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 view the system the NFL and its referees use as a pendulum. The pendulum swings based on previous games, star players, and even season-to-season rule changes.
EXAMPLE #1: You don't think the NFL was watching the Bills/Chiefs AFCC game? Chiefs were very physical on the back end. Romo mentions it on nat'l television. The result? The next officiating crew starts looking for holding and illegal contact in the secondary and more flags get thrown. When you have been reminded that a team is physical and are looking for it, you see it more (both real and phantom penalties).
EXAMPLE #2: NFL sees QB's getting hurt too much over the last couple of years... fans love offense and high scoring games? Fast forward to 2020... holding penalties down 50% for the season.
I don't think the NFL is rigged or even trying to alter the outcome of games usually. But it happens because you have humans doing it who can be influenced by storylines, underdogs, star players, NFL memos, etc. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Wisconsin_Chief:
Would also help if that 'shitty' officiating didn't coincidently seem to benefit certain players and organizations over and over again.
Yeah that's so weird how it's so consistent, right? That professional refs with direct guidance from the NFL on what to call and what not to call would consistently call fewer penalties on certain players and organizations, when the fans think they should call more?
It's almost like those players or organizations are demonstrably better at both following the guidance issued by the NFL, and also pointing out the violations of their opponents. Like, there are those who specifically study that guidance and take actions in order to ensure they get the outcome they want with the refs. I know, it's an insane conspiracy theory, but doesn't it seem that way sometimes?
BTW who would have guessed that the thread re: Aaron Rodgers and the Packers would devolve into folks talking about Tom Brady and claiming the NFL is rigged because they don't always get the outcome they want? It's so... surprising :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
For starters, I’m not saying it happens consistently. I think it seems to happen most when TV contracts are up for renewal.
But I don’t think they were too concerned about everyone tuning out because the Chiefs were down a few scores. Every NFL fan knows that Mahomes digs out of holes like that every other game. Hell, there were probably more people who tuned in when they found out KC was in danger of losing than those who tuned out.
You mean like like how tv ratings were up for renewal this year?
And no, people stopped tuning in after a while. It was not a good superbowl viewership wise at all [Reply]
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
For whatever reasons (probably many), Brady gets the calls. At an insanely disproportionate and suspicious level. Can we at least admit this?
I’d think they’d have favored the State Farm Bowl too, but its hard to go wrong with the “GOAT vs future GOAT” storyline. It’s becoming a pretty good rivalry. They might want to milk as much as possible out of it til Brady hangs it up.
And I’m not saying they were planning ahead, but imagine the ratings for a grudge match next season.
If they cared about a grudge match, they would have rigged it for the chiefs to win. It's not much of a grudge match when Brady is up 2-0 vs Mahomes in the playoffs. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Giant Octopodes:
Yeah that's so weird how it's so consistent, right? That professional refs with direct guidance from the NFL on what to call and what not to call would consistently call fewer penalties on certain players and organizations, when the fans think they should call more?
It's almost like those players or organizations are demonstrably better at both following the guidance issued by the NFL, and also pointing out the violations of their opponents. Like, there are those who specifically study that guidance and take actions in order to ensure they get the outcome they want with the refs. I know, it's an insane conspiracy theory, but doesn't it seem that way sometimes?
BTW who would have guessed that the thread re: Aaron Rodgers and the Packers would devolve into folks talking about Tom Brady and claiming the NFL is rigged because they don't always get the outcome they want? It's so... surprising :-)
Lol this thing tends to happen in threads where blackop tries to discuss football seriously. It's just too hard to ignore the irony. [Reply]
Every fan whines about officiating. We literally all think the refs are against our team.
One-sided officiating in the Super Bowl definitely took some wind out of our sails, but the truth is, we just sucked that day. Our offensive line, literally every one of those pukes, should have been embarrassed by that perfomrance. The amount of free rushers coming at Mahomes on every play was fucking disgusting. When Pat actually had time and made a great throw, our dipshit receivers dropped it. On the other side, we let a team of geriatric has-been run us up the field consistently. If they didn't take the foot off the gas, they could have dropped 50 on our defense that night.
Same shit with the Bills game. The officiating in that one was definitely in our favor, but at the same time, the Bills just didn't have the juice. They hardly touched Mahomes all night and on the other side of the ball, our guys were getting after Allen.
You just aren't going to win a lot of playoff football games with that kind of disparity on both sides of the ball. [Reply]
Speaking of, I love Chris Jones. He's a ton of fun and I'll be forever grateful for the work he put in Super Bowl 54, but that fucker has played in 10 career postseason games and currently has 0 sacks. In 6 of those games, we had a double digit lead at some point.
We need better from the CEO of Sack Nation. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Giant Octopodes:
Yeah that's so weird how it's so consistent, right? That professional refs with direct guidance from the NFL on what to call and what not to call would consistently call fewer penalties on certain players and organizations, when the fans think they should call more?
It's almost like those players or organizations are demonstrably better at both following the guidance issued by the NFL, and also pointing out the violations of their opponents. Like, there are those who specifically study that guidance and take actions in order to ensure they get the outcome they want with the refs. I know, it's an insane conspiracy theory, but doesn't it seem that way sometimes?
BTW who would have guessed that the thread re: Aaron Rodgers and the Packers would devolve into folks talking about Tom Brady and claiming the NFL is rigged because they don't always get the outcome they want? It's so... surprising :-)
Stop using the word 'rigged,' you deflect and minimize what is actually being discussed here. That's what guys like you keep doing. It's a cheap word and not what most of us are implying. I've seen it in hundreds of games that have nothing to do with the Chiefs so getting the results I want has no influence on my opinion here.
Even if what you're saying is true, you don't think every damn organization in the league isn't sending film to the league office week after week trying to get them to call things in their favor? So why does the league pick and choose who they want to listen to in this regard?
What you're suggesting actually does nothing but lend credence to the theory many of us are throwing out; the league decides based on *whatever they see fit* what to call and when to call it, and on whom.
It's actually not that radical of an idea when you stop throwing out buzzwords like 'rigged' and 'conspiracy.' It's so painstakingly obvious when it starts occurring within a game that I honestly can't believe people are still so defensive about it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Wisconsin_Chief:
Stop using the word 'rigged,' you deflect and minimize what is actually being discussed here. That's what guys like you keep doing. It's a cheap word and not what most of us are implying. I've seen it in hundreds of games that have nothing to do with the Chiefs so getting the results I want has no influence on my opinion here.
Even if what you're saying is true, you don't think every damn organization in the league isn't sending film to the league office week after week trying to get them to call things in their favor? So why does the league pick and choose who they want to listen to in this regard?
What you're suggesting actually does nothing but lend credence to the theory many of us are throwing out; the league decides based on *whatever they see fit* what to call and when to call it, and on whom.
It's actually not that radical of an idea when you stop throwing out buzzwords like 'rigged' and 'conspiracy.' It's so painstakingly obvious when it starts occurring within a game that I honestly can't believe people are still so defensive about it.
Of course every organization in the league is sending film to the league office week after week trying to get them to call things in their favor. Every organization in the league is also spending thousands of man hours on the draft. Yet the Raiders are still gonna Raiders. Just because all teams do something, doesn't mean all teams do that thing equally well.
And of course the league decides based on whatever they see fit what to call, and when to call it. I remember a clip of Edelman arguing with a ref where he was warned his contact with a DB was drawing close to the line, he argued about how they had been specifically told that using a chopping motion to break the DB's contact is permissible, the ref pointed out he hadn't been called, and was just letting him know.
Now, can we debate all year long about whether teams with strong influence in the competitive committee have undue influence on shaping the rules (either as written or as adjudicated) towards ways which benefit their teams? Or whether all players are equally well warned about when they draw close to the line? Or whether all refs are following guidance in the same way, or even consistently across a game? Sure, and I think most would agree bad officiating occurs and imbalances in both decision making and enforcement occur, though folks might argue over to what extent those imbalances exist or the extent of their impact.
The line which is specifically being argued in this thread, is that the NFL specifically steers the outcome of individual games by telling the refs to call the game in an unfair way. And it doesn't matter whether you call it 'rigged' or whatever else. And that is total and complete BS. The courts have even ruled, multiple times, that the NFL has an obligation to its spectators to have rules which apply to both teams, and a legitimate football game. They've just also ruled that folks cheat, and folks make mistakes, but as long as the NFL has a process to deal with those things and follows its own guidelines they're fine.
Anyway, call it what you want, but let's not pretend everyone here is arguing simply that the NFL cherry picks what key things they are focusing on over a season (with regular comm to the teams and refs regarding it) as well as during individual games (with also comm sent out to both teams and the refs), which affects the outcome of games. That's not at all what they're arguing, they're specifically arguing the outcomes are steered for supposed financial gain and to build desired narratives. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
Speaking of, I love Chris Jones. He's a ton of fun and I'll be forever grateful for the work he put in Super Bowl 54, but that ****er has played in 10 career postseason games and currently has 0 sacks. In 6 of those games, we had a double digit lead at some point.
We need better from the CEO of Sack Nation.
Don't be sleeping on Kaindoh now. He's just as talented as Chase Young (right below him in their HS rankings that year). He just went to a flaming poop stick of a university and got NO teaching or structure. Give him a yr or 2. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Giant Octopodes:
Of course every organization in the league is sending film to the league office week after week trying to get them to call things in their favor. Every organization in the league is also spending thousands of man hours on the draft. Yet the Raiders are still gonna Raiders. Just because all teams do something, doesn't mean all teams do that thing equally well.
And of course the league decides based on whatever they see fit what to call, and when to call it. I remember a clip of Edelman arguing with a ref where he was warned his contact with a DB was drawing close to the line, he argued about how they had been specifically told that using a chopping motion to break the DB's contact is permissible, the ref pointed out he hadn't been called, and was just letting him know.
Now, can we debate all year long about whether teams with strong influence in the competitive committee have undue influence on shaping the rules (either as written or as adjudicated) towards ways which benefit their teams? Or whether all players are equally well warned about when they draw close to the line? Or whether all refs are following guidance in the same way, or even consistently across a game? Sure, and I think most would agree bad officiating occurs and imbalances in both decision making and enforcement occur, though folks might argue over to what extent those imbalances exist or the extent of their impact.
The line which is specifically being argued in this thread, is that the NFL specifically steers the outcome of individual games by telling the refs to call the game in an unfair way. And it doesn't matter whether you call it 'rigged' or whatever else. And that is total and complete BS. The courts have even ruled, multiple times, that the NFL has an obligation to its spectators to have rules which apply to both teams, and a legitimate football game. They've just also ruled that folks cheat, and folks make mistakes, but as long as the NFL has a process to deal with those things and follows its own guidelines they're fine.
Anyway, call it what you want, but let's not pretend everyone here is arguing simply that the NFL cherry picks what key things they are focusing on over a season (with regular comm to the teams and refs regarding it) as well as during individual games (with also comm sent out to both teams and the refs), which affects the outcome of games. That's not at all what they're arguing, they're specifically arguing the outcomes are steered for supposed financial gain and to build desired narratives.
NFL record 39 DPI is what it took to get Brady to 11 wins. Thirty fucking nine. That’s more than any of Mahomes, Rodgers, Brees, Rivers, or almost any other qb in the league had in the last 3 years COMBINED! Fraudulent 2020 record. Can’t wait to see how they bail that non GOAT out this upcoming season. Thirty fucking nine, and many at the right time to ensure those Bucs drives were kept alive. It’s embarrassing that a supposed GOAT had to have that much help to get to 11 wins. Excited to see how many years the Pats have a lull before they make the playoffs again. Been half a decade and counting for Dungver. [Reply]
