texaspackerbacker
11 years ago
Great QBs make decent receivers look like great ones. I think Jennings wanted to prove that wasn't the case with him. Instead, he pretty much proved that WAS the case with him.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
rabidgopher04
11 years ago

My 2 cents. If he wanted a shot at the HoF he should have stayed with the Packers or took a lower offer with a team with a better QB situation. I think this move to Minny will remove any chance he has of being a Hall of Famer. If he cares about that. I would think he might if he was all about wanting to be the man.

Originally Posted by: TheKanataThrilla 



At the end of last season it looked like Ponder was getting it together and was going to be a serviceable option at QB - he just needed more/better targets. Turns out Ponder has his moments, but more often than not, he's mediocre at best.

If Jennings was truly unhappy with his employer, then no, he isn't looking back. I'm sure he wishes his new team was having success, but that might not be the only factor. For a fan it's easy to say that he probably regrets it, but not necessarily as a player.
Amazing Bacon Delivery  Service! Never be without good bacon again.
Zero2Cool
11 years ago

oh maybe I didnt follow it closely but - I thought he left cuz we wernt going to pay him? ... this isnt true?

Originally Posted by: Dulak 



The Packers was prior to free agency. Much like James Jones several years ago, Greg Jennings overvalued himself. Jones rejected the Vikings offer by accepting the Packers offer. You'd think Jennings would have taken note of that when rejecting the Packers offer.

Jennings thought he was worth $15 million per year, or something close to what Mike Wallace pulled in. Something similar happened with Cullen Jenkins too. Shh, don't tell anyone because a good deal want to blame Ted Thompson and absolve all accountability of Jenkins on that. šŸ™‚
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
11 years ago
Lets face it.....Jennings will never admit it, but it HAS to burn his butt that the team he said was going to be SO good with him on it, has shown NOTHING so far.
He had a chance to stay here, get lots of money, and maybe get another ring or two.
But HE thought HE was SOOOO great, that he could lift the Vikings up to the Packers level, as he thought HE had done in his time here.

If he honestly thinks otherwise, he is delusional.

As was already said, I think he wanted to be "the guy", and knew he was just a part of the equation here. What he forgot was, the Vikings have no QB, and their other WR's are just so-so. He's no "Megatron".
So he will spend the rest of his career in Limbo, Minnesota.
UserPostedImage
sschind
11 years ago

It doesn't necessarily make him a bad guy but it makes him completely fake. When he goes around saying he's "all about the team the team the team" and acts like hes some humble anti-diva for years and then his actions completely betray that it's not really a good look or a good quality of character.

It's not just about leaving to another team (even the Vikings). It's also how you do it. Guys like Woodson, Bishop, Jenkins, Wells, etc... didn't all leave on the best of terms but for the most part they handled it with tact and/or class and they certainly handled it a lot better than Jennings which is a big reason IMO why you don't see Packer fans hating on those guys much.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 



Being happy in your work can go a long way toward becoming a team player. If you are unhappy about your situation sometimes you get that I'm in it for me attitude. Maybe that is what happened with him here in Green Bay.

I still see nothing from Jennings that makes me think he is a diva.
sschind
11 years ago

It comes down the the old old choice- Big fish in a small pond or a small fish in a big pond. He thought he was going to be a big fish. I can live with that. Hope he can too.

The thing that annoyed me most in his most recent PC was when he said he got out of town for the sake of the younger players. To allow them a better chance to develop. Bull. He did it for himself and his family. He didn't leave for the sake of Cobb or any of the future wrs. Cobb will grow and develop with or without Jennings being on the team.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



Which PC would that be? I know a lot of people are saying that is what he said but I personally have not seen those quotes. Vandermause posted these lines in the article in the first post of this thread

ā€œWe all canā€™t be as successful as we want to be individually with so many guys around,ā€ said Jennings on radioā€™s ā€œThe Jim Rome Show.ā€

ā€œI believe this with all my heart: not one guy over there can really maximize their potential because of the depth we had.ā€


That is clearly not saying he left so the other guys could get better. It could be misconstrued as meaning that I suppose but it not how I take it. Is this what everyone is referring to or did he specifically say he left so the younger guys could develop. I don't know, that is why I am asking.
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
11 years ago

Which PC would that be? I know a lot of people are saying that is what he said but I personally have not seen those quotes. Vandermause posted these lines in the article in the first post of this thread

ā€œWe all canā€™t be as successful as we want to be individually with so many guys around,ā€ said Jennings on radioā€™s ā€œThe Jim Rome Show.ā€

ā€œI believe this with all my heart: not one guy over there can really maximize their potential because of the depth we had.ā€


That is clearly not saying he left so the other guys could get better. It could be misconstrued as meaning that I suppose but it not how I take it. Is this what everyone is referring to or did he specifically say he left so the younger guys could develop. I don't know, that is why I am asking.

Originally Posted by: sschind 



It could be that line. Maybe it is another one. I was sure I saw something where he specifically referred to leaving for the betterment of the younger players. All I can find is this line from the transcript thread  and it doesn't specifically say it either.


(Did you want to have the chance to be in the spotlight and be a No. 1 receiver, get out of the Green Bay receiving shadow?) Uh, no. I just, you know, again, when the offseason came, I thought the best decision for my family and I was here. From all of us growing, not just myself, not just being in myself but for my wife, my kids, um and then myself. You know I know there's some, I've talked to Randall, I've talked to, uh, those guys over there. Like I said with them, if I had stayed, I could have been overshadowing some of those guys, you know, not allowing them to flourish the way that I know that they're capable of flourishing. Randall specifically, I was being kind of like a little brother, and playing with James and Jordy obviously, they had had opportunities to shine. But to move on (somewhat inaudible, believe Jennings said "is the way") to allow them their due, it was time. It was just time. Like I said, I shared this with them. Same thing I'm saying to you, I've shared it with them. You know, had I stayed there, you know we would have been continuing to be looked at as a overall group, but they needed some attention individually. Specifically Randall because he was the youngest. And James and Jordy, they had been putting up consistent play for the past few years. So they were getting their due and it was time for Randall.



Still sounds like he is saying he left for their sake to me. Then again maybe I am being a butt about the whole thing.
UserPostedImage
steveishere
11 years ago
He said on ESPN (first take or mike and mike or something) he left so other guys could "spread their wings"
yooperfan
11 years ago
I think Greg is right where he belongs.
I'm happy that he's happy.
sschind
11 years ago

It could be that line. Maybe it is another one. I was sure I saw something where he specifically referred to leaving for the betterment of the younger players. All I can find is this line from the transcript thread  and it doesn't specifically say it either.




Still sounds like he is saying he left for their sake to me. Then again maybe I am being a butt about the whole thing.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



I hadn't seen that, Thanks for finding it. And no I don't think you are just being a butt about it. It does sound like he is saying at least part of the reason he left was to benefit the young guys.

I would say though that maybe it is the truth or at least the way he saw it and maybe if it is true we should look up to him a bit more for his obvious sacrifice. However, I don't think the only reason he left was to benefit Randall Cobb. It may have been part of the reason or it may just be his justification for leaving but I don't believe he would be that altruistic. I don't believe anyone would in the NFL or in any other professional sport.

Even if he had the best concerns of the others at heart it doesn't sound good to say it. Its like one of those instances where you do something nice for someone but you make sure everyone else knows you did it.

The only other thing I would caution anyone about is reading too much into these comments. They are off the cuff as they do not know which questions are coming. I'm sure everyone has been in a situation where someone asks your opinion and you give it only to think later that maybe you should have said it in some other way. Still, even poorly worded comments generally don't come out of the blue. Unless people have some prior knowledge of what the questions will be most of their answers will have a degree of truth in them. I do think that Jennings believes his departure from Green Bay will help Cobb and the others in some way. Of course that is no surprise as I think every other person with any knowledge of football was thinking pretty much the same thing.

As for that being THE reason he left, I don't think so and to suggest it is opens him up to criticisms like you (wpr) have and I can't say I disagree with you.

Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (9h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (9h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (9h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (9h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (9h) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (13h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (13h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (13h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (16h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (16h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (16h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (16h) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (16h) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (16h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (16h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (16h) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (17h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (17h) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (17h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (18h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (18h) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (18h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (18h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (18h) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (19h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (19h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (19h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (19h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (20h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (20h) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (20h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (21h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (21h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (22h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (22h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (22h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (22h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (22h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (22h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (22h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (22h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (22h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (22h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (22h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (22h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (22h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (23h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (23h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (23h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (23h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
20m / Green Bay Packers Talk / MintBaconDrivel

56m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

5h / GameDay Threads / Mucky Tundra

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

21h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright Ā© 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.comā„¢. All Rights Reserved.