"Will they take a lesson from the Seahawks and trade him for a king’s ransom? Or will they take the Cleveland route and fully guarantee a massive deal? "

"You can bet there is a front office in Green Bay watching closely as well. "

I RERLLY enjoyed this article by Ken but isn't it a bit too late for the Packers to be watching closely?

The Seahawks so far are the only smart ones. The Chiefs will ride Mahomes through this contract but how many more? As a Packers fan all I can say is I wish I was in the Seahawks position right now who BTW MADE the playoffs with Geno Smith.

Gezzzz...Just when you thought it couldn't get MORE embarrassing!!!

Yikes!

Great read Ken, thanks for addressing this building issue in the NFL.

Questions;

When will the people with a stake in this that never get to speak at the table, the fans, say "enough is enough", we are forming a consumer group and leveraging our way to a seat at the bargaining table.

When will the players get tired of seeing the majority of their brethren signing to below market dollars to maintain a roster spot while a very select few receive most of the salary cap monies?

Perhaps... The future of a healthy NFL lies in positional max contracts through the CBA, thus balancing the wealth available to each and every NFL player. When will the NFLPA actually negotiate within its own ranks for the benefit of ALL of its members and not just its most wealthy?

Kind of like the US politically, eh? When will the PEOPLE rise up and break the chains the current 2 party political system places on them? There is enough commerce in the US to tax and fund the federal government that acts within its Constitutional bounds without taxing the income of the common man.

Freaky parallel.

Or perhaps cowardice management that doesn't believe enough in their own ability to overcome adversity resulting in a rudderless vessel.

Reap what you sow.

Great points Ken! Pure and simple it is management acting without courage. Uncle Ted would have never allowed the Packers to fall in this situation. Say what you like about his methods he had the courage to stand behind his convictions. To me this trend is utter madness in a sport that is ultimately and absolutely about the sum of its parts and not about one 'star' player. The NBA is truly different in this respect because one player 'can' win championships. We won two in thirty years with HOF QB's. You would think we should know better. Mahomes is a great player but you're fooling yourself if you think he alone is responsible for KC's success. It's the system that organization put together and some luck mixed in. For years we had the system but just didn't find the luck. Now all we have is hoping for luck. Good luck with that.

So you hate Rodgers; because he's in control.
Money controls Fools.
Money will wreck professional sports.
You never fix something until it's broken.
The NFL put the cap in to curb the rich.
Rodgers has the accolades to be paid.
And when he leaves.
You'll see management for what they are.

Can we have Giannis spend some time with #12 and see if he can explain what a leader is all about? #12 in the last several years seems more intent to conquer and divide his own team rather than the opposition on the field.

The FO, stop digging deeper and put the shovel down. What the hell are you doing? Bueller, Bueller, anyone... anyone?

Here is a take about a year ago I found interesting:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nsaNLz09LlA

“ The Packers can do nothing of any significance until Rodgers decides what he wants to do.”

This is garbage. What about Rodgers and his salary is preventing the FO from replacing Barry? Or bringing in a decent OC? It didn’t stop them from restructuring contracts for Jones or Smith or Jaire, it wouldn’t stop them from doing the same with Clark, or Bakh.

Not knowing what Rodgers is going to do only really impacts picking up Love’s 5th year option but Gute said they already made that decision months ago. Also, nothing can change the dead money so best case scenario trading AR would result in about $9M extra cap to spend… a mid level WR—the difference between maybe bringing Lazard back.

Also, GB is free to restructure AR’s contact and save cap space by converting salary to bonuses and adding void years WITHOUT AR’s approval.

I've been writing that fully guaranteed contracts are bad for the NFL for a long time. While I like the idea of contracts that have guaranteed components, perhaps a provision requiring players who make the game one roster to have their minimum base salary fully guaranteed, I am concerned about that creeping ever higher and higher. For example, at one time only the first 15 or 18 rookies selected in the draft got fully guaranteed contracts for all four years, but now if is essentially every first round player. Soon, some of the high second round guys will get four years fully guaranteed if that creep continues as I expect it to.

Also:
Revenue sharing is absolutely essential.
A hard cap is absolutely essential for small market teams.

The NFL is circled around the QB. Essentially the QB is the sun in the NFL universe. A lot of people don't want to admit it, but the QB is the single most important position in all of sports. And that is why the QB's have as much leverage as they have.

Teams that don't have a QB desperately try to find the right one. Look at the amount of assets they trade away in the draft to try and get the next QB. (most recent was the 49ers). The teams that find the right QB desperately do everything they can do to keep the right one. Then there are teams that have an average QB, sometimes overpay these QB's because they are better then the average QB. Or they overpay to get an average QB. (Think Kirk Cousins).

Then teams try to put the right pieces around the QB, between protecting him with OL and getting him weapons to try and take some pressure off of the QB. And teams try to find the best pass rushers they can to try and affect the QB as well as find the best cover guys to shut down WR's to slow down the QB's.

Like it or not, this is a QB driven league. Almost everything is to help the QB on offense and everything is to stop the opposing QB on defense.

Trade him. If he refuses to play he doesn’t get paid. Or make him sit on the bench while Love starts. How long will Diva do that before he demands a trade? He is all about personal records and you can’t get them riding the pine. Where there is a will, there is a way. Unfortunately, all the will left 1265 Lombardi Ave. a couple years ago along with Murphy’s manhood.

Is Diva going to announce his decision on Tank Tops show tomorrow or drag this thing out a couple more weeks?

I like the article. Rodgers has asked for specific players for next year. Like Cobb, etc. The FO has some influence, not control, by not signing those players until Rodgers commits. Then likely Rodgers will retire or ask to be traded. Influence, not control. Regardless, a lousy situation.

Best solution will be for the players to limit what the QB's get as percentage of the total take. They did this for draft choices about 10 years ago. And they should do it for the QB's

Jeez. Wrap this up and lay it at Murphy’s feet. What a dumb way to kill your organization.

Excellent article Ken

Two leadership groups that acted out of desperation and took huge gambles. That is not new, but the extent of influence and control that they ceded to the player concerned is. In the end Faustian pacts only work if the player is that good and the team around them can live up to it. In both cases, the blame lies with the suits that signed those terms.

Know your boundaries and protect them: neither did. Now it’s a question of damage limitation and that requires learning lessons, which in turn requires facing up to and owning the failings. It’s not the players but the willingness of leaders to do bad deals far beyond what was justified in the circumstances and the ability of those players to carry what they had around them. Bad gambles on based on unrealistic expectations at an unjustifiable cost beyond mere pay.

At some point one has to be willing to say no. No matter how good this could be, the risks are too great and the outcome too questionable. We need to walk away. Let someone else take that risk if they will or in fact let the market reject it and one might find that there’s a reasonable one later. If not, take the lumps and be better for it. That’s how good organizations think. TT realized that I think. Murphy certainly did not.
You get what you bargain for, and both teams did.

GODell and the owners will ruin the sport as it was known...but nothing will change, the stands will be full...

It's become cliche to say that the QB gets too much credit and too much blame in game outcomes. They get more interviews and pressers than just about any other player on the roster, and are expected to be an ambassador to the community and in charitable functions. This player is almost always the face of your franchise, if your franchise is good for anything.

A QB is an important on-field commodity. The time and investment required to find, groom, and develop a QB is a significant challenge for most teams.. This is a guy who handles the ball on virtually every offensive snap and has responsibility for checkdowns, skill player alignments, and communicating on blocking schemes. The rules have shifted over the year to put more on the QB to make the team successful. No one player on the field has more impact on how his unit functions.

Who is more likely than a QB to earn a 3rd contract? If you find one, and he's good, he's going to hang around one team (or in the league) for a long time. It's no surprise that QB salaries and expectations have spiraled out of control--it's also no surprise that this player, who is likely to be a long-term employee, eats more cap, becomes increasingly integrated into team structures, and requires more attention than ever before.

This is not a simple problem, but at this point it's confined mostly to apex players. It's a problem of the league's own making, and one that owners and GMs seem to be relatively willing to perpetuate--to a point. I find myself wondering what the league would look like, and what cap structures would look like if churn at the QB position mirrored other positions on the roster. I'd argue that the worst of these kinds of QB issues come from those players who hang around into the their mid-30s. As time goes by, the precedent will creep into QBs in their 20s (alluded to by TGR above, re: guaranteed contracts for 2nd round picks). With NIL rising in the college ranks, expectations and egos will be even harder to handle--not to mention the issue of gauging commitment to the game. The NFLPA doesn't want to do much of anything to curb an individual player's ability to earn a $$, but guaranteed contracts and hard salary caps don't play nice together.

I don't know what the answer is, except maybe that it lies with teams and GMs, and how they philosophically approach roster building--being willing to move on from players sooner rather than later? Security is what fuels these problems in a small number of guys--they feel untouchable (no repercussions) combined with feeling they're not being given some due that they've "earned". We've seen the start of the bite--guys like Russell Wilson moved. Maybe ARod is next. A league-wide approach will likely lead to the NFLPA brandishing accusations of collusion, and perhaps legal action. But the league will need to find itself at a crisis/crossroads, before anything changes.

So, when I talk about the front office selling out its dignity to keep Rodgers, maybe it's on target.
To caution fans to not sell out our dignity by pandering to Rodgers could be good advice.
When I say that I don't hate Rodgers, but am angry at what he's doing to overrule and undermine the Packers, to the slighting of us as fans, maybe that's a fair distinction.
Thanks to Ken Lass for laying bare the extent of the humiliation inflicted by Rodgers and enabled by his rightful bosses.
***
Then there's the concern that a team that allows its quarterback to become arrogantly domineering is doomed to break our hearts at the most important moments of the biggest games.
I've written that Rodgers is the fault line around which the team cracks and crumbles under pressure.
The last three seasons have ended with agonizing losses on Lambeau Field in which Rodgers has fallen short of the greatness for which he is paid such an extravagant salary, and given such ludicrous control.
One could say that Rodgers has been mediocre at best in these huge failures for the team.
One could recall the image, as an example, of Allen Lazard running wide open across the field directly in front of the eyes of Rodgers, but Rodgers instead throwing deep to Davante in double coverage in exasperating futility.
A completion to Lazard almost certainly wins that playoff game; the miss to Davante was our last offensive play in a gut-wrenching loss.
***
I've written that even to win a Super Bowl with this version of Rodgers is not worth the loss of dignity to the team and its fans.
I still think this is true, because such groveling is sickening.
***
Here's the control angle for the Packers, without being mean to Rodgers, just real.
As a matter of simple fairness to the entire team, announce that Love is the starter next season whether Rodgers stays or not.
If Rodgers is disruptive, put him on the practice squad.
Pay him the money as necessary . . . and learn the lesson to never give another player control of the Packers.
This would be the beginning of a bright new future.

Like Ken says, you can't blame the player for getting money and power over his livelihood. You can blame him for not being a leader or playing up to his contract. You have to blame the FO for taking holding players accountable out of the coach's' hands.

You could blame the NFL for making the cap only 50% of their gross revenue. If we can decide a player makes too much, why can't we decide the owners and networks make too much?

I guess as fans, we COULD dictate what the players and league do. We (as in me) just don't have the guts to quit watching every second of the games. There lies the rub.

The core problem isn't the players, it's the owners and GM's. While they can't collude, if the owners would simply say 'no' to the ridiculous money demands the market would change.

But humans are flawed creatures. There's always an owner who will try for the brass ring by trying to one-up the next owner. In short, when the floodgates open damage follows.

I thought the last extension they gave Rodgers was ridiculous. At that point he thought he owned the team. Now it's worse.

Get Dickerson, or OJ, or Earl, or Riggins, and put some real road-graders in front of them. Stop throwing it 30+ times every game. That will de-emphasize the importance of the QB. It'll also keep your defense off the field .

I'm not advocating this, by the way, I'm just offering it as a solution. Reality is that about 2/3 of your yards, and points, come through the air in the NFL. No matter how well you run, you're going to have to throw the ball to score points. In high school, and even college, that's not necessarily true , and even was less true back in the day, but it's really hard to score 30 points without throwing the ball successfully.

I could see giving AR this contract when he was 33 or 35, but not now when he will be 40 during this season. And set it up in such a way even if he retires we pay him? Whose stupid idea was this? Management let him run the team in this way. They didn't have to give AR the keys, they chose to. AR didn't lead us to a Lombardi over the past 3 years, why did they think with an injured O line, Adams gone, and rookie WRs he was going to leads us there last year?

I’d like to see a team with a QB that’s pretty good, but not top-5, go all out on DEFENSE through the draft and free agency. How fun would it be to watch a team with the top defense in the league just destroy some team’s high dollar QB?? I’m not a Seattle fan but It sort of looks like they could be trying this plan.

"We can criticize the front office for putting the Packers in this predicament, but in reality, they had little choice."

Geez, Ken. The Murphy Management by Committee had several choices but the Chairman ceded control of the cap to the QB. It would have been seamless to ship Rodgers off to Denver for a kings ransom to get a similar result Wilson delivered.

Kind of ironic a big part of the article bemoans the Broncos capitulation to Wilson by Hackett who enjoyed the same scenario as OC of the Rodgers windfall in GB. Hackett had experience in QB capitulation.

I think the QB takeover of the NFL is a bit overstated. But the Packer/Denver MLF/Murphy model offers a cautionary tale.

Teams always have a choice.

And when you play in a salary cap league, making the choice to spend big on a top tier QB has consequences.

But, that's why the NFL is so popular, it's very difficult to just go out and buy a superbowl (unlike say MLB or the NBA). Hate that this is true, but you can have an Aaron Rodgers on your team for 12 years and still never even make it to a championship game - that's a sign of a healthy and competitive league. I love seeing a Jalen Hurts lead his team to the superbowl, or a Foles, because it proves the league offers multiple paths to a championship and that any team can realistically compete in 3 years time if they draft and develop the right players. Very few sports have such competitive balance.

Recall that before Rodgers re-signed with the Packers, there were strong rumors he wanted Gutekunst fired as part of his re-signing. So, Gutey reached out, and somehow they came to an agreement. This is guesswork, but effectively, Gutekunst gave up all control over the salary cap situation, and overpaid Rodgers to assuage his hurt feelings. So, Gutekunst either allowed this to happen, being willing to mortgage the team's future to keep Rodgers. Or, he didn't realize just how much power was being passed to Rodgers. I think the first scenario is the most likely. And here we are. What to do? It seems the best thing would be to trade Rodgers to a team he would be willing to join. The most likely prospects would be Las Vegas (and a reunion with Davante Adams), or the Jets (who have an outstanding defense, and some decent weapons on offense, except for the QB). That both of these teams seem willing to send a couple of high draft picks in a trade is amazing. It is also a golden opportunity. The team had a chance to reap a huge return from Denver, but chose to go another direction. They can now either double down on their mistake, or do their best to fleece some other team to take this onerous contract off their hands, and get some draft capital in return for a fading QB. Their decision will determine the future of the franchise for years to come. Hopefully, this time they make the right decision.

The front office had every choice. Nobody forced the Packers to give Rodgers such a ridiculous contract last year.

'Have QBs become too powerful?'

This is an important topic...and worthy of a deeper dive. Is there a trend?

Do most QBs get 'too big for their britches' after they excel in one system for a long time?
Some often seem freer to exert 'power' -- 'correcting' younger HCs in explaining why something won't actually work when the HC thinks it will.

QBs get more (guaranteed) salary (and a higher % of the team's salary cap) as they progress in their careers if they are any good. The financial security could afford some of them more perceived ability to 'speak their voice' or 'want/demand more add-ons' (Wilson with the office & traveling staff; Brady with Guererro traveling with the Pats, etc) . Some QBs may leverage their financial security to push boundaries (exert power).

However, I think it's QB personality specific.
Some seem to do it (Favre, Rodgers, Wilson...perhaps Brady)
Others I'm less aware of having done it (Brees, Roethlisberger, Manning). Even though they have 'banked' enough credibility and cash to become 'too powerful', they haven't. Maybe it's simply their personality and/or how they were raised to respond to (other) figures in authority. But for whatever reasons, they didn't seem to get too big for the game.

This team blew it the moment they signed Rodgers to this massive extension... They went all in from 2020-2021, and came up short. They were so desperate to keep 12 they just gave him a blank contract and told him to fill it out himself. Instead of trusting the draft pick THEY made, and trusting their own development, they begged mr. 3 and out in the playoffs to come back... for what? It's not like he's been coming through in the clutch for the last 10 years... Just trade him for whatever you can get and let's move forward with a QB who is in it for the TEAM and not himself.

I'm so exhausted. I just want him gone for the mere fact that he's fast become the drunk at the party who shows up late yet just won't leave. He keeps you up all night. Everyone has left and are already at home in bed. He then becomes very needy. We start yawning and looking at our watches. Will GB call his ass a cab, or let him crash on the couch? Seriously! Just call this dude a cab and thank him for making everyone laugh and have a good time for a few hours.

If you listen to the talking heads, it's easy to think the QB wins and losses everything by themselves: QB 1 vs QB 2 stats. Doesn't even consider that QB 1 had Tony Mandarich blocking against Reggie White in his prime.

I have posted for years here at CHTV that the media has made the QB the only reason why teams win or lose football games. This goes all the way back to the 80s and ESPN making Joe Montana the GOAT at that time. They followed Montana with Favre, Peyton Manning, Brady, Rodgers and most recently Mahomes. This will not change because more people are watching and gambling on the NFL than ever before.

Fans are not fans of their teams any longer. They are fans of their Fantasy football rosters and their individual bets on individual players during the weekly games.
They're not routing for the Packers to win or lose but they are betting on Rodgers to throw X-number of TDs every week or Mahomes or Allen, or Burrow or whoever. The same with the WRs and the RBs.

The media and the league are complicit in this evolving definition of a fan and it is happening in every sport but is currently strongest in the NBA and the NFL. Media and the leagues have figured out that fans will get disappointed and move on to other forms of entertainment if their team is a perennial loser. But if fans can choose and then root for different players every week or every evening in the NBA they are more likely to stay involved as fans and as bettors. Fans can customize their own teams every week and every game if they want to. Everyone is a GM. It's not about winning or losing it's about keeping fans involved watching, spending and gambling.

Sorry Swisch but in this scenario no one is losing their dignity over Rodgers, the Packers or any other team. They are just moving on to the next game and their next play.

Underpinning all of this is the fact that the agents and the players, especially the QBs, have figured all of this out and they want their share. When the Packers gave Rodgers his current contract I posted that they have basically made Rodgers a partner of the team. I took some heat for that comment at the time but it has in fact become a self-fulfilling prophecy to the point where the Packers are now waiting for Rodgers to tell them what he wants to do and what that means for the team.

Like it or not and believe it or not but the Packers have willingly walked into this partnership. Why? Because for better or worse Rodgers is the Packers entertainment value proposition. He is still the straw that stirs the drink in Green Bay and he will be as long as he remains in Green Bay. When and however the Packers lose Rodgers they lose their entertainment value as far as the league is concerned. The league competes for the entertainment money not just the sports money. QBs have become the Al Pacino's and Meryl Streeps of the NFL. The Paul McCartneys and Bruce Springsteens of their teams for their fans. The league has fed this for the last 40 years. First the media, then the rule changes for offense and to protect QBs and now the faces of the league and their respective teams. The QBs and their agents are making the teams pay for the status which they have created for them. But through it all the league and the owners are making more and more money every season. Just look at Goodell's compensation if you need proof.

It's an evolving scenario and when and where it will stop is anyone's guess. I don't know if it's better or worse than the 60s and 70s eras but I do know that it is different and that we're not going back. There is too much money for too many people to lose. Tomorrow there will be yet more money for everyone involved to lose. As a non-profit the Packers organization does not have much of a choice but to ride along and try to remain relevant.

As fans we make our own choices either to watch, walk and/or gamble. Except for the Packers I've chosen to walk. Even with the Packers I will stick until Murphy retires and see how the Packers handle his replacement. If it goes the way I expect it to go I'll walk from the NFL completely. They don't need me but most importantly I don't need them.
Thanks, Since '61

This is why I have been saying for sometime now that each team should have 1 contract that doesn't count against the cap. It doesn't necessarily need to be the QB contract but any one that you elect to be an exception to count against the cap. Now we know in most cases this will be a QB contract. The reason I feel this way is because if a team does its due diligence and finds that QB either through draft, free agency or trade they shouldn't be penalized for hitting on that. They should have that choice if they want to pay him without being penalized for finding the guy. The rest of your roster with 1 exclusion is figured toward the set cap. This would be a very equitable way to calculate cap and reward competent front offices.

I don't see the situation the same myself. Seattle already turned Wilson away last year when they could've kept him and then ended up in a similar situation where they re-sign him to another very expensive contract. But then even at that point, they could've traded him like they did already or released him. The difference is that John Schneider made a decision and followed through, while the Packers are doing damage control. They drafted Love and then decided not to play him and making him a forever backup. They were too scared to move on from Rodgers so they re-signed him to a huge contract, but then they failed to re-sign Adams and along with all the other players lost the last few years, this team finally fell off a cliff. Now they're a bad team regardless of whether or not Rodgers stays. And it's a terrible position to be in because I still believe Rodgers can play, but the overall depth of this team isn't good. Rodgers must know it too but doesn't care because of the money. So yeah even if Rodgers comes back he's still throwing to a bunch of young players with little to no experience. Watson and Doubs will be year two. Lazard and Cobb will probably be gone even though they're not helping this team win anything. If the Packers wanted to get serious bringing Rodgers back, then they need to trade for an established receiver, fire Barry, and fix the defense. But they never want to trade picks so they stay stuck because they don't commit either way. Keep Rodgers and close every hole possible, or trade Rodgers and develop Love.