Are there HOLES in our LEADERSHIP that are concerning ???

[RashanGary]

How true that is.

And before the Packers completely kowtow to Rodgers and throw the next five years away on an overly large, terribly burdensome contract - remember, one bad injury to the 37-year-old not-as-nimble-any-more QB and it's all over - wouldn't it be nice to get a little more information on Jordan Love and what he might offer?

And that's the problem - Rodgers know the Packers need to see what they have and in their fantasy world they'd have Rodgers for two more seasons and then, if they like Love, they move on, and if he doesn't pan out, they then give Rodgers another two seasons.

Rodgers feels slighted by that - kinda like the husband that is going to keep his wife around - unless he can find a younger, just-as-hot woman.

Which is understandable Rodgers feels like they’re not loyal and doesn’t like it. It’s business or whatever people call it, but it doesn’t mean anyone has to like it or agree to it. I understand both sides.

[RashanGary]

If the team can cut ties whenever they feel like it and no ones feelings should be hurt in the process then the player should be able to use whatever leverage he has whenever he wants and no one should be butt hurt either. Both sides are a business. Let’s stop holding players to the loyalty standard and then having management with no loyalty excused as business. That doesn’t make any sense.

[RashanGary]

I think because we were raised in this society where there is no loyalty in business, we just accept it. But then when a player sees what’s happening and plays the same game, we act all surprised and hold him to these humane standards while he’s getting chewed up in an inhumane business. Rodgers is doing the right thing. He’s not wrong here

[sharpe1027]

Rodgers is free to leverage anything he wants against the Packers. Fans are free to be pissed off at him for using the leverage against the team they support. Nobody gets to tell me whether I can disagree with one side or the other.

[RashanGary]

Rodgers is free to leverage anything he wants against the Packers. Fans are free to be pissed off at him for using the leverage against the team they support. Nobody gets to tell me whether I can disagree with one side or the other.

What good is a team that’s not loyal to its team?

Nelson, Sitton, Jennings, Favre, Lang, Rodgers.....

Look, I like the idea of team and loyalty and doing it together. It’s a beautiful concept. But I don’t support the Packers as a “team” because they’re not. They’re a cold business just like everything else in America.

As the season goes on, there’s team relationships that develop and a team goal and teamwork. I love seeing them work together toward a common goal as a team. But when offseason comes around I’m sure not gonna attribute Gute or TT or damn near any GM with being team oriented or people oriented. Wins and losses don’t mean as much as they used to for me. I’d rather see loyalty and people sticking together. And that’s not what the NFL is.

[sharpe1027]

What good is a team that’s not loyal to its team?

Nelson, Sitton, Jennings, Favre, Lang, Rodgers.....

Look, I like the idea of team and loyalty and doing it together. It’s a beautiful concept. But I don’t support the Packers as a “team” because they’re not. They’re a cold business just like everything else in America.

As the season goes on, there’s team relationships that develop and a team goal and teamwork. I love seeing them work together toward a common goal as a team. But when offseason comes around I’m sure not gonna attribute Gute or TT or damn near any GM with being team oriented or people oriented. Wins and losses don’t mean as much as they used to for me. I’d rather see loyalty and people sticking together. And that’s not what the NFL is.

I am sorry you don't enjoy the games as much because of how you feel about the organization. I try not to take any of this personal.

They don't do everything the way I would prefer. Hell, I'd rather the players and upper management stopped by my house every day to hangout and sign things for my kids. They don't, but I still like watching the games and support the imperfect team that they are in spite of them not operating like I would prefer.

I can distinguish between how a single player acts and how a group of individuals running the team act. They aren't in identical positions and don't need to be held to identical standards.

[smuggler]

Nelson, Sitton, Jennings, Favre, Lang, Rodgers

Nelson and Jennings didn't get done dirty by the Packers.

Jennings bet on himself and lost. Nelson chose the extra money in Oakland over staying in Green Bay. He'd have been stupid not to, but so what? He said screw us and went elsewhere. We did not betray those players. Period.

[Joemailman]

Nelson and Jennings didn't get done dirty by the Packers.

Jennings bet on himself and lost. Nelson chose the extra money in Oakland over staying in Green Bay. He'd have been stupid not to, but so what? He said screw us and went elsewhere. We did not betray those players. Period.

The Packers cut Jordy to save 10 million in cap space. I don't recall that they were trying to sign him. Cutting him was the right move.

[Bretsky]

The Packers cut Jordy to save 10 million in cap space. I don't recall that they were trying to sign him. Cutting him was the right move.

Many reported GB lowballed JN and offered Jordy 2.5 MIL/Year to return

[HarveyWallbangers]

Love Jordy, but he was done here when 1) he lost a step after his ACL injury, and 2) he started sliding when he caught the ball trying to avoid getting hit. They don’t really miss him. Allen Lazard gives them what Jordy gave them at the end + elite blocking.

The team made the right move—which is yet another reason Rodgers shouldn’t play GM. If Jordy had stayed, maybe we don't find out that Allen Lazard can be a fine starter in MLF's offense. It's kind of like Malik Taylor vs. Jake Kumerow. Kumerow had enough time. He proved he'd always be a JAG. Taylor may end up being a JAG or he may end up being the next Lazard--at least there's a slight chance.

[King Friday]

With a salary cap, all players understand that teams will need to make decisions. The Packers have rarely dumped a player who went somewhere else and had 3-4 successful seasons. That basically proves that the Packers handle their business well based on how the system is set up. Teams can't overspend on an old guy just because we want to be loyal to them without turning into a poor performer on the field.

Players who throw a hissy fit about security and stability are morons. They damn well know how the system is set up in the career they chose to go into. You don't get to have all the pros of that system without taking the cons. That is what irks me about Rodgers. He knows the gig...but wants to sit here and whine about it. I can understand his frustration, but that is life in any profession. Health care workers have infinitely more to gripe about over this past year. Rodgers should shut up and fulfill the rest of his remaining contract to the best of his ability. If he wants to publicly challenge draft strategy, great. That's his choice and he has a right to his viewpoint. But the crybaby act on security is pathetic from a player of his caliber.

[sharpe1027]

As far as I'm concerned, Rodgers can push for whatever he wants. It's his job and life. Similarly, the Packers can make a decision to roll the dice on Rodgers long term how they think is best (for or against). I don't pretend to know which will work out. Too many variables to know with any reasonable certainty.

I'm not going to get angry about any of this. I can still watch the games while hanging out with friends, etc.

That doesn't mean I won't think someone is being a bit of an idiot or selfish for their actions. I'm not there yet with this as it's a lot of opinions, rumors, and very few facts. If, however, the noise about Rodgers is mostly true, I think he's in need of a reality and ego check.

[bobblehead]

If the team can cut ties whenever they feel like it and no ones feelings should be hurt in the process then the player should be able to use whatever leverage he has whenever he wants and no one should be butt hurt either. Both sides are a business. Let’s stop holding players to the loyalty standard and then having management with no loyalty excused as business. That doesn’t make any sense.

I would agree with one caveat. Rodgers has 2 options, plain and clear and I deny him neither. He can show up and play, or he can stay home and not play. The problem is, that athletes will show up, tank, whine, be a cancer to the team and the team has no suitable options. They should be able to suspend without pay, fine, or otherwise sue for breech if a player shows up and then destroys the team.

I'm not saying Rodgers is going to do that. Truth be told I doubt it. But I still remember Mike McKenzie faking an injury after not getting his way. That is why the character of the guy you invest millions in is very important.

I won't begrudge Rodgers if he gives up a lot of money to sit home. I'll even respect it a little. But if he shows up and the undermining the organization continues then I have a real problem.