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.
I think the issue with all of these scenarios comes down to this.
Rodgers wants to be in Denver because of their offensive weapons and strength on defense.
Green Bay wants draft picks and talent to replace Rodgers.
But all trades involve trading away either one of Denver's biggest offensive weapons or major strengths on defense. Weakening the team right when Aaron arrives. On the flip side, the draft picks to Denver become INSTANTLY less valuable the moment Aaron arrives in Mile High. It just doesn't seem like there's a clear and obvious match here AFTER this year's draft. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
That's precisely why Denver would be foolish to do it.
You don't trade for a guy that you think can make you a contender by giving away pieces that make you a contender.
The biggest reason the Titans, Ravens, and Bills couldn't compete with the Chiefs is that they have no pass rush. The Broncos giving away their pass rush to get Rodgers would essentially put them in the same boat.
It makes no sense at all.
I agree.
And it's why I ultimately don't think a trade ends up happening.
The price Rodgers is going to command will defeat the purpose of acquiring him in the first place, as you alluded to.
I just don't think a deal that would satisfy both sides is realistic in this scenario. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chiefspants:
I think the issue with all of these scenarios comes down to this.
Rodgers wants to be in Denver because of their offensive weapons and strength on defense.
Green Bay wants draft picks and talent to replace Rodgers.
But all trades involve trading away either one of Denver's biggest offensive weapons or major strengths on defense. Weakening the team right when Aaron arrives. On the flip side, the draft picks to Denver become INSTANTLY less valuable the moment Aaron arrives in mile high.
Exactly why I continue to say a trade this offseason is very unlikely. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mile High Mania:
More doable than most others I have seen thrown out there.
Deal is Denver WILL over-pay to get him. It's their ONLY chance to be relevant next season. Personally, if I'm going to give up a king's ransom for a proven QB, I'd pass on the whole Rodgers deal and wait for Deshaun Watson. He's MUCH younger, so parting with the talent and the draft picks it will take to get said QB, won't have as much of a dramatic affect because said QB can play for 10+ years rather than 3 or 4. Give me a young Top 5 QB over and old one with a soon expiring expiration date any day. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mile High Mania:
Some guy on ESPN says Surtain, Lock, Patrick and the next 2 R1s for Rogers and Stokes (CB).
This sort of thing i don’t understand for a 38 year old QB. Who besides Brady has been good at 40? Salvage the future for a year or two of a chance. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TEX:
Deal is Denver WILL over-pay to get him. It's their ONLY chance to be relevant next season. Personally, if I'm going to give up a king's ransom for a proven QB, I'd pass on the whole Rodgers deal and wait for Deshaun Watson. He's MUCH younger, so parting with the talent and the draft picks it will take to get said QB, won't have as much of a dramatic affect because said QB can play for 10+ years rather than 3 or 4. Give me a young Top 5 QB over and old one with a soon expiring expiration date any day.
Originally Posted by Redbled:
This sort of thing i don’t understand for a 38 year old QB. Who besides Brady has been good at 40? Salvage the future for a year or two of a chance.
Exactly my point earlier... I don’t want it for the costs. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Yea coming from a Broncos fan :-)
That’s an awful deal for the Packers.
I love how people think the Broncos are the only team that can get Rodgers. You think the Raiders are going to sit by and watch the Broncos steal him away for that? Why wouldn’t they just offer the same thing and Carr? :-)
The only way this happens is if the Broncos add guys like Jeudy and Chubb.
Again, I agree that the team trading for him will have to give up a ton. I’m not a fan of doing that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TEX:
Deal is Denver WILL over-pay to get him. It's their ONLY chance to be relevant next season. Personally, if I'm going to give up a king's ransom for a proven QB, I'd pass on the whole Rodgers deal and wait for Deshaun Watson. He's MUCH younger, so parting with the talent and the draft picks it will take to get said QB, won't have as much of a dramatic affect because said QB can play for 10+ years rather than 3 or 4. Give me a young Top 5 QB over and old one with a soon expiring expiration date any day.
And prior to the lawsuits, I said here I was in favor of giving 3 R1 picks up for Watson. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mile High Mania:
Exactly my point earlier... I don’t want it for the costs.
When it comes to getting a franchise QB, even if they're old, you do it.
Screw the cost.
Would you give up a possible 2-3 year Superbowl window for several "what if" draft picks?
It's a no-brainer for me.
Franchise guys get all the calls in crunch time, too. I don't lie to myself for a minute when the Chiefs get that little nudge when they need it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chiefspants:
I think the issue with all of these scenarios comes down to this.
Rodgers wants to be in Denver because of their offensive weapons and strength on defense.
Green Bay wants draft picks and talent to replace Rodgers.
But all trades involve trading away either one of Denver's biggest offensive weapons or major strengths on defense. Weakening the team right when Aaron arrives. On the flip side, the draft picks to Denver become INSTANTLY less valuable the moment Aaron arrives in Mile High. It just doesn't seem like there's a clear and obvious match here AFTER this year's draft.
I don’t know if it’s true or not but I heard he doesn’t have have a no trade clause. If that’s the case banish him to Houston so he’d really have something to bitch about 😂 [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mulliganman:
I don’t know if it’s true or not but I heard he doesn’t have have a no trade clause. If that’s the case banish him to Houston so he’d really have something to bitch about 😂
