Packers Huddle

There is an interesting clip on FF here about our draft of Doug Gottibe's radio show. It is near the end of the page.

https://forums.footballsfuture.com/topi ... n/?page=15

Pugger wrote: ↑

30 Apr 2020 08:55

There is an interesting clip on FF here about our draft of Doug Gottibe's radio show. It is near the end of the page.

https://forums.footballsfuture.com/topi ... n/?page=15

Good find. He makes some excellent points.

Pugger wrote: ↑

30 Apr 2020 08:55

There is an interesting clip on FF here about our draft of Doug Gottibe's radio show. It is near the end of the page.

https://forums.footballsfuture.com/topi ... n/?page=15

Doug doesn’t know Rodgers age. He also said Rodgers will probably play another 3-4 years. Rodgers has already stated he wants to play well into his 40’s.

While I agree with his assessment on the topic regarding the 1st rd wr tweet, I don’t really think he brings up any other good points.

He doesn’t understand the drama that has been created. And I’m not talking about the fans and pundits. I’m referring to Rodgers and the team itself. We’ve already been through this before. Rodgers may put on a good face but you know this draft has really pissed him off.

"I'd love to play to 40," Rodgers told NBC's Peter King. "I just think that number means a lot. Obviously, Tom [Brady] is kind of rewriting the book. Brett [Favre] had a good season when he turned 40. My goal is be able to move like I do or close to how I do and still be able to do that at 40 … just because nobody's been able to do that and still move around the same. Steve Young's career was cut short in his late thirties. John [Elway], the same—he didn't really move the same as when he was younger. So to be able to move the same way at 38, 39, 40 would be cool. That's my aim."

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/how- ... lay-to-40/

I think there is MUCH more drama from fans and mediatypes than there is going on with Rodgers or the Packers.

Let's be honest, *we* don't really know the drama it's created. Even Favre's comments were extremely mild and he had reason to play them up to cover his own past.

Amos has been tweeting today about how the media overplay Rodgers attitude.

If Rodgers wants to play into his 40s good for him. And if he's able to continue to perform at the required level then he will do. No one is stopping him.

Foosball wrote: ↑

30 Apr 2020 15:21

Pugger wrote: ↑

30 Apr 2020 08:55

There is an interesting clip on FF here about our draft of Doug Gottibe's radio show. It is near the end of the page.

https://forums.footballsfuture.com/topi ... n/?page=15

Doug doesn’t know Rodgers age. He also said Rodgers will probably play another 3-4 years. Rodgers has already stated he wants to play well into his 40’s.

While I agree with his assessment on the topic regarding the 1st rd wr tweet, I don’t really think he brings up any other good points.

He doesn’t understand the drama that has been created. And I’m not talking about the fans and pundits. I’m referring to Rodgers and the team itself. We’ve already been through this before. Rodgers may put on a good face but you know this draft has really pissed him off.

I noticed that too but other than that he made some good points.

British wrote: ↑

30 Apr 2020 15:37

Let's be honest, *we* don't really know the drama it's created. Even Favre's comments were extremely mild and he had reason to play them up to cover his own past.

Amos has been tweeting today about how the media overplay Rodgers attitude.

If Rodgers wants to play into his 40s good for him. And if he's able to continue to perform at the required level then he will do. No one is stopping him.

Is he perturbed? possibly, does he still believe his game is intact? sure sounds confident to me, wants to play at a high level for at least 4 more years, eats right, lives right, exercises, I don't see any reason why he can't, plus he's another year removed from his collar bone injury, huge as bones often take a couple years to really heal to the point the person doesn't think about playing safe to not re injure it (mostly mental), plus Matt is reeling in the schemes which should provide further protection, biggest thing now to me concerning the pass game is if as Yoho hopes EQSB or one of the others step up and actually demand and take that #2 spot, that would help imo a lot, less of a revolving door of a new receiver there every week, build some chemistry.

I wanna send EQ a hologram message that's all "Help us, Equanimeous. You're our only hope!"

Just a little inspiration, ya know?

But also sign a DT. And I haven't ruled out Stills or I guess Pettis, but what is Pettis even? Just a guy.

Yoop wrote: ↑

30 Apr 2020 16:18

British wrote: ↑

30 Apr 2020 15:37

Let's be honest, *we* don't really know the drama it's created. Even Favre's comments were extremely mild and he had reason to play them up to cover his own past.

Amos has been tweeting today about how the media overplay Rodgers attitude.

If Rodgers wants to play into his 40s good for him. And if he's able to continue to perform at the required level then he will do. No one is stopping him.

Is he perturbed? possibly, does he still believe his game is intact? sure sounds confident to me, wants to play at a high level for at least 4 more years, eats right, lives right, exercises, I don't see any reason why he can't, plus he's another year removed from his collar bone injury, huge as bones often take a couple years to really heal to the point the person doesn't think about playing safe to not re injure it (mostly mental), plus Matt is reeling in the schemes which should provide further protection, biggest thing now to me concerning the pass game is if as Yoho hopes EQSB or one of the others step up and actually demand and take that #2 spot, that would help imo a lot, less of a revolving door of a new receiver there every week, build some chemistry.

Agreed.

I'm also excited to see ESB. He finished strong in 2018 which was the last time he played.

But I'm equally interested in Funchess for the same reason. The last time he played he had just been signed as a $10m a year player. Nothing in terms of his play has diminished that value. And it's not like he's on the downside age wise.

Seems reasonable that MVS is WR5 early next year. Which puts us in better shape than last season.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

30 Apr 2020 16:26

I wanna send EQ a hologram message that's all "Help us, Equanimeous. You're our only hope!"

Just a little inspiration, ya know?

But also sign a DT. And I haven't ruled out Stills or I guess Pettis, but what is Pettis even? Just a guy.

ya know when ya watch how SF plays the run, or other teams, they recognize that there is a time to penetrate, and a time to simply square up the olineman so that they can flow to the gap where the runner is coming, so when it comes to us needing a DT, simply changing the way we play it would be a good place to start this fix, sure get a big DT, one stout enough to hold the point of attack, but Pettine has to know, it's a numbers game, and we can't penetrate every gap, last year's SF games should be proof enough that those tactics don't work so well.



my nephew labeled MVS, EQSB and the other pick I can't remember his name the 3 stooges mid way through there rookie year, it stuck last year when EQSB went to IR and MVS declined, did we cut the other WR that filled that trio? can't remember, anyway he's hoping on EQSB also to have a leap, 3 year is when many receivers pop, specially mid rounders.

British wrote: ↑

30 Apr 2020 16:56

Yoop wrote: ↑

30 Apr 2020 16:18

British wrote: ↑

30 Apr 2020 15:37

Let's be honest, *we* don't really know the drama it's created. Even Favre's comments were extremely mild and he had reason to play them up to cover his own past.

Amos has been tweeting today about how the media overplay Rodgers attitude.

If Rodgers wants to play into his 40s good for him. And if he's able to continue to perform at the required level then he will do. No one is stopping him.

Is he perturbed? possibly, does he still believe his game is intact? sure sounds confident to me, wants to play at a high level for at least 4 more years, eats right, lives right, exercises, I don't see any reason why he can't, plus he's another year removed from his collar bone injury, huge as bones often take a couple years to really heal to the point the person doesn't think about playing safe to not re injure it (mostly mental), plus Matt is reeling in the schemes which should provide further protection, biggest thing now to me concerning the pass game is if as Yoho hopes EQSB or one of the others step up and actually demand and take that #2 spot, that would help imo a lot, less of a revolving door of a new receiver there every week, build some chemistry.

Agreed.

I'm also excited to see ESB. He finished strong in 2018 which was the last time he played.

But I'm equally interested in Funchess for the same reason. The last time he played he had just been signed as a $10m a year player. Nothing in terms of his play has diminished that value. And it's not like he's on the downside age wise.

Seems reasonable that MVS is WR5 early next year. Which puts us in better shape than last season.

right, Funchess could end up a real steal, we sure enough have the makings of a basketball team in the receiver room, if we get a leap from one or two it could really change the dynamics of our offense.

everyone say Rodgers doesn't throw over the middle enough, well these big jump ball dudes could change all that.

I do wonder what the strategy is with having a rather uniform group of receivers in terms of body type. Maybe LaGute are thinking you can use the big bodies in the run game or that there will likely always be a height matchup you like vs a team's #4 CB. But a bit more variety would be nice.

Yoop wrote: ↑

30 Apr 2020 16:58

my nephew labeled MVS, EQSB and the other pick I can't remember his name the 3 stooges mid way through there rookie year, it stuck last year when EQSB went to IR and MVS declined, did we cut the other WR that filled that trio? can't remember, anyway he's hoping on EQSB also to have a leap, 3 year is when many receivers pop, specially mid rounders.

J'Mon Moore; the slow one. Yeah, we cut him. I have to say, I didn't love it at the time of the pick or anything, but I DID see how he could have been a good fit for us. But there's something about slow WRs with bad hands that makes it tough to break into the league... though Allison and Funchess managed to do it.

But yeah, the 3rd year WRs.

Here's what we know:
MVS and EQSB as rookies split the WR2/3/4 roles depending on who was healthy at any given time.

To start the season, our top 3 was Adams, Cobb, Allison. Cobb got dinged up consistently and was in and out of the lineup all year; and Allison got hurt after week 4 and popped back into the lineup only briefly in week 7 before being shelved.

Initially, MVS took the WR2/3 role from Allison. WR2 when Cobb was out, 3 when Cobb was in. He started decently fast. By the end of the season, even though MVS was still slightly ahead in snap counts, EQ was beginning to emerge as a threat to overtake MVS. To some eyes (mine, included), he had. Then he got a concussion and missed the final week and a half or two of the season.

The stats: You remember this. Rookie WRs in GB. Jennings is generally the only one who was thrust into a semi-starting role right away, as the targets indicate. MVS, Jones, and Adams sort of played that WR3/4 role. Cobb and EQ played more that WR5/4 role.

Second year, EQSB gets injured. Legit, the biggest regret I think management should have is that they kept Shepherd on the active Day One roster instead of exposing him to waivers, keeping EQ for one day, and then putting him on IR with the chance to return like Sternberger. It would have been REALLY nice to get a late-season weapon back. But he didn't. What we KNOW about EQ is that his rookie year can compare to Cobb and Nelson's without losing much (Cobb had a much higher catch percentage because he was a safety/slot receiver). And that's all we know. We also know he had 0 drops on his 36 targets. Zero.

Now MVS. We KNOW he regressed. He went from playing 64% of snaps as a rookie to playing 50% of snaps. We can also remember that Davante Adams regressed as a 2nd-year player. He went from playing 70% of snaps to playing 66% of snaps. Here's how their stats look
MVS regressed more than Adams after very similar rookie seasons, though part of that is less opportunities (significantly fewer snaps). Of course, fewer snaps is indicative, as well.

However, I think these sorts of stats illustrate that 2 years is easily too fast to form a conclusion of someone who has shown flashes and hints that they belong in the league.

If you go back in time at the old site, I was very much a Davante hater in the vein of how people nowadays are about MVS (and to a lesser extent EQSB, but he is less of a known quantity).

Davante's 2nd year was really bad. He had some awful drops.

Interesting piece by ESPN's Bill Barnwell on the Packers' draft

Lots in there, including historical data which suggests the Packers are likely to regress from their 13-3 record in 2020.

Looking at WRs taken in the bottom third of the first round over the past decade:

The average production from these wideouts over their first two seasons, when they would be expected to have an immediate impact for the Packers, is 1,151 yards, or slightly more than what Valdes-Scantling (1,033 receiving yards) has racked up over his first two campaigns. A rookie wideout with Rodgers could expect to be in better shape than, say, Demaryius Thomas was with Tim Tebow, but you get the idea here: Adding a wide receiver at the bottom of the first round isn't a guarantee that the Packers would have upgraded on Valdes-Scantling or Lazard.

The Packers already have added one veteran wide receiver to the mix. I understand fans aren't necessarily excited about Devin Funchess, who missed the final 15 games of 2019 with a collarbone injury, but he averaged 558 receiving yards per season during his time with Carolina, which is right in line with what those first-round picks averaged during their opening two seasons. It's not out of the question that Funchess outproduces rookies Tee Higgins or Michael Pittman Jr., who were the first wideouts off the board after the Packers chose Love.

On Love and Rodgers draft comparison:

This situation isn't all that different from when the Packers drafted Rodgers in 2005.

The idea that Rodgers was in the mix for the first overall pick and then wasn't really an option for other teams before the Packers snapped him up at No. 24 is also revisionist history. The Dolphins drafted Ronnie Brown at No. 2 and started a 34-year-old Gus Frerotte at quarterback. The Browns added Braylon Edwards as opposed to upsetting their mix of Trent Dilfer and Charlie Frye. Teams starting Chris Simms, Mark Brunell, Drew Bledsoe, Jake Delhomme, Trent Green, Kyle Boller and Kerry Collins all passed on drafting Rodgers before the Packers took him. Most of the league passed on Rodgers until he fell to a roughly similar spot as Love.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/291 ... ssion=true

Its only natural the Packers record regresses a bit.

1) They now have a 1st place schedule
2) They were the healthiest theyve been in a very long time. Its highly unlikely that happens again
3) A ton of games that went right down to the wire. 10 games were decided by a possession or less. The Packers were 9-1 in those games. Some unlucky bounces and that number can swing significantly

I still think theyre good enough to win the North and at least make the playoffs. I do have concerns about how they plan to beat the 49ers or Saints.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

01 May 2020 05:46

I still think theyre good enough to win the North and at least make the playoffs. I do have concerns about how they plan to beat the 49ers or Saints.

Yeah, the team is prime to regress, like you said, in terms of record due to health and close game success and what have you.

But the team may actually IMPROVE slightly despite a record regression. And it will be incumbent upon the team to improve enough throughout the season to catch and surpass the Saints and 49ers by the playoffs.

FWIW, I never thought the Saints could handle us in the playoffs last year, either.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

02 May 2020 09:21

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

01 May 2020 05:46

I still think theyre good enough to win the North and at least make the playoffs. I do have concerns about how they plan to beat the 49ers or Saints.

Yeah, the team is prime to regress, like you said, in terms of record due to health and close game success and what have you.

But the team may actually IMPROVE slightly despite a record regression. And it will be incumbent upon the team to improve enough throughout the season to catch and surpass the Saints and 49ers by the playoffs.

FWIW, I never thought the Saints could handle us in the playoffs last year, either.

Yes, we might not win 13 games this season but the overall team might be better.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

02 May 2020 09:21

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

01 May 2020 05:46

I still think theyre good enough to win the North and at least make the playoffs. I do have concerns about how they plan to beat the 49ers or Saints.

Yeah, the team is prime to regress, like you said, in terms of record due to health and close game success and what have you.

But the team may actually IMPROVE slightly despite a record regression. And it will be incumbent upon the team to improve enough throughout the season to catch and surpass the Saints and 49ers by the playoffs.

FWIW, I never thought the Saints could handle us in the playoffs last year, either.

Man, so funny that the middling Vikings knocked out the mighty Saints. No one gave them a hope. And against the team going "all-in" for their ageing QB. The Saints even had the Minneapolis Miracle revenge narrative to motivate them. To no avail. This is why it's dangerous to convince yourself you're one player away.

British wrote: ↑

02 May 2020 13:36

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

02 May 2020 09:21

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

01 May 2020 05:46

I still think theyre good enough to win the North and at least make the playoffs. I do have concerns about how they plan to beat the 49ers or Saints.

Yeah, the team is prime to regress, like you said, in terms of record due to health and close game success and what have you.

But the team may actually IMPROVE slightly despite a record regression. And it will be incumbent upon the team to improve enough throughout the season to catch and surpass the Saints and 49ers by the playoffs.

FWIW, I never thought the Saints could handle us in the playoffs last year, either.

Man, so funny that the middling Vikings knocked out the mighty Saints. No one gave them a hope. And against the team going "all-in" for their ageing QB. The Saints even had the Minneapolis Miracle revenge narrative to motivate them. To no avail. This is why it's dangerous to convince yourself you're one player away.

I think the Saints looked past theVikings. Say what you will but they were definitely the better team. I just think they expected win because they were the better team when that’s never the case.