Rhetorical: If Packers were offered a first round pick for Jordan Love, should they take it?

[Jakuvious]

So, based on what we know, absolutely. Because you're getting higher value than what you really gave up to get him, and he isn't your plan for a little bit with how Rodgers played last year anyway. But we know very little, frankly.

The problem with this hypothetical, ultimately, is if you're a team proposing this trade to the Packers, and they say yes, you probably don't want to make the trade. If the Packers think Love is the next in the line of great Packer QBs, they won't give him up for a mid first round pick. So them accepting the offer would imply that they aren't sold on Love. You'd really only want this deal as another team if the Packers don't want to give him up for that little, because that implies he has impressed so far. So I just don't think there's ever a situation where the trade actually is best for both teams. Either the Packers make out like bandits or they give up what they view as a future franchise QB for way too little.

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, squire12 said:

Based on the below, looks like Rodgers played in week 10 and 13, Nall played in week 17

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/N/NallCr00/gamelog/2007/

Craig Nall

										Passing											Rushing
Rk	Date	G#	Week	Age	Tm		Opp	Result	GS	Cmp	Att	Cmp%	Yds	TD	Int	Rate	Sk	Yds	Y/A	AY/A	Att	Yds	Y/A	TD
	1 Games							1-0-0		7	15	46.67	88	1	0	87.6	1	10	5.87	7.20	5	6	1.20	0
1	2007-09-30	4	4		BUF		NYJ	W 17-14	Did Not Play
2	2007-10-08	5	5		BUF		DAL	L 24-25	Did Not Play
3	2007-11-04	9	9		HOU	@	OAK	W 24-17	Did Not Play
4	2007-11-18	10	11		HOU		NOR	W 23-10	Inactive
5	2007-12-09	13	14		GNB		OAK	W 38-7	Did Not Play
6	2007-12-16	14	15		GNB	@	STL	W 33-14	Did Not Play
7	2007-12-23	15	16		GNB	@	CHI	L 7-35	Did Not Play
8	2007-12-30	16	17	28.253	GNB		DET	W 34-13		7	15	46.67	88	1	0	87.6	1	10	5.87	7.20	5	6	1.20	0

 

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RodgAa00/gamelog/2007/

Aaron Rodgers

	Passing											Rushing
Rk	Date	G#	Week	Age	Tm		Opp	Result	GS	Cmp	Att	Cmp%	Yds	TD	Int	Rate	Sk	Yds	Y/A	AY/A	Att	Yds	Y/A	TD
	2 Games							1-1-0		20	28	71.43	218	1	0	106.0	3	24	7.79	8.50	7	29	4.14
1	2007-09-09	1	1		GNB		PHI	W 16-13	Did Not Play
2	2007-09-16	2	2		GNB	@	NYG	W 35-13	Did Not Play
3	2007-09-23	3	3		GNB		SDG	W 31-24	Did Not Play
4	2007-09-30	4	4		GNB	@	MIN	W 23-16	Did Not Play
5	2007-10-07	5	5		GNB		CHI	L 20-27	Did Not Play
6	2007-10-14	6	6		GNB		WAS	W 17-14	Did Not Play
7	2007-10-29	7	8		GNB	@	DEN	W 19-13	Did Not Play
8	2007-11-04	8	9		GNB	@	KAN	W 33-22	Did Not Play
9	2007-11-11	9	10	23.344	GNB		MIN	W 34-0		2	2	100.00	17	0	0	102.1	0	0	8.50	8.50	2	-1	-0.50	0
10	2007-11-18	10	11		GNB		CAR	W 31-17	Did Not Play
11	2007-11-22	11	12		GNB	@	DET	W 37-26	Did Not Play
12	2007-11-29	12	13	23.362	GNB	@	DAL	L 27-37		18	26	69.23	201	1	0	104.8	3	24	7.73	8.50	5	30	6.00	0
13	2007-12-09	13	14		GNB		OAK	W 38-7	Inactive
14	2007-12-16	14	15		GNB	@	STL	W 33-14	Inactive
15	2007-12-23	15	16		GNB	@	CHI	L 7-35	Inactive
16	2007-12-30	16	17		GNB		DET	W 34-13	Inactive

 

they really shouldn't make that first column "Rk" instead of "Wk"

[squire12]

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

they really shouldn't make that first column "Rk" instead of "Wk"

reading is hard

[incognito_man]

44 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Here's what my memory tells me concerning young Aaron Rodgers.  Man, he looked rough in the pre-season games for 2-3 years.  He had the benefit of quarterback schools and training camps.  And still...he was rough.  Went through a lot of changes regarding his throwing motion.

He had kind of a coming out party against Dallas.  I remember thinking at least he had quick feet and legs to scramble.  I don't remember much about his throws that game.  But once we became a starter, well, that was shaky to start as well.  But he kept getting better and better until he became what he is.  

Jordan Love is in a very similar situation.  GB can afford to be patient with him.  Not beating out Boyle, who is no slouch, is not an indictment against Love.  He's had no quarterback schools, very little training camp and no pre-season games.  He was in no position to come in and be better than a veteran who knew the offense and more importantly, knew the guys he was working with.  

If GB had to get out of a game, or try to win a game with prep time, Boyle gave them the best chance.

Let's give the kid a nice full camp and a few pre-season games before we cut bait on him.  It kind of worked out nicely with Rodgers.

exactly this. People shouldn't be arguing w/ GB fans about this. We literally went through this identical situation w/ Rodgers and we all see how that turned it. It's why GB fans are completely unconcerned about the 2nd vs 3rd string: we understand the situation and the context and that it is 100% meaningless.

[incognito_man]

24 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

So, based on what we know, absolutely. Because you're getting higher value than what you really gave up to get him, and he isn't your plan for a little bit with how Rodgers played last year anyway. But we know very little, frankly.

The problem with this hypothetical, ultimately, is if you're a team proposing this trade to the Packers, and they say yes, you probably don't want to make the trade. If the Packers think Love is the next in the line of great Packer QBs, they won't give him up for a mid first round pick. So them accepting the offer would imply that they aren't sold on Love. You'd really only want this deal as another team if the Packers don't want to give him up for that little, because that implies he has impressed so far. So I just don't think there's ever a situation where the trade actually is best for both teams. Either the Packers make out like bandits or they give up what they view as a future franchise QB for way too little.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

[LinebackerGod]

Why would his value have gone up? He didn’t play last year and was a very late 1st rounder, widely considered to be a reach. 

[Blue]

1 hour ago, Uncle Buck said:

I don't think there is a wrong answer to this question.  It's more a matter of the opinion of the Packers coaching staff.  Packer fans shouldn't really need to get defensive if Love didn't look that great in practice last year, because nobody should have expected otherwise.  He was a rookie who came in during a weird year (Covid) with no off-season practices to speak of.  It would have been a miracle if he had come in and lit it up.

At this point, it's probably more a question of money than of his abilities.  They probably haven't seen enough of him to have an informed opinion of what he can be on the field.  If the Pack is offered a first round pick for him, do they trade him, roll with Rodgers for another year, and try to find a replacement for Love maybe next year and start the rookie contract again from Day 1?  I think I would probably do that, for no other reason than because Rodgers played decently in 2020.  They probably still have some time to find a replacement for him.  No need to force something and put themselves in a bad situation. 

Why a "miracle"? Two out of three other first-round rookies came in and looked like stars. Cam Newton came into the league during a lockout-shortened offseason and won OROY. Why are we pretending that generally good quarterbacks don't look good early on in their careers?

Even Jake Locker and Patrick Mahomes weren't QB3 behind a UDFA as rookies. Their teams got them reps with the second team.

[incognito_man]

Just now, Blue said:

Why a "miracle"? Two out of three other first-round rookies came in and looked like stars. Cam Newton came into the league during a lockout-shortened offseason and won OROY. Why are we pretending that generally good quarterbacks don't look good early on in their careers?

Even Jake Locker and Patrick Mahomes weren't QB3 behind a UDFA as rookies. Their teams got them reps with the second team.

you fail to understand the PLAN for each rookie QB...

That is 99% of the issue here you keep choosing to ignore. It doesn't make ANY sense why you ignore the entire context and focus on one minute detail. Why are you doing this? Everyone keeps telling you there's more information you need to parse.

[incognito_man]

12 minutes ago, LinebackerGod said:

Why would his value have gone up? He didn’t play last year and was a very late 1st rounder, widely considered to be a reach. 

he was widely considered to be an exceptional value, actually

[vegas492]

33 minutes ago, Blue said:

Why a "miracle"? Two out of three other first-round rookies came in and looked like stars. Cam Newton came into the league during a lockout-shortened offseason and won OROY. Why are we pretending that generally good quarterbacks don't look good early on in their careers?

Even Jake Locker and Patrick Mahomes weren't QB3 behind a UDFA as rookies. Their teams got them reps with the second team.

Cam was the first overall pick, and they put in a simple offense that he could run.

I'm going to avoid talking about Locker and Mahomes.  Because I don't know what their situations were like, except that they were picked much higher than Love.

But...to help your argument, which I do not believe is correct, I will say this.  The new Packers offense under MLF is a much, much easier offense to run than the old Mac stuff.  Rodgers obviously takes it to another level with how he can check out of bad plays and audible to quick hitting passing routes, but as a general statement, it should be an easy offense to learn and process.

Which means in the eyes of the coaches, Boyle was advanced enough to do things at the LOS that Love could not do yet.  Which is understandable.

[vegas492]

52 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

exactly this. People shouldn't be arguing w/ GB fans about this. We literally went through this identical situation w/ Rodgers and we all see how that turned it. It's why GB fans are completely unconcerned about the 2nd vs 3rd string: we understand the situation and the context and that it is 100% meaningless.

Yes.  And it is the reason why people who I know that are Bears and Vikes fans are fearful that GB will have yet another good QB when Rodgers moves on.

They've seen the movie, too.  And they have admitted that at least GB has a plan and a history of executing the plan.

[incognito_man]

4 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Which means in the eyes of the coaches, Boyle was advanced enough to do things at the LOS that Love could not do yet.  Which is understandable.

Additionally, he was far more valuable being in the ear of Rodgers than Love would be based on their situations (which is the game-day value of the #2 QB role when Aaron Rodgers is your starter).

[Heinz D.]

5 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

They've seen the movie, too.  And they have admitted that at least GB has a plan and a history of executing the plan.

Well...it's not as good of a plan as what the Bears have. But it's all right...

[Blue]

2 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Cam was the first overall pick, and they put in a simple offense that he could run.

I'm going to avoid talking about Locker and Mahomes.  Because I don't know what their situations were like, except that they were picked much higher than Love.

But...to help your argument, which I do not believe is correct, I will say this.  The new Packers offense under MLF is a much, much easier offense to run than the old Mac stuff.  Rodgers obviously takes it to another level with how he can check out of bad plays and audible to quick hitting passing routes, but as a general statement, it should be an easy offense to learn and process.

Which means in the eyes of the coaches, Boyle was advanced enough to do things at the LOS that Love could not do yet.  Which is understandable.

Most rookies are put into simple offenses that they can run. Why would you put your rookie QB into an offense he can't run? Lamar Jackson took over for Joe Flacco, who could not be any more different a quarterback stylistically, and took the Ravens to the playoffs. They adjusted that offense in midseason for their backup QB's skillset. That didn't mean they put Lamar Jackson as the third-string QB up to that point.

I think it's ridiculous to act as though Jordan Love, whom the Packers traded a pick to go get, should be treated differently than other first-round QBs. But fine, I won't argue the point.

Where in the world is this cult of Tim Boyle coming from? Tim Boyle was a second-year UDFA out of Eastern Kentucky. I do not believe for a second that Tim Boyle was doing anything magical at the line of scrimmage coming in cold off the bench in Week 17 that drastically overshadows what Jordan Love brings to the table athletically. We are not talking about some sort of ten-year vet here. We are talking about a guy who would be lucky to be QB3 for a vast majority of NFL teams and the Packers did not care enough to tender at the original round level.

[incognito_man]

4 minutes ago, Blue said:

I think it's ridiculous to act as though Jordan Love, whom the Packers traded a pick to go get, should be treated differently than other first-round QBs

It's because you refuse to acknowledge any sort of context.

It's exceedingly rare to draft a QB in the first round with the intention of letting him sit and learn for multiple seasons. This is the context you ignore. It's not ridiculous. It's simply different context...