Rodgers in GB ( old article)

[Mr. WEO]

13 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

BB was wrong.  He should have drafted his replacement a couple years ago.  Are the Packers right or wrong here?  We'll see.

 

Allen was a project.  Is that a revelation to you?  And initially I didn't want him.  I like his potential but he still needs to take the next step.

Yes fumbling isn't an issue.  You shouldn't have bothered to bring it up and make yourself look ridiculous. 

 

And I didn't give Diggs credit for yards he didn't earn.  That's why I said "per game," because you can't amass yards in games you didn't play, or predict how many yards would have been amassed had he played.  Which brought out the laughable "well in 2015..."

 

BB was wrong--but not at the time.  And when the Packer fade this season, the Love pick will look better already.

 

Compared to Singletary, Taylor is a fumbling piker, and as such, McD would not be concerned. that was the discussion.

 

Oh yeah...."yards per game".  lol.  But you did give the old "which works out to"...and even threw in some weird nonsense about what he would have done agains Chicago. 

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, NewEra said:

Why is a given that they hit lightning in a bottle?  Look for Jacksonville?  They had Blake Bortles.  The packers have one of the greatest qbs of all time.

 

this my last post in this thread.
 

Some here prefer to give up on the next couple years with aaron Rodgers as their QB and build for the future.  That’s fine.  
 

I’d prefer to do my best to win another super bowl with aaron Rodgers as my QB.  
 

It’s my belief that aaron Rodgers now >>> jordan Love at his best ever.  
 

If the coach/gm don’t like Rodgers and want to move on, so be it.  They got gifted one of the best QBs ever.  And they chose Jordan Love.  Eager to see how long it takes them to win a SB

 

 

 

I don't think taking Jordan Love precludes them from that. What player were they getting in the final 6 picks of round 1 who was the difference maker in winning a Superbowl or not? 

 

Nah, in that situation you should always take the Quarterback. If Rodgers were 32 I would agree with you. But at 36 the end could come any time. Manning was done at 39 and declined fast from 38. Rivers is 38 and he looked done last season to me. Brady and Brees have played into their 40s but they are all ball in a way I am not sure Rodgers is or ever has been. In that situation you take the QB. If the Bills were in that place and made that move I would applaud them. 

[FireChans]

8 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Trying to trade him post-June 1st will be tough.  Most teams have their caps tied-up by then and will find it hard to absorb his $14M salary.  If they're going to get rid of him after next season, they're going to have to cut him on the 1st or 2nd league day and get nothing, not even a comp pick, for him.

There may be a couple teams that keep some room open if they know Rodgers is going to be on the market come June 1.

[GunnerBill]

15 minutes ago, hjnick said:

Wasn't Green Bay 12-4 last year?  If Rodger's isn't Lafleur's type of QB, what kind of QB is he looking for?  

 

LeFleur wants a Quarterback to run his system. Rodgers for the most part did in 2019 but he did it under duress and in games where the passing game floundered the frustrations showed. I don't think it is that LeFleur doesn't want Rodgers... if anything I suspect if he had his time back Rodgers would veto LeFleur. 

 

I think drafting Love is purely about a chance to take a guy they had a high grade on at the end of the first when their franchise QB is 36 and has been banged up in 2 of the last 3 seasons. It does put Rodgers on the clock but in a world where Love went top 15 as some were predicting I don't think the Packers were suddenly going to take Jacob Eason or Jalen Hurts in the first round. It wasn't we must get a QB it was this is too good of a chance to take a QB we like when our guy is halfway through the back 9. 

[NewEra]

28 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't think taking Jordan Love precludes them from that. What player were they getting in the final 6 picks of round 1 who was the difference maker in winning a Superbowl or not? 

 

Nah, in that situation you should always take the Quarterback. If Rodgers were 32 I would agree with you. But at 36 the end could come any time. Manning was done at 39 and declined fast from 38. Rivers is 38 and he looked done last season to me. Brady and Brees have played into their 40s but they are all ball in a way I am not sure Rodgers is or ever has been. In that situation you take the QB. If the Bills were in that place and made that move I would applaud them. 

 

1 hour ago, NewEra said:

Why is a given that they hit lightning in a bottle?  Look for Jacksonville?  They had Blake Bortles.  The packers have one of the greatest qbs of all time.

 

this my last post in this thread.
 

Some here prefer to give up on the next couple years with aaron Rodgers as their QB and build for the future.  That’s fine.  
 

I’d prefer to do my best to win another super bowl with aaron Rodgers as my QB.  
 

It’s my belief that aaron Rodgers now >>> jordan Love at his best ever.  
 

If the coach/gm don’t like Rodgers and want to move on, so be it.  They got gifted one of the best QBs ever.  And they chose Jordan Love.  Eager to see how long it takes them to win a SB

 

 

 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, NewEra said:

 

 

 

I wasn't looking for a response. I just continue to think the idea that taking Love stops them trying to win with Rodgers is asinine. 

[TwistofFate]

34 minutes ago, hjnick said:

Wasn't Green Bay 12-4 last year?  If Rodger's isn't Lafleur's type of QB, what kind of QB is he looking for?  thx

Rodgers comes from the Tedfordian system. 

 

Lafeur comes from the shanahan-mcvay coaching tree which relies on under center, run heavy play action. 

 

That's exactly the opposite of what Rodgers has done the entirety of his career. 

 

On top of that, Rodgers has fallen off the last few years and has been quite the problem within Green Bay...sooo much so he has been warned by the GM to not cause problems with the new coach. 

 

Truth be told, Rodgers has spent the majority of his career with high talent players, playing within a system he was accustomed to.   Now that he doesn't have high level talent all around him, he's dropped off pretty substantially. 

[Doc]

41 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

BB was wrong--but not at the time.  And when the Packer fade this season, the Love pick will look better already.

 

Compared to Singletary, Taylor is a fumbling piker, and as such, McD would not be concerned. that was the discussion.

 

Oh yeah...."yards per game".  lol.  But you did give the old "which works out to"...and even threw in some weird nonsense about what he would have done agains Chicago. 

 

Depends why the Pack fade.  I think most teams would be more than happy with ARod's production last year and a repeat of it this year, especially given his receiving corps.  And Love still has to show he's a franchise QB.

 

Yes, no one should be worried about Singletary's 4 fumbles in 2 games.  The point was that he wasn't one in college so the Bills couldn't have predicted it, but Taylor was one, it likely won't get any better in the NFL, and why add a guy like that if you thought it was an issue with Singletary (initially, at least)?  Again coaches hate fumblers because it allows for a turnover to occur.

 

Yards per game removes all the other BS.  Sitting for a meaningless season-ender doesn't change anything (unlike, say, missing over half the season) and those other players who missed games could also have fallen off their trajectory.  But why you went silly vehemently trying to disprove it is what the real question is?

 

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

I wasn't looking for a response. I just continue to think the idea that taking Love stops them trying to win with Rodgers is asinine. 

 

It doesn't stop them but it definitely doesn't help them. 

Edited April 29, 2020 by Doc

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It doesn't stop them but it definitely doesn't help them. 

 

I think what is costs them now is infinitely outweighed by the potential gain down the road. Just as it was when they took Aaron Rodgers instead of getting Brett Favre a receiver in 2005. 

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

I think what is costs them now is infinitely outweighed by the potential gain down the road. Just as it was when they took Aaron Rodgers instead of getting Brett Favre a receiver in 2005. 

 

It's potential either way.  A WR in the first potentially could have helped them win a SB.  Love potentially could be a franchise QB.  They've cast their lot so all we can do is see what becomes of Love.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Doc said:

 

It's potential either way.  A WR in the first potentially could have helped them win a SB.  Love potentially could be a franchise QB.  They've cast their lot so all we can do is see what becomes of Love.

 

Even if Love fails while it makes it a poor pick it was still the right strategy. The odds are stacked in favour of him being a long term difference maker over a receiver being a short term difference maker. Because it is the most important position on the field.

[Doc]

49 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

Even if Love fails while it makes it a poor pick it was still the right strategy. The odds are stacked in favour of him being a long term difference maker over a receiver being a short term difference maker. Because it is the most important position on the field.

 

It was a strategy.  Whether it's the right one (to draft a QB in the 1st round when you have one that is playing at a high level right now and needs WR help) is debatable, and whether he succeeds remains to be seen.  It worked for them once before, but that's not the norm.  What we do know is he doesn't help the Packers at all this year, if not for a couple years.

Edited April 30, 2020 by Doc

[ndirish1978]

10 hours ago, FireChans said:

The 2011 Seahawks only drafted CB's in the fifth and sixth round to help their secondary.  Does it matter who the players turned out to be, or did they neglect their secondary by not investing higher picks (and thus different players) in it?

 

Zero logic, smug attitude. You're one of those guys who thinks, despite all evidence, that they are somehow smarter than everyone else and comes on a message board to try and pump themselves up. I'll bow out of this particular exchange. 

[FireChans]

15 minutes ago, ndirish1978 said:

 

Zero logic, smug attitude. You're one of those guys who thinks, despite all evidence, that they are somehow smarter than everyone else and comes on a message board to try and pump themselves up. I'll bow out of this particular exchange. 

?

 

You didn’t even attempt the answer the question. Not sure you were ever interested in a discussion.

[Dr. Who]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Even if Love fails while it makes it a poor pick it was still the right strategy. The odds are stacked in favour of him being a long term difference maker over a receiver being a short term difference maker. Because it is the most important position on the field.

I don't blame the Packers for taking a shot with Love. I do find it puzzling that in a draft supposedly deep at wr, they didn't take a single one.

[GunnerBill]

 

4 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

I don't blame the Packers for taking a shot with Love. I do find it puzzling that in a draft supposedly deep at wr, they didn't take a single one.

 

Agree. 

[FieldGeneral]

Green Bay got everything they'll get out of him. They should trade him when the first opportunity arises. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, FieldGeneral said:

Green Bay got everything they'll get out of him. They should trade him when the first opportunity arises. 

 

They can't.

[GunnerBill]

20 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

They can't.

 

He said when the first opportunity arises. I think the first opportunity arises after 1st June 2021 when a trade would still cost them $31m but would be capable of being split across 2021 and 2022 for cap purposes. There was a lot of conversation of how that happens given that teams have filled their rosters generally by then but it does happen frequently in the run up the start of the league year that teams agree terms on trades and they are reported as done by the media but they don't actually become authorised until the new league year starts. I know doing a trade that you don't then authorise until 1 June (thereby meaning that you can't give Rodgers your playbook or get him in your facility before then) is slightly different but if Green Bay made it known he was available for trade there would be a team willing to agree terms in March and then wait until June to get him - but it would likely affect the compensation they would be willing to give up.

 

Personally, I think far more likely is that he is the starter in Green Bay for 2020 and 2021 and then they move on. They could, at that point, release him or they might hold out for trade offers. Might depend on his play the next two years and you would need to have a team who is in "win now" mode and thinks they are a Quarterback away. I do think San Francisco might fit that mould if Jimmy G hasn't got them over the hump.... 

[machine gun kelly]

Rodgers whines more as he gets older.  It was funny on NFLR the other day Rodgers likes all the WR to get them to GB, then doesn’t like them once there.  It did seem a little premature as I would have waited until he was 38, but maybe they liked the young QB.