Gimme a reason as to why Amari Rodgers should make the team?

[CWood21]

On 8/23/2022 at 8:25 AM, vegas492 said:

For all the reasons I listed on the first post?

Short.  Not a plus athlete at all.  Limited quickness and speed.  Suspect hands.  Brain isn't grasping routes.  

There's nothing there that tells me that he is an NFL receiver.  He's not flashed anything to me.  Two pre-seasons now.  

He's running with the 3s and 4s.

If you need him for specials, I'd opine to find a real returner instead of forcing him to do it.  He's not a plus back there.  And there doesn't appear to be a skillset that is worth developing for an end of roster WR.

Just throwing a name out there...Toure.  Rodgers vs. Toure as a developmental, end of the roster WR.  Who has more NFL potential in them?

As I mentioned in another thread?  Is Juwann Winfree (or another WR) clearly better than him that will be running with the starting WRs?  Barring injury, no.  Does Winfree (or another WR) possess higher upside than Rodgers?  No.  The Packers invested a 3rd round pick just a year ago because they're evaluation said he was worth that, and one bad season doesn't justify moving off that evaluation.  He's a near lock to be claimed by another team.  Winfree isn't.

As for Toure, he seems like a pretty easy PS addition.  He's probably not in danger of being claimed given that most teams have players like him already on their roster.  And I don't think either has much potential.  I think they're both low-end #3s, high-end #4s on a good WR corps.

[vegas492]

4 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

As I mentioned in another thread?  Is Juwann Winfree (or another WR) clearly better than him that will be running with the starting WRs?  Barring injury, no.  Does Winfree (or another WR) possess higher upside than Rodgers?  No.  The Packers invested a 3rd round pick just a year ago because they're evaluation said he was worth that, and one bad season doesn't justify moving off that evaluation.  He's a near lock to be claimed by another team.  Winfree isn't.

As for Toure, he seems like a pretty easy PS addition.  He's probably not in danger of being claimed given that most teams have players like him already on their roster.  And I don't think either has much potential.  I think they're both low-end #3s, high-end #4s on a good WR corps.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but not all.

I don't fee like Rodgers has more upside than say Winfree or Toure.  And it comes down to size and athletic ability.  We like them large.

Rodgers, 5.37 RAS.  Toure, 6.11 RAS.  Winfree, 7.17 RAS.

Then again...I hope we snag a vet WR after cut downs, or after week one (ahem....Fuller), to solidify the WR corp.

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

I agree with a lot of what you said, but not all.

I don't fee like Rodgers has more upside than say Winfree or Toure.  And it comes down to size and athletic ability.  We like them large.

Rodgers, 5.37 RAS.  Toure, 6.11 RAS.  Winfree, 7.17 RAS.

Then again...I hope we snag a vet WR after cut downs, or after week one (ahem....Fuller), to solidify the WR corp.

They're all non-elite athletes.  And I'm not sure wanting an injury-prone WR is the solution.

[AlexGreen#20]

49 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

I agree with a lot of what you said, but not all.

I don't fee like Rodgers has more upside than say Winfree or Toure.  And it comes down to size and athletic ability.  We like them large.

Rodgers, 5.37 RAS.  Toure, 6.11 RAS.  Winfree, 7.17 RAS.

Then again...I hope we snag a vet WR after cut downs, or after week one (ahem....Fuller), to solidify the WR corp.

Rodgers stand out trait is his strength at frame. That's not gonna measure in RAS. 

[craig]

3 hours ago, CWood21 said:

...He's a near lock to be claimed by another team.  ...

I haven't been following this thread very closely, mostly skimming because I don't really care that much.

But I did happen to note the above statement, and I don't assume that's true?  

[Toddfather]

I mean... It's really good meatloaf!

[vegas492]

3 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Rodgers stand out trait is his strength at frame. That's not gonna measure in RAS. 

It doesn't do much when getting off of the bus, either.

All funnin' aside.....  He's not someone I would want blocking on a WR bubble screen.  He's also not the guy I want with the ball in a bubble screen.  He doesn't separate.  He doesn't appear to understand routes and defenses just yet.  And he doesn't have the quickness to create space quickly.

Other guys on the roster have more athletic traits.  I don't care if they aren't "elite".  If they aren't elite, they are passable.  And Rodgers is a full couple of ticks below them in athletic ability.

I can see him in a non dynamic KR/PR role.  

I can see him in a non dynamic jet motion role.  And to be fair?  He may be better than "non dynamic" doing that stuff.  Functional is what I'd call him after thinking about it.

And maybe that is good enough.  But still I have a hard time believing that he can offer more in that package than Watson or maybe Doubs.

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, craig said:

I haven't been following this thread very closely, mostly skimming because I don't really care that much.

But I did happen to note the above statement, and I don't assume that's true?  

I think it's true.  Someone would pick him up because he costs nothing and he's a former 3rd round pick.

And to me?  If that is the case?  Let's take another draft pick from Jacksonville and reunite him with his college QB.

[thrILL!]

4 hours ago, vegas492 said:

Then again...I hope we snag a vet WR after cut downs, or after week one (ahem....the doper), to solidify the WR corp.

FIFY

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, vegas492 said:

It doesn't do much when getting off of the bus, either.

All funnin' aside.....  He's not someone I would want blocking on a WR bubble screen.  He's also not the guy I want with the ball in a bubble screen.  He doesn't separate.  He doesn't appear to understand routes and defenses just yet.  And he doesn't have the quickness to create space quickly.

Other guys on the roster have more athletic traits.  I don't care if they aren't "elite".  If they aren't elite, they are passable.  And Rodgers is a full couple of ticks below them in athletic ability.

I can see him in a non dynamic KR/PR role.  

I can see him in a non dynamic jet motion role.  And to be fair?  He may be better than "non dynamic" doing that stuff.  Functional is what I'd call him after thinking about it.

And maybe that is good enough.  But still I have a hard time believing that he can offer more in that package than Watson or maybe Doubs.

Why? He's great at that.

He's solid with the ball in space. 

He's not terrible at separating or understanding routes and defense. 

He's not going to offer more in a package (other than blocking) than Watson or Doubs. 

[St Vince]

How many OL do we typically carry? At the end of the day I'd rather keep an extra potential starting OL over a WR.  It's harder to find quality on the OL. You can find WRs like Armari much easier. So I'd rather keep Walker and Jones over Rodgers. These GMs know GB scouts good OL. I think everyone we want to get to the PS will be claimed.

[Sandy]

8 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Rodgers stand out trait is his strength at frame. That's not gonna measure in RAS. 

When other teams say "give us a big, fast receiver," we say "give us a small strong one"

--------------------------------------------

But on a serious note, a lot of people have said that we won't cut a third rounder after his second training camp (despite doing this exact thing 8 years ago).

Just like how we weren't going to draft an interior linebacker in round 1.

Or how we weren't going to draft a 24 year old with a first rounder.

Or how we weren't going to shell out top dollar to re-sign an interior linebacker.

 

I doubt we cut him - the coaches would have given more punt return snaps to some other players if they were really entertaining the notion. But I've seen a lot of consensus opinions be wrong on here over the last few months so forgive me if I'm not surprised should he actually be cut.

[Uffdaswede]

Rob Demovsky says Amari Rodgers is as good as gone.

Jason Wilde says there’s no way a third round draft pick with his college pedigree makes it to the practice squad without being poached. He’s staying because GMs don’t unload third round draft picks like that.

AG20 says who cares… how many snaps are left after Lazard, Watkins, Cobb, Doubs and Watson get theirs?

 

[Norm]

20 minutes ago, Uffdaswede said:

Rob Demovsky says Amari Rodgers is as good as gone.

Jason Wilde says there’s no way a third round draft pick with his college pedigree makes it to the practice squad without being poached. He’s staying because GMs don’t unload third round draft picks like that.

AG20 says who cares… how many snaps are left after Lazard, Watkins, Cobb, Doubs and Watson get theirs?

 

Not reading up again but I got the impression that AG wanted to keep him?

Demov is a moron as well. 

[HokieHigh]

9 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Rodgers stand out trait is his strength at frame. That's not gonna measure in RAS. 

it shows up in his bench and weight.

 

as you alluded to before, he is a poor mans ty montgomery who was a poor mans deebo. deebo is outstanding because he brings elite explosion with his frame - indicated by broad jump. his burst is obvious.

 

deebo is also great because of his vision, which doesn't show up in RAS and rodgers may well have.

 

maybe when the game slows down for amari his clemson vision will re-emerge, but it just has not looked like that in the bigs so far because the NFL isn't the ACC.
 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2022 by HokieHigh