Aaron Rodgers, Green Bay on the Outs?

[Dante84]

Reigning MVP Aaron Rodgers is so disgruntled with the Green Bay Packers that he has told some within the organization that he does not want to return to the team, league and team sources told ESPN on Thursday.

More on NFL Live now....

— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) April 29, 2021

#Packers GM Brian Gutekunst to ESPN: "As we've stated since the season ended, we are committed to Aaron in 2021 and beyond. Aaron has been a vital part of our success and we look forward to competing for another championship with him leading our team."

— NFL Update (@MySportsUpdate) April 29, 2021

Aaron Rodgers doesn't want to return to Green Bay Packers, sources say
Reigning MVP Aaron Rodgers is so disgruntled with the Green Bay Packers that he has told some within the organization that he does not want to return to the team, league and team sources told ESPN on Thursday.

The Packers are aware of his feelings, concerned about them and have had team president Mark Murphy, general manager Brian Gutekunst and head coach Matt LaFleur each fly out on separate trips to meet with Rodgers at various points this offseason, sources told ESPN.

"As we've stated since the season ended, we are committed to Aaron in 2021 and beyond," Gutekunst told ESPN. "Aaron has been a vital part of our success and we look forward to competing for another championship with him leading our team."

Rodgers has not budged this offseason, but neither have the Packers, who have made it known they are not interested in trading Rodgers anywhere.

The San Francisco 49ers called the Packers on Wednesday night, a source told ESPN, and the Los Angeles Rams inquired about Rodgers in January before they traded for Matthew Stafford.

The Packers quickly dismissed the Rams' overtures, the source said.

The Packers have offered to extend Rodgers' contract, sources told ESPN.

Rodgers is unhappy for a variety of reasons, with some of it dating back to last year's draft when the Packers didn't inform him before trading up to draft a quarterback with their first-round pick. Some took this as a sign that his days in Green Bay could he numbered.

He also is at a different point in his personal life, having recently gotten engaged to actress Shailene Woodley. Rodgers also has hosted "Jeopardy!" and said it would be a dream to become the full-time host. He could play football and host Jeopardy! together.

Rodgers has made cryptic comments about his future in Green Bay, but he has told others that he does not want to return.

On draft night, the Packers' biggest issue isn't who they land, but whether they can keep the former NFL MVP.

Rodgers' contract contained a $6.8 million roster bonus due in March. It could have been converted into a signing bonus that would have freed up more than $4.5 million in salary-cap space for this season but instead it "vested as scheduled," a source told ESPN at the time. It's listed as an automatic conversion in Rodgers' contract but even that has to be signed off on by both parties. It's not known if the Packers tried to convert and Rodgers refused to sign off on it, or if they did not attempt a conversion.

[Shields68]

Originally Posted by RealSNR

What I don’t get is you drafted Love to be the future.

Your current QB hates your effing guts and is going to hold out.

So just trade the ****ing bastard. Problem solved, circus sideshow averted, and no front office criticism.

Plus imagine that haul you’d get to build up and support Love with.

You draft a QB to be potentially the future. At this point they are still uncertain about his future to lead a team. It is not like he was the first overall pick and even then they fail about third of the time. They did not have a training camp last year with him and he took very few snaps...

But it has always made more sense if your going to trade Rogers to do it after this year.

[TEX]

Originally Posted by Superturtle

It's been presumed that, if the Packers decide to make Aaron Rodgers available in trade, the Broncos would pounce on the opportunity. That may not be the case. https://t.co/sGKTNND26i

— ProFootballTalk (@ProFootballTalk) July 26, 2021

Naw, they'd pounce.

[jettio]

Originally Posted by Wisconsin_Chief

I would absolutely do many things different. The Packers have had a Hall of Fame QB at the helm of their franchise for basically the last 30 consecutive years which is unheard of in the NFL. They have all of 2 Super Bowls to show for it and have alienated both of the QBs in the process. That's completely inexcusable. They've also now completely alienated the second best player on their roster now in Davante Adams.

They wasted the prime years of Favre's and Rodgers' careers with subpar coaches like Mike Sherman and Mike McCarthy when it was obvious to everyone that both of those guys needed to go.

They run things the exact opposite of the way the Chiefs do. They are timid, conservative, and cheap. They are completely out of touch with the modern NFL.

So who are the vital players that the Packers let go because they were too cheap to pay them what they deserved?

[Sassy Squatch]

Originally Posted by jettio

So who are the vital players that the Packers let go because they were too cheap to pay them what they deserved?

The Packers sticking with Capers and letting the defense stagnate as a result wasted what should've been a much wider championship window during the early Rodgers years. It'd be like if the Chiefs wasted the fist years of Mahomes by sticking with Sutton and making timid moves towards fixing the defensive personnel instead of the complete overhaul in both scheme and talent that played a huge part in winning Super Bowl 54.

[jettio]

Originally Posted by Superturtle

The Packers sticking with Capers and letting the defense stagnate as a result wasted what should've been a much wider championship window during the early Rodgers years. It'd be like if the Chiefs wasted the fist years of Mahomes by sticking with Sutton and making timid moves towards fixing the defensive personnel instead of the complete overhaul in both scheme and talent that played a huge part in winning Super Bowl 54.

That's a reach. The Packers are very well run and what NFC Champion has made it to the Super Bowl since the Packers won it, that did not deserve to be there?

The Packers were beaten by the NFC Champion in most of those years. And, they lost those games in a variety of ways.

If the Packers are spending up to the cap, and competing for the Super Bowl as often as they are, this criticism of their front office is just plain nonsense.

I guess Wisconsin Chief wants to congratulate himself for being a Chiefs fan and can criticize the Packers to make him feel better for his choice, but the Packers have been well run and they pay their players.

Ted Thompson was in charge until he got sick and Aaron Rodgers never complained about him, and never will.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by Superturtle

The Packers sticking with Capers and letting the defense stagnate as a result wasted what should've been a much wider championship window during the early Rodgers years. It'd be like if the Chiefs wasted the fist years of Mahomes by sticking with Sutton and making timid moves towards fixing the defensive personnel instead of the complete overhaul in both scheme and talent that played a huge part in winning Super Bowl 54.

Dom Capers was the DC when the packers won the Super Bowl. It’s understandable why they kept him for a few years, particularly when they just had some rotten injury luck on the defensive side of the ball in the years following.

I think our defensive coaching staff is too good for this to happen to us, but imagine if the Chiefs for the next few years start to stagnate a bit on defense. Say we have to let honey badger walk, we struggle to draft a single top end starter on that side of the ball to replace the ones getting older, and we get some bad injuries here and there.

In hindsight years afterward, people go, “Why did we keep Spags for so long when he was only fielding a good defense for one year??!!”

That’s kind of how I see the Dom Capers issue

[Quesadilla Joe]

He'll be much cheaper next year. Paton might not have to give up anything more than a pick in the 20's in 2022.

[BroncoBuff]

This thread title ends in a question mark?

Has all your success blunted you to the reality that there's a whole League out there?

[CasselGotPeedOn]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

This thread title ends in a question mark?

Has all your success blunted you to the reality that there's a whole League out there?

Nice work on destroying an entire forum.

[BlackOp]

Originally Posted by CasselGotPeedOn

Nice work on destroying an entire forum.

If this true...this ****ing asshole needs his commie ass beat down.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

This thread title ends in a question mark?

Has all your success blunted you to the reality that there's a whole League out there?

Username change to ManeSlayerDiablo...

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by jettio

So who are the vital players that the Packers let go because they were too cheap to pay them what they deserved?

I don't follow the Packers that close, but when Patrick gets to where he only has a few years of SB window left, I hope KC is not spending a first round pick on a QB.

It would also be, in my opinion, a perfectly reasonably time to mortgage the future (cap and/or draft picks) trying to win another title or two with the expectation of some painful rebuilding down the line.

You can't reasonably plan on drafting back to back future HOF QBs.

Even if GB actually managed to do it.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by Quesadilla Joe

He'll be much cheaper next year. Paton might not have to give up anything more than a pick in the 20's in 2022.

Donks are picking in the top 10 and you know it

[BlackOp]

Watson and the NFL owe Rodgers some jack for the distraction...they couldn't have a sexual deviant be the main narrative all off-season.

[New World Order]

Originally Posted by RealSNR

Donks are picking in the top 10 and you know it

I think it will be hard for Denver to give up a top ten pick plus more for a soon to be 39-year-old.

Could see Gruden doing it though