GB demonstrates how NOT to do it with QBs in the modern NFL

[Big Turk]

GB is probably trading Rodgers and letting Love start next year but they have essentially wasted his entire rookie contract and will go from paying one QB big money to paying another QB big money in short order if he does well...

 

This is NOT the way you do it anymore...worked well back in 2000 maybe but not anymore. The NFL is a changed league with how QBs are paid and how much cap they take up and a huge part of building a SB caliber team is taking advantage of those early windows when you have a franchise QB on a rookie deal so they can have more money to build around him that they won't have once they have to start paying them.

 

GB essentially squandered that with their archaic thought process on how to draft and develop QBs these days and are demonstrating to the NFL how not to do it.

[BADOLBILZ]

11 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

GB is probably trading Rodgers and letting Love start next year but they have essentially wasted his entire rookie contract and will go from paying one QB big money to paying another QB big money in short order if he does well...

 

This is NOT the way you do it anymore...worked well back in 2000 maybe but not anymore. The NFL is a changed league with how QBs are paid and how much cap they take up and a huge part of building a SB caliber team is taking advantage of those early windows when you have a franchise QB on a rookie deal so they can have more money to build around him that they won't have once they have to start paying them.

 

GB essentially squandered that with their archaic thought process on how to draft and develop QBs these days and are demonstrating to the NFL how not to do it.

 

 

Winning with a QB on his rookie deal is a good plan...........but the last 3 SB winners all had QB's on big non-rookie contracts.

 

It's a QB DOMINATED league.........they are far and away more important than any other position.........you could literally pick the best available QB in round 1 every year and be better off organizationally in the long run than hunting and pecking from season to season to fill needs.

 

Case in point.......when the Bills reached the playoffs for the first time in 17 years the ONLY first rounder of theirs on the field in Jacksonville was Tre White.

 

17 years of mostly drafting top half of round 1 and nothing to show for it.........and STILL were able to make the playoffs.    Had they been just picking the next QB drafted after their pick during their drought that list includes eventual SB winners Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers and Joe Flacco to name a few.

 

So I guess what I'd say is that GB was not dumb to take a QB if they thought Love was a franchise talent.

 

What was not smart was drafting for defensive need in round 1 ALMOST EVERY YEAR during Rodgers career.    That's where they f*cked up.   Big time.

 

 

[mjt328]

Green Bay has had a Hall of Fame QB under center every season since 1992.  For the math challenged, that is 30 years in a row.

And now they have another 1st Round QB ready to step in, after three seasons of development on the bench.

 

Yes.  Most people believe they have underperformed in the playoffs... if you consider 15 division titles, three conference championships and two Super Bowl wins during that span "underperforming."  But that has to do with what they have surrounded Brett Favre/Aaron Rodgers with.

 

The Packers are the premier NFL franchise at handling the quarterback position. 

What they are NOT is the model for giving a QB adequate support.  Particularly when it comes to weapons.

 

[WhoTom]

35 minutes ago, mjt328 said:

Most people believe they have underperformed in the playoffs... if you consider 15 division titles, three conference championships and two Super Bowl wins during that span "underperforming."

 

Like NE, GB had the benefit of being in an otherwise inept division. That explains the division titles.

 

Quote

What they are NOT is the model for giving a QB adequate support.  Particularly when it comes to weapons.

 

And that explains GB's reputation for underperforming in the playoffs.

[prissythecat]

1 hour ago, mjt328 said:

Green Bay has had a Hall of Fame QB under center every season since 1992.  For the math challenged, that is 30 years in a row.

And now they have another 1st Round QB ready to step in, after three seasons of development on the bench.

 

Yes.  Most people believe they have underperformed in the playoffs... if you consider 15 division titles, three conference championships and two Super Bowl wins during that span "underperforming."  But that has to do with what they have surrounded Brett Favre/Aaron Rodgers with.

 

The Packers are the premier NFL franchise at handling the quarterback position. 

What they are NOT is the model for giving a QB adequate support.  Particularly when it comes to weapons.

 

Green Bay wasted quite a few of the seasons of Prime play from Rodgers because of questionable coaching calls from McCarthy in playoffs  .  

[Chaos]

1 hour ago, mjt328 said:

Green Bay has had a Hall of Fame QB under center every season since 1992.  For the math challenged, that is 30 years in a row.

And now they have another 1st Round QB ready to step in, after three seasons of development on the bench.

 

Yes.  Most people believe they have underperformed in the playoffs... if you consider 15 division titles, three conference championships and two Super Bowl wins during that span "underperforming."  But that has to do with what they have surrounded Brett Favre/Aaron Rodgers with.

 

The Packers are the premier NFL franchise at handling the quarterback position. 

What they are NOT is the model for giving a QB adequate support.  Particularly when it comes to weapons.

 

The relationship between the problem you refer to in the bold, and the QB salary cap hit is not minor. 

[DCofNC]

GB is one of the worst run franchises in the NFL, they have squandered back to back HOF QBs by refusing to get decent coaching and weapons for their QBs.  They are the Browns with luck drafting QBs.  
 

The OP is sort of right IMO, if you take Love, the MOST you give him is one year, trade Rodgers when he will bring you back a nice package of picks to surround your new QB with talent and have 4-5 years of top young talent playing on Rookie deals, see Cinci as an example of what can happen.  They were bad enough to get #1 overall then got lucky enough to be back at 4 the next year, they are awesome because of it.  The Pack screwed themselves, they’ll get next to nothing for Rodgers now and they have no idea what Love will actually be, if he’s great, they turn around and have to hand him the same money Rodgers was getting. 

[RyanC883]

Main issue with Green Bay is generally being over reliant on a stud QB and average offensive talent around him. 

[Allen2D̶i̶g̶g̶s̶TBD]

Jordan Love looked pretty bad in limited playing time as a rookie and has definitely benefited from having a couple years to develop behind Rogers. Green Bay can now trade Rogers for a couple 1st rounders and built around Love. They still have him for 3 more years with the 5th year option and can franchise him for a year after that. Aaron Rogers sat for a couple years behind Favre and that seemed to only help his development.

[Albany,n.y.]

2 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

17 years of mostly drafting top half of round 1 and nothing to show for it.........and STILL were able to make the playoffs.    Had they been just picking the next QB drafted after their pick during their drought that list includes eventual SB winners Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers and Joe Flacco to name a few.

 

The Bills didn't have a 1st round pick in 2005 when GB drafted Rodgers.  They had traded it away the year before to draft JP Losman.  

[BillsfaninChicago]

Great write up and I agree with you but with me being the guy who was mad we drafted Allen instead of Rosen. I am going to have to sit this one out.

[Billl]

55 minutes ago, DCofNC said:

GB is one of the worst run franchises in the NFL, they have squandered back to back HOF QBs by refusing to get decent coaching and weapons for their QBs.  They are the Browns with luck drafting QBs.  
 

The OP is sort of right IMO, if you take Love, the MOST you give him is one year, trade Rodgers when he will bring you back a nice package of picks to surround your new QB with talent and have 4-5 years of top young talent playing on Rookie deals, see Cinci as an example of what can happen.  They were bad enough to get #1 overall then got lucky enough to be back at 4 the next year, they are awesome because of it.  The Pack screwed themselves, they’ll get next to nothing for Rodgers now and they have no idea what Love will actually be, if he’s great, they turn around and have to hand him the same money Rodgers was getting. 

Squandered?  They won two championships during that time.  Josh has played 5 seasons, and the closest the Bills have come was a blowout loss in the AFCCG.  You think he's going to retire with more rings than Rodgers or Favre?  

[Saxum]

3 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:

The Bills didn't have a 1st round pick in 2005 when GB drafted Rodgers.  They had traded it away the year before to draft JP Losman.  

 

Don't confuse him with facts.

[DCofNC]

1 hour ago, Billl said:

Squandered?  They won two championships during that time.  Josh has played 5 seasons, and the closest the Bills have come was a blowout loss in the AFCCG.  You think he's going to retire with more rings than Rodgers or Favre?  

Nobody said the Bills are well run did they? But in comparison, Rodgers waiting on the bench for 5 years.. Love has wasted 3 years, and those 8 years yielded exactly zero SB appearances, so was it worth it? 
 

Considering they had a first ballot hall of fame QB on their roster for 30 years and couldn’t come up with more than they did, year, they wasted a lot.

1 hour ago, Albany,n.y. said:

The Bills didn't have a 1st round pick in 2005 when GB drafted Rodgers.  They had traded it away the year before to draft JP Losman.  

They could have also moved up to get Any of the other 3 HOF QBs in the draft where they wasted picks on Losman.  Or they could have admitted they struck out and waited on drafting a QB instead of going all  Buddy Nix and forcing it anyway.

[ControllerOfPlanetX]

After watching Love, they probably don’t have to worry too much about a big time contract.

[Mr. WEO]

6 hours ago, mjt328 said:

Green Bay has had a Hall of Fame QB under center every season since 1992.  For the math challenged, that is 30 years in a row.

And now they have another 1st Round QB ready to step in, after three seasons of development on the bench.

 

Yes.  Most people believe they have underperformed in the playoffs... if you consider 15 division titles, three conference championships and two Super Bowl wins during that span "underperforming."  But that has to do with what they have surrounded Brett Favre/Aaron Rodgers with.

 

The Packers are the premier NFL franchise at handling the quarterback position. 

What they are NOT is the model for giving a QB adequate support.  Particularly when it comes to weapons.

 

 

 

they gave him one of the best WRs in the league and decent RB.  Enough weapons to make him MVP (twice) for the first time in 7 years.  In the playoffs, he/they couldn't get it done...plain and simple.

 

This "no weapons" take is so old and soft... let it go. 

[Thurman#1]

9 hours ago, Big Turk said:

GB is probably trading Rodgers and letting Love start next year but they have essentially wasted his entire rookie contract and will go from paying one QB big money to paying another QB big money in short order if he does well...

 

This is NOT the way you do it anymore...worked well back in 2000 maybe but not anymore. The NFL is a changed league with how QBs are paid and how much cap they take up and a huge part of building a SB caliber team is taking advantage of those early windows when you have a franchise QB on a rookie deal so they can have more money to build around him that they won't have once they have to start paying them.

 

GB essentially squandered that with their archaic thought process on how to draft and develop QBs these days and are demonstrating to the NFL how not to do it.

 

 

Totally disagree. 

 

I see where you're coming from.

 

But if by doing this, they significantly improve the odds of getting a QB who's legitimately one of the top QBs in the league, it's completely worth having given up those low-cost years.

 

Now, if Love isn't one of those QBs, they've magnified the damage they've done that team, but they weren't going to be winning any SBs anyway if he's not good enough.

 

In that case, they missed out on the ideal situation, but landed (assuming he's what they think he is) in a situation that is not ideal but is still the second-best situation, a situation that probably 25 of the 32 teams would sell their left hand find themselves in.

 

And if Love isn't that guy, trying their best to get every year out of their prima donna was their best chance to pick up a Lombardi anyway.

 

The last three SBs in a row have been won by QBs not on rookie contracts. The key factor in KC's two SBs was having Mahomes. In only one of their two SB victories did they have him on a rookie contract. 

 

The key factor in their future success will be whether or not Love is a great QB. If they increased the chances of their having a great QB, they done good.

 

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

4 hours ago, DCofNC said:

Nobody said the Bills are well run did they? But in comparison, Rodgers waiting on the bench for 5 years.. Love has wasted 3 years, and those 8 years yielded exactly zero SB appearances, so was it worth it? 
 

Considering they had a first ballot hall of fame QB on their roster for 30 years and couldn’t come up with more than they did, year, they wasted a lot.

They could have also moved up to get Any of the other 3 HOF QBs in the draft where they wasted picks on Losman.  Or they could have admitted they struck out and waited on drafting a QB instead of going all  Buddy Nix and forcing it anyway.

 

 

 

While not absolutely everybody thinks the Bills are well run, yes people have said the Bills are well run.

 

In fact, that's what the huge majority of people around the league say. Not that they were well-run between Polian and the current regime, but now, certainly yes.

 

 

6 hours ago, Billl said:

Squandered?  They won two championships during that time.  Josh has played 5 seasons, and the closest the Bills have come was a blowout loss in the AFCCG.  You think he's going to retire with more rings than Rodgers or Favre?  

 

 

Um, yes. Yes, I do think Josh will end up with more rings than Rodgers or Favre. Not a sure thing, but it's a pretty decent bet. He's got easily 10 - 12 years to try.

[Locomark]

Let’s face it Green Bay only had 25 years of Great QB play in a row. They didn’t have to ever develop a QB plan, unlike the rest of the NFL. They have no clue how to do it. What did we do during our 20 year QB drought with drafting and developing QBs. Crap. If you don’t pick the right guys, it doesn’t matter what your “development and retention plan” is. 

[JoPoy88]

9 hours ago, Big Turk said:

GB is probably trading Rodgers and letting Love start next year but they have essentially wasted his entire rookie contract and will go from paying one QB big money to paying another QB big money in short order if he does well...

 

This is NOT the way you do it anymore...worked well back in 2000 maybe but not anymore. The NFL is a changed league with how QBs are paid and how much cap they take up and a huge part of building a SB caliber team is taking advantage of those early windows when you have a franchise QB on a rookie deal so they can have more money to build around him that they won't have once they have to start paying them.

 

GB essentially squandered that with their archaic thought process on how to draft and develop QBs these days and are demonstrating to the NFL how not to do it.

how is Love guaranteed to get big money though? If and when they roll him out there and he sucks, they’re not going to pay him just because they drafted him. IF he does well, then sure - you had a season to evaluate him and he looks like a keeper and they pay him. So why not? You’re hung up on this is “elite QB on a rookie deal” thing as a key to success and it’s just not. It’s nice, sure, but not a prerequisite.