO, I think we can take them off of the board. Yes, I'm aware of their cap situation, but I'm a big believer that in business you can always get things done.

Indy makes sense as well, but as a Packers fan, I'd wish they'd have more to offer in the form of draft picks. I think that is what makes this so tricky - a lot of the destinations for Rodgers have already given them away.


And to circle back to Stafford. That man gave Detroit over a decade of his career and was cheated out of success by an inept organization. And now he's a "Lebron-type" ring chaser?! What a shallow take. Fortunately for us, he's now been able to show the type of player he's always been, which is great. My God, have some perspective.

Even if Payton would have stayed, do you think the Saints could have found a way to shed all that salary and still remained a contender? I think that's where it gets extra tricky. Sure they could make it work to him there, but would there be enough talent left to still be a contender?

If GB and Aaron decide to stay together, I think the Smith Brothers are both cut. Doing that alone cuts it to $9.5 million over. Bakhtiari is Rodger's guy, so I don't see them doing anything with him. They can't cut him, he would count for nearly $40 million against the cap. It's also going to take Rodger's restructuring his deal. If he converts to the base minimum, along with Z and Preston released, that puts them $3 million under. It's a start and really doesn't take away key pieces from the defense from 2021

[DJP73]

Originally Posted by lambeauleap87

Rodgers is also worth substantially more than Stafford - one of the closest equivalents to Stafford's season this year was...2018 Jared Goff.

Green Bay isn't trading Rodgers to New Orleans (can't afford him), San Francisco (no first round picks until 2024 - and just spent three on Trey Lance), or Indianapolis (no first round pick until 2023). Those are all non-starters and nowhere near the equation.

But would SF trade Lance in a package for Rodgers. Gives you something to think about. SF would be SB favorite in my mind .

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by DJP73

But would SF trade Lance in a package for Rodgers. Gives you something to think about. SF would be SB favorite in my mind .

I think even if the Packers don't want Garappalo or Lance, the 49ers can trade them both away to get picks, which they would then include in a deal for Rodgers. While people may not be super high on Garappalo, the fact is that if Wentz can command a 1st and 2nd rounder, he's worth more than you'd think. Plus, while Lance hasn't looked great in the limited action he's had, he still has a lot of value based on his potential.

Additionally, there's been talk around here that the Packer could also sign and trade D. Adams and get more picks.

I truly believe if you're the Packers, you need to get as much value for Rodgers while you can. And now is that time.

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

I think even if the Packers don't want Garappalo or Lance, the 49ers can trade them both away to get picks, which they would then include in a deal for Rodgers. While people may not be super high on Garappalo, the fact is that if Wentz can command a 1st and 2nd rounder, he's worth more than you'd think. Plus, while Lance hasn't looked great in the limited action he's had, he still has a lot of value based on his potential.

Additionally, there's been talk around here that the Packer could also sign and trade D. Adams and get more picks.

I truly believe if you're the Packers, you need to get as much value for Rodgers while you can. And now is that time.

Using Spotrac, a trade involving a swap of Rodgers and Garoppolo would somehow put the Packers further over the cap. Rodgers would still count for $26 million in dead cap, saving $19 million. But Jimmy G would add $25 million to the cap, for a net of $6 million more towards the cap. I'm sure there are other ways to manipulate the numbers, but it's still not a good move if you're trying to shed money. Same with Vegas and Carr, it ends up being about a wash. The plan for next season almost has to be Rodgers or Love at QB for GB. Unless they plan to just sign a veteran FA, and if that's the case, you go super cheap and rebuild with the plan of drafting a new QB and move on from Love. They aren't signing Love to another contract without giving him a real chance

[Nester99]

My favorite theory is Tom retires and Aaron takes his spot in Tampa LOL

[RAV2773]

I predict he ends up in Pittsburgh.

[weeds73]

Perhaps far-fetched, but is there any scenario where he goes to Dallas and Dak Prescott gets traded? Dallas is situated to win now and i’m not convinced that Jerry is sold on Dak.

Tennessee Titans would be my Darkhorse selection for Rodgers. Tannehill is a perfectly fine quarterback, but not sure he takes them to the promised land. San Francisco would be a great fit. I just don’t see why he would want to go to Denver. They are in a brutal division and it’s not like their team is stacked with offensive talent. Tampa would be interesting if Brady retires, but that seems unlikely.

[Archangel1775]

Originally Posted by weeds73

Perhaps far-fetched, but is there any scenario where he goes to Dallas and Dak Prescott gets traded? Dallas is situated to win now and i’m not convinced that Jerry is sold on Dak.

Tennessee Titans would be my Darkhorse selection for Rodgers. Tannehill is a perfectly fine quarterback, but not sure he takes them to the promised land. San Francisco would be a great fit. I just don’t see why he would want to go to Denver. They are in a brutal division and it’s not like their team is stacked with offensive talent. Tampa would be interesting if Brady retires, but that seems unlikely.

They have Jimmy G under contract for one more year and Trey Lance waiting in the wings. I don't see it happening.

[BRob1]

Originally Posted by weeds73

Perhaps far-fetched, but is there any scenario where he goes to Dallas and Dak Prescott gets traded? Dallas is situated to win now and i’m not convinced that Jerry is sold on Dak.

Tennessee Titans would be my Darkhorse selection for Rodgers. Tannehill is a perfectly fine quarterback, but not sure he takes them to the promised land. San Francisco would be a great fit. I just don’t see why he would want to go to Denver. They are in a brutal division and it’s not like their team is stacked with offensive talent. Tampa would be interesting if Brady retires, but that seems unlikely.

There is no scenario in Dallas. Dak would have something like a $50m cap hit from signing bonus acceleration if he was traded.

[matt roberson]

I think Rodgers comes back.

The Packers obviously need to extend/restructure his deal, resign Adams to a long term deal that is heavily back loaded and restructure a few other players deals/trim some fat on the OL and defense. They should have never signed Aaron jones, as much as I think he's a great RB, in todays NFL you shoot yourself in the foot by signing RBs to big deals.... If you have a good OL you can find serviceable RBs in the late rounds for dirt cheap (ala E mitch on SF) especially when you had Dillon already on a good contract.

They have plenty of talent and at this point you want AR12 to finish his career in GB and try to win another championship or two in his final few years. sell the farm to win now.

In a few years they'll be in full on rebuild mode and cap hell then you blow it up and force AR to retire or ship him down the river ala Manning/Favre. At that point you can gut the team and reset you cap issues by tanking for a few years, trading away any vets or stars/big contracts and start from the ground up with picks and rookie deals.

Love is a non factor in all of this. Sure he's on a cheap rookie deal right now and gives you a tiny chance to; come in, be successful and keep the winning ways in GB for another 10-15 years.... but I give that a less than 10% chance of that happening and a less the than 2% chance of contending for a chip before AR retires from where ever he would go. If Love never plays a meaningful snap as the lone starter in GB during his rookie deal he will have next to no value and be cheap to resign when his deal is up.

[ArmyDC]

I think he is embarrassed and will come back because this past year his legacy has taken a big hit. If Adams is back then I think he comes back.. maybe this year instead of a diet of Ayahuasca he may need to get brady to give him a TB12 method book..