Rookie Camp

[Pckfn23]

I didn't like spending slot 12 on a position we had just fixed

I don't think you are as football-dense as this comment makes you seem...but I'm going to try and lay it out for you in the off chance that you could be illuminated

A 3-4 defense needs (4) OLBs to function and the ideal split is about 650 snaps for your starters and 350 for your 2nd team guys. And that only covers the OLB slots, you need more snaps because Z and Gary will play 3-tech in the pressure package, boosting the snaps for the non-Z, non-Gary OLBs. So when you say the position "was fixed" by adding the Smith Bros - you are demonstrably incorrect.Nobody can play 1000 snaps at OLB and there weren't others on the roster capable of filling that role

The other beauty of adding Gary is that you now have the perfect tutor for him in Z and Preston- helping Gary to become a productive vet even sooner
Another benefit of drafting Gary is that he might allow GB to move on from one of the Smiths...when their next deal comes due.

So what you see as a mistake is actually some top notch GM planning. Drafting Gary means:
The Packers can give the Smith's fewer snaps, making them more effective
The rookie accelerates his learning curve with veteran tutors
The rookie can learn both OLB and 3-tech techniques from Z
The rookie is under less pressure to produce immediately and has time to master the fundamentals
The staggering of the vet FA contracts with a cheaper understudy allows for cap flexibility

So you are completely off base in denigrating the Packers front office for making that pick - and your unhappiness is directly tied to being wrong about that decision to draft Gary. YOU painted a flawed picture and then ripped Gute for it - If YOU had a better understanding of long- term succession planning for an NFL roster - you'd be lauding the GM for pulling it off since it helps the Packers now and in the future.
.

Add to that that both Smith's had potential, but had not shown that they could be a primary pass rusher for a full season. There were glimpses. It was still a bit of a question mark.

[Pckfn23]

Jeffery Simmons:
1154 snaps
5 Sacks
10 Hurries
7 TFLs
42 Solo Tackles

Rashan Gary:
700 snaps
7 Sacks
10 Hurries
8 TFLs
32 Solo Tackles

[BSA]

spare me your condescending BS BSA

My pleasure

[YoHoChecko]

good point and I'am pretty convinced Gary will be very good, but so is Simmons, and the thing is both may be so expensive we wouldn't be able to resign either one, so I'll take the player that is ready to play and I have a position that I can start him and get instant production, if ya have to wait till some time in his 3rd season, you basically lost his cheap years.

To be fair, Simmons was also not "ready to play right away" as he was known to likely miss half of his first season if not the entire thing. However, to the Titans' good fortune, he was able to play at the end of his rookie year and looked immediately good. And look, I liked Simmons a lot and hadn't cared much for Rashaan Gary (though I expected Gary to go before 12, honestly; you just don't get that freakish athleticism often; figured he'd go to the Raiders who went with Clelin Ferrel--the most ready to play but lowest upside of the pass rushing group that year.

And I also understand the nature of the "cheap years" and they're very beneficial but they're cheap for that very reason. Young players very rarely produce bigtime returns in the first couple of years. Enough do that we notice them; and it's great when you get one. But even Jaire split his CB snaps about equally with Josh Jackson year behind the starters. When you get two developmental years on a player's rookie contract, that's fine. You still have at least one-two years on the cheap (the variance being that you could extend after year 3) for a now productive, starting player.

People get too worked up about utilizing rookie deals. You need rookie deals to balance out the top-end players and fill a roster. You don't need your rookie deals to be superstars. It's GREAT when they are. We just got a superstar 3rd year out of Jaire on a cheap deal. We just got a superstar 2nd year out of Elgton Jenkins on a cheap deal. We'll want more of those. But that is more like a bonus than a realistic expectation. Having 2 WRs, even, on cheap rookie deals has been a blessing, even if we'd rather have a better #2.

But just because a guy is a first round pick doesn't mean you're entitled to 4 star-quality years on the cheap. The likelihood that early draft picks played like stars was, in fact, so low that the league changed it's economic model to account for it. It leads in many cases to young stars outplaying their contracts. But it leads in most cases to teams not having their cap blown up by a couple bad picks.

[Yoop]

good point and I'am pretty convinced Gary will be very good, but so is Simmons, and the thing is both may be so expensive we wouldn't be able to resign either one, so I'll take the player that is ready to play and I have a position that I can start him and get instant production, if ya have to wait till some time in his 3rd season, you basically lost his cheap years.

To be fair, Simmons was also not "ready to play right away" as he was known to likely miss half of his first season if not the entire thing. However, to the Titans' good fortune, he was able to play at the end of his rookie year and looked immediately good. And look, I liked Simmons a lot and hadn't cared much for Rashaan Gary (though I expected Gary to go before 12, honestly; you just don't get that freakish athleticism often; figured he'd go to the Raiders who went with Clelin Ferrel--the most ready to play but lowest upside of the pass rushing group that year.

And I also understand the nature of the "cheap years" and they're very beneficial but they're cheap for that very reason. Young players very rarely produce bigtime returns in the first couple of years. Enough do that we notice them; and it's great when you get one. But even Jaire split his CB snaps about equally with Josh Jackson year behind the starters. When you get two developmental years on a player's rookie contract, that's fine. You still have at least one-two years on the cheap (the variance being that you could extend after year 3) for a now productive, starting player.

People get too worked up about utilizing rookie deals. You need rookie deals to balance out the top-end players and fill a roster. You don't need your rookie deals to be superstars. It's GREAT when they are. We just got a superstar 3rd year out of Jaire on a cheap deal. We just got a superstar 2nd year out of Elgton Jenkins on a cheap deal. We'll want more of those. But that is more like a bonus than a realistic expectation. Having 2 WRs, even, on cheap rookie deals has been a blessing, even if we'd rather have a better #2.

But just because a guy is a first round pick doesn't mean you're entitled to 4 star-quality years on the cheap. The likelihood that early draft picks played like stars was, in fact, so low that the league changed it's economic model to account for it. It leads in many cases to young stars outplaying their contracts. But it leads in most cases to teams not having their cap blown up by a couple bad picks.

ok, and DL is a tough position for a rookie to start I agree, but at that time IDL would have helped us more then a OLB, specially one that never really excelled at it in college, in fact the other OLB from Mi. had better rushing stats if I remember it correctly.

and top 20 (top tier) players start regularly year one and play well just like Alexander or Savage, or Mathews, I could go on and on, in this age of escallating contract demands from successful first contract players how can a team afford to wait on them to progress? I can see it at QB, but not so much with any other position, obviously it will take most players a couple seasons to realize there ceiling, but that doesn't mean they get to be a backup till then, player turnover happens fast these days with big contracts, high drafted players have to be starter ready faster then 3 seasons.

[YoHoChecko]

Yeah, for sure--ideally you do get some of those day one starters.

I think the crux of this, though, and others' qualms with the team is back to my old adage of you can't measure success as a comparison to perfection; by that measure, every team sucks except the pre-Brady-departure Patriots or any given dynasty of a given time.

You have to measure success against peers.

By that I just mean that every team, ours included, can trot out a long, laundry list of picks and players that didn't work out. That's how it works. MOST players don't make it. Those are just the numbers.

But when you compare the Packers
a) to themselves 2 years ago, or
b) to other NFL teams' success over any period of time

...you can't help but notice that we're better now than we were before and have greater and more sustained success than almost any other team in the league. Greater because reaching 4 NFCCGs in 7 years is farther than all but 5 teams (the 5 who have won Super Bowls in that stretch). And more sustained because over most windows of time you can select, the Packers will have the 2nd or 3rd most wins in the league, both playoff success and regular season success.

We're doing great. We want to do better. We hope to do better. But the list of individual things that have gone wrong doesn't indicate that THAT is what is holding us back. It's just part of the league. Focus more on what gets added to the team and less on what it is lacking and it is difficult not to conclude that we are adding a ton of talent and improving.

As I've cited elsewhere, in 3 years of running the team, Gutey has acquired 3 Pro Bowl players (Jaire, Z, and Jenkins) and has extended 3 existing Pro Bowl players (Bakhtiari, Aaron Jones, and Aaron Rodgers)

If in year 4, either Gary or Savage or someone else makes their first Pro Bowl and if Adams gets extended as we all hope and expect absent this Rodgers stuff, we'll make it to 4 acquired and 4 retained in 4 years.

This is a stunning amount of top-level talent acquired and retained in a short period of time. Any GM who is on balance averaging 2 Pro Bowl players per year is doing a great job. Not to mention that hiring MLF--unpopular and mocked for hiring anyone who has had lunch with McVay--was clearly a great move by the organization.

I'm not saying don't ever complain; or to ignore our weak points. I'm just asking some here if they could shift their focus a little and understand the magnitude of what is being built and accomplished here, rather than remain preoccupied by the things that have not yet been corrected, we might all feel like there's a little more common ground and a little more reason to be happy with our team. And given what's going on with our QB, I think we all want some reasons to feel good about our fandom.

[Waldo]

Seriously, people are complaining about Gary? For real?

Last year when the DL needed a play, more often than not it was Gary making it.

I forget who keeps the pressures stat, but if I recall correctly Gary has been one of the top players in the NFL in pressures per snap the last couple years.

He quite clearly is better than Preston, who has regressed back to being the player he was when he was a free agent (one of the reasons Was didn't keep him...).

If GB didn't have Gary, OLB would have been a pretty high need going into this draft given Preston's regression.

[YoHoChecko]

I will say, though, that DUE to our success, we ARE going to need more-immediate contributors from our rookies maybe this year and next. So it's valid to keep an eye on that.

But the problem is NOT that we have too few impact rookies thus far, or that we don't have enough talent.

Just the opposite. The problem is that we have more elite players than we can keep happy right now.

Linsley had to walk
Rodgers wants... something
Z and Adams openly want third contracts and weren't able to get what they wanted in talks this offseason so far
Jaire and Tonyan will be needing second contracts sooner rather than later
Jenkins we can (and likely have to) put off for another 12-18 months

so yeah, if we want to pay our stars (and we can't pay them all), we need Meyers to be a quickly-capable replacement for Linsley. We need Stokes to fairly quickly earn a starting role opposite Jaire. We need Shemar Jean-Charles to fairly quickly beat out Chandon Sullivan inside. We need Amari Rodgers to fill an immediate gadget/slot/return role, and we need TJ Slayton to help the run D. And we need it more quickly. But still, if it takes a year before they really come around, we're prepared for those downsides with some depth or just "the guys who got us to 13-3 last year" which isn't the worst fallback plan.

But we also could see more from Barnes and Martin in years 2. From AJ Dillon and Deguara in years 2. From Gary and Savage in years 3. But yeah, we need it to happen. Because we can't afford a middle class of player. The Lowry and Preston Smith and Ricky Wagner and Christian Kirksey contracts aren't going to come the next couple of years, where solid vets get middle-tier salaries to stick around or patch a need. We're going to be the rich contracts and the rookie contracts, and not much in between. And we better be a lot more careful about our dead money than we've been under Gutey thus far. It's all going to count.

It's a problem, for sure; but it's a problem borne of success, not of failure.

[Yoop]

Yeah, for sure--ideally you do get some of those day one starters.

I think the crux of this, though, and others' qualms with the team is back to my old adage of you can't measure success as a comparison to perfection; by that measure, every team sucks except the pre-Brady-departure Patriots or any given dynasty of a given time.

You have to measure success against peers.

By that I just mean that every team, ours included, can trot out a long, laundry list of picks and players that didn't work out. That's how it works. MOST players don't make it. Those are just the numbers.

But when you compare the Packers
a) to themselves 2 years ago, or
b) to other NFL teams' success over any period of time

...you can't help but notice that we're better now than we were before and have greater and more sustained success than almost any other team in the league. Greater because reaching 4 NFCCGs in 7 years is farther than all but 5 teams (the 5 who have won Super Bowls in that stretch). And more sustained because over most windows of time you can select, the Packers will have the 2nd or 3rd most wins in the league, both playoff success and regular season success.

We're doing great. We want to do better. We hope to do better. But the list of individual things that have gone wrong doesn't indicate that THAT is what is holding us back. It's just part of the league. Focus more on what gets added to the team and less on what it is lacking and it is difficult not to conclude that we are adding a ton of talent and improving.

As I've cited elsewhere, in 3 years of running the team, Gutey has acquired 3 Pro Bowl players (Jaire, Z, and Jenkins) and has extended 3 existing Pro Bowl players (Bakhtiari, Aaron Jones, and Aaron Rodgers)

If in year 4, either Gary or Savage or someone else makes their first Pro Bowl and if Adams gets extended as we all hope and expect absent this Rodgers stuff, we'll make it to 4 acquired and 4 retained in 4 years.

This is a stunning amount of top-level talent acquired and retained in a short period of time. Any GM who is on balance averaging 2 Pro Bowl players per year is doing a great job. Not to mention that hiring MLF--unpopular and mocked for hiring anyone who has had lunch with McVay--was clearly a great move by the organization.

I'm not saying don't ever complain; or to ignore our weak points. I'm just asking some here if they could shift their focus a little and understand the magnitude of what is being built and accomplished here, rather than remain preoccupied by the things that have not yet been corrected, we might all feel like there's a little more common ground and a little more reason to be happy with our team. And given what's going on with our QB, I think we all want some reasons to feel good about our fandom.

again I agree, just because I havn't agreed with every decision Brians made doesn't mean I disagreed with everything, I love not only some of his draft picks, but also that he doesn't rely solely on it to restock needy positions as he did when he brought in the Smiths and Amos, Turner, just because I wanted a impact player versus the clip board holder doesn't mean I don't appreciate the rest, I liked all the picks you did, heck I'am as excited about Savages future as anyone here, Gary to actually, even though I would have went in another direction, what can ya say about Jenkins, even though I had my eye on that tackle that went to Buffalo ( who I think struggled)

for sure I noticed we've traveled a long way in a short time since Guty took over, and it's not just him, Lafluer has made Packer football exciting again, and his schemes are designed to pro long the life of our QB, I guess my biggest angst is that Guty waited till his 4th draft to get a slot receiver, the position I consider paramount in a RO mis direction style scheme, I'll always take us back to the first 5 or so games last year till Ervins injury, we seemed unstoppable, finally now he takes one.

for people to just be content having the #1 offense in the league last year screams complacency to me, I don't even comprehend that thought, there is always room for improvement, to think that a guy like Amari Rodgers wouldn't have made our offense better last year would never cross my mind, thats so foolish, would he have delivered a SB trophy? who can say, but I for one would would have figured we had a better chance, but around here it seems I'am in a small minority, they like the clip board holder more

[go pak go]

We selected at pick 26.

After Pick 25, the following WRs were taken:

1. Tee Higgins - Tall (we have those)
2. Michael Pittman - huge (we have those)
3. Laviska Shenault - YoHo loved him. I didn't as much.
4. KJ Hamler - we already had Tyler Ervin small boy
5. Van Jefferson - boring, good route runner. Low ceiling
6. Denzel Mims - slid a round lower than expected for a reason.

The guys the Packers wanted. The guys we wanted on the forum in the 2020 draft were all gone by pick 25. The draft just didn't work in our favor. 3 WRs went off the board in 5 picks. Sometimes the draft just doesn't go your way.

The only pick I think that would have made sense for the Packers last year was Shenault. Obviously the Packers didn't think so. I am honestly more excited to have Amari Rodgers than I would have Shenault now anyways so in the end I am really happy.

[Drj820]

We selected at pick 26.

After Pick 25, the following WRs were taken:

1. Tee Higgins - Tall (we have those)
2. Michael Pittman - huge (we have those)
3. Laviska Shenault - YoHo loved him. I didn't as much.
4. KJ Hamler - we already had Tyler Ervin small boy
5. Van Jefferson - boring, good route runner. Low ceiling
6. Denzel Mims - slid a round lower than expected for a reason.

The guys the Packers wanted. The guys we wanted on the forum in the 2020 draft were all gone by pick 25. The draft just didn't work in our favor. 3 WRs went off the board in 5 picks. Sometimes the draft just doesn't go your way.

The only pick I think that would have made sense for the Packers last year was Shenault. Obviously the Packers didn't think so. I am honestly more excited to have Amari Rodgers than I would have Shenault now anyways so in the end I am really happy.

Tee Higgins and Michael Pittman are much better with a much higher ceiling than any tall WR that we have.

I understand the move to defend the Love pick is to say the WRs that were left, the team didn’t want...that is what they say at least.

I just think they were wrong. I would prefer the ceilings of Higgins or Pittman over the project Love.

I also don’t think we needed another WR until the NFCCG, but in that game I think Tee Higgins would have helped.

[go pak go]

We selected at pick 26.

After Pick 25, the following WRs were taken:

1. Tee Higgins - Tall (we have those)
2. Michael Pittman - huge (we have those)
3. Laviska Shenault - YoHo loved him. I didn't as much.
4. KJ Hamler - we already had Tyler Ervin small boy
5. Van Jefferson - boring, good route runner. Low ceiling
6. Denzel Mims - slid a round lower than expected for a reason.

The guys the Packers wanted. The guys we wanted on the forum in the 2020 draft were all gone by pick 25. The draft just didn't work in our favor. 3 WRs went off the board in 5 picks. Sometimes the draft just doesn't go your way.

The only pick I think that would have made sense for the Packers last year was Shenault. Obviously the Packers didn't think so. I am honestly more excited to have Amari Rodgers than I would have Shenault now anyways so in the end I am really happy.

Tee Higgins and Michael Pittman are much better with a much higher ceiling than any tall WR that we have.

I understand the move to defend the Love pick is to say the WRs that were left, the team didn’t want...that is what they say at least.

I just think they were wrong. I would prefer the ceilings of Higgins or Pittman over the project Love.

I also don’t think we needed another WR until the NFCCG, but in that game I think Tee Higgins would have helped.

That's the bold move Gutey made. Every Packer fan wanted literally any other player other than Rodgers too.

We will know in 2025 if it was the right call or not. Who knows at this point.

And I am not saying this to be a d*ck. Like we all wanted immediate impact. But we all wanted it after 2004 too where we thought we needed defense and yet now clearly Rodgers was the right pick. Even with the Favre resurgence from 2007 - 2009, Rodgers was still the right pick.

I guess I just don't have a problem with admitting it's too early to know.

[BF004]

Seriously, people are complaining about Gary? For real?

Last year when the DL needed a play, more often than not it was Gary making it.

I forget who keeps the pressures stat, but if I recall correctly Gary has been one of the top players in the NFL in pressures per snap the last couple years.

He quite clearly is better than Preston, who has regressed back to being the player he was when he was a free agent (one of the reasons Was didn't keep him...).

If GB didn't have Gary, OLB would have been a pretty high need going into this draft given Preston's regression.

Nope, just one person.

[lupedafiasco]

We selected at pick 26.

After Pick 25, the following WRs were taken:

1. Tee Higgins - Tall (we have those)
2. Michael Pittman - huge (we have those)
3. Laviska Shenault - YoHo loved him. I didn't as much.
4. KJ Hamler - we already had Tyler Ervin small boy
5. Van Jefferson - boring, good route runner. Low ceiling
6. Denzel Mims - slid a round lower than expected for a reason.

The guys the Packers wanted. The guys we wanted on the forum in the 2020 draft were all gone by pick 25. The draft just didn't work in our favor. 3 WRs went off the board in 5 picks. Sometimes the draft just doesn't go your way.

The only pick I think that would have made sense for the Packers last year was Shenault. Obviously the Packers didn't think so. I am honestly more excited to have Amari Rodgers than I would have Shenault now anyways so in the end I am really happy.

Tee Higgins and Michael Pittman are much better with a much higher ceiling than any tall WR that we have.

I understand the move to defend the Love pick is to say the WRs that were left, the team didn’t want...that is what they say at least.

I just think they were wrong. I would prefer the ceilings of Higgins or Pittman over the project Love.

I also don’t think we needed another WR until the NFCCG, but in that game I think Tee Higgins would have helped.

That's the bold move Gutey made. Every Packer fan wanted literally any other player other than Rodgers too.

We will know in 2025 if it was the right call or not. Who knows at this point.

And I am not saying this to be a d*ck. Like we all wanted immediate impact. But we all wanted it after 2004 too where we thought we needed defense and yet now clearly Rodgers was the right pick. Even with the Favre resurgence from 2007 - 2009, Rodgers was still the right pick.

I guess I just don't have a problem with admitting it's too early to know.

The Rodgers and Love comparisons never make any sense to me.

Favre was talking retirement. Rodgers was talking playing into his 40s. The 04 Packers shalacked in the wild card round on a really subpar season. The 20 Packers were 13-3 and stomped in the NFCC. Rodgers was potentially the best QB in the draft and at worst the 2nd best. Love was the 4th best. Rodgers fell. No trade up necessary. Love was targeted and traded for.

Just not the same outside of having a HOF QB as the current starter.

[go pak go]

The Rodgers and Love comparisons never make any sense to me.

Favre was talking retirement. Rodgers was talking playing into his 40s. The 04 Packers shalacked in the wild card round on a really subpar season. The 20 Packers were 13-3 and stomped in the NFCC. Rodgers was potentially the best QB in the draft and at worst the 2nd best. Love was the 4th best. Rodgers fell. No trade up necessary. Love was targeted and traded for.

Just not the same outside of having a HOF QB as the current starter.

Agreed. There is no comparison to be made outside of it's okay to let it play out.

My only real point is we didn't know if Rodgers was a good pick until really 2009 at the earliest. And even 2009 we had to suffer through Favre taking it to the Packers. Some Packers fans will say, "I knew as early as 2007 during the Dallas game" which is true. We saw the potential for sure but we are only able to say that now with the benefit of hindsight that he is a really good player AND we had to watch Favre come to MN in mid-August and beat us twice and be one play away from going to the SB. There was a LOT of tension on that decision for a long, long time.

The NFL didn't start "respecting" Rodgers as a legit top end QB until January 2011 when he had his coming out party in Atlanta. Even with Rodgers going to the Pro Bowl in 2009 (still 3rd string while Favre was backup) had Rodgers 2nd best to Favre at that point. It was nearly 6 years until the nation saw that Ted Thompson made a really good decision. It has then been over 13 years that we got to benefit from that decision.

I'm just not in the mood to make any judgements about this decision at this time because it's the wrong time to make a judgement on the decision.

[Drj820]

We selected at pick 26.

After Pick 25, the following WRs were taken:

1. Tee Higgins - Tall (we have those)
2. Michael Pittman - huge (we have those)
3. Laviska Shenault - YoHo loved him. I didn't as much.
4. KJ Hamler - we already had Tyler Ervin small boy
5. Van Jefferson - boring, good route runner. Low ceiling
6. Denzel Mims - slid a round lower than expected for a reason.

The guys the Packers wanted. The guys we wanted on the forum in the 2020 draft were all gone by pick 25. The draft just didn't work in our favor. 3 WRs went off the board in 5 picks. Sometimes the draft just doesn't go your way.

The only pick I think that would have made sense for the Packers last year was Shenault. Obviously the Packers didn't think so. I am honestly more excited to have Amari Rodgers than I would have Shenault now anyways so in the end I am really happy.

Tee Higgins and Michael Pittman are much better with a much higher ceiling than any tall WR that we have.

I understand the move to defend the Love pick is to say the WRs that were left, the team didn’t want...that is what they say at least.

I just think they were wrong. I would prefer the ceilings of Higgins or Pittman over the project Love.

I also don’t think we needed another WR until the NFCCG, but in that game I think Tee Higgins would have helped.

That's the bold move Gutey made. Every Packer fan wanted literally any other player other than Rodgers too.

We will know in 2025 if it was the right call or not. Who knows at this point.

And I am not saying this to be a d*ck. Like we all wanted immediate impact. But we all wanted it after 2004 too where we thought we needed defense and yet now clearly Rodgers was the right pick. Even with the Favre resurgence from 2007 - 2009, Rodgers was still the right pick.

I guess I just don't have a problem with admitting it's too early to know.

Few things, As lupe stated, it is popular to defend the Love pick with referencing the Favre-Rodgers situation. Lupe did a good job of explaining how they actually arent similar. I will just add that everybody in Packers org knew Rodgers was going to be ready to take over. Love obviously hasnt won over the same support. Also, we didnt have to wait until 2009 to know if Rodgers was a smart pick..we needed a QB and a QB loaded with talent fell in our lap in the draft. We needed a QB because our current QB was not saying he wanted to play until he was 40, but saying he wanted to retire. Selecting Aaron Rodgers was the correct/smart choice.

If Love works out a level that is a HOF qb, I will admit I am wrong like I have when i wrote off Tonyan. That aside...I dont think its too early to throw stones at the Love pick. I still think Patrick Queen will be an ILB that would be the best ILB we have had in a decade..and I think Tee Higgins or Michael Pittman could have helped the Packers go to the SB. We always talk about how we are constantly looking to upgrade other positions, like drafting Gary when we just signed the Smiths...but when it comes to WR, we just say "we have a big one already". I dont get it. It would have been cool to upgrade those spots. Probably would have helped against Tampa.

Now that stuff is just talking about on the field. Another thing moving up to draft the project qb is it completely blew up the relationship with the HOF MVP QB. It IS the reason we are in the position we are now with Rodgers. So the effects of the pick arent just waiting to be seen as we wait on Love, we are seeing them now as we spend the offseason placating the Diva Qb.

Patrick Mahommes falling in the draft might be worth this headache, Rodgers falling in our lap after Favre threatened retirement would be worth this headache, but Jordan Love based on his measurables and the fact that he can flick the ball a mile like Jamarcus Russell? No thanks. To me, it wasnt bold. It was arrogant and dumb.

The 2021 team is currently screwed because of the choice. I think it is fair to begin judging it now...because even if Love is a good QB..it wasnt worth blowing up the relationship with 12. It wasnt worth not having more talent on the field in 2020 or 2021. QBs are not hard to come by like they were in 2004.

Colts lose luck and get to the playoffs with the vet Rivers and then trade for Wentz. Chargers lose Rivers and wake up with Herbert. Chicago in all their self sabotoge that passed on Deshaun and Mahommes still gets a talent like Justin Fields after making the post season in 2020!

Lafleur can make it work with a lot of QBs that would be available..even a teddy Bridgewater type i would bet..yet he is dealing with losing his HOF QB because of the decision of his GM to start a war with his QB. I dont think it is too early to judge the move, it is having consequences already..and love being a "good" QB doesnt make it a good move either, he has to be great..because there are alot of ways to obtain a good QB that doesnt make your current HOF QB take his ball and go home.

[lupedafiasco]

You cant even compare Mahomes. They had Alex Smith. The booty butt cheeks of QBs. Getting Mahomes makes sense. Rodgers literally wakes up every morning and throws the sun into the sky. Without him our crops fail and vampires take over the earth.

[NCF]

vampires take over the earth.

[lulu]

BUT ARE THEY ROOMMATES?

More important, what song was playing when this photo was taken? #wilde

[APB]

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”.

Side note: the 49ers cut WR Marqise Lee yesterday. Had to make room for more “improvement” in the form of WR Benny Fowler, another multi-team castoff.