Packers Huddle

begging Rodgers back last year to the tune of 40m+ dead cap this year, and not giving Love his 5th year option corroborates the reporting of Dianna.

The local guys are too busy telling us his new deal is a "win win".

Why can't we accept that we are in the same exact spot as 2008. The team feels really good about the next guy up but also understands that there are no guarantees that they will perform? The Packers drafted a QB in the 2nd round in 2008 for that very reason. The local beat writers have remained grounded the entire time and I haven't seen an overwhelming bias whatsoever.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:16

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:09

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 10:49

So you are trying to say the entirety of that list mostly puts out feel good articles and comes off as biased? I think an evaluation of one's own bias would be beneficial over thinking that of those 20+ individuals.

So, who should we follow for this unbiased look into the Packers?

quit using extremes to pigeon hole others into extended arguments, never said any of that, it's a long list read whomever you want.

No extremes on my end. In response to the list, you said that they come off as very biased at times... Your own words. Who are we to follow that is not very biased?

I just find it funny that you'd discount a reporter simply because she's not a home town lacky, or Packer beat writer.

I didn't. I simply found it interesting that the reporter in New Jersey would be given more weight compared to our own writers at home and used to try and paint a bleak picture.

I don't read as much of these beat writers as you, when I did I found them all to be biased, they shy away from being to critical of the team for fear of losing interviews and insider info, Bob McGinn was our most neutral imo, and man fans hated him.

and this gal Diana didn't paint a bleak picture, she spelled out the reality of this situation, and you didn't like it, why? simple, you like the feel good spouted stuff from guys like Demovsky, Herman etc. fine, but she spoke what seems accurate to me, and you called her out on it.

Acrobat wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:39

Why can't we accept that we are in the same exact spot as 2008. The team feels really good about the next guy up but also understands that there are no guarantees that they will perform? The Packers drafted a QB in the 2nd round in 2008 for that very reason. The local beat writers have remained grounded the entire time and I haven't seen an overwhelming bias whatsoever.

the only people that seem to have a problem relating with this are those that hated the last few seasons with Rodgers and blame him for everything, and think Jordan Love is the next Rodgers automatically', the FO on both these transitions where prepared to keep both of these ol vet QB's because young QB's like Love now and Rodger in 08 are abso freaking lutely no sure things.

and that was the basics of this ESPN Diana's opinion.

and Packer beat writers for the most part spout nothing but positives, why, because that is what Packer fans want to hear.

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:41

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:16

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:09

quit using extremes to pigeon hole others into extended arguments, never said any of that, it's a long list read whomever you want.

No extremes on my end. In response to the list, you said that they come off as very biased at times... Your own words. Who are we to follow that is not very biased?

I just find it funny that you'd discount a reporter simply because she's not a home town lacky, or Packer beat writer.

I didn't. I simply found it interesting that the reporter in New Jersey would be given more weight compared to our own writers at home and used to try and paint a bleak picture.

I don't read as much of these beat writers as you, when I did I found them all to be biased, they shy away from being to critical of the team for fear of losing interviews and insider info, Bob McGinn was our most neutral imo, and man fans hated him.

and this gal Diana didn't paint a bleak picture, she spelled out the reality of this situation, and you didn't like it, why? simple, you like the feel good spouted stuff from guys like Demovsky, Herman etc. fine, but she spoke what seems accurate to me, and you called her out on it.

You may want to start reading them then instead of pigeon holing all 20+... Bob McGinn was the king of narrative driven monologues. His analysis was good though. He no longer is a Packers beat writer, so which Packers media person should we follow to get our Packers news?

I didn't say Dianna painted a bleak picture. I said her report was USED to do that... I didn't call HER out... I think you need to go back and read what I actually wrote...

By the way, i am not predicting Love will fail. I am only saying its obvious the front office seems to think its a toss up whether he sinks or swims.

I would have hoped they would have a lot of confidence after having the guy in the building for the last 3 years.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:52

By the way, i am not predicting Love will fail. I am only saying its obvious the front office seems to think its a toss up whether he sinks or swims.

I would have hoped they would have a lot of confidence after having the guy in the building for the last 3 years.

they do, you shouldn't expect them to be over zealous about it though, the hit to bust/ or never being above average is far to high.

If they didn't believe Love could beat the odds Rodgers would still be the starting QB

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:52

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:41

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:16

No extremes on my end. In response to the list, you said that they come off as very biased at times... Your own words. Who are we to follow that is not very biased?


I didn't. I simply found it interesting that the reporter in New Jersey would be given more weight compared to our own writers at home and used to try and paint a bleak picture.

I don't read as much of these beat writers as you, when I did I found them all to be biased, they shy away from being to critical of the team for fear of losing interviews and insider info, Bob McGinn was our most neutral imo, and man fans hated him.

and this gal Diana didn't paint a bleak picture, she spelled out the reality of this situation, and you didn't like it, why? simple, you like the feel good spouted stuff from guys like Demovsky, Herman etc. fine, but she spoke what seems accurate to me, and you called her out on it.

You may want to start reading them then instead of pigeon holing all 20+... Bob McGinn was the king of narrative driven monologues. His analysis was good though. He no longer is a Packers beat writer, so which Packers media person should we follow to get our Packers news?

I didn't say Dianna painted a bleak picture. I said her report was USED to do that... I didn't call HER out... I think you need to go back and read what I actually wrote...

no her report wasn't, that is how you took it, now who's the weasler, your problem is you !@#$ people off, and that is why DRJ said what he did.

I always read your post at least twice, stupid and dumb as you think I am it's best for me make sure I have the full meaning of what you say, and you took what she said as a personal attack on Love

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:57

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:52

By the way, i am not predicting Love will fail. I am only saying its obvious the front office seems to think its a toss up whether he sinks or swims.

I would have hoped they would have a lot of confidence after having the guy in the building for the last 3 years.

they do, you shouldn't expect them to be over zealous about it though, the hit to bust/ or never being above average is far to high.

If they didn't believe Love could beat the odds Rodgers would still be the starting QB

Or they would be bring in a veteran backup. That is a sign in the “confidence” column for Love for sure

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:48

Acrobat wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:39

Why can't we accept that we are in the same exact spot as 2008. The team feels really good about the next guy up but also understands that there are no guarantees that they will perform? The Packers drafted a QB in the 2nd round in 2008 for that very reason. The local beat writers have remained grounded the entire time and I haven't seen an overwhelming bias whatsoever.

the only people that seem to have a problem relating with this are those that hated the last few seasons with Rodgers and blame him for everything, and think Jordan Love is the next Rodgers automatically', the FO on both these transitions where prepared to keep both of these ol vet QB's because young QB's like Love now and Rodger in 08 are abso freaking lutely no sure things.

and that was the basics of this ESPN Diana's opinion.

and Packer beat writers for the most part spout nothing but positives, why, because that is what Packer fans want to hear.

Can you point me to specific examples of those beat riders that claim that Jordan Love is going to be as good as Rodgers?

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 12:02

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:52

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:41

I don't read as much of these beat writers as you, when I did I found them all to be biased, they shy away from being to critical of the team for fear of losing interviews and insider info, Bob McGinn was our most neutral imo, and man fans hated him.

and this gal Diana didn't paint a bleak picture, she spelled out the reality of this situation, and you didn't like it, why? simple, you like the feel good spouted stuff from guys like Demovsky, Herman etc. fine, but she spoke what seems accurate to me, and you called her out on it.

You may want to start reading them then instead of pigeon holing all 20+... Bob McGinn was the king of narrative driven monologues. His analysis was good though. He no longer is a Packers beat writer, so which Packers media person should we follow to get our Packers news?

I didn't say Dianna painted a bleak picture. I said her report was USED to do that... I didn't call HER out... I think you need to go back and read what I actually wrote...

no her report wasn't, that is how you took it, now who's the weasler, your problem is you !@#$ people off, and that is why DRJ said what he did.

Oh it absolutely was. This was the comment attached to the tweet: "Won’t give him the 5th year option, begs Rodgers back last year, “preaching patience” in May….just how bad are the packers preparing for Love to be???"

100% was it used to paint a bleak picture.

I always read your post at least twice, stupid and dumb as you think I am it's best for me make sure I have the full meaning of what you say, and you took what she said as a personal attack on Love

I didn't comment on what she said... QUOTE where I commented on what she wrote/said.

Acrobat wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 12:06

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:48

Acrobat wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:39

Why can't we accept that we are in the same exact spot as 2008. The team feels really good about the next guy up but also understands that there are no guarantees that they will perform? The Packers drafted a QB in the 2nd round in 2008 for that very reason. The local beat writers have remained grounded the entire time and I haven't seen an overwhelming bias whatsoever.

the only people that seem to have a problem relating with this are those that hated the last few seasons with Rodgers and blame him for everything, and think Jordan Love is the next Rodgers automatically', the FO on both these transitions where prepared to keep both of these ol vet QB's because young QB's like Love now and Rodger in 08 are abso freaking lutely no sure things.

and that was the basics of this ESPN Diana's opinion.

and Packer beat writers for the most part spout nothing but positives, why, because that is what Packer fans want to hear.

Can you point me to specific examples of those beat riders that claim that Jordan Love is going to be as good as Rodgers?

I suppose I could if I felt like wasting my time.

Hehe, the classic fallback when asked to provide evidence, "I don't have time," "I don't want to waste my time."

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:52

By the way, i am not predicting Love will fail. I am only saying its obvious the front office seems to think its a toss up whether he sinks or swims.

I would have hoped they would have a lot of confidence after having the guy in the building for the last 3 years.

Rodgers didn't get his extension until halfway through his first season starting, either.

A team can feel any confidence they want, but they have to know it doesn't matter until you see it on Sundays.

I think you're painting a mostly fair picture of a team who is unsure if their QB is going to be The Guy or not.

But I think you're also painting that picture with an unfair filter of expectations that there is ANY way the team could be more confident without seeing it. They weren't more confident in Rodgers than they are Love. They can't be. They simply have to see it. Planning for any outcome certainty without seeing it is folly, and so the team is rightfully behaving as a team who MIGHT have found their QB, but might not have. There's simply no other outcome.

Those who prefer that narrative seem to cast any 'reasonable doubt' as 'pessimism.' But I don't see it that way. A lack of certainty for a QB who hasn't played real snaps is simply the only option available. They have put themselves in position to have to make decisions like 5th year option versus extension versus compromise; or veteran backup versus rookie benchwarmer; without having good evidence yet. And they are navigating that reality by keeping all options open.

I see that not as pessimism about Love, but as sound team-building. It isn't a lack of belief in Love, it's a knowledge that faith alone is not enough. You have to always consider every possible outcome when planning. The Packers are in great shape to see if Love sinks or swims while protecting themselves against the cap and having resources in the future to either replace him or build around him. They are planning, simultaneously, for both.

Love is Schrödinger's QB, and the only way to find out if he's alive or dead is to open the box. Until then, the team must act as if he is both. And they are.

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 12:16

Acrobat wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 12:06

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:48

the only people that seem to have a problem relating with this are those that hated the last few seasons with Rodgers and blame him for everything, and think Jordan Love is the next Rodgers automatically', the FO on both these transitions where prepared to keep both of these ol vet QB's because young QB's like Love now and Rodger in 08 are abso freaking lutely no sure things.

and that was the basics of this ESPN Diana's opinion.

and Packer beat writers for the most part spout nothing but positives, why, because that is what Packer fans want to hear.

Can you point me to specific examples of those beat riders that claim that Jordan Love is going to be as good as Rodgers?

I suppose I could if I felt like wasting my time.

Cool. Let's waste some time then and see what you got!

One of my favorite packers-huddle forum games is to open a thread, see that 23 and yoop are going at it, and guess how many pages I have to go back to figure out where/how this started. This time, it is only one page! (albeit near the top of that page)

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 12:23

One of my favorite packers-huddle forum games is to open a thread, see that 23 and yoop are going at it, and guess how many pages I have to go back to figure out where/how this started. This time, it is only one page! (albeit near the top of that page)

see there has been improvement, I think I'am doing better, simply not answering there silly 8year old questions seems a cure all

[mention]Yoop[/mention] Did you happen to dig up those examples yet?

https://www.packers.com/news/tom-clemen ... ordan-love

Nothing new here, just the annual feel-good article about the starting QB

Crazylegs Starks wrote: ↑

19 May 2023 12:38

https://www.packers.com/news/tom-clemen ... ordan-love

Nothing new here, just the annual feel-good article about the starting QB

I love the whole annual feel good article genre. Thanks for posting!