bboystyle
2 years ago

Except that wasn't a reach at all. They had two WR and QB in mind, both WR gone so they took the QB they were high on. It was a smart pick. And a reach by what definition? The pundits mocks lol

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



A reach as in he traded UP to grab him in the first when he would 10000% be available day 2. You dont waste a back up regardless as your first round pick when u are in win NOW mode and need other positions filled.


I dont listen to pundits online who claim to be experts. But even Rodgers knew it was a dumn pick as Love will contribute NOTHING to this team until a few years later IF he even pans out.

So yes, a reach is exactly what Love is

I wouldnt mind selecting Love just not in the first and definitely not trade up to grab him
Zero2Cool
2 years ago

A reach as in he traded UP to grab him in the first when he would 10000% be available day 2. You dont waste a back up regardless as your first round pick when u are in win NOW mode and need other positions filled.


I dont listen to pundits online who claim to be experts. But even Rodgers knew it was a dumn pick as Love will contribute NOTHING to this team until a few years later IF he even pans out.

So yes, a reach is exactly what Love is

I wouldnt mind selecting Love just not in the first and definitely not trade up to grab him

Originally Posted by: bboystyle 



10000% your opinion and nothing more because the facts of this have been stated on this here forum and if you choose to still think like this, that is awesome, but just not based on the available facts.

As for the reach, nothing but your opinion. I highly doubt you've graded any college players or were able to see every NFL team draft board. Therefore, it is impossible for anyone to make the claims you have with any substance.

Rodgers did not think it was a dumb pick. In fact, he said he understood the pick. Check out his showings on The Pat McAfee Show , it's quite interesting how transparent he gets.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
2 years ago

On the drops issue you mention. Watson played for NDSU, a team that doesn't throw very much. If 100 balls were thrown to him and he drops 5, then that's a 5% drop rate, which some see as high.

The games I watched on all 22 tape, I saw very few drops. And the drops I did see, it was questionable if I would call them a drop. More him having to adjust to poorly thrown balls. Not saying he has no drops, but I don't see it as a concern.

Originally Posted by: PackerNation 



Hopefully he's a hands catcher.

Rodgers also likes guys who catch with hands vs body catchers.
UserPostedImage
PackersNation
2 years ago

Hopefully he's a hands catcher.

Rodgers also likes guys who catch with hands vs body catchers.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



Zero2Cool
2 years ago

Originally Posted by: PackerNation 



ME LIKEY!!!ME LIKEY!!!ME LIKEY!!!ME LIKEY!!!ME LIKEY!!!ME LIKEY!!!ME LIKEY!!!ME LIKEY!!!ME LIKEY!!!ME LIKEY!!!ME LIKEY!!!ME LIKEY!!!ME LIKEY!!!ME LIKEY!!!
UserPostedImage
bboystyle
2 years ago

10000% your opinion and nothing more because the facts of this have been stated on this here forum and if you choose to still think like this, that is awesome, but just not based on the available facts.

As for the reach, nothing but your opinion. I highly doubt you've graded any college players or were able to see every NFL team draft board. Therefore, it is impossible for anyone to make the claims you have with any substance.

Rodgers did not think it was a dumb pick. In fact, he said he understood the pick. Check out his showings on The Pat McAfee Show , it's quite interesting how transparent he gets.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 


A lot of people share my opinion and it looks to be more fact as each year passes by and Love contributes nothing.

I dont need to be a draft expert to know Jordan Love was not a first round pick let alone needed to be traded up to grab. Again, thats my only gripe of this whole situation. Trading up to grab someone that would of been available the 2nd day.
Zero2Cool
2 years ago

A lot of people share my opinion and it looks to be more fact as each year passes by and Love contributes nothing.

I dont need to be a draft expert to know Jordan Love was not a first round pick let alone needed to be traded up to grab. Again, thats my only gripe of this whole situation. Trading up to grab someone that would of been available the 2nd day.

Originally Posted by: bboystyle 



I really wish this was in person because I don't like how this is going to come off, but yes a lot of people share your opinion because a lot of people simply want to be entertained, not informed, but believe their entertainment is information. The Packers are massive. We are all over the world and when media wants attention, they hit low hanging fruit. Hell, a lot of these people even ADMIT they do this because they have X hours of air time to fill. You don't hear those clips in the highlights, or headlines though. You have to actually listen to the whole thing to catch those off the mark comments.

Long story short, railing on the Packers is low-hanging fruit and when it comes to swinging, it's easier to swing at things people don't care to delve into the details for. It gets the attention of those who don't have the time, nor desire to really grasp the big picture. And hey, these guys are on the radio, they are on TV, so they MUST know what they are talking about!! Nothing could be further from the truth. They know how to entertain and garner attention, that's bout it.

Anyhow, a lot of people do not understand vision or long-term because they are impatient -- as MOST of us are.

We can quibble over taking a QB in round one for weeks and get nowhere. Fact (err, my opinion) is, Rodgers was declining and good organizations draft a QB a year or two early are better off than those who draft a QB when they need one. Often times, they panic and skip over someone like Patrick Mahomes in favor of someone like Mitchell Trubisky. Rodgers himself said the pick changed his outlook on things. (e.g. where he ends his career is no longer in his hands)

What if Packers drafted Tee Higgins and Rodgers continued his trend downward? Who the hell knows, right? If my Aunt had a weiner, ... Uncle. That whole thing.

Packers targeted WR's and QB with that pick. The WR's were gone, so they took the QB to get a jump on their declining and aging QB. Remember, he had suffered a broken collarbone, twice. Rodgers wasn't looking like the two time NFL MVP we've witnessed last two seasons.

Was Jordan worth a top 32 selection? The Green Bay Packers believed so, and therefore, he is and was -- according to people who get paid to do that stuff for a living. If you are going to sit there and think you are more knowing than the Green Bay Packers, that's cool. Also, keep in mind that Packers heard someone else was going to take Jordan Love. Maybe they got duped? Maybe it was true that someone was?

If you asked me, would you have drafted Jordan Love? I would say no. I would have let the other team come up and draft him in round one. I like QB's with a live arm and I think Love's release is slow and too intentional. But, I'm just some Software Developer who spends WAY too much time reading and observing the operations of the NFL.



As for this topic. I'm not a fan of giving up two second rounders to move up to 34th overall, however, it's been said Packers tried getting 32nd overall and were denied. Packers targeted someone and made sure they got him. And for me, that is something I am a huge fan of.
UserPostedImage
beast
2 years ago
Not really wanting to get involved in this back and forth, but just wanted to state my opinion.

I thought Jordan Love would be taken anywhere between the low 20s to low 30s. With me eyeing Patriots at #23.

While a lot of people thought Love wouldn't be a 1st round pick, I certainly did, I just had no idea where (and I certainly didn't expect it to he be the Packers).

Though I've also said before his draft, that Love was a 3 year development guy, and I'm still not sure if we should count that no training camp rookie year or not.


But I feel like one could argue that Watson was the bigger reach, especially with the fact that WRs were being grabbed earlier than they normally would be and the amount we gave for the trade up.

Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly good with the reach because of his great long term potential, but Love had that long term potential too. Short term, they got some areas they need to work on, though of course you can rotate in WRs a easier than QBs.
UserPostedImage
PackersNation
2 years ago

I like QB's with a live arm and I think Love's release is slow and too intentional.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



I agree with almost everything in your post except the above, and the fact you always seem to imply teams give up too much in trades to move up in the draft. Draft picks are nothing until they become players.

On J-Love's release being "too slow and intentional" you just are simply not seeing what others see.

First, J-Love has a absolute cannon for a arm. Now, the release is what you are talking about, and that is far from slow. It's a quick motion and release. Is it as quick as Aaron's? No, but neither are 99% of QBs releases.

Some here without a clue will disagree, but J-Love has a stronger arm than Aaron. That is fact. Aaron's motion is quicker. But overall arm strength goes to J-Love because he does indeed have the stronger arm. Aaron has a very strong arm still, but it is not stronger than J-Love's. I've seen them both throw live at camp. It would be obvious to you live.

The J-Love pick was a good one. If Gute truly felt he made a mistake he would be taking calls to trade J-Love. He isn't afraid to admit he made a mistake. He isn't interested in trading J-Love for a reason. Because he still feels that in time Jordan can be a elite QB in the league. Right now he is a very valuable backup.

I will go with Gute's opinion over any of the trolls that post here. They are trying to get attention by hating on Aaron, much like the talking heads on TV do to get ratings. Difference is that Colin Cowherd, Mike Florio, and Skip Bayless are making bank off those fools that buy into their drivel. I will guarantee the trolls here read PFT religiously. I wonder if they know that 90% of the comments on PFT are created by a member of Mike's staff. That is a fact. Mike Florio also directs his writers to follow a Packer and Aaron Rodgers hating agenda. Also a fact.

Go post a comment on PFT that goes against Florio's Packers hating agenda. It will not post. They 100% control the content of the comments section.

Florio is a failed lawyer that started a NFL gossip site. Don't waste your time reading that crap.
Zero2Cool
2 years ago

But I feel like one could argue that Watson was the bigger reach, especially with the fact that WRs were being grabbed earlier than they normally would be and the amount we gave for the trade up.

Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly good with the reach because of his great long term potential, but Love had that long term potential too. Short term, they got some areas they need to work on, though of course you can rotate in WRs a easier than QBs.

Originally Posted by: beast 



Rodgers said Packers had six WR with round one grade. Maybe Watson was one of them? After all, it's being said Packers tried getting pick 32 but were denied and had to get pick 34 instead.

If the Packers had Watson graded round one talent, then how can anyone claim it to be a reach? Also, why not use pick 28 on him unless they felt Watson would fall further than Wyatt and wanted both? Some serious Chess playing shit there. Again, some rely on what the MEDIA has forced down our throats as to where these kids --should-- have been picked vs what the NFL teams have on their boards.

I would love for all 32 teams to post something like their top 100 graded players in order. That would freaking be awesome. THEN and ONLY then can we intelligently be like haha you fooked up!! lol

But, some folks like conjecture and entertainment for the basis of their assumptions. AND THAT IS OKAY!!!
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
beast (4h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (9h) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (10h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (20h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (20h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (20h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (21h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (21h) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
50m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

6h / Random Babble / beast

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16h / GameDay Threads / Mucky Tundra

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.