CBS Sports calls out Packers lies regarding Jordan Love

garyhogeboomsghost

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 29, 2020
Messages
35
Reaction score
1
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...t-of-why-they-took-jordan-love-doesnt-add-up/

Entire article linked above^^ Single paragraph excerpt blocked and highlighted below.

The revisionist history has already begun in Green Bay. Didn't even take a month. Color me not surprised.

The Green Bay Packers sacrificed a fourth-round pick to move up in the first round to select quarterback Jordan Love to replace Aaron Rodgers in two years. Period. Them's the facts. Any attempt to skew that decision made on April 23 in another way is disingenuous at best. Might even enter the realm of gaslighting.


I knew it would only be a matter of time before the powers that be in Green Bay tried to couch this in the same vein as when Rodgers fell all the way to them in 2005 when they already had an aging Brett Favre in the fold. I dissected that faux dynamic in realtime right after the first round was complete last month, when the Packers had executed the most controversial transaction of that Thursday night. They had put an expiration date on their Hall of Fame QB in Green Bay --
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,115
Reaction score
3,036
Screw these takes and the people who make them.

It is perfectly plausible that the Packers moved up to secure their last first round grade because he was the last guy they liked in the first round. That doesn't make it true, but to act as though the trade up somehow proves that LaFleur is "gaslighting" people is asinine.

La Canfora is either trying to manufacture controversy for clicks or too ignorant to properly understand this situation. Or both. I'm going with both.
 

thisisnate

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 25, 2012
Messages
1,627
Reaction score
185
Location
Maine
egomaniac diva rodgers...
i forget... is that the thing all the pundits call him and never his teammates?
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,494
Reaction score
5,827
I’ve copied and forwarded this text to Rodgers! I can’t believe he has the nerve to do this!....

He’s Like a text Pre-Madonna that Rodgers
I’m giving him 1 more hour to respond and then that’s it! I’m blocking him :whistling:

P.S. I have still not returned a text for like 3 days as an experiment. They must be furious at me.
I’m truly concerned not 1 friend has lashed out at me. maybe they got kidnapped or Corona’d or whatever that’s called?
 
Last edited:

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,397
Reaction score
2,496
Location
PENDING
You notice sports journalism really gets worse and worse each year.

This is pure ignorant garbage. Speculation by someone who doesn't understand football beyond a casual observer.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Well, you can only be gaslighted if you allow yourself to be, and certainly not if you write this:

"I dissected that faux dynamic in realtime right after the first round was complete last month....everyone saw it and knew it."

Of course. You have only been gaslighted if you take the "best player available" story at face value. The only reasonable conclusion is Love was targeted from the outset. Gutekunst may have had a contingent trade higher on the board that the trading partner nixed as the board fell out. "Would he? Could he? Nah," with repect to Love were my thoughts when Rapoport tweeted hours before the draft that Gutekunst was making calls for a trade up.

With the water under the bridge, the relevant LaCanfora assertions to consider are:

"They moved up to, if anything, reach for the younger, cheaper guy to take over for Rodgers when they don't want to pay him $34M a year anymore to manage games for them in a risk-averse offense. That's the deal. Just own it, guys." And that Love is "a QB you are banking on being a more cost-effective replacement for Rodgers come 2022."

If there's a concensus baseline expectation this would be it among those with at least a casual acquaintance with cap matters and what a LaFleur offense might look like in its true form. But it is not something anybody should assert with certainty.

What if the Packers are sitting at 5-9, or a shortened season equivalent, in 2020 and are out of the playoffs, not far off the 5-8-1 of 2018? Does Love get the last two starts? What if the Packers are quite happy with what they see? One simply cannot rule out the "schedule", which must written in pencil at this point, gets accelerated to 2021. $32 mil in Rodgers dead cap isn't relevant if you're not planning to play him in which case you take the $5 mil in cap savings.

At the other end of the spectrum, there's another bit of revisionist history to take into account. That Rodgers was the heir from the get go, just biding his time, does quite not line up with the facts. With Favre out and Rodgers taking over in his 3rd. season the Packers drafted Brohm at #56, closer to where Love should have been taken. There was certainly the opportunity to be gaslighted by the Wolf storyline of "develop and trade" possibilities. The more plausible scenario is they were not entirely sold on Rodgers.

What if you get to 2022 and they are not entirely sold on Love while Rodgers has a 2020 or 2021 Super Bowl win in his pocket with a lot of optimism for a Brady-like twilight?

Or what if they get to year two with Love and find out he's a box of rocks as far as grasping a pro system and gets cut as with Brohm?

Projections are just that, not future realities. All you have is a baseline of expectation. The future has a nasty habit of not caring what your projection might be.

So, what in this piece is worthy of being angry about? That LaCamfora called LaFleur and Gutekunst liars? Maybe Packer fans were conditioned too long by Thompson's, "Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies," mode of operation, speaking infrequently and then saying next to nothing when he did. McCarthy had a knack for inarticulation where there wasn't much to latch onto in all of the words.

LaCamfora's seeming outrage at the misdirections is itself naive. GMs, coaches, people lie all the time to advance their ends. It's just the degree and importance of those lies that matters. These lies cannot be elevated to the extent of outrage. Nothing to be suprised about or particularly upset with this spin, otherwise you've gaslighted yourself. What matters is whether the decisions and projections pan out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

XPack

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,650
Reaction score
528
Location
Garden State
A clickbait thread title to a clickbait article.

Both gary's need an extended break from the forum. This is just getting tiresome. It's like they are drones of Cowherd!
 

LetzBreel

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
342
Reaction score
93
You notice sports journalism really gets worse and worse each year.

This is pure ignorant garbage. Speculation by someone who doesn't understand football beyond a casual observer.
"Sports Journalism" - an oxymoron if there ever was one.
 

jon

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2020
Messages
164
Reaction score
18
You have only been gaslighted if you take the "best player available" story at face value. The only reasonable conclusion is Love was targeted from the outset

Yes.

Taking the bast player available means the best available when it's your turn. If you move up, you've got a target.

IMHO, the Love pick is OK. Not what I would have done but I'm an economist not an NFL GM so....

The way Gute and MLF handled, though, was very poor. Amateurish. A simple quick phone call to Rodgers is basic professional courtesy, and it never even occurred to them. Days later, they still didn't have a decent narrative. As a manager, I make it a point to treat people better than this consciously; these guys lead a big organization....

As for Conforna, FWIW, I have never been an admirer, but a broken clock is right once a day, and this is his time (though he went way overboard with it).
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,397
Reaction score
2,496
Location
PENDING
Yes.

Taking the bast player available means the best available when it's your turn. If you move up, you've got a target.

IMHO, the Love pick is OK. Not what I would have done but I'm an economist not an NFL GM so....

The way Gute and MLF handled, though, was very poor. Amateurish. A simple quick phone call to Rodgers is basic professional courtesy, and it never even occurred to them. Days later, they still didn't have a decent narrative. As a manager, I make it a point to treat people better than this consciously; these guys lead a big organization....

As for Conforna, FWIW, I have never been an admirer, but a broken clock is right once a day, and this is his time (though he went way overboard with it).
BPA means you select a player with the highest grade when you pick. If you move up to pick a player, it means you don't think he will last to your pick. In other words, he already represents value compared to what else is available. Trading up is almost always drafting BPA - from what we can tell.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
BPA means you select a player with the highest grade when you pick. If you move up to pick a player, it means you don't think he will last to your pick. In other words, he already represents value compared to what else is available. Trading up is almost always drafting BPA - from what we can tell.
Right. And that means you don't execute the trade before the draft, when 10 are off the board, or even 25 if you are targeting a particular player. That target could be off board at 25. Then the trade up is contingent. The terms of the deal are set at some point, with both sides having an out. The trade is confirmed when the pick is on the clock or canceled if it wasn't cancelled before.

The only way around believing this is how it shakes out is if, after 23 are off the board for example, there are three players you highly value knowing one will be available. Or 20 are off the board and you highly value six of the remaining, but this starts to strain credulity.

The question then becomes, when was the trade executed? Before #26 was on the clock when Love was one of three or one of six of the highly valued, and it turned out he was the only one left?

I find it much much more plausible that Love was targeted and that Gutekunst may have had a second contingent trade higher up the board to be sure he got his guy but the other team backed out of it to get their favorite, in which case we can take cold comfort in Gutekunst having given up only a 4th. rounder in the process.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GreenNGold_81

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Messages
1,741
Reaction score
280
Right. And that means you don't execute the trade before the draft, when 10 are off the board, or even 25 if you are targeting a particular player. That target could be off board at 25. Then the trade up is contingent. The terms of the deal are set at some point, with both sides having an out. The trade is confirmed when the pick is on the clock or canceled if it wasn't cancelled before.

The only way around believing this is how it shakes out is if, after 23 are off the board for example, there are three players you highly value knowing one will be available. Or 20 are off the board and you highly value six of the remaining, but this starts to strain credulity.

The question then becomes, when was the trade executed? Before #26 was on the clock when Love was one of three or one of six of the highly valued, and it turned out he was the only one left?

I find it much much more plausible that Love was targeted and that Gutekunst may have had a second contingent trade higher up the board to be sure he got his guy but the other team backed out of it to get their favorite, in which case we can take cold comfort in Gutekunst having given up only a 4th. rounder in the process.

They probably realized that Seattle loves to trade back in the draft. They picked at 27. So any team looking to get that 5th-year option for a QB would target a trade with Seattle. Trading to 26 ensured they got the last top talent available in the first. I bet you they had thought about this scenario and were prepared to execute it should all the WR's come off the board that they gave a first and probably early 2nd round grade. When Aiyuk was taken, IMO it triggered this trade.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
They probably realized that Seattle loves to trade back in the draft. They picked at 27. So any team looking to get that 5th-year option for a QB would target a trade with Seattle. Trading to 26 ensured they got the last top talent available in the first. I bet you they had thought about this scenario and were prepared to execute it should all the WR's come off the board that they gave a first and probably early 2nd round grade. When Aiyuk was taken, IMO it triggered this trade.
If you think Aiyuk being taken resulted in the Love pick you run the risk of having been gaslighted as the story goes.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,397
Reaction score
2,496
Location
PENDING
Right. And that means you don't execute the trade before the draft, when 10 are off the board, or even 25 if you are targeting a particular player. That target could be off board at 25. Then the trade up is contingent. The terms of the deal are set at some point, with both sides having an out. The trade is confirmed when the pick is on the clock or canceled if it wasn't cancelled before.

The only way around believing this is how it shakes out is if, after 23 are off the board for example, there are three players you highly value knowing one will be available. Or 20 are off the board and you highly value six of the remaining, but this starts to strain credulity.

The question then becomes, when was the trade executed? Before #26 was on the clock when Love was one of three or one of six of the highly valued, and it turned out he was the only one left?

I find it much much more plausible that Love was targeted and that Gutekunst may have had a second contingent trade higher up the board to be sure he got his guy but the other team backed out of it to get their favorite, in which case we can take cold comfort in Gutekunst having given up only a 4th. rounder in the process.
i heard an interview with a former GM And there are usually several trades discussed for each pick, either going forward or back. There is not enough time, 15 mins, to negotiate and get the best deal. Teams have many scenarios they run through. They have a better gage on where players are going and they probably had some scenarios and trades in place for several of them. We could have had a trade in place to get to 20 with the Jags if WR Jefferson was available. The Jags had the trade in place in case Chaisson wasn't available. He was so the Jags never called.

Conversely, we could have wanted CeeDee Lamb at pick 20 from the Jags and so did they. When Lamb was gone they called and asked if we still wanted to trade. Nope, our guy is gone. At which time Jags would have called the 2nd best trade offer to see if their guy was still there.

You never know how the draft plays out so you have to have several options.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,215
Reaction score
5,061
If you think Aiyuk being taken resulted in the Love pick you run the risk of having been gaslighted as the story goes.

How so? If Gute is setting there and say Aiyuk and Love are the only players rated high enough on his board at #26....the scenario could have been (everyone I'm painting a hypothetical...I am not saying this is fact):

Aiyuk has a rating on Gute's board of #23, Love is actually #19...

As the draft unfolds #26 rolls around and Gute takes a trade negotiated on an earlier call at number #26 to take a player they feel has no business being available at that point in the draft. This mixed with the fact no WR or position they'd love to add is seen as having a player worthy of #30 in their opinion. So they take the trade, draft a player they had rated much higher than the position ultimately picked at instead of sitting and either trading back or in their opinion reaching on a player not rated worthy of 30.
 

GreenNGold_81

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Messages
1,741
Reaction score
280
If you think Aiyuk being taken resulted in the Love pick you run the risk of having been gaslighted as the story goes.

I run the risk of having that opinion then I guess. Seemed plausible when I wrote it. We'll never know what went down.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,494
Reaction score
5,827
They probably realized that Seattle loves to trade back in the draft. They picked at 27. So any team looking to get that 5th-year option for a QB would target a trade with Seattle. Trading to 26 ensured they got the last top talent available in the first. I bet you they had thought about this scenario and were prepared to execute it should all the WR's come off the board that they gave a first and probably early 2nd round grade. When Aiyuk was taken, IMO it triggered this trade.
I get the point regardless. There were several guys picked in that late teens area GB had their eyes on enough to trade into early 20’s. Board just didn’t fall right tho.
 
Last edited:

GreenNGold_81

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Messages
1,741
Reaction score
280
I get the point regardless. There were several guys picked in that late teens area GB had their eyes on enough to trade into early 20’s. Board just didn’t fall right tho.

Ya, when my family and I were watching the draft we said the only hope we'd have of getting a first-round quality WR was to trade up to the late teens/early 20's. Otherwise, every team in need of a WR who'd be picking around our selection would try to leap us to get their guy given that our hand was basically revealed prior to the draft. Given our needs, one can assume that Gute was ok with the late-round depth at o-line. Were ok taking a bit of a risk on an ILB in the middle rounds and they REALLY wanted Deguara and Dillon seeing what Jusczcyk and Henry have done for their respective teams. That's how I'm rationalizing this draft anyway, some high risk, high possible reward choices by a GM who's time is now on the clock.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,494
Reaction score
5,827
I’m not sure why this didn’t hit me before.

“CBS calling out Lies”

In general terms... That’s like a hypocrite telling a liar to practice what he preaches! :laugh:
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top