Game 5: Packers @ Raiders - Monday, October 9th 7:15 PM

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I would agree. My biggest concern with Love so far is the accuracy down field. 

The picks are whatever. They're doing so little offensively it's natural to start forcing dumb throws to make something happen. They are constantly leaving guys in to chip pass rushers and the roster is just so raw all over the place. 

But he isn't hitting some deep throws where the play is there. And sometimes he is way off the mark. 

Personally I don't really care that he waited 3 years nor will I hold that against him as though he should be better. To get better you need to play real games. 

 

[homer]

I think Love is in a tough spot. He's got a 1st or 2nd year receiver at virtually every spot except RB and he has a very suspect offensive line. kind of hard to learn and improve with all that going on. I hope Jones can get back after the bye because he's a veteran and they can use him in a lot of different ways to help alleviate pressure. 

[adambr2]

12 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I would agree. My biggest concern with Love so far is the accuracy down field. 

The picks are whatever. They're doing so little offensively it's natural to start forcing dumb throws to make something happen. They are constantly leaving guys in to chip pass rushers and the roster is just so raw all over the place. 

But he isn't hitting some deep throws where the play is there. And sometimes he is way off the mark. 

Personally I don't really care that he waited 3 years nor will I hold that against him as though he should be better. To get better you need to play real games. 

 

Then don't groom a guy for 3 years to be your next starting QB. It's an enormous waste of money because the biggest savings in the NFL is having a starting QB on a rookie contract. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

7 hours ago, adambr2 said:

Then don't groom a guy for 3 years to be your next starting QB. It's an enormous waste of money because the biggest savings in the NFL is having a starting QB on a rookie contract. 

It is not like they knew it would be 3 years. Rodgers was looking washed at the time of the pick. Considering they absolutely should have at least been in the Super Bowl one of those years, and arguably twice, despite drafting Love, it's hard for me to believe it was really that big of a deal in the end. 

[adambr2]

1 hour ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

It is not like they knew it would be 3 years. Rodgers was looking washed at the time of the pick. Considering they absolutely should have at least been in the Super Bowl one of those years, and arguably twice, despite drafting Love, it's hard for me to believe it was really that big of a deal in the end. 

Maybe not 3 but the scouting report/consensus on Love when he was picked is that he was an incredibly raw project who would require multiple seasons of development before he would be ready to start. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Don't mean this personally but more of a general comment. Every Packers fan, for their own mental health, needs to move on past the fact that we drafted him and he sat 3 years. It's over, and we are here now. Personally I don't think it's fair to him, he had literally no control over when he was going to play. He is in a really tough spot right now. Would he be farther along if he played in 2021, yes probably, and the team would have been better. In a perfect world, knowing we don't win the Super Bowl, we trade Rodgers after the first MVP.

But right now we have a roster full of guys that couldn't get into a bar 1-2 years ago. It was likely to be ugly this season. He's got to get at least a year to sift through this. You just can't do that on the bench and in practice. If we are obsessed that he looks worse than Rodgers did, we may in for a long 60 years.

[bjkrautk]

10 hours ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

I guess I question how a 6'4" receiver that's watching that ball the whole time it's in the air isn't able to make a better play on that.  That turned what should've been a jump ball/potential defensive PI situation into an INT because he just kept running.  Guaranteed that's not how a guy like Mike Evans would've finished that route.  Still not a great throw but one that Watson could've done alot more with.  The series prior on the 3rd down where Watson was running deep, the throw wasn't perfectly in stride but it also didn't look like Watson made a hard adjustment and drove towards the ball while it was in the air.  Deep threat receivers need to have that ability to "go get it" instead of expecting a perfect toss if they want to be playmakers.  Haven't seen that from Watson at all in his career thus far, and it's disappointing

That throw after two drops by Doubs and Musgrave (ball was behind him a bit) on the downs prior - trying to give his guy an opportunity to make a play I can live with.  

Frustrating loss on another winnable game - both of these teams are in the NFL blob this season.

Quoting this post, because it comes as close to my feelings on the game.  Watson needs to make a play on that ball.  The throw was exactly where it needed to be. The problem is the throw was late, which allowed the DB to catch up, get his hand on Watson and make the play in front of him.  High-point that football, and they at least have a shot at a PI call (not a gimmie, since having a handful of jersey on the prior deep shot to Watson wasn't called).  Maybe going for the ball turns it into an incompletion, and another shot on 4th down.

...and the deep shot on 3rd down was a direct product of catchable balls on 1st and 2nd down being dropped.

 

This team is 1-3 without its best offensive player in Jones, and that lack of a credible run threat is what lead to the defender being in position on the first interception.  (Don't know how the regular MNF looked at it, but the Mannings did a good job of showing the linebacker not biting at all on the play action.)  It also opens up the playbook in the red zone, in a game where scoring an extra TD instead of a FG would have meant only needing 3 on that last drive.

Giving a relative pass to the defense, but if the Raiders had gone for it on 4th and 2 on their last drive, it's the Atlanta game all over again.

[endaround]

34 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Don't mean this personally but more of a general comment. Every Packers fan, for their own mental health, needs to move on past the fact that we drafted him and he sat 3 years. It's over, and we are here now. Personally I don't think it's fair to him, he had literally no control over when he was going to play. He is in a really tough spot right now. Would he be farther along if he played in 2021, yes probably, and the team would have been better. In a perfect world, knowing we don't win the Super Bowl, we trade Rodgers after the first MVP.

But right now we have a roster full of guys that couldn't get into a bar 1-2 years ago. It was likely to be ugly this season. He's got to get at least a year to sift through this. You just can't do that on the bench and in practice. If we are obsessed that he looks worse than Rodgers did, we may in for a long 60 years.

How can anyone get over it when its his defining characteristic?  Its why he is under contract for the next 2 years and then you either have to cut bait or pay even more to keep him around. So far Love seems like a poorman's Mayfield so the Packers are going to be looking for a new QB soon anyway.  But if he turns it around late this season/next season then what? Franchise him to buy more time? Sign him to a Daniel Jones type contract?

[adambr2]

I don't mean to say that it's Love's fault or that he should be better now because of the 3 years. 

I don't blame him. I blame the organization. I think it's bad business. 

Nearly every organization with a competent heir these days gets them out onto the field and takes their lumps with them from the get-go. Yes, sometimes it can take a year or two, they'll often struggle at first, and that often depends a lot on whether they have the right pieces around them to succeed. Brock Purdy looks special, but put him on the Chicago Bears and I bet he looks a lot less special. 

I can see sitting behind a starter for 1 year, like Patrick Mahomes, then taking over, if it's the right situation. But for the most part, teams don't have rookies wait anymore. They throw them into the fire, and that's fine. They're not going to grow better not playing than playing, and meanwhile we sit here and bemoan the price tag of veteran QBs, while we could literally control that ourselves by taking a cue from other teams on how they handle young QBs and not making every Packer under 25 wear little kid gloves for their first few years in the league. 

It's an organizational inefficiency, IMO, and it's not *just* the QB holding a clipboard concept. They still clearly don't even trust Jordan right now. The man is in his 4th year and they're not willing to let him sling it. Anders Carlson was pulled off the field in Week 2 for what could have ended up being a difference making 56 yard FG after a delay of game penalty because "it was too far." It's all of that. 

Not to get too far off topic with that last point. But yeah, my main point is, you're wasting a young QBs time and wasting your own money by having them sit for years. And I get that Aaron's performance changed things in 2020 and 2021. But, they always knew he was nearing the end no matter what. They always took Jordan to be their guy, and when you have a long-term plan, you have to follow through on it. They had a shot after 2021 to send Aaron to Denver for a haul and set Jordan and the defense up with all of the pieces they would need to be successful for years to come. Love would now be in his 2nd season starting, be that much further along in his development and have some much stronger foundational pieces in place. Gute didn't pull the trigger, and now we ended up not even getting a single 1st.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

13 minutes ago, endaround said:

How can anyone get over it when its his defining characteristic?  Its why he is under contract for the next 2 years and then you either have to cut bait or pay even more to keep him around. So far Love seems like a poorman's Mayfield so the Packers are going to be looking for a new QB soon anyway.  But if he turns it around late this season/next season then what? Franchise him to buy more time? Sign him to a Daniel Jones type contract?

Honestly, I wonder sometimes how any of this is enjoyable for some of the fans. It just seems like you guys are always stressed out and miserable about stuff like cap dynamics 2 years from now. Who cares? I mean I just listened to everyone tell me for a year that Dame in MKE was an impossibility.

Just accept this is a new dawn and they are going to suck. Take some joy in Love having a good week or hitting a nice throw. This is likely to be a long and painful journey. Dwelling on who we should have traded 2 years ago is just going to make you miserable. 

[Fear The Chorizo]

After his first five games as the Packers' starting QB in 2008, Rodgers led the Packers to a 2-3 record, and here was his stat line.

 9 TD, 4 INT, sacked 11 times, completion percentage 63%. 1,274 yards passing.

The Packers would go on to a 6-10 season record that year and Rodgers had multiple games where he didn't look like he belonged on an NFL field, too - but there was enough flashes of really good to justify an initial contract extension after he sat for 3 seasons that wound up being a huge bargain for the organization.  Rodgers didn't take that leap to being a potential stud quarterback until year 2 as a starter (5th year in the league)

Jordan Love after his 1st 5 starts this season (2-3 record also, coincidentally):

8 TD, 6INT, sacked 10 times, completion percentage 56%,  1,083 yards passing....by all accounts his numbers are a tick below Rodgers at a similar spot in their development, but I'm not expecting Love to be a HOF quarterback just because it's who the Packers have had a that position for the last 30+ seasons.  I also think the current Packers' offense is much more raw from a skill position standpoint than what Rodgers had to work with in 2008.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Rodgers never really lit anything on fire until his 4th year as a starter TBH. The playoffs of his 2nd year more accurately with the 45-pt game. Their offense looked really bad during parts of 2010, but that season's playoffs he really started making a name. He wasn't getting major praise until 2011. He was sort of viewed as pretty good but not great. 

The divisional game in Atlanta was really the coming out party.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I can see sitting behind a starter for 1 year, like Patrick Mahomes, then taking over, if it's the right situation.

Yes, no matter how the best player in the NFL was handled/managed, it was the right decision - the problem is not every quarterback is going to be Patrick damn Mahomes no matter when they are drafted or how they are developed.  I recall people around the Chiefs' organization new from his rookie minicamps right after the draft that Mahomes was going to be a stud.

Quarterbacks get thrown into the fire right away in today's NFL more often than not because of how their rookie deals are structured - especially if they're 1st round picks.  That doesn't mean it's the right approach, particularly when that quarterback isn't the right one.  Should Daniel Jones be making ~$40M a season to be worse than Love right now in his 5th NFL season?  

Love may not wind up being a longterm option as the Packers' starting quarterback, or he may take a jump and turn into a star - but whether he sat for his first few seasons behind a quarterback still winning league MVPs or instead started playing every Sunday last season won't determine that outcome.  Despite all the expensive contracts being handed out to quarterbacks, and 1st round QB draft picks playing right away all over the league, Patrick Mahomes (2017 1st round pick) is the only quarterback to win a Super Bowl drafted in the 1st round since 2009 (Stafford won a title with the Rams in 2021 and was 1st overall pick that draft year ~15 seasons ago).

Love's current contract gives the Packers time to let him play and make a decision on whether he's deserving of that initial longterm extension, or if they need to bring in someone new as part of a complete roster and front office overhaul.  

[CheezWizHed]

39 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

Quarterbacks get thrown into the fire right away in today's NFL more often than not because of how their rookie deals are structured - especially if they're 1st round picks.  That doesn't mean it's the right approach, particularly when that quarterback isn't the right one.  Should Daniel Jones be making ~$40M a season to be worse than Love right now in his 5th NFL season?  

I've seen this a couple times in this thread and disagree. 

I think people have forgotten the rookie QB deals of the past before the rookie slotted cap... QBs were signing HUGE deals right out of college; especially if you were a top 10 pick.  Teams were forced to play them right away.

Just the fact that Love, Mahomes, and Rodgers (perhaps other first round picks too) have the chance to sit for at least the first year shows that QBs are forced to start less than they used to.  When the Packer drafted Rodgers and sat him, it was literally unheard of. 

What evidence is there that QBs are forced to start more now days?

[Fear The Chorizo]

2 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Rodgers never really lit anything on fire until his 3rd year as a starter TBH. The playoffs of his 2nd year more accurately, with the NFCCG itself being a real clunker. Their offense looked really bad during parts of 2010. He wasn't getting major praise until 2011. 

I don't remember that quite the same - Rodgers had 30 TD, 7 INT in 2009 and they were 3rd in the NFL in points scored/game...he still took a ton of sacks but that was the year they won 11 or so games and lost their wild card game in AZ.  After that season, many prognosticators picked the Packers to win the Super Bowl the next year in large part due to his development and the Packers' offense.

2010 they had an uneven offensive year because they suffered a ton of injuries during the regular season and Rodgers also missed a game with a concussion...and then they won the Super Bowl that postseason as the 6th seed.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

3 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

I don't remember that quite the same - Rodgers had 30 TD, 7 INT in 2009 and they were 3rd in the NFL in points scored/game...he still took a ton of sacks but that was the year they won 11 or so games and lost their wild card game in AZ.  After that season, many prognosticators picked the Packers to win the Super Bowl the next year in large part due to his development and the Packers' offense.

2010 they had an uneven offensive year because they suffered a ton of injuries during the regular season and Rodgers also missed a game with a concussion...and then they won the Super Bowl that postseason as the 6th seed.

When they beat the Eagles (barely) in the WC game, the first question Rodgers was asked was "How does it feel to have the postseason monkey off your back?" This was his 3rd year as a starter, and second-ever playoff game after a loss in which he scored 6 touchdowns. They have always been running these stupid narratives. 

10 guys threw for 4,000 yards that year, Kyle Orton throwing for 3,800. I'm not saying people thought Rodgers sucked, just that he wasn't yet this almighty Lord. He was seen as pretty good. I don't think he was even selected to the Pro Bowl the year they won the Super Bowl. 

[CheezWizHed]

Love has a lot of positive qualities - poise in the pocket, strong arm, good speed. 

But his accuracy was always a concern from his college days.  He shows glimpses as to what could be... but just can't get the consistency yet.  Very hot and cold at QB. 

His game time decisions were more of the "unknown" as he simply didn't have a chance.  Obviously, he is diagnosing the defense slowly which leads to late decisions and late throws.  His first pick was a bad defensive read and his last two were the result of late throws.  Every game this season, he has thrown to WRs when they were covered (i.e. late throws) and was lucky to not have INTs then... the table turned last night for him, but he has been making those throws consistently late. 

It will be interesting to see what improvements can be made as the season goes on. Hopefully the game will slow down and he can start making those reads better.  But right now... he is looking a lot like an early Justin Fields. 

[CheezWizHed]

11 hours ago, adambr2 said:

Then don't groom a guy for 3 years to be your next starting QB. It's an enormous waste of money because the biggest savings in the NFL is having a starting QB on a rookie contract. 

But rarely do teams win a SB with a QB on a rookie contract.  I think since 2000 it came down to Mahomes and Brady (maybe one more that I'm forgetting).  So like 3-4 SBs in 23 years.  It makes logical sense (having a cheap QB), but it rarely happens. 

[Fear The Chorizo]

What evidence is there that QBs are forced to start more now days?

I guess it's tough to draw any direct relations, but in looking across the league, I count 28 current starting quarterbacks who either were the starter from game 1 of their rookie year or at least became the starter at some point their rookie year - and that doesn't include the Chiefs (Mahomes), Packers (Love), Vikings (Cousins, despite the fact he did play as a rookie after RGIII got injured), and Raiders (Jimmy G).  Had Rodgers not gotten injured the Jets would be a 5th team, but Zack Wilson is now their starter.

[Fear The Chorizo]

12 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

When they beat the Eagles (barely) in the WC game, the first question Rodgers was asked was "How does it feel to have the postseason monkey off your back?" This was his 3rd year as a starter, and second-ever playoff game after a loss in which he scored 6 touchdowns. They have always been running these stupid narratives. 

10 guys threw for 4,000 yards that year, Kyle Orton throwing for 3,800. I'm not saying people thought Rodgers sucked, just that he wasn't yet this almighty Lord. He was seen as pretty good. I don't think he was even selected to the Pro Bowl the year they won the Super Bowl. 

Yeah, he became "that dude" with his performance in ATL right after that road WC win in Philly.

not lost on me that 2010 was by far the best defense the Packers ever had with Rodgers, and that side of the ball did as much heavy lifting for playoff wins as their offense did to win a title.

[CheezWizHed]

14 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

What evidence is there that QBs are forced to start more now days?

I guess it's tough to draw any direct relations, but in looking across the league, I count 28 current starting quarterbacks who either were the starter from game 1 of their rookie year or at least became the starter at some point their rookie year - and that doesn't include the Chiefs (Mahomes), Packers (Love), Vikings (Cousins, despite the fact he did play as a rookie after RGIII got injured), and Raiders (Jimmy G).  Had Rodgers not gotten injured the Jets would be a 5th team, but Zack Wilson is now their starter.

But how is that different than the past? I'd say none frankly.  If you draft a 1st round QB, there is huge pressure to start him. The slotted rookie salary cap actually reduced that pressure, but fans still scream to start the next guy if the current guy falters. 

[adambr2]

29 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

But how is that different than the past? I'd say none frankly.  If you draft a 1st round QB, there is huge pressure to start him. The slotted rookie salary cap actually reduced that pressure, but fans still scream to start the next guy if the current guy falters. 

I don't think anyone claimed it's moreso than the past. My claim is that it makes MORE sense to have them starting early now, because you're benefitting from a cheap rookie QB contract and can invest heavily in the rest of the team, and by waiting on them, you're wasting that advantage. 

And while it may be true that QBs haven't won a SB on a rookie contract much since 2000, I'd counter with a few points:

How much of that is purely circumstantial, rather than any indicator of it being a bad strategy? What about all the ones that went there but didn't happen to win? Hurts, Colin K, Russ one time, etc. How much of that is misleading because of Tom Brady constantly being in it? And what about teams that might not have won it but their development during those rookie contract QB years eventually resulted in one?

 

[adambr2]

1 hour ago, CheezWizHed said:

But rarely do teams win a SB with a QB on a rookie contract.  I think since 2000 it came down to Mahomes and Brady (maybe one more that I'm forgetting).  So like 3-4 SBs in 23 years.  It makes logical sense (having a cheap QB), but it rarely happens. 

Warner in 2000, Brady in 2002, Roethlisberger in 2005, Wilson in 2014, Mahomes in 2020. Doesn't seem comparatively that rare to me given the long career span of most Super Bowl QBs. And a number of others who were there but didn't win. 

This has been all the while that Mahomes and Brady have virtually had a monopoly on one of them appearing in the SB the last decade. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

31 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

I don't think anyone claimed it's moreso than the past. My claim is that it makes MORE sense to have them starting early now, because you're benefitting from a cheap rookie QB contract and can invest heavily in the rest of the team, and by waiting on them, you're wasting that advantage. 

And while it may be true that QBs haven't won a SB on a rookie contract much since 2000, I'd counter with a few points:

How much of that is purely circumstantial, rather than any indicator of it being a bad strategy? What about all the ones that went there but didn't happen to win? Hurts, Colin K, Russ one time, etc. How much of that is misleading because of Tom Brady constantly being in it? And what about teams that might not have won it but their development during those rookie contract QB years eventually resulted in one?

 

Honestly they also seem to be better right away than they used to be. 

I think they drafted Love with the intention of him starting in 2021. I think they thought Rodgers's decline was going to make that easy enough to do. 

[adambr2]

I think the biggest gripe I have with the QB approach they used is that they never seemed willing to make a decision. 

I get that they drafted Love with the intention of him being the guy, then Rodgers starts playing better, and so they backtrack. The extension for Rodgers was the beginning of the end, to me. If we were going to extend Rodgers, we needed to really, really commit to him, trade Love, and let Rodgers know he's the guy until he retires. 

Or if they really, really wanted to commit to Love, they had a haul waiting for them from Denver, and they'd be so much better off for it now. But Gute was scared, there's no other way to say it, and tried to play the fence.

I don't know what this team is now, what their future is or even what their identity is. I can't name one single thing that Matt LaFleur does particularly well. 

Jordan will probably get one more shot in '24 and then that'll be it, but he has to be better, because it isn't going to be a cheap option. It isn't  inconceivable that if we're picking top 5-10 next year and we feel like we have a shot at Maye or Ewers, we might take a swing.