All right. I finally listened to the interview (couldn't listen to it at school), and let me just say, I have no idea what any of you guys are talking about. For one thing, Aaron Rodgers was
unstinting in his praise of the new defense.
Q: How's the 3-4?
"Good. Very good."
Q: So you trust the defense?
"That's good. I like what we're doing. When they figure out all the little nuances in the defense, they're going to be so good. 'Cause already they're moving around a ton, the secondary -- it's tough to figure out where they're coming from. When you got Kampman and Poppinga and Clay Matthews and [garbled], they're going to be -- they're going to be tough."
As for the hypothetical question about asking for more pay, everyone involved makes it obvious that they're discussing a hypothetical question, and Rodgers' answer makes it obvious he isn't lecturing Kampman or anyone else for that matter -- his analysis of the hypothetical situation would apply equally to any player, including himself. Again, this is
abundantly obvious from the context.
And as for the comments you guys have interpreted as criticism of Kampman ("The worst thing he did . . ."), he intends them to actually be what one might call "Praise by faint damning." Sort of the opposite of "Damning by faint praise."
"The worst thing that he did -- and he's a buddy of mine -- the worst thing he did was not talk the first week. Why would you not talk the first week? Then you're asking ten other people the question that they want to ask you! Why would you not talk the first week? It was the worst thing he could have done. Just heaped all this extra pressure on him. Then he had to talk this week."
The worst thing he did was, um, not talking right away? Hardly a stinging rebuke. In fact, this isn't a criticism of Kampman at all -- it's really a criticism (by implication) of the media itself! He's pretty blatantly blaming the media for blowing the whole situation out of proportion. The worst criticism he levels at Kampman is basically a good-natured, "Hey, buddy, you made it harder on yourself than you had to -- fucking media whores." Again,
this is obvious from the context and Rodgers' tone.
Oh, and by the way,
the hosts of the show agree with him -- you hear them saying "Yep" in the background.
Finally, for the other bone of contention, his saying that Kampman "doesn't understand," I understand the point if you take him too literally. But judging again by the cadence of his words, it sounds to me like he's speaking in the subjunctive -- that is, in a hypothetical sense.
What he said:
"Him being disappointed by the 4-3 -- or the 3-4 -- switch, he obviously doesn't understand how it would help him out."
I read this as "If he really were disappointed by the 3-4, that would mean he didn't understand how it would help him out." Remember, they've been speaking hypothetically this entire conversation -- the host has just got done speculating as to why he might not have wanted to talk to the media.
After all, he goes on to say:
"So why would you not be excited about a defensive switch where you're going to have opportunity, with us bringing more guys, to have more one-on-one matchups?"
I can see how on its face, again taking things too literally, this might be interpreted as a criticism of Kampman, but remember, they're speaking hypothetically. Judging by his tone, this strikes me as a purely rhetorical question. I think what he's really trying to say is "Of course Kampman is excited about a switch to a defense in which he's going to get more sacks!"
One last comment on tone. I agree with everyone who thinks Rodgers tone is meant to be humorous. I got the impression from the first few seconds of this clip that this is a show with a distinctly sarcastic vibe, and Rodgers was just vibing with them. The hosts were laughing the entire time, so obviously he was fitting in with their usual shtick.
Did he come across as a bit snotty? Of course. He was supposed to. He sounded to me like he was grinning most of the time.
Now let's all relax and get along. 😛