Re: Rodgers wants out
Posted: 27 Jul 2021 18:49
Lmao you have literally no idea what you're talking about. Just like all these idiot sports media people the entire time.
Page 147 of 204
Re: Rodgers wants out
Posted: 27 Jul 2021 19:26
I think there is a scenario where the Packers make it too sweet for Rodgers to leave, but I only think this would happen if the Packers find out they truly are screwed at QB bend over backwards for Rodgers.
But ultimately, I think it would be dumb for Rodgers to do that. We won't be a winner with him. I mean Randall Cobb and Amari Rodgers would be our top WRs.
I'm hoping Love shows enough the Packers are comfortable moving on. Because Rodgers will likely want to anyway.
Re: Rodgers wants out
Posted: 27 Jul 2021 21:10
.
Re: Rodgers wants out
Posted: 27 Jul 2021 22:25
Re: Rodgers wants out
Posted: 27 Jul 2021 22:50
I don't have to even look this stuff up to know that your scuing this up to make your point, since 1970, hell since 1980 we've produced 5 starters from later rounds, obviously the odds might be a little better with first rounders because they should be more ready to play, and need less coaching up, but over all the bust rate is nearly the same.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑27 Jul 2021 14:57https://stathead.com/tiny/KBJKd
Let me enlighten here a bit on actually drafting a successful QB and just look at draft position. I am going to set good QB career at 40 Career Approximate Value. It's kind of arbitrary, but does seem to be a good line with the vast majority of good QBs above that line. That means there are 111 QBs drafted since 1970 we will look at:
54 of the 111 were 1st round picks.
44 of the 111 were taken before pick 15.
51 of the 111 were taken before pick 27.
Trying to say Jordan Love is already likely to fail simply by pigeon holing him due to his draft position is crazy. While most draft picks don't live up to expectations regardless of position or draft slot. Almost a majority of successful QBs comes from the 1st round.
so add our 5 to your 95 gives us 100, so according to you there are only 11 others taken since 1970 that became GOOD, not even great, just good, no sale, heck two better then good ones are playing right now
Re: Rodgers wants out
Posted: 27 Jul 2021 23:07
Rodgers declined because the receiver core sucked, most QB's suck when that happens.texas wrote: ↑27 Jul 2021 17:42don't usually disagree with you but I disagree with this.
First, you just don't get good QBs late anymore. Doesn't happen. You want developmental prospects? Draft them in the 1st or 2nd round like every other team. Wilson is like the only elite QB that's mid-round (I'm not counting Dak yet but he may become elite), but I could easily be overlooking someone. Either way, the vast majority of good QBs are early round picks now.
When we picked Love, Rodgers had been below average for 2 years. Not below average for Rodgers, but below average for all NFL starters. Favre and Rodgers were both clearly declining. And then we picked their replacements and they both ended up having resurgences. So your point about this is just incorrect.
Finally, you're also simply not correct when you say Love was never considered the top prospect. He was usually not ranked as the very top prospect but I do remember at times during the previous college season his name being mentioned as a possible top QB taken. He was almost always rated among the top
LOve was barely rated late first round, many rated him second round talent, and that is exactly what he's been, he couldn't even beat out Boyle last year and I don't think he even suited for a game.
and the only reason we don't see more 2nd and later round QB's do well is teams don't make enough practice time to coach them up, they rarely take enough time to groom any QB these days before they play them, and 50% of every one taken bust out, Love will get a lot of time in PS games to show us where he is, either way the FO caved in to Rodgers demands, if Love was as good as you think he is then why did the FO cave? obviously there not as convinced as you are.
and here you are telling others in this forum that they don't know what there talking about, maybe you should take your own advice.
Re: Rodgers wants out
Posted: 27 Jul 2021 23:53
Absolutely not skewed at all. Click the link if you don't believe, but don't simply ignore the facts because you do not want to accept them. It's a really really bad habit to be so intrenched in one's own narrative that evidence to the contrary is ignored out of hand. Might want to actually things up for once.Yoop wrote: ↑27 Jul 2021 22:50I don't have to even look this stuff up to know that your scuing this up to make your point, since 1970, hell since 1980 we've produced 5 starters from later rounds, obviously the odds might be a little better with first rounders because they should be more ready to play, and need less coaching up, but over all the bust rate is nearly the same.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑27 Jul 2021 14:57https://stathead.com/tiny/KBJKd
Let me enlighten here a bit on actually drafting a successful QB and just look at draft position. I am going to set good QB career at 40 Career Approximate Value. It's kind of arbitrary, but does seem to be a good line with the vast majority of good QBs above that line. That means there are 111 QBs drafted since 1970 we will look at:
54 of the 111 were 1st round picks.
44 of the 111 were taken before pick 15.
51 of the 111 were taken before pick 27.
Trying to say Jordan Love is already likely to fail simply by pigeon holing him due to his draft position is crazy. While most draft picks don't live up to expectations regardless of position or draft slot. Almost a majority of successful QBs comes from the 1st round.
so add our 5 to your 95 gives us 100, so according to you there are only 11 others taken since 1970 that became GOOD, not even great, just good, no sale, heck two better then good ones are playing right now
Starter does not equal good, FYI, not sure why anyone would believe a starter would mean good. We have actually drafted 4 good QBs since 1970 and Don Majikowski missed the mark by 1 point. Not sure where the random 95 number came from...
Re: Rodgers wants out
Posted: 28 Jul 2021 00:39
of course starter equals good if they start for 4 or 5 years, you've raised the bar so you can eliminate as many 2nd and later round QB's as possible, those bust rates I brought are accurate, I was wrong in adding the 95 should have been 99, 44 +55 =99, and Majik wasn't a bust, he was a good QB, you like to change the rules, and do it all the time to win arguments, never said starter = good, or that starters don't bust, but anyone can see even according to your list that a lot more then 11 where good the last 50 years.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑27 Jul 2021 23:53Absolutely not skewed at all. Click the link if you don't believe, but don't simply ignore the facts because you do not want to accept them. It's a really really bad habit to be so intrenched in one's own narrative that evidence to the contrary is ignored out of hand. Might want to actually things up for once.Yoop wrote: ↑27 Jul 2021 22:50I don't have to even look this stuff up to know that your scuing this up to make your point, since 1970, hell since 1980 we've produced 5 starters from later rounds, obviously the odds might be a little better with first rounders because they should be more ready to play, and need less coaching up, but over all the bust rate is nearly the same.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑27 Jul 2021 14:57https://stathead.com/tiny/KBJKd
Let me enlighten here a bit on actually drafting a successful QB and just look at draft position. I am going to set good QB career at 40 Career Approximate Value. It's kind of arbitrary, but does seem to be a good line with the vast majority of good QBs above that line. That means there are 111 QBs drafted since 1970 we will look at:
54 of the 111 were 1st round picks.
44 of the 111 were taken before pick 15.
51 of the 111 were taken before pick 27.
Trying to say Jordan Love is already likely to fail simply by pigeon holing him due to his draft position is crazy. While most draft picks don't live up to expectations regardless of position or draft slot. Almost a majority of successful QBs comes from the 1st round.
so add our 5 to your 95 gives us 100, so according to you there are only 11 others taken since 1970 that became GOOD, not even great, just good, no sale, heck two better then good ones are playing right now
Starter does not equal good, FYI, not sure why anyone would believe a starter would mean good. We have actually drafted 4 good QBs since 1970 and Don Majikowski missed the mark by 1 point. Not sure where the random 95 number came from...
I thought Detmer started more then 2 years, thats still 4 from just us.
Re: Rodgers wants out
Posted: 28 Jul 2021 00:52
Where did 4 or 5 year starter come from? I picked the career approximate value of 40 because it included most quarterbacks who had a good career. Some are missing, but most are there. Click the link.
They are, but like I will show below, you have NO idea what it actually means.those bust rates I brought are accurate,
You can't be serious...I was wrong in adding the 95 should have been 99, 44 +55 =99,
Why would you add 44 and 55? For one, 55 isn't even a number used. It was 54. The more important part is that you shouldn't be adding 54 and 44. The 44 comes out of the 54 since the 44 is also 1st round picks, pick 1 through 14... As said above, you do not understand what you are looking at.No one said Don Majkowski was a bust... He had a decent career just not a good one. He was basically a good career backup. Pretty good was a 10th round pick.and Majik wasn't a bust, he was a good QB,
How did I change the rules?you like to change the rules, and do it all the time to win arguments,
You may want to read it again because you are all mixed up.never said starter = good, or that starters don't bust, but anyone can see even according to your list that a lot more then 11 where good the last 50 years.
Re: Rodgers wants out
Posted: 28 Jul 2021 01:38
Yeah, exactly. Neither of us knows (which was my original point). The difference is that you're the one making a claim with apparent certainty, and I'm not.
Re: Rodgers wants out
Posted: 28 Jul 2021 06:37
Re: Rodgers wants out
Posted: 28 Jul 2021 06:39
There are certain people in the industry who have been clear about things from the beginning. Their belief is still that he will be traded after this season. So I believe them. Feel free to come back to this in a year and see who's right. I'll own up if I'm wrong.
Re: Rodgers wants out
Posted: 28 Jul 2021 06:42
Can I just say I appreciated the work and effort to pull this up? I know this stuff takes time and work to do so and it should have been recognized as such. I liked it when I read it yesterday. It was interesting. I just didn't act on it.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑27 Jul 2021 14:57https://stathead.com/tiny/KBJKd
Let me enlighten here a bit on actually drafting a successful QB and just look at draft position. I am going to set good QB career at 40 Career Approximate Value. It's kind of arbitrary, but does seem to be a good line with the vast majority of good QBs above that line. That means there are 111 QBs drafted since 1970 we will look at:
54 of the 111 were 1st round picks.
44 of the 111 were taken before pick 15.
51 of the 111 were taken before pick 27.
Trying to say Jordan Love is already likely to fail simply by pigeon holing him due to his draft position is crazy. While most draft picks don't live up to expectations regardless of position or draft slot. Almost a majority of successful QBs comes from the 1st round.
Then I felt bad this morning when the only recognition it got was from Yoop trying to discredit it but contradicting himself while doing it and providing no actual numbers (just pulling numbers out of his a$$ literally to just muddy the waters).
This post deserves better than that. I also liked how you expanded that Majik missed the threshold by one point. I don't know the metrics, but it does give credibility that Majik was basically there. I am kind of sad I never got to watch him.
Re: Rodgers wants out
Posted: 28 Jul 2021 06:42
Re: Rodgers wants out
Posted: 28 Jul 2021 06:52
Re: Rodgers wants out
Posted: 28 Jul 2021 07:21
Yep, only 6 votes, Montana got 62 (if I recall the numbers right). But still, to that point, was one of the best statistical seasons in Packers history.
Re: Rodgers wants out
Posted: 28 Jul 2021 07:21
Mitch trubinsky, 4 year starter, not good.Yoop wrote: ↑28 Jul 2021 00:39of course starter equals good if they start for 4 or 5 years, you've raised the bar so you can eliminate as many 2nd and later round QB's as possible, those bust rates I brought are accurate, I was wrong in adding the 95 should have been 99, 44 +55 =99, and Majik wasn't a bust, he was a good QB, you like to change the rules, and do it all the time to win arguments, never said starter = good, or that starters don't bust, but anyone can see even according to your list that a lot more then 11 where good the last 50 years.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑27 Jul 2021 23:53Absolutely not skewed at all. Click the link if you don't believe, but don't simply ignore the facts because you do not want to accept them. It's a really really bad habit to be so intrenched in one's own narrative that evidence to the contrary is ignored out of hand. Might want to actually things up for once.Yoop wrote: ↑27 Jul 2021 22:50
I don't have to even look this stuff up to know that your scuing this up to make your point, since 1970, hell since 1980 we've produced 5 starters from later rounds, obviously the odds might be a little better with first rounders because they should be more ready to play, and need less coaching up, but over all the bust rate is nearly the same.
so add our 5 to your 95 gives us 100, so according to you there are only 11 others taken since 1970 that became GOOD, not even great, just good, no sale, heck two better then good ones are playing right now
Starter does not equal good, FYI, not sure why anyone would believe a starter would mean good. We have actually drafted 4 good QBs since 1970 and Don Majikowski missed the mark by 1 point. Not sure where the random 95 number came from...
I thought Detmer started more then 2 years, thats still 4 from just us.
Re: Rodgers wants out
Posted: 28 Jul 2021 07:23
I thought Rodgers gave a pretty good clue himself that he plans on leaving after this year with his silly Last Dance photo post.
Re: Rodgers wants out
Posted: 28 Jul 2021 07:25
Yeah, that was a bit of a clue as well, wasn't it?Drj820 wrote: ↑28 Jul 2021 07:23I thought Rodgers gave a pretty good clue himself that he plans on leaving after this year with his silly Last Dance photo post.
Of course, as texas said, anything can change. He could have a change of heart after this season. But I really think that time has passed.Re: Rodgers wants out
Posted: 28 Jul 2021 07:35
You've misread it.Yoop wrote: ↑27 Jul 2021 22:50I don't have to even look this stuff up to know that your scuing this up to make your point, since 1970, hell since 1980 we've produced 5 starters from later rounds, obviously the odds might be a little better with first rounders because they should be more ready to play, and need less coaching up, but over all the bust rate is nearly the same.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑27 Jul 2021 14:57https://stathead.com/tiny/KBJKd
Let me enlighten here a bit on actually drafting a successful QB and just look at draft position. I am going to set good QB career at 40 Career Approximate Value. It's kind of arbitrary, but does seem to be a good line with the vast majority of good QBs above that line. That means there are 111 QBs drafted since 1970 we will look at:
54 of the 111 were 1st round picks.
44 of the 111 were taken before pick 15.
51 of the 111 were taken before pick 27.
Trying to say Jordan Love is already likely to fail simply by pigeon holing him due to his draft position is crazy. While most draft picks don't live up to expectations regardless of position or draft slot. Almost a majority of successful QBs comes from the 1st round.
so add our 5 to your 95 gives us 100, so according to you there are only 11 others taken since 1970 that became GOOD, not even great, just good, no sale, heck two better then good ones are playing right now
44 taken in picks 1-15
7 taken in picks 16-27
3 taken in the rest of the first round
57 taken in round 2 and later.
The 44 in picks 1-15 are also included in the 51 taken in picks 1-27 and the 54 taken ion the first round.