OldSchoolSnapper

I really love watching Aaron Rodgers play, but he's definitely a moody guy. It was in November after the loss to Minnesota that he basically said they should trade for a WR without actually saying it.

Rodgers knows this was, on paper, likely the best shot he's going to have for the remainder of his career in GB. He knows the cap situation. I think he just wants to see if they are willing to move money around and go for it for the next 3 or so years, or move on. And as madbad said, the MVP accelerated that conversation. The only reason the Packers would not restructure Rodgers this offseason is that they don't want him around. The only thing they lose is the easy out after next season. If I were the GM of this team, I have to say that doing gymnastics around one guy's contract every year would get annoying. Maybe the alternative is worse, but it would be annoying.

Given that Lang is one of Rodgers's best friends I think it's pretty unlikely that came out of nothing. It's possible if not likely he hadn't even spoken to Rodgers between the NFCCG and when he said that. But I think it's also very likely Rodgers has voiced displeasure with his pals in the past about the Packers perceived inaction (from his POV) in certain areas. He may never say it publicly in clear terms, but I feel there's enough smoke over the last decade to say that Rodgers is probably not ecstatic about the personnel management of the last 10 years or so.

I think the forum drastically overstates Braun's love for baseball. I think he's over it. I think he had fun playing a game that made a ton of money, but I never felt like he was the eat/sleep/breathe the game type.

That was always the thing with Brady. They'd give him 10 million in a signing bonus, tack on another year or two and then act like he was such a great guy for taking a deal. Romo, Brees did the same things. At this point, the best case would probably be to extend Rodgers a couple years, give him 20 million in a signing bonus to restructure and reduce his cap hit as much as possible, or however that would work. I don't put much stock on Lang saying he is "hellbent on revenge," but I do think he(Rodgers) would probably like to see them try and be a little more aggressive in addressing immediate needs at this point. The Packers FO has been smart for the most part, but they're at the point now where Rodgers is near the end. Wouldn't kill them to approach this off-season like the Saints have the past few years. This years Covid situation makes their cap situation that much more precarious, but in a normal year, they'd eat their lumps, keep most of their roster in tact and just go through one year of cap hell. The Packers can do that...push it down the road. They will need Rodgers to be willing to work with them though. Honestly would not surprise me at all if Lang had a chat with Rodgers and leaked that to help his buddy. It's more passable if it comes from him instead of Rodgers.

I mentioned this in the other thread, but you'll be able to get the same bobble multiple times/multiple chances to get one this year at Am Fam. They're pretty sure they'll have limited capacity way under the number of bobbles they have for at least some games. I don't think the Brewers ever got most of their promo items last year. When I talked to my rep last spring, he mentioned that Covid had also caused shipping problems and most of the items never made it.

The Watson situation is once a generation type stuff. Franchise QBs just don't become become suddenly available at 25. He likely hasn't played his best yet. You hope to get someone like that with a top 5 pick, and even, it's no sure thing. He should be worth at least 3 of those picks.

Travis Shaw Round 2 baby!

Well yeah, but that money is still coming from some place. I get the point though, from Aaron's end it won't matter.

I'm admittedly not well-versed in contracts and never bother with trying to be, but my guess is that if Aaron really does want to finish his career in GB, he's going to have to make less money and get a new deal. I don't think he will do that, and that's fair. My unsubstantiated gut feeling is that the Packers would take advantage of significant savings to keep him longer, but if it's the Rodgers Rate they will decide it's time for both parties to move on. And that's fine.

That's fair, but if Rodgers does not restructure this year, there is no leg to stand on anymore with the 'supporting cast' argument. And I'll make this clear too: I have no problem whatsoever with him not doing so. He has every right to take his money. But you can't say your whole pursuit is another championship while carrying a $37 million weight around. Personally, and obviously I don't know Aaron Rodgers, but while I think he really does want to win it again and do whatever that takes personally...I think his ego is too big to do it for less money.

Yeah, but I think the counterargument is, they did. They brought in Peppers and it basically got them to the Super Bowl, then they messed it up. They were in on Allen Robinson, didn't get him, and went for Jimmy Graham who was awful. They tried to get Mack. The narrative too often is that they sat on their hands. They didn't do that, and sadly they were also good enough numerous times to win it all. Luck, circumstances, a key injury, it takes the smallest nudge to derail a championship. You can even make that argument for the seasons Brady lost the Super Bowl. All 3 were winnable games with a different play or two.

Lol. In 2012 I was sitting in a Seattle bar outside of Century Link before Monday Night Football with the Packers (yes, that game). I ended up talking for a long time with a guy next to me, eventually ends up saying he went to high school and was friends with Zimmerman. I told him to text him to sign with MKE. He does it. Zimmerman responds soon after with just "Yeah it doesn't quite work that way." Zimmerman had pitched that day against...the Brewers.

That's because the "purist" know that baseball is "boring" by today's standards and will continue to be so and would rather not have a flunky lawyer stick his fingers in there and screw up what they love about the game. Baseball is "boring" and will continue to be "boring" because before each play there are 10 guys on a huge field just standing there and when the "play" is over, the majority of the time 8 of those guys did nothing and the other 2 are in the same spot as when the play started. Maybe one out of every 4 "plays" a ball is put in play and a couple more guys move around a bit. Compare that to football where during a play a fan can see 22 guys all moving around and generally on each play there are bodies slamming into one another. Basketball has 10 guys always moving around. This is why baseball is "boring" to young fans. Hitting 4 home runs instead of 2 home runs per game isn't going to change this because the extra two home runs only last 10 seconds of a 3-hour time-frame. 14 year old's will not start tuning in because games only last 2 hours and 52 minutes when they previously went 2 hours and 58 minutes. As long as baseball is primarily 10 guys standing on a field with 80% of them doing nothing, it's quite pointless to try and tweak the game to appeal to people who get bored watching 10 guys standing on a field with 80% of them doing nothing. I agree with you, but I love baseball and find the game simply too long. A game is a 5-hour commitment to attend. It's hard to take my kids to one and sit through 3.5 hours of what you describe. I own a 20-pack and usually end up using 10-12 games. I also don't want to tune in from 7-1030. 7-9 is just a lot more doable. Watching an NBA game is just so much easier to do on a semi-nightly basis than MLB. I'm also much more likely to watch non-Bucks games than non-Brewers for that reason. I watch exactly 0 out of market baseball games, despite the fact baseball is my strongly preferred sport between the two.

It's pretty crazy that both Brees and Rodgers not only have just one title, but both have just one appearance. And both experienced what feels like a disproportionate number of heartbreaking losses and bad defenses. The Packers in particular rarely seem to be on the same page in the same season. When their defense was decent, which was rare, their offense wasn't good. The year the Packers won the SB, Rodgers played arguably the worst playoff game of his career in the NFCCG, and it was probably his 5th or 6th best overall season.

I'm fine with the Packers not listening to Aaron's personnel advice. I'm also fine with him being frustrated about how things have gone and wanting to finish this out some place that does, if he chooses to do so.

The Super Bowl MVP is basically a lock for the QB if he throws 2 TDs and they win the game. A WR/RB has to get 200 yards or a defensive player has to be an absolute monster to get a vote.

Brady never really had leverage to get the kind of deal other QBs did which made the moves he always wanted much more viable than for most teams. I don't know if the Patriots would have ever ceded to that demand, they got very lucky with the timing of him signing new deals, and Brady either didn't care or knew what was best for him. One of his last deals with NE was a perfect example. It was clear that the Jimmy G era was on the horizon, and rather than make a stink about it, he signed a very modest extension that all but forced NE to trade Jimmy. I've always believed that luck plays a much bigger role in these types of things than people like to admit. But his typical cap hits were arguably the single biggest competitive advantage the Pats had. That and a division that was even worse than ours. They were almost never even playing WC weekend. Doing that for 20 years is a major, major leg up. But NE and TB this season were willing to do something Ted Thompson almost never was. Bring in guys like AB, Randy Moss, Dante Stallworth on the cheap because their market value had tanked. The Pats did that a lot and it didn't work, but they were always willing to try it and sometimes it did. That was my biggest gripe with Ted. It's one thing not to sign monster FA deals. It's another to throw high-reward, moderate-risk deals in the garbage.

Agree. It was probably the best defense going back to the one that Denver won it with. The Packers moved the ball quite well against it. But the 2000 Ravens, or, you know, the other Tampa championship team? Not even close to it. The prowess of Tampa's offense has strangely been a bit underrated probably due to the QB. The skill position group is pretty damn good.

I think the point is that "admitting they were better" is just semantics when it's clear the teams were close to even and the game swung on a play or two. The same could not be said for the Packers vs. 49ers last year or the Packers vs. Falcons a few years prior. In both cases it was fairly obvious before the game and crystal clear during it that the Packers were completely outmatched. That was not the case this year. The Packers had a real chance to seal the deal this year. The QB is another year older and the team is almost a sure bet to be worse on paper in September. It makes it much harder to swallow when you really had a shot vs last year's loss, which was very easy to get over (for me). I'll probably never get over this one, just like I'm not over 2014. Oddly, the Super Bowl 32 loss hurt, but not as much as either of these two, because in that one I felt they just lined up and got beat. The 15-1 team going down was pretty meh to me too, because I had my doubts about them going in. This year was just a real gut punch. It just felt like it was gonna happen.

I think everyone knows that defense is the strength of that team, but I never saw Brady throwing 40 TDs this year. He's not physically super impressive in any particular area of QB play but the season he had at 43 was amazing. I thought Tampa was at best a 9-7 team. Had Brady pegged for 25 touchdowns and 3400 yards or something, maybe a loss in the wild card.

The NFL can get away with it because it owns Sunday and they play once a week. The fans would probably be happy if they made the quarters 20 minutes. The sport that really has nailed the pacing down is the NBA. There are nights you're out in 2h15m. A 187-minute appointment-viewed game nearly every night from April to September is just not sustainable in the streaming age. I don't think we're even close to it yet, but I think innings reduction is at some point happening.

I'm a hard pass on Peterson. Maybe he'd be better not being the best corner on his team, but he's like $9-12 million a year for someone that did not look good this year and has a PED suspension. If they're not going to get someone really good there, just bring King back and draft somebody early.

I do think they'll draft a WR. By the time that pick is ready to be a starter Adams will probably be at the declining stage or close to it. They seem to always have a guy in the pipeline at WR.

The solution to me, which I know is wild and years away but I feel is inevitable...is reducing the innings.