Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

which trade package would you choose for rodgers?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FR Tim
    replied
    Originally posted by skeeter01 View Post
    Mailbag: Will the Raiders Be in on Aaron Rodgers? What Would the Broncos Offer? (msn.com)

    I'm not down with any of the scenarios that are being speculated here from the Broncos side. Sorry, that's too much.
    Not liking any of those either. But there will be plenty that may not have an issue with making those trades.

    Also have to include the discussion of his contract extension. He is going to want it. Broncos have to give it. And the latest rumors have GB offering numbers north of $40m per year. Doubt Rodgers is accepting team friendly deals after having such heady offers to consider.

    So after making those type of trades and paying Rodgers, how do you replace those players? Or the players expecting pay raises in the next couple years?

    Combining no early draft picks and minimal free agent dollars is a risky starting point to keep a competitive quality roster. Only so many FA vets are going to be willing to take pay cuts. At what point does the overall team become adversely effected?

    Sometimes you have to realize the cost can outweigh the opportunity. Doesn’t matter if the enthusiasm is for a new car, new house or a new QB. Have to have a limit and be willing to walk away. Rodgers seems to be crossing that line if those are the kind of offers considered realistic.

    Leave a comment:


  • broncolee
    replied
    Originally posted by skeeter01 View Post
    Mailbag: Will the Raiders Be in on Aaron Rodgers? What Would the Broncos Offer? (msn.com)

    I'm not down with any of the scenarios that are being speculated here from the Broncos side. Sorry, that's too much.
    Well, the most likely outcome is that Rodgers stays in Green Bay, so we probably won’t have to see the Broncos give up as much as was suggested in the article.

    I would give them Drew and Teddy, two ones and two twos.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeeter01
    replied
    Mailbag: Will the Raiders Be in on Aaron Rodgers? What Would the Broncos Offer? (msn.com)

    I'm not down with any of the scenarios that are being speculated here from the Broncos side. Sorry, that's too much.

    Leave a comment:


  • colowoz01
    replied
    It's the game show sweeping the nation, the question being asked the most by football fans. If he's not going back to Green Bay – and the future Hall of Fame quarterback continues to give off no signals that is happening anytime soon – then where will he land? Which teams make the most sense? Who could actually pull it off?

    The Saga continues and my hope is calmer heads prevail and all this Hype does not influence what I think is a BAD Deal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kyousukeneko
    replied
    Originally posted by legend View Post
    If Brady can play at a Superbowl level at 43 why can't Rodgers? On a one on one comparison based on pure ability, Rodgers is a better QB. We could have Rodger for 5-7 years and be a championship calibre team every year like we were with Manning. It's a nice feeling knowing you are a perennial contender.
    BRady is more the exception then the rule. most QB in the history of the NFL struggle past 40. Both Farve and P. Manning had a major down year at 40 and retired. so i don't think for sure you can say 5-7. that feels more being hopeful then anything. to my Knowledge out of the QB that have played passed 40 Brady is only one to be sucessful. so i could see him playing from 2-5 years but probably more closer to 2. cause history doesn't point to QBs playing well over 40. also Brady has taken very good care of his body and stuff. so who knows if rodgers has done the same.

    okay so after looking at it Brees was also Sucessful after 40 even though you could easily tell his arm was not what it used to be.

    i honestly feel the more you rely on your physical abilities the hard hitting 40 will hurt

    5 out of the 16 QB that have started after the age of 40 have winning records

    https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/t...cks-performed/

    Brady is the only qb to have a starting gig at 43 in the history of the nfl
    Last edited by Kyousukeneko; 05-09-2021, 11:31 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • legend
    replied
    If Brady can play at a Superbowl level at 43 why can't Rodgers? On a one on one comparison based on pure ability, Rodgers is a better QB. We could have Rodger for 5-7 years and be a championship calibre team every year like we were with Manning. It's a nice feeling knowing you are a perennial contender.

    Leave a comment:


  • broncolee
    replied
    Originally posted by RockWarrior84 View Post

    That is a massive assumption since he is 38
    It’s not a massive assumption or an assumption at all. It’s just a statement about a possibility, not a certainty.

    Leave a comment:


  • RockWarrior84
    replied
    Originally posted by broncolee View Post

    Rodgers could possibly play another five years.
    That is a massive assumption since he is 38

    Leave a comment:


  • BiscuitBronco
    replied
    Originally posted by lvbronx View Post
    I'd go with something like 2 firsts and a second. Then for every year after the first two seasons Rodgers is on our roster, we swap our first for their second. The problem is the "market". Gruden was Rodgers QB coach when Rodgers was young. Gruden covets QBs. I'm afraid it will be a bidding war and it's as much keeping Rodgers from the Raiders as getting him for ourselves. How would you like to be the team in the division without Mahomes, Rodgers and Herbert?
    I like the innovation...interesting.... fraught though with uncertainty and I'm not meaning to discount, it's just open ended. Not sure, maybe there has been a similar trade in the past?

    Leave a comment:


  • Gsam
    replied
    I dont like a single one of those trades.

    Leave a comment:


  • broncolee
    replied
    Originally posted by RockWarrior84 View Post
    You don’t trade that much for 2 years. That type of trade you should be getting 5 plus years from a player expectation. A franchise QB, not a short term rental. I would consider 1 1st and several 3rds plus Lock.
    Rodgers could possibly play another five years.

    Leave a comment:


  • RockWarrior84
    replied
    You don’t trade that much for 2 years. That type of trade you should be getting 5 plus years from a player expectation. A franchise QB, not a short term rental. I would consider 1 1st and several 3rds plus Lock.

    Leave a comment:


  • broncolee
    replied
    Originally posted by lvbronx View Post
    I'd go with something like 2 firsts and a second. Then for every year after the first two seasons Rodgers is on our roster, we swap our first for their second. The problem is the "market". Gruden was Rodgers QB coach when Rodgers was young. Gruden covets QBs. I'm afraid it will be a bidding war and it's as much keeping Rodgers from the Raiders as getting him for ourselves. How would you like to be the team in the division without Mahomes, Rodgers and Herbert?
    Gruden was in Tampa when Rodgers was drafted. You’re thinking of Favre.

    Leave a comment:


  • lvbronx
    replied
    I'd go with something like 2 firsts and a second. Then for every year after the first two seasons Rodgers is on our roster, we swap our first for their second. The problem is the "market". Gruden was Rodgers QB coach when Rodgers was young. Gruden covets QBs. I'm afraid it will be a bidding war and it's as much keeping Rodgers from the Raiders as getting him for ourselves. How would you like to be the team in the division without Mahomes, Rodgers and Herbert?

    Leave a comment:


  • colowoz01
    replied
    Interesting:

    https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...?partner=Yahoo

    If this is true, the GB Fans will treat him no better than they did Farve'

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X