squire12 Posted March 19, 2022 Share Posted March 19, 2022 5 minutes ago, packfanfb said: For the same reason I want Jaire, Stokes AND Douglas for the CB position on the other side. WR 2 has to be a really good player, not a role guy. WR 3 should be a "good" player as well or at least a guy who's high end at one skill (i.e. MVS). This notion that teams don't need high end WR rooms to win hasn't held up, especially in the last 3 years. Chiefs, Tampa and Rams all had at least 2 borderline superstar pass catchers. The Bengals were loaded there as well. I don't think there's an argument a guy like Lazard cracks the top 3, maybe even 4 of any of those teams. Also, I'm not satisfied with some of those other positions you mentioned. That's why I draft Smith in the 2nd to maybe start day 1 at RG. I drafted Jones to replace and upgrade Lancaster, etc. Nijman is fine until Jenkins comes back and becomes our RT. If you don't want him, resign Kelly for cheap to get you through weeks 1-6. Was the WR a cause for those team winning or correlation? Each of those teams had top tier DL/Edge groups as well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted March 19, 2022 Share Posted March 19, 2022 3 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: You're the one that's advocating so strongly that we need a stud at WR. My question is why? I don't understand why so many people are willing to fight and die on this hill that we need to bring in a star at WR but have been fine with Lowry at UT for what feels like a decade now. Whatever. I want a stud WR. Done. I'll let you figure out the DL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted March 19, 2022 Author Share Posted March 19, 2022 4 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Why do you think Allen Lazard sucks though? He's had Y/Target of 9.2, 9.8, and 8.6. He's had Y/Reception of 13.6, 13.7, and 12.8. He had 8 TDs last year. His predictive and efficiency numbers look fantastic. If he played for another team, he would be the perfect, buy low candidate. It's not even like we don't have the evidence that he's underutilized by his QB. All you have to do is turn on the tape of the 49ers playoff game and you can se he's getting shorted targets by his QB. He's answered every question anybody had of him coming out of college. He's a max 30-40 catch guy with Aaron Rodgers as his QB. Where we differ is that you believe it's Rodgers holding Lazard back (not throwing him the ball, forcing to Adams, etc). I assume you think Lazard is capable of being a 65-75 rec type player now that Adams is gone. I see it the opposite way. I see a guy that probably disappears from most 53 rosters in 1-2 years after he leaves GB next season. I think a HOF QB like Rodgers (and the lack of other competing talent around him) has kept Lazard relevant in GB, not held him back. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitnhope Posted March 19, 2022 Share Posted March 19, 2022 Makes a lot of sense to ignore an offense that scored 10 points and is losing in the playoffs. This juggernaut offense just lost the best WR in football. If the argument was about investing more in WR and OL talent it would make sense. Arguing that the best path forward is to just go with less talent on offense after the last 2 playoff losses makes little sense. Today's football is a passing game, the argument that a top QB should be able to win with low level receiving talent hasn't been a viable one for 20 years. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted March 19, 2022 Share Posted March 19, 2022 1 minute ago, hitnhope said: Makes a lot of sense to ignore an offense that scored 10 points and is losing in the playoffs. This juggernaut offense just lost the best WR in football. If the argument was about investing more in WR and OL talent it would make sense. Arguing that the best path forward is to just go with less talent on offense after the last 2 playoff losses makes little sense. Today's football is a passing game, the argument that a top QB should be able to win with low level receiving talent hasn't been a viable one for 20 years. Damn hitnhope.....you got one right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted March 19, 2022 Share Posted March 19, 2022 25 minutes ago, hitnhope said: Ridiculous. It seems you really enjoy having Rodger's lose more than you enjoy Packers wins. MVS and especially Lazard are low level NFL receivers. Based on what? How the **** is Allen Lazard a low level NFL receiver? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted March 19, 2022 Author Share Posted March 19, 2022 5 minutes ago, squire12 said: Was the WR a cause for those team winning or correlation? Each of those teams had top tier DL/Edge groups as well. We have two very good EDGE players and the best NT in the NFL too. But yes, if you watched the SB, watch Stafford and the Rams offense pre and post OBJs injury. It was night and day, and if not for that last miracle drive where he hit Kupp 3-4 times in a row, the Rams lose. So, it mattered. Not to mention Rams don't get to the SB without the OBJ signing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitnhope Posted March 19, 2022 Share Posted March 19, 2022 (edited) 7 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Based on what? How the **** is Allen Lazard a low level NFL receiver? His high year in receptions is 40. 2 catches per game. He is the Lancaster and Lowry of WR's. By far his best trait is blocking for the run game, but this isn't 1970's football anymore. Other teams with top QB's also have matched them with good+ receiving corps. It only makes sense. In this thread some are proposing that we live with about the worst receiving group in football. The only reason I can think of for that is that some who don't like AR want to be right more than they want the Packers to win a SB. Edited March 19, 2022 by hitnhope 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitnhope Posted March 19, 2022 Share Posted March 19, 2022 3 minutes ago, Leader said: Damn hitnhope.....you got one right I get most right. My take with the Rodgers/Love/Gute thing has played out like I called it all along. People don't always like to hear it though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted March 19, 2022 Share Posted March 19, 2022 I recommend most of you read up on how analytics work. They don't lie. Lazard needs MORE opportunities, not less. Doesn't mean we should look to add Julio or a top 60 pick, but Lazard needs to be #1 or #2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitnhope Posted March 19, 2022 Share Posted March 19, 2022 3 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: I recommend most of you read up on how analytics work. They don't lie. Lazard needs MORE opportunities, not less. Doesn't mean we should look to add Julio or a top 60 pick, but Lazard needs to be #1 or #2. Suggesting Lazard is a #1 means someone doesnt really understand the analytics. Taking raw numbers without understanding mitigating factors has caused a number of bad decisions. What part of watching Lazard makes you see a WR with speed, elusiveness, dynamic plays, exceptional hands? He is a low level WR who blocks well and played on the other side of the best WR in football. That other WR is gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted March 19, 2022 Author Share Posted March 19, 2022 3 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: I recommend most of you read up on how analytics work. They don't lie. Lazard needs MORE opportunities, not less. Doesn't mean we should look to add Julio or a top 60 pick, but Lazard needs to be #1 or #2. So I'm curious, what is your predicted stat line for Lazard this year...assuming at most we add one mid range vet and a top 60 rookie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted March 19, 2022 Share Posted March 19, 2022 2 minutes ago, packfanfb said: He's a max 30-40 catch guy with Aaron Rodgers as his QB. Where we differ is that you believe it's Rodgers holding Lazard back (not throwing him the ball, forcing to Adams, etc). I assume you think Lazard is capable of being a 65-75 rec type player now that Adams is gone. I see it the opposite way. I see a guy that probably disappears from most 53 rosters in 1-2 years after he leaves GB next season. I think a HOF QB like Rodgers (and the lack of other competing talent around him) has kept Lazard relevant in GB, not held him back. He had 40 catches last year and only played 75% of snaps? Get him up to 90% of snaps, and he's at 50 catches without changing a damn thing, and it's not like we could target him any less. Even if we go ******* crazy and knock off 20% of his efficiency. Knock his catch rating from 66.7 to 53.6. Knock his YBC/R from 7.8 to 6.24. Knock his YAC/R from 4.2 to 3.4. But bump his targets/game from 4 to 7. You're still talking about a slash line per 17 of: 119 targets/64 receptions/617 yards What if he only has a 5% fall off though? 63.4% catch rate. 7.4 YBC/R. 4.0 YAC You're talking about a slash line per 17 of: 119 targets/76 catches/867 yards. And 7 targets per game is not a lot of targets. Davante had 10.6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted March 19, 2022 Share Posted March 19, 2022 25 minutes ago, squire12 said: Was the WR a cause for those team winning or correlation? This. I'm not sure how you walk away watching the last 3 Super Bowls, and say that the WR room (and not the QB) was the reason why those teams won. I'm all about upgrading the WR room, but @packfanfb's logic is backwards here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted March 19, 2022 Share Posted March 19, 2022 4 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: I recommend most of you read up on how analytics work. They don't lie. Lazard needs MORE opportunities, not less. Doesn't mean we should look to add Julio or a top 60 pick, but Lazard needs to be #1 or #2. Fine. Give him those opportunities as #2 and (in theory if we draft a top WR) we'll actually have a well rounded and dynamic passing game. Even if you buy into the AR wont throw to rookies theory - as an opposing DC - would you tailor your coverage to down play coverage of a dynamic rookie WR#1? You would if you were stupid. Get the players on the field - and make AR use them. I consider that the HC's job and it's well within his job description. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.