Packfanfb's "Post Holy **** We Traded Davante" Mock

[Scoremore]

6 minutes ago, squire12 said:

The 40 time?

The vertical?

The YAC/ Receptions?

 

Which ones.  The blanket statement your standing behind thin

OK you have one guy who is double and triple teamed.  The opposing defense whole focus is to shut him down.  The other is getting single covered by a the teams 2nd or 3rd CB.  Look throw all out all the stats you want.  You can't compare Allen Lazard to Davante Adams.  What is the point of this exercise?  To make me believe that Lazard can be as good as Davante?   Give me a break.  I like Lazard but common let's keep it real.  AG is trying to defend his position that WR is not a need this year.  Do you feel this way too?  Oh BTW AG WR's do play on special teams.  

[Norm]

17 minutes ago, Scoremore said:

OK you have one guy who is double and triple teamed. 

I think we need WR help quite a bit but you keep hammering this as if Adams had half the defense draped on him every play and Lazard had nobody covering him every play he got open.

He's not going to draw doubles either. That isn't necessarily a good thing overall for the O but he's still likely to see mostly "single" coverage.

[AlexGreen#20]

13 minutes ago, Scoremore said:

OK you have one guy who is double and triple teamed.  The opposing defense whole focus is to shut him down.  The other is getting single covered by a the teams 2nd or 3rd CB.  Look throw all out all the stats you want.  You can't compare Allen Lazard to Davante Adams.  What is the point of this exercise?  To make me believe that Lazard can be as good as Davante?   Give me a break.  I like Lazard but common let's keep it real.  AG is trying to defend his position that WR is not a need this year.  Do you feel this way too?  Oh BTW AG WR's do play on special teams.  

Tell me you don't know how NFL schemes with without telling me you know how NFL schemes work. 

Lazard is being sacrificed plenty on dead boundary vertical routes

[Scoremore]

14 hours ago, Norm said:

I think we need WR help quite a bit but you keep hammering this as if Adams had half the defense draped on him every play and Lazard had nobody covering him every play he got open.

He's not going to draw doubles either. That isn't necessarily a good thing overall for the O but he's still likely to see mostly "single" coverage.

He will if we don't bring in other receivers.  Right now as it stands he's our best WR.  We have nothing.  Lazard, Cobb, Rodgers, and Winfree.  That's our WR group.  

[Scoremore]

15 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I provided the context

"Obviously some of that efficiency will drop off as it's scaled up to more volume, but to say that there is no reason Allen Lazard shouldn't be in line to get more targets is just crazy. "

 

Never said Lazard wasn't in line for more targets.  Now that Adams is gone that should be obvious.  

[StatKing]

If WR isn't a need in a year when we have almost none under contract then I don't know when it ever will be. We are most likely going to take one in the first. Can't see them trading Adams without them promising to get Rodgers another guy early.

[AlexGreen#20]

5 minutes ago, Scoremore said:

Never said Lazard wasn't in line for more targets.  Now that Adams is gone that should be obvious.  

No, you said I didn't provide context. 

That is a blatant lie.

[Scoremore]

Just now, AlexGreen#20 said:

No, you said I didn't provide context. 

That is a blatant lie.

Give it up dude.  You insist on trying to compare Adams to Lazard.  It's ridiculous.  Want to explain to me why you posted it in the first place?  What's your agenda here?  To prove WR isn't a need?  It is.  No point in discussing it further with you.  You know where I stand.  WR is our #1 need and Gute will be drafting them early and often.  Feel free to pick this conversation up after the draft.  We'll see how the Packers feel about it.  Until then I'm through discussing it with you.

[R T]

8 minutes ago, Scoremore said:

Give it up dude.  You insist on trying to compare Adams to Lazard.  It's ridiculous.  Want to explain to me why you posted it in the first place?  What's your agenda here?  To prove WR isn't a need?  It is.  No point in discussing it further with you.  You know where I stand.  WR is our #1 need and Gute will be drafting them early and often.  Feel free to pick this conversation up after the draft.  We'll see how the Packers feel about it.  Until then I'm through discussing it with you.

That would be such a waste of prime draft capital and Gutes is way too smart to do that. 

[vegas492]

I have caught up.  Ungh.

Here's how I see it.

GB needs to draft a WR or two in this draft.  One preferably with one of their top 3 picks.

This pick or any other WR drafted does not need to be our "stud" this year.  They simply need to learn and contribute as needed.

Lazard?  I am not of the opinion that he is a #1 receiver.  I am of the opinion that he can expand his role and produce much more with 'Vante gone.

What we need here is not a #1 WR.  What we need are 2 or 3 #2 WR's.

When 'Vante has been down with an injury over the past few years, we've won games.  And I dare say we have looked good doing it.

With our run game and with Rodgers not locking onto 'Vante, the system looks and feels better.

So let's go get some #2's.  Lazard is clearly there.  So let's find another one in FA (anyone but Beasley) and let's draft one high, then let it roll.

Sure would be nice for our QB to not have to look at a specific guy and rather look at where the openings are and just throw there.

[Norm]

47 minutes ago, Scoremore said:

He will if we don't bring in other receivers.  Right now as it stands he's our best WR.  We have nothing.  Lazard, Cobb, Rodgers, and Winfree.  That's our WR group.  

I mean, you obviously know that isn't going to stay the same. 

[AlexGreen#20]

31 minutes ago, Scoremore said:

Give it up dude.  You insist on trying to compare Adams to Lazard.  It's ridiculous.  Want to explain to me why you posted it in the first place?  What's your agenda here?  To prove WR isn't a need?  It is.  No point in discussing it further with you.  You know where I stand.  WR is our #1 need and Gute will be drafting them early and often.  Feel free to pick this conversation up after the draft.  We'll see how the Packers feel about it.  Until then I'm through discussing it with you.

Why I posted it in the first place:

1. To combat the narrative that prevails in the low IQ portion of the fanbase that Allen Lazard is an unathletic slug who's 5.47 40 time means he can never be an 80 catch per season WR.

2. To support the position that Allen Lazard is a good receiver and his lack of statistical production is caused more by his role than his ability. Others were arguing that Lazard has done nothing to demonstrate that he's capable of taking on more targets. Demonstrating that Lazard's efficiency on a per target basis is equivalent or superior to Davante's, supports that thesis.

+

I have never said WR isn't a need. I do not agree with that idea. The question of how much of our remaining capital should be spent on that one position is the discussion. 

I personally think we should resign MVS, and draft 2 midround rookies. 

I suspect Gute will resign MVS and spend one of the 2nd rounders, plus a mid round and maybe a late round pick. 

Some in the fan base want to resign MVS, sign Julio Jones, spend a 1st round pick, and a mid round pick. I think that is ridiculous.

[Scoremore]

33 minutes ago, R T said:

That would be such a waste of prime draft capital and Gutes is way too smart to do that. 

If it wasn't such a massive hole in our roster I'd tend to agree with you.  However losing Adams has changed all that.  Guarantee one of our 4 top picks will be used on a WR.  Most likely we'll finally get that 1st round WR or Gute could possibly engineer a trade down to grab one in the early 2nd.  He's got to re-make the WR room and the FA market sucks. 

He's backed into a corner.  It's not an option we have to get Rodgers some weapons.  Expect Gute to maneuver around the board to get the guys he wants.  Yes he's too smart to draft specifically for need.  So he'll trade around to where need meets value.  He won't reach on a guy.  We will be spending significant draft capital on WR.  I'm not sure we bring back MVS either.  We can address other needs in FA.  Unfortunately for us we can't do that with WR this year. 

[Sandy]

1 hour ago, R T said:

That would be such a waste of prime draft capital and Gutes is way too smart to do that. 

Perhaps you're just not smart enough to see the impact that an early-pick WR or two can have in this offense.

41 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Why I posted it in the first place:

1. To combat the narrative that prevails in the low IQ portion of the fanbase that Allen Lazard is an unathletic slug who's 5.47 40 time means he can never be an 80 catch per season WR.

2. To support the position that Allen Lazard is a good receiver and his lack of statistical production is caused more by his role than his ability. Others were arguing that Lazard has done nothing to demonstrate that he's capable of taking on more targets. Demonstrating that Lazard's efficiency on a per target basis is equivalent or superior to Davante's, supports that thesis.

+

I have never said WR isn't a need. I do not agree with that idea. The question of how much of our remaining capital should be spent on that one position is the discussion. 

I personally think we should resign MVS, and draft 2 midround rookies. 

I suspect Gute will resign MVS and spend one of the 2nd rounders, plus a mid round and maybe a late round pick. 

Some in the fan base want to resign MVS, sign Julio Jones, spend a 1st round pick, and a mid round pick. I think that is ridiculous.

To provide rebuttal to your points:

1. Literally no one is saying that about Lazard. Most of us are just pointing out that he's nothing more than a solid player. All your comparisons of his RAS numbers to all-time greats won't change the truth.

2. Using efficiency per target with such a small sample size is a poor argument, especially since the one targeting him is known for efficiency as well, and has cherry picked the times he chooses to target him as the best times to maximize efficiency. Lazards numbers are a biproduct of being the 3rd option for an MVP QB.

 

On your other points, MVS is terrible, was terrible, will always be terrible, and is of an age where his physical abilities will actually start to decline. He was an older rookie, now he's an older first-time free agent.  There's a reason no one has shown interest enough to sign him to a deal.

Mid-round rookies could work, but they have to be polished route runners with good hands. We don't have time to develop someone from scratch. It would be better to snag a couple guys in the first three rounds who could provide offensive balance immediately.

The problem with some people's line of thinking is that the idea that "the scheme makes the WR good" has been taken to the extreme. Talent still shines regardless of scheme. Talent can get open easier, do more after the catch, drop the ball less frequently, etc.

I think we add two or more likely three during the offseason that will essentially be guaranteed roster spots, and I don't see a scenario in which less than 6 wrs make the roster. Whether we add them through FA or the draft is the question.

[AlexGreen#20]

4 minutes ago, Sandy said:

Perhaps you're just not smart enough to see the impact that an early-pick WR or two can have in this offense.

To provide rebuttal to your points:

1. Literally no one is saying that about Lazard. Most of us are just pointing out that he's nothing more than a solid player. All your comparisons of his RAS numbers to all-time greats won't change the truth.

2. Using efficiency per target with such a small sample size is a poor argument, especially since the one targeting him is known for efficiency as well, and has cherry picked the times he chooses to target him as the best times to maximize efficiency. Lazards numbers are a biproduct of being the 3rd option for an MVP QB.

 

On your other points, MVS is terrible, was terrible, will always be terrible, and is of an age where his physical abilities will actually start to decline. He was an older rookie, now he's an older first-time free agent.  There's a reason no one has shown interest enough to sign him to a deal.

Mid-round rookies could work, but they have to be polished route runners with good hands. We don't have time to develop someone from scratch. It would be better to snag a couple guys in the first three rounds who could provide offensive balance immediately.

The problem with some people's line of thinking is that the idea that "the scheme makes the WR good" has been taken to the extreme. Talent still shines regardless of scheme. Talent can get open easier, do more after the catch, drop the ball less frequently, etc.

I think we add two or more likely three during the offseason that will essentially be guaranteed roster spots, and I don't see a scenario in which less than 6 wrs make the roster. Whether we add them through FA or the draft is the question.

1. Here you go, from the OP of the thread. 

On 3/18/2022 at 7:19 PM, packfanfb said:

I think it varies per team if you're asking about NFL "quality" WRs. For instance, I was around when people here were trying to convince me Geronimo Allison could be our No. 2 WR in 2018. Fast forward two years and the guy was virtually out of football. I suspect we'll see something similar happen with Lazard in a few years. MVS will hang around because of his speed and the role he can play as a Ted Ginn type.

Gute has made a lot of good moves as a GM. Finding/signing quality talent at WR isn't one of them. 

On 3/19/2022 at 9:19 AM, packfanfb said:

Lazard will always be the square peg for me. I think he's at best a low end 3, high end 4 guy and if he can't play specials that's a minus for that spot. However, I understand the Packers value him more than I do. 

2. Every post I've made about Lazard has indicated that his efficiency will go down with additional volume. But he was Rodgers most efficient target. 

+

MVS is 27. Jesus Christ, if the explanation is that MVS is too old, we might as well put Randall Cobb in the ground today. 

+

Sure, let me just look up all those above average NFL route runners who also have good hands in college. There's like 2 of them. Guys need time to grow regardless.

+

We had 5 WRs on the 2020 opening day roster. We had 6 in 2021, but they had to fit Malik Taylor in for specials. That's hardly a lock.