Packers 2023 Discussion Thread

[wallus]

2 minutes ago, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

 

Exactly, this guy understands what leverage is.

[Joseph Zarr]

1 minute ago, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

 

This is exactly what we as fans 'should' recognize and embrace. No need to hurry this unless the Packers get what they want. Worst case scenario is it falls apart and A-Rod retires. The Jets suffer widespread humiliation. Packers suffer a loss of some possible draft assets. We have the leverage.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Just now, Jopal78 said:

Sure they do, now that Rodgers stated he intends to play in '23 they can trade him to whatever team they want for conditional picks if he shows up and plays. They ostensibly hold nearly all the cards. 

The Packers were backed into a corner in 2008 with Favre, and had to get him out of there, so they ended up taking pennies on the dollar in regard to his value. That most assuredly is not the case now. What Rodgers came out and said today was nearly a best case scenario. About the only way it could have gone better for them was if he made it his intention to play at least two more seasons.

[homer]

The way I see it, the Jets have to get this done before the draft so they know how they can build around Rodgers this year. The Packers probably WANT 2023 draft compensation but they don't HAVE to get 2023 draft compensation. They could be ok with 2024 draft picks. Heck they might wait until after June 1.

[patrickgpe]

13 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

After this announcement I would expect the trade compensation to disappoint. We just don't have any leverage at all. 

I think the Packers have the leverage. They have their 2023 QB, Jets do not and all Jet fans now are expecting A-Rod. Packers can be as tough as they want to be as long as they know their is a chance they will get nothing, if he just retires instead of waiting. 

[HarveysWBs]

1 minute ago, homer said:

The way I see it, the Jets have to get this done before the draft so they know how they can build around Rodgers this year. The Packers probably WANT 2023 draft compensation but they don't HAVE to get 2023 draft compensation. They could be ok with 2024 draft picks. Heck if they might wait until after June 1.

Re: leverage, the only thing that I could see changing this situation is if the Jets pivot.  The only QB available that is better than Rodgers is Lamar Jackson.  He’d cost more draft capital, though, and it seems that breaking the bank to get him would make one a pariah.  Maybe Woody Johnson is old enough to risk that.

Or maybe they opt for Stafford.  He’s not in Rodgers tier, but he can win a title under the right circumstances.  That wouldn’t be enough for New York media and fans, perhaps, but might be livable as an on-field decision.

Until one of the above two scenarios gets in motion, I don’t mind another turn or two of the screws.

[wallus]

The issue with Lamar Jackson is Baltimore can and would likely match the contract offer the Jets would give him.

If I were the Jets, I would want to get this done sooner than later even if it means paying a little more than you want to.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I really hope we eventually hear what's holding it up.

The year could be a huge difference. If we're talking first rounders, 13th overall in 2023, could very well be 30th in 2024. Plus the Jets then obviously get to another impact player right away, if they retain this year's pick. But who knows.

Maybe the Packers are attaching a million conditional things tied to Rodgers's performance.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

2 minutes ago, HarveysWBs said:

Re: leverage, the only thing that I could see changing this situation is if the Jets pivot.  The only QB available that is better than Rodgers is Lamar Jackson.  He’d cost more draft capital, though, and it seems that breaking the bank to get him would make one a pariah.  Maybe Woody Johnson is old enough to risk that.

Or maybe they opt for Stafford.  He’s not in Rodgers tier, but he can win a title under the right circumstances.  That wouldn’t be enough for New York media and fans, perhaps, but might be livable as an on-field decision.

Until one of the above two scenarios gets in motion, I don’t mind another turn or two of the screws.

I don't think there is any chance that things have progressed to this point without there being negotiations between the Jets and Packers. THis has been going on for weeks now, and the Jets put the full-court press on Rodgers. I think that there was already a trade agreed to previously, but now it is likely that the Jets are making an attempt to lessen the compensation going back to the Packers, or are asking the Packers to take on more of Rodgers' salary. If they are only offering the Favre package, I'd tell them to pound sand.

[Oxy]

So, after all of this, I can only assume that ARod will lead the Vikings' to a great season in '25, only to catastrophically fail in the postseason?

[HarveysWBs]

25 minutes ago, Oxy said:

So, after all of this, I can only assume that ARod will lead the Vikings' to a great season in '25, only to catastrophically fail in the postseason?

Hopefully by throwing a game-sealing pick to Jaire Alexander in a Minnesota-hosted NFC championship game, yes.

[MrTPlush]

You know, I used to feel bad for Jordan Love. I have now realized the dude has made millions and since he is in his 4th year, unless he looks absolutely atrocious, his second prove it year will be the massive $20mil 5th year option.

Considering that, this is almost perfect timing if he ends up not be a relevant starter.

 

EDIT: Actually, don't they have to pick that up before this year starts? So he will make $20mil next year before proving anything on the field. 

[HarveysWBs]

Well, this was my first time watching this McAfee show, and I think if it isn’t my last, I will have made some poor choices (the conversation is inane, and that’s why I spend more time here for sports talk than YouTube or ESPN).

It feels like most of the bandaid is off now, and that in and of itself is a kind of relief. I have loved the winning and some of the most unbelievable throws I have ever seen and am likely to ever see from anyone in a Packer uniform.  I’m sorry to see it end but cognizant of the realities of football as a business and am hoping Rodgers and the Packers can get something valuable out of this.

I find a lot of how this conversation has gone to be fascinating, but often in a prurient way (as anything even tangentially related to celebrity is), so I’m trying to leave aside the “he said, he said” stuff—perhaps not entirely successfully.  Two things still elicit a comment from me:  one, that Rodgers keeps insisting that there aren’t bad guys here, and two, that since he’s the only one talking, we should take his version as the whole truth by default (no one here is really suggesting this, but Rodgers broadcasting his version in this way knowing the Packers won’t respond in kind is certainly suggestive of this attitude on his part).  

Firstly, I agree that there aren’t any “bad guys” in this, but I’m also of a mind that there may not be any good ones, either—but more to the point, that seeing the situation in terms of such a stark moral dichotomy is probably unhelpful.  My fear is that, to put it more accurately, there may not be any competent guys here.  For all Rodgers’ brilliance, his increasing demands in terms of compensation and personnel were not, in the last year at least, in any way outweighed by his on-field performance, and that doesn’t even take into consideration the off-field things that go along with the whole Aaron Rodgers experience (which I can fairly easily overlook as a fan, but as an organization, I can understand why they would be tiresome).  While it is a mark of greatness that the greatest don’t often know when it is time to go, it has become abundantly clear to most inside and outside the organization that Rodgers at 40, at the price tag of $60 million, and a roster loaded with aging friends that all range from decent to non-contributing players is not exactly a viable formula for even short-term success.  Good luck to the Jets on that front.

But there are two sides to this thing, and the brass doesn’t look completely competent in all this, either.  Let me say that I’m not of the opinion that a house-clearing is necessary right now, but the next couple years are going to be a massive measuring stick for every level of the team.  I’m not angry about this, since nearly every decision made has been fairly defensible at the time (apart from Mark Murphy’s seeming inability to avoid going into public settings to take sideways digs at his franchise quarterback).  Case in point:  whatever Love turns into now, it was quite logical to take a quarterback that year.  As the NFL routinely shows, quarterbacks are like fire starters in the wilderness:  if you have one, you have none, and if you have two, you have one.  But nevertheless, Gute chose Love as his quarterback, just like MLF chose Barry to be his D coordinator (and without Rodgers in the fold, being a hold on Barry is a much weirder call), and all of it is Murphy’s team.  I’m all for trusting the process, but the point of the process is to get the right results.  That’s harder without a Hall of Famer under center, so we’re about to see what everybody is made of.

Secondly, and much more succinctly, I’m not etching anything from that interview in stone.  I’m not calling anyone a liar, but we all have solid evidence, presented to our very eyes and ears, that Rodgers enjoys parsing his own words very carefully.  It is entirely likely to me that every thing he said on that show was factually accurate in the bleedingly precise sense that he meant it, and that he can always make a sophistical case to that effect if facts ever came out to the contrary.  “I’m immunized” is the only proof I need of this.

In the end, though, I’m only really interested in two results here.  First, that the truth gets told and remembered in all things, not least of which Rodgers being recognized as, at minimum, a Mt. Rushmore player in Packers history.  And secondly, that Rodgers and the Packers both get out of this situation better than they entered it.  Thankfully, I see no reason why we can’t get both those results, so here’s hoping.

[Jopal78]

 

20 minutes ago, HarveysWBs said:

Well, this was my first time watching this McAfee show, and I think if it isn’t my last, I will have made some poor choices (the conversation is inane, and that’s why I spend more time here for sports talk than YouTube or ESPN).

It feels like most of the bandaid is off now, and that in and of itself is a kind of relief. I have loved the winning and some of the most unbelievable throws I have ever seen and am likely to ever see from anyone in a Packer uniform.  I’m sorry to see it end but cognizant of the realities of football as a business and am hoping Rodgers and the Packers can get something valuable out of this.

I find a lot of how this conversation has gone to be fascinating, but often in a prurient way (as anything even tangentially related to celebrity is), so I’m trying to leave aside the “he said, he said” stuff—perhaps not entirely successfully.  Two things still elicit a comment from me:  one, that Rodgers keeps insisting that there aren’t bad guys here, and two, that since he’s the only one talking, we should take his version as the whole truth by default (no one here is really suggesting this, but Rodgers broadcasting his version in this way knowing the Packers won’t respond in kind is certainly suggestive of this attitude on his part).  

Firstly, I agree that there aren’t any “bad guys” in this, but I’m also of a mind that there may not be any good ones, either—but more to the point, that seeing the situation in terms of such a stark moral dichotomy is probably unhelpful.  My fear is that, to put it more accurately, there may not be any competent guys here.  For all Rodgers’ brilliance, his increasing demands in terms of compensation and personnel were not, in the last year at least, in any way outweighed by his on-field performance, and that doesn’t even take into consideration the off-field things that go along with the whole Aaron Rodgers experience (which I can fairly easily overlook as a fan, but as an organization, I can understand why they would be tiresome).  While it is a mark of greatness that the greatest don’t often know when it is time to go, it has become abundantly clear to most inside and outside the organization that Rodgers at 40, at the price tag of $60 million, and a roster loaded with aging friends that all range from decent to non-contributing players is not exactly a viable formula for even short-term success.  Good luck to the Jets on that front.

But there are two sides to this thing, and the brass doesn’t look completely competent in all this, either.  Let me say that I’m not of the opinion that a house-clearing is necessary right now, but the next couple years are going to be a massive measuring stick for every level of the team.  I’m not angry about this, since nearly every decision made has been fairly defensible at the time (apart from Mark Murphy’s seeming inability to avoid going into public settings to take sideways digs at his franchise quarterback).  Case in point:  whatever Love turns into now, it was quite logical to take a quarterback that year.  As the NFL routinely shows, quarterbacks are like fire starters in the wilderness:  if you have one, you have none, and if you have two, you have one.  But nevertheless, Gute chose Love as his quarterback, just like MLF chose Barry to be his D coordinator (and without Rodgers in the fold, being a hold on Barry is a much weirder call), and all of it is Murphy’s team.  I’m all for trusting the process, but the point of the process is to get the right results.  That’s harder without a Hall of Famer under center, so we’re about to see what everybody is made of.

Secondly, and much more succinctly, I’m not etching anything from that interview in stone.  I’m not calling anyone a liar, but we all have solid evidence, presented to our very eyes and ears, that Rodgers enjoys parsing his own words very carefully.  It is entirely likely to me that every thing he said on that show was factually accurate in the bleedingly precise sense that he meant it, and that he can always make a sophistical case to that effect if facts ever came out to the contrary.  “I’m immunized” is the only proof I need of this.

In the end, though, I’m only really interested in two results here.  First, that the truth gets told and remembered in all things, not least of which Rodgers being recognized as, at minimum, a Mt. Rushmore player in Packers history.  And secondly, that Rodgers and the Packers both get out of this situation better than they entered it.  Thankfully, I see no reason why we can’t get both those results, so here’s hoping.

When the 49ers moved on to Steve Young from Joe Montana he had 4 Super Bowl rings and 2 MVP trophies. Nobody really remembers that it caused a rift with Montana and ultimately resulted in him demanding a trade.  

It'll be no different with Rodgers. With the passing of time nobody will care about the "he said/she said" or that Rodgers spent a year or two in New York before calling it quits.

[adambr2]

1 hour ago, Jopal78 said:

Sure they do, now that Rodgers stated he intends to play in '23 they can trade him to whatever team they want for conditional picks if he shows up and plays. They ostensibly hold nearly all the cards. 

Except he says he only wants to play for the Jets, and no team in the world is going to give Green Bay a thing without assurances from Rodgers that he is actually going to show up and play there.

That and the fact that nearly every other QB needy suitor has already addressed the position. 

[Oxy]

The drama here has been 100% media driven.

What is Matt Ryan's status next year? He's got more career yards thrown than Rodgers and is a likely future HOFer... are there reporters both hounding him AND the Colts daily about what is going to happen next year?

It's not like it's July...

[adambr2]

If the beat writer for the Packers is on point, everyone here is going to be quite disappointed. 

[Oxy]

Why would TS tweet that? Booo. I'd rather hold out as late as possible for a high return and risk retirement.  The cap hit lessens after June 1st, and there is no way the NY media will be patient enough to let the Jets wait that long.

[Fear The Chorizo]

People that were disappointed the Packers didn't trade Rodgers after his back to back MVP awards last offseason will be disappointed with the trade return this time around no matter what it is.  ARod is pushing 40 yrs old and will have an insane cap hit to any team that trades for him and hopes he plays for them at least a couple more seasons - of course the Packers aren't getting multiple 1st rounders for him, and they never were (including last offseason, IMO).  

Packers currently sit under the salary cap with both Love and Rodgers' current contracts on the books - a big part of the return they will get from trading Rodgers SHOULD be salary cap relief by getting all of his cap # off their books for 2024 and at worst maintain his current cap number with a trade.  The Jets on the other hand have to get Rodgers at this point and the sooner they do so, the better for their 2023 outlook - the Packers should be in zero hurry, because it's not like a quick trade before June 1 would suddenly free up a mountain of cap space to go out and sign free agents.  That cap # is a sunk cost for the Packers' 2023.

[wallus]

Yeah well the details are kinda important on his "potential" trade. What is the player and what are the conditions for it to become a 1st round pick? 

[MrTPlush]

I mean there is not much rush. If the highest pick we are getting is a third rounder I would just twiddle my thumbs and wait. Maybe if the offer is this year's 2nd I might get a little nervous...but past that, meh, I can't see rushing to do the Jets any favors. 

[Jopal78]

19 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

Except he says he only wants to play for the Jets, and no team in the world is going to give Green Bay a thing without assurances from Rodgers that he is actually going to show up and play there.

That and the fact that nearly every other QB needy suitor has already addressed the position. 

I didn't hear him say he only wants to play for the Jets. Rodgers is not a dumb guy, and is aware these deals can and frequently do go sideways. That is why he said he intends to play in '23 and intends to play for the Jets. I doubted he was ever going to walk away from 58+ million dollars in '23 for just showing up. 

Thus, the Packers could trade him to any QB needy team (Commanders, Falcons, Titans, etc.) with virtually no risk. Acquiring team gives the Packers conditional picks if they can convince Rodgers to show up. If they can't they're not out anything, nor are the Packers as Rodgers would be retired. 

[adambr2]

3 hours ago, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

That's inaccurate. Yes, he wants to play for the Jets. But the Packers certainly don't HAVE to trade him. He's already on the books. The Packers can sit on his contract until the Jets meet their asking price. And you can bet that the Jets fanbase is going to go crazy if this drags out.

Part of me thinks the Packers and Jets already have agreed to the basics of a deal, and now the Jets are reneging. That isn't going to end well for them.

Yes, they do absolutely HAVE to trade him. There isn't any coming back from this now. There's no burying the hatchet in July because the market wasn't there. 

Look, you guys aren't wrong about a lot of this but you're also only looking at one side of the coin. Yes, the Jets are in a bad spot. They don't have any leverage either. They're all in on Rodgers and everyone knows it and it's bad for them if it drags on and they don't have a QB.

But there's little leverage for the Packers either without any sort of bidding war, and no upside with only downside to letting it drag out. If they don't get it done by the end of next month, no '23 draft capital. If it drags on longer, it becomes unnecessary noise and distraction for Love and it's a bad look for the organization.

And no, there's no realistic scenario where the Packers keep him on the books and he returns and he's happy and Love is happy and life just goes on. It would be a complete disaster. 

I guess I'd probably agree on the point that the Jets are more motivated to get this to the finish line now than we are, but it's not good for either if it drags on. 

And if we're really being ridiculous, there's nothing stopping the Jets from pivoting and saying "we might as well go kick the tires on Lamar Jackson if we're going to give up a lot of draft capital anyway."

[Matt Breen]

I'll just be glad when everything is ironed out and we can move on.

Personally, I get the feeling the club wanted to move from Rodgers. Maybe not right after the season - but at some point since then they came to that conclusion. 

Whatever. Because neither party seems to have the ability to communicate properly, now we have to endure a million stories about 'he said this' and 'they said that' and so forth and so on. It'll probably make both sides seem like idiots who refuse to just sit down and talk.

I hope we can have a great 15 year run now of Jordan Love (and least one Super Bowl).

[adambr2]

5 hours ago, Joseph Zarr said:

This is exactly what we as fans 'should' recognize and embrace. No need to hurry this unless the Packers get what they want. Worst case scenario is it falls apart and A-Rod retires. The Jets suffer widespread humiliation. Packers suffer a loss of some possible draft assets. We have the leverage.

You think if this falls apart A-Rodg is just gonna say "Shucks" and retire? Nah. Not a chance. Not even that he wouldn't necessarily want to, but he is not letting the Green Bay Packers dictate his retirement decision.

He is not dumb, he knows perfectly well that we are not insane enough to just go ahead and carry an absurd cap hit for him to do nothing this year. So while I can't say exactly how it would play out, I'm quite certain he'd be willing to wait us out knowing that we'd be forced into a trade or release at some point.