The Rodgers Trade is Complete. Here’s a Look How Each Team Fared

[Smashmouth]

3 hours ago, FidelioJet said:

None.  

Well at least no more than you would with Carr.

 Of course anything can happen but I suspect Rodgers will be in the 12-17 range.

Very tough to win a Super Bowl with middle of the pack QB play.  

Ok bud I'll cut off this debate right now. Of course the odds are obviously on the side of what you say here but not in any way shape or form related to Rodgers. Teams change in the NFL , we have a good one but make no mistake some teams do step light up the league and there are 31 others to contend with and bottom line while the QB plays a big part he's not the only reason teams win a SB. After mahomes lost his SB it was obvious the Chiefs had to make changes or they would have kept on losing SB's Mahomes or not.

[FidelioJet]

3 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

Ok bud I'll cut off this debate right now. Of course the odds are obviously on the side of what you say here but not in any way shape or form related to Rodgers. Teams change in the NFL , we have a good one but make no mistake some teams do step light up the league and there are 31 others to contend with and bottom line while the QB plays a big part he's not the only reason teams win a SB. After mahomes lost his SB it was obvious the Chiefs had to make changes or they would have kept on losing SB's Mahomes or not.

I guess you can accept or deny the idea that the QB is the most important position on the field - and there isn't a close second.

Now, if you don't agree with that - then you are correct and we should cut off this debate right now.  Don't bother reading further.

If you do agree then you must understand that, in order to have realistic chance to win a SB, it will require elite level QB.  Rodgers is not that type of QB right now.  He gives the team as good a chance of any QB outside of the top 10 for sure.

So you can make the argument, this Jets team has the talent and coaching to win a Super Bowl with sub optimum QB play.  While I don't agree - I can certainly accept the argument.  You're a fan and I get it.

What I can accept is this idea that Rodgers is still capable of carrying this team with elite QB play.   There are 10 to 15 QB's in the NFL that will give their team a better chance to win than Rodgers.  That's the only point I'm making.

[Prodigal Syndicate]

18 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

So… don’t use first rounders to win a title behind a unicorn all time great passer who’s still very much elite. Drafting bench players in round 1, who’ll sit for 3 years, are what brings in the titles.

Then hopefully when Love is at his best, and the team is a player away, they can draft another QB with their first round pick and barely lose the championship game again.

What about all the years they took non QBs in the first round and they didn't win with Rodgers?

Again, your position is entirely make believe scenarios in your head of what could have happened. Saying they were a player away is nonsense.

What matters is today and what actually happened. The Packers are in a great position because they took Love. Saying that's a bad pick is one of the worst takes I think I've seen on this board, ever.

[Prodigal Syndicate]

13 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You're making the massive presumption that the cake tastes the same when you change key ingredients.

Truly the game is only 1 QB against 1 QB. In the Tampa playoff losses, I didn't see where you replaced 4/5 of his OL with backups, removed all his starter-caliber WRs/TEs except Evans, and presume the game's outcome is the same in the end.

Swap out Chris Godwin and replace with Marquez Valdes-Scantling. Swap out Gronk and replace him with ancient Marcedes Lewis. Swap out Donavan Smith and replace him with Billy Turner. Swap out Tristan Wirfs & replace with Ricky Wagner.

Next tell me all about how Mahomes totally choked in the Super Bowl the following week and how it had absolutely nothing to do with KC fielding an OL of mostly backup talent (and just losing their probowl LT) and resulting constant pressure, as though we didn't watch the game. It's all about his stats, and his stats were garbage. Mmm-kay.

Change the team and it also changes the butterfly-effect odds of Bakhtiari - basically the game's premiere LT at the time. Changing what's practicing and with whom and still sustaining the same unlikely, non-contact injury on the same place at the same time in the same Dec 31st practice is statistically zero, and that injury has plagued him (and, in turn, the team) since then. 

Swap out Jordan Love + AJ Dillon and replace them with CeeDee Lamb or Justin Jefferson. Then make the argument Bakhtiari is still in the same place at the same time when he got injured.

Swap out Jordan Love + AJ Dillon and replace them with CeeDee Lamb or Justin Jefferson. Then make the argument that the Packers' offense is absolutely no better if you swap in a top-3 WR instead of a backup QB and a backup RB.

It's amazing that people think the failure to add one the game's singularly elite players, there for the taking and at an area of extreme weakness at the time, in favor of adding two backup players, had no effect on anything, and continue arguments based on that very house of cards.

The irony of starting a post saying someone is making a massive presumption, then typing out paragraph after paragraph of presumption is truly funny.

Your entire stance is presuming success if they took a different player. Something that can't be proven and holds no weight at all.

Truly bizzare posting. If Love wins a SB in the coming years this will be a hilarious series of posts to revisit.

[BornJetsFan1983]

On 5/3/2024 at 12:40 PM, 32EBoozer said:

 

I do that 10 out of 10 times. Nice haul for the jets 

[Sperm Edwards]

4 hours ago, Prodigal Syndicate said:

What about all the years they took non QBs in the first round and they didn't win with Rodgers?

Again, your position is entirely make believe scenarios in your head of what could have happened. Saying they were a player away is nonsense.

What matters is today and what actually happened. The Packers are in a great position because they took Love. Saying that's a bad pick is one of the worst takes I think I've seen on this board, ever.

Saying they were a player away is absolutely it nonsense when they keep getting bumped from the playoffs in one-score games and had just one starting receiver on the team, passing on either of two elite, future HOF WRs to use the pick on a backup QB to hold a clipboard for 3 years.

They took an offensive player in round one just 3x in Rodgers’s long career as starter there. One good OL, one bust OL, and Jordan Love. Some help that was for the offense.

The #1 goal is to win a championship, not to use the most premium pick to find a QB to take over 4 years after the franchise’s best-ever QB - still at the top of his game - is traded away. That makes no sense.

Also Love looked good, not amazing. He has a long way to go before his young career equals that of Carson Wentz.

I suppose they should take just a single non-bust, round-one player for Love’s career, too, and when they do take the next non-bust it should be for the post-Love era. Apparently that’s smart GMing, lol.

[Sperm Edwards]

4 hours ago, Prodigal Syndicate said:

The irony of starting a post saying someone is making a massive presumption, then typing out paragraph after paragraph of presumption is truly funny.

Your entire stance is presuming success if they took a different player. Something that can't be proven and holds no weight at all.

Truly bizzare posting. If Love wins a SB in the coming years this will be a hilarious series of posts to revisit.

Yes. Bizarre to think pairing Davante Adams with Justin Jefferson or CeeDee Lamb instead of starting MVS or Lazard would at all materially affect the outcome of playoff games they only narrowly lost.

Tampa probably should have taken Jordan Love in 2020 instead of Tristan Wirfs. I’m sure they thought - and still think - Wirfs had absolutely no impact on helping to win a championship that year, and the outcome would’ve been unchanged if a probowl level starting tackle was simply eliminated from the roster that year, in favor of a backup QB who never sees the field.

Know who doesn’t think a win-now team should be drafting backups and pipeline players in round 1? YOU!

Not even one week ago, ffs:

On 4/29/2024 at 9:24 AM, Prodigal Syndicate said:

This is a team with a very small window for success (if it even exists) and this putz has spent 2 drafts in a row drafting backups and pipeline players as if the team is a perennial contender that doesn't need to win now.

Whoops!  

[ptisme]

18 hours ago, 32EBoozer said:

1. I have a feeling that "Blue-Collar Lunchpale Player" Mark Murphy was never a big Rodgers fan. Murphy's resume from UDFA Safety to 4-year co-captain & SB winner, All-Pro & Pro Bowl honors in '83 is impressive. Went on to get law degree.

Never drafted a 1st Rd. Wide Receiver for Rodgers. 2nd rd. Watson (2021) & 2nd rd. Adams (2014) He came from the Redskins defensive tree and that's how he won with those Joe Gibbs teams... Defense and running game.

2. A lot will depend on this years' performance. 

Murphy is team president.   His focus is more on league stuff, commercial stuff (like maximizing stadium district revenue etc).  The person ur thinking of is Gute and before him the late Ted Thompson.   Packers never did take a WR because they wisely understood that it's easier to find a WR day 2-3 than edge rushers and Tackles.   They always had a good WR core till 2022.   After that season they got rid of most of the stiffs Rodgers made them keep (Lazard/Cobb etc.)

[ptisme]

18 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You're making the massive presumption that the cake tastes the same when you change key ingredients.

Truly the game is only 1 QB against 1 QB. In the Tampa playoff losses, I didn't see where you replaced 4/5 of his OL with backups, removed all his starter-caliber WRs/TEs except Evans, and presume the game's outcome is the same in the end.

Swap out Chris Godwin and replace with Marquez Valdes-Scantling. Swap out Gronk and replace him with ancient Marcedes Lewis. Swap out Donavan Smith and replace him with Billy Turner. Swap out Tristan Wirfs & replace with Ricky Wagner.

Next tell me all about how Mahomes totally choked in the Super Bowl the following week and how it had absolutely nothing to do with KC fielding an OL of mostly backup talent (and just losing their probowl LT) and resulting constant pressure, as though we didn't watch the game. It's all about his stats, and his stats were garbage. Mmm-kay.

Change the team and it also changes the butterfly-effect odds of Bakhtiari - basically the game's premiere LT at the time. Changing what's practicing and with whom and still sustaining the same unlikely, non-contact injury on the same place at the same time in the same Dec 31st practice is statistically zero, and that injury has plagued him (and, in turn, the team) since then. 

Swap out Jordan Love + AJ Dillon and replace them with CeeDee Lamb or Justin Jefferson. Then make the argument Bakhtiari is still in the same place at the same time when he got injured.

Swap out Jordan Love + AJ Dillon and replace them with CeeDee Lamb or Justin Jefferson. Then make the argument that the Packers' offense is absolutely no better if you swap in a top-3 WR instead of a backup QB and a backup RB.

It's amazing that people think the failure to add one the game's singularly elite players, there for the taking and at an area of extreme weakness at the time, in favor of adding two backup players, had no effect on anything, and continue arguments based on that very house of cards.

How many super bowls have CeeDee Lamb and Justin Jefferson won?  Would have been nice to be drafting in the teens to take one of those players.  It could be argued Devante Adams was the best WR in the game.   Better than either of those two.   Just about every heart breaking playoff loss we've had Rodgers played meh most of the game and then threw up some garbage time stats after the game was decided.    Anyone who watched the playoffs those years would back that up.

[ptisme]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Saying they were a player away is absolutely it nonsense when they keep getting bumped from the playoffs in one-score games and had just one starting receiver on the team, passing on either of two elite, future HOF WRs to use the pick on a backup QB to hold a clipboard for 3 years.

They took an offensive player in round one just 3x in Rodgers’s long career as starter there. One good OL, one bust OL, and Jordan Love. Some help that was for the offense.

The #1 goal is to win a championship, not to use the most premium pick to find a QB to take over 4 years after the franchise’s best-ever QB - still at the top of his game - is traded away. That makes no sense.

Also Love looked good, not amazing. He has a long way to go before his young career equals that of Carson Wentz.

I suppose they should take just a single non-bust, round-one player for Love’s career, too, and when they do take the next non-bust it should be for the post-Love era. Apparently that’s smart GMing, lol.

The packers didn't pass on those players.   Why do you keep saying that?  Their draft slot was like 30 and those guys were long gone before that..   Also all those years they didn't take a receiver they had a mediocre defense and great receivers: Nelson, james jones, Adams, driver, Greg Jennings, Cobb etc...

[Sperm Edwards]

7 minutes ago, ptisme said:

How many super bowls have CeeDee Lamb and Justin Jefferson won?  Would have been nice to be drafting in the teens to take one of those players.

You should compile a more extensive list of the best of the best players and say none of them would could seriously impact winning playoff games on any other team, and the proof is they haven’t won any Super Bowls.

That’s brilliant!

[slimjasi]

On 5/3/2024 at 8:56 PM, Sperm Edwards said:

Smart people do.

They pissed away 2-3 years of serious contention from a QB whose ability they'll never duplicate again in 100 years, and only narrowly got bumped out of the playoffs in doing so. i.e. they were a player away, and used their 1st round pick on a 3-year backup QB.

They thought Love would be starting within a year. If they'd known Rodgers was about to win the next two MVP awards and they came super-close to another title but fell short, they wouldn't have taken Love that year themselves: as it was, they extended Rodgers like two years after drafting Love.

This is a great point.

They were the #1 seed in 2 of those years and you wonder if adding another good player could have put them over the top in one of those close playoff losses. (Who is the best player they could have taken with Love on the board?)

It's probably only worth it if Love truly becomes a perennial top QB who can extend the franchise's contender status for another decade. 

 

[ptisme]

6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You should compile a more extensive list of the best of the best players and say none of them would could seriously impact winning playoff games on any other team, and the proof is they haven’t won any Super Bowls.

That’s brilliant!

Unfortunately we have no idea on draft night who "all the best players" are going to be.  Of course if we could go back in time we'd give away the farm to get a HOF WR with our revisionist history.   In his loss to TB he had Lazard wide open across the middle of the field on 4th down at the end of the game and chose to throw to Adams who was doubled for the incompletion.   

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, ptisme said:

The packers didn't pass on those players.   Their draft slot was like 30 and those guys were gone before 20.   Also all those years they didn't take a receiver they had a mediocre defense and great receivers: Nelson, james jones, Adams, driver, Greg Jennings, Cobb etc...

As already stated above, they were in a position to easily move up for either of them. Instead they stayed pat, preserved their 2nd or 3rd round picks to draft backup players, and drafted a QB to backup a still-elite, all-time great QB.

Also thanks for making my point for me:

When Green Bay won their SB with Rodgers they were 3 way deep at WR: Jennings + Driver + Nelson + Jones. Fast forward to the 2024 draft, and everyone here was screaming for either a WR or TE in round 1, while the team’s receivers were already far deeper than the 2020 Packers had.

Thanks for helping out.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, ptisme said:

Unfortunately we have no idea on draft night who "all the best players" are going to be.  Of course if we could go back in time we'd give away the farm to get a HOF WR with our revisionist history.   In his loss to TB he had Lazard wide open across the middle of the field on 4th down at the end of the game and chose to throw to Adams who was doubled for the incompletion.   

You keep making my points for me.

Lazard has a drops history and isn’t the magnet for a QB like an elite WR at the level of Adams, Lamb, Jefferson, etc.

Even worse, Love was nowhere near the low risk prospects as Lamb/Jefferson. He was an ultra-raw boom or bust pick, at a position they’d have no need for years.

Thanks for playing.

[ptisme]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

As already stated above, they were in a position to easily move up for either of them. Instead they stayed pat, preserved their 2nd or 3rd round picks to draft backup players, and drafted a QB to backup a still-elite, all-time great QB.

Also thanks for making my point for me:

When Green Bay won their SB with Rodgers they were 3 way deep at WR: Jennings + Driver + Nelson + Jones. Fast forward to the 2024 draft, and everyone here was screaming for either a WR or TE in round 1, while the team’s receivers were already far deeper than the 2020 Packers had.

Thanks for helping out.

So ur saying the Packers should have gone from 30 to 20 to take Jefferson or 16 to take Lamb.   How do you know they had a trade partner?   How do you know they have easily moved up?   WR is the number one bust position in the first round only a dumb GM would mortgage the future to do that.   You're operating on hind sight 20/20.   Please look at that first round and tell me (without hindsight 20/20 which player you would have taken to guarantee that SB..

[slats]

5 minutes ago, ptisme said:

WR is the number one bust position in the first round only a dumb GM would mortgage the future to do that.

First round QBs have a higher bust rate than first round WRs, and that’s with most QBs usually drafted top five or ten, not #30. WRs are probably less likely to bust with Rodgers throwing to them. 

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, slats said:

First round QBs have a higher bust rate than first round WRs, and that’s with most QBs usually drafted top five or ten, not #30. WRs are probably less likely to bust with Rodgers throwing to them. 

Putting aside that Love was not considered a “safe pick” QB prospect in the first place. Nowhere near a far cleaner WR prospect like Lamb.

I don’t know dick about rating, ranking, or predicting outcomes for individual college prospects, and even I remembered that. Plenty here wanted him instead of Becton way up at #11. He wasn’t a shot in the dark.

I guess KC didn’t really need to draft Rice last year. After all, they already had Valdes-Scantling signed to pair with Kelce (and just look at Rice’s terrible offseason news!). Instead they should’ve drafted Will Levis for Reid to teach and groom for 3-4 years so he’s ready to take over for Mahomes someday.

[T0mShane]

On 5/3/2024 at 8:39 PM, 32EBoozer said:

Everybody saw the throws he was making at last year’s camp. No doubt the arm talent is still there, no doubt he’s keeping his body fit. For someone who was all in with me, & others, when the trade was being argued, you’re starting to let your message board “negative personality” drain the life from your fanboy excitement.

Did I want the trade to happen? Yes. When I was 19, did I desperately want to date Tara Reid? Also yes. It’s not until you get these types of people into your home for three days do you realize what a grievous mistake you made. 

[32EBoozer]

2 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

Did I want the trade to happen? Yes. When I was 19, did I desperately want to date Tara Reid? Also yes. It’s not until you get these types of people into your home for three days do you realize what a grievous mistake you made. 

Four plays = 3 days?

Regarding Tara Reed…. You deal with the days to get to the nights!

[T0mShane]

On 5/4/2024 at 7:03 AM, FidelioJet said:

The right move was always Carr.

Save draft picks, draft a QB and regroup.  The whole Rodgers experiment was another PR first move.  

The Saints can’t even cut Carr until 2026, and that entire team loathes him. Nate Tice worked for the Raiders when they first brought Carr in and he’ll periodically tell stories of the offensive staff watching him single-handedly abort on open plays in the red zone because there was a .0005% chance he’d throw a pick. Allegedly one of the biggest me-first stat-hangers to ever play. I get your argument that the Jets should have opted for a competent QB instead of taking a moonshot on Rodgers, but you sign Jacoby Brissett for that. You don’t give an iron-clad $150 million dollar contract to a stiff like Carr. 

[32EBoozer]

1 minute ago, T0mShane said:

Jets should have opted for a competent QB instead of taking a moonshot on Rodgers, but you sign Jacoby Brissett for that

Moonshots get you ticker tape parades down the canyon of heroes. Competent gets you a wall plaque in the lunchroom for 20 years of service.

 

https://www.thewallstreetexperience.com/blog/the-canyon-of-heroes-nycs-most-overlooked-monument/

[slats]

10 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

Allegedly one of the biggest me-first stat-hangers to ever play.

Another Kirk Cousins. Oh, look at those fancy QB numbers to go with his career losing record? Aren’t they nice? 

[32EBoozer]

1 minute ago, slats said:

Another Kirk Cousins. Oh, look at those fancy QB numbers to go with his career losing record? Aren’t they nice? 

[T0mShane]

6 minutes ago, slats said:

Another Kirk Cousins. Oh, look at those fancy QB numbers to go with his career losing record? Aren’t they nice? 

I think Carr is much worse than Cousins because Carr is making business decisions on those plays. Cousins is like if Peyton Manning grew up malnourished and without access to a weight room—computer brains that melt down when asked to do anything outside of the structure of the play. Manning obviously had the arm to make more of those plays, and Cousins’ menu is more limited, but yeah, we’ve absolutely seen the ceiling on that. That 4th and 8 play to end the playoff game vs the Giants (where he flipped it out to his TE in the flat for three yards) is the ultimate Cousins play. Carr would have thrown it out of bounds and angrily pointed at the receiver.

[Sperm Edwards]

27 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

The Saints can’t even cut Carr until 2026, and that entire team loathes him. Nate Tice worked for the Raiders when they first brought Carr in and he’ll periodically tell stories of the offensive staff watching him single-handedly abort on open plays in the red zone because there was a .0005% chance he’d throw a pick. Allegedly one of the biggest me-first stat-hangers to ever play. I get your argument that the Jets should have opted for a competent QB instead of taking a moonshot on Rodgers, but you sign Jacoby Brissett for that. You don’t give an iron-clad $150 million dollar contract to a stiff like Carr. 

Didn’t they say McDaniels had to stop (or severely curtail) showing clips of Carr’s screwups on team/group film reviews, while immunizing no one else from such call-outs, just because Carr was such an emo wimp? IIRC there were lots of teammates who were particularly bitter about their QB not able to take valid criticism like a man.

I was plenty supportive of the Rodgers acquisition. I still prefer the moonshot over treading water with a Brissett type, but agreed you either go for it or don’t.

Signing Carr to a contract that locks him in as the starter for 3 seasons is like paying full money for IVF but then purposely implanting only the defective/damaged looking embryos. Either pay big and implant the good ones, knowing it’s still no guarantee of success [i.e. Rodgers], or stick to shtupping with a low sperm count [i.e. Brissett, Minshew, etc.]. The latter won’t have the same chance of success but it’s cheaper and it’ll still feel a lot better than getting jerked off with 60-grit sandpaper [Zach].

[RutgersJetFan]

Not only is it the worst trade in the history of the franchise, it's the worst deal in the history of the world. In fact I consulted some of the most prominent historians out there and the general consensus is that the worst deals in history can be ranked this way:

3. The Dutch trading away Manhattan

2. Napoleon getting fleeced on the Louisiana Purchase

1. The Jets trading for Aaron Rodgers. 

So there you have it.

[ptisme]

1 hour ago, slats said:

First round QBs have a higher bust rate than first round WRs, and that’s with most QBs usually drafted top five or ten, not #30. WRs are probably less likely to bust with Rodgers throwing to them. 

The reason the packers draft WR so well on days two and three is because of the great quarterback play.   Also qb has a hit rate of 46 %. Vs just 27% for WR rd1.   See below:

https://draftwire.usatoday.com/2024/04/25/first-round-draft-hit-rates-tracking-rates-from-the-best-centers-to-the-worst-wrs/

[The Crusher]

19 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said:

Not only is it the worst trade in the history of the franchise, it's the worst deal in the history of the world. In fact I consulted some of the most prominent historians out there and the general consensus is that the worst deals in history can be ranked this way:

3. The Dutch trading away Manhattan

2. Napoleon getting fleeced on the Louisiana Purchase

1. The Jets trading for Aaron Rodgers. 

So there you have it.

 

[TuscanyTile2]

On 5/3/2024 at 7:48 PM, T0mShane said:

Knowing what he knows now? That he loses Rodgers for a year and also that Rodgers’ brain is filled with conspiratorial pine tar? 

[TuscanyTile2]

1 hour ago, T0mShane said:

Did I want the trade to happen? Yes. When I was 19, did I desperately want to date Tara Reid? Also yes. It’s not until you get these types of people into your home for three days do you realize what a grievous mistake you made. 

So you think the AR trade was a "grievous mistake"?

[TuscanyTile2]

35 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said:

Not only is it the worst trade in the history of the franchise, it's the worst deal in the history of the world. In fact I consulted some of the most prominent historians out there and the general consensus is that the worst deals in history can be ranked this way:

3. The Dutch trading away Manhattan

2. Napoleon getting fleeced on the Louisiana Purchase

1. The Jets trading for Aaron Rodgers. 

So there you have it.

I would've put the AR8 trade at #2 until I factor in that Rodgers’ brain is "filled with conspiratorial pine tar".  That is just plain unacceptable!

3) Stalin

2) Aaron Rodgers

1) Hitler

[ptisme]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Putting aside that Love was not considered a “safe pick” QB prospect in the first place. Nowhere near a far cleaner WR prospect like Lamb.

I don’t know dick about rating, ranking, or predicting outcomes for individual college prospects, and even I remembered that. Plenty here wanted him instead of Becton way up at #11. He wasn’t a shot in the dark.

I guess KC didn’t really need to draft Rice last year. After all, they already had Valdes-Scantling signed to pair with Kelce (and just look at Rice’s terrible offseason news!). Instead they should’ve drafted Will Levis for Reid to teach and groom for 3-4 years so he’s ready to take over for Mahomes someday.

And yet we beat KC last year.   BTW I’d take the Packers collection of skill players (none in rd 1) over what the Jets gave Rodgers 

[Green Ghost]

Here we go… It looks like @TuscanyTile2 is awake now.

[TuscanyTile2]

On 5/4/2024 at 7:03 AM, FidelioJet said:

The right move was always Carr.

Save draft picks, draft a QB and regroup.  The whole Rodgers experiment was another PR first move.  

Couldn't disagree more.  After that great draft class, we had a small window where we could try to swing big.  Carr would've been a complete waste of time.  I was saying we should try to bring in TB12 (unlikely he'd come here but worth it to ask) but, if not him, then try to trade for Rodgers. 

What people don't get is that we might've actually been fortunate that AR8 got hurt early last year.  We kept our 1st rounder and we got a top 10 pick.  With that pathetic OL and WRs (behind GW) last year's team was nowhere near ready for a deep playoff run.  And if AR8 didn't get hurt in week 1, he likely would've been hurt the following week in Dallas.