Jump to content

Packer problems


Packer backer

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, StatKing said:

Oh did I offend your precious Packers management by saying Deguara is a bust? I could care less about the rest of the third round picks in 2020. Can he play yes or no? In 3 years the guy has less than 400 yards of production.

The only thing that offends me here is your ignorance. 

Your dog**** opinion of: "If we had a front office that actually ran like it was in the 21st century instead of being stuck in 1996 guys like Deguara would no longer be on the roster" is demonstratably false. 

Please stop with the garbage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StatKing said:

Revisionist history at its finest. They weren't taking Love incase Rodgers decided to retire, they took Love because they thought he was in a sharp decline and wanted a way to push him out the door. Thats why Rodgers spent the last two years trying to get 50 millon a year, he knows with that much of a financial commitment there's no way the Packers could get rid of him unless its on his terms. He accomplished what Favre never could.

Once again the best pick of that draft class is a backup RB we took in the 2nd round. Sounds like a pretty weak draft to me.

So you're mad the franchise protected itself that it's multi-million dollar investment continued to decline?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CWood21 said:

So you're mad the franchise protected itself that it's multi-million dollar investment continued to decline?

I'm mad at the timing. I just didn't see the point when we knew for a fact that Rodgers was going to be on the roster for atleast another 2-3 years regardless of his level of play due to his massive contract extension kicking in. My main gripe has always been the Jordan Love pick was two years too early. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StatKing said:

when we knew for a fact that Rodgers was going to be on roster for atleast another 2-3 years regardless of his level of play

Wat8.jpg?1315930535

The idea was that you didn't want to have to play Love early, that's the whole point.

Edited by Norm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, StatKing said:

I'm mad at the timing. I just didn't see the point when we knew for a fact that Rodgers was going to be on the roster for atleast another 2-3 years regardless of his level of play due to his massive contract extension kicking in. My main gripe has always been the Jordan Love pick was two years too early. 

I'm sure you were complaining of the Rodgers' pick too, right?  It's better to move on from a guy a year too early than a year too late.  Rodgers looked like a guy who was trending towards league average rather than a future back-to-back MVP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CWood21 said:

I'm sure you were complaining of the Rodgers' pick too, right?  It's better to move on from a guy a year too early than a year too late.  Rodgers looked like a guy who was trending towards league average rather than a future back-to-back MVP.

The only thing Rodgers and Love have in common is that they were both drafted with aging diva QBs on the roster. They aren't even comparable as prospects and the financial implications of drafting a QB in the first has changed a lot since 2005.

This is what I mean by being stuck in 1996. The idea of sitting a QB for 2-3 years is so archaic there's a reason no other team in the league does it. The way rookie contracts are structured nowadays its easier than ever to move off of a failed first round QB. I just want us to get with the times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, StatKing said:

The only thing Rodgers and Love have in common is that they were both drafted with aging diva QBs on the roster. They aren't even comparable as prospects and the financial implications of drafting a QB in the first has changed a lot since 2005.

This is what I mean by being stuck in 1996. The idea of sitting a QB for 2-3 years is so archaic there's a reason no other team in the league does it. The way rookie contracts are structured nowadays its easier than ever to move off of a failed first round QB. I just want us to get with the times.

That's not just QBs.  That's all rookie contracts since they introduced the rookie pay scale.  Rookie QBs sit their first year more often than not.  Do they usually sit 2-3 years?  No, but most teams that draft a QB usually don't have their incumbent QB playing at an MVP-level.  So at what point during the last 2 years do you feel the Packers should have benched Aaron Rodgers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, StatKing said:

The only thing Rodgers and Love have in common is that they were both drafted with aging diva QBs on the roster. They aren't even comparable as prospects and the financial implications of drafting a QB in the first has changed a lot since 2005.

This is what I mean by being stuck in 1996. The idea of sitting a QB for 2-3 years is so archaic there's a reason no other team in the league does it. The way rookie contracts are structured nowadays its easier than ever to move off of a failed first round QB. I just want us to get with the times.

I don't think the league is like "oh you don't need to sit guys early, that doesn't help them." I think nobody has the luxury anymore

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Norm said:

I wish I could search the term "Tee Higgins" in this section, two searches, one right before the draft, one the day after until now. I bet there's like 40 mentions before and 29384098243098239048230984902384098712390847390274907027149807 after.

He was unanimously the best wr left on the board by most rankings by the time our pick rolled around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PackFan13 said:

The takes of love making Rodgers back to back mvp is my favorite. It's not a wasted pick that has blown up in our face it made Rodgers better! 

Is it a wasted pick if it meant Rodgers played at an MVP level?  I think you'd be lying to yourself if didn't think the Love selection didn't motivate Rodgers.  How motivated would you be if someone brought in your replacement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, PackFan13 said:

He was unanimously the best wr left on the board by most rankings by the time our pick rolled around. 

I'm aware. Everyone acts like he's all we wanted as fans and everyone was for it.. But he wasn't talked about a ton before and they waited until he ended up being pretty good to act like he's all they ever wanted. He never felt like a great fit with Rodgers. If you were going to take a big dude who wasn't super fast I was full on Pittman. But it's HIGGGINNNSX100000 all the time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Is it a wasted pick if it meant Rodgers played at an MVP level?  I think you'd be lying to yourself if didn't think the Love selection didn't motivate Rodgers.  How motivated would you be if someone brought in your replacement?

It 100% had to do something. It's entirely possible we would have gotten 2022 AR both those years without it. But they have to laugh and joke because they still think AR isn't a weirdo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...