Rodgers Wants Out

Status
Not open for further replies.
Packinatl said:
That’s fair. But words matter. I know it’s Monday Morning QB stuff but just leave it that “we are committed to Aaron and working to resolve differences”. The “foreseeable future “ line left them with their pants down and locked in their position, they had to know the contract leaks and speculation and some of that probably came from them. I know it’s just a few words but when you are trying to control the message be consistent
Click to expand...

You might be right, but leaving out any defining language means the press and others will just keep poking at it until you do define it more. The next question after you tell them “we are committed to Aaron and working to resolve differences” will be "how long do you foresee committing to Aaron being your starting QB".

If you don't answer they'll just keep asking and each time you don't answer the press will say that the Packers won't address their level and length of commitment, and you are right back where you started.

I could be wrong, but if I was the press, I'd keep asking about that commitment until you give me something more. You then either give them something definitive (truth or lies), or you give them something vague.
 
57packer said:
You might be right, but leaving out any defining language means the press and others will just keep poking at it until you do define it more. The next question after you tell them “we are committed to Aaron and working to resolve differences” will be "how long do you foresee committing to Aaron being your starting QB".

If you don't answer they'll just keep asking and each time you don't answer the press will say that the Packers won't address their level and length of commitment, and you are right back where you started.

I could be wrong, but if I was the press, I'd keep asking about that commitment until you give me something more. You then either give them something definitive (truth or lies), or you give them something vague.
Click to expand...
I’m nitpicking a bit there and that’s fair. On the flip side they already have the “foreseeable future “ narrative out there and I’ve not read one piece that has questioned it. I agree with you I would be asking also. Typically NFL teams don’t invest much in on in house PR, it’s usually a department that handles feel good community relations stuff. The “damage control” is usually limited to stuff that involves player conduct and is limited to “we are aware of the situation and we are looking into it”. Just a guess but most of the organizations releases on this were written by legal who have limited PR skills
 
Though we won't know how this turns out for years. If Rodgers goes on to win a SB ring well but if it ends up like last time the QB going on to play for a few more years not getting to a SB while the replacement becomes a MVP calibur player. Who knows maybe both sides suck and there is no winners
 
So is there any team you would be willing to take the starting QB back in a trade? I know some say they would take Carr back. But Carr you figure he's likely a one year guy before you trade him also and start Love?
 
GBP4EVER said:
So is there any team you would be willing to take the starting QB back in a trade? I know some say they would take Carr back. But Carr you figure he's likely a one year guy before you trade him also and start Love?
Click to expand...
No. If / when 12 gets traded you turn the keys over to Love. Is he ready probably not but it’s not the point. You drafted 10 to be the heir apparent and that guy is gone. Start the process of evaluation
 
Mark87 said:
I am not following you at all TW....
Click to expand...
“Jake Kumerow has been such a solid performer for us for the last couple of years. I love his reliability,” Rodgers said. “I think he’s a fantastic, steady player, who’s very heady on the field. He makes plays, he plays with a lot of coincidence, and he’s a guy who you love having on the squad.” - Aaron Rodgers

I doubt very much that Rodgers would have said this if members of the coaching staff didn't agree. The decision to cut Jake had to come strictly from Gutey.

If LeFleur was part of the decision, he would have known damned well it would hurt the chemistry between him and Rodgers, as well as the chemistry on the field between Rodgers and his receivers. Two things that no decent head coach would intentionally, or unintentionally do, unless they wanted to get rid of the QB by making him look bad.

LeFleur does not strike me as a coach that would sabotage his own team. But, think about the reasoning that Rodgers had zero respect for Gutey. It didn't just come out of nowhere.

This whole thing goes back to Gutey and Murphy deciding to play "hard ball" with Rodgers, as if he was some 3rd tier QB that they were only keeping around because they owed him too much money on a bloated contract. The fact that they were one game away from the Super Bowl the last two years, and we had "zero" defense should tell them they should have had their arses in gear trying to fix a badly damaged defense with a DC who should have been sent packing. Instead, they turned their ire on their QB. That's pretty stupid in my book.

As I've said before. Rodgers is not walking away from this without fault as well. He should have ironed out all these issues before they came to a head. That is, assuming they were willing to listen.
 
TW said:
“Jake Kumerow has been such a solid performer for us for the last couple of years. I love his reliability,” Rodgers said. “I think he’s a fantastic, steady player, who’s very heady on the field. He makes plays, he plays with a lot of coincidence, and he’s a guy who you love having on the squad.” - Aaron Rodgers

I doubt very much that Rodgers would have said this if members of the coaching staff didn't agree. The decision to cut Jake had to come strictly from Gutey.

If LeFleur was part of the decision, he would have known damned well it would hurt the chemistry between him and Rodgers, as well as the chemistry on the field between Rodgers and his receivers. Two things that no decent head coach would intentionally, or unintentionally do, unless they wanted to get rid of the QB by making him look bad.

LeFleur does not strike me as a coach that would sabotage his own team. But, think about the reasoning that Rodgers had zero respect for Gutey. It didn't just come out of nowhere.

This whole thing goes back to Gutey and Murphy deciding to play "hard ball" with Rodgers, as if he was some 3rd tier QB that they were only keeping around because they owed him too much money on a bloated contract. The fact that they were one game away from the Super Bowl the last two years, and we had "zero" defense should tell them they should have had their arses in gear trying to fix a badly damaged defense with a DC who should have been sent packing. Instead, they turned their ire on their QB. That's pretty stupid in my book.

As I've said before. Rodgers is not walking away from this without fault as well. He should have ironed out all these issues before they came to a head. That is, assuming they were willing to listen.
Click to expand...
I don't agree i think Rodgers said this because he was friends with Kumerow. I think it was ML call to cut him as I think ML has the call on the final roster. ML is not going to keep a WR with no future just because his diva QB is friends with him. Kumerow deserved to cut he was not good. We also heard this same BS on Jared Abberderis how Rodgers liked him. Coaches will play guys who deserve it. Hell guys like Lazard and Shepard had at some point passed up Kumerow on the roster. Coaches watch practice and will give guys who earn playing time playing time.
 
TW said:
“Jake Kumerow has been such a solid performer for us for the last couple of years. I love his reliability,” Rodgers said. “I think he’s a fantastic, steady player, who’s very heady on the field. He makes plays, he plays with a lot of coincidence, and he’s a guy who you love having on the squad.” - Aaron Rodgers

I doubt very much that Rodgers would have said this if members of the coaching staff didn't agree. The decision to cut Jake had to come strictly from Gutey.

If LeFleur was part of the decision, he would have known damned well it would hurt the chemistry between him and Rodgers, as well as the chemistry on the field between Rodgers and his receivers. Two things that no decent head coach would intentionally, or unintentionally do, unless they wanted to get rid of the QB by making him look bad.

LeFleur does not strike me as a coach that would sabotage his own team. But, think about the reasoning that Rodgers had zero respect for Gutey. It didn't just come out of nowhere.

This whole thing goes back to Gutey and Murphy deciding to play "hard ball" with Rodgers, as if he was some 3rd tier QB that they were only keeping around because they owed him too much money on a bloated contract. The fact that they were one game away from the Super Bowl the last two years, and we had "zero" defense should tell them they should have had their arses in gear trying to fix a badly damaged defense with a DC who should have been sent packing. Instead, they turned their ire on their QB. That's pretty stupid in my book.

As I've said before. Rodgers is not walking away from this without fault as well. He should have ironed out all these issues before they came to a head. That is, assuming they were willing to listen.
Click to expand...
Disagree, but we all see it through our own lense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top