Random Packer News & Notes

[Brat&Beer]

33 minutes ago, craig said:

Not to be a downer snarkster, but if Lazard is so good of a receiver, why didn't MLF and Rodgers call more plays for him and throw him the ball?  

Just because MLF is dumb, and because Rodgers is both bad and even dumber than MLF, is that the rationale?  

*IF* that's supposed to be the hypothetical rationale, I wonder if there might also be some alternative rationale that might have even better explanatory power?  

Do you really not think there were times Rodgers' hyper focus on Adams caused him to miss things?

 

[Zycho32]

43 minutes ago, craig said:

Ignoramus here, but what is "yard/route run"?  

That's basically "total receiving yards gained" divided by "times he ran a receiving route".

[Sandy]

1 hour ago, craig said:

Not to be a downer snarkster, but if Lazard is so good of a receiver, why didn't MLF and Rodgers call more plays for him and throw him the ball?  

Just because MLF is dumb, and because Rodgers is both bad and even dumber than MLF, is that the rationale?  

*IF* that's supposed to be the hypothetical rationale, I wonder if there might also be some alternative rationale that might have even better explanatory power?  

Aside from the obvious and overdone "he only lookz at adamzz" narrative that will surely be commented, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. 

Lazard is what he is - both useful and ordinary. Some posters cant accept that and need every player to be a star or on the chopping block.

Solid role player. He'd have earned more targets if he deserved them. His numbers look really efficient because he was playing with the greatest QB of all time and had the best wr in the league drawing double teams.

[coachbuns]

,Lazard isn't a #1 receiver .. no argument.  However, I think you don' give him enough credit either.  Rodgers looked nonstop for Adams even when other wrs were open.  Hopefully now that Adams has went to his nirvana Rodgers will spread the ball around to any open receiver; Lazard included.

[Brat&Beer]

Lazard had the best game of his career in a game where Adams was out. He's not a #1, but there is reason to think he can handle more of a role, and could have handled more in the past if given the opportunity. 

[ThatJerkDave]

I don't think people are calling for Lazard to be a "#1" guy.  If we take his 60 targets and look to make them 60 receptions, and give him his last season's 66.7% catch rate, it takes 90 targets.  Once again giving him the same ypc as last season, gives him 768 yards on the season.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that as part of a committee.  And that is what we will need to do this season.  

[squire12]

here are the pass target distributions from the 3 years under MFL offense.  

I think it is fair to look at the WR group as being more spread out vs a huge target magnet in Adams.  Bump the 2-4 WR up and cut the WR1 down and you have very similar numbers overall for the position group.  A potential uptick from the RB group makes some sense to get those "weapons" more involved

2019		2020		2021			avg		2022
Adams	127	Adams	149	Adams	169		148.3		Watkins	75
Lazard	52	Lazard	46	Lazard	60		52.7		Lazard	75
MVS	56	MVS	63	MVS	55		58.0		Watson	75
Allison	55	EQ	13	EQ	17		28.3		Cobb	45
Kumerow	21			Cobb	39		20.0		Doubs	30
Others	3	other	19	other	24		15.3		other	20
Jones	68	Jones	63	Jones	65		65.3		Jones	70
Williams	45	Williams	35	Dillon	37		39.0		Dillon	40
Ervin	4	Ervin	15				6.3
other	16	other	2	other	4		7.3			15
Tonyan	15	Tonyan	59	Tonyan	29		34.3		Tonyan	55
Lewis	19	Lewis	17	Lewis	28		21.3		Lewis	20
Sternberger	1	Sternberger	15	Deguara	33		16.3		Deguara	20
Graham	60			other	9		23.0		other
Totals		Totals		Totals		Totals			Totals
WR	314	WR	290	WR	364	WR	322.7		WR	320
RB	133	RB	115	RB	106	RB	118.0		RB	125
TE	95	TE	91	TE	99	TE	95.0		TE	95
Overall	542	Overall	496	Overall	569	Overall	535.7		Overall	540

[Green19]

8 hours ago, craig said:

Not to be a downer snarkster, but if Lazard is so good of a receiver, why didn't MLF and Rodgers call more plays for him and throw him the ball?  

Just because MLF is dumb, and because Rodgers is both bad and even dumber than MLF, is that the rationale?  

*IF* that's supposed to be the hypothetical rationale, I wonder if there might also be some alternative rationale that might have even better explanatory power?  

Like most have said I think it’s a mixture of things. One, Lazard isn’t a true no. 1, he is a role guy. Two, I think that role is to be a WR that blocks a lot… MLF talks a lot about him being a tone setter at the position and even nicknamed him War Daddy (I’m guessing after Brad Pitts character in the movie Fury).

As some have mentioned, when Adams wasn’t available and Lazard was… he has had some of his biggest games, numbers wise. I think his lack of production or use has to do with the Adams affect and just the role MLF and this staff has liked to use him in.

Im wondering with the drafting of Watson and with the departure of Adams if Lazard won’t be so “type cast” in this offense. I don’t see him ever as a true game breaker type guy… but a solid Boldin type that is consistent in production and has the occasional monster game because the defense is focused else where.

[FAH1223]

 

[beekay414]

So does "putting in the work with whoever we take" only lend to being here for mandatory camp?

[Packerraymond]

3 minutes ago, beekay414 said:

So does "putting in the work with whoever we take" only lend to being here for mandatory camp?

It starts when the actual works starts.

[Old Guy]

18 hours ago, Brat&Beer said:

Do you really not think there were times Rodgers' hyper focus on Adams caused him to miss things?

 

Lazard? How about St. Brown, who Rodgers had to look right past to throw it to Adams. He's had nobody within 15 yards of him. He easily gets the ball into FG range with a catch and run. 

Rodgers was never going to anybody but Adams on that throw no matter what. 

[craig]

12 hours ago, squire12 said:

here are the pass target distributions from the 3 years under MFL offense.  

I think it is fair to look at the WR group as being more spread out vs a huge target magnet in Adams.  Bump the 2-4 WR up and cut the WR1 down and you have very similar numbers overall for the position group.  A potential uptick from the RB group makes some sense to get those "weapons" more involved

Loved your chart and analysis, Squire. 

• Agree, it's going to spread more, for sure.  I love you you charted this.
• How it gets distributed, your guess is excellent.  I've got no idea, it might vary in some ways, but this is good.  
• Adams  >>140, nobody else above 63.  Your projection of three at ~75, that really will be quite different. 
• The Adams fraction is unlike Rodgers' earlier career.  In the Jennings+company heyday, their was a lot of distribution.  Obviously Jennings+crowd was a vastly superior collection of targets, so dumb comparison.  But spread-it-around might be tougher on defensive planning?  Who gets ≥8 targets might vary from week to week.
• You replace 105 of Adam's targets with 105 between rookies Watson + Doubs.  That's possible, but given that non-Adams secondary receivers struggled to get beyond 55 targets, I still don't think the rookies are going to combine for 105.  Doubs at 30, that's the one I think is the most unlikely.  But yeah, it would be fun if he just proved to be a natural, and a smart natural, and proved worthy and trustworthy and smooth.  
• Not to nitpick details, because that's not really the purpose of your chart.  But given Tonyan's injury status, I'm doubting he'll get to 55.  Thinking Deguara and "other" (Davis) will probably absorb some of your Tonyan TE targets.

One uncertainties might simply be how many targets total.  There hasn't been a ton of scatter, <10% variance over the 3-year sample, on a per-game basis.  (2021 had 17 games versus 16 in 19 and 20).  But if you lose a lot and punt a lot, guys don't get as many targets on a 1-2-3-punt drives as on 80-yard drives.  Hoping they exceed your 540 targets because the offense is scoring a lot.  Run-pass distribution also impacts targets, of course.  Interesting that in 2020, the year the offense really was quite good, that's the season when targets was smallest.  Perhaps if the run-blocking is good, some of the really short targets will be replaced by 5-yard runs?  

 

[mikemike778]

48 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Lazard? How about St. Brown, who Rodgers had to look right past to throw it to Adams. He's had nobody within 15 yards of him. He easily gets the ball into FG range with a catch and run. 

Rodgers was never going to anybody but Adams on that throw no matter what. 

We need to let this go, its one play.

It was snapped quickly and Rodgers made about as un-Rodgers a throw as it gets launching the ball into heavy coverage. He must have seen something - thought we had to attack it quickly before they could sort it out but mis-read the defence.

Post Rodgers we are going to see a lot more mis-reading of the defence.

And yes, I'm aware there will be plenty more times when Lazard was open in the season because in real life, you can't just press pause and scan the field for the open man. Its a bit different with huge men bearing down on you.   

[squire12]

8 minutes ago, mikemike778 said:

We need to let this go, its one play.

It was snapped quickly and Rodgers made about as un-Rodgers a throw as it gets launching the ball into heavy coverage. He must have seen something - thought we had to attack it quickly before they could sort it out but mis-read the defence.

Why was it snapped quickly?

IF Rodgers saw something and mis read the defense, then he needs to get the heat for that just as he gives heat to the WR for being in the wrong spot on a route.  

8 minutes ago, mikemike778 said:

Post Rodgers we are going to see a lot more mis-reading of the defence.

And yes, I'm aware there will be plenty more times when Lazard was open in the season because in real life, you can't just press pause and scan the field for the open man. Its a bit different with huge men bearing down on you.   

good thing GB is not paying their QB top 5 money to have an excuse made on a bad read and have it get swept under the rug