Packers Huddle

Lazard caught 2/3's of his targets, or 2.7 passes a game, imo it's not a matter of Lazards limited addition as a receiver, it's that he's considered our second best, to me thats the problem, he disappears to often, we have no one that challenges Adams for targets.

when I saw that clip the first thing that came to mind was that Adams had a 122 passer rating and Lazard did well enough not to subtract from it.

Yoop wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2022 15:36

Lazard caught 2/3's of his targets, or 2.7 passes a game, imo it's not a matter of Lazards limited addition as a receiver, it's that he's considered our second best, to me thats the problem, he disappears to often, we have no one that challenges Adams for targets.

when I saw that clip the first thing that came to mind was that Adams had a 122 passer rating and Lazard did well enough not to subtract from it.

Great Post Yoop, for multiple reasons..

A) Lazard is fine, nothing against the team player
B) The problem is we are asking him to be WR2 when he is more just a role player that you want on the team to do dirty work. Not his fault
C) Yeah the greatness of Adams is certainly compensating for Lazard in the stat.

bud fox wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2022 15:35

BF004 wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2022 07:17

NFL’s #1 offense has no talent.

They have the best qb of all time passing to them.

How did they do in the game without Rodgers this year?

How did Rodgers do in 2017-2018?

BF004 wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2022 21:08

bud fox wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2022 15:35

BF004 wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2022 07:17

NFL’s #1 offense has no talent.

They have the best qb of all time passing to them.

How did they do in the game without Rodgers this year?

How did Rodgers do in 2017-2018?

Not great.

But he had the best season of all time for a qb without these players on the team in 2011

bud fox wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2022 22:56

BF004 wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2022 21:08

bud fox wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2022 15:35

They have the best qb of all time passing to them.

How did they do in the game without Rodgers this year?

How did Rodgers do in 2017-2018?

Not great.

But he had the best season of all time for a qb without these players on the team in 2011

Hmmm… so you are making the argument he was MVP when he had a ton of talent?

Not really sure how you think that was helping your defense.

I say it in jest, defending Lazard individually. But when you got Adams, Lazard, MVS, Cobb, Lewis, Tonyan, Jones, Dillon. That is just a flat out really good skill position group.

Of course is could possibly be better if we drafted a WR instead of Love (which I wanted) or brought in OBJ (which I wanted more than anybody here). It is somewhat baffling to me that we haven’t added a day 1 or 2 WR in the draft since 2014.

Just inaccurate to me to suggest we couldn’t win because we didn’t have enough talent on offense. This more than likely the best football team on paper the last two years and Aaron isn’t winning back to back MVPs with poor talent around him.

BF004 wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2022 07:31

bud fox wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2022 22:56

BF004 wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2022 21:08

How did Rodgers do in 2017-2018?

Not great.

But he had the best season of all time for a qb without these players on the team in 2011

Hmmm… so you are making the argument he was MVP when he had a ton of talent?

Not really sure how you think that was helping your defense.

I say it in jest, defending Lazard individually. But when you got Adams, Lazard, MVS, Cobb, Lewis, Tonyan, Jones, Dillon. That is just a flat out really good skill position group.

Of course is could possibly be better if we drafted a WR instead of Love (which I wanted) or brought in OBJ (which I wanted more than anybody here). It is somewhat baffling to me that we haven’t added a day 1 or 2 WR in the draft since 2014.

Just inaccurate to me to suggest we couldn’t win because we didn’t have enough talent on offense. This more than likely the best football team on paper the last two years and Aaron isn’t winning back to back MVPs with poor talent around him.

i mean i dont blame you because trolling is fun, but you obviously made your comments to either dig at others or start a convo haha.

The stat probably said alot more about Rodgers and Adams than Lazard

Lazard is a good Packer and nice to have on the team

Lazard is an awful WR2 and you want somebody who can get open way more often at WR2

...Rodgers won MVP because voters are mystified at how he and the offense did with only a Lazard type at WR2.

Thats the truth of it. Brady had arguably better stats this year and the same record...he didnt win MVP due to the perception that the Bucs were loaded on offense. Nobody looks at the Packers and thinks that despite honestly having pretty good talent when you include Jones and DIllon.

The next question is why not? Its primarily because most of the season we had awful TE play in terms of pass catching, and because Lazard threw up one catch for 6 yards in the playoffs...that kind of stat line isnt earning anybodys respect.

I would definitely call MVS our WR2 if we had to designate, which I don’t think teams care about no one really uses such terms.

But he had a pretty injury plagued year.

Just the quad of Adams, MVS, Lazard and Cobb is probably a top 10 unit, I’d say top 15 at the lowest. Even if that is heavily dependent on Adams raising the group. Not sure why you’d want to ignore the best WR in the league when considering the quality of our WR group.

BF004 wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2022 08:46

I would definitely call MVS our WR2 if we had to designate, which I don’t think teams care about no one really uses such terms.

But he had a pretty injury plagued year.

Just the quad of Adams, MVS, Lazard and Cobb is probably a top 10 unit, I’d say top 15 at the lowest. Even if that is heavily dependent on Adams raising the group. Not sure why you’d want to ignore the best WR in the league when considering the quality of our WR group.

I think Kupp is the best in the league, Adams second best...but im not ignoring at all. I was talking about depth behind WR1.

How was I ignoring him when I said Adams was most likely carrying Lazard in the stat that was featured in the picture?

Im not sure what you are arguing. I dont think we are very good at WR behind Adams, we will soon see if I am right based on the offers MVS and Lazard get, as well as if we keep Cobb and what happens to him if we do not. We will all know very shortly what the Packers and other GMs think of our WR crew.

Currently, our WR2 spot is so much of a mess that our WR2 isnt even clear because nobody is worthy of the spot?

No one is ignoring Adams.

I wish Rodgers would ignore Adams a bit more in the playoffs.

BF004 wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2022 08:46

I would definitely call MVS our WR2 if we had to designate, which I don’t think teams care about no one really uses such terms.

But he had a pretty injury plagued year.

Just the quad of Adams, MVS, Lazard and Cobb is probably a top 10 unit, I’d say top 15 at the lowest. Even if that is heavily dependent on Adams raising the group. Not sure why you’d want to ignore the best WR in the league when considering the quality of our WR group.

Concur about MVS being our best #2. The other guys don't seem to be able to consistently get separation. Maybe keep Cobb as a #4 or #5 (like the Donald Driver insurance policy that we had in 2010). Amari #8 really really needs to step up in 2022. #8 Amari can barely perform on special teams ... so inconsistent ... can't stand it. Amari might end up in the Gutey scrap heap ... hope not. Starting to get nervous already.

I disagree that Lazard is a bad WR2. I think he's a very solid #2.

And the "if we had a better WR2" talk does not impress me because Lazard was playing *really* good football in December. It's a bit silly to me to pooh-pooh guys who are actively producing just because a Lazard in that spot is not as sexy as the 2011 group.

The thing about Lazard is, he is a possession receiver. He does not get open/separate in a conventional sense; he's "open" when he's covered because he is a tall target, can out-muscle defenders, and is very competitive. Speed is not his game but he's not "slow."

You might want a guy who gets more "open" for the risk-averse Rodgers, but a guy who works to earn his QB's trust like Lazard does -and- paired with Rodgers's accuracy should work together more than fine as a guy you look for to move-the-chains when Adams is not open.

I have no issue saying we didn't have a great #2. I think MVS could have and should have been that, but injuries, lack of connection with Rodgers and over-dependence on Adams I think really stunted his production. There was just some weird thing how Rodgers could hardly ever hit MVS in stride.

But yeah I have no problem saying we didn't have an elite #2. But he was serviceable and good in his role. That was intentional on how we built our team. We instead focused our assets on a great defense, great running game, great specialists (though they didn't play like it) and a great top heavy leadership group. That's just how our team was built.

So I have no problem saying we didn't have a great #2. What I have problem with is when that becomes the rallying cry of why we didn't win a SB.

go pak go wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2022 10:35

I have no issue saying we didn't have a great #2. I think MVS could have and should have been that, but injuries, lack of connection with Rodgers and over-dependence on Adams I think really stunted his production. There was just some weird thing how Rodgers could hardly ever hit MVS in stride.

But yeah I have no problem saying we didn't have an elite #2. But he was serviceable and good in his role. That was intentional on how we built our team. We instead focused our assets on a great defense, great running game, great specialists (though they didn't play like it) and a great top heavy leadership group. That's just how our team was built.

So I have no problem saying we didn't have a great #2. What I have problem with is when that becomes the rallying cry of why we didn't win a SB.

Agreed.

The post that started this discussion Wasnt your typical posts about why we didn’t win. It was a post with a stat that bundled Lazard in with Adams and then I think was trying to show Lazard is actually very good.

Pushback on that is what got this started. We will get to see what teams think of Lazard very soon.

As for what you said, I agree!

go pak go wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2022 10:35

I have no issue saying we didn't have a great #2. I think MVS could have and should have been that, but injuries, lack of connection with Rodgers and over-dependence on Adams I think really stunted his production. There was just some weird thing how Rodgers could hardly ever hit MVS in stride.

But yeah I have no problem saying we didn't have an elite #2. But he was serviceable and good in his role. That was intentional on how we built our team. We instead focused our assets on a great defense, great running game, great specialists (though they didn't play like it) and a great top heavy leadership group. That's just how our team was built.

So I have no problem saying we didn't have a great #2. What I have problem with is when that becomes the rallying cry of why we didn't win a SB.

I think it's better to be over stocked, having more then you need allows for losses along the way, it means near nothing to say we had two receiving RB's till we lost one, or a stretch vertical receiver when he's injured, or a receiving TE when he's on IR and the other is mostly a blocking TE, it only matters who is on the field for that particular contest, so what Rodgers ( not a good game from him) had to work with was Adams, Jones, Lewis, and Lazard, I count two impact players and two slugs.

BF004 wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2022 07:31

bud fox wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2022 22:56

BF004 wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2022 21:08

How did Rodgers do in 2017-2018?

Not great.

But he had the best season of all time for a qb without these players on the team in 2011

Hmmm… so you are making the argument he was MVP when he had a ton of talent?

Not really sure how you think that was helping your defense.

I say it in jest, defending Lazard individually. But when you got Adams, Lazard, MVS, Cobb, Lewis, Tonyan, Jones, Dillon. That is just a flat out really good skill position group.

Of course is could possibly be better if we drafted a WR instead of Love (which I wanted) or brought in OBJ (which I wanted more than anybody here). It is somewhat baffling to me that we haven’t added a day 1 or 2 WR in the draft since 2014.

Just inaccurate to me to suggest we couldn’t win because we didn’t have enough talent on offense. This more than likely the best football team on paper the last two years and Aaron isn’t winning back to back MVPs with poor talent around him.

My point is that we have seen Rodgers do well without them but without Rodgers the wr numbers were not good.

Free agency coming up no doubt that will solidfy the value of this great receiver group.

Yoop wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2022 11:12

go pak go wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2022 10:35

I have no issue saying we didn't have a great #2. I think MVS could have and should have been that, but injuries, lack of connection with Rodgers and over-dependence on Adams I think really stunted his production. There was just some weird thing how Rodgers could hardly ever hit MVS in stride.

But yeah I have no problem saying we didn't have an elite #2. But he was serviceable and good in his role. That was intentional on how we built our team. We instead focused our assets on a great defense, great running game, great specialists (though they didn't play like it) and a great top heavy leadership group. That's just how our team was built.

So I have no problem saying we didn't have a great #2. What I have problem with is when that becomes the rallying cry of why we didn't win a SB.

I think it's better to be over stocked, having more then you need allows for losses along the way, it means near nothing to say we had two receiving RB's till we lost one, or a stretch vertical receiver when he's injured, or a receiving TE when he's on IR and the other is mostly a blocking TE, it only matters who is on the field for that particular contest, so what Rodgers ( not a good game from him) had to work with was Adams, Jones, Lewis, and Lazard, I count two impact players and two slugs.

Who doesn't like more.

bud fox wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2022 12:34

BF004 wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2022 07:31

bud fox wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2022 22:56

Not great.

But he had the best season of all time for a qb without these players on the team in 2011

Hmmm… so you are making the argument he was MVP when he had a ton of talent?

Not really sure how you think that was helping your defense.

I say it in jest, defending Lazard individually. But when you got Adams, Lazard, MVS, Cobb, Lewis, Tonyan, Jones, Dillon. That is just a flat out really good skill position group.

Of course is could possibly be better if we drafted a WR instead of Love (which I wanted) or brought in OBJ (which I wanted more than anybody here). It is somewhat baffling to me that we haven’t added a day 1 or 2 WR in the draft since 2014.

Just inaccurate to me to suggest we couldn’t win because we didn’t have enough talent on offense. This more than likely the best football team on paper the last two years and Aaron isn’t winning back to back MVPs with poor talent around him.

My point is that we have seen Rodgers do well without them but without Rodgers the wr numbers were not good.

Free agency coming up no doubt that will solidfy the value of this great receiver group.

Yup. Pretty cool how we don’t have to debate something abstract this time and never really know who is right. Lazard, MVS, Cobb...all of them get to show us how much they are valued around the league very soon.

BF004 wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2022 19:54

But the Packers don't care about linebackers?

Also rumors of trade talks about Love heating up.