Random Packer News & Notes

[CWood21]

5 hours ago, {Family Ghost} said:

Now that the Packers are getting the Jets #2 the thought keeps going thru my mind that the Packers may ship a 2nd off to the Colts as part of a deal for Jonathan Taylor.  He's 24 and would be the long term solution in the Packers backfield.  He fits what they want to continue to do for years to come.  Jones will probably restructure and return next year, but Dillon is probably going to wind up getting paid to play somewhere else.  

There's 0% chance that we're trading for Jonathan Taylor.

[Packer_ESP]

5 hours ago, squire12 said:

Can you explain the bold?

Is Aaron jones much as a pass catcher?

Among RBs last year:

• 6th in receptions
• 10th in receiving yards
• Tied for 2nd in receiving touchdowns

Similar rankings for 2021. I'd actually argue we're sorta under utilizing Jones as a receiving threat, he seems pretty capable.

[squire12]

4 hours ago, Packer_ESP said:

Among RBs last year:

• 6th in receptions
• 10th in receiving yards
• Tied for 2nd in receiving touchdowns

Similar rankings for 2021. I'd actually argue we're sorta under utilizing Jones as a receiving threat, he seems pretty capable.

I agree.  My point was more about the statement that was made that Taylor isnt much as a pass catcher.

Taylor:  2.4 rec per game on 3.0 targets per game for 7.7 yards per rec

Jones:  2.8 rec per game on 3.7 targets per game for 7.9 yards per rec

[NFLGURU]

5 hours ago, Packer_ESP said:

Among RBs last year:

• 6th in receptions
• 10th in receiving yards
• Tied for 2nd in receiving touchdowns

Similar rankings for 2021. I'd actually argue we're sorta under utilizing Jones as a receiving threat, he seems pretty capable.

Agree, things happen when Jones gets the ball in the passing game, especially when he goes beyond the line for receptions.  Big weapon.

[Packer_ESP]

1 hour ago, squire12 said:

I agree.  My point was more about the statement that was made that Taylor isnt much as a pass catcher.

Taylor:  2.4 rec per game on 3.0 targets per game for 7.7 yards per rec

Jones:  2.8 rec per game on 3.7 targets per game for 7.9 yards per rec

Oh sorry, misunderstood your point

[craig]

6 hours ago, Packer_ESP said:

Among RBs last year:

• 6th in receptions
• 10th in receiving yards
• Tied for 2nd in receiving touchdowns

Similar rankings for 2021. I'd actually argue we're sorta under utilizing Jones as a receiving threat, he seems pretty capable.

Situational usage seems appropriate.  It's hard for me to evaluate, because usage is sorta context dependent.  

Those are volume numbers.  On a rate basis, those numbers gave Jones <6 yards-per-target.  That's better than an average running ypc, but well below average for a WR target.   So I'd not conclude from the numbers that we should replace WR with more Jones-targets?  Or have lots of two-back sets with Jones lined up outside?  I'm kinda fine with situational, context-dependent usage, kinda as it has been.  I also imagine that *IF* we've got more speed and more downfield and mid-field action in our passing game, that could help Jones, provide more space?

Heh heh, after racking up 86 yards already on Sunday, his yards-per-target is going to be several yards higher this year.  Averages get massively boosted by a couple of big plays.  

[Mazrimiv]

On 9/15/2023 at 12:40 AM, CWood21 said:

There's 0% chance that we're trading for Jonathan Taylor.

Considering GB acknowledged they made contact, and the media types reported that paying Taylor wasn't an issue, I'd put the percentage above zero.  Maybe not high, but not zero either.

[Mazrimiv]

On 9/14/2023 at 7:09 PM, Mdpackfan22 said:

Depending on the contract JT demands, a 2nd is too much. He's been in the league 3 years. Amazing rookie season, mediocre 2nd season with injuries and holding out this year. I offer Nijman and a 3rd 

I'd offer Nijman, Dillon and a 4th, and be willing to up the 4th to a 3rd

[{Family Ghost}]

9 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

I'd offer Nijman, Dillon and a 4th, and be willing to up the 4th to a 3rd

I'd do that in a second, but I doubt the Colts would go for it. 

[HeresAGuy]

When will we admit we suck at drafting defensive players.  When does it stop........why do people keep thinking Darnell Savage is going to change this defense, Eric Stokes is going to change this defense, Rashan Gary is going to change this defense, LVN is going to change this defense.  THEYRE NOT.  We cant draft defensive players.  We should have been building an offensive juggernaut this whole time that wins/loses 48-45.  I do not want to see us draft another first round defensive player the next five years.  period.  Furthermore, its obvious its not the coaches fault at this point, its not the defensive coordinators fault. ITS THE PLAYERS.  AND THEY SUCK.

Edited September 17, 2023 by HeresAGuy

[CWood21]

3 minutes ago, HeresAGuy said:

When will we admit we suck at drafting defensive players.  When does it stop........why do people keep thinking Darnell Savage is going to change this defense, Eric Stokes is going to change this defense, Rashan Gary is going to change this defense, LVN is going to change this defense.  THEYRE NOT.  We cant draft defensive players.  We should have been building an offensive juggernaut this whole time that wins/loses 48-45.  I do not want to see us draft another first round defensive player the next five years.  period.  Furthermore, its obvious its not the coaches fault at this point, its not the defensive coordinators fault. ITS THE PLAYERS.  AND THEY SUCK.

Or it's the coaching staff.  We're going to keep playing light in the box against a team that wants to run the ball.

[Leader]

 

[Refugee]

The modern NFL is built to favor the offense. Even the “elite” defense s get burned. Scoring 30+ is a good day for an offense but not uncommon. We should demand better but freaking out is not productive or looking at the reality of the League. 

[skibrett15]

1 hour ago, Refugee said:

The modern NFL is built to favor the offense. Even the “elite” defense s get burned. Scoring 30+ is a good day for an offense but not uncommon. We should demand better but freaking out is not productive or looking at the reality of the League. 

in what world are elite defenses getting burned by anything but elite offenses.

Packers get burned by rando offenses

[Refugee]

18 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

in what world are elite defenses getting burned by anything but elite offenses.

Packers get burned by rando offenses

ATL is and will be a heavyweight running the ball. Our offense let the defense down with early penalties and then a string of three and outs. We could have won this one if the O didn’t collapse in the 4th and completely leave the D on the hook. The guys eventually wore down but they were fighting. TOP ended up 24/36 in favor of ATL. 

In my original statement I put “elite” in quotes. there are very few elite defenses nowadays because the rules mean you can’t clamp down on offensive players. Who are the really good defenses?  PHI, SF,  NYJ.  All of them will get torched this season. Packers D could have played better but they made their stops and got a turnover. The young offense missing many of the best players tried but failed in the end. 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Refugee