Packers craft list of concessions to entice Aaron Rodgers to return at least...· Page 3

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

3 years ago

I don't believe for a second that the trade was made official before the pick and they knew exactly whom was or wasn't available.

GMs have talked about teams pulling out of trades at the last moment, when a guy they didn't think would drop, did drop (which Gute said happened a lot in 2021 draft... both when they were looking at trade downs for their 1st round, and trying to trade up from their 3rd round), as well as teams pulling out of a trade when the guy they wanted was drafted and no longer available.

So my believe is that the Packers totally wanted to trade up... first for the WR the Vikings got, then for the WR the 49ers got.... but even after they were both taken off the draft board, the Packers still had a decision, to go through with the deal or not.

Gute went through with the trade knowing the board, and knowing probably whom he was going to select. The QB wasn't the position he was hoping for, but he thought he was the best potential left on the board. And if Love develops into just Derek Carr level of talent, then Gute might very well be correct! And Love has the raw potential to be better than Carr, though can he develop it? I've always thought he'd need 3 years to develop at least.

Also if we're trading Rodgers after the season, maybe we can pick up a veteran like Andy Dalton or Ryan Fitzpatrick on a short term cheap deal. To have a vet backup just in case... if Blake Bortles doesn't stick around... of course Bottles might stock around with his former offensive coordinator being our current offensive coordinator.

Originally Posted by: beast

I'm not sure who traded up first, 49ers or Packers, but the 49ers selecting a WR that was basically the same as what they have was not what anyone thought. That's the belief the Packers had too, at least, so I read. I'm not saying Jordan Love was last resort, I'm sure they figured if their targeted WR's were gone, they were perfectly fine with taking a QB.

nerdmann
Premier Member

3 years ago

#22

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

I think they targeted Love and went up and got him. I think they're sick of Aaron's coke-based douchebaggery. I just don't think they want to have to interact with him anymore on a daily basis.

“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.”

isocleas2
Member

3 years ago

#23

Glad a face saving deal could be struck so Rodgers comes back for the last dance.

I'm fine with the two sides parting ways next year amicably however I'm a little concerned what the Packers promised him. I want a boatload of picks when he's traded I hope that hasn't been undermined.

Edit: Also hope they franchise and trade Adams if he wants to compete with Hopkins for top money next offseason. I like him alot but not 27mil a year like him.

beast
Select Member

3 years ago

#24

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

49ers traded up first... they traded up when the pick was there.

The Packers seemed to have those WRs and QB in a tier higher than what they believed would fall to them.

I think they targeted Love and went up and got him. I think they're sick of Aaron's coke-based douchebaggery. I just don't think they want to have to interact with him anymore on a daily basis.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann

The rumors before the draft were that they were targeting the LSU WR that the Vikings got, and I believe somewhere it sounded like the scouts were disappointed they didn't get the WR the 49ers grabbed.

Those Gute selects at WR still make me a bit nervous, as he seems to really like WRs with great college QBs. (Wanted the LSU WR when the LSU QB went #1 overall, wanted the Clemons WR when the Clemson QB went #1 overall). Which sometimes those great college QBs are making the players look a bit better than they really are, and sometimes WRs with bad QBs are much better once they get good QBs.

I think it's going to be interesting to see who's the better pro, WR Rodgers or Nico Collins... of course, the Packers also needed a return guy and a person for the sweep role and that's clearly more up Rodgers alley, so the best fit for need was Rodgers, but I think Collins might have better potential for strictly normal WR duties.

But Rodgers was a great need for, much he's versatile (which this scheme loves) and if you have a creative coach can come up with some interesting mismatches.

Lineup, then split Aaron Jones out wide and watch as a LB follows and then put Rodgers, with the RB build behind the QB, forcing a DB into a LB role. Do they know the LB role? And are they physically and mentally willing to do the LB role?

earthquake
Member

3 years ago

#25

They didn't trade up to get a QB. They traded up for a WR. The WR's were taken, so they took the best player available on their board. At least, that was what was said then and seems to continually be skipped over. I see how that happens though. Did they draft Jordan Love? Yes. Did they trade up to that draft slot? Yes. The details are what people just don't care to think twice about.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

I've seen you post this take a few times and I keep trying to see your perspective on it, but they traded up and selected a QB. That was the net result of their actions, so to say "They didn't trade up to get a QB." doesn't mesh with reality. We know they did, because it happened, there's video of it and everything.

Now, if we want to talk about their intentions, we can certainly speculate. They may have been targeting other players, they probably were targeting a group of players, of which Jordan Love was one. I'm sure some in the organization (Gute himself, certain scouts, etc) were hoping to get a specific player. But as Beast pointed out, if Love was not the or a target, they would have backed out of the trade. These day-of trades are rarely official until the pick goes in.

Getting bogged down in intent misses the point though. Trading up for Love, even if he wasn't their first choice, shows us that they thought he was a potential starter, a guy that could eventually replace Aaron Rodgers. If they didn't believe that, they wouldn't have made the pick. GMs don't trade up in the first, or even use a first round pick to take a QB that they think is gonna be a backup for 5 years.

blank

Cheesey
Preferred Member

3 years ago

#26

I guess I see the Love pick as the Packers looking to the not so distant future. You need to pick your future QB BEFORE you need him. Give him time to learn, and not be thrown into the fire immediately, which more often then not, ends up destroying his confidence.
There are dozens of QBs that maybe would have been great had they had a chance to catch up to NFL play before they had to lead the team.
Who knows what Rodgers would have been had he not been able to sit behind Favre and learn before being the starter. Maybe he would have bombed.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

3 years ago

#27

Aaron Rodgers after the NFC Championship Game in 2020 (2019 season)

"I feel really confident in Brian and the job that he's done, his staff. They did go all-in this year and the pieces that they brought in. I'm confident that he's going to continue to add to this squad."

🤷‍♂️

Cheesey
Preferred Member

3 years ago

#28

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

Wow.....so......all those years on the team, he’s praising Brian......what changed to make the big divide? Did Brian not leggo of Aaron’s EGGO?
🤪

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

Martha Careful (16h) : thank you Mucky for sticking up for me

Martha Careful (16h) : some of those people are smarter than you zero. However Pete Carroll is not

Mucky Tundra (19h) : Rude!

beast (20h) : Martha? 😋

Zero2Cool (24-Jan) : Raiders hired someone from the elderly home.

dfosterf (24-Jan) : I'm going with a combination of the two.

beast (24-Jan) : Either the Cowboys have no idea what they're doing, or they're targeting their former OC, currently the Eagles OC

Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Fake news. Cowboys say no

Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.

beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?

beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.

dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job

dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you

wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.

wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.

wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.

dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.

Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down

Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor

dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious

beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere

beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.

beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.

beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...

beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered

wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.

wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.

wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.

Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet

beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury

beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State

beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh

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

25 - 27

Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

22 - 24

Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM

Eagles

10 - 22