Packers draft

[chad72 6,613]

What do you guys think of the Packers draft?

 

It is funny their 2 QBs now are A-Rod and J-Lo. 

[CheezyColt 551]

What a mess. Seems like a big middle finger to Aaron Rodgers, tbh.  Even if you're ok with the Love pick, trading more draft picks to move up and get him is losing picks that could be used on weapons for Rodgers.  Then with the picks they still had, they still didn't get Rodgers any weapons until later.  They opted for another RB when Aaron Jones has been terrific.  I just didn't get a lot of their draft.  They just made the NFC Championship and the conference pretty wide open, imo.  Making such a heavy focus on potential future payoffs instead of putting a little bit more into the immediate future, seems like a risky strategy.  Guess we'll see. Hopefully.

[dw49 703]

12 minutes ago, CheezyColt said:

What a mess. Seems like a big middle finger to Aaron Rodgers, tbh.  Even if you're ok with the Love pick, trading more draft picks to move up and get him is losing picks that could be used on weapons for Rodgers.  Then with the picks they still had, they still didn't get Rodgers any weapons until later.  They opted for another RB when Aaron Jones has been terrific.  I just didn't get a lot of their draft.  They just made the NFC Championship and the conference pretty wide open, imo.  Making such a heavy focus on potential future payoffs instead of putting a little bit more into the immediate future, seems like a risky strategy.  Guess we'll see. Hopefully.

 

Agree that it was a bad move that was made dumb with the trade up. None of those spots they traded up had a team that would go QB. NE had traded out , so no interest in the first from them , Brees is almost 40 and NO had already passed on Love. If the Colts really liked Love they would have moved ahead of NE. IMO GB bought into "reports" the Colts were trying to move up. There was absolutely (IMO) no other team that would have even considered moving ahead of them for Love.

 

And yes they could have drafted a pretty good receiver with the 4th they gave up.

[Chloe6124 9,219]

I wonder how far Love would of fell. I don’t get the impression the colts would of took him at 34. They were more intent on making sure they upgraded the roster for Rivers first. Packers needed a WR and they do and draft a QB that probably won’t play for at least 3 years. Then draft another RB. It was just terrible. Love might of fell to the third or fourth if they hadn’t traded up and took him. They should of went WR first. Love probably would of been there for them in the second.

[AZColt11 1,266]

I don't like their draft on paper but you never know.  One of my family members is a big Pack fan and he aint too happy right now.

[Clem-Dog 124]

 Aaron Rodgers shouldn't be too surprised by this.  It is because of him that GB feels they can replace a hall of famer with a future hall of famer.  But, unlike the previous instance, I don't see Rodgers grooming Love to the extent Favre groomed him.  This transition will not be like the last.

[NewColtsFan 7,570]

5 minutes ago, Clem-Dog said:

 Aaron Rodgers shouldn't be too surprised by this.  It is because of him that GB feels they can replace a hall of famer with a future hall of famer.  But, unlike the previous instance, I don't see Rodgers grooming Love to the extent Favre groomed him.  This transition will not be like the last.

I’ve always heard that Favre was not very helpful in supporting and grooming Rodgers.   The two were not close those first three years.   Their transition was not good.  
 

I’ve never heard or read anything different. 

[RollerColt 2,357]

They should've focused on adding talent to beat SF. Line protection, and WRs were all there multiple times for them to take. 

 

They should watch their backs, the Vikings had a very nice draft this year. 

[Clem-Dog 124]

7 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I’ve always heard that Favre was not very helpful in supporting and grooming Rodgers.   The two were not close those first three years.   Their transition was not good.  
 

I’ve never heard or read anything different. 

 

The fact Aaron learned under Brett for three seasons before taking over is what made the transition seamless.  Maybe they weren't besties, but it was three years of learning from a HOF QB.  Maybe I am wrong but I don't think a similar process will apply to Rodgers and Love.  

[COLTS449 117]

Yeah. If they have taken one of the top WR’s and an OL with their first couple picks that offense would be deadly this year. Imagine if they’d taken a Claypool or Aiyuk or somebody to line up on the other side of Adams. I was pretty confused by their decisions as well. Weird. I’d be pretty upset if I were a Pack fan. 

[Chloe6124 9,219]

If Rodgers had only two years left I understand it. But he has 4.  I also think they way over drafted him seeing how far Eason fell. I think they could of got him later.

[Defjamz26 1,948]

Draft was awful. Literally didn’t draft a single WR. Only pass catcher they drafted was Josiah Deguara and he isn’t a sure thing. Reached on AJ Dillon as well. Drafted him in the 2nd round when you already have Aaron Jones.

 

Awful all around. They panicked on the TE pick when they saw the Patriots take two. None of those draft picks makes their team better right now. Feel bad for Packers fans. 

[Stephen 1,746]

5 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Draft was awful. Literally didn’t draft a single WR. Only pass catcher they drafted was Josiah Deguara and he isn’t a sure thing. Reached on AJ Dillon as well. Drafted him in the 2nd round when you already have Aaron Jones.

 

Awful all around. They panicked on the TE pick when they saw the Patriots take two. None of those draft picks makes their team better right now. Feel bad for Packers fans. 

I agree an abysmal  draft by the packers. Even after trading  up for love they should have added van Jefferson  or some other wr

[Smoke317 1,144]

Shameful...  How do you not get A Rod some receiver help?  It’s almost like they view him as more of a game manager now.  He’s always been careful with the ball but maybe he’s too careful now???  He’s not nearly as dynamic as he used to be.  Maybe they feel they have receivers but the recent injuries have him a little more gunshy & unwilling to hang in and fully commit to a throw and take that big hit?  Regardless, you can’t come out of the deepest receiver draft ever and not get him one of them.

[The Peytonator 451]

The Packers were in the NFC championship game where they got schooled by the Niners. They did absolutely nothing to get better now and overdrafted two players to ride the pine. For a team that should be going all in they crapped the bed. I would not be happy if I were a Packers fan. 

[ColtJax 320]

The Packers better sign Antnoio Brown to make Rogers happy or there's going to be a meltdown..

[VikingsFanInChennai 219]

Here's how they're confident: they have seen Cousins trembling in front of their new pass rush, they know Bears with Trubisky isn't a threat and Lions have Patricia to keep them the same. 

 

Packers see themselves as repeat champions until Rodgers is playing or until Cousins is in the biggest threat within the division. They feel they're fine, meanwhile they pride themselves in having repeat HOF QBs and they saw a chance in doing so. 

 

From second round onwards, they did panic and got some players at least one round early. 

 

From what head coach Matt LaFluer says, he wanted strong run game, especially a power back and he wants to use TE Deguara in the FB Kyle Jusczyck role in Shanahan offense. 

 

So they used this draft to get the missing pieces in the type of McVay-Shanahan lineage of offense. What they actually wanted is completely different from fans expectations and experts opinions. They were going after specific players that fill in the missing pieces of LaFluer scheme. 

 

I think they would've explained to Aaron Rodgers, at least after the draft. Whether he trusts them it's only known to him. 

 

I guess the only complaint I see is Rodgers didn't like their receivers, and he has complained for two years openly during the games about their lack of route running ability. St. Brown, MVS seem to get benched, Allison and Graham got sent to free agency. So, they could have drafted a route technician like Hamler or Jefferson or Mims as well in second round by trading up but they really wanted Dillon. 

 

Also, Lazard has become Rodgers favorite late in the season that he trusted throwing to him, finally to someone other than Adams. They drafted TE Jace Sternberger last year, who should be coming off the injury. Jamaal Williams did an admirable job, and Rodgers liked targeting him too. They like having multiple RBs,  TEs on the field to read-option run or pass plays like any other derivation of Mike Shanahan scheme. So, they really don't need another WR, just like how Vikings traded Diggs. Just that it would've been better on paper. 

 

Their defense transformed with new DC in both pass rush and secondary to a very high level. 

 

Maybe, LaFluer isn't realizing that Rodgers has not been the same and he needs more help to make plays when needed? I guess that could be the point of contention with both of their ideas at this point.

[stitches 7,586]

That was a bad draft. And I love Love. I'm all for aiming high at QBs in the draft... But that's when you don't actually have a premier talent at the position already. When you have Aaron Rodgers you give him weapons and instead they gave him a backup QB to mentor, a running back, who is worse than their current RB and was probably massively overdrafted and an H-back in the first 2 days. In this amazing WR draft they managed to not draft a single one and it's not like their WR room is great past Adams. Just horrible. 

[NFLfan 7,994]

50 minutes ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

Here's how they're confident: they have seen Cousins trembling in front of their new pass rush, they know Bears with Trubisky isn't a threat and Lions have Patricia to keep them the same. 

 

Despite their confidence in winning the division with the offensive weapons they have, it is no reason to ignore the WR position and reach for players that they could have traded back and still acquired. They had an awful draft, though Love may turn out to be their QB of the future. 

 

I do like that Green Bay drafts a QB nearly every year. I wish we did more of that rather than spend all that money on guys like Bradford and Cousins.

[Mr.NotSoCreative 255]

20 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I’ve always heard that Favre was not very helpful in supporting and grooming Rodgers.   The two were not close those first three years.   Their transition was not good.  
 

I’ve never heard or read anything different. 

Cant imagine it was Farve's responsibility to train him. He is a player, not a coach. Same with Rivers for us or Rodgers with Love. 

[VikingsFanInChennai 219]

8 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

Despite their confidence in winning the division with the offensive weapons they have, it is no reason to ignore the WR position and reach for players that they could have traded back and still acquired. They had an awful draft, though Love may turn out to be their QB of the future. 

 

I do like that Green Bay drafts a QB nearly every year. I wish we did more of that rather than spend all that money on guys like Bradford and Cousins.

I guess not every GM has the knack of moving around in the draft, trading back and forth and picking the guys where they could still have them. I imagine some would be totally averse to such antics, unless it is very clear and necessary that pushes them to trade up or down - like in Jordan Love selection. 

 

Trading down or looking to trade up also don't always work out when you need, just like how Rick missed out on Gallimore or Elliott in third round. When that doesn't happen, some GMs get the mentality that it's better to pick early than never. 

 

I'm just not sure if AJ Dillon is that kind of talent, I guess we will get to know. 

 

They should have drafted a WR, but they really wanted Love, then they really wanted Dillon, then they really wanted Deguara for whatever reasons, but LaFluer said he wanted all of them necessarily for his offense. By the time they got all of them, almost all top WRs were taken and they had not spent a single pick on defense as well.. they needed to get a linebacker as they didn't sign Blake Martinez. I guess they just didn't see any receiver Available after all that who could get the trust of Rodgers. Rodgers also needs a specific type of receiver, who could run the routes he likes to call. I think it's not easy to identify and get one such guy, when they are focusing on multiple other needs. 

 

If Rodgers could work with any receiver and teach him up how he wants them to run routes, they already had enough receivers in their roster but he was reluctant with them. I guess first two rounds were the spots where they could've got him one, but it didn't work out for his advantage. 

[chad72 6,613]

22 minutes ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

 

If Rodgers could work with any receiver and teach him up how he wants them to run routes, they already had enough receivers in their roster but he was reluctant with them. I guess first two rounds were the spots where they could've got him one, but it didn't work out for his advantage. 

 

Hey, I wrote it in several places. 2 years from now, Colts move on from Rivers to Rodgers, one vet to another especially if Eason is not ready.  

[Coffeedrinker 3,537]

4 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Hey, I wrote it in several places. 2 years from now, Colts move on from Rivers to Rodgers, one vet to another especially if Eason is not ready.  

I'm not sure this doesn't happen in 2021, quite frankly.  It sure appears that LaFleur is setting A-Rod (great connection btw) to fail, to justify trading him in 2021.

[chad72 6,613]

31 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I'm not sure this doesn't happen in 2021, quite frankly.  It sure appears that LaFleur is setting A-Rod (great connection btw) to fail, to justify trading him in 2021.

 

Isn't the Packers ownership the actual people? How does that work? Who hires and fires GMs with the Packers?

[stitches 7,586]

@NFLfan @VikingsFanInChennai

 

If you want to experience a top notch schadenfreude, go to youtube and search "packers fans react to Jordan love". It's hilarious.

[Superman 8,573]

12 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Isn't the Packers ownership the actual people? How does that work? Who hires and fires GMs with the Packers?

 

They have a CEO, Mark Murphy. He reports to the board of directors.

[crazycolt1 7,088]

2 hours ago, Mr.NotSoCreative said:

Cant imagine it was Farve's responsibility to train him. He is a player, not a coach. Same with Rivers for us or Rodgers with Love. 

There is a difference between training and being a mentor. 

I don't expect Rivers to train Eason but IMO his personality he will be a mentor. Rivers has always set an example of being a leader. 

[Fluke_33 2,394]

23 hours ago, chad72 said:

What do you guys think of the Packers draft?

 

It is funny their 2 QBs now are A-Rod and J-Lo. 

well done.  you should send that in to Krasinksi's Some Good News.

[NFLfan 7,994]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

packers fans react to Jordan love

 

Which one? This guy? 

 

 

 

It seems that some Packers fans thought this might be a possibility. I never associated GB with Jordan Love. I thought the Colts or the Saints may draft him.

 

I would like the Vikings to make a similar bold move one year; otherwise we will continue to sign other teams drafted QBs like Bradford, Cousins, Favre, Gus Frerotte, Randall Cunningham, etc. 

[stitches 7,586]

7 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

Which one? This guy? 

 

 

 

It seems that some Packers fans thought this might be a possibility. I never associated GB with Jordan Love. I thought the Colts or the Saints may draft him. The Vikings need to make such bold moves; otherwise we will continue to sign other teams drafted QBs like Bradford, Cousins, Favre, Gus Frerotte, Randall Cunningham, etc. 

There are so many:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chloe6124 9,219]

20 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

Which one? This guy? 

 

 

 

It seems that some Packers fans thought this might be a possibility. I never associated GB with Jordan Love. I thought the Colts or the Saints may draft him.

 

I would like the Vikings to make a similar bold move one year; otherwise we will continue to sign other teams drafted QBs like Bradford, Cousins, Favre, Gus Frerotte, Randall Cunningham, etc. 

PAckers were definetly in on him. They were mentioned several times at being interested. After listening to the colts scout on junior qb packers over drafted him. They could of took a WR and probably got him in the second. He would of fell a round or two. At Rogers age it was smart but way to early in the draft and not when Rogers still has four years left and they were 13-3 and one game away from the SB.

[Smoke317 1,144]

People keep saying that the Colts had no interest in Love.  I think if he was there at 34 we were gonna take him.  And if you go back and watch draft night, Pete Carroll looked kinda disheartened when it was there turn to pick.  I believe that we very well were gonna trade up with them for Love.  Regardless, we definitely would have pulled the trigger at 34.  No hesitation. But we wold have missed out on Taylor and the value of getting Eason in the 4th.  The Packers probably did us a serious favor because our draft turned out pretty well with them taking Love off the board.

[chad72 6,613]

15 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:

People keep saying that the Colts had no interest in Love.  I think if he was there at 34 we were gonna take him.  And if you go back and watch draft night, Pete Carroll looked kinda disheartened when it was there turn to pick.  I believe that we very well were gonna trade up with them for Love.  Regardless, we definitely would have pulled the trigger at 34.  No hesitation. But we wold have missed out on Taylor and the value of getting Eason in the 4th.  The Packers probably did us a serious favor because our draft turned out pretty well with them taking Love off the board.

 

Where did you get that from? Do you have a link? Just because Seahawks had a history of moving out of Round 1 since 2010 or 2011 (whenever it is) and we had connections with them with Ed Dodds, natural speculations were bound to happen.

 

John Clayton, from Seattle, speculated that as well on Sports talk radio. But to just conjecture about it based on a hunch, without much to go on doesn't make your statement credible, with all due respect. 

[NewColtsFan 7,570]

5 hours ago, Mr.NotSoCreative said:

Cant imagine it was Farve's responsibility to train him. He is a player, not a coach. Same with Rivers for us or Rodgers with Love. 

It wasn’t Favre’s “responsibility” to train him.  No one has ever said that.   But you can be a good teammate.  You can show a young player the ropes.  You can offer advice.  You don’t need to be a jerk about it.  
 

The veteran doesn’t “train” the rookie.  But you can be helpful.   By all accounts, Favre wasn’t helpful with Rodgers. 

[Smoke317 1,144]

7 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Where did you get that from? Do you have a link? Just because Seahawks had a history of moving out of Round 1 since 2010 or 2011 (whenever it is) and we had connections with them with Ed Dodds, natural speculations were bound to happen.

 

John Clayton, from Seattle, speculated that as well on Sports talk radio. But to just conjecture about it based on a hunch, without much to go on doesn't make your statement credible, with all due respect. 

I have no inside information or connections in the Seattle or Indy front offices.  It was strictly conjecture and I wasn't looking for credibility either.  I just know that Carroll is usually a very enthusiastic guy and he looked very subdued on camera.  I then thought it is late so he may be tired.  But it was only 8 or 9 pm on the West Coast. 

 

Just my opinion, but I would't be surprised at all to hear years down the road that we were interested in trading up for him and Packers suspected it and jumped in front of Seahawks to make sure they got him.  And honestly, I would have been ok with moving up for him and then still taking Pittman at 34.  But I'm happy with Taylor and Eason in the 4th.  Probably ended up with better value with those guys anyway.

[chad72 6,613]

4 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:

I have no inside information or connections in the Seattle or Indy front offices.  It was strictly conjecture and I wasn't looking for credibility either.  I just know that Carroll is usually a very enthusiastic guy and he looked very subdued on camera.  I then thought it is late so he may be tired.  But it was only 8 or 9 pm on the West Coast. 

 

Just my opinion, but I would't be surprised at all to hear years down the road that we were interested in trading up for him and Packers suspected it and jumped in front of Seahawks to make sure they got him.  And honestly, I would have been ok with moving up for him and then still taking Pittman at 34.  But I'm happy with Taylor and Eason in the 4th.  Probably ended up with better value with those guys anyway.

 

Similar speculation happened when Pagano apparently slammed his desk when Grigson and him wanted Casey Hayward and the Packers moved up to draft him.

 

I wonder if there is a "cheesehead" mole on 56th Street.  

[NewColtsFan 7,570]

22 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:

People keep saying that the Colts had no interest in Love.  I think if he was there at 34 we were gonna take him.  And if you go back and watch draft night, Pete Carroll looked kinda disheartened when it was there turn to pick.  I believe that we very well were gonna trade up with them for Love.  Regardless, we definitely would have pulled the trigger at 34.  No hesitation. But we wold have missed out on Taylor and the value of getting Eason in the 4th.  The Packers probably did us a serious favor because our draft turned out pretty well with them taking Love off the board.

So....   if I understand you correctly, you believe there was going to be a deal based on a “look” from Pete Carroll?

 

For your consideration...  

 

Leading up to the draft the Colts and Seahawks have talked about us trading up for their pick if the player we like is there.   Now, it’s draft night, Seattle is in the clock, and we haven’t called them.   They call and ask if we want to trade up and we decline.  There’s Pete Carroll’s “look”.   And that’s the best case scenario for your hypothetical. 
 

Ballard literally said we made no effort to trade up.  Not with Seattle or Green Bay or SF or anybody.   I haven’t read or heard anything for me to believe otherwise.   Just saying. 

[Smoke317 1,144]

4 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Similar speculation happened when Pagano apparently slammed his desk when Grigson and him wanted Casey Hayward and the Packers moved up to draft him.

 

I wonder if there is a "cheesehead" mole on 56th Street.  

It could be.  I just think Jordan Love's best fits were gonna be places where he could go sit and learn for a year or 2.  We and GB both fit the bill.  Saints as well.  But I think CB stayed calm and played it perfectly though.  Getting Pittman, Taylor, and Eason was a nice haul.  Got needs and guys who will contribute this season and still got a potential future QB...  Couldn't have worked out much better unless Love fell to 34. 

[NewColtsFan 7,570]

12 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:And honestly, I would have been ok with moving up for him and then still taking Pittman at 34.  But I'm happy with Taylor and Eason in the 4th.  Probably ended up with better value with those guys anyway.

While not impossible, it would’ve been very hard and very expensive to trade up to get Love AND take Pittman at 34.

 

Because we likely would have used pick 34 in a package to trade up for Love.   So we could do one or the other — but not both.   

[Smoke317 1,144]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

So....   if I understand you correctly, you believe there was going to be a deal based on a “look” from Pete Carroll?

 

For your consideration...  

 

Leading up to the draft the Colts and Seahawks have talked about us trading up for their pick if the player we like is there.   Now, it’s draft night, Seattle is in the clock, and we haven’t called them.   They call and ask if we want to trade up and we decline.  There’s Pete Carroll’s “look”.   And that’s the best case scenario for your hypothetical. 
 

Ballard literally said we made no effort to trade up.  Not with Seattle or Green Bay or SF or anybody.   I haven’t read or heard anything for me to believe otherwise.   Just saying. 

That very well cold explain the look.  But would Ballard come out and say yes we wanted to move up into the end of the 1st for Love but Packers beat us to it?  Not being a smart alleck.  Just wondering what your opinion or is it better to just say we never were interested because with him gone it was a lost cause anyway?