"Do I want to leave? Absolutely not. This is No. 1 choice. The reality of it is I don't know my future. Like you (Davis) said, you've been through it. It's tough when you've put in so much time, but hey, we still got time."

hopefully this wasn't quoted before

---

Personally, I think it's stupid because he already has tons of money, and I'd rather have a second ring than a few more million.

Greg is the one that brought "Loyalty" into the conversation through his comments. Read those comments and tell me they aren't scripted in a PR sense to position Greg has a loyal Packer player and garner public attention to his contract negotiation.

That is all I am saying.. nothing more.

If you (Greg) are going to play the loyalty card.. then lets look at the complete picture.



I can't blame anyone for getting what they can get.. I happen to think the timing is poor for the Packers (good for Greg).

30 Million already.. I think he has security. Just me.

---

That's fine, but perhaps he disagrees. Plus, are you admitting that he will not get a 2nd ring this season? The one in which he will still be a member of the Packers? At worst, he may still be a Packer for two more seasons because even if a long-term extension can't be worked out, he may get the franchise tag for a season. As Zero mentioned, is the chance of another ring worth losing however many millions the difference may be? Also, as I said previously, there's no guarantee Greg would be forfeiting his chances of winning another ring simply because he doesn't stay with the Packers. The Packers have won how many Super Bowls in the past 15+ years? Perhaps he could find a team with an equal or better chance of winning the Super Bowl in a few years than the Packer's. Why shouldn't he test those waters?



My loyalty comments weren't direct at Greg or the Packer's, specifically. Only a generalization that there is truly no such thing as "loyalty" in the NFL; only organizations paying players that they think give them the best chance at winning . . . as it should be. Driver is a perfect example of that presently. The Packer's aren't keeping him due to his "loyalty" to the Packers. They are paying him because they think he will help them win. Greg hasn't been "loyal" at all, he's simply been fulfilling his legally binding contractual obligation to his employer. I don't like his comment, but it is what it is.




Again, of course that sounds like security to those of us who don't make that kind of money. But relatively speaking, Greg likely wants to get paid as much as the current market for his services can yield, and like others playing the same position will undoubtedly yield (several of perhaps lesser talent). Just because you, me, or anyone else thinks he should be happy with whatever money he has previously received really has no influence on Greg's opinion. After all, I'm sure there are plenty of people around the world who think making a $30-50,000/year salary is plenty of security, yet most of those making that much still hope to pursue and earn more, if possible. I'm not calling anyone out, I'm just saying that Greg and others like him would be doing nothing different than any of us would do. It's just on a different order of magnitude, but it's all relative to those actually in the NFL.

Not For Long... so true.

I always look to two different players with a huge impact on our team historically, LeRoy Butler and Desmond Howard. Both had a major impact upon our team in '96-97 while winning SB XXXI. I do think Des wishes he would have stayed for a dynasty run v. taken the cash with OAK. LeRoy was the opposite. He always sacrificed for the team, taking less so that GB could sign more. LeRoy will always be the epitome of loyal to GB, in a league where there is no loyalty, or very little of it. Somehow, I do find GB to be more of an exception with regards to loyalty. Yet, they have to make their pure business decisions to keep us moving forward.

Hopefully, we can get something worked out with Greg Jennings. Great guy. Great Packer. He should be with this team for his entire career, but he's too good, and will command top cash in FA. Unless he has a change of heart, we may have to let him walk in a couple of years or less. Next man up.

I know I will not begrudge Jennings if he decides to walk from GB for more money, but, I will think it to be more mistake than prudent on his part. As mentioned, he could win 2 more SBs with us if we franchise him next year. That would not suck.

I get the league vs the real world mindset, and that he should be looking to collect as much as he can get.

But just because I think he should go after that money, that shouldn't clear him of any due criticism for his comment or the timing of the comments to the team he claims he is loyal to.

But the reality here is, one his comments do no one but Greg any good.

Two, 30 millions spends that same if you are in the league or not. It matters not how it is earned.

You are going to get paid with or without your comments, unless you sustain a career threatening injury.

So it comes down to this.. he wants the Packers to ink him to another extension so he can cash in on more guaranteed money. After that.. it is all relative as he is going to get paid.

So his comments again were strategic in nature, and they help his cause. But, as in life, there is always another aspect to all actions. His comments do nothing positive for the Packers this season.

Nothing.

And just as I agreed that it is his right to grab what he can, he should be able to be criticized for it.

I just don't get why we are so quick to defend millionaires that flaunt their greed openly.. and we accept it easily because they play a game for our entertainment.

What he said is not the end of the world.. probably not overly impacting on the Packers this season. But it opens the door.. and my comment is why?

What is your end goal?

We treat athletes like gods.. we accept that they should be paid through the nose to play a game. A game in the end funded by us.

And we continue to accept it.

As long as we continue to accept it.. the system will not change.

And this isn't just a player comment.. but owners as well. One might want to roll in the NFL front office and refs as well.

Sorry, the separation between athletes and us in the real world isn't anything more than a perception. An allowed one by us the fans.

They are just human, they just happen to play in a league where they are grossly overpaid. And more often than not gripe about it.

So yes.. I think his comments should be open for criticism. They more than likely will change nothing alone, but I refuse to just say it is acceptable.

For me.. there is a separation... what they do on the field and how they handle themselves off the field.

While I will continue to enjoy his play on the field, in the balance sheet of life.. this is just a entry in the debit column for me. Nothing more.. and speaking of reality, my thoughts on the topic really hold no weight in any matter.

But I still don't have to like it or accept it freely and openly.

In my eyes, he is due some criticism for his choice. That is it.

And yes.. I have wasted far to much time on the topic already because again, my sole opinion matter not.

But I will be damned if I am going to treat the players as Gods. Because they are not.

---

Bill Michaels  often talks about Rodgers comments upon his contract after Braun signed his long term deal.

I am going to partially paraphrase here.. but Rodgers basically stated.

"How much it too much? I never want to get too much so I can't put players around me."

That to me is an healthy attitude for both parties.

Jennings is not.

Sorry.. I had to mention that again.. for a QB, Rodgers is okay. 😉

---

Pack93z, that was probably the most difficult post I have ever read. What's with each sentence being it's on paragraph there buddy!! C'mon now!! heh heh. It makes it incredibly difficult to read. Constructive criticism I promise!

As to the point, I have no idea where the athletes being treated like Gods perception comes from. I certainly haven't alluded to it, nor do I view them that way. I consider myself to be a realist. I'm not necessarily "accepting" any alleged "greed" on the part of Jennings. I do, however, accept the reality of the NFL. For better or worse, that reality is that a player such as Jennings can exercise his right to say as he wishes and pursue as much money as he deems necessary. Obviously the public is able to criticism him, but that's not going to change his actions. It is what it is. Ultimately, it's all going to come down to the play on the field.

As for what his purpose is, I have no idea. I would like to watch him say it as opposed to just reading it. I don't think these comments or even some others are going to have any effect on the Packer's whatsoever, so that's a non-issue for me. His comments may not be acceptable to you, but that doesn't mean he can't say what he feels. We all react and think differently. I'm not defending Greg, I'm just playing devils advocate, if you will. I just don't see any big issue with anything that has happened so far, and I'm sure the front office doesn't either . . . at least not yet. Sure, his comments might not do anything to help the Packer's this season, but nothing he's going to say to the media will. The only that's going to help the Packer's win a Super Bowl is his play on the field, of which I have little doubts about. Play like a super star, and insignificant comments such as these are going to be quickly forgotten. Money spends the same everywhere, true, but Jennings ultimate goal is to be paid like the other "star" WR's in the league . . . and he should be. I don't have to like it, but it is the reality of the situation. I would be perfectly fine with Jennings having a monster season, becoming the Super Bowl MVP, and then leaving for big money elsewhere. In fact, that'd be great because it'd mean the Packer's won another Super Bowl! I'd take that situation even with more comments throughout the season. I know it's not one or the other, but I'm only making a point.

I think I had other thoughts, but I can't remember from your post, LOL.

Yeah, I deserved the comment on the sentences. Fair enough.

And no, I don't think you have painted them as Gods, but that is what I perceive the common mindset to be when discussing the contract demands of pro athletes. Fair market value, get what you can get, well so and so got this amount of money in justifying the money they are going to get paid while they are griping about having to wait. Your comment in the context sense that somehow 30 millions is different to him than any other human being feed that God comment.

My point is this, you can accomplish becoming rich without coming off as a me first athlete. To me, his comments read as that.

If we pony up for Greg or he walks someplace else with a fat bankroll, any comment any of us make matters not. Hell nothing we say here probably has any effect in the big scheme of it all.That still doesn't mean we can't comment on it, criticize it, or discuss it. He or any other player is human, that makes it relative to us. So being told why discuss or criticize it because it isn't going to affect it, isn't prudent in my thought... does anything we really talk about going to change anything?

BTW.. I thought there was a change recently to the site and the sizing, so I have been breaking down my thoughts more individually for ease as the smaller text in paragraphs were hard upon the eyes. However somehow I adjusted the zoom on the site specifically after looking after your complaint. Here is it my issue, however I have grown so accustom to changes often here, that I wrote it off as a Zero adjustment and making the changes for my selfish needs. LOL... so your criticism had a positive impact. 🙂

---

What change to smaller text? When did this change occur? Are you talking about the site?

---