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 28.2%
  • He'll be average

    Votes: 12 16.9%
  • No, he'll be a below average bust

    Votes: 4 5.6%
  • Too early to Tell

    Votes: 31 43.7%

  • Total voters
    71
  • This poll will close: .

melvin dangerr

In it to Win it All
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,650
Reaction score
949
Location
ST Croix VI
I’ll say it again we shouldn’t expect Love to be the next Aaron Rodgers, because there’s only one, Love will either shock us into believing in him or, disappoint, some out there have already pre judged him without giving him chance, I want him to be a very good QB, we don’t have anyone else, I very biased, I like wins more than stats if it’s ugly so be it, I’m more curious as to to the weapons he’ll have around him and will MLF let Love be Love on the field, Ew Rah
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I do and I summarized how you talk about Love nicely lol

This is a perfect example for a reply where it doesn't make any sense to quote the entire post.

Do you have a source for this other than your own imagination? Does anyone else actually believe this? That he was required to throw at Watson no matter what the coverage was or who else was open?

The video doesn't lie.

Hang on so Rodgers was supposed to throw the ball to Watson even if they dropped eleven into coverage against him??? I’m sorry but that is just lunacy. No play call is this and nothing else concept.

It's actually lunatic that none of you Rodgers haters have even acknowledged the fact that Dillon completely missing his assignment had a huge negative impact of the play. Suggesting any team would drop 11 players into coverage qualifies as well.

I’ll say it again we shouldn’t expect Love to be the next Aaron Rodgers, because there’s only one, Love will either shock us into believing in him or, disappoint, some out there have already pre judged him without giving him chance, I want him to be a very good QB, we don’t have anyone else, I very biased, I like wins more than stats if it’s ugly so be it, I’m more curious as to to the weapons he’ll have around him and will MLF let Love be Love on the field, Ew Rah

I haven't seen anyone already declaring Love a bust. It would be crazy as he hasn't played enough to make a fair evaluation of him.

I truly hope he turns out to be the next great quarterback for the Packers as the team would be competitive for the next 15 years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,379
Reaction score
4,101
Location
Milwaukee
I’ll say it again we shouldn’t expect Love to be the next Aaron Rodgers, because there’s only one, Love will either shock us into believing in him or, disappoint, some out there have already pre judged him without giving him chance, I want him to be a very good QB, we don’t have anyone else, I very biased, I like wins more than stats if it’s ugly so be it, I’m more curious as to to the weapons he’ll have around him and will MLF let Love be Love on the field, Ew Rah
I think I heard Matt say he wants Love to “ sling it“
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,131
Reaction score
5,010
This is a perfect example for a reply where it doesn't make any sense to quote the entire post.



The video doesn't lie.



It's actually lunatic that none of you Rodgers haters have even acknowledged the fact that Dillon completely missing his assignment had a huge negative impact of the play. Suggesting any team would drop 11 players into coverage qualifies as well.



I haven't seen anyone already declaring Love a bust. It would be crazy as he hasn't played enough to make a fair evaluation of him.

I truly hope he turns out to be the next great quarterback for the Packers as the team would be competitive for the next 15 years.
I didn’t not acknowledge that at all, yet Dillon wasn’t the reason I commented a reply - but you ignored that aspect.
 

BrokenArrow

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
2,928
Reaction score
1,356
The video doesn't lie.
Oh? And what video do you have access to that proves that the Packers ran some mythological play that forces the QB to throw the go route no matter how well the receiver is covered and forbids him from throwing to the open man instead?
 
Joined
Jan 19, 2020
Messages
161
Reaction score
46
I think that it is too early to tell how good Love will be. If I had to guess, I think that he will either be pro bowl good but not HOF good, or a below average bust. I think that the odds of us having three HOF QB's in a row are low, and I think Love has too much raw talent to just be average or a game-manager type QB.

I think it is going to come down to whether or not he can learn to make good decisions with the football, is accurate and doesn't throw ints, and is able to read defenses. He has a good arm.

Usually, quarterbacks take time to develop and are not good the first season or two, although we should see flashes of potential and improvement if he is any good.
 

BrokenArrow

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
2,928
Reaction score
1,356
It's actually lunatic that none of you Rodgers haters have even acknowledged the fact that Dillon completely missing his assignment had a huge negative impact of the play. Suggesting any team would drop 11 players into coverage qualifies as well.

Nobody forced Lord Aaron to ignore his open receivers (Lazard and Tonyan) and make a bad decision to throw into double coverage at Watson. And do stop with the silliness that Rodgers was somehow banned from throwing to anyone else. I don't think ANYONE other than you thinks that. Honesly, I don't even think you believe that. But to admit otherwise would be to admit Rodgers screwed up, and for whatever reason you'd rather look completely silly yourself than even hint at criticizing Rodgers. THAT is the lunacy here.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I didn’t not acknowledge that at all, yet Dillon wasn’t the reason I commented a reply - but you ignored that aspect.

It doesn't make any sense to ignore Dillon completely missing his assignment on that play though.

Oh? And what video do you have access to that proves that the Packers ran some mythological play that forces the QB to throw the go route no matter how well the receiver is covered and forbids him from throwing to the open man instead?

It's called coaches film.

Nobody forced Lord Aaron to ignore his open receivers (Lazard and Tonyan) and make a bad decision to throw into double coverage at Watson. And do stop with the silliness that Rodgers was somehow banned from throwing to anyone else. I don't think ANYONE other than you thinks that. Honesly, I don't even think you believe that. But to admit otherwise would be to admit Rodgers screwed up, and for whatever reason you'd rather look completely silly yourself than even hint at criticizing Rodgers. THAT is the lunacy here.

There was no double coverage on Watson by any means. He was covered one-on-one by a slower cornerback with only one safety deep. There would be hardly any deep passes in the entire NFL if quarterbacks have to wait for a deep target to not be covered at all to throw it their way. While Lazard and Tonyan were able to get open late Rodgers was already looking the other direction once that happened. There's no way for him to see either of them getting open. Like it or not, the play was called as a deep shot to Watson all along.

In addition you seem to struggle mightily with reading comprehension. I was pretty clear about Rodgers having made a ton of mistakes in his career, every single game, most drives etc... He's not the one to blame on that play though.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,131
Reaction score
5,010
It doesn't make any sense to ignore Dillon completely missing his assignment on that play though.

This is one of the best examples of why you irritate so many - you should straight up be a politician - deflect deflect deflect. It's okay for both things to be true, but you'd never admit that.
 
OP
OP
thequick12

thequick12

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
584
It's called coaches film.

Ive got access to the all 22 film as well...not once have I ever seen it show the playcall. Was the play called as a deep shot to Watson, of course it was. Did Rodgers absolutely have to throw it to him, even if someone else was running wide open like you claim, of course not.

I get what youre trying to say I think. At that point in the game Rodgers made his mind up pre snap, that he was taking a deep shot to his most talented wr.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,797
from what I remember from post game from both the QB and the coach, the last series of plays were the coaches calls, no audibles or adlibs. On this particular play I think Rodgers said he saw someone stumble on a break, both guys well covered on the left and had Watson down the side. Then he saw a free rusher and he ran out of time to make a decision so he threw it up hoping watson could make a play as his best option.

Regardless of who called what, the free rushing linebacker up the middle shouldn't have happened and if it didn't, Rodgers isn't forced into a decision right now, one of those guys from the left likely breaks open or Watson gains more separation and Rodgers can step into it and make the throw he wants to make and maybe things are different.
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
6,450
Reaction score
1,507
from what I remember from post game from both the QB and the coach, the last series of plays were the coaches calls, no audibles or adlibs. On this particular play I think Rodgers said he saw someone stumble on a break, both guys well covered on the left and had Watson down the side. Then he saw a free rusher and he ran out of time to make a decision so he threw it up hoping watson could make a play as his best option.

Regardless of who called what, the free rushing linebacker up the middle shouldn't have happened and if it didn't, Rodgers isn't forced into a decision right now, one of those guys from the left likely breaks open or Watson gains more separation and Rodgers can step into it and make the throw he wants to make and maybe things are different.
An inch here an inch there. A fraction of a second here or fraction of a second there. That's the difference at this level.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,398
Reaction score
5,768
Once again, I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense advocating to continue doing something that didn't work in a lot of games.
Everyone knows that teams that commit more to running the ball do so knowing that as the game wears in opposing Defenses wear down.

Also I don’t know how you can get an accurate depiction only rushing in the single digit attempts in the entire first half. One thing is for certain we sure Lost a ton of games trying to force our QB’s broken finger to win games. Not too smart. I’m glad Matt finally addressed that and agreed and as we ramped up our Running game? Low and behold we started Winning consecutive games. It’s not rocket science or an unknown galaxy were circumventing here.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Everyone knows that teams that commit more to running the ball do so knowing that as the game wears in opposing Defenses wear down.

It seems to be widely accepted that teams have more success running the ball late in games because of the opposing defense wearing down.

The numbers don't support that to be true by any means though. In the last 10 season running plays have gained an average of 4.48 yards per carry in the first three quarters but only 4.25 in the fourth. It's even more lopsided taking a look at last season (4.71; 4.35).

FYI QB kneel downs aren't included in those numbers.

Also I don’t know how you can get an accurate depiction only rushing in the single digit attempts in the entire first half. One thing is for certain we sure Lost a ton of games trying to force our QB’s broken finger to win games. Not too smart. I’m glad Matt finally addressed that and agreed and as we ramped up our Running game? Low and behold we started Winning consecutive games. It’s not rocket science or an unknown galaxy were circumventing here.

Teams don't win because of running the ball more often, the run it because they're winning though.

Last season, only the Bears gained more yards per play running the ball compared to throwing it.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top