I'd be upset too if I were Aaron Rodgers.

[PossibleCabbage]

It is worth looking back through drafts to try to find the spots where the Packers did not take a receiver, and see if the receiver they could have taken instead would have been a better choice.

The only really stark example I see is when they took Jace Sternberger instead of Terry McLaurin.  That's one I think everybody would like to have back.

[Sandy]

2 hours ago, TransientTexan said:

But you can't have your cake and eat it too. You replace one of the other high picks with a WR pick and you most likely have another hole at another position and then the Rodgers-excuse-makers would be pointing at that other hole as the reason for the loss and complaining that the team did a disservice to Rodgers by not addressing that other hole. 

3rd rounders do not have a high success rate. I think it's only like 15-20% that you get a consistent starter out of a late-3rd-rounder, much less a *good* consistent starter. Probably wouldn't be good enough to avoid the generic GB fan scapegoating him. 

Lower overall draft resources absolutely have an effect too. If the lower resources make it harder to plug other holes in the roster, you'll have to spend higher resources to fill those other holes, leaving not much for the WR. When you are drafting in the top-5, that isn't an issue, since you can get a top-talent, and then even your 2nd pick is almost high enough to be a 1st rounder , and 3rd pick almost high enough to be a 2nd rounder. 

Going into the season, Rodgers had a top-10 OL, probably a top-5 RB group, the best WR in football, a solid TE, and some passable #3-WR options. What the heck more does Rodgers need? absolutely zero holes? When you are costing your team the 3rd-highest QB-cap-hit, you should be able to make up for 1 or 2 holes. 

Over the last 5 drafts we have had 11 selections in the first two rounds and 6 of them were used on defensive backs. Our two best DBs this year were free agents (admittedly a stat that's skewed by Jaire's injury). We could have easily used one of those picks on a WR or TE.

I don't know about your data on the success rate of third round picks (I've seen closer to 30% considered quality starters but that data was compiled in 2012) but if the success rate of those picks is that low, then you're agreeing with my argument that we haven't invested a reasonable enough amount at WR or TE.

In that same five year time frame, between rounds 3 and 7 we've taken 6 WRs and 2 TEs. But in the last three years, you'll find both those TEs but only 1 WR - Rodgers this year. None of those 8 players have found any meaningful success with us or any other team - which means either our WR/TE coaches suck or our front office is bad at evaluating them. The most successful is MVS so far, who was the player in my previous post I alluded to that had a 27% catch rate on balls thrown over 20 yards. During an MVP season from his QB. In which he was considered the deep "threat" of the offense.

8 minutes ago, PossibleCabbage said:

It is worth looking back through drafts to try to find the spots where the Packers did not take a receiver, and see if the receiver they could have taken instead would have been a better choice.

The only really stark example I see is when they took Jace Sternberger instead of Terry McLaurin.  That's one I think everybody would like to have back.

Hindsight is definitely 20/20, but I do enjoy these exercises.  Man I'd love some Scary Terry here.

Here's a few I found:

2017 - Cooper Kupp taken 8 picks after we took safety Josh Jones hurts! But Juju Smith-Schuster was a more likely choice, taken just one pick after Jones. I remember JJSS was held in decent regard that year leading up to the draft.

2018 - we took CB Josh Jackson at 45 (never trust a DB named Josh) with Christian Kirk going 47th and DJ Chark going 61st. Not much there but they've had decent stretches of play.

2019 - in addition to Sternberger over McScorin, we could have had Deebo, AJ Brown or reached for DK Metcalf instead of Savage, but we got a solid starter at S so I can't complain too much. Great draft for WRs to walk away with none in any round, although that draft had plenty of WR busts too.

2020 - I've heard plenty of comments about Tee Higgins or Michael Pittman instead of Jordan Love of course, but it's early to know the value of some of the others yet.

2021 - wayyyy too early to evaluate but Stokes and Myers seem like solid picks that I wouldn't change. Already Amon-Ra St Brown is a better WR than the one we took in round three, and better than his brother at the end of our depth chart.

[Pugger]

45 minutes ago, Sandy said:

Over the last 5 drafts we have had 11 selections in the first two rounds and 6 of them were used on defensive backs. Our two best DBs this year were free agents (admittedly a stat that's skewed by Jaire's injury). We could have easily used one of those picks on a WR or TE.

I don't know about your data on the success rate of third round picks (I've seen closer to 30% considered quality starters but that data was compiled in 2012) but if the success rate of those picks is that low, then you're agreeing with my argument that we haven't invested a reasonable enough amount at WR or TE.

In that same five year time frame, between rounds 3 and 7 we've taken 6 WRs and 2 TEs. But in the last three years, you'll find both those TEs but only 1 WR - Rodgers this year. None of those 8 players have found any meaningful success with us or any other team - which means either our WR/TE coaches suck or our front office is bad at evaluating them. The most successful is MVS so far, who was the player in my previous post I alluded to that had a 27% catch rate on balls thrown over 20 yards. During an MVP season from his QB. In which he was considered the deep "threat" of the offense.

Hindsight is definitely 20/20, but I do enjoy these exercises.  Man I'd love some Scary Terry here.

Here's a few I found:

2017 - Cooper Kupp taken 8 picks after we took safety Josh Jones hurts! But Juju Smith-Schuster was a more likely choice, taken just one pick after Jones. I remember JJSS was held in decent regard that year leading up to the draft.

2018 - we took CB Josh Jackson at 45 (never trust a DB named Josh) with Christian Kirk going 47th and DJ Chark going 61st. Not much there but they've had decent stretches of play.

2019 - in addition to Sternberger over McScorin, we could have had Deebo, AJ Brown or reached for DK Metcalf instead of Savage, but we got a solid starter at S so I can't complain too much. Great draft for WRs to walk away with none in any round, although that draft had plenty of WR busts too.

2020 - I've heard plenty of comments about Tee Higgins or Michael Pittman instead of Jordan Love of course, but it's early to know the value of some of the others yet.

2021 - wayyyy too early to evaluate but Stokes and Myers seem like solid picks that I wouldn't change. Already Amon-Ra St Brown is a better WR than the one we took in round three, and better than his brother at the end of our depth chart.

Higgins and Pittman were taken very early in the second round.  IMO if we had taken either player at #30 (and not traded up to take Love ) neither pick would have been a reach.  It would be very enlightening to know what kind of draft grade Gute gave these 2 WRs.

[TransientTexan]

12 minutes ago, Sandy said:

Over the last 5 drafts we have had 11 selections in the first two rounds and 6 of them were used on defensive backs. Our two best DBs this year were free agents (admittedly a stat that's skewed by Jaire's injury). We could have easily used one of those picks on a WR or TE.

Would you have been ok jettisoned Savage, or Alexander, or Stokes for a #2 WR? Or Gary, or Jenkins, or Dillon? You can't use hindsight bias to only select the busts to swap out for your WR. There will be a few busts in the process of filling a roster hole. There are 5+ DB's on most snaps, so it is not surprising that a team will have more DB picks. And again, it's having your cake and eating it too. If they had left a hole at the other positions filled by the aforementioned guys in order to fill the WR hole, people like you would have then scapegoated the other hole for the loss and criticized the FO for not spending enough resources on them.

 

16 minutes ago, Sandy said:

if the success rate of those picks is that low, then you're agreeing with my argument that we haven't invested a reasonable enough amount at WR or TE.

Not really. Sometimes you have to live with a hole at a given spot (and hopefully not at a major position). There are not enough resources to cover all the holes, especially when drafting in the bottom-5 and your QB is getting top-3 money. There will always be a hole that a Rodgers excuse-maker can point to and say in hindsight was problematic and that we should have used one of our bust picks on it. Heck, if they used the Meyers or Jenkins picks for a WR, people would have been looking back and scapegoating this year's failures on not spending enough resources at OL. 

At the end of the day, going into the season, Rodgers had a very strong offensive roster at 9 of the other 10 starting positions besides himself, even if you had a low opinion of Cobb. You can't ask for much more than that. The defense had a very good year, in part due to many of the aforementioned picks. 

 

[Sandy]

43 minutes ago, Pugger said:

Higgins and Pittman were taken very early in the second round.  IMO if we had taken either player at #30 (and not traded up to take Love ) neither pick would have been a reach.  It would be very enlightening to know what kind of draft grade Gute gave these 2 WRs.

With the butterfly effect and all it would be hard to quantify the difference such a player would make...but man the idea of having one of them not just on the last two title runs but also under contract for the next three seasons, it's so frustrating knowing what we're stuck with instead. Good question on how well Gute and his staff regarded them. 

3 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

Would you have been ok jettisoned Savage, or Alexander, or Stokes for a #2 WR? Or Gary, or Jenkins, or Dillon? You can't use hindsight bias to only select the busts to swap out for your WR. There will be a few busts in the process of filling a roster hole. There are 5+ DB's on most snaps, so it is not surprising that a team will have more DB picks. And again, it's having your cake and eating it too. If they had left a hole at the other positions filled by the aforementioned guys in order to fill the WR hole, people like you would have then scapegoated the other hole for the loss and criticized the FO for not spending enough resources on them.

 

Not really. Sometimes you have to live with a hole at a given spot (and hopefully not at a major position). There are not enough resources to cover all the holes, especially when drafting in the bottom-5 and your QB is getting top-3 money. There will always be a hole that a Rodgers excuse-maker can point to and say in hindsight was problematic and that we should have used one of our bust picks on it. Heck, if they used the Meyers or Jenkins picks for a WR, people would have been looking back and scapegoating this year's failures on not spending enough resources at OL. 

At the end of the day, going into the season, Rodgers had a very strong offensive roster at 9 of the other 10 starting positions besides himself, even if you had a low opinion of Cobb. You can't ask for much more than that. The defense had a very good year, in part due to many of the aforementioned picks. 

 

And in the same vein you cant just pick our best draft picks and say we'd have definitely lost them in this scenario. But to answer your question - yes, absolutely, I'd be all right with one fewer defensive back - preferably not the star but ok with either of the two role players or the three busts - if I didn't have to watch MVS misread another deep pass or Lazard drop another ball.

It's clear you're not only anti-Rodgers, clouding your judgement, but you're seeing everything in black and white instead of the shades of gray they truly are. Gute isn't perfect. Neither is Rodgers. But the lack of resources used at a critical position in a pass-first offense has been one factor (amongst others) that ultimately resulted in playoff losses in the past couple of seasons and is, at this point, the most glaring offense in Gute's record as GM aside from trading up for a project QB when he should have been doubling down on his HOF QB. It doesn't take hindsight to see that this deficiency at WR is a flaw in the roster construction.

Again - 6 of 11 picks in the first two rounds were DBs, while they all were outplayed this year by guys that were brought in as free agents. Compare that to having one WR drafted in the last three drafts - total - and no free agents (just a trade for Cobb). It's indefensible. There is no balance to the way this roster has been built.

[TransientTexan]

3 hours ago, Sandy said:

It's clear you're not only anti-Rodgers, clouding your judgement

That's a lie. I'm just realistic and will call a spade a spade instead of this weird reflexive GB fan ritual of twisting in a pretzel to make excuses for Rodgers every year. 

3 hours ago, Sandy said:

while they all were outplayed this year by guys that were brought in as free agents.

Ridiculous argument. Trying to use the GB FO's *own* success at finding a gem like Douglas as a lever to beat them over the head. 

3 hours ago, Sandy said:

There is no balance to the way this roster has been built.

"At the end of the day, going into the season, Rodgers had a very strong offensive roster at 9 of the other 10 starting positions besides himself, even if you had a low opinion of Cobb. You can't ask for much more than that. The defense had a very good year, in part due to many of the aforementioned picks." 

Seems pretty balanced to me. This point seems to keep getting overlooked. How many teams in the league do not have a single hole on their 11 preferred offensive starters? That seems to be basically what you are asking for. You don't seem to have looked at any other rosters to see what's typical. 

[coachbuns]

1 hour ago, TransientTexan said:

That's a lie. I'm just realistic and will call a spade a spade instead of this weird reflexive GB fan ritual of twisting in a pretzel to make excuses for Rodgers every year. 

Ridiculous argument. Trying to use the GB FO's *own* success at finding a gem like Douglas as a lever to beat them over the head. 

"At the end of the day, going into the season, Rodgers had a very strong offensive roster at 9 of the other 10 starting positions besides himself, even if you had a low opinion of Cobb. You can't ask for much more than that. The defense had a very good year, in part due to many of the aforementioned picks." 

Seems pretty balanced to me. This point seems to keep getting overlooked. How many teams in the league do not have a single hole on their 11 preferred offensive starters? That seems to be basically what you are asking for. You don't seem to have looked at any other rosters to see what's typical. 

The offense and defense both had enough talent to win it all this year and maybe even last year.  What cost them this year wasn't on offense or defense .. it was special teams that weren't special.  Get that unit squared up and the holes may not be as big on offense or defense!

[Mazrimiv]

GB has had outstanding rosters for the past two seasons.  The idea that Rodgers "should be mad" because he hasn't been given a good enough surrounding cast is absurd.

[squire12]

12 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

GB has had outstanding rosters for the past two seasons.  The idea that Rodgers "should be mad" because he hasn't been given a good enough surrounding cast is absurd.

Only something like 5 other all pros on the 2020 roster.  Complete lack of surrounding talent.  Total failure by the front office.

[Pugger]

We all agree Rodgers wasn't very good in this last divisional playoff game but he was good enough against Tampa in the NFCC game last year.  Last year I blame the play calling, especially on our last drive and this year our horrendous ST play as major contributors to our demise in these playoff games.  Often the QB gets to much praise and too much blame in today's NFL.  If Ball and company do some creative accounting so Rodgers and a good number of the core of this roster returns plus having a new ST coordinator 2022 won't end in heartache again.  I don't think adding Clements as QB coach is something to overlook either.  He developed Rodgers into the QB we see today so he can continue to mold #12 or Love if Aaron decides to retire or requests a trade.  I'm leaning toward AR returning.  Having TC back guiding our QBs is a big deal IMO no matter who is under center next year.

[Isherwood]

10 hours ago, PossibleCabbage said:

It is worth looking back through drafts to try to find the spots where the Packers did not take a receiver, and see if the receiver they could have taken instead would have been a better choice.

The only really stark example I see is when they took Jace Sternberger instead of Terry McLaurin.  That's one I think everybody would like to have back.

I was a Scary Terry fan that year and my heart sunk in my chest. Like it felt like a lead weight dropping. 

[Isherwood]

14 minutes ago, Pugger said:

2022 won't end in heartache again

I'm going to bet obscene amounts of money on whatever team plays us in the post-season in 2022. 

[AlexGreen#20]

3 hours ago, coachbuns said:

The offense and defense both had enough talent to win it all this year and maybe even last year.  What cost them this year wasn't on offense or defense .. it was special teams that weren't special.  Get that unit squared up and the holes may not be as big on offense or defense!

What cost them this year was the special teams AND the offense. 

And no, getting Special Teams squared up, is going to cost you resources dedicated to the offense/defense. 

[Sandy]

5 hours ago, TransientTexan said:

That's a lie. I'm just realistic and will call a spade a spade instead of this weird reflexive GB fan ritual of twisting in a pretzel to make excuses for Rodgers every year. 

Ridiculous argument. Trying to use the GB FO's *own* success at finding a gem like Douglas as a lever to beat them over the head. 

"At the end of the day, going into the season, Rodgers had a very strong offensive roster at 9 of the other 10 starting positions besides himself, even if you had a low opinion of Cobb. You can't ask for much more than that. The defense had a very good year, in part due to many of the aforementioned picks." 

Seems pretty balanced to me. This point seems to keep getting overlooked. How many teams in the league do not have a single hole on their 11 preferred offensive starters? That seems to be basically what you are asking for. You don't seem to have looked at any other rosters to see what's typical. 

You're clearly anti-Rodgers. Your choice of diction to describe him throughout your posts confirms it. 

The point of mentioning Amos and Douglas as our best defensive backs this year was not as much a commentary on Gute's talent evaluation, but his balance on roster construction. The balance isn't about offense/defense. It's positional balance that's out of whack. Sometimes Gute build a roster like he's playing a video game.

Let's say we eliminate street free agents like Douglas or Campbell from the equation and just talk about things like early draft picks and free agents with signing bonuses.Look at all the resources applied to three positions: o-line, DBs and Edge.  I'm not denying the importance of those positions, but then look at the resources applied to WR, TE, ILB and DL. He inherited Clark and Adams...otherwise he has just hoped for mid/late round picks and street free agents to perform here.  People say ILBs don't matter, but look at the difference Campbell made this year. 

All I'm arguing is that not enough resources have been put into pass catchers - a position I think is arguably second most important on an offense (maybe third behind tackle) - and other positions that led to roster holes that could have changed the outcome of the game.

Do you think someone like Zack Ertz would have fumbled the way Lewis did? Would he have gotten open later? What about Tee Higgins? Would he have earned Rodgers trust and gotten us to the SB as a #2 instead of Cincy? It's fair to question and certainly enough to complain about given the way the season ended, but you go ahead and keep defending the GM's every move 😂

Edit: one more thing - these "9 of 11 starters" on offense...I can't figure out who the 9 solid starters are. That's a made up number you keep saying. We have holes like everyone else but you at least gotta give it straight

Edited February 19, 2022 by Sandy

[Packer_ESP]

16 hours ago, Sandy said:

Yes, Rodgers didn't look at a wide open Lazard late...but he has good reason not to bother looking his way since he struggled to get open and had trouble with drops all season.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2021/receiving_advanced.htm

Lazard had 1 drop on the year for a 1.7 drop percentage. Don't make up stuff please.