The Jordan Love Era Begins

[longtimefan]

Stafford's contract guarantees of $57M kicked in last week. I think any talk of the Rams trading him, had to happen before then. Sounds like the Jets had it as a Plan B.

May still happen?

 

[Pkrjones]

May still happen?

Doubt it. I may be wrong, but his $57mil option bonus has already been paid AND his '24 salary of $49.5mil is guaranteed. Huge dead $ for LA and new team makes huge financial obligation ($50mil/yr thru '26). I believe next year's salary gets guaranteed on 3rd day league year (mid March) which keeps team on the hook or pays $50mil to get out of deal (in guaranteed salary).

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Get ready

Obj is going to jets?? It's getting really serious

Hopefully, then all they really need is a QB and less of a need for the #13 pick and Elijah Moore.

Boy wouldn't the Jets look silly, signing Rodgers list of players and then they don't land him due to wanting to hold the trade up over drafing a rookie?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

While it’s true that a QB has some say. The answer to that question is quite easy for me. It’s ultimately the HC fault if they’ve installed a game plan and they come nowhere close to adhering to it.

Why do you ignore the Packers had Bennett and Graham as their #1 tight ends in the seasons you refer to?

We boast a RB tandem in 2022 that is arguably top 5 in the NFL. So if you’re having major issues in the passing game., Why in the world would you continue to force that aspect of game?

On the other hand, why would you force to run the ball if it doesn't work? There were too many games the Packers struggled mightily to gain yards on the ground.

BTW. You’re trying to defend Captains posts in him saying we couldn’t have been more successful early on last season by Focusing on the Run.
The results are now in:

When rushing 25+ attempts we were 8-2 record.
We did lose to the Lions with 25 Rushes. Notice I could said 26+ rushed for a 8-1 record but I play fair. However, in that first Lions contest we had 4 Redzone visits!!
All 4 visits were finished by Pass attempts 0-4 AND 0 points!! While your yards per pass argument wins the day in stats, the MULTIPLE INTERCEPTIONS sure didn’t help in Our LOSS!

The Bills game was the other exception. We went 19-30 Passing or 6.3 Per attempt. Yet Rushed for 6.7 per on 31 Attempts. Too many Run attempts did not hurt us. It was our broken thumb and lack of experience in the passing game that LOST the day.

The Packers actually lost three games when rushing the ball at least 25 times.

Are the number of rushes causal or correlative?

Teams tend to run more with a lead. Did we win because we ran more? Or did we run more because we were winning? Best example would be carries broken down by quarter. If running led to wins, I'd expect more runs early, or when the game is in question. Not picking on you here, this is something that I think is hard to quantify accurately.

Cap might be able to pull up stats to prove or disprove this, but I'm not even sure where to look.

Here the stats for pass/run ration in wins and losses broken down by quarters:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

As you can see there's not a whole lot of a difference in the percentage of run plays in wins and losses over the first three quarters. But as expected, a huge one in the final 15 minutes of a game. That makes me believe that teams are running more because they're winning and not the other way around.

They do help to burn the other team's timeouts, or burn the clock if they are out of timeouts.

While that's true a three-and-out doesn't help a whole lot in most situations.

Doubt it. I may be wrong, but his $57mil option bonus has already been paid AND his '24 salary of $49.5mil is guaranteed. Huge dead $ for LA and new team makes huge financial obligation ($50mil/yr thru '26). I believe next year's salary gets guaranteed on 3rd day league year (mid March) which keeps team on the hook or pays $50mil to get out of deal (in guaranteed salary).

As mentioned in another thread the Rams trading Stafford would result in $74 million of dead money counting against their cap. Not gonna happen.

 

[Schultz]

Hopefully, then all they really need is a QB and less of a need for the #13 pick and Elijah Moore.

Boy wouldn't the Jets look silly, signing Rodgers list of players and then they don't land him due to wanting to hold the trade up over drafing a rookie?

Well the Jets do agree with you that they don't need Elijah Moore. Halfway there.

 

[tynimiller]

Hopefully, then all they really need is a QB and less of a need for the #13 pick and Elijah Moore.

Boy wouldn't the Jets look silly, signing Rodgers list of players and then they don't land him due to wanting to hold the trade up over drafing a rookie?

I'd love to see the Jets manage to swing Elijah Moore into the deal....just to see the structure of a three way team trade, not something we see in NFL ever.

 

[tynimiller]

Personally the more time that passes and the moves which the Jets have made, I don't believe Cobb ends up over in NY. Part of me wonders how Cobb would feel being that veteran presence one more year in GB. He isn't going to be expensive at all at this point in his career, he is a fan and locker room favorite, he still does his slot work above average when healthy...I'm an absolute coin flip on whether I'd do it or not, but I'd be so curious to know what Cobb desires and thinks - does he and Jordan have a good relationship or was his bond to Rodgers just naturally a little bit of a hurdle for that to have fostered (naturally).

We need a veteran in the WR room...and if it isn't Corey Davis coming back from Jets, honestly looking at the landscape of FAs...I don't necessarily believe any of them offer as much for the money that Cobb would if he is all in for another year in GB.

 

[Pkrjones]

I'd love to see the Jets manage to swing Elijah Moore into the deal....just to see the structure of a three way team trade, not something we see in NFL ever.

MLF's brother, Mike, was the OC in NYJ last year and has "insider knowledge" of Moore. I'm purely guessing that he may have passed-on some info. to Matt and GB didn't want Moore part of the deal?

 

[tynimiller]

MLF's brother, Mike, was the OC in NYJ last year and has "insider knowledge" of Moore. I'm purely guessing that he may have passed-on some info. to Matt and GB didn't want Moore part of the deal?

I was purely making fun of Poker for still wanting the Jets to trade a player that the Browns are now the team you'd need to negotiate with LOL

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'd love to see the Jets manage to swing Elijah Moore into the deal....just to see the structure of a three way team trade, not something we see in NFL ever.

Didn't see that he was traded to the Browns yesterday.

Can only mean one thing......The Jets are clearing a roster spot for Jeff Janis!

 

[Schultz]

IMO. Wrong again. Jake Kumerow.

 

[John Carran]

I'm excited to see what he can do. He showed he can drop back and sling. The biggest thing for me is how well does he drop back and sling it after teams have 6 weeks of tape and start game planning and then how does he do it after they have a season and an offseason to plan against. That's when we'll really know.

But I think the kid can play, and now he will.

 

[John Carran]

Two questions that will give me a warm feeling if the answers are positive. 1. Can he lose his turnover habit? Seems like he averages at least one a game. 2.He can drop back and throw, but can he find a target and hit it when he is running for his live. Rodgers was an expert at that.

 

[tynimiller]

I get it but someone also has to recognize that as Packer fans we have been insanely spoiled with watching a QB for years that just simply didn't turn the ball over...so trust me I fully expect we will see more turnovers happening, but when you are comparing it to literally an outlier in Rodgers' we need to have some perspective on it as well.

 

[Pkrjones]

I get it but someone also has to recognize that as Packer fans we have been insanely spoiled with watching a QB for years that just simply didn't turn the ball over...so trust me I fully expect we will see more turnovers happening, but when you are comparing it to literally an outlier in Rodgers' we need to have some perspective on it as well.

Honestly, I'd be OK somewhere between Favre & Rodgers turnovers IF he consistently throws for 28+ TD's & 12 INT's each year. Favre was a risk-taking slinger, AR was a bit too overly-cautious, IMHO, & potentially missed extending some drives.

Favre (16 yrs w/ GB): 442 TD's (27.6/yr), 286 INT's (17.9/yr)
Rodgers (16 yrs w/GB): 475 TD's (29.7/yR), 105 INT's (6.6/yr).

 

[tynimiller]

Honestly, I'd be OK somewhere between Favre & Rodgers turnovers IF he consistently throws for 28+ TD's & 12 INT's each year. Favre was a risk-taking slinger, AR was a bit too overly-cautious, IMHO, & potentially missed extending some drives.

Favre (16 yrs w/ GB): 442 TD's (27.6/yr), 286 INT's (17.9/yr)
Rodgers (16 yrs w/GB): 475 TD's (29.7/yR), 105 INT's (6.6/yr).

I've long said at the cost of low INTs Rodgers left yards on the table he otherwise would have produced - which is just crazy.

 

[OldSchool101]

On the other hand, why would you force to run the ball if it doesn't work? There were too many games the Packers struggled mightily to gain yards on the ground.

You really just don’t want to face the facts. I actually believed you mid-season, thinking we might actually not perform better once we started running the ball more, because. Respected your aggressive arguing of the topic. Then your argument completely let us down. we ran more and started winning.

Oh oh. Then we doubting ourselves again and resorted back to a near season low 20 Runs against Detroit. How did that work out??
I suppose you’ll tell us it’s because we were so far behind in score again?
Or I suppose you’ll say Detroit was impenetrable on Defense again?
Your argument lost ALL credibility once Matt went full throttle in the RUN game mid season.
31.4 rushes per contest.
Hawaii 5-0 record

The Packers actually lost three games when rushing the ball at least 25 times.

I’ll take you for your word.
The fact remains. Your way was WINLESS.
Would you rather Win
7/10?

Or Lose every last game doing it your way?
0/7

Btw I could care less about stats if they result in Losses. I’m here to WIN not trade that for some YPC argument and lose

Why do you ignore the Packers had Bennett and Graham as their #1 tight ends in the seasons you refer to?

Bennett? You mean that
286 yards
0 TD’s

Mr. Attitude lockerroom Cancer Bennett??
It’s bordering on disgraceful to even bring Martellus up as the reason why other TE’s weren’t used more.

 

[longtimefan]

People forget tom clements is still in GB. Interesting that Love improved a ton, is same time Tom was there

I think Tom gets him better

 

[OldSchool101]

People forget tom clements is still in GB. Interesting that Love improved a ton, is same time Tom was there

I think Tom gets him better

Someone nicknamed Tom Clements “The QB Whisperer”. Really advanced level Coach that Rodgers got back into the building.

 

[mradtke66]

Oh oh. Then we doubting ourselves again and resorted back to a near season low 20 Runs against Detroit. How did that work out??

I'm picking on you now because this part is factually incorrect. I'm working from https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/2022/gamelog/

In the 2022 season:

Game 1 against Detroit, we ran 25 times. We did throw more (43 times), or 63% of the time. We did, however possess the ball 34:42, so we did an good job possessing the ball. 2 more runs/2 fewer pass would have put us right at 60/40, which I think is within the range of right for a team with a HoF QB. 3 more runs/3 fewer pass puts us at 58/42, which is probably the theoretical ideal for a team with a HoF QB (assuming a competitive game where you're not killing the clock the entire 2nd half.) 6 more runs/6 fewer pass puts us at 55/45, which is probably the theoretical ideal for a team an average or better quarterback.

Game 2 against Detroit, we ran 28 times and only passed 27 times. We possessed the ball LESS 32:15.

 

[OldSchool101]

I'm picking on you now because this part is factually incorrect. I'm working from

You are technically correct.
Our RB’s ran the ball 21 times

7/10 or a 70.0 Win % when rushing 25+

0/7 or a 0% Win % when rushing <25
*after even giving you Aaron’s 4 QB Rushes

Not a very compelling argument to why we should Run less imo. Btw. In School when you got 0 answers correct… what letter grade is that?
F-
Did you go up and argue with the teacher to try to get 1 answer right over semantics?
I didn’t I crawled under my desk!

 

[mradtke66]

You are technically correct.
Our RB’s ran the ball 21 times

7/10 or a 70.0 Win % when rushing 25+

0/7 or a 0% Win % when rushing <25
*after even giving you Aaron’s 4 QB Rushes

Not a very compelling argument to why we should Run less imo. Btw. In School when you got 0 answers correct… what letter grade is that?
F-
Did you go up and argue with the teacher to try to get 1 answer right over semantics?
I didn’t I crawled under my desk!

You still haven't answered the question: Did we win because we ran? Or did we run because we were winning?

The games we lost, we also had poor passing performances. Either more picks than TDs, low yards per attempt, or low yardage. Sometimes all of the above.

How can you so confidently say that the only thing that matters is total carries?

 

[tynimiller]

Trying to isolate one factor for a loss or win outside of how many points each team had I see as a frivolous exercise. You can extract tendencies, correlations but we cannot speak definitively that do this (run more, pass more, have more left handed TEs...) and you won because of it.

 

[OldSchool101]

How can you so confidently say that the only thing that matters is total carries?

You’ve possibly got me confused with another poster or you’ve completely made this up.

Either that or quit sidestepping with excuses and resorting helplessly to completely false accusations.

Post #?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Is somebody channeling Jeff Fisher and claiming that running more often leads to wins?