Cheese Curds: Green Bay Packers Updates

[vikesfan89]

If the Packers truly believe in Love it seems like it would make sense to trade Rodgers after the year, eat the cap hit and get some draft capital to improve the team around Love

Unless they still think they have a good shot at another Superbowl with Rodgers

[Krauser]

7 minutes ago, vikesfan89 said:

If the Packers truly believe in Love

Green Bay, 2021: 

Green Bay, 2024: 

[vike daddy]

i prefer Alannis.

[CWood21]

On 5/4/2020 at 12:56 PM, Krauser said:

The Packers haven’t shown they have the first clue how to build a strong roster since Ted Thompson lost his fastball. Rodgers is the one and only reason they have a winning record since 2015.

They have not drafted well under Gute.

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

[Krauser]

15 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

The Vikings roster has been good enough to go to the playoffs 3 times in 5 years, without an elite QB. In that time, they have one of the best records in the NFC (tied with the Seahawks, trailing the Saints by a half game).

The Vikings have gone 50-29-1 since 2015, with a points differential of +336. Cousins has started 31 of those games, Bradford 17, Bridgewater 16, Keenum 14, and Mannion and Shaun Hill 1 each. 

The Packers have gone 46-33-1 since 2015, with a points differential of +64.  Rodgers has started 71 of those 80 games. 

He has one year left in Green Bay, maybe two. And then we'll see how good the Packers roster really is.

[vike daddy]

35 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

hey mod, do your best please to respect the discussion here and stay on topic. this is a thread on the Green Bay Packers, so trying to subvert it to how the Vikings have drafted over the years isn't necessary or relevant.

thank you for your cooperation.

[Ozzy]

7 hours ago, Krauser said:

The Vikings roster has been good enough to go to the playoffs 3 times in 5 years, without an elite QB. In that time, they have one of the best records in the NFC (tied with the Seahawks, trailing the Saints by a half game).

The Vikings have gone 50-29-1 since 2015, with a points differential of +336. Cousins has started 31 of those games, Bradford 17, Bridgewater 16, Keenum 14, and Mannion and Shaun Hill 1 each. 

The Packers have gone 46-33-1 since 2015, with a points differential of +64.  Rodgers has started 71 of those 80 games. 

He has one year left in Green Bay, maybe two. And then we'll see how good the Packers roster really is.

Good points you bring up, crazy to think that many different QBs have started for the Vikings in such a short time.  Then you have the Packers who are absolutely spoiled , and have no clue what it is like without having a HOF QB on the roster.  Outside of a few injured points in Rodgers career, the Packers have had two starting QBs in 28 years and both are HOF players.  

I will say the FA signings the Packers had last year in the Smith boys did greatly change that roster.  They had great success defensively and most of it was because of the season those two had.  Not sure they can keep that level of play up, Za'Darius played out of his mind last year and not sure he is that level of a talent consistently but will see.  They have drafted a little better recently, Alexander is a very good corner, Savage seems to be really good as well and not sure this past years draft was as bad as people say.  The roster overall is sold but true without Rodgers hard to really know how good it actually is.

Either way interesting stats in that time span, nice work.  

[CWood21]

9 hours ago, Krauser said:

The Vikings roster has been good enough to go to the playoffs 3 times in 5 years, without an elite QB. In that time, they have one of the best records in the NFC (tied with the Seahawks, trailing the Saints by a half game).

The Vikings have gone 50-29-1 since 2015, with a points differential of +336. Cousins has started 31 of those games, Bradford 17, Bridgewater 16, Keenum 14, and Mannion and Shaun Hill 1 each. 

The Packers have gone 46-33-1 since 2015, with a points differential of +64.  Rodgers has started 71 of those 80 games. 

He has one year left in Green Bay, maybe two. And then we'll see how good the Packers roster really is.

You were the one who argued that Gute wasn't a very good GM despite the fact that it usually takes 3 years to properly evaluate GMs.  It's interesting that you went back to 2015 to evaluate the Packers in terms of Gute's abilities as a GM despite the fact that he didn't become GM until January 7th, 2018.  He's been GM for two seasons, in which the Packers amassed a 19-12-1 record.  During that same period, the Vikings went 18-13-1.  I'm not saying the Packers' roster is anything special, but it's kinda ironic for someone who is claiming that Gute sucks at drafting when their own GM seems to have their own fair share of struggles.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Vikings have only drafted two starters (i.e. started at least 75% of their games) in the last two drafts in Brian O'Neill and Garrett Bradbury.  Mike Hughes is currently slotted to be one of their starting CBs, if healthy.  The Packers currently have 3 starters (Jaire Alexander, Elgton Jenkins, and Darnell Savage) from their 2018 and 2019 drafts.  And I'm not including JK Scott since he's only a punter.  Both teams have struggled to consistently draft well.

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, Ozzy said:

Good points you bring up, crazy to think that many different QBs have started for the Vikings in such a short time.  Then you have the Packers who are absolutely spoiled , and have no clue what it is like without having a HOF QB on the roster.  Outside of a few injured points in Rodgers career, the Packers have had two starting QBs in 28 years and both are HOF players.  

I will say the FA signings the Packers had last year in the Smith boys did greatly change that roster.  They had great success defensively and most of it was because of the season those two had.  Not sure they can keep that level of play up, Za'Darius played out of his mind last year and not sure he is that level of a talent consistently but will see.  They have drafted a little better recently, Alexander is a very good corner, Savage seems to be really good as well and not sure this past years draft was as bad as people say.  The roster overall is sold but true without Rodgers hard to really know how good it actually is.

Either way interesting stats in that time span, nice work.  

And those "other" QBs signed a 1 year, $20M deal with the Cardinals and 3 year, $63M deal with the Panthers and accounted for 33 career starts.  And they got a career year out of Case Keenum.  Let's not pretend like the Vikings were trotting out Josh Rosen year after year.  Either way, I think the bigger point is being missed here.  Go look at Kirk Cousins and Aaron Rodgers' numbers the last two years.  I'm not sure anyone would take Cousins over Rodgers in a vacuum, but you could easily argue that Cousins has outproduced Rodgers over the last two years.  You can blame it on whatever you want, but Rodgers' production has taken a nosedive since his 2014 season.

[Krauser]

41 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

It's interesting that you went back to 2015 to evaluate the Packers in terms of Gute's abilities as a GM despite the fact that he didn't become GM until January 7th, 2018. 

I went back to 2015 because that was the first year past the peak of the Rodgers-era Packers. Thompson had his first bad draft class in 2015 and the overall quality of the roster started to decline.

The Packers have never returned to the level they were at in 2014, and they've now apparently decided to turn the page on the Rodgers era entirely within the next year or two.

35 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

And they got a career year out of Case Keenum.

That would be a point in favor of the Vikings having a strong roster, not against it.

Not coincidentally, Bradford (2016) and Cousins (2019) also had career years in purple.  

35 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

You can blame it on whatever you want, but Rodgers' production has taken a nosedive since his 2014 season.

That would be a point against the Packers having a strong roster, not for it. 

The Packers offensive production was even worse with Hundley.

Love is much more likely to be another Hundley than another Rodgers.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Krauser

[Ozzy]

6 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

And those "other" QBs signed a 1 year, $20M deal with the Cardinals and 3 year, $63M deal with the Panthers and accounted for 33 career starts.  And they got a career year out of Case Keenum.  Let's not pretend like the Vikings were trotting out Josh Rosen year after year.  Either way, I think the bigger point is being missed here.  Go look at Kirk Cousins and Aaron Rodgers' numbers the last two years.  I'm not sure anyone would take Cousins over Rodgers in a vacuum, but you could easily argue that Cousins has outproduced Rodgers over the last two years.  You can blame it on whatever you want, but Rodgers' production has taken a nosedive since his 2014 season.

The production decrease for Rodgers is a change if philosophy and a little bit of a decrease in weapons on the team receiver wise and more focus on running the football consistently.  Jordy Nelson, Greg Jennings, Randall Cobb, James Jones and Donald Driver is a lot different than Adams, Lazard and Valdes-Scantling.  

 

Either way Green Bay has been more fortunate obviously, honestly no team in the NFL has had that kind of success with the QB position.  No team is even close to having basically two starters in 28 years and both of those starters being HOF players.  Makes everything else a little bit easier having that type of insane consistency at QB for an organization.  

 

So are you saying that Sam Bradford, Case Keenum and Teddy are some all world QBs or something?  Last time I checked none of them will be in the HOF, who would you take?  Rodgers or those guys?  Granted I think Green Bay has done ok drafting, not flashy but solid.  Either way are they good enough to win without Rodgers, well time well tell on that possibly sooner rather than later.  

[RpMc]

14 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

Either way Green Bay has been more fortunate obviously, honestly no team in the NFL has had that kind of success with the QB position.  No team is even close to having basically two starters in 28 years and both of those starters being HOF players.  Makes everything else a little bit easier having that type of insane consistency at QB for an organization.  

SF went from Montana to Young from 1979 to 1999 (1980 if you want to make it Montana's first year starting); I'd consider that pretty close to what Green Bay has had with Favre and Rodgers, but you're right in the fact that the Packers are extremely fortunate in that regard.

Edited May 14, 2020 by RpMc

[swede700]

21 minutes ago, Krauser said:

Love is much more likely to be another Hundley than another Rodgers.

And DeShone Kizer.  While certainly Randall wasn't going to be hugely successful, at least he's still in the league, unlike that guy that Gutey traded for.  

[Ozzy]

3 hours ago, RpMc said:

SF went from Montana to Young from 1979 to 1999 (1980 if you want to make it Montana's first year starting); I'd consider that pretty close to what Green Bay has had with Favre and Rodgers, but you're right in the fact that the Packers are extremely fortunate in that regard.

Very true but 28 years is a lot longer than 20.  However 49ers did have Jeff Garcia who had crazy amount of success so really there it was a ton to do with the system I feel and not so much the QB.  Started with Bill Walsh an offensive mastermind and honestly could have put a number of different QBs in that system and as long as they had ability Walsh was looking for, they would have been successful.

Green Bay did not have such a system I feel offensively.  Nothing quite that groundbreaking like the 49ers had and started under Walsh which they continued even after he stopped being the HC.

 

Patriots had Drew Bledsoe and Tom Brady for a long time but there was gaps in there and injuries and or different starters, and Bledsoe I do not believe is in the HOF despite being eligible for it in 2011.  With the success Brady has had it becomes a little slanted though, Bledsoe was good but not that good honestly.

[swede700]

9 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

Green Bay did not have such a system I feel offensively.  Nothing quite that groundbreaking like the 49ers had and started under Walsh which they continued even after he stopped being the HC.

Patriots had Drew Bledsoe and Tom Brady for a long time but there was gaps in there and injuries and or different starters, and Bledsoe I do not believe is in the HOF despite being eligible for it in 2011.  With the success Brady has had it becomes a little slanted though, Bledsoe was good but not that good honestly.

Certainly not groundbreaking, but the Packers have really had the same offense since the early 90s.  Holmgren to Sherman (with Rhodes in-between) to McCarthy to now LaFleur basically all learned the Walsh system (although LaFleur learned it from Shanahan and Sherman from Holmgren). 

The Vikings, on the other hand, have had different systems over that same time, even though Norv is loosely connected through the Sid Gillman tree (which is where Bill Walsh learned some of his scheme), but I really consider his system different, as he was a John Robinson/Jimmy Johnson guy.  

In the end, it'll be interesting to see where these system/trees end up being described as....will they continue to be Walsh systems and Parcells systems, or will they advance to be Holmgren systems, Shanahan systems, Belichick systems and Reid systems?