NFL: Aaron Rodgers wants out of Green Bay? (not anymore?)

jcs0218

Registered User
Apr 20, 2018
7,905
9,725
Literally none of this is true.

Quarterbacks and owners control this league. The only difference is that the Packers don’t have an owner. Made it possible to nearly move the team out of Green Bay last time they didn’t have a quarterback.
What I said is all true.

Green Bay Packers, as an organization are much bigger than Aaron Rodgers.

The only reason they would relocate, as you referred to, would be if the team became so valuable that the municipality of Green Bay deemed it to be a lucrative offer that they didn't want to pass up.

They wouldn't relocate due to "financial hardship". The team has been financially successful for a very long time.

In fact, their ownership structure makes them less likely to ever relocate, rather than one owner saying "I want out of football; I will sell to the highest bidder, regardless of location".

Aaron Rodgers is almost meaningless to the Packers franchise from a financial standpoint.

A 13-3 season with a Super Bowl vs. a 0-16 season? It really makes no difference in Green Bay. The team will sell-out and all the city of Green Bay will rejoice at their earnings from collectively owning the team.

The Green Bay Packers are actually one of the teams most equipped to handle this type of "power play" from Rodgers. They are one of the sports franchises most able to say "play for us, or retire and rot".

They might not win many games if he chooses to retire and rot. But they won't really see financial hardship because of it.

The President and GM of Green Bay can sit back and say: "Our team will generate a profit no matter how we perform. So the city won't fire us, because they will still be collecting money. Therefore, we have no reason for us to cave-in to this diva".

And he is 38 years old. He doesn't have many years left. Even more reason to take a stand against him, since you are only losing 1-3 seasons of elite QB play.

The Green Bay Packers were one of America's most popular, most beloved, and highest earning franchises before Aaron Rodgers.

They will remain those things after Rodgers leaves, even if he retires and rots and they don't get anything in return for him.

Rodgers is so small compared to the Green Bay Packers.

This isn't like Brady and the Patriots.

First, Brady delivered so much more success to the Patriots than Rodgers ever did to the Packers.

Second, the Packers have been a much more steady and stable franchise in terms of franchise value over the years, that one player has never made-or-broke their team. The Packers are like the Maple Leafs or Canadiens of the NFL.

I hope Green Bay holds firm and takes a "us or nothing" type of stance. They have the financial flexibility to take this stance. Any time a company takes a strong stand against a manipulative ego-driven diva is a good thing.
 
Last edited:

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,634
37,428
What I said is all true.

Green Bay Packers, as an organization are much bigger than Aaron Rodgers.

The only reason they would relocate, as you referred to, would be if the team became so valuable that the municipality of Green Bay deemed it to be a lucrative offer that they didn't want to pass up.

They wouldn't relocate due to "financial hardship". The team has been financially successful for a very long time.

In fact, their ownership structure makes them less likely to ever relocate, rather than one owner saying "I want out of football; I will sell to the highest bidder, regardless of location".

Aaron Rodgers is almost meaningless to the Packers franchise from a financial standpoint.

A 13-3 season with a Super Bowl vs. a 0-16 season? It really makes no difference in Green Bay. The team will sell-out and all the city of Green Bay will rejoice at their earnings from collectively owning the team.

The Green Bay Packers are actually one of the teams most equipped to handle this type of "power play" from Rodgers. They are one of the sports franchises most able to say "play for us, or retire and rot".

They might not win many games if he chooses to retire and rot. But they won't really see financial hardship because of it.

The President and GM of Green Bay can sit back and say: "Our team will generate a profit no matter how we perform. So the city won't fire us, because they will still be collecting money. Therefore, we have no reason for us to cave-in to this diva".

And he is 38 years old. He doesn't have many years left. Even more reason to take a stand against him, since you are only losing 1-3 seasons of elite QB play.

The Green Bay Packers were one of America's most popular, most beloved, and highest earning franchises before Aaron Rodgers.

They will remain those things after Rodgers leaves, even if he retires and rots and they don't get anything in return for him.

Rodgers is so small compared to the Green Bay Packers.

This isn't like Brady and the Patriots.

First, Brady delivered so much more success to the Patriots than Rodgers ever did to the Packers.

Second, the Packers have been a much more steady and stable franchise in terms of franchise value over the years, that one player has never made-or-broke their team. The Packers are like the Maple Leafs or Canadiens of the NFL.

I hope Green Bay holds firm and takes a "us or nothing" type of stance. They have the financial flexibility to take this stance. Any time a company takes a strong stand against a manipulative ego-driven diva is a good thing.

“This isn’t Brady and the Patriots.” Of course it’s not, because that would f*** up your argument. Impossible to be wrong when you just decide to ignore evidence you don’t like. Never mind that when the two split, Brady won a Super Bowl with a team that had zero playoff wins in almost 20 years while the Patriots are now out in wilderness - just like they were before he showed up there.
 

Troy McClure

Suter will never be scratched
Mar 12, 2002
47,587
15,478
South of Heaven
What I said is all true.

Green Bay Packers, as an organization are much bigger than Aaron Rodgers.

The only reason they would relocate, as you referred to, would be if the team became so valuable that the municipality of Green Bay deemed it to be a lucrative offer that they didn't want to pass up.

They wouldn't relocate due to "financial hardship". The team has been financially successful for a very long time.

In fact, their ownership structure makes them less likely to ever relocate, rather than one owner saying "I want out of football; I will sell to the highest bidder, regardless of location".

Aaron Rodgers is almost meaningless to the Packers franchise from a financial standpoint.

A 13-3 season with a Super Bowl vs. a 0-16 season? It really makes no difference in Green Bay. The team will sell-out and all the city of Green Bay will rejoice at their earnings from collectively owning the team.

The Green Bay Packers are actually one of the teams most equipped to handle this type of "power play" from Rodgers. They are one of the sports franchises most able to say "play for us, or retire and rot".

They might not win many games if he chooses to retire and rot. But they won't really see financial hardship because of it.

The President and GM of Green Bay can sit back and say: "Our team will generate a profit no matter how we perform. So the city won't fire us, because they will still be collecting money. Therefore, we have no reason for us to cave-in to this diva".

And he is 38 years old. He doesn't have many years left. Even more reason to take a stand against him, since you are only losing 1-3 seasons of elite QB play.

The Green Bay Packers were one of America's most popular, most beloved, and highest earning franchises before Aaron Rodgers.

They will remain those things after Rodgers leaves, even if he retires and rots and they don't get anything in return for him.

Rodgers is so small compared to the Green Bay Packers.

This isn't like Brady and the Patriots.

First, Brady delivered so much more success to the Patriots than Rodgers ever did to the Packers.

Second, the Packers have been a much more steady and stable franchise in terms of franchise value over the years, that one player has never made-or-broke their team. The Packers are like the Maple Leafs or Canadiens of the NFL.

I hope Green Bay holds firm and takes a "us or nothing" type of stance. They have the financial flexibility to take this stance. Any time a company takes a strong stand against a manipulative ego-driven diva is a good thing.
I can’t think of a worse way to handle this than to dare Rodgers retire and have it happen when the alternative would be to get some nice draft capital in return. Rodgers has given the Packers 16 seasons. That’s like two careers worth of time. If he wants out, let him go. He did more than enough for the Packers. Sell him for what you can get and move on. You gain nothing by taking a hard stance with him.
 

DueDiligence

Registered User
Nov 16, 2013
8,471
4,836
The Green Bay Packers were one of America's most popular, most beloved, and highest earning franchises before Aaron Rodgers
They only were because Favre was instrumental in the team winning and Rodgers continued the winning ways. Before Favre in the 1970s and 80s the Packers were an afterthought. And if Rodgers leaves and they have a number of losing seasons they will be an afterthought again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melrose Munch

Hoverhand

Barry Trotzky
Dec 6, 2015
2,411
1,247
Ontario
I can’t think of a worse way to handle this than to dare Rodgers retire and have it happen when the alternative would be to get some nice draft capital in return. Rodgers has given the Packers 16 seasons. That’s like two careers worth of time. If he wants out, let him go. He did more than enough for the Packers. Sell him for what you can get and move on. You gain nothing by taking a hard stance with him.
Multiple former teammates that Rodgers is close with have come out and said that he's not going to retire. He's probably using/going to use it as a bargaining tactic because frankly it's the only cards he holds. He's under contract and there's not much he can do other than sit out or retire. Which is hard for someone who expressed on multiple occasions that he wants to play into his 40s.

Elite QBs (Even ones in their 30s) have infinite value in this league. Rodgers has adapted himself to a playstyle that will allow him to continue playing at an elite level into his 40s. The Packers shouldn't trade him this offseason unless they get an offer from Denver or Oakland that would make Broncos/Raiders fans vomit, I'm talking reeeeal steep.

I'm still of the opinion that this will work itself out for one more year because they know a return to Green Bay is best for both parties.
 

Blitzkrug

Registered User
Sep 17, 2013
25,785
7,632
Winnipeg
The Packers fining him would be the worst possible move they could make. He already hates you. If you fine him he might just retire out of spite.

This is basically now a game of who blinks first. Rodgers has been shown to be incredibly petty and spiteful in his past so if the Packers think they can just wait this out...probably not gonna happen, chief.
 

adsfan

#164303
May 31, 2008
12,621
3,665
Milwaukee
It's an organization which only recently started signing free agents. They aren't exactly ahead of the curve.

If by recently, you mean 1993 and Reggie White, you would be correct. That was 28 years ago. That free agent signing led to the Packers 1996 Super Bowl victory.
 

Beech

Cicc' a porta
Nov 25, 2020
2,865
981
In a league that has 32 teams, and while this could spurt the biggest debate, at best I would say 20 have competent Quarterbacks. In a league where if you examine the playoff teams from Super-bowel 1 until today, you would see that the bulk of these teams had quarterbacks that were/are in the upper 1/3 of the league each year. In a league where a sizable chunk of all Superbowl wining QBs end up in the Hall of Fame and a chunk of losing QBs also end up as HOFs.

How the bleep did this get so badly F'ed?

How do you draft his replacement when he is 35? when he had said he wants to play for a great many years. When Brady, Bries, Rotlesberger and several others are either above 40 or awfully close to 40. And now you cannot make peace, or trade him?

I almost cannot believe what is happening!!!!

Either kiss his ass, give him all that he wants, or trade him to the highest bidder. This is going to be lose/lose. But GB will lose so much more. Even if this is a career ender for Rodgers, He has already played long enough and banked enough dough, he is okay. Will the Packers GM survive a 5 and 12 season? will the coach? will the executive board?

CUT YOUR LOSES.
 

zombie kopitar

custom title
Jul 3, 2009
6,054
929
Best Coast
This is basically now a game of who blinks first. Rodgers has been shown to be incredibly petty and spiteful in his past so if the Packers think they can just wait this out...probably not gonna happen, chief.
Aaron Rodgers is definitely a petty man, that thing about him donating to the NorCal fire relief but not reaching out to his parents who were in the middle of said fire dealing with having to evacuate made me lose alllll respect for him. It's really hard to cheer for that dude, and I hope he gets sent to the Jets
 
  • Like
Reactions: Babe Ruth

TheGreenTBer

If Elvis calls tell him to f*ck off
Apr 30, 2021
8,964
10,291
Aaron Rodgers is definitely a petty man, that thing about him donating to the NorCal fire relief but not reaching out to his parents who were in the middle of said fire dealing with having to evacuate made me lose alllll respect for him. It's really hard to cheer for that dude, and I hope he gets sent to the Jets

If you want him to get hit an awful lot, the Bengals would be a solid choice.
 

jcs0218

Registered User
Apr 20, 2018
7,905
9,725
I have said multiple times in this thread that the Green Bay Packers, as a brand, are bigger than Aaron Rodgers.

I hope they let him rot on the sidelines.

They are financially healthy enough with a fiercely loyal fanbase that they don't need to be caving to this primadonna. Caving to him sets a bad precedent.

13-3 or 3-13 or 0-16. Whatever their record ends up being, it isn't really going to hurt their bottom line or popularity, as much as some people may disagree with that.

Lambeau is going to sell-out and the team is going to make huge profits, with or without Aaron Rodgers.

If anything, this may strengthen the Packers fans resolve. Green Bay isn't Los Angeles or New York. A blue-collar midwestern city like that isn't going to stop supporting a team just because they don't cave to a diva like Aaron Rodgers.

He hasn't led them anywhere significant in over a decade and has a history of crapping the bed in important games. He is going to be 39 years old midway through next season and was declining before having a resurgence last season. Who is to say that resurgence continues?

Sometimes standing firm as an organization is more important than your win-loss record for the next 1-2 seasons. Especially when the guy you are dealing with is soon 39 years old and hasn't really led you to success the way Tom Brady did for the Patriots. 1 Super Bowl? I guess the Ravens and Eagles should have allowed Joe Flacco and Nick Foles to play dictator if 1 Super Bowl is worth so much.

Green Bay should tell him: "At this point in your career, it seems like you have more interest in what goes on within the front office off-the-field, rather than being a football player on-the-field. If you want to have so much control over team direction and personnel decisions, then why not just retire and go become a GM somewhere?"
 
Last edited:

Hasbro

Family Friend
Sponsor
Apr 1, 2004
52,408
16,372
South Rectangle
I have said multiple times in this thread that the Green Bay Packers, as a brand, are bigger than Aaron Rodgers.

I hope they let him rot on the sidelines.

They are financially healthy enough with a fiercely loyal fanbase that they don't need to be caving to this primadonna. Caving to him sets a bad precedent.

13-3 or 3-13 or 0-16. Whatever their record ends up being, it isn't really going to hurt their bottom line or popularity, as much as some people may disagree with that.

Lambeau is going to sell-out and the team is going to make huge profits, with or without Aaron Rodgers.

If anything, this may strengthen the Packers fans resolve. Green Bay isn't Los Angeles or New York. A blue-collar midwestern city like that isn't going to stop supporting a team just because they don't cave to a diva like Aaron Rodgers.

He hasn't led them anywhere significant in over a decade and has a history of crapping the bed in important games. He is going to be 39 years old midway through next season and was declining before having a resurgence last season. Who is to say that resurgence continues?

Sometimes standing firm as an organization is more important than your win-loss record for the next 1-2 seasons. Especially when the guy you are dealing with is soon 39 years old and hasn't really led you to success the way Tom Brady did for the Patriots. 1 Super Bowl? I guess the Ravens and Eagles should have allowed Joe Flacco and Nick Foles to play dictator if 1 Super Bowl is worth so much.

Green Bay should tell him: "At this point in your career, it seems like you have more interest in what goes on within the front office off-the-field, rather than being a football player on-the-field. If you want to have so much control over team direction and personnel decisions, then why not just retire and go become a GM somewhere?"
So the Packers are better off without him, but you’re AGAINST trading him?:huh:
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,634
37,428
When you’re a top QB, yes, you are bigger than the team. Sports is entertainment, and entertainment is built around stars, and the biggest stars are quarterbacks. Anyone who thinks that the star quarterbacks aren’t bigger than the team they’re on has a painfully archaic view of sports and its relationship to business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spring in Fialta

Apex Predator

Registered User
Jun 21, 2019
3,810
3,710
Isn’t there a big dead cap hit if they trade him this season? I thought I read somewhere that if they trade him they take a big dead cap hit but next season is not as bad.

Aaron Rodgers

Roughly just over 17 million dead cap penalty if I’m reading this right.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->