Matt extended

[DABIGZ]

In my humblest opinion.

I think Love, Kraft and Tom are very good to great starts. But none of those three (save Kraft before his injury, now who knows how he'll recover) don't strike FEAR into anyone. So I can see what point @adambr2 is trying to make.

My reasoning for this? Look at the last couple of seasons. There was never a game I could point to and say: "We are 100% beating this team because we 100% have the superior roster."

Parsons changed that. Now can anyone else level up to that?

 

[tynimiller]

In my humblest opinion.

I think Love, Kraft and Tom are very good to great starts. But none of those three (save Kraft before his injury, now who knows how he'll recover) don't strike FEAR into anyone. So I can see what point @adambr2 is trying to make.

My reasoning for this? Look at the last couple of seasons. There was never a game I could point to and say: "We are 100% beating this team because we 100% have the superior roster."

Parsons changed that. Now can anyone else level up to that?

Again it all depends on what his opinion of a 10/10 means. Shoot I'd argue Jordan Love keeps more HC/DC's up planning for games than Clay Matthews did to HC/OC's....IF to be a 10/10 means to be one of the best say handful (5 or so) guys at your position - Tom and Kraft would absolutely fit that bill if you polled coaches or those with intimate football knowledge I bet.

There have been numerous games over the last couple seasons where it was clear the opponent was simply inferior - but that gets very subjective in some instances...but how do the following not fit that description?

@ Titans Week 3 of 2024
vs Dolphins Week 13 of 2024
vs Saints Week 16 of 2024
@ Seahawks Week 15 of 2024

The Bears in 2023 and I'd argue the Vikings despite losing once to them. Which brings me to the point of the best roster does not win every Sunday, not even close.

Adambr2 never wants to have a truly unbias (to his thinking) or nuanced discussion about Green Bay. He despises nearly every decision made, has indicated he has superior intelligence over not just our scouting department and GM but nearly the entire league with how easy he makes the draft sound at times. I think he just lets his passion and opinion cloud the entire field of discussion is all - and in truth depending on his answer to what in his opinion is 10/10 I might agree more than I disagree with his sentiment truthfully.

 

[DABIGZ]

Again it all depends on what his opinion of a 10/10 means. Shoot I'd argue Jordan Love keeps more HC/DC's up planning for games than Clay Matthews did to HC/OC's....IF to be a 10/10 means to be one of the best say handful (5 or so) guys at your position - Tom and Kraft would absolutely fit that bill if you polled coaches or those with intimate football knowledge I bet.

There have been numerous games over the last couple seasons where it was clear the opponent was simply inferior - but that gets very subjective in some instances...but how do the following not fit that description?

@ Titans Week 3 of 2024
vs Dolphins Week 13 of 2024
vs Saints Week 16 of 2024
@ Seahawks Week 15 of 2024

The Bears in 2023 and I'd argue the Vikings despite losing once to them. Which brings me to the point of the best roster does not win every Sunday, not even close.

Adambr2 never wants to have a truly unbias (to his thinking) or nuanced discussion about Green Bay. He despises nearly every decision made, has indicated he has superior intelligence over not just our scouting department and GM but nearly the entire league with how easy he makes the draft sound at times. I think he just lets his passion and opinion cloud the entire field of discussion is all - and in truth depending on his answer to what in his opinion is 10/10 I might agree more than I disagree with his sentiment truthfully.

I think that's reasonable. So, my I ask.. what should be the goal of the team this year? If we have a group of guys (Love, Parsons, Kraft, Tom... Mckinney?) that are "10/10s"?

Because I believe why people are so up in arms about why we supposedly don't have "10/10" players is because of the results the last few seasons. So, if we are making the assertion that we in fact DO have a group of superstars... why have our seasons been ending the way that they have, bearing the results that come with it?

 

[tynimiller]

I think that's reasonable. So, my I ask.. what should be the goal of the team this year? If we have a group of guys (Love, Parsons, Kraft, Tom... Mckinney?) that are "10/10s"?

Because I believe why people are so up in arms about why we supposedly don't have "10/10" players is because of the results the last few seasons. So, if we are making the assertion that we in fact DO have a group of superstars... why have our seasons been ending the way that they have, bearing the results that come with it?

Goal of this team? Of course make the playoffs and win a super bowl - something incredibly hard to do.

I fully expect us to be one of the teams to punch a dance ticket to having a chance (playoff birth) and the biggest key to our success is health and after that progression within the roster....it never really changes IMO. Last year the Seahawks were one of the biggest examples of how big of a deal being healthy is (been shared elsewhere and by many outlets) as they were the least impacted team by injuries salary wise....

APY On Injured Reserve | Over the Cap

APY On Injured Reserve | Over the Cap

overthecap.com

 

[adambr2]

By what metric are you measuring or claiming a guy is a 10/10?

If by it you mean they are considered one of the best of their position…Tom, Kraft and Love would be the last three to fit that.

Hindsight will always provide a crystal clear take but also folks pretending that it is so insanely easy to identify which player is going to be a one of one or blue chipper is fooling themselves.

Most scouts I’ve talked to have said this upcoming draft has four or five guys they simply cannot see not being one of the premiere guys of their position relatively quickly (which for reference I’ve always heard in year two or three from jump fits that).

Perennially among the best for multiple years at their position. Aaron Rodgers was a 10/10. Micah Parsons is a 10/10. You know the 10/10s when you see them. Puka Nacua, Jamaar Chase, Justin Jefferson, Travis Kelce, Derrick Henry, Josh Allen, Patrick Mahomes, are 10/10s. David Bahktiari was a 10/10.

I don’t think we’ve seen enough out of Kraft yet to call him that. Opinions on Love vary widely across the board depending on the metrics that you use and who you talk to. Some believe he’s among the best, others believe he’s as mid as mid gets and the 3rd best QB in the division. I believe in Love, but he’s not a 10/10 quarterback at this point in time.

 

[tynimiller]

Perennially among the best for multiple years at their position. Aaron Rodgers was a 10/10. Micah Parsons is a 10/10. You know the 10/10s when you see them. Puka Nacua, Jamaar Chase, Justin Jefferson, Travis Kelce, Derrick Henry, Josh Allen, Patrick Mahomes, are 10/10s. David Bahktiari was a 10/10.

I don’t think we’ve seen enough out of Kraft yet to call him that. Opinions on Love vary widely across the board depending on the metrics that you use and who you talk to. Some believe he’s among the best, others believe he’s as mid as mid gets and the 3rd best QB in the division. I believe in Love, but he’s not a 10/10 quarterback at this point in time.

So you’re talking not just all pro but elite of elite is 10/10. In that case I’ve long argued there is maybe ten or fewer of these in any given league year but if you add it has to be a few years I’d argue it is even fewer.

Defensively over the last three or four I’d argue Garrett and Parsons might be the only two defensive players to fit that IMO.

Offensively I think one could have argued Saquan for a few years before this last…Justin Jefferson before and maybe Puka but I’d push back on that somewhat. Josh Allen perhaps might be the only QB which fits that bill over three or so years…Mahomes nope…Lamar nope….

That’s a special threshold to meet but for sure makes me understand your view better - even if I disagree

 

[adambr2]

Adambr2 never wants to have a truly unbias (to his thinking) or nuanced discussion about Green Bay. He despises nearly every decision made, has indicated he has superior intelligence over not just our scouting department and GM but nearly the entire league with how easy he makes the draft sound at times. I think he just lets his passion and opinion cloud the entire field of discussion is all - and in truth depending on his answer to what in his opinion is 10/10 I might agree more than I disagree with his sentiment truthfully.

This is an absolute load of crap. I’m always open, and absolutely willing, to have a debate and/or nuanced discussion, and anyone who has ever conversed with me on message boards should know that. No, I don’t like the direction that the franchise is being run with our FO. Yes, I believe that our draft philosophy, and what we look for, probably should look at some updating.

No, I’m not a narcissist that believes I could do a better job than the professionals, and I fully understand that we’re not the New York Jets or Cleveland Browns. I try to look at things as unbiased as I can - I’m arguably a bigger Milwaukee Brewers fan than Green Bay Packers fan and I think that the Brewers are one of the best run organizations in professional sports. It’s probably true that I let passion take my opinions too far at times, but I’m not just negative for the sake of being negative. You can feel free to direct me to whatever posts I made where I indicated that I have superior intelligence over the scouting department and GM.

I didn’t get a chance to address your question earlier because I had to get my kids from school and take them to taekwondo. Hope that’s ok with you. Didn’t know you were going to follow up your question with repeated unprovoked personal attacks.

 

[adambr2]

So you’re talking not just all pro but elite of elite is 10/10. In that case I’ve long argued there is maybe ten or fewer of these in any given league year but if you add it has to be a few years I’d argue it is even fewer.

Defensively over the last three or four I’d argue Garrett and Parsons might be the only two defensive players to fit that IMO.

Offensively I think one could have argued Saquan for a few years before this last…Justin Jefferson before and maybe Puka but I’d push back on that somewhat. Josh Allen perhaps might be the only QB which fits that bill over three or so years…Mahomes nope…Lamar nope….

That’s a special threshold to meet but for sure makes me understand your view better - even if I disagree

If you are going to push back on Patrick Mahomes and Puka Nacua being truly elite NFL players I really don’t even know how to begin to debate that other than saying I totally disagree.

It’s also a matter of game impact. Elite edge rushers are more impactful than elite RBs or elite safeties, for example.

 

[tynimiller]

If you are going to push back on Patrick Mahomes and Puka Nacua being truly elite NFL players I really don’t even know how to begin to debate that other than saying I totally disagree.

It’s also a matter of game impact. Elite edge rushers are more impactful than elite RBs or elite safeties, for example.

Oh I believe they’re elite and I said of late I don’t believe you can put Mahomes there but he absolutely has been.

Puka fits the three years or so statement I thought you referenced but I think some could push back on given he only has two full seasons.

You are absolutely correct on the positional stuff for sure in comparisons.

 

[tynimiller]

This is an absolute load of crap. I’m always open, and absolutely willing, to have a debate and/or nuanced discussion, and anyone who has ever conversed with me on message boards should know that. No, I don’t like the direction that the franchise is being run with our FO. Yes, I believe that our draft philosophy, and what we look for, probably should look at some updating.

No, I’m not a narcissist that believes I could do a better job than the professionals, and I fully understand that we’re not the New York Jets or Cleveland Browns. I try to look at things as unbiased as I can - I’m arguably a bigger Milwaukee Brewers fan than Green Bay Packers fan and I think that the Brewers are one of the best run organizations in professional sports. It’s probably true that I let passion take my opinions too far at times, but I’m not just negative for the sake of being negative. You can feel free to direct me to whatever posts I made where I indicated that I have superior intelligence over the scouting department and GM.

I didn’t get a chance to address your question earlier because I had to get my kids from school and take them to taekwondo. Hope that’s ok with you. Didn’t know you were going to follow up your question with repeated unprovoked personal attacks.

If you’re not whom I’m thinking of I truly apologize but I could have swore there have been some absolutely absurd takes you’ve said that I’ve disproven as just not true. Fully apologize if I was wrong there.

lol I wasn’t offended at all you didn’t respond for a bit man, I knew you would and also have days full of far more important priorities than a football forum.

 

[adambr2]

Oh I believe they’re elite and I said of late I don’t believe you can put Mahomes there but he absolutely has been.

Puka fits the three years or so statement I thought you referenced but I think some could push back on given he only has two full seasons.

You are absolutely correct on the positional stuff for sure in comparisons.

Well, even 10/10 players don’t have 10/10 seasons every season. At least, not most. That was even true of Rodgers. Kelce obviously isn’t a 10/10 anymore but still was a generational TE pick, over the entire body of work. I’d consider that Aaron Rodgers, David Bahktiari, Davante Adams, and Clay Matthews in recent history. Parsons and Peppers as well, but those were outside acquisitions.

I think there are players on the current roster who have a chance and aren’t there yet.

 

[tynimiller]

Well, even 10/10 players don’t have 10/10 seasons every season. At least, not most. That was even true of Rodgers. Kelce obviously isn’t a 10/10 anymore but still was a generational TE pick, over the entire body of work. I’d consider that Aaron Rodgers, David Bahktiari, Davante Adams, and Clay Matthews in recent history. Parsons and Peppers as well, but those were outside acquisitions.

I think there are players on the current roster who have a chance and aren’t there yet.

Oh for sure I think I was thinking just recently and you were talking historically. Shoot Jacobs even could be argued he was that for a couple seasons or so.

On our Roster I say Love is already there (understand that seems split)...but man Kraft for sure likely could, Watson if healthy might, Tom is already there if speaking RT specifically IMO.....then guys like Cooper, Evan Williams and McKinney I think might someday.

Gary flirted with it when young before his injury but NOT close now.

 

[milani]

Perennially among the best for multiple years at their position. Aaron Rodgers was a 10/10. Micah Parsons is a 10/10. You know the 10/10s when you see them. Puka Nacua, Jamaar Chase, Justin Jefferson, Travis Kelce, Derrick Henry, Josh Allen, Patrick Mahomes, are 10/10s. David Bahktiari was a 10/10.

I don’t think we’ve seen enough out of Kraft yet to call him that. Opinions on Love vary widely across the board depending on the metrics that you use and who you talk to. Some believe he’s among the best, others believe he’s as mid as mid gets and the 3rd best QB in the division. I believe in Love, but he’s not a 10/10 quarterback at this point in time.

Early.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Yeah it's tough for me.
I mean on one hand, when we talk about guys like Gary or LVN or similar...it's tough to get "sure thing" guys a lot of the time. Even for where those guys were picked (~middle 1/3rd of the draft), there's not a lot of guarantees. So in one sense I understand the rationale behind taking "potential" there.

But on the other hand, sometimes I think it's a case of a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush. Sometimes I get the feeling that erring on the side of "potential" vs "production" is a good way to get you stuck in good but not great - almost there but not quite.

It feels to me like most of the time if you offered the Packers brass the choice between
A.) Drafting a player who is currently a "7/10" without much wiggle room - they might become an 8/10 player but not much higher
or B.) Drafting a player who is currently a "5/10" and could become anything from a 5/10 to a 9/10 or a 10/10 if everything fell into place just right

Then I think they would take option B just about every time. And I think there are situations where that makes sense, but there are also situations where you simply need someone who can step in right away - there are cases where having a guy who is able to step in straight away and produce at a reasonably high level is more valuable than a guy who MIGHT reach a higher ceiling three years from now.

In the case of Golden, I can't really get my head around the rationale for seriously limiting his usage early on. Did we think he was simply not ready to play? That doesn't seem to be the case. Was he unable to grasp the offensive concepts? Again, don't really see it. Did we draft him exclusively to get a "win" for the fans at the draft and realistically could've taken a different WR later to develop slowly? The only answer I can ever really get is "The Packers historically like to work in rookies slowly" or "Packers rookie WRs never get that sort of heavy workload" or similar. And that certainly answers the "what" but it says nothing about the "why". it tells us what our historical approach has been but offers absolutely nothing to justify whether or not that is the *right* approach.

Well said Magooch. I think both options you outline are available - take an A player in round 1 and/or round 2 who is ready to start in the NFL (that's still a gamble, but the risk is acceptable IMO). Use later rounds to pick guys who will likely take some time to develop, or who may surprise.

And I thought that's exactly what the Packers did with Golden - they took a guy who looked able to contribute from day 1. He showed it in TC and the PS. He was fast with great hands, and slightly shorter than what most teams prefer in a WR.

IMO Ty knows the team as well as anyone, and he predicted Golden would get around 50 targets for the season. I thought that was way off, even without losing Reed so early. Golden actually got 40 targets - s o hats off to Ty for a very good prediction.

And there is certainly a sense that the Packers bring rookies along slowly, with maybe the exception of the OL.

 

[Heyjoe4]

By what metric are you measuring or claiming a guy is a 10/10?

If by it you mean they are considered one of the best of their position…Tom, Kraft and Love would be the last three to fit that.

Hindsight will always provide a crystal clear take but also folks pretending that it is so insanely easy to identify which player is going to be a one of one or blue chipper is fooling themselves.

Most scouts I’ve talked to have said this upcoming draft has four or five guys they simply cannot see not being one of the premiere guys of their position relatively quickly (which for reference I’ve always heard in year two or three from jump fits that).

Agreed that Kraft, Love and Tom fit that nebulous "10/10" label. Kraft is an over-performing 3rd round pick, Love a first who was given time to learn behind Rodgers - and in what round was Tom drafted?

No draft pick is a sure thing. For every Joe Burrow there is a Mitch Trubisky or Trey Lance or Jamarcus Russell (saved the worst for last), or so it seems at QB.

I still don't understand why Golden wasn't used more. You called it, saying last August that Golden would get around 50 targets. After his stellar TC and PS, starting the season with Watson in IR and then losing Reed, 50 targets seemed way too low.

Golden got 40 targets. Good call. I still don't like that he wasn't used more, but expect that will change immediately in the upcoming season. Adams' first two years in the NFL were unremarkable, and he did pretty well........

 

[Heyjoe4]

Well, we were in the NFCCG his first two years. But that was the peak. As I've said numerous times on here, it's the downward trend that bugs me with MLF. The team seems to have gotten progressively worse during his tenure. Started out promising, but went downhill from there.

I'm not sure they've been trending down since Rodgers left, but at best, theyre treading water - meaning an 11 or 12 win season and one and done in the playoffs.

Parsons was a move by Gluten to go all in on an always-small SB "window". The best laid plans........ No good excuses for underperforming, but if Kraft and Parsons don't get injured, it's a different ending.

 

[Heyjoe4]

This is an absolute load of crap. I’m always open, and absolutely willing, to have a debate and/or nuanced discussion, and anyone who has ever conversed with me on message boards should know that. No, I don’t like the direction that the franchise is being run with our FO. Yes, I believe that our draft philosophy, and what we look for, probably should look at some updating.

No, I’m not a narcissist that believes I could do a better job than the professionals, and I fully understand that we’re not the New York Jets or Cleveland Browns. I try to look at things as unbiased as I can - I’m arguably a bigger Milwaukee Brewers fan than Green Bay Packers fan and I think that the Brewers are one of the best run organizations in professional sports. It’s probably true that I let passion take my opinions too far at times, but I’m not just negative for the sake of being negative. You can feel free to direct me to whatever posts I made where I indicated that I have superior intelligence over the scouting department and GM.

I didn’t get a chance to address your question earlier because I had to get my kids from school and take them to taekwondo. Hope that’s ok with you. Didn’t know you were going to follow up your question with repeated unprovoked personal attacks.

I agree with you Adam. Ty's comment about you was too harsh. As much as Ty contributes here, he can let emotion get the better of him when talking about a particular player, especially around the draft - so it's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

We all let our emotions dictate at least occasional comments. We all have favorite players.

But back to the point, I have always found you to be a valuable contributor on this forum Adam. If you occasionally have a particualrly strong, polarizing comment, welcome to the club! We all do it!

 

[rmontro]

I'm not sure they've been trending down since Rodgers left, but at best, theyre treading water - meaning an 11 or 12 win season and one and done in the playoffs.

Parsons was a move by Gluten to go all in on an always-small SB "window". The best laid plans........ No good excuses for underperforming, but if Kraft and Parsons don't get injured, it's a different ending.

When I talk about the downward trend, I mean Love's first year starting looked promising, shellacking the Cowboys in the playoffs in Dallas. The next year they finished on a sour note, losing their final three games. I went to the Shareholders meeting last year, and Murphy mentioned that. Then this past year, they lost their final five games. That's what I mean by a downward progression. Injuries definitely played a part, but the trend's still there.

 

[Heyjoe4]

When I talk about the downward trend, I mean Love's first year starting looked promising, shellacking the Cowboys in the playoffs in Dallas. The next year they finished on a sour note, losing their final three games. I went to the Shareholders meeting last year, and Murphy mentioned that. Then this past year, they lost their final five games. That's what I mean by a downward progression. Injuries definitely played a part, but the trend's still there.

Gotcha rmontro, and agree. When they came within an inch of the NFCCG in Love's first year (losing to SF after clobbering Dallas), the future looked bright. But you're correct saying the team has been trending in the wrong direction since that season.

I do think Love is a very good QB in the NFL. He's not a top 5 guy yet, and he probably doesn't have to be. There is a lot of talent around him. Injuries just took a brutal toll last year. Even so, every time a marquee guy goes down (Kraft, Parsons) it's an opportinuty for another guy to shine. That didn't happen last season.

 

[CarryTheG14]

Gotcha rmontro, and agree. When they came within an inch of the NFCCG in Love's first year (losing to SF after clobbering Dallas), the future looked bright. But you're correct saying the team has been trending in the wrong direction since that season.

I do think Love is a very good QB in the NFL. He's not a top 5 guy yet, and he probably doesn't have to be. There is a lot of talent around him. Injuries just took a brutal toll last year. Even so, every time a marquee guy goes down (Kraft, Parsons) it's an opportinuty for another guy to shine. That didn't happen last season.

I put him in the 2nd tier of guys.

Allen

Mahomes, Lamar, Burrow, Love

 

[gopkrs]

Well said Magooch. I think both options you outline are available - take an A player in round 1 and/or round 2 who is ready to start in the NFL (that's still a gamble, but the risk is acceptable IMO). Use later rounds to pick guys who will likely take some time to develop, or who may surprise.

And I thought that's exactly what the Packers did with Golden - they took a guy who looked able to contribute from day 1. He showed it in TC and the PS. He was fast with great hands, and slightly shorter than what most teams prefer in a WR.

IMO Ty knows the team as well as anyone, and he predicted Golden would get around 50 targets for the season. I thought that was way off, even without losing Reed so early. Golden actually got 40 targets - s o hats off to Ty for a very good prediction.

And there is certainly a sense that the Packers bring rookies along slowly, with maybe the exception of the OL.

I don't like thinking, in most cases, that if it's a 3rd or worse pick I'm going to draft who I think can develop. All of these guys are college athletes and will be developing naturally. And nobody knows exactly how. And so I think in every round we should be drafting football players. Guys that already show they can play. I have a definition in my mind of what a football player might be but I guess it would be as tough to agree on a definition as anything else. But maybe someone that already shows an ability to tackle or block. Speed probably doesn't change alot. But someone that ciearly understands the game and contributes. I don't think that philosophy has really helped out our O line. We always seem to be coming up short someplace or another. Or just waiting for some guy to develop.

 

[gopkrs]

I put him in the 2nd tier of guys.

Allen

Mahomes, Lamar, Burrow, Love

If I understand your reply; that's one hell of a 2nd tier. All 50M QBs. A qb can have a bad year because of an injury or problems with his team. But a future hall of famer is tier 1. I've been surprised by how Lamar has improved his passing. I hope we can get Love real comfortable in the pocket so he doesn't feel rushed. That would mean no weak links. And since there are so many injuries; also several decent back ups.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I put him in the 2nd tier of guys.

Allen

Mahomes, Lamar, Burrow, Love

I think this is about right Carry. No QB has been as consistently outstanding as Allen over the last 5 years. He has the most complete game of any QB IMO. It's weird that the Bills have played so poorly in the playoffs (relative to their talent). Just shows how very hard it is to win a SB.

Some would argue Love doesn't belong in the same tier with Mahomes, Jackson, and Burrrow - but I think he belongs there. Love is not a flashy guy and not nearly as controversial as Rodgers could be. He does a very good job, very quietly.

Love has dramatically improved his completion % and he still throws way more TDs than INTs. He has also gotten better at slowing himself down and not taking the first option that appears. He's a very good QB, even though I admit I didn't like it when Gluten took him in round 1. First thought wrong!

 

[Heyjoe4]

I don't like thinking, in most cases, that if it's a 3rd or worse pick I'm going to draft who I think can develop. All of these guys are college athletes and will be developing naturally. And nobody knows exactly how. And so I think in every round we should be drafting football players. Guys that already show they can play. I have a definition in my mind of what a football player might be but I guess it would be as tough to agree on a definition as anything else. But maybe someone that already shows an ability to tackle or block. Speed probably doesn't change alot. But someone that ciearly understands the game and contributes. I don't think that philosophy has really helped out our O line. We always seem to be coming up short someplace or another. Or just waiting for some guy to develop.

I know what you mean about drafting "football players" even though the term is hard to define.

 

[CarryTheG14]

I think this is about right Carry. No QB has been as consistently outstanding as Allen over the last 5 years. He has the most complete game of any QB IMO. It's weird that the Bills have played so poorly in the playoffs (relative to their talent). Just shows how very hard it is to win a SB.

Some would argue Love doesn't belong in the same tier with Mahomes, Jackson, and Burrrow - but I think he belongs there. Love is not a flashy guy and not nearly as controversial as Rodgers could be. He does a very good job, very quietly.

Love has dramatically improved his completion % and he still throws way more TDs than INTs. He has also gotten better at slowing himself down and not taking the first option that appears. He's a very good QB, even though I admit I didn't like it when Gluten took him in round 1. First thought wrong!

I doubt many would have him in that tier. I think if MLF let him throw as much as other QBs and in the RZ more he'd have those gaudy undeniable numbers.