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 CupidStunt:
Chiefs, Bills, Ravens, Browns, Steelers, Dolphins, Titans, Patriots, Colts are absolute no brainers. That's 9. Then you've got the Raiders and Chargers. What is your argument to be above either or both? Not that I think either is great, especially the Raiders, but still. Perhaps you don't realize how bad Teddy Bridgwater is.
sar·casm
/ˈsärˌkazəm/
noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Red Dawg:
CP sure is stupid. Anyone that think if Denver getting Rogers isn't a problem for us is crazy and arrogant. Like facing TB in the bowl. Anyone that watches football should have know that's not good and neither would this be. Denver has a good roster and Rogers threw 48 tds last year with less.
The way I look at it is that we have Mahomes. We dedicated the whole off season to providing Mahomes more protection so he can do his thing. We have Reid, we have Veach and a pretty darn good roster ourselves. IF Rogers ends up there, it will be even more fun to beat them. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tredadda:
Nothing would make me happier than to see Denver sacrifice the future for a shot at a few year rental that probably won't get them to the promised land. Mortgage those draft picks and players for a guy who at times seems like he no longer cares about the game and could retire at any moment, oh and is also 37.
Yep. Will turn 38 during the season. If he were 34 or so, then I'd do it. Deal is that in addition to the draft picks, it's also going to cost key personnel. I get why they'll do it though - because they have to do "SOMETHING" because they've fallen behind all the other teams in the division while they have haplessly searched for HC's and QB's. They have ZERO shot unless they get a real QB, and even then, they'll still have to deal with KC and an emerging Chargers team with Hebert. Oh, and then there are the Raiders, who happen to have a better QB than them as well. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TEX:
The way I look at it is that we have Mahomes. We dedicated the whole off season to providing Mahomes more protection so he can do his thing. We have Reid, we have Veach and a pretty darn good roster ourselves. IF Rogers ends up there, it will be even more fun to beat them.
Just saying we have struggled hard to score against them. We won both last year because Lock fugged the game up. Rogers gets them in the end zone a lot more. Not saying we are not better than them but it wont be a push over win. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TEX:
Yep. Will turn 38 during the season. If he were 34 or so, then I'd do it. Deal is that in addition to the draft picks, it's also going to cost key personnel. I get why they'll do it though - because they have to do "SOMETHING" because they've fallen behind all the other teams in the division while they have haplessly searched for HC's and QB's. They have ZERO shot unless they get a real QB, and even then, they'll still have to deal with KC and an emerging Chargers team with Hebert. Oh, and then there are the Raiders, who happen to have a better QB than them as well.
I want no part of this if it involves a Sutton, Chubb or similar. That would be nonsensical to me... well, one of the several nonsensical things IMO. I was fine going all in back in 2012, but that was a different time and different situation.
I would prefer NOT to give up multiple R1 picks and players like Chubb/Sutton just to chase a SB for 2-3 seasons. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mile High Mania:
I want no part of this if it involves a Sutton, Chubb or similar. That would be nonsensical to me... well, one of the several nonsensical things IMO. I was fine going all in back in 2012, but that was a different time and different situation.
I would prefer NOT to give up multiple R1 picks and players like Chubb/Sutton just to chase a SB for 2-3 seasons.
He's almost a 40 million dollar cap hit for them to trade, a couple of picks around 25 isn't enough for that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
He's almost a 40 million dollar cap hit for them to trade, a couple of picks around 25 isn't enough for that.
And, I'm not trying to craft details of a trade. I had read that the assumed asking price would be at least the next 3 R1 picks and a combo of Sutton and a player or Chubbs and a player. So, if it's anything like that - no thanks.
The cap number is massive, dunno how they try to successfully unload that and how another team wants to make room for it. I say 'no thanks'. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mile High Mania:
And, I'm not trying to craft details of a trade. I had read that the assumed asking price would be at least the next 3 R1 picks and a combo of Sutton and a player or Chubbs and a player. So, if it's anything like that - no thanks.
The cap number is massive, dunno how they try to successfully unload that and how another team wants to make room for it. I say 'no thanks'.
The other team would get a tiny amount almost all of his guarantee is accounted for, he'd get a new deal honestly.
The reason GB is going to want a ton is they're in the hook for a massive cap hit and the other team would get pennies to pay.
That conversation starts at numerous picks and players cause well the picks are gonna be low. [Reply]
What leverage does Rodgers have other than making the Packers uncompetitive next season?
On the flip side the Packers can sustain massive damage to his bank account. So if I were them I wouldn't trade him unless you get some massive deal and call his bluff. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
The other team would get a tiny amount almost all of his guarantee is accounted for, he'd get a new deal honestly.
The reason GB is going to want a ton is they're in the hook for a massive cap hit and the other team would get pennies to pay.
That conversation starts at numerous picks and players cause well the picks are gonna be low.
Just saw this... yeah, no bueno.
Cody Benjamin of CBS Sports detailed four possible trade offers and each one includes the Broncos giving up picks in the NFL Draft and a player in return for Rodgers’ services.
Originally Posted by Mile High Mania:
Just saw this... yeah, no bueno.
Cody Benjamin of CBS Sports detailed four possible trade offers and each one includes the Broncos giving up picks in the NFL Draft and a player in return for Rodgers’ services.