i already corrected it. said I forgot about that. but you fail to admit you were wrong about the salary which I explained 10 times over and is a factual thing not an objective thing you can chalk up to "opinion" the fact he also took such a huge pay cut to be paid like a decent QB means he also paid for lazard with his own money but nobody mentions that either?
yup it was an awful trade for sure but I was just using it as the price of a proven QB or a top pick QB. the rodgers trade was for 2 years (maybe more but I don't think anyone expected more then 2) for essentially 2 2nds and some late round stuff. the whole situation was weird though with how GB handled it and they got good value but we still got off cheap. the broncos for wilson gave up 2 1sts, 2 2nds, and a pretty good TE who was a former 1st rounder and then some late round/backup players
that is incorrect "essentially" it included a 1st round swap and an additional 1st rounder conditional, not mentioned in your post.
what is? lol this is why I can't take you seriously sometimes. if something is incorrect put in some effort to point out what is and what it should be
The worst trade in NFL history may end up being the Panthers trade up for Bryce Young. If Young is a bust, Stroud is a Hall of Famer, and whoever the Bears take with the first overall pick that the Panthers traded to draft Young ends up being a franchise QB, then it will be.
that is the "late round stuff" the pick swap was the value of a late 3rd early 4th. and based on the draft room video we seen, WMD was the pick at 13 anyway in hindsight. Gibbs was on top the board but went at 12 and it seemed we didn't' think he'd go in the top 14 and he was the main target. the conditional pick wound up being a 2nd because of the injury which was a smart move to add in, since we pissed away the year we only have to give up a 2nd next year and not a 1st.
A free agent up to about age 32 or 33 with a modicum of success on his resume would have worked for me as would the same type of guy who would be available for a trade at a much lower cost than Rodgers. Carr fit within those parameters but there many other options including Winston, Garoppolo and Bridgewater. I saw no need to make such an overt commitment to any particular guy. There's no way I wanted the Jets to again rely on Zach Wilson and even after the Rodgers deal was done I wanted a legitimate backup brought in for when Rodgers was knocked out. September 11th, before the first half ended I posted the simple question Foles or Wentz?
How does any pay cut Rodgers took in negotiations affect anything? Why should anyone mention it? His last contract is his contract that determines everything he makes and when , not what he doesn't. Lazard is a separate example of Joe Douglas screwing up - nothing financially to do with Rodgers. I guess I missed your "correction" of what you "forgot." What post was that?
I dont think Douglas' woulda taken McDonald at number 13 regardless of the propaganda, you can buy it though. And if he did, wow, he clearly messed up with the pick at 15, at 13 it woulda been even worse The Jets swapped firsts with GB, this is fact. We are lucky our first next year isn't going there too, but boy does it not feel good to be lucky in this context
Well, I agree with you on two points, then - 1) that I totally took everything out of context (context is boring). and 2) your implied point that backup-level QB play was never going to get this organization up to the ranks to rub shoulders with the mediocre NFL franchises.
I forgot about the 2nd rounder this year. the paycut has to be factored in, he was guaranteed 50m and could have made that sitting on the bench in GB if he wanted to. He took 12.5m less to come here and play. he didn't have to do that. I can't remember a time any player took such a massive cut of already guarenteed money. which took him from a top 5 paid QB to a mid tier paid one (tied for 13th with carr) IDK why you are still insisting carr makes less. plus it's a weird hill to die on considering carr is being boo'd by his own fans for playing so poorly and having his worst year as a starter in the past decade or so. He also just got hurt as well
yes we did swap picks in the 1st which is the value of a late 3rd/early 4th to put a value on it. still lower then the going rate for QBs. plus most traded QBs took on huge contracts of 45+ mil. rodgers took a paycut of 12.5m and teams typically pay more for cap friendly players because the other team eats some of the cap, in this case rodgers himself ate it but it adds value to him.
Oh, so you forgot and also forgot to post the correction when you remembered? Got it! Once again, Rodgers is a grown man, apparently well represented by agents, lawyers and accountants - whatever he negotiated in his last contract is what, and how, he is getting paid. There are no reports that he signed anything while under duress. It doesn't matter what you think should also be included in his compensation. It also does not matter at all what you can't remember about anyone else renegotiating a contract. And if Derek Carr, the guy you irrelevantly introduced into this conversation way too long ago, is getting booed by anyone, how do you believe it does anything to affect his contract? And please stop with the trawlerful of red herrings like his injury yesterday - this thread stinks enough already. This gets more bizarre every time you reply.
still waiting for your correction. at least I correct mine. you started talking money only, then threw in all the cost while ignoring the value back, and still are saying carr costs less lol. on a pure money standpoint they cost the same but rodgers is a much better QB. if you add in what the trade costs that's different but it was still great value for the going rate of established QBs. stafford and russell wilson are the 2 comparable trades
the only good thing about following the Jets is it makes me feel like I could be a successful GM of an NFL franchise: - I was against the drafting of ZW and said they should've traded back with the niners - I was against the trade to bring Rodgers in at this point I should be running this organisation - I've sent in my resume and will let you know
Sure, if you look at it in vacuum it's cheap. But the Packers took less because A. he was going to be 40 years old during the season B. they had an heir apparent ready to go and C. they get out from under the salary. You can trade Tom Brady in his prime and get a lot less if those are the circumstances.
