Cory's Corner: Let's Make A Deal
Remember the Joe Flacco contract?
He was rewarded with the richest deal in NFL history in 2013 after leading the Ravens to the Super Bowl championship and claiming the game’s MVP. Baltimore gave him an average of $20.1 million with the hopes that Flacco would reclaim that magic.
Eight weeks later, Aaron Rodgers was given an extension for an average of $22 million. Rodgers held the top average salary for quarterbacks for three years before he was topped by Andrew Luck’s monster deal in 2016 that averaged $24.5 million.
Rodgers doesn't become a free agent until after the 2019 season but the Packers have already got the ball rolling on a new deal.
The two quarterbacks that are about to be usurped this time around are Jimmy Garoppolo and Kirk Cousins. The unproven Garoppolo, who has only started seven games in his career, got an insane contract for an average of $27.5 million. Garoppolo’s contract is so front-loaded that his 2018 cap number is a ridiculous $37 million.
That just leaves Cousins, who could have at least five teams that would love his services. The Packers have said they have started talks on their franchise quarterback, but Rodgers is going to wait until Cousins signs.
Basically, the Packers should just hand Rodgers a blank check. You cannot value Rodgers’ worth to the organization. Without Rodgers, the Packers wouldn’t be nearly as successful and the Titletown District would be an afterthought. Without that money stream coming in, the Packers wouldn’t be able to compete with the high revenue teams like the Patriots, Cowboys and Redskins.
There has been a lot of backlash for Rodgers to take a team friendly deal at age 34. Many have said that he should take less money and allow the team to fill out the roster.
Rodgers could do that, but there’s no reason why he should. Rodgers doesn’t owe anything to the Packers because of how meticulously successful he’s been. Pending injury, Rodgers has three years of elite play left — and after that he will have to tweak his game a little by going to his check down receivers more often.
And that’s why Rodgers will earn a contract that’s worth an average of $30 million a year. The Packers realized how important Rodgers was after he missed 10 games with a broken collarbone. The Packers finished this past season 26th in total yards and 25th in passing yards, compare that to 2016 when the Packers were eighth and seventh.
Rodgers’ presence is bigger than tectonic plates. He affects the entire team. Even if the Packers have trouble scoring, Rodgers generates long-sustaining drives and wears down opposing defenses with his head and with his legs.
You can say that Rodgers should take a pay cut, but you could say that for all pro players. The moment the ink was still wet on Garoppolo’s contract, Rodgers knew that he was going get paid mogul money.
Now the question is if Cousins will one-up Garoppolo’s deal. Is Cousins worth that kind of money? I’ve never thought so, but the NFL is so starved for franchise quarterbacks that teams will always overpay for one.
No matter what Rodgers gets, it won’t be an overpay. His worth to the Packers and the entire state of Wisconsin is unparalleled. Everyone knows what Rodgers means to the NFL. A couple Hail Mary’s and countless tight window passes, including an absurd playoff throw in Dallas while rolling left.
Without Rodgers, the Packers don’t just fall into mediocrity — they are mediocrity.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Cory Jennerjohn is a graduate from UW-Oshkosh and has been in sports media for over 15 years. He was a co-host on "Clubhouse Live" and has also done various radio and TV work as well. He has written for newspapers, magazines and websites. He currently is a columnist for CHTV and also does various podcasts. He recently earned his Masters degree from the University of Iowa. He can be found on Twitter: @Coryjennerjohn
__________________________
Comments (56)
John Ramble Kirk
February 13, 2018 at 06:59 am
I think the Packers should let him play out the contract and franchise him in consecutive years after it ends. That gives us 4 seasons with two of them down the road where the cap will go up to absorb the bigger one year charge x 2 over the the next two. That's gotta be around 100 million, or so, over the next 4 seasons. At that time, if he still has it, he can be extended on a two year deal getting him to his magical 40.
He may balk at all this and become a distraction but the Packers don't have to extend him. Why should they if extending him means hurting the Packers overall? Those who want a hometown discount like Brady gives should be more focused on the control the org has over this situation than the control Aaron has...for now.
25 mil per average over the next 4 sounds quite advantageous to me. This is not about Aaron Rodgers and never should be...it's about the Packers. Aaron's been great and even though he is the team he's not bigger than it.
stockholder
February 13, 2018 at 07:13 am
Right! HE's 34 ! He's not Tom Brady. He knows what the NFL is, Business! STOP the rhetoric.
dobber
February 13, 2018 at 07:32 am
In the end, the question is: at what stage will #12 no longer be worth whatever extension he would be given. John (and others who have made a similar point before) really is pretty much on when he says that 4 years out, what is he going to be? Assuming the CBA/franchise rule doesn't change dramatically between now and then, if we consider his last two years on his deal plus two years under franchise tags to be his "extension", he's still a bargain (at least in the short term)...and without a crippling commitment to the cap if he declines dramatically. At some point, the cap is due to quit 'exploding' the way it has been: revenues aren't bottomless. Teams need to plan for that.
He talks about wanting to play into his 40s, and that's easy to do when you haven't hit 35. What tune will he be whistling when he's 37?
"STOP the rhetoric."
I don't know how to respond to that...
John Ramble Kirk
February 13, 2018 at 07:55 am
Absolutely, dobber... Do you want an extension paying him 30 million with a ridiculous dead money cap charge when he's 38 or 39 and may have lost it?
Looking to the post Rodgers era... If we draft a QB in Round 1 this year he gets the 5th year option. I'll bet Belichick is wishing he'd gotten that on Garoppolo. Now, he gets another year, or two, from Brady vs. watching Jimmy G. in SF for the next decade plus. Should we take a QB in rounds after the 1st they're getting 4 year deals. That would align perfectly with Aaron playing out his current contract and franchising him, twice.
It's time to start thinking about life after 12. Can you imagine the balls it would take for Gutekunst to come out of the gate by drafting a QB at 14? He'd be vilified and need to keep his dog inside at all times.
dobber
February 13, 2018 at 08:04 am
I agree: a QB at #14 would be shocking, and Gutekunst's legacy would be tied forever to the play of that guy...even if they win at least one SB in the remaining years of ARod's career.
There are a couple people here who have been regularly calling for a QB at #14. With the depth and variety in this year's QB class and #12s contract situation, I'm starting to think it could happen. Some say it would be a sign of giving up on the present for the future, but that would have everything to do with the whole player procurement picture...not just a single pick.
John Ramble Kirk
February 13, 2018 at 08:47 am
If he does it, I'd love the guy for his balls, and because it would tell me he really did draft who he thought was the BPA instead of drafting a position of "need".
Have you looked at some of these Top 50 or 100 prospect lists? They're all over the map. Not even close to each other. Very varied opinions. If they were looking at someone like JT Barrett, i wonder what they think of Lamar Jackson?
If Ted was still in charge, I would be resigned to the fact it was going to be another defensive player from the Pac 10. King, Clark, Randall, Datone, and Perry. That's 5 out of the last 6 drafts with a Pac 10 defender with our 1st swing. Thrilled it's Brian...until he drafts Vita Vea. :)
dobber
February 13, 2018 at 09:25 am
Agreed...there's not a tremendous amount of agreement in the prospect rankings, but it's still pre-Combine, and the draftniks will consolidate on many of these guys once they test.
Jackson seems to be a guy who the shine has fallen off of somewhat. He strikes me as an odd Teddy Bridgewater/Mike Vick hybrid. I wouldn't be surprised if he falls dramatically based on concerns over his stature and natural pro position (QB or the dreaded 'ATH'). He'll be underdrafted...that always creates opportunity. Could you imagine if he fell all the way to #14 in round 2?
John Ramble Kirk
February 13, 2018 at 04:50 pm
14 in Round 2 would be a tempting proposition. He'd get a 4 year deal. Just the idea of drafting a QB up high is going to bring out the Favre scenario chatter. I'd be curious to see how that affected Aaron. His sensitive nature is legendary.
Gotta think with DeShaun Watson's success, someone is going to pull the trigger high on Jackson in Round 1 somewhere.
dobber
February 13, 2018 at 09:41 pm
I would argue the value at #14 in round 2 (especially with how Hundley failed last season) would be too much to pass up. Even #12 would have to grudgingly admit that. Maybe he'd be viewed as less of an affront with a 2nd round label. I just have this feeling that he'll be underdrafted, especially with the glut of "prototypical" QBs in this year's draft.
Cubbygold
February 13, 2018 at 12:17 pm
If GB is drafting JT, it better be because they have magical insight into him being the next great OSU QB turned WR (TP, BM). Guy has no chance of being an NFL QB, just watch what Clemson did to him. He was able to win college games with his legs, which isn't going to translate to the NFL.
Bure9620
February 13, 2018 at 06:42 pm
Very true, revenue is NOT bottomless and some teams are seeing less or declining revenue which is a factor when determining if and when the cap is raised. Still, I think he should get an extension before the season, but I feel like Rodgers is asking for an all guaranteed or mostly guaranteed contract. The latest reports are both sides are "far apart." I don't see how that's even possible if the Packers offered him his market value which they would have had to at least do and likely more, maybe average 27-28 mil per year? We will never know, but this situation has the potential to become hairy. The only way thing they could be that far apart in would be the guaranteed portion.
dobber
February 13, 2018 at 09:17 pm
Makes you wonder if he/his agent are stalling, waiting for the Cousins domino to fall...
worztik
February 13, 2018 at 10:58 am
John... you just parroted what I said a week ago but, I’m happy to see that you agree with me!!! ;-)
worztik
February 13, 2018 at 11:20 am
If we “hear” that the QB we value won’t be there at #14 do we trade up to secure him or do we “settle” for another one that isn’t our first choice? I say trade up if the evaluations are correct and there isn’t a history of serious injuries or time lost to minor injuries! I am NOT down on AROD... how could anyone that’s a football fanatic be down on him? The problem with, “just look how good we were before he got hurt!”, just doesn’t make sense! Look at what we had to replace him... NOTHING close to a pro QB!!! Look at Houston or Miami, or Oakland in ‘16, when their starter went down... total dysfunction but, we felt it more-so because I, and probably many others, thought Bubblegum Boy would be an adequate backup. Didn’t happen... obviously! I’ve been on the CB train all off season until recently... now I’m on the QB train big time!!! It probably won’t happen but, I’m hopeful that we’re moving in a direction away from the status quo and as John said, “show some balls!”.
stockholder
February 13, 2018 at 01:08 pm
Hear, Persuasive thinking? Let's be careful in dreaming. TT will be in that war Room with Gute. The best draft still to follow is 2009. But there is no clay Mathews. So far no one can run with his speed. R. smith is the closes thing to Mathews. But the 2009 won't happen. So lets look at the 2005 draft. Great draft. Here's your QB #1 A-Rod. Collins db. Murphy WR,S,LB,OL etc. Trader TT was obvious. Would you be happy with Josh Allen. T McFadden, Gallop Wr, Mason Cole C ? Or Mine D. James S, Kirk WR, Gallop WR, D Leonard OLB.
worztik
February 13, 2018 at 02:35 pm
I’d be HAPPY with a contributor to start making the team elite again!!! QB,.. RUSH... CB... WR... any would likely be an upgrade in general!!!
dobber
February 13, 2018 at 09:26 pm
"TT will be in that war Room with Gute."
Do we know this? Has anyone come out and said this? This piece from Andrew Brandt in 2012 talks some about who was in the Packer war room and what their roles were, but it doesn't specifically mention scouts (although it mentions other special advisors, which may mean TT in this case).
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/7840048/nfl-draft-war-room
If I were Gutekunst, I don't think I'd want any doubt to be cast on who was making the calls and that would mean that I would thank TT for his help in construction of the big board, but ask him to kick back and enjoy a few beers on that Thursday-Saturday.
stockholder
February 13, 2018 at 09:53 pm
This isn't 2012. TTs new title is senior advisor. Why wouldn't you have that advisor in the room with you? I would. You seem to think every things changed. TT is still part of the program, and still is included in scouting. I'm sure if a trade comes up, everyone will be involved. Especially if a veteran and contracts come into play.
dobber
February 13, 2018 at 10:14 pm
Sometimes I wish it still was 2012...I was less undertall then.
The piece was cited to show those people Brandt identified as being in the room. It was a sample and somehow I think that TT didn't change his MO too much over time. He also points out that different teams do it differently.
Who's to say that TT even WANTS to be in the war room? Once people in leadership positions step down, many run far away from their previous roles. All I said was that if I'd been in the shadow of a (recently) much-maligned GM for years, I could mine him for every bit of info leading up to draft day but I would want to establish my own legacy from that point onward. As we read comments here from some people, they seem to assume that TT will be the puppet master behind the scenes while simultaneously asserting that he needed to replaced because he could hardly not piss himself.
"I'm sure if a trade comes up, everyone will be involved. Especially if a veteran and contracts come into play."
Veterans? TT? Really?
"You seem to think every things changed."
That's the world I've chosen to live in. Isn't this what we're all hoping for? Otherwise, what's the point?
HankScorpio
February 13, 2018 at 07:35 am
Rodgers once said you play the regular season to make money and the postseason to establish a legacy. By that standard, Rodgers has done much better at making money than establishing a legacy.
And as the money goes up, so does his need to establish a legacy by his definition in order for playoff success to come the Packers' way.
I won't begrudge him any penny he gets. Nor will I excuse him for playing below his standards in playoff losses. As he has done all too often. Even if the defense sucks.
Tundraboy
February 13, 2018 at 08:59 am
Sounds like a forgone conclusion Rodgers will be in the 30s.
Savage57
February 13, 2018 at 08:10 am
"Tom has Giselle." - AR, when asked about taking a team friendly deal.
See what plays out in 2018, and then work out a deal next off-season based on all this season reveals, whether it's AR's level of play, the team cap situation, results of the season (trainwreck, fell just short, won it all) and go from there.
HankScorpio
February 13, 2018 at 08:33 am
I don't see the need to rush into anything either. Matthews, Cobb and Nelson cap hits come off the books after this year. They will be in a much better position to give Rodgers what he wants next year.
dobber
February 13, 2018 at 09:28 am
I despise that "Tom has Giselle" statement, if only from all the undertones it seems to show in ARod's mindset.
John Ramble Kirk
February 13, 2018 at 04:06 pm
100% agree, dobber. What a jackass of a statement, there. Rodgers has grown more and more unlikable as the years roll by.
D.D.Driver
February 13, 2018 at 04:35 pm
I'm pretty sure Aaron was just making a joke...
dobber
February 13, 2018 at 10:00 pm
But if everything he says is calculated, he has to be aware of how those kinds of comments can come off.
Thegreatreynoldo
February 14, 2018 at 12:59 am
Sorry, Dobber, but I've no idea why you dislike the Giselle comment. I may be having a Drax moment, but it makes all the sense in the world to me.
I haven't seen anyone articulate a cogent reason to extend AR. I can only think of three arguments (maybe there are more):
1. Probably no accident that his guaranteed money - dead money ends. I suspect that there was a gentlemen's agreement to extend the deal in 2018 between AR and the FO. Agents have long memories if such a trust is violated.
2. Basic fairness since AR is and has been underpaid most of his last extension.
3. Image - both AR's but also how GB treats its players. Most know that the NFL is a business, but I think perhaps our image took a hit with Martellus Bennett and having a long-running contract issue with AR probably wouldn't help. I realize that WA had a similar issue with Cousins, but that was as much about questioning whether Cousins was really a franchise QB as anything else. There are no doubts about AR.
marpag1
February 15, 2018 at 03:19 am
Wait... people actually take the GIselle comment seriously? Really??
Do we imagine ARod's agent pounding the table and screaming, "BUT TOM BRADY HAS GISELLE, DAMMIT!!"
C'mon.
Savage57
February 13, 2018 at 08:17 am
And speaking of QB contracts, no matter how and when the situation with AR plays out, there's one thing we can all get behind this offseason:
Here's hoping the Vikings, facing the Bradford, Bridgewater, Keenum decision, make an absolute hash of it and spend huge money on the wrong guy.
I'm really torn as to who to root for them to sign, because all three of them have huge associated liabilities - it's tough trying to decide which one has the greatest potential to hamstring the franchise the most for the longest period of time.
HankScorpio
February 13, 2018 at 08:25 am
Any of those 3 Viking QBs are the wrong guy.
D.D.Driver
February 13, 2018 at 04:37 pm
I gotta pull for Bradford or Bridgewater, too high risk, medium reward options.
Keenum is more of a low risk medium reward option.
Since'61
February 13, 2018 at 08:43 am
One way to look at this is, what have the Packers done to build a supporting cast around Rodgers for the last 7 seasons. If he takes a team friendly deal how does that guarantee him a supporting cast that gets the Packers to the Super Bowl.
When Brady made his deal the Patriots had already won 3 SBs while he was still on his rookie contract. Then Brady married Giselle who earns more than he does. He could take less money knowing B.B. will build a team good enough to get to the SB. Different situation and a different person.
If Rodgers takes a team friendly deal what does that mean? He takes $25 mil instead of $30 mil. Does the difference ensure a roster that reaches the SB?
As fans we want our team to win but expect our players to play for lower salaries than they deserve. But the players, especially players like Rodgers are business people, they know and expect to be paid what they are worth. The Packers are also a business and Rodgers is a revenue stream. He is not just worth wins and losses. He generates revenue for the team. Rodgers has earned every cent he will receive in his next contract and he is our best chance to win an SB in the next 2-3 seasons.
All of us want to be paid based on our performance and on what we are worth, why is Rodgers any different? He is taking a risk with no guarantee of anything from the Packers. He has kept them relevant when without him they would be back in the 70s and 80s. Make a fair deal and move on. Thanks Since ‘61
dobber
February 13, 2018 at 08:51 am
"One way to look at this is, what have the Packers done to build a supporting cast around Rodgers for the last 7 seasons. If he takes a team friendly deal how does that guarantee him a supporting cast that gets the Packers to the Super Bowl."
Based on this argument, all you can point toward is that upper management in terms of scouting and roster management has significantly changed. Hope has to rest in the fact that the status quo is no longer in place and that creates a new dynamic in player evaluation and procurement. You and I both know that there are no guarantees...
Cubbygold
February 13, 2018 at 09:06 am
Great comment.
My hope heading into the offseason is that packers management would understand that Rodgers has a choice of resigning, and that it's not a guarantee. This realization then would drive them to consult with him on what he feels needs to be done to win as many superbowls as possible over the next 6 years. While some good changes did take place, I'm not sure they incorporated Rodgers as I would have liked/expected.
One piece that you didn't include in your comment is the monetary value of winning superbowls. Rodgers will make plenty of money after his career is over, but winning two additional superbowls would only enhance that. So, taking a discount to help the team could actually be a profitable move for him. Just speculation, no numbers to support that thought.
Thegreatreynoldo
February 14, 2018 at 01:04 am
I dislike this comment. The last thing I want is for GB to "incorporate Rodgers" into the roster building decisions. I'd rather bring Capers back than give Rodgers that role. [Ok, maybe not Capers, but you get the drift.]
Mojo
February 13, 2018 at 10:52 am
I'd say to '61 there are never guarantees. But a team friendly deal would give them more flexibility and a better chance to make the SB.
And all this insinuation that because Giselle makes some scratch, Brady doesn't need the cash. Well in case you haven't noticed, ARod has already made and is under contract to make a ton of cash too. If Brady doesn't need big bucks anymore then neither does Rodgers.
Dzehren
February 13, 2018 at 12:55 pm
& he's got DANICA!
Since'61
February 13, 2018 at 02:34 pm
Mojo - I agree that there are no guarantees and that a team friendly deal would give the Packers more flexibility under the cap. Also, I brought up Giselle in that she is a factor that figures into Brady's decision making that Rodgers doesn't have. And yes, I have noticed Rodgers is under contract to make plenty of money and already has, thank you.
The point of my post was that Aaron Rodgers is a business, Therefore as a business Rodgers isn't thinking of winning Super Bowls he is thinking of his business both inside and outside of his football career. Winning the Super Bowl is part of his football career but his contracts are part of his business.
He doesn't need the money but if he is going to build a business when he retires from football or even while he is still playing, that business will need to be capitalized. I don't think that Rodgers is going into the booth like Romo or back to a tractor in Mississippi like Favre. I've heard that Rodgers is considering owning part of an NBA team. That he may go the route that Michael Jordan and Derek Jeter have in owning part of a professional franchise. Maybe he is going to have a line of sportswear, who knows.
My point was to look at Rodgers and his next contract from the point of view of Aaron Rodgers the business, not the banal points of whether he needs the money or how much he has already made. If that were the case Rodgers could retire today.
Sometimes, actually often, business becomes about keeping the business going long beyond the need for the business to make money. In fact, it actually becomes fun when you no longer need to work for the money but the money is actually working for you. Thanks, Since '61
HankScorpio
February 13, 2018 at 05:03 pm
Reminds me of the North Dallas 40 quote "Everytime I say it's a game, you say it's a business. Everytime I say it's a business you say it's a game"
If Rodgers treats contract time like it is a business, he ought to act like a professional the rest of the time as well. That includes speaking to the media, where part of the job description is to sometimes bite your tongue when it comes to pointing fingers elsewhere or otherwise expressing displeasure with the work environment.
Point-Packer
February 13, 2018 at 09:13 am
Without Rodgers the Packers are the Browns. Pay the man. If you think otherwise, remember what it was like to watch Mike McCarthy’s prized pupil this season.
Cubbygold
February 13, 2018 at 09:15 am
I'm a lifelong packer fan that grew up in Chicago. So while I cheer along with all of you great packer fans in the winter, I'm also cheering on mostly Chicago teams of other sports as well.
The blackhawks are a textbook example of what could be facing GB. Great success, until it's time to pay your biggest asset. When Kane and Toews took monster deals, I knew their run was over. Just can't compete with all those resources piled into two guys.
Pack face the same decision. If they want to win a lot of division titles over the next 6-8 years, pay Rodgers whatever he wants. If they want a superbowl, that strategy isn't going to work. GB already has so little of their payroll dedicated to the defense, they can't afford to shift that balance even further in my opinion.
ShawnO
February 13, 2018 at 10:28 am
Give him 30 mil a year, he's worth it. Just structure the deal so that he only gets 15 mil if we don't make the playoffs, 20 for the first round, 25 mil for the second and 30 mil if we win the NFC.... Winning the Supper bowl is it's own prize. Intensive
billybobton
February 13, 2018 at 01:20 pm
just once I would like to see one of the whining homers wanting Rodgers to 'give a home town discount' and/or 'take one for the team'
talk about they, themselves going into to work and telling their boss they are giving money back....not because the boss needs it but that it might help with paving the parking lot, or new lunch machines
amazing what a bunch of socialists post here about what other people should do with their money and how they should be compensated
Cubbygold
February 13, 2018 at 01:45 pm
I'm one of them, and I do.
I work in an industry where the majority of my peers are only worried about their income. I'm in the business because I enjoy helping others. My firm acts in an honest way, delivers great value for our clients, but isn't as profitable as we could be if we cut corners. I could make 3-5x my salary if I wanted to on my own or joining a less reputable firm, but I 'take a discount' to work for an employer that shares my values.
If Rodgers values money, there's teams that align with that. If he wants championships, there's teams that he can pursue that with. Unfortunately I don't think he can do both.
fastmoving
February 13, 2018 at 02:58 pm
"amazing what a bunch of socialists post here about what other people should do with their money and how they should be compensated"
......just like you. But the difference is that the bunch has some solid points compared to you.
and beeing a little bit less selfish is never a bad idea
dobber
February 13, 2018 at 10:02 pm
Not socialism at all, IMO. I'd argue that it's a kind of detachment, an inability to relate. Very few of us have any notion of what it's like to be that kind of celebrity and dealing in that kind of silly money.
Arthur.Jackson
February 13, 2018 at 03:25 pm
I get where you are coming from Billy and I really don't care what Rodgers does, but your comparison is nonsense. Rodgers has made $137 million so he was passed having to ever having do anything, at all, a long time ago. All the whining homers undoubtedly do not fall in that category. When Rodgers' career is over at 40 it's not like he is screwed until he's 65 and can collect social security. Now if Rodgers thinks he should get every cent he deserves then he should do that and I will applaud him. If he thinks the Packers will be better by spending a million or two that he could leave on the table and he want to the team to be better then he should consider that.
The truth is part of the Brady 'pay cut' he took a few seasons ago was somewhat misleading. The reality is by restructuring and taking a big ass signing bonus and dropping his salary for one season (2016) he weekly paycheck went down dramatically. Coincidentally he was fully aware of a likely suspension. A suspension means forfeiture of your weekly check. My understanding is the restructure saved him a ton of cash. Tom Terrific is right!
Ustabeayooper
February 13, 2018 at 03:13 pm
The pack should not be overly concerned about ARods contract. He has 2 years left on his current deal and the Pack has bigger fish to fry in 2018.Two years is a lifetime in the NFL. Focus on upgrading and restructuring this years roster. They probably will get something done by 2019. If he plays out his contract the Franchise tag is available. So we have him for a least 3 more years. It won't matter how much he gets paid if we don't win the SB.
HankScorpio
February 13, 2018 at 04:48 pm
At the very least they can wait until late spring/early summer to open substantive talks, once FA is done and the draft picks are signed.
TXCHEESE
February 13, 2018 at 05:13 pm
Now is the time to re-up with Rodgers. With two years left on the deal, they can pay him a really nice signing bonus and spread across the 2 additional two remaining years, plus the added years, as they did with the last contract. It cuts the cap hit significantly. With contracts for QB's going up and up, the cost to franchise Rodgers in two years will be much higher than today's numbers, not to mention creating animosity with the face of the franchise. Rodgers is worth more than ANY QB out there, so pay him. It's not like he's not playing up to his current salary. If Green Bay needs to cut or renegotiate some of the high dollar contracts, they have 3 or 4 readily available in Nelson, Cobb, and Matthews.
Thegreatreynoldo
February 14, 2018 at 01:39 am
There is an idea in this comment, but TxCheese never quite gets around to stating it with clarity. The fact that there are two years left on the deal is immaterial to reducing the cap hit.
The reason to extend AR now is so that more of the prorated signing bonus and other guaranteed money comes off the contract when AR is younger and more likely to still be an elite QB. AR's signing bonus is going to be prorated over 5 years almost regardless of when the deal is reached. Just depends on whether we want AR to have $60M dead money when he is 37 or $40M. Right now a five year deal and proration leads to AR being signed through the 2022 season, which he will start at age 38 and turn 39 that December.
cheesycowboy
February 13, 2018 at 06:02 pm
I am personally going to refrain from Aaron's contract negotiations until after the draft. This is new territory for everyone. A little clue of how Murphy, Gutekunst, Ball and McCarthy work the draft will give us an idea .
bodei1newbie1
February 14, 2018 at 04:28 am
i think they should trade him and let the packers find him another team ,so he can win another superbowl why i say this is because the team doesn't have the money and what about the other position on the team ?
dobber
February 14, 2018 at 05:04 am
Why do the Packers have a desire to help any player win a SB with another team?
marpag1
February 15, 2018 at 04:00 am
"Rodgers’ presence is bigger than tectonic plates. "
LOL.