Aaron Rodgers to the Jets: It's On
NFL Offseason - The trade compensation for Aaron Rodgers to the New York Jets is officially agreed upon, according to Adam Schefter.
The Jets receive Rodgers, pick No. 15, and a 2023 fifth-round pick (No. 170).
The Packers receive pick No. 13, a 2023 second-round pick (No. 42), a 2023 sixth-round pick (No. 207), and a conditional 2024 second-round pick that becomes a first-rounder if Rodgers plays 65% of plays this year.
What surprises me is that there isn't a conditional pick that's conditional on whether Rodgers plays in 2024 or not. Otherwise, this sounds about right for both teams.
Comments
123 comments, Last at 01 May 2023, 3:47pm
#112 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 26, 2023 - 11:56pm
I also wasn't making an argument but you certainly didn't miss this one.
You and your buddies thought GB had no leverage and would go for what Favre went FIFTEEN years ago because trade values can't change over time.
Oops.
#2 by theslothook // Apr 24, 2023 - 4:36pm
Even this feels like an overpay. Once again, who are the Jets bidding against besides themselves? The Packers are in a corner and had no choice but to accept whatever the Jets offered or go into the season with the world's most expensive backup.
I would have held firm on a conditional second and that's it.
#14 by vitozeke1 // Apr 24, 2023 - 6:03pm
I agree. I hate the trade. I thought that the jets got fleeced as usual and ended up giving up too much for Mr. 90% retired. I was against the trade from the start and didn't want to give up too much for Mr. 90%. I wouldn't and Gerry Y have rather gotten Carr, saved my picks to build around Carr and get a jump on the season and perhaps signed a few other free agents to supplement some of our weaker positions and gone all out to try and make it to the super bowl and win it all this year. Same old jets.
#20 by serutan // Apr 24, 2023 - 6:37pm
From the Packers' side, this makes perfect sense. Get rid of the drama, the cap hit, and get some picks to help out Love. I too hate this from the Jets' side - if for no other reason than they're delusional if they think the drama is just going to suddenly vanish now that he's not in GB anymore. I also don't like that they'll be back in this same spot in at most 2 years and I don't think Rodgers can carry them to a title.
#35 by Cythammer // Apr 24, 2023 - 9:05pm
The drama is irrelevant and always has been. If Rodgers played like he did in two of the last three seasons and throughout most of his career, it will be a good trade. If not, it won't be. The off-field stuff won't play any part either way.
#25 by BigRichie // Apr 24, 2023 - 7:19pm
The Jets were bidding against having to go again with Zach Wilson. Or Carson Wentz. Or getting Aaron Rodgers after most all the preseason is over, as the Packers could've held onto Aaron that long without paying him one red cent..
I don't understand youse guys thinkin' at all. The Jets had the Packers over one barrel, and the Packers the Jets over another, separate barrel really of equal size.
#31 by theslothook // Apr 24, 2023 - 7:37pm
And if I were the Jets, I would have called this bluff. There was no market for Rodgers besides the jets. If they were afraid of starting Zach Wilson, they could have signed Jacoby Brissette who would have given them mediocre QB play as opposed bottom of the league QB play.
Meanwhile, just how excited was Green Bay about the prospect of having to watch this drama drag out well past otas and training camps and into the preseason? Especially with Rodgers giving weekly updates on Pat McAfee?
#79 by theslothook // Apr 25, 2023 - 11:18am
Exactly. The Jets telegraphed their lust for Rodgers in a very public way when they could have simply kept their mouths shut.
Smart organizations don't let themselves get played like this. Smart organizations don't make short term decisions to please the fan base. The Ravens brass, by comparison, has done all of the right things as they've dealt with a tough situation that only happened because another dumb team set a foolish precedent.
#81 by dryheat // Apr 25, 2023 - 11:46am
Owners look at a lot of things besides winning and losing. There are a host of economical reasons why the Jets would want to sign Rodgers. Ticket and Merchandise sales being two big ones. The ego-soothing component of having a nationally relevant team is a big one too. Rodgers #8 Jets jersey and t-shirt sales sold more units yesterday than Jacoby Brissett's would have sold for the length of his contract.
#83 by theslothook // Apr 25, 2023 - 11:54am
Yes that's all true.
However, the point I am stuck on is the Jets didn't have to be so public about it and could have gone about it in a much more intelligent way. There was 0 market out there for Rodgers besides the Jets. Once you accept that reality; you really shouldn't be bidding against yourself. Every action the Jets have taken only drove up his asking price and turned it into a giant circus.
#84 by dryheat // Apr 25, 2023 - 12:18pm
I won't argue that the Jets handled trade negotiations properly. I agree that they handled them poorly. But I disagree that they were bidding against themselves. Even if you believe another team wasn't interested in Rodgers at any price, which I don't, bidding against yourself really isn't a thing. There is almost always a minimum acceptable price to the seller. The Jets weren't going to get Rodgers for a conditional 2026 6th round pick just because they were the only bidder any more than you can get an original Dali for 3 cents at an art auction because nobody else showed up.
Was the Packers reserve price unreasonably high? I don't think so, but they certainly knew they could afford to be after the Jets AND Rodgers publicly proclaimed they would be in bed together for the upcoming season. But I think a two that would be a one if conditions were met was always going to be the parameters of a trade.
#88 by guest from Europe // Apr 25, 2023 - 12:32pm
Let's not forget that the Packers also publicly said they don't want Rodgers anymore and are trying to trade him to the Jets. Their team president said so. In a worst case scenario for them no trade happens and they have a giant cap problem + a huge QB controversy: who will play? who will be benched?
These were 2 teams handling over the highest paid contract. If no trade happened, both teams would be in problems.
#89 by theslothook // Apr 25, 2023 - 12:38pm
I think the source of disagreement between me and other posters is who is left in a worse situation if no trade happens? I think if the Jets had planned better, then its the Packers who would be in the worse situation for the reasons you described. The financial ramifications alone are grizzly but then comes the media circus that can absolute tear a team apart.
The worse case for the Jets is they roll one more year with Wilson with the optics of trying to give him another chance and then let the plucky Mike White try and win a few games. Yes thats a terrible scenario as well, but one that's less terrible than what would be facing the Packers imo.
For me, I would have traded a second that could be conditioned to a first IF the team made the playoffs.
#98 by guest from Europe // Apr 25, 2023 - 1:47pm
The Jets had a lot of options. The QB supply was very high a month ago! Even now there are options such as Lance, Bridgewater and to draft someone. The Jets are bad at developing QBs, so that would be an even worse option to trade up in the draft.
Someone wanted only Rodgers. We don't know who, but we can guess.
If i may say so, this is another example of 2 teams not behaving rationally with QBs and their contracts, not just the Browns.
#33 by Spanosian Magn… // Apr 24, 2023 - 7:53pm
The Packers clearly had all the leverage, and the trade reflects that. Their worst-case scenario was always just that Rodgers played in 2023 for his contracted salary, but grumpily.
If he held out, they don't pay him - getting out from under that huge financial obligation was their main motivation to trade him in the first place. If he played badly, intentionally dogged it, or otherwise caused too much of a ruckus, he'd kill his own demand, keeping him stuck there until cutting him is viable - exactly what he didn't want. The only thing the Packers ever risked was the opportunity cost of not getting the extra picks - and if the offer wasn't high enough to make them agree to the trade, that wasn't much risk at all.
#34 by theslothook // Apr 24, 2023 - 8:05pm
I don't understand how the Packers had all the leverage. They have a quarterback who is owed a gigantic sum of money who does not want to play for them and he's not shy about making his feelings heard and known to anyone who will listen . Saying they would force him to play to honor his paycheck gets you what exactly? I just don't think a team would be willing to sign up for all months long drama with all of the headaches that come from the media circus that follows; not to mention the gargantuan financial outlay that it comes with just so because a second round pick is deemed too little in terms of compensation.
Also let's be clear here. The Jets aren't getting 33-year-old MVP Aaron Rodgers. They're getting nearly 40 years old, off a bad season Aaron Rodgers who is owed a ton of money and is always threatening to retire at a moment's notice. The move is risky enough even if he were signed in free agency to the contract he has. But to give up tangible assets on top of all of that is just ridiculous. I am not surprised the Jets did this because that's been their MO for a long time now. But a savier franchise would never meet the price the Packers ultimately got.
#40 by theslothook // Apr 24, 2023 - 9:29pm
So during the Jets years under Ryan and Tannenbaum, the Jets went head first into free agency to bolster a roster into title contention. That unraveled when Manning chose Denver and the Jets gave Mark Sanchez a tearful apology extension; a move that proved to be Tannebaum's undoing. Then Idtzik went on a purge of the roster until Mike Maccagnan went on a splurge during Todd Bowles' only winning season to once again bolster a roster that was bad years prior. And remember, his qb was Ryan Fitzpatrick.
#58 by guest from Europe // Apr 25, 2023 - 6:48am
If he held out, they don't pay him - getting out from under that huge financial obligation was their main motivation to trade him in the first place. If he played badly, intentionally dogged it, or otherwise caused too much of a ruckus, he'd kill his own demand, keeping him stuck there until cutting him is viable - exactly what he didn't want. The only thing the Packers ever risked was the opportunity cost of not getting the extra picks - and if the offer wasn't high enough to make them agree to the trade, that wasn't much risk at all.
Rodgers' contract is guaranteed for injury the next 2 years, $109M. This year is fully guaranteed $59M. So, you say the Packers would keep him on the bench for 1 year and $59M? Or they would play him and risk an injury and $50M more guaranteed?
Rodgers doesn't have to do anything in this scenario. He skips voluntary activities, in season gets the money for being on the bench, or on a couch like 2021 Watson or plays badly and ends his career with a lot of money. How does any of this benefit the Packers? If they play him, he can throw every pass into the ground. They can't fine him for that but have to pay $59M.
This was a negotiation between Packers and Jets, not between Packers and Rodgers.
There is no big demand for Rodgers! Free agency passed for more than a month, many other teams chose other QBs: Carr, Garoppolo, Brisett, D. Jones, G. Smith... Only the Jets were interested.
#68 by dryheat // Apr 25, 2023 - 9:17am
Ummm....not. Not at all. If Rodgers intentionally plays poorly, he's probably going to be suspended with cause, his contract voided, and the league might banish him for throwing games.
The Packers didn't need to do anything with Rodgers. Sure the cap space would have been nice, but not needed. Assuming (and I'm not) that the Jets were the only possible trade partners for Rodgers, and the Packers felt the Jets were lowballing him, this would have likely played out in a couple of ways.
1. Rodgers comes back as your starting quarterback, Jordan Love is your backup. Rodgers plays the season.
2. Rodgers comes back as your starting quarterback, Jordan Love is traded. The Packers draft a successor or trade for an unknown, supposed high-upside guy like Trey Lance. Rodgers finishes out his career in Green Bay.
3. Rogers, unhappy that he's not traded and that all his favorite targets are playing elsewhere, decides to retire and start the game show phase of his career.
4. Rogers shows up, causes trouble, is told to stay home and collect his pay from the couch until a trade can be worked out.
#77 by guest from Europe // Apr 25, 2023 - 11:07am
Your versions 1 and 4 are the same i wrote. How are those beneficiary to the Packers? In version 1 if there is an injury, 2024 salary of $50M becomes guaranteed and a repeat of this offseason. Version 2 is very similar, Rodgers stays 2 years, they get no picks. Packers have to trade or release Love after having said they want Love, not Rodgers. Not likely. In version 4 what trade is worked out? The 2023 season is being played, other teams just wait for Rodgers to be released. Maybe someone offers a low pick.
Version 3 is very unlikely because the contract is guaranteed. Rodgers already said he won't retire.
The Packers didn't need to do anything with Rodgers. Sure the cap space would have been nice, but not needed.
This is true.
If Rodgers intentionally plays poorly, he's probably going to be suspended with cause, his contract voided, and the league might banish him for throwing games.
The league can't consistently decide when a pass to the ground is or isn't intentional grounding penalty. How are they gonna know someone is intentionally playing poorly? If throwing to the ground is too aggravating, he can throw out of bounds, he can throw to covered WRs, he can gain too much weight, ... such a player can do a lot of stuff. During the whole 2022 he made a lot of comments directed at Packers and teammates and there were 0 fines. I know of several such star players who got fat and are sitting on the bench and collecting salary on guaranteed contracts. A lot of them paid by Real Madrid.
#82 by BigRichie // Apr 25, 2023 - 11:50am
Because of the weird way the contract was structured, the Packers didn't have to pay Rodgers anything till just before the regular season starts. So they could've waited till the end of training camp, then cut Rodgers. The Jets then get him without the benefit of his learning whatever offense the Jets are running, his receivers, etc., etc.
#85 by guest from Europe // Apr 25, 2023 - 12:20pm
So they could've waited till the end of training camp, then cut Rodgers.
In such a scenario the Packers get no draft picks and have an even higher dead cap number, i think. If he is cut (!), than all of $59M goes to Packers' dead cap on top of $40M they have now.
If they kept him and paid him $59M to sit on the couch, than the current $40M dead cap number is pushed into the future.
The Packers leverage was that the Jets need the QB as soon as possible... at training camp it's too late for the Jets.
#3 by theslothook // Apr 24, 2023 - 4:41pm
I wish I could ask the Packers brass exactly one year ago what they were expecting when they inked Rodgers to the deal they did. Because as fun as it is to say they imagined this outcome a year later, I don't believe it. The whole thing is just goofy.
#91 by theslothook // Apr 25, 2023 - 12:43pm
In a total vacuum, I was actually in favor of the Packers doing this. Adams wanted a long term contract and was about to be 30. I expected him to have a really good season last year, but I also think it could be his last. Receiver age curves are not kind to receivers once they approach 30. Receivers tend to enjoy a 3-5 year peak and then either transition to the slot and become possession guys or they fall apart all at once and are gone.
#96 by guest from Europe // Apr 25, 2023 - 1:38pm
You are right (in a vacuum). The same is true for T. Hill trade.
Any team has to have other pass catchers if they are trading away WR1. Packers had nobody else good for years. They kind of look like the Patriots now (offense players). The Packers invested a lot of draft picks in the defense and have way worse defense than the Patriots.
Not all WRs die at age 30. HOFers usually don't. We will see how good Adams is and will be.
#69 by big10freak // Apr 25, 2023 - 9:42am
There is a lot that could use defining in a response.
Short version is that I would have preferred less public acrimony with Rodgers. But the move from Rodgers to Love is on brand for GB. I don’t like or dislike. But I respect the adherence to an organizational philosophy. Note I wrote philosophy versus execution. The execution was less than refined. Hence the resulting acrimony which was unfortunate
Adams wanted a new environment Maybe this was somewhat the result of Russ Ball having poor people skills But based on everything I have been told and read Davante wanted a change Wished him the best then and keep to that now
I think GB mgt save for Matt is lacking in soft skills So the relation management falls on him which creates a risk in salary discussions A head coach has to stay out of those talks
So if I were to call out a process flaw that is it
#70 by theslothook // Apr 25, 2023 - 10:18am
I want to probe into this further. A cursory look would say the Packers always have a succession plan in place for their HOF QBs, but I am not convinced.
Ted Thompson said he took A rod because he fell to them and he was the highest rated player on their board. Also, i wonder what might have happened if Favre didn't waffle so much about retirement and made a true commitment to playing 3 additional years. Would GB have really walked away and gone with an unknown in Rodgers? I think in that scenario, there's a real chance Rodgers gets traded. Something similar to Jimmy G in New England.
Then we fast forward to this saga. If this was their plan all along, they did it in the most inefficient ways possible, up to and including picking up a 5th year option for a QB who we have no idea about. If he's awesome, you'll be extending him for a lot of money with one year of good play. If he's bad, well, what do you do then? Remember he hasn't played so we have no idea if the bad play is because of inexperience or just because he's bad. It's an even more extreme version of the Trey Lance dilemma.
Imo, I think this came to pass because Rodgers had his first bad year and the GM decided that the optics finally looked good enough to move on. A year before, Rodgers has just won the MVP and it would have looked outright foolish to move on from him then
#72 by Aaron Brooks G… // Apr 25, 2023 - 10:38am
The execution was less than refined. Hence the resulting acrimony which was unfortunate
Favre's departure was acrimonious, too.
\Rodgers' timing even leaves open the possibility that he'll be in Minnesota in 2024.
#74 by big10freak // Apr 25, 2023 - 10:40am
Rodgers has regularly complained about GB moving on from veterans. As have a few other players
And this has been something Ron Wolf discussed. Ted Thompson didn’t articulate it as clearly but his actions were pretty clear. And the current administration has also been fairly consistent. Third contracts, being 30 or older tend to be triggers for GB to look elsewhere right or wrong Not that this is exclusive to GB in the NFL But for some reason gets more attention
By all accounts BG was a Love fan going into the draft The major error was the lack of communication to 12 prior Brian thought Matt was handling and Matt wasn’t aware that was for him to do Rodgers was understandably offended And shows the gap in people skills I mentioned Brian is a football guy not a player relationship guy He’s not as clumsy as the infamous Jerry Krause (GM of Bulls back in the 90s) who regularly alienated players both intentionally and unintentionally But he’s not smooth
#80 by theslothook // Apr 25, 2023 - 11:24am
Well, what communication would have appeased/assuaged Rodgers by drafting Love? It's a pretty clear signal that your time in GB is coming to an end and it won't be on your terms. Rodgers lived this exact situation with Favre and he saw first hand how Favre felt. Rodgers doesn't exactly strike me as having any different perspective on this than his predecessor. I just felt like the moment the pick was made, this was headed for a pretty ugly and public divorce no matter what.
But even granting all of that, BG still committed himself once more to Rodgers last year which would seem to fly in the face of his plan when he drafted Love. Moving on from Rodgers at that point would have been the perfect timing. You let Love play and decide if you want to pick up his 5th year option.
#4 by big10freak // Apr 24, 2023 - 4:53pm
I remain baffled on why anyone thinks that once Rodgers leaves GB his status as a player remains some kind of GB obligation. 2024 is NY’s issue. They accept the risk of any player in a transaction. Injury. Retirement. Legal trouble. What have you
Anyway. It’s done. Wish 12 the best.
#11 by big10freak // Apr 24, 2023 - 5:56pm
They likely did. And GB was right to say “not my problem”. And it isn’t.
Folks can debate about risk premium valuation in negotiations. But GB was correct to not have any conditions.
And I know folks will roll their eyes but I would post this about any other team in a similar situation.
#6 by RickD // Apr 24, 2023 - 5:36pm
So...essentially a 1st and a 2rd for 39-year old QB. Not bad for the Packers.
Are the Jets watching reruns? The motivation for this trade is suspiciously similar to the Favre trade. Are they so close to being a Super Bowl contender that they'll gamble on a 39-year old QB? I guess so.
Mind you, the defense is certainly very good. But they're not going to win the division. At least management can say "We tried."
#26 by Spanosian Magn… // Apr 24, 2023 - 7:19pm
If that's true, that's insane. Doesn't mean it's not true, of course.
I'm guessing they looked at their roster, concluded they were solid everywhere except the stinking pile at QB, and decided to go all-in on the "best" QB available. In and of itself, that seems a reasonable strategy to me.
The main issue to me is that I don't think Rodgers is really much better than Carr or Garoppolo at this point (and quite a bit worse than Lamar Jackson, who's at least theoretically available). I'd prefer him over those two, but not for that kind of premium in draft picks and salary.
#123 by Cheesehead_Canuck // May 01, 2023 - 3:47pm
But they're not going to win the division. At least management can say "We tried."
--
I don't know. The Bills are increasingly being exposed as paper tigers. Miami goes as far as Tua's health takes them. The Jets shouldn't be favoured, but it wouldn't be the biggest shock in the world.
#10 by Romodini // Apr 24, 2023 - 5:47pm
Well Cowboys, you blew your last chance to defeat the Aaron Rodgers led Packers. The stain of losses from 2016 to 2022 will go unavenged.
Please don't waste your one and only chance to kick Rodgers' smug face into the turf this year as a Jet.
#13 by PackerPete // Apr 24, 2023 - 6:02pm
A few moments ago, I asked Brian, my UPS driver, if he'd heard of the Rodgers trade. He said his father called him immediately. Myself, I had just called my best friend moments earlier. I'm sure phone traffic spiked here in Green Bay. Brian made the point that he hadn't heard a single person speak against trading Rodgers in the past months. I haven't heard anyone arguing for Rodgers to stay. The Rodgers fatigue in Green Bay is very real.
It's best to move on from a player a year too soon than a year too late. $60 million is way too steep for 25 TDs, 12 picks, no 300 yard games and an 8-9 record. Loved watching him play; he's my favorite Packers player during my 63 years. Time to move on. He's grown too toxic, too disruptive, too self-centered. I wish him well in New York and hope he's on the field for 65% of plays to hand the Packers another 2024 1st round pick.
#17 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 24, 2023 - 6:12pm
It's best to move on from a player a year too soon than a year too late.
Never understood willingly giving up a good year of a player so you can...maybe find someone as good? I bet the Patriots heavily regret thinking this w/Brady.
#29 by BigRichie // Apr 24, 2023 - 7:30pm
Going dirt-cheap at QB (far and away the most $$$ position out there) enabled the Pats to dig out of their cap issues in just 1 go. The Saints should be so lucky.
Bear in mind what the Pats surrounded Cam with would've been yet $20+ mill worse had they brought Brady back. Pats did what they had to do. Neither here nor there that it was to Tampa's benefit. Not when you've already gotten 6 rings of your own out of it.
#32 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 24, 2023 - 7:39pm
Again, willingly letting a good player go so you can find a used Cam and cap space to make the WC once out of three years while your ex makes it 3/3, including a ring, is such bizarre desires.
(ignoring the pointlessness of the actual phrase and the consequences of being all knowing like that)
#42 by KnotMe // Apr 24, 2023 - 10:52pm
NE wasn't gonna get enough talent around Brady to matter for the next 3 years. Honestly, from a franchise perspective they probably should have used a tag(can't recall if they had a better use for it that year) and traded him, but Belichick is kinda soft on his guys and pretty meh at FO stuff. Even with him comming off a badish year they probably could have gotten a similar deal to this since he didnt' come with a giant contract.
Their real mistake was not tanking well enough with Cam.
#59 by guest from Europe // Apr 25, 2023 - 7:00am
Brady was a pure free agent in 2020. There was a no-tag clause in his last contract with Patriots. There was no high demand for Brady in free agency. Just the Bucs, maybe the Raiders (and they had Carr under contract).
Similar low demand for Rodgers now. Because of this low demand it looks like such an overpay by the Jets.
#54 by LionInAZ // Apr 25, 2023 - 12:08am
You're right. It was already too late when the Packers signed Rodgers to the last extension, when he was already being a flake.
You're just living the delusion that Rodgers was going to deliver another MVP performance when he didn't want to even play for the Packers any more.
Get real: the Packers got more by trading Rodgers than keeping him one more year -- in fact they got more than he was worth, given the $60M baggage strapped to his carcass.
#97 by Eddo // Apr 25, 2023 - 1:40pm
That phrase is usually used when an aging player is a free agent, so it's not that you're giving up a single good year for something speculative, it's that you're weighing having to sign onto multiple years at a high salary vs. freeing up that space now.
This situation was different from the norm in that Rodgers wasn't a free agent, or even holding out for a new contract.
#105 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 25, 2023 - 7:52pm
That phrase is usually used when an aging player is a free agent,
Eeeeeh, nooo. I've seen it used plenty of times for cuts/trades ("good cut, he was over 22!") for example, Josh Sitton. Who would go on to a PB for Chicago. Or Mike Daniels who signed to Detroit for more than his cap hit would've been in a trade (aka the team was too scared to call in division for even a conditional 7th, despite thinking he was done for, as if that's something you wouldn't want to swindle a rival for, turns out they like revenge anyway, surprise surprise)
A free agent is veeeery different and not where my beef lies.
#19 by JS // Apr 24, 2023 - 6:36pm
Agreed. At his peak he was, to me, the best QB I've seen, but now he's just a very good QB. And with the cap hit, and the need for the franchise to figure out the future, it's time. Even if Love turns out to be meh, the franchise had to start figuring out the future.
And the draft picks, and getting out from some of the cap hit is nice too.
#38 by Cythammer // Apr 24, 2023 - 9:11pm
"He's grown too toxic, too disruptive, too self-centered."
Why say that that's why you are tired of him? It's not. This part was why: "25 TDs, 12 picks, no 300 yard games and an 8-9 record." I think it's silly when sports fan pretend like they REALLY care about the sort of things for which Rodgers gets criticism.
#16 by Spanosian Magn… // Apr 24, 2023 - 6:11pm
I'm a little surprised the Packers had to include a 1st, especially since they pick so close to each other (amounts to the Packers jumping up 2 slots). Seems almost pointless other than to be able to claim they got "multiple 1sts!!1!" (since the 2024 pick from the Jets will likely be a 1st).
Except it let them jump NE in the queue, a team that's in kind of a similar spot and might be looking at the same set of players with the pick. I'd guess that's either a DB or a lineman. But I can't help but perversely wonder, since they're both teams with an iffy young starting QB that would have to strongly consider picking a new one in the 1st if one of the top prospects fell, if they're positioning themselves based on intel that oh, say, one of the top prospects is going to fall.
I don't think the Packers (or NE) are going to pick a QB in the 1st, but I'm rooting for it on the grounds that it would make me laugh a whole lot. These next few years are going to be... interesting.
Thanks for 15 great years, Mr. Rodgers.
#39 by Cythammer // Apr 24, 2023 - 9:17pm
I think Packers fans are much too sanguine about this trade. That for the simple reason they've been spoiled with HOF QB play for 30 years now. They simply aren't familiar with the reality that they are unlikely to be as good as they were in '20 and '21 any time in the next decade, and that Jordan Love in particular will probably never be anything but a mediocrity. Even as mediocre as last season was, running it back and hoping to get back to where you were the two previous seasons probably had a better chance of resulting in a Super Bowl any time soon than this strategy. Packers fans are now going to find out what it's like to not be a member of the NFL elite year in and year out.
#41 by big10freak // Apr 24, 2023 - 9:45pm
Rodgers wasn’t going to last forever GB decided it was time to transition. Taking a huge risk. But adapt or die.
I enjoyed in a different way the teams from 1974-1991. I can do so again
And who knows, maybe GB will be pretty good in a different way than needing the qb to be awesome.
#46 by BigRichie // Apr 24, 2023 - 11:15pm
A couple of the L:ynn Dickey years were fun. Otherwise I didn't enjoy the Unmighty Pack '74-'91 one bit, myself.
(lowest point, when Forrest Gregg laid into a jury for finding Mossy Cade guilty of rape, within 24 hours Mossy is now telling the jury 'yeah I did it I'm sorry so now give me a lighter sentence')
#102 by Cythammer // Apr 25, 2023 - 5:20pm
For the most part, being pretty good in the NFL means having a QB who plays awesomely. Now, it's certainly possible for that not to be the case for a season or two, or to have an otherwise decent-to-good QB who has a stellar stretch (the mostly mediocre Cam Newton's great 2015 season being a prime example), but being consistently good over a stretch of years will basically always depend on having a great QB.
#103 by BigRichie // Apr 25, 2023 - 5:28pm
The Ravens were good all throughout Flacco's time. The Redskins under Schroeder, then Williams, then Rypien.
That took me less than a minute. Unless you hilariously define "stretch", you can find who knows how many additional examples. With little digging at all.
#116 by Cythammer // Apr 27, 2023 - 5:48pm
The Ravens were good for about five or six years with Flacco, but Flacco was mostly good during that time as well.
Your other example is from decades ago, when the NFL was drastically different. So... Looks like you couldn't really find many examples at all. Which, is, of course, the case. Come on, arguing against the primacy of the QB in the modern NFL is absurd.
#118 by guest from Europe // Apr 27, 2023 - 6:18pm
Do 2004-2008 Steelers qualify? That was defense-first team.
You wrote in the first comment that the QB has to be great, (not just good) and play awesome. I have watched a lot of Ravens with Flacco. 2008-2010 Flacco was nothing special, just a game manager. Those Ravens had great defenses. 2011-2014 Flacco was good with some awesome playoff games. By DVOA those latter Ravens were way worse (9-13% DVOA, only 2014 was above 20%) compared to 2008-2010 teams which were around 27% DVOA powered by the dominant defense, not Flacco. If Flacco was slightly better, 2008 Ravens win the title, not Steelers.
This was more than a decade ago. Maybe it's a different era. If we go to today's NFL, are 2019-2022 49ers with Purdy and Garoppolo great because of them? Purdy is kind of still "unbeaten"... If Garoppolo is this great QB, why did no team want him last offseason and he was signed by McDaniels on a fairly cheap contract this year?
If you look at recent Titans, their success was because of Henry, Vrabel coaching, play-action passing etc. This all kind of depends on how do you define team success threshold and how long of a stretch of years and so on. Of course, careers of other players don't last as long as QBs, it's more difficult to assemble a great defense, rules are tilted to offense and so on. If you lift the threshhold for success high enough, only the Patriots and Manning's teams will remain.
Brees on Saints was very consistent and always awesome offense, but their great teams were only 2017-2020 when there was also defense. There were 2009 break the rules Saints and 2006, and 2011...those were kind of 1 year each, not a stretch. Packers with Rodgers had good years and not so good...
#53 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 24, 2023 - 11:59pm
Running it back would be too much egg to take. 4 years and 1 start out of your traded up for 1st rounder? Too big of a pill to swallow with how universally panned it was the moment it happened. They HAD to try to see something before admitting wrong.
#60 by BJR // Apr 25, 2023 - 7:02am
It was a similar story with Patriots fans after Brady left. Although in that case they were at least justified in trusting their HC/GM, and were never likely to become terrible any time soon.
This trade has the potential to make the Packers terrible, overnight. We'll see how sanguine their fans are if that plays out.
#64 by guest from Europe // Apr 25, 2023 - 7:29am
In the last years Packers invest in their defense with high draft picks, some free agents such as Amos. After all of that "potential" and "good quality draft picks" the defense is average at best, usually below average. They have a lot of special teams problems. They always have a very good O-line, coach up linemen drafted in mid-rounds and let go players such as T.J. Lang, J. Sitton, C. Linsley, Bulaga, (now injured Bakhtiary) and don't miss much. Running game is very good. They didn't get any pass catchers for years, they had Adams and mid-round drafted WR3 and WR4-types. Now they will have LaFleur scheme and a lot of de facto rookies in the pass game. This will be interesting.
Obviously this Packers' GM knows what he is doing. As the commenter NewAroundTheseParts writes, he has such-and-such win-loss record with the Packers since 2018. He is just great. No problem there. Last year he traded WR Adams for a pick that he used to draft an inside LB. Let's hope he does that again with these picks. He has now his own-drafted QB and WRs after all.
#92 by IlluminatusUIUC // Apr 25, 2023 - 12:43pm
You're not wrong that the Packers are entering uncharted and dangerous waters for the franchise, but there wasn't really a second choice. Rodgers was either going to the Jets or to Burning Man, there was no realistic option where he returned to them.
#100 by IlluminatusUIUC // Apr 25, 2023 - 3:21pm
How did you feel when they handed the reins over to Rodgers in the first place?
Similar to how I felt when the Broncos handed the reins from Elway to Griese, the Bills did from Kelly to Collins, the Dolphins from Marino to Fieldler, etc. There are entire franchises who don't have two Hall of Fame QBs in their history, let alone two back-to-back. The Montana -> Young, Favre -> Rodgers type transitions are vanishingly rare.
Love could be a perfectly cromulent QB and that would still be a massive step down from what the Packers have had under center for three decades.
#115 by theslothook // Apr 27, 2023 - 5:44pm
Well sports, like life, isn't fair. The lakers are a family run business who hires sycophants which explained how they could do everything wrong wrong after Kobe's last title. Then, despite blunder after blunder, they acquired Lebron for nothing and traded for AD - a player who can never stay healthy, managed to play healthy for one postseason run and won the title. Basking in that glory, they couldn't their stupid ways and bumbled ever since.
The Clippers, by contrast, carefully cultivated a smart culture; culminating in a trade that landed Kawhi and PG. Except, this crown jewel free agent coup failed in their single season where both were healthy and then watched as injuries destroyed their seasons every single year thereafter.
#117 by guest from Europe // Apr 27, 2023 - 5:49pm
GB Packers were very consistent during this period, a lot of playoffs appearances, many NFC championship games lost, more than Giants. I don't think it's a proper assessment of team success to think: Super Bowl or failure. It is way better to reach playoffs than to be last in the division or conference.
During this period Packers probably were among top 4 teams having consistently good teams along with Patriots, Steelers and Cowboys. That would be my guess.
#120 by jackiel // Apr 28, 2023 - 12:37am
To expand on my point a bit more, I believe that having 2 all-time greats at QB has papered over some of the flaws in the way that GB does things. For example, I don't think that they got the Rhodes and Sherman hires right during the Favre era. I think that they stuck with McCarthy way too long after it was obvious that his scheme and play calling weren't having an impact on the offense's productivity and the defense had regressed. I'm not sure why the organization refused to emphasize special teams under LaFleur until 2022. I'm not sure that the way that they have historically approached free agency makes sense.
I disagree about SB appearances not being a useful measuring stick in this case. In the AFC, there have been significant periods when certain teams acted like gatekeepers (the Brady Pats or KC currently) and there are teams like the Steelers and Ravens that always seem to be in the playoff hunt. In that conference, you can forgive a team for not winning frequently because that meant navigating a gauntlet of sorts. (Despite the dominance of the Brady Pats, Manning still went to 4 SBs with 2 different teams during his career.) That dynamic simply has not existed in the NFC. GB should've been that gatekeeper for much of the last 30 years in the NFC and they should've been able to turn their consistent advantage at the most important position into more SB appearances and titles.
People like to treat the Lakers as bumbling idiots. While players like playing in LA, people like to forget that they signed Shaq when Orlando refused to pay him, drafted Kobe when it was still taboo to draft HS players, and drafted guys like Ingram and Ball, who are solid-to-all-star caliber players, that were attractive enough to influence NO to trade AD. The Lakers generally know what they are doing. By contrast, the Clippers, in their zest to become relevant quickly, decided to hand over roster construction to Kawhi, a player who has never been in a hurry to come back from injury and has only gotten injured more frequently as he ages. They likely wouldn't have acquired PG13 without Kawhi's demand. The Clippers are a low key failure of the player empowerment era.
#121 by guest from Europe // Apr 28, 2023 - 4:28am
That dynamic simply has not existed in the NFC. GB should've been that gatekeeper for much of the last 30 years in the NFC and they should've been able to turn their consistent advantage at the most important position into more SB appearances and titles.
Yes, Packers with Rodgers and Saints with Brees. Should have, but weren't because HOF QB isn't everything. HOF QB in an elite offense with bad defense yields 7-9 Saints. You can check how many 7-9 and 8-8 seasons they had with Brees. Cowboys are consistently good during Romo- and Prescott-years and they never even reach NFC championship game. They are climbing high on those dynasty of heartbreaks rankings. Your multiple SB is a very high standard!
Total team and coaching is more important than elite QB. Examples: Ravens always. Or Patriots in 2001-2004 beating multiple MVPs and HOFers. Current Eagles (2017-2022) and 49ers (2019-2022). Rams with McVay.
It is easier to draft and develop one player (a QB) than to assemble and keep the whole team for a longer period.
To expand on my point a bit more, I believe that having 2 all-time greats at QB has papered over some of the flaws in the way that GB does things. For example, I don't think that they got the Rhodes and Sherman hires right during the Favre era. I think that they stuck with McCarthy way too long after it was obvious that his scheme and play calling weren't having an impact on the offense's productivity and the defense had regressed. I'm not sure why the organization refused to emphasize special teams under LaFleur until 2022. I'm not sure that the way that they have historically approached free agency makes sense.
I agree with this. In my opinion there are only 2 teams that do things properly on this organizational/management/hiring level: Steelers and Ravens.
(It would be better if you two kept L.A. NBA out of this. NBA is the league of few superstars)
#104 by BigRichie // Apr 25, 2023 - 5:37pm
You keep making this claim, Aaron, and I keep contesting it. No point in stopping now.
Rodgers '08 and Favre' 07 were different in 3 ways. 1), with the Packers' defense collapsing Rodgers was now regularly playing from behind. Favre the year before, hardly ever. 2), Rodgers took an extra sack per game. 3) Rodgers threw about 1 more incompletion per game.
That's it. Every other stat is remarkably similar. Remarkably.
As to Rodger's "so-so" year, Aaron, you just weren't paying attention back then to that. Packer fans were overjoyed with how well the kid did in his first year as a starter, and the whole League viewed this Rodgers kid as one really good young quarterback.
#108 by BJR // Apr 26, 2023 - 6:11am
Favre 2007 was considerably better than Rodgers 2008 by DYAR (1315 vs. 708) and DVOA (24.5% vs. 7%).
However, that misses the bigger picture, which is 2007 was very much a bounce back season for Favre after mediocre 2005/06 campaigns (which were both worse than Rodgers 2008 by DYAR).
By any measure Rodgers first season as a starter was a great success (ok maybe not the Patrick Mahomes measure, but we'll exclude him).
#62 by guest from Europe // Apr 25, 2023 - 7:09am
Only the Jets were interested in Rodgers.
I have no idea why the Jets gave that extra 2024 1st rounder. Why did they blatantly say "we aren't interested in Jackson, we want only Rodgers". They could have put out rumours: "sources say Jets may be interested in Jackson", "sources say Jets may want to trade up and draft a QB"... what would the Packers do?
#71 by guest from Europe // Apr 25, 2023 - 10:35am
If they want no Jackson, there was a second sentence "sources say" that i wrote. They had picks No 13, 42, 43. That must be enough for a potential trade up. That would give credence to the fake rumour "Jets want to trade up and draft a QB". That would leave Packers with absolutely no demand. Their price would have to go down, right?
I mean 2 days ago there were 2 teams with no starting QB: Ravens and Jets. There were 2 QBs available. Ravens put the franchise tag on Jackson. That leaves only the Jets.
They could have traded these picks (that they gave for Rodgers) for Jackson or traded much less for Lance. They have a young team. Those would be better fits. Instead they chose 2 years of Rodgers. If everything goes very well, it will be 3 years.
#76 by Aaron Brooks G… // Apr 25, 2023 - 10:44am
Lance is a total unknown whose career performance to date would suggest he's the one QB Shanahan can't turn into shinola and has only reliably shown he can injure himself. (Garoppolo is more proven, but his (lack of availability) is a real problem as a franchise QB.
While I agree Carr was probably the best system fit, that ship had sailed.
The owners seem to be blackballing Jackson, which leaves only Rodgers. The leverage the Packers had was that the last time the Jets had a decent QB it was also a former Packer. They haven't had a reliably good QB since the Super Tecmo Bowl days.
They weren't really negotiating with the Packers. They were negotiating with "Do you want to suck forever?"
#99 by guest from Europe // Apr 25, 2023 - 2:37pm
I have to say this all turned out very well for the Packers' management. Last year they gave their old-ish QB a huge 3-year extension when he had 1 year left on the contract. After a year of worse play by the QB he "doesn't answer the phone calls", there are problems and they decide to trade him. Their fans mostly agree with this. They can't release him. After a low interest by other teams they still manage to get a 2023 2nd round pick and likely a 2024 1st rounder.