Rodgers in GB ( old article)

[NewEra]

7 minutes ago, Bermuda Triangle said:

some of the takes in this thread are horrific.

Yeah. It was the most memorable thread of 2020 for me.  
 

I bring this up because I remember @Mr. WEO saying “we shall see” regarding the packers season.  What’s the point of saying “we shall see” if we don’t bring it up again, am I right?

[Bermuda Triangle]

3 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Yeah. It was the most memorable thread of 2020 for me.  
 

I bring this up because I remember @Mr. WEO saying “we shall see” regarding the packers season.  What’s the point of saying “we shall see” if we don’t bring it up again, am I right?

no doubt. That's what makes it fun.  I'd rather someone offer an opinion and be shown to be wrong, than say nothing at the time, and then pound their chests months/years later, and say "I TOLD YOU SO!!!" (we already have one of those here).

 

I'll say this, you are consistent:" he has 1 weapon and a couple jags."🤪

[Malazan]

31 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Yeah. It was the most memorable thread of 2020 for me.  
 

I bring this up because I remember @Mr. WEO saying “we shall see” regarding the packers season.  What’s the point of saying “we shall see” if we don’t bring it up again, am I right?

 

If we bumped a thread every time WEO is wrong then we'd bump every thread he posted in..

[PrimeTime101]

bumping threads like this should go in the same category as calling someone out in a new thread. Same as someone posting something 5 months ago then refreshing there own post 5 months later saying "I told you so"

 

Bottom line... Most of us were wrong about a great many of things about history before we were right about one thing.

 

Haha you were wrong... Haha you were right. Has the feel of a locked thread up and coming.

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, NewEra said:

aaron Rodgers is a very good game manager and clearly on the decline 👍🏻 Clearly.  2019 wasn’t 2014, but 2020-21 sure looks like it

 

the packers were comparable to the Jacksonville AFCCG team.

We are seeing right now.  13 wins and better than last season.

For last year being their absolute best shot, they sure are faking this year pretty well 

 
when is the last time a team drafted a QB to let him sit and learn for 3+ years?  2005.  It’s not how anyone does it anymore.  Literally no one does it. Mahomes sat one year.  Allen was supposed to sit one year.  Watson, a couple games, herbert, a couple games, burrow, started week 1, Lamar, 1/2 season, RW, a few games, Tua, a few games, lock, a few games, baker, a few games, Darnold, starter day 1, trubisky, a few games.  
 

who is drafting a qb to sit for a few years?  No one.  MVP Aaron rodgers is under contract til 2023.  He is playing the best ball of his career and certainly doesn’t have the look of have 1 more year left after this season. Their team looks to be the best in football. Not bad for a team that had their absolute last shot last season.

 

that said, I understand that why they drafted Love. I disagreed with it because I thought they should be going all in to win more Super Bowls with their current team.  If they win the SB AND used their 1st rd pick on a guy that will sit for a few year, more power to them.  I disagreed with their strategy and the thought of not going all in with a GOAT type QB was baffling to me.

 

go bills!

 

 

This hurts

[NewEra]

41 minutes ago, jeremy2020 said:

 

If we bumped a thread every time WEO is wrong then we'd bump every thread he posted in..

Nah, WEO knows his stuff, that’s why I enjoy going back and forth with him.  Trying debate with some of these other guys is just a waste of time and not worth it.  WEO is a worthy adversary in my book.

[NewEra]

24 minutes ago, FireChans said:

This hurts

Lol.  Yeah, you’ve got a few other ones in here too but I took it easy.  
 

that said.....my take can also be a bad one if the packers win the SB.  Considering they were able to get little or nothing from any of their draft picks and still win the SB while also drafting their potential starting QB....win win win for the packers FO.  
 

I just didn’t think Rodgers was done and was still capable of winning Super Bowls (plural).  His contract runs through 2023 and I don’t see any situation in which love is better than Rodgers by the year 2023, rendering him and his rookie contract useless.  
 

most teams nowadays draft a qb and play him, while trying to win a super bowl while their young stud qb is getting paid pennies and learns the game.  Having that qb sit for a few years hasn’t been done since Rodgers.  The packers are a different type of FO though.  They stick to their plan, which is great considering they’re a successful franchise, but imo, 2 Super Bowls solute between favre and Rodgers isn’t good enough for the talent they had under center.  Up til Mahomes and Allen, Rodgers was easily the most talented qb to walk the planet and is playing better than both of these 24-25 kids this year....with less playmakers around him

[GunnerBill]

Aaron's been great this year. Back to his best. Haven't changed my mind about the fact that the clock on his time in Green Bay beginning to tick or the strategy behind the Jordan Love pick one iota. Still a move I'd make every time. If you love a guy (no pun intended) and your Quarterback is 37 you take him. 

 

EDIT: The one thing I was unsure about - whether Rodgers and LaFleur would ever really mesh.... well they absolutely have this year. Aaron is way more comfortable in this offense in 2020 than he was in 2019.

Edited January 18, 2021 by GunnerBill

[Mike in Horseheads]

On 7/29/2020 at 1:35 AM, rayray808 said:

my cousin said that he is opting out of this season to really put the pressure on GB

Your cousin have any other 🔥 takes?

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, NewEra said:

aaron Rodgers is a very good game manager and clearly on the decline 👍🏻 Clearly.  2019 wasn’t 2014, but 2020-21 sure looks like it

 

the packers were comparable to the Jacksonville AFCCG team.

We are seeing right now.  13 wins and better than last season.

For last year being their absolute best shot, they sure are faking this year pretty well 

 
when is the last time a team drafted a QB to let him sit and learn for 3+ years?  2005.  It’s not how anyone does it anymore.  Literally no one does it. Mahomes sat one year.  Allen was supposed to sit one year.  Watson, a couple games, herbert, a couple games, burrow, started week 1, Lamar, 1/2 season, RW, a few games, Tua, a few games, lock, a few games, baker, a few games, Darnold, starter day 1, trubisky, a few games.  
 

who is drafting a qb to sit for a few years?  No one.  MVP Aaron rodgers is under contract til 2023.  He is playing the best ball of his career and certainly doesn’t have the look of have 1 more year left after this season. Their team looks to be the best in football. Not bad for a team that had their absolute last shot last season.

 

that said, I understand that why they drafted Love. I disagreed with it because I thought they should be going all in to win more Super Bowls with their current team.  If they win the SB AND used their 1st rd pick on a guy that will sit for a few year, more power to them.  I disagreed with their strategy and the thought of not going all in with a GOAT type QB was baffling to me.

 

go bills!

 

 

 

wow---look at you!

 

 

 

Yeah, I was wrong when I said that the Packers weren't a 1st round pick away from the SB.  They are actually better this year compared to last without a rookie 1st rounder in the Offense!  If Love is a bust in a few years from now....so what?  No negative impact at all this season.  Zero point zero.

 

Maybe as the last team to do it, the Packers felt it was ok to do it again.  The point was then and still is that the Packers did not suffer one bit by drafting Love instead of whoever you had in mind.  All that BS about "he has no weapons!!" turns out was just that...BS.  

 

After "wasting" their 1st round pick and not drafting a "weapon",  Rodgers has not declined----instead he's been shot out of a cannon, and is the NFL MVP, with the guys on the roster. Without that new weapon..........they became the #1 scoring Offense in the league!

 

Maybe the Packers FO knew more than you about what they had and still felt they were "all in", after the draft.  Turns out, without question, they were right.

 

 

 

 

[NewEra]

9 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

wow---look at you!

 

 

 

Yeah, I was wrong when I said that the Packers weren't a 1st round pick away from the SB.  They are actually better this year compared to last without a rookie 1st rounder in the Offense!  If Love is a bust in a few years from now....so what?  No negative impact at all this season.  Zero point zero.

 

Maybe as the last team to do it, the Packers felt it was ok to do it again.  The point was then and still is that the Packers did not suffer one bit by drafting Love instead of whoever you had in mind.  All that BS about "he has no weapons!!" turns out was just that...BS.  

 

After "wasting" their 1st round pick and not drafting a "weapon",  Rodgers has not declined----instead he's been shot out of a cannon, and is the NFL MVP, with the guys on the roster. Without that new weapon..........they became the #1 scoring Offense in the league!

 

Maybe the Packers FO knew more than you about what they had and still felt they were "all in", after the draft.  Turns out, without question, they were right.

 

 

 

 

I’m just having fun with it....but I don’t understand how you can say they didn’t suffer one bit by taking trading up for love over another position that may have played full time?

How can you say that their team wouldn’t be better if they had Patrick Queen?  Or Antoine Winfield jr, jeremy chinn or Julian Blackmon?  It makes zero sense.  Each of those players made their defenses better.....without them, they wouldn’t be as good as they this year.....hence suffering if they didn’t have them.  Sorry WEO, but this take is just off.  

 

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, NewEra said:

I’m just having fun with it....but I don’t understand how you can say they didn’t suffer one bit by taking trading up for love over another position that may have played full time?

How can you say that their team wouldn’t be better if they had Patrick Queen?  Or Antoine Winfield jr, jeremy chinn or Julian Blackmon?  It makes zero sense.  Each of those players made their defenses better.....without them, they wouldn’t be as good as they this year.....hence suffering if they didn’t have them.  Sorry WEO, but this take is just off.  

 

 

Because of their result this year.  And better then...what?  The Packers D went from 18th to 9th.  

 

I'm looking at their actual results, not imaginary results.   Queen was then only 1st rounder picked after Love in your list.  The other guys came in later rounds (45th, 64th and 84th picks--if you want to make the argument that the Packers should have taken AWJr or Blackmon as their 2nd pick, ok) so they wouldn't be part of a Love/no Love discussion.  So what do you imagine the Packers would be right now with a rookie like Queen?  14-2 and headed to the NFCC game?  15-1? 16-0 and headed to the NFCC game?  Queen walked onto a top 3 D in points allowed and turned them into....a top 3 D in points allowed (while surrounded by a stud roster).

 

I guess we can imagine anything.  But the results are what they are.  The evidence doesn't support your contention that the Packers are worse off for not picking a guy like Queen.

[NewEra]

31 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Because of their result this year.  And better then...what?  The Packers D went from 18th to 9th.  

 

I'm looking at their actual results, not imaginary results.   Queen was then only 1st rounder picked after Love in your list.  The other guys came in later rounds (45th, 64th and 84th picks--if you want to make the argument that the Packers should have taken AWJr or Blackmon as their 2nd pick, ok) so they wouldn't be part of a Love/no Love discussion.  So what do you imagine the Packers would be right now with a rookie like Queen?  14-2 and headed to the NFCC game?  15-1? 16-0 and headed to the NFCC game?  Queen walked onto a top 3 D in points allowed and turned them into....a top 3 D in points allowed (while surrounded by a stud roster).

 

I guess we can imagine anything.  But the results are what they are.  The evidence doesn't support your contention that the Packers are worse off for not picking a guy like Queen.

Better than they are this season.  Would we be worse if we didn’t have Gabriel Davis and Tyler Bass?  Would the Vikings we worse without Justin Jefferson?  Would Washington be just as good if they didn’t have Chase young!  I know you’re a smart guy.  You can’t be THIS oblivious to the fact that adding an additional 1st rd talent could make them a better team THIS year.  
 

it’s all about THIS year.  This has nothing to do with last season.  Swapping Queen for Love WOULD make this years Packers team better than it is this year, hence giving them a better chance to win a super bowl this year.  The packers would be a better team THIS season if they had Brandon Aiyuk instead of Jordan Love.  I’m not sure how can say that adding a 1st rd talent wouldn’t make them a better team.   
 

it doesn’t matter what I imagine they to be.  They would be better.  No one can put a number on how much better they’d be.  But they would be better.  They would help.  Not sure how this is so hard to grasp. Love added zero to this team.  A 1st rd pick could have

Edited January 18, 2021 by NewEra

[Mr. WEO]

35 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Better than they are this season.  Would we be worse if we didn’t have Gabriel Davis and Tyler Bass?  Would the Vikings we worse without Justin Jefferson?  Would Washington be just as good if they didn’t have Chase young!  I know you’re a smart guy.  You can’t be THIS oblivious to the fact that adding an additional 1st rd talent could make them a better team THIS year.  
 

it’s all about THIS year.  This has nothing to do with last season.  Swapping Queen for Love WOULD make this years Packers team better than it is this year, hence giving them a better chance to win a super bowl this year.  The packers would be a better team THIS season if they had Brandon Aiyuk instead of Jordan Love.  I’m not sure how can say that adding a 1st rd talent wouldn’t make them a better team.   
 

it doesn’t matter what I imagine they to be.  They would be better.  No one can put a number on how much better they’d be.  But they would be better.  They would help.  Not sure how this is so hard to grasp. Love added zero to this team.  A 1st rd pick could have

 

You see changing the topic by dropping names of guys not taken in the 1st round after Love.  Aiyuk was already gone.  M V-S was more productive with an insane 21 YPC to go with his 6 TDs.  Aiyuk got most of his targets when Kittles went out.  Still took nearly 100 targets to get under 750 yards.   

 

Also, you seem to discount the fact that many 1st rounders have little impact their rookie years (if at all).  Did the Giants or Jets get much better after their picks?  Jax?  Raiders?  Titans?  Falcons?  

 

Did the Packers get better this year vs. 2019?  yes, they did.  that's all we know.  the rest is speculation.

 

 

[NewEra]

35 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

You see changing the topic by dropping names of guys not taken in the 1st round after Love.  Aiyuk was already gone.  M V-S was more productive with an insane 21 YPC to go with his 6 TDs.  Aiyuk got most of his targets when Kittles went out.  Still took nearly 100 targets to get under 750 yards.   

 

Also, you seem to discount the fact that many 1st rounders have little impact their rookie years (if at all).  Did the Giants or Jets get much better after their picks?  Jax?  Raiders?  Titans?  Falcons?  

 

Did the Packers get better this year vs. 2019?  yes, they did.  that's all we know.  the rest is speculation.

 

 

Sure thing, whatever you say my man.  Adding 1st rd talent players usually makes the team at least just a little bit better than they would be without them.   Most would agree.  You don’t.  I get it. 
 

I listed several players selected after Love. I could sit here and rattle off 20 more players secured after him but it won’t change anything.  The point is, adding 1st rd talents usually make the team at least just a little bit better.  Jordan love didn’t make the team better at all.  He’s not even 2nd string yet. 
 

And packers traded up for Love too,  trading away another draft pick that could’ve hell the team win a super bowl this year. 
 

Anyway. You were wrong about the packers.  Continue to think in your strange and methodical ways.  

[Mr. WEO]

10 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Sure thing, whatever you say my man.  Adding 1st rd talent players usually makes the team at least just a little bit better than they would be without them.   Most would agree.  You don’t.  I get it. 
 

I listed several players selected after Love. I could sit here and rattle off 20 more players secured after him but it won’t change anything.  The point is, adding 1st rd talents usually make the team at least just a little bit better.  Jordan love didn’t make the team better at all.  He’s not even 2nd string yet. 
 

And packers traded up for Love too,  trading away another draft pick that could’ve hell the team win a super bowl this year. 
 

Anyway. You were wrong about the packers.  Continue to think in your strange and methodical ways.  

lol I’m hardly alone thinking there’s a legit method to the Packers’ madness. Google it.

 

True, listing more 2nd and 3rd rounders won’t help your argument..I can’t disagree there lol.

 

ive listed several teams that didn’t improve with 1st round picks this year. Happens every year.  News to you....

[FireChans]

27 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Sure thing, whatever you say my man.  Adding 1st rd talent players usually makes the team at least just a little bit better than they would be without them.   Most would agree.  You don’t.  I get it. 
 

I listed several players selected after Love. I could sit here and rattle off 20 more players secured after him but it won’t change anything.  The point is, adding 1st rd talents usually make the team at least just a little bit better.  Jordan love didn’t make the team better at all.  He’s not even 2nd string yet. 
 

And packers traded up for Love too,  trading away another draft pick that could’ve hell the team win a super bowl this year. 
 

Anyway. You were wrong about the packers.  Continue to think in your strange and methodical ways.  

Again bro, no one has ever argued the Packers took Love to help win a Super Bowl this year.

 

You won’t win this argument until Love proves he’s a bust.

5 hours ago, NewEra said:

aaron Rodgers is a very good game manager and clearly on the decline 👍🏻 Clearly.  2019 wasn’t 2014, but 2020-21 sure looks like it

 

the packers were comparable to the Jacksonville AFCCG team.

We are seeing right now.  13 wins and better than last season.

For last year being their absolute best shot, they sure are faking this year pretty well 

 
when is the last time a team drafted a QB to let him sit and learn for 3+ years?  2005.  It’s not how anyone does it anymore.  Literally no one does it. Mahomes sat one year.  Allen was supposed to sit one year.  Watson, a couple games, herbert, a couple games, burrow, started week 1, Lamar, 1/2 season, RW, a few games, Tua, a few games, lock, a few games, baker, a few games, Darnold, starter day 1, trubisky, a few games.  
 

who is drafting a qb to sit for a few years?  No one.  MVP Aaron rodgers is under contract til 2023.  He is playing the best ball of his career and certainly doesn’t have the look of have 1 more year left after this season. Their team looks to be the best in football. Not bad for a team that had their absolute last shot last season.

 

that said, I understand that why they drafted Love. I disagreed with it because I thought they should be going all in to win more Super Bowls with their current team.  If they win the SB AND used their 1st rd pick on a guy that will sit for a few year, more power to them.  I disagreed with their strategy and the thought of not going all in with a GOAT type QB was baffling to me.

 

go bills!

 

 

The Pats drafted Jimmy G and he sat for four years.

[NewEra]

13 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

lol I’m hardly alone thinking there’s a legit method to the Packers’ madness. Google it.

 

True, listing more 2nd and 3rd rounders won’t help your argument..I can’t disagree there lol.

 

ive listed several teams that didn’t improve with 1st round picks this year. Happens every year.  News to you....

And I can list several teams where it did help.  The one thing we know for sure..... love didn’t help at all.  We know this we can talk about it.  A first rd talent MAY have helped.  Even if it were just a 30% chance that another player would make this years team more formidable, it’s better than what Jordan love did for this team.  There is a chance.  There is no chance that love can bring them closer to a super bowl this year.

 

that has been the point of this last exchange.  You said that they didn’t suffer one bit by taking Love.  You can’t say that without not knowing who that player may have been and how they may have helped.  You don’t know if the player they would’ve taken turned out to be a huge contributor.  That is what we’ve been talking about.....please don’t try and do the WEO swerve 

7 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Again bro, no one has ever argued the Packers took Love to help win a Super Bowl this year.

 

You won’t win this argument until Love proves he’s a bust.

The Pats drafted Jimmy G and he sat for four years.

I realize that.  That’s not what I’m talking about.  Thanks though

 

No, I win this argument if the packers don’t win the super bowl this year or another with Rodgers in general.  If you don’t understand, then you still don’t understand my premise.  I’m not surprised.

 

you were both already wrong.  That’s a fact

[FireChans]

3 minutes ago, NewEra said:

And I can list several teams where it did help.  The one thing we know for sure..... love didn’t help at all.  We know this we can talk about it.  A first rd talent MAY have helped.  Even if it were just a 30% chance that another player would make this years team more formidable, it’s better than what Jordan love did for this team.  There is a chance.  There is no chance that love can bring them closer to a super bowl this year.

 

that has been the point of this last exchange.  You said that they didn’t suffer one bit by taking Love.  You can’t say that without not knowing who that player may have been and how they may have helped.  You don’t know if the player they would’ve taken turned out to be a huge contributor.  That is what we’ve been talking about.....please don’t try and do the WEO swerve 

I realize that.  That’s not what I’m talking about.  Thanks though

 

No, I win this argument if the packers don’t win the super bowl this year or another with Rodgers in general.  If you don’t understand, then you still don’t understand my premise.  I’m not surprised.

 

you were both already wrong.  That’s a fact

So the Pats would’ve been wrong drafting Jimmy G if they didn’t win the Super Bowl that year?

[NewEra]

50 minutes ago, FireChans said:

So the Pats would’ve been wrong drafting Jimmy G if they didn’t win the Super Bowl that year?

I’ve been talking about the packers giving themselves the best chance to win the super bowl this year.  That’s all I’m talking about.  That’s all I’ve been talking about.  You can’t discuss whatever you like.  I won’t be discussing this.  Chilling with my wife, making some dinner, watching some tv 

56 minutes ago, FireChans said:

So the Pats would’ve been wrong drafting Jimmy G if they didn’t win the Super Bowl that year?

You were talking about how aaron Rodgers is a good game manager. You were talking about the abounding evidence proving that a Rodgers isn’t the same player and how others were thinking it was 2014 

[GunnerBill]

Tee Higgins has been a good pick for Cincy. He had 908 yards (good for 3rd among rookies) and 6 touchdowns. So he is about a 250 yard improvement on Valdes-Scantling. Different type of receiver, I get it but I am sure he'd have done well in Green Bay. I liked Higgins more than most coming out folks will recall - more than Aiyuk, Reagor and Jefferson who all went ahead of him - oh well 2/3 ain't bad.

 

But I don't know that I value that additional yardage as so critical to an increased Superbowl chance that you should willing to pass on a guy who you think (as the Packers front office obviously does) can be a potential franchise QB when your guy is 36. It equates to 15 yards a game... basically one play. Now I know some NFL games come down to a single play and MVS's catch % is not great so it could in theory be a single play he fails to make. But to me a much bigger risk is passing on the guy you think has a chance to be the heir apparent. The Quarterback position is just that darn important. If you don't have one you are nowhere. 

[FireChans]

46 minutes ago, NewEra said:

I’ve been talking about the packers giving themselves the best chance to win the super bowl this year.  That’s all I’m talking about.  That’s all I’ve been talking about.  You can’t discuss whatever you like.  I won’t be discussing this.  Chilling with my wife, making some dinner, watching some tv 

You were talking about how aaron Rodgers is a good game manager. You were talking about the abounding evidence proving that a Rodgers isn’t the same player and how others were thinking it was 2014 

The Packers were not going all in on winning a ring this year. 
 

And there’s no guarantee that whoever they would have picked besides Love would have helped.

 

And you’re cheating by using hindsight, where at the time Love was picked, Rodgers could have easily gotten hurt and missed a stretch and guess who would have been helpful then?

Edited January 19, 2021 by FireChans

[NewEra]

18 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

Tee Higgins has been a good pick for Cincy. He had 908 yards (good for 3rd among rookies) and 6 touchdowns. So he is about a 250 yard improvement on Valdes-Scantling. Different type of receiver, I get it but I am sure he'd have done well in Green Bay. I liked Higgins more than most coming out folks will recall - more than Aiyuk, Reagor and Jefferson who all went ahead of him - oh well 2/3 ain't bad.

 

But I don't know that I value that additional yardage as so critical to an increased Superbowl chance that you should willing to pass on a guy who you think (as the Packers front office obviously does) can be a potential franchise QB when your guy is 36. It equates to 15 yards a game... basically one play. Now I know some NFL games come down to a single play and MVS's catch % is not great so it could in theory be a single play he fails to make. But to me a much bigger risk is passing on the guy you think has a chance to be the heir apparent. The Quarterback position is just that darn important. If you don't have one you are nowhere. 

 

I understand your stance.  
 

my stance is they should’ve used resources to help them win a super bowl this year.

 

they said that they couldn’t win a super bowl this year, so it would be a waste

1 minute ago, FireChans said:

The Packers were not going all in on winning a ring this year. 
 

And there’s no guarantee that whoever they would have picked besides Love would have helped.

 

And you’re cheating by using hindsight, where at the time Love was picked, Rodgers could have easily gotten hurt and missed a stretch and guess who would have been helpful then?

Obviously.  
 
thanks again.

[Doc]

28 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

Tee Higgins has been a good pick for Cincy. He had 908 yards (good for 3rd among rookies) and 6 touchdowns. So he is about a 250 yard improvement on Valdes-Scantling. Different type of receiver, I get it but I am sure he'd have done well in Green Bay. I liked Higgins more than most coming out folks will recall - more than Aiyuk, Reagor and Jefferson who all went ahead of him - oh well 2/3 ain't bad.

 

But I don't know that I value that additional yardage as so critical to an increased Superbowl chance that you should willing to pass on a guy who you think (as the Packers front office obviously does) can be a potential franchise QB when your guy is 36. It equates to 15 yards a game... basically one play. Now I know some NFL games come down to a single play and MVS's catch % is not great so it could in theory be a single play he fails to make. But to me a much bigger risk is passing on the guy you think has a chance to be the heir apparent. The Quarterback position is just that darn important. If you don't have one you are nowhere. 

 

Rodgers was the one clamoring for more WR help.  But his team got decimated by the 49'ers' run game in the NFCCG and as it turned out, Rodgers' receiving corps has been fine this year.  I think a pick used on defense would have been wiser.

 

Now if the Packers don't win the SB, and we'll know that is a few weeks, drafting Love was a mistake.  If Love doesn't prove to be a good QB and/or Rodgers keeps playing well and keeps Love on the bench a la Brady and Jimmy G and Love is traded or leaves, it will have been a wasted pick.  All we know right now is that Jordan Love will not help the Packers this season.  If they do win the SB, then the pick wasn't needed to help the team this year.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Doc

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, NewEra said:

 

I understand your stance.  
 

my stance is they should’ve used resources to help them win a super bowl this year.

 

 

They might win a Superbowl regardless.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Rodgers was the one clamoring for more WR help.  But his team got decimated by the 49'ers' run game in the NFCCG and as it turned out, Rodgers' receiving corps has been fine this year.  I think a pick used defense would have been wiser.

 

Now if the Packers don't win the SB, and we'll know that is a few weeks, drafting Love was a mistake.  If Love doesn't prove to be a good QB and/or Rodgers keeps playing well and keeps Love on the bench a la Brady and Jimmy G and Love is traded or leaves, it will have been a wasted pick.  All we know right now is that Jordan Love will not help the Packers this season.

 

While if it fails it can be classed as mistake it is a mistake you should always make because the alternative mistake is a thousand times worse. Strategically, taking a guy you think can be a franchise QB is never the wrong decision. Even if the talent evaluation is off.

 

Rather than focussing on the Love pick people in my mind should be analysing the number of picks they have blown in recent years on the secondary trying to fix that unit. Could they not have got Rodgers his offensive weaponry with those picks? 

 

[NewEra]

13 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

They might win a Superbowl regardless.

They might.  
 
If they don’t, you don’t think that’s there’s any chance that the two picks they used on Love could’ve helped them win a title this year?  
 

If we win the super bowl, Gabe Davis and Tyler bass would have played big roles on a championship team.  Take Davis off of this team.....do we beat the colts?  Can’t be proven, but he made HUGE plays that led to our scores.  Take away one score and we lose. Season over. Bass made his FGs.  The colts rookie missed. If we didn’t have bass we could’ve lost that game. Season over.  
 

The packers traded used two picks in Love.  2 players that could’ve made big plays en route to a title. 
 

that’s all.  Either you get it, or you don’t.  Nothing else to discuss, other than others saying that the packers were finished and wouldn’t win this year  

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, NewEra said:

They might.  
 
If they don’t, you don’t think that’s there’s any chance that the two picks they used on Love could’ve helped them win a title this year?  
 

If we win the super bowl, Gabe Davis and Tyler bass would have played big roles on a championship team.  Take Davis off of this team.....do we beat the colts?  Can’t be proven, but he made HUGE plays that led to our scores.  Take away one score and we lose. Season over. Bass made his FGs.  The colts rookie missed. If we didn’t have bass we could’ve lost that game. Season over.  
 

The packers traded used two picks in Love.  2 players that could’ve made big plays en route to a title. 
 

that’s all.  Either you get it, or you don’t.  Nothing else to discuss, other than others saying that the packers were finished and wouldn’t win this year  

 

There is a chance. Yes. I don't think it is a very high chance bases on the comparative production rates. But some games come down to one play and there is a chance they end up losing to Tampa or in the Superbowl to one play that MVS or Alan Lazard don't make that Higgins could have done. I just think the chance of becoming irrelevant quickly if you don't have a QB in the building to be the heir to the thrown is greater. In fact it is 99%. We have seen it this year in our division. Kings to paupers. And that is with the best defensive mind in the history of football coaching them.

 

You play the percentages and ask which of these strategic decisions is more likely to hurt me.

[NewEra]

13 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

There is a chance. Yes. I don't think it is a very high chance bases on the comparative production rates. But some games come down to one play and there is a chance they end up losing to Tampa or in the Superbowl to one play that MVS or Alan Lazard don't make that Higgins could have done. I just think the chance of becoming irrelevant quickly if you don't have a QB in the building to be the heir to the thrown is greater. In fact it is 99%. We have seen it this year in our division. Kings to paupers. And that is with the best defensive mind in the history of football coaching them.

 

You play the percentages and ask which of these strategic decisions is more likely to hurt me.

 

I hear y.  I understand why you feel the way you do.  I just don’t agree with it when you have a 37 year old Aaron Rodgers who is still playing at an incredibly high level.  A GOAT, with less Super Bowls with Eli Manning. Equal to Trent dilfer in the ring category.  They FO is 💯 responsible for him only having 1 title.  I would make it my mission to win more with him because I thought he was still an elite QB and clearly not a very good game manager. 
 

I’d rather try and win super bowl with my GOAT level QB as opposed to drafting his replacement. I know you see my point. You just disagree with it.  And that’s ok

[Doc]

39 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

While if it fails it can be classed as mistake it is a mistake you should always make because the alternative mistake is a thousand times worse. Strategically, taking a guy you think can be a franchise QB is never the wrong decision. Even if the talent evaluation is off.

 

Rather than focussing on the Love pick people in my mind should be analysing the number of picks they have blown in recent years on the secondary trying to fix that unit. Could they not have got Rodgers his offensive weaponry with those picks?

 

What is the alternative mistake?  Not taking a QB when you already have a HOFer who took the team to the NFCCG the year before and who can play many more years?  Love is more likely to bust than boom given his draft position and the fact that the odds of the Packers replacing one HOFer with another were low, much less doing it 3 times in a row.

 

If they fail to win the SB, it's a huge mistake because they could have used that 1st rounder on a difference-maker.  Like a defender to prevent getting run-on again in the NFCCG.

 

[Mr. WEO]

12 hours ago, NewEra said:

And I can list several teams where it did help.  The one thing we know for sure..... love didn’t help at all.  We know this we can talk about it.  A first rd talent MAY have helped.  Even if it were just a 30% chance that another player would make this years team more formidable, it’s better than what Jordan love did for this team.  There is a chance.  There is no chance that love can bring them closer to a super bowl this year.

 

that has been the point of this last exchange.  You said that they didn’t suffer one bit by taking Love.  You can’t say that without not knowing who that player may have been and how they may have helped.  You don’t know if the player they would’ve taken turned out to be a huge contributor.  That is what we’ve been talking about.....please don’t try and do the WEO swerve 

I realize that.  That’s not what I’m talking about.  Thanks though

 

No, I win this argument if the packers don’t win the super bowl this year or another with Rodgers in general.  If you don’t understand, then you still don’t understand my premise.  I’m not surprised.

 

you were both already wrong.  That’s a fact

 

 

I can't think of any team, let alone, the most potent Offense in the NFL going to a conf championship game, that got significantly better as a result of a 1st round rookie non QB.

 

Anyway, where does your logic terminate? If the Packers make it to the SB, do you still say they errored in picking Love?  If the win the SB, was it still a mistake?

Edited January 19, 2021 by Mr. WEO

[Mr. WEO]

9 hours ago, Doc said:

 

What is the alternative mistake?  Not taking a QB when you already have a HOFer who took the team to the NFCCG the year before and who can play many more years?  Love is more likely to bust than boom given his draft position and the fact that the odds of the Packers replacing one HOFer with another were low, much less doing it 3 times in a row.

 

If they fail to win the SB, it's a huge mistake because they could have used that 1st rounder on a difference-maker.  Like a defender to prevent getting run-on again in the NFCCG.

 

 

 

like who?

[HappyDays]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

I can't think of any team, let alone, the most potent Offense in the NFL going to a conf championship game, that got significantly better as a result of a 1st round rookie non QB.

 

You don't think Davis and Bass are responsible for us going to the AFC Championship? If you take either out of the Colts game there's a decent chance we wouldn't have made it past the wildcard round. Playoff games often come down to a couple plays. If the Packers end losing one of the 2 remaining games by one score it's definitely possible the Love pick cost them a Super Bowl. Also Rodgers doesn't look anywhere close to retirement. He's playing the best football of his career at age 37.

 

Not only did they draft Love, they drafted Dillon in the 2nd round when they already have Aaron Jones. Just about any other draft picks would have helped the Packers more this year. If Rodgers was on the cusp of retirement I would get it.

[HappyDays]

On 4/28/2020 at 1:59 PM, HappyDays said:

 

When you have one of the greatest QBs to play the game on your roster you should be doing everything possible to win a Super Bowl while he's still in his prime. Not planning for his retirement. It's far more likely they win a Super Bowl with Rodgers in the next 3 years than they are to ever win a Super Bowl with Love on the team. They wasted a 1st round pick on a player that doesn't help them in their Super Bowl window. Plus the rest of their draft was god awful.

 

Yeah I'm gonna stick with the take I had back in April. It's going to be at least 3-4 years before Love even thinks about seeing the field. Their Super Bowl window is going to close. I feel bad for Rodgers. Wasted 10 years of his career with Mike McCarthy and then the team doesn't do everything they can to help him win another Super Bowl before it's too late.

[Bermuda Triangle]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

I can't think of any team, let alone, the most potent Offense in the NFL going to a conf championship game, that got significantly better as a result of a 1st round rookie non QB.

 

Anyway, where does your logic terminate? If the Packers make it to the SB, do you still say they errored in picking Love?  If the win the SB, was it still a mistake?

Edwards-Helaire, despite missing 3 games, was far & away the Chiefs leading rusher.  I'd say the he made the Chiefs "significantly better"

[GunnerBill]

11 hours ago, Doc said:

 

What is the alternative mistake?  Not taking a QB when you already have a HOFer who took the team to the NFCCG the year before and who can play many more years?  Love is more likely to bust than boom given his draft position and the fact that the odds of the Packers replacing one HOFer with another were low, much less doing it 3 times in a row.

 

If they fail to win the SB, it's a huge mistake because they could have used that 1st rounder on a difference-maker.  Like a defender to prevent getting run-on again in the NFCCG.

 

Why is the presumption that the only way to get a difference maker with that 1st round pick? Why couldn't they have signed a free agent? There is no more important use of a first round pick than a guy you think can be a franchise Quarterback. 

[Mr. WEO]

28 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

You don't think Davis and Bass are responsible for us going to the AFC Championship? If you take either out of the Colts game there's a decent chance we wouldn't have made it past the wildcard round. Playoff games often come down to a couple plays. If the Packers end losing one of the 2 remaining games by one score it's definitely possible the Love pick cost them a Super Bowl. Also Rodgers doesn't look anywhere close to retirement. He's playing the best football of his career at age 37.

 

Not only did they draft Love, they drafted Dillon in the 2nd round when they already have Aaron Jones. Just about any other draft picks would have helped the Packers more this year. If Rodgers was on the cusp of retirement I would get it.

 

 

Good picks, but no.  Bass is a solid replacement for Hauschka.  Davis a solid replacement for Brown (who they need to test the market with at this point).   Neither was enough to credit with being "responsible" for the AFCC game appearance.

 

The topic is who the Packers would have picked in the first instead of Love,  not downdraft picks they could have made regardless of who they picked in the first round.  So your claim that, if it comes down to losing by one score, then that means it's "definitely possible" the Packers should have selected some-other-1st-round-pick-you-may-be-thinking-of instead of Love....yeah, that's ridiculous.  

[NewEra]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

I can't think of any team, let alone, the most potent Offense in the NFL going to a conf championship game, that got significantly better as a result of a 1st round rookie non QB.

 

Anyway, where does your logic terminate? If the Packers make it to the SB, do you still say they errored in picking Love?  If the win the SB, was it still a mistake?

They errored if they don’t win a super bowl.  I’ve stated that.  

 

it’s not about a 1st rd non Qb making the team significantly better.  
 

That player (actually 2 players. They traded a 1st and a 4th rd pick to move up). could contribute to them winning games this year...like Gabe Davis and Tyler Bass helped us beat the colts. Without them, our season could be over right now.  Davis’ amazing catches let directly to points. Bass made clutch kicks, while the colts kicker missed. If we win the SB, one could say that we wouldn’t have won without Gabe Davis making those catches vs the colts.  Our season could’ve been over that game if not for his catches.  
 

Jordan Love contributed zero.  
 

My point has always been about the their FO mindset of building for the future instead of trying to win when the iron is hot.  They made the NCCCG.....the iron was hot, yet they drafted their GOATs replacement instead of drafting players that could potentially help them win another SB.  

 

My point has always been that AR having only 1 SB is a result of the FO failing him and the team.  Their philosophy has never wavered, I give them credit for sticking to what they do, but I also believe that they would have more championships if they veered from what is their norm from time to time.  Championships > everything 

 

Every packers fan I know....7 to be exact, agreed with me 💯.  They saw an opportunity to win another SB in 2021. I did too.  You were sure that they had no chance to make it back to the NCFCG.  

Thousands, probably more along the lines of millions of people agreed with me.

 

To your first point in quotes:  it’s not just about 1st round non QBs rookies making an impact on a championship caliber team.  It’s about rookies in general.  They gave up a 1 and a 4th.  
To be specific:

Do the Rams win the SB without Torrey Holts?  7-109-1.  Do they even make it to the SB without him?

Do the pats win the SB without Sony Michel, who had a record 6 TDs in 3 games. 94 yards and the games only Td.

Do the redskins win the super bowl without Timmy smith?  204-2

 

Do the Ravens win the super Bowl without a Jamal Lewis? 102-1.  

Do the eagles win the super bowl without Corey Clement? 4-100-1

 

Yes, Rookies can have a direct impact on a team winning a super bowl.

[Mr. WEO]

33 minutes ago, Bermuda Triangle said:

Edwards-Helaire, despite missing 3 games, was far & away the Chiefs leading rusher.  I'd say the he made the Chiefs "significantly better"

 

They are the SB champs and are back in the AFCC game, despite not having E-H.  They are a team that hardly runs (23rd), and are mediocre at that (26th in yards).  E-H had a nice season, but in 7 of his 13 games, he had under 50 yards rushing.  That's not a "significantly better" team.

[NewEra]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

They are the SB champs and are back in the AFCC game, despite not having E-H.  They are a team that hardly runs (23rd), and are mediocre at that (26th in yards).  E-H had a nice season, but in 7 of his 13 games, he had under 50 yards rushing.  That's not a "significantly better" team.

You keep using the term “significantly better”.......when that player doesn’t have to make them significantly better.  They just have to make them better.  They have to contribute to the team winning games.  Winning games in the playoffs.  Winning a super bowl.  Jordan love does none of the above for them in 2020, 2021 and likely 2022.....3 years in which the packers have great chance to win the SB.  Or is their window already closed like you have stated?