Jordan Love Discussion

[bud fox]

Operating out of a clean pocket is not good pocket play - it was when Chiefs rushed four and were soft in coverage so he didn't have to do anything. When he felt pressure he out running. He could not resettle in the pocket.

I defend Rodgers because of how good he is and what he has done for this organization and shouldn't have people like you constantly trying to &%$@ all over him.

I watched the JT video the whole thing and my comment stands that the title was purely clickbait.

I watch Bukowski two videos - Dafney and Cobb/Lazard. He was wrong on the Cobb/Lazard play - Love should have stepped into the pocket and made the throw and not sat on his drop. This would have got him enough time from the outside rush to make the throw to a empty middle field where Lazard would be open running under Cobb.

The Dafney play was purely a missed throw by Love. Dafney blocked down broke away and Love missed. The throw is dependent on when Dafney comes off his block its not Dafney should be at the sideline. Love missed the throw and Dafney was open.

[Pckfn23]

Operating well out of a clean pocket is good pocket play. Not being able move around or avoid blitzes is poor pocket awareness. Love did not have good pocket awareness.

No one here &%$@ all over Rodgers. That is made up in your own head.

No one cares about the title of the video, but you. It's the content that is important.

Thank you for admitting you did not follow the Bukowski thread. You damned yourself there because it goes over all the plays.

There are 3 free rushers, there is no where to step on the Cobb over the top right side play...

The Dafney play you are wrong, dead wrong and OSullivan highlights how wrong you are. Should Love have made the throw, probably, but that was not the worst thing about the play. It was not purely a missed throw by Love.

[Pckfn23]

Simply put Jordan Love did not have a good game, but he also did not have an all bad game. That that hurts your fragile sensibilities so much, is astounding.

[Realist]

O'Sullivan knocks the play design too. I think I am going to go with the actual NFL QB on this one.

image.png
Hmmm

If one thinks that the was nothing good or almost nothing good about Love's play yesterday then there is NO credibility to be had.

You are straining very hard to defend Love. I get it. Nothing he has shown stands out as anymore than pedestrian though. I do hope he gets a chance at home this week. Should be able to beat this seattle team.

[go pak go]

What I just don't understand is how our Oline was so bad?

Like did they just have an epic fail game or was it the QB not getting the right protection calls?

I mean this Oline...this Oline is likely got a player in the wrong spot everywhere except RT. So maybe that has a lot to do with it plus Love not making the right calls.

But man. I have just never seen the Oline completely be a revolving door THAT much in a game. Right Side. Left Side. Up the middle. Literally all of them sucked. The amount of plays where they got to Love in under 2.5 seconds was astounding.

[Pckfn23]

No strain necessary. There were some good things, there were some bad things, and there were some ugly things. If you think that is straining to defend him, you are not objective.

[Captain_Ben]

Simply put Jordan Love did not have a good game, but he also did not have an all bad game. That that hurts your fragile sensibilities so much, is astounding.

Correct, it shouldn't hurt anyone's sensibilities. Mostly because it is almost objectively impossible for a player to play a game comprised of absolutely nothing but bad moments. I think you two are more in agreement than the tone of the discussion indicates.

[Pckfn23]

What I just don't understand is how our Oline was so bad?

Like did they just have an epic fail game or was it the QB not getting the right protection calls?

I mean this Oline...this Oline is likely got a player in the wrong spot everywhere except RT. So maybe that has a lot to do with it plus Love not making the right calls.

But man. I have just never seen the Oline completely be a revolving door THAT much in a game. Right Side. Left Side. Up the middle. Literally all of them sucked. The amount of plays where they got to Love in under 2.5 seconds was astounding.

Ya, it partly has to do with Rodgers, especially with Rodgers pre-snap and getting defenders to declare. That helps linemen a lot. Moving blockers or receivers is something Love did to help out protection. Did he do it right the entire time or consistently? Probably not, but he was doing it.

However, there are things that no QB can set protection up for. Big example is the crossing stunt by 55 on the play Adams was open for the TD. That has to be the centers or Jones'. Neither take him. That one is all on the line.

image.png (514.28 KiB) Viewed 479 times

Then take a look at the protection on the Lazard TD... Elgton Jenkins whiffs on 2 guys. That's not like him, but it did happen.

image.png (334.26 KiB) Viewed 479 times

[Pckfn23]

Absolutely, if you want to see what was good and what was bad, click this twitter thread and watch it all (35 plays in all):


OSullivan also gets into what was good and what was bad and not just from Love:

[Realist]

No strain necessary. There were some good things, there were some bad things, and there were some ugly things. If you think that is straining to defend him, you are not objective.

Every qb does good things during a game. Take off ur packer jammies for a sec. Put Love on another team filling in for a game and objectively evaluate him. What separates him from just a guy? A first round pick as well.

[Pckfn23]

No strain necessary. There were some good things, there were some bad things, and there were some ugly things. If you think that is straining to defend him, you are not objective.

Every qb does good things during a game. Take off ur packer jammies for a sec. Put Love on another team filling in for a game and objectively evaluate him. What separates him from just a guy? A first round pick as well.

How am I evaluating him with my Packers jammies on? What have I said that is not objective?

[bud fox]

No strain necessary. There were some good things, there were some bad things, and there were some ugly things. If you think that is straining to defend him, you are not objective.

Every qb does good things during a game. Take off ur packer jammies for a sec. Put Love on another team filling in for a game and objectively evaluate him. What separates him from just a guy? A first round pick as well.

He was bad. No one evaluates a QB per play and says well he did have some good plays - you are evaluated on a whole performance.

It was much worse than what we have come to expect from the packers starting QB.

[go pak go]

No strain necessary. There were some good things, there were some bad things, and there were some ugly things. If you think that is straining to defend him, you are not objective.

Every qb does good things during a game. Take off ur packer jammies for a sec. Put Love on another team filling in for a game and objectively evaluate him. What separates him from just a guy? A first round pick as well.

I would say it's a rough first game but it's too early to say anything further. Same thing I say about Justin Fields, Logan Wilson, etc.

What I find people also do though is quickly bash poor performances from unproven players but then give total benefit of the doubt to proven players when they play like sh*t.

Example. Even as bad as Jordan Love was yesterday, I think you can make a strong argument he was the best QB in Arrowhead because Mahommes was simply stuffed and produced so poorly.

[bud fox]

No strain necessary. There were some good things, there were some bad things, and there were some ugly things. If you think that is straining to defend him, you are not objective.

So it was a bad game from Love? A bad game from a starting NFL QB?

[go pak go]

No strain necessary. There were some good things, there were some bad things, and there were some ugly things. If you think that is straining to defend him, you are not objective.

Every qb does good things during a game. Take off ur packer jammies for a sec. Put Love on another team filling in for a game and objectively evaluate him. What separates him from just a guy? A first round pick as well.

How am I evaluating him with my Packers jammies on? What have I said that is not objective?

I don't get it either.

[Pckfn23]

No strain necessary. There were some good things, there were some bad things, and there were some ugly things. If you think that is straining to defend him, you are not objective.

Every qb does good things during a game. Take off ur packer jammies for a sec. Put Love on another team filling in for a game and objectively evaluate him. What separates him from just a guy? A first round pick as well.

He was bad. No one evaluates a QB per play and says well he did have some good plays - you are evaluated on a whole performance.

It was much worse than what we have come to expect from the packers starting QB.

If you are not evaluating each play, then you aren't evaluating.

[bud fox]

Every qb does good things during a game. Take off ur packer jammies for a sec. Put Love on another team filling in for a game and objectively evaluate him. What separates him from just a guy? A first round pick as well.

He was bad. No one evaluates a QB per play and says well he did have some good plays - you are evaluated on a whole performance.

It was much worse than what we have come to expect from the packers starting QB.

If you are not evaluating each play, then you aren't evaluating.

Was it a bad GAME by Love?

[Pckfn23]

Yes.

[Drj820]

34 passes, 25 runs...are the run was clearly working.

Lafleur sabotoged Love so the Org will feel pressure to keep Rodgers.

Lafleur knows who butters his biscuits

[Realist]

34 passes, 25 runs...are the run was clearly working.

Lafleur sabotoged Love so the Org will feel pressure to keep Rodgers.

Lafleur knows who butters his biscuits

It was curious to say the least. Such a winnable game.