Packers Huddle

MLF says they experiment with all the guys' best positions on the OL this time of year and they always want 4/5 guys trained for snapping, so it sounds like a "don't read a lot into everyone getting some C reps for a little while"

I remember saying, maybe the correct answer to "Who is WR4" is actually Musgrave.

Some lowlights by the O from earlier (or, nice plays by the D!):

Packers are really into WRs who run a 4.6 this year.

If Jakadis is anything like his Uncle Barry, we just found a good one.

Yoop wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 14:05

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 13:58

Yoop wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 13:37

because my argument is centered on just how stupid it was not to improve the WR situation before the 2022 draft, duh.

Yes, we know. It does not have to be brought into every thread.

and if there are more ways to build a team, then every team would mimic SF, no one would pay huge money for QB's and receivers wouldn't make 20 plus mil.

Philadelphia and Kansas City were built differently, which exemplifies how teams with different roster emphasis can succeed.

this run and play great defense rarely gets the job done on it's own, in fact almost never, KC had to score 17 points in the 4th quarter to win, ya don't do that just running the ball, which they didn't, those 4th quarter points came from passing and a FG.

And yet KC didn't have the coveted 1a and 1b at WR...

ahhh, they where built the same. KC just couldn't replace Brown or there #1 that left, they still had shuster and Kelse. More etc... both teams are and where built to pass the ball first and run second.

There was no Brown on Chiefs. Their #1 receiver BY FAR was a TE with no WR over 1000 yards. The Eagles had 2 WRs over 1000 yards and were built with good OL play in mind which also led to a good running game.

Every team in the NFL is pass first, so let's not say that means every team is built the same. That's just a very narrow viewpoint lacking in any subtlety.

The entire point is that a team does not need a 1a and 1b at WR to win a Super Bowl.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 15:16

Yoop wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 14:05

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 13:58

Yes, we know. It does not have to be brought into every thread.


Philadelphia and Kansas City were built differently, which exemplifies how teams with different roster emphasis can succeed.


And yet KC didn't have the coveted 1a and 1b at WR...

ahhh, they where built the same. KC just couldn't replace Brown or there #1 that left, they still had shuster and Kelse. More etc... both teams are and where built to pass the ball first and run second.

There was no Brown on Chiefs. Their #1 receiver BY FAR was a TE with no WR over 1000 yards. The Eagles had 2 WRs over 1000 yards and were built with good OL play in mind which also led to a good running game.

Every team in the NFL is pass first, so let's not say that means every team is built the same. That's just a very narrow viewpoint lacking in any subtlety.

The entire point is that a team does not need a 1a and 1b at WR to win a Super Bowl.

I mistook Brown for Hill, and in 2021 Hill and Kelse combined for almost 2400 yrds, you may not need 1A 1B, but KC had Shuster, Toney, MVS, and Moore, that Philly had to try and cover, in the end they couldn't stop Moore and Kelse from scoring because KC had multiple receivers and a great TE, it's a numbers thing, who do you double

did we ever consider Jordy Nelson and Randal Cobb 1A 1B? no, yet those two also combined for over 2300 yrds, and that has been our best 1 2 punch since we drafted Adams in 2014, and up till 3 years ago we couldn't run the ball either.

williewasgreat wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 11:02

Yoop wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 10:51

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 10:37

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.

from what I could find I think your right, course we don't want to exclude coach Woody" one punch" Hayes from the list of coaches that felt passing was a iffy proposition, I found this.

https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/ne ... m_are_bad/

Yoop wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 16:00

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 15:16

Yoop wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 14:05

ahhh, they where built the same. KC just couldn't replace Brown or there #1 that left, they still had shuster and Kelse. More etc... both teams are and where built to pass the ball first and run second.

There was no Brown on Chiefs. Their #1 receiver BY FAR was a TE with no WR over 1000 yards. The Eagles had 2 WRs over 1000 yards and were built with good OL play in mind which also led to a good running game.

Every team in the NFL is pass first, so let's not say that means every team is built the same. That's just a very narrow viewpoint lacking in any subtlety.

The entire point is that a team does not need a 1a and 1b at WR to win a Super Bowl.

I mistook Brown for Hill, and in 2021 Hill and Kelse combined for almost 2400 yrds, you may not need 1A 1B, but KC had Shuster, Toney, MVS, and Moore, that Philly had to try and cover, in the end they couldn't stop Moore and Kelse from scoring because KC had multiple receivers and a great TE, it's a numbers thing, who do you double

did we ever consider Jordy Nelson and Randal Cobb 1A 1B? no, yet those two also combined for over 2300 yrds, and that has been our best 1 2 punch since we drafted Adams in 2014, and up till 3 years ago we couldn't run the ball either.

So in previous arguments, you've slammed MVS for not being a good compliment to Davante, but now he was a good compliment to Kelce?

Acrobat wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 16:28

Yoop wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 16:00

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 15:16

There was no Brown on Chiefs. Their #1 receiver BY FAR was a TE with no WR over 1000 yards. The Eagles had 2 WRs over 1000 yards and were built with good OL play in mind which also led to a good running game.

Every team in the NFL is pass first, so let's not say that means every team is built the same. That's just a very narrow viewpoint lacking in any subtlety.

The entire point is that a team does not need a 1a and 1b at WR to win a Super Bowl.

I mistook Brown for Hill, and in 2021 Hill and Kelse combined for almost 2400 yrds, you may not need 1A 1B, but KC had Shuster, Toney, MVS, and Moore, that Philly had to try and cover, in the end they couldn't stop Moore and Kelse from scoring because KC had multiple receivers and a great TE, it's a numbers thing, who do you double

did we ever consider Jordy Nelson and Randal Cobb 1A 1B? no, yet those two also combined for over 2300 yrds, and that has been our best 1 2 punch since we drafted Adams in 2014, and up till 3 years ago we couldn't run the ball either.

So in previous arguments, you've slammed MVS for not being a good compliment to Davante, but now he was a good compliment to Kelce?

right, MVS is a field stretching decoy, and I don't think he caught a pass in that game, coupled with Toney, Shuster, Moore, and Kelse, all athletic receivers they provide a better 5 then we've had

Yoop wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 16:34

Acrobat wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 16:28

Yoop wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 16:00

I mistook Brown for Hill, and in 2021 Hill and Kelse combined for almost 2400 yrds, you may not need 1A 1B, but KC had Shuster, Toney, MVS, and Moore, that Philly had to try and cover, in the end they couldn't stop Moore and Kelse from scoring because KC had multiple receivers and a great TE, it's a numbers thing, who do you double

did we ever consider Jordy Nelson and Randal Cobb 1A 1B? no, yet those two also combined for over 2300 yrds, and that has been our best 1 2 punch since we drafted Adams in 2014, and up till 3 years ago we couldn't run the ball either.

So in previous arguments, you've slammed MVS for not being a good compliment to Davante, but now he was a good compliment to Kelce?

right, MVS is a field stretching decoy, and I don't think he caught a pass in that game, coupled with Toney, Shuster, Moore, and Kelse, all athletic receivers they provide a better 5 then we've had

So just to confirm, you believe that MVS is a good complimentary WR?

Ok guys, I want to show you all something. It's from 2 or 3 pages ago. Y'all may hate me for this, but since it keeps coming up over and over again....

Here's what happens if you respond to Yoop like a normal poster instead of fact checking and calling out all his contradictions. A normal, non-aggressive, not overly side-tracked, not runaway exchange between two (three, for a second) Packers fans with different opinions about Rodgers, Adams, and the Front Office.

It's not that hard. And the issue is never "one poster." You all decide how to respond and reply. If you don't like threads and conversations getting sidetracked, there are ways to engage without participating in the runaway angst.

Acrobat wrote: ↑

22 May 2023 11:37

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

22 May 2023 11:35

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 May 2023 10:26

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).

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 May 2023 12:23

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

22 May 2023 11:35

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 wrote: ↑

22 May 2023 12:25

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

22 May 2023 12:02

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

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 May 2023 14:52

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

22 May 2023 13:20

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 May 2023 12:23

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

[mention]Labrev[/mention] Thanks for all the OTA tweets!

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 17:44

Ok guys, I want to show you all something. It's from 2 or 3 pages ago. Y'all may hate me for this, but since it keeps coming up over and over again....

Here's what happens if you respond to Yoop like a normal poster instead of fact checking and calling out all his contradictions. A normal, non-aggressive, not overly side-tracked, not runaway exchange between two (three, for a second) Packers fans with different opinions about Rodgers, Adams, and the Front Office.

It's not that hard. And the issue is never "one poster." You all decide how to respond and reply. If you don't like threads and conversations getting sidetracked, there are ways to engage without participating in the runaway angst.

Acrobat wrote: ↑

22 May 2023 11:37

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

22 May 2023 11:35

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).

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 May 2023 12:23

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

22 May 2023 11:35

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 wrote: ↑

22 May 2023 12:25

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

22 May 2023 12:02

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

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 May 2023 14:52

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

22 May 2023 13:20

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

You are a gentleman and a scholar.

So…. Packer news?

I need more ota tweets. Feel free to just inject them directly into my veins.

BF004 wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 18:57

So…. Packer news?

I need more ota tweets. Feel free to just inject them directly into my veins.

Aaron rodgers tweaked his calf at practice. Expected to make a full recovery.

A few other OTA notes from Andy Herman (something something blogger) on offense as per his video:

-LVN took reps with the 2's
-WR: Watson and Doubs, with Toure and Reed rotating in
-Luke Musgrave took some reps with the 1s at TE, but Deguara was ahead of him
-Colby Wooden rotating in with the 1s at DL
-Sean Rhyan took reps at C(!)
-Zach Tom took reps at RG and RT

Labrev wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 19:04

A few other OTA notes from Andy Herman (something something blogger) on offense as per his video:

-LVN took reps with the 2's

Was there mention where he's playing? Strictly outside or inside/outside? Personally, I would love for him to be focused on outside in his first year. Versatility is better utilized with experience and savvy. Get him as good as he can get off the edge. Let our interior rushers be interior rushers (more on that in a sec)

Labrev wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 19:04

-WR: Watson and Doubs, with Toure and Reed rotating in
-Luke Musgrave took some reps with the 1s at TE, but Deguara was ahead of him

Love Reed getting rotated in from the start. Might be a camp darling.
Makes sense on TEs--especially because the two mentioned are likely pretty different roles. Deguara can be the standard #1, but some packages/installs/situations likely call for more of a receiver-type

Labrev wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 19:04

-Colby Wooden rotating in with the 1s at DL

This is my dawg of the Day Three picks this year. I loved his presser. This dude will do anything to get on the field. He has a role. He's another "versatile" guy that I think will benefit from being singularly focused. Give him a package of interior pass rush scenarios/formations, and let him rip at them.

Labrev wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 19:04

-Sean Rhyan took reps at C(!)

A thing I mentioned from the presser....

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 14:51

MLF says they experiment with all the guys' best positions on the OL this time of year and they always want 4/5 guys trained for snapping, so it sounds like a "don't read a lot into everyone getting some C reps for a little while"

...at least that's how I read it.

Labrev wrote: ↑

23 May 2023 19:04

-Zach Tom took reps at RG and RT

I hope he's gotten stronger. He screams left side to me, but the need is on the right. If he can lock down RT, the OL in probably in good shape. But I still see him as the LT of the future.