Jump to content

Week 11 Post game: IT'S ALL BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE TYLER ERVIN I SWEAR


Norm

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, GHARMON9 said:

Stats I cant fight. Watching him ? Im looking for another #2. I'm happy him being my #3

What else are you looking for out of a #2 receiver? Especially in this offense. 

If your second guy is giving teams pause about stacking the box, the mission has been accomplished. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

What else are you looking for out of a #2 receiver? Especially in this offense. 

If your second guy is giving teams pause about stacking the box, the mission has been accomplished. 

Some one who I don't hold my breath on catching the ball most of the time its thrown his way. Take Davante away and MVS almost disappears. Solid #3 . I cant give you a good #2.  I hope he proves me wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GHARMON9 said:

Some one who I don't hold my breath on catching the ball most of the time its thrown his way. Take Davante away and MVS almost disappears. Solid #3 . I cant give you a good #2.  I hope he proves me wrong.

This.

Its not a knock on MVS to say he should be a #3.

He's your offensive weapon who on his day can kill teams. But he's not someone you want to be relying on. If the defence takes Davante away then you want to be able to count on your #2 and MVS isn't that kind of player and maybe never will be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

What else are you looking for out of a #2 receiver? Especially in this offense. 

If your second guy is giving teams pause about stacking the box, the mission has been accomplished. 

I think this is a chicken/egg scenario.

I'd be looking for something more like Lazard than MVS.  More like James Jones.  A guy who can win on routes vs 1-on-1 coverage, and who knows how to read the coverage to anticipate the back shoulder throws that rodgers likes to use.

 

If this offense had a better 2nd option, they wouldn't be playing the same heavy personnel style that they seem to prefer with just adams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding MVS.....I thought he had a great day on Sunday prior to that fumble.  I saw him running deep routes and getting open.  Rodgers took the easier stuff in front of him, but MVS was doing a great job out there.  I saw a few run plays where he was more physical when blocking, too.

Guess I consider him WR #2A or #2B, depending on how you view Lazard.  Either way, if those are your top 3, you are fine.

And days later, I'm still not over this loss.  It took a lot of different things to happen for us to lose, not just a fumble in overtime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, GHARMON9 said:

Stats I cant fight. Watching him ? Im looking for another #2. I'm happy him being my #3

Lazard is your #2, guy has shown he can do everything this offense requires and do it well. MVS is a great #3 and Funchess/EQ will be fine #4-5's going forward.

Add a couple mid rounders in another stacked WR class and call it a day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, GHARMON9 said:

I cant agree. Great #4, Decent #3, Bad #2.

 

23 hours ago, Rainmaker90 said:

He's on track for 7-800 yards. Half of his games he has 50 or more yards. That isn't bad for a second option

 

22 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

39th in receiving yards. 24th in TDs. 69th in targets. 

Looks like a decent #2 to me. 

Thoughts on where would he be if Lazard didn't get hurt?

Edited by Arthur Penske
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arthur Penske said:

 

 

Thoughts on where would he be minus the Lazard injury?

Better IMO, without Adams and Lazard he's able to be keyed on more. MVS is actually better the more high ranking guys on the totem pole are on the field. He only needs 4-5 targets to hit 100+ yards because that big play potential is always there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Lazard is your #2, guy has shown he can do everything this offense requires and do it well. MVS is a great #3 and Funchess/EQ will be fine #4-5's going forward.

Add a couple mid rounders in another stacked WR class and call it a day. 

I'm with that. Lazard look really good versus NO.

MVS has done enough bad things that aren't coachable. I was hyping him up going into the season. Off drops alone hes left 2-3 TDs and 200 + yards on the table.  I would not bet on him being anything more than a #3, but lucky for us he is our #4. I love Tonyan and Rodgers has missed him a few times completely. I have him in Fantasy Football so I  would know lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GHARMON9 said:

I'm with that. Lazard look really good versus NO.

MVS has done enough bad things that aren't coachable. I was hyping him up going into the season. Off drops alone hes left 2-3 TDs and 200 + yards on the table.  I would not bet on him being anything more than a #3, but lucky for us he is our #4. I love Tonyan and Rodgers has missed him a few times completely. I have him in Fantasy Football so I  would know lol.

@Arthur Penske

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Lazard is your #2, guy has shown he can do everything this offense requires and do it well. MVS is a great #3 and Funchess/EQ will be fine #4-5's going forward.

Add a couple mid rounders in another stacked WR class and call it a day. 

it's quite apparent Davante Adams is AR go to receiver....And if he hadn't felt the need to force the ball into him, we'd be 8-2 with a  throw to a wide open Tonyan....And all this talk about MVS could have been a forgone conclusion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 40Year Pack Fan said:

it's quite apparent Davante Adams is AR go to receiver....And if he hadn't felt the need to force the ball into him, we'd be 8-2 with a  throw to a wide open Tonyan....And all this talk about MVS could have been a forgone conclusion...

I mean the whole Tonyan thing is selective viewing of an out of context video, but yes #17 is clearly the target (and the one you'd want to draw up the GW play to).

Link to comment
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...