The Point of the Draft Picks

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
10,455
Reaction score
1,387
You're talking about veteran quarterbacks while conveniently ignoring the going rate for first year starters in this league for some reason.

Let me spell this out for you, since you seem to be having a hard time.

"Partial" is an adjective. It describes something that is "in part" or "not in the whole amount."

So when we say that the Packers could see "partial" benefit from Love's rookie contract in 2022, that's what we mean!

20M spent on the QB position between Rodgers' dead money and Love's rookie deal is (get this) more than what you'd pay if you only had a QB on a rookie deal, BUT (and here's the kicker-- don't miss it) it's less (this word carries the connotation of fewer or smaller) than the FA market rate for a good quarterback.

Maybe read this a few times through and see if it clicks for you.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
26,048
Reaction score
1,542
Let me spell this out for you, since you seem to be having a hard time.

"Partial" is an adjective. It describes something that is "in part" or "not in the whole amount."

So when we say that the Packers could see "partial" benefit from Love's rookie contract in 2022, that's what we mean!

20M spent on the QB position between Rodgers' dead money and Love's rookie deal is (get this) more than what you'd pay if you only had a QB on a rookie deal, BUT (and here's the kicker-- don't miss it) it's less (this word carries the connotation of fewer or smaller) than the FA market rate for a good quarterback.

Maybe read this a few times through and see if it clicks for you.

Once again, you ignore that a veteran quarterback who earns more than whatever the Packers would allocate to the position in 2022 with Love starting is an experienced signal caller while the Packers would have to rely on a first year starter to get the job done.

On the other hand other teams starting a QB on his rookie deal truly benefit from paying a fraction of the money on the position.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
10,455
Reaction score
1,387
Once again, you ignore that a veteran quarterback who earns more than whatever the Packers would allocate to the position in 2022 with Love starting is an experienced signal caller while the Packers would have to rely on a first year starter to get the job done.

On the other hand other teams starting a QB on his rookie deal truly benefit from paying a fraction of the money on the position.

Didn't take huh? Maybe try reading it again.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
On the other hand other teams starting a QB on his rookie deal truly benefit from paying a fraction of the money on the position.

Benefit by what? The low pay or their great play or both?

I think you have an unrealistic memory and expectation as to just how many teams have truly benefited from a rookie QB playing at a high level in his rookie deal, especially when compared to how many that haven't benefited. Add to that, most of those teams were losers for several years straight, built their teams around multiple high draft picks and "rookie deals", including their QB.

Again, your theory is awesome, but not as practical as you want others to think it is. Just watch how fast this window closes on the Chiefs and maybe look at what happened to the Rams last year?
 
Last edited:

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
26,048
Reaction score
1,542
Benefit by what? The low pay or their great play or both?

It should be pretty obvious that a team benefits from not having at least $17 million in dead money counting against their cap while starting a quarterback on a rookie deal.

In a vacuum the performance of the QB isn't affected by it but the talent level around the signal caller is.

think you have an unrealistic memory and expectation as to just how many teams have truly benefited from a rookie QB playing at a high level in his rookie deal, especially when compared to how many that haven't benefited.

In the nine years the rookie wage scale has been in place three teams have won the Super Bowl with a starting quarterback on a rookie deal.

Neither of them took a massive cap hit because of dead money to get rid of the former starter.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
In the nine years the rookie wage scale has been in place three teams have won the Super Bowl with a starting quarterback on a rookie deal.

Carson Wentz (2nd overall pick in the draft): Are you including the Eagles in this list and who was their starting QB when they won the SB? How has Wentz worked out long run?

Russel Wilson: Probably the best example of getting 3 decent years from a rookie QB, yet before his 4th year, was signed to a big contract.

Patrick Mahomes (10th overall pick in the draft): Success again for 2 years, but is rumored to be ready to sign a contract nearing $40M/year.

Again, its a great benefit when you hit on a rookie QB, but it isn't guaranteed, short lived and you are completely ignoring the fact that the Packers actually could have the benefit of Love being a rookie QB on a rookie contract.

So what would your plan have been? You haven't told me yet.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
26,048
Reaction score
1,542
Russel Wilson: Probably the best example of getting 3 decent years from a rookie QB, yet before his 4th year, was signed to a big contract.

Patrick Mahomes (10th overall pick in the draft): Success again for 2 years, but is rumored to be ready to sign a contract nearing $40M/year.

Again, its a great benefit when you hit on a rookie QB, but it isn't guaranteed, short lived and you are completely ignoring the fact that the Packers actually could have the benefit of Love being a rookie QB on a rookie contract.

Wilson signing a lucrative extension before his fourth season and Mahomes being on the cusp of it actually works as evidence the Packers will never fully benefit by having Love on a cheap rookie contract if he works out.

So what would your plan have been? You haven't told me yet.

Do you honestly want me to tell you what the Packers should have done in March 2022 at this point???
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
Do you honestly want me to tell you what the Packers should have done in March 2022 at this point???

That's my point, anything you propose is merely conjecture on your part, of the most optimal situation, which as we both know, does not happen as often as you might think that it does. I can give you a scenario with Love working out just fine, but you won't accept that right?
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
26,048
Reaction score
1,542
That's my point, anything you propose is merely conjecture on your part, of the most optimal situation, which as we both know, does not happen as often as you might think that it does. I can give you a scenario with Love working out just fine, but you won't accept that right?

Actually I would have been prepared for the Packers to suffer through growing pains finding Rodgers' replacement once #12 is done as I'm well aware that it's close to impossible to replace him with another quarterback on a similar level.

I wanted the Packers to fully take advantage of having a future HOFer at the position as long as it lasts though. Gutekunst went in a different direction for some reason though.

There's a scenario in which the Packers don't miss a beat with Love taking over but I'm not banking on it to happen.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
Actually I would have been prepared for the Packers to suffer through growing pains finding Rodgers' replacement once #12 is done as I'm well aware that it's close to impossible to replace him with another quarterback on a similar level.

I wanted the Packers to fully take advantage of having a future HOFer at the position as long as it lasts though. Gutekunst went in a different direction for some reason though.

There's a scenario in which the Packers don't miss a beat with Love taking over but I'm not banking on it to happen.

You seem resigned to that fact that your visions won't be accomplished now. How does selecting Love prevent that from happening? Are you saying one player would have made the difference? Are you saying even if Love doesn't work out to be the next starting QB, all is lost? This just seems like you are viewing this as an all or nothing outcome, with no vision of how this actually might keep the Packers at the top of the NFL for years to come, both with Rodgers and without him.
 

GreenNGold_81

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Messages
1,403
Reaction score
118
We're back to the surround QB with talent argument vs.
Actually I would have been prepared for the Packers to suffer through growing pains finding Rodgers' replacement once #12 is done as I'm well aware that it's close to impossible to replace him with another quarterback on a similar level.

I wanted the Packers to fully take advantage of having a future HOFer at the position as long as it lasts though. Gutekunst went in a different direction for some reason though.

There's a scenario in which the Packers don't miss a beat with Love taking over but I'm not banking on it to happen.

So would you have rather drafted Roddy White than Aaron Rodgers? Don't give me the whole Favre threatened retirement so things are different, and that Rodgers was a remarkable no red flag talent coming out of college. There were plenty of folks who thought that Rodgers being a Tedford product made him a risky pick at that time. As if Favre would have retired if we surrounded him with a first-round rookie WR that year (White). He would have had Walker/Driver/White which would have been filthy at that time with Green/Davenport. Who retires with that kind of weaponry. A QB drafted in the latter half of the first will always have question marks, Love is no different. He can pan out to be the heir with appropriate tutelage and coaching. The front office seems to want to give him that opportunity.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
6,040
Reaction score
1,036
The Packers would have needed to draft a game changer at #26 or #30 to have a better change of winning the Super Bowl in 2020 than by drafting a backup quarterback though.

1 in 20 shot? I don’t like those odds Captain
Off all the possibilities of players coming off the bench from the 2020 draft. Which position is most likely to have the most immediate and biggest impact if a starter goes down ? (please don’t pick K because that’s probably a legit answer!) :laugh:

Once you pick that position..

Of that position group. Who are the top 3 most likely candidates to shine?
 

Patriotplayer90

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
1,866
Reaction score
125
I've been watching the SF-Seattle matchup, and one thing is clear-Pettine is a doofus. He'll tank the team as much as he can. There's no reason for any defense to be as bad as they were against them
 

GreenNGold_81

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Messages
1,403
Reaction score
118
I've been watching the SF-Seattle matchup, and one thing is clear-Pettine is a doofus. He'll tank the team as much as he can. There's no reason for any defense to be as bad as they were against them

Protecting against the threat of Kittle and hoping that Blake could be at least serviceable vs the run really did us in. We haven't had even a decent team up the middle since Bishop/Hawk. Kirksey and Martin/Burks better get things going.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
26,048
Reaction score
1,542
You seem resigned to that fact that your visions won't be accomplished now. How does selecting Love prevent that from happening? Are you saying one player would have made the difference? Are you saying even if Love doesn't work out to be the next starting QB, all is lost? This just seems like you are viewing this as an all or nothing outcome, with no vision of how this actually might keep the Packers at the top of the NFL for years to come, both with Rodgers and without him.

The Packers trading up to select Love in the first round prevented the team from drafting a prospect capable of having an immediate impact and therefore decreased the chances of being a legit Super Bowl contender this season.

If Love doesn't work out as planned everybody should agree that was a stupid move. While definitely not all would be lost the Packers might have wasted Rodgers best chance to win another Super Bowl for no reason.

Once again, he might become the team's next franchise quarterback but the odds are against that happening. Even if he works out the move did nothing to keep the Packers at the top of the NFL while Rodgers is the starting quarterback though.

So would you have rather drafted Roddy White than Aaron Rodgers? Don't give me the whole Favre threatened retirement so things are different, and that Rodgers was a remarkable no red flag talent coming out of college. There were plenty of folks who thought that Rodgers being a Tedford product made him a risky pick at that time. As if Favre would have retired if we surrounded him with a first-round rookie WR that year (White). He would have had Walker/Driver/White which would have been filthy at that time with Green/Davenport. Who retires with that kind of weaponry. A QB drafted in the latter half of the first will always have question marks, Love is no different. He can pan out to be the heir with appropriate tutelage and coaching. The front office seems to want to give him that opportunity.

You have to realize just because drafting Rodgers in the first round in 2005 worked out perfectly doesn't automatically mean Love will as well.

1 in 20 shot? I don’t like those odds Captain

Actually my post should have read that the Packers wouldn't have needed to draft a game changer to improve their chances of winning the Super Bowl this year.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
10,455
Reaction score
1,387
If Love doesn't work out as planned everybody should agree that was a stupid move. While definitely not all would be lost the Packers might have wasted Rodgers best chance to win another Super Bowl for no reason.

So say Gutekunst took a WR there instead of Love, the consensus next highest guy on everyone's board, or PFF's board, or whoever you'd like. And say that player didn't work out as planned. Would you say, in that case, that everybody should agree that it was a stupid move?
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
If Love doesn't work out as planned everybody should agree that was a stupid move.


We have finally reached middle ground! ;)

Although, much like all the other Packer draft picks that have failed, I don't think I would use the word "stupid" to describe a failed attempt at landing your next future QB. I would just call it a failed pick.

Until that point or at the point when his success proves that it was a brilliant move, I am going to sit back and see what happens.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
10,455
Reaction score
1,387
We have finally reached middle ground! ;)

Although, much like all the other Packer draft picks that have failed, I don't think I would use the word "stupid" to describe a failed attempt at landing your next future QB. I would just call it a failed pick.

Until that point or at the point when his success proves that it was a brilliant move, I am going to sit back and see what happens.

It's stupid if he doesn't like it and/or if it doesn't work. If he liked it and it failed, it wouldn't be stupid. If it works it wasn't stupid.
 

Patriotplayer90

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
1,866
Reaction score
125
So say Gutekunst took a WR there instead of Love, the consensus next highest guy on everyone's board, or PFF's board, or whoever you'd like. And say that player didn't work out as planned. Would you say, in that case, that everybody should agree that it was a stupid move?
No. Players don't work out for reasons beyond our control. But the fact of the matter is that there was a vacancy at WR, a vacancy at ILB, several position groups which could have been improved overall, yet the team drafted a player at the only one in which they could get no value out of for several years. That's stupid.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
10,455
Reaction score
1,387
No. Players don't work out for reasons beyond our control. But the fact of the matter is that there was a vacancy at WR, a vacancy at ILB, several position groups which could have been improved overall, yet the team drafted a player at the only one in which they could get no value out of for several years. That's stupid.

Ok, so what you're expressing here is a perspective that this move was stupid, for reasons you've offered, and we can assume that even if it works out that you will persist that it was stupid?

My guess is that a lot of people, maybe including you and maybe not, are going to call this move stupid if Love busts, or smart if Love hits and the Packers are able to go from one good QB to another without a gap. But they wouldn't offer that same sort of sliding scale standard if the selection had met their expectations.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
Ok, so what you're expressing here is a perspective that this move was stupid, for reasons you've offered, and we can assume that even if it works out that you will persist that it was stupid?

My guess is that a lot of people, maybe including you and maybe not, are going to call this move stupid if Love busts, or smart if Love hits and the Packers are able to go from one good QB to another without a gap. But they wouldn't offer that same sort of sliding scale standard if the selection had met their expectations.

I would just add. Had the Packers not drafted Love and he turned into a FHOF QB with another team, I think some of these posters would be lining up in 5 or so years to explain just how stupid Gute was for passing him up and drafting a WR that busted out in 3 years instead of looking out for the future of the Packers.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
6,040
Reaction score
1,036
If Love doesn't work out as planned everybody should agree that was a stupid move. While definitely not all would be lost the Packers might have wasted Rodgers best chance to win another Super Bowl for no reason.
It’s a gamble we won’t know was a terrible move or a brilliant one for several years at minimum and likely it’ll take 4 seasons.

Actually my post should have read that the Packers wouldn't have needed to draft a game changer to improve their chances of winning the Super Bowl this year.
This year? That’s surprisingly a little short sighted from someone intelligent like yourself. While I would’ve also been excited to get a WR or LB.. There’s 53+ ways to improve a team each year. To really be accurate, we have to include the impact from all the coaches and FO so it’s more like 75 ways to improve.
Overdrafting at WR or LB in the draft if we felt that #30 was too high a selection after the top players were off our draft board could’ve proved just as questionable a move.

We have to also remember that the draft is not the only way to get personnel. There’s hundreds of trades and deals working behind the scenes that involve veteran help every season. I would argue that 1 established veteran starter has a statistical advantage over 1 late day 1 draft selection.

We don’t even know if Gute is finished adding to the roster. Don’t think for a second that he’s passively sitting by and sleeping on this season. I’m near positive that There’s other FA players and team trade deals that are being explored both as a plan A or plan B scenarios. If there was ever a GM that has shown he is fully committed to being “aggressive” or “thinking outside the box” it’s Brian G. It’s really important for a GM to adapt a “Best Practices” approach, but the best GM’s in history have been the ones who don’t stand content, but rather they stand firm in their conviction, even at the expense of unpopular public opinion.

I support this QB move not because I know something anymore than you do about players’ futures, but because Brian has the experience and demeanor of someone who knows what they’re talking about when it comes to acquiring player personnel. His track record thus far has been pretty darn solid.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
6,040
Reaction score
1,036
On a more objective level. If we can do our best at putting away our GM glasses and looking on from the perspective of a casual fan (because I realize we’re all experts :tup:)

Which “non player” do you guys think was most excited to get Jordan Love?

Has anyone really stood up for Love in the media amidst the mutiny? :roflmao:
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
26,048
Reaction score
1,542
So say Gutekunst took a WR there instead of Love, the consensus next highest guy on everyone's board, or PFF's board, or whoever you'd like. And say that player didn't work out as planned. Would you say, in that case, that everybody should agree that it was a stupid move?

I wouldn't have considered selecting a prospect at another position who could have the potential to help the team this season stupid even if that move hadn't worked out.

On the other side Gutekunst trading up to select a quarterback while having a future HOFer on the roster with four years left on his current deal who has repeatedly mentioned he wants to play into his 40s is stupid.

The move has the potential to be brilliant but should be considered an utter failure if it doesn't work out.

I would just add. Had the Packers not drafted Love and he turned into a FHOF QB with another team, I think some of these posters would be lining up in 5 or so years to explain just how stupid Gute was for passing him up and drafting a WR that busted out in 3 years instead of looking out for the future of the Packers.

No, I would definitely not have held that against Gutekunst down the road.

This year? That’s surprisingly a little short sighted from someone intelligent like yourself.

His track record thus far has been pretty darn solid.

With Rodgers championship window clsoing fast the Packers should do everything to surround him with talent and take advantage of having a future HOF quarterback while it lasts. There's no way to achieve that by selecting his successor two years early.
 
Top