Packers Huddle

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 15:14

bud fox wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 15:08

Yeah cause we have won the Super Bowl.

I don't even know what to say, the response is essentially "Yeah we could have improved but doesn't matter". I guess my thoughts are it does matter that our team gets better.

If you're using the draft to improve the team in the immediate term without a top 10 pick, you're just rollin the dice.

Everyone points to Jefferson, but Reagor and Ayiuk (as nice as they look as players) have not made any real tangible difference to their teams. And the WRs we do have are part of the literal best offense in the league.

A rookie DT would barely make much difference. You probably hated the Kenny Clark pick for the first 18 months.

I just wrote a whole post on the team-building process we are clearly utilizing a page ago. It's incredibly obvious to anyone who pays the faintest bit of attention that our head coach prefers to avoid playing rookies and that our HC and GM are operating to open a window of sustained success.

The team got better in each of the past two years through the improvement of 2nd and 3rd year players and the addition of free agents FAR more than they got better due to rookie contributions. The ONLY exception is Jenkins and he only started due to an injury.

Your view on how teams build and improve is not a difference of opinion. It is incorrect. The best rookie classes might have 2-3 guys make an impact, and rarely more than 2 making impacts on a level that goes beyond "really impressive for a rookie season."

We have had two GMs now, in a row, who have built a consistently winning football team that has appeared in far more than its share of conference championship games by building teams this way.

If you haven't caught on yet, you never will. And that's a failing of yours, not of the team's.

LOL we have had the best QB of all time during that period. Consistent winning comes with that.

Tee Higgins was right there for us - are you saying he wouldn't have helped the team? Jordyn Brooks?

You are making excuses for poor picks. Who did we bring in - Kirksey? Billy Turner an olineman who would be found out with other QBs not named Rodgers.

Getting value out of rookie contracts is vital for a winning team due to salary cap control.

bud fox wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 15:34

LOL we have had the best QB of all time during that period. Consistent winning comes with that.

Tee Higgins was right there for us - are you saying he wouldn't have helped the team? Jordyn Brooks?

You are making excuses for poor picks. Who did we bring in - Kirksey? Billy Turner an olineman who would be found out with other QBs not named Rodgers.

Getting value out of rookie contracts is vital for a winning team due to salary cap control.

Correct Tee Higgins would not have started for this team except during the time when Lazard and Adams were out. We have the #1 offense in the league and a QB who famously prefers WRs who he knows he can trust and get on the same page with. Higgins would be a bit role player on this team this year.

Jordyn Brooks has played 23% of his team's snaps. What evidence do you have that he has done any more than Kirksey has for us, or heck even Martin will by the end of the season.

Are there picks that could have worked out perfectly for us. Yeah, we could have taken Patrick Queen, who is doing great and playing a lot for a team that isn't awful.

But when you look at these top teams and check how often their rookies are playing...

The Saints have had Cesar Ruiz in and out of the OL lineup; Zach Baun, their 3rd round LB, has barely played.

The Chiefs apparently hit a home run with CEH, but he has fallen off bigtime, he's played 55% of their snaps. Their second round pick, Willie Gay, has played about 20% of snaps.

The Steelers didn't even have a first round pick. Claypool has been a nice find for them as a 2nd round WR, but certainly with JuJu, Johnson, and even Washington, was not a need pick or the difference in their season (62% of snaps)

The Rams didn't have a 1st round pick and took Cam Akers in the second. He's been their #3 RB

The Seahawks we already mentioned Jordyn Brooks being a smalltime player for them. Their 2nd round pick has spent the year on IR

The Titans' first round pick (OT Isiah Wilson) hasn't played. Their second round pick has played 21% of their snaps.


You do not want to be a team so bad that its rookies have to play large roles. Almost no contenders have rookies driving them to the championship. Good teams rotate, ease, and develop their rookies into the lineup. Bad teams play their rookies out of necessity and often get volume production. It's incredibly rare for a rookie to force his way into a starting or difference-making role on a contending team. If you think a rookie is going to get you to the Super Bowl, you're either dead wrong, or counting on getting very lucky.

Tee Higgins is better than Lazard. I am guessing Jefferson would be behind Lazard if we got him?

It is not about a rookie getting us to a SB, that is Rodgers, it is about tipping the scale ever so slightly. If coaches play worse players just because they aren't rookies then that is on the coach and a fault in there approach.

Steelers have talent at WR still they are playing Claypool, Queen would have made an impact.

Team won't be found out to Rodgers is gone then personnel moves over the years will have some spotlight on it.

Grousing over Jefferson needs to stop. We were not giving up a 2nd or at the very least a 3rd and 4th to move to 21 and select him. That is just not good value.

Also using hindsight to say we should have taken this or that proves nothing more than convenience. Most didn't like Higgins, so to say we should have taken him now is disingenuous. He would not have started over Lazard anyway.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 16:31

Grousing over Jefferson needs to stop. We were not giving up a 2nd or at the very least a 3rd and 4th to move to 21 and select him. That is just not good value.

Also using hindsight to say we should have taken this or that proves nothing more than convenience. Most didn't like Higgins, so to say we should have taken him now is disingenuous. He would not have started over Lazard anyway.

100%. Since some of the talking heads had us taking Jefferson and the Vikings got him WHEN WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO TRADE UP EVEN HIGHER TO GET HIM, and he is doing great, makes some bitter Packer fans heads spin. It is sickening really.

Yeah Jefferson was never going to happen.

I think I am justified for being mad at Queen because he was there.

But I also will allow this to play itself out. I don't know what Love will be. I don't know what Martin will even be because his rookie start got hampered with injury.

There just isn't enough story yet written for me to judge too much.

You know what would be funny?

If we won the SB this year.

Then we would've both picked for the future and won in the present, and had provided enough weapons for AR to do it.



-----

I'm totally fine with people who think we shoulda used our high picks on immediate needs this year. It makes a ton of sense.

But I also think it makes a ton of sense to mostly not pick for immediate need - especially in a year without OTAs and a limited camp. And it makes sense to use a 1st round pick a QB you believe will become a franchise one whenever that is possible, even if it's not ideal timing. Made sense with Favre, made sense with Aaron, makes sense with Love.

go pak go wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 16:37

Yeah Jefferson was never going to happen.

I think I am justified for being mad at Queen because he was there.

But I also will allow this to play itself out. I don't know what Love will be. I don't know what Martin will even be because his rookie start got hampered with injury.

There just isn't enough story yet written for me to judge too much.

Great post. Yep, I was in the same boat with Queen. Really wanted him and he could have helped us. But the long game was Love, and we simply just do not know yet. Hoping it pans out like last time Packer fans were so mad when we drafted a QB, but lightning couldn't strike twice, could it?

bud fox wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 16:14

Tee Higgins is better than Lazard. I am guessing Jefferson would be behind Lazard if we got him?

It is not about a rookie getting us to a SB, that is Rodgers, it is about tipping the scale ever so slightly. If coaches play worse players just because they aren't rookies then that is on the coach and a fault in there approach.

Steelers have talent at WR still they are playing Claypool, Queen would have made an impact.

Team won't be found out to Rodgers is gone then personnel moves over the years will have some spotlight on it.

Tee Higgins may wind up having a better career than Lazard. But I promise you that at the beginning of the season and throughout his rookie year, Tee Higgins would not have displaced Lazard. He'd be competing for MVS reps, which during the 6 weeks without Lazard, would have been significant.

Like I said, there are certainly players that could have made a difference, but you don't know in advance which those are. Brooks and Marshall went ahead of Queen, but Queen is making a bigger difference.

Jefferson would certainly have forced his way onto the field for us, in a prominent role, no doubt. But the Eagles took Reagor one pick earlier. Heck, tell it to the Raiders or Broncos who took Juedy and Ruggs

All of these guys, by the way, would have required trading up (some more than we actually did trade up).

But you can literally count on one hand the number of rookies pushing contending team higher right now. Naming them and saying "that's what we should have done" is cherry-picking and hindsight. It's the narrative of convenience to present an alternate reality that cannot be proven in which we are somehow even better than the 9-3 team we currently have because we made just the right pick.

If you can show me posts from before the draft where you predicted that Jefferson would be the best WR in the draft and we should trade up for him or that Claypool would be better than Denzel Mims or that we should trade up to jump the Ravens to take Patrick Queen (and there are definitely people on this board who could show me those posts, certainly)... then, like, cool. You were right so far based on the short-term evidence.

But here we are in the middle of a season where we're a top-4 team, to be sure, with every decent chance of winning a Super Bowl, and you're still moaning about a draft from April that has relatively little impact on this season across the league. And if you're just going to say "we could have taken position X or Y" like, ok. But they're not guaranteed and by far the most likely outcome is a player that doesn't make a big year one impact.

So yeah, signing Kirksey was a better move for THIS YEAR than drafting Jordyn Brooks. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that, but it's true. And yeah, trotting out Adams, Lazard, MVS, and EQSB worked out great--the BEST OFFENSE IN THE LEAGUE--so drafting Tee Higgins or Michael Pittman at 30 probably wouldn't make a big difference. And good grief I wanted to sign a DT, but taking Blacklock at 30 or Madibuke at 62 wasn't going to help us contend this year. Counting on rookie contributions to put you over the top is operating from a position of weakness. You need guys on rookie contracts, certainly (35 of our 52 active have less than a full 4 years in the league). But rookie contracts last 4 years, not one.

I didn't like the Love pick, but the idea that a WR would have made this team *so* much better does not reflect an accurate assessment of this team. WR is not the problem. Hell, it's not even *a* problem:

-- We have the best WR1 in the league.
-- I was a Lazard skeptic coming into this season. I was wrong; he has proven to be a rock-solid WR2.
-- We have a TE now, which is a bigger deal than I think a lot of folks realize.
Lastly, the guys behind Adams/Lazard are not bad depth guys, and more importantly, we are not running the MM scheme where we have to be deep at the position.

Rather than fixate on some ideal image in our heads of what this team should look like (without considering how other areas of the team would be affected by the moves necessary to make that a reality), it's better to look at the games they lost and why. By and large, WR was not the reason for any of them except mayyybe Indy, but there were much bigger issues there than WR play (mainly a defense that routinely gave up 3rd-and-long's).

Labrev wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 17:37

I didn't like the Love pick, but the idea that a WR would have made this team *so* much better does not reflect an accurate assessment of this team. WR is not the problem. Hell, it's not even *a* problem:

-- We have the best WR1 in the league.
-- I was a Lazard skeptic coming into this season. I was wrong; he has proven to be a rock-solid WR2.
-- We have a TE now, which is a bigger deal than I think a lot of folks realize.
Lastly, the guys behind Adams/Lazard are not bad depth guys, and more importantly, we are not running the MM scheme where we have to be deep at the position.

Rather than fixate on some ideal image in our heads of what this team should look like (without considering how other areas of the team would be affected by the moves necessary to make that a reality), it's better to look at the games they lost and why. By and large, WR was not the reason for any of them except mayyybe Indy, but there were much bigger issues there than WR play (mainly a defense that routinely gave up 3rd-and-long's).

Labrev wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 17:37

I didn't like the Love pick, but the idea that a WR would have made this team *so* much better does not reflect an accurate assessment of this team. WR is not the problem. Hell, it's not even *a* problem:

-- We have the best WR1 in the league.
-- I was a Lazard skeptic coming into this season. I was wrong; he has proven to be a rock-solid WR2.
-- We have a TE now, which is a bigger deal than I think a lot of folks realize.
Lastly, the guys behind Adams/Lazard are not bad depth guys, and more importantly, we are not running the MM scheme where we have to be deep at the position.

Rather than fixate on some ideal image in our heads of what this team should look like (without considering how other areas of the team would be affected by the moves necessary to make that a reality), it's better to look at the games they lost and why. By and large, WR was not the reason for any of them except mayyybe Indy, but there were much bigger issues there than WR play (mainly a defense that routinely gave up 3rd-and-long's).

We will see the ability once Rodgers is gone.

bud fox wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 18:09

Labrev wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 17:37

I didn't like the Love pick, but the idea that a WR would have made this team *so* much better does not reflect an accurate assessment of this team. WR is not the problem. Hell, it's not even *a* problem:

-- We have the best WR1 in the league.
-- I was a Lazard skeptic coming into this season. I was wrong; he has proven to be a rock-solid WR2.
-- We have a TE now, which is a bigger deal than I think a lot of folks realize.
Lastly, the guys behind Adams/Lazard are not bad depth guys, and more importantly, we are not running the MM scheme where we have to be deep at the position.

Rather than fixate on some ideal image in our heads of what this team should look like (without considering how other areas of the team would be affected by the moves necessary to make that a reality), it's better to look at the games they lost and why. By and large, WR was not the reason for any of them except mayyybe Indy, but there were much bigger issues there than WR play (mainly a defense that routinely gave up 3rd-and-long's).

We will see the ability once Rodgers is gone.

And we will be able to afford a #2 when Rodgers is gone because of the dollars saved at the QB position.

Absolutely Rodgers has elevated our WR corps. Yet again, a player of Rodgers's caliber should elevate his players.

I agree with the sentiments above. I don't see how a WR would really add to this team. Our postseason hopes and ability of this squad falls more heavily on our defense.

But even beyond that, and Rodgers said this himself, our team's ability and where we must improve the most is coming out of halftime strong.

go pak go wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 18:29

bud fox wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 18:09

Labrev wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 17:37

I didn't like the Love pick, but the idea that a WR would have made this team *so* much better does not reflect an accurate assessment of this team. WR is not the problem. Hell, it's not even *a* problem:

-- We have the best WR1 in the league.
-- I was a Lazard skeptic coming into this season. I was wrong; he has proven to be a rock-solid WR2.
-- We have a TE now, which is a bigger deal than I think a lot of folks realize.
Lastly, the guys behind Adams/Lazard are not bad depth guys, and more importantly, we are not running the MM scheme where we have to be deep at the position.

Rather than fixate on some ideal image in our heads of what this team should look like (without considering how other areas of the team would be affected by the moves necessary to make that a reality), it's better to look at the games they lost and why. By and large, WR was not the reason for any of them except mayyybe Indy, but there were much bigger issues there than WR play (mainly a defense that routinely gave up 3rd-and-long's).

We will see the ability once Rodgers is gone.

And we will be able to afford a #2 when Rodgers is gone because of the dollars saved at the QB position.

Absolutely Rodgers has elevated our WR corps. Yet again, a player of Rodgers's caliber should elevate his players.

I agree with the sentiments above. I don't see how a WR would really add to this team. Our postseason hopes and ability of this squad falls more heavily on our defense.

But even beyond that, and Rodgers said this himself, our team's ability and where we must improve the most is coming out of halftime strong.

Wrong - our hopes fall heavily on Rodgers and that has always been the case. The point you are making should be that our def can at least give Rodgers a chance.

bud fox wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 18:35

go pak go wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 18:29

bud fox wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 18:09

We will see the ability once Rodgers is gone.

And we will be able to afford a #2 when Rodgers is gone because of the dollars saved at the QB position.

Absolutely Rodgers has elevated our WR corps. Yet again, a player of Rodgers's caliber should elevate his players.

I agree with the sentiments above. I don't see how a WR would really add to this team. Our postseason hopes and ability of this squad falls more heavily on our defense.

But even beyond that, and Rodgers said this himself, our team's ability and where we must improve the most is coming out of halftime strong.

Wrong - our hopes fall heavily on Rodgers and that has always been the case. The point you are making should be that our def can at least give Rodgers a chance.

So you want the Packers to not be heavily reliant on Rodgers like the 2019 were.

I agree. I wish and thought it would be the case. Unfortunately the same defensive players took a step back which was expected a little bit. But I didn't expect it to the level it has occured.

bud fox wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 18:35

Wrong - our hopes fall heavily on Rodgers and that has always been the case. The point you are making should be that our def can at least give Rodgers a chance.

Explain to me why the team is better in 2019 and 2020 than in 2017 and 2018.

We had Rodgers for both 2-year stretches.

We had Davante Adams for both 2-year stretches.

We had Mike Pettine for part of the first and part of the second.

What's the difference. If our chances rise and fall only due to Rodgers, why does Rodgers rise and fall?

go pak go wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 18:29

bud fox wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 18:09

Labrev wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 17:37

I didn't like the Love pick, but the idea that a WR would have made this team *so* much better does not reflect an accurate assessment of this team. WR is not the problem. Hell, it's not even *a* problem:

-- We have the best WR1 in the league.
-- I was a Lazard skeptic coming into this season. I was wrong; he has proven to be a rock-solid WR2.
-- We have a TE now, which is a bigger deal than I think a lot of folks realize.
Lastly, the guys behind Adams/Lazard are not bad depth guys, and more importantly, we are not running the MM scheme where we have to be deep at the position.

Rather than fixate on some ideal image in our heads of what this team should look like (without considering how other areas of the team would be affected by the moves necessary to make that a reality), it's better to look at the games they lost and why. By and large, WR was not the reason for any of them except mayyybe Indy, but there were much bigger issues there than WR play (mainly a defense that routinely gave up 3rd-and-long's).

We will see the ability once Rodgers is gone.

And we will be able to afford a #2 when Rodgers is gone because of the dollars saved at the QB position.

Absolutely Rodgers has elevated our WR corps. Yet again, a player of Rodgers's caliber should elevate his players.

I agree with the sentiments above. I don't see how a WR would really add to this team. Our postseason hopes and ability of this squad falls more heavily on our defense.

But even beyond that, and Rodgers said this himself, our team's ability and where we must improve the most is coming out of halftime strong.

A better WR2 would by definition make the team better. Duh. And Bud Fox is right that AR makes his WRs look better (goes for all levels of WRs) like superstars tend to do.

But the WR position hasn't been the cesspit of suck that the talking heads envisioned before the season. Also, the TEs and RBs have carried their weight in the passing game, and the scheme isn't as dependent on great WRs winning 1-1s like MM's system was. AR spreads the ball around, and so that better WR2 would've had to have been truly something else to have a real big impact.

A better ILB, I think, would've had bigger impact this season.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 18:46

bud fox wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 18:35

Wrong - our hopes fall heavily on Rodgers and that has always been the case. The point you are making should be that our def can at least give Rodgers a chance.

Explain to me why the team is better in 2019 and 2020 than in 2017 and 2018.

We had Rodgers for both 2-year stretches.

We had Davante Adams for both 2-year stretches.

We had Mike Pettine for part of the first and part of the second.

What's the difference. If our chances rise and fall only due to Rodgers, why does Rodgers rise and fall?

Other posters have pointed out that Rodgers was poor in those years. I wouldn't go as far to say he was poor, when measured against league QBs, however he has definitely played at an extreme level this year. I actually think right now this is his best year in the league - better than 2011. Double fakes, no look passes, game management, accuracy - it has really been an amazing year. His awareness of pressure, where to sit in the pocket on each play is all just next level.

Watching Mahomes against Broncos the other day - he is a good QB but he is not Rodgers.

bud fox wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 20:57

Other posters have pointed out that Rodgers was poor in those years. I wouldn't go as far to say he was poor, when measured against league QBs, however he has definitely played at an extreme level this year. I actually think right now this is his best year in the league - better than 2011. Double fakes, no look passes, game management, accuracy - it has really been an amazing year. His awareness of pressure, where to sit in the pocket on each play is all just next level.

So why Why was he poor?

You don't think it has anything to do with the coach and the consistency he's had with his WRs to build trust and the development of Tonyan or the near dominance of the OLine?

You think, like, he just happened to stink for a couple years and suddenly is good again and the team around him is "meh" and the GM and the coach are whatever.

If that's the case, then the only person you should be mad at is Rodgers for taking two years off for no good reason.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 21:20

bud fox wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2020 20:57

Other posters have pointed out that Rodgers was poor in those years. I wouldn't go as far to say he was poor, when measured against league QBs, however he has definitely played at an extreme level this year. I actually think right now this is his best year in the league - better than 2011. Double fakes, no look passes, game management, accuracy - it has really been an amazing year. His awareness of pressure, where to sit in the pocket on each play is all just next level.

So why Why was he poor?

You don't think it has anything to do with the coach and the consistency he's had with his WRs to build trust and the development of Tonyan or the near dominance of the OLine?

You think, like, he just happened to stink for a couple years and suddenly is good again and the team around him is "meh" and the GM and the coach are whatever.

If that's the case, then the only person you should be mad at is Rodgers for taking two years off for no good reason.

That was the view of quite a few posters. Maybe there was injury, maybe first year in system. His poor was still better than average though.

It is just this year he is unbelievably good. One of the best seasons of all time good.