CheezWizHed

If you actually want production out of him as a WR, yes it does matter.

Awww... I loved Quantum Leap and Al. They brought him into an episode of Enterprise to pair with Scott Bakula (Captain Archer/Sam Beckett on QL) again. He also played a regular bit role in Buck Rodgers TV series. I'm sure many others, but those were the ones I remember off the top of my head.

OBJ is too injury prone for ST. Cobb is also, but I'd feel better with him back there.

This is a little misleading because Tom Brady and Peyton Manning have won like half of these games, so you're not really comparing apples to apples. Manning won two. A lot of these guys were just repeat winners with long careers in the league. 6 is still quite a few over time frame when you figure a lot of the veteran QBs that they're up against are generational HOF quarterbacks, Brees, Brady, Rodgers, Manning, Manning, etc. It's obviously a tremendous advantage to be able to save money at the most expensive position and invest elsewhere in the team, it would be illogical to say otherwise, regardless of the raw numbers of appearances by rookie QBs. And for the most part, NFL quarterbacks compete at this level much earlier in their career than years ago. Redshirting for 3 years like Rodgers did is almost unheard of now. I'm very confused at how you find this not comparing apples to apples? I'm thinking you are implying that P-Manning (on his second SB) and Brady were low-cost HOF QBs that won the SB when they were off their rookie contract? Otherwise, I can't simply remove specific cases of winners/losers just because... this was a simple analysis of results. Looking at the data (actual real data not opinion; not excluding anyone) there were some easy conclusions: 1) Tom Brady wins a lot of Super Bowls. He won two (of the six I mentioned) on his rookie contract as well as the other after. He alone is an anomaly. If he skews the data after the rookie contract, he skewed it on his rookie contract also. 2) HOF "probable" QBs have won about 80% of the last 20 years of SBs (Brady, 2 Mannings, Rodgers, Roth, Brees, Wilson, etc..). The number was slightly lower for the losing side, but still far more likely than not. 3) Most QBs have required 4 years at a minimum (P-Manning took longer) to win a SB. The exceptions: Wilson won, but with a huge run game and fantastic defense. Tom Brady...is again the anomaly. Certainly there is more behind the scenes that I could dig into here... At a simplistic level, getting a great QB on a cheap contract is obviously a good thing. But that doesn't always mean a QB on a rookie contract meets that description. They take a few years to really be good enough to lead a team there. The data points stronger to getting a HOF probable QB (on any contract) to win the SB; obviously the cheaper the better. Also, Rodgers red-shirting for 3 years was unheard-of at anytime for a 1st round QB. Three years is a really odd situation. But it is actually more common now for a rookie 1st round QB to sit initially than 20 years ago. The rookie salary slots help fix the huge rookie salaries (P-Manning, Ryan Leaf) that force the team to start them. Mahommes sat one year. Fields wasn't going to start until Dalton got injured (and looks like he isn't ready either). Love will sit behind Rodgers 2 years at least. Without counting, I would guess it is about 50/50 if a 1st round QB starts for the team (non-injury related) they are drafted for in the past few years.

I thought it was more about him kicking his legs around and wrapping up the other leg and tripping Burns that was more the point. If he had simply hung onto the one foot, there probably wouldn't been any issue

Not directly replying to you TPlush, but I'm using your comment here to make a point. It really bugged me that people were all up in arms about Love being drafted because "a team drafts a first round QB to start him". Yet, all draft profiles said that he had the skills but wasn't ready yet. Plus Rodgers didn't start - for three years (nor looked great initially). Mahommes didn't start his first year (and he was ready). Frankly, I was encouraged by the game, because I saw improvement right in the game. He still has work to do and things to learn. But he is already better than Hundley. And anyone remember Favre's early years when he was almost benched for Brunell? People keep talking about how the best way to win a SB is with a QB on his rookie contract, but the reason it doesn't happen often is that rookie QBs take time to develop. IMO drafting a "project" QB in the 1st round isn't really an efficient way of building a contender. Nothing wrong with sitting behind a guy for a year like Mahomes did but your biggest benefit of these young star QBs is getting them on a rookie contract. Maybe it worked a little better in the early Rodgers era but now you let a guy sit for 3 years and all of the sudden you've only got one year left of his rookie contract and its basically still an evaluation year. You're comparing Favre to modern rookie QBs when you're looking at two different eras 30 years apart (and Favre was quite good in his early years). Yes this current rookie class has been a big letdown but it doesn't always work that day. Mahomes, Wilson, Herbert, Watson, Murray, these guys were very good, very quickly. Mahomes and Wilson both won SBs on their rookie deals. As far as comparing Love to Hundley, well I should hope he's better than Hundley, a 5th round pick who was never expected to start in the NFL. I could resurrect my post where I analyzed the SB winners (and losers) for the last 20 years, but I won't bother. The spoiler is that QBs on their rookie contract comprise a minority percentage of SB winning and losing teams. And most QBs in the last 20 years that won the SB on their rookie contract won it on the final year of it (off the top of my head, only Wilson and Brady won prior to the final year and only 6 rookie contract QB winners in total - Brady twice). The point is that even QBs that are initially "ready" take time to actually develop into SB winners.

Note: several posts here were composted to prevent things from getting off the rails. We are here to respectfully debate, theorize, and challenge each other with different ideas and opinions. We are NOT here to snipe, complain, or otherwise act disrespectfully towards others. Opinions are like butts... everyone has one and they often smell. If you don't like someone's opinion, stop sticking your nose in it.

I have kids. Kids don't understand daylight savings. I did not get any extra sleep...perhaps less.

Not directly replying to you TPlush, but I'm using your comment here to make a point. It really bugged me that people were all up in arms about Love being drafted because "a team drafts a first round QB to start him". Yet, all draft profiles said that he had the skills but wasn't ready yet. Plus Rodgers didn't start - for three years (nor looked great initially). Mahommes didn't start his first year (and he was ready). Frankly, I was encouraged by the game, because I saw improvement right in the game. He still has work to do and things to learn. But he is already better than Hundley. And anyone remember Favre's early years when he was almost benched for Brunell? People keep talking about how the best way to win a SB is with a QB on his rookie contract, but the reason it doesn't happen often is that rookie QBs take time to develop.

Overall perception of the game: Defense: Wow. Yes, The Chiefs have struggled, but still an overall very good game. And without perhaps our two best players and two best CBs. P-Smith has seemed to disappear, but Gary just keeps coming on. Lancaster actually did pretty well too. They did have some struggles to stop the run after Clark was out injured, but otherwise a very good game. That game was the first time this year that Barnes looked like the Barnes of last year. Overall, the unit seems to be continually improving and playing as a unit finally. Still have to figure out how to keep a team outside the endzone once you are inside the 20, but... Love: Obviously, a lot of work to do, but he made me feel much better the second half. Seemed like his throws were coming out faster, more decisive, more accurate, and better decisions in the second half. Needs to figure out his blitz protections more, but that will come. Didn't totally panic when under blitz, so that is something (see Mertz). ST: Wow... Just wow. If we hit the 2 FGs and not touch the punt inside the 10 yd line, we (theoretically) win 13-10. With the new long snapper in his first game, I feel like we will get that fixed. We know Rodgers will be back with Bahk so the offense will improve. And the defense looks pretty good even with the chance to get better with Z-Smith and Jaire. For a loss (which I was expecting), I came out feeling pretty good about the team.

Personally, I thought the Dillon pick was a sneaky good pick. I didn't like it at first (or more just shocked), but I really like what we got in Dillon. And knowing we were going to lose one of Williams/Jones (or perhaps both at that time), I thought it was very smart. Last year, I was one of the first to see his hands and footwork (in limited action), but his work this year has shown me exactly the same. Great vision on identifying the holes, great feet (better than Jones IMO) to change direction, and really nice hands catching the ball. Still needs work on routes, ball security, and perhaps pass blocking (just a really small sample size as he doesn't seem to do it often). I don't see anything that will prevent him from being as good of a back as Jones.

You shouldn't need a subscription if you are only doing a few documents. Both Google Drive and Dropbox have free versions that will do thousands of documents.

I thought Tolzien looked OK. Certainly more than I expected of him coming out of college. No HOF, but he didn't embarrass himself either. Certainly no Rubley or even Hundley.

On results? Absolutely. On cost? Not sure. He pitched himself a nice raise last year.

In reading your description, I thought about a Chromebook, but I've not used one either. If you don't use a cloud based storage system (Google Drive, Dropbox), that might not work the best for you given the limited storage they have. You might also consider a tablet and Bluetooth keyboard.

Bears fans would literally cry Can you imagine back to back to back HOF QBs? Ha! After Love was picked, I've had Viking fan friends of mine literally say this... "I'm sure the Packers just found another HOF QB!"

The Broncos have played many games with QBs that aren't QBs, so...

Exactly. I'm surprised that people are disappointed/surprised/questioning these type of signings because so many of them have worked out over the past few years. This is what we do. Some don't work out, some do. And the "do" ones typically work out really well.

I guess my main point was that the Packers knew and he wasn't lying to them nor the NFL. I didn't mean he had 100% adherence to the rules.

I've long said that Rodgers is the better QB, but Favre was the better teammate. But in defense of Rodgers... if I had to go in front of a group of reporters week-in and week-out to constantly answer questions that you don't want to answer or are private, I'm not sure how I'd handle it, either. It is his right to treat himself how he sees fit, but there is a heavy bullying mentality if you happen to disagree with being vaccinated (yes, I'm vaccinated). The irony here might be how similar Rodgers and Braun's media relations go... [sarcasm]Maybe its a California thing.[/sarcasm]

No doubt about that.

Personally, I don't care if he was tap-dancing/confusing/lying to the reporters and/or general public. It isn't the reporters (or our) right to know. The Packers knew and he was following protocols on the team (so I'm reading anyway).

Others have pointed out other issues here, but here's the actual definition of immunized, per the CDC (WHOs is similar): "Immunization is a process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination." So, if Rodgers INTENTIONALLY chose the word immunized, which he likely consciously did based on context to offer an answer that was intended to mislead, now is that NOT the definition of lying? Welcome to post-modernism where what true for you might not be true for me.

Yeah, it is probably more on how often we have drafted. We had a long string of taking someone nearly every year: - 1999, 2001 (2), 2002 (2), 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010 Then it became much more sporadic: - 2013 (the infamous Wei-Chung Wang), 2015(2), and 2016 (traded)

I'm open to adoption!