Those are good points. I did forget that GB is a different franchise setup. Whatever happens, it will be interesting to watch and see how this ends up. I think you may be right about it being smart for them to deal Rodgers. He's probably at his highest trade value now, and probably will begin to decline. If he were younger it would be a different situation and it would be wise to try and keep him. But at his age it may be best to get something for him. I keep thinking that just because Tom Brady is playing decent in his 40s, that doesn't mean any QB can do the same. Although, I'll admit Rodgers right now looks really good. I'm surprised at how good he still plays.
If management caves in on this, they will be dealing with the consequences long after Rodgers in gone. The precedent would be bad for the team and bad for the league. They may make some relatively small concessions, but I would be very surprised if they do not hold Rodgers to his contract.
I see what you're saying...but how many Aaron Rodgers come along? And whats better: keeping a player/asset that has only a few productive years left, is unhappy, and could be a destructive force for the team/business, or letting that player/asset go and recouping assets of value back to build up your team/business for the future? I'd rather not chop off my nose to spite my face. And I'd say this to another player if they tried to pull this move: "Are you Aaron Rodgers? No?...Go sit down then."
If management caves in on this, they will be dealing with the consequences long after Rodgers in gone. The precedent would be bad for the team and bad for the league. They may make some relatively small concessions, but I would be very surprised if they do not hold Rodgers to his contract.
I see what you're saying...but how many Aaron Rodgers come along? And whats better: keeping a player/asset that has only a few productive years left, is unhappy, and could be a destructive force for the team/business, or letting that player/asset go and recouping assets of value back to build up your team/business for the future? I'd rather not chop off my nose to spite my face. And I'd say this to another player if they tried to pull this move: "Are you Aaron Rodgers? No?...Go sit down then."
-----------
True, they may never have another Aaron Rodgers, but if this precedent is set, there will be other super star QBs on other teams who will be inspired to do the same thing. For the stability of the team and the league, both sides must honor their signed contracts. When the dust settles on this, I expect Rodgers will be on the field and playing under his existing contract. Or else (unlikely) he can retire, or Packers may decide after June 1 to trade his ass to an AFC team. Bears fans would be delighted to see him shipped out.
I see what you're saying...but how many Aaron Rodgers come along? And whats better: keeping a player/asset that has only a few productive years left, is unhappy, and could be a destructive force for the team/business, or letting that player/asset go and recouping assets of value back to build up your team/business for the future? I'd rather not chop off my nose to spite my face. And I'd say this to another player if they tried to pull this move: "Are you Aaron Rodgers? No?...Go sit down then."
-----------
True, they may never have another Aaron Rodgers, but if this precedent is set, there will be other super star QBs on other teams who will be inspired to do the same thing. For the stability of the team and the league, both sides must honor their signed contracts. When the dust settles on this, I expect Rodgers will be on the field and playing under his existing contract. Or else (unlikely) he can retire, or Packers may decide after June 1 to trade his ass to an AFC team. Bears fans would be delighted to see him shipped out.
But other QB's are already doing this and have done it. Stafford for all intents and purposes did it, Brady did it in some ways, Wentz kind of did it, Watson is trying to do it, as a running back Le'veon Bell did it. The league will be fine either way.
But other QB's are already doing this and have done it. Stafford for all intents and purposes did it, Brady did it in some ways, Wentz kind of did it, Watson is trying to do it, as a running back Le'veon Bell did it. The league will be fine either way.
If the rumors are all true, then Rodgers is essentially trying to take over management of the franchise from the owner/GM. That is a formula for chaos.
But other QB's are already doing this and have done it. Stafford for all intents and purposes did it, Brady did it in some ways, Wentz kind of did it, Watson is trying to do it, as a running back Le'veon Bell did it. The league will be fine either way.
+1
And one other thing I was thinking about regarding QBs. If a team does pay a crazy amount of their cap to a QB, it does reduce the money left to maintain overall roster talent. So the cap does have some affect. A GM has to be pretty skilled to balance keeping an expensive top-tier QB and yet still have the roster talent needed to win. If your GM can hit well in the draft each year, that keeps some affordable young talent coming in on rookie contracts. That has to help. LOL, having to pay for an elite QB would be a nice problem to have on the Bears - who haven't had one to pay :-)
LINK Aaron Rodgers Rumored To Want 1 Guarantee From Packers
The Green Bay Packers have reportedly made a sizable offer to Aaron Rodgers, though it’s not all about money to the superstar quarterback.
According to NFL Network insider Ian Rapoport, Rodgers has one main priority with a contract offer from Green Bay: security.
Rodgers reportedly wants a guarantee in the contract that he will be the team’s starting quarterback moving forward. The Packers, of course, drafted quarterback Jordan Love in the first round last year.
“To me it’s not about the overall yearly averages,” Rapoport said. “… It’s about, from what I understand, security and him knowing that he is the Packers starter going forward, guaranteed contractually.”
I'm glad someone brought up the ownership aspect, or lack thereof. Really, we can hypothesis about all this all we want, but let's say Jerry Jones were the owner and ARod was his QB, this doesn't happen the same way. It's hard to say a new precedent will set when each team has its own leadership structure. Elite QB already rule the league, but the Brady phenomenon had to be icing on the cake for Aaron.
If it were in the highest leadership role in Green Bay, it would have been priority number 1 to have this resolved long before the draft.
If Aaron is your guy going forward, restructure his contract with a guarantee he's the starter going forward - bing bang boom. Seems easy to me if that's your plan. Did you just screw Love over? Yeah, but you screwed him over when you drafted him.
If Aaron isn't your guy, I would have been on the phone with Elway as soon as possible. There were some solid theoretical trade offers between those two teams. I know Elway isn't in the same position he was once in, but you have to imagine Denver would have made Rodgers happy. I mean, look at the additions Denver made with Manning, you don't think he had some input?
Enough about Rodgers, you know? Fields is about to rule the North and wear the crown. Virginia and sons better be ready to make that kid happy when it's his time. 😉 🐻⬇️
The Rodgers situation is all about longevity and control. In essence, his current deal lets GB off the hook after this season and Rodgers would prefer at least 4 more years of guarantees and he wants a say-so in personnel which is the real sticking point in this mess.
As good as Rodgers is he's also an egotistical creep who let his minority ownership with the Bucks go to his head. My guess here is they work it out with Rodgers getting 3 years of guarantees and that they pick up the 5th yr option on Love going forward.
If we get the Rodgers of last year back it's genius if not then it's great news for Bears fans as we would have sold out to a soon-to-be 40 something QB.
The Rodgers situation is all about longevity and control. In essence, his current deal lets GB off the hook after this season and Rodgers would prefer at least 4 more years of guarantees and he wants a say-so in personnel which is the real sticking point in this mess.
As good as Rodgers is he's also an egotistical creep who let his minority ownership with the Bucks go to his head. My guess here is they work it out with Rodgers getting 3 years of guarantees and that they pick up the 5th yr option on Love going forward.
If we get the Rodgers of last year back it's genius if not then it's great news for Bears fans as we would have sold out to a soon-to-be 40 something QB.
+1
I think you're right, Lombardi. Hey, thanks for stopping by the messageboard and giving us your perspective on all of this. Much appreciated!!!