Packers Huddle

APB wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2023 20:04

Saw this in my Twitter feed and couldn’t but be reminded of our forum chatter…

budfox had a lot of twitter accounts back then.

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2023 06:30

Love has faced free rushers in every game, multiple times in most games and the last 2 games every series he plays.

why anyone thinks that wont get into a young QB's head doesn't make a lic of sense to me, of course it does, it's the main driver of why the NFL has a revolving door with QB's and most never amount to much.

PFF was pretty good years ago, now, not so much.

The numbers don't support that Love has been under pressure more often than most other quarterbacks in the league. If you don't like PFF's numbers you might want to take a look at the advanced stats at Pro Football Reference.

All quarterbacks regress when being pressured compared to throwing from a clean pocket. But as long as Love doesn't improve once he faces pressure he won't succeed at the pro level.

German_Panzer wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2023 12:32

Love may be not our 3rd HOF in a row but he does look to have a potential to be another Matt Flynn and that would be enough if Gute picks well.

Matt Flynn??? He started a total of seven games in his career. If Love ends up working out like him he was a complete waste of a first round pick.

go pak go wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2023 13:04

Right now in the NFL there 15 teams (of 32) with a winning record.

Of those 15 teams, I would say 7 of those teams have average QB play.

PIT
IND
SEA
DET
TB
ATL
NO

The whole "one hand" comment is already limiting because usually only around 12 teams are winners. But absolutely think it's reasonable to think about half of winning teams do it without upper level QB play.

I disagree Goff is playing at an average level. Of the other six teams none will come close to winning a Super Bowl though.

German_Panzer wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2023 19:56

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2023 13:11

Gutenbumst

Nice touch, so you know a bit German?

Gutenscheiss ist nicht so gut.

CWIMM wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2023 07:05

go pak go wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2023 13:04

Right now in the NFL there 15 teams (of 32) with a winning record.

Of those 15 teams, I would say 7 of those teams have average QB play.

PIT
IND
SEA
DET
TB
ATL
NO

The whole "one hand" comment is already limiting because usually only around 12 teams are winners. But absolutely think it's reasonable to think about half of winning teams do it without upper level QB play.

I disagree Goff is playing at an average level. Of the other six teams none will come close to winning a Super Bowl though.

That is absolutely fair and I stated that in a later post. Goff is the guy who could be viewed at above average. Though I put him on the edge because he was a laughing stock literally 12 months ago.

But I also think it is fair to state you do agree on the other 6 of 7 which does show you can win with average or below average QBs. We see those teams make the postseason all the time.

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2023 07:13

German_Panzer wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2023 19:56

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2023 13:11

Gutenbumst

Nice touch, so you know a bit German?

Gutenscheiss ist nicht so gut.

So habe ich es gehört.

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2023 07:36

That is absolutely fair and I stated that in a later post. Goff is the guy who could be viewed at above average. Though I put him on the edge because he was a laughing stock literally 12 months ago.

But I also think it is fair to state you do agree on the other 6 of 7 which does show you can win with average or below average QBs. We see those teams make the postseason all the time.

It's possible to win in the NFL with average quarterback play. But teams need to have a very good supporting cast for it to happen. At this point the Packers aren't talented enough to win that way.

In addition it might be smart to wait and see how many of those teams you listed will end up with a winning record at the end of the season. To win a Super Bowl with an average QB a team needs to have an elite roster at other positions though.

CWIMM wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023 03:13

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2023 07:36

That is absolutely fair and I stated that in a later post. Goff is the guy who could be viewed at above average. Though I put him on the edge because he was a laughing stock literally 12 months ago.

But I also think it is fair to state you do agree on the other 6 of 7 which does show you can win with average or below average QBs. We see those teams make the postseason all the time.

It's possible to win in the NFL with average quarterback play. But teams need to have a very good supporting cast for it to happen. At this point the Packers aren't talented enough to win that way.

In addition it might be smart to wait and see how many of those teams you listed will end up with a winning record at the end of the season. To win a Super Bowl with an average QB a team needs to have an elite roster at other positions though.

You win with an average QB play when you have them young and in the early window of their rookie deal. Not at the end of it and carrying $60M in dead cap.

APB wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2023 07:38

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2023 07:13

German_Panzer wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2023 19:56

Nice touch, so you know a bit German?

Gutenscheiss ist nicht so gut.

So habe ich es gehört.

Guten ist momentan ein gestank nach abwasser. Er ist scheissy heute.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023 07:54

You win with an average QB play when you have them young and in the early window of their rookie deal. Not at the end of it and carrying $60M in dead cap.

It's true that there's a huge benefit to having a starting quarterback still on his rookie deal. Another reason why the Packers should have never drafted Love in the first place as they weren't able to take advantage of that with him.

CWIMM wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2023 04:35

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023 07:54

You win with an average QB play when you have them young and in the early window of their rookie deal. Not at the end of it and carrying $60M in dead cap.

It's true that there's a huge benefit to having a starting quarterback still on his rookie deal. Another reason why the Packers should have never drafted Love in the first place as they weren't able to take advantage of that with him.

It’s simply a different way, not a right or wrong way.

Yes, there have been teams that take financial advantage of QBs on first contracts with building a roster around them. It has worked when the right QB is selected and plays well. Lots of examples to choose from. Conversely, there are a ton of examples of failure, too.

But it’s also true the Packers preferred method, draft a QB while still having a viable QB rostered, let him sit and learn a few years, then make the transition while remaining competitive and avoiding an extended rebuild. The QB is also given the best opportunity to succeed by being prepared in the offense and play technique. This method has proven successful. It’s also produced it’s share of failure although I’d argue it allows a team greater flexibility in recognizing and responding to a pending failure.

The risk with the first method is a) drafting a Trey Lance can’t-miss dud and/or b) potentially ruining a young quality QB by throwing him in the mix too early. There’s also risk with the Packer method in that a three year investment would end up being a dud. Hopefully the team would recognize it before its show time, though, and have an alternate plan in place.

The fact the Packers have a rookie R5 QB backing up Love leads me to believe they’re pretty confident they got it right with Love. The fan base, and clearly that includes some here, are not nearly as confident. Only time will tell if the team got it right.

1 to 2 years grooming is enough, Guty took Love when he did because he was already bumping heads with Rodgers just as Ted and Favre didn't see eye to eye.

what upsets me about all of this is that, we didn't invest in WR's a year or two earlier, and we relied on Walker and Newman to back up Bakh and Runyan.

according to several articles I've read, and from what I've witnessed over the years, year 1 is critical for a young starting QB, we used 3 seasons preparing Love, and building his confidence, so far this supporting cast and play (coaching) is slowly dissolving that.

my pet peve topic's while over bearing are roosting up and making this transition harder then it should be for Love.

Gutenbumst took Love because he never once for a second thought maybe the talent around Rodgers wasn’t good enough and he was in a new offense that typically explodes in year two.

Gutebumst should be arrested.

APB wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2023 07:34

It’s simply a different way, not a right or wrong way.

Yes, there have been teams that take financial advantage of QBs on first contracts with building a roster around them. It has worked when the right QB is selected and plays well. Lots of examples to choose from. Conversely, there are a ton of examples of failure, too.

But it’s also true the Packers preferred method, draft a QB while still having a viable QB rostered, let him sit and learn a few years, then make the transition while remaining competitive and avoiding an extended rebuild. The QB is also given the best opportunity to succeed by being prepared in the offense and play technique. This method has proven successful. It’s also produced it’s share of failure although I’d argue it allows a team greater flexibility in recognizing and responding to a pending failure.

The risk with the first method is a) drafting a Trey Lance can’t-miss dud and/or b) potentially ruining a young quality QB by throwing him in the mix too early. There’s also risk with the Packer method in that a three year investment would end up being a dud. Hopefully the team would recognize it before its show time, though, and have an alternate plan in place.

The fact the Packers have a rookie R5 QB backing up Love leads me to believe they’re pretty confident they got it right with Love. The fan base, and clearly that includes some here, are not nearly as confident. Only time will tell if the team got it right.

With the way the current CBA is structured it's definitely a mistake to not take advantage of having a starting quarterback on a rookie deal. While the Packers had success with their strategy with Rodgers you need to consider that there was no rookie wage scale in place at that time.

CWIMM wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2023 04:29

APB wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2023 07:34

It’s simply a different way, not a right or wrong way.

Yes, there have been teams that take financial advantage of QBs on first contracts with building a roster around them. It has worked when the right QB is selected and plays well. Lots of examples to choose from. Conversely, there are a ton of examples of failure, too.

But it’s also true the Packers preferred method, draft a QB while still having a viable QB rostered, let him sit and learn a few years, then make the transition while remaining competitive and avoiding an extended rebuild. The QB is also given the best opportunity to succeed by being prepared in the offense and play technique. This method has proven successful. It’s also produced it’s share of failure although I’d argue it allows a team greater flexibility in recognizing and responding to a pending failure.

The risk with the first method is a) drafting a Trey Lance can’t-miss dud and/or b) potentially ruining a young quality QB by throwing him in the mix too early. There’s also risk with the Packer method in that a three year investment would end up being a dud. Hopefully the team would recognize it before its show time, though, and have an alternate plan in place.

The fact the Packers have a rookie R5 QB backing up Love leads me to believe they’re pretty confident they got it right with Love. The fan base, and clearly that includes some here, are not nearly as confident. Only time will tell if the team got it right.

With the way the current CBA is structured it's definitely a mistake to not take advantage of having a starting quarterback on a rookie deal. While the Packers had success with their strategy with Rodgers you need to consider that there was no rookie wage scale in place at that time.

The Packers currently have exactly that.

Unfortunately, all the cap space they’d realize with QB1 on his rookie deal evaporated the moment they traded former QB1 and took on all his dead cap hit.

APB wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2023 09:51

Unfortunately, all the cap space they’d realize with QB1 on his rookie deal evaporated the moment they traded former QB1 and took on all his dead cap hit.

Yeah - I wouldn't worry about the " rookie QB contract" stuff too much.
You can take a stroll through the lists below to see all of the QBs drafted over the last decade+ and there's only 1 SB Champion with a QB on a rookie deal. KC/Mahomes in 2020- a transcendent HOF-worthy QB coached by a HOF-worthy offensive guru.

Unfortunately, the rookie QB deal is just an oft-repeated meme with little basis in reality. 1 out of 25 QBs drafted won a Title while on a rookie deal doesn't seem like the path to success some imagine it to be. As Andrew Brandt astutely noted, it doesn't matter how much you pay a QB - what matters is that he performs commensurate with the deal he signed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_S ... _champions

https://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/positions/qb

BSA wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2023 12:44

APB wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2023 09:51

Unfortunately, all the cap space they’d realize with QB1 on his rookie deal evaporated the moment they traded former QB1 and took on all his dead cap hit.

Yeah - I wouldn't worry about the " rookie QB contract" stuff too much.
You can take a stroll through the lists below to see all of the QBs drafted over the last decade+ and there's only 1 SB Champion with a QB on a rookie deal. KC/Mahomes in 2020- a transcendent HOF-worthy QB coached by a HOF-worthy offensive guru.

Unfortunately, the rookie QB deal is just an oft-repeated meme with little basis in reality. 1 out of 25 QBs drafted won a Title while on a rookie deal doesn't seem like the path to success some imagine it to be. As Andrew Brandt astutely noted, it doesn't matter how much you pay a QB - what matters is that he performs commensurate with the deal he signed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_S ... _champions

https://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/positions/qb

sorta blows holes in the argument that a cheap QB means ya can buy talent to leap frog the team to a championship, even though it may help, it takes more then just that to get er done.

The biggest thing about cap is the ability to defer cap to future years.

We can still sign Love to a large deal but open a 3 year window of low cap hit. It's how the Chiefs operated with Mahommes.

The issue with GB in 2021 and 2022 is that we were at the end of the cap deferral window and didn't have many options to defer future cap left. In addition, we were eating dead cap in 22 and 23 on cash spent on contracts in 2019 - 2022.

2024 - 2026 we will see the cap window start opening up for us again.

go pak go wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2023 13:10

2024 - 2026 we will see the cap window start opening up for us again.

Agreed
And that coincides with a huge leap in the TV money hitting the salary cap and growing the annual totals from $224M this year to over $308M in 2026 per the projections at OTC. My guess is the league will blow right through those projections and the actual numbers will be even higher with an added boost from gambling.

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space

go pak go wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2023 13:10

The biggest thing about cap is the ability to defer cap to future years.

We can still sign Love to a large deal but open a 3 year window of low cap hit. It's how the Chiefs operated with Mahommes.

The issue with GB in 2021 and 2022 is that we were at the end of the cap deferral window and didn't have many options to defer future cap left. In addition, we were eating dead cap in 22 and 23 on cash spent on contracts in 2019 - 2022.

2024 - 2026 we will see the cap window start opening up for us again.

fine, but we still could have traded draft picks for players at needed positions like WR, we pushed cap dollars to win in the Rodgers window, and skimped at the position that scores points, say what you want but that never made a lic of sense to me.