Packers Huddle

Drj820 wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 15:59

Im trying to give Love a fair shake. But part of that is inputting the negative data i witness as a total part of the algorithm that helps produce my opinion of him at the moment. I have been accused of being negative toward love, I dont really think this is fair. I think I just think its time to start seeing something, anything really..that allows one to say "yes! That is something we can build on/work with!".

Many cite his lack of a real camp in year one, or wearing street clothes to games in year one, or playing on the road in first start in year two, or playing with the backup WRs in Detroit as reasons why he hasnt shown that moment of helping us believe.

My only point is that to me, time spent not proving himself...counts. The clocks started for me. Im not waiting to evaluate him until his rookie deal is up, or he gets a full year as a starter, or how many ever practice reps. I think Jordan Love is a Pro and he has been in the league for 2 years, and while I expect to see room for growth and expect to experience growing pains...its time for the pro to at least give us a mixed bag or something to believe in.

He did that a bit yesterday until he fell apart at the end.

I think it's perfectly fine to assess and judge Jordan Love's play right now as "not good enough."

The pushback you get is if you're using the assessment of his play right now and trying to extrapolate a future, because that's when people say "it'll take longer to judge."

What IS true, is that we KNOW that right now, he's not ready to be a mid-to-high level NFL starter, and so his time on the bench is warranted; he's not banging down the door for a starting job. Knowing that he's not good enough right now is worth something. It means we still don't know. Still not knowing is less-than-ideal. It would be nice if he looked better and we got the sense that he's just a little experience away from being quite good. We can't say that. We can say that if Rodgers gets injured and we need Jordan Love to win us a playoff game, we're in a lot of trouble right now.

But there are LOADs of examples of players improving significantly within their first few years, so there's no point in writing off a backup QB yet. That's all. Post all you want about his play right now. But stop saying "when can I judge? How will I know?" The answer is that you can judge the present for the present but it unfortunately is not a large or meaningful enough sample size to be sure of anything or even predictive at all yet.

APB wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 07:57

I know some here have been pretty vocal in undercutting the Rodgers to Denver scenario, alluding to the Broncos roster deficiencies outside of the QB position and what not. Based on what's happening in Denver right now with their coaching staff and commentary surrounding the team, I think those folks may want to reconsider.

“Everyone wants to blame the coaching. We’ve had five head coaches in nine years, so something’s not working.”
—Denver GM George Paton on Sunday, after firing head coach Vic Fangio, who was 19-30 in his three seasons as Broncos head coach.

Give you a one-word clue why Denver’s had five straight losing seasons: It’s 11 letters long, starts with Q, and the Broncos have had a million of ‘em since Payton Manning walked off campus.

7. I think one of the silliest things I saw Saturday night after the Broncos loss was a headline or two about Denver coach Vic Fangio “ripping” quarterbacks Drew Lock and Teddy Bridgewater. At his post-game press conference, Fangio was asked what was separating the Broncos from the three other teams in the division. He said, “Those three other teams have top-shelf quarterbacks, which is obvious to everyone. We just need to get a little better.” He didn’t say Lock stinks. He didn’t say Bridgewater stinks. He just implied Patrick Mahomes and Justin Herbert and Derek Carr are better. Stop the presses!!!

It would be wonderful if coaches could simply say what they think consistently, rather than telling the very mild truth and getting raked over the coals for it. You don’t win in the NFL without quality quarterback play. Ask Matt Rhule and Robert Saleh and Matt Nagy and Dan Campbell and Joe Judge. Would you rather Fangio have said, when asked what was separating Denver from the rest of the division, something like: “I don’t know—I’ll have to watch the film?” It’s just nonsense.

These blurbs were taken from Peter King's FMIA column this week. They are a microcosm of what Denver media is talking about. It's pretty clear to me what the Broncos and those in media who closely follow the team think is holding that team back.

The Broncos fired Vic Fangio. If we see Nathaniel Hackett scheduled to interview for that vacancy, look out. It's coming.

Speak of the devil...

ESPN's Adam Schefter reports the Broncos have requested an interview with Packers OC Nathaniel Hackett for the team's head coaching vacancy.

Hackett is interviewing for the Jags head' coaching vacancy. The Packers poached Hackett from Jacksonville in 2019. In three years as their coordinator, Hackett has led Green Bay to a pair of top-10 finished in points scored. the Broncos are conducting a thorough search for their next head coach with both of Dallas's coordinators also lined up for interviews. As a team that is a quarterback away from playoff aspirations, they could be an attractive landing spot this offseason.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 16:10

Drj820 wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 15:59

Im trying to give Love a fair shake. But part of that is inputting the negative data i witness as a total part of the algorithm that helps produce my opinion of him at the moment. I have been accused of being negative toward love, I dont really think this is fair. I think I just think its time to start seeing something, anything really..that allows one to say "yes! That is something we can build on/work with!".

Many cite his lack of a real camp in year one, or wearing street clothes to games in year one, or playing on the road in first start in year two, or playing with the backup WRs in Detroit as reasons why he hasnt shown that moment of helping us believe.

My only point is that to me, time spent not proving himself...counts. The clocks started for me. Im not waiting to evaluate him until his rookie deal is up, or he gets a full year as a starter, or how many ever practice reps. I think Jordan Love is a Pro and he has been in the league for 2 years, and while I expect to see room for growth and expect to experience growing pains...its time for the pro to at least give us a mixed bag or something to believe in.

He did that a bit yesterday until he fell apart at the end.

I think it's perfectly fine to assess and judge Jordan Love's play right now as "not good enough."

The pushback you get is if you're using the assessment of his play right now and trying to extrapolate a future, because that's when people say "it'll take longer to judge."

What IS true, is that we KNOW that right now, he's not ready to be a mid-to-high level NFL starter, and so his time on the bench is warranted; he's not banging down the door for a starting job. Knowing that he's not good enough right now is worth something. It means we still don't know. Still not knowing is less-than-ideal. It would be nice if he looked better and we got the sense that he's just a little experience away from being quite good. We can't say that. We can say that if Rodgers gets injured and we need Jordan Love to win us a playoff game, we're in a lot of trouble right now.

But there are LOADs of examples of players improving significantly within their first few years, so there's no point in writing off a backup QB yet. That's all. Post all you want about his play right now. But stop saying "when can I judge? How will I know?" The answer is that you can judge the present for the present but it unfortunately is not a large or meaningful enough sample size to be sure of anything or even predictive at all yet.

I havent written off Love and his future. And I have never said "How will I know", I have asked when we can start evaluating him as Pro because for many it is too early to do that. It is not too early for me. We are anywhere from 1 to 3 Packer football games away from Love having a high probability of being QB1 on the roster.

How Love looks right now at this moment as a Pro has a major impact on the leverage the team has in many facets.

1) If Rodgers whines again and wants out, does the team feel they are screwed or do they feel comfortable handing the keys to love without begging Rodgers for anything.
2) if Rodgers leaves do they know they need to bring in a vet to start next year.
3) If Rodgers leaves do they know they need to bring in a current backup to compete with Love for the starting job
4) Are they ready to just hand it over to Love because they think he will be ready in a few games?

I think time is a little more of the essence considering the looming decision day with Rodgers, his contract, and who starts if Rodgers leaves.

I haven't pushed that the Brocnos are a bad destination; simply that they are only one of many possible destinations, and I'm not sure why we're more focused on them than other possible destinations.

Firing Fangio, though, is a big step in making their move for him. That coaching regime made no sense for Rodgers. Opening up the position to be a Rodgers lure puts more points in their corner.

They are still one of many teams that might make sense and I expect the Packers to entertain several offers this year. If Rodgers is available, teams will call. And it isn't always the most talked about landing pot that gets the deal. Sometimes it is. That's all I've ever said about Rodgers potentially being traded there. It turned into a discussion about their roster, but my only point is that there is no reason to narrow the focus to one team when there will be at least 5 interested. There were like 4-6 teams in the mix for Brady; there will be for Rodgers.

I guess I don't view the Packers/Rodgers/Love thing as "leverage" for one player or the team.

The move forward is pretty simple for me. If Rodgers wants legacy more than money and is willing to take a significant pay cut to do so, he stays. He has shown he is worth that and at a significant reduction in cap allocation, we can still be a winner if that's what he wants.

If Rodgers wants the money or be "paid what he is worth for matter of respect"...he needs to go because even if we retain him, we can't put a team around him and therefore we will just tread water in that 9 to 11 win seasons and exit in the Divisional Rounds (similar to 2015 and 2016 teams). Nobody is really a winner in that situation.

At that point it's best for both parties to just move on.

All of this makes it easier too if they make the decision having just won a ring.

I think there is a certain level of disappointment because the expectation was that Love would come in and show enough talent to justify our assumption of him being the heir apparent, or at the very least show that he wasn't complete garbage. But he was complete garbage. That obviously does not mean that he will continue to be complete garbage, and it doesn't even mean that he for sure won't be great. But I think the amount that he sucked was outside of the confidence interval for what most of us expected. That's what is concerning.

And like I said, the theory that I heard that sounds the best to me is that the specific types of ways in which he failed happened to be ones that could have (and should have) been fixed while he was on the bench without having to see live game action, so it begs the question: what was he doing the entire time?

Anyway, I remember them saying he was very raw coming out of college, so here's hoping he gets another year or two behind Rodgers to develop, and that we'll all look back on this season like we can Davante's 2nd year, which was one of the worst in history for a WR.

Yeah I could get on board with Love being garbage vs KC. I don't think I can get on board with Love being garbage vs DET. Underwhelming, yes.

But if he hits that throw to EQSB the conversation is very different. I can't let one throw be the difference from very, very promising to garbage.

I thought it was very impressive that he helped lead the Packers to the EZ after the Tyler Davis drop on 2nd down. Those almost always end in disappointment when you have that happen.

complete garbage is when ya hit receivers in the hands and they drop the ball, or can't seem to supply the effort needed to make the catch, Davis has to actually extend to make a catch, thats a TD if he does, same with Winfree, same with Amari, Love did well enough to win this game, it's the supporting cast for the reason he wasn't a winning QB.

I'am suppose to be the impatient Packer fan here

bud fox wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 15:35

NCF wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 14:50

bud fox wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 14:35

Love won't get traded because no one wants him and packers won't get value/cap relief.

Cap relief? Good grief. That is the absolute least of our problems concerning Jordan Love.

Exactly?

Ah, now I follow. Sorry. Thought you were saying no one would take him because the cap hit is too much.

texas wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 15:10

As one of the only people who predicted that Rodgers would stay (which is now looking way more likely)

Wait, what has now made this look more likely? Love's game yesterday?

texas wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 16:52

I think there is a certain level of disappointment because the expectation was that Love would come in and show enough talent to justify our assumption of him being the heir apparent, or at the very least show that he wasn't complete garbage. But he was complete garbage. That obviously does not mean that he will continue to be complete garbage, and it doesn't even mean that he for sure won't be great. But I think the amount that he sucked was outside of the confidence interval for what most of us expected. That's what is concerning.

And like I said, the theory that I heard that sounds the best to me is that the specific types of ways in which he failed happened to be ones that could have (and should have) been fixed while he was on the bench without having to see live game action, so it begs the question: what was he doing the entire time?

Anyway, I remember them saying he was very raw coming out of college, so here's hoping he gets another year or two behind Rodgers to develop, and that we'll all look back on this season like we can Davante's 2nd year, which was one of the worst in history for a WR.

You know who else was garbage in his second year as well as Devante? Aaron Rodgers. Had you been commenting here at the time you would probably have written him off too.

And as has been pointed out, Love was not "complete garbage" this week. That's just poor observation.

It's sad to say that some Packers fans are the spoiled brats of the NFL. You've been given too much candy. Rodgers and Favre have been too good for too long

Labrev wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 17:11

texas wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 15:10

As one of the only people who predicted that Rodgers would stay (which is now looking way more likely)

Wait, what has now made this look more likely? Love's game yesterday?

The thawing of the ice between him and management. Going into the season, the predominant opinion was that we were headed for divorce because Rodgers no longer wanted to be a Packer because of management (but that we wanted him, but also could stand to gain so many draft picks that it wouldn't be so terrible to move on).

Now the presumption is that the ice has melted, everyone is happy, and that he possibly will retire but people aren't thinking we're headed for divorce anymore.

British wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 17:49

texas wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 16:52

I think there is a certain level of disappointment because the expectation was that Love would come in and show enough talent to justify our assumption of him being the heir apparent, or at the very least show that he wasn't complete garbage. But he was complete garbage. That obviously does not mean that he will continue to be complete garbage, and it doesn't even mean that he for sure won't be great. But I think the amount that he sucked was outside of the confidence interval for what most of us expected. That's what is concerning.

And like I said, the theory that I heard that sounds the best to me is that the specific types of ways in which he failed happened to be ones that could have (and should have) been fixed while he was on the bench without having to see live game action, so it begs the question: what was he doing the entire time?

Anyway, I remember them saying he was very raw coming out of college, so here's hoping he gets another year or two behind Rodgers to develop, and that we'll all look back on this season like we can Davante's 2nd year, which was one of the worst in history for a WR.

You know who else was garbage in his second year as well as Devante? Aaron Rodgers. Had you been commenting here at the time you would probably have written him off too.

And as has been pointed out, Love was not "complete garbage" this week. That's just poor observation.

It's sad to say that some Packers fans are the spoiled brats of the NFL. You've been given too much candy. Rodgers and Favre have been too good for too long

You've been the King of Bad Takes recently.

First of all, Rodgers wasn't garbage in his second year. IIRC he came in briefly against NE or someone, promptly got hurt, and that was that. His grade was definitely more of an incomplete than anything else.

Second, I actually was posting here back then. Not technically this URL, but in this same community, which came from Julie's World. Several people can probably vouch for how much I always wanted Randy Moss, but when the rumors came out before the draft that we were talking about trading Rodgers for Moss, I was firmly opposed, despite how much I loved Moss (which was another personnel decision I nailed as he went to NE and set the record for best WR year ever), because I also thought Rodgers could be great (and I was correct about that too).

Third, you misspelled Davante.

Fourth, he wasn't complete garbage this past week, that is true. His overall body of work has been complete garbage though. His stats don't look too bad, but we also need to take the good stats with a grain of salt because his long TD pass was really just a dump off where the receiver did most (all) of the work. In that way, I guess he really does look like a young Mahomes.

To be clear, I am rooting for Love. I think he has talent, and he seems like a real good dude. He's got the background I usually like in QBs. But his limited action has been such an unmitigated disaster that I am shifting my outlook from He's the heir apparent to He's the current backup to Rodgers who could be a starter someday but that shouldn't stop us from looking elsewhere if something catches our eye

texas wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 18:07

First of all, Rodgers wasn't garbage in his second year. IIRC he came in briefly against NE or someone, promptly got hurt, and that was that. His grade was definitely more of an incomplete than anything else.

It was New England... 4 for 12 for 33 yards and 3 sacks.

Total garbage, in stats, demeanor, play awareness.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 18:13

texas wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 18:07

First of all, Rodgers wasn't garbage in his second year. IIRC he came in briefly against NE or someone, promptly got hurt, and that was that. His grade was definitely more of an incomplete than anything else.

It was New England... 4 for 12 for 33 yards and 3 sacks.

Total garbage, in stats, demeanor, play awareness.

Incomplete grade, easily. Plus, do you remember the plays or are you just regurgitating the stats after a quick google search? What were the circumstances? (Belichick defense, state of the o-line, did his WRs drop them, were they bad throws, etc).

What is interesting to me you see that you shouldn’t compare love to rodgers or expect love to be like Rodgers (I completely agree)

But then often the same people bring up rodgers second year appearance against New England to...i think...say, Rodgers sucked in year two and turned out great, so can Love.

Because I don’t want to compare love to Rodgers, I also won’t think that their career arch’s should be compared in year two.

The game film of Rodgers appearance coming off the bench in year 2 against the Pats does not impact my opinions or evaluation of Love one bit.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 18:23

What is interesting to me you see that you shouldn’t compare love to rodgers or expect love to be like Rodgers (I completely agree)

But then the same voices will constantly bring up rodgers second year appearance against New England to...i think...say, Rodgers sucked in year two and turned out great, so can Love.

Because I don’t want to compare love to Rodgers, I also won’t think that their career arch’s should be compared in year two.

The game film of Rodgers appearance coming off the bench in year 2 against the Pats does not impact my opinions or evaluation of Love one bit.

Yeah they're completely wrong and their take totally stinks!

texas wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 18:20

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 18:13

texas wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 18:07

First of all, Rodgers wasn't garbage in his second year. IIRC he came in briefly against NE or someone, promptly got hurt, and that was that. His grade was definitely more of an incomplete than anything else.

It was New England... 4 for 12 for 33 yards and 3 sacks.

Total garbage, in stats, demeanor, play awareness.

Incomplete grade, easily. Plus, do you remember the plays or are you just regurgitating the stats after a quick google search? What were the circumstances? (Belichick defense, state of the o-line, did his WRs drop them, were they bad throws, etc).

Andrew Brandt says it as often as asked plus some, when It was Rodgers time to take the crown...people in the building knew they had something. They were excited. This helped them move on from Favre.

Wonder if Love has given anyone in the current FO that same confidence?

Drj820 wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 18:23

What is interesting to me you see that you shouldn’t compare love to rodgers or expect love to be like Rodgers (I completely agree)

But then often the same people bring up rodgers second year appearance against New England to...i think...say, Rodgers sucked in year two and turned out great, so can Love.

Because I don’t want to compare love to Rodgers, I also won’t think that their career arch’s should be compared in year two.

The game film of Rodgers appearance coming off the bench in year 2 against the Pats does not impact my opinions or evaluation of Love one bit.

I didn't bring it up. He did.

Texas said Rodgers wasn't complete garbage... when he was.

I remember VERY well how completely garbage the whole world though Aaron Rodgers was until his 3rd preseason. It was literally the biggest story in Packersworld for like 2-3 years. To be fair to me, I didn't pre-judge Rodgers, either. But the fact that he got himself injured twice in reserve roles when Ironman Favre was out there was held against him greatly, and out on the field he looked a bit lost.

I don't like what I've seen from Love much, but if you want to make the case that a great QB would have showed something by now, and you bring up Rodgers as any bar for comparison, we're gonna call it out. Rodgers stunk in Baltimore as a rookie, and I was at that game, 10-12 feet from Ted Thompson who spent the whole game looking like he'd seen a ghost (or looking like he later looked every day about 10 years later). I remember how bad he was very clearly. And he stunk in year two in New England, albeit briefly.

And that obviously doesn't mean everyone who stinks early will get better over time; but it is a case for making no assumptions based on a couple of reserve halves of football in a player's first couple of years. We're not making the comparison to say Love will be Rodgers. We're using logic to point out that Rodgers is an example of evidence that players can struggle early in their QBing careers as small sample-size reserves-in-waiting without that having much relevance to how their career pans out. It's not a rationally inconsistent use of comparisons.

texas wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 17:55

Labrev wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 17:11

texas wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 15:10

As one of the only people who predicted that Rodgers would stay (which is now looking way more likely)

Wait, what has now made this look more likely? Love's game yesterday?

The thawing of the ice between him and management. Going into the season, the predominant opinion was that we were headed for divorce because Rodgers no longer wanted to be a Packer because of management (but that we wanted him, but also could stand to gain so many draft picks that it wouldn't be so terrible to move on).

Now the presumption is that the ice has melted, everyone is happy, and that he possibly will retire but people aren't thinking we're headed for divorce anymore.

1 year ago today there was no need to presume anything, because there was no thing, until there was a thing. Couple that with the answer given to the question, "So you like being a Green Bay Packer," and I don't think we can say that "everyone is happy." Everyone is happy because we are winning. That doesn't mean everything is fine between the 2 parties.