This team needs a 2nd round WR/TE/RB or equivalent FA

[skibrett15]

16 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Am I doing it at the expense of our defense or offensive line?

Offensive line is fine.  Team already has a good offensive line.  Put the late/mid rounders there this year, try to stay a little healthier at G, and we are fine.  This line blocked for the 3rd or 4th best rushing attack in the NFL, and we have great to good pass blockers in bak, bulaga and linsley.  Taylor is more than "fine" and what of the elite OLs doesn't have a mediocre G?

 

Defense is like trying to throw patching material on a hull breach.  It needs a total restructure.  The single best move this team can make which moves the needle is a playmaker at the skill position.  It doesn't have to be a WR, it's doesn't have to be a TE, it doesn't have to be a RB.

[CWood21]

4 minutes ago, Slinky said:

Hunt and Kupp are huge loses for KC and LAR. 

Yet they're still first and third in PPG and first and fourth in DVOA.  I think they're doing just fine.

[skibrett15]

3 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Yet they're still first and third in PPG and first and fourth in DVOA.  I think they're doing just fine.

since the injury?  Or overall they are still averaging out to top offenses...

Those teams look significantly worse than before the injury, at least watching them.

[SSG]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

For the love of everything that is good, put the damn hyperboles away.  In Jeff Janis' career, he's had 17 receptions for 200 receiving yards and 1 TD over the course of 4 seasons.  This year, MVS has 30 receptions, 463 receiving yards, and 2 TD receptions.  Jeff Janis wishes he had that kind of production.  You want to know why MVS isn't getting snaps?  Randall Cobb.  Cobb has received 91 snaps over the last two weeks.  ESB & MVS have a combined 127 snaps.  Over those same two weeks, Cobb has 8 receptions for 73 receiving yards (9.1 YPC) and 1 TD (on 13 targets).  Over those two weeks, ESB & MVS have a combined 6 receptions for 50 receiving yards (8.3 YPC) and 0 TD (on 10 targets).  Randall Cobb has been marginally more productive than ESB and MVS.  Randall Cobb is getting burn because he's the veteran, not because MVS and ESB suck.

J'Mon Moore is a project in every sense of the word.  I'm hoping he puts it together, but it's only going as far as his hands taking him.

It's not hyperbole.  You are ignoring opportunity, which is a key part to this comparison.    MVS has 140 more offensive snaps this year than Janis had in his 4 year career in Green Bay.  Janis seen 4 games in his Packer career with more than 50% of the offensive snaps compared to 9 for MVS this year.   Production comes with opportunity and MVS has gotten a substantial amount of opportunity by default this year.   If you compare the games in which they received similar opportunity (50%+ of offensive snaps), Jeff Janis was more productive averaging more catches, yards and TDs per game.  I'm no Janis fan but the fact that you left out the Arizona playoff game out of your comparison shows that you aren't all that capable of comparing the 2 players objectively.  I'd imagine you are right about Janis' wishes.  I'm sure he'd have loved to have seen the massive snap count  MVS has seen this year.  

 

I've got no interest in comparing Randall Cobb and MVS as they are both part of the reason that this offense wasn't good enough to get to the playoffs this year.  This offense badly needs talented youth at the pass catcher.  MVS may be that but it's just as likely that he's a Jeff Janis caliber receiver and I don't want to risk next year's success on a blindfolded shot in the dark.  Time will tell. 

[beveaux1]

1 hour ago, SSG said:

For sure.  Saying that though, I'd still take 2018 version of Aaron Rodgers over all of them but Mahomes.  He hasn't played as bad as some are making it seem IMO.  While he hasn't played great at times I truly believe that the majority of Rodger's struggles are directly the result of a bad scheme and skill position guys that are either old or not overly talented/ consistent.   The guys who are trying to make Rodgers out to be the only reason that this offense is struggling are just reaching for reasons to hate him.  He hasn't played great but neither has anyone else on the offense not named Adams or Jones.  

I don't understand the fuss about wanting to add more talent at WR.  It's been 3 years since we invested even a 3rd round pick on the position and we tried and failed this last off season to go REALLY BIG by adding Allen Robinson.  This offense was literately built by adding high end WR talent around AR12.  It's why we have that Super Bowl win and how he's won both his MVP awards.  It's not like he's had to Tom Brady it over his career.  

I agree with this.  Hard to say that MVS and St. Brown are improving when both of them have 7 catches each in the last 5 games.  Those are really bad numbers and they make me question whether their talent level will ever make them starters in this league.  I've really got no problem with signing a 2nd tier free agent WR for next year, but we need a talented high round draft pick for the future that we can begin to integrate into our offense.  It's almost as big a priority as edge rusher or OT.

[SSG]

43 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Yet they're still first and third in PPG and first and fourth in DVOA.  I think they're doing just fine.

Given that KC  is averaging 10 points fewer per game since the loss of Hunt, they aren't "just fine".  

[skibrett15]

I don't think Rodgers is a QB who can turn mediocre players into an efficient offense.  He can make them look ok... but the offense will suffer.  He'll hold the ball if the doesn't believe in them, which makes the overall product suffer even if the y/t or individual production of those WRs is ok. 

I do think he can unlock the potential of good or great receivers and turn them into something better than any other quarterback can, because of his big play ability.

The recipe with Rodgers is good WRs who he trusts.  I don't see a reason to build the team any differently.

The defense is too many hops away; that's a 2-3 year plan which probably doesn't include Mike Daniels long term.

 

[Victor1124]

2 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.  All of those teams have a strong offensive system in place in which their QB is buying into the offensive scheme.  We've heard throughout the year that Rodgers and McCarthy weren't on the same page.  Add on that Rodgers simply is missing throws he usually doesn't miss, and it's no wonder our offense looks so average.

I support building our defense early as well but most of those offenses are still littered with first, second, and third round picks. 

[Victor1124]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

Let me make myself abundantly clear since I'm pretty sure my opinion is going to be misrepresented at least once in this thread.  Do I want to improve our skill positions?  Absolutely.  Am I doing it at the expense of our defense or offensive line?  Absolutely not.

While I’m on board with going defense and offensive lineman early; Let’s say we hypothetically sign an edge like Barrett and a safety like Thomas/Joyner/Mathieu/Boston; we also resign defensive guys like Ryan, Breeland, and Wilkerson. Then draft an edge and OT in the 1st round. Would we then be in a position to grab an offensive playmaker using our 2nd rounder?

[mikemike778]

1 hour ago, skibrett15 said:

Offensive line is fine.  Team already has a good offensive line.  Put the late/mid rounders there this year, try to stay a little healthier at G, and we are fine.  This line blocked for the 3rd or 4th best rushing attack in the NFL, and we have great to good pass blockers in bak, bulaga and linsley.  Taylor is more than "fine" and what of the elite OLs doesn't have a mediocre G?

 

Defense is like trying to throw patching material on a hull breach.  It needs a total restructure.  The single best move this team can make which moves the needle is a playmaker at the skill position.  It doesn't have to be a WR, it's doesn't have to be a TE, it doesn't have to be a RB.

Its not a good offensive line. Its a reasonable line if everyone stays healthy - however that includes Bulaga who realistically is physically done. We might as well keep him for his last year but if we get anything approaching a full season from him, we have to take it as a bonus.

Disclaimer ....  BPA , I don't want to pre-meditate position picking.

However I just want to see balanced drafts. I don't have any problem with us drafting EDGE, CB or DT in the 1st round. But I do want us to be drafting OL somewhere in the first 5 rounds in the draft every year and I do want to see us drafting a skill player every year (on average) in the first 2 days. It doesn't have to be a receiver , it can be a tight end or a running back, whatever. 

When our Offense was great, we had a conveyor belt of decent  linemen coming through. 5 of them start every game which is more than any other position and you need your back-ups. Not every pick will hit so by drafting one every year, you should be able to build good depth over time and a line with harmony with guys used to playing with each other.

I think its pretty arrogant for fans to think we can just leave drafting offense because of Aaron. It doesn't work like that. You need to constantly re-stock your weapons or you regress. If you try and just plug all the gaps with vet FAs then your offence is old, you are constantly plugging the same gaps and no chemistry builds up.

 

[vegas492]

16 minutes ago, Victor1124 said:

While I’m on board with going defense and offensive lineman early; Let’s say we hypothetically sign an edge like Barrett and a safety like Thomas/Joyner/Mathieu/Boston; we also resign defensive guys like Ryan, Breeland, and Wilkerson. Then draft an edge and OT in the 1st round. Would we then be in a position to grab an offensive playmaker using our 2nd rounder?

I'll bite.

And the answer is yes.  It should be in the mix.  Lots of other moving parts there, but in a nutshell, I think round 2 is where you start looking at WR's and even RB's.  But...they need to be much better prospects than their defensive counterparts.  

I thought that Cwood summed it up really well a while ago...could even be on a different thread.  It's more about players on defense..than it is scheme.  More about scheme than players on offense.  At least I thought that was his point...I'm sure he will correct me if I messed that up...and rightly so.

[TheBitzMan]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

Yet they're still first and third in PPG and first and fourth in DVOA.  I think they're doing just fine.

Have you watched the Rams since their bye week? They are not doing just fine, their offense is in trouble. 

[TheBitzMan]

2 hours ago, CWood21 said:

They're good weapons, but the Chiefs offense is still good without Kareem Hunt and the Rams are still doing fine offensively without Cooper Kupp.  Honestly, I don't think Mike Williams or Robert Woods are anything special.

Kupp's loss has altered the Rams' trajectory. 

Goff with Kupp:

Comp - 70.5%

YPA - 9.9

TD/INT - 16:5

Third Downs - 47.1%

Goff without Kupp:

Comp - 59%

YPA - 7

TD/INT - 11:8

Third Downs - 38.5%

 

Edited December 18, 2018 by TheBitzMan

[SSG]

 

26 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

I'll bite.

And the answer is yes.  It should be in the mix.  Lots of other moving parts there, but in a nutshell, I think round 2 is where you start looking at WR's and even RB's.  But...they need to be much better prospects than their defensive counterparts.  

I thought that Cwood summed it up really well a while ago...could even be on a different thread.  It's more about players on defense..than it is scheme.  More about scheme than players on offense.  At least I thought that was his point...I'm sure he will correct me if I messed that up...and rightly so.

 Premiere talent is important on both sides of the ball but is more important on offense IMO.   Look at Seattle.  They've blown that defense up and started from scratch and it's still a championship caliber unit despite the only thing staying the same is the scheme.  Baltimore is another defense that doesn't have a bunch of elite talent yet they are always near the top of defensive rankings.  The Rams are on the other end of the spectrum.  They spent all this money moving heaven on earth to bring in all this elite talent and their defense still isn't any better than ours despite being substantially more talented at every level (same with the Giants who's spent a lot of money and draft assets on their defense).  Green Bay is top 5 in the NFL in sacks with Kyler Fackrell as our #1 pass rusher.  

Not saying talent doesn't matter but I think mediocre talent goes further on defense than it does on offense.  You don't see a lot of the premiere offenses in the NFL being carried by mediocre talent at their skill positions (Indy and New England are 2 that are this year).  We've thrown the vast majority of our best prospects at this defense over the last 4 years and we're paying for it dearly right now with an offense that wasn't able to consistently perform at a playoff level.  

Reality is this team needs help in  a lot of spots.  Using our best picks on only defense again this year (we've done it the majority of the time since 2014) isn't going to make us any better, any faster than if we were to upgrade the skill positions on offense.  Hopefully the front office has a plan to use both the cap space and the draft to make some upgrades on both sides of the ball.  I personally would prefer a that we use one of those first 2 or 3 picks on a TE or WR because the UFA is lacking young play makers at the position.  Not interested in paying a 31 year old Golden Tate 10+ million a year for one or 2 quality seasons and a couple not so quality.  

[PACKRULE]

1 hour ago, Victor1124 said:

I support building our defense early as well but most of those offenses are still littered with first, second, and third round picks. 

Agree build that D and let AR play with who he gets. Maybe once in the last decade we can have a top 10 or better yet top 5 D that shuts teams down and we don't need to outscore anyone.