"Demanding a QB" · PACKERSHOME

Announcement PH Beta → Check it out! Click Me! (you might be see "unsafe", but it is safe)

nerdmann
Premier Member Topic Starter

3 years ago

In reading the article this was based upon and the article that was based upon, nowhere did I see where this comes from anywhere in the organization .

Silverstein is offering conjecture, not quoting anyone. If I am wrong, correct me. Perhaps I missed something.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your PACKERSHOME forum account or Register a new forum account

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

3 years ago

Originally Posted by: nerdmann

This is pure conjecture from Tommy. He's been good on this though. It's just the common sense thing that when you have a rookie or young QB, you want a veteran on the roster. Folks thought Packers were kind of crazy going into 2008 with two rookies and a QB who hadn't started game yet. I think this regime wants to have a veteran (e.g. Teddy Bridgewater) to man the QB room as the transition to Jordan Love.

I also would say this stems from the Broncos rumor trade that allegedly would have sent Teddy to Green Bay.

wpr
Preferred Member

3 years ago

June 2nd.

beast
Select Member

3 years ago

June 2nd.

Originally Posted by: wpr

If something was going to happen after June 2nd they literally could do it now... just like the Lions did with QBs, they set up the trade and didn't happen until after a certain date.

Honestly, I strongly doubt the Packers are demanding a QB... simply because they fact common sense suggest they wouldn't have to demand one...

The team getting Rodgers would probably be trying hard to drop their current QB... and would probably easily include them in a trade... so there wouldn't be any need to demand... now, there might be a need to demand if Packers don't like any QBs on the other teams roster currently.... or think their cap is too much. But that's clearly more an exception to a rule than a rule.

I think the Packers are set for 2021... they're going with the QBs currently on their roster unless they don't show up...

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

3 years ago

If 37 year-old Aaron Rodgers is dead set on not playing for the Packers, and the Packers have done everything within reason that they could to make it happen. I would be good with this trade. It also satisfies the "demand for QB".

Broncos
Aaron Rodgers
2022 4th Round Pick

Packers
QB Drew Lock
DE Bradley Chubb
G Dalton Risner
2022 1st Round Pick
2022 2nd Round Pick
2023 1st Round Pick
2024 1st Round Pick

image.png You have insufficient rights to see the content.

beast
Select Member

3 years ago

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

It would get real interesting how many a team would actually trade for a QB... I'm wondering if people might be over shooting it...

As if a team trades more than three 1st round picks, then the teams better win the Super Bowl in year one as they're about to get a lot worse....

Also, with Myers, Jenkins, Runyan, do we need another G? Sure a backup, but we got some potential guys already. More help for the defense! Or one of their many receivers...

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

3 years ago

Originally Posted by: beast

I don't know if it's really an "as if" a team trades three first round picks or more after Rams sent two first-round picks, a third-round pick and Jared Goff to Lions for QB Matthew Stafford. I could be overvaluing Aaron Rodgers impact and I also think one of those first round picks was to entice the Lions into taking on Goff's contract.

wpr
Preferred Member

3 years ago

If something was going to happen after June 2nd they literally could do it now... just like the Lions did with QBs, they set up the trade and didn't happen until after a certain date.

Originally Posted by: beast

Trading Rodgers after June 1st
If the Packers were to trade Rodgers after June 1st, however, the calculation changes drastically. The team would still absorb the same amount of dead money in total, but it would be split up over 2021 and 2022.

2021 would see only $21.152 million in dead money from the roster bonus and the signing bonus money that was due to hit this year. The rest of the signing bonus money — $17.204 million from the 2022 and 2023 years — would hit the books in 2022 instead.

That would free up $22.85 million in salary cap space in 2021 and another $25.5 million for 2022 while clearing the contract off the books entirely for 2023.

APC wrote:

Detroit didn't have the same cap issues that GB has. IF the Packers were to make a trade they will not do so before June 1. It only makes sense to wait.

beast
Select Member

3 years ago

Detroit didn't have the same cap issues that GB has. IF the Packers were to make a trade they will not do so before June 1. It only makes sense to wait.

Originally Posted by: wpr

I think you misunderstood what I meant... I'm not arguing that the Packers would wait.

The Rams and Lions made the trade and they then had to wait u less they trade window opened to make it official.

If the Packers were going to trade Rodgers, they could do it tomorrow (or last week, or last month), and simple wait until June 2 to make it official.

I'm not arguing the waiting to June 2 to make it official... but there is absolutely no reason to make the negotiations wait... of they were willing to trade him.

beast
Select Member

3 years ago

#10

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

I don't think anyone is questioning the Rodgers impact... but yeah, part of that trade was for taking Goff's ugly contract off their hands.

I certainly think a team might be willing to trade 3 first round picks for an older MVP QB... I'm just not sure how much further they'd be willing to go. As they need something to build the team around the QB too! Unless maybe the team is ready to go right now.

Users browsing this topic

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

beast (51m) : I was rooting for the Bears to win and hurt their draft pick status

Zero2Cool (56m) : Forgot there was even a game last night haha

TheKanataThrilla (1h) : That was terrible.

TheKanataThrilla (1h) : Watching that game in its entirety yesterday is proof positive that I am a football addict.

beast (1h) : And horrible time management multiple times... and not being able to score more than 3 points on a team with talent

beast (1h) : Realizing the Bears didn't fix it from the previous week and do the same thing, getting the game to overtime

beast (1h) : They probably are not tanking, but they've absolutely mismanagement some things, such as Vikings seeing the Packers blocked FG and realizing

Zero2Cool (2h) : Crazy of Bears to have that mindset that is

Zero2Cool (2h) : Hail Mary stop away from 5 - 2. Not sure how that flips to tanking. Crazy mindset if true

beast (3h) : I've quietly questioned if Bears are tanking on purpose... they suddenly got a lot worse with some simple concepts like 101 clock management

wpr (5h) : Watching bares fans melt down over how putrid their team is, so enjoyable. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

Mucky Tundra (12h) : The Seattle Seahawks defeat the Chicago Bears 6-3. Jason Myers had 6 RBIs for Seattle while Cairo Santos had 3 RBI for Chicago

beast (13h) : Not nessarily, he might of been injured either way. He's playing about 50% of the games the last 4 years

Zero2Cool (20h) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.

packerfanoutwest (20h) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it

beast (21h) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done

Zero2Cool (26-Dec) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.

Mucky Tundra (26-Dec) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore

packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!

Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!

beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS