Jump to content

Speculation that Aaron Rodgers will announce retirement (update - now indicates he plans to play for GB)


Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, Chicken Boo said:

They treat him like he's some marginal starter and not arguably the best QB in football and their franchise's history.

 

I'm pretty sure his most recent contract made him the highest-paid QB in the league at the time. In terms of fully-guaranteed money, he's currently the second-highest paid QB in the league. The team could argue that they haven't spent as much on free agents because he's taken so much of their cap space over the years.

 

https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Rc2catch said:

It’s not about replacing the HOF quarterback. Lot of ways to win in this league and they are built as more of a run team than pass anyways. You could argue Rodgers carries the team cause they don’t run enough. Obviously nobody is replacing Rodgers production. They could still win that division with Jones and Dillon 

The Packers were 8th in the NFL rushing last year. Even if they were 1st it wouldn't make up the difference. They're probably an 8-9 team at best, probably more 6-11 or 7-10, this year without him. 

Edited by H2o
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, WhoTom said:

 

I'm pretty sure his most recent contract made him the highest-paid QB in the league at the time. In terms of fully-guaranteed money, he's currently the second-highest paid QB in the league. The team could argue that they haven't spent as much on free agents because he's taken so much of their cap space over the years.

 

https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/

 

 

 


by what metric is he number 2? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, H2o said:

The Packers were 8th in the NFL rushing last year. Even if they were 1st it wouldn't make up the difference. They're probably an 8-9 team at best, probably more 6-11 or 7-10, this year without him. 

I can’t agree on that. Love would have to be Nate Peterman bad which is possible but unlikely. Given how weak their division is I think they could still win it this season without Rodgers. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rc2catch said:

I can’t agree on that. Love would have to be Nate Peterman bad which is possible but unlikely. Given how weak their division is I think they could still win it this season without Rodgers. 

I think Minnesota is improved, especially on defense. Their offense is solid enough to go with that which leads me to believe they'll win the North. I also think Chicago can make some noise if Fields comes along quickly. GB is also having to replace some guys along the OL. They're in trouble if Rodgers calls it quits. 

Edited by H2o
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Yes.........the Packers have to take him off the books..........relinquishing his rights to save immediate cap space.........before he can sign with another team.

 

Kyle Orton retired from the Cowboys because they wouldn't give him a raise..........the Cowboys released him to save the space.........and he then signed for more money with Buffalo a couple months later.

 

The Packers won't relinquish his rights though.........if he doesn't show up I assume that they will be credited back his salary cap space anyway.........but not until the end of this season.

 

I thought if a player retired, their salary did not have to be paid their salary (even if guaranteed), and the team could request repayment of any amortized bonus money for next season?  My understanding is that NFL "guaranteed" salaries are guaranteed for skill, injury, and cap - but not for retirement.

 

https://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/pittsburgh-steelers-nfl-features-news-blog-long-form/2016/3/5/11158958/nfl-101-how-cuts-retirements-and-trades-affect-the-salary-cap

Quote

Okay, there are actually two "buts" for retirements. When a player retires, the team has the option to pursue the return of a portion of the signing bonus equal to the unplayed portions of the contract, and that money is no longer counted against the salary cap. This is typically done through an arbitrator. This is known as the "Barry Sanders Rule" because this is exactly how the situation played out in his case, as he was required to pay back a portion of his bonus. The difference between now and then is there was no precedent when Sanders played; now, it's explicitly written into the CBA to allow for this arbitration.

 

Thought that's why Eric Woods was so hysterically careful not to use the word "retirement" in his "nonretirement press conference" - if he'd said "I'm retiring" the Bills could have said "Give us back your last 2 years signing bonus" or whatever it was

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, H2o said:

I think Minnesota is improved, especially on defense. Their offense is solid enough to go with that which leads me to believe they'll win the North. I also think Chicago can make some noise if Fields comes along quickly. GB is also having to replace some guys along the OL. They're in trouble if Rodgers calls it quits. 

I agree on Minnesota and Chicago although I strongly dislike their coaches. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maddenboy said:

Isnt it the opposite for GB?

 

If he retires, GB can

 

-go after the bonus money Rodgers will owe

-get Rodgers' contract off the books

-save Cash, which can be spent on players to build a team for Jordan Love.  A team that was already a contender.

-get a roster spot

-avoid Rodgers getting a training camp injury or "injury" and having to pay Rodgers to not play

-save huge face with the fanbase (as long as the fans dont blame the front office for making Rodgers pissy)

-Get Rodgers out of conference (if its Denver)

-Buy some pity time from the fans, for being 'forced' to start Jordan Love before he was ready.

 

I dont see the downside for GB if Rodgers retires.  Assuming Rodgers plays anywhere other than GB this year, this is probably GB's best option.  2nd would be getting a haul of draft picks when a team loses a good QB in camp.

 

Yeah…..it would be amazing if they lose their MVP qb, one of the best players in league history……so they can get cash and a roster spot while letting their young qb play. Most teams are happy if they they from back to back NFCCGs to being a bottom 10 team….maybe the worst team. 
 

that’s much better than trading him and getting multiple draft picks and players.  Much better than having the reigning mvp leading the team to another possible super bowl run. 
 

are you even serious?  This can’t be for real.  It just makes zero sense.  Seriously man..,,

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WhoTom said:

Interesting how the Packers landed two superstar QBs in a row, each of them won a single Super Bowl, and both attempted to weasel themselves out of Green Bay - one successfully and one in progress.

 

Both seemed pretty likeable at first. Then the weaseling began.

 

 

Makes ya think that it’s no coincidence, maybe the problem is with management….

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, NoSaint said:


by what metric is he number 2? 

 

My mistake. He's third, according to the fully guaranteed column in the link I posted. One and two are grossly overpaid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I thought if a player retired, their salary did not have to be paid their salary (even if guaranteed), and the team could request repayment of any amortized bonus money for next season?  My understanding is that NFL "guaranteed" salaries are guaranteed for skill, injury, and cap - but not for retirement.

 

https://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/pittsburgh-steelers-nfl-features-news-blog-long-form/2016/3/5/11158958/nfl-101-how-cuts-retirements-and-trades-affect-the-salary-cap

 

Thought that's why Eric Woods was so hysterically careful not to use the word "retirement" in his "nonretirement press conference" - if he'd said "I'm retiring" the Bills could have said "Give us back your last 2 years signing bonus" or whatever it was

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah if the player is healthy and chooses not to make himself available to the team then he doesn't get paid.......that's the same in all the "guaranteed" contract sports as well.    

 

But if you retire with time left on your deal in the NFL you don't become a free agent...........the team has to relinquish your rights.

 

The Patriots never relinquished their rights to Gronk so they were able to trade him and a 7th to Tampa for a 4th last offseason.

 

With retirements in the past the player in question didn't have such MASSIVE cap figures though.

 

Obviously,  Rodgers can't retire and the Packers then spend too much cap space to accommodate his salary,   only to have him return/un-retire before the opener in September.  

 

If that kinda' cap shenanigans was allowed the Saints would have already done it.

 

The Pack is going to have to keep enough salary flexibility to accommodate his(inevitable) return...........or relinquish his rights.

 

They won't relinquish his rights, obviously.     And if I were them I wouldn't take 3 first round picks and Bradley Chubb as compensation.    Not enough.

 

But we will see what the Pack does if that's how Rodgers plays it.  

 

  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chandler#81 said:

Go, already. This whole offseason has been yet another prima-donna, Packer QB overload. 
 

I’m done with him. 🧐

The guy has had the world at his friggin feet! I like what Terry Bradshaw told him!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...