The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
actually I disagree with that also, again he says what will give him the reaction he wants, totally outlandish 180 degree against established norms with some and very evasive with others, half truths in a attempt to confuse more then enlighten, that way he's never wrong.
None of that refutes my contention that he means what he says. He can achieve all of that by just speaking his mind, if his true beliefs are, in fact, controversial.Yoop wrote: ↑15 Mar 2024 10:53actually I disagree with that also, again he says what will give him the reaction he wants, totally outlandish 180 degree against established norms with some and very evasive with others, half truths in a attempt to confuse more then enlighten, that way he's never wrong.
he's always been this way, far more so these last 4 or 5 years.
whats funny is that just because I supported him as a Quarterback, You think I supported the person,I thinks thats where your getting this martyr opinion, if Rodger opinion concerning these jag receivers was so high, why did he develop tunnel vision with Adams, your letting his politeness with not tarnishing those jags cloud the reality.Labrev wrote: ↑15 Mar 2024 11:08None of that refutes my contention that he means what he says. He can achieve all of that by just speaking his mind, if his true beliefs are, in fact, controversial.Yoop wrote: ↑15 Mar 2024 10:53actually I disagree with that also, again he says what will give him the reaction he wants, totally outlandish 180 degree against established norms with some and very evasive with others, half truths in a attempt to confuse more then enlighten, that way he's never wrong.
he's always been this way, far more so these last 4 or 5 years.
The evidence is against you on this. You would have us believe he just expresses stuff like vaccine hesitancy not because he believes in it, but because he is a troll seeking attention. Except, he did not take the vaccine, so he clearly believed what he was saying about that. It was not that he was just BS'ing people. He was speaking his mind, even if it gets backlash.
Face it, yoop. Rodgers does not share your opinion on the WRs nor was he a victim; he was a big reason we had the guys we did. In fact, even all the other people who agree with you about the WR situation agree that Rodgers hyping up scrubs was a big part of the issue.
You are the only person still living in lala land on this, because you have some strange need to make Rodgers a martyr as an expression of your own discontentment with the WRs as a fan. It's WEIRD.
Fortunately Gutekunst was smart enough not to offer Lazard or MVS the kind of money both received in free agency.
MVS is currently a free agent but Lazard is still under contract with the Jets. His base salary of $10 million for this season is fully guaranteedYoop wrote: ↑15 Mar 2024 09:53again I have doubts that we offered either of those two a contract extension, if so it would have been much lower then the Jets or KC paid, and the only reason they did as well for us as they did, was the position was void of starter talent, once they went to the Jets and KC we have seen there actual value, aren't they both UFA now? I don't don't pay attention to that stuff as much as you and others.
I'm still very happy for Lazard getting a contract like that. Good for him. But he is a textbook example of overpay. He isn't a $10M WR.
Almost all $10MM WRs can be classified as overpays. The mid WR market is completely overinflated.Scott4Pack wrote: ↑19 Mar 2024 16:19I'm still very happy for Lazard getting a contract like that. Good for him. But he is a textbook example of overpay. He isn't a $10M WR.
that was my point all along, we all Love Tae Adams, what we shouldn't love is paying him 29 million dollars, the only way out of that is to draft quality replacements every couple years, versus mid round reaches, sure ya can hit on one of those guys, not saying to not use a mid rounder on a receiver, just not to count on them being a starter in the rotation, which is what we did, and it failed, that is what frustrated me.go pak go wrote: ↑19 Mar 2024 16:22Almost all $10MM WRs can be classified as overpays. The mid WR market is completely overinflated.Scott4Pack wrote: ↑19 Mar 2024 16:19I'm still very happy for Lazard getting a contract like that. Good for him. But he is a textbook example of overpay. He isn't a $10M WR.
It's why people are saying to just continue drafting WRs so we don't have to pay 8 digits for a mid #2/#3 WR.
course you don't, and Adams never beat triple coverage, nice try, also KC took advantage of dumb defensive mistakes, take Kelce out of the game as we saw several times with Adams and they lose just as we did.Labrev wrote: ↑20 Mar 2024 08:59I don't have a problem paying for an elite WR, especially one that commands double- and even at times triple-coverage like Adams did. That opens up the field for everyone, so you can have a productive offense without needing them to all be world-beaters.
KC just won a second title with Kelce and lots of nondescript WRs, because they save the resources to field a very complete all-around team than obsess over one position. There are 20 other starting positions that also need to be addressed in a draft (more if you count ST units).
To be fair, at no point did [mention]Labrev[/mention] argue that Adams beat triple coverage. He said that he commanded double and triple coverage. You changed his text and then argued with him about it. And then you accuse him of not having a logical discussion.Yoop wrote: ↑20 Mar 2024 09:18course you don't, and Adams never beat triple coverage, nice try, also KC took advantage of dumb defensive mistakes, take Kelce out of the game as we saw several times with Adams and they lose just as we did.Labrev wrote: ↑20 Mar 2024 08:59I don't have a problem paying for an elite WR, especially one that commands double- and even at times triple-coverage like Adams did. That opens up the field for everyone, so you can have a productive offense without needing them to all be world-beaters.
KC just won a second title with Kelce and lots of nondescript WRs, because they save the resources to field a very complete all-around team than obsess over one position. There are 20 other starting positions that also need to be addressed in a draft (more if you count ST units).
2 or 3 very good receivers is better then just one Adams or Kelce any day of the week.
can't even discuss stuff logically with you
He does not -have- to beat triple-coverage, that's the point. You already won when they do that; the D stretched themselves too thin to cover everyone, so *someone* is in position to make the play (hence, KC's offense taking advantage of "dumb defensive mistakes").
I didn't say one is "better" than the other, just that I do not have a problem with paying an Adams or Kelce.2 or 3 very good receivers is better then just one Adams or Kelce any day of the week.
Your position has nothing to do with logic, just taste. You like loaded WR groups. That is fine.can't even discuss stuff logically with you
Hard to argue logically when you don't even know what you are arguing. All you are doing now is being triggered by the avatar and triggered by an 8 year grudge.Yoop wrote: ↑20 Mar 2024 09:18course you don't, and Adams never beat triple coverage, nice try, also KC took advantage of dumb defensive mistakes, take Kelce out of the game as we saw several times with Adams and they lose just as we did.Labrev wrote: ↑20 Mar 2024 08:59I don't have a problem paying for an elite WR, especially one that commands double- and even at times triple-coverage like Adams did. That opens up the field for everyone, so you can have a productive offense without needing them to all be world-beaters.
KC just won a second title with Kelce and lots of nondescript WRs, because they save the resources to field a very complete all-around team than obsess over one position. There are 20 other starting positions that also need to be addressed in a draft (more if you count ST units).
2 or 3 very good receivers is better then just one Adams or Kelce any day of the week.
can't even discuss stuff logically with you
my point is to draft a high tier receiver every other draft, 2 or 3 quality receivers stretch a defense thinner then one, thats logical un less you just don't want to draft receivers.Labrev wrote: ↑20 Mar 2024 09:37He does not -have- to beat triple-coverage, that's the point. You already won when they do that; the D stretched themselves too thin to cover everyone, so *someone* is in position to make the play (hence, KC's offense taking advantage of "dumb defensive mistakes").
I didn't say one is "better" than the other, just that I do not have a problem with paying an Adams or Kelce.2 or 3 very good receivers is better then just one Adams or Kelce any day of the week.
I am cool with paying an Adams, but I also like our current set-up where there is no all-star receiver, just lots of guys with good talent.
My ideal at WR is a diversity of skills. All I want is: 1 vertical threat, 1 slot guy, 1 possession guy, 1 solid all-arounder (at minimum, but obviously, anything more than this is good). You would know this if you listened, but you do not, and ya TWIST mah wordz!
Your position has nothing to do with logic, just taste. You like loaded WR groups. That is fine.can't even discuss stuff logically with you
But sorry, it is a FACT that you can win it all without what you want.
