Gantt indicates the Panthers should bring in Carr

[mrcompletely11]

Just now, frankw said:

If it's between Rodgers or Carr give me Rodgers all day. But I think his shtick would wear thin with Panthers fans fairly quick.

It would be a neat trick to watch fitt try and get under the cap to accommodate his 60 million salary and resigning burns

[frankw]

1 minute ago, mrcompletely11 said:

It would be a neat trick to watch fitt try and get under the cap to accommodate his 60 million salary and resigning burns

I'm hoping some adults in the room will point out the obvious that most teams are competing with younger QB's on rookie contracts instead of veterans on bloated 150+ million dollar contracts. Scott has to know if he throws the whole franchise at Carr he's outta here if we aren't making a deep playoff run.

[mrcompletely11]

1 minute ago, frankw said:

I'm hoping some adults in the room will point out the obvious that most teams are competing with younger QB's on rookie contracts instead of veterans on bloated 150+ million dollar contracts. Scott has to know if he throws the whole franchise at Carr he's outta here if we aren't making a deep playoff run.

The "but but but the nfc south sucks and we can win it with carr" rationale from posters is pretty fuging stupid as well.  Lets build a team that is upper tier in the nfl and simply built to win the shitty south

[Mr. Scot]

21 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Aaron Rodgers doesn't have a no-trade clause, but he has to approve of any deal because if he doesn't like where he's traded, he can just say we will retire, and any team trading for him will want to know that detail before any actual trade is approved. So, it's an effective no-trade clause, even if it's not an official one.

As for them not trading him if he wants to be traded, sure they can hold him hostage, but that would be dumb on their part because they won't get any compensation for him, and they'll likely end up paying him 60 mil to do nothing. 

Yeah, Rodgers doesn't have the kind of leverage you think.

Rodgers can't force the Packers to do something against their own best interests. Neither does he have the kind of goodwill with his team that Matt Stafford had.

The fact that he's made a very public ass of himself over the last few years doesn't exactly help in the PR department either.

[mrcompletely11]

10 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Yeah, Rodgers doesn't have the kind of leverage you think.

Rodgers can't force the Packers to do something against their own best interests. Neither does he have the kind of goodwill with his team that Matt Stafford had.

The fact that he's made a very public ass of himself over the last few years doesn't exactly help in the PR department either.

He has plenty of leverage due to his contract.  He can be a jackass and not redo his deal severely limiting the teams that can trade for him or he can choose the team and say he can rework his deal to make it fit under the cap.  Not the same as a no trade clause but plenty enough power if he wants to be a poo head

[top dawg]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Yeah, Rodgers doesn't have the kind of leverage you think.

Rodgers can't force the Packers to do something against their own best interests. Neither does he have the kind of goodwill with his team that Matt Stafford had.

The fact that he's made a very public ass of himself over the last few years doesn't exactly help in the PR department either.

The threat of retirement is as real as leverage gets. I don't think the Packers will do anything against their best interests, and that's why they'll trade him if he decides to part ways or they decide to move on and see what Love has during this last year of his rookie contract. Moreover, for all the complaints about Rodgers being a headache, he won't lack for suitors, and it's been reported lately that he's going to be right there in Green Bay, so him being an A-hole doesn't seem to be affecting his market one bit. Even if he can't come to the NFCS, those markets weren't really the best for his situation anyway. 

[MHS831]

3 hours ago, Ornias said:

Would Brissett be an option? 2 year bridge contract for like 10-15m a year. 

Younger than Carr 61.1% career passer (64% most recent season with Cleveland).  I think he might be a good addition...and cheaper than Carr.

Of course, we still go after a QB, but this would open the door for projects like Levis, Richardson, or Herndon. 

I would not hate it.

[ncstatekwi]

It will be interesting to see if something even happens before the draft....if it does then it tips our hand......

[45catfan]

10 minutes ago, ncstatekwi said:

It will be interesting to see if something even happens before the draft....if it does then it tips our hand......

Only tipping of the hand is if we go all-in on a bona fide QB1.  Signing anything less than Rogers, Jimmy G., Jones, Jackson or Carr does not preclude us drafting a QB.  Yes, I totally expect us to sign a FA QB.  We'd be stupid not to.

[rayzor]

3 hours ago, Lame Duck said:

I don’t think it will be Carr.  More like 

 

[SCO96]

2 hours ago, Khyber53 said:

We need to be heavily into the Carr interest, especially early on, if for nothing else to drive up the price.

He's a good guy and a good QB, and if we could have him for the right price, he'd be great here. We won't be able to get him for the right price, though, so we should do our best to make sure whichever one of the NFCSouth teams snags him, that there's a nice, hefty contract that will richly reward him and hamstring them for the next four to five years.

I don't see too many post on this forum that I consider  to be twisted and diabolical , yet clever and somewhat brillliant at the same time. 

Edited February 26, 2023 by SCO96

[Mr. Scot]

1 hour ago, top dawg said:

The threat of retirement is as real as leverage gets. I don't think the Packers will do anything against their best interests, and that's why they'll trade him if he decides to part ways or they decide to move on and see what Love has during this last year of his rookie contract. Moreover, for all the complaints about Rodgers being a headache, he won't lack for suitors, and it's been reported lately that he's going to be right there in Green Bay, so him being an A-hole doesn't seem to be affecting his market one bit. Even if he can't come to the NFCS, those markets weren't really the best for his situation anyway. 

Not when the team is reportedly "done with you", it isn't.

All indications are at this point they're ready to call pretty much any bluff he plays.

Throw in that his likely most amorous suitor is a team that's in the AFC and employs a coach he likes very much.

Edited February 26, 2023 by Mr. Scot

[OldhamA]

1 hour ago, MHS831 said:

Younger than Carr 61.1% career passer (64% most recent season with Cleveland).  I think he might be a good addition...and cheaper than Carr.

Of course, we still go after a QB, but this would open the door for projects like Levis, Richardson, or Herndon. 

I would not hate it.

He should be cheaper than Carr, he's thrown for 169 less TDs and 24,872 less yards than Derek. 

[Mr. Scot]

2 hours ago, frankw said:

I'm hoping some adults in the room will point out the obvious that most teams are competing with younger QB's on rookie contracts instead of veterans on bloated 150+ million dollar contracts. Scott has to know if he throws the whole franchise at Carr he's outta here if we aren't making a deep playoff run.

That's already his preference (stated numerous times).

But is it Frank Reich's preference?