Packers Huddle

MY_TAKE wrote: ↑

23 May 2024 16:25

NCF wrote: ↑

23 May 2024 14:18

paco wrote: ↑

23 May 2024 14:11

Don't know if this has been talked about. But when, if ever, will you start to worry about Love not having a new deal.

For the record, I'm not in the least bit concerned yet.

It should get hammered out before TC. There is no reason not to get it done by then.

I agree it will probably get done, but there is a scenario or 2 why it could take longer. This could be its own topic in all seriousness. I find it quite fascinating.

I'd rather see him walk than give him a ridiculous contract. We hear this time and time again. Teams that overpay their QB's don't win championships. And yet teams keep overpaying their QB's. Did we get the most out of Love's rookie contract? No we did not. But guess what? That is the price that you pay as a GM for not making a decision. BG tried to take both forks in the road 4 years ago. We had 2 years of fantastic QB play. Problem was, we got them from a different QB (the one who wasn't on the rookie deal). Now any benefit we could have had from a QB on a rookie deal is gone. IMO he hasn't proved enough yet for a max deal. I don't like how he shrunk under pressure in the SF game. I believe in this roster and the Packers have a tradition of superior coaching and player development. I would honestly rather take a shot on a new QB with a rookie deal than overpay for a guy who doesn't end up being worth it. We have a tradition of good QB development. I don't it's a coincidence that we just haven't had a QB drought in Green Bay in 30 years.

Papa's Thursday stream of consciousness rant end stop now.

Papa John wrote: ↑

23 May 2024 16:42

MY_TAKE wrote: ↑

23 May 2024 16:25

NCF wrote: ↑

23 May 2024 14:18

It should get hammered out before TC. There is no reason not to get it done by then.

I agree it will probably get done, but there is a scenario or 2 why it could take longer. This could be its own topic in all seriousness. I find it quite fascinating.

I'd rather see him walk than give him a ridiculous contract. We hear this time and time again. Teams that overpay their QB's don't win championships. And yet teams keep overpaying their QB's. Did we get the most out of Love's rookie contract? No we did not. But guess what? That is the price that you pay as a GM for not making a decision. BG tried to take both forks in the road 4 years ago. We had 2 years of fantastic QB play. Problem was, we got them from a different QB (the one who wasn't on the rookie deal). Now any benefit we could have had from a QB on a rookie deal is gone. IMO he hasn't proved enough yet for a max deal. I don't like how he shrunk under pressure in the SF game. I believe in this roster and the Packers have a tradition of superior coaching and player development. I would honestly rather take a shot on a new QB with a rookie deal than overpay for a guy who doesn't end up being worth it. We have a tradition of good QB development. I don't it's a coincidence that we just haven't had a QB drought in Green Bay in 30 years.

Papa's Thursday stream of consciousness rant end stop now.

haha, ranting is what older posters do, we post less, read more, until we can hold back no longer, then it's both barrels of double odd

just to hard to find or coach up guys like Love, sure he got nerves in that last half, mostly last few minutes, but there are variables connected with that, successfully moving the offense prior, poor half time adjustment, breads a coasting affect, then when ya need to excel the chemistry just isn't the same, imo while loved tossed a couple poor passes, he was under a heavy rush, and that was a really big stage.

I'd like to wait till mid season to do this contract, agree, I want to see more before I give him 50? mil a year, which I expect he's asking for.

just think what most teams have to give for a chance at a highly ranked college QB, and 2/3rds of them never play even close to slot value, some teams ( Bears) do it every 3 years, we see teams give up several first round picks to move for a QB.

basically A GM is allowed 3 paths, either draft one late first and groom him up as we've done, trade for one (Cousins goes for 50 mil.) or spend heavily for a top tier prospect with less then 30% odds that you hit on.

I think we focus on the very few QB's that do well on rookie contracts, and over look the many that don't

Yoops rant for the day, maybe

Interesting list. Can’t say I see any correlation between overall team RAS scores and success but it does give some insight on which teams potentially prioritize athleticism over, say, game tape.

Papa John wrote: ↑

23 May 2024 16:42

MY_TAKE wrote: ↑

23 May 2024 16:25

NCF wrote: ↑

23 May 2024 14:18

It should get hammered out before TC. There is no reason not to get it done by then.

I agree it will probably get done, but there is a scenario or 2 why it could take longer. This could be its own topic in all seriousness. I find it quite fascinating.

I'd rather see him walk than give him a ridiculous contract. We hear this time and time again. Teams that overpay their QB's don't win championships. And yet teams keep overpaying their QB's. Did we get the most out of Love's rookie contract? No we did not. But guess what? That is the price that you pay as a GM for not making a decision. BG tried to take both forks in the road 4 years ago. We had 2 years of fantastic QB play. Problem was, we got them from a different QB (the one who wasn't on the rookie deal). Now any benefit we could have had from a QB on a rookie deal is gone. IMO he hasn't proved enough yet for a max deal. I don't like how he shrunk under pressure in the SF game. I believe in this roster and the Packers have a tradition of superior coaching and player development. I would honestly rather take a shot on a new QB with a rookie deal than overpay for a guy who doesn't end up being worth it. We have a tradition of good QB development. I don't it's a coincidence that we just haven't had a QB drought in Green Bay in 30 years.

Papa's Thursday stream of consciousness rant end stop now.

This rant is so all over the place Idk where to start

So 20/20

So in this statement we should have taken shots at rookies instead of paying AR. Now that we seen the results I still don't see a rookie giving us a better chance from 2011 to 2022

Which of these rookies on rookie contracts are bringing in these rings???? It's a great concept of it works but what's the actual facts

The eagles won with foles. Everything around that is NOT a rookie contract.

In short... If you have a good one you believe in you pay him and. Ride that horse. The chances of getting a good one is slim so letting them walk doesn't happen often or for a reason.

Love for me has shown he is the fricken man we need to ride for the next 10 years. Both as a leader (something I didn't think AR was) and player.

Get used to #10 and 2 rings.

Backthepack4ever wrote: ↑

23 May 2024 18:45

So in this statement we should have taken shots at rookies instead of paying AR. Now that we seen the results I still don't see a rookie giving us a better chance from 2011 to 2022

How many championships did we get from 2011 to 2022? And that was with Aaron Rodgers at QB.

Yes, we had done a new deal with him prior to the 2010 Super Bowl, but that was nowhere close to a max deal.

The eagles won with foles. Everything around that is NOT a rookie contract.

Dude, he was making $11 million over 2 years. And Wentz made like $540k that year. Nowhere close to generational wealth that we are talking with J.Love.

The chances of getting a good one is slim so letting them walk doesn't happen often or for a reason.

But they aren't as slim anymore IMO. As I said, culture makes a big difference. The example I like to use is Jay Cutler. He objectively had impressive physical talent. Chicago just does not know how to coach up QB's. Green Bay has a tradition of solid QB development.

Maybe the best choice will end up being to give Love his deal. I am saying, nobody should get a max deal until they have had to come back and perform again in a second season as a starter, and shown that they can do it- even when opposing teams have tape to work with.

It is too soon to commit that kind of money to him.

Papa John wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 09:06

It is too soon to commit that kind of money to him.

It's the going rate. Even re-setting the market, he will be not be on top for long. Teams that are afraid to make the investment at QB are teams that are going to be perpetually spinning their wheels. Also looking back at Packers history, Favre got a near top-of-market extension in 1993 after 13 games and Aaron got a hefty raise after 8 games in 2008. Waiting is only going to make matters worse.

NCF wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 09:13

Papa John wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 09:06

It is too soon to commit that kind of money to him.

It's the going rate. Even re-setting the market, he will be not be on top for long. Teams that are afraid to make the investment at QB are teams that are going to be perpetually spinning their wheels. Also looking back at Packers history, Favre got a near top-of-market extension in 1993 after 13 games and Aaron got a hefty raise after 8 games in 2008. Waiting is only going to make matters worse.

Zero. The answer is zero championships from 2011 to 2022. Lots of heartbreak. Lots of early round exits to teams that had more complete rosters than we did. But zero 'chips.

Papa John wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 09:42

NCF wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 09:13

Papa John wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 09:06

It is too soon to commit that kind of money to him.

It's the going rate. Even re-setting the market, he will be not be on top for long. Teams that are afraid to make the investment at QB are teams that are going to be perpetually spinning their wheels. Also looking back at Packers history, Favre got a near top-of-market extension in 1993 after 13 games and Aaron got a hefty raise after 8 games in 2008. Waiting is only going to make matters worse.

Zero. The answer is zero championships from 2011 to 2022. Lots of heartbreak. Lots of early round exits to teams that had more complete rosters than we did. But zero 'chips.

So the reason for zero championships from 2011 to 2022 was because we paid Aaron Rodgers?

Papa John wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 09:42

NCF wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 09:13

Papa John wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 09:06

It is too soon to commit that kind of money to him.

It's the going rate. Even re-setting the market, he will be not be on top for long. Teams that are afraid to make the investment at QB are teams that are going to be perpetually spinning their wheels. Also looking back at Packers history, Favre got a near top-of-market extension in 1993 after 13 games and Aaron got a hefty raise after 8 games in 2008. Waiting is only going to make matters worse.

Zero. The answer is zero championships from 2011 to 2022. Lots of heartbreak. Lots of early round exits to teams that had more complete rosters than we did. But zero 'chips.

How about teams that cycled through a clown car of QB's? Did they fare better?

NCF wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 11:06

How about teams that cycled through a clown car of QB's? Did they fare better?

He won't see nearly as many blitzes this year. We'll see how he does with more defensive players in coverage.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 09:55

Papa John wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 09:42

NCF wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 09:13

It's the going rate. Even re-setting the market, he will be not be on top for long. Teams that are afraid to make the investment at QB are teams that are going to be perpetually spinning their wheels. Also looking back at Packers history, Favre got a near top-of-market extension in 1993 after 13 games and Aaron got a hefty raise after 8 games in 2008. Waiting is only going to make matters worse.

Zero. The answer is zero championships from 2011 to 2022. Lots of heartbreak. Lots of early round exits to teams that had more complete rosters than we did. But zero 'chips.

So the reason for zero championships from 2011 to 2022 was because we paid Aaron Rodgers?

That was partly the reason, but not the only reason. Once the defense started to break up .......... the championship runs were halted. I don't have time right now to totally dissect the 2011 to 2022 defense rosters.

The 2023 defense wasn't that great either. Hafley to the rescue

The Finley, Driver, Jordy, James Jones, and Greg Jennings (and I suppose Donald Lee) receiving corp was special in 2010 as well.

wallyuwl wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 11:23

NCF wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 11:06

How about teams that cycled through a clown car of QB's? Did they fare better?

He won't see nearly as many blitzes this year. We'll see how he does with more defensive players in coverage.

They tried that against him last year too and he carved it up.

Labrev wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 12:03

wallyuwl wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 11:23

NCF wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 11:06

How about teams that cycled through a clown car of QB's? Did they fare better?

He won't see nearly as many blitzes this year. We'll see how he does with more defensive players in coverage.

They tried that against him last year too and he carved it up.

that stuff only works when ya have a Adams and .................., even then a quality QB can win a lot of games.

like Rodgers in 09, Love has a bunch of shinny new toys that can shred coverages, and like those 09, 010 squads will probably produce a top 5 offense, and possibly a SB appearance.

Yoop wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 12:27

that stuff only works when ya have a Adams and .................., even then a quality QB can win a lot of games.

like Rodgers in 09,

Keep your pet topic out of the news thread.

Labrev wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 13:01

Yoop wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 12:27

that stuff only works when ya have a Adams and .................., even then a quality QB can win a lot of games.

like Rodgers in 09,

Keep your pet topic out of the news thread.

I'am not the guy snooping for Jets articles to trash the ex QB.

and I'll post whatever I want where evert I want to post it, you just can't handle the truth

Yoop wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 13:35

Labrev wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 13:01

Yoop wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 12:27

that stuff only works when ya have a Adams and .................., even then a quality QB can win a lot of games.

like Rodgers in 09,

Keep your pet topic out of the news thread.

I'am not the guy snooping for Jets articles to trash the ex QB.

I posted that in Cheese Curds. It was relevant to the thread topic.

and I'll post whatever I want where evert I want to post it,

Okay. See what happens when you post stuff off-topic, and don't blame me for it.

Labrev wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 13:40

Yoop wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 13:35

Labrev wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 13:01

Keep your pet topic out of the news thread.

I'am not the guy snooping for Jets articles to trash the ex QB.

I posted that in Cheese Curds. It was relevant to the thread topic.

and I'll post whatever I want where evert I want to post it,

Okay. See what happens when you post stuff off-topic, and don't blame me for it.

seriously what about only having one (1) quality receiver and a bunch of jags, which is what Rodgers had to work with doesn't relate to Love having more then 1, everything I said is relevant to this topic, you turn it into my pet topic simply because I mention Rodgers to illustrate my point, stop acting like a jerk

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 09:55

Papa John wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 09:42

NCF wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 09:13

It's the going rate. Even re-setting the market, he will be not be on top for long. Teams that are afraid to make the investment at QB are teams that are going to be perpetually spinning their wheels. Also looking back at Packers history, Favre got a near top-of-market extension in 1993 after 13 games and Aaron got a hefty raise after 8 games in 2008. Waiting is only going to make matters worse.

Zero. The answer is zero championships from 2011 to 2022. Lots of heartbreak. Lots of early round exits to teams that had more complete rosters than we did. But zero 'chips.

So the reason for zero championships from 2011 to 2022 was because we paid Aaron Rodgers?

THE reason? Possibly. A reason? Absolutely. And not just paid. Paid him the big $$$.

Papa John wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 14:24

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 09:55

Papa John wrote: ↑

24 May 2024 09:42

Zero. The answer is zero championships from 2011 to 2022. Lots of heartbreak. Lots of early round exits to teams that had more complete rosters than we did. But zero 'chips.

So the reason for zero championships from 2011 to 2022 was because we paid Aaron Rodgers?

THE reason? Possibly. A reason? Absolutely. And not just paid. Paid him the big $$$.

So you contend that a team should never pay a QB the big money? What is the big money?