Jump to content

Random Packer News & Notes


Leader

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Striker said:

1. Of the playoff teams:

Arizona - Ertz (19), Kirk (17.4), Green (15.6), Moore (11) though it should be noted that Hopkins going down forced them to balance distribution

Buffalo - Diggs (25.2), Beasley (17.1), Sanders (11), Knox (10.8)

Cincinnati - Chase (23.1), Higgins (19.8), Boyd (16.9), Uzomah (11.4)

Dallas - Lamb (18.5), Schultz (16.1), Cooper (15.9), Elliott (10)

Green Bay - Adams (28.5), Jones (11), Lazard (10.1), MVS (9.3)

Indianapolis - Pittman (24.8), Pascal (13.2), Hines (10.9), Taylor (9.8)

Kansas City - Hill (23.6), Kelce (19.9), Hardman (12.3), Pringle (8.9)

LA Rams - Kupp (31.5), Van Jefferson (14.7), Higbee (14), OBJ (13.5)

Las Vegas - Renfrow (20.4), Waller (14.8), Jones (11.1), Jacobs (10.2)

New England - Meyers (23.6), Henry (14), Bourne (13.1), Agholor (12)

Pittsburgh - Johnson (25.5), Claypool (15.8), Harris (14.2), Freiermuth (11.9)

San Francisco - Samuel (23.5), Kittle (18.3), Aiyuk (16.3), Jennings (7.4)

Tampa Bay - Godwin (17.5), Evans (15.6), Gronkowski (12.2), Fournette (11.5)

Tennessee - Brown (19.6), Westbrook-Ikhine (10.7), Jones (9), Firskey (8) though Brown and Jones missed a good chunk of time.

So you had one of the most unbalanced teams and one of the most balanced teams make it through to the Super Bowl.

 

2. Adding OBJ didn't really change Kupp's target share since he was still seeing a 15+ percent more targets than Woods or Jefferson. It's probably a QB tendency thing more than anything.

 

3. By .8 percent. My guess is the Packers and Rams would be pretty even in terms of difference had MVS stayed healthy as he was averaging about a 14 percent target share including his glorified decoy/ineffective Week 17/18 games. He was averaging a 16 percent target share when healthy.

It comes down to whether its working.

If your WR1 is winning all of the time regardless of how many guys are covering him then there really isn't a problem in throwing everything his way.

Just need to be able to do something different when you need to. You need the deep threat which makes it harder to blanket Adams. When your WR2 is Lazard then frankly you are going to be looking for Adams whenever you can.  A fast receiver that defences respect and a competent receiving TE opens everything up.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

You putdown Ranch yesterday and it was by far the most offensive thing you've done on this forum. 

Ranch dressing is the lowest tier of sauces and condiments.  It doesn't enhance flavor, it masks flavor.  The go to dressing for people who don't like salad, and whose pizza and wings are too spicy.  Or used to cover your vegetables because you don't like vegetables but you have to eat them because you were told to.  It is the ordering chicken fingers at the restaurant of sauce.  Poll of 16 year old girls will make ranch dressing popular.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

You putdown Ranch yesterday and it was by far the most offensive thing you've done on this forum. 

Buddhist lesson #1: Life is suffering.

Edit: I thought Ranch was a poster abused by Incog. Now I can’t decide if lesson #1 is still germaine or not. That said, ranch dressing is not bad, but it bothers me. Like finding the bartender has put an orange on my beer glass bothers me. Lowbrow masquerading as pretentiousness.

Edited by Uffdaswede
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

Ranch dressing is the lowest tier of sauces and condiments.  It doesn't enhance flavor, it masks flavor.  The go to dressing for people who don't like salad, and whose pizza and wings are too spicy.  Or used to cover your vegetables because you don't like vegetables but you have to eat them because you were told to.  It is the ordering chicken fingers at the restaurant of sauce.  Poll of 16 year old girls will make ranch dressing popular.  

Now I see where your name comes from. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

This forum in one sentence:

“If you don't get what you want, you suffer; if you get what you don't want, you suffer;
even when you get exactly what you want, you still suffer because you can't hold on to it forever.”

It’s like Gautama has read the Game Day threads!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, dust247 said:

McAfee said yesterday that retirement was a real option for A-Rod.

Does knowing that, change how you handle Jordan Love moving forward? 

How does contract, retirement, and signing-bonus work?  And void years? 

For example:

  1. Does the player keep all of the signing bonus, and only lose the seasonal salaries for the seasons that he doesn't play?  Or does he somehow return portion of the signing bonus?
  2. Even if he doesn't return any, does the league still salary-cap charge the team for all of that signing bonus?  Or do some of the signing bonus charge get eliminated?  

https://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/pittsburgh-steelers-nfl-features-news-blog-long-form/2016/3/5/11158958/nfl-101-how-cuts-retirements-and-trades-affect-the-salary-cap

OK, so per this 2016 article, the default is that a team is fully salary-cap charged, same as if they cut the player.  But there is an option:   "When a player retires, the team has the option to pursue the return of a portion of the signing bonus equal to the unplayed portions of the contract, and that money is no longer counted against the salary cap. This is typically done through an arbitrator."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, craig said:

How does contract, retirement, and signing-bonus work?  And void years? 

For example:

  1. Does the player keep all of the signing bonus, and only lose the seasonal salaries for the seasons that he doesn't play?  Or does he somehow return portion of the signing bonus?
  2. Even if he doesn't return any, does the league still salary-cap charge the team for all of that signing bonus?  Or do some of the signing bonus charge get eliminated?  

https://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/pittsburgh-steelers-nfl-features-news-blog-long-form/2016/3/5/11158958/nfl-101-how-cuts-retirements-and-trades-affect-the-salary-cap

OK, so per this 2016 article, the default is that a team is fully salary-cap charged, same as if they cut the player.  But there is an option:   "When a player retires, the team has the option to pursue the return of a portion of the signing bonus equal to the unplayed portions of the contract, and that money is no longer counted against the salary cap. This is typically done through an arbitrator."

 

 

What does this have to do with ranch dressing?

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

Ranch dressing is the lowest tier of sauces and condiments.  It doesn't enhance flavor, it masks flavor.  The go to dressing for people who don't like salad, and whose pizza and wings are too spicy.  Or used to cover your vegetables because you don't like vegetables but you have to eat them because you were told to.  It is the ordering chicken fingers at the restaurant of sauce.  Poll of 16 year old girls will make ranch dressing popular.  

What if you order ranch WITH the chicken fingers?

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...