Matt Breen

The odds are that Love (as the team's backup) will get some playing time. How much is anyone's guess, but he'll likely get some PT. It might be due to injuries. It might be just to close out games that are out of reach. It might be one of those games at the end of the year where it doesn't matter that much to the team. But he's likely to get some time and demonstrate his abilities. It's not like the guy won't ever see the field this year (assuming Rodgers is back). In fact, for a lot of reasons, the team will be motivated to make sure he gets on the field. No doubt he'll get antsy to play, but I wouldn't worry about that this year. Show well he handles life as the backup for a year - and then we can worry about him being unhappy and so forth.

If he hates Gute I could see him just letting this thing carry on for a while to make Gute look bad. I'd like to point out that his unhappiness with McCarthy played out over a long time with Rodgers really not saying much about the situation. So perhaps he just thinks he'll do the same thing. Let stories leak out about how he doesn't like this or that thing, etc., etc. Either gets him traded, or Gute removed, or Rodgers more power/money/whatever he wants.

Packers didn’t say anything to refute or really even defuse the situation...so do they OWN the leaks too? I think they did say some things that were good - like 'Aaron gives us the best chance to win' 'we're talking with him' 'he's our leader' and stuff like that. I don't think (but could be wrong) they said specifics about how long they see him here until after a lot of the poop had hit the fan and had flown around the internets for a day or two. At that point, I think they said stuff like they wanted him in GB 'for 2021 and beyond' or something like that. I think both sides are using the media at this point. Stories about Rodgers mocking Gute. And stories saying the Packers had offered Rodgers a new contract or extension or whatever and rebuffed. That all goes with the Rodgers is disrespected by Gute, that sort of thing. Each side is playing the PR games. I think the Packers are winning - but 'winning' might be the person standing on top of a pile of poop.

I think the result is Rodgers comes back this year. Money is the big reason. If he retires, he has to: - Repay $23M in signing bonus money (this is the prorated portion of his $57.5M signing bonus he got a few years ago) - Repay a $6.8M roster bonus he got earlier this year That's roughly $30M he has to repay. Add in: - $15M salary for this year he won't get. Total: $45M. And again, 2/3 of that is money he has to give back. It's a lot harder to give up something you don't have compared to giving back what you possess. Rodgers only has so many years to make this kind of cash. Thus he'll be back is my guess. Even if grudgingly. To me, the big thing will be if the Packers and Rodgers can come to some understanding about his future. Is that a restructure to guarantee that he'll be he longer? Or do they simply say, "You signed it, Aaron, live with it." If that happens, then things could get nasty. However, I think it's in the best interests of everyone to work things out. But you never know. Obviously, they could trade Rodgers, but they seem adamant that that isn't going to happen.

John Kuhn said that he has talked to Rodgers, and while he doesn't directly quote Aaron, he has some general takeaways. Rodger feels the club wants to move on from him after 2021. He wants some sort of guarantee that the team is committed to him longer term than just this year. He said stuff like this: "I think that he wants more insurance that he’s going to be a long-term starting quarterback option for the Green Bay Packers." and "he doesn’t want to do it on a lame-duck contract". That sort of thing. You can read the entire thing here. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/05/05/john-kuhn-says-aaron-rodgers-trying-to-take-destiny-into-his-own-hands/ Perhaps Rodgers went to the club and asked for the more longer term guarantees - and was rebuffed. Or it wasn't what he felt was fair. It was just one of a growing list of things that bugged him - so he let the story leak that he wanted to be dealt to force the Packers' hand. Sadly, the longer this lasts, the more Rodgers looks like diva. I heard Rodgers got booed when his AmFam TV commercial showed up on the scoreboard at the Brewer game. And the more people turn on him, the more likely he is to dig in his heels and say screw you to the Packers and the fans. I would hope that Rodgers would make a statement along the lines of "I have not asked for Gute to be fired. I have talked to the club about securing my future in Green Bay (and those talks are ongoing or I am weighing my options or the ball is in the Packers court or whatever). I love the Packers. I love Green Bay. I love Wisconsin. I love the fans. I want to be here. For a lot longer. I feel that my performance demonstrates I'm capable of leading this team at a high level for quite a bit longer. I'm wiling to commit to that if the Packers are." Now, people are going to say, 'Did you ask to be traded?" And how he answers is going to depend on what he did. If he didn't ask for a trade, he can flat out deny it. Great. If he did ask for a trade, he might be able to say something like, "I told the organization that if they didn't want me beyond this year, I'd prefer they move on from me now - rather than leave me as a lame duck." Of course, people will ask about Kumerow and Love and all that stuff - and Rodgers can be honest about things in a nice, but vague, fashion. "Yes, I've disagreed with some decisions the front office has made. Yes, there have been times where the front office has not elected to discuss moves that affect me. I'm not asking to make personnel decisions, but who we line up at WR or on the offensive line affects how I prepare and play the game. And regarding draft picks and free agents - who doesn't want good players surrounding them. I want to win a ring." You get the idea. Rodgers has the ability to put this back into the Packers court - putting the onus on them. In fact, if they did tell him some weird stuff (such as they were going to trade him), then he say that sort of stuff. But I doubt it happened. I'm betting the club is counting on him being a motivated soldier again - and will assess things again next year. But the longer the silence from Rodgers, the longer I think this could turn out badly. With the money at stake, I'm guessing Rodgers comes back and plays - but he won't be doing the team any favors. That could lead to a toxic environment as players take sides. Some will resent Rodgers. Others will back him. And the front office ends up looking just as petty. Sadly, no one ever usually wins in that situation - including the fans. Of course, this is all my speculation - and my hopes of how we move on. Rodgers may very well be hell bent on getting out Green Bay. In which case, he'll just sit back and let things play out. We shall see.

Just nice to have the Link Report back. So very nice.

This is pretty spot on. Yes, the GM shouldn't have to scour Internet quotes because he should already know the answer.

I think you can add that cutting Kumerow a day after Rodgers praised the guy, might have even felt like a 'screw you, Aaron' decision - done to show who was boss. Was that what the front office was trying to do? Probably not. That just seems really stupid to try and upstage your star player just to prove a point. But people have done dumber things out of spite or jealousy or revenge. I'm not defending any of the people involved - because usually blame can go around to most everyone in situations like this. Just trying to say it's not that Rodgers thought Kumerow was the answer to all his issues - just that he went out on a limb for the guy in the media, and the front office made the move in spite of that. To me, this demonstrates that the two sides aren't talking. I mean, if the most important guy in your company says they value a person, perhaps you should try and understand why. It just seems like a disconnect with both parties - which should not be happening on an NFL team. If that is happening, there's something seriously wrong with stuff and it needs to be addressed.

I'm surprised we let Bickford go. Just thought he had stuff that might play well out of the pen.

There's nothing wrong with grading drafts. Obviously, a team has immediate and future needs to address. And the spot they pick makes a difference. And there are often other factors in play. Grades should NOT be about will a team have better picks than other teams. It's about getting value with the currency you have. In the end, is a team acquiring players that equate to draft slot? Are they addressing areas of need (future, immediate, etc.)? Finding value and filling need generally is going to be looked on favorably. Of course, everyone person and organization has different rankings, so grading is subjective. Example: Cleveland landed Greg Newsome at #26. ESPN had him rated as the #24 player and The Athletic had him rated as #18. The team has a need for DBs - so that's a positive. The Browns then drafted LB Jeremiah Owusu-Koramoah in the 2nd round (52nd overall pick). ESPN had him ranked #12 and The Athletic #14. Owusu-Koramoah fills a need for Cleveland - and fits their scheme really well. To me, this is a really good draft (just looking at the first two picks). To me it would be a high grade. But it's a grade based on certain criteria. And I'm using ESPN and The Athletic for key data. Some people will poo poo that and have other data. That's fine. Three years from now, we can do another round of grades - but the criteria will be different. Now, I'm not going to defend some of the idiots who post grades using stupid guidelines (such as the Broncos getting good grades because they picked guys that Aaron Rodgers will like). In the end, there are a lot of nuances that the data don't always show. So you do have to look at things critically. The Packers, for instance, badly wanted a CB. They picked a guy that might have been a little bit down the overall ranks, but they knew that if they didn't pull the trigger then - they'd lose out on the guy they wanted. Nothing wrong with that.

I think hits things pretty well. The Packers had CB on their mind and weren't thrilled with the players after Stokes - so they made a move. Stokes was not that highly rated coming into the draft (ESPN had him #71 overall, and The Athletic had him #51). That likely reflects the team's desire to get a CB - along with other teams. He had risen up in the mocks as draft day approached. Yes, rankings are just rankings, but they are put together with some valid criteria in mind. Certainly, the Packers rankings may have been different from ESPN or The Athletic. And they likely believed others had him ranked higher as well. So they made the move on him. I think they did the same thing with Savage - moved up knowing others would grab him. The other thing in play is the fact the team probably felt that the players available to them in later rounds (say an OL), would be better than the CBs who will be available. Supply and demand is important. No matter what, we've got an interesting player who we all hope turns out to be great.

Stokes is a good looking player. It just seems that he could have been there quite a bit later. This was my criticism of the draft last year in the 2nd/3rd rounds. Picking guys who seemed could have lasted a lot longer. But in defense of the Packers, they may know he'd be gone much, much sooner - so they had to take him.

Packers will take the Edge guy now...

Packers will take the Edge guy now...

Trevon Moehrig here we come! We'd be happy with him in the long run.

Trevon Moehrig here we come! We'd be happy with him in the long run.

I read that NO liked Owusu-Koramoah a lot. We'll see.

I read that NO liked Owusu-Koramoah a lot. We'll see.

Caleb Farley, CB, Virginia Tech Greg Newsome, CB, Northwestern Teven Jenkins, OT, Oklahoma State Jeremiah Owusu-Koramoah, LB, Notre Dame Whelp, if I'm right, we pick Jenkins or Owusu-Koramoah. Which means we deal down...

Caleb Farley, CB, Virginia Tech Greg Newsome, CB, Northwestern Teven Jenkins, OT, Oklahoma State Jeremiah Owusu-Koramoah, LB, Notre Dame Whelp, if I'm right, we pick Jenkins or Owusu-Koramoah. Which means we deal down...

I liked Newsome a lot as well. Was kinda hoping he'd be our guy.

I liked Newsome a lot as well. Was kinda hoping he'd be our guy.

Travis Etienne here we come! Not today!

Travis Etienne here we come! Not today!

I think lots of teams start talking trade now. They see guys they like dropping - and the phone calls start. Makes sense.