Packers trade WR Davante Adams to the Raiders

[Leader]

3 minutes ago, Pugger said:

If this WR class isn't as good as some are saying the WR FA pool is drying up we might really feel the loss of Adams more than we want to admit.  MVS and Lazard are nice WRs but not the type DCs will spend a lot of time losing sleep over like they did with Davante.

This could be. Just bad timing for us. Oh well. Then I just want GB to do some keen eyed talent evals and use the highest pick(s) possible to snag *play makers* - or the best that's out there in our draft range.

The time has come - like other positions before it - to address this position and the cheapest talent around is in the draft.

Then - dont let the position die on the vine in subsequent drafts.

[ThatJerkDave]

7 hours ago, TheEagle said:

I don't think the Pierce to Jordy comparison is that far-fetched. Jordy was a better route runner coming out and had slightly better hands, but athletically and stylistically they are similar. Jordy timed slower in the 40, but I think Jordy proved in the NFL that his play speed was better than his 40 time. Nobody caught younger Jordy from behind. Decker? Not so much.

I think Howell reminds me more of Dak than Ridder. I think Ridder reminds me more of Ryan Tannehill. Throwing motion is a bit different, but they are similar in size and athletic traits (Tannehill was a decent college WR that Texas A&M moved to QB). They also have the same weakness: accuracy.

The thing with Jordy was that he was not fully recovered from injury at the time of workouts.  So while he ran in the 4.5s in the 40, he was probably a high 4.3X to low 4.4X for real.  Compare the 40 times of Jordy, Jones, and Jennings:  Jordy: 4.51, Jones:  4.54, Jennings:  4.42.  But it is pretty obvious watching them play that Jordy was the fastest of the three, and IIRC, he had some very good times in track in HS as well.  I would venture to guess that this also affected his vertical, and broad jump numbers as well.  No, he wasn't a jump out of the gym guy like Davante, but he probably was better than his workout numbers indicated.  So we have to be real careful when making Jordy comparisons based on workout numbers.  

[ThatJerkDave]

7 hours ago, DWhitehurst said:

For sure. But I should have been clearer. I meant a relatively "right now" WR while the contention window is still open. As you say, those usually don't last into the bottom of round 1 (Jefferson an exception.) I see alot of #2WR prospects, and some of them no doubt will develop into great WR's after a couple seasons. So my main point was that looking at this draft class, I don't see that much difference between grabbing an Olave in 1st vs. a Pickens in the 2nd, or a Burks in the 1st vs. a Watson in the 2nd. So if BPA (at positions of lesser need) is at different positions than WR in round 1, I won't freak if Gute didn't draft a WR in round 1.

I do agree with that.  I think we are going to need Lazard to keep his efficiency where it is, with a bigger volume, and have more good Cobb games than bad Cobb games this season.  But I also think that we will be just fine if we can get a Jennings rookie year out of a draft pick. Hopefully with a better catch percentage, though who knows how many of those targets were really catchable 15ish years down the line.  MVS has a horrible catch percentage as well, but many of his targets are not truly catchable passes.  In any event, 2022 Rodgers is also probably quite a bit better than 2005 Favre.  

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JennGr00.htm

[Striker]

27 minutes ago, Pugger said:

If this WR class isn't as good as some are saying the WR FA pool is drying up we might really feel the loss of Adams more than we want to admit.  MVS and Lazard are nice WRs but not the type DCs will spend a lot of time losing sleep over like they did with Davante.

There can be a bit of overanalysis going on at this point. Sure, there isn't a Ja'Marr Chase/Julio Jones/Calvin Johnson type seemingly in this draft, but there is a good amount of talent spread across R1/R2. However, when you have too much time, and depending on mindset, the weaknesses can become amplified.

[Sandy]

14 minutes ago, Striker said:

There can be a bit of overanalysis going on at this point. Sure, there isn't a Ja'Marr Chase/Julio Jones/Calvin Johnson type seemingly in this draft, but there is a good amount of talent spread across R1/R2. However, when you have too much time, and depending on mindset, the weaknesses can become amplified.

I think this is absolutely the case...the idea that this isn't a great WR draft is not applicable to where we're drafting. Sure, there's no elite prospect that'll go in the top 5, but we were never going to get that player. But this is very deep draft at the position, with about a dozen WRs id be comfortable throwing to in week 1, and we should be able to go to the well twice in the first three rounds and get early contributors who can mix in with Lazard, Cobb and Rodgers.

[Scoremore]

Agree looking for Gute to draft 2 probably more likely 3 WR.  One may be a PR/KR type.  We have a glaring hole now.  So you take multiple bites of the apple.  Really nothing in FA at all.  Gute may unearth one from the scrap heap later in the process. 

[OneTwoSixFive]

2 minutes ago, Scoremore said:

Agree looking for Gute to draft 2 probably more likely 3 WR.  One may be a PR/KR type.  We have a glaring hole now.  So you take multiple bites of the apple.  Really nothing in FA at all.  Gute may unearth one from the scrap heap later in the process. 

Depends if MVS is back. If he is, then I can't see the Packers adding 3 WRs. Amari Rodgers being dumped after just a rookie season seems unlikely unless he really stinks it up in the upcoming camp and preseason.

Probably we keep Lazard/MVS/Cobb/Rodgers. That leaves 1-2 WRs needed. One should be an early pick as the Packers need a no.1. Guys at the back of the WR roster really need to work on ST, otherwise their only value is depth when starters are injured.  If I had to make a specific guess, I'd go for a WR in one of the first two picks (#22 or #28 in round 1). The second WR (if taken) should be a return guy first and foremost, taken possibly in round 3, or more likely 4 or later.

Final WR count will be five or six........... and it's only six if one back-of-the-roster WR is a returner.

[NFLGURU]

 I think Gute will go where the draft takes him.  I won't be surprised if neither of the top 2 picks is a WR.  It's a need, but if impact players are there at other positions I dont think he'd hesitate to take them.

 

[LLcheesehead12]

1 hour ago, Pugger said:

If this WR class isn't as good as some are saying and the WR FA pool is drying up we might really feel the loss of Adams more than we want to admit.  MVS and Lazard are nice WRs but not the type DCs will spend a lot of time losing sleep over like they did with Davante.

They do sometimes lose sleep over MVS with his speed, but not so much over Lazard, and definitely not over ESB.

Right now there's no telling how good or bad this is.

The Bad:  it sucks we have to lose one of the best WRs with the best hands and route running in the game, and someone who Rodgers could hit even when covered.

The good:  Rodgers did what he should do whenever Adams was out over the last few years and spread the ball out among targets instead of locking in on just his favorite one.  In fact, offense had a lot of good performances when he was out and never lost any games.  Now obviously that'll change, but I'm hoping the trend now of Rodgers going back to the even distribution targeting will return.  Only guy he might lock into is Robert Tonyan given Rodgers's second comfort level there.

[{Family Ghost}]

Here's how the Adams trade went down.

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/03/21/deshaun-watson-browns-davante-adams-raiders-nfl-fmia-peter-king/

[skibrett15]

that adams deal is pretty juicy all things considered.  I like it a lot more from the raiders' perspective.

[Scoremore]

4 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

that adams deal is pretty juicy all things considered.  I like it a lot more from the raiders' perspective.

Man I don't know.  65 mil guaranteed is a lot of cash for a 29 soon to be 30 WR.  Giving up a 1 and a 2 also?  Nah think the Packers will be proven in time to get the better of this deal.  We'll see.  Like it from the Raiders perspective in year 1 after that it's all Packers.

[Old Guy]

3 hours ago, Pugger said:

If this WR class isn't as good as some are saying and the WR FA pool is drying up we might really feel the loss of Adams more than we want to admit.  MVS and Lazard are nice WRs but not the type DCs will spend a lot of time losing sleep over like they did with Davante.

I think this WR class is very good. Not sure who is saying it's not? Probably 15 guys go in first three rounds. 

[skibrett15]

4 minutes ago, Scoremore said:

Man I don't know.  65 mil guaranteed is a lot of cash for a 29 soon to be 30 WR.  Giving up a 1 and a 2 also?  Nah think the Packers will be proven in time to get the better of this deal.  We'll see.  Like it from the Raiders perspective in year 1 after that it's all Packers.

I think the deal is fair for the 3 years he'll play on it.  Obviously the picks and the money is a lot to give up, but from a Raiders perspective this looked like a D- move and now It's more of a solid C.

[minnypackerfan]

2 hours ago, Sandy said:

I think this is absolutely the case...the idea that this isn't a great WR draft is not applicable to where we're drafting. Sure, there's no elite prospect that'll go in the top 5, but we were never going to get that player. But this is very deep draft at the position, with about a dozen WRs id be comfortable throwing to in week 1, and we should be able to go to the well twice in the first three rounds and get early contributors who can mix in with Lazard, Cobb and Rodgers.

The question will be:  Is Rodgers comfortable throwing to them?  I would actually involve him in this process.  Let him look at the scouting report tapes and interviews with his coaches and listen to the interviews we have and get his opinion.  I don't normally advocate for this, but in this case it may prove valuable and get someone he really wants to play with.

We also need to bring in a vet like Julio Jones, who despite his hamstring injury (which costs him 5-6 games a year), is someone that when he is playing still can still be a difference maker and maybe someone Rodgers would be excited to play with.  Jones would also give us a year to groom a receiver from this draft.

The more I look at this draft class of wide receivers, the value of the class is in the second or third rounds where we have been pretty good in prior drafts in getting good wide outs.  I'd stick with that and use the first round picks on other needs like defensive line or edge linebacker.  Last year, their was a notable drop off in performance of the defense whenever Clark was not in there or Gary and Smith.  We could also use another safety.  We really need to deepen those areas so our defense does not run out of gas like they appeared to do several times last year.