2021 GB Roster & Free Agents

[ThatJerkDave]

5 hours ago, TheEagle said:

I don't care what the stats showed. He played well in that game. That was the game where I thought this guy has a chance. Plenty of wow throws and he showed a lot of escapability. That Dallas team went 13-3 and had a really solid defense (Wade Phillips). Favre went 5 for 14 with 2 interceptions in that game.

I absolutely agree.  I was also on the Rodgers train after his second preseason.  I didn't think he was a HOF player, but I knew that he would be good enough to play, at least league average.  

5 hours ago, TheEagle said:

True. It drives me crazy when people say he fell because nobody needed a QB. That's just false.

I don't necessarily agree.  You have to look at these teams through the 2004-05 lens.  You get the top 5 or so, and those prospects looked really good.  Then you get to teams that were pretty comfortable with their QB situation.  

A lot has been made of the Vikings taking 2 busts when we got Aaron Rodgers.  But at the time Daunte Culpepper just came off of a 4700 yard, 39 TD, 11 INT season, and was probably MVP, had Peyton Manning not been insane.  Or you look at a team like the Rams, at the time Marc Bulger was 26-10 as a starter.  The wheels didn't really fall off there until 2007.  

[OneTwoSixFive]

1 minute ago, Scoremore said:

Hey that was the chatter at the time.  I watched that draft did you?  It was either Rodgers or Smith to SF #1.  He was absolutely in the converstation right up to draft day.  Those teams you listed didn't AT THE TIME didn't feel the need to draft a QB.  You are looking back.  His fall was probably the biggest in NFL history.  Nobody expected it.  Watched every pick remember Chris Berman and Mel Kiper talking about possible landing spots for Rodgers.  Most teams picking before us thought they were set.  You are just flat out wrong.  

I agree with the general thrust of this post...............except that from what I remember there were rumours just before the draft that Rodgers might fall (I imagine this was based on many casual conversations between GMs, scouts etc). If I recall correctly, the Packers went back and reviewed Rodgers tape again, so they would be ready to make a fully informed decision if he did fall.

[incognito_man]

6 hours ago, TheEagle said:

I don't care what the stats showed. He played well in that game. That was the game where I thought this guy has a chance. Plenty of wow throws and he showed a lot of escapability. That Dallas team went 13-3 and had a really solid defense (Wade Phillips). Favre went 5 for 14 with 2 interceptions in that game.

Agreed 100%. You're absolutely right. That game showcased what Rodgers could and would become. It was his coming out party.

[Scoremore]

5 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

I agree with the general thrust of this post...............except that from what I remember there were rumours just before the draft that Rodgers might fall (I imagine this was based on many casual conversations between GMs, scouts etc). If I recall correctly, the Packers went back and reviewed Rodgers tape again, so they would be ready to make a fully informed decision if he did fall.

Yes this is correct.  Came out after the draft.  Rodgers was questioning the Packers doubted he'd be drafted by us.  ie he'd fall that far.  Imagine all the teams who passed.  oops.  Every fan wanted the Packers to get Farve some help.  Sound familiar?  WR?  Oh everyone was so pissed.  I was like well OK?  Felt bad for Aaron the fans roughed him up a bit. Such a bold move by TT.  Guess it came out later they had offers to trade the pick but Aaron was so high on their board they refused and took him.  16 fricken years ago and seems like yesterday.  Where do the decades go?  

[incognito_man]

10 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

You act like it's so simple. That team needs to find value to move down, another team with a need at the position needs to want to move up, the team on the clock can't have a similar tiered player they are interested in drafting, so on and so forth. You ignore all these variables that clearly exist.

I have literally said there are tons of variables.

It all evens out because everyone has the same goal: maximizing value. The end result is players are drafted where they are valued.

 

[Scoremore]

8 hours ago, CWood21 said:

So someone who has absolutely ZERO access to practices, chalkboard sessions, etc. knows more than our coaching staff?  Good to know.

True we as fans have absolutely no clue.  We haven't seen Love at all.  I'll also agree with Canondale it's too early even for the coaching staff to really know what they really have.  They will know his practice habits and ability to learn the offense etc. Certainly know a hell of a lot more than us.

2020 was a screwy year so no doubt it hampered Love's development.  Packers will need to evaluate him in live action.  Something they haven't been able to do yet. Love has yet to prove himself.  Expect him to make typical rookie mistakes in the preseason.  Just hope he flashes a bit.    

Think he'll need at least a couple of seasons before he'll be ready.  As I mentioned before Packers won't trade Rodgers unless Love can either match his play or beat him out.  Far from certain Love will be the future.  Kid could bust and we extend Aaron for a few more seasons and have to take another shot. 

Franchise QB's don't grow on trees.  Ideally Rodgers plays well for another 2 years.  Love progresses to the point where he can take over.  We trade Rodgers and get a couple of high picks to fortify the team and move on to the Love era.  Odds on hitting on 3 QB's in a row is like winning the lottery.  So I am still skeptical this will be the case but if any team can pull it off it's the Packers.  We shall see.

[Packerraymond]

29 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I have literally said there are tons of variables.

It all evens out because everyone has the same goal: maximizing value. The end result is players are drafted where they are valued.

 

We might as well be arguing about whether a hotdog is a sandwich at this point. Clearly we both think each other's viewpoint is incorrect in this case and that's fine.

[smetana34]

40 minutes ago, Scoremore said:

Hey that was the chatter at the time.  I watched that draft did you?  It was either Rodgers or Smith to SF #1.  He was absolutely in the converstation right up to draft day.  Those teams you listed didn't AT THE TIME didn't feel the need to draft a QB.  You are looking back.  His fall was probably the biggest in NFL history.  Nobody expected it.  Watched every pick remember Chris Berman and Mel Kiper talking about possible landing spots for Rodgers.  Most teams picking before us thought they were set.  You are just flat out wrong.  

Looking back? Those guys all had multiple years in the league where they showed nothing. Go look at mock drafts from 2005. There's mocks with each of those teams grabbing Rodgers. The fact none of them did shows he wasn't as highly regarded as the publications wanted you to believe. The guys who's opinions actually matter didn't see Rodgers as a possible #1 selection. 

 

The publications are always changing their mocks up; you aren't going to click on their links just to see Smith going first everyday, are you? Of course not. "Controversy" at the top gives them something to talk about for the two months between the combine and draft. The proof is in the results. There's no way a guy who was a supposed #1 overall candidate is lasting until #24. Unless you expect me to believe 2005 was truly the start of the golden era of QB play, seeing as nobody supposedly needed a QB, especially one who was a threat to go #1. 

[vegas492]

13 hours ago, Leader said:

 

Gary was never the 12th best - or rated player - in his draft. That was never the case.
 

https://www.nfl.com/news/daniel-jeremiah-s-top-100-prospects-for-2019-nfl-draft-0ap3000001027342

Daniel Jeremiah had him at #9.

I remember that year.  Most boards had him ranked very high.  And I didn't understand why.

I looked at another CBS person, he had Gary ranked about 50'th.  With a ton of absolute busts ahead of him.

My takeaway is that no Big Board outside of the 32 teams Big Boards mean anything.  

[MacReady]

Why are we all pretending teams “didn’t need” a QB?  I don’t care about this argument, but I just thought that was odd that someone said that.

Half the teams in that draft ran with a Frerotte/Johnson/Dilfer type QB.  Washington picked 9th overall, took a DB, then traded up to get Campbell one pick after Rodgers.

 

[Scoremore]

15 minutes ago, smetana34 said:

Looking back? Those guys all had multiple years in the league where they showed nothing. Go look at mock drafts from 2005. There's mocks with each of those teams grabbing Rodgers. The fact none of them did shows he wasn't as highly regarded as the publications wanted you to believe. The guys who's opinions actually matter didn't see Rodgers as a possible #1 selection. 

 

The publications are always changing their mocks up; you aren't going to click on their links just to see Smith going first everyday, are you? Of course not. "Controversy" at the top gives them something to talk about for the two months between the combine and draft. The proof is in the results. There's no way a guy who was a supposed #1 overall candidate is lasting until #24. Unless you expect me to believe 2005 was truly the start of the golden era of QB play, seeing as nobody supposedly needed a QB, especially one who was a threat to go #1. 

Looks like you weren't following the draft in '05.  I was just telling you what was going on at the time.  Anyone who followed it at that time knows it was either Rodgers or Smith at #1.  No one knew until the pick was in.  As I told you it was one of the biggest slides in NFL history.  No one expected Rodgers to be sitting there at #24.  As for the guys who "matter"  well they all royally screwed the pooch by passing on him.  This is all well documented don't know why you insist on arguing the point. 

[Scoremore]

4 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Why are we all pretending teams “didn’t need” a QB?  I don’t care about this argument, but I just thought that was odd that someone said that.

Half the teams in that draft ran with a Frerotte/Johnson/Dilfer type QB.  Washington picked 9th overall, took a DB, then traded up to get Campbell one pick after Rodgers.

 

Well that was the chatter during the draft.  It was a different time back then.  Looking back it's kind of ridiculous as many of the teams that passed on Rodgers QB's were average at best.  Watched the draft on ESPN.  Kiper and Berman.  Many of these teams rightly or wrongly felt they were OK at the position.  Just the way it went down.  This whole argument started by some claiming Rodgers was not a highly regarded prospect.  He was.  Don't know why people continue to argue the point.  Yes he was very much in the conversation at #1 to SF.  No one expected him to slide out of the top 10.  Guess it is one of those things where you had to be there.  I have been following the draft forever.  Love the draft and remember exactly how it all went down in real time. 

[incognito_man]

38 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

My takeaway is that no Big Board outside of the 32 teams Big Boards mean anything.  

Bingo.

And more generally, any ranking/mock draft etc. from which people base their perceived player value. This is what lands us in these arguments in the first place: people don't like having their pre-conceived notions challenged.

@Leader read some basic opinion (likely from a demonstrably non-expert) about Gary's "rank". He now is hitched to that and cannot accept the reality that Gary ACTUALLY had an NFL value different from the baseless value he believes. And instead of adjusting his opinion to fit reality, he argues that reality is wrong and everything should conform to his worldview instead.

And people think I have an ego here lol

Edited April 1, 2021 by incognito_man

[vegas492]

5 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Bingo.

And more generally, any ranking/mock draft etc. from which people base their perceived player value. This is what lands us in these arguments in the first place: people don't like having their pre-conceived notions challenged.

@Leader read some basic opinion (likely from a demonstrably non-expert) about Gary's "rank". He now is hitched to that and cannot accept the reality that Gary ACTUALLY had an NFL value different from the baseless value he believes. And instead of adjusting his opinion to fit reality, he argues that reality is wrong and everything should conform to his worldview instead.

And people think I have an ego here lol

We all have egos.  No big deal.

I'm guilty of associating opinions on prospects based on other people's work as well.  But, I admit that.  Then I watch a little film.

Tell yah what.  There wasn't much on Gary's film that led me to think that he was a top 15 player in that draft.  I just didn't see it.  In fact, what I saw screamed out BUST.  And I was wrong about that.  

I feel like GB had physical traits they were looking for, and looked at tape to make sure those traits showed up.  And that is different than how I saw Gary.  And how I see prospects in general.  Probably why I don't get paid for my opinions concerning draft prospects!

I find the RAS stuff very interesting.  We are clearly a team that looks at RAS, and makes sure those show up on tape.

If memory serves, Gary had just an amazing RAS score.

[incognito_man]

There has been one legitimate point regarding a potential delta between Rodgers and Love draft values. @JBURGE brought up the rookie cap. It seems plausible to me that this outside event created a shift in perceived value of some positions (namely that QBs are higher value after the cap and are drafted earlier).

This seems like a point that evidence could support (or contradict) that would shed some light on the debate. Every other "point" so far has simply been an input into the global "value calculator" and is already represented fully by the results of draft position.

Edited April 1, 2021 by incognito_man