Revisionist History: Jason LaCanfora on Packers 2020 First Round

[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