Reischel - Yesterday showed why Love was drafted

[George Cumby]

^ What jumped out at me Sunday is how the pass rush derailed Rodgers.

Given Rodgers performance the last couple of years, drafting a QB was the smart move.

We will see if his 2020 renaissance continues.

[bobblehead]

Easy article to both agree and disagree with. I'm just rehashing, but basically anyone with a strong agenda one way, or an over stated opinion to defend is probably wrong. Rodgers has had some crappy big games. This wasn't a "big" game. He had a crappy game. Same goes for every QB to ever don the cleats.

Rodgers is good enough to win an Owl still. He is a definite net benefit to nearly any team. He probably isn't worth his current contract anymore, but he has earned the right to be paid it. I'm not looking to move on to Boyle after one bad start though.

All that being said...if I see him refuse to dive into the pile after he drops the snap in the playoffs again...Bring on Boyle.

[RashanGary]

I think they might have just drafted him because they thought he had a chance to be a HOF talent and you don’t pass up the chance to take the next Rodgers

[Upnorth]

This 'article' reminded me of a political debate. Pick your opinion. Pick specific facts thst support you and ignore those that don't. Say it in a patronizing tone so that those who are going to agree with you do even more those that don't don't even more. Profit.
Live isn't going to replace rodgers this year or next. He will be there in 2 to 4 years unless he is useless. Of he is useless you draft another qn in two years to hopefully season a bit before rodgers leaves. Its called long term planning and those that don't will enjoy the moment and regret the past.

[texaspackerbacker]

I don't think Patler (correct me if I'm wrong here) is suggesting he agrees with the article only referencing the existence of it. It is of note though to wonder if there is really a growing number of media members that question Rodgers isn't in as great as some fans tend to think.

Whether that is the correct is obviously the point of debate and certainly open to opinion. The article could very well be click bait or something Skip Bayless would say and personally I don't agree with the implication but it does raise some a few points that might be worth a little deeper review.

I was referring to post #6 above.

Upnorth, it has little or nothing to do with whether Love is worthless or not. Rodgers SHOULD and IMO will be the Packers QB for way more than "2 to 4 Years". If Love is worth keeping around for 6, 7. or 8 years as a back up, and if he has the patience to wait, then maybe, but of course, that is doubtful.

And lumping another reply in with this, Zool, speaking of worthless, you incompetent piece of shit who isn't capable of a coherent thought on any topic, you shoulda stayed gone. The forum was better off without you.

[Patler]

I think they might have just drafted him because they thought he had a chance to be a HOF talent and you don’t pass up the chance to take the next Rodgers

I think it is even more basic than that. They don't have to project him as a potential HOF talent, just a guy who can be a solid 10-15 starter in the NFL. With Rodgers turning 40 and having his contract expire while Love's contract will be under the teams control, Love has ample time to develop and then step in as the potential long term successor.

[Patler]

Problem, of course, is that Reischel's recount of Rodgers' performances in the specific games he mentioned is not wrong; and it is consistent with the persistent story that has been around for years that, more than many other really good QBs, Rodgers doesn't handle pressure well.

Patler, you're almost as full of shit as this scumbag media puke. Nobody in the NFL has a record of consistency and excellence under pressure like Aaron Rodgers. Last Sunday's game was his fault more than anybody else's for allowing momentum to turn around. However, even in that game, there is plenty of blame to go around. Rodgers' biggest shortcoming was that unlike just about every other game in history, he was not able to compensate for various weaknesses we had elsewhere.

I was referring to post #6 above.

Upnorth, it has little or nothing to do with whether Love is worthless or not. Rodgers SHOULD and IMO will be the Packers QB for way more than "2 to 4 Years". If Love is worth keeping around for 6, 7. or 8 years as a back up, and if he has the patience to wait, then maybe, but of course, that is doubtful.

And lumping another reply in with this, Zool, speaking of worthless, you incompetent piece of shit who isn't capable of a coherent thought on any topic, you shoulda stayed gone. The forum was better off without you.

So, Tex should I now refer to you as a worthless, incompetent, piece of shit, ass-kissing Rodgers apologist puke, or something like that? Will that promote an intelligent discussion?

Rodgers may want to play until he is 45, that doesn't mean he will be able to play until he is 45. The Packers absolutely have to have a future without Rodgers in the back of their minds. They can sit on Love for the next four years and then make the decision; a few more years of Rodgers or a much longer future with Love.

I think it is reasonable to criticize Gutekunst for his evaluation of Loves potential, but not for drafting him when he reached the conclusion he obviously did.

[texaspackerbacker]

I wouldn't mind that label at all. For the record, it was the media asshole I labeled that way, not you. I just said you were "full if shit" hahahaha.

Given the way Brady plays at 43, you seriously think Rodgers would not be way better at 45? I certainly think he could be, and it damn well better be with the Packers. I don't know what Love's absolute ceiling is, but I doubt he will become a Mahomes. I even doubt that in 9 years, if he reaches his absolute best, he will be as good as a 45 year old Aaron Rodgers - and that's not a knock on Love.

[Patler]

I wouldn't mind that label at all. For the record, it was the media asshole I labeled that way, not you. I just said you were "full if shit" hahahaha.

Given the way Brady plays at 43, you seriously think Rodgers would not be way better at 45? I certainly think he could be, and it damn well better be with the Packers. I don't know what Love's absolute ceiling is, but I doubt he will become a Mahomes. I even doubt that in 9 years, if he reaches his absolute best, he will be as good as a 45 year old Aaron Rodgers - and that's not a knock on Love.

I don't think Rodgers will be playing at 45. I doubt he will be playing at 43. Rodgers best game is based on his mobility. That has and will continue to decline, perhaps rapidly at some point because of his gimpy knee that has been an issue for some time. I think the Packers will be lucky if he lasts at near his current level until the end of his contract.

[Joemailman]

I don't think Rodgers will be playing at 45. I doubt he will be playing at 43. Rodgers best game is based on his mobility. That has and will continue to decline, perhaps rapidly at some point because of his gimpy knee that has been an issue for some time. I think the Packers will be lucky if he lasts at near his current level until the end of his contract.

I agree. Brady has been able to stay more healthy than Rodgers. Rodgers has broken both collarbones, and had significant knee and calf injuries. Playing in this offense may extend his career a bit (as long as there aren't many days like last Sunday) but I'd be surprised if he makes it past 41.

[Upnorth]

I was typing what Patler typed when I got interrupted by a phone call. My difference was saying 39. So of the range we have seen I am the pessimist.

[Patler]

With Rodgers, there is already a domino effect in play:

-He throws better with movement than he does setting up in the pocket.
-He is less elusive, can't spin away from rushers as he did. This will get worse and worse.
-He will continue to try and move, because he is better that way.
-He will be dragged down by his legs more and more because if the above.
-His knee, calf and ankle issues will become greater problems or even recur with severity.
-The less he moves, the more he is hit the further is removed from what has made him good.
-While I wouldn't call him brittle, Rodgers is not the most durable QB.
-All the above make another significant injury more probable.
-All the above will adversely impact Rodgers' desire to continue playing.

I think in four years the Packers will need to replace Rodgers whether they will want to or not, and whether Love is the guy, or not.

[RashanGary]

I think it is even more basic than that. They don't have to project him as a potential HOF talent, just a guy who can be a solid 10-15 starter in the NFL. With Rodgers turning 40 and having his contract expire while Love's contract will be under the teams control, Love has ample time to develop and then step in as the potential long term successor.

I would call that probably 50% of the equation

I don’t think they had to do it last year or move up to do it though. It wasn’t desperate times calling for desperate measures. Had he fell, I would put maybe 75% stock in this line of thinking. But..... since they didn’t have to, and did move up, that tells me they think he’s special (on top of being good timing as well)

[RashanGary]

It was a combination of near perfect timing (although next years draft would be more like perfect timing)

And

How much they thought of Jordan Love


And as good as Rodgers is playing. He’s old in football years. Period. He’s going to be worse 4 years from now, when he’s 40 than he is now. It’s time to start considering the future and possibly moving on after 40.

[Bretsky]

Article gives us warm fuzzies on why we gave away a pick for a talented developmental project with upside