Was this a smokescreen

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Love is a packer now and to tell you the truth after thinking about it Eason fits this team better. Did the colts goat the packers into taking Love and not a WR. The colts seemed like Pittman was the guy at 34 in the next pick series. If they wanted love so bad at 34 I think they would of traded up a few spots.  I am happy with Eason and they are both projects with a lot of upside. The only thing different with love is his ability outside the pocket. Colts mentioned Eason is more athletic then what people think.

 

 

[crazycolt1]

IMO the Packers made a mistake not drafting a WR in the 1st round with what talent level was there. 

Regardless of how they feel about Rogers he needed offensive weapons. 

If they traded up to make a point to Rogers that's sad. If he is not wanted they should have went ahead and traded him this season. I don't know how Rogers is going to take all this if he thinks Love is there to replace him. This could get ugly. 

[Orioles22]

3 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

Love is a packer now and to tell you the truth after thinking about it Eason fits this team better. Did the colts goat the packers into taking Love and not a WR. The colts seemed like Pittman was the guy at 34 in the next pick series. If they wanted love so bad at 34 I think they would of traded up a few spots.  I am happy with Eason and they are both projects with a lot of upside. The only thing different with love is his ability outside the pocket. Colts mentioned Eason is more athletic then what people think.

 

 

You wouldn't have said that in March - so much talk about Love...

 

[CR91]

Two ways of thinking. Either the colts thought Love would fall to 34 hence why they traded away the 13th pick or they never wanted Love and it was Ballard playing games

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

IMO the Packers made a mistake not drafting a WR in the 1st round with what talent level was there. 

Regardless of how they feel about Rogers he needed offensive weapons. 

If they traded up to make a point to Rogers that's sad. If he is not wanted they should have went ahead and traded him this season. I don't know how Rogers is going to take all this if he thinks Love is there to replace him. This could get ugly. 

 

His giant contract makes trading or cutting him prohibitive for two more years.    2002 is when the change will likely happen....

 

[crazycolt1]

58 minutes ago, CR91 said:

Two ways of thinking. Either the colts thought Love would fall to 34 hence why they traded away the 13th pick or they never wanted Love and it was Ballard playing games

Maybe it was Ballard just keeping all of his fishing lines in the water? 

 

We have no way of knowing what his big board looked like and how it changed during the draft. 

I do think if there was a QB that Ballard thought was a 1st round talent at their pick he would have went that route rather than trading pick 13. 

He thought Buckner was worth more than a QB at #13 IMO. 

[crazycolt1]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

His giant contract makes trading or cutting him prohibitive for two more years.    2002 is when the change will likely happen....

 

 

No doubt they couldn't cut him but I think they could have found a trading partner who would have taken him and his contract. 

Yes the Packers still want to win but how is this going to work out if Rogers thinks Love is there to replace him? IMO, it's a bad situation. Instead of the Packers drafting to help Rogers, they drafted to replace him. And traded up to do it. 

[Yoshinator]

13 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Maybe it was Ballard just keeping all of his fishing lines in the water? 

 

We have no way of knowing what his big board looked like and how it changed during the draft. 

I do think if there was a QB that Ballard thought was a 1st round talent at their pick he would have went that route rather than trading pick 13. 

He thought Buckner was worth more than a QB at #13 IMO. 

I'm guessing Ballard thought Love was less valuable than Buckner. Maybe he liked Tua or Herbert better than Buckner but knew they wouldn't fall. We'll never know.

[crazycolt1]

6 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I'm guessing Ballard thought Love was less valuable than Buckner. Maybe he liked Tua or Herbert better than Buckner but knew they wouldn't fall. We'll never know.

Ballard already knew he was signing Rivers too. That happened only three days after the Buckner trade. 

So in three days Ballard blew away what most seem to think he would and wouldn't do. 

 

[ColtJax]

Eason and Love are both projects with strong arms. Both will need time to develop and both have a lot of upside. The Colts got their project in round 4, the Packer's traded up valuable picks to move up to get Love, and he won't see the field for years. Love remined me a lot of Kizer, big arm, big talent that needs time to develop. Kizer just got waived. The Packer's should have taken Pittman..

[csmopar]

9 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

IMO the Packers made a mistake not drafting a WR in the 1st round with what talent level was there. 

Regardless of how they feel about Rogers he needed offensive weapons. 

If they traded up to make a point to Rogers that's sad. If he is not wanted they should have went ahead and traded him this season. I don't know how Rogers is going to take all this if he thinks Love is there to replace him. This could get ugly. 

yeah but he was on the better end of that years ago when they drafted him to sit behind Farve. It came full circle.  Odds are, he'll either mentor Love or demand a trade out.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I imagine Loves agent probably told the packers who he had interviews with. It is kind of funny though if the colts had no intention of taking him even in the second and the packers bit on it. 

[Jackie Daytona]

8 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

His giant contract makes trading or cutting him prohibitive for two more years.    2002 is when the change will likely happen....

 

Not unless they invent a time machine.... Even then, Love was like 5 years old.... and Rogers wasn't even in High school I don't think....

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

9 hours ago, Orioles22 said:

You wouldn't have said that in March - so much talk about Love...

 

It’s ok to change our minds. It’s clear teams didn’t value him as much as the public. Colts probably had the same grade on him they had on Eason.  If packers had not taken him would of most likely fell pretty far. Not even sure the colts would of taken him with one of the second round picks.

[DougDew]

I don't see how our interest in Love would have goaded the Pack into trading up for him instead of taking a WR.  Either they wanted Love or they wanted a WR and us wanting Love isn't going change which player they preferred. If they wanted Love instead of Pittman, they would have taken Love at pick 29/30 and Pittman would've still been there at 34. 

 

They traded up ahead of SEA for Love.  I suppose they thought we were going to take him, but I don't see that as us goading them into a trade-up. 

 

Making GB, an NFC team, give up a draft pick to move up doesn't help us. They ended up giving MIA, an ascending AFC team an extra pick, so if anything, any deliberate smokescreen hurt us more than helped us, IMO.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I don't see how our interest in Love would have goaded the Pack into trading up for him instead of taking a WR.  Either they wanted Love or they wanted a WR and us wanting Love isn't going change which player they preferred.

 

They traded up ahead of SEA for Love.  I suppose they thought we were going to take him.  I don't see what benefit it is to us to make GB, and NFC team, give up a draft pick to move up. 

 

They ended up giving MIA, an ascending AFC team an extra pick, so if anything, any smokescreen hurt us more than helped us, IMO.

I saw a tweet that once SF too Aiuk that Love was next on their radar. I think the silly thing is they didn’t need to trade up plus probably could of had him in the second. I don’t think the colts were going to take him in the second at all. Maybe with the 44 but it just seems with him being a project colts probably wouldn’t of took him until the third or 4th. 

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

I saw a tweet that once SF too Aiuk that Love was next on their radar. I think the silly thing is they didn’t need to trade up plus probably could of had him in the second. I don’t think the colts were going to take him in the second at all. Maybe with the 44 but it just seems with him being a project colts probably wouldn’t of took him until the third or 4th.

Ok, yes.  I can see GB wanting to secure Love ahead of us by us possibly trading up, but I don't see any benefit to us to induce them to trading up.  Their trade up doesn't help us at all whether we wanted him or not.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

27 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Ok, yes.  I can see GB wanting to secure Love ahead of us by us possibly trading up, but I don't see any benefit to us to induce them to trading up.  Their trade up doesn't help us at all whether we wanted him or not.

Maybe so they didn’t take Pittman. I don’t know. Just know a lot of nonsense gets thrown out there during the draft.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Just some thoughts now looking back on things. Eason didn’t have very good weapons either. Played in a better conference then Love and had much better stats. Seemed to be a better decision maker also. So I think everything played out well and we might of just got the right QB.

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, Shafty138 said:

Not unless they invent a time machine.... Even then, Love was like 5 years old.... and Rogers wasn't even in High school I don't think....

I was taking about the idea of trading Aaron Rodgers.   He’s got a very large contract.  

[shasta519]

I mean...it's not like Ballard is going to say "we wanted to move up to take Love...but GB just beat us to it." And we know how tight of a ship he runs...so no one else is going to say it either. If Schefty was told that...it's because that's what Ballard wanted the official story to be.

 

Because IF Love pans out...Ballard would possibly have to answer questions about Love for the next decade if he said that (at least until he finds a franchise QB)...and Pittman would (unfairly) get compared to Love. No one wants any of that type of distraction.

 

I think Love was definitely on their board...we just don't know where. And if he was high on their board...I am sure Ballard did some form of due diligence on moving up...even if he wasn't leaning that way.

 

Ultimately, Ballard didn't draft him...so we move on. 

 

 

[ColtJax]

If you like a QB at #34 it's better to trade up a few spots to get that 5th year option. Since we didn't that tells me he wouldn't have been picked at #34 either. Hell, with the way they were talking about Pittman and Taylor I doubt he would have been taken at #44 either..

[stitches]

I hope it was a smokescreen. I can live with Ballard not liking Love. I would be irritated if he loved him and let another team grab him before us. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

55 minutes ago, stitches said:

I hope it was a smokescreen. I can live with Ballard not liking Love. I would be irritated if he loved him and let another team grab him before us. 

True but in the end we got a QB with just as much upside. Ballard says he won’t forced  things so he clearly didn’t like him enough to move up.  Ballard made a comment after the draft that kind of stuck with me. He said he would never move down if that meant losing a player they wanted. I doubt he would of let Love slip away when all he had to give up was a 4th rd pick if he truly was in love with him. 

[stitches]

3 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

True but in the end we got a QB with just as much upside. Ballard says he won’t forced  things so he clearly didn’t like him enough to move up.  Ballard made a comment after the draft that kind of stuck with me. He said he would never move down if that meant losing a player they wanted. I doubt he would of let Love slip away when all he had to give up was a 4th rd pick if he truly was in love with him. 

Eason doesn't have as much upside as Love. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

13 minutes ago, stitches said:

Eason doesn't have as much upside as Love. 

I disagree. What makes love have more upside? Because he can extend plays. EaSon is already better at reading defenses and manipulating with his eyes. He did good in a better conference with not so good WR.  Just because he is a pocket passer doesn’t mean he has less upside. I think he will get better at extending plays.  I wanted love but I am happy with Eason and after really thinking about he might of been the better choice. He also makes better decisions.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 hour ago, ColtJax said:

If you like a QB at #34 it's better to trade up a few spots to get that 5th year option. Since we didn't that tells me he wouldn't have been picked at #34 either. Hell, with the way they were talking about Pittman and Taylor I doubt he would have been taken at #44 either..

Yep. I think packers could of got him at the end of the second. I will almost bet the colts had the same grade on him they had on Eason. They were both big projects.

[stitches]

11 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

I disagree. What makes love have more upside? Because he can extend plays. EaSon is already better at reading defenses and manipulating with his eyes. He did good in a better conference with not so good WR.  Just because he is a pocket passer doesn’t mean he has less upside. I think he will get better at extending plays.  I wanted love but I am happy with Eason and after really thinking about he might of been the better choice. He also makes better decisions.

Eason is not better reading defenses and manipulating defenders with his eyes. He's not as mobile, he's not as loose of a passer and playmaker. He is horrible when pressured. His pocket presence is non-existent, his answer to pressure is to turn his back to the defense and try to spin away... while Love has the best pocket presence in this draft. (well, maybe except for Burrow) Love has better touch with the ball too... There are reasons one went R1 and the other one went R4. It's not because the one that went R4 is as good a prospect as the one that went in R1. 

 

I understand being a homer, but come on. You don't need switch your opinions on a dime and to stan for every single player we pick over every single player we miss on or choose not to draft. You were Love's biggest hype-girl around here before the draft. Nothing has changed since. Neither Love, nor Eason are different players now than 2 weeks ago. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

Eason is not better reading defenses and manipulating defenders with his eyes. He's not as mobile, he's not as loose of a passer and playmaker. He is horrible when pressured. His pocket presence is non-existent, his answer to pressure is to turn his back to the defense and try to spin away... while Love has the best pocket presence in this draft. (well, maybe except for Burrow) Love has better touch with the ball too... There are reasons one went R1 and the other one went R4. It's not because the one that went R4 is as good a prospect as the one that went in R1. 

I don’t think Love would of went until the 3rd or 4th either if packers hadn’t jumped ship. Every breakdown I see of Eason talks about how he is good at manipulating defenders. They talk about it being a mechanics issue when he is pressured and has to throw on the run. It’s not pressure in the pocket. He takes the hits in the pocket and throws dimes. It’s outside the pocket his mechanics need fixed. He throws it in the dirt. He only had 8 int so his decision making seems pretty good.  They are both big projects. They both have just as much upside. They both have some flaws that need fixed.  What we don’t know is about their football IQ.  Whoever has the better football IQ will probably be the better pro.

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

I don’t think Love would of went until the 3rd or 4th either if packers hadn’t jumped ship.

I don't know how to answer to a hypothetical that didn't happen and we have no idea would have happened. We know what happened though... a team with a hall of famer on their roster felt good enough about Love to trade up for him and 32 teams felt good enough to let Eason go past them 3 times and 20 more passed on him a 4th time. This is what ACTUALLY HAPPENED. 

 

2 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Every breakdown I see of Eason talks about how he is good at manipulating defenders. They talk about it being a mechanics issue when he is pressured and has to throw on the run. It’s not pressure in the pocket. He takes the hits in the pocket and throws dimes. It’s outside the pocket his mechanics need fixed. He throws it in the dirt. He only had 8 int so his decision making seems pretty good.  They are both big projects. They both have just as much upside. They both have some flaws that need fixed.  What we don’t know is about their football IQ.  Whoever has the better football IQ will probably be the better pro.

It's not about his mechanics. It's about his presence. About how he feels pressure and what he does when he sees/feels pressure - what he does is he panics and tries to spin his way away from it, when he's not nearly the athlete to have any success doing that. 

 

And again - they both don't have just as much upside. One very obviously has much higher upside. 

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

19 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

Love is a packer now and to tell you the truth after thinking about it Eason fits this team better. Did the colts goat the packers into taking Love and not a WR. The colts seemed like Pittman was the guy at 34 in the next pick series. If they wanted love so bad at 34 I think they would of traded up a few spots.  I am happy with Eason and they are both projects with a lot of upside. The only thing different with love is his ability outside the pocket. Colts mentioned Eason is more athletic then what people think.

 

 

I think there was “A” smoke screen, but I don’t think it was “OUR” smoke screen.

 

The Colts didn’t out out any info regarding Love.  But Ballard showed strong interest for two years.  The media has been writing about it for two years...   all if that served as “A” smoke screen.   The Packers were clearly aware of it.  They moved for Love based on the assumption that we might go up and get Love. 
 

Hey...  good for us...  too bad for GB.   They paid a higher price based on what they thought we’d do.  Except we didn’t do it.   Oh well...    

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

5 minutes ago, stitches said:

I don't know how to answer to a hypothetical that didn't happen and we have no idea would have happened. We know what happened though... a team with a hall of famer on their roster felt good enough about Love to trade up for him and 32 teams felt good enough to let Eason go past them 3 times and 20 more passed on him a 4th time. This is what ACTUALLY HAPPENED. 

 

It's not about his mechanics. It's about his presence. About how he feels pressure and what he does when he sees/feels pressure - what he does is he panics and tries to spin his way away from it, when he's not nearly the athlete to have any success doing that. 

 

And again - they both don't have just as much upside. One very obviously has much higher upside. 

 

 

That isn’t what I have seen. I just watched one the other day that talked about his shoulders get messed up when he throws outside the pocket. He actually is very strong and delivers good balls even when in the pocket. He throws them in the dirt when he gets outside the pocket.  We can see different things and that’s fine. They are both flawed and both need work  in different areas.  

[stitches]

And BTW I hate that you are making me look like an Eason hater. I actually love the Colts taking a shot at him in the 4th. I think he has talent and I think some people outside the Colts underestimate the chance that Frank turns him into a starter in the league... of course - conditional on him actually being willing and even eager to work on some of his issues.  

[stitches]

9 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I think there was “A” smoke screen, but I don’t think it was “OUR” smoke screen.

 

The Colts didn’t out out any info regarding Love.  But Ballard showed strong interest for two years.  The media has been writing about it for two years...   all if that served as “A” smoke screen.   The Packers were clearly aware of it.  They moved for Love based on the assumption that we might go up and get Love. 
 

Hey...  good for us...  too bad for GB.   They paid a higher price based on what they thought we’d do.  Except we didn’t do it.   Oh well...    

It ultimately doesn't matter for the Packers. If they are right, noone would care about the extra 5th they gave up. If they are wrong on Love, the bigger problem is not that they gave up a 5th, it's that they gave up their 1st for him. 

 

Greg Cosell actually had a very interesting take on it. He thinks LeFleur doesn't like Rodgers in his system and he thinks Love fits their system better, so he's preparing to make a switch in a year or two. I can see that... Listen to this:

 

 

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

And BTW I hate that you are making me look like an Eason hater. I actually love the Colts taking a shot at him in the 4th. I think he has talent and I think some people outside the Colts underestimate the chance that Frank turns him into a starter in the league... of course - conditional on him actually being willing and even eager to work on some of his issues.  

I don’t think you are a Eason hater at all. I just think they are two different type of quarterbacks. I think they both have a ton of upside. I don’t think them being different makes one have more upside then then the other.  I think they are pretty close to being at the same stage  of development. It’s just which type of QB you like better. I think there is a place for both to succeed.

[stitches]

4 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

I don’t think you are a Eason hater at all. I just think they are two different type of quarterbacks. I think they both have a ton of upside. I don’t think them being different makes one have more upside then then the other.  I think they are pretty close to being at the same stage  of development. It’s just which type of QB you like better. I think there is a place for both to succeed.

Sure, there is a place for both to succeed, and they might both succeed... or fail. I just think Love is a better prospect by some margin. 

[DougDew]

Still not following.  A smokescreen implies that we intentionally let out false interest in order to goad another team to trade up for a player we did not want.  I don't know why we would care if GB traded up to get a player we did not want.  Its GB, not HOU, TEN, or JAX.

 

If we wanted Love, then letting our interest be known hurt our ability to get the player we coveted.  

 

Maybe GB simply saw the landscape and acted decisively to get a player that they wanted and thought we may have wanted.  Good for them, they won that battle of the draft.

[dw49]

16 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

 

No doubt they couldn't cut him but I think they could have found a trading partner who would have taken him and his contract. 

Yes the Packers still want to win but how is this going to work out if Rogers thinks Love is there to replace him? IMO, it's a bad situation. Instead of the Packers drafting to help Rogers, they drafted to replace him. And traded up to do it. 

 

He's "untraceable" with the contract he signed. The team that traded for him would save 10's of millions in base salary while GB would pay massive cap hits. 

[dw49]

16 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

His giant contract makes trading or cutting him prohibitive for two more years.    2002 is when the change will likely happen....

 

 

 

I'm sure you meant 2022 and yes that would be the easiest they could even consider it. The cap hit would still be around 17 mill but that's not prohibitive.  2023 (he'll be 39) is the last year of the contract and the cap hit there is only 2.5 million. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

29 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Still not following.  A smokescreen implies that we intentionally let out false interest in order to goad another team to trade up for a player we did not want.  I don't know why we would care if GB traded up to get a player we did not want.  Its GB, not HOU, TEN, or JAX.

 

If we wanted Love, then letting our interest be known hurt our ability to get the player we coveted.  

 

Maybe GB simply saw the landscape and acted decisively to get a player that they wanted and thought we may have wanted.  Good for them, they won that battle of the draft.

Could Ballard had info they wanted Pittman or Taylor. I doubt there was any smokescreen though. Packers had info about the last minute zoom call and didn’t want to chance it.