Packers First Round - Jordan Love - POLL ADDED

JayMKE · Post #101 » by **JayMKE** » Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:04 am

RRyder823 wrote:
JayMKE wrote:
ReasonablySober wrote:
Worked alright the last time.

some weird cargo cult logic, "well we did it with Rodgers"...

Rodgers was legitimately in the running to be the #1 pick that year and a MUCH MUCH better college QB as well, I don't see much comparison.
God this freaking argument

Rodgers was in running to be drafted #1 because SF was drafting and needed a QB. Neither him nor Smith were in consideration as the best players in that draft.

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

Doesn't make it not true, Rodgers was a much better QB in a power conference and was in the running for for #1 pick.

Post #102 » by **humanrefutation** » Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:04 am

It's funny how history repeats itself. People complained about the lack of weapons for Favre during the latter stages of his career. And we picked Rodgers.

Rinse. Repeat. 15 years later.

raysbookclub · Post #103 » by **raysbookclub** » Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:05 am

I see Rodgers being cool, unlike Favre.

Read on Twitter

PintSizedBox10 · Post #104 » by **PintSizedBox10** » Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:06 am

jimmybones wrote:
awd4cy wrote:I’m sorry, I think that was a dumb pick. There’s so many holes on this team that aren’t going to be filled for next year. We were damn lucky to be 13-3 last year. Bet this year is quite a step back.

I’m sorry, I think this is a dumb analysis.

But seriously, if he’s a franchise qb, I don’t care about “holes” next year that we weren’t guaranteed to fill by any of these available players. You don’t draft to fill holes for next year, ever.

That’s flat out false... Jaire Alexander literally had the 3rd most defense snaps on the team his rookie year. It’s fairly obvious he was drafted to fill an immediate hole

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RRyder823 · Post #105 » by **RRyder823** » Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:07 am

neiLz wrote:
El Duderino wrote:
Treebeard wrote:Like I wrote on the other thread: Ask me again in three years if this was really dumb, or really smart.

This is it.

QB is so vital to success in the NFL. If Love becomes a good starting QB whenever his time comes to play, this pick will make Gutekunst look like a genius. If instead Love busts, Gutekunst likely loses his job.

The kid has special physical talent, we'll see if he can be taught the mental aspects.

My issue is if he starts in 3 years what are the odds he's a pro bowl player, Andy Dalton type, or bust? If he's Dalton it's a huge waste. Packers will go 8-8 and get the 15th pick with him. I'd rather then move on from Rodgers and tank a year or two get the best qb in said draft and build from there.

The pressure for love is ridiculous. With Favre, he always talked retirement so the Packers had to prepare plus the best qb prospect in the draft slipped in Rodgers.

Rodgers has been talking about playing out his contract.

I hope it works out but to me the only way it works out is if he's a pro bowler once he starts.

Don't worry if he busts he won't be anywhere close to Dalton. He'll makes us wish for the day of Brett Hundley and you'll get your tank season.

If he booms we got another MVP caliber QB.

There's not a whole lot of middle ground with him

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

BradMKE · Post #106 » by **BradMKE** » Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:08 am

books wrote:I see Rodgers being cool, unlike Favre.

Read on Twitter

That was before they actually did it. Easy to be cool then.

I can just imagine him spending all night composing the perfect snarky “welcome” tweet.

Post #107 » by **humanrefutation** » Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:08 am

I definitely don't agree that you don't draft guys to fill immediate needs. But it shouldn't be the sole factor in making your move, of course. You pick the best guy when factoring both short term and long term needs.

awd4cy · Post #108 » by **awd4cy** » Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:08 am

humanrefutation wrote:It's funny how history repeats itself. People complained about the lack of weapons for Favre during the latter stages of his caterer. And we picked Rodgers.

Rinse. Repeat. 15 years later.

It’s even funnier how sure so many are that lightning will strike twice in a bottle.

RRyder823 · Post #109 » by **RRyder823** » Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:10 am

JayMKE wrote:
RRyder823 wrote:
JayMKE wrote:
some weird cargo cult logic, "well we did it with Rodgers"...

Rodgers was legitimately in the running to be the #1 pick that year and a MUCH MUCH better college QB as well, I don't see much comparison.
God this freaking argument

Rodgers was in running to be drafted #1 because SF was drafting and needed a QB. Neither him nor Smith were in consideration as the best players in that draft.

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

Doesn't make it not true, Rodgers was a much better QB in a power conference and was in the running for for #1 pick.

So if the 20th best prospect in a draft is a possible #1 pick based on his position it makes sense to use "well could of went #1" as some kind of argument?

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

Post #110 » by **humanrefutation** » Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:10 am

Preseason is going to be interesting. I hope the fans don't treat him like ****.

neiLz · Post #111 » by **neiLz** » Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:11 am

M-C-G wrote:No beef with Love and if we were going to try and get our next QB in this draft I guess doing it in the first to get the 5 year option is wise.

But if you were contemplating this why did you extend Rodgers? I am fairly certain you had him under contract for two more seasons anyways, what was the rush?

I think we have exactly two more seasons of Rodgers and I think they got cute trying to imitate that Chiefs.

Draft was really unkind, but I would have been fine with Queen. Here is hoping a WR drops to us in the second. And here is hoping we can flip Taylor for a third or fourth

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This might be the best argument. If you're the Packers and were even thinking about an heir apparent in the next few drafts why would you extend Rodgers? I understand how players can slide in any draft and each year is different but they just extended Rodgers!

JayMKE · Post #112 » by **JayMKE** » Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:11 am

I don't think Rodgers is going to relish mentoring, I just think he'll just look to extend his career with the Chargers or somebody in few years with less of guilty conscious. Now we going to have to hear for presumably years about Love as the heir apparent and how "its just like how Rodgers did it" until our ears bleed.

jimmybones · Post #113 » by **jimmybones** » Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:11 am

PintSizedBox10 wrote:
jimmybones wrote:
awd4cy wrote:I’m sorry, I think that was a dumb pick. There’s so many holes on this team that aren’t going to be filled for next year. We were damn lucky to be 13-3 last year. Bet this year is quite a step back.

I’m sorry, I think this is a dumb analysis.

But seriously, if he’s a franchise qb, I don’t care about “holes” next year that we weren’t guaranteed to fill by any of these available players. You don’t draft to fill holes for next year, ever.

That’s flat out false... Jaire Alexander literally had the 3rd most defense snaps on the team his rookie year. It’s fairly obvious he was drafted to fill an immediate hole

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re implying need and value can’t ever intersect and “that’s flat out false”

Post #114 » by **MickeyDavis** » Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:11 am

awd4cy wrote:
humanrefutation wrote:It's funny how history repeats itself. People complained about the lack of weapons for Favre during the latter stages of his caterer. And we picked Rodgers.

Rinse. Repeat. 15 years later.

It’s even funnier how sure so many are that lightning will strike twice in a bottle.

Who's sure about it? At most some are saying let's see what happens 3 years from now.

StickeeFingaz · Post #115 » by **StickeeFingaz** » Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:12 am

Didn't need a weird ass media controversy for the Packers in 2020. I was hoping for the story about the Packers drafting a playmaking receiver and the Bucks heading to the finals.

Turk Nowitzki · Post #116 » by **Turk Nowitzki** » Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:13 am

The worst part is that we might have to argue about this pick for like 3 years before we have any idea if Love is any good.

FAH1223 · Post #117 » by **FAH1223** » Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:13 am

Read on Twitter

Post #118 » by **MickeyDavis** » Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:15 am

Never heard of Michael Rodney

Treebeard · Post #119 » by **Treebeard** » Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:16 am

BradMKE wrote:
books wrote:I see Rodgers being cool, unlike Favre.

Read on Twitter

That was before they actually did it. Easy to be cool then.

I can just imagine him spending all night composing the perfect snarky “welcome” tweet.

How did Rogers relate to Hundley and Kizer on the sidelines and off the field? Probably like a pro, but aloof. It's a big boys league, so Love better show up prepared to work harder than anyone in the building and they'll be fine.

Rogers ire will be and should be directed at Gute and LaFleur. "Where's my help???"

RRyder823 · Post #120 » by **RRyder823** » Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:16 am

awd4cy wrote:
humanrefutation wrote:It's funny how history repeats itself. People complained about the lack of weapons for Favre during the latter stages of his caterer. And we picked Rodgers.

Rinse. Repeat. 15 years later.

It’s even funnier how sure so many are that lightning will strike twice in a bottle.

Its not about being "sure" lightning will strike twice.

Its about not agreeing with "since it happened once means it won't happen again"

In other words its worth the chance if you like him as a prospect.

If you thought Love was a bad prospect an hour ago I get hating this pick. If you liked Love as a prospect an hour ago however the rational for the selection shouldn't be controversial. Especially considering how we have seen first hand how effective planning ahead can be when drafting the position

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

Hot Take on Love