Monday is a Big Day

[Spaulding]

It's the "entitled" generation I guess. He's certainly earned the right to try and control his future and doing what's best for him but his statements last night suggest the Packers "owe" it to him and the players on some level. Employers don't owe employees anything beyond a fair wage and safe working environment. When he signed his contract extension he should have already been aware of the Packers retrain from "all in mentality." Players are paid incredibly well and almost always shop their services to the highest bidder which is what free agency and the open market is all about. Why shouldn't a team insulate itself from possibly declining play and/or injuries?

I still think the Love pick was a major mistake and at least a year (now in hindsight likely three) too early though.

[Joemailman]

Rodgers used the word "people" 14 times. I see as the start of a campaign to get Up With People chosen for the Super Bowl Halftime Show.

[call_me_ishmael]

Not really. ARod is a chippy MFer. He felt slighted simply by them drafting Love. That comment tells me more than anything else he has said. He doesn't want to be anywhere but GB. All of this is sticking it to the upper echelon for daring to draft Love. He will be in camp. The only possible "wrench" now is if they are annoyed enough at him to actually trade him for a haul. Right now he is sticking it to them. The only wrench left is if they call his bluff and move on.

Dunno about that one. I don't think he's coming to camp without a deal, and it sounds like Packers won't guarantee him a deal beyond this next year, at least that's what Charles Robinson and Mike Silver reported.

Rodgers isn't going to outright burn the bridge in case he doesn't get what he wants and tank his marketability.

[call_me_ishmael]

So does Rodgers think it was wrong for the Packers to draft him? Was that disloyalty to Brett Favre in his opinion? Or is Rodgers perhaps selective about which players loyalty is owed to?

I think it's a different situation, though.

For one Favre was talking about retirement, etc. Rodgers has never done that and said he intends to play to 40 at a minimum.

I do agree the rest of the situation is similar beyond the whole trading up thing.

I made a post that looked at other upper echelon QBs and aside from Favre and Rodgers, I could not find a single circumstance of a team using a R1 draft pick on a QB. Even using a 2 was extremely rare.

Rodgers can simultaneously love the person (Jordan Love) but hate that management spent valuable resources on replacing Rodgers instead of building the best possible team around him. Not mutually exclusive ideas

https://twitter.com/joethomas73/status/1397177720887521282

I agree Joe Thomas, I agree.

Personally - I tihnk Rodgers is being opportunistic and if Kenny Mayne's last show was not the first day of OTAs, no way would he be on it.

[RashanGary]

It's the "entitled" generation I guess. He's certainly earned the right to try and control his future and doing what's best for him but his statements last night suggest the Packers "owe" it to him and the players on some level. Employers don't owe employees anything beyond a fair wage and safe working environment. When he signed his contract extension he should have already been aware of the Packers retrain from "all in mentality." Players are paid incredibly well and almost always shop their services to the highest bidder which is what free agency and the open market is all about. Why shouldn't a team insulate itself from possibly declining play and/or injuries?

I still think the Love pick was a major mistake and at least a year (now in hindsight likely three) too early though.

This is public sentiment to a T. For the very most part people accept business without a stray thought to the possibility that it’s cold to be about hard business in a “people” world.

Rodgers will lose this battle. He will come and play or he will retire and lose a lot of money. This is the black and white reality. And very few people will understand where he’s coming from and quite a lot of people will call him a brat.

Despite common beliefs of the society I live, I’m happy to have a minority opinion that business is sort of crap and it’s a sad environment.

[George Cumby]

I'll also add this. If the reported deals I have seen floated are real. 3 firsts and a player. Then I hope they deal him. I think that is simply too good to pass up on a 37 almost 38 year old at any position.

Agreed. A deal like that could set them up, talent-wise for 5-10 years.

[sharpe1027]

Rodgers views the team as the people and you seem to view it as the organization. I see Rodgers view point as more natural and human. I see yours as cultural conditioning.

No. I view all organizations as groups of people. They're indistinguishable. You seem to think otherwise?

[RashanGary]

No. I view all organizations as groups of people. They're indistinguishable. You seem to think otherwise?

At work I connect directly to the people I work with. The things that come down from above aren’t as personal and don’t have the depth of actual in person relationships. So I definitely understand when Rodgers talks directly about teammates and feels separate from the higher up business.

But you connecting to the “organization” and feeling connected like it’s a team, there’s nothing wrong with that. Some people can feel connected with that kind of indirect relationship. I just don’t.

[RashanGary]

I would say Rodgers felt closer to Sitton, Lang and Nelson than he did to gutebag. Even whitewater Jesus probably. I suspect the team he connects to is more the people he works with than the organization above him. I relate to Rodgers that way. He’ll be back tho. He’s got no other real options. Sometimes I would do a spite call when I was fed up with management and let them have a night without me. I usually came back though.

[Joemailman]

Adrian Amos being asked a lot of Rodgers questions at PC. Gotta be frustrating. Aaron Jones up next.

[texaspackerbacker]

Rodgers used the word "people" 14 times. I see as the start of a campaign to get Up With People chosen for the Super Bowl Halftime Show.

He used that term "about people", citing players throughout several great eras of Packer success. To me, that sounds kinda like a slap in the face to the guy who has been seemingly his biggest supporter in this mess, LaFleur - saying the team is great primarily because of the players, which of course means primarily Rodgers himself. That supports the pomposity labels given to him, but it's pretty hard to argue it ain't true. I think his point was that Gutekunst and others didn't see it that way and planned to move on from Rodgers - and he meant to show them just how huge a mistake that was. It seems like he's having a helluva lot of fun making those people who thought that way squirm.

I think those in the know - the former players like Hawk, Kuhn, etc. - know this. This will all be over soon with a strong chance the conclusion is a long term extension for Rodgers. The only way that doesn't happen is if Gutekunst gets all pissy and digs in against it. And if that happens, we need to get rid of Gutekunst and give him the Dan Devine treatment.

[texaspackerbacker]

As for being "set up for 5-10 years" if we made a killing of a trade for Rodgers, I tend to think it would be more like 5-10 years of doom and gloom even with all those draft picks, etc. Maybe this would turn out like the Bucks being set up for really about 20 years when they traded Alcindor/Kareem, but somehow I don't think we'd be that lucky. The team minus Rodgers even plus a large infusion of young talent would be mediocre at best - IMO.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I like you, RG, but this latest take is utter nonsense.

1) If the NFL was like American culture, it would be more like European soccer. There would be no salary cap and the big clubs would compete with each other to buy the best players.
2) The salary cap necessitates hard decisions. You can't keep everybody, so you have to choose who you bring back. The Packers are often criticized because they are more loyal to their own players than most teams. Why don't the Packers sign FAs? They do. Their own.
3) If you praised the Packers for signing Big Z, Amos, etc. at the expense of keeping the likes of Jordy Nelson, then you have no leg to stand on.

[run pMc]

Oooh...pick me, pick me! He seems to be saying plans were in place for him to be gone, but he played so well those plans were messed up. Based on the context, perhaps he had reason to think the Packers planned to trade him this year? He's also saying he can't stand the people in the organization.

He wants to be gone or he wants a better contract than he's getting offered. At this point, the contact negotiations may be at an impasse.. The main question is will the Packers play hardball and force him to stay.

100% Agree.
I think they will play hardball with him and eventually have some kind of under the table gentlemen's agreement that they deal him after the season. Maybe it leaks out and turns into a Rodgers-farewell tour, but I doubt it.
A trade probably nets them lots of cap space and multiple high draft picks that they absolutely need to nail. Trading a HOF franchise QB is highwire daredevil stuff; you better get it right.
Trading him if he doesn't report to camp isn't ideal but possible; better to trade him after the season -- Jordan Love probably needs another year, and the future picks or cap space don't help you in Week 1.

Would be kind of funny to see him play for Gruden in LV... that lovefest would last about a week, two tops.

As for people vs. organization: The people make the culture, the organization has goals. Gute's job is to gather as talented a roster as possible for the coaches to work into a winning team. If the team doesn't win, the coaches -- and eventually, the GM -- go. He's going to do what it takes to win games and keep his job.
Saddling your roster with aging overpriced players isn't the best way to do that. What things are they not "doing the right way"? He's talking in a very vague, generic sense and there's nothing specific behind it. "It's the people!" is nice and bland, and by all accounts the locker room chemistry was great last year... so he doesn't like management? He's in a club of millions in the country.

I suspect Rodgers isn't a fan of the three silo arrangement, and seems to have strong opinions on Murphy and Gute (and likely Ball). I also suspect these football guys aren't great communicators, which is a little weird. You'd think someone in that building would know how to do that, and you'd especially think after the Favre mess they'd have learned the benefits of keeping close contact with your QB. Maybe the way the Favre drama ended created hubris with Packers' FO, but either way there were lessons they should have taken to heart.

[RashanGary]

Adrian Amos being asked a lot of Rodgers questions at PC. Gotta be frustrating. Aaron Jones up next.

Amos said one thing that was revealing. He said everyone wants to get paid what they’re worth in connection with Rodgers.


Rodgers has 3 problems when it comes to contract and the biggest two have nothing to do with Jordan Love

Rodgers #1 problem - he's almost 40
Rodgers #2 problem - he's under a fair contract that gets him to age 40
Rodgers #3 problem - Jordan Love will be 25 years old, have 4 invaluable years of experience behind the goat, and will be entering the prime of his career when Rodgers contract runs out at 40 years old


Rodgers wants one more hot strike of the iron before he fades off into the sunset. But the cards aren't aligning. In all probability, he’ll be back playing out his current deal or get a slight bump. It's unlikely the Packers give up on Jordan Love or start betting all their marbles on Rodgers after 40. Unfortunately a QB they “loved” slipped to striking distance a year ago and the Packers probably feel like an over 40 QB is risky.

My prediction Rodgers plays another year on his same deal.