Revisionist History: Jason LaCanfora on Packers 2020 First Round

[pbmax]

Jason La Canfora, the man responsible for such insightful pieces as Kyle Shanahan angers people and won't be successful (https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/kyle-shanahan-staff-inexperience-at-core-of-redskins-dysfunction/), is now taking Packers coach Matt LaFleur to task for claiming the Packers ran out of first round value when it came time to move up for Jordan Love.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/packers-revisionist-history-why-matt-lafleurs-account-of-why-they-took-jordan-love-doesnt-add-up/

His evidence is basically who they did not trade up for and those they did not stay put to draft:

1. Packers did not move up for Kenneth Murray, a WR or a center.

2. Packers did not take Patrick Queen or Jordyn Brooks when each would have been available at 30.

He ignores some things that we know about the Packers: they almost never target WR in the first round. They almost never target ILB in the first round. They have not taken an interior OL in forever that early (Verba and Wahle were ticketed to be tackles).

The Savage Rule Exception: In my head, this rules out trading up into the low 20s for a WR or Murray as they had signed Funchess, Canadian Boyfriend, and Kirksey; so unlike the Savage pick (deep safety), there was not a starting lineup gap where literally no one capable of playing the position existed on the roster.

They wren't trading up for Ruiz even if LaCanfora underestimates the chances of Linsley being a cap casualty next year.

So where does this leave Jason's theory?

We don't know who else they contact about moving up (the only story we got was hearing Schneider talking about talking to the Packers). And we don't know who they might have been targeting.

We do know teams do not usually have 32 players with first round grades. Packers don't like taking Round 2 grades in Round 1.

How hard did they try to move up for Jefferson or Murray, if at all? No ones knows, least of all LaCanfora.

It has been reported that Gute was thinking about Lock last year, but unlike Love, he was not able to move up to get him as the Broncos jumped in front.

So did the Packers target Love all along? I doubt it. They had three more years to look in the first round for a QB for Rodgers was done.

I believe its possible Love was their last first round grade. We just don't know hard how they tried to move up for any others.

[run pMc]

Remind me again - did they trade up AFTER Aiyuk was picked? If that's the case, they were certainly going after Jordan Love. If it was not the case, you could argue they were after someone else and he was the backup plan, but no HC or GM would ever publicly admit that unless it was in a memoir published 20 years after the fact.

Agree it's uncommon for even 25 players to get a first-round grade on a team's board. If they wanted Queen or Brooks they could have taken them. They thought JL was a better pick based on whatever calculations they made.

What's the point of the article - to tell MLF to admit they picked JL to replace Rodgers at a lower cost? Isn't that obvious? Is it wrong to not overtly tell Rodgers he's on the clock and just say JL was the BPA?

It's just stirring up shit because things are boring in his corner of the web, probably at the behest of a know nothing editor.

[pbmax]

Remind me again - did they trade up AFTER Aiyuk was picked? If that's the case, they were certainly going after Jordan Love. If it was not the case, you could argue they were after someone else and he was the backup plan, but no HC or GM would ever publicly admit that unless it was in a memoir published 20 years after the fact.

Agree it's uncommon for even 25 players to get a first-round grade on a team's board. If they wanted Queen or Brooks they could have taken them. They thought JL was a better pick based on whatever calculations they made.

What's the point of the article - to tell MLF to admit they picked JL to replace Rodgers at a lower cost? Isn't that obvious? Is it wrong to not overtly tell Rodgers he's on the clock and just say JL was the BPA?

It's just stirring up shit because things are boring in his corner of the web, probably at the behest of a know nothing editor.

I have no reports to share. But its unheard of to complete a trade the day of the draft and not be certain of the choices at the pick. I don't think they were moving up to get Aiyuk.

Jason is defending his claim that the Packers made this move and are planning to move on from Rodgers in 2 years. He made that claim during or shortly after the draft. And he is trying to debunk the idea, as LaFleur put it on the radio, that the Packers were down to their last first round choice on the board.

I don't doubt the Packers realize that they are setting up a possible succession.

What Jason doesn't want to acknowledge is that by taking him now rather than in two years, the Packers have options.

He wants it to be a fait accompli that Gute is buying into the cheap rookie QB deal method of team building. The evidence on that is severely lacking.

[sharpe1027]

Classic case of a preexsting conclusion followed by attempted justification.

[Bretsky]

I have no reports to share. But its unheard of to complete a trade the day of the draft and not be certain of the choices at the pick. I don't think they were moving up to get Aiyuk.

Jason is defending his claim that the Packers made this move and are planning to move on from Rodgers in 2 years. He made that claim during or shortly after the draft. And he is trying to debunk the idea, as LaFleur put it on the radio, that the Packers were down to their last first round choice on the board.

I don't doubt the Packers realize that they are setting up a possible succession.

What Jason doesn't want to acknowledge is that by taking him now rather than in two years, the Packers have options.

He wants it to be a fait accompli that Gute is buying into the cheap rookie QB deal method of team building. The evidence on that is severely lacking.


I'm not sure I agree with this; would you try to deny that teams with QB's on either first year deals, or QB's who were willing to take below market value deals have excelled ?

[sharpe1027]

The whole "poor Packers" argument was pretty pathetic. Lafleur wasn't feeling sorry for himself. He was just explaining that Love was the best guy in their board by a good margin.

All this talk of some complex two or three year plan to move on is sounding eerily like conspiracy theorist. Too many contingencies in the draft alone to have that all planned out, much less the contingencies over the next several years.

I'm not saying Rodgers will be here in three years. Nobody knows that (which is part of my point). I'm just saying don't discount the more straight forward explanation, they had Love well above anyone else on the board. They probably looked to move up, and if they couldn't get him, they would have looked to move down

[texaspackerbacker]

I'll take the point of view of pretty much any poster in here over this know-nothing media shithead who's just in it to stir up trouble.

[wist43]

The bottom line is - this was a trademark TT/Packers draft that says fuck today, we're looking ahead to tomorrow.

It is the Packer formula for spitting on 30 straight years of HOF QB play, and only coming away with 2 Trophies.

Don't worry about filling obvious holes, just patch 'em with some junk, and maybe some of your lower round fodder will develop. If it doesn't?? No worries, they weren't worried about winning today anyway.

The organizational philosophy of not caring about LB play is still there; as is their disdain for 1st rd WR's.

I think a lot of us were hoping for a philosophically different approach with Gute, and were encouraged by his 1st 2 years, but this offseason takes us right back to the failed bullshit of the TT era.

I guess Gute is hoping he can win a Lombardi in 2026, and that will be good enough to see us thru to 2035.

[Zool]

I'm not sure I agree with this; would you try to deny that teams with QB's on either first year deals, or QB's who were willing to take below market value deals have excelled ?

For every Pat Mahomes, there's 8-10 QBs taken in the first round that suck. So yes I would argue against that being fact. I would call Mahomes, Jackson, and Watson exceptions to the Trubisky, Josh Rosen, Kizer, Paxon Lynch, Winston, Mariota, Bortels, Manzier, EJ Manuel, Gino Smith, Tannehill, Weeden. Those are just the bad first rounders for the previous 7 drafts. Just because you have a cheap QB, doesn't mean you have a good one.

[Zool]

It is the Packer formula for spitting on 30 straight years of HOF QB play, and only coming away with 2 Trophies.

This argument is old. Dan Marino won how many trophies in 17 seasons? Brees has 1 in 18 seasons. The Chargers have 0 with back to back HOF QBs over that same 18 years. There's a reason that a dynasty like the Pats, the 49ers of the 80s/90s, and the Packers of the 60s is held in such awe. It's fucking hard to win it all. You need luck as much as anything else. Maybe you should be blaming Fat Mike for blowing so many NFC championship games? How about blaming Rodgers for 2011 against the Cards? Surely it takes more than just one aspect to build a team.

Hell the Braves had 3 HOF starting pitchers on their roster for 8 consecutive years and barely won one World Series. If there was a magic formula, then everyone would do it.

[Bretsky]

For every Pat Mahomes, there's 8-10 QBs taken in the first round that suck. So yes I would argue against that being fact. I would call Mahomes, Jackson, and Watson exceptions to the Trubisky, Josh Rosen, Kizer, Paxon Lynch, Winston, Mariota, Bortels, Manzier, EJ Manuel, Gino Smith, Tannehill, Weeden. Those are just the bad first rounders for the previous 7 drafts. Just because you have a cheap QB, doesn't mean you have a good one.


You missed the point I was disagreeing with pb on.

get some work and some don't.

A common theme in the NFL is many feel like the way to win is draft an outstanding QB, get him playing right away, and win a SB during his first five years when you can stock load talent around him. See Russell Wilson. See Patrick Mahommes. See Nick Foles...OK...he was the cheap backup when they had a cheap starter on his first contract....and used their cap money to surround him with talent. See Tom Brady, grossly underpaid for many years on the cap purposely to allow NE to surround with elite talent. If Brady was getting paid market value, how many less Super Bowls would the Pats have won ?

Dallas window is about to close. They are going to grossly overpay Dak and have about 3 guys taking up over 50% of their cap space.

I have been saying forever, I like Jordan Love but we reached for him by giving up the ability to get our WR in round two, and more importantly we drafted him two years early to screw up trying to get one more SB while you have a QB on a rookie deal.

[wist43]

This argument is old. Dan Marino won how many trophies in 17 seasons? Brees has 1 in 18 seasons. The Chargers have 0 with back to back HOF QBs over that same 18 years. There's a reason that a dynasty like the Pats, the 49ers of the 80s/90s, and the Packers of the 60s is held in such awe. It's fucking hard to win it all. You need luck as much as anything else. Maybe you should be blaming Fat Mike for blowing so many NFC championship games? How about blaming Rodgers for 2011 against the Cards? Surely it takes more than just one aspect to build a team.

Hell the Braves had 3 HOF starting pitchers on their roster for 8 consecutive years and barely won one World Series. If there was a magic formula, then everyone would do it.

You're making my argument for me... build the team, fill out the roster.

Having a HOF QB should make a GM's job easier.

And I do blame Fat Mike for blowing the Seattle game. The rest is on TT. The philosophy is flawed in terms of winning championships. TT's philosophy settles you into being 10-6 in perpetuity. Sub .500 without the HOF QB.

2011 was a fart in the wind, and the year we came close against Seattle was b/c TT departed from his turtle approach long enough to sign a couple FA's.

One bad offseason isn't enough for me to completely sour on Gute. I'm still holding out some hope; but, he damn sure made a mess of this offseason. No getting around that.

[call_me_ishmael]

The fact that the coach is already seemingly trying to hedge his bets or pretend this was something other than what the entire league saw … is probably not a good sign. You had the conviction – albeit, in the eyes of many, misguided conviction – to grab a QB you are banking on being a more cost-effective replacement for Rodgers come 2022.
Wear it. Embrace it. And by all means, sell it. If you can't, no one can.

They should own it, I agree. Just say it. This is the guy. We are hoping he turns out to be a good player.

[sharpe1027]

Never has so much certainty and value been placed on a late first round pick than in here. If only they had picked one of the remaining WRs, we'd have a chance at a Superbowl. Now that they didn't, no chance. Itt amazing how valuable this pick was! Franchise changing!

News flash, the chances of it making a lick of difference this year were long. Why is everyone so bent out of shape for one late first rounder?

[Zool]

Never has so much certainty and value been placed on a late first round pick than in here. If only they had picked one of the remaining WRs, we'd have a chance at a Superbowl. Now that they didn't, no chance. Itt amazing how valuable this pick was! Franchise changing!

News flash, the chances of it making a lick of difference this year were long. Why is everyone so bent out of shape for one late first rounder?

One game away last year and the only loss is Bulaga. They are going to lose 9 games this year because rookie WRs typically are pro bowlers. If only they had taken a shot on a prospect with a 50/50 shot to even be worthy of an NFL roster spot.

[GB-Brandon]

Never has so much certainty and value been placed on a late first round pick than in here. If only they had picked one of the remaining WRs, we'd have a chance at a Superbowl. Now that they didn't, no chance. Itt amazing how valuable this pick was! Franchise changing!

News flash, the chances of it making a lick of difference this year were long. Why is everyone so bent out of shape for one late first rounder?

The Jordan Love pick and subsequent moves or lack thereof was the straw that broke the camels back. You seem to be missing out the failure of this front office to adequately shore up weaponry for at least 3 years now for Rodgers.

This wasn’t just one offseason or draft. That’s why this is such a big deal.

[Upnorth]

This argument is old. Dan Marino won how many trophies in 17 seasons? Brees has 1 in 18 seasons. The Chargers have 0 with back to back HOF QBs over that same 18 years. There's a reason that a dynasty like the Pats, the 49ers of the 80s/90s, and the Packers of the 60s is held in such awe. It's fucking hard to win it all. You need luck as much as anything else. Maybe you should be blaming Fat Mike for blowing so many NFC championship games? How about blaming Rodgers for 2011 against the Cards? Surely it takes more than just one aspect to build a team.

Hell the Braves had 3 HOF starting pitchers on their roster for 8 consecutive years and barely won one World Series. If there was a magic formula, then everyone would do it.

Two very solid posts back to back. Awesome com mbo

[sharpe1027]

The Jordan Love pick and subsequent moves or lack thereof was the straw that broke the camels back. You seem to be missing out the failure of this front office to adequately shore up weaponry for at least 3 years now for Rodgers.

This wasn’t just one offseason or draft. That’s why this is such a big deal.
13-3

[Bretsky]

News flash, the chances of it making a lick of difference this year were long. Why is everyone so bent out of shape for one late first rounder?



Good Point; we didn't get Jack shit out of our first pick last year either :))) I see a trend....lol

[sharpe1027]

Good Point; we didn't get Jack shit out of our first pick last year either :))) I see a trend....lol

Yeah, at least we're due. Maybe Love will be a hit rather than another miss.;)

[pbmax]

I'm not sure I agree with this; would you try to deny that teams with QB's on either first year deals, or QB's who were willing to take below market value deals have excelled ?

1. I am not making this claim in the post. I am saying its not at all clear the Packers are doing it. All signs currently point to rebuilding on the fly and keeping the expensive core on second (Clark) and third (Bach) contracts.

2. The success of low market QBs could be real. But its a very small sample size for those on rookie deals. You have include Brady, who was not rookie cheap, to make the numbers impressive. And I think the Patriots were cheating the cap with team money flowing to TB12 sports vitamin and rehab business.

I suspect the low contract QB success has more to do with teams finding a good talent pool and adapting their coaching to that pool.

[pbmax]

The idea that Brady (cap cheap and possibly being remunerated in other ways) is the same as a rookie QB on a slotted four year contract (possibly 5) are examples of the same thing is very funny. They are literals $15-20 million dollars apart in cap hits.

[bobblehead]

They should own it, I agree. Just say it. This is the guy. We are hoping he turns out to be a good player.

I agree with the conclusion that this was a move by a coach who probably is sick of Rodgers attitude and they will trade Rodgers in 2 years.

I disagree that you come out and say that. Come on Ish (and Jason) you have to live with him for 2 more years, you don't come out publicly and make him a lame duck. And besides, why burn a bridge you plan on using for awhile yet. What happens if we win back to back Owls? The plan changes and you keep on using Rodgers and Love sits. Why on earth would you lock into trading
Rodgers in 2 years publicly right now....only an idiot (or a fan or a journalist) would advocate for such a thing.

[texaspackerbacker]

Sheeeesh. Rodgers isn't going anywhere in two years, a fair chance not even in four, and it's extremely doubtful anybody in the organization is stupid enough to be "sick of Rodgers attitude".

It's frankly annoying when people swallow the shit spewed by this media know-nothing and then parrot is back.

[sharpe1027]

Rodgers played well the next two years and shows no major signs of a big old age dip, he's not going anywhere. Just like any player on the roster, if his play deteriorates and they have someone to replace him, then they move on.

I highly doubt any decisions have already been made. Nothing to see here.

[pbmax]

I agree with the conclusion that this was a move by a coach who probably is sick of Rodgers attitude and they will trade Rodgers in 2 years.

I disagree that you come out and say that. Come on Ish (and Jason) you have to live with him for 2 more years, you don't come out publicly and make him a lame duck. And besides, why burn a bridge you plan on using for awhile yet. What happens if we win back to back Owls? The plan changes and you keep on using Rodgers and Love sits. Why on earth would you lock into trading
Rodgers in 2 years publicly right now....only an idiot (or a fan or a journalist) would advocate for such a thing.

Wait, which is it?

1. LaCanfora: Packers wanted cheap replacement to follow rookie QB contract trend?

2. McGinn: LaFleur is mad as hell (at Rodgers) and won't take it anymore?

[pbmax]

Rodgers played well the next two years and shows no major signs of a big old age dip, he's not going anywhere. Just like any player on the roster, if his play deteriorates and they have someone to replace him, then they move on.

I highly doubt any decisions have already been made. Nothing to see here.

Half of the world thinks Love was a reach in the first.

The other half has him starting within 2 years.

[sharpe1027]

Half of the world thinks Love was a reach in the first.

The other half has him starting within 2 years.

Seems that way sometimes, but there's plenty in the middle. They just do not have a reason to be loud.

Well, that and full three quarters of the World doesn't even know who he is.

[pbmax]

Seems that way sometimes, but there's plenty in the middle. They just do not have a reason to be loud.

Well, that and full three quarters of the World doesn't even know who he is.

Lotta Utah State Aggie fans in northern India, so I think he's above a quarter of the world's population.

Absent injury, I think Rodgers plays out the contract. The odds aren't in Love's favor yet though he could develop in camp and practices and alter that plan.

I do not think the Packers are playing the cheap rookie QB deal game. I think they want a repeat of Rodgers ascension.

[bobblehead]

Wait, which is it?

1. LaCanfora: Packers wanted cheap replacement to follow rookie QB contract trend?

2. McGinn: LaFleur is mad as hell (at Rodgers) and won't take it anymore?

I highly doubt its number one. I think there could be a little resistance from Rodgers in conforming to the new O, and having an option if it becomes an issue makes sense.

I have read McGinns scouts and there was an opinion that Love was the 2nd best QB in this class. I think Gutes and Flower had him graded very high and when he slipped, given all the circumstances surrounding they pulled the trigger. If Rodgers buys in, plays like he did during Adams absence and we get to see the stat "Rodgers has completed passes to 7 different players" more often then Love is sitting 4 years. If we continue to hear that no one is ever open except Adams despite what our lying eyes showed us for 5 weeks then we may see Love sooner than that.

I think Conforta has the worst opinion of all....that the cheap replacement will be a net gain somehow when you are locked into Rodgers for 2 years, take a cap hit in the third and only get the net benefit for one season before you will have to pay Love if he performs.

[Zool]

Wait, which is it?

1. LaCanfora: Packers wanted cheap replacement to follow rookie QB contract trend?

2. McGinn: LaFleur is mad as hell (at Rodgers) and won't take it anymore?

3. They had a high grade on a QB that was available a few spots above, so the went and got him. The backup QB situation in GB has been shit for quite a few years so this fills a roll. They had no other guy at that slot who would take a starters roll so they took their best available. It happens to be a QB, so if Rodgers does happen to falter in the next 4 years (and Love is a stud) they are setup for the next 10 yet again.

[pbmax]

3. They had a high grade on a QB that was available a few spots above, so the went and got him. The backup QB situation in GB has been shit for quite a few years so this fills a roll. They had no other guy at that slot who would take a starters roll so they took their best available. It happens to be a QB, so if Rodgers does happen to falter in the next 4 years (and Love is a stud) they are setup for the next 10 yet again.

But I may be the only person to post in response to this.

[Zool]

But I may be the only person to post in response to this.

It's not fun to stomp your feet and shout about logic.

[pbmax]

It's not fun to stomp your feet and shout about logic.

They'll lock me up!

[sharpe1027]

3. They had a high grade on a QB that was available a few spots above, so the went and got him. The backup QB situation in GB has been shit for quite a few years so this fills a roll. They had no other guy at that slot who would take a starters roll so they took their best available. It happens to be a QB, so if Rodgers does happen to falter in the next 4 years (and Love is a stud) they are setup for the next 10 yet again.

Your drank the cool aid!!!!

[pbmax]

I think Conforta has the worst opinion of all....that the cheap replacement will be a net gain somehow when you are locked into Rodgers for 2 years, take a cap hit in the third and only get the net benefit for one season before you will have to pay Love if he performs.

There was a piece on USA Today's site that went through how you could work Rodgers into the cheap QB contract model. Its still not a clean fit and you are losing two years but it could be done. Rodgers playing one more year and then having a big dead money amount in Year 2 of Love.

You'd then have a cap friendly QB for 3 years in which to work magic. But I don't think this football admin want a window that small, that badly.

[Zool]

There was a piece on USA Today's site that went through how you could work Rodgers into the cheap QB contract model. Its still not a clean fit and you are losing two years but it could be done. Rodgers playing one more year and then having a big dead money amount in Year 2 of Love.

You'd then have a cap friendly QB for 3 years in which to work magic. But I don't think this football admin want a window that small, that badly.

Once Mahomes, Prescott, and Watson sign their deals, Rodgers will be in a (relatively) cap friendly contract.

[call_me_ishmael]

I agree with the conclusion that this was a move by a coach who probably is sick of Rodgers attitude and they will trade Rodgers in 2 years.

I disagree that you come out and say that. Come on Ish (and Jason) you have to live with him for 2 more years, you don't come out publicly and make him a lame duck. And besides, why burn a bridge you plan on using for awhile yet. What happens if we win back to back Owls? The plan changes and you keep on using Rodgers and Love sits. Why on earth would you lock into trading
Rodgers in 2 years publicly right now....only an idiot (or a fan or a journalist) would advocate for such a thing.

Yeah you're probably right. I hope they don't burn the bridge.

I didn't intend to imply they should say this is the guy in X years. I just felt they should own it and say for "where we were picking, we thought he was a tremendous value and if everything goes according to the plan he will create immense future for the Packers in the future either after Aaron is done playing, or via a trade." or something to that effect. Not a big deal either way but I agree with La Confluer or whatever that LaFluer was sort of pussy footing around it.

[gbgary]

Once Mahomes, Prescott, and Watson sign their deals, Rodgers will be in a (relatively) cap friendly contract.

which isn't cap friendly at all in the Packers case. the only reason you draft Love is to have several years of him during his rookie deal and you can build a real team around him. keeping rodgers after the 2020 season is insane.

[texaspackerbacker]

Half of the world thinks Love was a reach in the first.

The other half has him starting within 2 years.

As I've said several times, I'm not in either half. I suspect a lot of others aren't either.

[Zool]

which isn't cap friendly at all in the Packers case. the only reason you draft Love is to have several years of him during his rookie deal and you can build a real team around him. keeping rodgers after the 2020 season is insane.

Unless he puts up 4500 yards and 30 TDs with 5 picks and they win 11 games. Then you'd be a crazy person to try and move on.

[pbmax]

which isn't cap friendly at all in the Packers case. the only reason you draft Love is to have several years of him during his rookie deal and you can build a real team around him. keeping rodgers after the 2020 season is insane.

If Love is any good, then this could make sense. But they will not get the cap benefit for another year after that. The max they can expect is 3 years IF they absorb a large dead money hit in 2021.

Andrew Brandt has indicated he doesn't think the Packers want to set a record for dead money and will not do it. Just not in their DNA. So he thinks that AR is here two years (minimum, more likely 3), slightly less burdensome dead money hit in Year 3 of Love and then 2 years free and clear if you go that 2 year route.

As I said elsewhere, the pattern here is Favre/Rodgers, not Smith/Mahomes. 3 years, not 1. They will take Love on a good deal for 2 years and extend it to starter money sometime midway through Year 4 if he is progressing.

[Zool]

As I said elsewhere, the pattern here is Favre/Rodgers, not Smith/Mahomes. 3 years, not 1. They will take Love on a good deal for 2 years and extend it to starter money sometime midway through Year 4 if he is progressing.

And this is literally best case scenario.

[RashanGary]

Half of the world thinks Love was a reach in the first.

The other half has him starting within 2 years.

But the only people who affect the outcome are lafleur, Gute and Murphy, so whatever the whole world thinks doesn't amount to a hill of bean shit.

[RashanGary]

which isn't cap friendly at all in the Packers case. the only reason you draft Love is to have several years of him during his rookie deal and you can build a real team around him. keeping rodgers after the 2020 season is insane.

Rodgers second contract was really friendly because he signed it after only one year of playing NFL football. It wasnt a blockbuster. If love only plays a year, his won't be either

[texaspackerbacker]

Unless he puts up 4500 yards and 30 TDs with 5 picks and they win 11 games. Then you'd be a crazy person to try and move on.

When you're right, you're right. And those numbers would actually be no more than an fairly average Aaron Rodgers season. The yardage might be a bit tough with an increased emphasis on the running game, but the rest for sure is likely.

[gbgary]

If Love is any good, then this could make sense. But they will not get the cap benefit for another year after that. The max they can expect is 3 years IF they absorb a large dead money hit in 2021.

Andrew Brandt has indicated he doesn't think the Packers want to set a record for dead money and will not do it. Just not in their DNA. So he thinks that AR is here two years (minimum, more likely 3), slightly less burdensome dead money hit in Year 3 of Love and then 2 years free and clear if you go that 2 year route.

As I said elsewhere, the pattern here is Favre/Rodgers, not Smith/Mahomes. 3 years, not 1. They will take Love on a good deal for 2 years and extend it to starter money sometime midway through Year 4 if he is progressing.
the big dead cap hit is after 2020 but even with that they save $5m and they're done. if they wait to do it after 2021 they save $17m but will have paid him for that year. a year where his cap hit is $36m and the team cap is likely lower than this years $198m.

[gbgary]

Unless he puts up 4500 yards and 30 TDs with 5 picks and they win 11 games. Then you'd be a crazy person to try and move on.

but they won't win a SB. what's the point of prolonging the exit? it's just more wasted time, effort, and money.

[Zool]

but they won't win a SB. what's the point of prolonging the exit? it's just more wasted time, effort, and money.

Only one team will. This is a silly argument. My guess is at the end of year 2 with Love, they will evaluate. That’s when the cap hit starts to lower. 3 years is the more likely. If Love sucks in year 3, you’ll have at least 4 more years of Rodgers.

Let’s just hope J Giles was wrong.

[RashanGary]

Only one team will. This is a silly argument. My guess is at the end of year 2 with Love, they will evaluate. That’s when the cap hit starts to lower. 3 years is the more likely. If Love sucks in year 3, you’ll have at least 4 more years of Rodgers.

Let’s just hope J Giles was wrong.

Agree. To say it another way, here's ARs chances of being the Packers starting QB by year (injury aside, only accounting for Love beating him out)

2020 - 100% chance Aaron beats out love
2021 - 97% Aaron is starting QB

2022 - 80% Aaron
2023 - 70% Aaron

2024 - 50% Aaron
2025- 48% Aaron
2026 - 45% Aaron


Ron Wolf deciples have had good QB play. Favre, Rodgers, Wilson, Mahomes, Mayfield, Carr

I give the Packers a better shot than most teams to find a HOF QB because of how many HOFers are found by Wolfs guys.

Love is not a sure thing HOFer, not by any stretch. We have no clue if he's gonna pay out so right now we just watch and see. It might be a blown pick and we have AR till he's 42 years old. Shit, we might draft a HOFer like Wilson on the 3rd round next year and he'll push Rodgers out in his contact year.

Anything can happen at this point

Aaron said he "might not finish his career here"

Honestly though, he might. All we can do is see how it plays out. That's it.

[RashanGary]

I make long odds parlay bets sometimes. I always want to win 5,000 dollars on 10 dollars, but I never expect it.

Gute spent a late first round pick on Jordan Love because love has a chance.

You don't go spend the money until you know you won though. Any bettor knows he doesn't win every bet. Gute knows he's not gonna hit on every pick.

He'll only move on from Rodgers if the Love pick hits.

We have no clue yet if love is gonna be good. I hope he's a HOFer but I have no clue.

[bobblehead]

But the only people who affect the outcome are lafleur, Gute and Murphy, so whatever the whole world thinks doesn't amount to a hill of bean shit.

Are you implying that the bean took a big shit, or someone ate beans and then shit out the remains? Come on RG, I expect clarity from your posts.

[bobblehead]

When you're right, you're right. And those numbers would actually be no more than an fairly average Aaron Rodgers season. The yardage might be a bit tough with an increased emphasis on the running game, but the rest for sure is likely.

If we develop a deep threat that will get single coverage due to a smash mouth run game I think you may see Rodgers with his best yardage numbers in a long time. He just has to accept that he will have to do it with less opportunities, but much higher quality opportunities.

[RashanGary]

If we develop a deep threat that will get single coverage due to a smash mouth run game I think you may see Rodgers with his best yardage numbers in a long time. He just has to accept that he will have to do it with less opportunities, but much higher quality opportunities.


Exactly. Looking at the talent on our roster this is far more likely than a recreation of the 2011 Packers offense.

[pbmax]

But the only people who affect the outcome are lafleur, Gute and Murphy, so whatever the whole world thinks doesn't amount to a hill of bean shit.

Should Love be on the list?

[RashanGary]

Should Love be on the list?

Rodgers too if you're looking at it that way