Packers Initial 69-Man Roster

[RashanGary]

Rodgers might be good until 45. Brady is showing it’s possible. I don’t know if Rodgers loves football as much as Brady though. It’s no sure thing that he has 5 good years left.

But you’re not completely off base, Tex. There’s a chance.

[texaspackerbacker]

A strong chance, and I've never seen any indication that Rodgers doesn't like football as much as Brady. It may be true that Rodgers has more prospects outside of football than Brady, but I doubt that is much of a factor.

[Jaire]

Under the radar a bit, we really shored up the weakest spot on the team imo: two very solid defensive linemen. Also the two rooks on starting OL is great to see. I really thought we've been weak in the trenches for a few years. The cupboard was not refilled many years ago. Gute quietly has done a good job there. And that's also why we lost the NFCG the last two years. Other strengths on the team kept it close last year. To be fair Tampa did a much more devastating job on NO & KC. Still you have to beat the best and the DL was undermanned, the OL thin.

[Fritz]

That last part is a humongous if that almost certainly will never happen. Big hauls in draft picks could help, but that's sort of a crap shoot in terms of success. I'd much prefer to stick with the GOAT. No way a team without him comes close in quality to a team with him - not 1, not 3, not 5-8 years from now. I'd bet money that a team led by Rodgers even 10 years into the future would be better than the team without him, with Love or pretty much anybody else we could possibly end up with.

If you want draft picks, trade Love.

You said "best case scenario" for the team, and I gave you what that was.

Couple of possible worst case scenarios:

1. Packers trade Rodgers at season's end; he goes on to play at a high level for three or four years and Jordan Love is mediocre or is wildly inconsistent.

2. Packers trade Love at season's end; give Rodgers a big extension and a BJ, Rodgers's play deteriorates quickly and/or he suffers a serious injury, and Love goes on to be a superstar.

[texaspackerbacker]

1. would be a near sure thing.

2. would be extremely unlikely - IMO on both, but true just the same.

And as I said, Love being a superstar to the wildest magnitude ya'all could imagine, he still falls way short of the strongly likely future of Rodgers - which would be THE best case scenario.

[Fritz]

1. would be a near sure thing.

2. would be extremely unlikely - IMO on both, but true just the same.

And as I said, Love being a superstar to the wildest magnitude ya'all could imagine, he still falls way short of the strongly likely future of Rodgers - which would be THE best case scenario.

Tex, if youhaven't already, go back and read the thread about trading Aaron Rodgers for Daunte Culpepper. Very few people thought Rodgers would amount to anything - and that was after two years of training camp,or maybe it was three.

Sure, the odds are long for Love, but they're long for just about every QB not named Andrew Luck.

[texaspackerbacker]

Yes, I scanned at least part of that. I remember even way back then thinking that Rodgers had a bright future when most others didn't think much of him. I do NOT have the same impression of Love. And unlike Favre, who was great too, I do NOT see any sign or virtually any likelihood of Rodgers fading in the next ...... I'll say 3 years just to placate the detractors, but myself, I honestly think he could go on a LOT longer than that and still be better than "just about any QB" including Luck who wasn't all that special.

Since we're doing weird "what ifs", you know what the real "best case scenario" would be? If Love was like Lamar Jackson - and virtually nobody is or ever has been, then we could keep him as a back up and use him as a change of pace running QB, etc. - Taysom Hill-style only infinitely better for X number of years until Rodgers was ready to retire. But just like those other "what ifs", that ain't gonna happen. So just ride Rodgers into the sunset and trade Love for whatever we can get for him - THAT is what is the best case scenario for the team.

[Fritz]

Tex, I know you love Rodgers, but in this weird "best case scenario for the team" world we're inhabiting here, there's not any logical way you can say it'd be better for the Packers to keep Rodgers for another four or five years than to have Jordan Love as the next superstar QB for the next ten or fifteen years.

But it's all arguing into the air, so it doesn't really matter. You like Rodgers, and you don't think Love is going to be good. I get that. You could be right.

[texaspackerbacker]

The way you frame it, maybe not, but Love being a "superstar QB for the next ten or fifteen years", that's about as far-fetched as you can get, and Rodgers being at the GOAT level of excellence he is currently at for another 4 or 5 years (I'd say even more) is slam dunk sure.

When people go to the track, the smart bettors go with the short odds - Rodgers in this case. The fools go with the extreme long shots - Love being a superstar even a lot less than 10 or 15 years.

[call_me_ishmael]

Tex, I know you love Rodgers, but in this weird "best case scenario for the team" world we're inhabiting here, there's not any logical way you can say it'd be better for the Packers to keep Rodgers for another four or five years than to have Jordan Love as the next superstar QB for the next ten or fifteen years.

But it's all arguing into the air, so it doesn't really matter. You like Rodgers, and you don't think Love is going to be good. I get that. You could be right.

If Love is a superstar, then obviously that's a bad choice. My gut feeling and probability suggests to me that that isn't likely to be the case.

The question the Packers should be asking is this:

Will the Packers with Aaron Rodgers or Jordan Love win more games over the next 5 years?

Looking out 10 years is too much long term thinking. Thinking about next year or two is too much short term thinking. 5 years is about right IMO. Whichever QB they think will win more games over the next 5 years is the route they should take. The money thing isn't a factor because the money will get spent each year on players and be a part of puzzle.

[RashanGary]

Except the money is a factor. The team would be more stacked around Love so do you win more with Love and extra players or with Rodgers alone? That’s the question.

[texaspackerbacker]

The question the Packers should be asking is this:

Will the Packers with Aaron Rodgers or Jordan Love win more games over the next 5 years?

Yes, and I'd say the answer to that is obvious.

[texaspackerbacker]

Except the money is a factor. The team would be more stacked around Love so do you win more with Love and extra players or with Rodgers alone? That’s the question.

The team is loaded now with Rodgers making a ton of money. The cap will go up significantly next season and beyond. Do you see "Rodgers alone"? Hell no. Not now and not in the future. The difference between money with him and money without him is miniscule compared to the talent gap now and in the future between Rodgers and Love.

[call_me_ishmael]

Except the money is a factor. The team would be more stacked around Love so do you win more with Love and extra players or with Rodgers alone? That’s the question.

Okay, so the team around Love is deeper but the QB is worse. We all know that. The money gets spent either way. There are reasons that every team doesn't have start a back-up QB and spends the money on outstanding defenders. By that logic, shouldn't every team with a shitty QB still be pretty solid because there is a salary floor that they are required to spend?

For starters, there's only so many great defenders around. The good ones are going to get paid either way - so are they going to want to play on a team without a great QB? As Rodgers accurately stated, players come here to play because of him. JP would never would have been a Packer without Rodgers. Also, what star player that would be a game changer even hits the market? That's extraordinarily rare. You could spend on a few solid starters, maybe 3, but is that enough to offset the drop in QB play?

That said, IF Love is a great QB (not a good one), this is all moot. But the probability of that is slight in my opinion.

The stark reality is NFL teams win by scoring points, and the player who clearly impacts scoring the most is the QB.

[Bretsky]

Except the money is a factor. The team would be more stacked around Love so do you win more with Love and extra players or with Rodgers alone? That’s the question.

If you are serious when you ask this I worry if you're under the influence )