This is my main point. All things equal, a team like Green Bay will generally have to pay more for many (or most) players than a "more desirable" team. The current difference between the Chargers and the Packers isn't nearly as great as some of us would like to think right now. Even "bad" weather cities like Seattle or San Francisco are likely more desirable than Green Bay to many. There's a reason multiple free agents talk about wanting to play for Seattle (James Jones and J. Finley come to mind). It's a great team, and in a pretty great city. That's a pretty sweet deal to still be paid millions of dollars. Most of those guys are going to get paid millions of dollars anywhere they go. I agree most players will take the money first and foremost, but I don't think many would take $500,000 extra dollars or something small like that to come to Green Bay if they had an option to go to somewhere they perceived to be better. Of course, there are always exceptions, but with the case of Green Bay, I think they are just that: exceptions.
If I was a player, I would try to get the most money I could on the best team I could. If the salary difference between two relatively similar teams was only 5-10%, I'm pretty sure I would factor in location. Aaron Rodgers knows he always has the off season to be in San Diego, but that means for a good chunk of the year, he's essentially away from his home. Why do something like that if you don't have to? Find a good enough situation and home can be where the team is, much like several players do with Green Bay.
It's great if a player eats, sleeps, and breaths their job. But for many, their life outside of work has to factor in some. I'm sure it does for most everyone on this forum. Why would we think it would be so much different for NFL players? For the exceptions, sure, but not for all.
Originally Posted by: DoddPower