Jump to content

2021 NFL Draft Thread


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

How? 

WR play didn't make or break those drives. 

QB and OT play did. The premium positions on offense.

You're using the scenario with the exact same players on the field, you're correct. What if Chris Godwin was on the field instead of Lazard, it's impossible to know what the difference is in that case, but that's the argument the "playmaker" crowd uses. It's impossible for you to say he couldn't have smoked a DB at the line and sparked a drive with a nice gain before Rodgers took a sack. It's fruitless to argue one way or another because we're in hypothetical land now.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, packfanfb said:

People always say stuff like this, I don't get it. How do you know what difference another WR makes? What if on one of the two drives where we went 3 and out after JA's INTs, Rodgers completes a big pass to a WR...that one play could be the difference in winning by 2 or losing by 5. 

The Super Bowl will be a great litmus test. The KC OL is beat up even worse than ours. They don't have their LT or RT. But they have all kinds of speed and talent at WR/TE. We'll see if that makes a difference or whether the Bucs have the same success slowing them down. 

While I agree with CWood, this is an excellent argument. We will see if the speed  and athleticism that KC has at WR makes a difference. We certainly do have them on the OL and RB. But can their WR and TE make a difference. If so, then it appears THAT is our problem. 

Edited by MantyWrestler
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

You're using the scenario with the exact same players on the field, you're correct. What if Chris Godwin was on the field instead of Lazard, it's impossible to know what the difference is in that case, but that's the argument the "playmaker" crowd uses. It's impossible for you to say he couldn't have smoked a DB at the line and sparked a drive with a nice gain before Rodgers took a sack. It's fruitless to argue one way or another because we're in hypothetical land now.

I mean, kinda. Normally I'd agree with you, but these plays were very cut and dry. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SSG said:

Aside from 3 INTs?  That's a pretty big deal.  They were afforded 3 extra opportunities late in the game and the offense pissed it away with a disgusting offensive showing in the 4th quarter.  The defense was terrible but the 2nd half defense was the only reason that game wasn't a humiliating defeat. They gave the offense ample opportunity to win that game and they pissed it down their leg with two 4th quarter 3 and outs after INTs.  

Yes.  3 INTs.  Aside from those 3 INTs, the defense was garbage.  The Amos INT was an awful throw when you look at game film.  Tom Brady lofted the ball into tight coverage with Amos playing single-high.  The second INT was a tipped ball by Mike Evans which led to an INT for Jaire Alexander.  And INT3 was effectively a punt.  If you want to credit Pettine for that INT because of the Savage (?) blitz, I'd probably agree.  Defense gave you 3 INTs in a quarter and a half but coughed up 21 points at halftime, including the debacle right before halftime.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, packfanfb said:

People always say stuff like this, I don't get it. How do you know what difference another WR makes? What if on one of the two drives where we went 3 and out after JA's INTs, Rodgers completes a big pass to a WR...that one play could be the difference in winning by 2 or losing by 5. 

The Super Bowl will be a great litmus test. The KC OL is beat up even worse than ours. They don't have their LT or RT. But they have all kinds of speed and talent at WR/TE. We'll see if that makes a difference or whether the Bucs have the same success slowing them down. 

Because Lazard and MVS combined for 7 receptions, 177 receiving yards, and a TD reception.  That's production like a true #1 WR would.  Are you telling me that you think another #1 WR is going to outproduce that?  For as much as the Packers invested in the WR position under Ted Thompson, they have 1 Super Bowl win to show for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, packfanfb said:

Frankly, this was Pettine's best game in a while

What game were you watching?  The Buccaneers went 9-14 (64.3%) on 3rd down.  The Buccaneers averaged 43.5% on 3rd down in the regular season and 14-31 (45.2%) against the Saints and WFT.  But hey, they had 3 INTs so the defense must have played well...

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Defense didn't get to Brady (Savage play excepting). And the Offensive Line got dominated in both the run and pass protect. The Bucs beat the Packers in the trenches. I wouldn't get too myopic about CB need, though that certainly is there. Both Offensive Line (RT) and Defensive Line could use some help 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DWhitehurst said:

The Defense didn't get to Brady (Savage play excepting). And the Offensive Line got dominated in both the run and pass protect. The Bucs beat the Packers in the trenches. I wouldn't get too myopic about CB need, though that certainly is there. Both Offensive Line (RT) and Defensive Line could use some help 

Losing Bak was such a crippling blow!  Having him at LT and Packers win that game going away.  Having 2 starters back from injury next year will help big time although probably losing their center to FA will hurt. Packers OL got torched at the edge but agree the DL wasn't that much of a force.   Pettine's D scheme was horrible and he had to go.  Need CB, OT, DL and continue to upgrade certain holes; D especially.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Because Lazard and MVS combined for 7 receptions, 177 receiving yards, and a TD reception.  That's production like a true #1 WR would.  Are you telling me that you think another #1 WR is going to outproduce that?  For as much as the Packers invested in the WR position under Ted Thompson, they have 1 Super Bowl win to show for it.

Yet they won the 1 SB when they arguably had the best WR core in the league. Look at the WR/TE talent for the two teams this year. 

The bottom line is I'd like to see the Packers go for adding another play maker on offense, especially if they let Jones walk. I don't think people realize how big of a loss Jones is going to be. We need to replace that and if you don't do it with another RB, which I wouldn't do via FA, then add a guy on the outside. 

Edited by packfanfb
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CWood21 said:

What game were you watching?  The Buccaneers went 9-14 (64.3%) on 3rd down.  The Buccaneers averaged 43.5% on 3rd down in the regular season and 14-31 (45.2%) against the Saints and WFT.  But hey, they had 3 INTs so the defense must have played well...

They went 9-14 because King and Sullivan couldn't cover anyone. I saw firsthand why Pettine's been playing that soft zone BS all year. Brady just went to the line, saw who King or Sullivan was covering and that was his read, especially in the first half.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Because Lazard and MVS combined for 7 receptions, 177 receiving yards, and a TD reception.  That's production like a true #1 WR would.  Are you telling me that you think another #1 WR is going to outproduce that?  For as much as the Packers invested in the WR position under Ted Thompson, they have 1 Super Bowl win to show for it.

 It that production came from “2” players. Get play like that from one and another guy may get more too. It’s the sum of the parts a lot of times.

I mean, if we were getting that kind of production from one guy, that changes how they cover if Adams is getting his. in that scenario, the Buc’s are getting gouged and they might change up coverage which could have taken guys out of the box and allowed us to run the ball more efficiently. 
 

I just don’t think it’s that cut and dry. 

Edited by MantyWrestler
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MantyWrestler said:
7 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Because Lazard and MVS combined for 7 receptions, 177 receiving yards, and a TD reception.  That's production like a true #1 WR would.  Are you telling me that you think another #1 WR is going to outproduce that?  For as much as the Packers invested in the WR position under Ted Thompson, they have 1 Super Bowl win to show for it.

 It that production came from “2” players. Get play like that from one and another guy may get more too. It’s the sum of the parts a lot of times.

I mean, if we were getting that kind of production from one guy, that changes how they cover if Adams is getting his. in that scenario, the Buc’s are getting gouged and they might change up coverage which could have taken guys out of the box and allowed us to run the ball more efficiently. 
 

I just don’t think it’s that cut and dry. 

but if you extrapolate those combined MVS + Lazard stats out over 16 games..........

112 rec for 2832 yards and 16 TDs

That is pretty good production for your #2 WR

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, squire12 said:

but if you extrapolate those combined MVS + Lazard stats out over 16 games..........

112 rec for 2832 yards and 16 TDs

That is pretty good production for your #2 WR

But it’s not a #2. It’s a #2 AND a #3

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, packfanfb said:

Yet they won the 1 SB when they arguably had the best WR core in the league. Look at the WR/TE talent for the two teams this year. 

The bottom line is I'd like to see the Packers go for adding another play maker on offense, especially if they let Jones walk. I don't think people realize how big of a loss Jones is going to be. We need to replace that and if you don't do it with another RB, which I wouldn't do via FA, then add a guy on the outside. 

They also had a secondary of Charles Woodson, Tramon Williams, Sam Shields and Nick Collins, with a prime Matthews and Raji and since then Aaron's only averaged 35.9 ppg against in playoff losses, but yes by all means playmakers are what has held us back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

They also had a secondary of Charles Woodson, Tramon Williams, Sam Shields and Nick Collins, with a prime Matthews and Raji and since then Aaron's only averaged 35.9 ppg against in playoff losses, but yes by all means playmakers are what has held us back.

In 4 NFCCG losses since 2010, we've scored 22, 21, 20 and 26. Look, you don't need to convince me that we've had defensive letdowns in the playoffs. But look at it from the perspective of trying to fix/improve just one thing to give you the best shot. Over the last several years, it seems that no matter WHAT we do on defense, we just can't seem to get a top unit. Whether its Dom, Pettine, these players, those players, it never really matters, we still never have a dominant "lean on us to win" unit. It's been that way since 2011. Even when we went 15-1, our defense wasn't very good that year, our offense was just otherworldly. 

So why not try to go the other direction for once? Instead of hoping year after year that this is the season our defense has enough talent or a good enough DC to stop someone in the playoffs, why not just surround your best player, Rodgers, with a gluttony of talent and try to win by outscoring the other side...

Maybe instead of losing these games, we win them by scoring "35.9" in the biggest game of the year when we are playing better defenses. It seems to be a reoccurring trend. Our offense is dominant against weaker teams throughout the season, but in 4 NFCCGs we have sputtered against better defensive teams (maybe not ATL), but SEA, SF and TB for sure. Our defense on the other hand, is basically the same throughout, they struggle against any good QB and in the NFCCG you're pretty much going to see a decent QB or offense (SF). I just don't think GB, during the Rodgers era, is ever going to have that defense that holds a top offensive team to lows 20s in a championship game, allowing us to win by scoring "22, 21, 20 or 26" points. We need the firepower on offense to score 30+, even against those better defenses. Those games specifically are ones where sometimes scheme alone falls short. You need that extra talent advantage to make those 1-5 plays during the course of the game that change the outcome. 

Edited by packfanfb
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...