2021 GB Roster & Free Agents

[vegas492]

28 minutes ago, Scoremore said:

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. 

Man, I was young when that draft happened.  I had just started following the draft.  I remember very clearly that it was Rodgers/Smith as the first overall pick.  I also remember hearing, probably from ESPN, that whoever didn't go first was going to slide.

I'm also of the opinion that we got the best out of Rodgers because of him sitting behind Favre AND him going through QB school with Mac.  Mac's work with Favre and Rodgers was amazing and an often overlooked aspect to his coaching career.

[CWood21]

8 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.

He played well because he was a rookie, but if we're going to get into 1 game sample sizes how come you're not quick to point out Matt Flynn's start against New England in 2010.  Was Rodgers that good or was Favre just god awful?  I remember that game because Favre was the worst I've ever seen.  Probably the biggest IDGAF attitude I've ever seen from him, and he appropriately got benched.  Did it give me hope that the Packers had something in Rodgers?  Absolutely.  Did I think it was a precursor to his HoF career?  Absolutely not.  It wasn't until the 2018 season where I knew we had something in Rodgers.

[Scoremore]

6 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

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.

Oh yes a very important point.  It sure did change the potential value of taking a QB early because you weren't stuck wtih a massive rookie contract.  Jamarcus Russell comes to mind.  Not to mention all the rule changes it's a passing league now.  A lot of things have changed since 05.

[CWood21]

21 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

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.

But you can watch the exact same tape as someone else and come up with a completely different evaluation.  I'd bet that if you were able to see a few different franchises boards, you'd see some wildly different evaluations.  I mean, does anyone really think Tyson Alualu was a top 10 prospect in 2010?  No, but apparently he was a top 10 prospect for the Jaguars.

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

 I mean, does anyone really think Tyson Alualu was a top 10 prospect in 2010?

Yes. I guarantee you he was a top 10 prospect in 2010. I know this because he was taken top 10.

[MacReady]

One thing that fits in both the Gary and Love argument is value to different teams.

Gary’s value, Aaron’s value, Love’s value... All exceedingly higher to Green Bay than other teams.

Rodgers, Love and Gary all have/had project written on them.  To a team trying to load up for a Super Bowl run or stop sucking, they need immediate, “pro ready” players that might not have as much long term appeal as short term appeal.

It’s why we traded for Kizer, too.  Unfortunately the Browns ruined Kizer before we had the chance.  It’s extremely possible Kizer turns into a star if he sat with Cleveland, got traded to us and McCarthy didn’t get fired.

Rashan Gary busts pretty hard if he didn’t sit behind the Smiths his first year.  Maybe even busts if he didn’t sit behind them more of his second year. Now, in his third year, he’s likely to show the progress and live up to some of the potential we drafted him for.

 

[vegas492]

If we can agree that QB's have a higher value on them because of how much they can impact a game, then we can proceed.  

Look at the 05 draft.  Smith, Rodgers, Campbell

Look at the 20 draft.  Burrow, Tua, Herbert, Love

In looking at their collegiate careers/athletic traits, if all were in the same draft, how would you rank them?

And...just because I was looking at stuff, here is a ESPN quote about love.  He was "ranked" the 53rd best prospect by them in 2020.  Taken at 26.  

Some of Love's 2019 difficulties -- 17 interceptions -- can be traced to departed starters on offense and a complete turnover of the school's offensive coaching staff. He's a promising prospect who needs to work on the timing of his throws and improve his accuracy and anticipation.

Here is what Kiper said about Rodgers in 05. (parphrasing)

Accurate, smart and athletic, Rodgers is a better prospect than former Cal standout and current Ravens starter Kyle Boller. He has above average arm strength, but he can be a bit mechanical in his throws. 

There is a great deal to get excited about when projecting Rodgers to the next level. First of all, he turned out to be at least an inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than I anticipated. I'm also told that during the interview process with the top NFL brass, Rodgers definitely "wowed" everyone over with his poise, communication skills and knowledge of the game.

He's also not at his best when flushed and forced to throw on the move. (LOL)

 

 

[MacReady]

Just now, incognito_man said:

Yes. I guarantee you he was a top 10 prospect in 2010. I know this because he was taken top 10.

Some years some boards don’t count.

Tysun Alualu even said HE was surprised the Jaguars drafted him that high.

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

Yes. I guarantee you he was a top 10 prospect in 2010. I know this because he was taken top 10.

I'm not arguing was he a top 10 prospect on SOME teams' board.  But if you aggregate the 32 teams' board, do you think he'd be a top 10 prospect?  LIS, there's largely a consensus at the very top of the board but then you start to see the boards change drastically.  Another reason why I think the first ~10 or so picks are largely predictable.  Don't get me wrong, you'll get the occasional curveball but they're largely a strong idea of what is coming.

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, Outpost31 said:

One thing that fits in both the Gary and Love argument is value to different teams.

Gary’s value, Aaron’s value, Love’s value... All exceedingly higher to Green Bay than other teams.

While this is true, teams are also astute about league-wide value as well. If I know the market and know what I want, I also know what I'm willing to pay for it. And if I'm confident I can pay pick 20 for my favorite guy, I'm not going to burn value by using pick 4 for him. I'll trade back to increase value and the landing spot might be pick 17 instead or something.

Overall, things are going to work out (because there is soooooo many resources poured into this) where players more or less land at their actual value spots.

Rodgers and Love are different players, with different traits and appeal to different teams at their respective times, but ultimately their NFL perceived value was nearly identical, when all factors were accounted for.

[Scoremore]

6 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

He played well because he was a rookie, but if we're going to get into 1 game sample sizes how come you're not quick to point out Matt Flynn's start against New England in 2010.  Was Rodgers that good or was Favre just god awful?  I remember that game because Favre was the worst I've ever seen.  Probably the biggest IDGAF attitude I've ever seen from him, and he appropriately got benched.  Did it give me hope that the Packers had something in Rodgers?  Absolutely.  Did I think it was a precursor to his HoF career?  Absolutely not.  It wasn't until the 2018 season where I knew we had something in Rodgers.

Ten Years Ago vs. the Cowboys, Aaron Rodgers Started His Own Legend - The Ringer

Read.  Farve was injured he didn't get benched.    HOF career off of one game?  Of course not.  But he showed that he could certainly play at a high level.  It was his coming out party.  Guess the Packers felt the same as they traded Farve the following season and Aaron was the starter.  Farve has had much worse games. 

[incognito_man]

Just now, CWood21 said:

But if you aggregate the 32 teams' board, do you think he'd be a top 10 prospect?

Yes, because the aggregate includes Jacksonville who we know had him ranked that high. Everything else is just an assumption. 31 teams could have had him ranked 11th. You have no idea and to purport otherwise is ludicrous.

[CWood21]

Just now, incognito_man said:

Yes, because the aggregate includes Jacksonville who we know had him ranked that high. Everything else is just an assumption. 31 teams could have had him ranked 11th. You have no idea and to purport otherwise is ludicrous.

So you can make the assumption that every other team graded him out as the 11th prospect, but I can't make the same assumption that other teams had him graded in the 30s?  Seems logical.

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, Scoremore said:

Read.  Farve was injured he didn't get benched.    HOF career off of one game?  Of course not.  But he showed that he could certainly play at a high level.  It was his coming out party.  Guess the Packers felt the same as they traded Farve the following season and Aaron was the starter.  Farve has had much worse games. 

I don't recall the injury, but I remember him not coming back in.  But this was also a guy who had played through a ton of injuries in his career.  And apparently it wasn't bad enough to keep him from playing the next week.  He probably could have came back in and played that week, but the injury combined with his miserable player led Rodgers to play.  But we're getting off-topic.  I remember watching that game, and thought that Rodgers played well.  But nothing in that game suggested he was on his way to his HoF career.

[vegas492]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I don't recall the injury, but I remember him not coming back in.  But this was also a guy who had played through a ton of injuries in his career.  And apparently it wasn't bad enough to keep him from playing the next week.  He probably could have came back in and played that week, but the injury combined with his miserable player led Rodgers to play.  But we're getting off-topic.  I remember watching that game, and thought that Rodgers played well.  But nothing in that game suggested he was on his way to his HoF career.

I vaguely remember the game.  Favre did get hurt.  Favre did play poorly.

Dallas was a very good team that year.  Rodgers wasn't spectacular, but he showed a lot of what he would become.  Especially with the legs.

I'd agree that he didn't show HOF potential, but he he did show starter's potential.