Packers Huddle

Labrev wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2023 13:58

Yoop wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2023 13:49

so then two wrongs make what? when Favre had quality receivers he won a SB, when Rodgers had quality receivers he won a SB, when neither had them they didn't

Rodgers was not wronged at all, not even close to how much Favre was, even Tom Brady didn't get as many good WRs as Rodgers did over their careers (and won multiple titles with WRs you would have complained are not good enough for Rodgers).

wrong
I don't get into this comparing bs, again Wolf brought in receivers for Favre, and we won a SB, same with Rodgers, once Nelson and Cobb declined all that was left was Adams, and hardly anything was done to fix that since Adams was drafted, where talking almost a decade.

you and others think having a great QB means ya don't need great receivers, or ya can get by with the &%$@ show we've seen here, and thats basically what happened, we got by, we won the division, in PO games you blamed Rodgers for losing, and glossed over the jags at the receiver position, oh ya Rodgers didn't see the open Lazard, as though other great QB don't miss open receivers, ever, it's hog wash to defend your point of view Labrev and you know it.

most teams that take home a owl, have something other teams typically can't stop, usually thats a passing attack (TE), or a bit of both a good run game and passing attack, and most have at least a little better then average defense and ST's, we've lost because one aspect, sometimes all 3 phases don't do well.

to me it is easier to bolster the WR position then it is to build a top tier defense, yet thats the route Ted and Guty decided to take since 2015 till this very last draft,.

Guty's decisions concerning receivers since he took over soured and chance that I could ever respect him as our GM

Again yoop. The 2010 story was far more about the defense than it was about the Packers passing attack. The defense was net 62 points in that post season. (15 ppg)

The "elite" WR era that actually produced was 2011 - 2014.

And it produced zero rings.

There are so many variables in football. It does not make sense trying to point at one thing.

go pak go wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2023 14:42

Again yoop. The 2010 story was far more about the defense than it was about the Packers passing attack. The defense was net 62 points in that post season. (15 ppg)

The "elite" WR era that actually produced was 2011 - 2014.

And it produced zero rings.

There are so many variables in football. It does not make sense trying to point at one thing.

true that was a top 5 defense (top 2?) but our offense wasn't chump change either, and showed it in 2011, to bad the defense and ST sucked along with our running attack, still we had a power house passing attack

I know one thing, having a potent offense, and barely above average defense and ST's is how I'd attempt to build a team, it's just to hard to emulate what Capers and Ted had to do to build that defense, not just starters but also backups, it's just easier to build a potent offense jmo.

Yoop wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2023 14:36

you and others think having a great QB means ya don't need great receivers,

I never said that. Quite the opposite, I said Favre needed better receivers than he had in most of his career, especially the prime of his career. In his case, your melodramatics about Rodgers being saddled with scrubs actually is true of most of Favre's career.

Rodgers OTOH had good WRs in most of his career, particularly in his prime.

dsr wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2023 09:23

Are you saying that if the Packers had won a couple more games in 2004, then drafting Rodgers would have been a mistake?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. The Packers weren't a contender entering the 2005 draft. You just need to look at their record of 4-12 for evidence. They were definitely one in the 2020 offseason though. Therefore it make much more sense to draft a QB when Rodgers dropped to them instead of trading up to select Love.

Labrev wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2023 13:58

Rodgers was not wronged at all, not even close to how much Favre was, even Tom Brady didn't get as many good WRs as Rodgers did over their careers (and won multiple titles with WRs you would have complained are not good enough for Rodgers).

Favre had the benefit of having a top 10 scoring defense in seven of his seasons as the starter in Green Bay. Rodgers had that only three times. Brady? His teams had such a defense in 18 of his 22 seasons.

Labrev wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2023 15:26

Yoop wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2023 14:36

you and others think having a great QB means ya don't need great receivers,

I never said that. Quite the opposite, I said Favre needed better receivers than he had in most of his career, especially the prime of his career. In his case, your melodramatics about Rodgers being saddled with scrubs actually is true of most of Favre's career.

Rodgers OTOH had good WRs in most of his career, particularly in his prime.

Rodgers had great WRs. And how many times did he lose in the playoffs because his defense was inferior to his opponents and they gave up last second points? Last I checked the WRs don’t play defense.

Labrev wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2023 15:26

Yoop wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2023 14:36

you and others think having a great QB means ya don't need great receivers,

I never said that. Quite the opposite, I said Favre needed better receivers than he had in most of his career, especially the prime of his career. In his case, your melodramatics about Rodgers being saddled with scrubs actually is true of most of Favre's career.

Rodgers OTOH had good WRs in most of his career, particularly in his prime.

Absolutely true. Jennings, Jones, Driver, Nelson, Chmura, Jackson, Finley when Rodgers was in his prime. Adams and Cobb later. All these were quality receivers. And Jones is a great receiving RB. Tonyan was very good too, for 1 year, before that ACL. If QB and receivers were all that is required for a SB, Rodgers should have 5 rings.

CWIMM wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 03:41

dsr wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2023 09:23

Are you saying that if the Packers had won a couple more games in 2004, then drafting Rodgers would have been a mistake?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. The Packers weren't a contender entering the 2005 draft. You just need to look at their record of 4-12 for evidence. They were definitely one in the 2020 offseason though. Therefore it make much more sense to draft a QB when Rodgers dropped to them instead of trading up to select Love.

When they did the draft in 2005, they couldn't use the following season's results as a guide. More likely they would use the previous season, the one that had actually been played, which was 10-6 and number 3 seed in the NFC.

Besides, there are no circumstances in 2005 that would have made it wrong to draft Rodgers. I can't think there is ever a circumstances in which you can say "this man is a future Hall of Fame quarterback who can lead the franchise for 15 years, but we need [insert random position] more."

dsr wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 06:54

CWIMM wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 03:41

dsr wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2023 09:23

Are you saying that if the Packers had won a couple more games in 2004, then drafting Rodgers would have been a mistake?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. The Packers weren't a contender entering the 2005 draft. You just need to look at their record of 4-12 for evidence. They were definitely one in the 2020 offseason though. Therefore it make much more sense to draft a QB when Rodgers dropped to them instead of trading up to select Love.

When they did the draft in 2005, they couldn't use the following season's results as a guide. More likely they would use the previous season, the one that had actually been played, which was 10-6 and number 3 seed in the NFC.

Besides, there are no circumstances in 2005 that would have made it wrong to draft Rodgers. I can't think there is ever a circumstances in which you can say "this man is a future Hall of Fame quarterback who can lead the franchise for 15 years, but we need [insert random position] more."

That was exactly my thought, as well. Didn't want to steal your thunder, though...

It's a bit disingenuous to say the Packers were not contenders coming off a #3 seed entering the 2005 draft ths justifying the selection of Rodgers and then argue the exact opposite for the 2020 draft and condemning the FO for drafting Love. It's not logically consistent. Fact is the Packers saw an opportunity to draft a player they thought very highly of in both situations and jumped at it. As with Rodgers, only time will tell if it was a wise decision.

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 06:05

Labrev wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2023 15:26

Yoop wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2023 14:36

you and others think having a great QB means ya don't need great receivers,

I never said that. Quite the opposite, I said Favre needed better receivers than he had in most of his career, especially the prime of his career. In his case, your melodramatics about Rodgers being saddled with scrubs actually is true of most of Favre's career.

Rodgers OTOH had good WRs in most of his career, particularly in his prime.

Absolutely true. Jennings, Jones, Driver, Nelson, Chmura, Jackson, Finley when Rodgers was in his prime. Adams and Cobb later. All these were quality receivers. And Jones is a great receiving RB. Tonyan was very good too, for 1 year, before that ACL. If QB and receivers were all that is required for a SB, Rodgers should have 5 rings.

why mention Chmura or Jackson? Rodgers was here 15 seasons, and for the last 7 he had one quality receiver a DC had to game scheme to stop, and one RB, Tonyan had one above mediocre season, we struggled to help the offense with poor defense in 2011, same with the run game, ( but thats another topic) so thats where ted devoted his drafts, to build a better defense.

APB wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 07:21

dsr wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 06:54

CWIMM wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 03:41

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. The Packers weren't a contender entering the 2005 draft. You just need to look at their record of 4-12 for evidence. They were definitely one in the 2020 offseason though. Therefore it make much more sense to draft a QB when Rodgers dropped to them instead of trading up to select Love.

When they did the draft in 2005, they couldn't use the following season's results as a guide. More likely they would use the previous season, the one that had actually been played, which was 10-6 and number 3 seed in the NFC.

Besides, there are no circumstances in 2005 that would have made it wrong to draft Rodgers. I can't think there is ever a circumstances in which you can say "this man is a future Hall of Fame quarterback who can lead the franchise for 15 years, but we need [insert random position] more."

That was exactly my thought, as well. Didn't want to steal your thunder, though...

It's a bit disingenuous to say the Packers were not contenders coming off a #3 seed entering the 2005 draft ths justifying the selection of Rodgers and then argue the exact opposite for the 2020 draft and condemning the FO for drafting Love. It's not logically consistent. Fact is the Packers saw an opportunity to draft a player they thought very highly of in both situations and jumped at it. As with Rodgers, only time will tell if it was a wise decision.

Ted was not interested in drafting a QB, although he had plenty of reason to, as Favre was threatening to retire every season, Rodgers was the 2nd QB taken that season, what seems obvious is that most teams either didn't need a QB, either way Rodgers had a 1A or B draft grade that season, he had the pedigree.

thats not who Love was entering his draft class, and what 4 QB's where drafted prior, in fact several GM's and most draft people had Love with a 2nd round grade, also Rodgers had never threaten to retire, or ask for a trade, in fact he said he wanted to play till 40 and retire a Packer, couple that with Guty trading up and basically reaching for Love.
nothing about that pick made sense, just because Rodger sat for 3 years behind Favre doesn't mean that should become the norm, it's at least 1 year to long, maybe 2.

I still think the Love pick possibly cost us a SB over the following couple seasons, or at least a ticket to the dance., but thats me.

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 07:39

APB wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 07:21

dsr wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 06:54

When they did the draft in 2005, they couldn't use the following season's results as a guide. More likely they would use the previous season, the one that had actually been played, which was 10-6 and number 3 seed in the NFC.

Besides, there are no circumstances in 2005 that would have made it wrong to draft Rodgers. I can't think there is ever a circumstances in which you can say "this man is a future Hall of Fame quarterback who can lead the franchise for 15 years, but we need [insert random position] more."

That was exactly my thought, as well. Didn't want to steal your thunder, though...

It's a bit disingenuous to say the Packers were not contenders coming off a #3 seed entering the 2005 draft ths justifying the selection of Rodgers and then argue the exact opposite for the 2020 draft and condemning the FO for drafting Love. It's not logically consistent. Fact is the Packers saw an opportunity to draft a player they thought very highly of in both situations and jumped at it. As with Rodgers, only time will tell if it was a wise decision.

Ted was not interested in drafting a QB, although he had plenty of reason to, as Favre was threatening to retire every season, Rodgers was the 2nd QB taken that season, what seems obvious is that most teams either didn't need a QB, either way Rodgers had a 1A or B draft grade that season, he had the pedigree.

thats not who Love was entering his draft class, and what 4 QB's where drafted prior, in fact several GM's and most draft people had Love with a 2nd round grade, also Rodgers had never threaten to retire, or ask for a trade, in fact he said he wanted to play till 40 and retire a Packer, couple that with Guty trading up and basically reaching for Love.
nothing about that pick made sense, just because Rodger sat for 3 years behind Favre doesn't mean that should become the norm, it's at least 1 year to long, maybe 2.

I still think the Love pick possibly cost us a SB over the following couple seasons, or at least a ticket to the dance., but thats me.

At that point, Favre wasn't threatening retirement every year. He had made a couple comments about his future but it wasn't until the "I'm just going to miss the guys" comment AFTER the 2005 season where people started taking his retirement talk seriously. Literally no one before the 2005 draft thought that Rodgers was anywhere close to retirement.

Acrobat wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 07:57

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 07:39

APB wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 07:21

That was exactly my thought, as well. Didn't want to steal your thunder, though...

It's a bit disingenuous to say the Packers were not contenders coming off a #3 seed entering the 2005 draft ths justifying the selection of Rodgers and then argue the exact opposite for the 2020 draft and condemning the FO for drafting Love. It's not logically consistent. Fact is the Packers saw an opportunity to draft a player they thought very highly of in both situations and jumped at it. As with Rodgers, only time will tell if it was a wise decision.

Ted was not interested in drafting a QB, although he had plenty of reason to, as Favre was threatening to retire every season, Rodgers was the 2nd QB taken that season, what seems obvious is that most teams either didn't need a QB, either way Rodgers had a 1A or B draft grade that season, he had the pedigree.

thats not who Love was entering his draft class, and what 4 QB's where drafted prior, in fact several GM's and most draft people had Love with a 2nd round grade, also Rodgers had never threaten to retire, or ask for a trade, in fact he said he wanted to play till 40 and retire a Packer, couple that with Guty trading up and basically reaching for Love.
nothing about that pick made sense, just because Rodger sat for 3 years behind Favre doesn't mean that should become the norm, it's at least 1 year to long, maybe 2.

I still think the Love pick possibly cost us a SB over the following couple seasons, or at least a ticket to the dance., but thats me.

At that point, Favre wasn't threatening retirement every year. He had made a couple comments about his future but it wasn't until the "I'm just going to miss the guys" comment AFTER the 2005 season where people started taking his retirement talk seriously. Literally no one before the 2005 draft thought that Rodgers was anywhere close to retirement.

2004/5 — Packers fail to get past the Wild Card round once again, falling to the Vikings on the back of Favre’s 4 interceptions. 34-year-old Favre tells GB he needs to think about his future. Commits to coming back in March

2002/3 — The first retirement rumours start. Packers lose to Vick and the Falcons in the Wild Card. “I have every intention of coming back,” says 32-year-old Favre when asked if he’s going to retire.

why would people ask if he's going to retire if they hadn't gotten the impression he might, Favre had been the main reason we lost to the Hawks, Seattle, the Vikes, people act like Rodgers was the reason we lost PO games, it pales in comparison to Favre who was a dumpster fire in PO games.
and Ted was around for all of it, Favre talked retirement after every failed trade Sherman or Ted tried to do.

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 08:32

Acrobat wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 07:57

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 07:39

Ted was not interested in drafting a QB, although he had plenty of reason to, as Favre was threatening to retire every season, Rodgers was the 2nd QB taken that season, what seems obvious is that most teams either didn't need a QB, either way Rodgers had a 1A or B draft grade that season, he had the pedigree.

thats not who Love was entering his draft class, and what 4 QB's where drafted prior, in fact several GM's and most draft people had Love with a 2nd round grade, also Rodgers had never threaten to retire, or ask for a trade, in fact he said he wanted to play till 40 and retire a Packer, couple that with Guty trading up and basically reaching for Love.
nothing about that pick made sense, just because Rodger sat for 3 years behind Favre doesn't mean that should become the norm, it's at least 1 year to long, maybe 2.

I still think the Love pick possibly cost us a SB over the following couple seasons, or at least a ticket to the dance., but thats me.

At that point, Favre wasn't threatening retirement every year. He had made a couple comments about his future but it wasn't until the "I'm just going to miss the guys" comment AFTER the 2005 season where people started taking his retirement talk seriously. Literally no one before the 2005 draft thought that Rodgers was anywhere close to retirement.

2004/5 — Packers fail to get past the Wild Card round once again, falling to the Vikings on the back of Favre’s 4 interceptions. 34-year-old Favre tells GB he needs to think about his future. Commits to coming back in March

2002/3 — The first retirement rumours start. Packers lose to Vick and the Falcons in the Wild Card. “I have every intention of coming back,” says 32-year-old Favre when asked if he’s going to retire.

why would people ask if he's going to retire if they hadn't gotten the impression he might, Favre had been the main reason we lost to the Hawks, Seattle, the Vikes, people act like Rodgers was the reason we lost PO games, it pales in comparison to Favre who was a dumpster fire in PO games.
and Ted was around for all of it, Favre talked retirement after every failed trade Sherman or Ted tried to do.

You like Reddit, there eh? :D

Yeah, like I said, Favre had made that comment, but it was more media driven. Literally no one in the Packers FO actually had any belief that Favre was going to retire.

Acrobat wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 09:37

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 08:32

Acrobat wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 07:57

At that point, Favre wasn't threatening retirement every year. He had made a couple comments about his future but it wasn't until the "I'm just going to miss the guys" comment AFTER the 2005 season where people started taking his retirement talk seriously. Literally no one before the 2005 draft thought that Rodgers was anywhere close to retirement.

2004/5 — Packers fail to get past the Wild Card round once again, falling to the Vikings on the back of Favre’s 4 interceptions. 34-year-old Favre tells GB he needs to think about his future. Commits to coming back in March

2002/3 — The first retirement rumours start. Packers lose to Vick and the Falcons in the Wild Card. “I have every intention of coming back,” says 32-year-old Favre when asked if he’s going to retire.

why would people ask if he's going to retire if they hadn't gotten the impression he might, Favre had been the main reason we lost to the Hawks, Seattle, the Vikes, people act like Rodgers was the reason we lost PO games, it pales in comparison to Favre who was a dumpster fire in PO games.
and Ted was around for all of it, Favre talked retirement after every failed trade Sherman or Ted tried to do.

You like Reddit, there eh? :D

Yeah, like I said, Favre had made that comment, but it was more media driven. Literally no one in the Packers FO actually had any belief that Favre was going to retire.

you don't know any m ore then I do what Thompson thought of Favres repeated retirement BS, it happened and a GM has to pay attention to it, again Ted didn't go after Rodgers, he didn't trade up for him, which Guty did.

yes he said he couldn't find a trade partner to go after the more team needy position of WR, if you want to believe that, fine, I don't for a minute though, Brian has never had a problem finding trade partners for players he wants, Rodgers and Lafleur worked well enough together installing Matts offense to go 13-3, Rodgers had no intentions to leave as Favre had.

APB wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 07:21

dsr wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 06:54

CWIMM wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 03:41

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. The Packers weren't a contender entering the 2005 draft. You just need to look at their record of 4-12 for evidence. They were definitely one in the 2020 offseason though. Therefore it make much more sense to draft a QB when Rodgers dropped to them instead of trading up to select Love.

When they did the draft in 2005, they couldn't use the following season's results as a guide. More likely they would use the previous season, the one that had actually been played, which was 10-6 and number 3 seed in the NFC.

Besides, there are no circumstances in 2005 that would have made it wrong to draft Rodgers. I can't think there is ever a circumstances in which you can say "this man is a future Hall of Fame quarterback who can lead the franchise for 15 years, but we need [insert random position] more."

That was exactly my thought, as well. Didn't want to steal your thunder, though...

It's a bit disingenuous to say the Packers were not contenders coming off a #3 seed entering the 2005 draft ths justifying the selection of Rodgers and then argue the exact opposite for the 2020 draft and condemning the FO for drafting Love. It's not logically consistent. Fact is the Packers saw an opportunity to draft a player they thought very highly of in both situations and jumped at it. As with Rodgers, only time will tell if it was a wise decision.

APB, while what you are saying here is technically true, I would argue that the circumstances surrounding the Rodgers pick were more different than you and others are letting on. Aaron Rodgers was projected by many to go #1 overall. The big question that year was "Aaron Rodgers or Alex Smith?" Somehow, inexplicably, he fell all the way to us. The consensus was that this QB from Cal will be a franchise QB for whichever team takes him.

Who was saying those things about Jordan Love?

Papa John wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 10:00

APB wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 07:21

dsr wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 06:54

When they did the draft in 2005, they couldn't use the following season's results as a guide. More likely they would use the previous season, the one that had actually been played, which was 10-6 and number 3 seed in the NFC.

Besides, there are no circumstances in 2005 that would have made it wrong to draft Rodgers. I can't think there is ever a circumstances in which you can say "this man is a future Hall of Fame quarterback who can lead the franchise for 15 years, but we need [insert random position] more."

That was exactly my thought, as well. Didn't want to steal your thunder, though...

It's a bit disingenuous to say the Packers were not contenders coming off a #3 seed entering the 2005 draft ths justifying the selection of Rodgers and then argue the exact opposite for the 2020 draft and condemning the FO for drafting Love. It's not logically consistent. Fact is the Packers saw an opportunity to draft a player they thought very highly of in both situations and jumped at it. As with Rodgers, only time will tell if it was a wise decision.

APB, while what you are saying here is technically true, I would argue that the circumstances surrounding the Rodgers pick were more different than you and others are letting on. Aaron Rodgers was projected by many to go #1 overall. The big question that year was "Aaron Rodgers or Alex Smith?" Somehow, inexplicably, he fell all the way to us. The consensus was that this QB from Cal will be a franchise QB for whichever team takes him.

Who was saying those things about Jordan Love?

spot on Pappy

as you say Rodgers and Smith where 1 A or 1B all through out that draft class run up, Love was a after thought on practically every draft card, late one or with most others somewhere early to mid 2nd round.

and Brian passed on several receivers that where still available.

he wanted to follow the same pattern as Wolf and Thompson, by bringing in his own QB, and his following drafts concerning offense reflect it, offenses seemed like a after thought till Rodgers was almost out the door.

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 09:59

Acrobat wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 09:37

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2023 08:32

2004/5 — Packers fail to get past the Wild Card round once again, falling to the Vikings on the back of Favre’s 4 interceptions. 34-year-old Favre tells GB he needs to think about his future. Commits to coming back in March

2002/3 — The first retirement rumours start. Packers lose to Vick and the Falcons in the Wild Card. “I have every intention of coming back,” says 32-year-old Favre when asked if he’s going to retire.

why would people ask if he's going to retire if they hadn't gotten the impression he might, Favre had been the main reason we lost to the Hawks, Seattle, the Vikes, people act like Rodgers was the reason we lost PO games, it pales in comparison to Favre who was a dumpster fire in PO games.
and Ted was around for all of it, Favre talked retirement after every failed trade Sherman or Ted tried to do.

You like Reddit, there eh? :D

Yeah, like I said, Favre had made that comment, but it was more media driven. Literally no one in the Packers FO actually had any belief that Favre was going to retire.

you don't know any m ore then I do what Thompson thought of Favres repeated retirement BS, it happened and a GM has to pay attention to it, again Ted didn't go after Rodgers, he didn't trade up for him, which Guty did.

yes he said he couldn't find a trade partner to go after the more team needy position of WR, if you want to believe that, fine, I don't for a minute though, Brian has never had a problem finding trade partners for players he wants, Rodgers and Lafleur worked well enough together installing Matts offense to go 13-3, Rodgers had no intentions to leave as Favre had.

I'm not really sure what your argument is. Neither player retired or had intensions of retiring.

I don't think the distinction about Rodgers's versus Love's draft status (to people on the outside, mark you) is a meaningful difference between them.

That aside, look at how much more hate (like, an order of magnitude more) Rodgers got for replacing Favre than Love did for Rodgers. Night and day difference. That alone should tell you how deeply polarizing the pick was at the time, much unlike today where lots of people treat it as if it was a no-brainer.

[mention]Yoop[/mention] [mention]Papa John[/mention]

You two are countering with arguments I never made. I don't disagree the Love pick was ill timed and probably an outright overreach when you consider the Packers traded up for him in R1. The fact it came on the heels of an NFCCG appearance and MVP season from Rodgers made it all the more nonsensical.

I don't nor have I disputed any of that. I was critical of the pick from the very onset. The difference is I accepted it for what it was once it was done and have tried to keep my judgment of Love based upon reasonable expectations and not biased by my dislike of the original pick. It seems many here have never moved beyond their disdain for the Love selection and view his performances through that same biased lens.

Anyway, the point I was making was the contrarian logic being used to support one side of the argument while using it to refute the other. It's inconsistent and a bit disingenuous. That is the only point I am making in regards to the current Love argument.