Reigning MVP Aaron Rodgers is so disgruntled with the Green Bay Packers that he has told some within the organization that he does not want to return to the team, league and team sources told ESPN on Thursday.
#Packers GM Brian Gutekunst to ESPN: "As we've stated since the season ended, we are committed to Aaron in 2021 and beyond. Aaron has been a vital part of our success and we look forward to competing for another championship with him leading our team."
Originally Posted by : Aaron Rodgers doesn't want to return to Green Bay Packers, sources say
Reigning MVP Aaron Rodgers is so disgruntled with the Green Bay Packers that he has told some within the organization that he does not want to return to the team, league and team sources told ESPN on Thursday.
The Packers are aware of his feelings, concerned about them and have had team president Mark Murphy, general manager Brian Gutekunst and head coach Matt LaFleur each fly out on separate trips to meet with Rodgers at various points this offseason, sources told ESPN.
"As we've stated since the season ended, we are committed to Aaron in 2021 and beyond," Gutekunst told ESPN. "Aaron has been a vital part of our success and we look forward to competing for another championship with him leading our team."
Rodgers has not budged this offseason, but neither have the Packers, who have made it known they are not interested in trading Rodgers anywhere.
The San Francisco 49ers called the Packers on Wednesday night, a source told ESPN, and the Los Angeles Rams inquired about Rodgers in January before they traded for Matthew Stafford.
The Packers quickly dismissed the Rams' overtures, the source said.
The Packers have offered to extend Rodgers' contract, sources told ESPN.
Rodgers is unhappy for a variety of reasons, with some of it dating back to last year's draft when the Packers didn't inform him before trading up to draft a quarterback with their first-round pick. Some took this as a sign that his days in Green Bay could he numbered.
He also is at a different point in his personal life, having recently gotten engaged to actress Shailene Woodley. Rodgers also has hosted "Jeopardy!" and said it would be a dream to become the full-time host. He could play football and host Jeopardy! together.
Rodgers has made cryptic comments about his future in Green Bay, but he has told others that he does not want to return.
On draft night, the Packers' biggest issue isn't who they land, but whether they can keep the former NFL MVP.
Rodgers' contract contained a $6.8 million roster bonus due in March. It could have been converted into a signing bonus that would have freed up more than $4.5 million in salary-cap space for this season but instead it "vested as scheduled," a source told ESPN at the time. It's listed as an automatic conversion in Rodgers' contract but even that has to be signed off on by both parties. It's not known if the Packers tried to convert and Rodgers refused to sign off on it, or if they did not attempt a conversion.
Originally Posted by RunKC:
Also interesting is per CBS sports radio if Rodgers decides he does want to be traded the Packers are demanding for more than the Stafford trade value bc Rodgers is a back-to-back MVP.
Stafford deal was valued at 3 first rd picks and a 3rd. Giving up more than that would decimate the Broncos future
The Rams traded Goff, two future first-round picks and a third-round pick for Stafford. Goff was viewed as a net negative in the trade due to his contract and the 1st round picks the Lions received were in 2022 and 2023, not in 2021, which lessens the value of the picks even more. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
Also interesting is per CBS sports radio if Rodgers decides he does want to be traded the Packers are demanding for more than the Stafford trade value bc Rodgers is a back-to-back MVP.
Stafford deal was valued at 3 first rd picks and a 3rd. Giving up more than that would decimate the Broncos future
Exactly why I’m all for Rodgers to Dungver. I pray they pull the trigger. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Quesadilla Joe:
No, but he is 5 years younger than Rodgers.
Lock is even younger than that! Better just go with him if you're just looking for a younger guy. If you're trading for Rodgers, it's going to cost more than Stafford lol [Reply]
Assuming the Broncos get Rodgers they will give up three 1st rd picks in value, be it picks or player (Jeudy).
Broncos pass rush was well below average last season with only 36 sacks in 17 games.
Their defense looked much better than what it was bc teams with good offenses like the Chiefs took their foot off the gas bc they knew Denver’s offense was god awful. First game the Chiefs were up 13-3 and it felt like 30-3 bc everyone knew Denver scoring a TD was not exactly possible. They took their foot off the gas.
The 2nd game was pretty much meaningless and we saw that from the Chiefs play. That game meant everything to Denver and little to the Chiefs.
The fact is Denver’s pass rush isn’t very good and that’s a huge problem. Especially inheriting a QB that wants $50 million a year and having to pay guys like Fant and Risner.
Then you have no top picks the next 3 years. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
Assuming the Broncos get Rodgers they will give up three 1st rd picks in value, be it picks or player (Jeudy).
Broncos pass rush was well below average last season with only 36 sacks in 17 games.
Their defense looked much better than what it was bc teams with good offenses like the Chiefs took their foot off the gas bc they knew Denver’s offense was god awful. First game the Chiefs were up 13-3 and it felt like 30-3 bc everyone knew Denver scoring a TD was not exactly possible. They took their foot off the gas.
The 2nd game was pretty much meaningless and we saw that from the Chiefs play. That game meant everything to Denver and little to the Chiefs.
The fact is Denver’s pass rush isn’t very good and that’s a huge problem. Especially inheriting a QB that wants $50 million a year and having to pay guys like Fant and Risner.
Then you have no top picks the next 3 years.
That's why I want the donks to pick up Rodgers. [Reply]
