Packers Huddle

Arguably better or on par the Bears

Arguably on par with the Lions

Arguably on par with the Ravens

Arguably better or on par the Falcons

Arguably on par with the Colts

Arguably on par with the Patriots

Arguably on par with the Saints

Arguably better or on par the Jets

Arguably on par with the Eagles


We currently, absolutely, have a bottom 10 WR room, but not this epically horrible, down right disastrous group...

go pak go wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2022 10:41

The Packers are paying 4 times as much to keep Allen Lazard over EQSB.

To me that is pretty telling that the Packers coaches and front office clearly believes that Lazard is significantly a more quality player than EQSB.

I too wanted to keep Q over Lazard because the cost was less and I felt Q could take over the Lazard role. But I also can't overlook that those "in the know" put their money where their mouth was when determining who would be a starter between Lazard and EQSB.

So I will definitively say that Q would not be a starter on this current Packers roster because the front office and coaches actively stated this offseason that he is not good enough for our roster - let alone a starter. Even at a significant cost discount.

EQSB never really played long enough in successive games to be able to impress anyone, and certainly not enough to beat out Lazard for a roster spot, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't matter how talented a player is, that stuff is of no use if the player can't stay on the field, another D%D project that lasted with us for there whole rookie contract and never amounted to anything.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2022 11:35

Arguably on better or on par the Bears

Arguably on par with the Lions

Arguably on par with the Ravens

Arguably on better or on par the Falcons

Arguably on par with the Colts

Arguably on par with the Patriots

Arguably on par with the Saints

Arguably on better or on par the Jets

Arguably on par with the Eagles


We currently, absolutely, have a bottom 10 WR room, but not this epically horrible, down right disastrous group...

Yep. A mix of Sammy Watkins exceeding expectations and a rookie coming in and producing right away (you could throw in Lazard continuing to evolve, and Rodgers actually producing) and you suddenly have a top 15 group with a HOF QB.

Just to be clear, there are multiple teams with god awful WR corps that are terrible. These descriptions are not just reserved for one team in the league.

These descriptions are accurate when describing the packers WR crew, at the moment, as it stands.

Our WR corps is bad and that is good because Rodgers should not be given star talent at WR.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2022 11:35

Arguably on better or on par the Bears

Arguably on par with the Lions

Arguably on par with the Ravens

Arguably on better or on par the Falcons

Arguably on par with the Colts

Arguably on par with the Patriots

Arguably on par with the Saints

Arguably on better or on par the Jets

Arguably on par with the Eagles


We currently, absolutely, have a bottom 10 WR room, but not this epically horrible, down right disastrous group...

I mean, if saying we have a bottom 10 WR group, but maybe not the worst in the league, is "defending the group (or the GM)", then count me in as a homer...

We absolutely need to add talent, and hitting on a high pick or two would do wonders.

But I will never ever EXPECT a rookie that's not a generational top 5 -pick talent in the draft to just waltz in and be an insta-upgrade. We may wish for that, but the likelihood is any rookie from this draft will need some seasoning and/or to be used in a way that doesn't require them to be good at everything like Adams was.

Luckily LaFleur is no dummy, and has shown to be very adept at utilizing the talent at hand creatively, molding his scheme to changing circumstances.

We may not have a top 10 WR group in 2022. We will have the MVP QB, an OL with potential to be great, and great RB room. I don't think we'll be lacking in points. Post-season success will depend on a lot of things, the growth of those rookie WRs being one factor.

Yeah.

I guess I kind of knew this is what our WR group would look like and if I had to decide of keeping a top 10 to top 15 WR group (with Adams) or a top 20 WR group while keeping a great defense and great running game...I'm going with the lesser WR group.

This team is currently a 20th to 25th WR group. If we can add one more piece to get us to that 15th to 20th WR group...I am taking those odds with an MVP QB, a Top 5 defense and Top 10 running attack.

This team can win with that make up. They should have won last year with that make up.

im not upset we lost Adams. But i also am willing to bring up what i havent heard brought up much...the total neglect of the WR position left the packers with their pants down at the position when Adams skipped town. A WR instead of Love or maybe some attention in earlier rounds while Adams was here would have made his departure more manageable.

I think Lazard is great as a WR3, when he is the best on the roster at the moment...its beyond a terrible situation. But its all good. We got Watkins (mystery box), and we can get some rookies in here.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2022 15:03

im not upset we lost Adams. But i also am willing to bring up what i havent heard brought up much...the total neglect of the WR position left the packers with their pants down at the position when Adams skipped town. A WR instead of Love or maybe some attention in earlier rounds while Adams was here would have made his departure more manageable.

I think Lazard is great as a WR3, when he is the best on the roster at the moment...its beyond a terrible situation. But its all good. We got Watkins (mystery box), and we can get some rookies in here.

I think it's totally fine to criticize Gutey for not adding to the WR room earlier. It may be a big blunder, depending on how he succeeds or fails this year. If the WRs drag us down this season, I'm fine with letting him getting roasted.

You know what I don't hear much about?

The lack of talent at ANY other position group.

To go into the draft with this few glaring needs is far from terrible overall. And even if the draft falls in a way that doesn't solve the position, there are still things to be done after. Trade deadline is a long ways away.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2022 15:03

im not upset we lost Adams. But i also am willing to bring up what i havent heard brought up much...the total neglect of the WR position left the packers with their pants down at the position when Adams skipped town. A WR instead of Love or maybe some attention in earlier rounds while Adams was here would have made his departure more manageable.

I think Lazard is great as a WR3, when he is the best on the roster at the moment...its beyond a terrible situation. But its all good. We got Watkins (mystery box), and we can get some rookies in here.

I think it's more of an affordability issue than stocking the cupboard in the draft issue.

We stocked the cupboard in 2018. Though the talent wasn't amazing, we even found a mediocre #2 in MVS was too expensive for us this year. So the only way we could have mitigated our current situation was to nail a WR pick in a two year window of either 2019 or 2020 which is why you can only pin point the Love selection. (we looked to have missed our 3rd round pick in 2021)

So high level I don't think it's necessarily about taking Love over Higgins (because many of us thought we were taking Queen anyways) but it's more about we are simply allocating our roster resources to every other position on the team and expecting our MVP QB to lift the tide on the WR boats.

It's a shifting change in team approach. We are going from a top offensive attack in 2020 to a hopeful top 5 defense and running attack with Rodgers making just enough plays in 2022.

Which I honestly think is the type of team most of us have been begging for a long time.

salmar80 wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2022 15:46

Drj820 wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2022 15:03

im not upset we lost Adams. But i also am willing to bring up what i havent heard brought up much...the total neglect of the WR position left the packers with their pants down at the position when Adams skipped town. A WR instead of Love or maybe some attention in earlier rounds while Adams was here would have made his departure more manageable.

I think Lazard is great as a WR3, when he is the best on the roster at the moment...its beyond a terrible situation. But its all good. We got Watkins (mystery box), and we can get some rookies in here.

I think it's totally fine to criticize Gutey for not adding to the WR room earlier. It may be a big blunder, depending on how he succeeds or fails this year. If the WRs drag us down this season, I'm fine with letting him getting roasted.

You know what I don't hear much about?

The lack of talent at ANY other position group.

To go into the draft with this few glaring needs is far from terrible overall. And even if the draft falls in a way that doesn't solve the position, there are still things to be done after. Trade deadline is a long ways away.

totally agree. Which is why I have said that BECAUSE we have such few glaring needs, and we have 4 picks in the top 60 selections...this is the year we should be aggressive and go get the WR we really want (if there is one), as opposed to waiting and getting a WR that is available in the 20s.

I would never suggest we play loose with premium picks if we had many holes to fill.

the position declined because injury's and slow development over came it, Scantling was the only one of the 3 stooges ( mid round picks) to ever stay healthy enough to show real progress, Lazard is a steady eddie #3 or 4 guy, Cobb to can't stay on the field, and we hear that A Rodgers is better then he's shown, we'll have to wait and see about that, why wouldn't people claim that our WR room is near empty, and void of actual talent.

this whole deal with having one great receiver and a bunch of #3 or 4 WR's for the last 6 years made zero sense to me, the situation should have been addressed as soon as Jordy went down, the easiest way to move the chains, the easiest way to score is still passing the ball, so why wouldn't you have a quality number two?

not only would it have made our offense more potent, having two very good receivers makes everything the offense does easier, opens up everything under neath because the defense has to honor the pass even more.

Small ball has a inherent problem, it is hard to run consistently enough to march down the field and score points minus the dreaded penalty, or mis cue and not move the chains, so even the best run teams need to pass, plus if your great defense can't stop the great offense, then what? doubly hard playing catch up ball if you can't pass, better hope you don't get caught up in shoot out ball game, great to have a couple great RB's and be a good run team, but often thats just not enough, lose a RB, now what?

same with defense, lose a stud or two and your top 5 defense just dropped into the teens, nope, I want fire power, and since I have a excellent QB, then imo it's a sin not to take advantage of that, get the best possible receiver we can, then the next best, and another for good measure

Drj820 wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2022 15:52

salmar80 wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2022 15:46

Drj820 wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2022 15:03

im not upset we lost Adams. But i also am willing to bring up what i havent heard brought up much...the total neglect of the WR position left the packers with their pants down at the position when Adams skipped town. A WR instead of Love or maybe some attention in earlier rounds while Adams was here would have made his departure more manageable.

I think Lazard is great as a WR3, when he is the best on the roster at the moment...its beyond a terrible situation. But its all good. We got Watkins (mystery box), and we can get some rookies in here.

I think it's totally fine to criticize Gutey for not adding to the WR room earlier. It may be a big blunder, depending on how he succeeds or fails this year. If the WRs drag us down this season, I'm fine with letting him getting roasted.

You know what I don't hear much about?

The lack of talent at ANY other position group.

To go into the draft with this few glaring needs is far from terrible overall. And even if the draft falls in a way that doesn't solve the position, there are still things to be done after. Trade deadline is a long ways away.

totally agree. Which is why I have said that BECAUSE we have such few glaring needs, and we have 4 picks in the top 60 selections...this is the year we should be aggressive and go get the WR we really want (if there is one), as opposed to waiting and getting a WR that is available in the 20s.

I would never suggest we play loose with premium picks if we had many holes to fill.

Indeed. I would be all for trading up for the guy we really want. But it's possible there isn't one, or the one goes way too early.

From what I've watched, the only WR that has made me go "that guy could become a monster" is Jameson Williams. Drake London is good at the exact routes AR loves, so he'd likely be instantly productive. Dunno if his speed scares NFL DBs enough to be instant WR1, but he's sure comfortable being the focus of the D. Wilson and Olave would produce, but I don't like their chances as WR1 as rookies - they benefited so much from a loaded group spreading coverage around. No one else in my opinion worth considering trading up for.

BF004 wrote: ↑

17 Apr 2022 07:34

There is nothing wrong with being accurate.

Noting that this isnt currently the worst WR group in the league isn’t really defending the group. Just actually looking at WR groups around the league and making a smarter more accurate statement rather than just saying things to stick to some kind of weird narrative.

It seems to me that there is ground work being laid for righteous anger when we don't trade up to get a receiver or even, God forbid, draft a receiver in the first round.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2022 09:46

BF004 wrote: ↑

17 Apr 2022 07:34

There is nothing wrong with being accurate.

Noting that this isnt currently the worst WR group in the league isn’t really defending the group. Just actually looking at WR groups around the league and making a smarter more accurate statement rather than just saying things to stick to some kind of weird narrative.

It seems to me that there is ground work being laid for righteous anger when we don't trade up to get a receiver or even, God forbid, draft a receiver in the first round.

why would there need to be ground work laid for anger if we do not draft a WR in the first round when we have two picks in the first round and our current WR room consists of 6 guys who didnt combine for 1600 yards in the NFL last year?

No ground work needed

salmar80 wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2022 16:17

Indeed. I would be all for trading up for the guy we really want. But it's possible there isn't one, or the one goes way too early.

if it plays out like this, that will be unfortunate for us...but you are correct that it would not be wise to "reach" or force the issue on a warm body, if we do not love the player.

you can be sure of it

Drj820 wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2022 09:59

salmar80 wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2022 16:17

Indeed. I would be all for trading up for the guy we really want. But it's possible there isn't one, or the one goes way too early.

if it plays out like this, that will be unfortunate for us...but you are correct that it would not be wise to "reach" or force the issue on a warm body, if we do not love the player.

I don't buy that for one minute, there are 5 receivers that will go in round one maybe more that Lafluer could scheme to do well year one, obviously they are not perfect fits, but then who is, this is a deeper class, so yes we can find some that need more coaching up later, but this idea that none are worth trading up for or would instantly improve our offense is nothing is nothing but speculative bunk.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2022 09:58

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2022 09:46

BF004 wrote: ↑

17 Apr 2022 07:34

There is nothing wrong with being accurate.

Noting that this isnt currently the worst WR group in the league isn’t really defending the group. Just actually looking at WR groups around the league and making a smarter more accurate statement rather than just saying things to stick to some kind of weird narrative.

It seems to me that there is ground work being laid for righteous anger when we don't trade up to get a receiver or even, God forbid, draft a receiver in the first round.

why would there need to be ground work laid for anger if we do not draft a WR in the first round when we have two picks in the first round and our current WR room consists of 6 guys who didnt combine for 1600 yards in the NFL last year?

No ground work needed

I don't know, you tell me? I never understand getting angry before something happens or doesn't happen.

2016 Packers had just over 1300 yards from the WRs in the previous year.

Here is another example of what I am talking about:

Drj820 wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2022 09:59

salmar80 wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2022 16:17

Indeed. I would be all for trading up for the guy we really want. But it's possible there isn't one, or the one goes way too early.

if it plays out like this, that will be unfortunate for us...

Why is it unfortunate? (Other than the 1 going way too early?)

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2022 10:14

Drj820 wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2022 09:58

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2022 09:46

It seems to me that there is ground work being laid for righteous anger when we don't trade up to get a receiver or even, God forbid, draft a receiver in the first round.

why would there need to be ground work laid for anger if we do not draft a WR in the first round when we have two picks in the first round and our current WR room consists of 6 guys who didnt combine for 1600 yards in the NFL last year?

No ground work needed

I don't know, you tell me? I never understand getting angry before something happens or doesn't happen.

2016 Packers had just over 1300 yards from the WRs in the previous year.

Here is another example of what I am talking about:

Drj820 wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2022 09:59

salmar80 wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2022 16:17

Indeed. I would be all for trading up for the guy we really want. But it's possible there isn't one, or the one goes way too early.

if it plays out like this, that will be unfortunate for us...

Why is it unfortunate? (Other than the 1 going way too early?)

Lol because it would be unfortunate to desperately need to replenish the WR room and have 2 first round picks to do just that...and then miss out on getting the guy the Packers locate as the guy they need. Or the one year we have 2 1st rounders there not be one guy the Packers locate as being worthy of one of those picks at WR.

That would be a bummer, no?