HiAndTight

You should probably go back and re-read that quote and correct yourself. But still, it's not nearly as hyperbolic as anyone claiming to have seen anything out of Love to justify an evaluation of his possible success, right? If only ANYONE was making that argument....

Is this supposed to be in blue or are you serious? What about my post makes you think I'm not serious? Where in your original post did you say unlikely? "Sure...it's an opinion...that it's unlikely our next QB's down season will look like Aaron Rodgers when his team goes 13-3 and he throws 24/4 in what is considered a down year(his first year in a new system)." Right up there

Trey Lance is the 100MPH thrower who can't find home plate. The Niners hope to teach him control... Good Luck with that. Is that just because he played at a small school? SF gets a guy who's faster than Lamar, has a huge arm and...from what I've seen, a pretty accurate one. And he gets the added benefit of being able to sit for a year behind Jimmy G. I'd have much rather seen them take Jones instead of Lance or Fields.

Is this supposed to be in blue or are you serious? Pointing out it's unlikely that the Packers next QB will be as good as Aaron Rodgers sounds to YOU like a Packers fan who "couldn't possibly envision how the Packers could win without Favre?" Is this going to be the only response from now on? If you question that just maybe losing Rodgers doesn't make the Packers better the ONLY response is, "but Rodgers?"

Ok? You realize the entire discussion was about what they'd done to win the last couple seasons, right? And if you take each QB away, I think it's not hard to make the argument that the Saints are set up for success at LEAST as much as the Packers.

And one of those teams will be competing for a Super Bowl next year, the other will be starting either Jameis Winston or Taysom Hill at QB and PRAYING for a playoff spot. So what? That's usually what happens when your HOF QB retires. You see a drop off in play. Either way, I simply pointed out the Packers have NOT done nearly as much as teams like TB and the Saints(or the Chiefs for that matter).

Opinion vs. fact, no? Sure...it's an opinion...that it's unlikely our next QB's down season will look like Aaron Rodgers when his team goes 13-3 and he throws 24/4 in what is considered a down year(his first year in a new system). It's entirely possible that Jordan Love will be as good as Rodgers or better I guess.

You can argue that it's a fallacy that the problem is offensive weapons...but you can also make a pretty strong argument that they've done less than just about every other contender. It isn't lost on me that the Packer FO has been moving heaven and earth the past two offseasons doing salary cap gymnastics to get their premium players extended/resigned through Rodgers' window, bringing in quality veteran free agents to fill gaping holes in their defense created under the previous GM's draft misses, all the while attempting to get Rodgers an extension that probably would have made things much easier to make more moves that would resemble "getting him help". I'm no fanboy of Tom Brady, but look at what he's done in terms of his contracts over the years and how much that has helped teams he played on going out and bringing in help. Moving heaven and earth the last two off-seasons? It was just last year they moved up for a QB in the 1st round. It was last year they neglected the DL after getting abused vs the 49ers and this year they resigned Jones for a pretty reasonable deal...other than that, they pushed the cap hits one year into the future. The Saints have moved Heaven and Earth to win...the Packers? Please.

How did they tick him off? I'm assuming he's mad because they had the nerve to draft his replacement when he didn't want to go. Well he had a pretty pedestrian 2019 so they had reason to think that a 37YO QB was declining and they needed to consider a replacement. He kept quite until he had his MVP season then within minutes of that season ending started his scorched earth approach. As people who know him have leaked he takes any slight and revisits it over and over and over again. His actions these last few months clearly is his revenge for the nerve of the Packers considering replacing him. He's Aaron Rodgers...!!! We're going to BEG for that type of "pedestrian" season once Rodgers leaves.

Right...I said keep him in the loop though, not take his input. Just communicate with him...and again, I'll use Russell Wilson as an example. He reportedly wanted out of Seattle and they'd kept him far more involved by all accounts than the Packers had with Rodgers. That's a little bit different than demanding that a team trade their first-round pick. Players and teams having falling outs...but I've never heard of any NFL Agent doing this.

I don't think it has been at all. As far as the commitment...I would guess he'd say when you trade up for a QB in the 1st round, you don't feel all that committed. It is certainly possible for a team to be committed to success both in the present and in the future, though. This doesn't have to be an either/or situation. Of course, but if you're Aaron Rodgers and you've been to the NFFCG that season and you've said you want to play well into your 40's, your dream is to play for one team...etc...etc...then picking a QB in the 1st round likely felt like they aren't committed to him long term. He was probably a bit just...dumbfounded. He'd dragged that team to the playoffs a number of times, into the NFFCG just a few years before that vs ATL and now they're this close and they take a QB. You can see from his perspective how that might be a bit contradictory, right?

Or they'll extend Rodgers and he'll play in Green Bay this season. Or they won't extend him and trade him after next season. Until Rodgers or Dunn demands a trade or says anything publicly, I don't think there is a guarantee that it's headed for quite such a disastrous end. Or that it's even true for that matter. We see how guys like Rob Demovsky love to just stir crap up.

I don't think it has been at all. As far as the commitment...I would guess he'd say when you trade up for a QB in the 1st round, you don't feel all that committed.

We should also remember that immediately after the NFCCG he made some VERY vague and general statements about how he doesn't know what the future holds for him or other players on the team...and then people immediately picked that up and ran with it. Wilbon said that he guaranteed after that statement, Rodgers had played his last game in Green Bay. Then we actually heard from Rodgers just a couple days later and he was kinda dumbfounded that it was as big of a deal as it was. I think there's probably a little more to this...but I think it's also not nearly as big of a story at they're making it out to be. Mark Schelrleth is on the radio apparently in Denver saying a deal is almost complete again today. How in the hell would he know? What is Denver going to give us? Bolles, Surtain, Jeudy, Lock and their next 3 1st round picks? Just how good would the offer have to be in order to justify trading him?

You can argue that it's a fallacy that the problem is offensive weapons...but you can also make a pretty strong argument that they've done less than just about every other contender.