Green Bay Packers News 2023

[Acrobat]

Happy Monday!

[YoHoChecko]

why would you want to keep a receiver who relies on the QB over that QB, sorry Yoho That doesn't compute for me.

Oh simple, because I like Adams a lot more than I like Rodgers.

And WRs cost less than QBs. And we drafted Love in advance to replace Rodgers, and we hadn't drafted anyone high to replace Adams when he was gone.

And when Adams played without Rodgers, he still made first team All Pro, and is very happy to prove he didn't need Rodgers to be great. While without Adams, Rodgers checked out, put no effort into building chemistry with his new young options, and played like an average-to-below-average QB in a losing season, validating my desire to move on at QB rather than to move on at WR.

All valid opinions and snippets of fact. It's not like I think having a great WR is more important than having a great QB. I just thought the team was in better position to replace its great QB than its great WR.

[Acrobat]

why would you want to keep a receiver who relies on the QB over that QB, sorry Yoho That doesn't compute for me.

Oh simple, because I like Adams a lot more than I like Rodgers.

And WRs cost less than QBs. And we drafted Love in advance to replace Rodgers, and we hadn't drafted anyone high to replace Adams when he was gone.

And when Adams played without Rodgers, he still made first team All Pro, and is very happy to prove he didn't need Rodgers to be great. While without Adams, Rodgers checked out, put no effort into building chemistry with his new young options, and played like an average-to-below-average QB in a losing season, validating my desire to move on at QB rather than to move on at WR.

All valid opinions and snippets of fact. It's not like I think having a great WR is more important than having a great QB. I just thought the team was in better position to replace its great QB than its great WR.

Plus Adams is younger, so we would have gotten more mileage and Love would have had an elite WR to throw to this year (although I think Watson is going to be a beast).

[Labrev]

my goal, and it should be every fans desire is to have two very good receivers then just 1 of the very best,

No.https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... 120phi.htm

I can't relate with a person like you Labrev, all you care about is a trophy, why bother to even watch the games? simply look up the score later

If anything, I am way more able to enjoy the sport than you. You only want 1 specific brand of football: prolific passing offense, and complain about anything not directed toward that specifically: draft picks, gameplans, etc. I can get excited about drafts that are not headlined by WRs; I enjoy beating teams with superior running and defense just as much as through the pass, while you've objected to that idea saying it's too boring!

To me, there's nothing boring about doing what the Chiefs did, which patently doesn't line up with your ideal (only one elite receiving target, who's not even a WR, and that receiver only putting up 81 yards in the big game).

[YoHoChecko]

I mean, I'm not going to guess who enjoys what more...

but I will say I'd rather have four #2WRs than one #1WR and two #3 WRs; but I'd probably rather have one #1WR and two #3WRs than two #2 WRs and two #3 WRs. I dunno though.

[Yoop]

why would you want to keep a receiver who relies on the QB over that QB, sorry Yoho That doesn't compute for me.

Oh simple, because I like Adams a lot more than I like Rodgers.

And WRs cost less than QBs. And we drafted Love in advance to replace Rodgers, and we hadn't drafted anyone high to replace Adams when he was gone.

And when Adams played without Rodgers, he still made first team All Pro, and is very happy to prove he didn't need Rodgers to be great. While without Adams, Rodgers checked out, put no effort into building chemistry with his new young options, and played like an average-to-below-average QB in a losing season, validating my desire to move on at QB rather than to move on at WR.

All valid opinions and snippets of fact. It's not like I think having a great WR is more important than having a great QB. I just thought the team was in better position to replace its great QB than its great WR.

I get that, everyone likes Tae more then Rodgers, but Rodgers would have been fine without Adams just as Adams was fine with out Rodgers if our FO would have used some simple fore thought prior to Adams walking out the door and brought in a replacement for Adams they didn't even try except to draft mid tier very raw receivers.

Rodgers checked out because the FO waited so long to do anything, I didn't like that any more then you, but imo thats the reason.

[Yoop]

I mean, I'm not going to guess who enjoys what more...

but I will say I'd rather have four #2WRs than one #1WR and two #3 WRs; but I'd probably rather have one #1WR and two #3WRs than two #2 WRs and two #3 WRs. I dunno though.

come on now, I know, you know, that the first alternative is better

[YoHoChecko]

but Rodgers would have been fine without Adams just as Adams was fine with out Rodgers if our FO would have used some simple fore thought prior to Adams walking out the door and brought in a replacement for Adams they didn't even try except to draft mid tier very raw receivers.

I mean, that's part of the consideration, though, right? That was information I knew. We had no transition from Adams to the new rookies. I loved Watson; wanted him the MOST. Doubs was a pleasant surprise and seems to have the talent and mentality to be a fine young receiver. But they both came in either a year too late or Adams left a year (or more) too early.

Given that we had no one on the roster ready to step up if Adams left, keeping Adams felt important. Given that we had a 3rd-year 1st-round QB under contract, and that Rodgers was making power plays through the media...

honestly the choice of what the roster needed more seemed easy at the time and even more clear in hindsight. We didn't need Rodgers with a bunch of young, inexperienced WRs (which is a notoriously difficult combination). We needed Love with a HoF WR and a bevvy of young WRs drafted to grow with Love and learn from Adams.

[Yoop]

but Rodgers would have been fine without Adams just as Adams was fine with out Rodgers if our FO would have used some simple fore thought prior to Adams walking out the door and brought in a replacement for Adams they didn't even try except to draft mid tier very raw receivers.

I mean, that's part of the consideration, though, right? That was information I knew. We had no transition from Adams to the new rookies. I loved Watson; wanted him the MOST. Doubs was a pleasant surprise and seems to have the talent and mentality to be a fine young receiver. But they both came in either a year too late or Adams left a year (or more) too early.

Given that we had no one on the roster ready to step up if Adams left, keeping Adams felt important. Given that we had a 3rd-year 1st-round QB under contract, and that Rodgers was making power plays through the media...

honestly the choice of what the roster needed more seemed easy at the time and even more clear in hindsight. We didn't need Rodgers with a bunch of young, inexperienced WRs (which is a notoriously difficult combination). We needed Love with a HoF WR and a bevvy of young WRs drafted to grow with Love and learn from Adams.

well you know how anal I'am about this receiver situation, nothing about these last 5 or so years made sense to me, Watkins just didn't amount to what we hoped, and with Watson needing surgery to start the season it was doubly bad, I look at who we have now and I consider it better then the last half dozen years even with Tae.

and with the eager to do well Love imo our passing game will be night and day better then last year.

I'd still like a seasoned vet as a backup though, not because Love being a rookie starter and struggling, but more so because players on average don't play a full season and that includes QB's

I want to make the PO's, and be competitive every game we play

[Yoop]

No.https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... 120phi.htm

I can't relate with a person like you Labrev, all you care about is a trophy, why bother to even watch the games? simply look up the score later

If anything, I am way more able to enjoy the sport than you. You only want 1 specific brand of football: prolific passing offense, and complain about anything not directed toward that specifically: draft picks, gameplans, etc. I can get excited about drafts that are not headlined by WRs; I enjoy beating teams with superior running and defense just as much as through the pass, while you've objected to that idea saying it's too boring!

To me, there's nothing boring about doing what the Chiefs did, which patently doesn't line up with your ideal (only one elite receiving target, who's not even a WR, and that receiver only putting up 81 yards in the big game).

whats obvious is you have NO IDEA what I want, I speak about balance all the time, you act as though having a very good passing offense is all I care about, fact is every team in the league wants that to, you and few others here think Running the ball with great defense is the only way to win, and it's not, if that was the case Tampa wouldn't have sought out Brady and the Jets wouldn't care about trading for Rodgers, Denver wouldn't have acquired Wilson, ya don't see teams selling the farm to get RB's

750 plus yrds of offense in that SB, 600 of it passing the ball and 70 plus points, no, running and strong defense isn't enough, it's a passing league, and if you can't score quickly and with repetition your going home, sorta says our story over the last few years

It reminds me of this opinion you and others have that Rodgers never wants to run the ball, when in late 017 and 18 he made a specific point in several pressers that we need to run the ball more, why did he say that? simple have a good ratio of run and pass makes both forms of offense BETTER.

this great defense stuff is laugh out loud funny, again neither of KC or Philly was able to shut down either offense, yes ya need a good defense to win, but this idea of running it down on each drive and coming away with points has a huge fail rate, unless you also have success passing, balance, being good at everything you do, rather then just great at one part is my formula.

I loved watching all our great RB's through the years, but passing just gets the job done quicker, running all the time requires a great run blocking OL, and mistake free play down after down, stuff as we know is very hard to do, no secret why passing the ball is more popular.

ahhhh, ya I complain because till last year they hadn't used a high pick on a player whos main job is to catch passes and score points in 8 drafts, I think thats a worthy complaint.

[salmar80]

Lost in all this is how bad Davante's decision to leave was for about everybody.

- Davante got a big deal, which he also would've gotten from the Packers. No real win there.

- Davante failed at uniting with his buddy Carr, because his buddy sucked like a Hoover at max suction. Which eliminates all "Davante wanted to play with a proven quality QB instead of with Love" -arguments.

- Davante failed to lift the Raiders to the playoffs. There goes the "Davante wanted to play for a surefire winner" -thing.

- If Davante wanted job security, he didn't get it. May even get traded again this season.

- The Packers lost their top WR for AR's final push. If I were AR, I'd be frikkin' furious at Davante. We coulda had Davante + Watson on the boundary = pure + raw gold. Yoop's wet dream. Instead we had a mess and AR missed his chance at a dreamy ride to a sunset after a SB win. I'm surprised [mention]Yoop[/mention] isn't more mad at Adams...

- The Packers got an OK deal, but lost the O for AR's final season with us.

I hope Davante doesn't bruise his forehead with the facepalm he's about to smack when he realizes the extent of his folly.

[Labrev]

I can't relate with a person like you Labrev, all you care about is a trophy, why bother to even watch the games? simply look up the score later

If anything, I am way more able to enjoy the sport than you. You only want 1 specific brand of football: prolific passing offense, and complain about anything not directed toward that specifically: draft picks, gameplans, etc. I can get excited about drafts that are not headlined by WRs; I enjoy beating teams with superior running and defense just as much as through the pass, while you've objected to that idea saying it's too boring!

To me, there's nothing boring about doing what the Chiefs did, which patently doesn't line up with your ideal (only one elite receiving target, who's not even a WR, and that receiver only putting up 81 yards in the big game).

whats obvious is you have NO IDEA what I want, I speak about balance all the time, you act as though having a very good passing offense is all I care about, fact is every team in the league wants that to, you and few others here think Running the ball with great defense is the only way to win, and it's not, if that was the case Tampa wouldn't have sought out Brady and the Jets wouldn't care about trading for Rodgers, Denver wouldn't have acquired Wilson, ya don't see teams selling the farm to get RB's

750 plus yrds of offense in that SB, 600 of it passing the ball and 70 plus points, no, running and strong defense isn't enough, it's a passing league, and if you can't score quickly and with repetition your going home, sorta says our story over the last few years

It reminds me of this opinion you and others have that Rodgers never wants to run the ball, when in late 017 and 18 he made a specific point in several pressers that we need to run the ball more, why did he say that? simple have a good ratio of run and pass makes both forms of offense BETTER.

this great defense stuff is laugh out loud funny, again neither of KC or Philly was able to shut down either offense, yes ya need a good defense to win, but this idea of running it down on each drive and coming away with points has a huge fail rate, unless you also have success passing, balance, being good at everything you do, rather then just great at one part is my formula.

I loved watching all our great RB's through the years, but passing just gets the job done quicker, running all the time requires a great run blocking OL, and mistake free play down after down, stuff as we know is very hard to do, no secret why passing the ball is more popular.

Of course I have no idea what you want. How can I? You contradict yourself all the time!

But okay, let's roll the tape back. Here's what you said that I was responding to:

my goal, and it should be every fans desire is to have two very good receivers then just 1 of the very best, not only does it keep the cost of the position lower, it also gives the QB another top receiver to play with so they avoid tunnel vision as we saw with Adams.

You clearly said that the goal... not just for -you- what subjectively pleases your individual sensibilities... but that EVERY fan ought to share this ideal, is "two very good receivers." You roped me in with your "every" fan talk.

So I am here to say: no, actually, I am fine with doing what the Chiefs did, where only one elite receiver was provided to the QB, nor have they made it an absolute must to keep drafting WRs high every few years.

Yet I am also fine with doing what Philly did, where they did have two good receivers. I don't, as a fan, see fit to strictly limit team building to a 1 True Model. There is more than one way to skin the cat. Philly came close enough that I also approve of their model.

[Pckfn23]

Remember when all [mention]Yoop[/mention] used to say was that there are 3 things that happen on a pass play and 2 of them were bad?

[Yoop]

Remember when all @Yoop used to say was that there are 3 things that happen on a pass play and 2 of them were bad?

I wasn't the first person to say that, far as I know Vince Lombardi was, and he said it like this, "2 things happen when you pass the ball, and 2 of them are bad, go look it up.

[Yoop]

If anything, I am way more able to enjoy the sport than you. You only want 1 specific brand of football: prolific passing offense, and complain about anything not directed toward that specifically: draft picks, gameplans, etc. I can get excited about drafts that are not headlined by WRs; I enjoy beating teams with superior running and defense just as much as through the pass, while you've objected to that idea saying it's too boring!

To me, there's nothing boring about doing what the Chiefs did, which patently doesn't line up with your ideal (only one elite receiving target, who's not even a WR, and that receiver only putting up 81 yards in the big game).

whats obvious is you have NO IDEA what I want, I speak about balance all the time, you act as though having a very good passing offense is all I care about, fact is every team in the league wants that to, you and few others here think Running the ball with great defense is the only way to win, and it's not, if that was the case Tampa wouldn't have sought out Brady and the Jets wouldn't care about trading for Rodgers, Denver wouldn't have acquired Wilson, ya don't see teams selling the farm to get RB's

750 plus yrds of offense in that SB, 600 of it passing the ball and 70 plus points, no, running and strong defense isn't enough, it's a passing league, and if you can't score quickly and with repetition your going home, sorta says our story over the last few years

It reminds me of this opinion you and others have that Rodgers never wants to run the ball, when in late 017 and 18 he made a specific point in several pressers that we need to run the ball more, why did he say that? simple have a good ratio of run and pass makes both forms of offense BETTER.

this great defense stuff is laugh out loud funny, again neither of KC or Philly was able to shut down either offense, yes ya need a good defense to win, but this idea of running it down on each drive and coming away with points has a huge fail rate, unless you also have success passing, balance, being good at everything you do, rather then just great at one part is my formula.

I loved watching all our great RB's through the years, but passing just gets the job done quicker, running all the time requires a great run blocking OL, and mistake free play down after down, stuff as we know is very hard to do, no secret why passing the ball is more popular.

Of course I have no idea what you want. How can I? You contradict yourself all the time!

But okay, let's roll the tape back. Here's what you said that I was responding to:

my goal, and it should be every fans desire is to have two very good receivers then just 1 of the very best, not only does it keep the cost of the position lower, it also gives the QB another top receiver to play with so they avoid tunnel vision as we saw with Adams.

You clearly said that the goal... not just for -you- what subjectively pleases your individual sensibilities... but that EVERY fan ought to share this ideal, is "two very good receivers." You roped me in with your "every" fan talk.

So I am here to say: no, actually, I am fine with doing what the Chiefs did, where only one elite receiver was provided to the QB, nor have they made it an absolute must to keep drafting WRs high every few years.

Yet I am also fine with doing what Philly did, where they did have two good receivers. I don't, as a fan, see fit to strictly limit team building to a 1 True Model. There is more than one way to skin the cat. Philly came close enough that I also approve of their model.

I don't twist anything, you nit pick every word to invent a argument, anyone that thinks less receivers is better then having more is delusional.

[NCF]

Remember when all @Yoop used to say was that there are 3 things that happen on a pass play and 2 of them were bad?

I wasn't the first person to say that, far as I know Vince Lombardi was, and he said it like this, "2 things happen when you pass the ball, and 2 of them are bad, go look it up.

That may be true, but it is 2023 now, so I don't think there is a whole lot of Lombardi-era passing game carryover to today's NFL.

[williewasgreat]

Remember when all @Yoop used to say was that there are 3 things that happen on a pass play and 2 of them were bad?

I wasn't the first person to say that, far as I know Vince Lombardi was, and he said it like this, "2 things happen when you pass the ball, and 2 of them are bad, go look it up.

I think it was Texas coach Darrell Royal who originally said that there are 3 things that can happen when you pass and two of them are bad.

[Pckfn23]

Remember when all @Yoop used to say was that there are 3 things that happen on a pass play and 2 of them were bad?

I wasn't the first person to say that, far as I know Vince Lombardi was, and he said it like this, "2 things happen when you pass the ball, and 2 of them are bad, go look it up.

I didn't say you were the first person to say it... I simply said you to used to say it all the time... Up until 3-4 years ago that was your mantra when talking offense. It is kind of interesting to change that mantra, when running the ball has increased over that time.

[Pckfn23]

I don't twist anything, you nit pick every word to invent a argument, anyone that thinks less receivers is better then having more is delusional, and KC passed for over 400 yrds, I rest my case.

[Yoop]

Remember when all @Yoop used to say was that there are 3 things that happen on a pass play and 2 of them were bad?

I wasn't the first person to say that, far as I know Vince Lombardi was, and he said it like this, "2 things happen when you pass the ball, and 2 of them are bad, go look it up.

That may be true, but it is 2023 now, so I don't think there is a whole lot of Lombardi-era passing game carryover to today's NFL.

wha? NCF that is just as accurate now as it was in the 60's either the pass falls incomplete and you wasted a down, or it's picked off, or it's completed which is the only good result.