Packers Huddle

bud fox wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 20:54

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 20:41

bud fox wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 20:39

They are individual rounds

They have different contracts, different values etc

Why not just combined rounds 1-4?

Why not just combine rounds 1-7 and UDFAs?!

Exactly why not? The whole purpose of the previous posts were about 1st round talent if goal posts are being changed then its a completely different argument.

Exactly, if moving the goalposts just slightly completely changes the argument, the original point was... Pointless.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 21:01

bud fox wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 20:54

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 20:41

Why not just combine rounds 1-7 and UDFAs?!

Exactly why not? The whole purpose of the previous posts were about 1st round talent if goal posts are being changed then its a completely different argument.

Exactly, if moving the goalposts just slightly completely changes the argument, the original point was... Pointless.

The point was to show Rodgers has never had first round talent. That isn't pointless if it can be shown that first round receivers produce better over there careers than those from other rounds - the 1st and 5th round comparison by NCF proves it for that round comparison.

Actually it is pointless, because when you add in 2nd round picks he rockets up to 3rd all time.

The graphic wasn't about the production of 1st round receivers compared to other rounds... Wait... That's an even more drastic goalpost move!

It's a cherry picked stat that alone and without context means absolutely nothing.

Bill Belichek's Patriots have never drafted a QB round 1, does that now mean teama shouldn't draft QBs in round 1 to be a successful?!!!!

2011 - 2017 the rallying cry was the Packers are screwing Aaron Rodgers because they can't field him a defense.

Now that he has a defense, the rallying cry has shifted that the Packers are screwing Aaron Rodgers because they can't give him and never given him any WR talent.

I have heard more b*thing of lack of WR talent during his entire career than I ever imagined possible. This argument is just not true. It's not even close to true.

I honestly don't think you can have a better group of WRs on a team than the Packers did from 2009 - 2014. I mean it was league historical great. Like for sure the best in GB all time and one of best league all time. The only problem with that from a team perspective though is it only produced two postseason wins from 2011 - 2014. The offense just didn't produce when we needed it to. The team needed a different direction and allocated resources to the defense.

For the most part that attempt failed until 2018. We are now in the 2nd part of the building process from 2018.

Rodgers has never been screwed of offensive talent He has had amazing Olines, amazing WRs and occasionally amazing running games. We just didn't have anything to show for it. I will agree our WR #2 has been below average in 2019 (2018 we still had Adams and Cobb). But that is one year. Not an entire career.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 21:21

Actually it is pointless, because when you add in 2nd round picks he rockets up to 3rd all time.

The graphic wasn't about the production of 1st round receivers compared to other rounds... Wait... That's an even more drastic goalpost move!

It's a cherry picked stat that alone and without context means absolutely nothing.

Bill Belichek's Patriots have never drafted a QB round 1, does that now mean teama shouldn't draft QBs in round 1 to be a successful?!!!!

The picture literally was titled tds to first round receivers.
The argument behind the picture is whether a first round talent at wr is better than other rounds. Figures indicate it is.

Now you included 2nd round wrs to boost rodgers numbers - what if rodgers didnt have any 2nd round receivers would you include 3rd round receivers? Its silly to try to prove a separate point that rodgers has had talent in response to that image.

go pak go wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 21:32

2011 - 2017 the rallying cry was the Packers are screwing Aaron Rodgers because they can't field him a defense.

Now that he has a defense, the rallying cry has shifted that the Packers are screwing Aaron Rodgers because they can't give him and never given him any WR talent.

I have heard more b*thing of lack of WR talent during his entire career than I ever imagined possible. This argument is just not true. It's not even close to true.

I honestly don't think you can have a better group of WRs on a team than the Packers did from 2009 - 2014. I mean it was league historical great. Like for sure the best in GB all time and one of best league all time. The only problem with that from a team perspective though is it only produced two postseason wins from 2011 - 2014. The offense just didn't produce when we needed it to. The team needed a different direction and allocated resources to the defense.

For the most part that attempt failed until 2018. We are now in the 2nd part of the building process from 2018.

Rodgers has never been screwed of offensive talent He has had amazing Olines, amazing WRs and occasionally amazing running games. We just didn't have anything to show for it. I will agree our WR #2 has been below average in 2019 (2018 we still had Adams and Cobb). But that is one year. Not an entire career.

Has anyone ever said jennings, jordy, cobb, finley, driver were bad? Rodgers won a superbowl, had the best qb season ever
2010 - SB and SB MVP
2011 - MVP and highest rated season ever by a qb
2012 - 11-5 record
2013 - missed 7 games - packers went 8-7
2014 - went to NFC championship - qb rating of 112

When Rodgers has had talent at wr he and the packers have been killing it.

Based on that evidence it is highly likely that these new wrs who have proven nothing at all are the reason for the drop. Correlation everywhere.

bud fox wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 22:03

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 21:21

Actually it is pointless, because when you add in 2nd round picks he rockets up to 3rd all time.

The graphic wasn't about the production of 1st round receivers compared to other rounds... Wait... That's an even more drastic goalpost move!

It's a cherry picked stat that alone and without context means absolutely nothing.

Bill Belichek's Patriots have never drafted a QB round 1, does that now mean teama shouldn't draft QBs in round 1 to be a successful?!!!!

The picture literally was titled tds to first round receivers.
The argument behind the picture is whether a first round talent at wr is better than other rounds. Figures indicate it is.

Now you included 2nd round wrs to boost rodgers numbers - what if rodgers didnt have any 2nd round receivers would you include 3rd round receivers? Its silly to try to prove a separate point that rodgers has had talent in response to that image.

Actually the pictures title was, "Touchdown Passes to First Round Draft Picks.". Then it lists the top 10 QBs of all time by TD Passes. So no it was not about whether first round talent at WR is better than other rounds. If that was the case why wasn't a single receiver in the picture??? Speaking of goalposts being moved.

I didn't just included 2nd round WRs and they didn't just included 1st round WRs. They and I includes RBs and TEa as well.

I included 2nd round draft picks who caught a TD pass to level the playing field and demonstrate the uselessness of the picture.

It's silly to try and use that picture and try and prove Rodgers did not have talent to throw to.

go pak go wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 21:32

2011 - 2017 the rallying cry was the Packers are screwing Aaron Rodgers because they can't field him a defense.

Now that he has a defense, the rallying cry has shifted that the Packers are screwing Aaron Rodgers because they can't give him and never given him any WR talent.

I have heard more b*thing of lack of WR talent during his entire career than I ever imagined possible. This argument is just not true. It's not even close to true.

I honestly don't think you can have a better group of WRs on a team than the Packers did from 2009 - 2014. I mean it was league historical great. Like for sure the best in GB all time and one of best league all time. The only problem with that from a team perspective though is it only produced two postseason wins from 2011 - 2014. The offense just didn't produce when we needed it to. The team needed a different direction and allocated resources to the defense.

For the most part that attempt failed until 2018. We are now in the 2nd part of the building process from 2018.

Rodgers has never been screwed of offensive talent He has had amazing Olines, amazing WRs and occasionally amazing running games. We just didn't have anything to show for it. I will agree our WR #2 has been below average in 2019 (2018 we still had Adams and Cobb). But that is one year. Not an entire career.

always extremes with you, it's not that Rodgers didn't get good receivers, the point is not lately, the rallying cry wasn't that Ted didn't draft defensive players as he snubbed Rodgers or the offense, it's that he missed with so many of the defensive picks, the freaking rallying cry was you and other complaining and thinking it's the coaching, or with Rodgers that he cant turn jags into Adams type receivers, your always trying to paint blame in the wrong area, your turning every point to the extreme, and your constant attacks, ruin the conversation for me, I don't need your ignorant insults, .

Correlation =/= causation. The only thing that picture definitively tells you is... how many TDs those QBs threw to a first-round WR. That's it.

Look I have plenty of criticisms of our drafting of late and am not convinced that Gute is particularly good at it, but this kvetching over WR is tired.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 22:33

bud fox wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 22:03

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 21:21

Actually it is pointless, because when you add in 2nd round picks he rockets up to 3rd all time.

The graphic wasn't about the production of 1st round receivers compared to other rounds... Wait... That's an even more drastic goalpost move!

It's a cherry picked stat that alone and without context means absolutely nothing.

Bill Belichek's Patriots have never drafted a QB round 1, does that now mean teama shouldn't draft QBs in round 1 to be a successful?!!!!

The picture literally was titled tds to first round receivers.
The argument behind the picture is whether a first round talent at wr is better than other rounds. Figures indicate it is.

Now you included 2nd round wrs to boost rodgers numbers - what if rodgers didnt have any 2nd round receivers would you include 3rd round receivers? Its silly to try to prove a separate point that rodgers has had talent in response to that image.

Actually the pictures title was, "Touchdown Passes to First Round Draft Picks.". Then it lists the top 10 QBs of all time by TD Passes. So no it was not about whether first round talent at WR is better than other rounds. If that was the case why wasn't a single receiver in the picture??? Speaking of goalposts being moved.

I didn't just included 2nd round WRs and they didn't just included 1st round WRs. They and I includes RBs and TEa as well.

I included 2nd round draft picks who caught a TD pass to level the playing field and demonstrate the uselessness of the picture.

It's silly to try and use that picture and try and prove Rodgers did not have talent to throw to.

The post was made right now at a time when the overall sentiment and discussion in the media is around Rodgers never having a 1st round talent around him. That statement means that there is a thought that first round talent is better - which has been proven by stats. The picture then identifies that Rodgers is very low on this list to the others.

Sometimes it is difficult to understand intention but please it would be easier if you just listen and accept instead of trying to manipulate and drive your own narrative. FACTS - Round 1 WRs are more productive. FACTS - Rodgers has never had one in his career via draft or FA. FACTS - Rodgers was all-time great when the packers had quality receiving options.

bud fox wrote: ↑

29 Apr 2020 00:41

there is a thought that first round talent is better - which has been proven by stats.

Stats do not prove this, not by any stretch. First round talent is not inherently better. They may have a better chance at it. I am pretty sure that can be proven. There are a handful of Round 2 guys from the Packers over the years that beg to different that Round 1 talent is just better.

The picture then identifies that Rodgers is very low on this list to the others.

He is very low on the list throwing to players picked in the first round. Nothing more, nothing less. It was a poorly conceived graphic to try and highlight a poorly conceived point.

Sometimes it is difficult to understand intention but please it would be easier if you just listen and accept instead of trying to manipulate and drive your own narrative.

Why would I accept something that is false or is a blatant manipulation? No manipulation on my end, no narrative, simply providing context to the situation.
If one does not like to play the game then maybe one should not start it. Just a thought.

FACTS - Round 1 WRs are more productive.

Again, that is a false assumption. We have seen no data that that is true. We have seen that Round 1 wide receivers have more TDs on average compared to Round 5. Does that hold true for Round 2? By how much? Not every Round 1 wide receiver is more production than any other wide receiver.

The other problem is that the graphic was not just talking about wide receivers.

FACTS - Rodgers has never had one in his career via draft or FA.

A fact that is indeed a fact. Hooray!

FACTS - Rodgers was all-time great when the packers had quality receiving options.

Another fact, albeit 6 to 9/10 years old... A lot can change about a player in that amount of time. I may even hazard a guess that they gotten worse to some degree.

The graphic was showing passing TDs to players taken in Round 1 to manipulate the narrative. While it is undoubtedly true it is hilariously lacking context as is shown when players drafted in Round 2 are added. We had and do have a lot of Round 2 talent, there hasn't been much of a need to add that over the years, until very recently. This would be exactly why Rodgers does not have more than 1 TD pass to a player taken in the first round.

Many people get WAY too caught up on where a player is draft. Talent is talent and it doesn't matter, for the most part, what round they were drafted in.

bud fox wrote: ↑

29 Apr 2020 00:41

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 22:33

bud fox wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 22:03

The picture literally was titled tds to first round receivers.
The argument behind the picture is whether a first round talent at wr is better than other rounds. Figures indicate it is.

Now you included 2nd round wrs to boost rodgers numbers - what if rodgers didnt have any 2nd round receivers would you include 3rd round receivers? Its silly to try to prove a separate point that rodgers has had talent in response to that image.

Actually the pictures title was, "Touchdown Passes to First Round Draft Picks.". Then it lists the top 10 QBs of all time by TD Passes. So no it was not about whether first round talent at WR is better than other rounds. If that was the case why wasn't a single receiver in the picture??? Speaking of goalposts being moved.

I didn't just included 2nd round WRs and they didn't just included 1st round WRs. They and I includes RBs and TEa as well.

I included 2nd round draft picks who caught a TD pass to level the playing field and demonstrate the uselessness of the picture.

It's silly to try and use that picture and try and prove Rodgers did not have talent to throw to.

The post was made right now at a time when the overall sentiment and discussion in the media is around Rodgers never having a 1st round talent around him. That statement means that there is a thought that first round talent is better - which has been proven by stats. The picture then identifies that Rodgers is very low on this list to the others.

Sometimes it is difficult to understand intention but please it would be easier if you just listen and accept instead of trying to manipulate and drive your own narrative. FACTS - Round 1 WRs are more productive. FACTS - Rodgers has never had one in his career via draft or FA. FACTS - Rodgers was all-time great when the packers had quality receiving options.

Bud this is far to easy to understand, it needs to be twisted into something much more complicated to cloud this reality.

simple, Rodgers won a SB with a receiver room full of 2nd round picks, when those players declined we havn't won a SB, solution, get more 2nd round WR's, whats so hard to understand about that, seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Yoop wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 20:30

this has to be one of the lamest excuses for not getting better receivers, obviously these GM's are idiots for taking the receiver that where picked in the first round last thursday, and just waited to get guys in the 2nd, course our GM did neither, in fact our Gms not only havn't used a 1st on one they havn't used a 2nd on one either in over 6 years, we are the laughing stock of anyone that knows this sport, you gotta be a real homer to support the BS this FO has pulled concerning that position, I'am sure Mike McCarthy agree's with me.

That could be said, except that this last Packer team went 14-4 with arguably only one legit WR and receiving threat aside from RB. To me, that FACT blows away any black and white ideas of needing to have first round talent at WR. Truth is, and I think really that most of us agree, that it all depends upon what the team does with whatever talent it has.

Let somebody make a curve on the higher round draft picks making a substantial difference in team performance. You might have a curve with some improvement. But it's not going to prove a thing. There'll be just as many 1st round WRs on teams that don't make the playoffs.

Yoop wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 23:43

go pak go wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 21:32

2011 - 2017 the rallying cry was the Packers are screwing Aaron Rodgers because they can't field him a defense.

Now that he has a defense, the rallying cry has shifted that the Packers are screwing Aaron Rodgers because they can't give him and never given him any WR talent.

I have heard more b*thing of lack of WR talent during his entire career than I ever imagined possible. This argument is just not true. It's not even close to true.

I honestly don't think you can have a better group of WRs on a team than the Packers did from 2009 - 2014. I mean it was league historical great. Like for sure the best in GB all time and one of best league all time. The only problem with that from a team perspective though is it only produced two postseason wins from 2011 - 2014. The offense just didn't produce when we needed it to. The team needed a different direction and allocated resources to the defense.

For the most part that attempt failed until 2018. We are now in the 2nd part of the building process from 2018.

Rodgers has never been screwed of offensive talent He has had amazing Olines, amazing WRs and occasionally amazing running games. We just didn't have anything to show for it. I will agree our WR #2 has been below average in 2019 (2018 we still had Adams and Cobb). But that is one year. Not an entire career.

always extremes with you, it's not that Rodgers didn't get good receivers, the point is not lately, the rallying cry wasn't that Ted didn't draft defensive players as he snubbed Rodgers or the offense, it's that he missed with so many of the defensive picks, the freaking rallying cry was you and other complaining and thinking it's the coaching, or with Rodgers that he cant turn jags into Adams type receivers, your always trying to paint blame in the wrong area, your turning every point to the extreme, and your constant attacks, ruin the conversation for me, I don't need your ignorant insults, .

Literally last week narrative was Rodgers hasn't had good WRs in 6 or 7 years. There was a post two days ago from you when talking about the playoff losses from 2007 - 2014 and once again couldn't help but blame the receivers.

I have said, over and over and over and over again that I have no problem saying the WR has dropped in 2018 and 2019 with the caveat that it is hard to blame management for 2018 when going into Week 1 our starting WRs were Adams and Cobb with a glut of talented and gifted WRs on the back end of the roster. That is not not extreme. That is exactly what has happened.

Honestly folks. Management has dropped the ball on providing WR talent for 2019 and the offseason of 2020.

That's what we are looking at.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

29 Apr 2020 07:25

Yoop wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 20:30

this has to be one of the lamest excuses for not getting better receivers, obviously these GM's are idiots for taking the receiver that where picked in the first round last thursday, and just waited to get guys in the 2nd, course our GM did neither, in fact our Gms not only havn't used a 1st on one they havn't used a 2nd on one either in over 6 years, we are the laughing stock of anyone that knows this sport, you gotta be a real homer to support the BS this FO has pulled concerning that position, I'am sure Mike McCarthy agree's with me.

That could be said, except that this last Packer team went 14-4 with arguably only one legit WR and receiving threat aside from RB. To me, that FACT blows away any black and white ideas of needing to have first round talent at WR. Truth is, and I think really that most of us agree, that it all depends upon what the team does with whatever talent it has.

Let somebody make a curve on the higher round draft picks making a substantial difference in team performance. You might have a curve with some improvement. But it's not going to prove a thing. There'll be just as many 1st round WRs on teams that don't make the playoffs.

we both know that good health, easy schedule, and lady luck played into the 14-4 season, yet against a couple good defenses we could not move the chains, those opponents shut down our Rb's and to easily took away Adams and the rest of our receivers.

this to me is obvious, we needed, and have for 5 years a better #2 receiver, if we had one last year we could have put up a better fight against SF, and more easily won some other very tough games, the fact that we somehow won shouldn't blind us to that, obviously the odds are better to find a better receiver in round one then round 2 or 3 etc., and if ya take a receiver in the 2nd that plays as well or better then some first rounders doesn't mean 2nd rounders are automatically better value then taking them in the first, there simply are more receivers taken then, which translates to more successes simply do to numbers.

each season brings a new team, part of that is based on what the team did the prior year, we wont have the easy schedule, we may not stay as healthy, we still could have transitional woes with MLF's schemes, lots of stuff can derail the outcome, the point is to prepare by taking players that stand the best chance to improve that outcome, imho we have not the last 4 or 5 years, instead we hog tied our best player by not providing him the type players that would help him excel, and to me thats been a huge mistake.

go pak go wrote: ↑

29 Apr 2020 07:37

Yoop wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 23:43

go pak go wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 21:32

2011 - 2017 the rallying cry was the Packers are screwing Aaron Rodgers because they can't field him a defense.

Now that he has a defense, the rallying cry has shifted that the Packers are screwing Aaron Rodgers because they can't give him and never given him any WR talent.

I have heard more b*thing of lack of WR talent during his entire career than I ever imagined possible. This argument is just not true. It's not even close to true.

I honestly don't think you can have a better group of WRs on a team than the Packers did from 2009 - 2014. I mean it was league historical great. Like for sure the best in GB all time and one of best league all time. The only problem with that from a team perspective though is it only produced two postseason wins from 2011 - 2014. The offense just didn't produce when we needed it to. The team needed a different direction and allocated resources to the defense.

For the most part that attempt failed until 2018. We are now in the 2nd part of the building process from 2018.

Rodgers has never been screwed of offensive talent He has had amazing Olines, amazing WRs and occasionally amazing running games. We just didn't have anything to show for it. I will agree our WR #2 has been below average in 2019 (2018 we still had Adams and Cobb). But that is one year. Not an entire career.

always extremes with you, it's not that Rodgers didn't get good receivers, the point is not lately, the rallying cry wasn't that Ted didn't draft defensive players as he snubbed Rodgers or the offense, it's that he missed with so many of the defensive picks, the freaking rallying cry was you and other complaining and thinking it's the coaching, or with Rodgers that he cant turn jags into Adams type receivers, your always trying to paint blame in the wrong area, your turning every point to the extreme, and your constant attacks, ruin the conversation for me, I don't need your ignorant insults, .

Literally last week narrative was Rodgers hasn't had good WRs in 6 or 7 years. There was a post two days ago from you when talking about the playoff losses from 2007 - 2014 and once again couldn't help but blame the receivers.

I have said, over and over and over and over again that I have no problem saying the WR has dropped in 2018 and 2019 with the caveat that it is hard to blame management for 2018 when going into Week 1 our starting WRs were Adams and Cobb with a glut of talented and gifted WRs on the back end of the roster. That is not not extreme. That is exactly what has happened.

Honestly folks. Management has dropped the ball on providing WR talent for 2019 and the offseason of 2020.

That's what we are looking at.

now your lying or twisting what I said, and you know you are, so this is more premeditated bull from you, good bye.

Yoop wrote: ↑

29 Apr 2020 07:53

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

29 Apr 2020 07:25

Yoop wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2020 20:30

this has to be one of the lamest excuses for not getting better receivers, obviously these GM's are idiots for taking the receiver that where picked in the first round last thursday, and just waited to get guys in the 2nd, course our GM did neither, in fact our Gms not only havn't used a 1st on one they havn't used a 2nd on one either in over 6 years, we are the laughing stock of anyone that knows this sport, you gotta be a real homer to support the BS this FO has pulled concerning that position, I'am sure Mike McCarthy agree's with me.

That could be said, except that this last Packer team went 14-4 with arguably only one legit WR and receiving threat aside from RB. To me, that FACT blows away any black and white ideas of needing to have first round talent at WR. Truth is, and I think really that most of us agree, that it all depends upon what the team does with whatever talent it has.

Let somebody make a curve on the higher round draft picks making a substantial difference in team performance. You might have a curve with some improvement. But it's not going to prove a thing. There'll be just as many 1st round WRs on teams that don't make the playoffs.

we both know that good health, easy schedule, and lady luck played into the 14-4 season, yet against a couple good defenses we could not move the chains, those opponents shut down our Rb's and to easily took away Adams and the rest of our receivers.

this to me is obvious, we needed, and have for 5 years a better #2 receiver, if we had one last year we could have put up a better fight against SF, and more easily won some other very tough games, the fact that we somehow won shouldn't blind us to that, obviously the odds are better to find a better receiver in round one then round 2 or 3 etc., and if ya take a receiver in the 2nd that plays as well or better then some first rounders doesn't mean 2nd rounders are automatically better value then taking them in the first, there simply are more receivers taken then, which translates to more successes simply do to numbers.

each season brings a new team, part of that is based on what the team did the prior year, we wont have the easy schedule, we may not stay as healthy, we still could have transitional woes with MLF's schemes, lots of stuff can derail the outcome, the point is to prepare by taking players that stand the best chance to improve that outcome, imho we have not the last 4 or 5 years, instead we hog tied our best player by not providing him the type players that would help him excel, and to me thats been a huge mistake.

That's exactly right; each season brings a new team. And that is exactly why Guty and MLF and staff are where they are today. They are going to believe that there will be growth in all phases of the team. They will run and defend the run better, even with lesser replacements. They will pass and defend the pass better too. They are going to believe in their plans and concepts.

That doesn't mean they haven't either sought other WRs/players in FA, or wanted to draft other players. But if the guys you can believe in simply aren't available what are ya gonna do? And then some who fit your system are there in the draft anyhow and you believe in them? And your WRs should step up in year 3, like Davante and others did. Those things are perfectly reasonable.

This team might win a couple less games next season and still be a better team and stand up better to a team like the Niners.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

29 Apr 2020 08:22

Yoop wrote: ↑

29 Apr 2020 07:53

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

29 Apr 2020 07:25

That could be said, except that this last Packer team went 14-4 with arguably only one legit WR and receiving threat aside from RB. To me, that FACT blows away any black and white ideas of needing to have first round talent at WR. Truth is, and I think really that most of us agree, that it all depends upon what the team does with whatever talent it has.

Let somebody make a curve on the higher round draft picks making a substantial difference in team performance. You might have a curve with some improvement. But it's not going to prove a thing. There'll be just as many 1st round WRs on teams that don't make the playoffs.

we both know that good health, easy schedule, and lady luck played into the 14-4 season, yet against a couple good defenses we could not move the chains, those opponents shut down our Rb's and to easily took away Adams and the rest of our receivers.

this to me is obvious, we needed, and have for 5 years a better #2 receiver, if we had one last year we could have put up a better fight against SF, and more easily won some other very tough games, the fact that we somehow won shouldn't blind us to that, obviously the odds are better to find a better receiver in round one then round 2 or 3 etc., and if ya take a receiver in the 2nd that plays as well or better then some first rounders doesn't mean 2nd rounders are automatically better value then taking them in the first, there simply are more receivers taken then, which translates to more successes simply do to numbers.

each season brings a new team, part of that is based on what the team did the prior year, we wont have the easy schedule, we may not stay as healthy, we still could have transitional woes with MLF's schemes, lots of stuff can derail the outcome, the point is to prepare by taking players that stand the best chance to improve that outcome, imho we have not the last 4 or 5 years, instead we hog tied our best player by not providing him the type players that would help him excel, and to me thats been a huge mistake.

That's exactly right; each season brings a new team. And that is exactly why Guty and MLF and staff are where they are today. They are going to believe that there will be growth in all phases of the team. They will run and defend the run better, even with lesser replacements. They will pass and defend the pass better too. They are going to believe in their plans and concepts.

That doesn't mean they haven't either sought other WRs/players in FA, or wanted to draft other players. But if the guys you can believe in simply aren't available what are ya gonna do? And then some who fit your system are there in the draft anyhow and you believe in them? And your WRs should step up in year 3, like Davante and others did. Those things are perfectly reasonable.

This team might win a couple less games next season and still be a better team and stand up better to a team like the Niners.

welll ya, of course Guty and MLF believe in there plan, thats not to say other plans wont work, and that better receivers would be part of that plan.

this goes back to the 2016 draft and since then with both Ted and Guty, both have passed on quality prospects in every draft class, and your acting as though it was impossible for us to draft them, reality is every other GM didn't pass on em and all have the same type choices we had, your just defending the poor choices both have made, guty had options the last 3 drafts, just as Ted did for a few years prior, this idea that Rodgers has had impact receivers is quickly shot down by any sports person that follows this game.

I'm going to open this post by stating that I, too, really wanted to add a top-flight WR that could win the #2 spot by mid-season. So I'm not poo-poo'ing the discussion.

But what's sorta frustrating is that almost everyone would agree with two things:

• Devin Funchess is a slight upgrade from Geronimo Allison, and...

• EQSB has more potential to help the team than Ryan Grant did last year

So, if you agree to those two things... and those are the only two changes made to the WR group... then our WR group DID get better this year. Not as much as we want. Not with an elite talent. Not with a draft pick or pricey free agent.

But if the only two changes made were positive-replacements, then we've made a positive change on the position.

So we slightly upgraded the position from the 13-3 team while also adding to other aspects of the offense designed to make the passing game easier.

On offense,
Wagner < Bulaga
Funchess > Allison
EQSB > Ryan Grant
Sternberger =?= Jimmy Graham
Deguara >? Vitale
Dillon > Dexter Williams and probably Jamaal Williams

and even some depth...
Love > Manny Wilkins
Runyan >? Cole Madison

Like, we're actually better on offense, fairly objectively. And we're all up in arms that we're not MORE BETTER BY ENOUGH.

Is the defense better? I'm not sure. Talent-wise, Kirksey > Martinez, but in availability and consistency? Martinez takes the cake. And Tramon Williams was a very solid major contributor, now likely to be replaced by SUllivan, who was also solid in a smaler role, but is certainly more unknown... or Hollman? We don't know. And the new additions to the depth chart come from Day 3, where we shouldn't count on a lot rookie impact, barring injury.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

29 Apr 2020 10:58

I'm going to open this post by stating that I, too, really wanted to add a top-flight WR that could win the #2 spot by mid-season. So I'm not poo-poo'ing the discussion.

But what's sorta frustrating is that almost everyone would agree with two things:

• Devin Funchess is a slight upgrade from Geronimo Allison, and...

• EQSB has more potential to help the team than Ryan Grant did last year

So, if you agree to those two things... and those are the only two changes made to the WR group... then our WR group DID get better this year. Not as much as we want. Not with an elite talent. Not with a draft pick or pricey free agent.

But if the only two changes made were positive-replacements, then we've made a positive change on the position.

So we slightly upgraded the position from the 13-3 team while also adding to other aspects of the offense designed to make the passing game easier.

On offense,
Wagner < Bulaga
Funchess > Allison
EQSB > Ryan Grant
Sternberger =?= Jimmy Graham
Deguara >? Vitale
Dillon > Dexter Williams and probably Jamaal Williams

and even some depth...
Love > Manny Wilkins
Runyan >? Cole Madison

Like, we're actually better on offense, fairly objectively. And we're all up in arms that we're not MORE BETTER BY ENOUGH.

Is the defense better? I'm not sure. Talent-wise, Kirksey > Martinez, but in availability and consistency? Martinez takes the cake. And Tramon Williams was a very solid major contributor, now likely to be replaced by SUllivan, who was also solid in a smaler role, but is certainly more unknown... or Hollman? We don't know. And the new additions to the depth chart come from Day 3, where we shouldn't count on a lot rookie impact, barring injury.

my issue with this is that you are automatically assuming health, from players who do not deserve that benefit of the doubt. Both "upgrades" missed all of 2019. Its hard to predict how they will file back onto the field in 2020.

Wagner missed 4 games last year, kirksley has played 9 games in two seasons, EQ missed all of 19 and has 333 yards to his name for his entire career, Funchess has played in 15 games in two seasons, Even stern spent time on IR last year.

Just saying that sure we might have found replacements for guys from last year, but almost all of them we assuming to be healthy when the evidence shows they wont be.