Packers Huddle

Hindsight is hindsight. Facts are that as the young players got more reps in games the better they all started playing. I do think that in our offense like most of the other teams in the league, the receivers have to learn to read the defense the way the QB reads it. Can't expect the QB to know how each individual WR,TE or RB is going to adjust. That's why Love did those Monday dinners so everyone could learn what he was seeing and thinking.

Couldn't be more excited to see which WRs stay around in the next 3-5 years. Hard to believe they have hit their ceiling yet. The future is bright!!! Need to find Jones' replacement in this draft because none of the RBs seem to have a similar skill set.

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2024 15:38

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2024 14:44

salmar80 wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2024 14:23

Well, it's quite obvious that the better the band, the easier it is for the lead singer to lift it up on the charts. But there's no autotune in the NFL, you better develop into a world class singer yourself...

I'm personally glad Gutey went real young, and absolutely NAILED the past couple of drafts, because even if short term Love woulda been better off with some vets, the growth rewarded us amazingly down the stretch. Bo Melton would never have happened if we had 2 extra vet WRs on the roster.

I have no great issue here, just if Love keeps developing, please credit Love himself sometimes, not just everyone around him.

I've done that all year Salmar, plenty of posters here did give up, many wanted to start tanking games around week 6, what gets me is folks now want to over look what held Love back early, and act like it never happened, I think it's important to evaluate all the games.

as to Melton, all players are evaluated on there practice each week, why you think Melton would be a exception to that, even PS players are graded, Melton just took longer to impress the coaches.

I remember last season everyone was high on Touri, reality is that he played because the position needed him to play, we where still short on receiver talent, whats he done this season? almost nothing, the only person responsible for that is Touri, I want to win, sure I want to develop players, but using player that best help me win comes first, and a couple vet receivers could have helped us win several close games a couple months ago.

Bo Melton didn't play because he suddenly was kicking a$$ on the Psquad. Bo Melton played just like why Toure played last year. Because of necessity. Injuries led to opportunities and Melton took full advantage.

Had Watson never gotten hurt...we wouldn't know anything about Melton. Melton deserves all the credit in the world for taking advantage of his opportunity. In addition, we never know about Melton if we have a "veteran" on the roster because there would be no reason to get him on the field.

Just from a numbers standpoint we would have:
2 Veteran receivers who would probably cost $15 million a year in total between the 2.
Watson
Doubs
Reed
Wicks

Toure and Heath are PS guys and Melton isn't on the team. Reed plays sparingly, little more with Watson injured. Wicks hardly sees the field at all.

Given the position the team was in this season, it would not have been a good idea to sign veteran receivers. It would have been a waste for this season and the future. It's also so hypocritical to bitch about Gary and Love sitting, but then wanting to sit our young receivers.

This young QB has proven to be above par, at the minimum. Perhaps exceptional. I won't call a one season show elite. Give me a second year and then we can call JLo elite. But I still want to find a way to pay him prior to 2024.

I can see that, before the season, it was a valid viewpoint to sign a veteran receiver. I can, with hindsight after the season, that if we had scraped 5 or 6 wins and Love and his receivers were not improving, then it would be a valid viewpoint that we should have signed a veteran receiver. But when you look at the last 8 games or so and Love's passing and the WR and TE's receiving, I can't for the life of me see why we ought to think they got it wrong.

The young receivers have got better, at least in part because they had to - there was nobody else. They all knew they had a chance to be number 1 receiver, and yet they also managed to be a tight-knit group all working in the same direction. That is something special, and it would not necessarily have had the same (or better) outcome if we shifted some pieces round.

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2024 09:42

Rodgers had go to receiver Driver, and upstart Jennings, that never stopped him from spreading the ball around, imo if a team has one great and also a bunch of very good, all will get targeted throws, that's also part of the coaching job to make sure that happens.

what we saw with Adams and Rodgers was a result of the steep drop off to the rest of the receivers, and there inability to be open on schedule, or actually ever being open.

everyone has growing pains, better supporting cast imo lessons some of that.

I think the same for some of these comments where others are saying we are right where we are suppose to be, I think most of those posters predicted less wins, even less then we actually have

Jennings was in his third year and had 53 catches for 920 yards and 12 touchdowns the year before. He was no upstart.

Donald Driver was in his 10th year and had over 1,000 yards each of the last 4 years (and for the next two).

Ryan Grant was in his second year, coming off 956 yards rushing and 145 yards passing (8 TDs.)

Donald Lee (6th year) had 565 yards and 6 TDs the year before.

James Jones (2nd year) had 47 catches for 676 yards in his previous season, though Rodgers tended to ignore him in 2008 (20 catches on 30 targets).

This year, the WR and TE experience that Love had to throw to consisted of Christian Watson (611 career yards), Romeo Doubs (425 career yards), Josiah Deguara (371 career yards), Samori Toure (82 career yards) Total career yards = 1,489. Don't get the impression that the experience Love had to throw to was comparable with the experience Rodgers had to throw to..

Pckfn23 wrote: It's also so hypocritical to bitch about Gary and Love sitting, but then wanting to sit our young receivers.

This is the thing that kills me. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

We all knew going in that the team had committed to a roster turnover and to getting younger. Call it a rebuild, turnover, reset, whatever. This season was about developing for the future. Bringing in some vet WRs would have only undermined that effort. It’s silly to make the argument.

dsr wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2024 18:41

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2024 09:42

Rodgers had go to receiver Driver, and upstart Jennings, that never stopped him from spreading the ball around, imo if a team has one great and also a bunch of very good, all will get targeted throws, that's also part of the coaching job to make sure that happens.

what we saw with Adams and Rodgers was a result of the steep drop off to the rest of the receivers, and there inability to be open on schedule, or actually ever being open.

everyone has growing pains, better supporting cast imo lessons some of that.

I think the same for some of these comments where others are saying we are right where we are suppose to be, I think most of those posters predicted less wins, even less then we actually have

Jennings was in his third year and had 53 catches for 920 yards and 12 touchdowns the year before. He was no upstart.

Donald Driver was in his 10th year and had over 1,000 yards each of the last 4 years (and for the next two).

Ryan Grant was in his second year, coming off 956 yards rushing and 145 yards passing (8 TDs.)

Donald Lee (6th year) had 565 yards and 6 TDs the year before.

James Jones (2nd year) had 47 catches for 676 yards in his previous season, though Rodgers tended to ignore him in 2008 (20 catches on 30 targets).

This year, the WR and TE experience that Love had to throw to consisted of Christian Watson (611 career yards), Romeo Doubs (425 career yards), Josiah Deguara (371 career yards), Samori Toure (82 career yards) Total career yards = 1,489. Don't get the impression that the experience Love had to throw to was comparable with the experience Rodgers had to throw to..

Spot on. One note-James Jones battled injuries throughout 2008.

dsr wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2024 18:24

I can see that, before the season, it was a valid viewpoint to sign a veteran receiver. I can, with hindsight after the season, that if we had scraped 5 or 6 wins and Love and his receivers were not improving, then it would be a valid viewpoint that we should have signed a veteran receiver. But when you look at the last 8 games or so and Love's passing and the WR and TE's receiving, I can't for the life of me see why we ought to think they got it wrong.

The young receivers have got better, at least in part because they had to - there was nobody else. They all knew they had a chance to be number 1 receiver, and yet they also managed to be a tight-knit group all working in the same direction. That is something special, and it would not necessarily have had the same (or better) outcome if we shifted some pieces round.

hind sight 20/20 this has worked out, but it cost us some wins early, I would have done it differently.

APB wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024 06:57

Pckfn23 wrote: It's also so hypocritical to bitch about Gary and Love sitting, but then wanting to sit our young receivers.

This is the thing that kills me. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

We all knew going in that the team had committed to a roster turnover and to getting younger. Call it a rebuild, turnover, reset, whatever. This season was about developing for the future. Bringing in some vet WRs would have only undermined that effort. It’s silly to make the argument.

what does grooming Love, or Gary ( what a joke that was) have to do with these receivers, and why would I agree that we should turn over any position as we did with WR here the last couple years, it's not normal to wait for a position to become completely void of talent to do so.

and we could have gotten just one vet WR to go with all these rookies and all could have played and gotten plenty of reps and we may have won a game or two we lost and be no worse then we are now.

I want to win games, this isn't just a groom up player business

Yoop wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024 07:17

APB wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024 06:57

Pckfn23 wrote: It's also so hypocritical to bitch about Gary and Love sitting, but then wanting to sit our young receivers.

This is the thing that kills me. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

We all knew going in that the team had committed to a roster turnover and to getting younger. Call it a rebuild, turnover, reset, whatever. This season was about developing for the future. Bringing in some vet WRs would have only undermined that effort. It’s silly to make the argument.

what does grooming Love, or Gary ( what a joke that was) have to do with these receivers, and why would I agree that we should turn over any position as we did with WR here the last couple years, it's not normal to wait for a position to become completely void of talent to do so.

and we could have gotten just one vet WR to go with all these rookies and all could have played and gotten plenty of reps and we may have won a game or two we lost and be no worse then we are now.

I want to win games, this isn't just a groom up player business

Ok, I’m done with this. It’s apparent you’re either a) trolling or b) incapable of appreciating a good thing.

This “not good enough” stance you’re taking with a team that is the youngest to EVER make the playoffs with massive turnover at key positions is just nuts.

And stop RIGHT NOW with the pet topic of building the WR position over the last several years. We aren't talking about that. We are talking about this year ONLY.

we could have gotten just one vet WR

Transactional arguing at its finest.

Yoop wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024 07:17

APB wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024 06:57

Pckfn23 wrote: It's also so hypocritical to bitch about Gary and Love sitting, but then wanting to sit our young receivers.

This is the thing that kills me. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

We all knew going in that the team had committed to a roster turnover and to getting younger. Call it a rebuild, turnover, reset, whatever. This season was about developing for the future. Bringing in some vet WRs would have only undermined that effort. It’s silly to make the argument.

what does grooming Love, or Gary ( what a joke that was) have to do with these receivers, and why would I agree that we should turn over any position as we did with WR here the last couple years, it's not normal to wait for a position to become completely void of talent to do so.

and we could have gotten just one vet WR to go with all these rookies and all could have played and gotten plenty of reps and we may have won a game or two we lost and be no worse then we are now.

I want to win games, this isn't just a groom up player business

We all want to win games.

But suppose you're right. If we had won another game or two, we would have qualified for the wildcard and played away to Detroit or Tampa Bay, followed by San Francisco. Not a lot different from what we have.

But if you're wrong, the extra vet receiver would have possibly changed things for the worse - may have stunted Love's development, would surely have stunted some of the WR's development, and (for example we wouldn't have had Melton v. Minnesota) may have cost us a game. And then, we'd be out of the playoffs.

If you had a time machine to go back and do it all again, the possible negative from your policy is far greater than the possible positive. It ain't worth it. It's like a dice game. If you had the chance to throw a single die and if you threw 2,3,4,5 or 6 we moved up a place in the wild card list, but if you threw 1 we were out of the playoffs - you wouldn't touch it. The risk is too great.

It's down right delusional to think this is the model for fixing a position, sorry I don't have any Homer Sun Glasses

Yoop wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024 08:29

It's down right delusional to think this is the model for fixing a position, sorry I don't have any Homer Sun Glasses

Are you saying that the Packers haven't fixed the WR position?

dsr wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024 08:29

Yoop wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024 07:17

APB wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024 06:57

This is the thing that kills me. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

We all knew going in that the team had committed to a roster turnover and to getting younger. Call it a rebuild, turnover, reset, whatever. This season was about developing for the future. Bringing in some vet WRs would have only undermined that effort. It’s silly to make the argument.

what does grooming Love, or Gary ( what a joke that was) have to do with these receivers, and why would I agree that we should turn over any position as we did with WR here the last couple years, it's not normal to wait for a position to become completely void of talent to do so.

and we could have gotten just one vet WR to go with all these rookies and all could have played and gotten plenty of reps and we may have won a game or two we lost and be no worse then we are now.

I want to win games, this isn't just a groom up player business

We all want to win games.

But suppose you're right. If we had won another game or two, we would have qualified for the wildcard and played away to Detroit or Tampa Bay, followed by San Francisco. Not a lot different from what we have.

But if you're wrong, the extra vet receiver would have possibly changed things for the worse - may have stunted Love's development, would surely have stunted some of the WR's development, and (for example we wouldn't have had Melton v. Minnesota) may have cost us a game. And then, we'd be out of the playoffs.

If you had a time machine to go back and do it all again, the possible negative from your policy is far greater than the possible positive. It ain't worth it.

no it isn't, Love would have had a experienced receiver, which he didn't have with Watson, or even Doubs, I think he was hurt the 2nd or 3rd game, who can say for sure, but it's not as though every receiver we have right now minus maybe Touri or Dubois would have seen less targeted throws, not Melton or Heath or the rest, thats being blown out of proportion.
while it's true only so many suit up for each game we always have players missing time to injury, where always bringing in guys from the PS, with this Logic then if Watson would have been healthy all season he would have eliminated Melton, right? same as having a vet receiver , actually there where snaps for him and even the lowly Touri, like I would lose sleep if he didn't get some playing time, see how crazy that is, If I'd have never even heard his name I wouldn't care

whatever, I would have done everything about the WR position differently, but thats me.

Yoop wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024 08:43

no it isn't, Love would have had a experienced receiver, which he didn't have with Watson, or even Doubs, I think he was hurt the 2nd or 3rd game, who can say for sure, but it's not as though every receiver we have right now minus maybe Touri or Dubois would have seen less targeted throws, not Melton or Heath or the rest, thats being blown out of proportion.
while it's true only so many suit up for each game we always have players missing time to injury, where always bringing in guys from the PS, with this Logic then if Watson would have been healthy all season he would have eliminated Melton, right? same as having a vet receiver , actually there where snaps for him and even the lowly Touri, like I would lose sleep if he didn't get some playing time, see how crazy that is, If I'd have never even heard his name I wouldn't care

whatever, I would have done everything about the WR position differently, but thats me.

Sorry, but I cannot accept that you could have made a roster move that was absolutely guaranteed to be successful. No general manager can say that.

dsr wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024 08:31

Yoop wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024 08:29

It's down right delusional to think this is the model for fixing a position, sorry I don't have any Homer Sun Glasses

Are you saying that the Packers haven't fixed the WR position?

No, it's simply yet another attempt to bring EVERYTHING, back to his obsession with how the receiver position was handled over the last 7 years. Next we will hear the woe is me story about how he was persecuted for his belief that we neglect the position all those years ago and he was the only person to believe this... Neither being reality.

[mention]Yoop[/mention] Grant DuBose was NEVER on the active roster. Mentioning him is disingenuous. It's worse than when people used to drag Thompson for 2005 and forcing Taco Wallace to be a starter. FYI, Wallace never started and was only active for 1 game.

2022: why did Gute sign vet WRs? We needed more young playmakers like Doubs and Watson to win more games!
2023: why didn't Gute sign vet WRs? We needed experience to win more games!

Okay yoop, who should we have signed? ".... I don't know, someone good!"

You can win with vets, you can with with young guys. It does basically come down to just get someone good.