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

[Packerraymond]

22 hours 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.

Your argument is so bad I didn't even want to waste my energy replying, but I'm a sucker for punishment so here we are.

The Packers know what they're doing with a QB, they know what they're doing better than any other team in the NFL. HOF QBs back to back for only the second time ever. Quality backups like Brunell, Hasselbeck, Brooks, Flynn all became starters elsewhere, hell they even were the first to uncover Warner. They know what they're doing. The mental state of a QB is equally as important as his physical traits. Love had no OTAs, no rookie camp, no preseason games. He had limited time with his coaches and fellow QBs outside of TC. The Packers weren't going to throw him to the wolves if Rodgers got hurt, they decided to redshirt him. If Rodgers went down for a long period of time, there's no reason to burn Love's confidence playing him before he's ready, so why is it a big deal they did this? It's not. Is every redshirted college player instantly trash? Lots are going to be picked here in 3 weeks.

Love was highly touted, but raw. Everyone really agreed it would be best if he could sit for a year and learn, well he may sit for 1-2 years. So why the hell does it matter if he was #2 or not as a rookie when they weren't ever going to play him? Just a really bad argument.

[MWil23]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

The Packers know what they're doing with a QB, they know what they're doing better than any other team in the NFL. HOF QBs back to back for only the second time ever.

I assume you're referencing the Montana/Young being the other? 

[Blue]

4 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Your argument is so bad I didn't even want to waste my energy replying, but I'm a sucker for punishment so here we are.

The Packers know what they're doing with a QB, they know what they're doing better than any other team in the NFL. HOF QBs back to back for only the second time ever. Quality backups like Brunell, Hasselbeck, Brooks, Flynn all became starters elsewhere, hell they even were the first to uncover Warner. They know what they're doing. The mental state of a QB is equally as important as his physical traits. Love had no OTAs, no rookie camp, no preseason games. He had limited time with his coaches and fellow QBs outside of TC. The Packers weren't going to throw him to the wolves if Rodgers got hurt, they decided to redshirt him. If Rodgers went down for a long period of time, there's no reason to burn Love's confidence playing him before he's ready, so why is it a big deal they did this? It's not. Is every redshirted college player instantly trash? Lots are going to be picked here in 3 weeks.

Love was highly touted, but raw. Everyone really agreed it would be best if he could sit for a year and learn, well he may sit for 1-2 years. So why the hell does it matter if he was #2 or not as a rookie when they weren't ever going to play him? Just a really bad argument.

Yeah, they know what they're doing with QBs, just like they did with the Scott Tolzien/Seneca Wallace duo behind Aaron Rodgers that was so awful they were forced to bring Matt Flynn back off the couch to salvage their season.

The idea that Green Bay can do no wrong at the quarterback position, despite not developing another backup into a starter since Matt Hasselbeck, is hilarious. EDIT: Frankly, other than Rodgers who was considered in the running to be the No. 1 pick in his draft class, not a single Packers draft pick at QB has even panned out as a competent backup for another team. I guess Matt Flynn didn't end up getting a fair shake in Seattle through no fault of his own, but look at the atrocious Brian Brohm/Brett Hundley/DeShone Kizer experiments.

Edited April 7, 2021 by Blue

[Packerraymond]

7 minutes ago, Blue said:

Yeah, they know what they're doing with QBs, just like they did with the Scott Tolzien/Seneca Wallace duo behind Aaron Rodgers that was so awful they were forced to bring Matt Flynn back off the couch to salvage their season.

The idea that Green Bay can do no wrong at the quarterback position, despite not developing another backup into a starter since Matt Hasselbeck, is hilarious. EDIT: Frankly, other than Rodgers who was considered in the running to be the No. 1 pick in his draft class, not a single Packers draft pick at QB has even panned out as a competent backup for another team. I guess Matt Flynn didn't end up getting a fair shake in Seattle through no fault of his own, but look at the atrocious Brian Brohm/Brett Hundley/DeShone Kizer experiments.

Lol teams can't hit on top 5 picks at QB and you're going to criticize us for trades and day 3 picks??

 

[Blue]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Lol teams can't hit on top 5 picks at QB and you're going to criticize us for trades and day 3 picks??

 

Brian Brohm was a 2nd round pick. He was also the third QB in Green Bay after being drafted high. Never threw a pass for Green Bay and wound up on the practice squad in his second season. I have no idea if he was ever active for a game either.

DeShone Kizer was a second round pick Green Bay traded for.

You're really going to act like you didn't just issue a blanket statement where you tried to give Green Bay credit for developing quarterbacks who have been out of the league long enough to be eligible for the Hall of Fame?

[JBURGE]

Man, I'm a Packers fan who was not a fan of Love in the draft process, and still isn't a fan of Love. I don't like low floor high ceiling players. But I wasn't upset when rumours came that we were looking to draft a QB because of how 2017-2019 went.

With that being said, @Blue my guy you need to re-evaluate your argument . You clearly can't accept that the Packers did not view Love as a potential player in year 1. I don't think any other team did either, which is why he wasn't picked earlier. No, he didn't face different challenges that the other rookie QBs had, but he is raw and needs work. It doesn't mean he isn't worthy of a first round pick because his ceiling is very high. 

The Packers are just one team who could afford the luxury of taking Love. They made it back to the NFCCG, I would argue that one rookie would not have changed that outcome, and their roster is mostly intact and can look at making another run this year imo. 

[vegas492]

2 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Lol teams can't hit on top 5 picks at QB and you're going to criticize us for trades and day 3 picks??

 

It's all he has at this point.  Might as well double down.

[Packerraymond]

Just now, Blue said:

Brian Brohm was a 2nd round pick. He was also the third QB in Green Bay after being drafted high. Never threw a pass for Green Bay and wound up on the practice squad in his second season. I have no idea if he was ever active for a game either.

DeShone Kizer was a second round pick Green Bay traded for.

You're really going to act like you didn't just issue a blanket statement where you tried to give Green Bay credit for developing quarterbacks who have been out of the league long enough to be eligible for the Hall of Fame?

Where did I say every QB we've ever touched hit? Is there a team with a better past 20 years at the position?

[Blue]

Just now, JBURGE said:

Man, I'm a Packers fan who was not a fan of Love in the draft process, and still isn't a fan of Love. I don't like low floor high ceiling players. But I wasn't upset when rumours came that we were looking to draft a QB because of how 2017-2019 went.

With that being said, @Blue my guy you need to re-evaluate your argument . You clearly can't accept that the Packers did not view Love as a potential player in year 1. I don't think any other team did either, which is why he wasn't picked earlier. No, he didn't face different challenges that the other rookie QBs had, but he is raw and needs work. It doesn't mean he isn't worthy of a first round pick because his ceiling is very high. 

The Packers are just one team who could afford the luxury of taking Love. They made it back to the NFCCG, I would argue that one rookie would not have changed that outcome, and their roster is mostly intact and can look at making another run this year imo. 

It's not that he wasn't ready for the start of the season. It's that he apparently wasn't capable of running the offense after four months. Y'all seem to think Jordan Love is the only top-64 pick in last year's draft class who was totally incapable of learning a playbook by the end of the season.

[Blue]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

Where did I say every QB we've ever touched hit? Is there a team with a better past 20 years at the position?

Right here.

17 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

The Packers know what they're doing with a QB, they know what they're doing better than any other team in the NFL. HOF QBs back to back for only the second time ever. Quality backups like Brunell, Hasselbeck, Brooks, Flynn all became starters elsewhere, hell they even were the first to uncover Warner. They know what they're doing.

And yes, the Pats have legitimately produced multiple starting quarterbacks who have netted them multiple Day 2 selections and started for other teams over the past twenty years. Matt Cassel, Jimmy Garoppolo, Jacoby Brissett, Brian Hoyer.

Edited April 7, 2021 by Blue

[Scoundrel]

What I respect is @Blue can take off the cheese shades and look at this without clear bias. 

[JBURGE]

Just now, Blue said:

It's not that he wasn't ready for the start of the season. It's that he apparently wasn't capable of running the offense after four months. Y'all seem to think Jordan Love is the only top-64 pick in last year's draft class who was totally incapable of learning a playbook by the end of the season.

He wasn't capable of running the offense better than Tim Boyle, sure. I don't see why that is such a big issue to you. Once again he was drafted with the intent of having at least 1 season on the bench learning, I don't think you can argue that. 

To answer the actual OP, I will agree with whoever said it earlier which is the correct answer:

• If after 1 year GB is happy with what we saw, they won't trade him for a 1st
• If after 1 year, GB would accept a 1st round pick for him, then he sucks and we should absolutely take the trade, but the other team should be pretty suspect of that

[MWil23]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Lol teams can't hit on top 5 picks at QB and you're going to criticize us for trades and day 3 picks??

 

To be fair, while the Packers deserve a ton of credit for the Favre to Rodgers bridge, that was almost 20 years ago (wow I'm getting old). And considering the failures elsewhere with draft capital used since in Brohm (2nd) and the jury being out on Love, given the level that Rodgers played at last year and how they were essentially a piece or 2 away from being Super Bowl bound/probably champs, it's hard not to be somewhat critical of the Packers with that choice.

As a Packer's fan, I'd be optimistic, but the odds of catching lightning in a bottle again in the back end of R1 is unlikely IMO.  

[JBURGE]

Just now, Scoundrel said:

What I respect is @Blue can take off the cheese shades and look at this without clear bias. 

There are clearly a couple Packers fans in here who won't take no for an answer, but it doesn't mean that @Blue's argument is correct. Neither side budging is just a waste of time for everyone.

I think Love sucks tbh but I still think whoever took him knew it was a few year project. 

[Packerraymond]

3 minutes ago, Blue said:

Right here.

And yes, the Pats have legitimately produced multiple starting quarterbacks who have netted them multiple Day 2 selections and started for other teams over the past twenty years. Matt Cassel, Jimmy Garoppolo, Jacoby Brissett, Brian Hoyer.

Sure, I'm OK to say the Pats. You're talking about the greatest team of the 2000s.

Anyway, the Packers know what they're doing, there was no point in having Love be the #2 last year when Boyle was far more experienced in the offense.