Packers: Rodgers’ Chances of Returning to GB in Jeopardy!

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
7,609
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
The amount of "Brady wins because he always has a defense" people on Twitter shitting on the Packers for drafting a ton of defensive players in the first round in the last decade is humorous, to say the least.
 

Humphrey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2010
1,410
Speaking of reminders - just those three trophies would tie the late-career Bradies with Denver, Washington and the Raiders for fourth on the all-time Lombardis list, ahead of the Colts, Ravens, Dolphins and 20 other franchises.
It would also put he/them ahead of the franchise whose coach the trophy was named after if you exclude the years they won when he was the coach.
 
Sep 1, 2019
70
Terry Bradshaw chimes in with his disapproval. Somehow I don't think Rogers cares.

I have to think that the Packers eventually cave here, either trading Rogers or firing Gutekunst. Somewhat similar to the reasoning with the Texans and Watson before Watson's egregious behavior emerged, having Rogers retire and get nothing for him would be a disastrous outcome for GB. And from Rogers perspective, he seems willing to retire and take the Jeopardy gig.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
48,617
I wonder if the Jeopardy appearance was more about leverage than full on interest? Does he even have the job wrapped up?
 

Plantiers Wart

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 16, 2002
3,602
west hartford
Not wrapped up. But he certainly was good enough in his "audition" to warrant getting a job hosting something in the future. He'd also be fantastic doing color commentary. So yes, it gave him leverage, even if he misses out on Jeopardy.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
5,625
New York City
That seems like a fun random thing like an SNL appearance. Was he really good or something?

Would be such a bizarre twist.
He was much better than I thought he would be. That said, I don't really think Jeopardy would choose him over other options. As PW points out though, I think the larger point is that he's made clear that he can make money from TV one way or the other (game show hosting, commentary, etc.), so it is absolutely plausible that he would retire rather than play in a situation he doesn't particularly enjoy.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
14,873
Rodgers was good enough on Jeopardy to warrant the job, especially when you consider he will get better with more reps. The thing that would be alluring to me if I was calling the shots on Jeopardy would be that you would get a ton of buzz if Rodgers abruptly retired from the NFL to be the host of the show full-time. If you feel comfortable he would do a good job, it might tip the scales in his favor.
 

deanx0

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2004
2,056
Orlando, FL
I will be stunned if LaVar Burton doesn't get the Jeopardy gig, so I think Rodgers should be looking for a different game show.
 

scott bankheadcase

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2006
1,287
hoboken
I will be stunned if LaVar Burton doesn't get the Jeopardy gig, so I think Rodgers should be looking for a different game show.
It took an internet campaign to even get Burton a guest hosting shot. My guess is they don't want to go with someone that old, even though I think he'd be awesome.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,833
It took an internet campaign to even get Burton a guest hosting shot. My guess is they don't want to go with someone that old, even though I think he'd be awesome.
I think it'll be Jennings. They want someone who is the Jeopardy host, not someone who is famous and also hosts Jeopardy.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
10,948
The thread title should read: "It is thought by many that the odds are low that this long-time Green Bay Packers quarterback will remain with the team in 2021."
 
Last edited:

BunnzMcGinty

lurker
Jul 17, 2011
221
We can go to the Jeopardy thread with this, but, yes I completely agree with you. As long as Jennings stays out of controversy, I bet it will be him.
Lifelong Jeopardy watcher. I am inclined to agree. Jennings run guest hosting was masterful. He maintained a very similar tone and style to Alex. I think LeVar could have an outside shot. He’s warm and friendly and nonoffensive, and an entire generation of kids learned to read with him. I thought Rodgers was better than I expected. He was decent. That said, he’s not really right for the core jeopardy demo, old nerds who know jack about sports. Here’s one of my favorite jeopardy moments from a couple years ago with the category “Talkin Football”

View: https://youtu.be/h33u2eeVqXo

edit: Rodgers not Rogers
 

Phil Plantier

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 7, 2002
3,031
He was much better than I thought he would be. That said, I don't really think Jeopardy would choose him over other options. As PW points out though, I think the larger point is that he's made clear that he can make money from TV one way or the other (game show hosting, commentary, etc.), so it is absolutely plausible that he would retire rather than play in a situation he doesn't particularly enjoy.
I think folks are missing that, unlike football, it doesn't matter how good Rodgers is, it matters how much of an audience he brings with him. His ratings for his guest stint weren't as good as Jennings (Jennings went first), but I think they would be much, much better if he retired to take the gig full-time.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
38,485
I think folks are missing that, unlike football, it doesn't matter how good Rodgers is, it matters how much of an audience he brings with him. His ratings for his guest stint weren't as good as Jennings (Jennings went first), but I think they would be much, much better if he retired to take the gig full-time.
I kind of think that there would be diminishing returns as the novelty wears off. I saw some clips and agree that he was pretty stiff and robotic. There was a great opportunity for humor when someone mentioned the playoff game ending and he kind of whiffed at it.

And I also see him getting bored with it really quickly.

Peyton would be much better at this. He has the natural wit that you need for a job like this.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
11,721
I could see a Carson Palmer / Bengals situation where he sits out a few games to show them he's serious.
Good call.

Rodgers holds grudges and Rodgers is stubborn. He also has made plenty of money and he can do no wrong with GB fans. I dont know how this plays out in Wisconsin, but I wouldnt be shocked if fans lean on ownership in order to keep Rodgers and start calling for a new GM.

Theres no player in the league that holds more leverage than Rodgers. Maybe Mahomes, but Rodgers has a lot of years of goodwill built up over there.

This isnt just going to fade away. It's going to be fun to watch play out.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
31,405
Southwestern CT
Terry Bradshaw chimes in with his disapproval. Somehow I don't think Rogers cares.
The same Terry Bradshaw who refused to work with any Steelers QB who was drafted when he was a starter and who ended his career spitting fury at Chuck Noll for having the audacity to understand that he needed to move on from Bradshaw? (And who later celebrated in public when Noll was fired and then refused to go to his funeral decades later after noting that he hated playing for Noll?)

That’s the guy telling Rodgers he needs to suck it up and act in the best interests of the team?

Edit: there are literally dozens of articles to prove the point, but this one from 1989 does the job nicely.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-08-05-sp-505-story.html?_amp=true

Just for kicks, here’s Bradshaw in 2016 commenting on Chuck Noll:

I will not talk about him after this interview, OK?" Bradshaw said. "Did I respect him? Of course I did. Like him? No, I didn't like him."
And here’s Bradshaw, still talking about him as recently as two weeks ago:

”The first 10-15 years after (my retirement) I was pissed, I’m not going to lie to you,” Bradshaw said. “He is no longer with us on this earth and there are so many wonderful things that Chuck did for me. But he did not know how to handle me.”
In short, fuck Terry Bradshaw.
 
Last edited:

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
38,485
Is it me or does Bradshaw whine about QBs more than any talking head out there?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,833
Is it me or does Bradshaw whine about QBs more than any talking head out there?
He's deeply bitter that he played in an era where he didn't get paid.
Also that people generally don't think of him as an elite QB despite his rings
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,954
An Athletic article said one move "that drove Rodgers nuts" was the release of WR Jake Kumerow, 1 day after Rodgers praised him.

That's a weird hill.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,833
An Athletic article said one move "that drove Rodgers nuts" was the release of WR Jake Kumerow, 1 day after Rodgers praised him.

That's a weird hill.
I think that's just an example to point out his issue, which is that he thinks the GM isn't good, and that his opinion should be valued. So to him, that he comes out and praises a WR only to have the GM cut him the next day is a sign that the GM doesn't have any interest in what his HOF QB thinks. It's not about Kumerow, it's about process and respect to Rodgers.
 
Sep 1, 2019
70
He's deeply bitter that he played in an era where he didn't get paid.
Also that people generally don't think of him as an elite QB despite his rings
Yes, the 1970's was the era of the running back, the rules had not yet changed to open the game for the wide-open passing we see today. I don't think that would necessarily have favored Bradshaw.
Noll generally gets a lot more credit for the four SB championships than Bradshaw, who was more often than not portrayed (unfairly) as a dunce. Terry's schtick has always been the clown, but underneath he's pretty mean and unhappy, imho.
 
Sep 1, 2019
70
Theres no player in the league that holds more leverage than Rodgers.
And I don't quite get that. Even though I am generally sympathetic to Rodgers side here, he has won only one ring and has come up short in big situations in the playoffs multiple times. Peyton redux.
Seems Brady should hold more leverage than any QB in history and maybe he now has it in Tampa, but it was always a power-sharing situation in New England.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,833
And I don't quite get that. Even though I am generally sympathetic to Rodgers side here, he has won only one ring and has come up short in big situations in the playoffs multiple times. Peyton redux.
Seems Brady should hold more leverage than any QB in history and maybe he now has it in Tampa, but it was always a power-sharing situation in New England.
Has Rodgers come up short in the playoffs? Or has he just had worse teams? I mean, his playoff stats for his career are better than Brady's. Completed a higher percentage of his passes for higher NY/A and ANY/A, higher TD%, lower INT%.... he's one of the best QBs ever to play, and his not having rings has a lot more to do with the teams he's been on and coaching staffs than with him coming up short.

Brady in NE had less leverage because Bill was (probably rightly) considered the best HC/GM in the league, and because the first few rings were definitely not considered to be won because of Brady. He was good, but those teams were known for their defense. Brady now is with a franchise with less accomplished front office and coaching staffs, and despite his age (and a bit of a performance drop) he has a ton of leverage and has been able to dictate to some extent a number of their moves.

Edit- Manning has similar but not as good numbers as Brady in the playoffs, where Rodgers' numbers are unequivocally better than both.
 
Sep 1, 2019
70
Has Rodgers come up short in the playoffs?
Depends on you define success, but if you define it by winning, then yes. The stats are great, but on their own empty. I realize football is very much a team game where success involves many factors, but we have just spent several months leading up to the draft talking about how QB is the signature franchise need for dominance in the modern era. Certain players, such as Brady or Russell, just always seem to, somehow, someway, come out on top. They just win. Maybe it's luck, maybe it's something more.

The perception of Brady as a side-car on the Belichick chariot, at least early on, may be undergoing revision in light of what he did in Tampa.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,833
Depends on you define success, but if you define it by winning, then yes. The stats are great, but on their own empty. I realize football is very much a team game where success involves many factors, but we have just spent several months leading up to the draft talking about how QB is the signature franchise need for dominance in the modern era. Certain players, such as Brady or Russell, just always seem to, somehow, someway, come out on top. They just win. Maybe it's luck, maybe it's something more.

The perception of Brady as a side-car on the Belichick chariot, at least early on, may be undergoing revision in light of what he did in Tampa.
I mean... Brady basically is alone though, Rodgers hasn't done worse than other elite QBs. And if you're a team, you look at elite QBs like Rodgers and say "I would have not fucked up that defense so bad", and there is an obvious parallel... Manning left the Colts when he was moderately washed and went to 2 SBs because they surrounded him with a better supporting cast.
Judging QBs on team success isn't good forward thinking, too much is outside of their control.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
48,676
New York City
Depends on you define success, but if you define it by winning, then yes. The stats are great, but on their own empty. I realize football is very much a team game where success involves many factors, but we have just spent several months leading up to the draft talking about how QB is the signature franchise need for dominance in the modern era. Certain players, such as Brady or Russell, just always seem to, somehow, someway, come out on top. They just win. Maybe it's luck, maybe it's something more.

The perception of Brady as a side-car on the Belichick chariot, at least early on, may be undergoing revision in light of what he did in Tampa.
What does Russell win that was more than Rodgers? GB was in the NFL Championship game two years in a row. They did not play Seattle in either game. But guys like Russell, they just win. In fact, in the Super Bowl Russell won, he definitely carried the team and basically won the game by himself.

Rodgers has had great playoff performances and his defense basically gives up 35 points and he loses. Rodgers is great. Historically great. But he's never had good management. And management matters.
 

scott bankheadcase

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2006
1,287
hoboken
What does Russell win that was more than Rodgers? GB was in the NFL Championship game two years in a row. They did not play Seattle in either game. But guys like Russell, they just win. In fact, in the Super Bowl Russell won, he definitely carried the team and basically won the game by himself.

Rodgers has had great playoff performances and his defense basically gives up 35 points and he loses. Rodgers is great. Historically great. But he's never had good management. And management matters.
Yeah, there's a national notion that Russell Wilson is somehow a great pressure QB. He's not. He won a single super bowl on one of the best defensive teams ever.

He threw an interception the other time it was on the line. He also keeps losing in the playoffs every year. It's not that he's not good (he's really good) but there's Brady and then there's everyone else. Rodgers is a significantly better QB that Wilson.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
68,520
Oregon
In fact, in the Super Bowl Russell won, he definitely carried the team and basically won the game by himself.
Not really. The Seahawks led 29-0 after the second half kickoff -- a lead that including that TD return, a pick-6 and a safety. His two touchdown passes came after that lead was built.

He had a really good game, but in no way won that game by himself. The defense did this to the Broncos in their first seven drives -- safety, punt, INT, INT, downs, punt, fumble.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
48,676
New York City
Not really. The Seahawks led 29-0 after the second half kickoff -- a lead that including that TD return, a pick-6 and a safety. His two touchdown passes came after that lead was built.

He had a really good game, but in no way won that game by himself. The defense did this to the Broncos in their first seven drives -- safety, punt, INT, INT, downs, punt, fumble.
I am being sarcastic. That game was over on the first snap when it went over Manning's head.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,069
Yeah, there's a national notion that Russell Wilson is somehow a great pressure QB. He's not. He won a single super bowl on one of the best defensive teams ever.

He threw an interception the other time it was on the line. He also keeps losing in the playoffs every year. It's not that he's not good (he's really good) but there's Brady and then there's everyone else. Rodgers is a significantly better QB that Wilson.
Worse still if he'd just tucked the ball in he could have walked into the endzone and scored the game winner. His decision to throw into the scrum was just outright awful.
 

Euclis20

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
3,938
Imaginationland
Yeah, there's a national notion that Russell Wilson is somehow a great pressure QB. He's not. He won a single super bowl on one of the best defensive teams ever.

He threw an interception the other time it was on the line. He also keeps losing in the playoffs every year. It's not that he's not good (he's really good) but there's Brady and then there's everyone else. Rodgers is a significantly better QB that Wilson.
Yeah, Russell mostly escaped criticism for his part in being on the wrong side of the greatest play of all time, largely because:

-He was still young (just his 3rd season)
-He had won the super bowl the year before
-That last play (both running the clock down and the awful play call) were terrible and seem largely to be a coaching error

6 years later, Russell has turned into a legitimate top level QB (5 pro bowls) but has just 3 playoff wins and hasn't even been back to the conference finals. He's a level below Rodgers, at least until Rodgers ages out.
 
Sep 1, 2019
70
Just for clarification, I meant Bill Russell (and I should have been clear since this is the football forum) as another example of someone who won almost all the time.

I get CD's point and, upon further reflection, I largely agree with it. Just as I wouldn't want the Patriots organizational and coaching strengths to diminish Brady's accomplishments, so it is not fair to disparage Rodgers for falling short with inferior organization and coaching.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
48,617
Yes, the 1970's was the era of the running back, the rules had not yet changed to open the game for the wide-open passing we see today. I don't think that would necessarily have favored Bradshaw.
Noll generally gets a lot more credit for the four SB championships than Bradshaw, who was more often than not portrayed (unfairly) as a dunce. Terry's schtick has always been the clown, but underneath he's pretty mean and unhappy, imho.
Whether or not he’s a dunce, the line about him not being able to spell cat if you spotted him the c and the t is an all-timer.