From Lambeau to Lombardi, Holmgren, McCarthy and LaFleur and from Starr to Favre, Rodgers and now Jordan Love we’re talking Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers football. This Packers Forum is the place to talk NFL football and everything Packers. So, pull up a keyboard, make yourself at home and let’s talk some Packers football.
I think the forum must have glitched again and had Mike quote @bud fox there instead of @YoHoChecko two posts up.
I’ll have the tech team dig into what could possibly be causing this.
no, I just wrote you a nasty, thought it over, and just snipped my post, the point of it was that Bud has no problem reading that I've noticed, and Yoho is so over board loyal to a FO that has blundered along for half a decade making one mistake after another, and now because of there authoritarian actions have pissed off the best player the team has had since Bart Starr, and this plan the team has for grooming rookie QB's is actually a slice of swiss cheese, one QB in the last 50 years was allowed to groom up, and only because Favre stuck around.
I delete almost as many that I post, so to save you the time of doing it.
Well the post you quoted, was about you again quoting the incorrect person again somehow.
And again as I mentioned about absurd extrapolations, not a single soul is even close to implying if you sit a QB for a long time he will be Favre or Rodgers. If you disagree with yoho, then go ahead and disagree with what he wrote, not what you want him to be meaning.
2) when looking to see if the arrow is pointing up or down for him would take overthrowing wide open guys multiple times as an arrow pointing down.
That is what the national media is apparently doing, too. If he comes out today and makes a couple great throws it doesn't mean he is suddenly on an MVP course, either. Patience is the key and as fans, rightfully, we have little of it.
I think the forum must have glitched again and had Mike quote @bud fox there instead of @YoHoChecko two posts up.
I’ll have the tech team dig into what could possibly be causing this.
no, I just wrote you a nasty, thought it over, and just snipped my post, the point of it was that Bud has no problem reading that I've noticed, and Yoho is so over board loyal to a FO that has blundered along for half a decade making one mistake after another, and now because of there authoritarian actions have pissed off the best player the team has had since Bart Starr, and this plan the team has for grooming rookie QB's is actually a slice of swiss cheese, one QB in the last 50 years was allowed to groom up, and only because Favre stuck around.
I delete almost as many that I post, so to save you the time of doing it.
Well the post you quoted, was about you again quoting the incorrect person again somehow.
And again as I mentioned about absurd extrapolations, not a single soul is even close to implying if you sit a QB for a long time he will be Favre or Rodgers. If you disagree with yoho, then go ahead and disagree with what he wrote, not what you want him to be meaning.
I never said a word about sitting a rookie will produce a HOF QB
also I highlighted what Yoho said, the quote flag came up. I clicked it, and it became a Bud quote, so I think the issue is with the quote flagging,
and I disagree with Yoho that there ever has been a plan to sit a rookie QB more then a year, maybe two, that is a luxury rarely ever afforded a team.
Yeah I fully understand Love will need time and this stuff takes time I just
1) think the calendar year he has been on the roster counts as time and
2) when looking to see if the arrow is pointing up or down for him would take overthrowing wide open guys multiple times as an arrow pointing down.
I think Rodgers is coming back, but if not...Love basically has 3 months bc this roster is ready to win and he’s not gonna have until 2025 to get ready while squandering the talent we have on the roster.
Not all QBs fail bc they didn’t get to sit a few years, they fail bc they walk into terrible situations with coaches that can’t develop them and awful rosters and dysfunction. That’s why those teams pick at the top of the drafts.
Love has a great roster, a great coach, and has already had a year to learn. The clocks ticking on him in my eyes.
I do agree with you that the calendar year on the roster matters. But if you’re looking for an arrow, it’s pointed way up from how he looked 9 months ago, according to everyone who’s been asked.
And you’re right. Love could sit for three years, have all the mechanics and muscle memory down pat, and still fail because he lacks the mental processing speed or some intangible factor. I am NOT saying that time guarantees success. Only that giving a project QB the full education first MAXIMIZES the chance for success.
I don’t want to see him fail because he’s still processing his footwork instead of the game in front of him. If he’s going to fail, I want to be able to say the team gave him every chance and he just wasn’t ever going to be The Guy in this league.
I just think he needs reps. The old 10 thousand hours cliché. And I think the COVID year, and like Adams said in his presser, the fact that Rodgers (like most greats before him) takes virtually every rep when he’s available to, has limited his ability to develop the mechanical habits needed to maximize his odds of success. Until that happens, I expect inconsistency. I expect accuracy to suffer when he gets his footwork wrong, and processing to suffer when he’s thinking about getting his footwork right. So practice reports like yesterday’s are just… expected. And they’re indicative of a process, not of an outcome
I think the forum must have glitched again and had Mike quote @bud fox there instead of @YoHoChecko two posts up.
I’ll have the tech team dig into what could possibly be causing this.
no, I just wrote you a nasty, thought it over, and just snipped my post, the point of it was that Bud has no problem reading that I've noticed, and Yoho is so over board loyal to a FO that has blundered along for half a decade making one mistake after another, and now because of there authoritarian actions have pissed off the best player the team has had since Bart Starr, and this plan the team has for grooming rookie QB's is actually a slice of swiss cheese, one QB in the last 50 years was allowed to groom up, and only because Favre stuck around.
I delete almost as many that I post, so to save you the time of doing it.
Well the post you quoted, was about you again quoting the incorrect person again somehow.
And again as I mentioned about absurd extrapolations, not a single soul is even close to implying if you sit a QB for a long time he will be Favre or Rodgers. If you disagree with yoho, then go ahead and disagree with what he wrote, not what you want him to be meaning.
If there are comments made to the effect that this is what the packers have done and why they are successful than the implications are there. It is not fair to make that argument and then say ohhhh no I am not saying he will be Rodgers.
If there are comments made to the effect that this is what the packers have done and why they are successful than the implications are there. It is not fair to make that argument and then say ohhhh no I am not saying he will be Rodgers.
Why? This is the absolute dumbest part of these arguments. Oh geez, I don't know, I'm not sure he'll ever be as good as Rodgers. Well, way to go out on a $%@# limb. We don't need him to be Rodgers. I don't want him to be Rodgers. I want him to a QB that can run our offense and win us championships over the next decade and a half. That's what I want from him.
no, I just wrote you a nasty, thought it over, and just snipped my post, the point of it was that Bud has no problem reading that I've noticed, and Yoho is so over board loyal to a FO that has blundered along for half a decade making one mistake after another, and now because of there authoritarian actions have pissed off the best player the team has had since Bart Starr, and this plan the team has for grooming rookie QB's is actually a slice of swiss cheese, one QB in the last 50 years was allowed to groom up, and only because Favre stuck around.
I delete almost as many that I post, so to save you the time of doing it.
Well the post you quoted, was about you again quoting the incorrect person again somehow.
And again as I mentioned about absurd extrapolations, not a single soul is even close to implying if you sit a QB for a long time he will be Favre or Rodgers. If you disagree with yoho, then go ahead and disagree with what he wrote, not what you want him to be meaning.
If there are comments made to the effect that this is what the packers have done and why they are successful than the implications are there. It is not fair to make that argument and then say ohhhh no I am not saying he will be Rodgers.
ahhh, if the goal of prepping a QB for years is do to poor foot work, it didn't work with Rodgers to much, he had some of his best accuracy throwing with one sometimes no feet on the ground
this all goes back to what most of us agreed with when Love was traded up for and taken, why now, why not next year or the year after, the answer which is unexceptable to me is these guys don't come around every year, which actually they do, specially guys like Love who need a bunch of coaching.
this all goes back to what most of us agreed with when Love was traded up for and taken, why now, why not next year or the year after, the answer which is unexceptable to me is these guys don't come around every year, which actually they do, specially guys like Love who need a bunch of coaching.
Who would have been the guy you would have taken this year at our spot? Who was the guy that was available that is as good a prospect as Jordan Love when we took Eric Stokes this year?
I own the implication, but it’s a general implication not one specific to Love.
What I am saying is that on average, you raise the ceiling on your QB by waiting to play him. On average. There isn’t any kind of sample size to say whether waiting more than one year helps more than waiting one year (basically just Rodgers and Rivers). Impossible to say. That’s why my Love comments attempt to be specific to evaluating where he is right now according to coach and player comments, not where I think he could or should be.
But let me examine my implication. Two ways I look at it.
In the NFL as of the 2020 season, the first ballot HoF QBs in my view are
Brees, Brady, Rodgers, Big Ben, Philip Rivers, Russell Wilson, Patrick Mahomes
Five of those seven players sat out their first year. That’s true even though only about 20% of first round QBs sit out their first years. So 20% of the players = 70% of Hal of Famers. That’sa very rudimentary methodology, but why WOULDN’T you want to grab from the smaller bag with better outcomes?
Secondly, relevant to the 3, 5, 7 comments… a LONG time ago I did an analysis of first round QBs entering the league.
You look at year one. On one side of the ledger you have rookie starters. On the other you have usually stop gap veterans. On average, the veterans perform better than the rookies do. Even a strong rookie season is a mediocre NFL season.
So then you have year two. On one side of the ledger are QBs who started as rookies in their second years as starters. On the other, mostly QBs who are first time starters in their second year (some veterans while the rookies still sat). On average, these players perform about the same. At this point, there is no year two benefit for having played versus sat, not for having sat versus played, aside from the better QB play by the veterans the prior year.
But then you look at year three. Note the QBs who sat are entering their second years as starters, while the ones who started as rookies are in year three. And the performance ON AVERAGE begins to separate. The players who say improve more in year three than the players who started e right away. So you continue that out. And this sort of improvement is well explained by my theory of why—the mechanical work out in early helps QBs reach their ceilings, while a QB who plays in his comfort zone mechanically may excel early but fail to improve to his physical ceiling
Again this is old data. I stopped doing it because the two column model doesn’t even make sense. I tried last offseason and the vast majority of QBs begin their rookie years on the bench but are inserted throughout the middle of their rookie seasons.
I will say, the QBs who are the starters from day one—the Wilsons, Peytons, Lucks of the world… seem to have good results. These are picks that combine high ceilings with elite mechanics and NFL readiness. So teams can spot those guys and they do well.
But if you’ve got a guy with either a high ceiling but needs mechanical work or a mechanical marvel with a lower ceiling physically (think Mac Jones), then I’d sit him.
There is no way to guarantee that a QB is successful. But benching him for a year improves the odds
Last edited by YoHoChecko on 09 Jun 2021 08:39, edited 1 time in total.
this all goes back to what most of us agreed with when Love was traded up for and taken, why now, why not next year or the year after, the answer which is unexceptable to me is these guys don't come around every year, which actually they do, specially guys like Love who need a bunch of coaching.
Who would have been the guy you would have taken this year at our spot? Who was the guy that was available that is as good a prospect as Jordan Love when we took Eric Stokes this year?
Camp superstar Kyle Trask.
But seriously, all this talk about how unready he is and how he is a project, yet we blew up the relationship with the HOF QB for the guy. Doesn’t seem worth the risk to me.
My thing is that he would have multiple years to sit and everyone would know he just isn’t ready if we took him in say the 4th round. But I firmly believe by year TWO that first rounders should have learned enough to go learn on the field. I do believe it is good to sit a guy for a year, I just don’t believe it has to be multiple years or the process is being sabotaged. Love is a first rounder in year 2, time to hit open guys and show the world why Gutey “loved him”, not just liked. That was the standard right?
If you grab a guy in the first round and by year two the staff is still terrified to play him bc he is such a project, it’s wasn’t a draft steal..it was a reach.
Now of course, Love shuts all the critics up if he demonstrates he can play.
But seriously, all this talk about how unready he is and how he is a project, yet we blew up the relationship with the HOF QB for the guy. Doesn’t seem worth the risk to me.
Hindsight on this is definitely an advantage here.
I don't think anyone would have guessed that Rodgers would threaten to sit out and no longer play QB last spring when this happened. Especially with the info we have.
I agree that now it may not be worth the risk. But I also didn't expect our QB1 to react the way he has reacted. Especially when you start hearing James Jones make it sound like it is more about how the Packers don't resign guys rather than drafting Love.
Especially when the reporting continues to state that this isn't about Jordan Love. So, either Rodgers is blatantly lying or the Jordan Love pick IS NOT what has him so pissed at the Packers FO.
Especially when the reporting continues to state that this isn't about Jordan Love. So, either Rodgers is blatantly lying or the Jordan Love pick IS NOT what has him so pissed at the Packers FO.
He’s probably splitting hairs. It probably isn’t selecting Jordan Love the person, it’s how they went about doing that.
I don’t think seeing the move as extremely risky relies on hindsight I remember distinctly thinking “ohh sh**” when they drafted Love and my first thought was “Rodgers is gonna be pissed what is he gonna do”
This was a possible outcome from minute one after the selection for me and others.
this all goes back to what most of us agreed with when Love was traded up for and taken, why now, why not next year or the year after, the answer which is unexceptable to me is these guys don't come around every year, which actually they do, specially guys like Love who need a bunch of coaching.
Who would have been the guy you would have taken this year at our spot? Who was the guy that was available that is as good a prospect as Jordan Love when we took Eric Stokes this year?
who knows, the point is if the plan is to groom one for years almost anyone thats done well in college, has good physical makeup and a decent IQ can become a very good QB, Bart Starr was a 17th round pick, Favre was a 2nd Rounder, Brady was a 5th this idea that we couldn't have passed on Love and found another a year or two later to groom a couple years holds no merit with me, more so the plan was to replace Rodgers as soon as possible, almost everything points to that, you simply refuse to acknowledge that reality and chose to believe Murphy and Guty with the " this year and beyond" comment, I don't, and neither does Rodgers.
