Rodgers wants out

[DougDew]

He's been floating the idea of retirement for few years, hasn't he?  Isn't that what contributed to GB drafting Love in the first place.  I wouldn't want him.  It's kind of taken on a bit of a pima donna feel to it.

 

I'm sure he'd be motivated for at least a season, but it also seems like he could turn on a dime.

 

And since he may have had this rumor planned to hit just before the draft, he seems he might carry a bit too much spite around with him to be reliable.

[Colt.45]

19 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

GM's who make decisions purely on a sporting perspective.......are short sighted in the extreme. 

 

Locker room

Contracts

Longevity

Fit

Scheme

Ect....................

 

 

Locker room. We've heard Reich and Ballard voice since last year that they feel the room is ready to handle more chaos. Now, this would be MAJOR chaos of course and it'd be akin to snaking Wentz like Josh did to us so it'd never happen.

 

From a sporting perspective, this is a move you make if you can. Why? All the issues you mention are irrelevant when it comes to this particular player. Locker room? He's a plus. Contracts? Shouldn't be an issue. Longevity? Would you take 3 years of legit MVP play vs 10 years of maybe top 10 QB play (another variation of the ol' question of, in hindsight would you have kept Peyton or taken Luck and Wentz is no Luck...not to me anyway, maybe he can get there eventually). Fit? Yeah that's no issue. Scheme, etc.... Everything goes away when it comes to a player like Rodgers. If the Colts hadn't already pulled the trigger on Carson, this would be a no-brainer. The only debate here is that 'snaking' thing...however if you can convince the locker room that this is a quicker way to a SB, well.....it's business, MAYBE you could pull it off?

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

I'm sure some will say it.  I've been reading on Facebook and reddit and so far there a lot less of the " he needs to honor his contract" posts like DW got

A lot of it has to do with Rodgers resume, he has won a SB. Not only that the Packers slapped him in the face by drafting Jordan Love last year instead of a WR to help him out. Wilson is another example of people not saying he needs to honor his contract either, he said he wanted out of Seattle a couple of months ago and he got not back lash. He has won a SB as well. Watson hasn't won anything and he just signed a huge contract on his own free will. I said at the time when Watson signed that contract it was a huge mistake that Houston will never win anything, he seen dollar signs and it was over.

[Colt.45]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

He's been floating the idea of retirement for few years, hasn't he?  Isn't that what contributed to GB drafting Love in the first place.  I wouldn't want him.  It's kind of taken on a bit of a pima donna feel to it.

 

I'm sure he'd be motivated for at least a season, but it also seems like he could turn on a dime.

 

And since he may have had this rumor planned to hit just before the draft, he seems he might carry a bit too much spite around with him to be reliable.

I don't agree with this. The retirement talk has just been him being honest when asked questions. The guy has just always been very open and honest with that stuff. Prima donna? We have Carson Wentz! The dude who shut down because his team drafted competition. The dude who had all these leadership/character questions. We've embraced Carson now but lets be honest, between him and ARod, I'd take ARod's so-called character concerns 100% of the time over Carson's.

[DougDew]

8 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

I'm sure some will say it.  I've been reading on Facebook and reddit and so far there a lot less of the " he needs to honor his contract" posts like DW got

GB has made a move to signal his replacement is on the roster, some say at the expense of them getting another player to help him win another SB.  Sort of an aggressive act by the team, at least a signal of waning loyalty.  HOU did nothing of the sort to and supported DW as their starting QB the whole time before and after he signed the contract.  Dissimilar situations, IMO.

[RollerColt]

21 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Yeah, if want wingo reported is correct the Packers really messed up.  You don’t promise an already upset player something then don’t do it.  Nothing else will tell make them tell you to kiss off faster.  Also had they moved him earlier this off-season they could have gotten a kings ransom that made what the Lions got for Stafford look like chicken feed.  Now they have backed themselves into a bad corner.  
 

This is similar to what the Texans did with Watson.  So in theory the Packers can just say we aren’t trading you.  The difference is that I think Rogers could just walk away and retire unlike Watson.  He already has his Super Bowl and more money than he will ever need.  Watson isn’t there yet.  

I know he really has enjoyed his time as a game show host.

[BlackTiger]

Just now, DougDew said:

 HOU did nothing of the sort to and supported DW as their starting QB the whole time before and after he signed the contract.  

Houston did a LOT to upset him and many others.  You ignored all of it and made it about something its not.

[Colt.45]

Ochocinco getting in the news business

 

 

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

I don't agree with this. The retirement talk has just been him being honest when asked questions. The guy has just always been very open and honest with that stuff. Prima donna? We have Carson Wentz! The dude who shut down because his team drafted competition. The dude who had all these leadership/character questions. We've embraced Carson now but lets be honest, between him and ARod, I'd take ARod's so-called character concerns 100% of the time over Carson's.

I don't follow AR much, only know that he's made comments about leaving the team in the past, but I don't know how solid those rumors ever were. I'm simply talking about the timing of this.  AR has made a bit of an openly aggressive act to put his club in a bind around draft time.  What went on in Philly is subject to interpretation and you are free to see it and compare as you wish of course.

[BlackTiger]

6 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

A lot of it has to do with Rodgers resume

Im am seeing a lot of this but i dont really get it.  Winning a super bowl means you can ask to leave?  Houston did plenty to upset him and many others.  Heck look at what JJ watt said, that team is toxic as hell

 

Foster, Johnson and Hopkins have all spoken out against them too, they don't treat their players right.  Foster really went off on them

[Four2itus]

8 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

All the issues you mention are irrelevant when it comes to this particular player.

Irrelevant to you. But in real life...they mean a great deal to many. Doing the exercise and waxing upon the "sporting only" aspect is useless. To me, it's like....hey, I've got a great wife, great friend, lover, etc.....but if this other woman comes available? Gotta do a swap, strictly from a looks perspective.

 

If the Colts did this, I would personally lose all respect for the owner, G.M. coach (if he didn't quit immediately upon hearing this), and would end my fandom. It's that wrong on so many levels. 

[danlhart87]

Lets pretend Rodgers ends up in SF

How ironic would it be on same year Alex Smith retired 

[Colt.45]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I don't follow AR much, only know that he's made comments about leaving the team in the past, but I don't know how solid those rumors ever were. I'm simply talking about the timing of this.  AR has made a bit of an openly aggressive act to put his club in a bind around draft time.  What went on in Philly is subject to interpretation and you are free to see it and compare as you wish of course.

He's pretty much said the common sense thing that everyone knows. This is a business, he doesn't naively expect to spend his whole career in one place. That's essentially been the sum of his comments.

The dude has leverage and he is using it to the max. Good for him.

This talk about putting his club in a bind, to me that's a non-starter. The club would, and have put Rodgers in a bind when it suited them. No reason why he shouldn't do what's best for him.

 

I will almost always support player over club.

[BlackTiger]

4 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

Irrelevant to you. But in real life...they mean a great deal to many. Doing the exercise and waxing upon the "sporting only" aspect is useless. To me, it's like....hey, I've got a great wife, great friend, lover, etc.....but if this other woman comes available? Gotta do a swap, strictly from a looks perspective.

 

If the Colts did this, I would personally lose all respect for the owner, G.M. coach (if he didn't quit immediately upon hearing this), and would end my fandom. It's that wrong on so many levels. 

 

Its not like we are married to Wentz, he hasnt even practiced yet, and he has a contract we can get out of.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

Im am seeing a lot of this but i dont really get it.  Winning a super bowl means you can ask to leave?  Houston did plenty to upset him and many others.  Heck look at what JJ watt said, that team is toxic as hell

 

Foster, Johnson and Hopkins have all spoken out against them too, they don't treat their players right.  Foster really went off on them

I agree, he is a great QB IMO, not very good but great in today's league. I have Rodgers in my top 10 QB's ever though. Anyway when Watson signed that contract I even posted in here that it was a huge mistake. Houston is a poorly ran organization and I figured Watson would end up with a crap team.

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

He's pretty much said the common sense thing that everyone knows. This is a business, he doesn't naively expect to spend his whole career in one place. That's essentially been the sum of his comments.

The dude has leverage and he is using it to the max. Good for him.

This talk about putting his club in a bind, to me that's a non-starter. The club would, and have put Rodgers in a bind when it suited them. No reason why he shouldn't do what's best for him.

 

I will almost always support player over club.

Thank you for revealing that facts don't matter and lenses do.  But we can all tell when that concept is in play.

 

GB would not have put him in a bind.  They would have paid him under the terms of the contract he signed.

 

[Colt.45]

1 minute ago, Four2itus said:

Irrelevant to you. But in real life...they mean a great deal to many. Doing the exercise and waxing upon the "sporting only" aspect is useless. To me, it's like....hey, I've got a great wife, great friend, lover, etc.....but if this other woman comes available? Gotta do a swap, strictly from a looks perspective.

 

If the Colts did this, I would personally lose all respect for the owner, G.M. coach (if he didn't quit immediately upon hearing this), and would end my fandom. It's that wrong on so many levels. 

This isnt a wife though, it's sports, and the clubs are about winning. And many folks have swapped wives out for different reasons and lived to tell the tale. I get your example and what you're trying to say though.

 

I realize that it'd be a HARD sell, and this is all theoretical. For me, if Rodgers said, Indy I want you. You wouldn't look twice? I like culture and all that but in this case, for this particular player, yeah I think i'd take the player and build my culture post-trade. It'd suck for Carson obviously....and Reich would probably quit.

 

This is all dreamworld talk here lol. But yeah, there're not many players you crash your culture for, personally Rodgers and Mahomes are my shortlist. I am happy they got Wentz but i think if the chance came to nab one of those two, i'm taking it.

[DougDew]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

When Houston traded Hopkins they did something. They did something that was insane.

They traded Hopkins way before DW signs a contract.  They fire OBrien who traded Hopkins.  Do you really want to get upset about DW in this thread.  Why does this bother you so much. 

[Colt.45]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Thank you for revealing that facts don't matter and lenses do.  But we can all tell when that concept is in play.

 

GB would not have put him in a bind.  They would have paid him under the terms of the contract he signed.

 

GB thought the guy was toast and picked his replacement, then made allegedly made promises and backed out of it. Rodgers has every right to be mad.

 

Facts matter and all that but if you think the clubs don't own almost 100% leverage in most cases in this league, i don't know what to tell you.

 

In this case, i'm 99% behind Rodgers. 1% for the club because they run a business and have to draft the guy's replacement. I get it and that's why they get 1%. For the player, yes, do what you can to maximize your heart's desires.

And if you think i'm crazy, it's exactly what Chris Ballard tells his players when he lets them go in the open market. He wants them to do what works best for them. GB were ready to do that with Rodgers, then he showed them he was still a GOAT-level QB, and they thought 'uh oh, we got a problem'.

 

After Jim Irsay cut #18, I cut all emotion away from this whole shebang. Manning and Mr Irsay are fine now. Both sides moved on. Life goes on. Rodgers, do what you can to maximize your leverage, i'd do same.

[BlackTiger]

What a twist on draft day though, it might be too late to get a trade done now? Im done with the watson talk for now though, that story will come back later

 

Rogers made it hard for a trade to materialize by bringing this up today, really wish he said it last year when it was clear he was upset

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

You didn't read enough, i have heard your argument and its like 5% of the story.  You want it to be the whole story

The whole story is only about what happened after September 2020.  Since everything was kisses and roses with him towards HOU then when he wanted to still play for them and signed the contract, whatever happened before that is moot.  2017-September 2020 = moot.  Whatever it happened may have bothered some, but it apparently did not bother him.

 

So why do you keep referring to things that did not bother him, pretending that they did?  Does that help keep a biased opinion validated?

 

BTW, why...in your opinion....what would motivate the public to view AR differently than DW?  You brought it up, out of the blue.  Nobody else di.  So I'm wondering how you choose...choose...to look at the situation.

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

They traded Hopkins way before DW signs a contract.  They fire OBrien who traded Hopkins.  Do you really want to get upset about DW in this thread.  Why does this bother you so much. 

I am not upset at all, I just don't blame Watson for wanting out. I do blame him for signing that contract though. If Watson leaves that helps us out.

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

GB thought the guy was toast and picked his replacement, then made allegedly made promises and backed out of it. Rodgers has every right to be mad.

 

Facts matter and all that but if you think the clubs don't own almost 100% leverage in most cases in this league, i don't know what to tell you.

 

In this case, i'm 99% behind Rodgers. 1% for the club because they run a business and have to draft the guy's replacement. I get it and that's why they get 1%. For the player, yes, do what you can to maximize your heart's desires.

And if you think i'm crazy, it's exactly what Chris Ballard tells his players when he lets them go in the open market. He wants them to do what works best for them. GB were ready to do that with Rodgers, then he showed them he was still a GOAT-level QB, and they thought 'uh oh, we got a problem'.

 

After Jim Irsay cut #18, I cut all emotion away from this whole shebang. Manning and Mr Irsay are fine now. Both sides moved on. Life goes on. Rodgers, do what you can to maximize your leverage, i'd do same.

Ok. I simply think the timing is a bit premeditated.  I think GB is sincerely waffling about what they wanted to do.  And made an aggressive move to signal they are ready to move on, after he signaled independence.  I don't think GB had malice in their heart.  I think AR does a bit.

 

I really do not care much about AR or DW, so wallow in the anti-club obsessions if you like.  I'm moving on to the draft.

[csmopar]

2 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

But if it did happen, what would the Eagles get in 2022 involving the conditional pick? Would it default to a first rounder from Colts or would the Packers assume the trade conditions? 

I would guess that we’d keep our 2022 first seeing how he didn’t play 70 percent of our snaps

[jvan1973]

They aren't going to trade him.    They will work it out. 

[GoColts8818]

6 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I would guess that we’d keep our 2022 first seeing how he didn’t play 70 percent of our snaps

If I am a betting man I would say the trade conditions are based on snaps played and not specific to team.  So my guess is Ballard would try to move that in a trade as well or get something back in compensation for it.  More reason why that trade won’t happen. 

[jvan1973]

31 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

What a twist on draft day though, it might be too late to get a trade done now? Im done with the watson talk for now though, that story will come back later

 

Rogers made it hard for a trade to materialize by bringing this up today, really wish he said it last year when it was clear he was upset

Rodgers didn't bring it up today.   The Packers did

[tvturner]

And here we are sitting with Carson Wentz....

[Colt.45]

21 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Ok. I simply think the timing is a bit premeditated.  I think GB is sincerely waffling about what they wanted to do.  And made an aggressive move to signal they are ready to move on, after he signaled independence.  I don't think GB had malice in their heart.  I think AR does a bit.

 

I really do not care much about AR or DW, so wallow in the anti-club obsessions if you like.  I'm moving on to the draft.

 

You said you don't follow AR much, yet somehow you think he signaled independence because he answered a question honestly? The same guy who was in the middle of the Favre situation said he understood the nature of the business, and you think that was him signaling that he wanted to move on? Okay. His answer should have been I want to be in Green Bay my whole life and die on the field.  That seems to be the only acceptable answer. No wonder Lawrence had to come out with a statement about his 'passion' for the game. Apparently being honest is an issue. Malice in his heart for speaking the truth. 

 

Anti-club obsession. Call it whatever you want. Onto the draft as you said, this is all masturbatory talk anyway, it's going nowhere and would never happen. Player > Club, remember that. If it could happen to Peyton or Brady, it can happen to anyone, always side with the 'small' guy, the clubs will figure their $hit out. They always do.

[BlackTiger]

12 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Rodgers didn't bring it up today.   The Packers did

I see, I just saw it quickly on the news and nobody really talked about that part here.  I have not followed the league very closely the last few weeks.

 

I wish the Colts had made a move for him when we didnt have a QB

[Colt.45]

4 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

I see, I just saw it quickly on the news and nobody really talked about that part here.  I have not followed the league very closely the last few weeks.

 

I wish the Colts had made a move for him when we didnt have a QB

 

The rumor then was they called, along with other clubs, and GB said no way.

[BlackTiger]

The obvious play is for him to threaten retirement if they don't want to trade him.

 

He's 37, that would get their attention even after coming off a great year.  Hes worth over 100 million so money is no real concern.  He would get endorsements for sure and maybe broadcast offers as well.

 

[GoColts8818]

19 minutes ago, tvturner said:

And here we are sitting with Carson Wentz....

Several things wrong with this.

 

1.  The Colts needed a QB and had no way of knowing that Rodgers was going to say I want out of Green Bay.  So the only thing that Ballard could have done is not get Wentz and be sitting here with no QB and no pick to get one plus needing a starting edge and left tackle on draft day.  Yeah that’s a great spot to be in.

 

2.  Ballard wasn’t willing to pay the price tag for Stafford or to move up in the draft to get one of the top five QBs in this draft.  Do you really think they would have paid what the price is going to be for Rodgers?
 

3.  https://www.yahoo.com/sports/report-49ers-offered-no-3-160656016.html
 

The Packers turned that down which means the Colts don’t have near the assets to get him to start with or that the Packers aren’t going to honor his request to be traded which would have the Colts with no QB had they had not gotten Wentz and waited for Rodgers to maybe be available.  

[GoColts8818]

3 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

The obvious play is for him to threaten retirement if they don't want to trade him.

 

He's 37, that would get their attention even after coming off a great year.  Hes worth over 100 million so money is no real concern.  He would get endorsements for sure and maybe broadcast offers as well.

 

And unlike the Watson situation that’s a real threat here.  So Rodgers has much more leverage in that regard than Watson does.  On the other hand the Packers have their QB of the future and I am sure they would rather not have to play Rodgers again anytime in the near future so that’s on the Packers side.  It’s going to be interesting.

 

This could turn out where Rodgers retries and Packers just hold his rights.

[tvturner]

5 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Several things wrong with this.

 

1.  The Colts needed a QB and had no way of knowing that Rodgers was going to say I want out of Green Bay.  So the only thing that Ballard could have done is not get Wentz and be sitting here with no QB and no pick to get one plus needing a starting edge and left tackle on draft day.  Yeah that’s a great spot to be in.

 

2.  Ballard wasn’t willing to pay the price tag for Stafford or to move up in the draft to get one of the top five QBs in this draft.  Do you really think they would have paid what the price is going to be for Rodgers?
 

3.  https://www.yahoo.com/sports/report-49ers-offered-no-3-160656016.html
 

The Packers turned that down which means the Colts don’t have near the assets to get him to start with or that the Packers aren’t going to honor his request to be traded which would have the Colts with no QB had they had not gotten Wentz and waited for Rodgers to maybe be available.  

The Rodgers drama has been brewing for much longer than today

 

Rodgers is 4x the QB Stafford is

 

The price tag for him is worth it, we're an instant Super Bowl team with him at the helm

[GoColts8818]

Just now, tvturner said:

The Rodgers drama has been brewing for much longer than today

 

Rodgers is 4x the QB Stafford is

 

The price tag for him is worth it, we're an instant Super Bowl team with him at the helm

You proved my point.  If Rodgers is 4x the QB Stafford is and the Colts didn’t have what it took to get Stafford what makes you think they are going to have what it takes to get Rodgers?

[tvturner]

9 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

You proved my point.  If Rodgers is 4x the QB Stafford is and the Colts didn’t have what it took to get Stafford what makes you think they are going to have what it takes to get Rodgers?

Didn't have what it took and wasn't interested/not overpaying are two different things 

[GoColts8818]

7 minutes ago, tvturner said:

Didn't have what it took and wasn't interested/not overpaying are two different things 

In this case it’s all of the above.  
 

You also have to get around had the Colts not traded for Wentz they would be sitting here on draft day without a QB and in no position to get one plus other massive needs all based on the theory that Rodgers MIGHT be available at some point.  
 

Again look at what the 49ers offered for Rodgers that’s been rejected.  That means either the Colts don’t have the goods let alone the willingness to do it or the Packers have no intention of trading him.  They could just say you want to retire go ahead do it.

[Colt.45]

For what it's worth...

 

 

[csmopar]

6 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

For what it's worth...

 

 

This gonna get good