Packers Huddle

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

10 May 2021 13:27

MVS seems highly unlikely to be more than a role playing deep threat. If he improves, he could be a #2. If he is what he is, he should be a #3. That's tough to pay for, even if it's fairly inexpensive. Especially when we need to find a new #1 to maximize the value of that player.

I'd prefer to keep Adams on a big deal and EQSB on a tiny deal and try to draft an improved #2 option with Rodgers in the slot than keep MVS and maybe Lazard on mid-level deals and try to replace the #1 with a draft pick

If he stays on the right track, I'd pay MVS top #3 money, but yeah, I doubt any of that works out and he will probably find a really nice pay day somewhere else.

I consider Lazard to be one of the best blocking move TEs in the league. Not my fault he has the wrong number on his jersey.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

10 May 2021 13:51

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 May 2021 13:47

Adams is about the same with Rodgers as Sterling was to Favre

I doubt you or some other here will agree, but 10 years from now the only receiver anyone will remember from these last couple year of Rodgers will be Adams, mark it down, cause that will be the case.

From the last "couple of years," sure. He's been the only guy with more than 50 catches or 800 yards in the past two years.

But I'm pretty sure the Rodgers era will be remembered for having a multitude of Pro Bowl receivers--Adams and Jordy and Cobb and Jennings, not to mention James Jones who is fairly forgettable except that he's still a well-liked, appreciated, well-connected-to-Rodgers NFL analyst.

Hopefully we'll have others to remember in the "next couple of years"

I ment from about 2016 on, and if the two could/would/should stay together it would resemble that Favre/ Sharp era, not that Tae is as good as Sterling was, more so that like then with Favre, Rodgers has had a #1 receiver, no real #2 and a bunch of #3 or lesser able receivers.

I agree about GJ, Nelson, Cobb and Jones, sure everyone will remember them.

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 May 2021 13:49

go pak go wrote: ↑

10 May 2021 13:10

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 May 2021 13:01

like I said, a Rodgers trade should bring us offensive players, cause where going to need them.

Definitely something to consider for sure.

And I am serious too about MVS if he does show progression and improvement in 2021, I would strongly consider resigning him.

It took until 2019 for Davante to REALLY finally take off and be the bonafide top WR we know him today. Before that, he showed glimpses (and yes 2016 - 2018 were better than MVS) but could never put it all together.

It can take time for WRs to get into their zone and if MVS shows that continued progress....he may end up being a steal on a 2nd contract.

read my prior post, you are really underselling Adams

Hey now. I am the one who said all last year Davante Adams is the best WR in GB history. And I still stand by that.

NCF wrote: ↑

10 May 2021 13:54

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 May 2021 13:49

go pak go wrote: ↑

10 May 2021 13:10

Definitely something to consider for sure.

And I am serious too about MVS if he does show progression and improvement in 2021, I would strongly consider resigning him.

It took until 2019 for Davante to REALLY finally take off and be the bonafide top WR we know him today. Before that, he showed glimpses (and yes 2016 - 2018 were better than MVS) but could never put it all together.

It can take time for WRs to get into their zone and if MVS shows that continued progress....he may end up being a steal on a 2nd contract.

read my prior post, you are really underselling Adams

Yeah, @go pak go, your timeline is flawed here. Adams broke out in the second half of 2016, IMO, with the Run The Table stretch. He was well on his way to another big year and pretty much had become the de facto #1 by this point when Rodgers went down in 2017. Produced more than any of the others with Hundley, as well, although limited stats, obviously. 2018 his stat line exploded and with Jordy already gone, Jimmy sucking, and Cobb hurt, he began his run as pretty much our only WR worth a damn.

I remember those years very well and he at that time was a top 10 WR in the league when talking about 2017 and 2018. Except I also remember thinking he was a b*tch based on how he said the NFL overlooked him and then seeing him not make the play to beat MN in Week 2 in 2018. He eventually overcame that.

By no means am I ever going to suggest that MVS will follow in the Adams footsteps. But I will also state that MVS will be making 30% of what Adams new deal is too while also coming to grips that he likely won't be a Packer next year.

And this is how I cope.

17 is a top WR in this league and there is not hardly anyone we could get back in a trade that will command the attention he does for our O. The drop off between him and what we have left on the roster is enormous. If he walks, that’s a massive loss. In no way do I see MVS ever being any sort of replacement for him or it being better for the packers in any way.

If we can’t afford him, we can’t afford him...but his game will age well and it will def hurt us. Minimum upside to losing a guy like 17.

go pak go wrote: ↑

10 May 2021 14:47

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 May 2021 13:49

go pak go wrote: ↑

10 May 2021 13:10

Definitely something to consider for sure.

And I am serious too about MVS if he does show progression and improvement in 2021, I would strongly consider resigning him.

It took until 2019 for Davante to REALLY finally take off and be the bonafide top WR we know him today. Before that, he showed glimpses (and yes 2016 - 2018 were better than MVS) but could never put it all together.

It can take time for WRs to get into their zone and if MVS shows that continued progress....he may end up being a steal on a 2nd contract.

read my prior post, you are really underselling Adams

Hey now. I am the one who said all last year Davante Adams is the best WR in GB history. And I still stand by that.

While I understand your feeling this way, I have trouble with a GOAT statement. Some of the greats from the past would be just as good if not better in today's game. Sharpe, Lofton and my favorite, Don Hutson played in eras where the passing game wasn't like it is now. Hutson absolutely dominated receiving like no one ever has.

you people would be lost without me.

paco wrote: ↑

10 May 2021 16:39

you people would be lost without me.

I remember Chad Kelly. Had him on a dynasty roster at one point as a longshot. That's the camp arm. That's a good sign. Mullens or Bortles would be the veteran. Maybe a bad sign. Sorry, tea leaves.

NCF wrote: ↑

10 May 2021 13:56

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

10 May 2021 13:27

MVS seems highly unlikely to be more than a role playing deep threat. If he improves, he could be a #2. If he is what he is, he should be a #3. That's tough to pay for, even if it's fairly inexpensive. Especially when we need to find a new #1 to maximize the value of that player.

I'd prefer to keep Adams on a big deal and EQSB on a tiny deal and try to draft an improved #2 option with Rodgers in the slot than keep MVS and maybe Lazard on mid-level deals and try to replace the #1 with a draft pick

If he stays on the right track, I'd pay MVS top #3 money, but yeah, I doubt any of that works out and he will probably find a really nice pay day somewhere else.

What is number 3 money? Like 3 years $11million or something like that? If thats what he wants, and he plays next year like he did in the NFCCG then sure im down.

But the MVS that we saw most of the year is not reliable enough for me to want to pay anything to, because I feel i can get his production from an UDFA or a player on a rookie deal.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 May 2021 10:06

NCF wrote: ↑

10 May 2021 13:56

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

10 May 2021 13:27

MVS seems highly unlikely to be more than a role playing deep threat. If he improves, he could be a #2. If he is what he is, he should be a #3. That's tough to pay for, even if it's fairly inexpensive. Especially when we need to find a new #1 to maximize the value of that player.

I'd prefer to keep Adams on a big deal and EQSB on a tiny deal and try to draft an improved #2 option with Rodgers in the slot than keep MVS and maybe Lazard on mid-level deals and try to replace the #1 with a draft pick

If he stays on the right track, I'd pay MVS top #3 money, but yeah, I doubt any of that works out and he will probably find a really nice pay day somewhere else.

What is number 3 money? Like 3 years $11million or something like that? If thats what he wants, and he plays next year like he did in the NFCCG then sure im down.

But the MVS that we saw most of the year is not reliable enough for me to want to pay anything to, because I feel i can get his production from an UDFA or a player on a rookie deal.

I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if MVS is an 800 - 900 yard receiver in 21 and he out prices himself in the market. I believe Jordan Love is pretty damned good at the long ball. MVS is not a bad guy on your team with a QB like that.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 May 2021 10:06

NCF wrote: ↑

10 May 2021 13:56

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

10 May 2021 13:27

MVS seems highly unlikely to be more than a role playing deep threat. If he improves, he could be a #2. If he is what he is, he should be a #3. That's tough to pay for, even if it's fairly inexpensive. Especially when we need to find a new #1 to maximize the value of that player.

I'd prefer to keep Adams on a big deal and EQSB on a tiny deal and try to draft an improved #2 option with Rodgers in the slot than keep MVS and maybe Lazard on mid-level deals and try to replace the #1 with a draft pick

If he stays on the right track, I'd pay MVS top #3 money, but yeah, I doubt any of that works out and he will probably find a really nice pay day somewhere else.

What is number 3 money? Like 3 years $11million or something like that? If thats what he wants, and he plays next year like he did in the NFCCG then sure im down.

But the MVS that we saw most of the year is not reliable enough for me to want to pay anything to, because I feel i can get his production from an UDFA or a player on a rookie deal.

Probably looking at closer to $8-9M per or so... fringe #2 type money, but based on some of the deals signed this offseason, that is a pretty low bar.

paco wrote: ↑

10 May 2021 16:39

you people would be lost without me.

where lost now with ya

from Warren Sharp

Number of Games losing the turnover battle since 2019 (out of 32 games played)

17 - PHI
16 - HOU, CIN, DET, NYG, LAR, CAR, DAL
15 - DEN
14 - SF, ATL, CLE, CHI
13 - MIN, LVR, NYJ, JAX, IND, LAC
12 - MIA, ARI
11 - WAS, TB
10
9 - TEN
8 - KC, PIT, SEA, NE, GB
7 - BUF, NO
6 - BAL

its good to be in good company on the turnover side
.

paco wrote: ↑

10 May 2021 16:39

you people would be lost without me.

I kinda liked Benkert in the 2019 preseason with Atlanta

Is it my imagination, or does Kelly have a bit of a long wind-up at times?

BSA wrote: ↑

11 May 2021 12:29

from Warren Sharp

Number of Games losing the turnover battle since 2019 (out of 32 games played)

17 - PHI
16 - HOU, CIN, DET, NYG, LAR, CAR, DAL
15 - DEN
14 - SF, ATL, CLE, CHI
13 - MIN, LVR, NYJ, JAX, IND, LAC
12 - MIA, ARI
11 - WAS, TB
10
9 - TEN
8 - KC, PIT, SEA, NE, GB
7 - BUF, NO
6 - BAL

its good to be in good company on the turnover side
.

Yup, but winning important games when winning the turnover battle would be great.

Half Empty wrote: ↑

12 May 2021 07:37

BSA wrote: ↑

11 May 2021 12:29

from Warren Sharp

Number of Games losing the turnover battle since 2019 (out of 32 games played)

17 - PHI
16 - HOU, CIN, DET, NYG, LAR, CAR, DAL
15 - DEN
14 - SF, ATL, CLE, CHI
13 - MIN, LVR, NYJ, JAX, IND, LAC
12 - MIA, ARI
11 - WAS, TB
10
9 - TEN
8 - KC, PIT, SEA, NE, GB
7 - BUF, NO
6 - BAL

its good to be in good company on the turnover side
.

Yup, but winning important games when winning the turnover battle would be great.

Yeah it's no longer a question if the Packers are a top NFL team and franchise the last 15 years. We have shown we clearly are.

The question is can the Packers not be the team who always chokes. We never have more than 1 turnover like ever until we get in the postseason.

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 May 2021 10:21

paco wrote: ↑

10 May 2021 16:39

you people would be lost without me.

where lost now with ya

We're.