Bob McGinn suggests Matt LaFleur “simply had enough of [Aaron] Rodgers’ act”

[Kentis]

Getty Images

Bob McGinn covered the Packers for 38 years. Which makes his opinions regarding the team worth considering.
So consider this paragraph from McGinn’s review of Green Bay’s much-maligned 2020 draft for TheAthletic.com, which started with the Packers trading up from No. 30 to No. 26 to draft Utah State quarterback Jordan Love: “Public niceties aside, my sense is [coach Matt] LaFleur, fresh from a terrific 13-3 baptismal season, simply had enough of [Aaron] Rodgers’ act and wanted to change the narrative. With a first-round talent on the roster, the Packers would gain leverage with their imperial quarterback and his passive-aggressive style. If the Packers do indeed want to become a running team next season, they surely wouldn’t want Rodgers rocking the boat and becoming even more difficult to coach.”

There’s a lot to unpack in that passage. It implies that Rodgers acted in a way that LaFleur found distasteful in 2019. If so, the team did a good job of covering it up. By all appearances, LaFleur decided to embrace his franchise quarterback and to let him run the offense the way he sees fit, after the offseason awkwardness regarding the so-called “audible issue.” Indeed, after the team lost to the 49ers in the NFC Championship, Rodgers was surprisingly upbeat.
Also, McGinn suggests that Rodgers has continued to be passive-aggressive under LaFleur. That routine seemed to end after the Packers fired coach Mike McCarthy. however. All in all, Rodgers was pleased with the changes that the team made under LaFleur and G.M. Brian Gutekunst.
Likewise, McGinn believes that Rodgers was “difficult to coach” last year and that he will be “even more difficult to coach” if the team shifts its offense to a run-based attack in 2020.
If any of McGinn’s assessment is accurate, things could get ugly in Green Bay. The best outcome would entail Rodgers helping Love get up to speed quickly, so that it would be easier for the Packers to justify giving Rodgers what he already may want: A ticket to another team.
The biggest impediment continues to be the salary-cap implications of trading Rodgers. A deal before June 1, 2021 would wreak havoc on the team’s salary cap. Even then, it makes the most sense to keep Rodgers for two more years.
Regardless of whether McGinn’s musings have hit the mark, the circumstances suggest that things will be awkward at a minimum in 2020, and possibly beyond, for the Packers and Rodgers. Whether the Packers wanted that, at a minimum they’re OK with it. Even if Rodgers isn’t.
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/04/28/bob-mcginn-suggests-matt-lafleur-simply-had-enough-of-aaron-rodgers-act/?partner=Yahoo

Bob speaks the truth... B)

[Guest]

First my disclaimer. Whatever it takes for the packers to implode is perfectly fine with me. 
Now, I have to wonder if the coach is a bit on an ego trip if you want to take the ball out of the hands of your best player to be ground and pound. Oh well, Vanguard where are you to put a period on this.........

[Guest]

Ego trip, power stugle, or just sheer stupidity...God bless Matt the Flower...

On the flip side, Rodgers is a shell of himself...

Both the Vikings and packers have laid a foundation for a return to the late 60's and 70's...

[Guest]

I kinda wish Rogers would  screw GB's entire plan and demand  to be traded right now.

 
popcorn ready.

  

[Guest]

It's funny how before last season started, the talking heads were talking about Lafleur and Rodgers getting along quite well and it would be a nice fit. What a difference a year makes. 

[Guest]

Mike Freeman's 10-Point Stance: Packers Send Message to Rodgers with Love PickMike Freeman

1. A message sent loud and (probably) clear

To understand what the Packers may have been trying to say to quarterback Aaron Rodgers with their selection of Utah State QB Jordan Love in the first round of last week's draft, you have to go back in time for a moment, to the year 1992.
It was then that Broncos coach Dan Reeves, who was also essentially the general manager, drafted quarterback Tommy Maddox in the first round. Denver, at the time, however, also had a guy named John Elway on the roster, and he was only heading into his age-32 campaign.
The relationship between Reeves and Elway had long been contentious, and Elway didn't hide that fact when Reeves was fired following the 1992 season.
"The last three years have been hell," Elway said then in an interview with Sports Illustrated. "I know that I would not have been back here if Dan Reeves had been here. It wasn't worth it to me. I didn't enjoy it. It wasn't any fun, and I got tired of working with him." 
To Elway's way of thinking, Reeves' drafting of Maddox was a gigantic middle finger to his starting quarterback. Particularly since the Broncos desperately needed a receiver at the time.
"I was standing at the baggage claim at [the airport], and we needed a wideout," Elway said last year, remembering that draft. "I said, 'Oh, [Carl] Pickens must have been gone.' He didn't go until the second round."
Put simply, Reeves' decision to draft Maddox was a message to Elway: You're not in control. I am.
An AFC coach this week told B/R that the Broncos situation wasn't so dissimilar to the Packers' choice to draft Love and then not pick a single wide receiver in the entire draft. 
"The Packers couldn't have sent a clearer message to Aaron," the coach said.
"We run this, not you."
Now, this is one coach's opinion, and it's entirely possible the Packers just did what they believed was right for the organization. Nothing more, nothing less.
However, the coach is not alone in his sentiment, as has been expressed to me privately from multiple team executives and coaches across the league.
The idea that a franchise would waste a first-round pick just to spite one of its players does seem absurd. But it's happened before.
Now, years later, it may have just happened again.
2. Shoot your shot
Before the draft, Rodgers openly expressed his desire for the Packers to select a skill-position player in the first round this year, and it's not hard to understand why. According to SEC Network analyst Cole Cubelic, Rodgers has thrown just one touchdown pass to a first-round pick over his entire career.
My belief (and the belief of others in football) is that Rodgers has been underserved by the Packers front office. Others believe that Green Bay has given Rodgers plenty of good receivers, like Jordy Nelson, from later rounds.
But those hits are bigger gambles.
The first round of the draft is the shoot-your-shot round, where teams select someone they think won't just be a starter but also a star.
If you do what the Packers did—not use a first-round selection for a skill-position player since 2005 until this year—you are not prioritizing that position. 
That's why what the Packers did with Love was so remarkable. They prioritized a quarterback when they already have one of the best to ever do it, and he's not close to being done.
3. Grudge match
One last thing on Rodgers...if you don't believe he's ultra-mad at this selection, well, you're wrong.
That Rodgers is a world-class grudge-holder should come as no surprise.
But he's also a professional, so it's likely he won't say a word publicly now. He'll be the good soldier, and if the Packers win, everything will be OK.
However, if the inevitable happens, and a key offensive player gets hurt, Rodgers won't stay quiet.
That's where things could get really interesting.
4. Meanwhile, in the NFC North
On the bright side of all the drama surrounding the Packers is the fact that their division didn't get markedly better this offseason. The Lions still have a lot of building to do, the Bears still have massive questions at quarterback, and while the Vikings are solid, the loss of receiver Stefon Diggs will seriously sting.
In other words, this is still the Packers' division to win.

[Guest]

@Vikergirl said:
It's funny how before last season started, the talking heads were talking about Lafleur and Rodgers getting along quite well and it would be a nice fit. What a difference a year makes. 

Did anyone really buy into that? Rodgers couldn't respect a HC with a Super Bowl ring. 

[Guest]

@"BarrNone55" said:

@Vikergirl said:
It's funny how before last season started, the talking heads were talking about Lafleur and Rodgers getting along quite well and it would be a nice fit. What a difference a year makes. 

Did anyone really buy into that? Rodgers couldn't respect a HC with a Super Bowl ring. 

I didn't buy it and I don't give a shit. It just cracks me up how the narrative changes. He thinks he is the only reason for the Super Bowl ring so why would he respect his coach. 

[Guest]

Still the Packers division to win?  Geez... that would be appropriate for the Saints or 49ers to say.  They were genuinely good teams.  The Packers skated by on luck and friendly refs.  That- and Stefanski's inability to adjust when other teams loaded up vs. the run- is what enabled the Packers to take the division.

[Guest]

That Rodgers is a world-class grudge-holder should come as no surprise.

But
he's also a professional, so it's likely he won't say a word publicly
now. He'll be the good soldier, and if the Packers win, everything will
be OK.

However, if the inevitable happens, and a key offensive player gets hurt, Rodgers won't stay quiet.

First sentence, true.  Second sentence, not so much.  He may not say it publicly, but there will be hints, drama, passive aggressive moves.  He is not a good quiet soldier even when the team wins.  third sentence, true.  And I can't wait.