Packers 2023 Discussion Thread

[yourout]

2 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

Joe Barry -- getting the least out of the most for 15 years. 

It's amazing anyone is dumb enough to give him a DC job.

[yourout]

Who is the team with the yellow helmets?

 

[adambr2]

Offense really looks like it's starting to gel. 

[CheezWizHed]

Game Thread is open now! Great start Pack!

[HarryDoyle]

 

[Outlander]

The second round pick without Rodgers about the same as first round pick with. Was always going to be around and 30, give or take a few. At least Rodgers doesn't have to worry about rushing back. I hope he can come back healthy and have one more good year.

[CheezWizHed]

The Packer's traded draft pick #45 to the Lions who drafted S Brian Branch (who would've helped the Packers too!).  They traded down one more time and turned that one pick into:

#50 Jayden Reed 

#159 Dontayvion Wicks

#179 Karl Brooks

Holy cow is that a huge return!  Sure, it takes good drafting in the 5th and 6th rounds and it's still early... but that looks like a huge steal at this point. 

[SeaBass]

21 hours ago, CheezWizHed said:

The Packer's traded draft pick #45 to the Lions who drafted S Brian Branch (who would've helped the Packers too!).  They traded down one more time and turned that one pick into:

#50 Jayden Reed 

#159 Dontayvion Wicks

#179 Karl Brooks

Holy cow is that a huge return!  Sure, it takes good drafting in the 5th and 6th rounds and it's still early... but that looks like a huge steal at this point. 

Careful, this goes against the narrative that Gutekunst is a terrible GM.

[nate82]

22 hours ago, CheezWizHed said:

#179 Karl Brooks

I had Brooks in a lot of my mocks for the Packers.  It feels good being right about someone even though I am not a Packers fan.  I did have the Packers though taking Branch in the 1st round instead of Van Ness. 

Speaking of Van Ness he doesn't look like he is bulking up at all while Brooks has.  I think that was the knock on both of them that they were not big enough (strength wise) to compete in the NFL.  It looks like Brooks is getting bigger while Van Ness still looks like what he was in college.  I would still expect Van Ness to be the better player long term but it looks like it is going to take Van Ness longer to get to the player he should be maybe in year three. 

Brooks should be a good edge rusher for the Packers.  He won't be an elite edge rusher but someone you can expect 2-4 sacks per year.  Which would put him around average to above average as a pass rusher. 

Reed also looks to be a good slot receiver and maybe a primary receiver.  But I think he profiles better in the slot. 

Wicks I am not familiar with but even at a 2 for 1 that is a really good trade off. 

[LouisEly]

The knock on Brooks was short arms and lack of explosiveness/agility (5.87 RAS), thus why he wasn't invited to the combine.

[yourout]

2 hours ago, nate82 said:

I had Brooks in a lot of my mocks for the Packers.  It feels good being right about someone even though I am not a Packers fan.  I did have the Packers though taking Branch in the 1st round instead of Van Ness. 

Speaking of Van Ness he doesn't look like he is bulking up at all while Brooks has.  I think that was the knock on both of them that they were not big enough (strength wise) to compete in the NFL.  It looks like Brooks is getting bigger while Van Ness still looks like what he was in college.  I would still expect Van Ness to be the better player long term but it looks like it is going to take Van Ness longer to get to the player he should be maybe in year three. 

Brooks should be a good edge rusher for the Packers.  He won't be an elite edge rusher but someone you can expect 2-4 sacks per year.  Which would put him around average to above average as a pass rusher. 

Reed also looks to be a good slot receiver and maybe a primary receiver.  But I think he profiles better in the slot. 

Wicks I am not familiar with but even at a 2 for 1 that is a really good trade off. 

I'm still unhappy they didn't get Branch.

[young guns]

Is/was Douglas just a bad luck charm or jinx this year?

Teams record with him: 3-8

Teams record without him: 8-4

While I feel for him personally, I'm all for that draft pick improving.

[BrewerFan]

3 hours ago, nate82 said:

I had Brooks in a lot of my mocks for the Packers.  It feels good being right about someone even though I am not a Packers fan.  I did have the Packers though taking Branch in the 1st round instead of Van Ness. 

Speaking of Van Ness he doesn't look like he is bulking up at all while Brooks has.  I think that was the knock on both of them that they were not big enough (strength wise) to compete in the NFL.  It looks like Brooks is getting bigger while Van Ness still looks like what he was in college.  I would still expect Van Ness to be the better player long term but it looks like it is going to take Van Ness longer to get to the player he should be maybe in year three. 

Brooks should be a good edge rusher for the Packers.  He won't be an elite edge rusher but someone you can expect 2-4 sacks per year.  Which would put him around average to above average as a pass rusher. 

Reed also looks to be a good slot receiver and maybe a primary receiver.  But I think he profiles better in the slot. 

Wicks I am not familiar with but even at a 2 for 1 that is a really good trade off. 

I don't recall ANY knock on Van Ness being that he wasn't big enough. His nickname was Hercules. He's a BIG physical edge rusher. 

He was compared to Howie Long or Justin Smith. The questions about his size, to the extent there were any, would have been about if he was big enough to play as a 5 tech or DE in a 34 and I really doubt that concern lasted past the combine when he ran a 4.58 with exceptional splits.

The dude has 34 inch arms, he's got monster hands, he's another BIG OLBer. 

The only negative I heard about him was that he didn't start at Iowa despite the fact that he played more than the starters because they start players based on seniority. 

Brooks meanwhile is almost certainly going to stay as an IDL. I don't think he'll ever be an edge rusher given the young players we've already got in place. You may be confusing Wooden and Brooks as Wooden is small for the IDL(which is any DL in a 34). I also think he's got a little more potential in him than 4 sacks given it's his rookie year, he's 11 games in and he's already at 3. Coming out of Bowling Green, I'd imagine he'd have a little more upside remaining than what you see now. 

[CheezWizHed]

20 hours ago, nate82 said:

Wicks I am not familiar with but even at a 2 for 1 that is a really good trade off. 

Wicks isn't the fastest WR, but his route running was strong.  He is 5th on the team currently (Watson just passed him in a game Wicks was out injured) in receiving  despite getting much fewer snaps.  He kind of gives me some Donald Driver vibes - not big, not fast, just gets it done - type of WR. 

20 hours ago, nate82 said:

Speaking of Van Ness he doesn't look like he is bulking up at all while Brooks has.  I think that was the knock on both of them that they were not big enough (strength wise) to compete in the NFL.  It looks like Brooks is getting bigger while Van Ness still looks like what he was in college.  I would still expect Van Ness to be the better player long term but it looks like it is going to take Van Ness longer to get to the player he should be maybe in year three. 

Van Ness' knock was more on technique.  I think there were some Qs about him holding the edge, but that doesn't seem to be an issue.  Maybe if he was a 4-3 DL he would've been small? 

He clearly does need more pass rush moves... kind of eerily similar to Gary in their rookie years.

[DR28]

I see enough of Jordan over the last month.... Gute, pay the man like a franchise QB.

Fellas, I think we've done it again at QB!

[BrewerFan]

52 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

Wicks isn't the fastest WR, but his route running was strong.  He is 5th on the team currently (Watson just passed him in a game Wicks was out injured) in receiving  despite getting much fewer snaps.  He kind of gives me some Donald Driver vibes - not big, not fast, just gets it done - type of WR. 

Driver is fair. I see some Adams type ability in creating separation. Obviously not on that level, but the way he does it. 

Toure was the guy I thought/hoped would be like Driver. Driver was just so incredibly quick(and tough) for a smaller guy. I also don't know if Driver's listed size is accurate. 6' 194? Wicks is 6'1 206? Is this just memory failing me or him not having the combine for an exact number that makes Driver seem smaller than his listed height and weight?

In any event, it looks like the last two classes have produced a LOT of really nice depth on the 3rd day with the potential for a couple of really important franchise mainstays like Tom, Carlson, Doubs, Valentine, and maybe Wicks(it feels like he's proving he's a big piece as much as Doubs or anyone but Reed at this point).

 

59 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

Van Ness' knock was more on technique.  I think there were some Qs about him holding the edge, but that doesn't seem to be an issue.  Maybe if he was a 4-3 DL he would've been small? 

He clearly does need more pass rush moves... kind of eerily similar to Gary in their rookie years.

I think the two biggest things, LVN wasn't flashy. He didn't just come blowing off the edge and lighting guys up like Nolan Smith(though I'd have very little confidence in Smith setting the edge). He was more of a physical player...and everyone wanted JSN. They wanted a WRer, NOT another edge. 

Comparing his size to Bosa or Sweat, just about any of the elite 4-3 edge rushers, he's as big or bigger than them. 

He's an inch shorter and the exact same weight as Myles Garrett. 

He really is just about as close of a prospect as you can get to Gary. In terms of what/how they played in College. Van Ness played more edge, but he also lined up inside. He came in and was obviously a backup. Both were high-effort players who were limited.

I'm not holding my breath that LVN becomes Rashan Gary as that's just an unfair standard to hold anyone to, but a really good, top ~10-15 edge? That seems within reach. Maybe on the higher end given the depth at that position, but opposite Gary? 

[BrewerFan]

1 minute ago, DR28 said:

I see enough of Jordan over the last month.... Gute, pay the man like a franchise QB.

Fellas, I think we've done it again at QB!

Ya think? I'd still give it another year, but he's looked...REALLY good. 

I still want to see him hitting those deep throws more. It took Josh Allen a year+ of playing before he was hitting them, but you can't underthrow Watson. If Watson doesn't make a good play on that ball, we're talking about what a bad throw that was. 

That said, given all the obstacles he's had, it's hard to not be impressed. I don't know what the equivalent of the Rodgers extension would be in modern NFL money and I'm not gonna spend time looking it up, but if it's something like 5/200 with maybe 80M in a SB...ADDED to his existing year, I think I could live with that. 

If you're talking about paying him 50M or so, even if that's what all the young QBs are getting, I'm definitely holding off. 

I do think he's more impressive than Hurts, but Hurts has that dominant OL, he's got a top 10 pick at WRer, AJ Brown, and he's got talented RBs/TEs. 

 

I do love that the Love haters have at least had to shut up for a bit! That's nice...

[CheezWizHed]

I'd hold off on ordering the HOF bust quite yet... 😅

I've tried really hard to be a realist with Love this year.  When he was having bad accuracy issues, I pointed it out when critiquing his play, but refrained from kicking him the curb.  I really wanted him to have the full year before making any judgments (just in case Gute happened to call me up for my opinion... ).  

I was equally effusive of his praise the last 4 weeks.  The turnaround has been stark and I'm pretty confident he is capable of playing better than at least half of the NFL starting QBs.  

But like earlier in the year, let him play out the year or maybe next to really start to see what sort of QB he will be. Maybe this was just a hot streak.  KC will be an interesting challenge next week. 

I'm confident he will be back next year but I'd like a bit more of a sample to see if the last 4 games were the norm or the first 7?  Or something in between? 

[GAME05]

If anything I'm lower on Love than I was at the beginning of the year. How many times has he gotten bailed out by pass interference calls on his missed deep balls? And he's been forcing throws to covered guys more than I thought he would. But I'll be curious and hopeful that in the offseason he can work on things and come back improved. That and an OC better able to assess his skills and design an offense around it.

[LouisEly]

Love is in the perfect spot in that he has looked good enough to warrant an extension but not quite good enough for franchise QB money.  I'd be happy with a 5/$150M extension w/$100M guaranteed, and I think Love would be happy with that too.  That puts him in the Stafford/Carr/Goff range as far as contracts.

[yourout]

4 hours ago, CheezWizHed said:

I'd hold off on ordering the HOF bust quite yet... 😅

I've tried really hard to be a realist with Love this year.  When he was having bad accuracy issues, I pointed it out when critiquing his play, but refrained from kicking him the curb.  I really wanted him to have the full year before making any judgments (just in case Gute happened to call me up for my opinion... ).  

I was equally effusive of his praise the last 4 weeks.  The turnaround has been stark and I'm pretty confident he is capable of playing better than at least half of the NFL starting QBs.  

But like earlier in the year, let him play out the year or maybe next to really start to see what sort of QB he will be. Maybe this was just a hot streak.  KC will be an interesting challenge next week. 

I'm confident he will be back next year but I'd like a bit more of a sample to see if the last 4 games were the norm or the first 7?  Or something in between? 

The rest of the season will be interesting.

[BrewerFan]

4 hours ago, CheezWizHed said:

I'm confident he will be back next year but I'd like a bit more of a sample to see if the last 4 games were the norm or the first 7?  Or something in between? 

It feels like the first 3 games he was really good, then he struggled for 4, then really good again the last 4.

4 hours ago, CheezWizHed said:

But like earlier in the year, let him play out the year or maybe next to really start to see what sort of QB he will be. Maybe this was just a hot streak.  KC will be an interesting challenge next week. 

The KC game will be a HUGE barometer for Love. They play defense the way we SHOULD play. They put 5-6 guys up on the LOS, they get Chris Jones one one-on-one a lot, or overload one side and make the QB get the ball out quickly. They don't have great DBs, but they play the ball and try and knock you off your route. 

Just fits the Packers SO perfectly(when healthy). I'd love to see Spagnuolo as our DC, but since he's not leaving KC, he's as close to Leonhard as I've seen in the NFL. For KC's reputation as being similar to the Packers under Rodgers, ie, a good offensive team, but one that's lacking defensively, they've been top 10 every year under him save for one season. That's hard to do when you're going up and down the field as Mahomes has done much of his career.

4 hours ago, GAME05 said:

If anything I'm lower on Love than I was at the beginning of the year. How many times has he gotten bailed out by pass interference calls on his missed deep balls? And he's been forcing throws to covered guys more than I thought he would. But I'll be curious and hopeful that in the offseason he can work on things and come back improved. That and an OC better able to assess his skills and design an offense around it.

Your expectations may have been a bit out of line. I don't think he's been bailed out all that often, but what he has had to deal with is a porous OL and a receiving corp that has been inconsistent at best. Guys in and out of the lineup, not mature enough to read the coverages. Not faulting them, but he hasn't had seasoned guys like Rodgers did...and yet, through 12 games, he's ahead of Rodgers in TDs, Turnovers, and yards. 

That's certainly not to say you're locked into him or he's PROVEN he's the guy, but he's certainly proven he can be the guy. And I think, particularly the last couple of weeks, we've had outstanding game plans on both sides of the ball(gotta give Barry some credit).

Watson needs a big game this Sunday though. Guys who can make KC pay for sitting in that cover 1. I'm sure they'll be shading over to give help to whoever is on him opening things up for the other guys. This week will be interesting though.

[BrewerFan]

1 hour ago, LouisEly said:

Love is in the perfect spot in that he has looked good enough to warrant an extension but not quite good enough for franchise QB money.  I'd be happy with a 5/$150M extension w/$100M guaranteed, and I think Love would be happy with that too.  That puts him in the Stafford/Carr/Goff range as far as contracts.

Is that an extension, or are we tearing up the final year and giving him 5/150? 

I'm just kinda curious if we're going to push to extend him now or if we wait another year. 5/150 certainly seems like a good deal(all the better if it's on top of the 5th year, but I'd guess you'd void that year). 

[CheezWizHed]

18 hours ago, GAME05 said:

If anything I'm lower on Love than I was at the beginning of the year. How many times has he gotten bailed out by pass interference calls on his missed deep balls? And he's been forcing throws to covered guys more than I thought he would. But I'll be curious and hopeful that in the offseason he can work on things and come back improved. That and an OC better able to assess his skills and design an offense around it.

I railed on Love early in the season for that.  He was often late, constantly throwing to a WR with the CB on his back that was easily knocked down.  But that has decreased drastically recently (I remember it happening 1x last game).  Every QB is going to throw to a covered WR... the best ones "throw them open".  Besides a few underthrown deep passes, Love has made pretty good decisions the last 4 games.

Honestly, I don't recall many PIs in our favor.  There have been a few, but it isn't egregious either.  Pretty obvious calls, IMO. It would be awesome if Love-Watson went full-on Culpepper-Moss... 😂

14 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

It feels like the first 3 games he was really good, then he struggled for 4, then really good again the last 4.

I don't think Love played well the first 3 games.  Maybe the Chicago game... He hit on some big plays, but had a very low completion percentage, was often late on passes, missed easy check-down passes, and (as previously mentioned) threw to covered WRs often.  Maybe we won or he had decent TD/INT numbers, but the underlying view of those games didn't look good, IMO. 

15 hours ago, LouisEly said:

Love is in the perfect spot in that he has looked good enough to warrant an extension but not quite good enough for franchise QB money.  I'd be happy with a 5/$150M extension w/$100M guaranteed, and I think Love would be happy with that too.  That puts him in the Stafford/Carr/Goff range as far as contracts.

Ugh... I was actually hoping for a little lower.  But he is better than Carr or Goff.  But if that is an extension, 6/$172.5M maybe isn't horrid. 

[GAME05]

If Daniel Jones can get $42M and Geno Smith can get $33 for one good season, $30M for Love is a steal.

I wonder if the NFL will ever copy the NBA and institute maximum salaries so that the QB position doesn't suck up all of the cap money.