2022 WR's

[Drj820]

Our defense held Chicago to 10 points
Our defense held Tampa Bay to 12 points
Our defense held New England to 17 points

The Packers could very well have the same amount of wins no matter who is playing at quarterback in those games.

No. I don't see any difference that Rodgers has provided to the 2022 Packers in terms of getting an extra win. The games we won were not offensive production related.

With the talent on the Bills, you could say that our D “held” them to 27 too. That’s a really good squad there.

But irrelevant in my point that I think this team has the same amount of wins with Love as the QB.

Love isn't beating the Bills or any team that puts up more than 24 points.

We don’t win that bucs or pats game with Love imo

[Captain_Ben]

My statement was I think the Packers have about as many wins this season at this point with Love at Quarterback than they currently do.

That isn't a disrespectful statement at all. That is a truth statement.

That isn't a fact. It's your opinion. IMO the best argument that could be made in favor of Love winning as many games as Rodgers to this point would sound something like "well Love is more coachable than Rodgers and would play within the parameters of LaFleur's gameplan, thus boosting offensive productivity." I see 2 problems with this point. The first is that it assumes that we can rely on LaFleur to design and implement a winning strategy. Based on what we've seen from him in his tenure here, I don't trust him to be able to do that. The second is that we have already seen Love take his fare share of live snaps and underwhelm, against backups no less. It's not unreasonable to think that he'd be a dumpster fire against a (good) starting NFL defense.

You kind of brushed over your point about turnovers. We could have turned the ball over a lot more than we have. Yes, it definitely could have been worse. And I believe we could be winless were another QB playing for us. AR is better than anyone, maybe ever at protecting the football. He didn't just ditch that philosophy. You can still see it in his play. The only difference now is that he knows he must take calculated risks at certain points in the game because of the personnel that he has to work with. This is what I have observed from him this season.

Really, we're discussing something that is impossible to prove one way or the other. But I really wonder if when Josh Allen or Tom Brady were on the sidelines during our games against them, were they more inclined to think "Aaron sure is messing up a good thing" or "damn am I glad I don't have to deal with what he is right now" ?

I know what I think.

[Pckfn23]

Some of it of his own making...

[go pak go]

My statement was I think the Packers have about as many wins this season at this point with Love at Quarterback than they currently do.

That isn't a disrespectful statement at all. That is a truth statement.

That isn't a fact. It's your opinion. IMO the best argument that could be made in favor of Love winning as many games as Rodgers to this point would sound something like "well Love is more coachable than Rodgers and would play within the parameters of LaFleur's gameplan, thus boosting offensive productivity." I see 2 problems with this point. The first is that it assumes that we can rely on LaFleur to design and implement a winning strategy. Based on what we've seen from him in his tenure here, I don't trust him to be able to do that. The second is that we have already seen Love take his fare share of live snaps and underwhelm, against backups no less. It's not unreasonable to think that he'd be a dumpster fire against a (good) starting NFL defense.

You kind of brushed over your point about turnovers. We could have turned the ball over a lot more than we have. Yes, it definitely could have been worse. And I believe we could be winless were another QB playing for us. AR is better than anyone, maybe ever at protecting the football. He didn't just ditch that philosophy. You can still see it in his play. The only difference now is that he knows he must take calculated risks at certain points in the game because of the personnel that he has to work with. This is what I have observed from him this season.

Really, we're discussing something that is impossible to prove one way or the other. But I really wonder if when Josh Allen or Tom Brady were on the sidelines during our games against them, were they more inclined to think "Aaron sure is messing up a good thing" or "damn am I glad I don't have to deal with what he is right now" ?

I know what I think.

The conversation or point isn't about Aaron Rodgers or if another player would do better. It's not about disrespect of Aaron Rodgers and our backup could do better. That's for another time and for other threads.

The conversation is about the incredibly low bar the offense has set and simply handing the ball off to Jones and Dillon every play gets this team 2 - 3 wins on its own based on the defense holding the opponent to 10 points, 12 points and 17 points in 3 games.

[Yoop]

My statement was I think the Packers have about as many wins this season at this point with Love at Quarterback than they currently do.

That isn't a disrespectful statement at all. That is a truth statement.

That isn't a fact. It's your opinion. IMO the best argument that could be made in favor of Love winning as many games as Rodgers to this point would sound something like "well Love is more coachable than Rodgers and would play within the parameters of LaFleur's gameplan, thus boosting offensive productivity." I see 2 problems with this point. The first is that it assumes that we can rely on LaFleur to design and implement a winning strategy. Based on what we've seen from him in his tenure here, I don't trust him to be able to do that. The second is that we have already seen Love take his fare share of live snaps and underwhelm, against backups no less. It's not unreasonable to think that he'd be a dumpster fire against a (good) starting NFL defense.

You kind of brushed over your point about turnovers. We could have turned the ball over a lot more than we have. Yes, it definitely could have been worse. And I believe we could be winless were another QB playing for us. AR is better than anyone, maybe ever at protecting the football. He didn't just ditch that philosophy. You can still see it in his play. The only difference now is that he knows he must take calculated risks at certain points in the game because of the personnel that he has to work with. This is what I have observed from him this season.

Really, we're discussing something that is impossible to prove one way or the other. But I really wonder if when Josh Allen or Tom Brady were on the sidelines during our games against them, were they more inclined to think "Aaron sure is messing up a good thing" or "damn am I glad I don't have to deal with what he is right now" ?

I know what I think.

The conversation or point isn't about Aaron Rodgers or if another player would do better. It's not about disrespect of Aaron Rodgers and our backup could do better. That's for another time and for other threads.

The conversation is about the incredibly low bar the offense has set and simply handing the ball off to Jones and Dillon every play gets this team 2 - 3 wins on its own based on the defense holding the opponent to 10 points, 12 points and 17 points in 3 games.

why people think the run would always sustain success is mind boggling, the Bills went to a prevent style defense in the 2nd half, if people can't accept it's easier to run against a lighter box, they will always think we can just run every down and do better, true we need to establish a running game, but if you can't pass in this league defenses will stack the box just as the Jets and Comanders did, and our RB's couldn't average 3 yrds a run.

and to think Love would have done as well as Rodgers has under the pressure he's often had to face brings me back to the PS games where Love showed he couldn't handle it.

Lets stick Gutekunst in at QB and see how he likes throwing to his second batch of 3 very raw receivers

another article explaining the insanity of Guty's decision making.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/packers-pa ... 37625.html

[Pckfn23]

That is just a clickbait know nothing keyboard jockey!

[Yoop]

That is just a clickbait know nothing keyboard jockey!

so what, do you dispute it, both Ted and now Guty have failed to bring in receivers more ready to play, since 2014, it's been a revolving door of very raw mid to late to UDFA receivers, who the heck does that to a HOF QB?

I new you and others here wouldn't like that article, cause it points out Guty to be a incompetent GM, always drafting with the future in mind has been the formula for mediocrity at one of the most important position that help a team not be, positions that score points are premium with most GM's, with us, it's become a after thought.

[go pak go]

That isn't a fact. It's your opinion. IMO the best argument that could be made in favor of Love winning as many games as Rodgers to this point would sound something like "well Love is more coachable than Rodgers and would play within the parameters of LaFleur's gameplan, thus boosting offensive productivity." I see 2 problems with this point. The first is that it assumes that we can rely on LaFleur to design and implement a winning strategy. Based on what we've seen from him in his tenure here, I don't trust him to be able to do that. The second is that we have already seen Love take his fare share of live snaps and underwhelm, against backups no less. It's not unreasonable to think that he'd be a dumpster fire against a (good) starting NFL defense.

You kind of brushed over your point about turnovers. We could have turned the ball over a lot more than we have. Yes, it definitely could have been worse. And I believe we could be winless were another QB playing for us. AR is better than anyone, maybe ever at protecting the football. He didn't just ditch that philosophy. You can still see it in his play. The only difference now is that he knows he must take calculated risks at certain points in the game because of the personnel that he has to work with. This is what I have observed from him this season.

Really, we're discussing something that is impossible to prove one way or the other. But I really wonder if when Josh Allen or Tom Brady were on the sidelines during our games against them, were they more inclined to think "Aaron sure is messing up a good thing" or "damn am I glad I don't have to deal with what he is right now" ?

I know what I think.

The conversation or point isn't about Aaron Rodgers or if another player would do better. It's not about disrespect of Aaron Rodgers and our backup could do better. That's for another time and for other threads.

The conversation is about the incredibly low bar the offense has set and simply handing the ball off to Jones and Dillon every play gets this team 2 - 3 wins on its own based on the defense holding the opponent to 10 points, 12 points and 17 points in 3 games.

why people think the run would always sustain success is mind boggling,

You don't need to when all you have to do is score more than 10 and 12 points.

Cripes. Even 17 points.

Like our 3 wins were not an offensive success. They required a sh*tty performance to win the game.

Even the Patriots with a rookie 3rd string quarterback who couldn't throw the ball under center was able to generate 14 points in 3 quarters of play. And all they did was run, run, run, run, and get those two open route concepts and boom....you scored twice.

[Pckfn23]

That is just a clickbait know nothing keyboard jockey!

so what, do you dispute it, both Ted and now Guty have failed to bring in receivers more ready to play, since 2014, it's been a revolving door of very raw mid to late to UDFA receivers, who the heck does that to a HOF QB?

I new you and others here wouldn't like that article, cause it points out Guty to be a incompetent GM, always drafting with the future in mind has been the formula for mediocrity at one of the most important position that help a team not be, positions that score points are premium with most GM's, with us, it's become a after thought.

No yoop, I was being sarcastic to highlight the &%$@ that every time someone posts a reference that goes against your blind narrative, you just claim they are a know nothing journalist. Maybe this is a lesson for you.

[Labrev]

I will say that if Love were starting, my expectation would be for us to be 4-4 right now, considering what we have gone up against. 3-5 would be slightly disappointing to me, but not alarming as it is with Rodgers playing.

I don't think he beats MIN, much less BUF. CHI is a toss-up to me. I think he beats Tampa seeing as we beat them with 0 offense after our initial score, so he'd just have to manage one more scoring drive to seal it. Belichick probably beats the young QB by throwing confusing defenses at him. NYG, NYJ, and WAS were all games where pedestrian QB play was enough to win. So yeah, my expectation would be 4-4.

As it is, we should be 6-2 right now. 5-3 at worst. We had -no business- dropping games to NYJ or WAS. NYG has been respectable this year, but that game was ours if we didn't get sloppy.

[Captain_Ben]

My statement was I think the Packers have about as many wins this season at this point with Love at Quarterback than they currently do.

That isn't a disrespectful statement at all. That is a truth statement.

That isn't a fact. It's your opinion. IMO the best argument that could be made in favor of Love winning as many games as Rodgers to this point would sound something like "well Love is more coachable than Rodgers and would play within the parameters of LaFleur's gameplan, thus boosting offensive productivity." I see 2 problems with this point. The first is that it assumes that we can rely on LaFleur to design and implement a winning strategy. Based on what we've seen from him in his tenure here, I don't trust him to be able to do that. The second is that we have already seen Love take his fare share of live snaps and underwhelm, against backups no less. It's not unreasonable to think that he'd be a dumpster fire against a (good) starting NFL defense.

You kind of brushed over your point about turnovers. We could have turned the ball over a lot more than we have. Yes, it definitely could have been worse. And I believe we could be winless were another QB playing for us. AR is better than anyone, maybe ever at protecting the football. He didn't just ditch that philosophy. You can still see it in his play. The only difference now is that he knows he must take calculated risks at certain points in the game because of the personnel that he has to work with. This is what I have observed from him this season.

Really, we're discussing something that is impossible to prove one way or the other. But I really wonder if when Josh Allen or Tom Brady were on the sidelines during our games against them, were they more inclined to think "Aaron sure is messing up a good thing" or "damn am I glad I don't have to deal with what he is right now" ?

I know what I think.

The conversation or point isn't about Aaron Rodgers or if another player would do better. It's not about disrespect of Aaron Rodgers and our backup could do better. That's for another time and for other threads.

The conversation is about the incredibly low bar the offense has set and simply handing the ball off to Jones and Dillon every play gets this team 2 - 3 wins on its own based on the defense holding the opponent to 10 points, 12 points and 17 points in 3 games.

Ok well the conversation was about that. If you're saying it's now evolved into something new, then alright, I can adapt. I agree that a stronger commitment to the run very well may have produced those 2-3 wins that you speak of. That only works if the QB has an arm that the defense respects to any degree. I think defenses could just put 9 in the box all day against Love and not miss a beat. The run never works the same when the QB doesn't pose a downfield threat. Like I said, football doesn't happen in a vacuum.

[Pckfn23]

Just FYI, we have had 6 WR starters through 8 games. All of last year, we had 6. All of 2020 we had 5. All of 2019 we had 5. All of 2018 we had 5. All of 2017 we had 4. All of 2016 we had 5. Point being, injuries are taking a toll on an already thin position. Rodgers also spoke to this yesterday.

[go pak go]

That isn't a fact. It's your opinion. IMO the best argument that could be made in favor of Love winning as many games as Rodgers to this point would sound something like "well Love is more coachable than Rodgers and would play within the parameters of LaFleur's gameplan, thus boosting offensive productivity." I see 2 problems with this point. The first is that it assumes that we can rely on LaFleur to design and implement a winning strategy. Based on what we've seen from him in his tenure here, I don't trust him to be able to do that. The second is that we have already seen Love take his fare share of live snaps and underwhelm, against backups no less. It's not unreasonable to think that he'd be a dumpster fire against a (good) starting NFL defense.

You kind of brushed over your point about turnovers. We could have turned the ball over a lot more than we have. Yes, it definitely could have been worse. And I believe we could be winless were another QB playing for us. AR is better than anyone, maybe ever at protecting the football. He didn't just ditch that philosophy. You can still see it in his play. The only difference now is that he knows he must take calculated risks at certain points in the game because of the personnel that he has to work with. This is what I have observed from him this season.

Really, we're discussing something that is impossible to prove one way or the other. But I really wonder if when Josh Allen or Tom Brady were on the sidelines during our games against them, were they more inclined to think "Aaron sure is messing up a good thing" or "damn am I glad I don't have to deal with what he is right now" ?

I know what I think.

The conversation or point isn't about Aaron Rodgers or if another player would do better. It's not about disrespect of Aaron Rodgers and our backup could do better. That's for another time and for other threads.

The conversation is about the incredibly low bar the offense has set and simply handing the ball off to Jones and Dillon every play gets this team 2 - 3 wins on its own based on the defense holding the opponent to 10 points, 12 points and 17 points in 3 games.

Ok well the conversation was about that. If you're saying it's now evolved into something new, then alright, I can adapt. I agree that a stronger commitment to the run very well may have produced those 2-3 wins that you speak of. That only works if the QB has an arm that the defense respects to any degree. I think defenses could just put 9 in the box all day against Love and not miss a beat. The run never works the same when the QB doesn't pose a downfield threat. Like I said, football doesn't happen in a vacuum.

I still fail to see what would change.

The Packers offense has been playing full boxes all season. We have been playing against single high press, stop the run, and press man all season. No defense is respecting our aerial attack.

[Yoop]

That is just a clickbait know nothing keyboard jockey!

so what, do you dispute it, both Ted and now Guty have failed to bring in receivers more ready to play, since 2014, it's been a revolving door of very raw mid to late to UDFA receivers, who the heck does that to a HOF QB?

I new you and others here wouldn't like that article, cause it points out Guty to be a incompetent GM, always drafting with the future in mind has been the formula for mediocrity at one of the most important position that help a team not be, positions that score points are premium with most GM's, with us, it's become a after thought.

No yoop, I was being sarcastic to highlight the &%$@ that every time someone posts a reference that goes against your blind narrative, you just claim they are a know nothing journalist. Maybe this is a lesson for you.

touche, but the point is accurate, Guty has avoided picking one of the better receivers in every draft class since becoming the GM, it's like a concerted effort to even do so, yet every draft comes with denial and excuses defending him, finally now some of you are starting to agree, yet I hear NO claims of anyone kid napping his Dog or cat, WTH is going on

[Scott4Pack]

Our defense held Chicago to 10 points
Our defense held Tampa Bay to 12 points
Our defense held New England to 17 points

The Packers could very well have the same amount of wins no matter who is playing at quarterback in those games.

No. I don't see any difference that Rodgers has provided to the 2022 Packers in terms of getting an extra win. The games we won were not offensive production related.

With the talent on the Bills, you could say that our D “held” them to 27 too. That’s a really good squad there.

But irrelevant in my point that I think this team has the same amount of wins with Love as the QB.

Love isn't beating the Bills or any team that puts up more than 24 points.

Same could’ve been said about a backup QB we had a few years ago, named Flynn. But when he was ready, he held his own. He wasn’t an elite QB at all. But he could manage an offense to more than 20 points easy.

I think Love will surprise some people once he gets his chance.

[LombardiTime]

I will say that if Love were starting, my expectation would be for us to be 4-4 right now

No way to know for certain whether if Love were the starting quarterback this season whether the Pack would have 4 wins, 5 wins, 8 wins, or 0 wins.

However, we do know that if Love was starting the team's salary cap position would be much more favorable now and in the near future.

We can also safely assume the team would have had far greater draft capital to pursue a re-build if it had moved on from Rodgers.

That the Packers are not in a position to start Love is due to the decision of Packers' management this past offseason to re-sign Rodgers to an huge new contract. It is not due to Rodgers' decision to accept that contract.

[Labrev]

I will say that if Love were starting, my expectation would be for us to be 4-4 right now

No way to know for certain whether if Love were the starting quarterback this season whether the Pack would have 4 wins, 5 wins, 8 wins, or 0 wins.

To clarify, by "expectation" I mean that is what I would consider satisfactory under the circumstances, not "expectation" as in what I believe would happen. I agree, we cannot know with any confidence what our record would have looked like, the next paragraph was simply me explaining why 4-4 would be satisfactory to me.

[Yoop]

I will say that if Love were starting, my expectation would be for us to be 4-4 right now

No way to know for certain whether if Love were the starting quarterback this season whether the Pack would have 4 wins, 5 wins, 8 wins, or 0 wins.

However, we do know that if Love was starting the team's salary cap position would be much more favorable now and in the near future.

We can also safely assume the team would have had far greater draft capital to pursue a re-build if it had moved on from Rodgers.

That the Packers are not in a position to start Love is due to the decision of Packers' management this past offseason to re-sign Rodgers to an huge new contract. It is not due to Rodgers' decision to accept that contract.

was it more money, or just kicking the money forward? seems like the later to me.

Love's issues have been mental, pressure increases the jitters for a QB, I'd have to agree with some others, Love at the wheel and we might be winless, DC's know that Rodgers struggles stem from poor pass pro and receivers, we've run well because our run blocking has been better then our pass blocking, and because defenses still respect who Rodgers has been so they have to play coverage, our best runs happen with a 7 man front, put Love in and the run yards would be harder.

[Captain_Ben]

I will say that if Love were starting, my expectation would be for us to be 4-4 right now

No way to know for certain whether if Love were the starting quarterback this season whether the Pack would have 4 wins, 5 wins, 8 wins, or 0 wins.

However, we do know that if Love was starting the team's salary cap position would be much more favorable now and in the near future.

We can also safely assume the team would have had far greater draft capital to pursue a re-build if it had moved on from Rodgers.

That the Packers are not in a position to start Love is due to the decision of Packers' management this past offseason to re-sign Rodgers to an huge new contract. It is not due to Rodgers' decision to accept that contract.

Good post.

[APB]

Now that the trade deadline has passed, how do we feel about a guy like Will Fuller? He’s the deep threat GB is missing with Watson out most weeks and he’s been rumored to be a person of interest for the Pack in the past. Might be a nice consolation prize without sacrificing any future picks.

If I’m being honest, at this point I think I’d rather have Fuller on the roster than Watkins. Watkins has proven to be what he’s been throughout his entire career - an injury prone under-achiever. Just as soon move on.