A.Smith done for year 49ers come calling for Rodgers [Archive]

pack4to84

10-03-2007, 10:05 PM

Orthopedic Dr. James Andrews confirmed the 49ers' belief that Alex Smith will not need to undergo season-ending shoulder surgery.
Andrews made no recommendations for treatment and expects Smith's torn shoulder ligaments to heal on their own. Smith will be re-evaluated after the swelling subsides, but appears to have avoided an injury that would cost him the season. The 49ers expect to provide a recovery timetable on Thursday. They are hopeful he'll return after a Week 6 bye. Looks like he might be out shorter term then the year now. But it still sounds bad

gbpackfan

10-03-2007, 10:24 PM

I would trade A-Rod for Frank Gore. But that is NEVER going to happen.

oregonpackfan

10-03-2007, 11:14 PM

I wouldn't trade Rodgers - period.

I agree. Like him or not, Rodgers is the future QB for the Packers. Why would we trade away our future?

Lurker64

10-03-2007, 11:16 PM

Considering that we only have two QBs on the roster and there's not a lot else out there, it would take a blockbuster deal to get Rodgers. Probably multiple first round picks (one guaranteed, the second probably conditional) plus a player. It's not going to happen, for better or worse Rodgers is going to have the first shot at the "post-Favre" QB role.

Deputy Nutz

10-03-2007, 11:16 PM

The niners are going to have a top ten pick this year, I would trade a back up QB in a heart beat when you can move up and select a guy in the top ten, besides I heard we need depth at defensive tackle.

cheesner

10-03-2007, 11:30 PM

I would let him go for about 5 first day picks - with at least a #1 next year. That is a very steep price they wouldn't pay - but that is what he is worth to the Packers. A potential franchise QB is a very valuable asset, there are only a handful at any given time in the NFL.

woodbuck27

10-04-2007, 02:16 AM

I wouldn't trade Rodgers - period.

Of course you would not. :)

What if the trade suited our future The Shadow. We have more needs than a back-up QB (Aaron Rodgers) if we are going to move forwrd in 2008 with Brett Favre as the obvious #1 QB. . .

I voted for a first and a third or maybe a first and a player. DAM a top ten pick would grab my ass.

All day long I would make that trade because Favre will be around for too long to satisfy Rodgers and he does deserve his shot elsewhere.

GO PACKERS.

Pacopete4

10-04-2007, 02:22 AM

the rodgers trade is over played buuuut... this would solve a lot if, IF!, Favre commits to the next season right now so we can play for our future and bring in a vet now for this season giving us a great trade and the commitment of favre for another year

that being said.. none of us really know how trades go down haha

Him8123

10-04-2007, 05:15 AM

TT would be stupid to get rid of Rodgers, he knows the offense, young and really improving. And I just don`t see a bunch of QB`s floating around. Although Colt Brennan will be in this next draft. hmm.....maybe a 1st and 2nd next year. lol

Fritz

10-04-2007, 06:06 AM

Fred's Slacks

10-04-2007, 06:32 AM

I'm pretty sure New England already owns the 49ers 1st rounder next year.

rpiotr01

10-04-2007, 06:34 AM

How could the Niners be bad?!? They signed Nate Clements!! They got the biggest FA on the market!

Meh, if Smith is hurt then you play Dilfer. Let him come back healthy next year and keep building.

Guiness

10-04-2007, 07:41 AM

So what if the unthinkable happens and Favre goes down? You going to sign Rich Gannon or Drew Bledsoe? Or Craig Nall?

I think it's time to stop thinking of "the future" and think of now. Keep Rodgers. He's a backup who can step right in and at least have a chance to move the team down the field. AND he's the future, anyway, so there's not much to gain by trading him. If you did and you got a top ten pick, you might end up taking a . . . quarterback. And then what did you gain?

I am thinking of 'now' when I say I would do this trade, and go for a player or two off the 49'ers squad. We're 4-0, and the future is a whole heck of a lot closer than it was looking a couple of months ago. I don't know what they've got - obviously Gore wouldn't come our way, but maybe an OL?

rpiotr01 is right though. Smith is back next year, they don't need another young QB. Play Dilfer, hope to go .500, and start over next year. No way does Rodgers come up to speed in their system in time enough to help that team.

Of course...maybe he would be able to put that porn star mustache to good use, being closer to San Fernando Valley and all.

TheRaven

10-04-2007, 07:47 AM

I am also for keeping ARod, but cmon, some of these posts in here are ridiculous. FIVE first day draft picks?! That stuff is hilarious.

The Leaper

10-04-2007, 08:14 AM

Rodgers isn't moving anywhere unless someone gives us a Herschel Walker type deal for him.

The Leaper

10-04-2007, 08:21 AM

I am also for keeping ARod, but cmon, some of these posts in here are ridiculous. FIVE first day draft picks?! That stuff is hilarious.

Clearly it won't happen...but I do think it would take at least 3 high round picks to get Thompson to give him up. Rodgers should be perfectly positioned to step in 1-2 years when Favre does eventually move on to greener pastures. His development year to year has shown consistent improvement. He's still only 24 years old.

Besides, just look at Atlanta's situation to realize how stupid it is to get rid of a quality backup for ANY reason. You just never know.

MJZiggy

10-04-2007, 08:21 AM

Rodgers isn't moving anywhere unless someone gives us a Herschel Walker type deal for him.

Rodgers is no Herschel Walker.

Bretsky

10-04-2007, 08:27 AM

Was there a rumor SF inquired about Rodgers ? I doubt GB would trade him, and if they did I doubt SF would offer anything over a 2nd. He's still unproven, and SF will still have Smith back eventually

Guiness

10-04-2007, 08:33 AM

Agreed Bretsky - if he's out, they go with Dilfer, or throw a kid in there to see how he does. They wouldn't give up the picks TT would want to Rodgers, because they believe they've got their franchise QB, and don't need another one.

Now Atlanta...there's a team that should be ringing TT's phone!

TheRaven

10-04-2007, 08:33 AM

Was there a rumor SF inquired about Rodgers ? I doubt GB would trade him, and if they did I doubt SF would offer anything over a 2nd. He's still unproven, and SF will still have Smith back eventually

What's this? Some reasoning on a sports message board?

So, so true.

3irty1

10-04-2007, 08:43 AM

Where did this come from? Is this actually a rumor or just a what if?

They can't trade Rodgers now, there won't enough time to get someone else in starting shape before Favre is done. If they were going to trade him it should have been last year.

mraynrand

10-04-2007, 08:50 AM

San Fran could probably trade a box of Rice a Roni for Rex Grossman.

run pMc

10-04-2007, 09:13 AM

This has to be a rumor. I agree Rodgers isn't going to be traded for the reasons already mentioned: GB's QB depth, he's "the future", and a TT pick to boot. I don't think he'd fetch more than a 2nd or a very late 1st round pick, anyway...and that's a best case scenario.

Even if TT could trick SF into giving away a R1 and a player, what player would that be? SF is 2-2 and not exactly overflowing with guys other teams are clamoring for. Put it this way: they just dumped their #3WR and re-signed Bryan Gilmore. I heard a joke that their offense is so bad that people are lamenting Norv Turner's departure.

Dilfer was a starting QB and has a ring, and when he was healthy Smith wasn't exactly impersonating Tom Brady, so I doubt SF sees much of a drop-off with Dilfer. Unless he's out for more than 2-3 weeks, SF will stand pat and wait for Smith to heal.

Now if SF and GB did a Smith-for-Rodgers swap straight-up, THAT would be interesting...I still don't know if TT would take it. I don't think I would. Would you?

MJZiggy

10-04-2007, 09:16 AM

He can't take that deal. Rodgers is the only backup and Smith isn't healthy which is the #1 need in your backup.

TheRaven

10-04-2007, 09:59 AM

Now if SF and GB did a Smith-for-Rodgers swap straight-up, THAT would be interesting...I still don't know if TT would take it. I don't think I would. Would you?

I don't know why we would want to do that. Rodgers has spent 3 years with this team. Smith would come into a new situation and have to relearn everything. I also don't think he has shown the ability to be a franchise QB. At least with Rodgers, he still has that possibility.

Partial

10-04-2007, 11:58 AM

Dilfer is a proven winner. Once.

Harlan Huckleby

10-04-2007, 12:04 PM

I would trade Rogers for FRank Gore.

MJZiggy

10-04-2007, 12:05 PM

Then who's our backup QB?

Partial

10-04-2007, 12:07 PM

Charles Woodson.

We won't win with a back-up anyway. I'd resign the punter from Furman.

If they gave us Gore (never going to happen), i'd jump on that.

Harlan Huckleby

10-04-2007, 12:08 PM

Then who's our backup QB?

oh, they can find some damn fool. Griese may soon be available. :)

You don't get something for nothing. I'd rather have a good running back and lousy backup QB in a season where the team is good enough to make some noise.

Harlan Huckleby

10-04-2007, 12:08 PM

If they gave us Gore (never going to happen), i'd jump on that.

ya, it was just a dream.

Deputy Nutz

10-04-2007, 12:13 PM

I just thought we were playing a game of hypothetical bullshit.

Harlan Huckleby

10-04-2007, 12:15 PM

I just thought we were playing a game of hypothetical bullshit.

no way, this shit is real.

if you can't handle it, get the hell out.

Carolina_Packer

10-04-2007, 12:43 PM

I just thought we were playing a game of hypothetical bullshit.

no way, this shit is real.

As real as Britney's singing, or her parenting skills.

I'm confused why this hypothetical came up in the first place. Why would the 49'ers want ARod? It's not like Alex Smith spontaneously combusted; he might be out a year. Isn't that the role of the veteran backup? If they got A-Rod, and Smith is back next year, you've got like a jillion dollars (unofficial currency) tied up in QB, and a QB controversy. Plus, then we have to groom someone else for our system.

I'd rather bet the over/under on the number of months it will take Britney to get a valid driver's license. I say 4. Do you bet the over or under?

rbaloha1

10-04-2007, 02:42 PM

First, its unlikely the niners trade for AR since Alex Smith is already guaranteed to receive $20 million plus.

However, the packers should still consider trading AR for the following reasons:

* Favre appears to able to play into his 40s.

* This is a good year for college qbs: (Brennan, Brohm, Woodson, Henne, Boston College's qb, etc.) My bias is to Brennan.

Forget this system nonsense, Colt Brennan is the real deal and makes all the throws required for the wco, His arm delivery allows him to throw in more windows. Also Colt is mature, confident, tough a great leader.

Zool

10-04-2007, 02:54 PM

But the guy was a felon and thats why he's now in Hawaii and not Oaklahoma(i think). That will hurt his draft status for sure. Hopefully he really has matured like you said.

BF4MVP

10-04-2007, 02:55 PM

Not trading Rodgers, period..

The title of this thread made me believe that they actually DID contact the Packers about Rodgers' available..

But he's the future of the franchise, and he's not tradeable in my opinon..

rbaloha1

10-04-2007, 03:00 PM

Colt was asked to leave Colorado.

Much has been written about Colt. The most recent ESPN magazine features Colt on the cover. Suggest also reading New York Times, Washington Post, etc. Make your own conclusions.

Residing in Hawaii, I can tell you Colt is a god/cult/celebrity figure which is not easy for an outsider.

Hawaii Coach June Jones continually says Colt is the best qb in the nation and compares Colt's quick release with Marino and play with Jim Kelly. Thats good enough for me.