Round 1 (26) - Jordan Love, QB Utah State

[YoHoChecko]

Okay, im not disputing anything you say. But even if the plan is for Love to sit for 2 years..thats still 2 years short of when Rodgers contract is up. Even if he sat for 3, which i really dont see that happening...thats still a year short of the end of rodgers deal.

I personally hope and prefer that it's at least 3 year Rodgers starts, Love bench situation, and then dead money plays virtually no role in Rodgers departure if it's after year 4 or not.

And I DO agree that there is a crash of egos and decisions COMING. I just think it's really really weird to worry about it and talk about it until the 2021 season is over.

It'd be like your spouse is in the passenger seat screaming at you to hit the breaks because there's a stop sign coming up two curves and three hills from now. Um, no hunny, I'm gonna worry about the hills and curves. We'll stop at the intersection and assess traffic when we get to it.

That's how McGinn and Cossell and a bunch of people here sound to me. Like people freaking out about an intersection three miles away. (and for someone who hates the pick, I am not talking about you Drj, in case that hasn't been clear; you're vocal but not hateful or suicidal or conspiratorial)

[BF004]

To me, the most likely scenario is Aaron is balling out well and there is literally no reason to get rid of him after 2, even 3 years, even with decent cap savings.

That puts us in a spot of having to pick up Love's 5th year option without seeing him play (hopefully) or just let him sit on the bench in year 4 or try to trade for what? Maybe a 2nd or a 3rd in 3-4 years?

I am not sure why would we want to consider cutting or trading Aaron in 2 years.

[YoHoChecko]

Honestly, IF Love plays very well in practice, preseasons and spot duty due to injury, I see no reason why this whole thing could end with Rodgers playing out all 4 years of his contract. Before that 4th season, the Packers pick up the 5th year option to pay Love the average of the 3rd through 25th-highest paid QB in year five, which is guaranteed for injury only... letting Rodgers walk, and having Love begin his career as a starter either on that 5th year option or on a multi-year extension that's below top dollar but solid, like we gave to Rodgers.

I'm not saying that's likely or that it's not without risk. But I don't see why that CAN'T be how this plays out. Nor would I have an ounce of regret if we get another top notch QB from ages 26 to 36 out of this in 2024 through 2033. The downside is we don't get top QB play on a rookie contract. The upside is we don't have to try to find that value with a roll of the dice in the draft when we NEED it to hit.

And if Love DOESN'T look to be the guy before then, we just... do this all over again. So I guess we should get used to it.

[NCF]

So at mimimum, you can infer or accept the packers are sending the message...they dont plan on rodgers finishing out his current contract.

I get this is nitpicking, but I still don't like going there. Here is what I think is fair. Two years from now, we don't know what the landscape will look like. We don't know how Rodgers will still be performing. We don't know how Love will develop over these two years. We don't know if Aaron will stay healthy. We don't know if a 3rd QB will enter the equation by that time. What we do know, unequivocally, is that we will have options. Keep Aaron, trade Love. Play the kid, trade Aaron. There will be options and from my viewpoint, it's very difficult to believe that the Packers will have to choose "the lesser of two evils". We are set up to choose between a HOF QB who holds off the competition remains in the Packers medium-term plans or a 1st-round talent who sat behind a HOF QB, learning the system for two years and is finally reading to go forcing the Packers to part with a legend. Drama aside, it seems like those are two healthy options that we didn't have a week ago where it was Aaron or bust.

[BF004]

Honestly, IF Love plays very well in practice, preseasons and spot duty due to injury, I see no reason why this whole thing could end with Rodgers playing out all 4 years of his contract. Before that 4th season, the Packers pick up the 5th year option to pay Love the average of the 3rd through 25th-highest paid QB in year five, which is guaranteed for injury only... letting Rodgers walk, and having Love begin his career as a starter either on that 5th year option or on a multi-year extension that's below top dollar but solid, like we gave to Rodgers.

I'm not saying that's likely or that it's not without risk. But I don't see why that CAN'T be how this plays out. Nor would I have an ounce of regret if we get another top notch QB from ages 26 to 36 out of this in 2024 through 2033. The downside is we don't get top QB play on a rookie contract. The upside is we don't have to try to find that value with a roll of the dice in the draft when we NEED it to hit.

And if Love DOESN'T look to be the guy before then, we just... do this all over again. So I guess we should get used to it.

So that entirely defeats the whole purpose of that push for a SB run with a QB on a rookie contract strategy if his first year starting is already on a 5th year option. I wouldn't even be shocked if Aaron would still want to play that season.

[NCF]

So that entirely defeats the whole purpose of that push for a SB run with a QB on a rookie contract strategy if his first year starting is already on a 5th year option. I wouldn't even be shocked if Aaron would still want to play that season.

Look, I understand the benefit completely, but this falls on very tired ears for me. Its not the only way and still requires a crucial element (getting a valuable QB). Teams don't get lucky like the Seahawks with Wilson very often. They go through absolute hell like the Rams did before drafting Goff.

Not to mention, the Seahawks, the gold standard for "QB on a rookie contract" actually had gone out in FA and signed a QB to be there starter and still won the SB in Year 2.

[Pckfn23]

Exact same thoughts I had. It shows he is thinking about this from a pure on field football standpoint instead of anything else, imo.

okay i can understand that. But if from a pure football perspective that is what they are saying..then making that football move while rodgers has that contract shows how strongly they feel all the more! As in, they are willing to eat or disregard the contract just to get Lafleur who he wants, or get rodgers out of town.

I still fall in this camp:

The extension was criminal if they already want to move on.

or

the draft pick of love was criminal if they dont plan to move on after a mere two more years.

Its one or the other the way i see it.

I see McGinn is piling on now with a full set of superlatives. I still think neither is criminal. It's QB. You do absolutely whatever you have to do to get that position right and then worry about everything else.

Absolutely he is. Pulling a typical Bob. I am not a fan of the timing of this pick, so I am not fully on board. McGinn's gotta McGinn.

[Pckfn23]

So that entirely defeats the whole purpose of that push for a SB run with a QB on a rookie contract strategy if his first year starting is already on a 5th year option. I wouldn't even be shocked if Aaron would still want to play that season.

Lot to play out here, but if it goes to Aaron finishing out his contract in Green Bay, this move is questionable. However, if Love then becomes a perennial Pro-Bowler as well, all is forgotten. It does negate the rookie contract strategy. 13.1%, no team has won allocating more than that to a QB.

[Drj820]

So that entirely defeats the whole purpose of that push for a SB run with a QB on a rookie contract strategy if his first year starting is already on a 5th year option. I wouldn't even be shocked if Aaron would still want to play that season.

Lot to play out here, but if it goes to Aaron finishing out his contract in Green Bay, this move is questionable. However, if Love then becomes a perennial Pro-Bowler as well, all is forgotten. It does negate the rookie contract strategy. 13.1%, no team has won allocating more than that to a QB.

Exactly. So im with you now that it has become more the timing of the pick i have issue with. And here is why: we were 13-3 last year, factor in the second year of the system leaps, and use that 1st rounder on a guy that could help THIS TEAM NOW...ya i think we were close enough that that might be the difference.

Instead of factoring in all the things we have discussed...like the rodgers reaction, the no rookie deal qb, what message does it send etc etc, for a wildcard that is a few years away from helping. Weve got the coach, the qb...why not add a few pieces in the draft now and go for it over the next couple seasons...that is why i think negative of the pick.

Ive listened to the Pros from NCF and Yoho and i agree with a lot of them. I just think there will be unintended consequences with this and those are worth discussing too. I also dont think QBs need 3 years to sit like they used to. I def still see the value in sitting for one, but the Pro game looks a lot more like the college game than it used to and QBs are coming in and contributing quicker than ever.

[Pugger]

Belechick passed up a HOF QB

I for one am glad he didn't get a QB.

[Pugger]

Fascinating interview. Always love Cosell. Couple takeaways If Cosell is right about the situation:

1) Despite the happy talk, Lafleur and Rodgers were in a power struggle and lafleur has absolutely won it.

2) Rodgers is still a top 12(?) qb in this league at worst. To have him under contract and already be wanting to punt on him is a massive indictment against rodgers.

3) Interesting the team would extend rodgers and not tell the new coach "Rodgers is our guy, your job is to get the most of him and make him better". Instead do something more like, "Hi new coach, this is your show. We have a HOF qb under contract, if he cant mold into what you want..we will punt him while he still has plenty of life left in him and get you the QB you want." Just wild to think about after one year, when 12 is not THAT old (yet).

4. I thought Rodgers had some bad games last year, but i thought overall he was just fine for first year in a brand new system. I feel by not getting him more help, the team is kind of shooting him the bird and blaming him for issues any qb would have.

5. in spite of point 4, the team must feel they have given him all he needs and hes just not doing the job i guess.

6. I assumed Lafleur would fail here if he couldnt improve rodgers and get along with him, the team is saying rodgers will fail and be gone if he cant follow the 39 year old coach.

7. We are headed for an ugly divorce.

I wonder. I recall after last season ended Rodgers said he had more fun in this past season than he's had in a while. We shall see.

[TheSkeptic]

@Pckfn23

I just listened to that, myself. I have a ton of respect for Greg Cosell, but I did feel a little bit like I wasted my time when I got to the end and he didn't really understand Aaron's contract.

Exact same thoughts I had. It shows he is thinking about this from a pure on field football standpoint instead of anything else, imo.

okay i can understand that. But if from a pure football perspective that is what they are saying..then making that football move while rodgers has that contract shows how strongly they feel all the more! As in, they are willing to eat or disregard the contract just to get Lafleur who he wants, or get rodgers out of town.

I still fall in this camp:

The extension was criminal if they already want to move on.

or

the draft pick of love was criminal if they dont plan to move on after a mere two more years.

Its one or the other the way i see it.

We have a year of time between the extension and drafting Love. No way the Packers wanted to move on from Rodgers a year ago. They wanted him to regain what he was, what he had been, prior to the collarbone and a few years. It didn't work, The Packers made it to the championship game with very little change in Rodgers. He did not regain what he was.

And now the Packers hope and expect to move on in 2 years. Unfortunately for them and us as fans, Rodgers will probably be ready to move on in 1 year, before Love is ready.

[Pugger]

A lot of folks are wondering why we gave Rodgers an extension and then moved up to draft his potential replacement. Back in 2005 nobody at 1265 dreamed Aaron would fall like he did. This year we ended up with the 30th pick. I strongly suspect Gute and MFL weren't targeting a QB this year either. As the draft unfolded and good WRs came off the board Gute and Matt couldn't help but notice they had a shot at a potential franchise QB that they really liked. Not often do teams drafting this late have a chance to nab a QB like this. They found a trading partner and pulled the trigger. If my suspicions are correct then Gute and MLF were not giving AR the finger, so to speak. They had the chance to possibly secure the most important position in football for many years to come just like TT did in 2005.

[British]

And I bet the Packers factored in that they were an ideal landing place for someone like Love. He needs time to watch and learn. Who better than to do that from the best and with a QB-coach background HC, without the pressure of being thrown in to a bad team needing a saviour.

[Yoop]

boy my memory must be bad, But didn't we give AR this contract the off season prior to McCarthy's last season, in which it seemed like Mike and AR where at each others throat right up to the day Mike was fired? if so, the Hiring of Lafluer has changed everything, remember when Murphy told Rodgers not to be a problem when he didn't even bother to call Rodgers over the selection, which he doesn't have to, however he just finished making Rodgers the richest NFL player not a year prior and Lafluers schemes are drastically different, so it does affect Rodgers career if he can't adapt to Matts plans, why wouldn't Rodgers want to know what his future holds, better yet why did Murphy chose to appease Rodgers with the extension when it was so obvious McCarthy's offensive schemes where not capable of producing prior results, he had to be on shaky grounds just like Capers the year prior.

I havn't even read that McGinn article, might not, I'am sure he's taking Favre's, whoops wrong QB side

[YoHoChecko]

So that entirely defeats the whole purpose of that push for a SB run with a QB on a rookie contract strategy if his first year starting is already on a 5th year option. I wouldn't even be shocked if Aaron would still want to play that season.

Who ever told you that was our plan? We never pushed for a championship with Rodgers on a rookie contract.

The problem with the "championship while the QB is cheap" model is that it requires you to draft the correct rookie and to risk it all to see if it plans out. We can point out that the push worked for Russel Wilson and for Patrick Mahomes.

But look at the other teams in our conference that we consider "contenders." Dallas hasn't gotten anywhere on Dak's contract, and even that one was a rare 4th round find. The 49ers have Garapolo signed to a big deal. The Saints have Brees and Hill and Winston and last year had Bridgewater signed. The Rams the previous year had already given Goff a raise (though his first year under the extension was still low). The Falcons went to the Super Bowl with Matt Ryan's big contract. The Bucs are loading up with Tom Brady (and were decidedly not a contender with Winston's rookie deal). The Seahawks have the highest paid QB.

Here are the teams that started a QB on his rookie contract last year (though the ones with starting contracts that got benched or injured defeat the purpose) :
Browns - Mayfield
Bills - Allen
Jets - Darnold
Ravens - Jackson
Texans - Watson
Jaguars - Minshew (though not the plan and Foles was on their cap)
Chiefs - Mahomes
Broncos - Lock (though not the plan and Flacco was on their cap)
Cowboys - Dak
Redskins - Haskins (though not the plan and Alex Smith was on their cap)
Bears - Trubisky
Panthers - Kyle Allen (though not the plan and Cam was on their cap)
Cardinals - Kyler Murray

Out of that group, we have the Chiefs winning the Super Bowl, the Bills, Texans, and Ravens making the playoffs, and 9 also-rans wishing they had a better QB. The goal is to have consistent high-level QB play. If you want to start a QB in his 2nd/3rd years, the odds are awfully high that he won't be good enough to take advantage of that low-dollar value.

No one ever said we're trying to play with a rookie contract QB. The fans figured that's the best thing to do because they look at the success stories and ignore the boatloads of failures. The model for success is great QB play, not cheap QB play. If you happen to get lucky enough to combine them, you're in great shape. But don't ignore that's a risky strategy.

We've gone back-to-back Hall of Famers in Green Bay, and won a Super Bowl with each of them. Maybe the rest of the league sould be taking their cues from how we do things, and not the other way around.

[Yoop]

The way I see it... the extension and restructuring are PROOF that the team expects and intends to have him for AT LEAST 2-3 more years. They voluntarily locked themselves into that position.

The draft pick, then, is CLEARLY made for a guy who can be the backup, not the starter for AT LEAST 2-3 more years.

As a reminder:

• We drafted Rodgers to be a backup for at least a year

• We drafted Bulaga to be a backup for at least a year(Clifton and Tauscher were still there)

• We drafted Jordy to be a backup/#4 for at least a year (and he was a #4/#3 for at least 2.5 years)

• We drafted Justin Harrell to be a backup for at least a year

• We drafted Gary to be a backup (The Smiths were just signed)

This year:

• The Dolphins drafted Tua at 5 to be a backup for a year

• The Chargers might make Justin Herbert their backup for at least a year

Finally, sitting Rodgers for at least 2 years is the best thing that ever happened to him. He says so. We can see that from his shaky preseason and backup performances over his first two years.

It may not be what people want with a first round pick--especially after trading up, but rookies often need seasoning. QBs often need the most. There is NO sign that the Packers have made this pick because they are punting on Rodgers. None. The financial decisions make it VERY clear that they are not. ANY read on the situation that ignores that the Packers voluntarily locked themselves into 2-3 more years with Rodgers just as willingly as they drafted Love is a stupid read. Period.

Maybe it'll be messy in 2-3 years. I anticipate a couple tense, potentially ugly years of "what will they do?" then. But it's FAR too early for it now. I'm sick of dumb@$$ opinions from talking heads to get clicks. Everyone knows what's happening here, and what is happening is that Rodgers is the guy in 2020 and in 2021, and the TEAM COMMITTED TO HIM, publicly, privately, financially... before they drafted Love.

If you can't read those dollars as all the reassurance you need, try brail, because it can't be spelled out any more clearly.

yep, I could see Rodgers retiring in 4 years, I still think he can do everything he did 5 years ago minus some deep ball accuracy and ball speed, with MLF switch to more up tempo, play action and the run, Rodgers will be hard to beat out, unless it comes to being demoted, why leave.

where is this McGinn article? I didn't pay for the athletic subscription, I bet he's scathing this pick

[British]

The Athletic is free right now.

[British]

McGinn pretty supportive of the pick.

He's scathing of Rodgers though:

“I think we tried to put the interests of the Green Bay Packers first,” Thompson said that night 15 years ago. “It wasn’t necessarily that comfortable taking that position (quarterback) maybe as some other things we’d like to have done, but you make draft choices and draft-day decisions based on the long-term best interests of your organization. I think that’s what we did today.”

One of the differences in the decisions was the fact that Favre was playing better football at the time than Rodgers is now.

...If Rodgers had been more impressive last season, especially in his two inept performances against the 49ers, Gutekunst might have been more inclined to keep developing Boyle and draft for immediate help at another position.

[BF004]

So that entirely defeats the whole purpose of that push for a SB run with a QB on a rookie contract strategy if his first year starting is already on a 5th year option. I wouldn't even be shocked if Aaron would still want to play that season.

Look, I understand the benefit completely, but this falls on very tired ears for me. Its not the only way and still requires a crucial element (getting a valuable QB). Teams don't get lucky like the Seahawks with Wilson very often. They go through absolute hell like the Rams did before drafting Goff.

Not to mention, the Seahawks, the gold standard for "QB on a rookie contract" actually had gone out in FA and signed a QB to be there starter and still won the SB in Year 2.

Well of course there are always exceptions, and the only example you could come up with was Matt Flynn’s cheap contract in Seattle to the Aaron’s highest (at signing) contract in NFL history.



I am not a fan of this pick and unless Aaron retires in two years or less, I won’t be. Honestly even if Love is a stud and we are set for 15 more years, don’t think I’ll agree with not doing everything we can to get back there with Aaron.