Page 2 of 5
Re: #4 WR
Posted: 16 May 2023 12:10
by Acrobat
yoop, when you get back from running errands, can you please point to examples of players where Toure was in the wrong position?
Re: #4 WR
Posted: 16 May 2023 12:13
by Pckfn23
YoHoChecko wrote: ↑16 May 2023 11:15
I mean guys; all Yoop is saying is that Toure really didn't show that much and is maybe getting more talk and hype than his meager rookie season merits.
You knew that wasn't true
my point is this was insult thrown at Rodgers
Re: #4 WR
Posted: 16 May 2023 12:20
by Yoop
so funny, all year ya complained Rodgers had declined to below average, and again as usual your here defending receivers, what excuse will you use when Rodgers is back to his usual ability this year?
Toure didn't catch more passes because he was the reason, not the QB
Re: #4 WR
Posted: 16 May 2023 12:23
by Labrev
Yoop wrote: ↑16 May 2023 11:42
do you ever think of why things happen or just that they do?
if Toure is only targeted 10 times on 112 snaps while other receivers are out with injury for him to even get those snaps then he obviously was not getting OPEN, which translates to running poor routes, the wrong routes, and thats about it,
Uhh no, not necessarily, there are numerous other explanations. How many of those 112 snaps were even pass plays? If he is seeing the field due to injuries, maybe we are calling more run plays so as to not rely on the young inexperienced receivers that much, especially when we have Jones and Dillon (which should have been our approach last year from the start tbh).
One thing I remember Rodgers said *weeks* before the fateful Dallas game was that the tape showed Watson getting open a lot, and Rodgers said he needed to throw to Watson more. Rodgers's own words evidence that just because he isn't targeting someone doesn't mean they aren't open.
So no, it is not evident that 10 targets on 112 snaps means poor/wrong routes. But it is evident to me why you leapt to that conclusion.
I admit maybe I shouldn't have added the comment about Rodgers, but you haters ranked on him so much, and now you show this violent retort for getting it shoved in your face again
You were only motivated to slam Toure in the first place as a retort to what Skeptic said about Rodgers not throwing to him.
You can shove it in my face all you want, that's not the issue. What's gross to me is how you go after lowly bottom-of-totem-pole guys to defend a Hollywood celebrity. It's total Karen behavior. I am convinced you will attack the team's lowliest groundskeeper, waterboy, or marketing intern if it shields Rodgers's image from a grain of dirt.
Re: #4 WR
Posted: 16 May 2023 12:25
by Yoop
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑16 May 2023 12:13
YoHoChecko wrote: ↑16 May 2023 11:15
I mean guys; all Yoop is saying is that Toure really didn't show that much and is maybe getting more talk and hype than his meager rookie season merits.
You knew that wasn't true
my point is this was insult thrown at Rodgers
yes he does know it was true
you and APB came looking to argue, you felt insulted cause I used the name Rodgers versus just saying QB, and you did so to start a fight just as you've continued to do ever since
Toure sucked, he was not where he was suppose to be OR Rodgers would have thrown him the ball more, why cause that is how this stuff works, no one held Toure back last year, specially when we saw Rodgers extending plays when he could looking for anyone that was open.
this has to be one of the dumbest most lame argumentas you've ever made.
Re: #4 WR
Posted: 16 May 2023 12:31
by Acrobat
Yoop wrote: ↑16 May 2023 12:25
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑16 May 2023 12:13
YoHoChecko wrote: ↑16 May 2023 11:15
I mean guys; all Yoop is saying is that Toure really didn't show that much and is maybe getting more talk and hype than his meager rookie season merits.
You knew that wasn't true
my point is this was insult thrown at Rodgers
yes he does know it was true
you and APB came looking to argue, you felt insulted cause I used the name Rodgers versus just saying QB, and you did so to start a fight just as you've continued to do ever since
Toure sucked, he was not where he was suppose to be OR Rodgers would have thrown him the ball more, why cause that is how this stuff works, no one held Toure back last year, specially when we saw Rodgers extending plays when he could looking for anyone that was open.
this has to be one of the dumbest most lame argumentas you've ever made.
I thought you had things to do. Obviously not. Please provide the examples we've asked you for.
Re: #4 WR
Posted: 16 May 2023 12:36
by Yoop
Labrev wrote: ↑16 May 2023 12:23
Yoop wrote: ↑16 May 2023 11:42
do you ever think of why things happen or just that they do?
if Toure is only targeted 10 times on 112 snaps while other receivers are out with injury for him to even get those snaps then he obviously was not getting OPEN, which translates to running poor routes, the wrong routes, and thats about it,
Uhh no, not necessarily, there are numerous other explanations. How many of those 112 snaps were even pass plays? If he is seeing the field due to injuries, maybe we are calling more run plays so as to not rely on the young inexperienced receivers that much, especially when we have Jones and Dillon (which should have been our approach last year from the start tbh).
One thing I remember Rodgers said *weeks* before the fateful Dallas game was that the tape showed Watson getting open a lot, and Rodgers said he needed to throw to Watson more. Rodgers's own words evidence that just because he isn't targeting someone doesn't mean they aren't open.
So no, it is not evident that 10 targets on 112 snaps means poor/wrong routes. But it is evident to me why you leapt to that conclusion.
I admit maybe I shouldn't have added the comment about Rodgers, but you haters ranked on him so much, and now you show this violent retort for getting it shoved in your face again
You were only motivated to slam Toure in the first place as a retort to what Skeptic said about Rodgers not throwing to him.
You can shove it in my face all you want, that's not the issue. What's gross to me is how you go after lowly bottom-of-totem-pole guys to defend a Hollywood celebrity. It's total Karen behavior. I am convinced you will attack the team's lowliest groundskeeper, waterboy, or marketing intern if it shields Rodgers's image from a grain of dirt.
don't give me this run play stuff, we do at least 40% play action, and if Toure would have deserved more snaps he'd have gotten them, he didn't because he is a very low floor 7th round pick and you and a few others here act as though he was a 2nd rounder.
I defended Rodgers because A Holes like you hate him so much.
I don't give a &%$@ about his off field stuff, the covid lies or any of that crap, the money either, I care about his ability as a NFL QB.
people act like Rodgers black listed players, and that is so beyond idiotic, what good would that do Rodgers the team or at minimum his fane base, if a receiver does his part Rodgers will get them the ball.
and that Love has chemistry with Toure will not stop Lafleur from using the receivers that grade the best this summer. thats very over blown since Toure even with a season others is such a low floor prospect.
you'll see.
Re: #4 WR
Posted: 16 May 2023 12:45
by Labrev
Yoop wrote: ↑16 May 2023 12:36
if Toure would have deserved more snaps he'd have gotten them,
Oh right right, not like this team has a bad habit of playing lesser players over better talent. D'ohohohohoho!
Your whole argument is just "if he was good, Rodgers would have targeted him" and nothing else. That's patently insufficient; Rodgers himself has said he doesn't always throw to guys who upon tape review were open a lot.
Now you are just mad that you are being asked to show that more clearly when you cannot, and because you are weirdly committed to feeling aggrieved over an established star athlete's first-world problems.
Re: #4 WR
Posted: 16 May 2023 12:47
by Acrobat
Still waiting for those examples of when Toure ran the wrong route.
Re: #4 WR
Posted: 16 May 2023 12:53
by Yoop
TheSkeptic wrote: ↑16 May 2023 12:32
Toure found himself in a tough spot last year having to compete with Watson and Doubs. That was not his fault. Early in the season we all had hopes for Watkins too and Lazard and Cobb were good players. Even Winfree, though he is no longer a Packer is still in the NFL. With that roster, Rodgers cannot be blamed for ignoring Toure if in fact he did.
Toure's fate is in his own hands, baring injury. If he totally dedicates himself to his profession this offseason, training to be a little faster, a little quicker, a little stronger and a little smarter there is no reason why he won't be WR#4 (Reed is likely to be #3). He might even wind up being the starting slot rather then Reed or the starting WR2 rather than Doubs.
Rodgers didn't neglect Touri, most of that kind of talk is vastly over blown hype, either a receiver is at the catch point or there not, if not they wont be thrown the pass, thats how simple this stuff is.
Reed will battle Doubs to be #2 in receptions this season, for one he plays in the slot and in the pecking order of route progression reads will almost always be the number two read, just as every slot receiver typically is, think this through OK before disagreeing, number one on most plays is one of the boundary positions, so in esence the QB reads from right to left, or vice versa, not always obviously, just most of the time, so slot or TE becaomes #2,
Touri has a lot of comp for the 4th spot against better ranked athletes who where picked in higher slots in the draft, so thats why I expect him to have trouble winning that spot.
Re: #4 WR
Posted: 16 May 2023 12:59
by Acrobat
Yoop wrote: ↑16 May 2023 12:53
Rodgers didn't neglect Touri, most of that kind of talk is vastly over blown hype, either a receiver is at the catch point or there not, if not they wont be thrown the pass, thats how simple this stuff is.
Pro Football is juuuuuuuuust a tad more complicated than that.
Now send those examples.
Re: #4 WR
Posted: 16 May 2023 12:59
by Yoop
Labrev wrote: ↑16 May 2023 12:45
Your whole argument is just "if he was good, Rodgers would have targeted him" and nothing else.
Give the lad a cookie
that is how this stuff works, has always worked, and always will work, no one black balls a Touri when there is a dire need for anyone to get open which was our situation last year.
Re: #4 WR
Posted: 16 May 2023 13:00
by Acrobat
Yoop wrote: ↑16 May 2023 12:59
Labrev wrote: ↑16 May 2023 12:45
Your whole argument is just "if he was good, Rodgers would have targeted him" and nothing else.
Give the lad a cookie
that is how this stuff works, has always worked, and always will work, no one black balls a Touri when there is a dire need for anyone to get open which was our situation last year.
No one said he was being blackballed. Literally no one. But you had said that he was in the wrong position. And you still haven't provided examples of when.
Re: #4 WR
Posted: 16 May 2023 13:00
by Yoop
Acrobat wrote: ↑16 May 2023 12:59
Yoop wrote: ↑16 May 2023 12:53
Rodgers didn't neglect Touri, most of that kind of talk is vastly over blown hype, either a receiver is at the catch point or there not, if not they wont be thrown the pass, thats how simple this stuff is.
Pro Football is juuuuuuuuust a tad more complicated than that.
Now send those examples.
never, and I guess football is to complicated for you, take up needle point
Re: #4 WR
Posted: 16 May 2023 13:02
by Acrobat
Yoop wrote: ↑16 May 2023 13:00
Acrobat wrote: ↑16 May 2023 12:59
Yoop wrote: ↑16 May 2023 12:53
Rodgers didn't neglect Touri, most of that kind of talk is vastly over blown hype, either a receiver is at the catch point or there not, if not they wont be thrown the pass, thats how simple this stuff is.
Pro Football is juuuuuuuuust a tad more complicated than that.
Now send those examples.
never, and I guess football is to complicated for you, take up needle point
What's your general feeling on people that provide a strong opinion but provide zero evidence?
Re: #4 WR
Posted: 16 May 2023 13:03
by Yoop
Acrobat wrote: ↑16 May 2023 13:00
Yoop wrote: ↑16 May 2023 12:59
Labrev wrote: ↑16 May 2023 12:45
Your whole argument is just "if he was good, Rodgers would have targeted him" and nothing else.
Give the lad a cookie
that is how this stuff works, has always worked, and always will work, no one black balls a Touri when there is a dire need for anyone to get open which was our situation last year.
No one said he was being blackballed. Literally no one. But you had said that he was in the wrong position. And you still haven't provided examples of when.
seriously Acrobat do you understand anything we are talking about, you keep clamoring for prof of anything, maybe do some reading for reasons receivers are not where there suppose to be on schedule.
Re: #4 WR
Posted: 16 May 2023 13:04
by BF004
Fun thread I now regret making.
Should have foreseen it would have taken all of 5 posts for yoop to go on a random Rodgers tangent even when no one mentioned Rodgers.
Re: #4 WR
Posted: 16 May 2023 13:04
by Acrobat
Yoop wrote: ↑16 May 2023 13:03
Acrobat wrote: ↑16 May 2023 13:00
Yoop wrote: ↑16 May 2023 12:59
Give the lad a cookie
that is how this stuff works, has always worked, and always will work, no one black balls a Touri when there is a dire need for anyone to get open which was our situation last year.
No one said he was being blackballed. Literally no one. But you had said that he was in the wrong position. And you still haven't provided examples of when.
seriously Acrobat do you understand anything we are talking about, you keep clamoring for prof of anything, maybe do some reading for reasons receivers are not where there suppose to be on schedule.
Not sure what "prof" is, but I would like to do some reading of examples to back up your claim that Toure was in the wrong position.
Re: #4 WR
Posted: 16 May 2023 13:07
by Yoop
all these repetitive question as to why I think what I do of Touri has sent Yoho packing, instead of bringing something we'd all be interested in discussing some here only want to lambast me, great forum building.
in this draft class Touri would have been a UDFA, thats how low I think Touri's chances are of even making this team.
now can we stop with all the stupd questions 23 and Acrobat
Re: #4 WR
Posted: 16 May 2023 13:09
by Acrobat
Yoop wrote: ↑16 May 2023 13:07
all these repetitive question as to why I think what I do of Touri has sent Yoho packing, instead of bringing something we'd all be interested in discussing some here only want to lambast me, great forum building.
in this draft class Touri would have been a UDFA, thats how low I think Touri's chances are of even making this team.
now can we stop with all the stupd questions 23 and Acrobat
Can you please provide examples of when Toure was in the wrong position?