Rodgers for Baker is being speculated by the media. Thoughts on Rodgers with this roster!
-
This is some fun hypothetical "whataboutism", but is there a reasonable way this trade could even work money-wise, without gutting some of the Brown's roster?
I thought I heard today on the radio that Rodgers does not have a no trade clause, and Cleveland is a team that has been mentioned to be on his "yes" list. But at what cost? In a vacuum I'd do Baker for Rodgers straight up, in a heartbeat. But Baker, one or two other (probably major) contributors, and a shitload of future draft picks? I'm pretty sure I'd pass. I think the team has a strong foundation for the long term, and I don't want to gut that for an all-in run for 2, maybe 3 seasons... and then a brutal rebuild. I think Rodger's salary would be crippling in the long term for a team to take on that was not built around that salary.
-
Baker is our guy. This doesn’t interest me.
Someone is trying to stir up controversy to knock us down a peg. It’s bullshit.
-
Rodgers is too old.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
Behind the best O-Line since the 90's Cowboys. Throwing to Odell. Handing to Chubb and Hunt. My god.
Behind the best O-Line since the 90's Cowboys. Throwing to Odell. Handing to Chubb and Hunt. My god.
Did you cream yourself dreaming up this scenario that has a snowball's chance in hell of actually happening?
1A) Rodgers is going to be 38 in December. Unless he's got a deal with the devil like ageless Tom Brady- he has maybe a couple years left of productivity.
1B) Rodgers is a prima donna sort of guy- or you miss the memo he wants the Packers GM fired? That sort of attitude will fly like a lead balloon in Cleveland.
2) Exhibit 1C would be to look at what happened to the Denver Broncos who brought Peyton Manning aboard. Except for the year they went 9-7 after Manning retired- they went directly in the crapper- and have been there since. Go ahead- dream of the one Super Bowl win- and then back to 20 more years of crap football. Sorry, not interested in instant gratification. . Even getting Rodgers is no guarantee to the Promised Land. Just ask the near perfect Patriots who lost on a miracle play.
3) Crap- we just cut Sheldon Richardson because of cap constraints.. How many other guys you going to unload to fit Rodgers $37 million under the cap? Even Landry AND OBJ don't get you there.
4) Baker is the QB of now and next year- considering the Browns picked up his 5th year option- and Berry isn't that damn stupid to listen to anything some half baked GM wannabe guys living in their basements are dreaming up. FWIW, it's not just Baker for Rodgers straight up. The Packers will demand multiple high picks on top of that.
-
Rodgers for Baker is being speculated by the media. Thoughts?
Lmao
Watson for Baker. Rodgers for Baker. Next will be Brady for Baker.
unless we’re talking Mahomes for Baker and we can make it fit in the cap, I don’t want to hear about it.
-
Lmao
Watson for Baker. Rodgers for Baker. Next will be Brady for Baker.
unless we’re talking Mahomes for Baker and we can make it fit in the cap, I don’t want to hear about it.
Butcher for Baker
Cobbler for Baker
Candlestickmaker for Baker. At least that one rhymes.
-
Max Kellerman and Dan Orlovsky had a pretty good debate going on for 10 mins about this on ESPN this morning.
-
How about a baker for Baker?
BUDDY VALESTRO for Baker trade?
yeah, this subject is worse than stupid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Valastro
-
There some big assumptions being made with this proposed trade:
1. Baker isn’t getting better as a QB. And will not improve enough to get to and win a super bowl.
2. No dollars and cap are being discussed and We can bring in Rodgers without sacrificing any other roster pieces that would make us weaker in other areas although stronger with Rodgers behind Center. This is where our front office would see this offer (if made) and walk in the other direction.
3. The Packers want Baker over Jordan Love. Do they want another player (maybe) or more picks and in that case what do we do with Baker then...we lose leverage with other teams and sell him off for pennies on the dollar.4. Rodgers = Super Bowl. He’s one 1 SB in his time in GB.
5. we would compete with other teams and give up 1s and players we need.
-
There some big assumptions being made with this proposed trade:
1. Baker isn’t getting better as a QB. And will not improve enough to get to and win a super bowl.
2. No dollars and cap are being discussed and We can bring in Rodgers without sacrificing any other roster pieces that would make us weaker in other areas although stronger with Rodgers behind Center. This is where our front office would see this offer (if made) and walk in the other direction.
3. The Packers want Baker over Jordan Love. Do they want another player (maybe) or more picks and in that case what do we do with Baker then...we lose leverage with other teams and sell him off for pennies on the dollar.4. Rodgers = Super Bowl. He’s one 1 SB in his time in GB.
5. we would compete with other teams and give up 1s and players we need.
There some big assumptions being made with this proposed trade:
1. Baker isn’t getting better as a QB. And will not improve enough to get to and win a super bowl.
2. No dollars and cap are being discussed and We can bring in Rodgers without sacrificing any other roster pieces that would make us weaker in other areas although stronger with Rodgers behind Center. This is where our front office would see this offer (if made) and walk in the other direction.
3. The Packers want Baker over Jordan Love. Do they want another player (maybe) or more picks and in that case what do we do with Baker then...we lose leverage with other teams and sell him off for pennies on the dollar.4. Rodgers = Super Bowl. He’s one 1 SB in his time in GB.
5. we would compete with other teams and give up 1s and players we need.
This is nothing more than some trolls trying to start something that really is not there.. Puhleeze!
-
There some big assumptions being made with this proposed trade:
The bigger assumption is that some blowhard with a keyboard or a TV camera in front of him invented this as just some Wild Ass Way to stir conversation. That particular assumption was correct.
-
Rodgers is too old.
Rodgers is too old.
Says a sexagenarian...
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Rodgers is too old.
Says a sexagenarian...
-
I'd do it
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Rodgers is too old.
Says a sexagenarian...
Says a sexagenarian...
sexagenarian-a man who still wants sex but can no longer get it up due to age limitations. Did I guess right??
-
Takes one to know one!
-
Cap aside... I'd make the OP's move in a heartbeat.
Love Baker, but if you want to have a realistic shot at winning it all now, then you want one of the 3 best QBs in the game today under Center.
Of course... the cap says, "Nope... ain't gonna happen."
Plus Rogers prolly says, "Nope," as well...
The "North Coast" ain't the West Coast... or at least near it.
Cap aside... I'd make the OP's move in a heartbeat.
Love Baker, but if you want to have a realistic shot at winning it all now, then you want one of the 3 best QBs in the game today under Center.
Of course... the cap says, "Nope... ain't gonna happen."
Plus Rogers prolly says, "Nope," as well...
The "North Coast" ain't the West Coast... or at least near it.
Brady gently coaxes the cap. Follow suit. Dummies.
-
sexagenarian-a man who still wants sex but can no longer get it up due to age limitations. Did I guess right??
NeverHardBrownsFan?
-
sexagenarian-a man who still wants sex but can no longer get it up due to age limitations. Did I guess right??
Dude, you're past the sexagenarian age.? or example, a septuagenarian refers to someone in his or her seventies (age 70 to 79)
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login