Maybe he prefers Jeopardy!?

[Déjà Bru]

Heh, here's one sportswriter not afraid to confront Aaron Rodgers, calling him "the biggest jerk in the league" and "a bad guy."

"I don't think you can be the biggest jerk in the league and punish your team and your organization and your fan base the way he did and be the most valuable player," Arkush said Tuesday on The Score. "Has he been the most valuable on the field? Yeah, you could make that argument, but I don't think he is clearly that much more valuable than Jonathan Taylor or Cooper Kupp or maybe even Tom Brady. So from where I sit, the rest of it is why he's not gonna be my choice." Added Arkush: "I just think that the way he's carried himself is inappropriate. I think he's a bad guy, and I don't think a bad guy can be the most valuable guy at the same time."

He appears to be a thoughtful fellow.

In a subsequent appearance on [his radio] station, Arkush said he regrets putting other voters in a position to have to answer questions about their votes. "The only thing I can do going forward is respect what I failed to respect last night and just not talk about it anymore until after the awards have been given," he said Wednesday. In a column, Arkush wrote that he "made a terrible mistake" with his remarks and that "there is no one else to blame, and I am here to try and apologize."

Apologize to his fellow MVP voters, not to Rodgers.

An unfortunate moment of frankness and honesty, to which Rodgers responded, of course.

[pilight]

It's always fun when journalists decide to make themselves the story

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by pilight

It's always fun when journalists decide to make themselves the story

Journalists literally vote on the award. So in the circumstance of MVP voting, they are the story in terms of how they vote.

[Syd Thrift]

I admit that I get a little, I don't know, grumpy when I see journalists spend more than a sentence or two on who they're going to vote for for MVP or whatever. This comes up with Hall of Fame voting all the time, of course. TBF though my grumpiness is usually not so much because journalists are making themselves the story so much as the ones who do that a lot are f'ing stupid SOBs most of the time. Like, it's never Peter Gammons making himself the center, it's always someone like Skip Bayless or Screaming A. Smith.

[Déjà Bru]

Journalists should have their voting rights stripped if they talk about a vote before it happens. For one obvious thing, they could be unfairly influencing the results, in effect campaigning for or against the player with ill-timed comments.

Edit: Nice epithet for "Screaming A. Smith." I cringe every time I see him, followed by a quick grab for the PC mouse or TV remote.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Journalists should have their voting rights stripped if they talk about a vote before it happens. For one obvious thing, they could be unfairly influencing the results, in effect campaigning for or against the player with ill-timed comments.

Edit: Nice epithet for "Screaming A. Smith." I cringe every time I see him, followed by a quick grab for the PC mouse or TV remote.

Agreed. Voters vote, and keep their mouths shut about what they're doing. I would be completely OK with a secret ballot staying secret.

About Stephen A...he's a douche, but he knows how to get attention.

[monkeyman576]

Nothing wrong with campaigning your mvp vote IMHO. This is the USA not China.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

Nothing wrong with campaigning your mvp vote IMHO. This is the USA not China.

Does China not allow its sportswriters to say who they’re electing to league MVP? I mean, that may be the kind of legislation I could get behind but I’ve never heard of this particular flavor of repression…

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

Nothing wrong with campaigning your mvp vote IMHO. This is the USA not China.

Two reasons come to mind as to why a sportswriter would campaign his or her vote:
1) He or she really personally likes the player in question, or personally hates the player in question.
2) He or she wants to call attention to himself or herself, obviously to make more money.

Neither is an appropriate reason, given what I said about the possibility of unduly influencing the results. If neither is true, then he or she realizes it is just one vote and casts it quietly and professionally.

Can you think of another legitimate reason why a sportswriter would telegraph his selection ahead of time?

[monkeyman576]

Either reason is fine with me. For the first, no one is obligated to listen, for the second nothing wrong with making a buck.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

Either reason is fine with me. For the first, no one is obligated to listen, for the second nothing wrong with making a buck.

Meh, we will disagree then. I don't think either is sportsmanlike, professional, or fair to the process at hand. No worries in this case, because before we went down this avenue of discussion, we were talking about Aaron Rodgers who doesn't deserve those treatments, anyway.

[monkeyman576]

Aaron Rodgers' last game as a Packer?

[Déjà Bru]

"I don't want to be part of a rebuild if I'm going to keep playing," Rodgers said.

At least he manned up ("His Total QBR of 19.3 was the worst of his playoff career."); I'll give him credit for that:

"So definitely disappointed by some of the decisions I had tonight. I definitely take my fair share of blame tonight."

[low]

Special teams lost the game. They were garbage all year. The proverbial icing on the cake was for San Francisco's game winning field goal, only 10 players were on the field. You can't make this up. It was a disappointing, yet fitting end. The problem should have been fixed in week 4, not after a playoff loss. Fire them all.

As for Rodgers, I don't care one way or another. It's just a game that means very little at the end of day. The offseason will be filled with drama for sure.

[GeoWar]

I don't see Rodgers returning --
Packers Coach Matt LaFleur seemed to call (gameplan) not to lose the game . The Special teams really played "bush" league. How long did the punter think he had standing in his endzone.
The Salary Cap will cause problems with several teams this off season unless it is expanded . Rebuilding or accepting less salary is a must .
The Packers pick of Jordan Love seems like a waste ..... Does anyone think he is ready to be a starting QB in NFL ? He does have a preseason under his belt.
Adams has a cap hit of $808,000 this season ----- Rodgers is $46.8 million. The only young team that may take that cap hit (maybe 2) Miami and N.Y. Jets ?
https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/

[GeoWar]

If you check the cap info -- for Packers -- they saved around $10 million salary (and cap hit) on not activating David Bakhtiari for the San Fran game ------ since he has been out all season after ACL surgery . All Pro Left tackle.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

I should have used more words to explain what I meant.
Rodgers is one of the most talented QBs ever, perhaps the greatest pure talent until Mahomes showed up.

But you would expect him to have won more by this point, and he has not.

And team worth has nothing to do with the salary cap.
Do you understand the salary cap? It seems like you do not.

The most successful teams outside of New England the past 20 years or so have maximized their success by using a very small % of the salary cap on a good rookie QB and using that cap money elsewhere.

Drafting a QB in the second round and wasting some of those rookie salary years is a mistake IMO.

I'm no Rodgers apologist, I'm a Cowboys fan, so I can't stand him. But you shouldn't expect championships. You would hope with a QB of his talent level he would have been to more than 1 SB. But it doesn't always work that way. Other teams want to win too. Quarterbacks still need the team around them. It's very difficult to beat the significantly better team in the playoffs.

Back in 2010 when the Packers won the SB their defense was ranked 2nd and 5th in points allowed and points scored against. I forget which is which. They've not come close since then.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by GeoWar

I don't see Rodgers returning --
Packers Coach Matt LaFleur seemed to call (gameplan) not to lose the game . The Special teams really played "bush" league. How long did the punter think he had standing in his endzone.
The Salary Cap will cause problems with several teams this off season unless it is expanded . Rebuilding or accepting less salary is a must .
The Packers pick of Jordan Love seems like a waste ..... Does anyone think he is ready to be a starting QB in NFL ? He does have a preseason under his belt.
Adams has a cap hit of $808,000 this season ----- Rodgers is $46.8 million. The only young team that may take that cap hit (maybe 2) Miami and N.Y. Jets ?
https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/

That's not the cap hit a team would have if they traded for Rodgers.

Denver seems to be the most likely candidate. Signing bonus cap hit doesn't transfer over. So Rodgers would be around a 26M cap hit on Denver.

Not only that, but if they wanted to, Denver could sign Rodgers to a 3 year extension, turn that 26 million into signing bonus, and only have a 9 million dollar cap hit for Rodgers in 2022. Less than that if they add a voidable 4th year.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I'm no Rodgers apologist, I'm a Cowboys fan, so I can't stand him. But you shouldn't expect championships. You would hope with a QB of his talent level he would have been to more than 1 SB. But it doesn't always work that way. Other teams want to win too. Quarterbacks still need the team around them. It's very difficult to beat the significantly better team in the playoffs.

Back in 2010 when the Packers won the SB their defense was ranked 2nd and 5th in points allowed and points scored against. I forget which is which. They've not come close since then.

I think Matthew Stanford is a good example of this (not that he's on the same level as Rodgers). Stafford shows that a good QB when surrounded by a good team and do well. And a good QB surrounded by a bad team will not do well.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

I think Matthew Stanford is a good example of this (not that he's on the same level as Rodgers). Stafford shows that a good QB when surrounded by a good team and do well. And a good QB surrounded by a bad team will not do well.

Right. I've always considered Stafford at the Tony Romo level. Maybe a bit under that. But good enough to take a good team far.

Look at the 2019 Championship game. Garoppolo didn't have to do anything. The Packers were overwhelmed by a better team. This year their special teams screwed the pooch, Rodgers had no impact.