Packers Huddle

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 09:59

more horse manure, do you ever tire of shoveling, Adams stats in every recordable measurable have declined from the last 2 seasons, minus Rodgers and he's just a top 10 receiver, may not even make the pro bowl.

I said MVP, not best fantasy football player.

The fact that he can still be a Top-10 WR as a guy pushing 30 and on a dysfunctional franchise is actually very impressive.

You have to be truly valuable (as the V in MVP stands for) to produce no matter how unfavorable the circumstances. He produced with Hundley, he produced when McCarthy hit a wall, he produced with a rookie coach in LaFleur, now he's even producing for the stinky Raiders.

Going from Top-2 to Top-10 with all those changes is remarkable; Rodgers had two toys taken away and nosedives from #1 to like #27. That shows you which of the two was the REAL MVP.

I remember when people thought the team would be better without Adams lololol

No you don't, because no one (other than maybe Labrev) ever said the team would be better without Adams.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 11:28

No you don't, because no one (other than maybe Labrev) ever said the team would be better without Adams.

I do remember someone saying that, and if it was Labrev, he is a person in my eyes. Is he subhuman to you?

The idea was that he wouldn’t be Locked onto adams and would have to distribute the ball around more evening making us less predictable. It was a silly idea, but it was stated.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 11:28

No you don't, because no one (other than maybe Labrev) ever said the team would be better without Adams.

Yep, I of all people should have realized who the true MVP was (and who it wasn't).

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 11:32

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 11:28

No you don't, because no one (other than maybe Labrev) ever said the team would be better without Adams.

I do remember someone saying that, and if it was Labrev, he is a person in my eyes. Is he subhuman to you?

The idea was that he wouldn’t be Locked onto adams and would have to distribute the ball around more evening making us less predictable. It was a silly idea, but it was stated.

Oh, you know you were trying to apply that statement to more than just Labrev. Let's be real and not play games.

The idea NEVER went so far as suggesting the offense would be better without Adams, all else staying the same. The idea is that the offense could function at a high level still, minus Adams. There was evidence to support that idea, as well. Unfortunately, the reality is the offense could not survive the loss of Adams. The offense could not adapt for a season like it did for those stretches in the past.

Labrev wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 10:56

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 09:59

more horse manure, do you ever tire of shoveling, Adams stats in every recordable measurable have declined from the last 2 seasons, minus Rodgers and he's just a top 10 receiver, may not even make the pro bowl.

I said MVP, not best fantasy football player.

The fact that he can still be a Top-10 WR as a guy pushing 30 and on a dysfunctional franchise is actually very impressive.

You have to be truly valuable (as the V in MVP stands for) to produce no matter how unfavorable the circumstances. He produced with Hundley, he produced when McCarthy hit a wall, he produced with a rookie coach in LaFleur, now he's even producing for the stinky Raiders.

Going from Top-2 to Top-10 with all those changes is remarkable; Rodgers had two toys taken away and nosedives from #1 to like #27. That shows you which of the two was the REAL MVP.

Hurry, Hurry, blue light special on chest waders at Amazon

Adams has a good QB throwing him the ball, and Rodgers has excelled here with less talent then the Raiders have multiple times, Rodgers made Adams, hardly the other way around as you seem to think, hell half this forum where calling Adams a bust his 2nd season, I suppose that was Rodgers fault too.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 11:39

The idea is that the offense could function at a high level still, minus Adams.

ehhh, who's idea was this?

Rodgers was extended for 2 and possibly 3 years, the WR room even with the addition of WAtkins left little hope for passing success, why people think this was a 1 year window doesn't jive with the contract, at all, the projection seems like the 2nd year of this extension is the prime year, almost every draft ( minus WAlker) need coaching up, this receiver group specially, the injury's with OL point to next season as well.

this team has talent, some not achieved yet but hold a lot of promise, even though I havn't voiced it, I've thought all along since draft day that this group looks better for 2023, and my views on that seem more conclusive now.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 11:39

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 11:32

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 11:28

No you don't, because no one (other than maybe Labrev) ever said the team would be better without Adams.

I do remember someone saying that, and if it was Labrev, he is a person in my eyes. Is he subhuman to you?

The idea was that he wouldn’t be Locked onto adams and would have to distribute the ball around more evening making us less predictable. It was a silly idea, but it was stated.

Oh, you know you were trying to apply that statement to more than just Labrev. Let's be real and not play games.

The idea NEVER went so far as suggesting the offense would be better without Adams, all else staying the same. The idea is that the offense could function at a high level still, minus Adams. There was evidence to support that idea, as well. Unfortunately, the reality is the offense could not survive the loss of Adams. The offense could not adapt for a season like it did for those stretches in the past.

lol chill out man. I def remember it being a real conversation led by some ring leaders. Your memory has failed you.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 11:32

I do remember someone saying that, and if it was Labrev, he is a person in my eyes. Is he subhuman to you?

The idea was that he wouldn’t be Locked onto adams and would have to distribute the ball around more evening making us less predictable. It was a silly idea, but it was stated.

I stated it. The idea was contingent not simply on Rodgers actually changing his approach (which he hasn't) but more importantly, that an elite defense must reign supreme, which has also sadly not materialized. By the way, keep that in mind next time we talk about Brady. I remember you and lupe thought I missed that "defense wins championships" and that he enjoyed great defenses; I didn't.

The one thing that sets apart 2010 from every other Rodgers team is Defense. Not receivers, he's had as-good or better WRs in other years and didn't go the distance. Not OL, he's had as-good or better in other years. Defense is the key.

Hey, if I was content with strong regular seasons and early playoff exits, then yeah, there would be no question in my mind about the need to bring back Adams. But that stopped being good enough for me. To go the distance with Rodgers, we need a defense that will score *for* him in the playoffs when he inevitably chokes. Yes, even in 2010, he choked, we just happened to have the ability to overcome it. How? Defense bailed him out.

So first, if Adams came at the expense of multiple starters on D, am I supposed to believe this would be any less of a lost season than if we had him? Not to mention no MVS, who helped draw some attention away from Adams.

Second (more importantly), why bother giving Rodgers good WRs at the expense of a good defense when we've run that experiment many times and know how it ends?

All my stance was, was... let's run the experiment to make this a D-led team rather than live and die by Rodgers's arm (and delicate psyche, such that falling behind by more than a TD with him is a death sentence). Sadly the D has not been elite, so that ruins things more than the WR situation, but it's also clear that this QB will sooner throw three picks and lose against Detroit than slightly change his approach on O and check his massive ego, so we need not bother continuing. Rodgers wins (nothing).

Labrev wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 12:13

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 11:32

I do remember someone saying that, and if it was Labrev, he is a person in my eyes. Is he subhuman to you?

The idea was that he wouldn’t be Locked onto adams and would have to distribute the ball around more evening making us less predictable. It was a silly idea, but it was stated.

I stated it. The idea was contingent not simply on Rodgers actually changing his approach (which he hasn't) but more importantly, that an elite defense must reign supreme, which has also sadly not materialized. By the way, keep that in mind next time we talk about Brady. I remember you thought I somehow missed that he enjoyed great defenses; I didn't.

The one thing that sets apart 2010 from every other Rodgers team is Defense. Not receivers, he's had as-good or better WRs in other years and didn't go the distance. Not OL, he's had as-good or better in other years. Defense is the key.

Hey, if I was content with strong regular seasons and early playoff exits, then yeah, there would be no question in my mind about the need to bring back Adams. But that stopped being good enough for me. To go the distance with Rodgers, we need a defense that will score *for* him in the playoffs when he inevitably chokes. Yes, even in 2010, he choked, we just happened to have the ability to overcome it. How? Defense bailed him out.

Yeah I wasnt really calling anyone out. I just remember it stated for sure, and I remember others thought well of the idea too. Remember when Adams was out with turf toe and we beat 4 bad teams? That really made a lot of people discuss the idea.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 12:12

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 11:39

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 11:32

I do remember someone saying that, and if it was Labrev, he is a person in my eyes. Is he subhuman to you?

The idea was that he wouldn’t be Locked onto adams and would have to distribute the ball around more evening making us less predictable. It was a silly idea, but it was stated.

Oh, you know you were trying to apply that statement to more than just Labrev. Let's be real and not play games.

The idea NEVER went so far as suggesting the offense would be better without Adams, all else staying the same. The idea is that the offense could function at a high level still, minus Adams. There was evidence to support that idea, as well. Unfortunately, the reality is the offense could not survive the loss of Adams. The offense could not adapt for a season like it did for those stretches in the past.

lol chill out man. I def remember it being a real conversation led by some ring leaders. You are a clown.

You remember incorrectly. There was not a real conversation around us being BETTER without Adams all else being equal. I get it, you want it to be to drive the narrative, but it isn't. As I described, it centered around being ok without him. Keep up the good work! How's the bridge?

Labrev wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 12:21

So first, if Adams came at the expense of multiple starters on D, am I supposed to believe this would be any less of a lost season than if we had him? Not to mention no MVS, who helped draw some attention away from Adams.

Second (more importantly), why bother giving Rodgers good WRs at the expense of a good defense when we've run that experiment many times and know how it ends?

All my stance was, was... let's run the experiment to make this a D-led team rather than live and die by Rodgers's arm (and delicate psyche, such that falling behind by more than a TD with him is a death sentence). Sadly the D has not been elite, so that ruins things more than the WR situation, but it's also clear that this QB will sooner throw three picks and lose against Detroit than slightly change his approach on O and check his massive ego, so we need not bother continuing. Rodgers wins (nothing).

just stop the insanity Labrev, your creating any scenario that pops in your head, we needed someone besides just Adams, and we've needed that guy since 2016, look at how Adams was blanketed in last years PO game, minus RB Jones and our offense would have been completely shut down, and we probably would have won the damn game if it hadn't been for our last in the league every season special teams unit.

5 years our FO neglected to bring in a compliment to Adams, 5 stinking years, and just go look around, quality defenses need more then just players, they need excellent coaching and a ton of luck when it comes to health, lose a couple players, and you have a average defense, defense is the most unstable aspect of the game, always has been always will be, thats simply the nature of football

easiest way to win is no top secret, a good defense, a good OL, a good QB and good receivers and you'll contend every year, you just watched how that works for a decade yet still argue abou the formula, and your a freaking graduate student for gosh sakes, pull the chain, the light bulb will go on

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 12:34

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 12:12

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 11:39

Oh, you know you were trying to apply that statement to more than just Labrev. Let's be real and not play games.

The idea NEVER went so far as suggesting the offense would be better without Adams, all else staying the same. The idea is that the offense could function at a high level still, minus Adams. There was evidence to support that idea, as well. Unfortunately, the reality is the offense could not survive the loss of Adams. The offense could not adapt for a season like it did for those stretches in the past.

lol chill out man. I def remember it being a real conversation led by some ring leaders. You are a clown.

You remember incorrectly. There was not a real conversation around us being BETTER without Adams all else being equal. I get it, you want it to be to drive the narrative, but it isn't. As I described, it centered around being ok without him. Keep up the good work! How's the bridge?

gut splitting humor at the Huddle, it don't come any better then this

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 12:38

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 12:34

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 12:12

lol chill out man. I def remember it being a real conversation led by some ring leaders. You are a clown.

You remember incorrectly. There was not a real conversation around us being BETTER without Adams all else being equal. I get it, you want it to be to drive the narrative, but it isn't. As I described, it centered around being ok without him. Keep up the good work! How's the bridge?

You stay classy San Diego!

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 12:37

easiest way to win is no top secret, a good defense, a good OL, a good QB and good receivers and you'll contend every year,

Of course!!! Because as we all know, NFL teams have unlimited money to pay for a good defenders, good O-Lineman, a good QB (definitely not an expensive position to pay for), and good plural-receiver receivers!

No wait, actually, those are all free! How silly of me.

Thanks, yoop. I was so blind to the need for great players in football!

For me, it was not that the offense would be better without Adams, it was that it could be different in a way that might be beneficial, if certain things happened (in no order):

1) More use of running backs
2) More use of tight ends (contingent on Tonyan)
3) Getting back to LaFleur's intended scheme (think 2019 style)
4) Rodgers playing within the above scheme
5) The defense being top 10 or better
6) OL plays up to their talent (contingent on Bakh and Jenkins)

Had some combination of those happened, there would have been less pressure on Rodgers, and this team would likely have a winning record. Additionally, a team with a strong running game and defense would, in theory, be better suited for the playoffs. Unfortunately, things did not work out and we've basically got a worst-case scenario going on.

Labrev wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 12:45

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 12:37

easiest way to win is no top secret, a good defense, a good OL, a good QB and good receivers and you'll contend every year,

Of course!!! Because as we all know, NFL teams have unlimited money to pay for a good defenders, good O-Lineman, a good QB (definitely not an expensive position to pay for), and good plural-receiver receivers!

No wait, actually, those are all free! How silly of me.

Thanks, yoop. I was so blind to the need for great players in football!

you have Lupe syndrome, never said they all had to be all pro, we have had some very good teams over the last decade, who stopped us, stupid ego centric players doing stupid stuff, as I said GOOD players, not great at every position, stars here and there along with more average players win freaking SB's every year, Philly is 9-0, I rest my case.