Packers Huddle

bud fox wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022 14:41

APB wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022 09:05

Yohochecko wrote: But we took a guy knowing he had elite physical talent but needed a LOT of work on the fundamentals and the mental aspect, AND we prepped him on a schedule knowing we had a Hall of Fame QB signed for 3 more years. They made him the 3rd stringer, focused on fundamentals and professional preparation, and let him sit and learn.

When Rodgers said he might not return, we had to suddenly hurry up and try to get him ready to start. ALL observers said he was much much better in training camp season 2 than season 1, so the learning helped. But it was also immediately clear that he was not fundamentally sound yet and wasn't ready to start. That might mean he'll never be ready to start at a high level; it might not mean that. Plenty of QBs--including Rodgers--have had rough outings in years 1 and 2 and gone on to be stars. Personally, I want to figure out what the Bills did with Josh Allen to get him from a 59% passer to a 69% passer between years 2 and 3. That type of accuracy improvement is nearly unprecedented.

I like your overall thoughts on refraining from making early judgments on Love but I gotta disagree with your assertion of the 3yr timeline thing.

The Packers had every intention of moving on from TBLS thus making Love the direct backup to Rodgers. To me, that says they felt he was at a progression level commensurate to that of stepping in when called upon to competently run the offense. I don’t think the Packers had to suddenly ramp up Love’s training regimen when Rodgers made his dissatisfaction publicly known. I think the Packers simply misjudged how far along Love was based upon practice snaps and the KC game was probably a wake up call to them.

I think Love's progression in roster status was more of a political move.

No GM is going to have there first round QB sit third string for 2 years. Investment is too big.

I really don't think they would have cared. But Boyle signed for 2.5 million dollars. Maybe he would have signed back here for a little less, but either way, we didn't have that kind of money to throw around for a backup QB. Not when we did have such a draft investment already. If Boyle happened to be and ERFA, don't think LaFleur would have hesitated to suit up the QB he thought was most appropriate at backup QB each week.

bud fox wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022 14:41

APB wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022 09:05

Yohochecko wrote: But we took a guy knowing he had elite physical talent but needed a LOT of work on the fundamentals and the mental aspect, AND we prepped him on a schedule knowing we had a Hall of Fame QB signed for 3 more years. They made him the 3rd stringer, focused on fundamentals and professional preparation, and let him sit and learn.

When Rodgers said he might not return, we had to suddenly hurry up and try to get him ready to start. ALL observers said he was much much better in training camp season 2 than season 1, so the learning helped. But it was also immediately clear that he was not fundamentally sound yet and wasn't ready to start. That might mean he'll never be ready to start at a high level; it might not mean that. Plenty of QBs--including Rodgers--have had rough outings in years 1 and 2 and gone on to be stars. Personally, I want to figure out what the Bills did with Josh Allen to get him from a 59% passer to a 69% passer between years 2 and 3. That type of accuracy improvement is nearly unprecedented.

I like your overall thoughts on refraining from making early judgments on Love but I gotta disagree with your assertion of the 3yr timeline thing.

The Packers had every intention of moving on from TBLS thus making Love the direct backup to Rodgers. To me, that says they felt he was at a progression level commensurate to that of stepping in when called upon to competently run the offense. I don’t think the Packers had to suddenly ramp up Love’s training regimen when Rodgers made his dissatisfaction publicly known. I think the Packers simply misjudged how far along Love was based upon practice snaps and the KC game was probably a wake up call to them.

I think Love's progression in roster status was more of a political move.

No GM is going to have there first round QB sit third string for 2 years. Investment is too big.

what investment, sure we traded a 4th to move up to take him, but thats chump change in the grand scheme, we could sit Love for his whole rookie contract and it wouldn't hurt much financially, cripes we sat a 12 slot Gary for 2 years and he's costing us 3 times as much.

bud fox wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022 14:37

If Rodgers hasn't signed an extension before the start of next season then he is gone.

What a delightfully silly thing to point out.

"Had the team not voluntarily extended their Hall of Fame QB, they might be moving on from their Hall of Fame QB."

It's true! They might, had they not done the very thing that assured that such a thing would be difficult if not impossible to accomplish, and done so of their own free will.

Had the team not done the things they did, then the interpretation of the situation and the likely outcome would assuredly be different. Because they did different things! But we don't get to pretend key aspects of the team's decisions and actions didn't occur to attempt to edify our own assumptions and narratives.

They DID extend Aaron Rodgers. They did, financially, contractually, and captually, commit to Rodgers for at least 2-3 years JUST before drafting Jordan Love. Had they not done so, it would be fair to wonder if they were ready to move on sooner. But because they DID voluntarily, willingly, of their own free will, commit to Rodgers through his contract extension, then we must include that in our analysis of the team's intentions and thought process. Because it actually happened, unlike the conclusions you, [mention]bud fox[/mention], routinely attempt to assert.

It sounds like you're off to an irritable start to 2022 [mention]YoHoChecko[/mention]

APB wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022 16:45

It sounds like you're off to an irritable start to 2022 @YoHoChecko

Nothing irritable in "delightfully silly" as my characterization of choice. Sound logic doesn't have a standard emotional disposition

I think too much is being made of Love's apparently poor start to his career. Certainly in the Kansas City game, he looked like a man who has never faced an NFL blitz in his life. But there are two possible reasons for that, one being that he is no good, and the perhaps more likely one being that he never had faced an NFL blitz in his life. Because neither college, nor practice, are proper preparation for your first 16 blitzes, especially when your coach keeps giving you slow developing plays. He looked very promising in the fourth quarter, IMO.

But let's look at some statistics. In his first two seasons, it's fair to say that 15 completions in 31 attempts, 111 yards at an average of less than 4 yards per attempt, 0 touchdowns, 1 interception - they're pretty rubbish stats. But that was Rodgers in his first two years.

Love is a fair bit better. 24 of 41, 258 yards is just over 6 yards per attempt, 1 TD, 1 INT. Obviously it's far too early to say he's better than Rodgers just because his stat line at the same stage of development is better. But equally, it's far too early to say he can't be a good NFL quarterback.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022 16:20

bud fox wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022 14:37

If Rodgers hasn't signed an extension before the start of next season then he is gone.

What a delightfully silly thing to point out.

"Had the team not voluntarily extended their Hall of Fame QB, they might be moving on from their Hall of Fame QB."

It's true! They might, had they not done the very thing that assured that such a thing would be difficult if not impossible to accomplish, and done so of their own free will.

Had the team not done the things they did, then the interpretation of the situation and the likely outcome would assuredly be different. Because they did different things! But we don't get to pretend key aspects of the team's decisions and actions didn't occur to attempt to edify our own assumptions and narratives.

They DID extend Aaron Rodgers. They did, financially, contractually, and captually, commit to Rodgers for at least 2-3 years JUST before drafting Jordan Love. Had they not done so, it would be fair to wonder if they were ready to move on sooner. But because they DID voluntarily, willingly, of their own free will, commit to Rodgers through his contract extension, then we must include that in our analysis of the team's intentions and thought process. Because it actually happened, unlike the conclusions you, @bud fox, routinely attempt to assert.

Sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about.

I was simply saying if Rodgers is not extended before the start of next season it will be his last. I still think he is a packer next year but it will his last if a pre season extension isn't agreed.

Was literally just a separate thought on thread topic.

bud fox wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022 14:37

If Rodgers hasn't signed an extension before the start of next season then he is gone.

Yeah, this doesn't seem a controversial statement to me.

I expect the Packers and Rodgers will come to some kind of resolution in February or March and will likely announce either a trade or contract extension before the league year begins on March 16. The sheer amount of work the Packers need to do in terms of roster cuts and contract extensions to get under the cap by the 16th, let alone to make room for a Devante tag, means the Rodgers situation will likely be resolved pretty soon one way or the other.

British wrote: ↑

02 Jan 2022 03:41

bud fox wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022 14:37

If Rodgers hasn't signed an extension before the start of next season then he is gone.

Yeah, this doesn't seem a controversial statement to me.

I expect the Packers and Rodgers will come to some kind of resolution in February or March and will likely announce either a trade or contract extension before the league year begins on March 16. The sheer amount of work the Packers need to do in terms of roster cuts and contract extensions to get under the cap by the 16th, let alone to make room for a Devante tag, means the Rodgers situation will likely be resolved pretty soon one way or the other.

not sure why yoho had such a reaction to this benign statement.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

02 Jan 2022 08:30

British wrote: ↑

02 Jan 2022 03:41

bud fox wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022 14:37

If Rodgers hasn't signed an extension before the start of next season then he is gone.

Yeah, this doesn't seem a controversial statement to me.

I expect the Packers and Rodgers will come to some kind of resolution in February or March and will likely announce either a trade or contract extension before the league year begins on March 16. The sheer amount of work the Packers need to do in terms of roster cuts and contract extensions to get under the cap by the 16th, let alone to make room for a Devante tag, means the Rodgers situation will likely be resolved pretty soon one way or the other.

not sure why yoho had such a reaction to this benign statement.

He's tired of talking about a QB on his way out the door, and one who can't open it, I think

It was a misunderstanding. I read that statement as referring to the contract renegotiation Rodgers signed prior to drafting Love, saying had he not signed that, 2020 would have been his last year in Green Bay. Based on re-reading the post, the misunderstanding was entirely on my end.

That said, the statement is still a delightfully silly thing to point out, as it is patently obvious that Rodgers will either be extended or traded this offseason. Could you imagine letting Rodgers play out the final year of his contract and walking for a 2024 5th round comp pick? Oh my!

But it's delightfully silly for different and more benign reasons.

I'm also not sure why people seem to think that post was some sort of uproarious response or reaction from me? I guess tone doesn't read well in text. Imagine reading it in a voice of someone giggling while high, and that's probably a more accurate read than whoever thinks I was upset or irritable or emotional.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

02 Jan 2022 10:27

It was a misunderstanding. I read that statement as referring to the contract renegotiation Rodgers signed prior to drafting Love, saying had he not signed that, 2020 would have been his last year in Green Bay. Based on re-reading the post, the misunderstanding was entirely on my end.

That said, the statement is still a delightfully silly thing to point out, as it is patently obvious that Rodgers will either be extended or traded this offseason. Could you imagine letting Rodgers play out the final year of his contract and walking for a 2024 5th round comp pick? Oh my!

But it's delightfully silly for different and more benign reasons.

I'm also not sure why people seem to think that post was some sort of uproarious response or reaction from me? I guess tone doesn't read well in text. Imagine reading it in a voice of someone giggling while high, and that's probably a more accurate read than whoever thinks I was upset or irritable or emotional.

I think we should have a giggly while high emoticon, after all it is legal in many states to giggle more now days then before and hardly anyone bongs these days so that emoticon just lacks expression

No one knows what the future of Rodgers is, if we are going to have to cut some talent then why would he want to stay? same with Devonte, why would he want to stay if Rodgers leaves? sadly I think both will leave for greener pastures, I hope I'am wrong.

I think this is probably one of AR's top 3 seasons of his career, maybe top 2. Hope he sticks around. Sounds like he is leaning towards staying.

Broncos will have a 9th to 11th pick if they lose to KC on Saturday. FYI.

go pak go wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2022 14:54

Broncos will have a 9th to 11th pick if they lose to KC on Saturday. FYI.

Go KC.

I mean I don't see much reason to read into where the Broncos will pick more than any other QB-needy team. They were last season's front-runners for Rodgers--at a time when he was not available for sale; doesn't necessarily mean they'll be this year's, when he is, and thus more teams might explore what is a more realistic option. (I also don't buy that they have a great roster and just need a QB; seems to me like they have some name recognition young weapons that we liked in the draft, a bad RB situation, a mediocre OL, a mediocre defense, and a not-particularly-innovative coaching staff)

But people keep telling me they're a great roster that's a QB away from contending, so I guess the narrative is well-established and set in.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2022 15:17

I mean I don't see much reason to read into where the Broncos will pick more than any other QB-needy team. They were last season's front-runners for Rodgers--at a time when he was not available for sale; doesn't necessarily mean they'll be this year's, when he is, and thus more teams might explore what is a more realistic option. (I also don't buy that they have a great roster and just need a QB; seems to me like they have some name recognition young weapons that we liked in the draft, a bad RB situation, a mediocre OL, a mediocre defense, and a not-particularly-innovative coaching staff)

But people keep telling me they're a great roster that's a QB away from contending, so I guess the narrative is well-established and set in.

They have
Good backs: Melvin and Javonte (i love Javonte)
Good WRs: Jeudy and Courtland Sutton
Solid TE: Noah Fant
Good Pass Rush; Chubb
Lock Down Corner: Surtain.

They may have some holes, but they certainly have the foundation of everything you want in a roster that you expect to succeed...except QB. And without a QB you stink. I dont know about SB contender with a QB, but instantly a playoff team with any above average QB imo...then with a QB like Rodgers, you never know.

I think the narrative has some merit.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2022 15:26

They have
Good backs: Melvin and Javonte (i love Javonte)
Good WRs: Jeudy and Courtland Sutton
Solid TE: Noah Fant
Good Pass Rush; Chubb
Lock Down Corner: Surtain.

They may have some holes, but they certainly have the foundation of everything you want in a roster that you expect to succeed...except QB. And without a QB you stink. I dont know about SB contender with a QB, but instantly a playoff team with any above average QB imo...then with a QB like Rodgers, you never know.

I think the narrative has some merit.

I forgot about Javonte, who is definitely good. I was thinking only about Melvin, who is spent. My bad.

But it's the Jeudy and Fant stuff that, to me, is projecting a ton; neither of those guys have shown they're anything more than prospects yet. Having one good pass rusher doesn't give you a good pass rush. And Surtain has had a nice rookie year, but also too soon for me to say a lot. I mean, is he better than AJ Terrell or Eric Stokes or a bunch of other guys in their first 2 years in the league at CB?

Their defense is within a yard and a half per game of the Packers, their OL isn't as good, their weapons are just young athletes at this point.

I just think we're all giving the Broncos credit for picking guys we liked in the draft (that's media-wide like, not just packer fan like) without much consideration as to whether or not they have actually shown themselves to be good. Like Tim Patrick keeps out-performing Jeudy, who also can't stay on the field. But he was a top 10 pick, so he counts in their favor.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2022 15:26

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2022 15:17

I mean I don't see much reason to read into where the Broncos will pick more than any other QB-needy team. They were last season's front-runners for Rodgers--at a time when he was not available for sale; doesn't necessarily mean they'll be this year's, when he is, and thus more teams might explore what is a more realistic option. (I also don't buy that they have a great roster and just need a QB; seems to me like they have some name recognition young weapons that we liked in the draft, a bad RB situation, a mediocre OL, a mediocre defense, and a not-particularly-innovative coaching staff)

But people keep telling me they're a great roster that's a QB away from contending, so I guess the narrative is well-established and set in.

They have
Good backs: Melvin and Javonte (i love Javonte)
Good WRs: Jeudy and Courtland Sutton
Solid TE: Noah Fant
Good Pass Rush; Chubb
Lock Down Corner: Surtain.

They may have some holes, but they certainly have the foundation of everything you want in a roster that you expect to succeed...except QB. And without a QB you stink. I dont know about SB contender with a QB, but instantly a playoff team with any above average QB imo...then with a QB like Rodgers, you never know.

I think the narrative has some merit.

Agreed.

They have the 5th ranked D.
As well as Jeudy and Sutton, they have Tim Patrick and Hamler.
As well as Fant they have Albert O.
And Rodgers can turn undrafted WRs into solid contributors.
They can hire Nathaniel Hackett as HC.

Crucially they have the 9th most cap space (88m more than the Packers who have the 31st).

So they can pay Rodgers far more than the Packers and still sign all Rodger's friends: Cobb, MVS, Mercedes Lewis, even Devante if the Packers don't tag him.

Plus Rodgers' fiancée lives in Colorado.

British wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2022 15:39

As well as Jeudy and Sutton, they have Tim Patrick and Hamler.
As well as Fant they have Albert O.

This, to me, sounds like they have Sutton and some prospects.

This is exactly what I'm talking about here.

The Broncos drafted the way fans think you build an offense and have wanted us to draft--a bunch of flashy weapons--and now we assume they're all good.

But I haven't seen any reason to think this is a team with a lot of weapons on the field. It's a team with a lot of draft capital invested in their offensive skill positions. Not a team with a lot of good weapons.

Tim Patrick being surprisingly useful in fantasy leagues because Jeudy and Hamler can't stay on the field doesn't seem particularly impressive to me.


Anyway, my point is there are plenty of teams with draft capital, geographical change, coaching hire opportunities, ect... that can appeal to Rodgers. We know that the Broncos were interested and have no reason not to remain interested. But I don't see anything dfrom this team to think "gosh, if only they had a QB all of their recent draft picks would become veteran NFL players"