Jordan Love signed to 4 year fully guaranteed deal

[Half Empty]

Like most drafts, the Packers' are up and down. If one looks at 1st round WRs, there are five - two greats, two duds, and one 'OK, but not for a 1st rounder'. Also, like most drafts, I'd figure that there are more hits than misses on WRs in the first round.

 

[easyk83]

And that continues to be the dumbest talking point spewed forth by the talking heads that people have picked up on.

Over half the offense is filled up by elite level players and people want to act like they haven't put enough talent in that side of the ball and for the majority of his career the Packers offense has had tons of talent at the reciever position. Good lord if we had selected Jordy a whopping 4 picks sooner this isn't even a talking point. Thats how dumb it is to bring up.

Want to argue you would've gone a different direction in specific drafts? Go for it. Theres cases to be made. Want to argue that they haven't given Rodgers enough reciever help through the lions share of his career because they never drafted one in the 1st? Don't. Its a dumb argument

For atleast a season or 2 Jordy Nelson was arguably the best receiver in the league. Right now Davante Adams is arguably the best receiver in the league. Its not the draft pick but the talent developed, higher picks merely increase the odds.

Through most of Rodgers career our draft picks have been at the bottom of the first round. Personally i dont think that that is a great place to get a receiver anyways. Typically you are looking at high production low upside types or talented but raw, the same types you can grab throughout the draft.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I've seen the "haven't given Rodgers help" idea thrown around plenty again in this thread so let's just kill that notion here

Over half the offense BESIDES Rodgers consisted/consists of All Pro to Pro Bowler talent/production this past season. (Adams, Jones, Tonyan, Bahk, Jenkins, Linsley)

Including Rodgers that number reaches 7 out of 11 players on the field being some of the elite at their positions in the entire league this past season.

Good lord how is that somehow failing to stack talent on one side of the ball

Yes, at the end of this season, having 7 out of 11 starters being some of the "elite at their position" is awesome and along with MLF, explains why the offense was as productive as it was. However, that is and always will be a moving target. Tonyan had a great year, but by no means could be considered "elite" a year ago. Jones and Linsley will probably both be cap causalities. Bahk may not be able to suit up for 1/2 of next season. Adams is the only elite receiver that the Packers have. MVS proved that he belongs, but probably more as a #3. Lazard was too inconsistent to be your everyday #2.

So yes, as it turns out, the offense meshed and progressed well in 2020 and short of a standout slot WR, I don't think we could have asked for much more. On to 2021, we still need to sign Tonyan, temporarily replace Bahk, probably find another RB and C, oh and don't forget about that #2 WR.

 

[RRyder]

Yes, at the end of this season, having 7 out of 11 starters being some of the "elite at their position" is awesome and along with MLF, explains why the offense was as productive as it was. However, that is and always will be a moving target. Tonyan had a great year, but by no means could be considered "elite" a year ago. Jones and Linsley will probably both be cap causalities. Bahk may not be able to suit up for 1/2 of next season. Adams is the only elite receiver that the Packers have. MVS proved that he belongs, but probably more as a #3. Lazard was too inconsistent to be your everyday #2.

So yes, as it turns out, the offense meshed and progressed well in 2020 and short of a standout slot WR, I don't think we could have asked for much more. On to 2021, we still need to sign Tonyan, temporarily replace Bahk, probably find another RB and C, oh and don't forget about that #2 WR.

I don't disagree with anything you said. Its always a constant sliding scale from year to year and there's always shuffling to be done and gaps to fill every offseason

Simply pointing out that people acting like the team didn't sport enough talent on offense outside of Rodgers this past year are out of their damn minds

 

[swhitset]

Its pretty dumb to try and change your complaint from ""They haven't spent a 1st round pick on a reciever since Rodgers became the starter" to these and think no one would notice

actually it’s pretty silly to dig your heels in the dirt and cling to that argument..... especially when it’s technically true. The real point has been made though... the Packers have not put a serious investment in the WR position in quite some time.

 

[swhitset]

For atleast a season or 2 Jordy Nelson was arguably the best receiver in the league. Right now Davante Adams is arguably the best receiver in the league. Its not the draft pick but the talent developed, higher picks merely increase the odds.

Through most of Rodgers career our draft picks have been at the bottom of the first round. Personally i dont think that that is a great place to get a receiver anyways. Typically you are looking at high production low upside types or talented but raw, the same types you can grab throughout the draft.

Jordy and adams were second rounders... so was Greg Jennings if i’m not mistaken.... it seems to me that the bottom of the first ... or the second round actually may be the perfect spot to find a receiver.

 

[RRyder]

actually it’s pretty silly to dig your heels in the dirt and cling to that argument..... especially when it’s technically true. The real point has been made though... the Packers have not put a serious investment in the WR position in quite some time.

Saying the Packers haven't made enough recent investment in the WR position and saying the Packers haven't given Rodgers enough high quality weapons for the vast majority of his career (which is the crux of the whole "no 1st round WRs" argument implies) are two EXTREMELY different arguments. One has merit. The other argument doesn't

And its not digging in my heals to point out when a poster completely flips his statement from one to the other in the span of a single post

 

[Sunshine885500]

They hated the Favre trade - "give up a 1st rounder for a guy who was a 2nd round pick last season and didn't play?"

They hated the Rodgers pick - "why not give our HOF QB more weapons?!"

And now they hate the Love pick.

No surprise here.

Great point - Thanks for stating this

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Its pretty dumb to try and change your complaint from ""They haven't spent a 1st round pick on a reciever since Rodgers became the starter" to these and think no one would notice

It's a fact the Packers haven't spent a first rounder on a wide receiver since Rodgers became the starter.

That doesn't contradict that the team has had talent at the position for most of his tenure by any means though.

But since drafting Adams the team hasn't even invested a day two pick into a WR, which has resulted in a lack of overall talent.

It shouldn't be that hard to understand.

Saying the Packers haven't made enough recent investment in the WR position and saying the Packers haven't given Rodgers enough high quality weapons for the vast majority of his career (which is the crux of the whole "no 1st round WRs" argument implies) are two EXTREMELY different arguments. One has merit. The other argument doesn't.

I never mentioned anything about the Packers not having enough talent at wide receiver for the majority of Rodgers' career.

Unfortunately they currently don't have though.

 

[easyk83]

Jordy and adams were second rounders... so was Greg Jennings if i’m not mistaken.... it seems to me that the bottom of the first ... or the second round actually may be the perfect spot to find a receiver.

Clarification, I like the second round a lot more. I tend to think that picking from 24-32 that the receivers arent much better than what you can get 10-30 picks later. Jordy Nelson Davante and Jennings are perfect examples. Jennings was the 4th receiver taken and easily the best of that class. Oh and by trading down the Packers picked up Jason Spitz as well, who turned into a good center for us. Patriots who traded up got Chad Jackson who was out of the league in 4 years.

Part of the problem with scouting receivers is that they frankly do not come from equal opportunities, there's a world of difference between playing with a legit NFL prospect at quarterback and playing with whatever guys like Greg Jennings and Jordy Nelson were playing with in College. Makes you wonder when, without hindsight, you are trying to evaluate players like Tee Huggins and Justin Jefferson versus receivers later in the draft. Were they that much better or did they benefit from playing with top QB prospects and future top 5 NFL draft picks?

BTW this is one reason that the drafsperts on here get angry with say TT in the past or Gute. They look at the players they love during the season while the better GMs tend to put more stock in the post season all star games and practices. How does a receiver from say Iowa State look when he's got someone like Joe Burrow throwing him the ball?

 

[GleefulGary]

The point is that the whole “GB hasn’t drafted a first round WR for Rodgers” is a tired, stupid, and talk show drivel point.

If you want to say that GB hasn’t invested very much in the WR position lately, then just freaking say that. It’s at least accurate! Doesn’t get as many clicks, or views, or responses, but it is accurate.

Some people, one in particular, think football and everything related to it, is very black and white. It either is, or it isn’t. I think there’s a ton of grey area, where things work/don’t work for a multitude of reasons. If it was as easy as we make it sound, then a whole lot of us could be making millions working for an NFL team. Somehow we aren’t. None of us, not even one, are as smart as we think are.

 

[Fat Dogs]

Even if Love does not suit up next year; it does not mean a thing. People saying it means something that he did not suit up this year don't know what they are talking about.

don’t know about this one....
I understand where you guys are coming from this season. Boyle knew the offense better and it being a COVID year but next year? Really? Love still being the #3 behind Boyle isn’t a good thing.[/QUOTE]

 

[gopkrs]

don’t know about this one....
I understand where you guys are coming from this season. Boyle knew the offense better and it being a COVID year but next year? Really? Love still being the #3 behind Boyle isn’t a good thing.

[/QUOTE]
You have a point. Although Rodgers basically sat the bench the first 3 years. It used to be normal for QBs to sit and there are arguments and examples for both sides of that debate. Maybe it depends on the personality of the person e.g. Troy Aikman got clobbered his first year or two. Did not hurt Rodgers to sit. Maybe it hurt Goff and the Eagles QB and a lot of others by being thrown in the mix too soon. I guess I just don't think Love being next man up right now indicates he will be good or bad. It will be the coach's decision to bring along the young QB as he sees fit.

 

[swhitset]

You have a point. Although Rodgers basically sat the bench the first 3 years. It used to be normal for QBs to sit and there are arguments and examples for both sides of that debate. Maybe it depends on the personality of the person e.g. Troy Aikman got clobbered his first year or two. Did not hurt Rodgers to sit. Maybe it hurt Goff and the Eagles QB and a lot of others by being thrown in the mix too soon. I guess I just don't think Love being next man up right now indicates he will be good or bad. It will be the coach's decision to bring along the young QB as he sees fit.

I have no problem with him sitting behind Rodgers .... but if he is not able to beat out Boyle in his second year.... I’d consider that to be concerning.

 

[Fat Dogs]

You have a point. Although Rodgers basically sat the bench the first 3 years. It used to be normal for QBs to sit and there are arguments and examples for both sides of that debate. Maybe it depends on the personality of the person e.g. Troy Aikman got clobbered his first year or two. Did not hurt Rodgers to sit. Maybe it hurt Goff and the Eagles QB and a lot of others by being thrown in the mix too soon. I guess I just don't think Love being next man up right now indicates he will be good or bad. It will be the coach's decision to bring along the young QB as he sees fit.[/QUOTE]






Your right. All situations are different. That’s why I was a little surprised when he didn’t suit up this year given the business decisions the team would be facing this year and next. I know it was argued that Boyle got some meaningless handoffs and kneel downs but they aren’t grooming Boyle for the future. Loves play selection might have been different. A few handoffs or maybe a few throws at the end of a blow out is never a bad thing for a young QB.

 

[gopkrs]

You have a point. Although Rodgers basically sat the bench the first 3 years. It used to be normal for QBs to sit and there are arguments and examples for both sides of that debate. Maybe it depends on the personality of the person e.g. Troy Aikman got clobbered his first year or two. Did not hurt Rodgers to sit. Maybe it hurt Goff and the Eagles QB and a lot of others by being thrown in the mix too soon. I guess I just don't think Love being next man up right now indicates he will be good or bad. It will be the coach's decision to bring along the young QB as he sees fit.

Your right. All situations are different. That’s why I was a little surprised when he didn’t suit up this year given the business decisions the team would be facing this year and next. I know it was argued that Boyle got some meaningless handoffs and kneel downs but they aren’t grooming Boyle for the future. Loves play selection might have been different. A few handoffs or maybe a few throws at the end of a blow out is never a bad thing for a young QB.[/QUOTE]
He sat because LaFleur didn't want him playing for real if Rogers went down. And the coach wanted that extra spot. Maybe it would be worth it to forego the extra man to let Love take a few end of the game snaps.

 

[easyk83]

One thing I will say about Tim Boyle is that I've been impressed with his arm talent every time I've seen him on the field. It seems that he was better than Love in camp.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The point is that the whole “GB hasn’t drafted a first round WR for Rodgers” is a tired, stupid, and talk show drivel point.

If you want to say that GB hasn’t invested very much in the WR position lately, then just freaking say that. It’s at least accurate! Doesn’t get as many clicks, or views, or responses, but it is accurate.

Actually it's accurate that the Packers haven't spent a first rounder on a wide receiver since 2002. I don't understand why some of you don't seem to accept that fact.

Once again, that doesn't mean nor did I ever mention the team lacked talent at the position for most of Rodgers' tenure.

 

[RRyder]

Actually it's accurate that the Packers haven't spent a first rounder on a wide receiver since 2002. I don't understand why some of you don't seem to accept that fact.

Once again, that doesn't mean nor did I ever mention the team lacked talent at the position for most of Rodgers' tenure.

Why even bring it up since its an inconsequential fact? Were you simply trying to say they haven't invested enough in the position recently?

If so it seems that you could of just said the latter instead of stating a point that means nothing.

What point were you actually trying to make with that fact?

 

[Fat Dogs]

Your right. All situations are different. That’s why I was a little surprised when he didn’t suit up this year given the business decisions the team would be facing this year and next. I know it was argued that Boyle got some meaningless handoffs and kneel downs but they aren’t grooming Boyle for the future. Loves play selection might have been different. A few handoffs or maybe a few throws at the end of a blow out is never a bad thing for a young QB.

He sat because LaFleur didn't want him playing for real if Rogers went down. And the coach wanted that extra spot. Maybe it would be worth it to forego the extra man to let Love take a few end of the game snaps.[/QUOTE]


It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. We have to remember that this board was riddled with negativity about Rodgers lack of productivity not to long ago (giving the F.O. Grounds for the Love pick.) MLF scheme changed that and now the organization put itself in a bit of a quandary. I think Rodgers has a lot of football left in him and he will finish out his contract. Not sure what this means for Loves future in G.B.

 

[Fat Dogs]

One thing I will say about Tim Boyle is that I've been impressed with his arm talent every time I've seen him on the field. It seems that he was better than Love in camp.

It almost reminds me of the Flynn/Brohn competition. Brohn had the pedigree, big arm, and high ceiling but Flynn had that grit.

 

[gopkrs]

He sat because LaFleur didn't want him playing for real if Rogers went down. And the coach wanted that extra spot. Maybe it would be worth it to forego the extra man to let Love take a few end of the game snaps.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. We have to remember that this board was riddled with negativity about Rodgers lack of productivity not to long ago (giving the F.O. Grounds for the Love pick.) MLF scheme changed that and now the organization put itself in a bit of a quandary. I think Rodgers has a lot of football left in him and he will finish out his contract. Not sure what this means for Loves future in G.B.[/QUOTE]
Agree. I guess it will all depend on how they see Love coming around. My own preference is for Rodgers to play for as long as does so at a high level. Though I can't see giving him another long term contract. Even though with QBs taking so few hits; they can last quite awhile. For those that are adamant about having a great QB on a rookie contract I say that is no way to run an organization. There is just too much luck involved. If Love turns out to be the real deal; it will have been worth it to stash him on the bench.

 

[GleefulGary]

Actually it's accurate that the Packers haven't spent a first rounder on a wide receiver since 2002. I don't understand why some of you don't seem to accept that fact.

Once again, that doesn't mean nor did I ever mention the team lacked talent at the position for most of Rodgers' tenure.

Did I say it wasn’t accurate?

read what I said and try again.

 

[Fat Dogs]

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. We have to remember that this board was riddled with negativity about Rodgers lack of productivity not to long ago (giving the F.O. Grounds for the Love pick.) MLF scheme changed that and now the organization put itself in a bit of a quandary. I think Rodgers has a lot of football left in him and he will finish out his contract. Not sure what this means for Loves future in G.B.

I definitely agree with them. Lol but only in the right situations and I don’t think the Packers fall into that category. None of those teams replaced a HOF QB coming off an MVP performance. Our best chance to win right now is with Rodgers but we’ll need a 2009 type draft this year and for Dillon, Deguara, and the young O-lineman from last years draft to take a huge leap. Circle April 29th on your calendar because our run to another title game in 2022 will depend on it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

People trying to attach any

Why even bring it up since its an inconsequential fact? Were you simply trying to say they haven't invested enough in the position recently?

Since I have been pretty vocal about this and even at one time posted an accumulated look at the draft and Free agent resources used on WR in the last 15 or so years, I figured I would weigh in.

There is no doubt that the Packers have not used much of their draft resources on the position since Rodgers was drafted. Pointing out that Zero first round picks since 2002 (Javon Walker) has been invested in the position, is just emphasizing that fact. Yes, the Packers had a great run of success with 2nd round picks (Jennings, Nelson, Cobb, Adams), so they really didn't need to invest a #1 pick. However, all but one of those players have moved on and the front office hasn't made much of an effort to replace any of them. Why? My best guess is because of Aaron Rodgers. He is able to do a lot more with lesser talent around him, than most QB's. I actually think this will be strongly remembered after he retires, in a good and a bad way. Many have posed the questioned "What could Rodgers do with more talent at WR?" People jumping up and saying "The Packers had the best offense in the NFL this year, what else do you want?" Well, those people are circumventing the discussion and trying to say that the offense couldn't be better with more weapons. I would disagree and ask those people to imagine Rodgers with more weapons. Ask them if they think the NFCCG would have had the same results had AR had 1 or 2 better receiving options?

I don't really care if the Packers spent 4 first round picks or 20 5th, 6th and 7th round picks on WR's since Rodgers was drafted. It's all about results and I think both TT and Gute allowed and relied upon Rodgers abundance of talent to cover up the deficiencies the Packers have had at the position for too long.