Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Green Bay...


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

Rodgers gets a pass by most in the media. They make him out to be a victim of how the organization failed him. Well he failed the organization by failing to win the NFC championship game  last season after Brady turned the ball over 3 time in the second half. Yet it's easier to blame the young coach for kicking the FG than blaming Rodger for failing to win that game. Any other QB would've been destroyed by the media.

  • Pie 1
  • Poo 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dpanther69 said:

Rodgers gets a pass by most in the media. They make him out to be a victim of how the organization failed him. Well he failed the organization by failing to win the NFC championship game  last season after Brady turned the ball over 3 time in the second half. Yet it's easier to blame the young coach for kicking the FG than blaming Rodger for failing to win that game. Any other QB would've been destroyed by the media.

Brady has a stacked roster going against Rodgers.  Both sides of the ball.  GB overachieved IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes, I'm conscious of the fact that the team I'm calling a mess has an infinitely better record than us over a very long period of time. We'd certainly be a lot better off if we'd been to as many conference championships as they have in the last decade.

I guess it comes down to what your expectations are.

There does come a time when almost winning it all multiple times just isn't enough. The hard part is figuring out when you've come to that point.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, CRA said:

just this offseason we have seen Watson, Wilson and now Rodgers try to flex some power on their franchises.  That's a trend. 

a trend I think Brady likely helped influence.  Yeah, Brady didn't flex to get out....but he took his talents to somewhere that wanted to win right now.  And that team on top of that gave Brady a pretty big say in roster acquisitions. 

All these guys saw the stacked team that TB immediately put around Rodgers and started looking at their organizations and going 'why didn't we do that since you had, you know, me!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, t96 said:

We'd be immediate SB favorites with Rodgers (giving up only future assets and no current roster players). I'd take him here in a heartbeat.

I don't think he wants to be here. I am not even sure he would be happy on a West Coast team. I think he just hasn't realized that he is over football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

...is a mess.

Heaven knows Rodgers has all the talent in the world, but good grief what an entitled, narcissistic douchebag he's become.

he has always been one, according to members of his own family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

Seattle-GB trade--

I'd be for it based on the entertainment value alone.

Green Bay wasn't on Wilson's list of approved destinations, but at the time he made that list he may have figured there was no way in hell they'd part ways with Rodgers.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

Rogers isn't wrong for refusing to play.

Green Bay it's your move. 

That goes back to the whole "high standards" question.

I doubt anybody would deny that the Packers are one of the best teams in the league. They just haven't been the best.

It's all relative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
    • Well, we got our answer on Army today.
×
×
  • Create New...