Jump to content

Random Packer News & Notes


Leader

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Lazard and Winfree are horrible comps for Rodgers.  Rodgers isn't playing a big WR role and blocking anyone.  Though, I remember Winfree just lining up outside and running routes.  I don't think he blocked as much, but I also can't remember him playing any kind of slot role.

Think of Cobb.  Those are the snaps and the kinds of things that Rodgers should bring.

We will see soon enough if they think enough of Rodgers to hand him some snaps while Randall is recovering from his injury.  I think it is more likely a lot of those snaps goes to ESB, but we shall see.

no doubt, 100%.  But you have to remember that the coaches are drawing things up for the personnel they have.  When you have both Cobb and Rodgers, you can put them both on the field.  You can play cobb out of the backfield and rodgers in the slot, or vice versa.  It's telling that they hid Rodgers in a game where they were absolutely desperate for someone to step up at WR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

To elaborate.  When you have a terrible 2nd/3rd/4th receiving option (which has been the case in some games where adams/mvs are out) -which means the opportunity is there (and this goes for any position group really), and you are a young player who is not forcing their way onto the field, it is a TERRIBLE sign for your future.

There are 1000 corey colemans who get the chance to play and ultimately fail for every real "late bloomer" WR like stevie johnson.

Fact is, there just aren't many WRs who don't play in the game much when the opportunity is there, who go on to later play in the game a lot and also play well.  Far more likely is the WR who plays and plays poorly or inconsistently developing into a player who plays and plays well.  That is what happened with Adams.

 

That's not to say that Rodgers is never going to succeed.  But the fact that he can't beat out Lazard for snaps,  who has been downright terrible! is a really bad sign. 

The fact that he only played 16 snaps in a game that Juwann winfree, a practice squad player, played 54, is also a terrible sign.

 

The coaches may decide to incorporate him into the game now that they have the bye to self-scout.

I've always held that talent forces it's way onto the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Leader said:

Stokes has what it takes. He just needs experience at this level. The tools are all there.
Douglas lacks the skills of Stokes - but he's better at this stage in positioning and attacking the pass. I certainly hope we can retain him. A secondary with JA, Stokes and Douglas would be nice to see. I think our coverage sacks would go up appreciably.

I am really happy with what Stokes has shown up to this point. He has been beaten but never seems to hesitate out there and has made some timely plays when put to the rookie test. 

I usually think of skills as something that can be sharpened like technique and play diagnosis, while talent is natural ability like speed and reaction time. By that definition Stokes definitely has the edge in talent but still lacks the skills of the more veteran Douglas. No doubt things will slow down for him and he can start elevating his game. How high he can go is what makes it exciting to be a fan. 

Edited by Refugee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

no doubt, 100%.  But you have to remember that the coaches are drawing things up for the personnel they have.  When you have both Cobb and Rodgers, you can put them both on the field.  You can play cobb out of the backfield and rodgers in the slot, or vice versa.  It's telling that they hid Rodgers in a game where they were absolutely desperate for someone to step up at WR.

Like I'm not arguing against your point that Rodgers has done nothing this year.  

But....are you saying that the coaches should have put Rodgers in a RB role?  Or Cobb, then slid Rodgers out there?

Because I find it difficult to believe that the Packers would be cross training Rodgers at RB.  He's having a hard enough time learning slot WR.

Or are you saying that Cobb should have been in the backfield, which would have taken snaps away from either Jones or Dillon?  

I mean, I know what your general thesis is concerning Rodgers.  But thinking Rodgers could have taken snaps somewhere other than the slot just doesn't register with me.

Not when you can keep your best slot guy in the slot, your best RB's in the backfield and simply roll with a big body WR outside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, vegas492 said:

But....are you saying that the coaches should have put Rodgers in a RB role?  Or Cobb, then slid Rodgers out there?

in the role that we have seen cobb playing out of the backfield under mccarthy, and what we saw in the RZ vs LAR.  Yes.

 

Clearly slot WRs in the backfield is part of the job description.  It would be a great way to get both players on the field. IF, that's what they coaches wanted.

It's a Look with Dillon/Cobb in the backfield along with 3 WR/TEs along the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

in the role that we have seen cobb playing out of the backfield under mccarthy, and what we saw in the RZ vs LAR.  Yes.

 

Clearly slot WRs in the backfield is part of the job description.  It would be a great way to get both players on the field. IF, that's what they coaches wanted.

It's a Look with Dillon/Cobb in the backfield along with 3 WR/TEs along the line.

K.  So this is a MLF offense, not Mac.

I think it is happened a few times, but was Cobb in the backfield outside of the goalline play against the LAR?

Point being...there aren't many snaps to be taken in that set.

I don't count that as a knock against Rodgers as a WR.  There are many things that you can knock him for, to me that just isn't one of them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

K.  So this is a MLF offense, not Mac.

I think it is happened a few times, but was Cobb in the backfield outside of the goalline play against the LAR?

Point being...there aren't many snaps to be taken in that set.

I don't count that as a knock against Rodgers as a WR.  There are many things that you can knock him for, to me that just isn't one of them.

well, going back 3-4 posts in the exchange the point is essentially this:

MLF feels down on Rodgers so much so that he would rather play oafish 1 dimensional "reliable" blockers than play Rodgers.

There's plenty of ways to involve Rodgers, and some of them don't even come at the expense of Cobb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rodgers will get another re-set next camp, and perhaps he'll do something with it and find a niche role.  And who knows, maybe he'll even get a couple of snaps this season, now that Cobb is out.  But I think he's mostly a try-again-next-year guy.  But yeah, if he'd flashed something good that he could offer, they might have involved him in a couple of packages.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, craig said:

Heh heh.  Vegas, you're a great poster.  

But personally, I kinda hope I never ever see another "remember Adams" post again!  :):):). 

I get it, Adams is great now, but wasn't PRODUCTIVE as a 2nd-year guy.  So he's an obvious default reference whenever any young player isn't productive. 

But in retrospect, Adams does NOT represent "it takes time". 

Instead, he represents the "guys playing injured don't produce like they can when healthy."  Adams was used heavily already in year 1, and was already productive then.  He was great in year 3, as a healthy player.  MM kept playing him and giving him snaps even in year 2, when he wasn't productive.  I think that was in part because it was already obvious that his brains and drive were there, and the game was NOT too fast for him mentally.  The only problem was that he was playing on injured ankles, I believe he badly sprained one, came back too early, sprained the other, came back too early, and was basically playing on two bad ankles.  He couldn't run, and he couldn't cut.  The Adams who is famous for his footwork couldn't do his thing without his ankles. 

It was certainly not because he lacked MM's or Rodgers confidence; they kept playing him and targeting him even when he couldn't make good cuts.  And they kept rushing him back into the lineup even when his ankles weren't well healed.  Maybe the game was "too fast for him", because he had no wheels.  But it was NOT because it was too fast for his brain.  

So, if there's a young guy who's delayed by injury, I think "remember Adams" is a good cliche then.  But for a healthy young player who isn't producing, and who isn't being given snaps because coach or Rodgers doesn't trust him, or because the game hasn't "slowed down" for them yet mentally, that is absolutely NOT Adams story.  

I think “used heavily” in year 1 and “great” in year 3 are overstated. He had ~450 yards as a rookie (with a poor catch % and poor yards/target) and just under 1000 yards in year 3. Was that the year Jordy was out, so he was a starter without many weapons around him? I would say he was solid. He wasn’t really great until year 5. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TheEagle said:

I think “used heavily” in year 1 and “great” in year 3 are overstated. He had ~450 yards as a rookie (with a poor catch % and poor yards/target) and just under 1000 yards in year 3. Was that the year Jordy was out, so he was a starter without many weapons around him? I would say he was solid. He wasn’t really great until year 5. 

Jones had 676 yards as a rookie.  But he also had 80 targets and started 9 games.  He only played in 10 his second year, and his production dropped quite a bit.  His REALLY bad catch percentage was year 3. 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JoneJa04.htm

Might he be the best WR that never got to 1000 yards in a season?

 

It is interesting that both Jones and Nelson struggled in 2009.  I don't recall why.  Jennings, Driver, and Finley seemed to do alright.  Jones was targeted quite a bit as well, he just didn't catch a damn thing.  

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/2009.htm

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThatJerkDave said:

Jones had 676 yards as a rookie.  But he also had 80 targets and started 9 games.  He only played in 10 his second year, and his production dropped quite a bit.  His REALLY bad catch percentage was year 3. 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JoneJa04.htm

Might he be the best WR that never got to 1000 yards in a season?

 

It is interesting that both Jones and Nelson struggled in 2009.  I don't recall why.  Jennings, Driver, and Finley seemed to do alright.  Jones was targeted quite a bit as well, he just didn't catch a damn thing.  

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/2009.htm

 

For a while JJ could only catch the contested, difficult ones. He would drop wide open on the numbers shots and it was painful to watch. He got over it but it took some development and patience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...