CBS Sports calls out Packers lies regarding Jordan Love

[tynimiller]

Or.... Rodgers has two or three bad games in a row (due to receivers not separating or simply not being on the same page) and fans start calling for his head (Jones/Eli) *not comparing Rodgers and Eli* simply introducing a scenario. The FO says ok Love. It’s your time. Rodgers demands a trade and wins 2 Super Bowls with another team. The packers kick the can for a few more years with Love but end up spending the next 20 years looking for a franchise QB. It’s super sad how we wasted a HOF career. Spent a thousand picks on the other side of the ball but couldn’t throw the guy a bone.

Just for clarity as perception is simply not always the case, SINCE 2008 draft (first year Aaron took full reigns):

We have drafted 1 long snapper (which I removed from both classifications), 59 Offensive Side of the ball guys, and 54 Defensive side of the ball guys.

That is 52% offense and 48% defense.

By each round if curious:

1st Round: 3 Offensive (23%) vs 10 Defensive (77%)
2nd Round: 8 Offensive and 8 Defensive
3rd Round: 6 Offensive (55%) vs 5 Defensive (45%)
4th Round: 7 Offensive (44%) vs 9 Defensive (56%)
5th Round: 15 Offensive (75%) vs 5 Defensive (25%)
6th Round: 9 Offensive (53%) vs 8 Defensive (47%)
7th Round: 11 Offensive (55%) vs 9 Defensive (45%)

By Year:

2008: 7 Offensive vs 2 Defensive
2009: 3 Offensive vs 5 Defensive
2010: 4 Offensive vs 3 Defensive
2011: 5 Offensive vs 4 Defensive
2012: 2 Offensive vs 6 Defensive
2013: 6 Offensive vs 5 Defensive
2014: 5 Offensive vs 4 Defensive
2015: 4 Offensive vs 4 Defensive
2016: 3 Offensive vs 4 Defensive
2017: 6 Offensive vs 4 Defensive
2018: 5 Offensive vs 5 Defensive
2019: 3 Offensive vs 5 Defensive
2020: 6 Offensive vs 3 Defensive

 

[HardRightEdge]

"Fall" and "reach" are terms that people are going to supply different meanings to.

By your definition every draft pick "feel" other than the #1 which would render the term meaningless.

 

[Dantés]

By your definition every draft pick "feel" other than the #1 which would render the term meaningless.

Yes, I generally agree that the terms "fall" and "reach" as used by fans and the media are meaningless.

 

[Fat Dogs]

Just for clarity as perception is simply not always the case, SINCE 2008 draft (first year Aaron took full reigns):

We have drafted 1 long snapper (which I removed from both classifications), 59 Offensive Side of the ball guys, and 54 Defensive side of the ball guys.

That is 52% offense and 48% defense.

By each round if curious:

1st Round: 3 Offensive (23%) vs 10 Defensive (77%)
2nd Round: 8 Offensive and 8 Defensive
3rd Round: 6 Offensive (55%) vs 5 Defensive (45%)
4th Round: 7 Offensive (44%) vs 9 Defensive (56%)
5th Round: 15 Offensive (75%) vs 5 Defensive (25%)
6th Round: 9 Offensive (53%) vs 8 Defensive (47%)
7th Round: 11 Offensive (55%) vs 9 Defensive (45%)

By Year:

2008: 7 Offensive vs 2 Defensive
2009: 3 Offensive vs 5 Defensive
2010: 4 Offensive vs 3 Defensive
2011: 5 Offensive vs 4 Defensive
2012: 2 Offensive vs 6 Defensive
2013: 6 Offensive vs 5 Defensive
2014: 5 Offensive vs 4 Defensive
2015: 4 Offensive vs 4 Defensive
2016: 3 Offensive vs 4 Defensive
2017: 6 Offensive vs 4 Defensive
2018: 5 Offensive vs 5 Defensive
2019: 3 Offensive vs 5 Defensive
2020: 6 Offensive vs 3 Defensive

Three offensive players in the first and how many of those were pass catchers or RB? Zero. We drafted a tackle in 2010 and 2011 and a replacement QB. (0-15) I don’t think We need to do the math to see how many of the 52% were drafted on day 3. I’m sure my oldest son won’t care that I give my younger son $10 bills 48% of the time because he’s the lucky recipient of $1 bills 4% more often!!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Sorry but that last sentence is incorrect. The signing of Funchess is already a vastly different approach than was applied last year.

True, but not good enough in my opinion considerig the wide receiving corps struggled mightily last season.

If Rodgers is still good and Love is ok, and they trade love and get something later, i'm good.

If the Packers end up trading Love based on the scenario you suggested using a first rounder on him was a waste.

 

[tynimiller]

Three offensive players in the first and how many of those were pass catchers or RB? Zero. We drafted a tackle in 2010 and 2011 and a replacement QB. (0-15) I don’t think We need to do the math to see how many of the 52% were drafted on day 3. I’m sure my oldest son won’t care that I give my younger son $10 bills 48% of the time because he’s the lucky recipient of $1 bills 4% more often!!

Again you're allowing your personal opinion of things have only tunnel vision. You made the comment that we'd spent thousands of picks on the defense...while an exaggeration, I was more so responding the obvious concern that we ignore the offensive side of the ball - which simply is not true.

Clearly it is obvious that of our first round picks (shockingly that's where you hone in on) there is a heavy lean towards defensive side of things. HOWEVER, in Aaron's tenure since 2008 when he took over, offensive production and scoring has not really been a major concern to be fair. While there have been some first rounds over the years that made me scratch my head, I 100% have understood the organizations desire to attempt to strengthen the side of the ball that is the weaker one between the two.

I get it though, the **** flashy positions of WR and/or RB isn't one we have feasted much on when it comes to Day 1 or in the second round...well kinda. The second round has clearly been where we find our WRs - Adams and Cobb both..going back further Nelson and Jennings...throw in Jones in the 3rd as well if desiring.

Shoot, I was the one screaming this year for Pittman when Aiyuk went at 25. I was even hoping we'd traded up for him as I knew he wasn't lasting till our second round pick. So I 100% get it.

 

[tynimiller]

True, but not good enough in my opinion considerig the wide receiving corps struggled mightily last season.

You know I agree there. I love the Funchess pick up, I think Begelton is better than any day 3 flyer, but I wanted Pittman in the first, Edwards/Gibson late second or even a flyer on a guy like Proche or such mid/late.

 

[Mondio]

True, but not good enough in my opinion considerig the wide receiving corps struggled mightily last season.



If the Packers end up trading Love based on the scenario you suggested using a first rounder on him was a waste.

Not necessarily. there are a thousand ways it's not a waste. There are a thousand ways using a 1st rounder on a WR this year ends up a waste as likely as taking Love, if it ends up that way.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Yes, I generally agree that the terms "fall" and "reach" as used by fans and the media are meaningless.

It's worth defining how fans and media use those terms. I think we can agree that a "fall" is generally taken to mean a player fell to a spot in the draft meaningfully below his pre-conceived value; a reach the opposite.

There's something to be said for thinking that viewpoint is meaningless in an efficient market theory kind of way--a player is worth exactly where he is drafted (or what a free agent is paid) because that's what the market says he's worth to the league's GMs based on all information available to them. Therefore Love was not a reach nor was Rodgers a fall.

Alternatively, and a sort of correleary, there's the take that, for example, Love is not a reach because a highly paid professional traded up for him. Who are we to judge, even if it has been shown that professionals are suseptible to egrigious confirmation biases?

Either way, it makes for a passive experience, precludes judgement. The question is then begged, what useful meaning could "fall" or "reach" then have that is not the one fans and media apply?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Here's the thing. Saying a "player fell and the packers took him" is different than saying "a player fell into a place where the Packers were willing to trade up and get him". You an argue that fell is the same in each but the context of the second phrase is important. The first sentence I wrote is NOT the same as the second and I think that's what people are discussing; Packers' FO seems to want to go with the first sentence, and that's not accurate.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

HOWEVER, in Aaron's tenure since 2008 when he took over, offensive production and scoring has not really been a major concern to be fair.

While that's true the Packers front office putting more effort into improving the defense over the past years has contributed to the offense lacking talent at wide receiver and tight end at this point though.

You know I agree there. I love the Funchess pick up, I think Begelton is better than any day 3 flyer, but I wanted Pittman in the first, Edwards/Gibson late second or even a flyer on a guy like Proche or such mid/late.

It seems a lot of fans are too optimistic about Begelton entering this season.

There are a thousand ways using a 1st rounder on a WR this year ends up a waste as likely as taking Love, if it ends up that way.

Aside of the fact that the Packers were in desperate need of a wide receiver while having a HOF quarterback starting.

 

[tynimiller]

It seems a lot of fans are too optimistic about Begelton entering this season.

Not really, I mean he is literally like taking a Day 3 guy in the draft. Purely a roll of the dice. The caveat with him is he has played at a professional level, albeit grossly inferior to the NFL. However, that does assist in ones mental approach to the craft. I will not be shocked if he doesn't make it past the first cuts or if he makes active roster for game days.

 

[tynimiller]

While that's true the Packers front office putting more effort into improving the defense over the past years has contributed to the offense lacking talent at wide receiver and tight end at this point though.

I don't disagree at all. However, Green Bay has paid attention to TE vastly more than WR, their plans just haven't panned out like hoped though. Cook, Kendricks, Graham, Lewis, Tonyan, Sternberger and now Deguara just in recent years have been brought in.

 

[Dantés]

Here's the thing. Saying a "player fell and the packers took him" is different than saying "a player fell into a place where the Packers were willing to trade up and get him". You an argue that fell is the same in each but the context of the second phrase is important. The first sentence I wrote is NOT the same as the second and I think that's what people are discussing; Packers' FO seems to want to go with the first sentence, and that's not accurate.

I kind of doubt that the Packers FO expect fans to believe that Love just fell in their laps considering that they moved up. I think the intended meaning is that of the guys they really wanted, he was the one that fell the closest to their original pick.

 

[Dantés]

It's worth defining how fans and media use those terms. I think we can agree that a "fall" is generally taken to mean a player fell to a spot in the draft meaningfully below his pre-conceived value; a reach the opposite.

There's something to be said for thinking that viewpoint is meaningless in an efficient market theory kind of way--a player is worth exactly where he is drafted (or what a free agent is paid) because that's what the market says he's worth to the league's GMs based on all information available to them. Therefore Love was not a reach nor was Rodgers a fall.

Alternatively, and a sort of correleary, there's the take that, for example, Love is not a reach because a highly paid professional traded up for him. Who are we to judge, even if it has been shown that professionals are suseptible to egrigious confirmation biases?

Either way, it makes for a passive experience, precludes judgement. The question is then begged, what useful meaning could "fall" or "reach" then have that is not the one fans and media apply?

I think fans/media saying that a particular pick was a value (usually implied when a guy "falls") or a reach is incoherent because it judges a team's decision, based on their own evaluation, against the standard of a fan/media evaluation.

Which is not to say that fans/media can't criticize a pick as bad or really like a pick as particularly good. But it does mean that it's pretty much inane when fans say "Oh, what a reach! Could have had that guy two rounds later according to CBS!"

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think fans/media saying that a particular pick was a value (usually implied when a guy "falls") or a reach is incoherent because it judges a team's decision, based on their own evaluation, against the standard of a fan/media evaluation.

That's pretty much what I said as one way to look at.

Which is not to say that fans/media can't criticize a pick as bad or really like a pick as particularly good. But it does mean that it's pretty much inane when fans say "Oh, what a reach! Could have had that guy two rounds later according to CBS!"

Here's where you have a problem. You say a fan can criticize a pick with value being one possible reason presumably. Saying that pick is "reach" is just shorthand for precisely that. Thrilled with a pick one expected to go higher? "Drop" is just a shorthand for that.

It's the same thing before the draft, discounting a player becuase of an injury report or some poor Combine numbers where you "drop" his valuation, or visa versa based on an outstanding Senior Bowl or Combine numbers.

That's the terminology. As for the rest, you can't expect everyone who has opinions before the draft to wipe their mind clean of them and the rationalize the pick with, "Well, our GM knows best."

The problem hiere is not terminology or symantics. It's whether one does that mental sanitizing nor not.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Or.... Rodgers has two or three bad games in a row (due to receivers not separating or simply not being on the same page) and fans start calling for his head (Jones/Eli) *not comparing Rodgers and Eli* simply introducing a scenario.

I wouldn't rule that out but not as soon as three games. Out of the playoffs? Then Love will get his trial run.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not really, I mean he is literally like taking a Day 3 guy in the draft. Purely a roll of the dice. The caveat with him is he has played at a professional level, albeit grossly inferior to the NFL. However, that does assist in ones mental approach to the craft. I will not be shocked if he doesn't make it past the first cuts or if he makes active roster for game days.

I don't believe that playing in the CFL prepares a player any better for the NFL compared to prospects coming out of college.

I don't disagree at all. However, Green Bay has paid attention to TE vastly more than WR, their plans just haven't panned out like hoped though. Cook, Kendricks, Graham, Lewis, Tonyan, Sternberger and now Deguara just in recent years have been brought in.

True, I was actually talking about the draft though where the Packers haven't used a first or second rounder on a pass catcher since 2014.

 

[tynimiller]

I don't believe that playing in the CFL prepares a player any better for the NFL compared to prospects coming out of college.

Sorry but we will have to agree to disagree that a non-professional college athletic program is superior to the CFL. I would say some of the bigger programs for sure are equal if not argued superior, but spare me the trivial thought that a WR from any college is more prepared.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Sorry but we will have to agree to disagree that a non-professional college athletic program is superior to the CFL. I would say some of the bigger programs for sure are equal if not argued superior, but spare me the trivial thought that a WR from any college is more prepared.

I'm afraid the talent level in Big 5 conference football is far superior to what you'll find in the CFL. At the extreme, LSU and Ohio State each had 14 players drafted, and who knows how many more freshmen-juniors will be drafted in coming years.

The #1 pick in the 2020 CFL draft, conducted shortly after the NFL draft, was East Carolina LB Jordan Williams. This player was not drafted by the NFL in 2018 and not even signed as a UDFA. He got a tryout in the 49ers rookie mini-camp but did not make the 90 man camp roster. Here's what the CFL 2020 draft looks like:

https://www.cfl.ca/draft-tracker/

With CFL salaries ranging from something like $50,000 - $250,000, where the highest paid player makes less than half a minimum salary NFL rookie, the CFL doesn't even try to compete for NFL UDFAs who sign to a 90 man roster. The CFL drafts a lot of Canadian "nationals" since teams are required to fill about half their rosters with them. Jordan Williams qualified on that score because his mother is Canadian.

While there's a late bloomer or two around the NFL who came out of the CFL, generally speaking what you get is an older, more physically mature player who has played more football of some kind where you can get some gauge of durability. There's a lot of Division III-type talent in that league who happen to have some maturity on their bones.

 

[tynimiller]

I'm afraid the talent level in Big 5 conference football is far superior to what you'll find in the CFL. At the extreme, LSU and Ohio State each had 14 players drafted, and who knows how many more freshmen-juniors will be drafted in coming years.

The #1 pick in the 2020 CFL draft, conducted shortly after the NFL draft, was East Carolina LB Jordan Williams. This player was not drafted by the NFL in 2018 and not even signed as a UDFA. He got a tryout in the 49ers mini-camp but did not make the 90 man camp roster. Here's what the CFL 2020 draft looks like:

https://www.cfl.ca/draft-tracker/

With CFL salaries ranging from something like $50,000 - $250,000, where the highest paid player makes less than half a minimum salary NFL rookie, the CFL doesn't even try to compete for NFL UDFAs who sign to a 90 man roster. The CFL drafts a lot of Canadian "nationals" since teams are required to fill about half their rosters with them. Jordan Williams qualified on that score because his mother is Canadian.

While there's a late bloomer or two around the NFL who came out of the CFL, generally speaking what you get is an older, more physically mature player who has played more football of some kind where you can get some gauge of durability. There's a lot Division III-type talent in that league who happen to have some maturity on their bones.

I wouldnt argue the competition is superior, especially against likes of SEC or top end ACC or even Big Ten.

I will argue mightedly though it is a different animal in a professional structured environment, and mental approach changes.

In the end I don't care really what one thinks CFL prospect is worth. I'll never see them anymore than a Day3/UDFA acquisition. Gems exist, albeit rare.

 

[Fat Dogs]

Again you're allowing your personal opinion of things have only tunnel vision. You made the comment that we'd spent thousands of picks on the defense...while an exaggeration, I was more so responding the obvious concern that we ignore the offensive side of the ball - which simply is not true.

Clearly it is obvious that of our first round picks (shockingly that's where you hone in on) there is a heavy lean towards defensive side of things. HOWEVER, in Aaron's tenure since 2008 when he took over, offensive production and scoring has not really been a major concern to be fair. While there have been some first rounds over the years that made me scratch my head, I 100% have understood the organizations desire to attempt to strengthen the side of the ball that is the weaker one between the two.

I get it though, the **** flashy positions of WR and/or RB isn't one we have feasted much on when it comes to Day 1 or in the second round...well kinda. The second round has clearly been where we find our WRs - Adams and Cobb both..going back further Nelson and Jennings...throw in Jones in the 3rd as well if desiring.

Shoot, I was the one screaming this year for Pittman when Aiyuk went at 25. I was even hoping we'd traded up for him as I knew he wasn't lasting till our second round pick. So I 100% get it.

I’m happy that you clarified your thoughts about the organizational needs for better offensive weapons so I can only assume that you are playing Devils Advocate. It’s ok to be a F.O. Guy to a point. Saying I have tunnel vision and shockingly hone in on first round picks to make my case couldn’t be more wrong. You your self said that “He is literally like taking a Day 3 guy in the draft.” “Purely a role of the dice.” I think you made my point. 23 defenders were selected in the first three rounds and 13 were offensive players. The majority of the day 3 picks went to the offensive side of the ball (roll of the dice players.) I know we have gotten way off topic. The journalist simply said things that a of us think. I hope he’s wrong because we both agree that Rodgers still has some good football yet to be played.

 

[tynimiller]

I’m happy that you clarified your thoughts about the organizational needs for better offensive weapons so I can only assume that you are playing Devils Advocate. It’s ok to be a F.O. Guy to a point. Saying I have tunnel vision and shockingly hone in on first round picks to make my case couldn’t be more wrong. You your self said that “He is literally like taking a Day 3 guy in the draft.” “Purely a role of the dice.” I think you made my point. 23 defenders were selected in the first three rounds and 13 were offensive players. The majority of the day 3 picks went to the offensive side of the ball (roll of the dice players.) I know we have gotten way off topic. The journalist simply said things that a of us think. I hope he’s wrong because we both agree that Rodgers still has some good football yet to be played.

Begelton wasn't the only WR brought in this off season however, which is whom the quotes are for. Funchess if healthy should worst case be our #3, but he was signed to bring stability behind Adams and be our #2. Whether that works out however, we all have to wait and see. Funchess signing is like a Day 2 WR drafted IMO. I still even with the signings of those two wanted Pittman at #26 or #30 if we'd not traded up. I was eyeing Edwards and Mims Day 2 till they were gone...and would have been fine with a few other WR Day 3 that were left and had the same hopes or expectations I have for Begelton at that stage in the draft.

 

[Fat Dogs]

Begelton wasn't the only WR brought in this off season however, which is whom the quotes are for. Funchess if healthy should worst case be our #3, but he was signed to bring stability behind Adams and be our #2. Whether that works out however, we all have to wait and see. Funchess signing is like a Day 2 WR drafted IMO. I still even with the signings of those two wanted Pittman at #26 or #30 if we'd not traded up. I was eyeing Edwards and Mims Day 2 till they were gone...and would have been fine with a few other WR Day 3 that were left and had the same hopes or expectations I have for Begelton at that stage in the draft.

I read that and agree with CaptainWIMM on this one. Other teams just don’t get as hyped for CFL, Or UFA receivers. IMO this mentality has everything to do with our starvation at the position. It’s simply not in the Packers M.O. to draft receiver or ILB in the first. I do like the Funchess signing. The Packers drafted players to help emphasize the run game and Funchess is a big body that can block. He doesn’t have the best hands but has the ability to be a red zone threat. I don’t view Begelton as anything but a camp body but in fairness I thought the same about Lazard.

 

[OldSchool101]

You can never have too many good quarterbacks. Just look what happened when 12 went down. The Love pick is fine.

It looks bad because obvious areas of need were not aggressively addressed. If Gute had picked up run stopping DT or a legit #2 receiver nobody would be complaining about Love.

The thing that puzzled me a bit was not that we DIDNT pick at WR, we’ve all been discussing the QB prospect for replacement for several years now. Its likely several factors together that left everyone uneasy.

The thing that confounded me personally is not any ONE thing. It’s a combination of:
1. drafting a QB 1-2 years earlier than I expected
2. trading away a 4th rounder to get him.
3. restructuring our current QB to a massive long term deal that locks us for 2-3 years minimum.
4. not drafting a player in the top #100 overall at WR, LB, DT or OT. Which I think many of us can agree were what? 4 of our top position needs (give or take). Puts us at a slight disadvantage at all 4 groups going forward.

1. In my mind we should’ve been looking at QB early in 2021 or 2022 based on Rodgers contract in order to maximize the cost verses benefits of a QB Rookie contract.
2. I was entirely o.k. and expecting us to be aggressive by trading up a day 3 selection (or even two selections). But it made more sense to me to use that to get earlier into day 2 at any of the above positions. As an example, we now know it would’ve easily landed us a solid WR in round 2.
3. Our earliest contract out at QB is 2022 and our most economical out is 2023. Kissing away a HOF QB and $17 mil still doesn’t make smart financial sense even if they end up being right with Love. That’s a deal you’ll miss at more than make up. It’s taking a hit in the game of Blackjack holding 18.
4. If we gambled and waited for Love at #30 and he got picked at #26-#29. We could’ve traded back slightly? We easily had our choice of 2 of DT, WR, OT, DT and a host of other position locked down.

All that said. The more I review WR, the less concerned I am. I do have slight reservations at LB and moreso at DT, but I don’t believe either are as dire as they were week 2 in 2019 (after losing Oren and Raven). We have both players back plus added a thumper in Kamal Martin and a much more versatile player in Kirksey (he puts Martinez to shame in pass coverage but with very very little lost as a tackling machine if anything).