Packers Huddle

Labrev wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2023 17:15

Yoop wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2023 14:42

I new you'd go off into some tangent Labrev as soon as you said only one QB can play, it's like saying only one right guard can play so why bother backing him up, if the niners had your mind set they'd not even make the PO's last season.

the NFL has given thought to QB exemptions in the past, why they havn't enacted that imho is a huge mistake.

So the Jordan Love pick was good then, right?

Labrev wrote: ↑

11 Jun 2023 13:55

Labrev wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2023 17:15

Yoop wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2023 14:42

I new you'd go off into some tangent Labrev as soon as you said only one QB can play, it's like saying only one right guard can play so why bother backing him up, if the niners had your mind set they'd not even make the PO's last season.

the NFL has given thought to QB exemptions in the past, why they havn't enacted that imho is a huge mistake.

So the Jordan Love pick was good then, right?

@Yoop

Labrev wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2023 17:15

Yoop wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2023 14:42

Labrev wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2023 11:44

Only one QB can play at a time. Those QBs I mentioned were just part of a lucky streak, not a sustainable model because starting-caliber QBs are a rarity. Since then, GB has only been able to do that with Matt Flynn, who was definitely an inferior QB to the ones previously mentioned, but we made him look better than he was because our O system was working wonders and the league hadn't figured out how to stop it (which they since have).

Also, Warner doesn't actually count because he was a try-out guy who didn't even stick around here long enough for us to take any real credit for his development. GB was a brief pit-stop in his career.

It's dumb. You can do the same thing at other positions, and not only is it easier to develop starting-caliber players at basically every other position and then flip them for picks, you can actually also play them while you have them, which you can't at QB unless the starter gets injured.

ballony the reason QB's flunk out is lack of prep prior to being asked to start, Brunell, Hassellback, Brooks, where groomed a couple seasons, so was Flynn, we have learned here that a couple seasons sitting behind a established vet is the best way to give a QB a chance to succeed.

and why would you even attempt to tell me other positions are the same way, it's so apples to oranges it hardly deserves repeating, the only other position that even comes close to what a QB has to learn is TE, and even that pales compared to what a NFL QB has to know, owners cave to demands from fans to start rookie QB's because to them college success automatically translates to success at this level, it doesn't, thats why most of the QB's fail to ever even play close to slot value, although we have seen more success lately, it still pales in comparison for they way we've groomed Rodgers and now Love

I new you'd go off into some tangent Labrev as soon as you said only one QB can play, it's like saying only one right guard can play so why bother backing him up, if the niners had your mind set they'd not even make the PO's last season.

the NFL has given thought to QB exemptions in the past, why they havn't enacted that imho is a huge mistake.

So the Jordan Love pick was good then, right?

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 Jun 2023 14:33

Labrev wrote: ↑

11 Jun 2023 13:55

So the Jordan Love pick was good then, right?

(... jibber jabber...) when the franchise QB still had years of ability on tap, (... more jib-jab ...) if the team needs help at other positions, then it's no help to the team in the present, I wouldn't have taken Love or Gary in those draft slots in those particular drafts.

why would you ever think I would change my opinions about this?

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2023 18:43

Pugger wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2023 07:42

Are you fellas still talking about this guy?

Oh. So people want to continue talking about Jack Vainisi, I hope.

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023 08:45

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 Jun 2023 14:33

Labrev wrote: ↑

11 Jun 2023 13:55

So the Jordan Love pick was good then, right?

(... jibber jabber...) when the franchise QB still had years of ability on tap, (... more jib-jab ...) if the team needs help at other positions, then it's no help to the team in the present, I wouldn't have taken Love or Gary in those draft slots in those particular drafts.

why would you ever think I would change my opinions about this?

Okay, so when we cut out the weasel words, we find that you actually agree that we did overvalue QB above more immediate needs at other positions, namely because we already had a high-end QB1. Got it.

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023 10:38

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023 08:45

Okay, so when we cut out the weasel words, we find that you actually agree that we did overvalue QB above more immediate needs at other positions, namely because we already had a high-end QB1. Got it.

we didn't draft Love to trade him as we did with those QB's of the early 90's, true all where insurance in case the starter (Favre) faltered, none where actually chosen to replace him though, rather as backups and groomers to trade, when ya draft a QB in the first round you do so to eventually start him and replace a old vet.
that was not the case prior except for Rodgers.

you bet I value a 5th round QB to groom over a 5th round player at other positions

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023 11:44

I *don't* think it's smart, so I can complain about the pick. What redeems the pick for me is the turn of events where we now we actually do need a QB and will play him.

But if that wasn't the case, no, having a very talented player at QB2 just because QB is important, and/or flipping him in a trade, would not make me think that drafting Love was a smart pick.

We would have to get back more in a trade, which was a 1st *and* 4th, for it to be justified, and nobody was going to offer that for a guy who played as little as Love did.

But then I would rather just draft guys who will play in 2020 than wait til 2023 to do that, even if the picks in 2023 are higher, because Now is more valuable than Later (time value of money). So it would have to be even more than getting back just barely more than a 1 and 4.

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023 13:54

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023 11:44

I *don't* think it's smart, so I can complain about the pick. What redeems the pick for me is the turn of events where we now we actually do need a QB and will play him.

But if that wasn't the case, no, having a very talented player at QB2 just because QB is important, and/or flipping him in a trade, would not make me think that drafting Love was a smart pick.

We would have to get back more in a trade, which was a 1st *and* 4th, for it to be justified, and nobody was going to offer that for a guy who played as little as Love did.

But then I would rather just draft guys who will play in 2020 than wait til 2023 to do that, even if the picks in 2023 are higher, because Now is more valuable than Later (time value of money). So it would have to be even more than getting back just barely more than a 1 and 4.

using that draft capitol when we did on Love was wrong, using that draft capitol on a replacement QB is never wrong, the timing was poor Rodgers still had about 5 to 6 years of HOF play in him, the decline YOU saw in 017 and 18 was scheme in decline and lack of receivers needed for those schemes, anyone not invested in tarring down Rodgers knows this, course you'll consider this jiberish because it doesn't fit your narrative, and proof of that happened in Lafleurs first season, and it'll happen this season with the Jets.

AND ya don't use 1st and 4th round picks to groom QB's to be backups or to trade, drag your mind out of lonnytoonville lol Hasselback, Brooksy and Brunell etc where not drafted to be Favres replacement, they where taken to be backups and groomed in hopes of getting more then we payed, and we did.

same with this draft and Clifford, a very well seasoned college player, however with physical limitations which dropped him to round 5, I could see him in a couple years of grooming bringing us a round two pick.

during Wolfs tenure he took a flyer on a QB in almost every draft,

Hasselbeck joined former Packers head coach Mike Holmgren and the Seattle Seahawks on March 2, 2001. The Packers traded him, along with their first draft pick (17th overall), to the Seahawks for their first (10th overall) and third-round draft picks (72nd overall).

On April 21, 1995, the Jacksonville Jaguars traded third (66th overall) and fifth round (170th overall) picks in the 1995 NFL Draft to the Green Bay Packers in exchange for Brunell. This became the first trade in the Jacksonville Jaguars' franchise history, both Brunell and Hasellbeck where 5th round picks, Brooks was a 4th rounder, and he brought more value too.

The Packers traded Brooks and tight end Lamont Hall to the New Orleans Saints for linebacker K. D. Williams and the Saints' third round pick in the 2001 draft ahead of the 2000 season.

thats how this stuff is suppose to work.

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023 15:07

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023 13:54

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023 11:44

I *don't* think it's smart, so I can complain about the pick. What redeems the pick for me is the turn of events where we now we actually do need a QB and will play him.

But if that wasn't the case, no, having a very talented player at QB2 just because QB is important, and/or flipping him in a trade, would not make me think that drafting Love was a smart pick.

We would have to get back more in a trade, which was a 1st *and* 4th, for it to be justified, and nobody was going to offer that for a guy who played as little as Love did.

But then I would rather just draft guys who will play in 2020 than wait til 2023 to do that, even if the picks in 2023 are higher, because Now is more valuable than Later (time value of money). So it would have to be even more than getting back just barely more than a 1 and 4.

using that draft capitol when we did on Love was wrong, using that draft capitol on a replacement QB is never wrong, the timing was poor Rodgers still had about 5 to 6 years of HOF play in him, the decline YOU saw in 017 and 18 was scheme in decline and lack of receivers needed for those schemes, anyone not invested in tarring down Rodgers knows this, course you'll consider this jiberish because it doesn't fit your narrative, and proof of that happened in Lafleurs first season, and it'll happen this season with the Jets.

AND ya don't use 1st and 4th round picks to groom QB's to be backups or to trade, drag your mind out of lonnytoonville lol Hasselback, Brooksy and Brunell etc where not drafted to be Favres replacement, they where taken to be backups and groomed in hopes of getting more then we payed, and we did.

same with this draft and Clifford, a very well seasoned college player, however with physical limitations which dropped him to round 5, I could see him in a couple years of grooming bringing us a round two pick.

during Wolfs tenure he took a flyer on a QB in almost every draft,

Hasselbeck joined former Packers head coach Mike Holmgren and the Seattle Seahawks on March 2, 2001. The Packers traded him, along with their first draft pick (17th overall), to the Seahawks for their first (10th overall) and third-round draft picks (72nd overall).

On April 21, 1995, the Jacksonville Jaguars traded third (66th overall) and fifth round (170th overall) picks in the 1995 NFL Draft to the Green Bay Packers in exchange for Brunell. This became the first trade in the Jacksonville Jaguars' franchise history, both Brunell and Hasellbeck where 5th round picks, Brooks was a 4th rounder, and he brought more value too.

The Packers traded Brooks and tight end Lamont Hall to the New Orleans Saints for linebacker K. D. Williams and the Saints' third round pick in the 2001 draft ahead of the 2000 season.

thats how this stuff is suppose to work.

I didn't say drafting QBs in the mid-rounds is stupid. I am all for it. What's stupid is how this team pooh-poohed Brett Hundley and instead got rid of him for a high-ceiling/low-floor guy in Kizer who was a disaster, all because Hundley was "just" a serviceable backup rather than the next Brooks or Brunell. That's overvaluing the QB position.

Also, you're wrong, the decline in 2018 and 2019 wasn't a lack of receivers; he won MVP with the *exact same* WR group in 2020. The problem is Rodgers only plays that hard and great when he's pissed off, and his play falls off when he's fat and contented.

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023 16:38

so then according to you Rodgers played pissed off 11 of his 13 seasons starting for us, no sale,

the decline with the Packers passing offense in 2017 and 18 landed squarely on McCarthy's passing schemes and the lack of talent at WR, it was better in 019 simply because Lafleur used more balance of run to pass and dialed back the deep routes, also MVS was no longer a rookie, and played better, imagine that players getting better or worse per season

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023 16:38

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023 15:07

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023 13:54

using that draft capitol when we did on Love was wrong, using that draft capitol on a replacement QB is never wrong, the timing was poor Rodgers still had about 5 to 6 years of HOF play in him, the decline YOU saw in 017 and 18 was scheme in decline and lack of receivers needed for those schemes, anyone not invested in tarring down Rodgers knows this, course you'll consider this jiberish because it doesn't fit your narrative, and proof of that happened in Lafleurs first season, and it'll happen this season with the Jets.

AND ya don't use 1st and 4th round picks to groom QB's to be backups or to trade, drag your mind out of lonnytoonville lol Hasselback, Brooksy and Brunell etc where not drafted to be Favres replacement, they where taken to be backups and groomed in hopes of getting more then we payed, and we did.

same with this draft and Clifford, a very well seasoned college player, however with physical limitations which dropped him to round 5, I could see him in a couple years of grooming bringing us a round two pick.

during Wolfs tenure he took a flyer on a QB in almost every draft,

Hasselbeck joined former Packers head coach Mike Holmgren and the Seattle Seahawks on March 2, 2001. The Packers traded him, along with their first draft pick (17th overall), to the Seahawks for their first (10th overall) and third-round draft picks (72nd overall).

On April 21, 1995, the Jacksonville Jaguars traded third (66th overall) and fifth round (170th overall) picks in the 1995 NFL Draft to the Green Bay Packers in exchange for Brunell. This became the first trade in the Jacksonville Jaguars' franchise history, both Brunell and Hasellbeck where 5th round picks, Brooks was a 4th rounder, and he brought more value too.

The Packers traded Brooks and tight end Lamont Hall to the New Orleans Saints for linebacker K. D. Williams and the Saints' third round pick in the 2001 draft ahead of the 2000 season.

thats how this stuff is suppose to work.

I didn't say drafting QBs in the mid-rounds is stupid. I am all for it. What's stupid is how this team pooh-poohed Brett Hundley and instead got rid of him for a high-ceiling/low-floor guy in Kizer who was a disaster, all because Hundley was "just" a serviceable backup rather than the next Brooks or Brunell. That's overvaluing the QB position.

Also, you're wrong, the decline in 2018 and 2019 wasn't a lack of receivers; he won MVP with the *exact same* WR group in 2020. The problem is Rodgers only plays that hard and great when he's pissed off, and his play falls off when he's fat and contented.

so then according to you Rodgers played pissed off 11 of his 13 seasons starting for us, no sale, the decline with the Packers passing offense in 2017 and 18 landed squarely on McCarthy's passing schemes and the lack of talent at WR, it was better in 019 simply because Lafleur used more balance of run to pass and dialed back the deep routes, also MVS was no longer a rookie, and played better, imagine that players getting better or worse per season

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023 13:54

using that draft capitol when we did on Love was wrong, using that draft capitol on a replacement QB is never wrong, the timing was poor Rodgers still had about 5 to 6 years of HOF play in him, the decline YOU saw in 017 and 18 was scheme in decline and lack of receivers needed for those schemes, anyone not invested in tarring down Rodgers knows this, course you'll consider this jiberish because it doesn't fit your narrative, and proof of that happened in Lafleurs first season, and it'll happen this season with the Jets.

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023 17:47

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023 16:38

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023 15:07

I didn't say drafting QBs in the mid-rounds is stupid. I am all for it. What's stupid is how this team pooh-poohed Brett Hundley and instead got rid of him for a high-ceiling/low-floor guy in Kizer who was a disaster, all because Hundley was "just" a serviceable backup rather than the next Brooks or Brunell. That's overvaluing the QB position.

Also, you're wrong, the decline in 2018 and 2019 wasn't a lack of receivers; he won MVP with the *exact same* WR group in 2020. The problem is Rodgers only plays that hard and great when he's pissed off, and his play falls off when he's fat and contented.

so then according to you Rodgers played pissed off 11 of his 13 seasons starting for us, no sale, the decline with the Packers passing offense in 2017 and 18 landed squarely on McCarthy's passing schemes and the lack of talent at WR, it was better in 019 simply because Lafleur used more balance of run to pass and dialed back the deep routes, also MVS was no longer a rookie, and played better, imagine that players getting better or worse per season

You're going down that path again with spitting out stuff without validating and will get this thread into trouble. I advise turning down the dial on this. (such as the MVS thing being a better player in 2019 compared to 2018)

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023 17:46

the decline with the Packers passing offense in 2017 and 18 landed squarely on McCarthy's passing schemes and the lack of talent at WR, it was better in 019 simply because Lafleur used more balance of run to pass and dialed back the deep routes, also MVS was no longer a rookie, and played better, imagine that players getting better or worse per season

Yes, MM's offense no longer cut it and MLF installed a better system. I never disagreed on that.

I did, however, disagree on the lack of talent at WR.

So 1 WR played "better" (not played "well," just "better," better than he did as a rookie). What else? That alone does not seem like enough to fix a lack of talent at a whole position.

Or maybe... maybe that goes to show that the position group did NOT lack talent as alleged, since the same talent (other than 1 WR improving between seasons) was good enough to support a QB's MVP season!!

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023 06:14

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023 17:47

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023 16:38

so then according to you Rodgers played pissed off 11 of his 13 seasons starting for us, no sale, the decline with the Packers passing offense in 2017 and 18 landed squarely on McCarthy's passing schemes and the lack of talent at WR, it was better in 019 simply because Lafleur used more balance of run to pass and dialed back the deep routes, also MVS was no longer a rookie, and played better, imagine that players getting better or worse per season

You're going down that path again with spitting out stuff without validating and will get this thread into trouble. I advise turning down the dial on this. (such as the MVS thing being a better player in 2019 compared to 2018)

everything I just said is accurate, since 2016 we've had one receiver Rodgers could count on and a bunch of others that where less dependable, and the key to Lafleurs success was running the football more.

go pak go wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023 06:57

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023 06:14

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023 17:47

You're going down that path again with spitting out stuff without validating and will get this thread into trouble. I advise turning down the dial on this. (such as the MVS thing being a better player in 2019 compared to 2018)

everything I just said is accurate, since 2016 we've had one receiver Rodgers could count on and a bunch of others that where less dependable, and the key to Lafleurs success was running the football more.

You stated MVS got better after his rookie season which is why Rodgers production got better (particularly in 2019) which isn't really true. MVS actually had a decline in production in 2019. He did have an uptick in TDs in 2020 due to an increase in long ball catches but overall his production between 2018 and 2021 was quite consistent on a per game basis with 2020 being his best year and 2019 being his worst year.

By far and away the receiver to point to who elevated his player after 2018 was Davante Adams. Adams went from "we were shocked to hear him say he is a top 10 WR" in 2018 to clearly the league's best WR in 2019 - 2021.

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023 07:54

go pak go wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023 06:57

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023 06:14

everything I just said is accurate, since 2016 we've had one receiver Rodgers could count on and a bunch of others that where less dependable, and the key to Lafleurs success was running the football more.

You stated MVS got better after his rookie season which is why Rodgers production got better (particularly in 2019) which isn't really true. MVS actually had a decline in production in 2019. He did have an uptick in TDs in 2020 due to an increase in long ball catches but overall his production between 2018 and 2021 was quite consistent on a per game basis with 2020 being his best year and 2019 being his worst year.

By far and away the receiver to point to who elevated his player after 2018 was Davante Adams. Adams went from "we were shocked to hear him say he is a top 10 WR" in 2018 to clearly the league's best WR in 2019 - 2021.

using MVS and not the rest of the WR, RB's OL, was probably wrong simply because your using it to twist this around, the point is under Lafleurs new offensive schemes everything improved, which helped Rodgers to improve.

he didn't go from a declining QB to all of a sudden vastly better because he decided to as you and others suggest, it took a few games but Rodgers adapted to Lafleurs offense as well as any QB has with any scheme change.
and he'll do it again for the Jets.