Do Packer Forum members/fans want AR to leave?

[Heyjoe4]

That is a good problem to have.

I think this whole "gotta have your QB on a rookie contract, to be successful" is overblown. Sure, every team dreams of having star players on rookie deals, but how often does it happen and for how long? It would have been nice to pay Rodgers on a rookie deal or any top player at that. However, once a player, especially a QB, has a breakout season during his rookie deal, it isn't often that the rookie deal runs its course. The team and the player are anxious to lock in a bigger and longer term deal.

I think this is most applicable to drafted players. The team gets them for a few years on a rookie deal, and then pays for performance. That's how it's supposed to work. So yeah, getting impact players on rookie deals is nice, but not really necessary to build a competitive team year after year. Good drafting, on the other hand, is one requirement for winning.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Good drafting, on the other hand, is one requirement for winning.

Agree with your post, but I would add too this, good retention, as well as, at the right price. Overpaying on new contracts or on high end FA's is the surest way for a team to hit the skids.

Rookie deals are great, but they tend to balance out. Teams spend a lot of money on rookies, UDFA's and low tiered FA's. Some of them don't work out and the money invested is considered a loss. Then there are those rookies who exceed the value being paid for them. As I said in my last post, in todays NFL, that doesn't seem to last long, before said rookie wants a new deal.

Really, player retention is a lot like a stock portfolio. Invest in stocks that appear to have a higher ceiling than where they currently are valued. Hang on to the ones that are either on the rise and/or pay a pretty decent dividend on the money already invested. Dump the stocks that appear to be trending down. Fire sale those that are bleeding you.

 

[Mondio]

I don't think getting production out of rookie deals is overblown at all. it's a requirement for success in the hard cap era of football. 1st rounder's cost a lot vs the others especially top 20's, the rest? give me those deals any day.

If a player is performing past their rookie deal, and you've decided to keep them, you're paying them or someone else is. You always need some UDFA, some cut you sign on a cheap deal and especially a guy on a rookie deal you've invested draft in, to perform if you expect to be successful consistently.

Good drafting is essential, but if you're needing to build your team with mid tiered FA's or low level, just how good are you drafting? and if you're paying for super stars, you must have others who are performing on cheap deals. There's no getting around it. Or you play number games and jettison it all and start over every couple years and you're still left with needing drafted players to perform well if you want to win anything because it's all you'll have.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'd agree, if you already have the right pieces in place. In this case, they're going to have to build around an existing big bucks contract I'm afraid. It's all about what comes first.

Agree. A roster has 53 players and thinking that 1 of them, the QB, is going to elevate an otherwise weak roster to great heights, probably isn't happening.

Put an average QB on a solid roster and you probably have a better chance to be competing every Sunday.

Teams that "get lucky" and draft a QB that turns into a top 10 QB, usually end up having to invest a ton of money in said QB. If they can't maintain a solid roster around him, chances are that QB can't carry them too far.

Then there is the route of trading for a QB, like Russell Wilson. So far, that has not just been a costly financial investment for the Broncos, but the draft capital he cost them compounds the problem even more. Weak roster or Wilson just wasn't worth the investment?

The Packers have a pretty solid roster and Love is the wildcard. If he turns into a quality QB, this team should be near the top sooner than later. Yes, they would have to eventually give Love a lot of money, but he might end up being worth it.

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

2009 was not too bad. In fact that would be encouraging. The end hurt in the desert because ARod missed Greg Jennings in OT and fumbled to lose it on the next play. But the 2 losses to Favre that year hurt. We should have won the one at Lambeau. Johnny Jolley's head butt penalty inside the red zone cost us momentum and 4 points.

Favre was doing better than Rodgers and the Packers in the W column those 2 years. I'm more worried about that on Love's end.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Favre was doing better than Rodgers and the Packers in the W column those 2 years. I'm more worried about that on Love's end.

Not telling you how to feel, but viewing a Favre lead Viking team, with a Rodgers lead Packer team, over 2 years, isn't looking at the big picture. Which team ended up better? Plus, the Favre lead Jets didn't do squat.

I fully expect the Rodgers lead Jets to have a better record than the Love lead Packers....for a year or two. After that, we will see.

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

Not telling you how to feel, but viewing a Favre lead Viking team, with a Rodgers lead Packer team, over 2 years, isn't looking at the big picture. Which team ended up better? Plus, the Favre lead Jets didn't do squat.

I fully expect the Rodgers lead Jets to have a better record than the Love lead Packers....for a year or two. After that, we will see.

You're talking 2009 and 2010. I'm talking 2008 and 2009

 

[Voyageur]

Agree. A roster has 53 players and thinking that 1 of them, the QB, is going to elevate an otherwise weak roster to great heights, probably isn't happening.

Put an average QB on a solid roster and you probably have a better chance to be competing every Sunday.

Teams that "get lucky" and draft a QB that turns into a top 10 QB, usually end up having to invest a ton of money in said QB. If they can't maintain a solid roster around him, chances are that QB can't carry them too far.

Then there is the route of trading for a QB, like Russell Wilson. So far, that has not just been a costly financial investment for the Broncos, but the draft capital he cost them compounds the problem even more. Weak roster or Wilson just wasn't worth the investment?

The Packers have a pretty solid roster and Love is the wildcard. If he turns into a quality QB, this team should be near the top sooner than later. Yes, they would have to eventually give Love a lot of money, but he might end up being worth it.

There are two issues that concern me, beyond the QB investment. #1 is the depth on our roster. Any injuries, to front line personnel, is going to cause a lot of grief. Because of lack of cap room, they had to sacrifice quality at the depth level, getting guys with low-ball contracts. This applies to both sides of the ball.

The #2 issue, in my mind, is how well the existing players actually do mesh, when it comes to playing meaningful games. How well versed will they be with each other? Will they know their tendencies, and play to that advantage. Familiarity is often the key to success. Because of that lack of depth, it could cause havoc in that field unity.

Above all, there is an issue that needs to be addressed early. The players need to buy into Love as the QB, and actually rally around him to be play makers. No matter what anyone thinks, football is a game where the intensity of your commitment on every play can make the difference between winning and losing.

Anyhow, these are my observations from a playing, and coaching perspective.

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

There are two issues that concern me, beyond the QB investment. #1 is the depth on our roster. Any injuries, to front line personnel, is going to cause a lot of grief. Because of lack of cap room, they had to sacrifice quality at the depth level, getting guys with low-ball contracts. This applies to both sides of the ball.

The #2 issue, in my mind, is how well the existing players actually do mesh, when it comes to playing meaningful games. How well versed will they be with each other? Will they know their tendencies, and play to that advantage. Familiarity is often the key to success. Because of that lack of depth, it could cause havoc in that field unity.

Above all, there is an issue that needs to be addressed early. The players need to buy into Love as the QB, and actually rally around him to be play makers. No matter what anyone thinks, football is a game where the intensity of your commitment on every play can make the difference between winning and losing.

Anyhow, these are my observations from a playing, and coaching perspective.

The 'buying in' isn't a huge concern. It took Rodgers 2-3 years to earn the respect of the vets who played for Favre but by the Superbowl year they were bought in. Yes there will be 'prove it' moments, but if Love is worth a 1st round pick, he'll succeed in those moments.

 

[Voyageur]

The 'buying in' isn't a huge concern. It took Rodgers 2-3 years to earn the respect of the vets who played for Favre but by the Superbowl year they were bought in. Yes there will be 'prove it' moments, but if Love is worth a 1st round pick, he'll succeed in those moments.

I didn't state it was an issue of buying in to Love. It's an issue of how well their talents mesh on the field. The old square peg/round hole theory, which can spell disaster on a football field.

It also deals with the learning curve for younger players. A prime example is Gary. He floundered in the eyes of a lot of people, and then when he figured out what he needed to do to fill his role, he became a much more dynamic player. Some get it in year one, some get it in year 2 or 3, some never get it.

It won't take a lot for Love to get the respect of his fellow offensive players. They were in an abusive relationship with Rodgers, because of his lack of being part of helping them be better, by working with them in pre-season, and in camps.

 

[OldSchool101]

I don’t think anyone wants a great QB to leave, at least not under normal circumstances. That said this was an exception if he truly lobbied to get FO personnel fired and had other disgruntled fueled complaints. Then Rodgers becomes dangerous to the bigger, long term cause. I’ll take my chances rather than bank on a 39 year old QB with a bad attitude.

I’m not saying Rodgers can’t continue to be successful. Imo It’s actually an ideal scenario to link up with a fresh start team that’s poised to contend. Maybe he needed an attitude reset. I wish him well, but I do think in life you reap what you sow and he didn’t fully sow the seed.

Either way his grudges were obviously never going to go away. Sometimes it’s just best for both parties to separate. This isn’t a marriage vow, it’s a job. Both parties will likely benefit from some change, Maybe Rodgers initially, maybe Love long term. It certainly wasn’t meant to be with Rodgers lately, that’s for darn sure. Rodgers was exciting at first, then fun for awhile. For me, it eventually felt very forced towards the end.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

There are two issues that concern me, beyond the QB investment. #1 is the depth on our roster. Any injuries, to front line personnel, is going to cause a lot of grief. Because of lack of cap room, they had to sacrifice quality at the depth level, getting guys with low-ball contracts. This applies to both sides of the ball.

The #2 issue, in my mind, is how well the existing players actually do mesh, when it comes to playing meaningful games.

I have the same concerns, but I had those with Rodgers lead teams too. I think the more important variable is how well Love plays and how long it takes him to develop (or not) into a bonafide quality starter. I will continue to say that I don't expect much out of the 2023 team. What I do expect/hope for though, is to see progress from a lot of young players, the team is now full of them. So after the season is complete, the Packers will decide which direction to head. If Love is the real deal, it might be a matter of plugging a few holes with quality veteran FA's and the draft. If Love is viewed as not the answer, then I am afraid we might see a purging of vets and a full on rebuild.

In 2024 the Packers expiring contracts aren't that scary. Basically, Gary and I think he gets a new deal/extension during the season. The Packers should also be in a better cap position to improve the team. The Packers made a wise move with Love's contract, gives them flexibility to go in either direction.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You're talking 2009 and 2010. I'm talking 2008 and 2009

OK. Well the Jets didn't make the playoffs in 2008 and went 9-7 with Favre. Meanwhile, the Packers went 6-10 with Rodgers. I don't consider either season a success, under either QB.

In 2009 the Packers improved to 11-5 under Rodgers. The Vikings went from 10-6 in 2008 to 12 and 4 under Favre. I would say that the Packers improved more than the Vikings in that 1 season. The Vikings were a pretty good team, before they signed Favre, so while he improved them, Rodgers improved the Packers even more.

Now will Love have that same effect? I don't expect it in 2023, but its a definite possibility in 2024.

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

I didn't state it was an issue of buying in to Love. It's an issue of how well their talents mesh on the field. The old square peg/round hole theory, which can spell disaster on a football field.

It also deals with the learning curve for younger players. A prime example is Gary. He floundered in the eyes of a lot of people, and then when he figured out what he needed to do to fill his role, he became a much more dynamic player. Some get it in year one, some get it in year 2 or 3, some never get it.

It won't take a lot for Love to get the respect of his fellow offensive players. They were in an abusive relationship with Rodgers, because of his lack of being part of helping them be better, by working with them in pre-season, and in camps.

This is a direct quote that I copied from third paragraph of your original post:

Above all, there is an issue that needs to be addressed early. The players need to buy into Love as the QB, and actually rally around him to be play makers.

 

[Voyageur]

This is a direct quote that I copied from third paragraph of your original post:

Above all, there is an issue that needs to be addressed early. The players need to buy into Love as the QB, and actually rally around him to be play makers.

I tried to explain that the intent of my statement wasn't as to whether they decided he was their guy, but more about how they learn to mesh their talents with that which Love has. They really have no choice but accept whomever the Packers coaches and front office decides on as their QB. I could have explained it better. Sorry.

 

[rmontro]

I would be excited about the future if the Packers finished this season fifth in points scored like they did in 2008

I'd say the chances of that happening are exactly nil.

 

[OldSchool101]

I'd say the chances of that happening are exactly nil.

Pretty close. In 2022 the dropoff in “points for” ended with Bengals #7 at 26.1 points per contest.

That next scoring tier gap was after #13 (Chargers) 23.0 points per contest

I think a good goal is in that area that GB finished last season #14
(Packers) 21.8 points per

I’d be happy with anything over
20.0.+ “ points for” or in that top #20 scoring area. It’s an area where IF our Defense plays well we could hover around .500 and maybe squeak into a Wild card or cause a little trouble for another NFC team

 

[milani]

You're talking 2009 and 2010. I'm talking 2008 and 2009

Yes the 2008 Jets were better than us. And the 2009 Vikings were better than us.

 

[rmontro]

I’d be happy with anything over
20.0.+ “ points for” or in that top #20 scoring area. It’s an area where IF our Defense plays well we could hover around .500 and maybe squeak into a Wild card or cause a little trouble for another NFC team

Yeah, if we play slow ball control games with a lot of rushing, and if the defense can stand stout (and if the Packers can move the chains to keep them off the field, that's a decent possibility), that's a reasonable point total.

 

[milani]

Yeah, if we play slow ball control games with a lot of rushing, and if the defense can stand stout (and if the Packers can move the chains to keep them off the field, that's a decent possibility), that's a reasonable point total.

Well, that is the hope. We can no longer try and win shootouts. And if we cannot move the chains are D will be out there a long time.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

My hope is that the offense can score nearly as many points as the defense allows. It could be an ugly year.

Keep your expectations around 7 wins as being a good season, and be happy with it. Anything over that would be gravy.

This team is built to survive this season, and begin to grow in talent, preparing for a return to the upper 25% of the league in two years, IF Love can be a middle of the road QB. If he proves to be better than that, you can start to be excited after that.

I don't expect the Packers to win a lot of games this season, definitely not contend for a playoff spot.

The one problem the Packers have is that Love's contract is going to be huge, going forward, if he proves to be a good QB.

In my opinion that would be a good problem to have.

I think this whole "gotta have your QB on a rookie contract, to be successful" is overblown. Sure, every team dreams of having star players on rookie deals, but how often does it happen and for how long? It would have been nice to pay Rodgers on a rookie deal or any top player at that. However, once a player, especially a QB, has a breakout season during his rookie deal, it isn't often that the rookie deal runs its course. The team and the player are anxious to lock in a bigger and longer term deal.

NFL teams desperately need players on rookie deals to be core contributors, otherwise they won't be able to contend. It's even better if they have a quarterback still on a cheap deal.

As a side note, it's not allowed to renegotiate a rookie deal until after the third season of it has finished.

The Packers have a pretty solid roster and Love is the wildcard.

Actually the Packers have a young roster with a lot of players being unknows.

Favre was doing better than Rodgers and the Packers in the W column those 2 years. I'm more worried about that on Love's end.

The Packers scored more points in 2008 and '09 with a total of 880 than the Favre led Jets and Vikings did in those years (875) though.

 

[OldSchool101]

I don't expect the Packers to win a lot of games this season, definitely not contend for a playoff spot.

I’m not so sure about saying “definitely” They’ve got the over/under at 7.5 Wins, so that’s not far removed from squeaking into a Wild card.
We'll probably have a better idea by week 8 or so. If we can hang around .500 through 1/2 season (4-4 etc) we’ve got a decent shot at ~9 Wins. Conversely, if we fall behind at 2-6 or even 3-5 etc? It’s going to be a long season, but a fun 2024 draft

The Packers scored more points in 2008 and '09 with a total of 880 than the Favre led Jets and Vikings did in those years (875) though.

That’s amazing and I wouldn’t have thought that. I guess we did have quite a few weapons rolled over from Favre days and a much more proven receiving game, plus a young QB with a great mind and Strong arm.

 

[Mondio]

I’m not so sure about saying “definitely” They’ve got the over/under at 7.5 Wins, so that’s not far removed from squeaking into a Wild card.
We'll probably have a better idea by week 8 or so. If we can hang around .500 through 1/2 season (4-4 etc) we’ve got a decent shot at ~9 Wins. Conversely, if we fall behind at 2-6 or even 3-5 etc? It’s going to be a long season, but a fun 2024 draft

That’s amazing and I wouldn’t have thought that. I guess we did have quite a few weapons rolled over from Favre days and a much more proven receiving game, plus a young QB with a great mind and Strong arm.

It's all defense and turnovers for me. IF the defense can play up to where I think their talent level should put them, and IF Love is able to minimize turnovers, I think there is a better than average chance we make the playoffs right out of the gate. He can throw, he can run. Looks smooth doing both. But turnovers seem to get every new QB so how confident am I? depends what mood i'm in when you ask me LOL

I have less fait the defense will perform though. Too much boom or bust. We need to help our young QB with our defense, not boom and bust on defense.

 

[OldSchool101]

It's all defense and turnovers for me. IF the defense can play up to where I think their talent level should put them, and IF Love is able to minimize turnovers, I think there is a better than average chance we make the playoffs right out of the gate. He can throw, he can run. Looks smooth doing both. But turnovers seem to get every new QB so how confident am I? depends what mood i'm in when you ask me LOL

I have less fait the defense will perform though. Too much boom or bust. We need to help our young QB with our defense, not boom and bust on defense.

Absolutely. Contrary to the obvious Media story line about our QB exchange, Much of this season will be determined by our Defense. If we come out like the 2022 NY Jets all stingy on D? Even a pedestrian Offense can win a bunch of games.
If Van Ness is the Next TJ Watt impact player or 1 of our 2 Rookie DT’s look solid, we should have a good chance at cracking a top 10 Defense this year. If not it will be a repeat middling D and result in 10+ losses.

 

[rmontro]

I’m not so sure about saying “definitely” They’ve got the over/under at 7.5 Wins, so that’s not far removed from squeaking into a Wild card.
We'll probably have a better idea by week 8 or so. If we can hang around .500 through 1/2 season (4-4 etc) we’ve got a decent shot at ~9 Wins.

I agree. We're not favored to get a playoff spot, but I wouldn't be shocked if we slipped in. Maybe that's 30 years of stellar quarterback play talking, but if Love can just manage the game well I think we've got a shot.