Rodgers wants out

[Pckfn23]

If that's it, then that is some weak evidence that the Packers were/are clearly trying to force Rodgers out. We drafted Love to succeed Rodgers because Rodgers had 2 average years. If QB is so very important to winning championships then it was a proper move. Not a fan of it, but there is valid reasoning behind the move, other than forcing Rodgers out.

average??? by who's standards, a bunch of stat geeks at PFF, the lack of supporting talent and schemes is the biggest reasons for Rodgers decline

By NFL QB standards... Rodgers was absolutely playing average in 2018 and 2019.

[Yoop]

I'll say, again; I thought it was 1-2 years early to draft a high-pick replacement for Rodgers.

me too, said it then, and still think so today,

[NCF]

If that's it, then that is some weak evidence that the Packers were/are clearly trying to force Rodgers out. We drafted Love to succeed Rodgers because Rodgers had 2 average years. If QB is so very important to winning championships then it was a proper move. Not a fan of it, but there is valid reasoning behind the move, other than forcing Rodgers out.

average??? by who's standards, a bunch of stat geeks at PFF, the lack of supporting talent and schemes is the biggest reasons for Rodgers decline

By NFL QB standards... Rodgers was absolutely playing average in 2018 and 2019.

Jesus, yoop, pull your head out of your ass. Stop spouting the same tired retorts that are not even factually correct. So, fine, talent and schemes in 2018. I can buy that. In 2019, LaFleur was in. The talent is largely the same today as it was then. This isn't a PFF thing. This was the reality.

Another argument and a more popular one is that the Packers should not have projected 2018 and 2019 onto 2020. Maybe they did, maybe the didn't, but if they did, they were obviously wrong.

[go pak go]

I'll say, again; I thought it was 1-2 years early to draft a high-pick replacement for Rodgers.

me too, said it then, and still think so today,

I can absolutely agree that we drafted the successor a year or two early. No qualms about that.

I also think Rodgers is making a stink, at the earliest, one or two years too early.

[YoHoChecko]

I'll say, again; I thought it was 1-2 years early to draft a high-pick replacement for Rodgers.

I can absolutely agree that we drafted the successor a year or two early. No qualms about that.

I also think Rodgers is making a stink, at the earliest, one or two years too early.

[NCF]

I think [mention]YoHoChecko[/mention] summed it up perfectly.

You can spend a 1st-rounder and get Jordan Love when you can or roll the dice and settle for the leftovers and get a Kyle Trask or a Jacob Eason or a DeShone Kizer or a Brett Hundley.

If you have conviction that Love is the guy then I have no problem with pulling trigger. I would just die to know, though, what they thought about Love versus a Kizer or Drew Lock or even a Justin Herbert. I still maintain Gutekunst knew exactly what he was getting into. He knew a &%$@ storm was coming. Maybe he didn't know when or how but he knew it was coming, so that pick better be worth it. If it was in his mind, then I stand behind it until it fails.

I ask, again, for everyone that says Gutekunst went outside the playbook for the Love pick to look around the NFL. Do you really think everyone else is doing it right? Would you want to be sitting there after Rodgers retires with a Jameis Winston and Taysom Hill?

I'm sure we will continue to argue, but everyone gets to be correct right now. Only time will tell who is truly correct.

[go pak go]

I'm sure we will continue to argue, but everyone gets to be correct right now. Only time will tell who is truly correct.

And it will take YEARS to see who is truly correct.

Fall 2009 - winter 2010, clearly the Packers were morons and Thompson was an idiot.

Winter 2011...completely different story.

I guess what surprises me and ultimately disappoints me is if there is literally any fanbase in the country who should have "learned from the past and/or know better that it's best to let it play out, etc."...it's Packers fans.

I mean you can take all the crap of "Favre wanted to retire, everyone knew Rodgers was a #1 pick (which is bullsh*t...because he was picked 24th), etc. out the window. The larger thing is to have the humility to use past experience and be like, "wow....I was super wrong 13 years ago all the way up to 11 years ago. Maybe I will just let this one play out this time...."

nope.

[Acrobat]

I think @YoHoChecko summed it up perfectly.

You can spend a 1st-rounder and get Jordan Love when you can or roll the dice and settle for the leftovers and get a Kyle Trask or a Jacob Eason or a DeShone Kizer or a Brett Hundley.

If you have conviction that Love is the guy then I have no problem with pulling trigger. I would just die to know, though, what they thought about Love versus a Kizer or Drew Lock or even a Justin Herbert. I still maintain Gutekunst knew exactly what he was getting into. He knew a &%$@ storm was coming. Maybe he didn't know when or how but he knew it was coming, so that pick better be worth it. If it was in his mind, then I stand behind it until it fails.

I ask, again, for everyone that says Gutekunst went outside the playbook for the Love pick to look around the NFL. Do you really think everyone else is doing it right? Would you want to be sitting there after Rodgers retires with a Jameis Winston and Taysom Hill?

I'm sure we will continue to argue, but everyone gets to be correct right now. Only time will tell who is truly correct.

Waits for "We never should have gotten rid of Taysom Hill" comments.

[Drj820]

i look forward to training camp

[NCF]

i look forward to training camp

1 week. Thank God.

[BF004]

If that's it, then that is some weak evidence that the Packers were/are clearly trying to force Rodgers out. We drafted Love to succeed Rodgers because Rodgers had 2 average years. If QB is so very important to winning championships then it was a proper move. Not a fan of it, but there is valid reasoning behind the move, other than forcing Rodgers out.

average??? by who's standards, a bunch of stat geeks at PFF, the lack of supporting talent and schemes is the biggest reasons for Rodgers decline

By NFL QB standards... Rodgers was absolutely playing average in 2018 and 2019.

I go back to that week 17 game against Detroit in 2019, a win secures a first round bye. I am not sure if I have ever seen a QB be so inaccurate. That was after three, mediocre at best seasons for Aaron in a row, if you include mostly a missed season with broken collarbone and also one on injured knee. All potential reasons as well to worry about longevity.

The other piece not so often talked about, was the draft was like two months into the pandemic. I think most were probably feeling there wasn't even going to be a 2020 at all at that point or a college season, which would make scouting for a 2021 draft nearly impossible (was way worse than normal, but not nearly as bad as it could have been either), which would almost leave to 2022 to be able to make a good sound decisions on taking a QB.

I didn't like the pick, but it isn't the decision in a vacuum with one meaning, it was a culmination of dozens of factors.


That said, you just made Aaron the highest paid player, then even extended him kicking the can down the road. I would have put nearly every resource into building the best possible team around him.

[go pak go]

average??? by who's standards, a bunch of stat geeks at PFF, the lack of supporting talent and schemes is the biggest reasons for Rodgers decline

By NFL QB standards... Rodgers was absolutely playing average in 2018 and 2019.

I go back to that week 17 game against Detroit in 2019, a win secures a first round bye. I am not sure if I have ever seen a QB be so inaccurate. That was after three, mediocre at best seasons for Aaron in a row, if you include mostly a missed season with broken collarbone and also one on injured knee. All potential reasons as well to worry about longevity.

Yeah that week 17 game in 2019 was so bad.

[YoHoChecko]

That said, you just made Aaron the highest paid player, then even extended him kicking the can down the road. I would have put nearly every resource into building the best possible team around him.

It's funny, though; like, I see the first part of that statement: "you just made Aaron the highest paid player, then even extended him kicking the can down the road," and I think "so that buys you time and goodwill to make the Love pick without being accused of moving on from Rodgers."

But people saw the Love pick and immediately, at the time, started acting as if picking Love superseded the previously-made contractual moves. I thought they complement each other; and if anything, money talks way louder than draft picks. You just locked Rodgers in for 3 years. Now you have the goodwill and leeway to get a quality QB in the room and groomed while you're still building a winner and not having to go into "rebuilding" mode."

When you consider that in 2020 they did, indeed, earn the 1 seed, have the #1 ranked Offense, and were 5 points from a Super Bowl appearance, they CLEARLY DID balance "building a winning team around Rodgers" and "beginning contingency planning for life after Rodgers" at the same time. They DID do both. The contractual moves with Rodgers indicated that they were trying to win nw. And the results indicated that they were winning now. And the Love pick allowed them to use one resource to plan for contingencies while using the rest to continue to build a string and deep roster.

They achieved the tight-rope walk of balance people insisted they had abandoned by drafting Love, and they STILL got crapped on for it. Because people can only look at one side of that balance at a time, apparently.

[lupedafiasco]

Your stupid little platitudes like "you don't drafta guy in the first not to play him" is one-note two-dimensional thinking. Good management is about nuance, options, resilience, plans a, b, and c for as many scenarios as possible. Good management is about adapting to changing circumstances. That a player was drafted in the first round provides absolutely zero evidence to what will happen with that player in 1 year, 2 years, 3 years. He could bust. He could be traded. He could play out his whole rookie contract as a backup and net us nothing more than a comp pick.

I would like to start by saying I think your stance is also stupid.

I would say good management is good resource management. That has not been the case here. In fact it hasnt been on multiple accounts, not just this one. I would love to have a great backup QB who in time can be the perfect successor to Rodgers. What a perfect world that would be. Unfortunately in the real world you just took what was our best resource to get a quality player to develop and play on cheap contract years and threw it on the bench causing a massive rift between QB and management.

The only person who forced anything here is Rodgers, this offseason. Everything else is just possibilities.

I just cant understand this line of thinking. The Packers started this. They should have known the consequences knowing the person they were dealing with. Part of being in management is knowing your people. They did know do a good job here. They actually did a terrible job.

You have ZERO basis to claim that drafting Love put a clock on Rodgers that would end before his contract was up

Holy &%$@ man we can go back and look at Packers draft picks to figure this out. They routinely draft a year ahead to push players out. You can do the research yourself but this has been done consistently under both TT and Gutey so far. It is incredibly rare the team drafts a player high and doesnt have any plan for them in the starting lineup. In fact I think every team in the league plans to start their first round picks because that is the logical thing to do.

Because you think everything is black and white and all your ideas are better than everyone else's.

Youre God damn right I do.

[Drj820]

Holy &%$@ man we can go back and look at Packers draft picks to figure this out. They routinely draft a year ahead to push players out. You can do the research yourself but this has been done consistently under both TT and Gutey so far. It is incredibly rare the team drafts a player high and doesnt have any plan for them in the starting lineup. In fact I think every team in the league plans to start their first round picks because that is the logical thing to do.

Gutey is a little different in this regard tho, oddly enough. He pays 100m out on the defensive side of the ball and then drafts Gary who still may not be starting in year 3.

He goes Rb in rd 2 and then resigns the starting rb.

He goes Love in rd 1 and then allegedly offers the starter an extension.

Gutey likes throwing high picks at backups according to the resume.

[lupedafiasco]

I think @YoHoChecko summed it up perfectly.

You can spend a 1st-rounder and get Jordan Love when you can or roll the dice and settle for the leftovers and get a Kyle Trask or a Jacob Eason or a DeShone Kizer or a Brett Hundley.

If you have conviction that Love is the guy then I have no problem with pulling trigger. I would just die to know, though, what they thought about Love versus a Kizer or Drew Lock or even a Justin Herbert. I still maintain Gutekunst knew exactly what he was getting into. He knew a &%$@ storm was coming. Maybe he didn't know when or how but he knew it was coming, so that pick better be worth it. If it was in his mind, then I stand behind it until it fails.

I ask, again, for everyone that says Gutekunst went outside the playbook for the Love pick to look around the NFL. Do you really think everyone else is doing it right? Would you want to be sitting there after Rodgers retires with a Jameis Winston and Taysom Hill?

I'm sure we will continue to argue, but everyone gets to be correct right now. Only time will tell who is truly correct.

WTF? Jordan Love was the leftover. The other 3 QBs went top 6. The next QB, the 4th one, doesnt go until 26th. You know which QB went 4th the year Kizer came out? Kizer. You know which QB went 4th the year Drew Lock came out? Lock.

Not to say this is the end all be all but typically if youre getting the 4th QB in the class you are the one getting the leftover.

[YoHoChecko]

I would say good management is good resource management. That has not been the case here. In fact it hasnt been on multiple accounts, not just this one. I would love to have a great backup QB who in time can be the perfect successor to Rodgers. What a perfect world that would be. Unfortunately in the real world you just took what was our best resource to get a quality player to develop and play on cheap contract years and threw it on the bench causing a massive rift between QB and management.

The only person who forced anything here is Rodgers, this offseason. Everything else is just possibilities.

I just cant understand this line of thinking. The Packers started this. They should have known the consequences knowing the person they were dealing with. Part of being in management is knowing your people. They did know do a good job here. They actually did a terrible job.

I will say on your latter point, you are of course absolutely right. The Packers should have managed Rodgers better. They failed in their communication and handling of him. They should have known he's thin-skinned, never lets go of a grudge, and stubborn, and that they need to handhold him through any decision he does not like, and they instead treated him like a professional adult who doesn't think he is owed the world.

But as to the earlier part--resource management--whether or not drafting Love was a good use of resources is only determined by the outcome of this decision on the field. That is still unknown. I have demonstrated countless times that high-level QBs are rarely available beyond pick 15. Taking one when you have the chance may very well be highly adept resource management--just like taking Rodgers was. But we won't know for another couple years.


Your thinking is basically "The Packers should have known Rodgers would be a little princess about this" and "they started it." Which is why I belittle the argument (not the person; you're fine). It's a 5-year old mentality used to defend a man who is acting like a 5-year old.

[NCF]

Not to say this is the end all be all but typically if youre getting the 4th QB in the class you are the one getting the leftover.

Right, it is perspective and it is all relative. There have been posts in this thread that show the amount of variance that Love generated as a prospect. He was not unanimously a late-1st-round guy. He was absolutely everywhere from a Top 10 guy to a 2nd or 3rd-rounder.

My point is, I don't think Gutey viewed him as a leftover. If he did, then it really is a dumb pick, but I absolutely do not think that is what went down.

[YoHoChecko]

WTF? Jordan Love was the leftover. The other 3 QBs went top 6. The next QB, the 4th one, doesnt go until 26th. You know which QB went 4th the year Kizer came out? Kizer. You know which QB went 4th the year Drew Lock came out? Lock.

Not to say this is the end all be all but typically if youre getting the 4th QB in the class you are the one getting the leftover.

You know darn well that the number of QBs selected is an absolutely useless measure of their worthiness in the league.

That'd be like saying that because Levi Ozerike was the 2nd DT selected in 2021 (selected mid second round), he's the same talent as Javon Kinlaw, the second DT taken the year before.

We have gone over this endlessly in the Jordan Love thread; there were a variety of opinions on Love around the league. MANY thought he was the 2nd or 3rd best QB in the class; some are on the record liking him better than Herbert or Tua. Many others thought he was a 3rd rounder. Most thought he was a guy who would go late at or early 2nd, exactly where he went. Two national reporters mentioned him as a possibility for the Packers, exactly where he went.


Whether he was the 2nd QB or the 4th QB or the 5th QB is about other people in the draft class. What mattered was that he was a player considered worthy of a pick right in the ballpark where he was selected, both pre-draft, post draft; on the record, off the record. It's been clearly established.

That's why NCF wonders how he would have compared to other 2nd round type guys. How much ahead of them was he than a guy like Lock in the eyes of the Packers, and other execs. Or Kizer or Jimmy G.

But the FACT is that he was drafted before them. And that he was drafted in the pick vicinity of the consensus. And that most years recently, there are no QBs considered worth it in that general range, as they are all off the board by 15 or so, until you start getting to the mid-second.

[YoHoChecko]

Gutey likes throwing high picks at backups according to the resume.

*Gutey likes building a deep team, maintaining players who are still playing well that he can afford, not pre-determining the outcomes of his offseasons, and approaching team improvement through a variety of avenues, be it drafting for immediate need or for future development; signing free agents or sitting quietly;

Jaire was a masterful use of draft resources, personnel evaluation, and team need.

Zadarius, Preston, and Gary was a "throw the kitchen sink at an important problem and see if we can find something that works" approach; highly-resourced, which makes it high-risk, but enhanced possibility of reward.

MVS, EQSB, and Moore was "quantity over quality and hope we get something that works"

Stokes was immediate need. Keeping King was an expensive insurance policy.

Gutey wants to build a team that is deep and resilient. He has not shown any indication yet that he is path-dependent with his picks. He has cut guys he drafted earlier over guys drafted later. He has kept UDFAs over drafted players. He has acquired cheap alternative street free agents mid-year when guys he thought would work weren't working out or got injured.

He has also ignored ILB on Days 1 and 2; ignored WR in rounds 1 and 2 (because he didn't make the value work or choose to defy his board)

There are a lot of things you can say about Gutey's reign so far, but one thing that is certain--he is not path dependent. He is not a one-trick pony. He makes picks and moves and countermoves and contingency moves that defy the narrative of what many expect him to do. And he owns them when he does. And he explains himself more clearly and transparently than TT ever did, though we all know GMs have to conceal some of their thoughts and feelings.

But this notion that there's some clear history that when you draft a player, his replacement is automatically doomed in a year or so does not exist. Not in his 3.5 years on the job.