Rodgers won't be going anywhere before 2023. The cap hit would be egregious.

Yeah they have 2 more years before it’s manageable to do anything with Rodgers. He could retire unless they trade him, but he’s no dummy and he saw how poorly Favre handled things. Rodgers just wants another SB win, just like Manning. 

Too late.

Has 12 even said anything??     

It's good that Rodgers spoke with Love and offered some words of encouragement.

But that will do little to sate a fanbase that is coming out of the draft with a fair amount of skepticism about the team's priorities right now.

Packers Rumors: Aaron Rodgers Initiated Call to Jordan Love to Congratulate QB

JOSEPH ZUCKERAPRIL 24, 2020

Why would the draft have to be justified as the GM and HC "picking their guys"? 

Here is how I view it. GM Gute picked his QB of the future before he was in a dire need of one. Who knows when that time might actually arrive? With Rodger's injury history and slight build he might be done this coming season or next by an injury. Then the team is sitting and trying to figure out how to get a QB, which QB to get and how much it might cost.

So obviously, they fell this Love kid has upside to be a franchise QB someday. I don't think anyone, including them knows if he will be, only that he can be. I don't know much about the kid so I have no opinion yet. We'll see.

But if he shows like Rodgers did his rookie year, I expect the same crying and grinding of teeth that we witnessed in 2005. 

Now I like the RB pick. That kid is a stud. 

The TE/HB/P/K/RB/FB? No freaking clue. Who the hell is he??

The thing that I am disappointed in so far is no big guys, especially on Defense. They had better know something about the roster that we don't.

From TJ Lang:

It’s a new era in GB. They want to RUN the ball with a lot of PA passes. Doesn’t take anything away from 12... if anything, makes him more dangerous.

Its as simple as this. 

Especially more dangerous if he follows the script

Rodgers is who he is and his future will be what he wants to make it. 

He could play another 2-5 years (or more), the next season he plays could be his last (injury), or he could retire without notice. 
I don't think he will ever become TOG-like, nor do I think he would hamstring the Packers with a last-minute retirement, but it could come during any off-season.

The Packers successfully going to a power run game instead of 5 wide is a good thing for their 36 year old QB, not a bad thing. I think TJ hits it right on the head. 

I love what they did today- and it reaffirms what I could see after day 2. The Packers will be a power run team with a nice mix of P/A and throws to backs out of the backfield. They’ll be able to play like this in September and in January. If they got 3 or 4 of these day 2/3 picks right, they’re a better offensive football team. 

Then trade Rodgers.  You got your QB of the future and you could get a boatload of picks. 

How about starting with 2 WR sets instead of this "people don't get it's not the WC offense" crap. 

It's also pretty clear if you have a run first offense you better have a solid defense to go with it.  There's a reason QBs are important.

Trade Rodgers to the Patriots. 

It will be awesome!

It’s a new era in GB. They want to RUN the ball with a lot of PA passes. Doesn’t take anything away from 12... if anything, makes him more dangerous.

— TJ Lang (@TJLang70) April 25, 2020

There's two types of needs: "Right Now" and "Not Yet." "Right Now" is in the short-term and where fans are, including those gnashing their teeth over Gutters choosing Love. "Not Yet" is longer-term thinking. Rodgers was drafted as a Not Yet player because of who was still under center. Love is a Not Yet because of who's under center right now. He could be the answer in one, or two, or who knows how many years -- or he might not. But Gutters and LaFleur had to be looking down the road, just like TT was when Rodgers fell to him. My guess is that Rodgers or Love has two years left in GB. If Love is who they think he is and Rodgers continues to decline, he's gone. If Love isn't, trade him and you still have Rodgers for two more years. Look how many QBs came and went in the Favre years... 

Dillon is a Right Now. Over and over we'd be inside the 5YL and watch the RBs get stuffed or watch Rodgers trying to throw down there and WRs with no room to maneuver, and then we watch Crosby come in yet again. We've all complained about it. We don't have a bunch of hogs up front and even if they drafted a R1 lineman, chances are he wouldn't start right away. Dillon is strong enough to hammer it in on his own and quick enough to find a tiny crack and heavy enough to wedge it open and score. I envision him running behind Bak and Jensen, who at least get a little push, and just bulldozing it in. 

Deguara is a puzzle, but he may be a Right Now as an H-back. Keep him in and let him protect Rodgers. Send him down the seam and crack it open, which is what scouts say he's excellent at doing.

As for the later rounds... hopefully, a Not Yet surprises and becomes a player. 

I get Rodgers frustration.  Most of us thought they should have drafted a WR in the first three rounds because the current WRs on the roster just aren't good enough.  And we all thought they passed on making a splash in free agency because the draft was deep at WR.  So obviously there was confusion and disappointment.  

But that has nothing to do with picking Love.  This may have been a year early but Rodgers is 36 and the end is coming.  What Brady and Brees are doing is skewing the fans' and media's view of how long a QB can play.  Obviously with it being so recent Rodgers gets lumped in with those two but what about P Manning, Rivers and Roethlisberger?  Manning was awful his last year and a half - people forget it was a minor controversy in benching Osweiler that last game before the playoffs.  Rivers was pretty bad this year and Ben has been a shell of himself, being out all last year hurt (which happens as you get older.....trust me).  Rodgers relies heavily on his athleticism and gets hit a lot, which does not bode well for longevity.  So while I would have preferred a QB be picked next year, this was coming.  You have a young GM and young HC.  Not a shock that they want a young QB to build some long term success.  Whether that happens.........

My issue was more the second and third round picks.  I get how Dillon will be used but I just don't like the idea of a 250 lb RB.  Other than Henry, RBs that big have not seen real sustained success in decades.  Derrick Henry also won the Heisman, so could be that he's more of an outlier than the rule.  And even worse, Dillon had 845 carries in college.  845 carries!!!  That's a lot of wear for a guy that hasn't suited up in the NFL yet.  

And Deguara......what can you say.  You used a 3rd round pick on a freaking fullback.  Browns traded a 7th rounder to the Broncos for Andy Janovich this offseason.  That's what good fullbacks are worth.  They are not worth third rounders.  Even if he becomes a pro bowl fullback, it's still not worth a third round pick.  

This is probably overly dramatic but this is the kind of draft that gets a GM fired.  It's one thing to have your players turn out poorly when they're taken at a relative "consensus" value by the majority of the league.  It's another for them to turn out poorly when EVERYONE IS TELLING YOU THEY SUCK AS THE DRAFT IS HAPPENING!!!  That's what happened this year.  I really hope Gute is the smartest guy in the room because I have not found anyone that views this draft as anything but a disaster.  

In past years, Rodgers said he wanted to play until 2023. 

For example, in 2018 (https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/...-love-to-play-to-40/  

and in  2015 (https://bleacherreport.com/art...lay-for-8-more-years).  

It's only in past year or so of seeing Brees and Brady that he said in to his 40's.  If he sticks to 2023, that would be on schedule for Love sitting three years like Rodgers did before becoming the starter.  I would think, if Love shows what the Packers want, that Rodgers will be moving on after 2023 if he wants to keep playing.

@CUPackFan posted:

I get Rodgers frustration.  Most of us thought they should have drafted a WR in the first three rounds because the current WRs on the roster just aren't good enough.  And we all thought they passed on making a splash in free agency because the draft was deep at WR.  So obviously there was confusion and disappointment.  

But that has nothing to do with picking Love.  This may have been a year early but Rodgers is 36 and the end is coming.  What Brady and Brees are doing is skewing the fans' and media's view of how long a QB can play.  Obviously with it being so recent Rodgers gets lumped in with those two but what about P Manning, Rivers and Roethlisberger?  Manning was awful his last year and a half - people forget it was a minor controversy in benching Osweiler that last game before the playoffs.  Rivers was pretty bad this year and Ben has been a shell of himself, being out all last year hurt (which happens as you get older.....trust me).  Rodgers relies heavily on his athleticism and gets hit a lot, which does not bode well for longevity.  So while I would have preferred a QB be picked next year, this was coming.  You have a young GM and young HC.  Not a shock that they want a young QB to build some long term success.  Whether that happens.........

My issue was more the second and third round picks.  I get how Dillon will be used but I just don't like the idea of a 250 lb RB.  Other than Henry, RBs that big have not seen real sustained success in decades.  Derrick Henry also won the Heisman, so could be that he's more of an outlier than the rule.  And even worse, Dillon had 845 carries in college.  845 carries!!!  That's a lot of wear for a guy that hasn't suited up in the NFL yet.  

And Deguara......what can you say.  You used a 3rd round pick on a freaking fullback.  Browns traded a 7th rounder to the Broncos for Andy Janovich this offseason.  That's what good fullbacks are worth.  They are not worth third rounders.  Even if he becomes a pro bowl fullback, it's still not worth a third round pick.  

This is probably overly dramatic but this is the kind of draft that gets a GM fired.  It's one thing to have your players turn out poorly when they're taken at a relative "consensus" value by the majority of the league.  It's another for them to turn out poorly when EVERYONE IS TELLING YOU THEY SUCK AS THE DRAFT IS HAPPENING!!!  That's what happened this year.  I really hope Gute is the smartest guy in the room because I have not found anyone that views this draft as anything but a disaster.  

THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!

@Boris posted:

Trade Rodgers to the Patriots. 

It will be awesome!

Trade him to Cincinnati and let Burrow develop.

I hope Love doesn't come in and call Rodgers "Old Man".

@Grave Digger posted:

Yeah they have 2 more years before it’s manageable to do anything with Rodgers. He could retire unless they trade him, but he’s no dummy and he saw how poorly Favre handled things. Rodgers just wants another SB win, just like Manning. 

Too bad he's not going to get it with this team.

@Music City posted:

If they got 3 or 4 of these day 2/3 picks right, they’re a better offensive football team. 

I don't know, maybe you threw this out there without really thinking about it, but getting "3 or 4" of the picks from rounds 2-7 to be "right" is exceedingly rare. The last time that Green Bay got even 3 of these picks right and produced legit contributors in one year was probably 2008, when they got Nelson, Finley, and Sitton. I went back to 1980 and I don't a single draft where they found 4 legit players that are significant contributors drafted in rounds 2-7.

Seeing even 2 players worth a damn from rounds 2-7 is about a 50/50 proposition.  In the last 10 years before 2020, I'd say it's:

2017 - King and Jones

2014 - Adams and Linsley

2013 - Bakhtiari and Hyde (And that's being generous)

2012 - Heyward and Daniels

2010 - I mean if we're being super super generous, maybe Starks and Burnett?

I hope we get 3 or 4 of those picks right, but the odds are overwhelmingly against that. Getting even 2 guys right would be a success. Unfortunately, there is zero chance that it helps a massive hole at WR, and the likelihood that ILB was addressed is probably for all intents and purposes zero, because even if this guy is as good as Martinez, well... That doesn't fix anything...

Love also has to prove he can actually play in the NFL.

I think Dillon is going to help.  GB might get lucky with one of the OL being serviceable.  Outside of that, this draft produced absolutely nothing to help this team in the next year or two.  Not a fucking thing.  

I'm so disgusted I haven't even bothered to listen to any of Gute's pressers.  I have no interest in listening to that dumbfuck trying to sugarcoat what appears to be the worst draft I've witnessed in decades.  

Straight trash. 

OK. Here we go...

Packers Sign Antonio Brown and Gute personally drives to the homes of all his doubters, starting with me, and just falcon punches us in to next week. 

BOOM

@Timpranillo posted:

I don't know, maybe you threw this out there without really thinking about it, but getting "3 or 4" of the picks from rounds 2-7 to be "right" is exceedingly rare. The last time that Green Bay got even 3 of these picks right and produced legit contributors in one year was probably 2008, when they got Nelson, Finley, and Sitton. I went back to 1980 and I don't a single draft where they found 4 legit players that are significant contributors drafted in rounds 2-7.

 

We need to establish how we view a successful pick. Is it successful if they start a bunch of games? Pro bowl? Where they were drafted in comparison with games or production? 

But going through the drafts of years past is time consuming, and the subjectivity of a player “panning out” makes it hard to quantify. Yet I think your point is fair, so let’s just go with your view that at max 2 players actually become good players. 

So if this is the historical view of the draft, why is everyone so up in arms about this one? 

Because they didn't address the gaping obvious holes with anyone before round 5 (IF AT ALL!) and in the early rounds they took guys that play the same positions as GB 2 best players. 

Synopsis:  Last year the run game was pretty damn good, the best part of the offense while the passing game REALLY struggled.  The defense gets gashed in the run game pretty regularly. 

The logical answer is bolster the run game.

@ChilliJon posted:

From TJ Lang:

It’s a new era in GB. They want to RUN the ball with a lot of PA passes. Doesn’t take anything away from 12... if anything, makes him more dangerous.

Its as simple as this. 

Perhaps they should have drafted some offensive lineman then and not moved up to take a QB?   I don’t know, just spit ballin’.  

@Pakrz posted:

I think Dillon is going to help.  GB might get lucky with one of the OL being serviceable.  Outside of that, this draft produced absolutely nothing to help this team in the next year or two.  Not a fucking thing.  

I'm so disgusted I haven't even bothered to listen to any of Gute's pressers.  I have no interest in listening to that dumbfuck trying to sugarcoat what appears to be the worst draft I've witnessed in decades.  

Straight trash. 

Fuckin A right.  

But what if the best players didn’t align with their needs? Being overly locked in on need is contrary to what just about everyone agrees is the right draft philosophy- BPA early- address needs later. Now maybe that’s also a moot point- the Packers drafting a QB certainly looks like a need pick from an organizational standpoint- i.e., they needed to get someone in the pipeline while they see Rodgers closing in on retirement. That does complicate the view of BPA in the context of this draft. 

Lets look at it another way- over the last 6 years (before this year), how many picks were used on OL? Answer: 6- Jenkins (2, 2019), Madison (5, 2018), Amichia (6, 2017, Spriggs (2, 2016), Murphy (6, 2016), Lindsley (5, 2014). During that time, the Packers picked 25 players for the defense out of 53 total picks, including all of their available first rounders (6) and 7 of the available 2/3rd rounders (13). 

So really, when you’re looking at your expected success ratio of picks, the Packers selecting so few OL the last 6 years is very problematic. They made one tough decision this off season with Bulaga- they have another next season with Bakhtiari. They now have 3 new guys and hope they can get 2 out of them. Maybe with everyone going after the WR talent in this draft pushed good OL down. 

 Ultimately it’s clear- the pundits thought the draft was supposed to be this, and obviously Gutekunst thought it was that. It’s also clear that the WR position quickly eroded as a priority to the man on the trigger as the draft unfolded. It’s also clear that the front office is changing the offensive philosophy to a power run game and fortifying the OL and components of the run game to meet that (by adding a power back to complement the star in Jones. 

We’ll know soon enough if they were right. I just think calling this draft a catastrophe right now ignores a lot of these rational observations.  

@Henry posted:

Synopsis:  Last year the run game was pretty damn good, the best part of the offense while the passing game REALLY struggled.  The defense gets gashed in the run game pretty regularly. 

The logical answer is bolster the run game.

So what is “pretty damn good”? Is 15th in YPG “pretty damn good”? 14th in YPA? 

I get that the Chiefs and Patriots were much worse than the Packers running the ball as playoff teams, but 7 of the top 10 teams running the ball were playoff teams. The 49ers and Titans are running the offense the Packers are trying to run, and they were #2 and #3 respectively.

When trying to understand what’s going on in Green Bay, that’s probably a better place to start. The Packers did not run the ball anything close to what these teams did. It’s clear the Packers front office wishes to close that gap. 

@Music City posted:

 

So what is “pretty damn good”? Is 15th in YPG “pretty damn good”? 14th in YPA? 

Neither of those statistics are really meaningful at saying who is better at rushing the ball as things like DVOA which take much more context into account than simple raw numbers. Leading the league in passing Y/G might be meaningful and indicate the best passing offense in the NFL. It also may (and in many cases does) mean that the team sucks on defense and has to pass the ball all game because they are consistently behind. 

Tampa Bay was the "best" passing team as they lead the league in YPG. Tampa Bay was 18th in Passing Efficiency. 

Using better stats shows the more realistic picture, and using DVOA, in Run Efficiency, Green Bay finished 4th in the league, behind only Baltimore, Arizona, and Dallas.

So, yes. Green Bay was "pretty damn good" at running the ball. 

I get that the Chiefs and Patriots were much worse than the Packers running the ball as playoff teams, but 7 of the top 10 teams running the ball were playoff teams.

In DVOA 5 of the top 10 teams running the ball were playoff teams, whereas 7 of the top 10 in passing made the playoffs.  

The 49ers and Titans are running the offense the Packers are trying to run, and they were #2 and #3 respectively.

In DVOA Rushing Efficiency SF was 12th, Ten 5th. Again, Green Bay 4th.

When trying to understand what’s going on in Green Bay, that’s probably a better place to start. The Packers did not run the ball anything close to what these teams did.

And an even better place to start is looking at better statistics than Y/G, and use things like DVOA instead. 

And the Packers did run the ball very close to Ten who was one spot behind Green Bay. But, SF was pretty far back from GB at 12th. 

It’s clear the Packers front office wishes to close that gap. 

As Henry was alluding to, there's not really a gap here between GB and teams like SF or Ten in terms of rushing the ball. GB was better than SF last year by a decent margin, and just ahead of Ten.

And, maybe the focus should have been on closing the gap in the passing game where GB finished 11th, SF 8th, Ten 6th. 

Or maybe the focus should have been on defense where there was a massive gap where SF finished 2nd and GB finished 15th.  

So why trade up to draft a QB then?

Long ass posts that get quoted. Brilliant!!!!!!!

@BrainDed posted:

Fuckin A right.   

Did any of youse WI peeps grow up saying "Fuckin A Do" ?

@Timpranillo posted:

 

The production simply wasn’t up to par by comparison. That can’t simply be thrown out in favor of only DVOA as a measuring stick. DVOA measures their effectiveness by situation when they ran did run the ball. If the Packers were that good at running the ball, they’d have been better on 3rd down than they were. They'd have chosen to do it more. They’d have demonstrated more production. 

7 other playoff teams were more successful running the ball, did it more times, and the two teams that run the system they’re trying to run were both well ahead of them in production. ANd you’re right- both those teams (SF and TN) had better passing DVOA than Green Bay. Jimmy Garapolo and Ryan Tannehill with WRs most folks probably couldn’t name were more successful than Aaron Rodgers was throwing the ball. It ain’t because they’re better QBs. I contend there’s a correlation between rushing production and the threat that represents schematically and passing success in the style and way the team wants to play offense. Not exactly going out on the limb there, regardless of what the DVOA indicates. 

Its simply clear what they want to do. Right or wrong, the organization has committed their off season to improving their ability to run the ball. 

So, how do we stop the run?  Why did we move up four spots to grab a QB, who, most likely, would have been there at 30, and then we would not have lost our 4th Round pick by staying put. I've heard people say Gute was giving MLF what he wanted. Maybe we need to look at MLF, a little bit more?

It sounds like there are stories out there indicating GB jumped ahead of a team or two to take Love in R1.

@Boris posted a link a day or two ago outlining the circumstances.