Packers Huddle

NCF wrote: ↑

12 Nov 2021 16:03

bud fox wrote: ↑

08 Nov 2021 17:33

THat JT O Sullivan video is purely click bait. This is also obvious when he speaks about 'Woke' throws etc Guy is a flop and always has been.

Bad take. Don't know if you watched the whole video or not, but here are my takeaways.

1.) Yes, he detracts from his own video with the "woke" comments and other socio-political non-sense that had nothing to do with his, otherwise, very good video breakdown.

Guys, it was a parody of Rodgers. He wore the same beanie and used the same words and phrases as Rodgers did. Every single word you thought didn't belong in the video was just repeating something Rodgers said. It was a joke.

But yeah, it was a good video. Pass protection issues with a backup QB and a backup C and a D that realized early that giving various different pressures was going to cause confusion and get home--well, it worked. Should/could have better anticipated that as a fan, but I wasn't ready for how bad it was.

I feel like since I took a week off of posting, I should chime in here just to say, basically, what I said in the gameday thread. We're at the very beginning of a Love story, and I can't really tell what kind of movie it is--but the accuracy and ball placement issues have me worried it's going to be a bit of a sad story. Accuracy is one of the things that rarely just develops out of nowhere--it did for Josh Allen and plenty of QBs see marginal improvement over their careers and as the game changes, but usually it's something that you see if you have.

I'm hoping it's mostly footwork, pressure, and nerves. And I did spend a long time before the game reminding everyone that Rodgers looked like crap in year two playing in garbage time against the Patriots. We don't know what we don't know. It's early.

But my alarm bells are heightened. I am more concerned with the future of the QB position now than I was ten days ago.

With that, I will resume other threads and other discussions about our recent shutout win and our ongoing quest for the 2021 NFC 1-seed

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2021 09:49

I'm hoping it's mostly footwork

would it be unreasonable to expect footwork to be something that has been learned over the past 18 months in the Matt Lafleur QB school?

As O'Sullivan pointed out the pressure got to Love and his footwork fell apart. It came back in the 4th quarter, but he still had happy feet (toesy). This was an area he needed to improve upon coming out. Without having much in the way of game reps, preseason or season, until this past August, his footwork wasn't put to the test. With the pressure, he definitely reverted to some bad habits. Takes time to break bad habits and relearn new ones. Where he goes from here is up to him and his work ethic.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2021 09:56

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2021 09:49

I'm hoping it's mostly footwork

would it be unreasonable to expect footwork to be something that has been learned over the past 18 months in the Matt Lafleur QB school?

It wouldn't, but yes [mention]Pckfn23[/mention] responded basically what I would have responded. His footwork looks clean when the protection looks clean, based on what some of the experts were showing. Under pressure, even before it forces him to move, it fell apart some.

But it's also the sort of thing that just takes a million reps to become muscle memory if you're un-learning bad habits. 10 thousand hours or whatever. But the root of it is that it's a technique--which means learnable. Which is why that's my hope. Other explanations have a less likely shot of improving.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2021 10:21

It wouldn't, but yes @Pckfn23 responded basically what I would have responded. His footwork looks clean when the protection looks clean, based on what some of the experts were showing. Under pressure, even before it forces him to move, it fell apart some.

But it's also the sort of thing that just takes a million reps to become muscle memory if you're un-learning bad habits. 10 thousand hours or whatever. But the root of it is that it's a technique--which means learnable. Which is why that's my hope. Other explanations have a less likely shot of improving.

Do you think adjusting to the speed of the game might be another factor that will improve? When he wasn't facing blitzes he was 13-17. That's accurate. When he was facing blitzes, his accuracy went to pot.

But he has never, literally never, faced an NFL live action blitz before that game. He didn't cope well, and he had to throw the ball before he was ready, and he wasn't accurate. But next time he faces NFL blitzes, it won't be the first time, he will have had some experience. And with experience, he will learn to assess his options faster and be more ready to get the ball out under some sort of control. I hope!

Waldo wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2021 09:28

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2021 06:31

Lets get 1 thing straight. The Packers can't keep Rodgers long term. The man will be 38 years old next month. He is already past the age when most QB's are in serious decline or have already retired. Only Brady has been effective after 37 years old. What good is having generational wealth if he does not have kids and grandkids to give it to - and that appears to be his priority now. If Rodgers is forced to choose between getting vaccinated every 3 months (as is in all our futures) and having a healthy child, he is going to retire.

And then there is the $46 million the Packers have to pay next year if they keep Rodgers. They can't force him to restructure, and they can't keep Adams and 2 more high salaried starter, probably Z and Tonyan if they keep Rodgers. Probably can't keep Preston and resign Alexander either.

The most that any team can hope for is 2 good years from Rodgers after this season. Odds are not even 2. Please explain to me, those of you that are considering whether Love should be traded, who will start in September 2023. Benkert? Bortles or someone like him? Or a QB who will be 40 in a few months and costs $40 million + in cap?

Like it or not Love is the Packers QB next season. And if the Packers go 8-9 next season with Love, that is a damn sight better than going 2-15 for the next 3-5 years starting in 2023. As those of us who were Packers fans in the 1980's can remember all too well.

Nice thing with Love is there is no reason to give him 2 seasons. If he bombs it his first season starting, team should immediately think another high pick at QB. No need to string it along a few years.

I see zero chance Rodgers is still with the Packers next year.

I bet he is.

bobsacamano wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2021 10:27

Waldo wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2021 09:28

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2021 06:31

Lets get 1 thing straight. The Packers can't keep Rodgers long term. The man will be 38 years old next month. He is already past the age when most QB's are in serious decline or have already retired. Only Brady has been effective after 37 years old. What good is having generational wealth if he does not have kids and grandkids to give it to - and that appears to be his priority now. If Rodgers is forced to choose between getting vaccinated every 3 months (as is in all our futures) and having a healthy child, he is going to retire.

And then there is the $46 million the Packers have to pay next year if they keep Rodgers. They can't force him to restructure, and they can't keep Adams and 2 more high salaried starter, probably Z and Tonyan if they keep Rodgers. Probably can't keep Preston and resign Alexander either.

The most that any team can hope for is 2 good years from Rodgers after this season. Odds are not even 2. Please explain to me, those of you that are considering whether Love should be traded, who will start in September 2023. Benkert? Bortles or someone like him? Or a QB who will be 40 in a few months and costs $40 million + in cap?

Like it or not Love is the Packers QB next season. And if the Packers go 8-9 next season with Love, that is a damn sight better than going 2-15 for the next 3-5 years starting in 2023. As those of us who were Packers fans in the 1980's can remember all too well.

Nice thing with Love is there is no reason to give him 2 seasons. If he bombs it his first season starting, team should immediately think another high pick at QB. No need to string it along a few years.

I see zero chance Rodgers is still with the Packers next year.

I bet he is.

Requires a couple things...

1.) Fat new contract with a whole lot of value pushed out to future years
2.) Close the door on Jordan Love. These two are tied. If you commit to Rodgers, you move on from Love.
3.) Rodgers has to accept that he will be playing on a lesser team in 2022 and maybe 2023. The cap will dictate this. No way around it.

I think as much as the Packers committing to Rodgers, Rodgers almost has to commit to the Packers for another 5-6 seasons to make it viable and accept that the cap reality means we essentially need to rebuild the team around him to open a new window in 2023 or 2024.

I certainly cannot rule it out, but I still think it is unlikely.

NCF wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2021 10:55

bobsacamano wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2021 10:27

Waldo wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2021 09:28

Nice thing with Love is there is no reason to give him 2 seasons. If he bombs it his first season starting, team should immediately think another high pick at QB. No need to string it along a few years.

I see zero chance Rodgers is still with the Packers next year.

I bet he is.

Requires a couple things...

1.) Fat new contract with a whole lot of value pushed out to future years
2.) Close the door on Jordan Love. These two are tied. If you commit to Rodgers, you move on from Love.
3.) Rodgers has to accept that he will be playing on a lesser team in 2022 and maybe 2023. The cap will dictate this. No way around it.

I think as much as the Packers committing to Rodgers, Rodgers almost has to commit to the Packers for another 5-6 seasons to make it viable and accept that the cap reality means we essentially need to rebuild the team around him to open a new window in 2023 or 2024.

I certainly cannot rule it out, but I still think it is unlikely.

One of the best summaries I have seen on this topic.

Nice work.

If the Packers want to keep Rodgers he is still under contract.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2021 12:18

If the Packers want to keep Rodgers he is still under contract.

Only if he wants to play. He can officially retire (and unretire a year later). He can hold out. Or, his pinky toe might not heal and it hurts and he spends the year on IR or PUP. But I think what he wants is a fresh start with an average or above team. And what the Packers want is cap relief and draft picks or a good young player.

No reason to think Love is the answer worth getting rid of AR before his contract expires.

wallyuwl wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2021 12:36

No reason to think Love is the answer worth getting rid of AR before his contract expires.

easy to say, harder to do, we don't want Rodgers if he doesn't want to be here, that said though, I doubt he ever wanted to leave, and don't think he'll want to go this season, what he wanted was a little respect and the oppertunity to help select some prime meat, and Guty caved in a bit to that with Cobb, and that was a smart thing to do, will that relationship and mutual respect grow, who can say, but Rodgers until last year said he wanted to play for us till he retired, I tend to think that is the outcome.

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2021 12:33

Drj820 wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2021 12:18

If the Packers want to keep Rodgers he is still under contract.

Only if he wants to play. He can officially retire (and unretire a year later). He can hold out. Or, his pinky toe might not heal and it hurts and he spends the year on IR or PUP. But I think what he wants is a fresh start with an average or above team. And what the Packers want is cap relief and draft picks or a good young player.

Yeah, but all of those actions are potential responses from Rodgers for the Packers simply deciding to fulfill the contract that Rodgers and the org agreed to.

Rodgers can respond how he chooses, but if the Packers want to keep him under contract, they certainly can.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2021 12:55

Rodgers can respond how he chooses, but if the Packers want to keep him under contract, they certainly can.

You can believe that if you want to, but at $40M+ cap charge, they really, really can't.

NCF wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2021 13:08

Drj820 wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2021 12:55

Rodgers can respond how he chooses, but if the Packers want to keep him under contract, they certainly can.

You can believe that if you want to, but at $40M+ cap charge, they really, really can't.

Of course they can, if they want to.

What you point out is just something that would make them not want to.

NCF wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2021 13:08

Drj820 wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2021 12:55

Rodgers can respond how he chooses, but if the Packers want to keep him under contract, they certainly can.

You can believe that if you want to, but at $40M+ cap charge, they really, really can't.

Sure they can. Playing with the OvertheCap calculator. If you cut Z, Preston, Amos, Turner, King, Patrick Taylor, Galeai, and Braden that almost gets us what we need (just $,7300 left to cut). Of course that means not signing anyone else to any sort of contract or extension.

You people are being so unreasonable!

paco wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2021 13:15

NCF wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2021 13:08

Drj820 wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2021 12:55

Rodgers can respond how he chooses, but if the Packers want to keep him under contract, they certainly can.

You can believe that if you want to, but at $40M+ cap charge, they really, really can't.

Sure they can. Playing with the OvertheCap calculator. If you cut Z, Preston, Amos, Turner, King, Patrick Taylor, Galeai, and Braden that almost gets us what we need (just $,7300 left to cut). Of course that means not signing anyone else to any sort of contract or extension.

You people are being so unreasonable!

It was widely discussed at the time he signed the contract that it would likely need to be renegotiated for 2022 based on how it was structured. With the cap going down, not up as anticipated, because of the full audience not coming back to 2015 levels for various reasons, it makes a restructure even more necessary.

wallyuwl wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2021 14:37

paco wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2021 13:15

NCF wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2021 13:08

You can believe that if you want to, but at $40M+ cap charge, they really, really can't.

Sure they can. Playing with the OvertheCap calculator. If you cut Z, Preston, Amos, Turner, King, Patrick Taylor, Galeai, and Braden that almost gets us what we need (just $,7300 left to cut). Of course that means not signing anyone else to any sort of contract or extension.

You people are being so unreasonable!

It was widely discussed at the time he signed the contract that it would likely need to be renegotiated for 2022 based on how it was structured. With the cap going down, not up as anticipated, because of the full audience not coming back to 2015 levels for various reasons, it makes a restructure even more necessary.

widely discussed by whom? and do you seriously think Cap level has anything to do with this, Rodgers is a type player that ya don't haggle a mil. here or there with, and whether anyone wants to agree with me or not, Rodgers is our most important player, just because we may have to cut a few players to keep him is besides the point, our chances to win with LOve even with everyone we have now pales compared to what this team can do with half of them and Rodgers, thats been proven countless times in the last 10 years, what I'am saying is this, if Rodgers wants to play here next year, that door is wide open.

Some are confusing what makes sense, and what is possible. If the Packers want to keep Rodgers, it’s possible, and within their rights.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2021 13:12

NCF wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2021 13:08

Drj820 wrote: ↑

08 Dec 2021 12:55

Rodgers can respond how he chooses, but if the Packers want to keep him under contract, they certainly can.

You can believe that if you want to, but at $40M+ cap charge, they really, really can't.

Of course they can, if they want to.

What you point out is just something that would make them not want to.

I would say that a $40 million cap hit is plenty of reason. Do you really want to let Adams and Tonyan and Campbell and Yiadom walk and cut Z and/or Preston as a cap cut in order to keep Rodgers? Probably have to do major restructuring on Bakh and Clark also, which puts the Packers in dead cap hell if they should get hurt and have to retire. $40 mil is a lot of money. While the Packers could certainly restructure Rodger's contract, there is no incentive for him to agree unless they give him an even better deal. An even better deal means the Packers are in even worse salary cap hell long term.

Personally I think it is worse than that. I don't think there is any way the Packers can resign any of these 4 UFA players and I think they will have to cut both Z and Preston to keep Rodgers for 1 more year. To keep him for 2 more years they can't resign Alexander or Jenkins or any other very good player who emerges in the meantime.

Love + Adams >= Rodgers
Love + Adams + Tonyan >> Rodgers
Love + Adams + Tonyan + Campbell >>> Rodgers
Shall I continue? And if you really don't like Love, substitute any average NFL QB for Love.

Or:
Benkert + Adams + Tonyan > Rodgers
Benkert + Adams + Tonyan + Campbell >> Rodgers

I am not expecting either Love or Benkert to be anything more than an average NFL QB. Either one. I think 1 of them is likely to be average. And if you think a team cannot win the SB with an average NFL QB, explain to me why Eli Manning has 2 SB rings.

Trade Rodgers and start Love. Maybe the Packers won't make the playoffs in 2022/23. But they won't in 2023 with Rodgers and without Adams, Tonya, Campbell and a competent backup LT either, especially with Jenkins likely to start the season on PUP. Losing Jenkins and Alexander and others a year later means a 4-13 or similar season for the Packers in 23/24.

Oh, and if you think that MLF is going to stick around for 4-13 seasons while the Packers work through the Rodgers damage, think again. His contract is done in 2 years also.

I for one remember how long it took the Packers to recover from John Hadl.

I for one also remember Bengston and Devine and Starr and Gregg and Infante and Rhodes and Sherman as head coaches too.