What do you want FB to do with AROD in 2023---AND some thoughts

[Joemailman]

Moneyline on who Rodgers will play for in 2023:

Packers -115
Jets +115
Raiders +750
Colts +1000
Dolphins +1200
Patriots +1500
Titans +1500
Commanders +1800

[bobblehead]

This is a good point, but even here there are a couple of ways to see this. First, as you do - he sees what might be coming, or what he might even want (I don't think he really knows quite yet) - and he is prepping everyone for that. He's a smart guy. But as smart as he is, he also may be saying all this about an amicable departure knowing he's not going anywhere, so he can afford to sound generous.

There may be a little bit of a game of chicken going on - Rodgers is going to keep hemming and hawing about retirement, waiting to see what the Guter is going to do about Bakh, Cobb, Lazard, Tonyan, and Lewis. (Makes me wonder - are any of those players on Rodgers's list "must haves"? Are there any he'd be okay without? Like, say, if they re-sign Cobb, can he live without them signing Tonyan? I suspect his good friends Cobb and Lewis are of key importance to Rodgers, but I don't know.)

I do think Rodgers loves all this cat-and-mouse stuff.

Its also possible he realizes he is out and he has no real say in it. He may be approaching it this way to make it look like his idea. Or if not his idea, that he OK'd it. If he throws a tantrum on the way out ala Favre then he takes a big PR hit. He said himself that he is already taking a hit from endorsements and such because of his "divisive" stances. He is a sharp guy and probably realizes that the public perception of him will determine his profile for many years after he is done and he wants that to be as positive as possible.

[texaspackerbacker]

Moneyline on who Rodgers will play for in 2023:

Packers -115
Jets +115
Raiders +750
Colts +1000
Dolphins +1200
Patriots +1500
Titans +1500
Commanders +1800

Those are comforting odds. Are there no odds for "the field" - Broncos, Cowboys, Bears, Buccaneers, Vikings, Panthers, etc.? I, of course, don't think Rodgers is going anyplace, but most of those and maybe others are as likely as the ones listed.

[texaspackerbacker]

It is a valid point that maybe Rodgers' bad season - relatively - means he has less leverage in having the team make decisions. I would argue, though, that all of those players listed with the possible exception of Cobb were logical decisions for the Packer brass to keep/sign last season independent of pleasing Rodgers. Going forward, keeping Lewis at the same price, Tonyan for a reasonable amount, Lazard unless the price gets ridiculous, Cobb cut and re-signed for not much over the vet minimum, and whatever regarding Bakhtiari depending on what they think he has left would still be smart decisions.

Some people in here seem to think they not only know what's in Rodgers' head and that they're smarter than the Packer decision makers. They don't and they aren't.

The jklowan post above apparently is 100% factual. Based on what it says, though, IMO it is a helluva lot more reason to keep Rodgers than to trade him. "The acquiring team pays less to have Aaron Rodgers ON their team in 2023 and 2024 than when he is no longer there." - Yes. And "The overall cap cost would be about $94.2M for two years of work and four years of cap hits. That is about the overall going rate for quarterbacks these days, but the way it hits the cap is unique." Yes, again, but that only makes it bad if those 3rd and 4th years are for nothing. If Rodgers at age 42 or 43 is still playing at or above what Brady was at that age, it's a great thing - great for some other team if the boneheads in here get their wish; Great for the Packers if things go as I (and probably LaFleur/Guteknst/etc.) expect.

It all boils down to if you think Rodgers is gonna play as bad or worse going forward as last season OR if you think - as I obviously do - that Rodgers will play at least as good as Brady did at the same age. And I ask again, WHY WOULDN'T HE????

[sharpe1027]

.

It all boils down to if you think Rodgers is gonna play as bad or worse going forward as last season OR if you think - as I obviously do - that Rodgers will play at least as good as Brady did at the same age. And I ask again, WHY WOULDN'T HE????

When did Brady have a similar dropoff in play like Rodgers just had? Not asking or interested in excuses, just a straight answer.


Spoiler alert, never.

[call_me_ishmael]

When did Brady have a similar dropoff in play like Rodgers just had? Not asking or interested in excuses, just a straight answer.


Spoiler alert, never.

Eh... last year in NE he ended with a playoff pick.

[texaspackerbacker]

When did Brady have a similar dropoff in play like Rodgers just had? Not asking or interested in excuses, just a straight answer.


Spoiler alert, never.

That's the point. Brady - who isn't near as athletic as Rodgers, even the haters and shitheads should admit that - didn't drop off until this year at age 45. Rodgers' bad year clearly was due to injury. his own and others, as well as inexperienced WRs. All of that should not be the case next season, so WHY would some idiots think his bad play - which really wasn't even that bad - would continue?

[HarveyWallbangers]

That's the point. Brady - who isn't near as athletic as Rodgers, even the haters and shitheads should admit that - didn't drop off until this year at age 45. Rodgers' bad year clearly was due to injury. his own and others, as well as inexperienced WRs. All of that should not be the case next season, so WHY would some idiots think his bad play - which really wasn't even that bad - would continue?

Don't you think this is kind of obvious? Mobility was never a part of Brady's game, so he aged better than any QB in NFL history. A big part of Rodgers success was predicated on it. Think about how much it would affect Patrick Mahomes or Josh Allen, if they lost their legs.

[Fritz]

Its also possible he realizes he is out and he has no real say in it. He may be approaching it this way to make it look like his idea. Or if not his idea, that he OK'd it. If he throws a tantrum on the way out ala Favre then he takes a big PR hit. He said himself that he is already taking a hit from endorsements and such because of his "divisive" stances. He is a sharp guy and probably realizes that the public perception of him will determine his profile for many years after he is done and he wants that to be as positive as possible.

Maybe. But the Rodgers I think I know wouldn't capitulate so easily. He'd be threatening retirement, hinting that he might retire rather than play for anyone else. That would turn off the trade talks, if there are any, and give the Packers less leverage in terms of getting anything for him. But then you'd have a Farve-ish situation, and you are right, I think, that Rodgers is aware of and concerned about how his image looks in the world.

[King Friday]

That's the point. Brady - who isn't near as athletic as Rodgers, even the haters and shitheads should admit that - didn't drop off until this year at age 45. Rodgers' bad year clearly was due to injury. his own and others, as well as inexperienced WRs. All of that should not be the case next season, so WHY would some idiots think his bad play - which really wasn't even that bad - would continue?

Because name me a QB other than Brady who has excelled after 40. Rodgers doesn’t have the work ethic that Brady does. He doesn’t have the focus either. Comparing Rodgers to Brady is always going to be a losing proposition for the “let’s keep Rodgers 3 more years crowd. I’ve not heard Brady ever come out and demand that “his guys” need to be on the team for him to be successful. Sure, he’s worked in the background to bring guys to NE and Tampa, but this ridiculous need for “friends” from Rodgers goes to show how truly weak he is mentally. Meanwhile, while Lazard was running open on the final offensive play of the season, Rodgers decided to toss up a pathetic moon shot that was easily intercepted. Glad he really needs a guy like Lazard on the team.

[texaspackerbacker]

Too many to mention one by one. Here is a link for you. https://www.sportscasting.com/oldest-nfl-quarterbacks/

Brady's work ethic better than Rodgers? That's completely unproven. I guess Rodgers shoulda kept his thumb in better shape by training and exercise huh? hahahaha Focus? Come on hahaha - ya'all haters swallow the shit like it's gospel. It ain't. It's media assholes stirring up trouble.

As for your "friends" stupidity, I read what he said on MacAfee too. Are you seriously claiming that Marcedes Lewis for just a million or so a year is not a plus for the team? That Tonyan if healthy is not a plus if we keep him for a reasonable amount? Apparently Rodgers thinks Bakhtiari is a plus, so I guess I better get on board about him too hahahaha. Cobb? He shouldn't be getting $6-7 million, but as a 5th or 6th WR, he's better than most. And as I said, Lazard for less than a ridiculous price is clearly a plus too. All of that is Rodgers merely stating the obvious. Do ya'all haters seriously dispute any of that?

[run pMc]

Brady had a sizeable dropoff this year; akin to his last year in NE but I'd argue with much better skill players and surrounding talent. Their OL had a rash of injuries and a retirement, which hurt him, and their run game wasn't good either. They were still pretty good with Evans, Godwin, Julio, and Russell Gage. My kneejerk impression is that if you put Rodgers on that team with that defense and I think they win 1-2 more games.

Brady threw 733 times this season, that's an ungodly amount. Rodgers threw 542 by comparison. Brady's Y/A and ANY/A and Y/C were all lower than Rodgers, and he threw one less TD. Unbelievable amount of dinking and dunking, but that's always been his game -- get the ball out fast and let the receivers (Welker, Edelman, James White, Gronk) go to work.
Gronk's retirement and Fournette's regression hurt him in TB.

Both Rodgers and Brady were meh at best.

[run pMc]

Too many to mention one by one. Here is a link for you. https://www.sportscasting.com/oldest-nfl-quarterbacks/

Brady's work ethic better than Rodgers? That's completely unproven. I guess Rodgers shoulda kept his thumb in better shape by training and exercise huh? hahahaha Focus? Come on hahaha - ya'all haters swallow the shit like it's gospel. It ain't. It's media assholes stirring up trouble.

As for your "friends" stupidity, I read what he said on MacAfee too. Are you seriously claiming that Marcedes Lewis for just a million or so a year is not a plus for the team? That Tonyan if healthy is not a plus if we keep him for a reasonable amount? Apparently Rodgers thinks Bakhtiari is a plus, so I guess I better get on board about him too hahahaha. Cobb? He shouldn't be getting $6-7 million, but as a 5th or 6th WR, he's better than most. And as I said, Lazard for less than a ridiculous price is clearly a plus too. All of that is Rodgers merely stating the obvious. Do ya'all haters seriously dispute any of that?

Weird link - a lot of these guys were clearly washed their last season, or were career backups or never-were's. Vince Evans had a few good years, and I enjoyed some of the Joe Ferguson years but they weren't exactly elite QBs by their later 30's. I'll pick on Ferguson a little -- his last year as a fulll-time ish starter was his age 34 season and he threw 12 TDs and 17 INTs.
Here are his career stats:
186 G, 79-92-0 QBrec, 52.4% Cmp%, 29817 Yds, 6.6 Y/A, 196 TDs, 209 Int

yes, it was the 70's and 80's, but those aren't HOF numbers. I'd be wary of that link you posted. It's pretty misleading.

Let's pick another QB -- how about Drew Brees?
He's HOF worthy, but I don't think anyone in this forum thought he had an arm in his last 2 seasons. He was a quick processer and fairly accurate, but the only thing we feared was him completing his 500th straight 8 yard slant to Michael Thomas, or a dump off to Kamara that he'd turn into 20 yards by forcing half of Pettine's defense to miss tackles. His last season was his age 41 year and he was clearly washed by then -- he was playing the dink and dunk game also and was also hurt quite a bit. Old guys get hurt more easily and take longer to heal. Taysom Hill played QB a few games that season as his backup and did almost as well, and nobody thinks he is a starter-level QB.

Point is, QBs can make it to 40 in the NFL, but you don't really want them playing unless you have no choice, because with very few exceptions they won't be very good... and banking on your QB being an exception is a risky bet, highly unlikely to pay off. I mean, nobody fears Joe Flacco (who has a SB ring), and that dude isn't even 39.

As for Rodgers 'friends', I would keep Bakh but the rest are replaceable. Big Dog is a nice player, the vet minimum -- if he's interested in taking that -- is about $1.2M. Ok, but why not just play one of your young 6th OL if you're just going to block? Tonyan & Lazard are nice players but I think they are what they are, and Lazard will get money elsewhere in the FA market (good for him). Tonyan comes back if he's cheap, but then their TE room is the same as last year -- uninspiring and aging -- and it still doesn't give them a long-term solution there. Cobb is a nice guy but can't stay healthy, isn't explosive, and just getting by on guile. You need your 5th and 6th WRs to be ST contributors, he's probably gone. Crosby is a good K but his leg is about done. Anything over 50 yards is a coin flip, and he can't kick a touchback.
I wouldn't go out of my way to keep Rodgers 'friends'; if they wanted to come back for cheap then I'd consider it but I'd be fine shopping elsewhere for cheaper players with higher upside.

[texaspackerbacker]

I guess I'm not gonna knock Bakhtiari anymore since Rodgers thinks so highly of him. Lewis, that's exactly what he's getting and likely will continue to get. Cobb if he gets cut and re-signs for the vet minimum as a 5th or 6th WR? Is that a problem to the haters? You're SURE that Lazard is going elsewhere huh? I suspect the Packers have a number they are willing to pay him. Maybe somebody else will beat that number, maybe not, and maybe a team bidding ridiculously for him would end up regretting it. I put it at 55/45 he stays a Packer. Tonyan if fairly cheap? Yeah that's true. I expect him to be at least a little better, and I don't expect another team to pay so much that the Packers let him go. I tend to think we draft a TE fairly high. I've never been much thrilled with DeGuara, but he probably stays. I can't even think of the 4th guy's name right now, but he probably is replaced by a draft pick. The way the Packers used TEs, that probably enough.

Granted, several of the 16 over 40 QBs listed were not much in their best years, much less over 40, but the dumbass said "name one". I guess he couldn't even remember Favre hahahaha. Rodgers has a lot sturdier body and stronger arm than Brees had even at a younger age. The point, even with the slugs on the list, is that they didn't drop off a whole lot until the very end, and then it was sometimes injuries - P. Manning and I think Brees. Another thing about the list, QB is a lot different position nowadays rule-wise, conditioning-wise, game style in general than when Starr and Unitas were around, and even they played to pretty old ages, albeit not 40.

Old guys get hurt easier? I'll leave it to somebody else to do some research, but that doesn't quite ring true - thinking of Mahomes, Hurts, L. Jackson, etc. in the past few years compared to Rodgers and Brady.

[King Friday]

I clearly said EXCELLED, not just played. You are just too much of a dumbass to be able to read and comprehend the English language.

The bottom line is that there isn’t a QB other than Brady who has played at anything near an elite level after 40. Favre is probably the best of the rest, and he had one good year. Saying that Rodgers will absolutely do something because Tom Brady has done it has no credibility. No one else has ever done what Brady has, and it is HIGHLY unlikely that anyone else will for quite awhile.