Round 1 (26) - Jordan Love, QB Utah State

[Foosball]

When I watch the highlights, I noticed J-lo has great feet. Very quick drop back. Shuffles well to either side. If McCarthy was still with the Packers that’s all he’d be talking about.

[Scott4Pack]

Totally cool profile!

If scouts and coaches have known his story, who wouldn't want to draft this guy?

[British]

I can definitely see why he fell past the teams at the top in need of a Day 1 starter this year. He's not ready. But his upside, with a couple of years of coaching, means it's teams with ageing vets that were probably the more likely competitors for him.

[Scott4Pack]

The Steelers showed last season what happens when you don't have a good back up. And the Eagles the year before showed what happens when you do.

Rodgers has been injured and off the boil the past few years and we've had zero impact from our QB2.

Also, in terms of immediate impact, I was hoping for a developmental OT like Josh Jones or maybe Ezra Cleveland last night. They may have taken a year to hit the field so the outlook for 2020 wouldn't have been much different than taking the developmental QB.

Rounds 2 and 3 were always going to be the 'weapon' rounds anyway for me.

Speaking of that, the Eagles drafted a QB too! Given it cost them less. But what about Wentz? Oh imagine the controversy...

I realize this isn't exactly apples to apples with Love and Green Bay. But still, the Eagles "should've" drafted for need and they didn't "need" another QB. Right? ;-)

[Yoop]

Belechick passed up a HOF QB

[Pckfn23]

https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/04/28/green ... rs-deja-vu

[Pckfn23]

[TheSkeptic]

https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/04/28/green ... rs-deja-vu

"I have staked this claim many times after experiencing the Aaron-Brett situation: No first-round quarterback will ever sit for three years again. So, you ask, does that mean I think Jordan Love will be the starting quarterback of the Packers before 2023? As surprised I am to be writing this: Yes.

While I believe three years is too long an apprenticeship, it is also inconceivable that the Packers move on from Aaron next year, no matter how uneven Aaron’s play this upcoming season. Thus, by deduction, I believe the date of transfer of the Packers quarterback position will be after two seasons, in 2022. And that presents an uncomfortable circle of life scenario for Aaron."

~Andrew Brandt

But it is not inconceivable. Rodgers could get hurt. Love could play well while he is hurt.

[Pckfn23]

[NCF]

[mention]Pckfn23[/mention]

I just listened to that, myself. I have a ton of respect for Greg Cosell, but I did feel a little bit like I wasted my time when I got to the end and he didn't really understand Aaron's contract.

[Pckfn23]

@Pckfn23

I just listened to that, myself. I have a ton of respect for Greg Cosell, but I did feel a little bit like I wasted my time when I got to the end and he didn't really understand Aaron's contract.

Exact same thoughts I had. It shows he is thinking about this from a pure on field football standpoint instead of anything else, imo.

[Pckfn23]

https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2020 ... river-cobb

Not on board with much of this, but COMPLETELY again this statement, "Love strikes me as a one or two-read quarterback who will struggle to make his one or two-read throws at the next level in tighter windows." He claims to have watched a ton of tape, I call &%$@.

[Drj820]

Fascinating interview. Always love Cosell. Couple takeaways If Cosell is right about the situation:

1) Despite the happy talk, Lafleur and Rodgers were in a power struggle and lafleur has absolutely won it.

2) Rodgers is still a top 12(?) qb in this league at worst. To have him under contract and already be wanting to punt on him is a massive indictment against rodgers.

3) Interesting the team would extend rodgers and not tell the new coach "Rodgers is our guy, your job is to get the most of him and make him better". Instead do something more like, "Hi new coach, this is your show. We have a HOF qb under contract, if he cant mold into what you want..we will punt him while he still has plenty of life left in him and get you the QB you want." Just wild to think about after one year, when 12 is not THAT old (yet).

4. I thought Rodgers had some bad games last year, but i thought overall he was just fine for first year in a brand new system. I feel by not getting him more help, the team is kind of shooting him the bird and blaming him for issues any qb would have.

5. in spite of point 4, the team must feel they have given him all he needs and hes just not doing the job i guess.

6. I assumed Lafleur would fail here if he couldnt improve rodgers and get along with him, the team is saying rodgers will fail and be gone if he cant follow the 39 year old coach.

7. We are headed for an ugly divorce.

[Pckfn23]

[Drj820]

@Pckfn23

I just listened to that, myself. I have a ton of respect for Greg Cosell, but I did feel a little bit like I wasted my time when I got to the end and he didn't really understand Aaron's contract.

Exact same thoughts I had. It shows he is thinking about this from a pure on field football standpoint instead of anything else, imo.

okay i can understand that. But if from a pure football perspective that is what they are saying..then making that football move while rodgers has that contract shows how strongly they feel all the more! As in, they are willing to eat or disregard the contract just to get Lafleur who he wants, or get rodgers out of town.

I still fall in this camp:

The extension was criminal if they already want to move on.

or

the draft pick of love was criminal if they dont plan to move on after a mere two more years.

Its one or the other the way i see it.

[NCF]

@Pckfn23

I just listened to that, myself. I have a ton of respect for Greg Cosell, but I did feel a little bit like I wasted my time when I got to the end and he didn't really understand Aaron's contract.

Exact same thoughts I had. It shows he is thinking about this from a pure on field football standpoint instead of anything else, imo.

okay i can understand that. But if from a pure football perspective that is what they are saying..then making that football move while rodgers has that contract shows how strongly they feel all the more! As in, they are willing to eat or disregard the contract just to get Lafleur who he wants, or get rodgers out of town.

I still fall in this camp:

The extension was criminal if they already want to move on.

or

the draft pick of love was criminal if they dont plan to move on after a mere two more years.

Its one or the other the way i see it.

I see McGinn is piling on now with a full set of superlatives. I still think neither is criminal. It's QB. You do absolutely whatever you have to do to get that position right and then worry about everything else.

[NCF]

Here is the McGinn thing. I think people are now reacting to what they think should be happening. I just can't buy all of this.

Public niceties aside, my sense is [coach Matt] LaFleur, fresh from a terrific 13-3 baptismal season, simply had enough of [Aaron] Rodgers’ act and wanted to change the narrative. With a first-round talent on the roster, the Packers would gain leverage with their imperial quarterback and his passive-aggressive style. If the Packers do indeed want to become a running team next season, they surely wouldn’t want Rodgers rocking the boat and becoming even more difficult to coach.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... dgers-act/

[Drj820]

Here is the McGinn thing. I think people are now reacting to what they think should be happening. I just can't buy all of this.

Public niceties aside, my sense is [coach Matt] LaFleur, fresh from a terrific 13-3 baptismal season, simply had enough of [Aaron] Rodgers’ act and wanted to change the narrative. With a first-round talent on the roster, the Packers would gain leverage with their imperial quarterback and his passive-aggressive style. If the Packers do indeed want to become a running team next season, they surely wouldn’t want Rodgers rocking the boat and becoming even more difficult to coach.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... dgers-act/

People can say all they want that we just wanted a backup, or it was time to start grooming someone. But football teams are about people, and we are early in the "Must groom someone now" stage. Weirly early.
When you give a massive contract to a player, everyone thinks the massive contract guy needs more weapons bc 52% of WR snaps last year were to UDFAs, and you turn around and draft his replacement in round one, and never draft him anymore WRs...people can say all they want that the team is just making sure a position is taken care of. Bull. You took care of it when you spend over 100m on it by paying the starter. You are sending a message.

What that message is..now thats up for debate. But that is sending a message.

[YoHoChecko]

The way I see it... the extension and restructuring are PROOF that the team expects and intends to have him for AT LEAST 2-3 more years. They voluntarily locked themselves into that position.

The draft pick, then, is CLEARLY made for a guy who can be the backup, not the starter for AT LEAST 2-3 more years.

As a reminder:

• We drafted Rodgers to be a backup for at least a year

• We drafted Bulaga to be a backup for at least a year(Clifton and Tauscher were still there)

• We drafted Jordy to be a backup/#4 for at least a year (and he was a #4/#3 for at least 2.5 years)

• We drafted Justin Harrell to be a backup for at least a year

• We drafted Gary to be a backup (The Smiths were just signed)

This year:

• The Dolphins drafted Tua at 5 to be a backup for a year

• The Chargers might make Justin Herbert their backup for at least a year

Finally, sitting Rodgers for at least 2 years is the best thing that ever happened to him. He says so. We can see that from his shaky preseason and backup performances over his first two years.

It may not be what people want with a first round pick--especially after trading up, but rookies often need seasoning. QBs often need the most. There is NO sign that the Packers have made this pick because they are punting on Rodgers. None. The financial decisions make it VERY clear that they are not. ANY read on the situation that ignores that the Packers voluntarily locked themselves into 2-3 more years with Rodgers just as willingly as they drafted Love is a stupid read. Period.

Maybe it'll be messy in 2-3 years. I anticipate a couple tense, potentially ugly years of "what will they do?" then. But it's FAR too early for it now. I'm sick of dumb@$$ opinions from talking heads to get clicks. Everyone knows what's happening here, and what is happening is that Rodgers is the guy in 2020 and in 2021, and the TEAM COMMITTED TO HIM, publicly, privately, financially... before they drafted Love.

If you can't read those dollars as all the reassurance you need, try brail, because it can't be spelled out any more clearly.

[Drj820]

The way I see it... the extension and restructuring are PROOF that the team expects and intends to have him for AT LEAST 2-3 more years. They voluntarily locked themselves into that position.

The draft pick, then, is CLEARLY made for a guy who can be the backup, not the starter for AT LEAST 2-3 more years.

As a reminder:

• We drafted Rodgers to be a backup for at least a year

• We drafted Bulaga to be a backup for at least a year(Clifton and Tauscher were still there)

• We drafted Jordy to be a backup/#4 for at least a year (and he was a #4/#3 for at least 2.5 years)

• We drafted Justin Harrell to be a backup for at least a year

• We drafted Gary to be a backup (The Smiths were just signed)

This year:

• The Dolphins drafted Tua at 5 to be a backup for a year

• The Chargers might make Justin Herbert their backup for at least a year

Finally, sitting Rodgers for at least 2 years is the best thing that ever happened to him. He says so. We can see that from his shaky preseason and backup performances over his first two years.

It may not be what people want with a first round pick--especially after trading up, but rookies often need seasoning. QBs often need the most. There is NO sign that the Packers have made this pick because they are punting on Rodgers. None. The financial decisions make it VERY clear that they are not. ANY read on the situation that ignores that the Packers voluntarily locked themselves into 2-3 more years with Rodgers just as willingly as they drafted Love is a stupid read. Period.

Maybe it'll be messy in 2-3 years. I anticipate a couple tense, potentially ugly years of "what will they do?" then. But it's FAR too early for it now. I'm sick of dumb@$$ opinions from talking heads to get clicks. Everyone knows what's happening here, and what is happening is that Rodgers is the guy in 2020 and in 2021, and the TEAM COMMITTED TO HIM, publicly, privately, financially... before they drafted Love.

If you can't read those dollars as all the reassurance you need, try brail, because it can't be spelled out any more clearly.

Okay, im not disputing anything you say. But even if the plan is for Love to sit for 2 years..thats still 2 years short of when Rodgers contract is up. Even if he sat for 3, which i really dont see that happening...thats still a year short of the end of rodgers deal.

So at mimimum, you can infer or accept the packers are sending the message...they dont plan on rodgers finishing out his current contract.

That said, i really like your point about the contract does the most talking to advocate that they are committed to him. Thats money, and money talks more than words.