Jordan Love Appreciation Thread

[Old Guy]

4 hours ago, HighCalebR said:

We have NFC West and AFC south next year.  I'm sure we'll  get August in Florida. Yeah gonna be quite a bit tougher than NFC South and this years AFC west. 

49ers will be good. The Seahags, Rams and Cardinals all suck! 

Dolphins will probably be good. The Bills, Jets and Patriots all suck.

Looks about a draw to me. Plus, we have no idea who is going to be good and who is going to suck this far out. 

[packfanfb]

6 hours ago, craig said:

If the Packers do well in their remaining games against their super easy schedule, they'll face a tougher schedule next year.  The schedule this year has been unbelievably soft and easy.  That may change next year.  That's not on Love, of course, but the W-L may not improve super dramatically when we aren't playing such an easy schedule.  

I mean you can never predict what happens year-to-year in terms other teams and whether they will be better or worse; however, if the Packers finish 2nd in the division (pass the Vikings) or 3rd where they are currently, it actually should not make much a difference outside of the NFC East game...

14 of the Packers' games would be the same no matter whether they finished 1st or last in the division. They have 6 division games, play the AFC South next year (right now Jax looks good, Texans are an upward team, Indy and TEN are average; and the NFC West (SF good, Seattle pretty good, LAR average and Zona below average). 

From there, we have 3 wildcard games: a team from the NFC East, NFC South and AFC East. 

If we finish 2nd in the division this year we are most likely going to get the following teams: Cowboys, Saints, Bills. 

If we finish 3rd in the division this year we are most likely going to get the following teams: Giants, Bucs, Jets. 

Obviously, the game that sticks out is the Cowboys v. Giants - sizeable difference there. But Saints/Bucs? I'd call that a draw looking at their current rosters and same with Bills/Jets. The Jets are likely going to be a lot better next year when Rodgers is healthy. 

In comparison, the Lions by finishing 1st will likely get the Eagles, Falcons and Dolphins (2 or the 3 should certainly be tough)

Bears would get the Commanders, Panthers and Patriots (pretty good advantage there knowing what we currently know). 

[Mr Bad Example]

15 minutes ago, spilltray said:

6 games vs the rest of the NFC North

8 games playing all of 2 rotating divisions

That leaves 3 games standings impact. It's not really a big deal.

 

The whole "oh, they've got a first/third/whatever place schedule doesn't mean anything. Especially given the variance from year to year in the NFL.

In the macro, trading the meh-to-terrible NFC S and mediocre AFC W (Chiefs are usually a final boss but they're off this year) for the rising AFC S and super-competitive NFC W os definitely a tougher schedule.

Not a problem if you're in the "iron sharpens iron" mindset.

Edited December 6, 2023 by Mr Bad Example

[HighCalebR]

20 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

49ers will be good. The Seahags, Rams and Cardinals all suck! 

Dolphins will probably be good. The Bills, Jets and Patriots all suck.

Looks about a draw to me. Plus, we have no idea who is going to be good and who is going to suck this far out. 

Hawks and rams will be competitive.  We're no world beater yet.

Patriots and Cardinals I feel pretty solidly about. The rest are for sure up for debate.

[Refugee]

2 hours ago, Mr Bad Example said:

 

The whole "oh, they've got a first/third/whatever place schedule doesn't mean anything. Especially given the variance from year to year in the NFL.

In the macro, trading the meh-to-terrible NFC S and mediocre AFC W (Chiefs are usually a final boss but they're off this year) for the rising AFC S and super-competitive NFC W os definitely a tougher schedule.

Not a problem if you're in the "iron sharpens iron" mindset.

Consistently getting a first place schedule usually can be tough, as Packers fans have seen and as Vikings fans experienced this year playing the 9ers and Bengals *Eagles. It worked out they caught SF at the right time and will now play a Borrowless Bengals but if you take the 1 spot perennially, those teams more often than not stay competitive. Of course every year is a roll of the dice but the Pack getting the Giants and Rams is a pretty big deal for keeping us in the hunt this year.

I would like to avoid 3rd so we don’t have AR in Lambeau next year but have to admit the drama would sell. Let’s pass up Minnesota and let him have a revenge game that helps us.

Edited December 6, 2023 by Refugee

[Old Guy]

2 hours ago, Mr Bad Example said:

 

The whole "oh, they've got a first/third/whatever place schedule doesn't mean anything. Especially given the variance from year to year in the NFL.

In the macro, trading the meh-to-terrible NFC S and mediocre AFC W (Chiefs are usually a final boss but they're off this year) for the rising AFC S and super-competitive NFC W os definitely a tougher schedule.

Not a problem if you're in the "iron sharpens iron" mindset.

Plus we are going to get a second-place schedule best case scenario. If the Vikings happen to sneak in and beat us again, we could have a 3rd place schedule. 

[mikebpackfan]

8 hours ago, Old Guy said:

49ers will be good. The Seahags, Rams and Cardinals all suck! 

Dolphins will probably be good. The Bills, Jets and Patriots all suck.

Looks about a draw to me. Plus, we have no idea who is going to be good and who is going to suck this far out. 

That’s the AFC east. 

[Old Guy]

7 hours ago, mikebpackfan said:

That’s the AFC east. 

Yep, my bad. The AFC South should be even easier. 

[coachbuns]

Interesting facts regarding Love's play vs San Diego, Detroit and KC ...  These are from CBS sports.  8 passing td's - tied for 2nd,  3-0 games won - 1st, 0 interceptions - tied for 1st, passer rating 116.9 - 3rd, turnover worthy throw pct -  0% tied for 1st and expected points added/play .025 - 5th.  He's also the 1st player since the 1970 league merger to have 250 yards passing, 3 or more tds with no interceptions in consecutive games against teams that entered least 5 games above 500.  Fingers crossed this continues but the trend for Love is certainly pointing up.  One thing for sure the past 3 games .. Viking and Bears fans are wondering how in the hell can GB keep hitting on QB's.

[Old Guy]

39 minutes ago, coachbuns said:

Interesting facts regarding Love's play vs San Diego, Detroit and KC ...  These are from CBS sports.  8 passing td's - tied for 2nd,  3-0 games won - 1st, 0 interceptions - tied for 1st, passer rating 116.9 - 3rd, turnover worthy throw pct -  0% tied for 1st and expected points added/play .025 - 5th.  He's also the 1st player since the 1970 league merger to have 250 yards passing, 3 or more tds with no interceptions in consecutive games against teams that entered least 5 games above 500.  Fingers crossed this continues but the trend for Love is certainly pointing up.  One thing for sure the past 3 games .. Viking and Bears fans are wondering how in the hell can GB keep hitting on QB's.

That is elite stuff and hope it continues.

In a copycat league it amazes me no other organization has followed Green Bay's practice when it comes to drafting and developing quarterbacks. 

I think it's more of an indictment on billionaire owners who have no patience. It could also be no GM has the balls to go into the office of their billionaire owner's and say, "we're drafting a quarterback with our FRP, we are going to let him sit, watch and learn for 3 years. You good with that?"

 

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, Old Guy said:

That is elite stuff and hope it continues.

In a copycat league it amazes me no other organization has followed Green Bay's practice when it comes to drafting and developing quarterbacks. 

I think it's more of an indictment on billionaire owners who have no patience. It could also be no GM has the balls to go into the office of their billionaire owner's and say, "we're drafting a quarterback with our FRP, we are going to let him sit, watch and learn for 3 years. You good with that?"

 

Not many organization have GM's with the stones to do what GB has done in regards to drafting QB's while having a HOF under center.

Bellichick did.  But Brady outplayed the timeline.

Andy Reid did.  Mahomes sat for almost a year.  Though Alex Smith was hardly in the HOF discussion.

I'm sure there are others that have tried, but off the top of my head, they are hard to remember.  Simply because most QB's are drafted high for a reason....the club really needs one.  I don't feel like there are all that many QB's drafted in the middle to late first round.  Either they go pretty high, or they slide to the second round.  

But you are right...it takes a lot of stones to do that.  Because GB has done it twice, with two different GM"s, that should tell you a couple things about being a GM in Green Bay.

Board vs. owner

Seems like the Board is less likely to make knee jerk reactions.  Good or bad.

Seems like the Board gifts a lot of power to the GM.

I'll bet that GM job here is pretty appealing when it is open, for just those reasons.

 

 

[Old Guy]

6 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Not many organization have GM's with the stones to do what GB has done in regards to drafting QB's while having a HOF under center.

Bellichick did.  But Brady outplayed the timeline.

Andy Reid did.  Mahomes sat for almost a year.  Though Alex Smith was hardly in the HOF discussion.

I'm sure there are others that have tried, but off the top of my head, they are hard to remember.  Simply because most QB's are drafted high for a reason....the club really needs one.  I don't feel like there are all that many QB's drafted in the middle to late first round.  Either they go pretty high, or they slide to the second round.  

But you are right...it takes a lot of stones to do that.  Because GB has done it twice, with two different GM"s, that should tell you a couple things about being a GM in Green Bay.

Board vs. owner

Seems like the Board is less likely to make knee jerk reactions.  Good or bad.

Seems like the Board gifts a lot of power to the GM.

I'll bet that GM job here is pretty appealing when it is open, for just those reasons.

 

 

Tom Brady was the 199th pick in the draft. That his hardly applicable to the point. Same with Brock Purdy. The 49ers weren't drafting him to be the guy. He was hopefully going to be a serviceable 3rd string QB. 

That is the whole point. Drafting a quarterback when you need one is like falling in love with a pretty girl who is a *****. You get one characteristic you like but the flaws are too many to overcome, and it doesn't work out. 

[beekay414]

25 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Tom Brady was the 199th pick in the draft. That his hardly applicable to the point. Same with Brock Purdy. The 49ers weren't drafting him to be the guy. He was hopefully going to be a serviceable 3rd string QB. 

That is the whole point. Drafting a quarterback when you need one is like falling in love with a pretty girl who is a *****. You get one characteristic you like but the flaws are too many to overcome, and it doesn't work out. 

He's saying Brady outplayed the timeline to replace him with Jimmy G, not that Brady was the replacement. 

[vegas492]

52 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Tom Brady was the 199th pick in the draft. That his hardly applicable to the point. Same with Brock Purdy. The 49ers weren't drafting him to be the guy. He was hopefully going to be a serviceable 3rd string QB. 

That is the whole point. Drafting a quarterback when you need one is like falling in love with a pretty girl who is a *****. You get one characteristic you like but the flaws are too many to overcome, and it doesn't work out. 

Huh?  I'm not following you.

BB drafted Jimmy G.  Brady outplayed the timeline to get Jimmy G on the field.  So, Jimmy was traded.

Forget 199th pick in the draft, I think you were assuming I was talking about Bledsoe vs. Brady.  Instead I was talking about Brady vs Jimmy G.  And I say Jimmy G because I'm unsure if I have the will to try to spell his last name correctly.

In regards to your other stuff?

I feel you are pretty wrong.  Teams draft QB's when they need them.  They are bad teams at the top of the first round.  They need a signal caller bad.  So you draft your guy and are almost forced to play him right away.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.  But I don't fault the Bengals for taking Burrow #1 and playing him right away.  Or the Chargers with Herbert.  Or the Jags with Lawrence.

I prefer how GB has done it, as I'll bet the odds for success are greater for that kind of path.  Draft and sit.  Some teams just don't have that luxury...as a GM or in their roster.

[Rainmaker90]

1 hour ago, vegas492 said:

Not many organization have GM's with the stones to do what GB has done in regards to drafting QB's while having a HOF under center.

Bellichick did.  But Brady outplayed the timeline.

Andy Reid did.  Mahomes sat for almost a year.  Though Alex Smith was hardly in the HOF discussion.

I'm sure there are others that have tried, but off the top of my head, they are hard to remember.  Simply because most QB's are drafted high for a reason....the club really needs one.  I don't feel like there are all that many QB's drafted in the middle to late first round.  Either they go pretty high, or they slide to the second round.  

But you are right...it takes a lot of stones to do that.  Because GB has done it twice, with two different GM"s, that should tell you a couple things about being a GM in Green Bay.

Board vs. owner

Seems like the Board is less likely to make knee jerk reactions.  Good or bad.

Seems like the Board gifts a lot of power to the GM.

I'll bet that GM job here is pretty appealing when it is open, for just those reasons.

 

 

I will never understand how and why sports are so reactive and short-sighted. Theres very little long-term planning in many cases