Wrap the twine around the tooth, tie a knot, and close the door. Rip off the Band-Aid. Grip it ‘n rip it. Choose your metaphor.
There will be pain, but the Packers – from an organizational standpoint –should trade Aaron Rodgers this offseason.
To begin, the counterpoints: Yes, the Packers are at their best with Aaron Rodgers. Yes, Aaron Rodgers is likelier than not, in the next 3-4 years, better than Jordan Love ever will be. Yes, their best chance to win is with No. 12. Yes, we shouldn’t place the entirety of blame on Rodgers for their playoff failures.
But we’ve reached a plateau. Rodgers has played at an MVP level for two consecutive years. The defense has stabilized. There are clear weapons on offense outside of the quarterback position. There’s depth along the offensive line. The team has, for many reasons, continued to turtle in the playoffs when it matters most.
If anything has become clear in the last three seasons, it’s that this is, despite Rodgers’ exceptional play, a team game. This year it was the special teams and, perhaps, a dynamic counter punch opposite Davante Adams – a debate, of course. Last year, it was a porous run defense. The year before that it was a dearth of developed playmakers in an offense that hadn’t yet matured. So what will it be next year?
The financial implications of bringing back Rodgers are well-documented. Additionally, it seems likely Rodgers and Davante Adams will be, if they come back, a package deal. It’s hard to win when two players on a 53-man roster tie up such a large percentage of the salary cap.
In the event the Packers bring back Rodgers (and Adams), the offense will have to shoulder an even higher burden. The team has few, if any, financial resources to keep its defense intact. Certainly restructures can happen to provide some short-term relief, but larger priorities loom. Large contracts for Elgton Jenkins, Rashan Gary and Jaire Alexander are due. De’Vondre Campbell’s services will not come cheap. Rasul Douglas will surely be looking for some financial security after a stellar year. One or both of Za’Darius and Preston Smith look like cap casualties. On offense, Robert Tonyan, Marquez Valdes-Scantling and Allen Lazard play key roles but could easily price themselves out of the Packers’ market depending on their asking price and the team’s cap flexibility. That main point of the exercise is to illustrate the extent to which the roster next year will be significantly weaker in terms of established, veteran talent.
The Packers can kick the can down the road, create void years, and lessen the immediate harm – numb the short-term pain if you will. Even so, the cap pain then becomes chronic. The trade-off is this: bring back Rodgers and Adams, create short-term cap flexibility, stay competitive, and bet on transcendence to reach the Super Bowl. Or, the Packers are likely good, not great. If/when Rodgers retires, the Packers have to then build a stronger roster with fewer resources that would have been earmarked for buttressing a roster around lesser quarterback talent. Dark times ahead. 80s-era inflation is back. If the Packers manage this improperly, so, too, could the 80s-era Packers.
Which brings us to another key question: how much confidence is there within the organization (and the fan base) to bet on Rodgers carrying his MVP-style play into the playoffs and getting into a Super Bowl with an inferior roster?
Find a way to win and its vindication of faith. Fall short again and the pain gets worse. If they just cut bait and embrace the rebuild, the outcome could be the same, but the resources would give the team its best chance to quickly recover from Rodgers’ absence.
As is true with most sequels, the Last Dance: 2021-2022 attempted to capture the romance of the original Last Dance but ultimately lacked the substance. It might be in the Packers’ best interest to move on.
