Packers 2023 Discussion Thread

[SeaBass]

14 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

Gutekunst and Ball shouldn't escape blame for how much easier, cleaner, and more beneficial in trade capital that it would have been to move on a year ago.

I know, I know, hindsight is 20/20, but foresight is kind of their job. Unless they're able to salvage a shockingly good return, they definitely deserve some criticism here. 

Criticism is fair. Especially after the playoff loss vs. the 49ers many fans had just about had it with playoff failure. That wasn't all Rodgers fault but in the aftermath even I was frustrated enough to think, "Why do we even have this guy?" In the end I don't think their jobs should be threatened because of that one thing. It's a piece in the overall evaluation.

What bewilders me is I just don't think the Packers, or Rodgers, give fans enough credit to be intelligent enough to understand the complexities of the situation. Like, sure, if you look at twitter there are many fools out there that play into that but there are also many trolls out there just looking to have a good time by kicking the anthill.

The Packers seem to have been crippled by this idea that they can't be the ones to suggest the time has come to move on from Rodgers publicly. Things got messy during the Favre divorce and, this is pure speculation, maybe they have numbers that tell them that all that mess hurt their bottom line. If that happened it's fair for them to be wary. But also the many fans that were around for all that with Favre have applied their experience to this divorce. Like ok, this isn't great but we've been through this before and it was ok in the end. It can be ok this time too.

I just think fandom has evolved since what went on during Farve's departure. Trading for value, selling before it's too late, is much more in the mindset of a fan than it used to be.

That's what I think about when it comes to criticism. It's not so much that I think the Packers have bungled their way through another QB departure, it's that they don't seem to trust their fans enough and they're standing on a chair in fear because of the harmless little mouse they saw in the cupboard under the sink.

[homer]

It is very possible that Alfred E Neuman stepped in and meddled with the Rodgers issue last offseason.

[MrTPlush]

51 minutes ago, SeaBass said:

Right, it's just that there are a portion of people out there trying to put all the blame on the Packers. I'm not sure how Rodgers actually worded this part.

I don’t think Rodgers was trying blame the Packers. He was just explaining it isn’t waiting on the fake wishlist reports and he is just waiting to get traded.

He was just saying he can’t go anywhere until his current employers ships him off. Watching the podcast he didn’t really seemed bothered. Just that the Packers have yet to iron out what they find as a worthy return.

[PeaveyFury]

2 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

 the fake wishlist reports

To illustrate the point on Rodgers and semantics, he didn't say the wish list was fake, but that he didn't provide a list of demands that had to be met. Semantics matters with him.

[SeaBass]

For the record it wasn't my intention to say that Rodgers was trying to blame the Packers, I recall that he specifically said he doesn't blame them and doesn't feel animosity towards them. Only that people out there are choosing to push the narrative that the Packers specifically are the holdup. I didn't feel like going back to look up Rodgers' exact statement about it.

[PeaveyFury]

1 hour ago, SeaBass said:

The Packers AND the Jets are the ones holding it up. Negotiation is between two parties, not one.

The funny thing about the compensation part of this is that I'd think Rodgers wouldn't want the Jets to give up significant draft capital this year so that they have a better chance to improve the team, while his personality also suggests he could be offended if they're only willing to give up a 3rd for him.

[SeaBass]

Just now, PeaveyFury said:

The funny thing about the compensation part of this is that I'd think Rodgers wouldn't want the Jets to give up significant draft capital this year so that they have a better chance to improve the team, while his personality also suggests he could be offended if they're only willing to give up a 3rd for him.

That has been in my mind for a while now actually, he is exactly the type to be offended if he is only traded for a low draft pick lol.

[MrTPlush]

25 minutes ago, PeaveyFury said:

To illustrate the point on Rodgers and semantics, he didn't say the wish list was fake, but that he didn't provide a list of demands that had to be met. Semantics matters with him.

He did say it was fake. He said he was asked about certain players, namely former Packers and he vouched for them. That would infer he wasn't the one that brought them up first. 

Is that true? I don't know, that is probably the one thing yesterday that may have been twisted a bit because I doubt the Jets are going to go call out their new QB. I don't know if Rodgers will be as demanding as he was the last few years in Green Bay. I think a lot of that was the reality of the Packers being desperate with a guy coming off MVP seasons so Rodgers knew they would do whatever he wanted and Rodgers trying to overcompensate for all the years the Packers ignored him. Maybe it satisfied Rodgers in the moment, but in the grand scheme he probably has hated to FO the entire time. 

 

[GAME05]

How much leverage do the Packers even have? What's to keep the Jets from saying "We'll give you a 7th rounder and you'll like it"? Rodgers can't be suddenly traded anywhere else or he'll threaten retirement as well as make the Packers' front office look awful if he wanted to.

Pre-announcement the Packers could have had wiggle room by telling the Jets that Rodgers was fine going to the Raiders, too, so pony up the draft picks. But now it seems like the the only alternative is he holds out until he's traded. Or I guess maybe the holdup is the Packers would certainly prefer a post-June 1 trade to save themselves some money.

[adambr2]

40 minutes ago, SeaBass said:

Criticism is fair. Especially after the playoff loss vs. the 49ers many fans had just about had it with playoff failure. That wasn't all Rodgers fault but in the aftermath even I was frustrated enough to think, "Why do we even have this guy?" In the end I don't think their jobs should be threatened because of that one thing. It's a piece in the overall evaluation.

What bewilders me is I just don't think the Packers, or Rodgers, give fans enough credit to be intelligent enough to understand the complexities of the situation. Like, sure, if you look at twitter there are many fools out there that play into that but there are also many trolls out there just looking to have a good time by kicking the anthill.

The Packers seem to have been crippled by this idea that they can't be the ones to suggest the time has come to move on from Rodgers publicly. Things got messy during the Favre divorce and, this is pure speculation, maybe they have numbers that tell them that all that mess hurt their bottom line. If that happened it's fair for them to be wary. But also the many fans that were around for all that with Favre have applied their experience to this divorce. Like ok, this isn't great but we've been through this before and it was ok in the end. It can be ok this time too.

I just think fandom has evolved since what went on during Farve's departure. Trading for value, selling before it's too late, is much more in the mindset of a fan than it used to be.

That's what I think about when it comes to criticism. It's not so much that I think the Packers have bungled their way through another QB departure, it's that they don't seem to trust their fans enough and they're standing on a chair in fear because of the harmless little mouse they saw in the cupboard under the sink.

Are you suggesting that the Packers didn't move on from Rodgers last season in part because they think their fans are simpletons who wouldn't understand the complexity of the situation and instead would just chalk up trading an MVP player when you're a competitive playoff team as an insane, idiotic move, and would likely be picketing outside Lambeau with pitchforks and torches if they did?

If so, yes, I think that's entirely possible. 

Even following this past season, up until a week ago or so, they were careful to avoid even the mere suggestion that they wanted to ride Rodgers out of town. 

 

It's almost like when MLF was publicly saying last year, "we'd be crazy to not want him back here" he was looking over his shoulder going, "right? Right?"

[PeaveyFury]

14 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

He did say it was fake.

No, he didn't specifically. Here is his exact quote from yesterday:

{The report was} "I had a sheet of paper when I met with the Jets and I said SIGN THESE PEOPLE- that's not the reality."

Semantics matter with Rodgers. He said he didn't demand they sign anyone. Doesn't mean they didn't talk about who he wanted them to sign. In fact, he flat-out went on to say they discussed other Packer teammates.

[Joseph Zarr]

Oh my word I am looking forward to more and more of these abominations. This is truly a match made in heaven:

 

[Matt Breen]

In the end, I really don't care much about how all of this transpired (I care - just not that much). 

I just want my team - the Packers - to get something decent back in compensation from the Jets. 

I have no problem saying 'thanks' to Rodgers, and good luck (except for when you face Green Bay). He did a lot for the franchise, and I appreciate that. 

Now I want to get the team set up so we can go forward with Love (and hugs and kisses). So I'm excited for the draft. 

[Matt Breen]

6 minutes ago, Joseph Zarr said:

Oh my word I am looking forward to more and more of these abominations. This is truly a match made in heaven:

 

It looks like an Aaron Rodgers bobblehead is flying that thing. I think I could do a better photoshop job. Although maybe they wanted it to look wonky.

[adambr2]

I also think that it's also possible that Matt Lafleur simply didn't want to let Rodgers go a year ago and that played a big part in the decision. Obviously it's not ultimately his call, but I'm sure his opinion carries a lot of weight. I think he might have even have had his hand forced this time around. 

MLF is notoriously, to a fault, slow and hesitant to move on from his guys. He does not like change. No reason it would be any different with Aaron. 

To that end, any coach, particularly one coming off 3 straight 13 win seasons, is going to be more invested in the short-term outlook than the long-term outlook of this franchise. As Mike McCarthy will tell you, an elite QB will buy you a lot of job security.

[homer]

In some ways this is kinda like the UW football coaching change for me. I was sort of sad for Jim Leonhard in that he wasn't able to get a shot to be a head coach but I am excited about the new guy. Just like I am sad to see Rodgers go but I am excited to see what Jordan Love can do. Not totally apples to apples I know....more like fruit to fruit.

[Matt Breen]

I think that last year the club didn't think Love was ready to take over. And let's face it - Rodgers was coming off two consecutive MVP seasons. You've got a Super Bowl in your sights. You don't mess with that if don't have to. Obviously it didn't work out - but stuff like that happens. You take your shots when you can.

[brewcrewdue80]

GB should not give in til they get the Jets 13th pick. The swap idea 15-13 isn't working. Jets don't want to not not have a 1st rd pick this season. Simply tell them swapping your 13+ 3rd with 2024 conditional 3rd, for our 45th in 2023.  They'll have 43&45 more than enough to trade back in to 1st round.

I'd make the conditional as 3rd with 2nd if win division. 1st if played in AFC Championship game. 

Send them some money I guess if that's a thing. I've heard mentions during ESPN Milw radio of that, but I didn't think that was a thing could do.

[Samurai Bucky]

3 hours ago, SeaBass said:

What bewilders me is I just don't think the Packers, or Rodgers, give fans enough credit to be intelligent enough to understand the complexities of the situation. Like, sure, if you look at twitter there are many fools out there that play into that but there are also many trolls out there just looking to have a good time by kicking the anthill.

The Packers seem to have been crippled by this idea that they can't be the ones to suggest the time has come to move on from Rodgers publicly. Things got messy during the Favre divorce and, this is pure speculation, maybe they have numbers that tell them that all that mess hurt their bottom line. If that happened it's fair for them to be wary. But also the many fans that were around for all that with Favre have applied their experience to this divorce. Like ok, this isn't great but we've been through this before and it was ok in the end. It can be ok this time too.

I just think fandom has evolved since what went on during Farve's departure. Trading for value, selling before it's too late, is much more in the mindset of a fan than it used to be.

That's what I think about when it comes to criticism. It's not so much that I think the Packers have bungled their way through another QB departure, it's that they don't seem to trust their fans enough and they're standing on a chair in fear because of the harmless little mouse they saw in the cupboard under the sink.

Eisen said it pretty well.  He said that the Packers fans are ready to move on.  Yes... the current events are due to scars from the Favre debacle.  I'm not mad at the Packers or at Rodgers.  Well, maybe I'm disappointed with the Packers because it sounds like there has been a change in culture.  Then again, that is through Rodgers' eyes.

I appreciated the question that AJ Hawk asked.  Paraphrasing, it was, "when you came [out of the darkness], were you excited about playing again for the Packers?"  Rodgers seemed taken aback at the question.  Rodgers admitted he wasn't.  Hawk earned a few journalism points from me because he asked a tough question.  I'm glad that Rodgers answered it honestly, too.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I'll put it in writing that I don't blame BK or anybody else for not trading Rodgers earlier. Yes, yes, I know, some of you wanted to happen last year. But, as I've said every time this comes up, it was a perfectly reasonable way to go about things keeping him again for another run. 

We'd be arguing now about how we wasted the picks anyway like we had to keep doing with Rashan Gary.

[AKCheesehead]

2 minutes ago, Samurai Bucky said:

 

I appreciated the question that AJ Hawk asked.  Paraphrasing, it was, "when you came [out of the darkness], were you excited about playing again for the Packers?"  Rodgers seemed taken aback at the question.  Rodgers admitted he wasn't.  Hawk earned a few journalism points from me because he asked a tough question.  I'm glad that Rodgers answered it honestly, too.

Yeah, kinda.  Although he detailed it by saying when he came out of the retreat and he had messages indicating something to the effect that GB wants to move on/trade, he realized the ship had sailed on playing for GB.  What I got out of it, anyways.  I was working while listening to it...

[PeaveyFury]

Yep, it's completely fair and reasonable to say that they should have traded him last year but didn't because not trading him last year was also a reasonable, logical path to take at the time. Both can be correct in this case.

[MrTPlush]

Bringing him back was the correct and only answer. Might as well run it back another year. I will probably die (I am not that old) before we see a guy win the MVP two years in a row with deep playoff runs. 

The picks would have been better, but lets be honest, the future hinges on Love. If he isn't that good not much else is going to matter a ton.

[GAME05]

2 hours ago, reillymcshane said:

Now I want to get the team set up so we can go forward with Love (and hugs and kisses). So I'm excited for the draft. 

What most amazing with all of this is through page after page of Packers discussion, this may very well be the first Love-pun that's been made (at least to my recollection).

[PeaveyFury]

Just now, AKCheesehead said:

Yeah, kinda.  Although he detailed it by saying when he came out of the retreat and he had messages indicating something to the effect that GB wants to move on/trade, he realized the ship had sailed on playing for GB.  What I got out of it, anyways.  I was working while listening to it...

This is where I also go back to the 'his side of the story' point. He said 'something had changed' and he 'heard through his sources in the league' that the Packers were shopping him around. Does that mean they were trying to dump him at all costs to whoever was interested? Or were they simply determining possible interest to hedge in the possible even that Rodgers emerged from the darkness and TOLD them he wanted to be traded? We'll likely never know the Packers' side of it since they don't talk about that stuff, other than the atypically candid comments from Murphy at a high school basketball tournament, to know whether that's factual or not.