Jordan Love Discussion

[Drj820]

Here is a list of rookie QBs over the last 20 seasons with 100+ attempts who had a QB Rating greater than 90.

image.png

thanks, I think this pretty much makes my case, 13 Rookie QB's that started and actually helped there team for a whole season, I think if we made it 25 years it would include a few more, still I think sitting and letting the pro game slow down a bit while you develop a little chemistry with your receivers on the scout team each week would help any young QB.

I'm confused. This only proved rookie QBs in their rookie season.

Jordan Love wouldn't be on that list even if he started this whole season. Rookie QBs often play with poor teams too so it's hard for a rookie to be successful just from a team standpoint. That's why I think it's more beneficial to look at whether a QB, who started as a rookie, ended up having a successful career.

RG3 was a rookie phenom. But from a long view standpoint...who cares? It was a terrible draft trade and selection. Peyton Manning was terrible. Yet Manning is the greatest #1 selection in NFL history.

Data doesnt backup Yoops claim because good quarterbacks have been subjected to all sorts of situations. There isnt much data on a guy coming in during year 3 and succeeding, but that is only because they are usually forced to start before year 3. Rodgers was a wonderful example of a great QB sitting multiple years, but it is very rare. Great QBs have started immediately, come in midseason, and waited a year. Its all about the QB, the coach, and the situation. It can work whenever they get on the field.

[Yoop]

No dispute at all with what you say. My dispute with Yoop was just that there are tons of QBs who come in and succeed tons of different ways, including starting day one. It all has to do with the situation they are put in, their coach...and they themselves. I am fine with the plan for Love, but no matter how many years we hold him back before we unleash him on real gamedays, there is going to be an adjustment period for when he sees the game in game speed in real time from behind center. I do feel like many have seriously low expectations for the guy at this point. I am of the position that drafting him has created tons of drama, and he needs to start showing that he is worth the drama. I havent quite seen that yet, but thats okay. I certainly see talent and potential, and he has time to get right.

I disagree, in the last 20 years there are only 13 rookie QB's that finished the year with a 90 QBR, Pckfn 23 just brought that info, Thanks 23 now I agree probably a few more where close to that, but 13 of what 120 plus, those are not good odds.

you have to consider that being a rookie backup you'll be QBing the scout teams each week, learning diff defensive schemes, watching film of a lot of opponent players, becoming more diversified, sure there will be adjustments he'll have to make once he starts, but sitting and learning should make those more minor.
.

[Pckfn23]

It's interesting. If we add 10 more years to the scope there are still only 13 QBs with a 90+. If we change it to 80+ there were 31 total QBs from 2001 to 2020 and 35 total QBs from 1991 to 2020 (or 4 more so as not to confuse someone). Really shows you how the QB position has evolved. Charlie Batch had the best rookie QB rating for 1991 to 1999 at 83.5.

[Drj820]

No dispute at all with what you say. My dispute with Yoop was just that there are tons of QBs who come in and succeed tons of different ways, including starting day one. It all has to do with the situation they are put in, their coach...and they themselves. I am fine with the plan for Love, but no matter how many years we hold him back before we unleash him on real gamedays, there is going to be an adjustment period for when he sees the game in game speed in real time from behind center. I do feel like many have seriously low expectations for the guy at this point. I am of the position that drafting him has created tons of drama, and he needs to start showing that he is worth the drama. I havent quite seen that yet, but thats okay. I certainly see talent and potential, and he has time to get right.

I disagree, in the last 20 years there are only 13 rookie QB's that finished the year with a 90 QBR, Pckfn 23 just brought that info, Thanks 23 now I agree probably a few more where close to that, but 13 of what 120 plus, those are not good odds.

you have to consider that being a rookie backup you'll be QBing the scout teams each week, learning diff defensive schemes, watching film of a lot of opponent players, becoming more diversified, sure there will be adjustments he'll have to make once he starts, but sitting and learning should make those more minor.
.

Just for clarification, you said QBR, are we talking QBR or passer rating?

[Yoop]

Here is a list of rookie QBs over the last 20 seasons with 100+ attempts who had a QB Rating greater than 90.

image.png

thanks, I think this pretty much makes my case, 13 Rookie QB's that started and actually helped there team for a whole season, I think if we made it 25 years it would include a few more, still I think sitting and letting the pro game slow down a bit while you develop a little chemistry with your receivers on the scout team each week would help any young QB.

I'm confused. This only proved rookie QBs in their rookie season.

Jordan Love wouldn't be on that list even if he started this whole season. Rookie QBs often play with poor teams too so it's hard for a rookie to be successful just from a team standpoint. That's why I think it's more beneficial to look at whether a QB, who started as a rookie, ended up having a successful career.

RG3 was a rookie phenom. But from a long view standpoint...who cares? It was a terrible draft trade and selection. Peyton Manning was terrible. Yet Manning is the greatest #1 selection in NFL history.

basically Love is a rookie, I was wrong he didn't QB the scout team last year Boyle did, so Love imo is no different then any Rookie QB.

those stats speak for themselves, and Manning had a great rookie season, one of the best, 4000 plus yrds, I think he and Hebert where at the top of the last I looked at hours ago.

I wish people wouldn't compare Love and Rodgers, diff teams diff. players, hardly anything we do is the same, obviously Rodgers benefited sitting 3 season, he looked ready to play after 1 or 2, Love will sit 2 seasons and will be a more ready to succeed QB as a result.

[Yoop]

No dispute at all with what you say. My dispute with Yoop was just that there are tons of QBs who come in and succeed tons of different ways, including starting day one. It all has to do with the situation they are put in, their coach...and they themselves. I am fine with the plan for Love, but no matter how many years we hold him back before we unleash him on real gamedays, there is going to be an adjustment period for when he sees the game in game speed in real time from behind center. I do feel like many have seriously low expectations for the guy at this point. I am of the position that drafting him has created tons of drama, and he needs to start showing that he is worth the drama. I havent quite seen that yet, but thats okay. I certainly see talent and potential, and he has time to get right.

I disagree, in the last 20 years there are only 13 rookie QB's that finished the year with a 90 QBR, Pckfn 23 just brought that info, Thanks 23 now I agree probably a few more where close to that, but 13 of what 120 plus, those are not good odds.

you have to consider that being a rookie backup you'll be QBing the scout teams each week, learning diff defensive schemes, watching film of a lot of opponent players, becoming more diversified, sure there will be adjustments he'll have to make once he starts, but sitting and learning should make those more minor.
.

Just for clarification, you said QBR, are we talking QBR or passer rating?

I didn't know there is a difference, even the QBR isn't a deal breaker, if a QB has a lower rating or completion % the issue could be scheme or receiver related, my point is that almost every rookie QB would benefit sitting a season or even more to learn the pro game

[go pak go]

thanks, I think this pretty much makes my case, 13 Rookie QB's that started and actually helped there team for a whole season, I think if we made it 25 years it would include a few more, still I think sitting and letting the pro game slow down a bit while you develop a little chemistry with your receivers on the scout team each week would help any young QB.

I'm confused. This only proved rookie QBs in their rookie season.

Jordan Love wouldn't be on that list even if he started this whole season. Rookie QBs often play with poor teams too so it's hard for a rookie to be successful just from a team standpoint. That's why I think it's more beneficial to look at whether a QB, who started as a rookie, ended up having a successful career.

RG3 was a rookie phenom. But from a long view standpoint...who cares? It was a terrible draft trade and selection. Peyton Manning was terrible. Yet Manning is the greatest #1 selection in NFL history.

basically Love is a rookie, I was wrong he didn't QB the scout team last year Boyle did, so Love imo is no different then any Rookie QB.

those stats speak for themselves, and Manning had a great rookie season, one of the best, 4000 plus yrds, I think he and Hebert where at the top of the last I looked at hours ago.

I wish people wouldn't compare Love and Rodgers, diff teams diff. players, hardly anything we do is the same, obviously Rodgers benefited sitting 3 season, he looked ready to play after 1 or 2, Love will sit 2 seasons and will be a more ready to succeed QB as a result.

My goodness you are everywhere. I always have a lot of trouble finding what point you are trying to prove. Peyton Manning had a QBR of 71.2

So according to your "adopted list" Manning would be part of the terrible rookie QB group.

And he had 3,700 yards. Not 4,000. And the Colts went 3-13.

[go pak go]

my point is that almost every rookie QB would benefit sitting a season or even more to learn the pro game

I don't think anyone will disagree there.

[Drj820]

I'm confused. This only proved rookie QBs in their rookie season.

Jordan Love wouldn't be on that list even if he started this whole season. Rookie QBs often play with poor teams too so it's hard for a rookie to be successful just from a team standpoint. That's why I think it's more beneficial to look at whether a QB, who started as a rookie, ended up having a successful career.

RG3 was a rookie phenom. But from a long view standpoint...who cares? It was a terrible draft trade and selection. Peyton Manning was terrible. Yet Manning is the greatest #1 selection in NFL history.

basically Love is a rookie, I was wrong he didn't QB the scout team last year Boyle did, so Love imo is no different then any Rookie QB.

those stats speak for themselves, and Manning had a great rookie season, one of the best, 4000 plus yrds, I think he and Hebert where at the top of the last I looked at hours ago.

I wish people wouldn't compare Love and Rodgers, diff teams diff. players, hardly anything we do is the same, obviously Rodgers benefited sitting 3 season, he looked ready to play after 1 or 2, Love will sit 2 seasons and will be a more ready to succeed QB as a result.

My goodness you are everywhere. I always have a lot of trouble finding what point you are trying to prove. Peyton Manning had a QBR of 71.2

So according to your "adopted list" Manning would be part of the terrible rookie QB group.

And he had 3,700 yards. Not 4,000. And the Colts went 3-13.

Im basically too confused to debate. Rodgers had a QBR of
62.9 his first year as a starter...4th year in the league. The stat of discussion tells me first year starters struggle...whether that is rookie year, second year or so on. I still think the coach and the situation is the most important factor, more so than whether starting first or second year.

[go pak go]

basically Love is a rookie, I was wrong he didn't QB the scout team last year Boyle did, so Love imo is no different then any Rookie QB.

those stats speak for themselves, and Manning had a great rookie season, one of the best, 4000 plus yrds, I think he and Hebert where at the top of the last I looked at hours ago.

I wish people wouldn't compare Love and Rodgers, diff teams diff. players, hardly anything we do is the same, obviously Rodgers benefited sitting 3 season, he looked ready to play after 1 or 2, Love will sit 2 seasons and will be a more ready to succeed QB as a result.

My goodness you are everywhere. I always have a lot of trouble finding what point you are trying to prove. Peyton Manning had a QBR of 71.2

So according to your "adopted list" Manning would be part of the terrible rookie QB group.

And he had 3,700 yards. Not 4,000. And the Colts went 3-13.

Im basically too confused to debate. Rodgers had a QBR of
62.9 his first year as a starter...4th year in the league. The stat of discussion tells me first year starters struggle...whether that is rookie year, second year or so on. I still think the coach and the situation is the most important factor, more so than whether starting first or second year.

Stupid QBR. Ruins my acronyms.

Peyton Manning had a Quarterback Rating of 71.2.

Rodgers had a QBR of 62.9 but a Quarterback Rating of 93.8.

Rodgers was in a different galaxy than Manning. QBR is a weird ESPN metric on a scale of 100 starting in 2006.

I am hoping for a low to mid 90's Quarterback Rating by Love next year. Similar to Rodgers in 2008.

[Yoop]

I'm confused. This only proved rookie QBs in their rookie season.

Jordan Love wouldn't be on that list even if he started this whole season. Rookie QBs often play with poor teams too so it's hard for a rookie to be successful just from a team standpoint. That's why I think it's more beneficial to look at whether a QB, who started as a rookie, ended up having a successful career.

RG3 was a rookie phenom. But from a long view standpoint...who cares? It was a terrible draft trade and selection. Peyton Manning was terrible. Yet Manning is the greatest #1 selection in NFL history.

basically Love is a rookie, I was wrong he didn't QB the scout team last year Boyle did, so Love imo is no different then any Rookie QB.

those stats speak for themselves, and Manning had a great rookie season, one of the best, 4000 plus yrds, I think he and Hebert where at the top of the last I looked at hours ago.

I wish people wouldn't compare Love and Rodgers, diff teams diff. players, hardly anything we do is the same, obviously Rodgers benefited sitting 3 season, he looked ready to play after 1 or 2, Love will sit 2 seasons and will be a more ready to succeed QB as a result.

My goodness you are everywhere. I always have a lot of trouble finding what point you are trying to prove. Peyton Manning had a QBR of 71.2

So according to your "adopted list" Manning would be part of the terrible rookie QB group.

And he had 3,700 yards. Not 4,000. And the Colts went 3-13.

whoops, I must have mis read the Manning info, again another good example of a QB that should have groomed up for a season or two.

[go pak go]

basically Love is a rookie, I was wrong he didn't QB the scout team last year Boyle did, so Love imo is no different then any Rookie QB.

those stats speak for themselves, and Manning had a great rookie season, one of the best, 4000 plus yrds, I think he and Hebert where at the top of the last I looked at hours ago.

I wish people wouldn't compare Love and Rodgers, diff teams diff. players, hardly anything we do is the same, obviously Rodgers benefited sitting 3 season, he looked ready to play after 1 or 2, Love will sit 2 seasons and will be a more ready to succeed QB as a result.

My goodness you are everywhere. I always have a lot of trouble finding what point you are trying to prove. Peyton Manning had a QBR of 71.2

So according to your "adopted list" Manning would be part of the terrible rookie QB group.

And he had 3,700 yards. Not 4,000. And the Colts went 3-13.

whoops, I must have mis read the Manning info, again another good example of a QB that should have groomed up for a season or two.

Huh. I would say however the Colts did it ended up working okay. The end result is he becomes arguably the best and most productive QB in the history of the game.

Yeah I'd take that.

I think the data shows that rookie QB's rarely excel, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is a career ender either.

[Yoop]

My goodness you are everywhere. I always have a lot of trouble finding what point you are trying to prove. Peyton Manning had a QBR of 71.2

So according to your "adopted list" Manning would be part of the terrible rookie QB group.

And he had 3,700 yards. Not 4,000. And the Colts went 3-13.

Im basically too confused to debate. Rodgers had a QBR of
62.9 his first year as a starter...4th year in the league. The stat of discussion tells me first year starters struggle...whether that is rookie year, second year or so on. I still think the coach and the situation is the most important factor, more so than whether starting first or second year.

Stupid QBR. Ruins my acronyms.

Peyton Manning had a Quarterback Rating of 71.2.

Rodgers had a QBR of 62.9 but a Quarterback Rating of 93.8.

Rodgers was in a different galaxy than Manning. QBR is a weird ESPN metric on a scale of 100 starting in 2006.

I am hoping for a low to mid 90's Quarterback Rating by Love next year. Similar to Rodgers in 2008.
[/quote

shouldn't that be Rodgers completed 62.9 % of his passes which amounted to a 93.8 Quarterback rating in 2008, I'd be happy if love gets close to the same stats next season.

[Crazylegs Starks]

I'm pretty encouraged by what I've seen. Keep in mind last years off season was a complete bust in terms of getting any real game experience to further his development.

Not necessarily this forum as I think we're all most level headed Packers fans (except on game day!) but Jordan has huge shoes to fill. There will be a contingent (read: LOUD) segment of the fanbase that will say he sucks because he's not as good as Rodgers. Newsflash, NOBODY is as good as Rodgers. I almost feel sorry for Jordan in a sense. Look at how long it took some fans to turn the page from Favre to Rodgers. Fans wishing Rodgers to get injured still doesn't sit well with me for a franchise and fanbase I generally adore.

The contingent that will be against Love no matter what has already started. After the game Saturday, I listened to the Packers OT call-in show and one of the first callers went off on a long repetitive rant about how Love "-made the same mistake twice! OMG! He made the same mistake twice! LaFleur has to be worried!" Like, calm down dude! The guy has two partial games under his belt.

Then there are the nuts who wrote into Ask Vic and Insider Inbox basically saying they should keep Benkert over Love. It's crazy!

[Drj820]

My goodness you are everywhere. I always have a lot of trouble finding what point you are trying to prove. Peyton Manning had a QBR of 71.2

So according to your "adopted list" Manning would be part of the terrible rookie QB group.

And he had 3,700 yards. Not 4,000. And the Colts went 3-13.

whoops, I must have mis read the Manning info, again another good example of a QB that should have groomed up for a season or two.

Huh. I would say however the Colts did it ended up working okay. The end result is he becomes arguably the best and most productive QB in the history of the game.

Yeah I'd take that.

I think the data shows that rookie QB's rarely excel, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is a career ender either.

The only way for this to be productive is to compare passer ratings of first year starting rookies with guys that sat, and then understanding that teams that can afford to sit their rookies an entire year probably are putting their second year qb (first year starter) in a pretty good position. I know you and i aren’t disagreeing, im just not in agreeance that waiting a year is the only way. Like you said, Manning earned his lumps and then turned out fine.

[Yoop]

My goodness you are everywhere. I always have a lot of trouble finding what point you are trying to prove. Peyton Manning had a QBR of 71.2

So according to your "adopted list" Manning would be part of the terrible rookie QB group.

And he had 3,700 yards. Not 4,000. And the Colts went 3-13.

whoops, I must have mis read the Manning info, again another good example of a QB that should have groomed up for a season or two.

Huh. I would say however the Colts did it ended up working okay. The end result is he becomes arguably the best and most productive QB in the history of the game.

Yeah I'd take that.

I think the data shows that rookie QB's rarely excel, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is a career ender either.

Paytons father was Archie, who was one of the best QB's of his era, who played for a team known as the N.O. Aints, both his sons where well equipped mentally to handle dispare

[go pak go]

whoops, I must have mis read the Manning info, again another good example of a QB that should have groomed up for a season or two.

Huh. I would say however the Colts did it ended up working okay. The end result is he becomes arguably the best and most productive QB in the history of the game.

Yeah I'd take that.

I think the data shows that rookie QB's rarely excel, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is a career ender either.

The only way for this to be productive is to compare passer ratings of first year starting rookies with guys that sat, and then understanding that teams that can afford to sit their rookies an entire year probably are putting their second year qb (first year starter) in a pretty good position. I know you and i aren’t disagreeing, im just not in agreeance that waiting a year is the only way. Like you said, Manning earned his lumps and then turned out fine.

Yup agreed. I would rather sit my rookie because I think it makes sense (I mean look at the Bears. They are doing the same thing with starting Dalton for the simple sake of starting Dalton). But by no means does the data overwhelmingly support that it is the way to go.

It's all pretty random. No statistical conclusion can be formed.

[Yoop]

Huh. I would say however the Colts did it ended up working okay. The end result is he becomes arguably the best and most productive QB in the history of the game.

Yeah I'd take that.

I think the data shows that rookie QB's rarely excel, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is a career ender either.

The only way for this to be productive is to compare passer ratings of first year starting rookies with guys that sat, and then understanding that teams that can afford to sit their rookies an entire year probably are putting their second year qb (first year starter) in a pretty good position. I know you and i aren’t disagreeing, im just not in agreeance that waiting a year is the only way. Like you said, Manning earned his lumps and then turned out fine.

Yup agreed. I would rather sit my rookie because I think it makes sense (I mean look at the Bears. They are doing the same thing with starting Dalton for the simple sake of starting Dalton). But by no means does the data overwhelmingly support that it is the way to go.

It's all pretty random. No statistical conclusion can be formed.

the Bears are using there heads, same as we are doing, where not using a 40 mil. dollar QB if Love was ready to play, Guty, Lafluer, and Murphy didn't go begging for Rodgers to come back if Love could take us to the SB, or even to the playoffs, or even to a 500 season.

Love has looked good in the part of the field where defenses allow you to look good, not so good in the part that they don't, sure some of that can be scheme, some can also be talent, but he's been in the red zone now a half dozen times and all we have to show for it is nada, a missed FG, even Crosby couldn't bail the kid out

[go pak go]

the Bears are using there heads, same as we are doing, where not using a 40 mil. dollar QB if Love was ready to play, Guty, Lafluer, and Murphy didn't go begging for Rodgers to come back if Love could take us to the SB, or even to the playoffs, or even to a 500 season.

Are you trying to correlate Andy Dalton and Aaron Rodgers?

The Packers wanted Rodgers back for a few reasons.

1. They have a SB winning team right now. We are not in ANY rebuild mode. This team is ready to go now.
2. It's Aaron Rodgers who is the reigning league MVP.
3. The Packers have never seen Jordan Love. They don't know what they are dealing with whereas they had multiple years of Rodgers showing progressing and evidence he was ready. Love hasn't had that chance.

Pretty sure the Packers begged Rodgers back because they knew we had a shot at the title and he is arguably the top 5 to ever play the game and just coming off one of, if not, his best season ever. Not because they wanted their young to learn another year. Sure it's nice a consequence of Rodgers coming back.

But Rodgers is not a "stop-gap" QB like Dalton is for the Bears.

They are nowhere remotely close to the same situation.

[go pak go]

Love has looked good in the part of the field where defenses allow you to look good, not so good in the part that they don't, sure some of that can be scheme, some can also be talent, but he's been in the red zone now a half dozen times and all we have to show for it is nada, a missed FG, even Crosby couldn't bail the kid out

Good ole fabricated facts again.

I believe Love has been in the redzone 3 times.

First one - Touchdown pass to Kylin Hill
Second one - Held up at the 1 yardline. OC ran the ball three times in a row givng the ball to Love to pass once on 4 downs. (the ball to Begelton was actually a really good ball - just broken up by an All Pro vs a Practice Squad receiver)
Third one - 3rd string center doesn't snap the ball setting up a 3rd and 10. Crosby misses a FG.

I don't put any of the redzone appearance gafs on Love. For the exception of maybe one play