The Jordan Love Era Begins

Will Jordan Love be 3 in a row for the Packers?

  • Yes, he's a FHOF Player

    Votes: 4 5.6%
  • He'll be pro bowl good but not FHOF good

    Votes: 20 27.8%
  • He'll be average

    Votes: 12 16.7%
  • No, he'll be a below average bust

    Votes: 4 5.6%
  • Too early to Tell

    Votes: 32 44.4%

  • Total voters
    72
  • Poll closed .

Schultz

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
2,862
Reaction score
1,631
This is recency bias....

Let's look at a few of Rodgers best years:

Undisclosed Year - Rodgers threw for more yards than ANY season before or since and he had receivers with 68, 67, 55, 38 and 37 receptions for the top five receivers....with target breakdown being in the same order 96, 101, 92, 55 and 56.

Undisclosed Year - One of his highest rated and completion % years Rodgers had the top five receivers with 115, 52, 47, 33, 33...target breakdown of 149, 59, 63, 63 and 46....a year with the one target dominance. Yet was one of his (Rodgers') best.

Undisclosed Year - Rodgers' third highest TD year he threw to top five receivers with 97, 75, 60, 44, 30 (a 6th guy tied with 30) and target breakdown was 152, 121, 81, 56, 51 (6th was 47)

Undisclosed Year - Many say this was the season Rodgers made it clear he was legit....top five receivers with 70, 68, 55, 37 and 32 and target breakdown was 113, 119, 72, 54 and 62


Love's first year he had a top five with 64, 59, 39, 34 and 31 (6th with 30)....targets were 94, 96, 58, 46 and 40 (43) *One big caveat about Love's year was his arguably top TE was out with injuries a lot or this could be skewed more....also Watson out a LOT skews it as well possibly.
Quick math. Subject to mistakes. #1 receivers catch % 69-76-64-63 from top to bottom. #2- 67-82-62-57. #3- 60-76-75-77. #4- 70-53-77-64. #5- 69-72-60-50.
So, what does this mean? I don't know! Maybe the $1 receiver was the 1st option on most plays, maybe he was open more often or maybe Rodgers had tunnel vision?
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,256
Reaction score
5,078
Quick math. Subject to mistakes. #1 receivers catch % 69-76-64-63 from top to bottom. #2- 67-82-62-57. #3- 60-76-75-77. #4- 70-53-77-64. #5- 69-72-60-50.
So, what does this mean? I don't know! Maybe the $1 receiver was the 1st option on most plays, maybe he was open more often or maybe Rodgers had tunnel vision?
that wasn’t the total amount of targets to WRs or total for team so that’s extrapolating numbers that aren’t accurate.

However that wouldn’t be terribly hard to pull when I have time.
 

Thirteen Below

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 15, 2022
Messages
726
Reaction score
510
How dare you forget (like I did) the guy from Carolina who got hurt and never played a down for the Pack?
Oh, yeah... first training camp, right? He was just lighting up the camp, and then that was as far as he got.

Was it Terence Murphy? He decided to quit because of Favre's advice. Became a realtor.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,413
Reaction score
2,514
Location
PENDING
I don't know what changed in 22/23 but they sure drafted w/o better.
Is it a coincidence that suddenly every Packer receiver we pick shows something?
Watson, Doubs, Toure, Reed, Wicks, Dubois. As well as 2 UDFAs in Melton and Heath, and 2 TEs in Musgrave and Kraft.

That's 100% on 8 receivers drafted. Of course our 7th rounders have had very modest production but have shown flashes.

Yes, there were some deep WR drafts and an all time great TE draft. But how can we suddenly get really good at picking them? I don't think it is a coincidence, though I'm not really sure why.

As far as spreading the ball around, Favre to Sharpe, I thought, was more unbalanced than Rodgers to Adams. Packers, interestingly started playing better when they lost Sharpe and Favre had to spread the ball around. He won 3 MVPs in a row immediately after Sharpe retired.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,256
Reaction score
5,078
Is it a coincidence that suddenly every Packer receiver we pick shows something?
Watson, Doubs, Toure, Reed, Wicks, Dubois. As well as 2 UDFAs in Melton and Heath, and 2 TEs in Musgrave and Kraft.

That's 100% on 8 receivers drafted. Of course our 7th rounders have had very modest production but have shown flashes.

Yes, there were some deep WR drafts and an all time great TE draft. But how can we suddenly get really good at picking them? I don't think it is a coincidence, though I'm not really sure why.

As far as spreading the ball around, Favre to Sharpe, I thought, was more unbalanced than Rodgers to Adams. Packers, interestingly started playing better when they lost Sharpe and Favre had to spread the ball around. He won 3 MVPs in a row immediately after Sharpe retired.

To be fair Gute and Co have been and even TT before him been tossing numerous darts at WR room almost constantly either through draft, lower end FA or both. I don't think we got any better or worse personally and truly Toure and Dubose I woulnd't label as hits overall but given the investment both aren't busts for sure...Dubose is likely in his last year in GB unless PS saves him...Toure is on life support for a spot IMO vs Melton and Heath.....and while Wicks and Reed looked nasty good as rookies - so did MVS (utterly different type of WR but still).

Additional separate thoughts...

Fact is there are two approaches to room building....focus on the TOP shelf and make sure you got that...or build up ALL the shelves below the top shelf. You rarely have the capital and the draft pick equity to just do both approaches without massive sacrifices elsewhere. When we had Adams in his premiere prime...I get why they didn't swing hard at WR....albeit after 2019 in the 2020 draft I can still remember screaming with joy when we traded up at what I assumed was a Michael Pittman selection....

Overall the draft is a gamble...one which only hindsight makes someone look like a genius or a bafoon to far too many folks that forget the prospect process and roster building as a whole is not Madden.

As much as Reed, Wicks and Heath all look like similar hits to the Watson, Doubs, Toure year....we still have zero clue how it is going to play out.

MVS had 1,033 yards after just two seasons (32 games)...Doubs 1,099 (30 games)....Watson 1,033 (23 games).....a lot can be learned in that third year for a guy....
 

Krabs

I take offense to that sir.
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
1,478
Reaction score
881
I've broken down how I disagree that they didn't do anything and believe quite the contrary. The two single biggest reasons I strongly feel we ended up with a year or two issue has nothing to do with them not investing enough it is due to MVS literally was as good his rookie year as he was third year in everything but blocking (which he got exponentially better) AND the fact Lazard growth also became stagnant. BOTH of those guys had Rodgers love early and Lazard never lost that support....fact is neither progressed like I said. If even one of them progressed like all signs indicated and connections in house seemed to hold the whole WR complaining doesn't hold much water AT ALL.

I also think GB played the WR room oddly different than they typically do...we had one of the three PREMIERE players at the position which means typically you just don't invest a ton into it...allocation of resources would say poor choice....
This is what pretty much my point was exactly. They didn't draft a WR for two years because they thought they had the WR room they wanted. They drafted Moore (complete bust), MVS and EQ. They already had Adams, Cobb and Lazard. They didn't feel they need to go after more. Then they added Rodgers who was also a big bust. Point is, yes, they didn't draft WRs for two drafts. However, it was because they thought they had the guys they needed. They were wrong. They should have added more.
 

Krabs

I take offense to that sir.
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
1,478
Reaction score
881
I never said that they didn't try, they just didn't try hard enough IMO, i.e. spend enough resources on WR's or TE's.
They could have done more, but thought they had their guys. They were wrong.
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
5,469
Reaction score
1,322
Yes, there were some deep WR drafts and an all time great TE draft. But how can we suddenly get really good at picking them? I don't think it is a coincidence, though I'm not really sure why.
Me either. There had to be some kind of scouting change imho.
 

Thirteen Below

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 15, 2022
Messages
726
Reaction score
510
Maybe the principal difference between then and now is that.... we're drafting better receivers. Better scouting, different criteria in the evaluation, whatever. Maybe better coaching? Because all of a sudden the last two years, we're seeing some pretty damned good WRs climb down off the bus, roll up their sleeves, and get right to work.

Maybe it's luck, maybe it's that somebody somewhere is figuring out a better way of finding these guys, maybe it's Jason Vrable being the right guy to coach 'em up. Maybe all of the above. But I think it has to at least be considered, and I don't think I've seen it discussed in any detail.

Because it seems rather anomalous. It may not just be better luck; it may be better personnel selection and development.

Because if that is a factor, it would be a very encouraging development, and portend well for the future of the franchise.
 

Firethorn1001

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Messages
1,578
Reaction score
1,123
They could have done more, but Aaron thought they had their guys. He was wrong.

Changed it. They didn't get smarter with TE/WRs, they just removed Aaron from the equation. You can't convince me that how the WR/TE room was addressed from a personnel standpoint wasn't because of Aaron Rodgers. To put it nicely, he was prickly in his interactions with rookie WRs and seemed that once they were in his doghouse, that was it. If you are taking that into account than you also have to take into the personality of the WR probably more so than you normally do to make sure they meshed with Aaron. If Aaron was on this team last year I doubt both Musgrave and Kraft are on the team because they would have had Lewis on the team and probably only one of Reed or Wicks is on the team (or neither) because they probably would have trotted Cobb and Lazard back on the team. The WR/TE room is now allowed to grow and learn from mistakes without the fear of being scowled at incessantly on national TV and practices.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,413
Reaction score
2,514
Location
PENDING
Changed it. They didn't get smarter with TE/WRs, they just removed Aaron from the equation. You can't convince me that how the WR/TE room was addressed from a personnel standpoint wasn't because of Aaron Rodgers. To put it nicely, he was prickly in his interactions with rookie WRs and seemed that once they were in his doghouse, that was it. If you are taking that into account than you also have to take into the personality of the WR probably more so than you normally do to make sure they meshed with Aaron. If Aaron was on this team last year I doubt both Musgrave and Kraft are on the team because they would have had Lewis on the team and probably only one of Reed or Wicks is on the team (or neither) because they probably would have trotted Cobb and Lazard back on the team. The WR/TE room is now allowed to grow and learn from mistakes without the fear of being scowled at incessantly on national TV and practices.
I believe Jordan Loves leadership is a much bigger part than many would realize in team chemistry and player development.
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
5,469
Reaction score
1,322
I believe Jordan Loves leadership is a much bigger part than many would realize in team chemistry and player development.
Certainly, that is what I'm hoping. But it is something to be proven over time imho.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,680
Reaction score
8,223
Location
Madison, WI
How dare you forget (like I did) the guy from Carolina who got hurt and never played a down for the Pack?
I didn't forget Funchess, since as you said, he never played a snap for the Packers. Might as well group him in with all the UDFA WR's that Gute has signed and even though they did see some snaps, they turned out to be JAGS.

I'm sure that my memory isn't correct, but it seems in the late 20teens and early 2020's, due to injuries, the Packers had to play a lot of JAG WR's. Sure once in awhile 1 of them would have a decent game, but for the most part, the Packers were playing WR's that once they left GB, were out of the NFL very quickly.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
This is what pretty much my point was exactly. They didn't draft a WR for two years because they thought they had the WR room they wanted. They drafted Moore (complete bust), MVS and EQ. They already had Adams, Cobb and Lazard. They didn't feel they need to go after more. Then they added Rodgers who was also a big bust. Point is, yes, they didn't draft WRs for two drafts. However, it was because they thought they had the guys they needed. They were wrong. They should have added more.
Yes. We just didn’t emphasize WR as a whole after Rodgers started. We did go after Jordy and Cobb and eventually Davante. Those 2nd Rounders are considerable investments. That said we’re talking about over 15 years of starts for Aaron. So I think I can say verifiably that wasn’t enough. They also didn’t go after a premier TE either during that time. We selected ZERO TE’s across Rd1-Rd2 across Rodgers 15 seasons. 3 of the 4 TE’s selected during his tenure were very late RD3 and 1 was a comp pick
Nelson at #36 (‘08)
Jermichael at #91 (‘08)
Cobb at #64 (‘11)
Davante #53 (‘14)
Richard Rodgers #98 (‘14)
Jace Sternberger #75 (‘19)
Josiah Deguara #94 (‘20)
Amari Rodgers #85 (‘21)
Christian Watson #34 (‘22)

Across 15 starting seasons we invested in TE or WR:
Rd1 ZERO
Rd2 4-36,64,53,34
Rd3 5-91,98,75,94,85

There’s 5 Wideouts across 48 possible draft Selections in Day1-2
Just 4 WR’s selected in Day2 across 14 years and only 1 was a Top 50 selection (Jordy) until after a long 6 year drought at WR in Day1-2 (enters Amari)
I’m not sure that’s not the least amount of resources spent at WR across all 32 NFL franchises right there. I’d be willing to wager if it’s not the worst capital at WR across 15 consecutive drafts? it’s the 2nd worst by a thin margin.
 
Last edited:

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,680
Reaction score
8,223
Location
Madison, WI
Yes. We just didn’t emphasize WR as a whole after Rodgers started. We did go after Jordy and Cobb and eventually Davante. Those 2nd Rounders are considerable investments. That said we’re talking about over 15 years of starts for Aaron. So I think I can say verifiably that wasn’t enough. They also didn’t go after a premier TE either during that time. We selected ZERO TE’s across Rd1-Rd2 across Rodgers 15 seasons. 3 of the 4 TE’s selected during his tenure were very late RD3 and 1 was a comp pick
Nelson at #36 (‘08)
Jermichael at #91 (‘08)
Cobb at #64 (‘11)
Davante #53 (‘14)
Richard Rodgers #98 (‘14)
Jace Sternberger #75 (‘19)
Josiah Deguara #94 (‘20)
Amari Rodgers #85 (‘21)
Christian Watson #34 (‘22)

Across 15 starting seasons we invested in TE or WR:
Rd1 ZERO
Rd2 4-36,64,53,34
Rd3 5-91,98,75,94,85

There’s 5 Wideouts across 48 possible draft Selections in Day1-2
Just 4 WR’s selected in Day2 across 14 years and only 1 was a Top 50 selection (Jordy) until after a long 6 year drought at WR in Day1-2 (enters Amari)
I’m not sure that’s not the least amount of resources spent at WR across all 32 NFL franchises right there. I’d be willing to wager if it’s not the worst capital at WR across 15 consecutive drafts? it’s the 2nd worst by a thin margin.
Nice compilation. I'd do the leg work, but you're so good, I'll let you ;)

During that time frame how many starting caliber receivers did the Packers sign as Free agents or traded for? Jimmy Graham and Jared Cook are the only 2 that come to mind.
 

Krabs

I take offense to that sir.
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
1,478
Reaction score
881
Yes. We just didn’t emphasize WR as a whole after Rodgers started. We did go after Jordy and Cobb and eventually Davante. Those 2nd Rounders are considerable investments. That said we’re talking about over 15 years of starts for Aaron. So I think I can say verifiably that wasn’t enough. They also didn’t go after a premier TE either during that time. We selected ZERO TE’s across Rd1-Rd2 across Rodgers 15 seasons. 3 of the 4 TE’s selected during his tenure were very late RD3 and 1 was a comp pick
Nelson at #36 (‘08)
Jermichael at #91 (‘08)
Cobb at #64 (‘11)
Davante #53 (‘14)
Richard Rodgers #98 (‘14)
Jace Sternberger #75 (‘19)
Josiah Deguara #94 (‘20)
Amari Rodgers #85 (‘21)
Christian Watson #34 (‘22)

Across 15 starting seasons we invested in TE or WR:
Rd1 ZERO
Rd2 4-36,64,53,34
Rd3 5-91,98,75,94,85

There’s 5 Wideouts across 48 possible draft Selections in Day1-2
Just 4 WR’s selected in Day2 across 14 years and only 1 was a Top 50 selection (Jordy) until after a long 6 year drought at WR in Day1-2 (enters Amari)
I’m not sure that’s not the least amount of resources spent at WR across all 32 NFL franchises right there. I’d be willing to wager if it’s not the worst capital at WR across 15 consecutive drafts? it’s the 2nd worst by a thin margin.
This is great information to back up the argument of the failure of the front office. I don't disagree on this point. They could have done more. I gave my reasoning as to why they didn't. I really think the front office thought they were set at WR. They were wrong and should have done more.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,256
Reaction score
5,078
It was VERY rare in all the Rodgers' years that we lost in the playoffs due to lack of offensive production....take that for whatever you want....
 

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,494
Reaction score
617
It was VERY rare in all the Rodgers' years that we lost in the playoffs due to lack of offensive production....take that for whatever you want....
Of course, that's obviously subjective, but in the game they lost in the playoffs, the Pack scored 45, 20, 31, 20, 22, 20, 21, 20, 26, 10. Whether one thinks the offensive can be dinged for those losses, I think some feel as I do - regardless of what else happened in the game, there were opportunities at specific points where they should have had more points (ala the TB game where three consecutive INTs resulted in a TD and two three-and-outs).
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,785
Reaction score
907
Of course, that's obviously subjective, but in the game they lost in the playoffs, the Pack scored 45, 20, 31, 20, 22, 20, 21, 20, 26, 10. Whether one thinks the offensive can be dinged for those losses, I think some feel as I do - regardless of what else happened in the game, there were opportunities at specific points where they should have had more points (ala the TB game where three consecutive INTs resulted in a TD and two three-and-outs).

Rodgers could obviously have done more in all of their losses, but at what point do we start blaming HIM for not being perfect while minimizing the major factors that lead to the loss? In the TB game in 2020, Jones went down in the first half and the Packers were forced to play the best defense in the NFL with ONE good offensive playmaker (Adams) and their 75th string left tackle. In that game against TB (again, Rodgers COULD have done better) Rodgers played the best game against that defense of any team that season (3TDs and 1 INT). In the very next game, the Bucs held the Chiefs to nine total points and Mahomes threw zero TDs and two INTs.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,680
Reaction score
8,223
Location
Madison, WI
It was VERY rare in all the Rodgers' years that we lost in the playoffs due to lack of offensive production....take that for whatever you want....
I guess my feeling about that would be this. If your offense scores more points than the other team, you win. If your offense can keep your defense from being on the field less, your defense plays better. Yes, both of these scenarios work in reverse too (better defense=better offense).

Your statement is basically what I have been referring to. The Packer front office got a little complacent with the Packers offense when it came to receivers. Why would they do that? Because as you pointed out, there weren't that many times when they weren't productive. They had a FHOF QB that often made up for lack of receiving talent. However, my feeling is that those Packer teams could have been much better, had they invested more in receivers. They needed to be the team with the unstoppable offense, not the other way around.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,680
Reaction score
8,223
Location
Madison, WI
Rodgers could obviously have done more in all of their losses, but at what point do we start blaming HIM for not being perfect while minimizing the major factors that lead to the loss?
I for one don't lay the blame on Rodgers for most of those losses, I lay it on TT or Gute for getting complacent with offensive weapons and thinking that Rodgers can consistently make wine out of water.

If the 25-35 year old version of Aaron Rodgers Football talent was on the roster right now, I would say that this team is a favorite to win a Super Bowl.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
I for one don't lay the blame on Rodgers for most of those losses, I lay it on TT or Gute for getting complacent with offensive weapons and thinking that Rodgers can consistently make wine out of water.

If the 25-35 year old version of Aaron Rodgers Football talent was on the roster right now, I would say that this team is a favorite to win a Super Bowl.
I totally agree. I’ve said previously that the lack of Offensive weapons was a compliment to #12. Meaning that our FO expected Aaron would still crack the Top 10 if they spoon fed him. That gave them the luxury of going after Defensive players.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
Getting back to this era. We have to get this Defense rolling. For myself, Hafley has 2 seasons to crack a Top 10 Defense. We let Capers run 7 consecutive seasons never cracking a Top10 Defense after our SB. #12 was our best and #26 was our worst (scoring D) post SB. That was a mistake and he might be a nice guy, but TT and MM allowed that.
Hafley has 2 seasons and unless he goes something like #16 rated and then improves to #11 we can’t allow another 7 year drought. The above gets him 1 chance at a 3rd season at Top 10 scoring or a SB visit minimum

We have the personnel on paper to finish Top 6-12 this very season.
 
Last edited:

Members online

Latest posts

Top