Who Will Aaron Rodgers Play For In 2023 (Or Will He Play)?

[Fritz]

Been thinking about whether Rodgers secretly hopes the trade doesn't go through until the draft or even after so he has an excuse to not show up for the beginning of OTA's or conditioning sessions, which I think begin April 17th.

On the other hand, Rodgers seems like the type of guy who, if the trade goes down soon, will appear on the first day of the first officially allowed Jets team activity so he can throw a little FU to the haters who say he's not committed, and make GB look petty in the bargain.

[texaspackerbacker]

It's funny, but it seems like the media shitheads in some cases at least have moved on to stirring up trouble for the Jets. I saw a headline this morning "Are the Jets Selling Their Soul for Rodgers?".

[Fritz]

It's funny, but it seems like the media shitheads in some cases at least have moved on to stirring up trouble for the Jets. I saw a headline this morning "Are the Jets Selling Their Soul for Rodgers?".

That must be a rhetorical question, because the obvious answer is "yes, they are."

[bobblehead]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/aaron-rodgers-adam-schefter-provides-worrying-update-over-latest-talks-between-jets-and-packers/ar-AA190kTh?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=10040229f2104b5fe6c1413de08e324e&ei=28

Seems tex isn't dead yet. Time for Gutes to open talks with SF as well.

[bobblehead]

I am on board with the Hooker but wonder about R2.

You never want to overpay for a Hooker.

[bobblehead]

Been thinking about whether Rodgers secretly hopes the trade doesn't go through until the draft or even after so he has an excuse to not show up for the beginning of OTA's or conditioning sessions, which I think begin April 17th.

On the other hand, Rodgers seems like the type of guy who, if the trade goes down soon, will appear on the first day of the first officially allowed Jets team activity so he can throw a little FU to the haters who say he's not committed, and make GB look petty in the bargain.

Does it make us look petty if he refused to participate in those things with the Packers, but then does so with his new team??

[Joemailman]

Does it make us look petty if he refused to participate in those things with the Packers, but then does so with his new team??

I think it makes him look petty.

[bobblehead]

I think it makes him look petty.

That was my thought.

[Bretsky]

You never want to overpay for a Hooker.

But if you get great performance it's ok to overpay

[Bretsky]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl...e08e324e&ei=28

Seems tex isn't dead yet. Time for Gutes to open talks with SF as well.

I don't want to get fleeced on this, and I could care less if it happens after the draft. Get their 1st and 2nd next year and make this year the year of the Love Machine. Draft a WR in round 1, and TE in round 2, and TO BOOT leak it through the media GB is chatting with Odelll Beckam ))

Eventually da Jets will start sweating heavy. And we absolutely need to get some talks going with San Fran.

[Fritz]

This line doesn't seem right, from that article Bobblehead posted: " He may even just decide to retire, then unretire and join the Jets anway, leaving them with nothing." I thought players couldn't do that, or else they'd all retire when they wanted to go somewhere else, then just unretire. That doesn't seem right. I thought even if a player retires, he's got to be away for at least one season before he is no longer under obligation to his old team.

This would be a whole 'nother animal if another team was interested, but it appears no one is - everyone's either signed someone already or is intending to draft a QB in the top ten or so this year. So the Packers don't have much leverage. Sure, Rodgers could retire, but then the Packers get nothing, absolutely nothing, for him (for those of you who want Gutes to play hardball, consider this possibility). And sure, the Jets don't have a QB, but isn't Matt Stafford still dangling out there, and if the Rams really, really sucked it up, cap-wise, couldn't they unload him on the Jets? Then the Packers are left holding the bag. And what if Rodgers then says he still wants to play football? Then you've got that goof-ass situation where Brent Favre was threatening to show up in Green Bay's camp.

This is fugged up. As I and a couple of others said last offseason, he should've been traded back then. Then you'd have had the picks, you'd have had Love with a year under his belt as a starter, and you'd know where you stand. I get why the team did not trade Rodgers - try for that ring one more time - but they "ran it back" to about the eighteen yard line. It didn't work out.

[run pMc]

I think the GMs and FO's are too preoccupied with pro days and draft prep at the moment. Ohio State and a few others have just had massive pro day events. I'd expect them to hammer something out by the time some of the offseason events actually start to happen... i.e., mid April.
I don't think GB will get the #13 pick, giving away that pick for a 1 year, $60M rental of a 40 year old QB in decline is kind of a lot. If they can, they should try and get the 2 R2 picks and have them throw in a conditional pick next year and call it a day.
I also don't think this deal is going to fall apart, both sides have gone too far down respective roads to back out without it being a giant mess. If GB is going with JL as their QB they aren't going to want Rodgers anywhere near the building. New York isn't going to make all kinds of moves and say they are *this* close to getting Rodgers and turn around and sign Teddy Bridgewater as their QB savior.

[call_me_ishmael]

Outside the box idea - what if you said "Hey Jets, we'll take your 2025 and 2026 first round picks, you can keep you current picks to make a run at it with your new guy".

I think I'd do that.

The Packers aren't picking a QB in 2023 or 2024 either way. They are definitely going to give Love at least two years.

So this way you have some assets to get the next guy if he flames out, or to really make an Eagles style run at it if he's great.

[run pMc]

Good deal for GB, bad deal for NYJ. You might be able to talk Woody Johnson into, but Joe Douglas would probably say no. From the Jets perspective, you're giving up R1 picks after Rodgers will probably be playing.
Would love it for GB though.

Maybe if conditions were tied to the picks? I'm not attached to the idea they HAVE to get R1 picks from the Jets, I'd take the rough equivalent in the form of the two R2 picks or future R2/R3 picks that could be used to move around on draft day or traded for a good player.

[Fritz]

Good deal for GB, bad deal for NYJ. You might be able to talk Woody Johnson into, but Joe Douglas would probably say no. From the Jets perspective, you're giving up R1 picks after Rodgers will probably be playing.
Would love it for GB though.

Maybe if conditions were tied to the picks? I'm not attached to the idea they HAVE to get R1 picks from the Jets, I'd take the rough equivalent in the form of the two R2 picks or future R2/R3 picks that could be used to move around on draft day or traded for a good player.

But that would be the point. The Jets have decided to go all-in short term with Rodgers, so they want their first rounders NOW, since they need the immediate help that a first-rounder is more likely to give you than, say, a developmental second- or third-rounder. So you want those picks now - you're going all-in. Once Rodgers is done, well, let the next suckers figure out how to deal with that, since the NFL is a short-term game as most GM's and coaches don't last too long anyway. And by that time, you can pull a Rams and trade everybody after Rodgers is gone and start fresh. There is some logic in doing it that way.