Random Packer News & Notes

[Leader]

Signing in from my car dealership....getting some maintenance done...and just wanted to say how amazed I am at the amount of ads!!! Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez...christ. You all should be ashamed of yourselves LOL 

[craig]

24 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

....WR's generally do not do well in Green Bay because of Rodgers needing to trust them before throwing to them on a regular basis...

Common view, and not without foundation, given Rodgers' priorities in a receiver.  But, I think more nuance may apply?  Jordy, Cobb, Adams all performed very well as rookies.  They just didn't have high volumes, playing behind well-established quality receivers.  But they played well, and Rodgers used them very well.  Did we expect Rodgers to target Adams all the time when he had primo Jordy and prime Cobb?  Should we have expected Rodgers to target Cobb tons when he was playing behind the wonderful Greg Jennings still at his peak, and Jordy, and Jones, and still functional Driver?  

Jordy, Cobb, and Adams were not coming into a system where Malik Taylor and Winfree were the top wideouts.  In situations where the team was short on receivers, Rodgers did throw to rookies (I think) like Lazard, Allison, MVS, EQ, and Boykin.  If UDFA or 6th round rookies can get targets, I suspect a more talented smarter 2nd rounder could, too?  

A common consideration for guys drafted in rounds 1 and 2 is that they tend to be smart and to be hard workers, willing and able to learn.  (Not always, Josh Jones, of course...).   But I think *IF* the Packers were to draft a WR before Day 3, it's possible they might prioritize a guy who's smarter and a quicker study and more professional than J'Mon Moore.  And a guy who wouldn't have been getting snaps ahead of primo Jordy, but might be able to win some snaps and targets from Malik and Rico Gafford?  

[mikemike778]

Its pretty much common sense to get Rodgers input into drafted receivers and pretty much common sense that Gutey has the final say.

We need a WR to make an impact immediately so if Rodgers feels there is a guy that suits what we do then it should be taken seriously - he is the one expected to build a connection with the receiver.

We've already debunked the Rodgers doesn't throw to rookies nonsense - he doesn't throw to late round raw projects who in all likelihod don't know what they are doing. Its a long time since we used a proper pick on a receiver and when we did, Adams was used plenty (more than most fans wanted him to be).

[vegas492]

53 minutes ago, Packer_ESP said:

Because good player is not equal to good scout

But we don't know that about Rodgers.  What we do know...Gute.  Moore, ESB, MVS, Rogers.

Personally I don't care if he does or does not have a "say" in what WR's he likes.  But with how last off-season went down, and how this off-season has gone down, I'll bet #12 has....input.

[vegas492]

54 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

 

People have different jobs in an organization for a reason. His is not personnel, its playing quarterback, which he's top of his profession at. 

Sorry man, not disagreeing with the general sentiment of your post.

Am saying...Rodgers is the reason Cobb is back here.  He's part of personnel whether any of us like it or not.

[NFLGURU]

13 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Sorry man, not disagreeing with the general sentiment of your post.

Am saying...Rodgers is the reason Cobb is back here.  He's part of personnel whether any of us like it or not.

Regardless of what they get going forward,  Cobb may or may not play a lot this year but he might be the most valuable player in the WR room.  A lot of new kids coming in, he's a great mentor to show them the Packer way.  With the current state of the Packer WR room, he's invaluable.

Edited April 8, 2022 by NFLGURU

[R T]

6 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Sorry man, not disagreeing with the general sentiment of your post.

Am saying...Rodgers is the reason Cobb is back here.  He's part of personnel whether any of us like it or not.

Right and the Packers can leverage that to their advantage also. They can narrow down a group of WR's that MLF feels will work best in his offense and let Rodgers add his input.  By drafting someone that he has put his stamp of approval on he is now committed to make it work with that individual since he handpicked him.     

[Leader]

3 minutes ago, R T said:

Right and the Packers can leverage that to their advantage also. They can narrow down a group of WR's that MLF feels will work best in his offense and let Rodgers add his input.  By drafting someone that he has put his stamp of approval on he is now committed to make it work with that individual since he handpicked him.     

Disagree with the premise that for some reason ARs free to be "more committed" to a WR he had input on versus one in which he didnt. 

[thrILL!]

1 hour ago, mikemike778 said:

Its pretty much common sense to get Rodgers input into drafted receivers and pretty much common sense that Gutey has the final say.

We need a WR to make an impact immediately so if Rodgers feels there is a guy that suits what we do then it should be taken seriously - he is the one expected to build a connection with the receiver.

Yeah sure… cater to his overly inflated ego even more! lol.  He didn’t even throw to his homie Cobb when it mattered most so IDGAF about his “connection” to any WRs.  Let Gute do his job and Rodgers can do his.  

[vegas492]

47 minutes ago, NFLGURU said:

Regardless of what they get going forward,  Cobb may or may not play a lot this year but he might be the most valuable player in the WR room.  A lot of new kids coming in, he's a great mentor to show them the Packer way.  With the current state of the Packer WR room, he's invaluable.

Question, does GB trade for him if it wasn't for Rodgers?  Asking for a friend.

[NFLGURU]

15 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Question, does GB trade for him if it wasn't for Rodgers?  Asking for a friend.

Highly doubtful he'd be here without Rodgers.  It doesn't matter at this point.  

[Refugee]

2 hours ago, craig said:

Common view, and not without foundation, given Rodgers' priorities in a receiver.  But, I think more nuance may apply?  Jordy, Cobb, Adams all performed very well as rookies.  They just didn't have high volumes, playing behind well-established quality receivers.  But they played well, and Rodgers used them very well.  Did we expect Rodgers to target Adams all the time when he had primo Jordy and prime Cobb?  Should we have expected Rodgers to target Cobb tons when he was playing behind the wonderful Greg Jennings still at his peak, and Jordy, and Jones, and still functional Driver?  

Jordy, Cobb, and Adams were not coming into a system where Malik Taylor and Winfree were the top wideouts.  In situations where the team was short on receivers, Rodgers did throw to rookies (I think) like Lazard, Allison, MVS, EQ, and Boykin.  If UDFA or 6th round rookies can get targets, I suspect a more talented smarter 2nd rounder could, too?  

A common consideration for guys drafted in rounds 1 and 2 is that they tend to be smart and to be hard workers, willing and able to learn.  (Not always, Josh Jones, of course...).   But I think *IF* the Packers were to draft a WR before Day 3, it's possible they might prioritize a guy who's smarter and a quicker study and more professional than J'Mon Moore.  And a guy who wouldn't have been getting snaps ahead of primo Jordy, but might be able to win some snaps and targets from Malik and Rico Gafford?  

I’ve got to say, you make good points and I agree with most of it but, sir, I draw the line at besmirching the good name of Rico Gafford. 

[craig]

Obviously 'Cobb wouldn't have been acquired without Rodgers advocacy.  That said, Cobb was a reasonably productive player for his contract.  It's not like he was some terrible value/dollar guy.  Or that Amari or Malik would have been as good at his job.  

So while Cobb may be evidence that Rodgers was given input, Cobb isn't evidence that Rodgers gave bad input, at least in that case.  

[Leader]

41 minutes ago, craig said:

Obviously 'Cobb wouldn't have been acquired without Rodgers advocacy.  That said, Cobb was a reasonably productive player for his contract.  It's not like he was some terrible value/dollar guy.  Or that Amari or Malik would have been as good at his job.  

So while Cobb may be evidence that Rodgers was given input, Cobb isn't evidence that Rodgers gave bad input, at least in that case.  

Glad we got that hammered out.

[craig]

17 minutes ago, Refugee said:

I’ve got to say, you make good points and I agree with most of it but, sir, I draw the line at besmirching the good name of Rico Gafford. 

Refugee, between Gafford and Chris Blair, who's your guy?  :):)