MacReady Posted March 7, 2020 Author Share Posted March 7, 2020 Defense is so weird that I might just do every defensive player per team. I’m not sure what I’ll do or if I’ll do it. Also thinking 3 IDL, 3 EDGE, 4 CB, 2 safety, 2 ILB, I don’t know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemike778 Posted March 8, 2020 Share Posted March 8, 2020 6 hours ago, Outpost31 said: This isn't a league with a surplus of talent where we just said "**** it, let's not have a good #2." Well to be fair we did say **** it, lets not have a good #2 We haven't invested a pick in the first 2 days in the position or spent money on the position in free agency. Regarding Lazard, I think you are being incredibly generous - he would be a great number 4 WR, a passable 3 WR but any team with him as 2 WR needs to upgrade the position. Beyond that Geronimo was our WR3 and he probably shouldn't be in the league. However regardless of that, he wasn't the plan, the Packers didn't even think he was good enough to make the 53 so this time last time they were punting on MVS or ESB to make the jump. Obviously resources are limited - you can't invest in every position but essentially we did say **** it lets not worry about having a good #2 Question for you .... do you agree with the PFF ratings that suggest Rodgers is the 8th best QB in the league last season (top 25%). A very good QB but one that is not elite any more and is realistically overpaid but nonetheless gives Packers a real shot at competing (just less than the elite guys).. If so then to reiterate, we are on the same page with where we stand at QB. If not then why are you using PFF ratings to evaluate the offence ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted March 8, 2020 Author Share Posted March 8, 2020 1 hour ago, mikemike778 said: Well to be fair we did say **** it, lets not have a good #2 We haven't invested a pick in the first 2 days in the position or spent money on the position in free agency. Regarding Lazard, I think you are being incredibly generous - he would be a great number 4 WR, a passable 3 WR but any team with him as 2 WR needs to upgrade the position. Beyond that Geronimo was our WR3 and he probably shouldn't be in the league. However regardless of that, he wasn't the plan, the Packers didn't even think he was good enough to make the 53 so this time last time they were punting on MVS or ESB to make the jump. Obviously resources are limited - you can't invest in every position but essentially we did say **** it lets not worry about having a good #2 Question for you .... do you agree with the PFF ratings that suggest Rodgers is the 8th best QB in the league last season (top 25%). A very good QB but one that is not elite any more and is realistically overpaid but nonetheless gives Packers a real shot at competing (just less than the elite guys).. If so then to reiterate, we are on the same page with where we stand at QB. If not then why are you using PFF ratings to evaluate the offence ? Two things. On Lazard, he IS better than most #2 receivers I think. PFF backs that up. Not as a deep threat, not as a YAC guy, but overall (especially blocking), he’s a very normal #2. As far as Rodgers, yes and no. Look at the second post of this thread. I show all the quarterbacks ranked, but below that I show their rating versus their overall offense. Rodgers was 12th. That’s where I think Aaron is at in this league. 12th, but paid top 5 money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TransientTexan Posted March 8, 2020 Share Posted March 8, 2020 7 hours ago, mikemike778 said: do you agree with the PFF ratings that suggest Rodgers is the 8th best QB in the league last season (top 25%) they also graded him at #25 QB from weeks 9-17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted March 8, 2020 Share Posted March 8, 2020 10 hours ago, Kepler said: Yeah I'm pretty nervous that Bulaga is already gone. Don't want them to split that oline up at all. This sucks because it is absolutely the correct move financially, but he is a very good player that we really want to keep. I have already come to terms with it by making it a keep Kenny Clark or Bryan Bulaga choice. When we spend a bunch on a TE I am going to be pissed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilltray Posted March 8, 2020 Share Posted March 8, 2020 The whole problem here is you can't judge football in terms of aggregate totals like that. The total's don't really even out that way. I have an ongoing discussion with a friend about the value of DPOY caliber players and why they are worth those kinds of contracts, because they slant the field from a game plan perspective. Weak players have a similar effect in reverse. Yes having Adams by itself makes DCs account for him. That is nice. Unfortunately, most defenses can match up with everyone other than Adams 1v1. Those things offset to large degree and then you need Adams to beat the double or one of the others to win their matchup. The Packers don't need first round picks and high price FA at WR, they have that guy yes and he's a really good one. They do need better than late round picks and UDFAs there that can win more of their matchups. I would love to see them get a #3 guy that looks like he might be a #2 in FA and draft a guy in rounds 2-4. Simply put WR 2-3-4-5 for GB was a loss as a matchup. That hurts. All of the other places the Packers are solid to good helps but doesn't negate that weakness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted March 8, 2020 Share Posted March 8, 2020 28 minutes ago, spilltray said: The whole problem here is you can't judge football in terms of aggregate totals like that. The total's don't really even out that way. I have an ongoing discussion with a friend about the value of DPOY caliber players and why they are worth those kinds of contracts, because they slant the field from a game plan perspective. Weak players have a similar effect in reverse. Yes having Adams by itself makes DCs account for him. That is nice. Unfortunately, most defenses can match up with everyone other than Adams 1v1. Those things offset to large degree and then you need Adams to beat the double or one of the others to win their matchup. The Packers don't need first round picks and high price FA at WR, they have that guy yes and he's a really good one. They do need better than late round picks and UDFAs there that can win more of their matchups. I would love to see them get a #3 guy that looks like he might be a #2 in FA and draft a guy in rounds 2-4. Simply put WR 2-3-4-5 for GB was a loss as a matchup. That hurts. All of the other places the Packers are solid to good helps but doesn't negate that weakness. Adams always double teamed due to weak targets elsewhere. Great narrative, except for the fundamental issue that it Isn't true. Here's the screenshot of the defense on every passing play of the 49ers in the first half. We don't even see 2-deep at the snap until the 2 minute warning. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted March 8, 2020 Author Share Posted March 8, 2020 Just now, spilltray said: Simply put WR 2-3-4-5 for GB was a loss as a matchup. That hurts. All of the other places the Packers are solid to good helps but doesn't negate that weakness. The fact that Rodgers had his best 4 game stretch in the last 4 years WITHOUT Davante Adams disproves your theory. Having a strong OL and two strong backs is something most teams simply do not have. More time makes every receiver better. The best defensive back in the world couldn't cover the worst receiver in the world forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golfman Posted March 8, 2020 Share Posted March 8, 2020 @AlexGreen#20 you really need to get counseling over your anger towards Aaron Rodgers. It's now gone well beyond an obsession. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted March 8, 2020 Share Posted March 8, 2020 (edited) 1 minute ago, Golfman said: @AlexGreen#20 you really need to get counseling over your anger towards Aaron Rodgers. It's now gone well beyond an obsession. @Golfman you really need to get counseling over your anger towards @AlexGreen#20. it's now gone well beyond an obsession. Edited March 8, 2020 by AlexGreen#20 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golfman Posted March 8, 2020 Share Posted March 8, 2020 (edited) 21 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said: @Golfman you really need to get counseling over your anger towards @AlexGreen#20. it's now gone well beyond an obsession. You think a lot more of yourself than I do. Anger towards you? No, I actually feel sorry for you. Probably time to check your ego and give the Rodgers rant a rest! It's run it course and is now nothing more than the sound of a broken record. Edited March 9, 2020 by Golfman 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted March 8, 2020 Share Posted March 8, 2020 This place is a ******* day time soap opera lol 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighCalebR Posted March 8, 2020 Share Posted March 8, 2020 6 minutes ago, Norm said: This place is a ******* day time soap opera lol Which one of us is gonna die and have their twin take their spot? @Bieker @Lieker I've got some good news and I've got some bad news. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted March 8, 2020 Share Posted March 8, 2020 5 minutes ago, HighCalebR said: Which one of us is gonna die and have their twin take their spot? I thought the proper trope was to die, have a full series run with that death, then wake up in the shower to find it was all a dream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TransientTexan Posted March 8, 2020 Share Posted March 8, 2020 1 hour ago, Golfman said: You think a lot more of yourself than I do. Anger towards you? No, I actually feel sorry for you. Probably time to check your ego and give the Rodgers rant a rest! It's run it course and is not nothing more than the sound of a broken record. Seems like you’re projecting... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.