PDA

View Full Version : Rodgers extended


TitleTown088
10-31-2008, 02:29 PM
It took only seven starts for Aaron Rodgers to convince the Green Bay Packers he’s their quarterback of the present and the future.
Advertisement
Quantcast

The Packers announced this afternoon they have extended Rodgers’ contract through 2014.


5 years. Smart move I would have to say. Lock him up in case before he gets too expensive. One consideration of course is his durability.

I expect this to be one of a series of extension from Ted this season. Jennings for sure will get locked up too.

eaglesalltheway
10-31-2008, 02:39 PM
Smart move by the pack, for the same reasons you stated. I was one of his supporters, and am glad he got his chance now. He sruprised me a bit with how he started out to be honest, but I thought and think he will be a great QB.

MJK
10-31-2008, 02:43 PM
I wonder how the 49'ers are feeling at the moment...

diabsoule
10-31-2008, 02:46 PM
I think it's a good move right now to go ahead and lock him up. The only reservation I have about the extension is Rodger's durability, but I guess you have to take risks as a GM.

tjsunstein
10-31-2008, 02:47 PM
Yeah, I saw this. Great move by TT.

PoopSandwich
10-31-2008, 03:03 PM
I wonder how the 49'ers are feeling at the moment...

Rodgers would have probably crashed in SF... Just like Couch crashed in CLE, just like all young qb's that are thrown in there early BEHIND BAD LINES AND A BAD SUPPORTING CAST usually do.

I have always thought Rodgers was better, but I think he would have bombed in SF.

BlindSite
10-31-2008, 03:08 PM
Smith's problem was never realistically him.

Splat
10-31-2008, 03:12 PM
Nice move by GB AR has shut alot of people up my self being one of them.

ElectricEye
10-31-2008, 03:15 PM
Really nice move. Rogers should be one of the more productive quarterbacks in the next five years. They should keep Jennings away from free agency as well.

Gay Ork Wang
10-31-2008, 03:16 PM
I wish the Packers would start to have a QB that sucks. After all those years i think they deserve mediocre QB Play like all the other NFC North teams

MJK
10-31-2008, 03:20 PM
Rodgers would have probably crashed in SF... Just like Couch crashed in CLE, just like all young qb's that are thrown in there early BEHIND BAD LINES AND A BAD SUPPORTING CAST usually do.

I have always thought Rodgers was better, but I think he would have bombed in SF.

I was mostly joking.

However, Alex Smith was also simply a bad quarterback, and to whoever said Alex Smith's problem was never himself, well, it really was. I mean, he got beat out by JT O'Sullivan. Come on.

d34ng3l021
10-31-2008, 04:49 PM
I dont know how I feel about this. Rodgers is playing very well, but it has only been 7 starts...Durablity seems that it may be an issue. He hasn't exactly completely lit it up either.

I think they could have waited until the end of the season or so. Of course, this could look to be a brilliant move.

Babylon
10-31-2008, 05:15 PM
He doesnt seem to be able to throw the deep ball like Farve but he's looked solid, why again did they draft Brian Brohm?

Gay Ork Wang
10-31-2008, 05:21 PM
oh man, i remember how everyone bashed the bears for not picking Brohm in round 2nd. He was sooo pro ready. Cant even beat out a 7th rounder called Matt Flynn

umphrey
10-31-2008, 05:27 PM
Word is 6 years 65 mil 20 guaranteed. Crapload of money for a guy with 7 starts but I'm not nervous.

PoopSandwich
10-31-2008, 05:30 PM
I was mostly joking.

However, Alex Smith was also simply a bad quarterback, and to whoever said Alex Smith's problem was never himself, well, it really was. I mean, he got beat out by JT O'Sullivan. Come on.

If I am not mistaken he has had a very bad shoulder most of his career and has never had a true #1 receiver or a good line blocking for him, as well as a tight end that hasn't done anything...

Only positive on that offense when he was the starter was Frank Gore.

I'm not saying that Alex Smith would have been a good QB, but I think he could have been a game managing QB in the right situation, not worthy of the #1 pick though.

GB12
10-31-2008, 05:31 PM
I dont know how I feel about this. Rodgers is playing very well, but it has only been 7 starts...Durablity seems that it may be an issue. He hasn't exactly completely lit it up either.

I think they could have waited until the end of the season or so. Of course, this could look to be a brilliant move.
It's a great move, and I hate the durability crap. He'll be fine. He's not going to start 260 straight games, but it won't be a serious issue. And this year he has shown that he can play through injuries. The two previous there was no reason for him to try so we shut him down. The broken foot no one would have been able to play through anyway. Any QB can get hurt if hit in the wrong place. Tom Brady and Carson Palmer had season ending injuries this year, Tony Romo is missing significant time, and the chiefs lost like 5 QBs. If you play in the NFL you will likely miss some games. I think too big of a deal gets made out of his injuries.

As for you questioning his production, he has 12 TDs and a 98.8 QB rating which ranks him 7th in the NFL in each, he also only has 4 INTs and 1668 yards. Pretty damn good for anyone let a lone a first year starter.

By signing him now rather than at the end of the season we are able to use some of the unused cap space of 2008, which we have a lot of. Big advantage to do it now.

Canadian_draft_fan
10-31-2008, 05:31 PM
Smith's problem was never realistically him.

I agree - I think Smith could be a good QB in the right situation. He was showing real progress in his 2nd season. Poor coaching and a bad Oline, mediocre WR/TEs contibuted to his downfall.

Good move by the pack, though. Hopefully he stays healthy.

GB12
10-31-2008, 05:35 PM
He doesnt seem to be able to throw the deep ball like Farve but he's looked solid, why again did they draft Brian Brohm?
I don't know what was with that. I was always for just taking a John David Booty or a Matt Flynn late round QB.

tjsunstein
10-31-2008, 05:35 PM
So.. is Brohm going to be traded like Schaub was?

GB12
10-31-2008, 05:37 PM
So.. is Brohm going to be traded like Schaub was?
He'll have to make big improvements before we can think about that.

Geo
10-31-2008, 05:38 PM
I'm not too keen on giving a guy who hasn't even played one full season an extension of 11M per for five years. (At least he's not a kid out of college.) Nevermind one who can't even stay healthy for one season.

However Rodgers is good as long as he can stay healthy. And given that the Packers have something around 20M or more in free cap space for this season plus how quarterback-vital the league can be these days, I can't fault the team for extending him now.

It was pretty much the case that he was the long-term guy for the Packers, unless Brohm somehow managed to outplay him which hasn't even come close to happening. This just makes it official.

GB12
10-31-2008, 05:44 PM
I'm not too keen on giving a guy who hasn't even played one full season an extension of 11M per for five years. (At least he's not a kid out of college.) Nevermind one who can't even stay healthy for one seasonl.
I think that brings up a good point. His deal is still $12 million less than what Matt Ryan got.

d34ng3l021
10-31-2008, 05:59 PM
I dont look down upon him as a player or anything. I think he is doing a great job (I thought he would), but I still have a problem paying that much for a guy with 7 starts and has had a couple injuries. Will these injuries continue to come back? What if theres one he can't play through? Just little things like that. 6 years and 65 million is a lot of money and I dont think it would have hurt the franchise to wait another 10 weeks.

Matt Ryan is a different case in my opinion. Falcons (among other teams that pick that high) have no choice but to pay a guy that much. Plus, he is going to be worth it :)

Brent
10-31-2008, 06:01 PM
I was mostly joking.

However, Alex Smith was also simply a bad quarterback, and to whoever said Alex Smith's problem was never himself, well, it really was. I mean, he got beat out by JT O'Sullivan. Come on.
Spoken like someone who doesnt follow the team. Alex had to learn in a couple months what JTO had known for over a year. He also hurt his shoulder before the season. The consensus among the organization is that, early on, JTO would be better and then, once Alex learned the playbook, Alex would take over the starting job before season's end.

Loggerhead
10-31-2008, 06:06 PM
The Packers were to much under the cap. Each team had too spend atleast 100 million to comply with the increase in the cap. The Pack were 4 million away from that. If they hadn't done this they would have violated the CBA. Hence extending Aaron Rodgers contract while it still would count against the '08 cap.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-underthecap031008&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

LonghornsLegend
10-31-2008, 10:20 PM
Rodgers would have probably crashed in SF... Just like Couch crashed in CLE, just like all young qb's that are thrown in there early BEHIND BAD LINES AND A BAD SUPPORTING CAST usually do.

I have always thought Rodgers was better, but I think he would have bombed in SF.

Isn't that funny, I think he also could of very easily been a bust in SF, now granted he still throws a better ball then Smith but it did Rogers alot of good sitting for so long and learning the system before playing...For all we know Alex Smith could of panned out if he was in the same situation as Rogers.


Jennings will be locked up before seasons end too, I bet the Pack couldn't of wished to do this any better, you lose a HOF QB and in steps the 1st rd pick waiting in the wings ready to lead the team to the playoffs, no dropoff in QB play for a year or two.

LonghornsLegend
10-31-2008, 10:24 PM
The Packers were to much under the cap. Each team had too spend atleast 100 million to comply with the increase in the cap. The Pack were 4 million away from that. If they hadn't done this they would have violated the CBA. Hence extending Aaron Rodgers contract while it still would count against the '08 cap.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-underthecap031008&prov=yhoo&type=lgns


All the money Dallas has been spending and they still have roughly the same amount of money left as Detroit under the cap, 4 million.


Arizona is strapped, looks like no way Boldin can be brought back if those figures are accurate and current.

GB12
10-31-2008, 10:38 PM
The Packers were to much under the cap. Each team had too spend atleast 100 million to comply with the increase in the cap. The Pack were 4 million away from that. If they hadn't done this they would have violated the CBA. Hence extending Aaron Rodgers contract while it still would count against the '08 cap.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-underthecap031008&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

All the money Dallas has been spending and they still have roughly the same amount of money left as Detroit under the cap, 4 million.


Arizona is strapped, looks like no way Boldin can be brought back if those figures are accurate and current.
Those numbers are from March 10th.

The Dynasty
11-01-2008, 12:51 AM
Its a smart move, but 5 years 63.5 Millions is alot of money for a guy to only start 7 games. I would say Overpaid but thats me.

Twiddler
11-01-2008, 10:08 AM
Its a smart move, but 5 years 63.5 Millions is alot of money for a guy to only start 7 games. I would say Overpaid but thats me.

Only 20 Million of it is guaranteed, so if he ends up earning near that 63.5 Million than he will have earned it. Also factor in how big these contracts have been getting recently along with the fact that the longer he plays at this level the more money we would have to shell out. Overall, I think its a little risky, but I like it and it could have been a lot worse.

PACKmanN
11-01-2008, 10:11 AM
Its a smart move, but 5 years 63.5 Millions is alot of money for a guy to only start 7 games. I would say Overpaid but thats me.

If a rookie is making more then Aaron Rodgers then I consider that underpaid.

Twiddler
11-01-2008, 10:18 AM
If a rookie is making more then Aaron Rodgers then I consider that underpaid.

That's just a special circumstance, although it does show the ridiculousness of rookie contracts.

TitleTown088
11-01-2008, 05:26 PM
I think they could have waited until the end of the season or so. Of course, this could look to be a brilliant move.
Since the Packers signed him this season they can count some of it towards this year's cap which they have 20 mil available. Bit of a gamble, but i like doing it now.

Also, whoever said Rodgers deep ball isn't looking good is flat out wrong. His deep ball has been fantastic so far. Granted, he's used to sparsely, which can be attributed to the system.

Bengalsrocket
11-01-2008, 07:10 PM
For most situations, 7 games isn't enough time to evaluate a QB and sign them. However, Rodger's have been in GB for 4 years now ( I believe). And they've been evaluating him every season in anticipation of Favre retiring.

Packer's did the right move, imo. Even if Rodgers were to somehow fall off the face of the earth sometime in the next couple of years, this is still the right move imo.

MJK
11-01-2008, 07:43 PM
Spoken like someone who doesnt follow the team. Alex had to learn in a couple months what JTO had known for over a year. He also hurt his shoulder before the season. The consensus among the organization is that, early on, JTO would be better and then, once Alex learned the playbook, Alex would take over the starting job before season's end.

A team is going to start the better player (barring attitude type suspension problems for some teams... aka, 9'ers now). The better player gives you the best chance to win. Smith has always played in a weak division, and still has never really had a string of games where he has looked consistently good. Every QB in the NFL can have a good game now and then, hell, Tyler Thigpen has done it, does that mean you want him starting your team? He doesn't even have Frank Gore to help him out.

Through over 30 games played, Smith has never strung together 3 games without a pick. He's only once put 3 games in a row with 60+ completion percentage. In fact, in the year he was "showing progress", he had multiple interceptions 5 games, and passed for over 60% only 6 times. In fact, that year, the only times he had a Passer Rating over 100 was against St Louis, Seattle, and Oakland.

He had a ****** team. So do most QB's that come into the league with a high pick. Is that unfair? Perhaps. But that's why he got paid the money he did. He simply didn't deserve it, and isn't that great a quarterback. Is he the worst quarterback ever? No. Is he better than Rodgers? I really don't think so.

umphrey
11-02-2008, 11:07 AM
Also, whoever said Rodgers deep ball isn't looking good is flat out wrong. His deep ball has been fantastic so far. Granted, he's used to sparsely, which can be attributed to the system.

ESPN just ran about a 10 min segment just about how great Rodger's deep ball is. He's got a 135 passer rating on balls over 20 yards good for first in the NFL and completing 50% with 5 TDs and no ints. Those stats blow away Favre's last year. Also Driver and Jennings agreed that his deep ball is better than Favre's was last year.

TitleTown088
11-02-2008, 11:11 AM
ESPN just ran about a 10 min segment just about how great Rodger's deep ball is. He's got a 135 passer rating on balls over 20 yards good for first in the NFL and completing 50% with 5 TDs and no ints. Those stats blow away Favre's last year. Also Driver and Jennings agreed that his deep ball is better than Favre's was last year.

Ya, I saw that. It's actually over 21-yards. His deep ball is very impressive.

With all due respect to Rodgers, what are they supposed to say? I agree that rightnow Rodgers deep ball is pretty, but still I'd take Favre's gun in his prime.