Packers Huddle

I actually remember floating the idea (before the draft) of us taking a QB, in no small part because Rodgers had just come off his second straight year of very middling play and we had seen some rookie QBs come in and perform well. But the ensuing discussion about his contract structure led me and many other folks to the conclusion that it's a year or two too early to think about drafting a successor.

I didn't like the Love pick for that reason. It felt a bit like the Pats taking Garopollo, i.e. the starting QB was not close enough to his departure for it to be a sound pick, meaning we would have to get rid of one of them too early.

Looking back, I think that idea more or less holds up. If Love really has turned a corner (mind you, still needs to prove it on-field before we can treat it as true), then we will likely have to get rid of one of them next year, either Love asking for a trade out of here or moving forward with him long-term over Rodgers while he still has some very good years left in the tank.

Some will say that's a good problem to have -- QB is the most important position, it's worth the draft pick to keep it strong --, others will say a non-QB pick would have done more to help us win, and yet others will say that the Love pick was worth it if for no other reason than to show Rodgers that he was not safe if he continued playing the way he was even if the player himself didn't give us anything.

I would have preferred to go a different direction with the pick but I do have sympathy for the other two arguments at some level. I mean, if Rodgers continued playing the way he did in the two seasons before the Love selection, taking the reports about Love's recent play as true (still needs to prove himself on-field, mind), Gute would be looking like a genius right now.

No one in a million years could make me a convincing argument that the Love pick was a good move. Mandarich was a bust especially with what was taken around him but at least he was useful starting 2 seasons.

Love has been not only useless but awful when on the field.

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2022 15:29

I actually remember floating the idea (before the draft) of us taking a QB, in no small part because Rodgers had just come off his second straight year of very middling play and we had seen some rookie QBs come in and perform well. But the ensuing discussion about his contract structure led me and many other folks to the conclusion that it's a year or two too early to think about drafting a successor.

I didn't like the Love pick for that reason. It felt a bit like the Pats taking Garopollo, i.e. the starting QB was not close enough to his departure for it to be a sound pick, meaning we would have to get rid of one of them too early.

Exactly. It was way early. We are very fortunate Rodgers spent time in the spirit realm where he found brotherly love for all or he may be in Chicago right now after what Gute did to him.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2022 15:54

No one in a million years could make me a convincing argument that the Love pick was a good move. Mandarich was a bust especially with what was taken around him but at least he was useful starting 2 seasons.

Love has been not only useless but awful when on the field.

Love is only talked about bcuz he is a Packer. Duh. Around the league he is totally irrelevant. But watch out if he has a good preseason. It will be Homer mania.

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2022 13:15

So when I see the Packers go out and hire a young and unproven coach who has a new philosophy on offense - I see that as aggressive. The conservative move would have been to take a veteran coach with a known name.

ahhh, thats not what we've done though the last 50 years

the goal was to create a Shanahan style offense, who better to hire then a Shanahan assistant, I don't see that so much as aggressive, but Smart.

I know you'll defend the Gary pick till the 2nd coming, however I think the aggressive move would have been to trade back a bit and taken Simmons, he's been great since the 3rd game of his rookie year

Alexander was a top 2 considered CB pre draft, ya have to consider ability over size when your picking top 20, so to me thats both Aggressive since he traded out then back up to get Alex, but also smart, size imo is not the main trait of a great CB, in fact it may be a hindrance, agility is what I look for, and Jaire excels because of it

Guty has done a hell of a job, period, that in no way means I liked every pick. move or his pissing match with Rodgers, and drafting Love, but so what, why should anyone have to agree with everything the GM does, thats not normal, a fan can like some stuff and not other decisions that they've made, over all I think he's done a good job.

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2022 16:21

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2022 13:15

So when I see the Packers go out and hire a young and unproven coach who has a new philosophy on offense - I see that as aggressive. The conservative move would have been to take a veteran coach with a known name.

ahhh, thats not what we've done though the last 50 years

the goal was to create a Shanahan style offense, who better to hire then a Shanahan assistant, I don't see that so much as aggressive, but Smart.

I know you'll defend the Gary pick till the 2nd coming, however I think the aggressive move would have been to trade back a bit and taken Simmons, he's been great since the 3rd game of his rookie year

Alexander was a top 2 considered CB pre draft, ya have to consider ability over size when your picking top 20, so to me thats both Aggressive since he traded out then back up to get Alex, but also smart, size imo is not the main trait of a great CB, in fact it may be a hindrance, agility is what I look for, and Jaire excels because of it

Guty has done a hell of a job, period, that in no way means I liked every pick. move or his pissing match with Rodgers, and drafting Love, but so what, why should anyone have to agree with everything the GM does, thats not normal, a fan can like some stuff and not other decisions that they've made, over all I think he's done a good job.

Hiring the current trend is not aggressive. It was a good hire. But not some super swing for the fence.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2022 16:29

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2022 16:21

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2022 13:15

So when I see the Packers go out and hire a young and unproven coach who has a new philosophy on offense - I see that as aggressive. The conservative move would have been to take a veteran coach with a known name.

ahhh, thats not what we've done though the last 50 years

the goal was to create a Shanahan style offense, who better to hire then a Shanahan assistant, I don't see that so much as aggressive, but Smart.

I know you'll defend the Gary pick till the 2nd coming, however I think the aggressive move would have been to trade back a bit and taken Simmons, he's been great since the 3rd game of his rookie year

Alexander was a top 2 considered CB pre draft, ya have to consider ability over size when your picking top 20, so to me thats both Aggressive since he traded out then back up to get Alex, but also smart, size imo is not the main trait of a great CB, in fact it may be a hindrance, agility is what I look for, and Jaire excels because of it

Guty has done a hell of a job, period, that in no way means I liked every pick. move or his pissing match with Rodgers, and drafting Love, but so what, why should anyone have to agree with everything the GM does, thats not normal, a fan can like some stuff and not other decisions that they've made, over all I think he's done a good job.

Hiring the current trend is not aggressive. It was a good hire. But not some super swing for the fence.

Again I like data to backup these assertions.

McVay and Shanahan were hired in 2017. McVay was successful winning the NFC but Shanahan went 6-10.

As far as I know, that was the extent of the "trend". Sure it was exciting watching the Rams do what they did, but we were very early adopters of taking another coach from that tree. The Bengals were the other one. Now it looks great.

The Rams, Packers, 49ers and Bengals have earned their success by taking the risk. But we were a trend setter. I wouldn't call it a trend follower.

The easy choice was Josh McDaniels. That's what this forum wanted.

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2022 16:40

Drj820 wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2022 16:29

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2022 16:21

ahhh, thats not what we've done though the last 50 years

the goal was to create a Shanahan style offense, who better to hire then a Shanahan assistant, I don't see that so much as aggressive, but Smart.

I know you'll defend the Gary pick till the 2nd coming, however I think the aggressive move would have been to trade back a bit and taken Simmons, he's been great since the 3rd game of his rookie year

Alexander was a top 2 considered CB pre draft, ya have to consider ability over size when your picking top 20, so to me thats both Aggressive since he traded out then back up to get Alex, but also smart, size imo is not the main trait of a great CB, in fact it may be a hindrance, agility is what I look for, and Jaire excels because of it

Guty has done a hell of a job, period, that in no way means I liked every pick. move or his pissing match with Rodgers, and drafting Love, but so what, why should anyone have to agree with everything the GM does, thats not normal, a fan can like some stuff and not other decisions that they've made, over all I think he's done a good job.

Hiring the current trend is not aggressive. It was a good hire. But not some super swing for the fence.

Again I like data to backup these assertions.

McVay and Shanahan were hired in 2017. McVay was successful winning the NFC but Shanahan went 6-10.

As far as I know, that was the extent of the "trend". Sure it was exciting watching the Rams do what they did, but we were very early adopters of taking another coach from that tree. The Bengals were the other one. Now it looks great.

The Rams, Packers, 49ers and Bengals have earned their success by taking the risk. But we were a trend setter. I wouldn't call it a trend follower.

The easy choice was Josh McDaniels. That's what this forum wanted.

It's the same trend, you can look up all the data you want, and McDaniels uses a more pure WC scheme, but the motion, and action behind the LOS pre snap prevails imo in McVay, Shanahan, or McDaniels offenses, I think McDaniels failed the personality test.

the last time we hired a well known coach was Forrest Greg mostly we look for OC from successful offenses like Holmgren or McCarthy, and now Lafluer

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2022 16:40

Drj820 wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2022 16:29

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2022 16:21

ahhh, thats not what we've done though the last 50 years

the goal was to create a Shanahan style offense, who better to hire then a Shanahan assistant, I don't see that so much as aggressive, but Smart.

I know you'll defend the Gary pick till the 2nd coming, however I think the aggressive move would have been to trade back a bit and taken Simmons, he's been great since the 3rd game of his rookie year

Alexander was a top 2 considered CB pre draft, ya have to consider ability over size when your picking top 20, so to me thats both Aggressive since he traded out then back up to get Alex, but also smart, size imo is not the main trait of a great CB, in fact it may be a hindrance, agility is what I look for, and Jaire excels because of it

Guty has done a hell of a job, period, that in no way means I liked every pick. move or his pissing match with Rodgers, and drafting Love, but so what, why should anyone have to agree with everything the GM does, thats not normal, a fan can like some stuff and not other decisions that they've made, over all I think he's done a good job.

Hiring the current trend is not aggressive. It was a good hire. But not some super swing for the fence.

Again I like data to backup these assertions.

McVay and Shanahan were hired in 2017. McVay was successful winning the NFC but Shanahan went 6-10.

As far as I know, that was the extent of the "trend". Sure it was exciting watching the Rams do what they did, but we were very early adopters of taking another coach from that tree. The Bengals were the other one. Now it looks great.

The Rams, Packers, 49ers and Bengals have earned their success by taking the risk. But we were a trend setter. I wouldn't call it a trend follower.

The easy choice was Josh McDaniels. That's what this forum wanted.

And who exactly is “this forum”????

Drj820 wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2022 17:02

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2022 16:40

Drj820 wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2022 16:29

Hiring the current trend is not aggressive. It was a good hire. But not some super swing for the fence.

Again I like data to backup these assertions.

McVay and Shanahan were hired in 2017. McVay was successful winning the NFC but Shanahan went 6-10.

As far as I know, that was the extent of the "trend". Sure it was exciting watching the Rams do what they did, but we were very early adopters of taking another coach from that tree. The Bengals were the other one. Now it looks great.

The Rams, Packers, 49ers and Bengals have earned their success by taking the risk. But we were a trend setter. I wouldn't call it a trend follower.

The easy choice was Josh McDaniels. That's what this forum wanted.

And who exactly is “this forum”????

Green Bay land.

McDaniels was the bonafide favorite. That's not even up for debate. The #2 guy for popular choice was Vic Fangio. Very little attention was paid to a little known guy named Matt LeFluer.

YoHo was one of the few in the social media and regular media space who really touted this guy named Matt LeFluer.

Are we really debating that hiring MLF wasn't a ballsy move? This was Mark Murphy's greatest hiring decision. It was also the decision would be most judged on and he nailed it.

All people knew about him was his offenses sucked as OC, didn't take credit for the 2017 success because McVay called plays, and you had to dig deep correlate hard that Kirk Cousin and Matt Ryan's success was highly due to MLF rather than others in that group. The other thing people knew about him is girls thought he was hot and he was really nervous and appeared intimidated in the camera to start 2019. His confidence with the media grew exponentially after that.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2022 17:30

http://packersnews.net/phpbb3/viewtopic ... =Mcdaniels

I'm proud of me for that thread. What a list. I liked Dan Campbell? lol. At least I wanted MLF as OC in my original "ideal" scenario.

That said, 40 pages of a topic with loads of missing posts is a lot to wade through to determine if "the forum" wanted McDaniels, hahaha

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2022 17:42

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2022 17:30

http://packersnews.net/phpbb3/viewtopic ... =Mcdaniels

I'm proud of me for that thread. What a list. I liked Dan Campbell? lol. At least I wanted MLF as OC in my original "ideal" scenario.

That said, 40 pages of a topic with loads of missing posts is a lot to wade through to determine if "the forum" wanted McDaniels, hahaha

You did do well with that list, props. I browsed through the thread. I stumped hard for Todd Monken haha. I don’t see how one could read that and say Mcdaniels was the unanimous top pick. Yoop said it best in his first sentence here...

I didn't know who Matt Lafluer was back then, I just liked watching Brady and that NE offense work, I like Motion, Jet Sweeps, and mis direction, and anything else deceptive, so McDaniels schemes would have been a vast improvement over what McCarthy was doing, for 2 straight years Rodgers made comments about changes he'd like to see, run more, and more up tempo offense, which is exactly what we've gotten, It's a copy cat league, if a certain coach has success, others will try to emulate his schemes, I enjoy watching the evolution and trends develop, the marriage of Lafluer and Rodgers has produced a very potent offense when it has the main pieces healthy, I expect it to be even better with the changes at WR, as long as the OL doesn't let us down.

I misspoke when I said forum. I meant Green Bay land. Packers fans and media at large.

Next offseason, the packers will have to decide on Loves 5th year option. Don’t be surprised when the Packers draft a QB in the first round next year and Jordan is sold for a couple sheckles

Drj820 wrote: ↑

13 Aug 2022 21:24

Next offseason, the packers will have to decide on Loves 5th year option. Don’t be surprised when the Packers draft a QB in the first round next year and Jordan is sold for a couple sheckles

Have you always been this negative and glum on every post and I didn’t notice, or did this just change in the like the last year?

I’m not convinced yet LaFleur is that great a coach. I did the first two years. That Chiefs game gave me pause. His game plan under a QB that wasn’t Rodgers was awful. I don’t think he helped Love in that game at all and they blitzed the daylights out of him. LaFleur had no answer. I’ve seen a few times now where he just gets stumped and doesn’t seem to adjust.

His decision making is very questionable. Moving Turner to LT instead of starting Njiman. First hiring from inside a failed STs unit and then keeping them on board when it couldn’t have gotten worse. A few times he should have had a Dillon game plan and stuck with Jones, one was against the Buccs. These things are obvious to me.

It’s hard to argue with the record but Rodgers is X-factor. It’s the same argument I had with people in 2016 when we went to the NFC championship and I said we needed to clean house because that was a damn near talentless team but the counter was “we were just one game away from the SB.”

BF004 wrote: ↑

14 Aug 2022 07:55

Drj820 wrote: ↑

13 Aug 2022 21:24

Next offseason, the packers will have to decide on Loves 5th year option. Don’t be surprised when the Packers draft a QB in the first round next year and Jordan is sold for a couple sheckles

Have you always been this negative and glum on every post and I didn’t notice, or did this just change in the like the last year?

I’ve said lots of positive things this off-season. For instance, I’m thrilled with new STs hire, I believe we have one of the best RB rooms in the NFL, and I’m pumped for the defense.

We’ve just been on the topic of Jordan Love, and for that topic I state my opinions strongly...I think he should have played all 4 quarters last night, and I think the team is hiding him because he doesn’t have “it”. Thus, I predict we do not pick up his 5th year option, and may draft another qb next year.

That’s my opinion, do you have one on the option?

I beat the drum hard that STs would cost us a super bowl, and it did. That wasn’t negative, that was just a prediction that came true. Now we are talking about Jordan Love and my feelings are not happy with rainbows. Many things I feel good about with the team tho.