From Lambeau to Lombardi, Holmgren, McCarthy and LaFleur and from Starr to Favre, Rodgers and now Jordan Love we’re talking Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers football. This Packers Forum is the place to talk NFL football and everything Packers. So, pull up a keyboard, make yourself at home and let’s talk some Packers football.
I think Adams' comments are overreported because everyone wants him to be a diva and force his way out of a crummy QB/offense situation in Vegas, but he's still a pretty cool guy who isn't taking the bait, but he's open and media friendly so he says ENOUGH that people find crumbs to pick up
Personally I am glad Adams isn't a Packer. I thought at first I wanted him to help grow Love's confidence. But I think Love and the Pack are better off without Adams now.
Personally I am glad Adams isn't a Packer. I thought at first I wanted him to help grow Love's confidence. But I think Love and the Pack are better off without Adams now.
Yeah having that one guy you have to force feed could have slowed down Love's development. With a ton of kids, you look around and hit the open man.
Maybe Love is a better gamer than practice player. AR is so disciplines and so precise with everything, he showed early on (2005) in practice he had something special. It might have taken Love actually playing in real games to show what he had even to those close to him. Thus these comments from Adams and also Murphy earlier last summer saying they would need half a season to see how he does.
Personally I am glad Adams isn't a Packer. I thought at first I wanted him to help grow Love's confidence. But I think Love and the Pack are better off without Adams now.
Me too. We probably would not have Watson and Doubs and Wicks and Melton. Instead we would have a player at the end of his career with a huge cap hit.
Personally I am glad Adams isn't a Packer. I thought at first I wanted him to help grow Love's confidence. But I think Love and the Pack are better off without Adams now.
Same. Let him be the alpha in the locker room without these other alphas looking over his shoulder
Personally I am glad Adams isn't a Packer. I thought at first I wanted him to help grow Love's confidence. But I think Love and the Pack are better off without Adams now.
Yeah having that one guy you have to force feed could have slowed down Love's development. With a ton of kids, you look around and hit the open man.
tend to agree, specially when the drop from #1 to #2 is wide, the goal is to move the chains, and the guy most consistently able to do that is going to get the ball more, obviously some tunnel vision will result, and we saw that with AR and Adams.
always said, better to be in the situation we are now, then we had been since 2016, even though we had Adams.
Personally I am glad Adams isn't a Packer. I thought at first I wanted him to help grow Love's confidence. But I think Love and the Pack are better off without Adams now.
Yeah having that one guy you have to force feed could have slowed down Love's development. With a ton of kids, you look around and hit the open man.
tend to agree, specially when the drop from #1 to #2 is wide, the goal is to move the chains, and the guy most consistently able to do that is going to get the ball more, obviously some tunnel vision will result, and we saw that with AR and Adams.
always said, better to be in the situation we are now, then we had been since 2016, even though we had Adams.
Harken back to the days when our #2 receivers (the guys behind James Lofton for example) were "just OK". Perry Kemp, Walter Stanley, Phil E-P-P-S, to name a few. The after Lofton departed guys like Query, Schroeder, Clayton. Our new receiver corp is awesome compared to the post John Jefferson #2 receiver years. Even Davante's #2s weren't all that great near the end of the Rodgers era. Lazard and an aging Randall Cobb..........gimme and everyone else a break. Oh yeah.........what about the time period when we had Janis. Or Abbreveris, St. Brown, Valdez-Scantling
Yeah having that one guy you have to force feed could have slowed down Love's development. With a ton of kids, you look around and hit the open man.
tend to agree, specially when the drop from #1 to #2 is wide, the goal is to move the chains, and the guy most consistently able to do that is going to get the ball more, obviously some tunnel vision will result, and we saw that with AR and Adams.
always said, better to be in the situation we are now, then we had been since 2016, even though we had Adams.
Harken back to the days when our #2 receivers (the guys behind James Lofton for example) were "just OK". Perry Kemp, Walter Stanley, Phil E-P-P-S, to name a few. The after Lofton departed guys like Query, Schroeder, Clayton. Our new receiver corp is awesome compared to the post John Jefferson #2 receiver years. Even Davante's #2s weren't all that great near the end of the Rodgers era. Lazard and an aging Randall Cobb..........gimme and everyone else a break. Oh yeah.........what about the time period when we had Janis. Or Abbreveris, St. Brown, Valdez-Scantling
a quote from Ron Wolf speaks volumes, Ron (paraphrased) "if I could do one thing over, I would have gotten better receivers"
He used FA and brought in Howard, Jackson and Rison and we won a SB
Sorry but there isn't a team in the league that wouldn't be better with Davante Adams on it.
no, no, no, that is not the question it's Adams and tier 3 and 4 talent, versus 2 or 3, 2nd tier receivers like what we appear to have now, 1 or 2 could even become 1st tier
IMO Adams is like a 1+ tier talent, not many like that, your right any team would benefit having a receiver of that caliber, thats why they get 30 plus million a year
Sorry but there isn't a team in the league that wouldn't be better with Davante Adams on it.
no, no, no, that is not the question it's Adams and tier 3 and 4 talent, versus 2 or 3, 2nd tier receivers like what we appear to have now, 1 or 2 could even become 1st tier
IMO Adams is like a 1+ tier talent, not many like that, your right any team would benefit having a receiver of that caliber, thats why they get 30 plus million a year
You've made the question what you want, but the original remark was that Love and the Packers are better off without Adams. We're better off financially, for sure, but we're not a better football team or quarterback because we don't have Adams.
Sorry but there isn't a team in the league that wouldn't be better with Davante Adams on it.
no, no, no, that is not the question it's Adams and tier 3 and 4 talent, versus 2 or 3, 2nd tier receivers like what we appear to have now, 1 or 2 could even become 1st tier
IMO Adams is like a 1+ tier talent, not many like that, your right any team would benefit having a receiver of that caliber, thats why they get 30 plus million a year
You've made the question what you want, but the original remark was that Love and the Packers are better off without Adams. We're better off financially, for sure, but we're not a better football team or quarterback because we don't have Adams.
