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

[ddouglas14]

Originally Posted by Grid

Sorry, I thought you knew I was in Chicago. I am not John Elway. I do not run football operations for the team.

Please feel free to ignore the thousands of stories out there, about the Broncs wanting Rodgers, and all the potential trades for that to happen.

Do NOT google Aaron Rodgers Broncos Trade. Do NOT believe that there are over 4MIL hits on that subject online.

No one, outside of me, is suggesting the Broncs making a move for him. I am completely alone in that. Everyone must think like you. Clearly the Broncos must be in rebuild mode. And just have tens of millions of dollars to waste on Rodgers, because he is a good place holder for the next QB they are already grooming.

sorry, i don't collect my thoughts via clickbait ... i'll try that though, appreciate the tip

[mike1498]

Just out of curiosity, if what you believe is truly the asking price, since the broncos defense is so young, why not wait until FA next year and get Rodgers. I’m not convinced next season is the only year the broncos win the SB.

[twisty571]

Originally Posted by whitmm

Since you haven't read any of the thread, because I've talked about it. No, it's not a full plan, it's a start.

Just restructuring Aaron's contract could free up roughly $12.5 million. Cutting Z Smith clears up $15 million. Cutting P Smith clears up $13.7 million. There's just over $41 million cleared. Restructuring Cobb, Bakhtiari, Kenny Clark, and Aaron Jones are options. Signing Jaire to an extension is a pretty good idea. Again, restructuring doesn't mean they are getting less money.

So your saying everyone will want to restructure for your plan? How do you restructure Rodgers a year after you restructured his contract to push $10m off until next year? You fail to mention Adams in there let alone filling the rosters with players who will be gone while saving $41m of the $50m over the cap. Are you thinking GB could get away with paying everyone a $7m work out bonus to pay them a $1.1m salary & push part of their salary to next year? So far you are still over the cap by $8-9m. Now re-sign Adams...

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by twisty571

So your saying everyone will want to restructure for your plan? How do you restructure Rodgers a year after you restructured his contract to push $10m off until next year? You fail to mention Adams in there let alone filling the rosters with players who will be gone while saving $41m of the $50m over the cap. Are you thinking GB could get away with paying everyone a $7m work out bonus to pay them a $1.1m salary & push part of their salary to next year? So far you are still over the cap by $8-9m. Now re-sign Adams...

You realize they've restructured Rodger's contract the last two years? You do realize that when a restructure is done, it usually results in the player receiving more money up front? If I owed you $100 and offered to pay you $20 over the next five years or $80 now and $5 the following 4 years, which are you taking? Drew Brees restructured his deal all the time. Tom Brady restructured all the time. It's way more common than you think. Getting back to right at the salary cap makes operating a lot easier. Oh, and it's not $50 million, if you want to play all of these hypotheticals, you don't get to round the number. I'm not being paid millions of dollars like the experts in front offices are to figure it out. But my basic knowledge of simple fixes there cleared up a massive amount.

What you've described here is exactly what every single team does every single year.

[2010GBPackers]

Guys.....relax. You're arguing over nothing. Rodgers is as good as gone. What you should be arguing about is what the Packers will/can get in return and in what direction they go from here. My God, we just had 3 pages of "cap hit" discussion and it's changed nothing. Rodgers' cap hit means absolutely nothing in terms of whether or not he'll be back in GB.

For Rodgers, being in Denver with that roster (and HC) makes too much sense.
For the Packers, the haul of pics you can acquire in this deal will not be available to you again. You must take it.

It just makes too much sense for both parties.

[Siberian13]

So did we ever decide which person was right about their argument over his cap numbers?

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

Guys.....relax. You're arguing over nothing. Rodgers is as good as gone. What you should be arguing about is what the Packers will/can get in return and in what direction they go from here. My God, we just had 3 pages of "cap hit" discussion and it's changed nothing. Rodgers' cap hit means absolutely nothing in terms of whether or not he'll be back in GB.

For Rodgers, being in Denver with that roster (and HC) makes too much sense.
For the Packers, the haul of pics you can acquire in this deal will not be available to you again. You must take it.

It just makes too much sense for both parties.

Why would Denver give up a haul of picks for Rodgers? Sounds like they already have the defense they need, they've got the RBs/WRs/o-line they need. According to certain people here, all they need is a serviceable QB to be contenders. There are plenty of options cheaper than Rodgers. They can use all that cap money to fill in some holes and lock more players up long term and not have to give up anything. All I read here is that it only makes sense from the Packers side.

[blackbears86]

Originally Posted by whitmm

Why would Denver give up a haul of picks for Rodgers? Sounds like they already have the defense they need, they've got the RBs/WRs/o-line they need. According to certain people here, all they need is a serviceable QB to be contenders. There are plenty of options cheaper than Rodgers. They can use all that cap money to fill in some holes and lock more players up long term and not have to give up anything. All I read here is that it only makes sense from the Packers side.

Actually, this is a good point.


Why give up all those picks and pony up $$$$ for a fat contract for a guy who's been a lion in the regular season and a lamb in the playoffs?

Denver may be better served to look at other options at QB and keep their draft capital.

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by blackbears86

[/B]




Actually, this is a good point.


Why give up all those picks and pony up $$$$ for a fat contract for a guy who's been a lion in the regular season and a lamb in the playoffs?

Denver may be better served to look at other options at QB and keep their draft capital.

It was partially a tongue-in-cheek comment, but it does make sense.

Guess I'm just amused that a Bears fan and, based off his profile picture, a Lions fan are coming in here and acting like they know what makes the most sense for the Packers to do, which conveniently is moving on from their all-pro QB and all-pro WR.

[jplarson]

How will history remember Rodgers 2022 cap hit?

[ToppsFB]

Throw out the entire NFC. Packers aren't trading him there. That's just how these things work.

In the AFC, the possibilities are:
Vegas
Pittsburgh
Indi
Denver
...That's really it.

Of those...
Vegas has a QB they could give with picks. Who is the coach though?
Pittsburgh, no QB to trade and no first rounder to trade. May be a good fit but why would GB do it?
Indi, Wentz and picks? Ok seems logical but how does Wentz's contract fit? Does he want Indi?

And then there is Denver, home to his fiance, great cap position, and his favorite coach just took over there which is HUGE for QBs switching teams. His language stays the same, much easier transition! Oh, and they can afford his favorite target too. As mentioned, the roster is about as good as any save for the QB. From GB's perspective they also can get the best draft pick compensation here with a top 10 pick.

I'm a Broncos fan but I'm slso being logical here. Literally the only negative is the competition is tough in the AFC West but at the same time, what competitor shys from that? Gotta beat those guys anyway to go where you want to go. And you know alot of those Rodgers Mahoomes matcups will be SNF games. Good for the NFL!

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by whitmm

Why would Denver give up a haul of picks for Rodgers? Sounds like they already have the defense they need, they've got the RBs/WRs/o-line they need. According to certain people here, all they need is a serviceable QB to be contenders. There are plenty of options cheaper than Rodgers. They can use all that cap money to fill in some holes and lock more players up long term and not have to give up anything. All I read here is that it only makes sense from the Packers side.

No there's not. There are no good FA quarterbacks this year.

R. Fitzgerald
Mariota
Dalton
Winston
Tyrod Taylor

In fact, I'd argue that Rodgers would actually come cheap. Look at what the Colts gave up for Wentz (1st and a 3rd rounder) and what the Rams gave up for Stafford (Goff, (2) 1st rounders and a 3rd rounder).

If a trade with the Broncos looks something like - Juedy + (2) 1st rounders + a 3rd rounder - that'd be approx. equal value as the Rams gave up for Stafford. That's actually a great deal for the Broncos.

[TSonn]

Originally Posted by ToppsFB

Throw out the entire NFC. Packers aren't trading him there. That's just how these things work.

In the AFC, the possibilities are:
Vegas
Pittsburgh
Indi
Denver
...That's really it.

Of those...
Vegas has a QB they could give with picks. Who is the coach though?
Pittsburgh, no QB to trade and no first rounder to trade. May be a good fit but why would GB do it?
Indi, Wentz and picks? Ok seems logical but how does Wentz's contract fit? Does he want Indi?

And then there is Denver, home to his fiance, great cap position, and his favorite coach just took over there which is HUGE for QBs switching teams. His language stays the same, much easier transition! Oh, and they can afford his favorite target too. As mentioned, the roster is about as good as any save for the QB. From GB's perspective they also can get the best draft pick compensation here with a top 10 pick.

I'm a Broncos fan but I'm slso being logical here. Literally the only negative is the competition is tough in the AFC West but at the same time, what competitor shys from that? Gotta beat those guys anyway to go where you want to go. And you know alot of those Rodgers Mahoomes matcups will be SNF games. Good for the NFL!

Or he could stay in the NFC and hope someone else knocks out Mahomes/Allen much like Jimmy G just knocked out Rodgers.

IMO if Rodgers demands a trade (which it's looking like he will) - he'll be ring chasing i.e. looking for the best and easiest route to the SB which would be the AFC or NFC South.

[BGT Masters]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

No there's not. There are no good FA quarterbacks this year.

R. Fitzgerald
Mariota
Dalton
Winston
Tyrod Taylor

In fact, I'd argue that Rodgers would actually come cheap. Look at what the Colts gave up for Wentz (1st and a 3rd rounder) and what the Rams gave up for Stafford (Goff, (2) 1st rounders and a 3rd rounder).

If a trade with the Broncos looks something like - Juedy + (2) 1st rounders + a 3rd rounder - that'd be approx. equal value as the Rams gave up for Stafford. That's actually a great deal for the Broncos.

That doesn’t sound like a very good deal to me. How many more years is Rodgers going to play? He’ll be 39 this year and seems to hint at retiring at the end of the season, the last few years. Stafford was also 6 years younger than Rodgers at the time of the deal and were fortunate the Lions took in Goffs contract.

[ToppsFB]

Originally Posted by TSonn

Or he could stay in the NFC and hope someone else knocks out Mahomes/Allen much like Jimmy G just knocked out Rodgers.

IMO if Rodgers demands a trade (which it's looking like he will) - he'll be ring chasing i.e. looking for the best and easiest route to the SB which would be the AFC or NFC South.

NFC is out. They won't trade him in conference for the same reason Favre ended up with Jets.

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

No there's not. There are no good FA quarterbacks this year.

R. Fitzgerald
Mariota
Dalton
Winston
Tyrod Taylor

In fact, I'd argue that Rodgers would actually come cheap. Look at what the Colts gave up for Wentz (1st and a 3rd rounder) and what the Rams gave up for Stafford (Goff, (2) 1st rounders and a 3rd rounder).

If a trade with the Broncos looks something like - Juedy + (2) 1st rounders + a 3rd rounder - that'd be approx. equal value as the Rams gave up for Stafford. That's actually a great deal for the Broncos.

Any one of those QBs would be an upgrade over Teddy Bridgewater and Drew Lock. That was the point. Certain people here are making it sound like all Denver needs is a competent quarterback. That all they need is someone to come in and be a game manager. Nobody said there were options equal to Rodgers talent wise. But you just listed 5 QBs that could come in and just hand the ball off all game, plus there's Cam Newton and Jacoby Brissett.

There's a big difference between saying a team is just a QB away and saying that a team is an Aaron Rodgers away. You bolded part of my comment, you conveniently ignored the line directly before it, where I said it sounds like all they need is a serviceable QB. That line is a huge part of the part you bolded. If you're going to try firing back, don't take my comment out of context.

[TSonn]

Originally Posted by ToppsFB

NFC is out. They won't trade him in conference for the same reason Favre ended up with Jets.

Then TEN or IND is probably the play. I'd lean towards Indy simply because they have a dome and that fits what Rodgers does a bit better.

[Dbacksbaseball]

Originally Posted by TSonn

Or he could stay in the NFC and hope someone else knocks out Mahomes/Allen much like Jimmy G just knocked out Rodgers.

IMO if Rodgers demands a trade (which it's looking like he will) - he'll be ring chasing i.e. looking for the best and easiest route to the SB which would be the AFC or NFC South.

Welcome to Houston Aaron Rogers and Davonte.

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by whitmm

Any one of those QBs would be an upgrade over Teddy Bridgewater and Drew Lock. That was the point. Certain people here are making it sound like all Denver needs is a competent quarterback. That all they need is someone to come in and be a game manager. Nobody said there were options equal to Rodgers talent wise. But you just listed 5 QBs that could come in and just hand the ball off all game, plus there's Cam Newton and Jacoby Brissett.

There's a big difference between saying a team is just a QB away and saying that a team is an Aaron Rodgers away. You bolded part of my comment, you conveniently ignored the line directly before it, where I said it sounds like all they need is a serviceable QB. That line is a huge part of the part you bolded. If you're going to try firing back, don't take my comment out of context.

If you really believe any of these QB's:

R. Fitzgerald
Mariota
Dalton
Winston
Tyrod Taylor
Brissett
Cam Newton

are an upgrade over Bridgewater/Lock, there's nothing to debate.

Good day, sir.

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by TSonn

Or he could stay in the NFC and hope someone else knocks out Mahomes/Allen much like Jimmy G just knocked out Rodgers.

IMO if Rodgers demands a trade (which it's looking like he will) - he'll be ring chasing i.e. looking for the best and easiest route to the SB which would be the AFC or NFC South.

_______________________

Thank you for clarifying. You meant the AFC South.

[Dbacksbaseball]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

If you really believe any of these QB's:

R. Fitzgerald
Mariota
Dalton
Winston
Tyrod Taylor
Brissett
Cam Newton

are an upgrade over Bridgewater/Lock, there's nothing to debate.

Good day, sir.

You really wouldnt take Jameis over Bridgewater?

(Insert kid with cup conspicuously looking over GIF)

[jasonm2121]

If he wants to win another SB, going to the AFC West seems like the worst option, no?

[TSonn]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

I was saying AFC South and NFC South (assuming GB would never trade him within the NFC North=).

I think his preferred destinations will be, in order-ish:

1. NO (if Brady retires)
2. IND
3. TEN
3b. NO (if Brady doesn't retire)
4. SF
5. DEN

Gotta go with easiest division first then easier conference. If Brady retires, NO is the easiest path.

The part we don't know is how much pull he's got to bring other guys with him.

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by Dbacksbaseball

You really wouldnt take Jameis over Bridgewater?

(Insert kid with cup conspicuously looking over GIF)

To answer your question - no. What would be the upgrade? 20 more INT's a year my defense will have to make up for?

Denver is clearly in "all-in" mode with the roster they built. There ain't no way they're handing the keys to any of the QB's listed above. If they don't get Rodgers, they'll draft a QB.

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

If you really believe any of these QB's:

R. Fitzgerald
Mariota
Dalton
Winston
Tyrod Taylor
Brissett
Cam Newton

are an upgrade over Bridgewater/Lock, there's nothing to debate.

Good day, sir.

Care to address how you ignore the part about everyone saying Denver is a serviceable QB away from being a contender? Again you ignored that part. And glad all of the sarcasm went flying over your head.

And yes I do think they would be an upgrade. Have you seen Drew Lock? By the way, Bridgewater is a UFA, so add him to that list, since you think he's a serviceable QB.