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 BlackOp:
If this is a real scenario...and Rodgers holds out through training camp only to be traded...what kind of season would he expect to have in Denver?
No off-season, new system, new WRs, new terminology...He's an amazing QB but that's asking a lot...coming in cold.
They'll work it out...and he goes nowhere. It ends up being publicity fodder for the NFL to keep people interested in their product through the summer.
Rodgers will not be traded... I know the media is pushing it and lots of fans want it, but no thanks and especially no thanks at the 3 players and 4 picks asking price. The only way I would be open to it is at a price they would never accept and that's fine with me, I just have no desire to give up the players discussed. It's nonsensical.
I would rather keep those players and what we have... and finish middle of the pack with close scores, as opposed to give up those key weapons and get a top QB that will score more points, win 2-3 more games and end up with the same result because the weapons were gutted to acquire him. [Reply]
If they have to give up foundational pieces like Fant, Chubb, or Jeudy to get Rodgers, they're actually just getting worse in the long run.
They aren't surpassing the Chiefs with Rodgers if they can't field a team around him.
Wouldn't Denver giving all this stuff up for Rodgers just end up putting Rodgers on a team with GB level talent or less around him and few assets to improve?
Originally Posted by Mile High Mania:
Rodgers will not be traded... I know the media is pushing it and lots of fans want it, but no thanks and especially no thanks at the 3 players and 4 picks asking price. The only way I would be open to it is at a price they would never accept and that's fine with me, I just have no desire to give up the players discussed. It's nonsensical.
I would rather keep those players and what we have... and finish middle of the pack with close scores, as opposed to give up those key weapons and get a top QB that will score more points, win 2-3 more games and end up with the same result because the weapons were gutted to acquire him.
Yeah..I think a lot of Doink fans are having visions of a Manning type of rebound...except they didn't have to give up anything to acquire him.
As I posted earlier..Rodgers is 1-4 in NFCCG and hasn't played well in any of them. Mahomes has been fantastic in this scenario...should have been to 3 straight SBs.
Is the goal to get to the SB or just be competitive? AR hasnt been to a SB in a decade...it's not like he hasn't had chances.
Should have rolled the dice with Fields... [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Wouldn't Denver giving all this stuff up for Rodgers just end up putting Rodgers on a team with GB level talent or less around him and few assets to improve?
Originally Posted by O.city:
Those foundational pieces won't really matter if they can't get a QB though. Being a Chiefs fan, we're pretty well versed in this whole thing.
If they have to give up foundational pieces to get a QB, Rodgers is right back where he is in Green Bay.
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
If they have to give up foundational pieces to get a QB, Rodgers is right back where he is in Green Bay.
It's just stupid.
You mean back to back Champ games?
Denver would gladly make that trade.
They can roll with those foundational pieces or trade them for arguably the best QB in the league for the next 3 or 4 years and take a shot. Otherwise, they'll maybe compete for some WC spots. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
I wouldn’t care if I was them. This is a QB driven league and they would likely have time left with him. I’d say at least 4 years.
Without a QB you have no shot to beat us. Getting a pass rusher isn’t terribly difficult. Getting a QB that can compete with Mahomes is.
It's so easy to get a pass rusher that the Broncos have drafted 5 of them in the first 2 rounds in the last 10 years and the only ones even still with the team were both top 5 picks. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
You mean back to back Champ games?
Denver would gladly make that trade.
They can roll with those foundational pieces or trade them for arguably the best QB in the league for the next 3 or 4 years and take a shot. Otherwise, they'll maybe compete for some WC spots.
You don't trade that kind of scratch to lose conference championships.
And one could argue that if they have to trade those players, they're FAR worse than Green Bay is right now.
I can't believe people think this is worth it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
You don't trade that kind of scratch to lose conference championships.
And one could argue that if they have to trade those players, they're FAR worse than Green Bay is right now.
I can't believe people think this is worth it.
To get Aaron Rodgers, thats what you'll have to trade to make it happen.
It's a QB driven league right?
I don't think he's traded. You can't trade enough to make it worthwhile to move him and the Broncos won't give up enough. But that's about what it would take. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mile High Mania:
Rodgers will not be traded... I know the media is pushing it and lots of fans want it, but no thanks and especially no thanks at the 3 players and 4 picks asking price. The only way I would be open to it is at a price they would never accept and that's fine with me, I just have no desire to give up the players discussed. It's nonsensical.
I would rather keep those players and what we have... and finish middle of the pack with close scores, as opposed to give up those key weapons and get a top QB that will score more points, win 2-3 more games and end up with the same result because the weapons were gutted to acquire him.
However, IMO the majority of the Denver fan base does not feel the same way, especially if the mongoloids on the Mange are any kind of an indicator...What if Elway / Paton & Co. feel as though they have to do "SOMETHING" drastic to keep up with KC / Mahomes and LA / Herbert. Both have solid young Franchise QB's in place who will make it very hard for Denver to be a factor for years to come. There may be a feeling that they would rather compete for a couple years, than continue to be irrevelant.
If it's me, and it's gonna cost me the farm, I spend it on Deshaun Watson. He'll be around for years to come and can offset the cost with years of service - long enough to actually be around to build a team for the long haul. Of course, there will be many suitors for his services next season and many are in the NFC who can offer way more draft capital. Regardless, If I'm gonna go Franchise QB poaching, that would be my play. [Reply]
But, IMO the majority of the Denver fan base does not feel the same way especially if the mongoloids on the Mange is any kind of an indicator...What if Elway / Paton & Co. feel as though they have to do "SOMETHING" drastic to keep up with KC / Mahomes and LA / Herbert. Both have solid young Franchise QB's in place who will make it very hard for Denver to be a factor for years to come. There may be a feeling that they would rather compete for a couple years, than continue to be irrevelant.
If it's me, and it's gonna cost me the farm, I spend it on Deshaun Watson. He'll be around for years to come and can offset the cost with years of service - long enough to actually be around to build a team for the long haul. Of course, there will be many suitors for his services next season and many are in the NFC who can offer way more draft capital. Regardless, that would be my play.
The problem is that Watson might not be playing for a long, long time. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
How many Lombardi's has Russell Wilson won since his supporting cast went to shit? Aaron Rodgers past speaks for itself.
How about Drew Brees? Matt Ryan? Cam Newton?
It's a QB driven league but if you have to give up the strength of your team to get him, you're neutering yourself right out of the gate.
The Broncos with Rodgers but without Jeudy and Bradley Chubb simply aren't a contender.
Any team with Aaron Rodgers is arguably a contender.
I mean, Drew Brees had the best roster in the league the last 3 or 4 years and didn't even make a SB.
Nothing is guaranteed. The Chiefs with Mahomes and Andy may never make it to another SB. Who knows.
But if you have the chance to get the best QB in the league, it's gonna be expensive. [Reply]
