Tyler Conklin: Aaron Rodgers “maybe taken [Robert Saleh firing] harder than anyone”

Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers insists he did not fire former Jets coach Robert Saleh. But that's not what he did. This is what he did.

That didn't stop Rodgers from firing Saleh. Rodgers, by all appearances, didn't even try. He didn't seem particularly upset when he discussed the situation with Pat McAfee and AJ Hawke on Wednesday.

Rogers rightly emphasized the humanitarian aspect after the shooting. But Rogers said nothing during the interview that indicated disagreement with the decision — or the apparent fact that Rogers had no input into it.

“I don't think anyone inside this building thought player-oriented or anything like that [Rodgers] had something to do with it,” Tyler Conklin said Wednesday, via Rich Cimini of ESPN.com. “I honestly, truly believe that. means, Aaron probably took it harder than almost anyone“

Being upset about the emotional aspect of development is different from being upset about the football aspect.

So the narrative that's given is that Rogers wasn't involved in the decision because he didn't know the decision was coming. Frustrated with his past (and well-documented, in his own words) failure of the Packers to seek or accept his input, wouldn't Rodgers expect at least a heads up?

Circumstantial evidence supports a reasonable conclusion that Rodgers gathered once he learned that offensive coordinator Nathaniel Hackett would be fired. Even if that doesn't happen, the relationship between Rodgers and Hackett makes it seem plausible. Rogers would likely be very unhappy if Hackett was demoted and/or terminated. Rodgers will probably try to keep that from happening. At the very least, Rodgers wants to know if it's coming, if only to have a chance to give his input on whether it should be done.

If Rogers did not really know that Saleh was being fired, the failure to give notice to Rogers and/or seek his input does not seem to have bothered him at all. From what we collectively know about Rogers, the failure to give him notice and/or ask for his input seems to upset him.

The fact that he's apparently not bothered means one of two things. One, he actually is did There is input and its input was reflected in the decision. Two, the decision that was made without his notice and input coincidentally coincides with what would have been his input.