The Jordan Love Thread

[sschind]

The Packers having an elite quarterbacks isn't the reason there weren't able to feature a great defense over the past 10 seasons.

I don't think I said that. I said they have had an elite QB and only 2 SB's to show for it. I don't think I made any inference at all regarding how much we are spending on our QBs is what has kept or is keeping us from having an elite D. Someone else sort of made that comment but it wasn't me.

I'll stick take an all-time great QB over an average QB.

An all time great QB is certainly nice to have but he can't do it all by himself and someone has to stop the other team from scoring. I'd rather have a defense that can hold an opponent to under 17 points a game than a QB who has to score 35 because the defense is going to give up 34. Granted you still need a QB who is good enough to put up 17 which is why I said an above average QB

 

[gopkrs]

Veteran starting quarterbacks, even the lesser ones, earn a ton of money in today's NFL. Therefore having a less talented starter wouldn't have resulted in the team being able to spend significantly more money on the rest of the roster.

Certainly not sure about everyone but Ryan Fitzpatrick just signed for $10 million. That is a ways away. I am not advocating anything. I would just like The Gute to run things the way he sees fit. I'm willing to give him that chance. But like he said in his presser the other day, "with class and ... (I actually forget the other word), but doing things with class I am sure will be good enough for me. Will that be a change? I honestly don't know. If he and LaFleur get along well; then I am probably down with it.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

And yes I agree with the wife part of your analogy but I don't think it transfers to Rodgers because you don't have a relationship with him.

I`d have to disagree. We, the organisation have invested in Rodgers from when we signed him. I KNOW I`ve used this argument before but watch the night of his draft. You can see his heart breaking when he thinks he will be taken by the 49ers and wasn`t. Also watch as no team chose him until we picked him. He probably didn`t want to come here specifically but we gave him that chance. He`s won numerous MVP awards which I don`t begrudge him but those were his awards, we personally didn`t benefit from it at all unless I`m mistaken. We`ll eventually retire his number and I don`t agree with it. With Favres behaviour I didn`t agree with that either. The only one who ever deserved that honour was Bart Starr. When I mentioned the "Emporers new clothes", I see people scared to see the obvious. He doesn`t appreciate what the fans think of him and this whole debacle could have been avoided if he hadn`t kept silent and pouting. JMHO

 

[PackAttack12]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[PackAttack12]

I`d have to disagree. We, the organisation have invested in Rodgers from when we signed him. I KNOW I`ve used this argument before but watch the night of his draft. You can see his heart breaking when he thinks he will be taken by the 49ers and wasn`t. Also watch as no team chose him until we picked him. He probably didn`t want to come here specifically but we gave him that chance. He`s won numerous MVP awards which I don`t begrudge him but those were his awards, we personally didn`t benefit from it at all unless I`m mistaken. We`ll eventually retire his number and I don`t agree with it. With Favres behaviour I didn`t agree with that either. The only one who ever deserved that honour was Bart Starr. When I mentioned the "Emporers new clothes", I see people scared to see the obvious. He doesn`t appreciate what the fans think of him and this whole debacle could have been avoided if he hadn`t kept silent and pouting. JMHO

I know this is just your opinion, but the issue is that you're letting your own personal feelings toward the player cloud your judgment. Favre and Rodgers both deserve their numbers retired because of their excellent on field play, their accomplishments, and what they gave to the organization for a combined 30 years. Regardless of their perceived behavior that you find distasteful, it doesn't in any way diminish what they gave (will give in AR's case) to the Green Bay Packers and also what they have given back to the Green Bay community through their service, as well as through their charitable work.

The whole "I don't like their behavior" doesn't cut the muster.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

I know this is just your opinion, but the issue is that you're letting your own personal feelings toward the player cloud your judgment. Favre and Rodgers both deserve their numbers retired because of their excellent on field play, their accomplishments, and what they gave to the organization for a combined 30 years. Regardless of their perceived behavior that you find distasteful, it doesn't in any way diminish what they gave (will give in AR's case) to the Green Bay Packers and also what they have given back to the Green Bay community through their service, as well as through their charitable work.

The whole "I don't like their behavior" doesn't cut the muster.

Oh, I`m sorry. Neither does blind devotion. I guess we`ll have to agree to disagree . You are quite welcome to put me on ignore, I wont be offended.

 

[PackAttack12]

Oh, I`m sorry. Neither does blind devotion. I guess we`ll have to agree to disagree . You are quite welcome to put me on ignore, I wont be offended.

I don't put anyone on ignore. It's okay to disagree without hiding from people.

 

[tynimiller]

I don't put anyone on ignore. It's okay to disagree without hiding from people.

Don't say that too loudly....someone will get rubbed wrong by that I agree with you!

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

I don't put anyone on ignore. It's okay to disagree without hiding from people.

We`re all good then

 

[Sunshinepacker]

An all time great QB is certainly nice to have but he can't do it all by himself and someone has to stop the other team from scoring. I'd rather have a defense that can hold an opponent to under 17 points a game than a QB who has to score 35 because the defense is going to give up 34. Granted you still need a QB who is good enough to put up 17 which is why I said an above average QB

It's a lot easier for a GM to put together a decent defense with an all-time great QB than to put together a consistent elite defense with an average QB.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I`d have to disagree. We, the organisation have invested in Rodgers from when we signed him. I KNOW I`ve used this argument before but watch the night of his draft. You can see his heart breaking when he thinks he will be taken by the 49ers and wasn`t. Also watch as no team chose him until we picked him. He probably didn`t want to come here specifically but we gave him that chance. He`s won numerous MVP awards which I don`t begrudge him but those were his awards, we personally didn`t benefit from it at all unless I`m mistaken. We`ll eventually retire his number and I don`t agree with it. With Favres behaviour I didn`t agree with that either. The only one who ever deserved that honour was Bart Starr. When I mentioned the "Emporers new clothes", I see people scared to see the obvious. He doesn`t appreciate what the fans think of him and this whole debacle could have been avoided if he hadn`t kept silent and pouting. JMHO

I get the impression that you think players should act more like fans rather than the employees that they actually are?

 

[Pkrjones]

It's a lot easier for a GM to put together a decent defense with an all-time great QB than to put together a consistent elite defense with an average QB.

Please explain. If all-time great QB uses 20% of the cap, needs to be protected with a very good line AND have proven, veteran weapons to throw & handoff to that doesn't leave much $$ for a top 15 D. Very good CB's & Edge rushers cost money and a serviceable line & backers are a necessity as well.

 

[mradtke66]

An all time great QB is certainly nice to have but he can't do it all by himself and someone has to stop the other team from scoring. I'd rather have a defense that can hold an opponent to under 17 points a game than a QB who has to score 35 because the defense is going to give up 34. Granted you still need a QB who is good enough to put up 17 which is why I said an above average QB

It's a false dichotomy. I want both.

The Packers spent tons of draft capital and cap space on their defense during Rodgers' tenure. The team failed to have a better defense due to injury, scheme problems, bust players, and the (I need to look find my source) statistically anomaly that maintaining a good defense (as measured by stats) is harder to maintain over time.

 

[mradtke66]

Please explain. If all-time great QB uses 20% of the cap, needs to be protected with a very good line AND have proven, veteran weapons to throw & handoff to that doesn't leave much $$ for a top 15 D. Very good CB's & Edge rushers cost money and a serviceable line & backers are a necessity as well.

While finding an elite or all-time-great QB is difficult, he's only one guy. VS an elite defense, which needs 2-3 very good to elite edge defenders, 3-4 very good to elite corners, a run plugger DT, a pass rushing DT, and the rest of the platoon without any glaring holes. And then some luck that causes you to go too deep into that depth.

In short, while the cap makes it difficult to retain all of your players for as long as you want them, the bigger limiting factor is available talent. Quite simply, there aren't an abundance of excellent/elite level players. It is difficult to find them and/or develop them.

Do well, draft later, have a worse chance to maintain your team.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Please explain. If all-time great QB uses 20% of the cap, needs to be protected with a very good line AND have proven, veteran weapons to throw & handoff to that doesn't leave much $$ for a top 15 D. Very good CB's & Edge rushers cost money and a serviceable line & backers are a necessity as well.

Great QBs add more wins to a team than a great CB, WR, OT, and RB combined. A great QB is worth the money.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

I get the impression that you think players should act more like fans rather than the employees that they actually are?

Not at all but appreciate and respect the people who actually treat you like some sort of hero. I can`t be any clearer than that really. A hero to me is somebody like Jordy Nelson who put his health on the line, rib removed, kevlar vest to play in a game that mattered. That`s my idea of a hero. Obviously we`ll never agree and that`s fine.

 

[easyk83]

A great quarterback all but requires a hefty O-Line investment and a top flight wide out. Look at what percentage of our cap is taken up by Rodgers, Bakhtiari and Davante Adams, that's about 30% of the cap and thats with Rodgers having a down year in terms of salary cap.

Here's a question, why is it that the last time that Seattle had a dominant defense Wilson was still on his rookie deal?

 

[easyk83]

Honestly we might not have a good benchmark for Love until the 2022 preseason, we havent seen him play in any sort of NFL action and wont until August 14 of this year. We wont have much sense of his progression until the following year beyond coach speak.

Heading into this season I figured that Love wouldnt be ready, by Jordan Love's standards, until 2022. Those three pre season games, even if he only gets in 6-8 quarters of play with half of them against replacements will be invaluable for his development.

 

[gopkrs]

Those three pre season games, even if he only gets in 6-8 quarters of play with half of them against replacements will be invaluable for his development.

At least they will be invaluable to me so I can make some kind of guess about how he looks. I hope I can watch the games.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I need to better understand the logic of preferring an average QB over an elite QB. I get that the average QB won't cost as much but then you're basically forcing the GM to find better players in the draft all over the place.

Perhaps my logic is wrong on this (and please let me know if it is) but I believe the thought process is that if you have an average QB you can then field a defense that has an elite pass rusher, a good pass rusher, an elite corner, a good corner, an elite safety, and a good linebacker while on offense you could field more elite playmakers to support the average QB. Here's what I don't get; the Packers' issue hasn't been KEEPING elite players on defense, it's really been about FINDING elite players on defense. Additionally, with a team that's built with an average QB and elite defense you're relying on numerous players on the defense staying healthy the entire season while with the elite QB you're really only relying on the ONE QB to stay healthy.

Now, finding an elite QB is REALLY tough but I think putting together a team that can carry an average QB to a Super Bowl, consistently, is actually much more difficult. Just going back 10 years, the Packers, Chiefs, Patriots, and Seahawks have played the most playoff games in the NFL, and all of them had elite QBs. The fifth most playoff games in that time are the Ravens, who are kind of the team I think most people are thinking the Packers should build like but they haven't made a Super Bowl in that time because having an elite QB is fairly important.

Building a consistent winner in the NFL pretty much requires an elite QB that's going to cost the team a lot of money. Good GMs and coaches can still win even if the QB is taking up an extra $10m per year relative to an average QB.

So, basically, I'm just wondering if those advocating for the cheaper QB (say Stafford or Tannehill level) think that the money saved is automatically going to mean the GM becomes better at drafting AND, if not, is going to be willing to overpay in free agency to sign guys. There's just a lot of assumptions that seem to be going into this line of thinking that aren't really addressed.

 

[Sanguine camper]

With Rodgers the Packers win about 70% of their games. Without Rodgers, they have won about 33% of the games. Rodgers is worth about 6 wins per year. Would you get those 6 wins and additional playoff game wins by saving about 10 million per year in cap space by going to an average qb.? 10 million buys you one good starting player who has to make the difference in those 6 games. Not likely. That's why GM's spend the most draft capital to acquire an elite qb. The rules are structured to make the qb the most important position and GM's draft accordingly

 

[G0P4ckG0]

I need to better understand the logic of preferring an average QB over an elite QB. I get that the average QB won't cost as much but then you're basically forcing the GM to find better players in the draft all over the place.

Perhaps my logic is wrong on this (and please let me know if it is) but I believe the thought process is that if you have an average QB you can then field a defense that has an elite pass rusher, a good pass rusher, an elite corner, a good corner, an elite safety, and a good linebacker while on offense you could field more elite playmakers to support the average QB. Here's what I don't get; the Packers' issue hasn't been KEEPING elite players on defense, it's really been about FINDING elite players on defense. Additionally, with a team that's built with an average QB and elite defense you're relying on numerous players on the defense staying healthy the entire season while with the elite QB you're really only relying on the ONE QB to stay healthy.

Now, finding an elite QB is REALLY tough but I think putting together a team that can carry an average QB to a Super Bowl, consistently, is actually much more difficult. Just going back 10 years, the Packers, Chiefs, Patriots, and Seahawks have played the most playoff games in the NFL, and all of them had elite QBs. The fifth most playoff games in that time are the Ravens, who are kind of the team I think most people are thinking the Packers should build like but they haven't made a Super Bowl in that time because having an elite QB is fairly important.

Building a consistent winner in the NFL pretty much requires an elite QB that's going to cost the team a lot of money. Good GMs and coaches can still win even if the QB is taking up an extra $10m per year relative to an average QB.

So, basically, I'm just wondering if those advocating for the cheaper QB (say Stafford or Tannehill level) think that the money saved is automatically going to mean the GM becomes better at drafting AND, if not, is going to be willing to overpay in free agency to sign guys. There's just a lot of assumptions that seem to be going into this line of thinking that aren't really addressed.

Competent coaching is invaluable and we haven't had it on defense since...well...our most recent Super Bowl. I like to use the Bo Ryan argument as an example of this. 99% of his players were "scrubs" compared to most powerhouse teams but he always found a way to play to his players' strengths and exploit the opponents' weaknesses. He was always 1 "star" player away from winning the title every year.

 

[rmontro]

No one's going to turn down a HOF QB if they can get one. Problem is, once they start commanding a certain percentage of the cap, they don't win Super Bowls. With Rodgers, we get to the NFCCG most years, but lose it to a different team every year. Those teams are going up and down, and we're hanging around, so most teams would love to be in that position. But we can't get over the hump. And the main issue is it doesn't appear Rodgers wants to be here anyway.

 

[Half Empty]

With Rodgers the Packers win about 70% of their games. Without Rodgers, they have won about 33% of the games. Rodgers is worth about 6 wins per year. Would you get those 6 wins and additional playoff game wins by saving about 10 million per year in cap space by going to an average qb.? 10 million buys you one good starting player who has to make the difference in those 6 games. Not likely. That's why GM's spend the most draft capital to acquire an elite qb. The rules are structured to make the qb the most important position and GM's draft accordingly

A little apples and oranges, no? In how many of the losses without AR was the Pack playing with an average QB?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

A little apples and oranges, no? In how many of the losses without AR was the Pack playing with an average QB?

As i said above, please let me know of my logic is wrong but counting on numerous elite players being drafted and healthy to allow an average QB to win a championship appears to be a far riskier strategy than building around an elite QB. You’re talking about saving $20m a year, which will get you one elite CB or pass rusher or two good players. Doesn’t make sense to me.