Jump to content

Random Packer News & Notes


Leader

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

While I think that Rodgers has not been playing as well as he used to, I have to feel that it is hard to argue that this offense would not be better if they had a legitimate #2 receiver to pair with Adams.  Lazard looks promising as a #3, MVS and Gmo are really a like 4 and 5 receivers.

What if I told you Lazard is similar to 70% of #2 receivers in the league?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Golfman said:

OK, this doesn't compute for me! Plenty of times he's gotten them to commit early and he changes the play. Then they adjust their defense. Snap the damn ball when they are changing their defense. 

I agree with @AlexGreen#20 on this one. Change it up a little bit. Also, they changed the rule and are stopping the play rather than give him a free shot. Let's get some tempo going once in a while too. It wears a defense out! 

I agree with changing it up.  Outside of that, the defense is not getting some advantage from the play clock winding down.  They go when the ball is snapped, like the other 11 guys opposite of them.  Changing it up makes complete sense because it’ll catch em off guard from the normal winding down of the play clock.  The only reason I still sometimes get heartburn from watching Rodgers run down the clock, is he cuts it too close sometimes.

And don’t assume the hard count is only used to draw the defense offsides - it’s also used to see if the defense has committed to their positions.

Edited by Sasquatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

What if I told you Lazard is similar to 70% of #2 receivers in the league?

I don't buy it as a legitimate argument.  70 % of the league doesn't make the playoffs, so your statement implies that we need to do better..  He may grow into the position, but he is still developmental.  

If you are trying to argue that with Rodgers current deficiencies that the offense wouldn't be better with the addition of a better number two, then I think you have to come up with a better line of argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

I don't buy it as a legitimate argument.  70 % of the league doesn't make the playoffs, so your statement implies that we need to do better..  He may grow into the position, but he is still developmental.  

If you are trying to argue that with Rodgers current deficiencies that the offense wouldn't be better with the addition of a better number two, then I think you have to come up with a better line of argument.

Of course a better WR would make the offense better, but Lazard is a good enough number 2 to get it done right now opposite adams. I dont think the corps is as big a problem vs Rodgers play this year. 2015 you can argue it, but Rodgers has been way worse than even that year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

While I think that Rodgers has not been playing as well as he used to, I have to feel that it is hard to argue that this offense would not be better if they had a legitimate #2 receiver to pair with Adams.  Lazard looks promising as a #3, MVS and Gmo are really a like 4 and 5 receivers.

The offense would probably be with a QB playing better than what GB is currently getting.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

While I think that Rodgers has not been playing as well as he used to, I have to feel that it is hard to argue that this offense would not be better if they had a legitimate #2 receiver to pair with Adams.  Lazard looks promising as a #3, MVS and Gmo are really a like 4 and 5 receivers.

But you are referring to a guy arguing that who will disagree with anything, regardless of evidence and refuse to come off a failed position. It's almost a phobia or something! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

What if I told you Lazard is similar to 70% of #2 receivers in the league?

I'd laugh at you! Now, does Lazard have the ability to develop into a fine #2? I'd say he could do that, but he's dropped a few too many passes and hasn't really distinguished himself in that many games. I'd also add he might be one of the best blocking WR's in the NFL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, squire12 said:

The offense would probably be with a QB playing better than what GB is currently getting.  ;)

This too! I agree with this but as 'bad' as Rodgers has played he's still top ten! We're spoiled at the QB position and these millennials have no idea what it was like before Favre! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Golfman said:

I'd laugh at you! Now, does Lazard have the ability to develop into a fine #2? I'd say he could do that, but he's dropped a few too many passes and hasn't really distinguished himself in that many games. I'd also add he might be one of the best blocking WR's in the NFL. 

32 teams = 32 receiver 2s.  Name 23 number two receivers significantly better than Lazard.

This is everyone’s problem.  They do not and cannot understand perspective.  Lazard was 69th in receptions.  He didn’t have a single target until week 6 this year.  He was 39th in the league in yards per reception (minimum 30 receptions).  His catch percentage was 28th.  That means he was 28th best in the league in turning targets into receptions.

You all think that other teams have these crazy depth charts when they don’t.  
 

Lazard is probably BETTER than 70% of number two receivers in this league.  He is absolutely at the very worst similar to 70%.  So laugh all you want but this is once again you not having any perspective on how the NFL works.  There is no bottomless pit of talent at WR.  We’re in better shape at the position than most teams.

It’s like... Go to every other sub forum here and ask them about their #2 WR and they’re all going to say they suck.  You might find five that are content.

Edited by Outpost31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

32 teams = 32 receiver 2s.  Name 23 number two receivers significantly better than Lazard.

This is everyone’s problem.  They do not and cannot understand perspective.  Lazard was 69th in receptions.  He didn’t have a single target until week 6 this year.  He was 39th in the league in yards per reception (minimum 30 receptions).  His catch percentage was 28th.  That means he was 28th best in the league in turning targets into receptions.

You all think that other teams have these crazy depth charts when they don’t.  
 

Lazard is probably BETTER than 70% of number two receivers in this league.  He is absolutely at the very worst similar to 70%.  So laugh all you want but this is once again you not having any perspective on how the NFL works.  There is no bottomless pit of talent at WR.  We’re in better shape at the position than most teams.

It’s like... Go to every other sub forum here and ask them about their #2 WR and they’re all going to say they suck.  You might find five that are content.

No thanks, I've got better things to do, but just in our division. all three teams have a better #2 receiver. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, squire12 said:

Who is a millennial?

Was not referring to you, but rather a few of the others arguing how terrible Rodgers is and he's got enough weapons. They are too young to remember the 70's and 80's when we really had QB issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Golfman said:

No thanks, I've got better things to do, but just in our division. all three teams have a better #2 receiver. 

Typical of you to avoid the entire post.  You just named three teams while confirming you have zero perspective outside the division. 

What if I told you that Lazard was rated higher than both Ammendola and Marvin Jones?

And Anthony Miller?

You'd just say, "Lol you're dumb."  Because you have nothing to offer other than popular opinion when that opinion is wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Golfman said:

Was not referring to you, but rather a few of the others arguing how terrible Rodgers is and he's got enough weapons. They are too young to remember the 70's and 80's when we really had QB issues. 

I'm old enough to remember.  Rodgers has been bad at times, sometimes good, rarely terrible.  He does not have enough weapons.

  • Like 1
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...