Rookie Camp

[YoHoChecko]

havn't gotten to the draft recap yet, first 17 minutes is devoted to Rodgers and Love, Ben Fennell touches on key aspect of our situation, one thing that Stands out is with Atlanta and there 37 yr old Ryan, top 3 pick in the draft, a couple very good QB prospects sitting there, instead of drafting Ryans replacement, Atlanta selects possibly the highest offensive impact player in the whole class.

That is, indeed, quite the contrast. I thought that was absolutely foolish by them. The next 3-4 years, we'll watch Atlanta and see how it goes. If they don't make it to an NFCCG, let alone win a Super Bowl, then their alternative approach has done no better than our own.

The same comparison can be made of the Saints, who went all in and never drafted a QB and pushed money back in Brees' contracts to ensure they kept him until he wanted to stop... they did not get back to the Super Bowl with Brees, and they did not make it as far as the NFCCG against us the past couple years.

You are correct in identifying alternative models of team building, but when doing so, you also need to compare the outcomes. So far, I haven't seen a team that drafted a QB push all-in to finish off that QB's career and have it work successfully.

Manning left the Colts. Brady left the Pats. Brees retired a Saint (wasn't drafted but his whole high-end career was there) without getting back to the Super Bowl. Favre left the Packers. Montana left the 49ers.

Elway is the only time I've seen this work, I think.

[Labrev]

Also, Matt Ryan is a bad QB so he can't be replaced too soon anyway. Don't forget that part!

[go pak go]

Also didn't get the whole thing they were saying about Favre went 4-12 with the Rodgers pick.

The Rodgers pick was made after the Packers were like 3rd in the NFL for offense and won the NFC North.

The difference is Favre and the Packers sucked after Rodgers was picked whereas Rodgers won league MVP. You could make the argument that the front office DID successfully do its job because they still had a team that was setup for Rodgers's success even when selecting his successor.

Like I don't understand why the front office should be punished for having a good product in 2020 with the Love pick.

[Yoop]

It's why I kept complaining about our draft picks. We have guards and guards only on the Packers.

Definitely need to draft a tackle next year.

I guess for me it's less who they picked and more that the best OT option of the group is still starting at OG. Like I would feel totally fine with both Newman and Jon Runyan Jr being groomed to be RTs, but the fact that they AREN'T doing that is what limits the depth; not who they are as players

IMO old rules still apply, best 5 always play, so in order to do that players have to train at different positions, I remember when people freaked out with the musical chairs stuff when we had injury's years ago, why have the #5 player sit on the bench because he's never worked out at another position, typically most players stay at one position after a off season or two, but till then they practice at multiple positions, normal.

[Yoop]

havn't gotten to the draft recap yet, first 17 minutes is devoted to Rodgers and Love, Ben Fennell touches on key aspect of our situation, one thing that Stands out is with Atlanta and there 37 yr old Ryan, top 3 pick in the draft, a couple very good QB prospects sitting there, instead of drafting Ryans replacement, Atlanta selects possibly the highest offensive impact player in the whole class.

That is, indeed, quite the contrast. I thought that was absolutely foolish by them. The next 3-4 years, we'll watch Atlanta and see how it goes. If they don't make it to an NFCCG, let alone win a Super Bowl, then their alternative approach has done no better than our own.

The same comparison can be made of the Saints, who went all in and never drafted a QB and pushed money back in Brees' contracts to ensure they kept him until he wanted to stop... they did not get back to the Super Bowl with Brees, and they did not make it as far as the NFCCG against us the past couple years.

You are correct in identifying alternative models of team building, but when doing so, you also need to compare the outcomes. So far, I haven't seen a team that drafted a QB push all-in to finish off that QB's career and have it work successfully.

Manning left the Colts. Brady left the Pats. Brees retired a Saint (wasn't drafted but his whole high-end career was there) without getting back to the Super Bowl. Favre left the Packers. Montana left the 49ers.

Elway is the only time I've seen this work, I think.

ehhh I'am sure it's worked with others over the years, and Ryan isn't washed up, why take a QB when your starter still has 3 or 4 years of starting ability left? as Fennell said it's not fair to either player, I doubt Ted ever thought Favre would play for us for 3 more years, Rodgers was aintsy sitting on the bench,and it appears right now thats not the plan for Rodgers to be here that long either, I agree with Fennel, Love wont be happy sitting that long either, and if it comes to a choice between the two then trade Love and keep the HOF QB.

[go pak go]

havn't gotten to the draft recap yet, first 17 minutes is devoted to Rodgers and Love, Ben Fennell touches on key aspect of our situation, one thing that Stands out is with Atlanta and there 37 yr old Ryan, top 3 pick in the draft, a couple very good QB prospects sitting there, instead of drafting Ryans replacement, Atlanta selects possibly the highest offensive impact player in the whole class.

That is, indeed, quite the contrast. I thought that was absolutely foolish by them. The next 3-4 years, we'll watch Atlanta and see how it goes. If they don't make it to an NFCCG, let alone win a Super Bowl, then their alternative approach has done no better than our own.

The same comparison can be made of the Saints, who went all in and never drafted a QB and pushed money back in Brees' contracts to ensure they kept him until he wanted to stop... they did not get back to the Super Bowl with Brees, and they did not make it as far as the NFCCG against us the past couple years.

You are correct in identifying alternative models of team building, but when doing so, you also need to compare the outcomes. So far, I haven't seen a team that drafted a QB push all-in to finish off that QB's career and have it work successfully.

Manning left the Colts. Brady left the Pats. Brees retired a Saint (wasn't drafted but his whole high-end career was there) without getting back to the Super Bowl. Favre left the Packers. Montana left the 49ers.

Elway is the only time I've seen this work, I think.

ehhh I'am sure it's worked with others over the years,

Checkmate Yoho.

[Drj820]

Arthur Blank has found his niche as an owner of a winning soccer club, I have no interest in following his lead for managing an nfl team. The Falcons are a clown show.

[NCF]

That is, indeed, quite the contrast. I thought that was absolutely foolish by them. The next 3-4 years, we'll watch Atlanta and see how it goes. If they don't make it to an NFCCG, let alone win a Super Bowl, then their alternative approach has done no better than our own.

The same comparison can be made of the Saints, who went all in and never drafted a QB and pushed money back in Brees' contracts to ensure they kept him until he wanted to stop... they did not get back to the Super Bowl with Brees, and they did not make it as far as the NFCCG against us the past couple years.

You are correct in identifying alternative models of team building, but when doing so, you also need to compare the outcomes. So far, I haven't seen a team that drafted a QB push all-in to finish off that QB's career and have it work successfully.

Manning left the Colts. Brady left the Pats. Brees retired a Saint (wasn't drafted but his whole high-end career was there) without getting back to the Super Bowl. Favre left the Packers. Montana left the 49ers.

Elway is the only time I've seen this work, I think.

ehhh I'am sure it's worked with others over the years,

Checkmate Yoho.

Kind of the Broncos version of Peyton Manning, but that was also similar to Joe Flacco and Eli winning Super Bowls.

[YoHoChecko]

Kind of the Broncos version of Peyton Manning, but that was also similar to Joe Flacco and Eli winning Super Bowls.

I mean sure, but that was also a situation where they built a team first and then got the QB. You can't compare the Brady Bucs or the Manning Broncos to the teams on the other side of the coin, attempting to retain their star, rather than being the ones acquiring the star at the end.

If you DO want to make that comparison, look at what the those guys signed for. The Broncos brought in Manning for $17.5M/year when Drew Brees and Phillip Rivers had already pushed the top of the QB market well over $20M/year.

Brady signed with the Bucs for $25 M/year when the QB market is up around $30M/year.

If you want to build yourself a really nice team without the QB in place and then try to convince an aging Hall of Fame QB to take less money to make a championship run with you, go for it. But as the team who developed the HoF QB and has been paying top-of-market value for him with both the 3rd, 4th, and 5th career contracts, those options are not available to you.

If Rodgers wants to take a 20% pay cut while guaranteeing he's with the Packers for the next 4 years at that reduced price, I bet the negotiations would go a little more smoothly and our window would open a little more widely.

[go pak go]

ehhh I'am sure it's worked with others over the years,

Checkmate Yoho.

Kind of the Broncos version of Peyton Manning, but that was also similar to Joe Flacco and Eli winning Super Bowls.

No I don't call that the same. The Broncos had the team and then brought in Manning. The Peyton situation would be like the Favre to Vikings or Rodgers to wherever he goes situation.

The situation YoHo is talking about is when the franchise QB was with his team, the team went "all in" and actually accomplished what they wanted to accomplish.

Elway is really the only example out there that I can think of.

[YoHoChecko]

Elway is really the only example out there that I can think of.

Also, they did it by improving the defense and running game.

So, like, if a team drafted heavy on OL, went all out to get a low quality defense up to mediocre and then up to top 10, and pounded the ball with a running attack that teams couldn't stop. That's what it looks like to "get help" for your HoF QB. You make it so that the whole kit-n-kaboodle doesn't rely only on him.

[Drj820]

It’s hard to win a super bowl. Teams can do what they’ve been doing and get booted in the playoffs, or they can say “we may never have a qb this good again, let’s really go for it while we can. Deal with the future later”

Most fan bases appreciate the teams effort to try.

[YoHoChecko]

It’s hard to win a super bowl. Teams can do what they’ve been doing and get booted in the playoffs, or they can say “we may never have a qb this good again, let’s really go for it while we can. Deal with the future later”

Most fan bases appreciate the teams effort to try.

Total bs. Teams appreciate when it works. Had we spent our way into cap hell (which we almost have, actually) to "go all in" and still failed, fans would be just as upset that we failed. If we were kicking the can down the road and failing, fans would complain about that no less than if we seem to be going a more developmental, slow-and-steady rate toward our failure.

This is a team that did not have a winning record in 2017 or 2018 that hired a new GM in that period to turn that around, a new coach afterward, and immediately finished "ahead of schedule" with a 13-3 NFCCG appearance in '19 and repeated that performance, looking like a more impressive team in 2020. This is a team that brought in tons of free agents in that time period and extended their own Pro Bowlers. This is a team that has acquired one Pro Bowl player per year under the new GM (3 in 3 years) and retained the same number of them (3 contract extensions for Pro Bowlers in 3 years). We ARE going all in. When you go all in and fail, people complain that you aren't all-in enough. It's Super Bowl or bust for those fans. They'll complain no matter which way you try to frame it.

Anyway, I'm excited about this rookie class and their interviews were all pretty great and I wish that our OL had a really legit RT of the future on it.

[Drj820]

It’s hard to win a super bowl. Teams can do what they’ve been doing and get booted in the playoffs, or they can say “we may never have a qb this good again, let’s really go for it while we can. Deal with the future later”

Most fan bases appreciate the teams effort to try.

Total bs. Teams appreciate when it works. Had we spent our way into cap hell (which we almost have, actually) to "go all in" and still failed, fans would be just as upset that we failed. If we were kicking the can down the road and failing, fans would complain about that no less than if we seem to be going a more developmental, slow-and-steady rate toward our failure.

This is a team that did not have a winning record in 2017 or 2018 that hired a new GM in that period to turn that around, a new coach afterward, and immediately finished "ahead of schedule" with a 13-3 NFCCG appearance in '19 and repeated that performance, looking like a more impressive team in 2020. This is a team that brought in tons of free agents in that time period and extended their own Pro Bowlers. This is a team that has acquired one Pro Bowl player per year under the new GM (3 in 3 years) and retained the same number of them (3 contract extensions for Pro Bowlers in 3 years). We ARE going all in. When you go all in and fail, people complain that you aren't all-in enough. It's Super Bowl or bust for those fans. They'll complain no matter which way you try to frame it.

Anyway, I'm excited about this rookie class and their interviews were all pretty great and I wish that our OL had a really legit RT of the future on it.

I think everyone is pretty much pointing to the Saints and their failures when saying this style is a failure. There are other examples though of teams that had a great nucleus (like the packers) and actively tried to add sprinkles to the cake every offseason. The best example of this recently would be the Eagles who won a super bowl. Another example is the Chiefs who won a sb recently, and the Niners who went to a super bowl.

The difference between those well appreciated efforts and the current packers is we overpay for guys like lowry and overpay to bring King back and suddenly have no money to make ANY improvements from outside the building like the niners did today when they signed WR Marquise Lee.

There are ways to go crazy and mortgage the future, and ways to just show you are really trying. Not sure Rodgers thinks the org is even “really trying”.

[go pak go]

It’s hard to win a super bowl. Teams can do what they’ve been doing and get booted in the playoffs, or they can say “we may never have a qb this good again, let’s really go for it while we can. Deal with the future later”

Most fan bases appreciate the teams effort to try.

And the Packers did try and were effective in their efforts. They had the squad that could do it. They were the #1 seed in the playoffs.

The front office did its job in 2020 to build a team, roster, and coaching staff that was good enough to do it.

When you lose a game by one score and you have more than 5 plays that should have gone your way that would have reversed the game...it means you were good enough to win.

I guess that's my largest frustration is not isolating the high level approach of team building and the micro game operations and execution.

1. The Packers hardly ever gave up long completions in 2020. They gave up 3 in the playoff game and one of them was close to David Tyree NYG style SB catch.
2. MLF doesn't pound the rock when the Bucs clearly didn't have an answer for Dillon in the 2nd half.
3. Adams doesn't catch an easy Touchdown.
4. Rodgers throws the ball in the dirt on 3rd down with a potential lane to the EZ.
5. Rodgers makes a few bad reads and overthrows MVS.
6. Redmond can't catch a ball that a fan would catch during a "Johnsonville catch your sausage" event during a TV timeout.
7. The ref's inconsistency in calling the game leads to the Packers not getting a final chance.

The Packers didn't lose because of team building mistakes. All of our "weaknesses" were not why we lost against Tampa. The Packers actual micro game operations just failed in the Title game. It wasn't pinned on one player but you could probably pin 5 to 7 players/coaches who are most responsible. But those players are our stars and it wasn't like management didn't do its job of finding an adequate replacement in its stead (outside of maybe Redmond....but again any NFL player should be expected to catch that ball)

[Drj820]

It’s hard to win a super bowl. Teams can do what they’ve been doing and get booted in the playoffs, or they can say “we may never have a qb this good again, let’s really go for it while we can. Deal with the future later”

Most fan bases appreciate the teams effort to try.

And the Packers did try and were effective in their efforts. They had the squad that could do it. They were the #1 seed in the playoffs.

The front office did its job in 2020 to build a team, roster, and coaching staff that was good enough to do it.

When you lose a game by one score and you have more than 5 plays that should have gone your way that would have reversed the game...it means you were good enough to win.

I guess that's my largest frustration is not isolating the high level approach of team building and the micro game operations and execution.

1. The Packers hardly ever gave up long completions in 2020. They gave up 3 in the playoff game and one of them was close to David Tyree NYG style SB catch.
2. MLF doesn't pound the rock when the Bucs clearly didn't have an answer for Dillon in the 2nd half.
3. Adams doesn't catch an easy Touchdown.
4. Rodgers throws the ball in the dirt on 3rd down with a potential lane to the EZ.
5. Rodgers makes a few bad reads and overthrows MVS.
6. Redmond can't catch a ball that a fan would catch during a "Johnsonville catch your sausage" event during a TV timeout.
7. The ref's inconsistency in calling the game leads to the Packers not getting a final chance.

The Packers didn't lose because of team building mistakes. All of our "weaknesses" were not why we lost against Tampa. The Packers actual micro game operations just failed in the Title game. It wasn't pinned on one player but you could probably pin 5 to 7 players/coaches who are most responsible. But those players are our stars and it wasn't like management didn't do its job of finding an adequate replacement in its stead (outside of maybe Redmond....but again any NFL player should be expected to catch that ball)

Yeah I agree with you that we had the roster to do it, I was just pushing back on the idea that teams that have a HOF qb should continue to do what they have done for years as he enters the twilight of his career. I think it rarely resulting in a sb is NOT evidence it should never be tried, bc winning a super bowl is very hard and the method previously used was not winning the org many Super Bowls either.

[go pak go]

I think it rarely resulting in a sb is NOT evidence it should never be tried, bc winning a super bowl is very hard and the method previously used was not winning the org many Super Bowls either.

This is the best part of the quote and is strongest for both sides of the argument for "both sides"

At the end of the day, when you define success by SB's, which most like to do, you are going to be a loser unless your last name is Montana or Brady.

[Drj820]

I think it rarely resulting in a sb is NOT evidence it should never be tried, bc winning a super bowl is very hard and the method previously used was not winning the org many Super Bowls either.

This is the best part of the quote and is strongest for both sides of the argument for "both sides"

At the end of the day, when you define success by SB's, which most like to do, you are going to be a loser unless your last name is Montana or Brady.

Very true, and in addition to my last point...many people will point to mortgaging the future as the reason for the teams crash and burn after the HOF QB leaves, I would just suggest that is “almost” inevitable for a period of time after a hof qb leaves...whether you went “all in” or not in his final years.

[YoHoChecko]

I think everyone is pretty much pointing to the Saints and their failures when saying this style is a failure. There are other examples though of teams that had a great nucleus (like the packers) and actively tried to add sprinkles to the cake every offseason. The best example of this recently would be the Eagles who won a super bowl. Another example is the Chiefs who won a sb recently, and the Niners who went to a super bowl.

The difference between those well appreciated efforts and the current packers is we overpay for guys like lowry and overpay to bring King back and suddenly have no money to make ANY improvements from outside the building like the niners did today when they signed WR Marquise Lee.

There are ways to go crazy and mortgage the future, and ways to just show you are really trying. Not sure Rodgers thinks the org is even “really trying”.

I guess it just seems like a dumb comparison then. Because if you watched those teams closely, I bet they also overpaid for some players. I bet they also had some moves that failed.

The Packers ARE, clearly, trying to get better. I'm not sure what more they could do than bring in the Smiths and Amos and Turner, re-sign Jones, re-sign Bakh, draft Jaire, draft Jenkins.

The Packers are not in cap trouble because they have an undeserving middle class of contracts like Preston Smith and Dean Lowry; it's because we have no fewer than 6-8 elite-level players whose retention and services require top-10 positional contracts.

We have a top-3 QB contract, a top-3 LT contract, a top-10 EDGE contract, a top-10 RB contract, and probably literal top CB and WR contracts coming down the pike. We are STOCKED with talent at the most premium positions and it's expensive to maintain. And the fact that we're maintaining it is because we are GOING ALL IN to win with Rodgers in this window. That's just true. I don't care if you don't like some of our draft picks. This whole "we're content to not even try" narrative is patently absurd, demonstrably false, and insanely persistent for no rational reason.

[go pak go]

I think it rarely resulting in a sb is NOT evidence it should never be tried, bc winning a super bowl is very hard and the method previously used was not winning the org many Super Bowls either.

This is the best part of the quote and is strongest for both sides of the argument for "both sides"

At the end of the day, when you define success by SB's, which most like to do, you are going to be a loser unless your last name is Montana or Brady.

Very true, and in addition to my last point...many people will point to mortgaging the future as the reason for the teams crash and burn after the HOF QB leaves, I would just suggest that is “almost” inevitable for a period of time after a hof qb leaves...whether you went “all in” or not in his final years.

Yeah. After a while the Dallas Cowboys saying they went all in during 1996 to win with Aikman being the reason they can't put together a winner today looses its luster.

It is honestly almost an expectation that a team has a lull year or two after a major era transition. But where you see franchises get into trouble is having NO answer or plan after the HOF qb leaves and thus you have a directionless franchise that goes round and round of wasting draft picks, firing coaches, firing GMs, multiple QB picks in the top 5 twice in 6 years etc.

That is the mistake franchises make and I do see value in the Packers approach of saying "hey let's have a guy in place with 2 or more years of grooming so when he steps in we will at least know early if he is the guy or not and our franchise will at least have a direction immediately after this era is over"

I mean there is a lot of value in having at least the coaching staff know if the young QB has what it takes by having him on the team contrasting to when drafting a player you really have no idea until training camp at the earliest. I always think back to when Joe Philbin said they knew their backup QB in Rodgers was better than all the Pro Bowl QBs they coahed in Hawaii in January 2008.

Having a direction has value. Whether the direction is right is one thing, but you are at least 2 years ahead of schedule in knowing if it is right or wrong.