OldSchoolSnapper

He didn't say they had Rodgers ranked 20th, which is what you seem to be implying and is quite a huge distinction to point out. The rest of that quote is a sort of a nothingburger. It's the Draft. Of course there was a chance they'd field trade calls. There is some measure of luck involved in any successful Draft pick. As far as this: "That hardly suggests they entered the drafting thinking Rodgers was there guy and they weren't leaving without him." I never said it. But they really loved him and picked him with Favre on the roster. A lot of other teams didn't.

I think this is a bit of revisionist history...Rodgers was highly debated as the top overall pick in the draft coming out so I'm sure plenty of people told Thompson he had to go see the guy. Packers were picking at 24 and Favre was already doing the retirement song and dance so when the potential top pick falls that far, and is a QB, I'm sure plenty of scouts were lobbying for them to take a swing. I haven't heard anybody say before that the Packers went into the draft 1.) targeting Rodgers and 2.) thinking they had a legit shot at him sitting at 24. It's not revisionist history at all. In fact, the idea that the #1 pick that year was some big debate is more folklore than fact. The vast majority of teams had soured on Rodgers leading up to the draft. There was no debate as to who would be picked #1 for quite some time before the draft. The media sold that, but it was not the case. And that should be apparent based on how far he fell. Once SF didn't take him, there was a very limited number of logical landing spots between 1 and 24. Rodgers contemplated not even coming to the green room at all. Here is an excerpt from Gil Brandt: "I was piecing every bit of information together that I could, and if teams were being honest with me -- and they always had been -- I knew the first 23 picks, and none of them included Rodgers. Pick No. 24 was held by the Packers, who, of course, had Brett Favre on their roster." "My job as a recruiter was to call teams and find out who they were going to select in the first round ... They trusted me to keep the information confidential, and I did. It allowed me to do my job of getting the top players to New York for a week of draft festivities ... 10 days out from the beginning of draft week, I got a commitment from Smith, who I had learned was San Francisco's target with the top overall pick. That information was leaking out everywhere. I knew it, Smith knew it and so did Rodgers, who was non-committal in accepting his invitation." The Packers not thinking they had a shot to get him is probably fair. But they absolutely targeted him and I don't know how they weren't targeting a guy they picked? "One day, weeks before the draft, Cortez called Rossley and begged him to come and watch Rodgers throw. “You need to see this guy,” he said. Rossley hadn’t planned on scouting Rodgers, because he was certain he wouldn’t be available for the Packers. But, out of friendship, he made the trip. “He worked out for an hour, and every ball he threw was caught,” Rossley said. “I watched [former Ravens quarterback] Kyle Boller’s Cal workout, and he got on his knees at the 50 and threw one over the goalpost. It was amazing—and Aaron’s workout eclipsed that. I told Ted, 'This guy Rodgers is special.'” “About three or four days before the draft,” he said, “I was convinced that the best thing to do, if he got to us, was draft Aaron Rodgers.” The Packers really were the first team on the board that LOVED Rodgers.

He is likely getting paid league minimum or close to it. He is 29. He has likely one good contract left, if that, at this point. If he lights the world on fire, someone will pay him a lot this offseason. Returning punts and getting hurt in 2 weeks is probably not what he wants to do. Thus "prove it" deal.

I doubt that a guy on a 2-month prove-it deal is going to jump at the chance to return punts.

I think the Packers had a much bigger "love" affair with Rodgers than Love. I think they clearly went into that draft targeting Rodgers and had intel he would fall. I think there were several guys they thought they'd get two years ago none were there. This is a lot of conjecture obviously, but Love seemed much more like a 5th or 6th choice on the board and it just happened to get there based on the articles I've read since then. I also feel that was one of the reasons Rodgers was never approached about the possibility. They didn't think it was going to happen so it was best to avoid the topic altogether. While I'm sure they do big time work on anyone they draft, there are a lot of stories now about how Rodgers was scouted. Someone telling Thompson he "had to come see this guy" at a workout, and one of the head scouts in particularly lobbying so hard he told Thompson he'd regret it forever if they didn't pick him.

Rodgers brought the spotlight on himself with his answer to the vaccine question in August. The whole story is much smaller without him doing that. If he'd said no, I'm getting the vaccine, it's just not a big deal. The news would still play the "he put himself before the team" angle, but without the lie there is no drama to the story. Anyone who lied was probably going to be a major story, it's just that nobody is asking Lazard if he's vaccinated.

The NFL is fully aware of its fan base so taking a super hard-line stance would probably be bad for business. I have to believe they know that and handled this as such. The NBA fanbase for example is a completely different one.

Does it actually do this? The reaction of State Farm is very telling to me. Let it blow over and not pick a side because there are probably just as many people who hold Rodgers as their new ideological hero. I was at Disney this past weekend just wearing a generic Packers hoodie and I had a few random people shout out "Rodgers is a God" and "No Vaccine!" It's obvious what side most of the media is going to take but I don't think the NFL public is nearly as one-sided. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Rodgers saw an uptick in jersey sales.

That is because the team picking them almost always sucks, though. And someone usually need the guy to play well to avoid being fired. No, its because teams need to make a decision after year 3. And that "decision" is usually something like Nick Foles or Trevor Lawrence. So yeah...it is at least partially because they suck. They are typically not picking between a draft pick and the MVP.

That is because the team picking them almost always sucks, though. And someone usually need the guy to play well to avoid being fired.

Another option would be what we did for a really long time, which is the team/players/doctors deciding who can and can't play based on how they feel ... otherwise we can probably adjust to Covid inactives as a permanent thing. So are you saying that if they test positive, but feel fine, they should be allowed to play? No judgment on who should be allowed to do what, but if that's not what we do, the reality is that Covid testing is a new permanent thing in the NFL/sports. It's not like it will be eradicated from the population any time soon. And if we stick with this, I'm not exactly clear on why someone with flu-like symptoms who tests negative should be allowed to play either. Now as for my opinion...the nonstop testing and "lists" were necessary evils pre-vaccine and with limited knowledge. But we have a vaccine, and we have a lot more knowledge. So is this a permanent thing now or what?

Another option would be what we did for a really long time, which is the team/players/doctors deciding who can and can't play based on how they feel ... otherwise we can probably adjust to Covid inactives as a permanent thing.

Rison didn't make a huge impact because Antonio Freeman came back. He was a fill-in against St. Louis in a game the Packers badly needed to win (and were trailing at half) that year to get off a 2-game skid during a rash of injuries. Plus it is a bit jumpy to say "other than a huge play in the championship game" a guy didn't do a whole lot, esp. for mid-year WW fodder. That said they aren't really the same kind of acquisition for the reasons you stated. If he clears waivers I would still 100% sign him.

Or it just means nobody wants to give up assets midyear for a malcontent that they think is likely to be cut so he can play where he wants to play. It doesn't really help New Orleans or something if he doesn't want to play there. He may just want to pile-on in Tampa or something. I'd take him in a heartbeat though. We take flyers (fliers?) on far less talented players. He's not going to be expensive, so just do it.

I am clearly in the minority here that doesn't really care who calls games as long as it isn't someone Jerry Glanville-esque that's so obnoxious they detract from the game. But then again I'm rarely sitting down and intently viewing all 9 innings.

Love isn't doomed because Rodgers isn't declining. Rodgers is a mortal that ages and at some point somebody else is playing QB. I'd personally much prefer to move on to that guy with a plan, even if it fails. There's nothing worse than starting so retread vet when that time comes because there's literally nothing to cheer for. I think it's fair to say they probably jumped the gun a couple years early but hindsight is 20/20. There was reason to think Rodgers might be slipping, and there's also the possibility they knew the relationship had soured a bit and a move was likely. Either way I'm ok with either outcome. If they mend fences and trade Love, that's fine. If Rodgers is somewhere else next year I'm not ready to give up on Love yet. The "Love ain't it" post on the heels of one game is absurd.

Anyone enlighten me on 'Petals'?

Rodgers looked every part of Draft bust in the first few looks we had. Anyone sugar-coating that is not being honest. His mechanics were downright awful when he first started playing. There's footage somewhere of him looking at his early film in the NFL and recoiling and that he can't believe it's him. But the talent in his arm was always there.

There's some fair bitterness between fans and the team over not winning more titles with Rodgers. Just like there was with Favre. That they could have used a pick on a player to help the QB is definitely a factor in how the fans feel about the guy whether some of them admit or not. Given Rodgers's sensibility it is actually kind of surprising he was able to move past that and not go play for the Bears the first chance he had.

Rodgers looked horrible early on and there were tons of people bemoaning the wasted pick etc., especially when he had that foot injury. I wish there was just some acknowledgment as to the randomness of draft picks. It's not really some kind of master prediction to guess a guy is going to suck when most of them basically do suck.

There's a bit of hyper-analyzing every little misfire Love made going on. Rodgers, or any QB, throws their share of passes that DBs drop or WRs wrestle away or make great plays on. I've seen a few of the balls from yesterday and it certainly happened, but it happens in sports, to everybody. It definitely feels like some folks are stretching everywhere they can to rag on the guy. And it's not really necessary to do. He didn't look good.

Maybe after ARod comes back they should see if Love could hold on FGs. I would think its pretty low injury risk and would allow having some tricks in the bag for fakes. That's not going to happen. The ST unit works together throughout most of practice and they're not going to have the backup QB/potential heir use hours a day to hold FGs.

I've only seen the highlights. But it is a little odd to me given the situation that Dillon/Jones combined for 20 carries and averaged nearly 5 ypc. If there was a game to run them 50 times it sure seems like that was the one.

It bugs me a little bit that everyone is acting like if Rodgers has been vaccinated there's no way he'd miss a game. Packers could have, arguably should have won yesterday without him. As far as the bye goes, I file that under "nice to have." But the Packers can beat any of these teams and I've seen them blow "HFA" enough that I'm not too worked up about where the chips fall.

I'd even say elevated concern next week (if applicable) is reasonable. This had the makings of a 38-3 loss based on how the week went. Love just does not have the vision or pre-snap ability you need yet. It may never come but he needs a fair shot.