Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
This draft will make or break Gute and Lafleur
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="OldSchool101" data-source="post: 874495" data-attributes="member: 10086"><p>I think getting Jordan Love at #26 was a gamble.</p><p>I also believe it’s true that we didn’t get the 5th best WR (or was it 6th?).</p><p></p><p> Anyway, the reality is that in the long haul.. getting possibly the 3rd to 4th best QB by far trumps getting the 6th best WR as far as value if they both become successful. There’s not even a close comparison between a starting level #1 WR and a starting level #1 QB. If they both play out their contract +. The successful QB will command a massive amount more of value in that comparison.</p><p></p><p>If they play average range? then i see that as a long-term contract “wash” because the receiver likely gets to production quicker (although Gute seemed to think the WRs left would have minimal impact their rookie season, which I’ll add factors in to this “win now” argument we all have in somewhat negative fashion). However, in that case, the QB enables the team not to have to spend mid round picks or veteran $ executing their contingency plan at QB each year and eventually starts and evens the raw production by catching up rather quickly.</p><p></p><p>If they both underperform to their ability (or bust) then I see a “slight advantage” to the WR because of the QB long term <em>negative</em> impact is greater than that negative impact of a Wideout. One could say that the QB position is more dynamic overall than a WR.</p><p></p><p>Those not liking this QB are counting on the QB to bust or near bust for a late 1st rounder. Gute is counting on our QB to either be average or better for his draft stock. But the main point is the reward of our QB performing is far greater than the risk of him not performing. Also the % chance is greater that QB Love (or the lost WR asset) will be average or better (the first 2 scenarios) verses bust (the last 1 scenario), by default.</p><p></p><p>I understand there’s no way to know until a few years but that’s the whole point of this discussion. None of us including myself or the GB front office will make an accurate summary of the result until we are at least several years into their tenure. This is mainly a hypothetical argument from either standpoint. Getting all worked up about it out of fear (anger derived from fear) won’t help or hurt an argument that takes substantial time to resolve itself. .. it’ll only create a false sense of short term pleasure or displeasure that’s not realistic in the meantime, depending on which argument you support.</p><p></p><p>There’s a very good argument to support that the WR we chose wouldn’t have came into their Rookie season in the NFL “full throttle”. So we’d be looking at 2-3,seasons before we saw increased production in that #1 or #2 realm at best.</p><p>I saw what Gute saw, that those first #3 to #4 consensus Wideouts had a better shot at that early success, but likely not draft #6 or #7 WR or wherever our staff had those remaining guys rated.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="OldSchool101, post: 874495, member: 10086"] I think getting Jordan Love at #26 was a gamble. I also believe it’s true that we didn’t get the 5th best WR (or was it 6th?). Anyway, the reality is that in the long haul.. getting possibly the 3rd to 4th best QB by far trumps getting the 6th best WR as far as value if they both become successful. There’s not even a close comparison between a starting level #1 WR and a starting level #1 QB. If they both play out their contract +. The successful QB will command a massive amount more of value in that comparison. If they play average range? then i see that as a long-term contract “wash” because the receiver likely gets to production quicker (although Gute seemed to think the WRs left would have minimal impact their rookie season, which I’ll add factors in to this “win now” argument we all have in somewhat negative fashion). However, in that case, the QB enables the team not to have to spend mid round picks or veteran $ executing their contingency plan at QB each year and eventually starts and evens the raw production by catching up rather quickly. If they both underperform to their ability (or bust) then I see a “slight advantage” to the WR because of the QB long term [I]negative[/I] impact is greater than that negative impact of a Wideout. One could say that the QB position is more dynamic overall than a WR. Those not liking this QB are counting on the QB to bust or near bust for a late 1st rounder. Gute is counting on our QB to either be average or better for his draft stock. But the main point is the reward of our QB performing is far greater than the risk of him not performing. Also the % chance is greater that QB Love (or the lost WR asset) will be average or better (the first 2 scenarios) verses bust (the last 1 scenario), by default. I understand there’s no way to know until a few years but that’s the whole point of this discussion. None of us including myself or the GB front office will make an accurate summary of the result until we are at least several years into their tenure. This is mainly a hypothetical argument from either standpoint. Getting all worked up about it out of fear (anger derived from fear) won’t help or hurt an argument that takes substantial time to resolve itself. .. it’ll only create a false sense of short term pleasure or displeasure that’s not realistic in the meantime, depending on which argument you support. There’s a very good argument to support that the WR we chose wouldn’t have came into their Rookie season in the NFL “full throttle”. So we’d be looking at 2-3,seasons before we saw increased production in that #1 or #2 realm at best. I saw what Gute saw, that those first #3 to #4 consensus Wideouts had a better shot at that early success, but likely not draft #6 or #7 WR or wherever our staff had those remaining guys rated. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
milani
tynimiller
Pkrjones
swhitset
PackerinSD
Latest posts
2024 Draft Prospect Discussions
Latest: thequick12
20 minutes ago
Draft Talk
Posting draft picks
Latest: Poppa San
42 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The 11th Annual Amish Draft Contest 2024
Latest: Poppa San
44 minutes ago
Draft Talk
2024 Draft-- Media Stuff
Latest: tynimiller
53 minutes ago
Draft Talk
2024 Salary Cap as related to Free Agency
Latest: DoURant
Today at 2:03 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
This draft will make or break Gute and Lafleur
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top