Green Bay Packers 2020 NFL draft grades

The 2020 NFL draft is over and of course people are quick to judge how teams did.

Normally, you really need three or five years to grade a class (like we did here and here).

But who is kidding who — we all want to know what others think of the selections made by our favorite team now. And there are plenty people doing just this.

More Packers draft coverage

We’ve tried to compile as thorough a list of Green Bay Packers draft analysis as you’ll find anywhere on the internet, complete with a GPA for the first-round picks and overall draft. Without further ado, enjoy.

Jordan Love

Andy Benoit of SI.com: B. “Love has first-round tools, but inconsistent mechanics plagued him at Utah State, as did bizarre bouts of poor field vision. The Packers feel they can clean that up. Mechanics rarely get corrected once a guy reaches the NFL, but one of LaFleur’s specialties and greatest passions is teaching the details of throwing mechanics, and Love is in the unusual position of a first-round quarterback being groomed behind a superstar QB who likely still has multiple years of greatness left in him. So for now … it’s business as usual for the Packers. Just with some PR work to massage.”

Chad Reuter of NFL.com: A-. “I thought Jordan Love was worth a first-round selection. The Packers did, as well. In a mirror reflection of the 2005 draft, the Packers pick a first-round quarterback to learn behind Aaron Rodgers just as they picked Rodgers to groom behind Brett Favre.”

Mike Tanier of Bleacher Report: C. “The Packers, of course, have plenty of time to develop Love. The question now becomes whether he will become what Aaron Rodgers was late in Brett Favre’s career—part heir apparent, part challenger and burr in the saddle—or whether he will prove too erratic to mount a serious threat anytime soon. But make no mistake: the Packers made a statement by trading up for Love. Rodgers heard it. And we’ll be hearing a lot about the dynamic between this promising rookie and the ever-so-slightly (heh) temperamental incumbent in the weeks and months to come.”

Pete Prisco of CBSSports.com: D. “Terrible move by the Green Bay Packers. Aaron Rodgers told me last summer he wants to play until he’s 40. They needed a receiver. They needed defensive help. Sitting behind Rodgers will do Love well, but not going to do the Packers well. You’re on the cusp of getting to a Super Bowl, get Rodgers some help.”

Vinnie Iyer of the Sporting News: D. “In an NFC where the 49ers, Buccaneers and Saints are in win-now mode, the Packers trading up for a potential successor to Aaron Rodgers makes little sense over a top wide receiver or offensive tackle to help him extend his Super Bowl window coming off a 13-3 season. Love (6-4, 224 pounds) matches his size with physical skills, including a big arm, and his athleticism bodes well if his accuracy, decision-making and footwork can become cleaner with good NFL coaching.”

Luke Easterling of Draft Wire: C-. “Similar to Josh Allen a couple of years ago, Love is loaded with potential, but it’s going to take some time. He’s in a great spot in Green Bay, but I just wonder if this pick wouldn’t have been better used to help Rodgers instead of replacing him.”

Eric Edholm of Yahoo Sports: B-. “Fascinating move, but not that stunning. The cost for the Packers to move up wasn’t high, and our 31st overall prospect – now a potential heir to Aaron Rodgers – is an extremely gifted (though flawed) passer who could develop into the best quarterback in this class.”

WalterFootball.com: O’Brien (we’ll consider this an F). “Wow. This is terrible. The people on TV are comparing this to the Aaron Rodgers pick from 2005, but the difference is that Rodgers was considered a No. 1 overall pick prospect who just happened to fall. Jordan Love was never that good. Love is an extremely raw quarterback who has some major decision-making issues. He has high upside, but chances are that he flops. This, of course, means that the Packers aren’t helping Rodgers win now, so they might as well trade him. If I were a Packer fan, I’d be very disappointed right now, and I imagine Rodgers is quite upset as well. Also, why the trade up? Whom were the Packers attempting to jump for Love? This is just a dumb pick.”

Mike Cole of NESN: C. “In a vacuum, drafting Love — who some felt was a top-10 talent — makes sense given where Aaron Rodgers is in his career. But if the Packers feel they’re truly a 13-3 team that came within one win of a Super Bowl, which is what happened last season, it’s puzzling for them to make a pick that’s clearly made with an eye on the long-term future. There probably was a better way for them to improve in the short and long term with that pick, but maybe they just love Love.”

Steven Ruiz of For the Win: D-. “Landing with a team that already has a quarterback in place is ideal for Love, but I just can’t justify this from the Packers’ perspective. The Packers aren’t a team that has the luxury to draft for the future with Aaron Rodgers’ career winding down. Green Bay was an impact draft class away from competing for the Super Bowl. Even if Love drops all of the bad habits that littered his 2019 tape, this pick isn’t going to make the Packers, a team that should be in win-now mode, better any time soon.”

Danny Kelly of The Ringer: C-. “I question the wisdom of this pick, at least in the short term. For starters, an already-tepid relationship between Rodgers and the team is not likely to improve with this selection, and it does little to bolster the supporting cast around the former MVP. The opportunity cost around this pick could hurt the team’s chances for contending over the next couple of years.”

Joe Tansey of Bleacher Report: C. “Instead of adding more weapons for Rodgers to work with, the Packers opted to bring in his potential successor. The move could work in the long term, but it does not help Green Bay contend with San Francisco, Minnesota and others.”

Doug Farrar of Touchdown Wire: B-. “Comparing Love to Patrick Mahomes — as some people have done — is a ridiculous conceit at this point. And one wonders why the Packers didn’t go with a receiver to give Rodgers the help he needs now.”

Bryan Fischer of Athlon Sports: B. “Aaron Rodgers can’t like this pick! Great long-term move, but for a team that made it to the NFC title game last season, you do wonder about the immediate need. If it pays off though, talk about being set for three decades at the most important position in the field.”

C.J. Doon of the Baltimore Sun: C. “This pick is a tricky evaluation. On one hand, taking a chance on a talented quarterback, even with a future Hall of Famer already on the roster, is a worthwhile endeavor. But the Packers are coming off an NFC title game appearance with glaring holes on their roster at linebacker and receiver, and some good players were still available at those positions. Aaron Rodgers is 36 and has shown signs of decline, but he’s under contract through 2023. It feels like this could be the Tom Brady-Jimmy Garoppolo situation all over again, with the Packers eventually forced to trade Love.”

The Detroit News: C. “The Packers trade up to nab the heir apparent to Aaron Rodgers, who is 36 but still plenty effective. Love has tons of talent, but was prone to mistakes and inconsistency.”

Dan Kadar of SB Nation: D+. “This pick could pay off big down the road. A quarterback on a rookie contract is almost priceless in today’s NFL. And Love is a player who needs to sit at least a year to fix some of his flaws. But with Rodgers, the Packers should push to win now.”

Tim Bielek of Cleveland.com: D+. “This grade has nothing to do with Love. It’s about not giving your 36-year-old quarterback immediate help when they were one win from paying in the Super Bowl.”

Dustin Hockensmith of pennlive.com: C+. “Love might need a year or two before he is remotely ready for primetime, but his addition still had to have been a head-scratching moment as Rodgers tuned in from home.”

Darryl Slater of NJ.com: B-. “The Packers didn’t trade up to get Love just to have him sit around a while. How soon could he replace Aaron Rodgers? That now becomes the big question in Green Bay. But you have to wonder if it’s too soon to make a pick like this. Rodgers is still playing at a high level.”

Loaded Box Podcast: C-. “Well, this may be the shocker of round one. You’ve got the Packers in win-now mode with Aaron Rodgers, however, the team decides to make a pick in the first round that’s geared towards the future. This one puzzles me as there’s no reason the Packers shouldn’t embrace the remainder of Rodgers’ career. I’m all for making the correct moves for the future of your franchise, but this isn’t gonna sit well with Packers fans.”

GPA: 1.99

Day 2

Chris Trapasso of CBSSports.com: A.J. Dillon: C+. “Explosive train. Insane contact balance. Just enough wiggle to make one defender miss on a run. Running style could shorten his NFL career. Maybe Aaron Jones insurance?”; Josiah Deguara: C-.

Vinnie Iyer of the Sporting News: Dillon: C-.; Deguara: C.

Luke Easterling of Draft Wire: Dillon: D.

Eric Edholm of Yahoo Sports: Dillon: C. “Dillon is a hard-nosed runner but has stiff hands and mild shortcomings in pass pro. That means Aaron Jones is now freed up to be the big-play guy in an interesting 1-2 RB punch. Still a little surprising to us.”; Deguara: D+.

Andy Benoit of SI.com: Dillon: C. “The trend right now is to not pay a running back for a second contract unless he is truly special. Aaron Jones could be deemed worthy when his rookie deal expires after this season, but it’s unlikely his sidekick, Jamaal Williams, will also be. Hence the addition of Dillon.”; Deguara: B.

Mike Tanier of Bleacher Report: Dillon: D+. “Dillon will rotate with Aaron Jones, probably eating up many of Jamaal Williams’ touches. The Packers appear to be rebuilding a new roster underneath their current roster. It’s an interesting strategy for a 13-3 team with a cantankerous face-of-the-franchise quarterback. And by ‘interesting,’ I do not mean ‘wise.’ Like the player. Don’t like the decision.”; Deguara: C.

Steven Ruiz of For the Win: Dillon: D+.; Dantzler: D+.

WalterFootball.com: Dillon: F.; Deguara: F. “Is Bill Belichick’s dog doing the entire Green Bay draft? I don’t understand anything the Packers have done thus far. This pick is just awful. There were better tight ends available. I get that the Packers are filling a need, but they’re doing so with a prospect some teams thought would be available in the seventh round.”

Justin Leger of NBC Sports Boston: D.

Chad Reuter of NFL.com: D. “Why is the grade so low? Well, these picks did not address the team’s needs at receiver, linebacker, cornerback and offensive tackle.”

GPAs: Dillon – 1.45 (8 grades); Deguara – 1.7 (7 grades)

Day 3

Chad Reuter of NFL.com: C

Overall

Nate Davis of USA Today: D. “Given the unprecedented stability they’ve enjoyed for nearly 30 years at quarterback, maybe we shouldn’t argue with their methodology – which included a Round 1 trade for Love, Aaron Rodgers’ potential heir apparent. But to take Love and then come back with one-dimensional RB A.J. Dillon at the end of Round 2, it just doesn’t seem enough was done to help Rodgers – he surely would’ve liked just one of this year’s bountiful crop of receivers – win now.”

Andy Benoit of SI.com: B-. “Packer fans may not love this draft, but given it’s long-term investment slant, only time will tell how it went.”

Ryan Dunleavy of the NY Post: C.

Dan Kadar of SB Nation: D. “The Packers had a strange draft.”

Logan Mullen of NESN: D. “If their goal was to sufficiently infuriate Aaron Rodgers, they probably succeeded. After taking Jordan Love, nothing else mattered.”

Pro Football Focus: D.

Tim Bielik of cleveland.com: D+. “It’s hard to understand the thought process of this draft. The Packers were one win from the Super Bowl, yet traded up to get the potential heir at quarterback to Aaron Rodgers instead of getting him offensive help. Deguara is the closest thing they got to immediate help as a pass catcher for Rodgers, and Dillon seems like an odd pick although I like his talent. Loading up on offensive line is never a bad thing, but they had a rough weekend, especially because they passed entirely on a historic class at wide receiver.”

Vinnie Iyer of the Sporting News: D. “Last and least, where to begin with this whiff of a class for Brian Gutekunst? After working so hard to build a 13-3 Super Bowl contender with Aaron Rodgers and Matt LaFleur last year, Green Bay drafted too much for future years. Love, Dillon, Deguara all won’t help them win more games in 2020. Martin and Garvin were the best picks in relation to what they needed. They should have considered offensive tackle earlier and it was absolutely shocking to not add a wide receiver to support Rodgers. Heck, a defensive lineman for their 3-4 front even would have been nice. The Vikings, Cowboys, Buccaneers, 49ers and Saints all did much better as NFC contenders in relation, too.”

NFL editors at The Score: D.

Chad Reuter of NFL.com: C+. “Some Packers fans were not pleased that the team didn’t address needs at receiver, tackle and cornerback during the draft’s first three rounds. The three players they selected are intriguing talents, though; they will get their shot to show the skeptics their value (some sooner than others). Martin is an athletic linebacker who had an injury in 2019 but whose best football is ahead of him. The team attacked the offensive line late in the draft, picking Runyan, Hanson, and Stepaniak to shore up the depth chart. Garvin gives the team more pass rush depth.”

GPA: 1.33