Confessions of a Polluted Mindset - No Davante, No Problem?

The Weekly Packers Brain Drain from Jersey Al.

Davante - This could be a very polluted thought, but is it possible that as great as he is, will Davante Adams leaving the Packers be addition by subtraction? And I'm not talking about the usual use of that phrase, which is normally used when a problematic player is sent packing and you're better off just with having him gone. This is a different type of addition by subtraction - one that is financial in nature. With the $20M in cap space, the Packers have brought back D'Vondre Campbell, Rasul Douglas, Robert Tonyan and now signed Jarran Reed. And while I'm no capologist, I think it's pretty likely there is still some money left over and that number will increase with coming contract extensions.. I've been consistently in the "stop forcing it to Davante" camp for a few years, so if we improve our roster overall and force Rodgers to spread the ball around more - I'm ok with Davante leaving.

Win with Defense - I play tennis over the winter on Thursday nights. As I left the facility last Thursday, I checked my phone and saw the news about Davante. My first reaction was shock, as I had been convinced all along that Rodgers and Adams were a package deal.- at least for this year. After driving home and thinking about it some more, I was able to rationalize it and look at the bigger picture. My thoughts:

 

Seems the Packers have started the off-field portion of my quartet, bringing back core defenders and adding one, while hiring an accomplished special teams coach and bringing in a new punter. Now. if LaFleur and Rodgers buy in on the other two, perhaps they finally break through to the Super Bowl.

The Draft - Well, things surely got more interesting - and complicated. Going to be extra work for my one and only Packers mock draft for the CheeseheadTV Draft Guide.

Of course, Z - My first thought when Smith was released by the Packers was that he would end up with the Vikings or Bears. I was full of glee as news of his agreeing to a contract with the Ravens broke. But then the Bills and Raiders had to go and overpay for Von Miller and Chandler Jones respectively,  causing Z to look for a better deal. And lo and behold, there were the Vikings, suddenly willing to pay $14M a year to sign Za'Darious. My question is, where were they before? I only half-jokingly feel like this move was just to tweak the Packers - it's the only way they have to score a "win" over Green Bay.

Pasta Rasul - Happy to have this guy back, but let's temper the expectations. He's not going to be intercepting passes at the same rate next season, but that doesn't matter. What matters is he's a great fit in this defense, he's a physical player, a sure tackler and doesn't play soft.

Overall, would the 2022 Packers be better off with or without Davante Adams

with
16% (10 votes)
without
70% (44 votes)
no difference
14% (9 votes)
Total votes: 63

Log in to comment and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.

__________________________

"Jersey Al" Bracco is the Editor-In-Chief, part owner and wearer of many hats for CheeseheadTV.com and PackersTalk.com. He is also a recovering Mason Crosby truther.  Follow Al on twitter at @JerseyalGBP

NFL Categories: 
8 points

Comments (161)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
murf7777's picture

March 23, 2022 at 06:19 am

I agree about Adams Al.

I’ve stated all along, they cannot keep both and keep a great team together. If given a choice I choose keeping Aaron.

Don’t get me wrong , I love watching and having Adams on the team over the past years, he’s a pro and a great human. That said, I’m a strong believer you don’t sign a WR who is going to be 30 to a HUGH long term contract. They rarely work. In addition, look at the assets they are getting with the money. A great team needs balance and a great QB. Wiith Adams that wouldn’t of happened. We now have a 2-3 year window to make something great happen. GPG

14 points
17
3
Savage57's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:26 am

Not signing Adams could turn out to be a 'force multiplier' for the Packers, positively impacting several areas of the team.

If Rodgers is the QB he believes himself to be, time for him to develop a WR corps as good as the one he inherited from Favre.

7 points
8
1
HDbikerguy's picture

March 23, 2022 at 09:58 am

Yea, I kinda like the thought of who is back on D because of the 'new' money saved.... and now with 4 picks in the first two rounds and getting D line help with Reed .... you can really afford to use a one and a two on WR.... and still use high draft picks in other areas..... plus, more draft picks can help lessen the cap he// in a few years because of dead money.....

5 points
5
0
KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:32 am

Well said Murf!

Team will be much better off with the cap space and we are seeing the impact with signing players. Yes, the team will need to add a couple of WR's and preferably higher in the draft. They will be alright!

2 points
3
1
PeteK's picture

March 23, 2022 at 11:02 am

I always remember fondly how well the team performed after Sharpe injury, and believe this is a similar scenario. However, we had a very productive Brooks then to help in the transition to the rookie Freeman. I think we still need a reliable veteran WR. While I prefer Landry, there is a small elephant in the room, whisper the name Beasley.

0 points
2
2
Oppy's picture

March 23, 2022 at 12:54 pm

We also had Favre, a QB who was widely known for throwing the ball to anybody to make a play. Favre didn't care if you were an all pro or a rookie just called up from practice squad; if he saw the opening, he was going to pull the trigger and give the WR a chance to make the play.

What we have now in Rodgers is the extreme opposite of that. Rodgers worries more about the name on the jersey than the potential play on the field.

It's the one area I think Rodgers could stand to be more like Favre.

3 points
5
2
PeteK's picture

March 23, 2022 at 01:15 pm

He will have no choice now. Besides the obvious cap issues, I wonder if some of that thinking was involved in letting Adams go.

1 points
2
1
ckoski's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:53 pm

I'm not following. The point was how much better the offense was after Sharpe got hurt and Favre started spreading the ball around. Favre was not known for doing that. I started crunching some numbers. I'm sure someone has this stuff in a better format than what I could quickly do tonight, but it's clear to me that the narratives around Favre then and Rodgers now are not exactly supported by the historical numbers.

First, in 92 to 94, Sharpe was targeted on 31.93% of the team's pass attempts. For 19-21, the comparable number for Davante is 27.59%. That number is distorted somewhat since Adams missed 7 games over that time period and Sharpe didn't miss any. If we only count the games that Adams played, the number becomes 32.11%, or damn near the exact same thing as the Favre/Sharpe combo.

In 95, when the narrative says Favre started to spread the ball around, Robert Brooks was targeted 29.14% of the time, more than Sharpe's 27.46% from '94, and in the same area as the three year average. The number two guy in targets in 95 was Edgar Bennett, just as he was in 93 and 94, but his 13.78% total was actually lower than his 16.75% in 94, or 14.48% in 93, or Jackie Harris's 16.17% number in 92. The number 2 guy in 95 was targeted a lower percentage than in prior years. Numbers 2 through 4 accounted for 40.62% in 92, 38.55% in 93, 41.96 % in 94, and 40.31% in 95. The narrative, which is the way my memory had it too, just doesn't seem to be so. The numbers for 96 are really distorted by the injuries to Freeman and Brooks.

If you want stellar examples of seasons of spreading the ball around, Rodgers has produced several. In 2010, Greg Jennings was targeted the most at 23.63%, followed by James Jones at 16.44%, Donald Driver at 16.07%, and Jordy Nelson at 12.1%. The spread it around philosophy was really ramped up in 11 and 12. In 2011, five guys (Jennings, Nelson, Jermichael Finley, Driver, and Jones) were between 18.7% and 10.19%, and in 2012, Randall Cobb, Jones, Finley, Nelson, and Jennings were all between 19.08% and 11.38%, though Nelson missed four games and Jennings missed eight, distorting those numbers. In 2015, Cobb led at 22.83%, Jones was at 17.52%, Davante Adams was at 16.64, and Richard Rodgers was at 15.04%. As we know, though, the team quit investing highly in receivers following Adams in 2014, and the perhaps not so surprising result was seeing him become the dominant target while number two guys with 16 to 24% of the targets became a thing of the past. Aaron Jones has been second the last three years at 12.55%, 12.57%, tied with MVS, and 11.4%.

The taste of the Niners game is still strong, but I think there is a real argument that if Rodgers is provided with multiple legitimate weapons, he can and will use them. As much as I like MVS or Lazard, no one is confusing them with Jordy Nelson, or James Jones, or a young Randall Cobb. The force to Davante instead of Lazard sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb, and I think has really tainted the general perception. However, some of the other examples where Rodgers could have possibly hit check downs, to me, seem like they were difficult options for him to even see behind the collapsing Dennis Kelly and out of position Turner. Aaron played very well for two years with minimal weapons, and that one game should not wipe that out or distort the narrative so terribly.

Sorry for the rant. Went down a rabbit hole and thought it was interesting.

2 points
3
1
Oppy's picture

March 24, 2022 at 01:06 am

Over simplified response: Favre was a fledgling, not the seasoned vet that Rodgers is. Young QBs lean on primary targets. It was not unusual for Favre in his prime to hit 7 different targets in a game.

Also, Rodgers is a different QB post 2015, something I have talked about since.. well, not too long after 2015. I don't care what type of 'quality' of WR is on the field- you throw the ball to the open man and utilize all the talent at your disposal.

I'm not dismissing your data collection; it is interesting, especially how you found that Favre leaned on Brooks after Sterling was gone. Good stuff. However, Rodgers has been especially dismissive of WRs other than his preferred target, not as a young QB needing a security blanket, but as a MVP level veteran of over a decade. A sure fire way to have less than adequate targets is to never really get them into the gameplan. I'm sorry, but the talent around the WR room hasn't been nearly as bad as made out to be. It's just wasted talent. Superstars? No. But they are NFL receivers who are capable of playing increased roles. Too many seasons of "no one can get separation except Nelson/Adams" when there are certainly receivers other than Nelson/Adams shown running open and ignored.

1 points
4
3
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 24, 2022 at 06:26 am

Great comment. I also have run the numbers and concluded that great receivers get a lot of targets. I believe I compared Kupp who got a ridiculous number of targets.

I do allow for the possibility that AR was over-reliant on Adams. The Poll question was a little black and white for me. They won't be better without Adams if they don't bring in some WRs. A FA, or maybe a rookie, but Lazard, Cobb, Amari and Winfree ain't going to cut it.

1 points
1
0
Coldworld's picture

March 24, 2022 at 09:01 am

“ They won't be better without Adams if they don't bring in some WRs. A FA, or maybe a rookie, but Lazard, Cobb, Amari and Winfree ain't going to cut it.”

They MAY be better I would say. The key is whom can they bring in and how do they perform. A proven healthy veteran is much more likely to fill a hole than any rookie, however highly touted or drafted. Right now we have Lazard, no speed, and an injury prone Cobb who wasn’t durable even on a snap count. It’s laughable to call that a viable passing attack, even if Tonyan is back. No team and no QB is better with our WR corps last year minus Adams and MVS.

We may be lucky. I don’t understand why Taylor got no chances. EQ took them for a massive 19 receptions. I think Winfree might have some potential, but needs at least some practice time with Rodgers to have a fair chance, but these guys have a potential to contribute not carry.

We need to find speed and ability adequate to prevent Lazard being our top receiver and some means of stretching defenses. That’s a tall order to find in the bottom third of the round 1 draft in the year of drafting. The alternative is to hike for a Douglas or Campbell like overlooked gem. Possible but improbable. If Gute can give us an adequate WR corps from here, he will deserve praise galore. The odds are this will be the worst WR lineup this millennium in terms of experience and ability unless we hit hugely on WRs in the draft and thus essentially requires a generational draft. Even then they would lack experience. We don’t have cap to sign most FAs.

As far as the above discussion on targeting and distribution of passes, I found it very interesting but feel it may be a little misleading. Here’s why.

Number 1 receivers typically see more snaps. Even if they are targeted the same amount per snap, that results in more targets than other players. The bigger the disparity in talent, the more that effect multiples, regardless of identity. Sometimes I think stats create a maze for folks to get lost in.

Targets per snap is a much better metric, but for me, a better way to judge us film. What are opponents doing? When opponents start to ignore other targets, it speaks volumes. That had become the case with the Packers too often, particularly without MVS.

That could be attributed to the lack of talent apart from Adams, but in his absence others stepped up enough. Cobb, if he could only stay healthy, was punishing in the game he got injured, playing off the weight of attention to Adams. MVS kept us in the Bucs playoff loss when Adams was shut down. Lazard has had similar days, but then they’d get no targets to speak of in other games. That also suggests that things were out of balance.

Part of this lies with the coach. By his own stated admission, this year Adams was the center of the offense intended by LaFleur. One assumes LaFleur was happy with that, the alternative is that he allowed Rodgers to impose it. In normal circumstances, I’d laugh at the latter, but I think it’s plausible that Rodgers not LaFleur is calling the shots. The O line choices in our loss, reluctance to use Dillon and decrease in the illusion of complexity all seem counter to LaFleur’s system and more in line with Rodgers’ supposed preferences. All of these things, regardless of source, increased Adams’ targets and diminished others.

I don’t recall similar dynamics with Favre post Sharpe, from Favre or the coaches. Favre would throw to talent but he would also throw until talent was disproved. Rodgers tends to avoid except under pressure until it’s proved (a problematic approach since it takes throws to prove), but I think it’s not just Rodgers but the wider coaching and planning that exacerbated the problem.

0 points
0
0
greengold's picture

March 24, 2022 at 09:37 am

Knowing what you know about Aaron Rodgers, what does that last paragraph tell you?

Stat padding. That’s what it tells me. Aaron is known to not give his WRs a chance for contested catches. He doesn’t want his accuracy stats to drop. Instead, he chooses to not throw the ball and eat the sack.

I’m not mincing words. I don’t like the guy, the man, nor the QB. Is he a great thrower of the football? Often, but not always. I don’t see him being a HQ game manager, although he knows and can read game time situations with the best of them.

I see a player who does what he wants to do, at the expense of team success in the ultimate sense. Throwing only to Davante for an entire 3 Quarters, targeting no other WR in the span during our last elimination was telling, and confirms.

Oftentimes, we don’t run the rock when maxims in situations dictate otherwise. Why?

Our RPO and our Play Action Passing took huge hits last year. Why? The stats are way off on both. Why? Batted balls nearly tripled. Why? Bad Throw % climbed. On Target % dropped…

Ugh.

1 points
1
0
Oppy's picture

March 24, 2022 at 09:35 am

Add to the laundry list of circumstantial evidence; specifically the second half of the playoff loss- static fronts as opposed to MLF's typical heavy motion pre-snap.

Tell tale sign of who was running the show from the LoS. No coach wants to take Rodgers to task publicly because he's a first ballot HoF'er and he's made of glass. Meltdown ensues. Everyone saw how Rodgers did MM over the last few years of his time in GB. Dealing with Rodgers is like making a deal with the devil for NFL coaches. I think the entire league knows it, too. Supremely talented, but he's a rogue who will take all the glory and pass off all of the blame.

Why is it that even when people see with their own eyes, they refuse to say it out loud? YES, Rodgers is the most talented coach killer I've ever seen.

3 points
4
1
greengold's picture

March 24, 2022 at 10:28 am

BRAVO! BRAVO!!! Standing. Clapping.

F’n A!!! It’s true.

Honestly, I could care less how much dead cap we have to eat this year. Trade him, and let’s start over. If we don’t do it now, it only gets worse. We should have done it last year…

We haven’t played on Super Bowl Sunday in over 11 years. Are we cutting bait or are we fishing here?

2 points
2
0
jannes bjornson's picture

March 24, 2022 at 09:59 am

They will have to move way up in the first round if they want one of the top four and it seems London is nursing a bad ankle. The more aggressive move would be to facilitate a trade for a playmaker then try to hit on a TE and WR with a trade downs to the upper 30s. There will be a run on wides early. The QB hungry teams already made trades with a less than stellar set of prospects coming forward. We may see a two TE lineup similar to what Belichek ran w/ Gronk and Hernandez. I don't see Tonyan back on the field until December.

1 points
1
0
PeteK's picture

March 24, 2022 at 10:56 am

Good job Koski, very interesting and educational. I should have realized that with Brooks's 102 receptions in 95. Maybe it's because I don't remember Favre throwing it to a double covered receiver.

0 points
0
0
Minniman's picture

March 23, 2022 at 01:17 pm

Pete, I could see a trade for Metcalf plus drafting Olave and another WR in the top 5 picks.

I think that Reed both filled a need and was an insurance policy against not having one of the top IDL still around by the end of the third round. Reportedly that's a pretty skinny draft pool this year.

On the subject of trading - if able, I'd prefer to keep all of this years picks intact and potentially use next year's round 1 pick for Metcalf (if able). My rationale being that the Seahawks will be in the market for a QB. This year's QB class is reportedly not great, so why not bank the draft capital to next year where the pickings may not be as slim........... unless of course they want to load up on WR.s, Edge and Tackles this year?

0 points
2
2
Renllaw's picture

March 23, 2022 at 06:20 am

Trying to put my green and gold, Davante signed glasses aside.... We have had him the last 3 years and he didn't get us to the dance. All you have to do is look at the last game. We only scored 10 points while Adams grabbed 9 balls underneath the defense for 90 yards and no TDs. You could argue the MVS had just as large of an impact for this team because he stresses the top of a defense. I am in no way saying he is in the same stratosphere as Adams, but the speed he brings opens up the field and makes life easier for the other receivers. We need to add a couple of starter quality wideouts and one has to be a burner in case MVS doesn't come back. If we get that, I think the offense runs more as designed vs "how do we force Adams the ball" I think we will be a better unit for it. I will miss Adams, he is an amazing, fun to watch talent.

12 points
15
3
Packer_Fan's picture

March 23, 2022 at 06:22 am

I like how the team is being built. I didn't want Adams to leave, but he chose to leave. So, the resignings of Campbell, Douglas and Tonyan are great additions. Somehow, the Barry defense works well for Campbell and Douglas and that is good. Tonyan will bring stability to the offense. My hope was for them to sign a DL like Hicks, but I am good with Reed. He will be an upgrade to Lancaster or Kingsly. And bring back Mercilus on a low dollar deal. I am ok with signing a veteran WR like MVS. But not a high dollar one. Perhaps there will be one available around June when late releases occur.

The draft:
Round 1: Leo Chenal and a WR
Round 2: IDL and Edge
Rouind 3 & 4: TE, OL and WR.
Then fill out depth for the balance of the draft.

Win with defense, Focus on RB's and hopefully Rodgers will spread the ball around.

1 points
7
6
Tundraboy's picture

March 23, 2022 at 07:31 am

Would love to see Mercilus back with this group.

8 points
8
0
Starrbrite's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:11 am

Yes—he was playing well before his injury.

3 points
3
0
Minniman's picture

March 23, 2022 at 01:39 pm

I think that he was the hammer to the Smith\Gary anvil.

He's more of a "get after the QB" type than the power "constrict and contain" types that the other 2 excel at.

If they don't sign him, then it will be a missing capability that they will need to draft.

I personally think that he's on Gute's shortlist, but he's waiting to see what happens in the draft and if he can get him at good terms (not unlike MVS).

1 points
1
0
jaxpackfan's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:58 am

I really like your thoughts Packer Fan. My only problem is that i don't think Leo Chenal is a first round talent and that the Pack shouldn't go ILB in the 1st. Chenal is nice player though.

6 points
6
0
HDbikerguy's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:01 am

I've seen Channel projected as a round 3-4 guy....

4 points
4
0
dobber's picture

March 23, 2022 at 02:02 pm

Love Leo Chenal the college player, but I think it's going to take a good DC and the right situation to get him to be much more than a 2-down ILB/MLB in the NFL.

1 points
2
1
Guam's picture

March 23, 2022 at 03:22 pm

Unfortunately Dobber, I agree. I watched Chenal during his years with the Badgers and he is great against the run, a very good pass rusher and lousy in coverage. Not the prescription for a three down ILB.

2 points
2
0
Coldworld's picture

March 23, 2022 at 03:47 pm

15 years after his time in pro terms. Day 3 depth pick. It’s a shame, I liked that kind of OLB, but the rules and game have moved on.

0 points
0
0
jannes bjornson's picture

March 24, 2022 at 10:26 am

I would rather take Sanborn.

0 points
0
0
PeteK's picture

March 23, 2022 at 01:17 pm

I also wanted Hicks, but after looking at Reed's stats I love this signing. I still want a high DT pick, but the pressure of looking for immediate help from a rookie has lessoned.

1 points
2
1
Coldworld's picture

March 23, 2022 at 12:13 pm

Hicks might still be more disruptive, but he’s been unable to be healthy and is older.

1 points
1
0
Archie's picture

March 23, 2022 at 06:30 am

I agree Al but I would go one step farther and ask are we better off with AR for a year or two or all the draft picks and cap relief we could have gained by trading him. To me that is a no brainer.

Also, if AR really wanted DA in GB he could have agreed to "subsidize" DA's salary by agreeing to less so that DA could get what he wanted. But he didn't. He "raped" GB's cap going forward, all the while knowing that he was making it near impossible for the Pack to satisfy DA's demands. What does this tell you about AR? It tells me he could care less about winning. He is here for himself i.e., the money. And if I understand his contract correctly, his $67MM slary in 2023 is guaranteed regardless of what team he is playing for or if he is even playing for anyone. Losing 1/3 of their cap to dead money on this one deal would destroy the 2023 team and the repercussions would continue for many years after that. Would this not be AR's greatest revenge against the GBP organization? I would fire MM for approving that contract.

0 points
12
12
KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:35 am

Archie!
Amen!!!

0 points
4
4
Since'61's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:17 am

Archie, I think your take on Adams decision to play for the Raiders is off. Adams did not want to play for the Packers because they did not extend him during the 2021 season. They did match the Raiders salary offer but he chose to go to the Raiders regardless. I don’t think Adams’ decision had anything to with Rodgers contract.

Rodgers was probably aware that Adams was leaving before the trade was announced. Also it’s not Rodgers fault that the Packers offered him his current contract or the one before that. On that point I agree with you that Murphy or whoever is responsible should be held accountable but Murphy has survived his carelessness before, such as focusing on building Titletown while TT was in decline. But here we are, “Damn the salary cap, full speed ahead.” Only an SB can save this management team now. Thanks, Since ‘61

9 points
10
1
Minniman's picture

March 23, 2022 at 01:54 pm

If Rodgers walks at the end of this season for anything other than a career ending injury then I think it will be a frosty decade (or longer) before his name is even uttered around GB.

His deal is predicated on him seeing out the next 3 years.

Given what went on last year, I'm not sure how Gute could have played the Davante thing. Being so ridiculously over the cap, the smart play for all parties was to sort out the Rodgers piece and existing cap situation before looking at Davante......... regrettably it probably hurt his pride a bit, but the reality was that to give him the best deal, Rodgers and the other contracted players needed to be sorted out first.

They didn't even know what the 2022 cap was going to be until 2 months ago........ I'm not sure how they could possibly design a respectful number for him mid last season.

3 points
3
0
murf7777's picture

March 23, 2022 at 06:48 am

I’m really excited we Signed Reed to help make our D stronger. I’m a proponent of building our DL, but was concerned about adding one early in the draft because many times those players take a couple of years to round into shape and make a difference. We don’t have the luxury of time so Reed can make a difference from day 1.

We can concentrate more on getting Rodgers the WR weapon in the first round.

8 points
11
3
Razer's picture

March 23, 2022 at 07:22 am

Al, I like your assessment of the Adams move and agree that this is addition by subtraction. If Aaron Rodgers comes back with a "build a better team" attitude and we rock the draft, I can't see why 2022's team won't be stronger.

I gotta say that Gutekunst and the FO did a lot of savvy maneuvering to get us here. A little hardball with the franchise tag and we generate $20 million in cap space and get a 1st and 2nd. Could have been a FA walk and we get nothing for a 30 year old WR. Resigning our FA, keeping the defense intact and adding Jarran Reed is icing made possible by the Davante deal. This year's draft could make this our best off season in modern time. Keep it up boys.

10 points
10
0
dobber's picture

March 23, 2022 at 07:25 am

Overall, I've been asking the question: What are they doing differently in 2022 to get over the hump and win an SB?

Well, we're starting to see some differences, but the addition by subtraction notion on Adams works only if they can find a guy who can make the big catch and make defenses respect him before we get to September. Oh, and that guy needs to be cheap in 2022. That hasn't happened, yet, and I'm skeptical that they're going to find a Ja'Marr Chase type rookie who will fit that bill.

Can't deny that the defense looks better than what they fielded in 2021 so far, and the special teams couldn't possibly be any worse, right (knocks on wood)? Lots of time to go, but I'm not sure it's addition by subtraction just yet.

11 points
12
1
Guam's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:28 am

A lot of the "addition by subtraction" will be determined by what the Packers do with the additional draft picks. I very much like resiging Campbell, Douglas and Tonyan and adding Reed with the freed up cap space, but the game changer could be the draft choices.

I am not as skeptical as you are about this year's crop of WRs. There are a number of WRs that combine speed, quickness and pretty good hands (Wilson, Olave, Williams) and if the Packers could snag one of them at #22, the Packer offense might not miss Adams much at all. Add in the Raiders #2 pick which could provide talented depth at DL, OLB, ILB or S and this could be a great deal for the Packers.

4 points
4
0
dobber's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:59 am

I don't doubt that they're going to take pass-catchers early in this draft, but to put all your eggs in that basket--that the WR you pick steps in and takes the pressure off the rest of the offense generated by not having much speed and not having a consistent threat that defenses must account for--when you've spent so much money to keep it all together is ripe to be a huge fail. I think it's more than just risky to count on a draft pick in that way.

2 points
4
2
murf7777's picture

March 23, 2022 at 09:33 am

Dobber, it might be risky to expect high results from a 1st round WR draft pick, but at this point that is possibly the only reasonable way to address the issue. They probably cannot afford the salary cap hit for a top tier WR unless they would trade a highly compensated person at another position to offset the SC hit. Of course, that leaves a hole at some other position.

Unlike years past, over the past few years, WR's are making a bigger impression and positive results early in their careers. I'm not sure why, but I've noticed a markable improvement in NFL ready WR's right out of college recently.

It might take bundling picks to get the top 1 or 2 WR's in the draft and I wouldn't be surprised if Gutey decides to go that route.

5 points
6
1
Coldworld's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:00 am

“[I]t might be risky to expect high results from a 1st round WR draft pick, but at this point that is possibly the only reasonable way to address the issue.”

Absolutely it is the only possible way to make sense of what we have done. And it’s not a high probability way. Normal logic needs to be suspended. We need 2 contributing WRs, one of whom must be WR 1 as a rookie most likely. That means we need numbers and early to maximize the chances that Rodgers has enough to unlock his value. Much as I feel we need a DT and OLB, the need to find adequate receivers with no obvious cap means we must hit early, often and wisely. Without that our D will need to be all era good if we are to contend.

4 points
4
0
Leatherhead's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:40 am

murf....I think we could do it without the draft. We could probably get a guy who can line up, run routes, and catch a ball that's thrown towards him. And we might, it wouldn't surprise me. MVS is still in the mix.

I also wouldn't be surprised if Gutekunst went for multiple options at the same spot, like he's done in the past. In fact, when Gute took over, he replaced Jordy and Cobb and Allison, the three vets, with a bunch of Day 3 picks and UDFAs. Only Lazard remains. I wouldn't be surprised if we took more than one bite.

For example, if we used two Day 2 picks, we have a much greater chance of having at least one of them healthy enough to line up and play. If they're both healthy, great. You know Lazard can handle his position, so that takes care of that spot with Cobb and Amari as #3s and #4s.

I'd be really, really surprised if the Packers move up in the first round to take a WR. I'd be surprised if we took a WR in the first round, since we haven't done it since Javon Walker and have figured out we can get really good receivers on the second day.

2 points
2
0
murf7777's picture

March 23, 2022 at 11:47 am

I don't disagree with your thoughts. Being how Gutey has handled drafts so far regarding trading up quite a bit, that is my assumption of how he will handle it vs taking two WR's on day 2. Whatever happens it's going to be an interesting draft!

1 points
2
1
PeteK's picture

March 23, 2022 at 01:27 pm

I'm a bit less worried because WRs develop faster now. Also, if Cousins can do it with Jefferson, Rodgers with a better O line should be able to do it with a highly drafted WR.

-1 points
2
3
Coldworld's picture

March 23, 2022 at 03:52 pm

Jefferson was a better prospect than any WR in this draft and went well out of our range. Very few as sure bets as him. Probably none we can reach without an almighty slice of luck.

0 points
0
0
jannes bjornson's picture

March 23, 2022 at 05:46 pm

Lot of draft chatter now in the pipeline with the OSU guys going higher along with Williams. Packer profile for Drake London at #22, but he seems to be moving up? They may have to focus on him and bag Pierce in the second round. I like Mc Bride as a TE candidate.

0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

March 23, 2022 at 07:18 pm

London won't work out yet. Pierce is clay pool. Won't go below 50. McBride is climbing.. Another rd . 1 possible.

0 points
0
0
jannes bjornson's picture

March 24, 2022 at 10:22 am

I like Pierce as an NFL receiver. I watch as many Bearcat games and the MAC, as I can during the mid-week college schedule. He catches every ball coming his way, can high-point and moves from the outside to the slot and motion. I would hire their coach to run an NFL team. I like McBride and Wydermyer to both be drafted along with Pierce in the high twos and hunt for a speed guy in round three. As you alluded to previously, it's trade down time.
The OSU wides are going high, the Bama guys are dinged and Burks may not fall out of the teens. If Gutedkunst stays at #22, he should grab Kenyon Green. Solidify the offensive front.

1 points
1
0
Guam's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:43 am

Risky, yes, of course. Did the Packers have a choice? No. Davante forced this situation on the Packers and now they need to make the best of it.

Having said that, I am somewhat optimistic since rookie WRs are making a much bigger impact than before. Chase, Jefferson, Aiyuk, Claypool are just a few that have excelled in their first year. Gute could draft well and make this payoff handsomely (or not). Time will tell, but the Packers didn't have a choice.

2 points
3
1
Coldworld's picture

March 23, 2022 at 04:35 pm

The Packers forced this when they gave Rodgers the deal that they did and before when they were hedging their bets.

0 points
2
2
Bitternotsour's picture

March 23, 2022 at 09:36 am

a lot of the "doing differently" has been forced on them. they replaced coaches that left for better jobs, they had attrition through free agency (there was no way Adams was playing on the tag). And now, they're treating the cap the way most NFL teams do, not managing, but deferring, which I blame on Murphy.

in retrospect i'm not surprised davante opted to leave. stuck in a small town year after year with a narcissistic freak show. enough. i bet his wife hates aaron.

1 points
5
4
Razer's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:39 am

...i'm not surprised davante opted to leave. stuck in a small town year after year with a narcissistic freak show. enough. i bet his wife hates aaron...

Not sure that I would read it this way. Rodgers helped Davante reach great heights and set him up for a great final contract. Going to the Raiders and his college QB gets Davante more longevity and stability for the future.

2 points
3
1
Leatherhead's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:24 am

Hey dobber...What are we doing differently to get over the hump?

That's a good question. I'm going to take a shot at the answer.

IMO, in 2019, we were on the road and got outplayed and outcoached. There's no disgrace there.....it was the first year for this team with LaFleur and we didn't play very well. End of story.

But in 2020, we were at home and should have won, and in 2021 we lost a game at home we should have won. I've been looking at some common denominators in those games.

1) Both games featured episodes of "Davantevision", where the QB just focused on him to the exclusion of better choices.

2) Both games saw us on the field with a makeshift offensive line.

I would submit that we've solved problem #1, and I'm hopefully waiting for the solution(s) to #2, I'd like to start the season 10 deep at the offensive line, because I'm tired of our season ending because we can't put enough strong, healthy linemen on the field in the playoffs.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

As an aside, one thing we're not doing differently is upgrading the defense. Gutekunst has been as cunning as a wolf in upgrading the defense: Amos, Savage, Alexander, Smith, Stokes, Douglas, Gary, Campbell. He locked up Kenny Clark. These guys are all real good defenders.

Now we've signed Reed. We're sitting here with 5 picks in the top 92 and I'm thinking that if you added the right guy or two, this could be a pretty good defense.. I mean, the defense that was on the field when our season ended held SF without a TD. That's pretty good.

5 points
6
1
Razer's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:48 am

...2) Both games saw us on the field with a makeshift offensive line...

I think that this critical factor is ignored when looking at our early playoff exits. But your "Davantevision" first point is both funny and problematic. We obviously need more options at WR. I am hoping for more quickness and speed so that maybe we can see some separation from our WRs.

2 points
2
0
PeteK's picture

March 23, 2022 at 01:38 pm

We've had some bad luck with O line injuries, but the replacements, while not great ,were serviceable and not the disaster we saw with KC in 2020. Some of the WRs we have now will take up some of Adams's totals, but we need someone to catch at least 60 passes with 800 yds and 8 TDs. If all goes as planned, the defense will be a strong point to this team with a healthy dose of run inside and outside.

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

March 23, 2022 at 07:29 am

Great entry Al. You certainly mirror my thoughts. Have a Plan and work your plan. Looks like we are somehow headed in the right direction this year. Loved the Pasta Rasul reference. My mother was Sicilian so that made me laugh and brought a smile to my face.

5 points
5
0
egbertsouse's picture

March 23, 2022 at 07:31 am

Wow! The crazy optimism has gone off the rails. Over half the people think they will be better without the best receiver in the game. Yeah, I see Lazard getting 120 catches and 1600 yards. Uh huh. I also think the’90s Bulls would’ve been way better without that damn Jordan. Stockton could have spread the ball better.

-2 points
6
8
mrtundra's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:16 am

When you consider that in every game Davante missed, due to injury, or whatever, last season and that we won all those games without him, I think we can say we will miss him but he was not a "necessary" part of the offense. Rodgers threw to him more than he threw to anyone else. Cobb had very few passes thrown his way even after GB signed him, to appease Rodgers. Lazard and ESB made nice catches only when Rodgers did not throw to Davante. In the SF play off game, Rodgers threw an incompletion to a double covered Davante when Lazard was wide open under the coverage which would have moved the chains, and ESB had two steps on his defender down the left sideline. Both were overlooked by Rodgers, in deference to Davante, which ended that drive. Forcing Rodgers to look elsewhere for an open WR, TE or RB will be good for this team and should open up our offense.

7 points
8
1
KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:41 am

Mrtundra,
Agreed!

Additionally, we yet do not know whether Rodgers plays one or two more years. Neither do we know if the Packers plan is to continue to nurture Love and develop him. Personally, not only would I be shocked if Love was traded....I'd be very pissed off for many reasons. Not having Adam's will be critical for Love's development. He cannot be fixated on one WR. The same happened back early in Favre's career where he focused just on Sharpe and only after Sharpe was forced into retirement from injury did Favre really blossom in my opinion.

-2 points
1
3
dobber's picture

March 23, 2022 at 09:34 am

I'll go here, instead--which is not intended to be a defense, but it is what it is--when you have elite players, and by just about any measure Adams and Rodgers are elite, why would you NOT let them make plays?

The problem, of course, turns out to be the pass funnel mentality that comes from repetition that's hard to break when teams are successful at denying that connection. But during the regular season, I have no problem with the "gonna do this until you show you can stop it" approach. Hell, how often have we bitched because a coach would have success with something and not go back to it?

The problem isn't in utilizing the player, it's the habit generated from it...but, if that player is successful as often as Adams was, it's hard to fault ARod with that as his go-to look.

1 points
3
2
Coldworld's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:06 am

The problem with that is that it can go too far. Eventually some teams have shown that Adams can be taken out of the game sufficiently if he’s focused on enough, because they anticipate the predilection and aren’t made to pay. That’s happened twice in a row. If you ask me that’s the coach. All LaFleur had to do was change personnel once in a while and force other options if Rodgers wouldn’t. Too much of a good thing, too poor coaching facilitating it. That’s overlooked to blame players. That’s what good coaches do, help players overcome weaknesses.

5 points
6
1
murf7777's picture

March 23, 2022 at 09:40 am

Egbertsouse....Your smarter than that! Rodgers threw for 4,115 yards and 37 td's last year. You can expect he will throw for 4000+ yards again this year without Adams. It will be spread out more to all "pass catchers".

Will our Offense be better without Adams, time will tell. But, because of the Campbell, Reed and Douglas signing and an extra 1st and 2nd round pick in this years draft, i'm confident our D will be better because they used the money and draft picks from the Adams contract to make that happen.

2 points
3
1
SanLobo's picture

March 23, 2022 at 07:40 am

My assessment is much more simplistic. We went the last three years with a WR1 and no true WR2. If we can find a WR1 and WR2 in 2022 that can stretch the field, get space and give Rodgers a target, we will be fine. Until then, I reserve judgement on wether we are going to be better or worse off.

10 points
10
0
KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:42 am

SanLobo,
You are much too logical! :)

1 points
2
1
Matt Gonzales's picture

March 23, 2022 at 11:16 am

I don't disagree, but by the same token, you can create much cleaner passing lanes and favorable matchups passing of you can force the defense to commit extra bodies in the box with a strong running game. Cover 2 mania isn't going to go away in 2022. If we can force those safeties into the box it will make life easier for a young receiving corps.

4 points
4
0
SanLobo's picture

March 23, 2022 at 05:43 pm

Mattgsx…completely agree. I didn’t address the run game because, if our guys can stay healthy, we will have a thunder and lightning run game in 2022. Shades of Larry Csonka and Mercury Morris.

0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

March 23, 2022 at 07:51 am

"we built up confidence in our abilities”. With Adams Leaving. It just changed Rodger's Ability. Let's just keep that in mind this draft. Wolf built his Defense with CBs, and Veterans along the DL. Gutey seems to be, finally following that path. The Jarran Reed signaled a fix. But with Z.Smith; No longer in the picture. Who will take his place? Not a Rookie. Especially after watching Gary sit the bench. Sure he developed. But the "All-In” might work. If you replace Adams, and the missing on offense first. Making Rodgers happy should be priority one. Otherwise: Gutey is just wasting Golden opportunities, and F**king with everyones mind.

-11 points
2
13
Pantz_Burp's picture

March 23, 2022 at 09:51 am

Hey Stock, you mention "Making Rodgers happy should be priority one". Not me, I want to keep it Titletown and not Entitledtown.

I do understand what you are saying but keeping him happy or making him happy is on him now. At least for the short term...

0 points
4
4
stockholder's picture

March 23, 2022 at 11:05 am

Not Entitled town.???? I wasn't implying that. With MVS showing up in KC today. Looks like "show me the money," is more important than the ring.//// I was implying that the WRS should be the thinking. (This draft) And that the packers must make that investment.!!! We've seen the frustration from Rodgers and his WRs. ( Even Adams. ) A happy QB will get you more wins than a frustrated one. But most Rodger haters only see Love now. Regardless if Rodgers wins the MVP or not. They've created this fantasy in their minds. That the Twilight Zone is better than Rodgers.

0 points
4
4
Pantz_Burp's picture

March 23, 2022 at 12:11 pm

I hear ya stock...I am just drained and concerned for Rodger's having too much control. I understand what you say about WRs. We need receivers that are able to separate from the defense and/or schemes that allow them to get open.

3 points
3
0
Matt Gonzales's picture

March 23, 2022 at 11:23 am

Z was an absolute liability against the run. GB needs edge depth but it can't be pass rushers who rely on running around defenders and who struggle to get off blocks.

On the passing attack - no matter who GB has at WR, they need to be able to run the ball with downhill runs that force attention and bodies into the middle of the field, or FB is going to get played with Cover 2 trying to take the top off the offense all year.

3 points
3
0
Roadrunner23's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:00 am

I think the Packers bring back Whitney Mercilus and draft an edge player. I like how they are building up the defense and I expect a couple of high draft choices to be added on defense as well.

Of course I expect them to take at least two receivers fairly high which means probably one of the first one and the third.

I also expect them to sign a big name veteran receiver Like Julio Jones or Jarvis Landry. They aren’t the players they once were but they don’t have to be they just have to be good enough.

0 points
4
4
KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:46 am

Roadrunner,
I completely agree with the exception I'd insert MVS over Jones or Landry for many reasons.....should the price be right! The fact MVS has not signed anywhere else must mean the Packers and MVS are close....

I very much would like to see Mercilus resigned if possible. He still has value and something in the tank. His determination to return last year and play following injury was extremely impressive. Not something many players would do. I do believe for many it is only about the paycheck and then off to the beaches in the offseason. An injury such as he had for many would be forget about playing until next year as I do not want to jeopardize my career.

4 points
5
1
stockholder's picture

March 23, 2022 at 11:43 am

Whitney Mercilus is a great fit. I agree. But with Gutey signing Reed. Doubt he comes back now.

1 points
2
1
Minniman's picture

March 23, 2022 at 02:06 pm

not sure if I agree with you there Stockholder - Mercilus is better at getting after the QB than Gary or Smith. I see the Packers drafting a twitchy, bendy edge rusher to fill this gap as well as bringing Mercilus back (cap number depending - of course).

Listening to MLF and Gute speak a lot last year, I think that they took on board what Rodgers spoke about in needing to engage with senior players and build a bond of inclusiveness and respect. I know that this sounds a little wishy-washy, but Mercilus is exactly that high standard, high caliber player that this team needs.

0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

March 25, 2022 at 05:14 am

Rashan Gary is already a better Pass rusher than Mercilus is today, and Gary is still learning and growing.

1 points
1
0
jannes bjornson's picture

March 23, 2022 at 05:37 pm

With Philly dialed in on Wyatt, take a look at Alex Wright. Winfrey for a five tech.

0 points
0
0
Ya_tittle's picture

March 23, 2022 at 12:32 pm

Any update on Whitney Mercilus?

0 points
0
0
mrtundra's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:05 am

I was surprised that GB signed Reed! I like the signing, but I thought we'd draft one of the stud IDLs in this draft--and maybe we still do. Does this signing change the way Gute and Co look at this upcoming draft? Is IDL as high a priority as we thought it would be, now? Does our focus shift to Edge guys? I can see GB going heavy on WRs, early, especially since Adams, ESB and maybe MVS are gone. I can also see GB drafting OT early, as we need the help on the right side of the line. This doesn't appear to be a great draft for TEs, but a couple of those guys would look good in Green and Gold. I cannot wait for the CHTV Draft Guide to come out. It's always worth the money and has good info on all the draftee candidates. GO PACK, GO!!!

0 points
0
0
KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:47 am

The Packers will absolutely draft a DL in this draft! I also believe it will be in one of the first four selections.

3 points
3
0
wildbill's picture

March 23, 2022 at 09:38 am

Hope they do but have read this draft isn’t strong on DL, so hope we get one of the good ones

1 points
1
0
Coldworld's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:45 am

I am puzzled by the seemingly emerging comfort with the release of Adams. I don’t deny that the Adams centric nature of the offense had become an issue. No matter how good he is, good teams have shown that that is defensible. So why am I puzzled?

The fault was not Adams’. Rather the responsibility is shared by the person who designs the offense, personnel groups and call and the QB who leads it. In any high functioning team and organization, a solution starts with those responsible. Indeed, arguably LaFleur facilitated it by his less varied and innovative use of personnel last year. Here both remain after Adams.

While the Adams/Rodgers focus took time to become as entrenched, it was merely the most extreme example of a trend we’ve seen before. It is not entirely impossible that Rodgers will find a substitute focus again and that LaFleur won’t act to limit that. This is because the root cause has not been addressed.

As to the relief over freeing cap for Campbell, Douglas and Reed, yes, I like all those signings, particularly Campbell. I think all will help. None of them mean we still don’t need more at their respective positions, presumably from the draft, that will play and need to contribute.

Why are we so short of Cap? Well that’s obvious. We went out and threw the kitchen sink at Rodgers. That kind of money screams that we expect Rodgers to be the difference. Not only that, but we’ve loaded the future beyond cap increase expectations for years to do so. Yet in doing so, we couldn’t give Adams what he wanted early enough and the result is we now have Rodgers minus his best receiver. Meanwhile we used the freed cap on D. A completely contradictory set of outcomes.

Right now, our proven catching corps consists of Lazard and the oft injured Cobb plus Tonyan, who is coming off an ACL having been just average last year. Now people all seem to think we can find a player like Chase or Jefferson who will contribute as a WR at a pro bowl type level from the outset, especially now we have 2 picks in the second half of the first two rounds. Sorry, the odds are historically not good in year one success or of those most likely reaching us. And there is a real chance we pick an OLB or other positions early too.

Right now, we have vast money tied up in a guy who has no obvious outlets. The optimists are rumbling that our O will be more rush driven and focusing on the promising D. Yet even there there are gaps and no cap to bring in much. We have 2 OLBs, we lack a true DL—we replaced Keke and only for a year. For whatever reason we didn’t extend our best S, so Amos could be on his last year. Do those moves hint at a year by year mindset or just reflect the lack of room to do more?

Either way we sit here with vast money committed to Rodgers and an O that currently looks strongest in the run and a roster dominated by D. We mortgaged the farm to get there for a player who isn’t key to the run game and doesn’t play D. We have set up cap nightmare in a way that gives the best chance to win this year, yet predicated the offensive function on rookies. Am I alone in seeing the massive contradictions?

I did not vote. Adams going doesn’t make us better than having him should have. It just avoids having to address using him more smartly-an easy coaching out at the price of a talent reduction. Adams and Rodgers staying is only flawed because of cost and the fact we failed to manage that partnership. Instead we have piled cap on a QB and removed all but Lazard of the regular snap veterans. That’s ludicrous.

This management has concocted a totally contradictory position. Keeping Rodgers without Adams for a win or bust is ridiculous. Mortgaging the future for QB who isn’t a long term prospect when the roster is strongest at RB and on D is completely nonsensical. Any team in our position that has to hang on the hope of multiple rookies in skill positions on O is on the wrong side of history and probability.

The Packers would make more sense had they traded Rodgers and Adams and taken what they could get, based on the structure of the roster today. This team is a classic balance for any other cheaper, less good QB. Add in possible extra picks and a lot more cap flexibility and we chose a Rolls Royce to pull the plough through the mud. Gute has done a good job, but overall the strategy is hopelessly at odds with itself.

So no, we aren’t better without Adams, but we could have been, I would say should have been.

5 points
10
5
Guam's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:53 am

I don't know if I would describe it as "emerging comfort" so much as hopeful optimism. That optimism may simply stem from being an ardent Packer fan who wants to see more than there is, but after 60 years of being a Packer fan, I don't know any other way.

Reasons for my optimism:
(1) The MLF/Rodgers/Adams offense had to change. Good defenses knew how to stop that offense and did so regularly in the playoffs. Something had to give and thankfully Adams chose to leave. I would have preferred to see Rodgers go too, but I will take what I can get.
(2) Adams departure came with the re-addtions of Campbell, Douglas and Tonyan as well as the addition of Reed and the Raiders' first and second round draft picks. If Gute drafts well, the Packers could replace Adams plus more.
(3) The offensive "brain trust" changed with Hackett and Getsy leaving. While MLF is still here, Stenavich as OC and Clements as QB coach hopefully will add new dimensions to the offense as well as bring some ability to make in-game adjustments. Time will tell.
(4) I don't think the news is all bad for 2022. The 2022 Packers may actually get better than the 2021 team if Reed and the additional draft choices do well plus the return of Bahktiari and Alexander.

Reason for Pessimism:
(1) Yeah, the Rodgers contract is bad for the long term. Clearly selling out to win one now and mortgaging the future to do it. Not happy about that, but the post Rodgers rebuild was always going to be hard, they just made it harder.

3 points
4
1
Coldworld's picture

March 23, 2022 at 09:05 am

Guam, I’ve read your thoughts and I understand what you are saying here. I too want the Packers on top! I just feel that we start to win by facing up to the obvious. We didn’t, and therefore this construct is build on sand. Adams leaving and the aftermath weakens it further because of what we chose to build it upon. Only by moving to solid ground first will we start to recover. Sadly, I think this season shows that: the faster the better if we wish to capitalize. We are in an unwise diversion, we need to get back on course. That’s how I believe we ascend again and avoid costly false starts, so I champion it: because I want us to win.

3 points
4
1
Leatherhead's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:48 am

So is your solution to the "obvious".......that we should fire LaFleur ? That seems to be what you're proposing. Rodgers is under contract. Done. Water under the bridge. What's the solution to the obvious?

Am I misconstruing what you're saying here?

1 points
2
1
Coldworld's picture

March 23, 2022 at 11:03 am

LaFleur was never going to be fired. I do recommend focus for failings us too heavily on Rodgers, but my point is that LaFleur plus Rodger's and a good roster hasn’t worked. The question was whether to bring back Rodgers this off season. Instead we brought him back and have created a roster currently clearly non QB centric. Contradictions like that beg questions.

I do think LaFleur will be fired eventually. It think the signs that he’s been a major part of the problem and has not grown are everywhere. Perhaps Rodgers saved him, but I don’t think this roster gets Rodgers there for the reasons I’ve stated above. I suppose LaFleur could suddenly click, but the irony is, I don’t think he can with Rodgers around due to the relationship positioning now only reinforced.

3 points
5
2
pacman's picture

March 23, 2022 at 01:47 pm

I've been saying since the beginning that MLF got a pass in the playoff loss. Mostly due to not fixing ST but I also have been saying in agreement with you that AR/DA pairing is detrimental and MLF did not fix that either. So now I would love to hear both MLF and AR talk about how they will now have to spread the ball around more, etc. They don't have to 'admit' a mistake, just get it done. We shall see.

3 points
3
0
Leatherhead's picture

March 24, 2022 at 08:13 am

I do appreciate the clarification of your position. It's better than a chickenshit downvote that doesn't explain anything.

Most coaches get fired eventually, you don't need a crystal ball for that. I'd disagree that Rodgers + good team has "failed". I think it's been pretty successful most of the time and has fallen just short twice. He's one of the very best coaches the Packers have had in my lifetime.

I, too, have serious doubts about Rodgers ability to lead a team to victory under adverse circumstances. But we'll see. All I know is that this is one of the greatest stretches for the Packers since the merger in 1970, and not a "mess" by any stretch.

1 points
1
0
Coldworld's picture

March 24, 2022 at 09:18 am

The talent was there to be better. The question should have been why did we not do better. The answer is, I think, less Rodgers than LaFleur, including his dynamic with Rodgers.

The additional problem now is that we are trying to get another shot with a quart in a pint cap pot. We now have a 50 million a year QB and perhaps the weakest WR corps in living memory. Both in terms of the best WR and overall.

Our strength is at RB and seemingly on D. That happens when you take decisions that require resources beyond your means. We now seem to be relying on Rookies, not just to contribute but to carry the pass O. No matter how well Rodgers performs, that’s an unfair proposition and a wing and a prayer solution. It’s also one that doesn’t address how we made some of the coaching choices that undermined us when it matters.

0 points
0
0
Leatherhead's picture

March 24, 2022 at 09:48 am

Our last two playoff losses.......

1. One featured a very bad play on defense, one featured a very bad play on special teams. Those plays provided the margin of victory both times.

2. We uncharacteristically turned the ball over in both losses.

3. We took the field with a makeshift offensive line in both losses.

4. Davantevision was a factor in both losses.

The first shows how close we are. The second shows that offensively, we didn't do what we always do, which is protect the ball. The third needs to be fixed. The fourth has been fixed.

I've coached football games. It's harder than you think. The view from the sideline sucks and you've got 40 things in your head at once. You're going to make some decisions that are less than stellar, I don't give a damn if you're Lombardi. It doesn't make you a bad coach, it makes you a coach who made an imperfect choice.

Was it unfair for Joe Burrow to have to rely on Chase? No. Rookies can and do contribute, especially at WR. Greg Jennings was a solid contributor as a rookie.

I think we've got a real good team shaping up, and there's plenty of time to improve the roster between now and training camp.

0 points
0
0
Guam's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:53 am

CW: We both agree that the more prudent course would have been to trade Rodgers (particularly in light of the haul Seattle got for Wilson), secure our cap and build for the future with many draft choices. Unfortunately the Packer front office saw things differently so we as fans are left to make lemonade out of our lemons. I am trying hard to find some sugar so our lemonade isn't too sour.......

3 points
4
1
Coldworld's picture

March 23, 2022 at 11:10 am

Guam, I see that. The lemonade is spilled, by Al asked a question. We need a lot of luck moving forward. The best hope of success requires our eyes to be wide open.

4 points
4
0
Leatherhead's picture

March 24, 2022 at 11:37 am

I'm with Guam on this: There's no point in crying over spilled beer. Life is 10% what happens and 90% what you do about it.

The point is, we don't "need a lot of luck". Hard work and good decisions will move the ball better than depending on luck. Speaking of luck, maybe we're due to get some in a playoff game.

This is the "Not Luck" Strategy: Assemble the strongest team you can prior to camp. Work hard. Overcome injuries. Win the division by beating your division opponents and defending your home field. Then we start the playoffs at home. If we win that game, we're one of four teams with a chance to go to the Super Bowl .

You seem to be concerned about Step 146 when we're on Step 13 here. I'm just hoping we make it all the way to Step 146. I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:55 am

"Right now, we have vast money tied up in a guy who has no obvious outlets. The optimists are rumbling that our O will be more rush driven and focusing on the promising D."

That's the key: it's terrible mismanagement to bring all these pieces back at cost, and then handcuff your linchpin piece to a bunch of pass-catcherss who aren't going to threaten defenses. Right now, this offense would be terribly easy to defend. There needs to be a key piece added yet as a pass-catcher, and counting on that piece being a draft pick--when most of the highly-rated WR are poor fits for what the Packers prefer in WR--is a dicey proposition.

They've got 5 months to figure this out.

4 points
5
1
Leatherhead's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:57 am

We dress about 10 skill guys each game, and two QBs.

Jones and Dillon. Proven ball movers, on the ground and through the air.

Lazard and Lewis. These guys start at WR and TE. They're veterans who can get their guy blocked and catch a couple of passes each game.

Cobb and Amari. They'll be the #3 WR. and do jet sweeps, etc. I hope at least one of them can be counted on to not turn the ball over on punt returns this year. Better to let the ball hit the ground than it is to turn it over.

Deguara. He's our top receiving TE at this point.

So that's SEVEN out the 10 we'd dress. That's not including Tonyan, or MVS, or Taylor or Hill. Or anybody we might add before training camp. I don't see a receiverless wilderness out there.

Your "key piece" is a solid hammer on the nail head . I'd double dip on Day 2 and get two WRs to increase the likelihood that at least one of them is healthy and able to play.

0 points
2
2
Razer's picture

March 23, 2022 at 09:00 am

...The Packers would make more sense had they traded Rodgers and Adams and taken what they could get, based on the structure of the roster today... Add in possible extra picks and a lot more cap flexibility and we chose a Rolls Royce to pull the plough through the mud. Gute has done a good job, but overall the strategy is hopelessly at odds with itself...

Well thought out argument and I fundamentally agree. The organization didn't have the gumption to hit the rebuild button so the Rolls Royce is pulling the plough. The bigger mistake would have been to keep Adams and downgrade the plough to a hoe. Winning is money and Rodgers gives this team the best chance to win now - forget about tomorrow. I think if Love had shown more we would be swimming in draft picks and cap space.

3 points
4
1
murf7777's picture

March 23, 2022 at 09:49 am

CW....I don't think people didn't want Adams on the team. It comes down to at what cost for a WR who hits 30 this year. If you go back and look at the big FA WR signings over the past 25 years, more than not, the team who signed the WR lost on the deal. Many times, due to injuries, keeping in mind, Adams was injured part of each the past two years.

I believe we will win more by getting the 1st and 2nd round extra picks and signing the FA defensive players that we might not have been able to do if we kept Adams.

Regarding keeping Rodgers, we'll you know my position there.

4 points
4
0
Coldworld's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:23 am

I think my point is there is little point paying for a Ferrari when you can’t afford wheels. To me, the purchase of Rodgers precluded Adams but the lack of Adams (or approximate veteran substitute) rendered paying Rodgers for an encore last dance nonsensical. Ultimately, retaining Rodgers made no sense given the impact on the roster in my view. That’s not disrespect to Rodgers or Adams either, just to the logic of the teams moved given the context in which they were made.

I do not say the unpalatable because I like to be negative. I say it because I unfortunately believe it. I want the Packers to win and contend consistently as much as anyone. Unfortunately I think the players are being set up to fail.

4 points
4
0
Guam's picture

March 23, 2022 at 11:09 am

I think many of us agree with your logic CW, but clearly the front office did not. As a lifelong Packer fan, I just have to trust Gute to find a way to make another "last dance" successful. Because the future sure looks dim for the couple of years after Rodgers retires.

2 points
2
0
murf7777's picture

March 23, 2022 at 11:57 am

CW...we will agree to disagree regarding Rodgers as you know where I stand. I respect your viewpoint and that of many others on this board. I'm in the minority, but I'm happy Rodgers is back.

I'm especially happy with how the FO has handled the Adams trade and keeping a lot of our important FA's. Only time will.

1 points
1
0
LambeauPlain's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:36 am

I too would have liked Rodgers in Denver for that haul they gave Seattle. Kick the tires on Love for 2022 and if he fails the test or has has some stumbles, the QB class is a good one in 2023. Gutey would be armed to the hilt for that QB rich draft. Alas.

You are entirely correct, rookie WR wonders are few and far between. Of the top 5 rookie seasons, you have to go back to 2014 for the most recent one...OBJ. Many rookies do contribute, but to expect a season even in the same zip code as Adams is very unlikely.

But top QBs can do well when they lose their top target...Favre was outstanding after Sharpe left earning 3 consecutive MVPs, going to 2 SBs.

I agree the best action leading to a better O in 2022 depends on the O brain trust. I hope ML's self scout is more action oriented than MM's self scout in 2017 after the bye week. Mike said "it is clear we have to run the ball more and pass out of more play action." Then for the rest of the season, he did neither.

2 points
2
0
Ya_tittle's picture

March 23, 2022 at 12:56 pm

Rookie studs at WR: Jefferson for the Vikings, Chase for the Bengals.

0 points
0
0
Minniman's picture

March 23, 2022 at 02:13 pm

I wouldn't call it comfort.

Given that potentially the Packers were staring down a potential gutting and rebuilding of the team, I (like perhaps most fans) see this as one of those "least bad" scenarios.

100% - there will be MANY situations this coming year where I watch a play and think "Davante would have caught that". My hope is that both Rodgers (forcibly) changes his ways, and an encouraging draft may limit this wound (more so that watching Love's inaccuracy and poor judgement).

0 points
0
0
Leatherhead's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:10 am

We replaced Sharpe, we replaced Jordy, and we'll replace Adams.

9 points
14
5
Coldworld's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:46 am

Eventually

2 points
2
0
murf7777's picture

March 23, 2022 at 09:53 am

CW, question for you. If Rodgers throws for the same or more yards and the team has just as many TD's next year, will you say the offense was as good or better? I believe that will be the case without Adams on the team. You will see the ball spread out more and possibly more Running TD's to compensate for the loss of Adams.

1 points
1
0
Coldworld's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:27 am

If we are better offensively in terms of yards and points, then obviously. I don’t see that with the roster at present, I think we need a vast amount of luck on a couple of rookie catchers to get close. Could that happen yes, which is what I said above when you noted we have to draft receivers early this year—it’s not great odds but looks like the best odds available. So I don’t think the gamble is logical but it’s true the coin could indeed land in its edge.

2 points
2
0
Bitternotsour's picture

March 23, 2022 at 09:44 am

on the receiver side we replaced sharpe, driver, jones, jordy etc. it seems pretty doable. there is so much receiver talent in the college game.

i can't however get over how long it took to replace nick collins. i'd argue we're still waiting for an equal talent. nick was on a hall of fame arc. so sad.

3 points
3
0
LambeauPlain's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:58 am

There are some Safeties in this class that could one day replace Collins: Hamilton, Brisker, Hill, Pitre, and Cine.

Hamilton will be long gone by 22, but the other 4 may be there...Brisker, maybe.

I especially like Brisker (Penn State) and Cine (Georgia). A few of these prospects will be available at 53, I think.

2 points
2
0
Coldworld's picture

March 23, 2022 at 11:18 am

A good reason why a trade down might be coming in Round 1, if there’s not a premium DT or a run on WRs. I hope we don’t have to trade up if the perimeter WRs start disappearing. That would really inhibit our chances to get an early impact player at. OLB/DL or a good prospect at S etc.

2 points
3
1
stockholder's picture

March 23, 2022 at 11:22 am

Replacement -Yes. Hall of fame ? Not so quick.

1 points
1
0
Tundraboy's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:52 pm

I don't think we ever replaced Jordy not yet.

1 points
1
0
Pantz_Burp's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:15 am

I really appreciated Adams and how he handled his business on and off the field. My opinion is similar to yours...I hope we are able to keep defenses guessing who we are going to hand/pass the ball to. If that is reality...I am all for what transpired with trading and acquiring draft picks. Plus, Adams wanted to go to LV. It has been said before that defense and a running game travel well or tend to be less of a deviation from their norm (especially in the playoffs). It seems like Astute Gute (and Coach Matt) are making that transition: making D and keeping the run game active. My thought is that they will keep this going and the transition to a new QB will be aided by the D and run game to lean on while the new QB in the next 1-3 years will step in. If Rodgers wants to keep on playing beyond his current contract (and the FO/EC want him back)...he will benefit as well with a proven run element and defense. So to me, it makes sense how they are going about their business. I was impressed how they had a plan(s) in place but needed to wait for Rodger's decision. If I were them, I would have been buying a pallet of Tums from Costco! Just my hunch, ol' Gute would have been okay with building this roster with or without 12 behind center. He seems to like a challenge and I like that...

5 points
5
0
Johnblood27's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:40 am

I sure wish it had been without.

I do not see this ending well until AR is gone.

5 points
5
0
Pantz_Burp's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:54 am

I hear ya J-blood. That was my preference by a long shot. But, can't do anything except see how it plays out and hope for the best outcome in this situation at hand.

2 points
2
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:18 am

Davante -
This is exactly what I have been saying about Adams. He is great. But at this point they have traded Adams, and have since signed signed Douglas, Tonyan, Reed. I wouldn't be surprised if they were to sign a couple of more as well. They also added the 2 draft picks.
I love Adams and what he did for GB. But by letting him go vs keeping them they were able to bring in players they likely wouldn't have been able to. They gained 2 high picks that could really impact the future and present. This was the smart more to make imo. Subtract 1 great player, but add 5-6 other players to strengthen other positions.

Win with Defense -
I agree that they should have the ability to win more with defense with the players they have. Keeping Campbell keeps arguably the best ILB who is a perfect fit for our defense. Bringing back Douglas was a smart move. He brought a physical play that we really need. Pairing him with Stokes and Alexander now gives us the best trio of CB's in the league. And now they finally brought in some veteran presence for the DL. Reed is a good veteran player that will really help the DL rotation. Should be an upgrade over Lancaster.
That all being said, don't be too worried about the offense. Rodgers won't have his trusted WR that he loves but it will force him to play more within the offense. Also it will spread the ball around. They will have plenty of weapons.

The Draft -
I can't wait until the draft. Thursday and Friday nights will be VERY exciting for us Packers fans. Assuming they keep all 4 picks.

Of course, Z -
I love what Z did for GB. But something was really off this last year. And then this offseason has been odd to say the least. Kind of feels like he was trying to spurn GB.

Pasta Rasul -
I mentioned this above, but I'm not excited to have Douglas back just because of his interceptions and pick sixes. I'm excited because of his phsyical play. He brought a level of physicality they have lacked at CB. Alexander brings it but they haven't had it from other CB's.
He is a perfect fit for our defense. I also think him being a perfect fit for our defense is why he finally shined.

7 points
7
0
SinceLombardi's picture

March 23, 2022 at 09:22 pm

Douglas was an excellent signing. It also makes the organization look good by rewarding someone that came out of nowhere and played big.

1 points
1
0
NickPerry's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:26 am

Love this weekly piece by Al and as usual we're thinking alike. All the things Al brought up are the same feelings and thoughts I have. I'll also add it's great to see most of the voters who have answered the question, will the Packers be better with or without Davante Adams? I voted WITHOUT. I've posted my thoughts and feelings several times about paying a 30 year old WR that kind of money.

Defense..This defense is going to be LEGIT! One thing I don't agree with Al on was I think Douglas CAN intercept passes at a similar rate, but that could be my due to the fact I'm one of the biggest homers on this site as well...Time will tell. Bottom line is this Defense, IMO, will be a Top 5 Defense AND win games for the Packers this year.

I don't think Gute is done. It's been mentioned in the comments as well in various articles, but Gute has ALWAYS attacked a weakness with FA before the draft. He signed Reed and I still think they sign a WR. The issue is most of the WR's available are more of a "Slot" type WR. Maybe it's a trade, maybe he signs one of the few left, but I think Gute brings in at least one more before the draft. I suppose he could wait until after June 1st, but I think it's before.

Draft... I would love to see the Packers get Olave and Burks, Olave and Williams, or London and Olave. Obviously they'd have to use both 1sts to accomplish anything like that which I'm sure won't be popular with some fans. If that doesn't happen then a WR in the 2nd for sure and maybe another in the 4th.

I can't wait till draft night!!

Al...When will the draft guide be ready again???

4 points
4
0
JerseyAl's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:31 am

Around April 5-6.

2 points
2
0
KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

March 23, 2022 at 09:12 am

This may be the year for me to purchase the draft guide for the first time. However, my concern is too many on here rely on the same draft guide, subsequently, we have too many wanting the same player pointed out in the draft guide. Then when the Packers inevitably do not draft that player you see 'way to many' fans here upset as they all believe the player the draft guide suggested as BPA at a position should have been selected.

Now don't get me wrong as I do believe they Packers even after resigning MVS do need two quality WR's in this years draft. However, OMG will fans here erupt should Gutey NOT select a WR in Round 1. I mean the anger will be epic on here! LOL!

I LOVE the draft and always look forward to it as there is ALWAYS surprises....ALWAYS!

1 points
1
0
JerseyAl's picture

March 23, 2022 at 09:20 am

That's some serious overanalyzing and overestimating the reach of the draft guide. Just give it a try for your own enjoyment. That's why we do it.

4 points
4
0
murf7777's picture

March 23, 2022 at 09:55 am

I'm on it Al!

2 points
2
0
LambeauPlain's picture

March 23, 2022 at 09:56 am

I like your thinking, Nick. If, hopefully when, Gutey signs MVS, the Packers WR hole will be smaller and less of a need to sign 2 in the first.

However guys like Olave and his NFL ready route tree or Burks with his size, speed and strength to produce all over the field...in round one works for me. Neither will replace Adams' sublime footwork and quickness, but both have skills that can immediately help the Packers.

And yes, draft another WR early on day 3...hopefully someone who can be developed but has ST skills to be employed right away.

(FYI, Burks has just under 11 inch hands and he has benched 380 and squatted 500)

3 points
3
0
Coldworld's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:38 am

I’m not sold on Burks ability to translate to the NFL, but I’m not claiming to be a savant. I do agree with your general point that we need 2 receivers who can play on the outside. We need at least one with long speed and a good foil would be some short area quickness. The key is to go with the most ready pair we can get in Gute and his scouts assessment. That means probably taking more than 2 if we are really serious and don’t bring back MVS. Not all will settle fast enough, we need options. Readiness to contribute is the first measure this year.

3 points
3
0
stockholder's picture

March 23, 2022 at 11:17 am

You need to watch Burks tape. As many have pointed out. Adams, Rice and others, had that same time or slower. I get the Lofton thinking first. 4.29 and Nobody stays with you.

-1 points
0
1
Coldworld's picture

March 23, 2022 at 11:31 am

I’ve seen him. Very good against lesser opposition, but lacking extreme athleticism in any category. That may not inhibit, but it often does. Those type of players are often higher risk or lower ceiling than popularly thought.

3 points
3
0
Since'61's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:41 am

I don't think it's a matter of the Packers becoming better or worse without Davante. It's a matter of they will be different on offense. First and most importantly they need to be better on the OL. Everything begins and ends with the OL. Yes, the Packers OL has played well, especially with all the injuries, but they have not been dominant. In fact they have been dominated by the better DLs they have faced particularly in the playoffs. 5 sacks in the loss to the Bucs and 6 sacks in the loss to the 49ers. Hopefully with Bak, Myers and Jenkins returning healthy for 2022 our OL will be better. Left to right, Bak, Jenkins (when recovered), Myers, Newman, Nijman.

Our RBs will get more touches as they will receive more targets in the passing game. Downfield blocking becomes a key in that situation and Lazard at least is returning and hopefully Mercedes Lewis as well to bolster that need.

What will be missed without Davante is a receiver who can get separation. His foot work and superb route running made him the only Packer WR who consistently gained separation and he has a great catch radius. Gute needs to take a WR early in the draft who can at least get separation and has good hands.
With the new WR corps Rodgers will need to work his progressions and hit the open receiver whoever it is. Two seasons ago he claimed that he wanted to go back to his 2010/11 style of play. Well now he has no choice. He will have Lazard and ???? Who knows maybe Gute signs a FA WR but I'm not sure who is out there at a reasonable price. OBJ is a nutcase and probably won't be ready for 2022 anyway. Julio Jones is a shadow of the great WR he once was.

The Packers offense will rely on their running game and their RBs in the passing game, until a viable receiving corps emerges.

This also means that the defense needs to do its part even more than they did in 2021. Bringing back Campbell and Douglas will be huge in achieving that. Signing Jarran Reed was a solid move for the DL. I don't what's left of the salary cap for FAs but we need to look towards the draft for an Edge and an ILB as well as another Safety.

Of course anything that can be done to improve STs will help at least in the field position battle. If we can prevent blocked kicks alone that will be huge difference maker, especially in the playoffs. Most teams don't have 2 kicks blocked in an entire season and we had 2 blocked in a playoff game costing us 10 points and we were done.

First 6 picks should be WR, DL, WR, Edge, Safety, and LB. I'm not sure of the order but 2 WRs in the first 4 picks for sure IMO. As always I will depend on Jersey Al's Draft guide to show the way for me. I'm not a draftnik so it's the only reference I use for the draft.

Thanks, Since '61

5 points
5
0
Minniman's picture

March 23, 2022 at 02:24 pm

" If we can prevent blocked kicks alone that will be huge difference maker, especially in the playoffs"

I think that this was the rock that Tyler Lancaster perished on.

He was inconsistent in his D-line duties - but he was god-awful when blocking for kicks.

2 points
2
0
HarryHodag's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:43 am

The Packers have two of the better running backs in the league. Shame they weren't used more often, especially in the playoffs. Now they can be. The offense is likely to be more diversified, also good.(Remember the jet sweep?)

Many fans like the concept of flag football. A qb throwing the ball 50 times a game. Most of the time those teams don't win. The reality is you need an efficient passing game but you also need to run the ball and, more importantly, play rock-solid defense.

Adams leaving has opened the door to that. He will be missed. You can't just toss away that kind of production. But the Packers likely will be more 'team' and less 'we' this year.

Hopefully with an improved special teams effort, a deep run into the playoffs.

6 points
6
0
Handsback's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:45 am

My thinking is that Green Bay was constricted by the salary cap, they knew there were going to be huge holes in their team that would have to be filled with Udfa players. So after Adams leaves, they were probably the happiest guys in the league. They took care of the DB issue by resigning Douglass, their Dline with a starter in Reed, now they will look for a starter at WR.
What this means is they want the freedom to draft the BPA that matches this draft’s strength. So maybe an edge guy they have high on their board over a wideout that will take a few years to develop who are a dime a dozen. Or an OT that could start immediately.
All kinds of possibilities opened up over DAs leaving.

7 points
7
0
Pantz_Burp's picture

March 23, 2022 at 08:58 am

Hey Hands, I misread your "Udfa players" as Ufda players. Sure glad I read it again... :D

1 points
1
0
PatrickGB's picture

March 23, 2022 at 09:19 am

I have been looking at a lot of last years games that I recorded. We almost lost a number of them. Adams was key in many of those wins. Sure we won games when he was out but let’s not diminish his value. When other WR’s were open it was because Adams was double covered. When others caught the ball it often was because their best DB was covering Adams. We can’t and won’t replace Adams. However, if Matt and Aaron can find plays that allows for other WR’s to get open then his loss is diminished. More check downs and crossing routes might do the trick. Brady has done that for years. I expect the Offensive line to improve when they are back to strength. So maybe the run game becomes a bigger factor. And the defense looks better than expected. The special teams will improve. However, this year’s opposition looks scary. I see a regression but we still make the playoffs. And that might be good enough

3 points
3
0
Pantz_Burp's picture

March 23, 2022 at 09:36 am

Great reminder to me Patrick: "WR’s were open it was because Adams was double covered. When others caught the ball it often was because their best DB was covering Adams". True, very true.

2 points
2
0
Coldworld's picture

March 23, 2022 at 12:21 pm

Having your best corner on a clear number one receiver is perhaps the default approach. Where we did best, we also stretched the field helping Adams and others to get open. Currently we have neither Adams nor a deep threat. Then it will get harder for certain.

1 points
1
0
BirdDogUni's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:40 pm

You smashed your glass in the fireplace didn't you? Lol

I guarantee you we will have a deep threat this year. I also predict we have at least one 1,000 yard WR. (Or eight with 500 yards...) ; )

Never fear Cw, our roster will be easily better than last year, and the cap mysteriously took care of itself.

Our ST will be better. Our defense will be better. Our offense will be better, if only because AR won't be able to force it to DA...

Smile Brother! We're going to have a great year! ;P

1 points
1
0
LambeauPlain's picture

March 23, 2022 at 11:04 am

I like your reasoning, Al.

Before Sharpe left due to injury retirement, Favre and the Pack went 9-7 three straight years. After Sharpe's retirement, the Pack went 11-5, 13-3, 13-3, went to 2 SBs, winning one. After Sharpe, Favre spread the ball around.

Favre targeted Sharpe as much as, maybe more so than Rodgers did Adams. After Sharpe, Favre spread the ball around more.

What Jersey Al is saying has happened before in Green Bay. Plus re-signing Campbell (huge), Douglas (whew!) and Tonyan (could be big to have Big Bob back) and signing Reed with Adams cap savings PLUS a first and second rounder (more talent coming) could make the Packers better.

Note on Reed. PFF had him ranked on their big board at #20 in 2016 and one of the best run stoppers in the draft.. FYI, they had Kenny at #58.

5 points
5
0
murf7777's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:00 am

That's a good analogy Lambeau! Thanks for the research. I agree.

1 points
1
0
BruceC1960's picture

March 23, 2022 at 09:51 am

After seeing the players we were able to sign and the draft picks yet to come from trading 17, one can only wonder if we had traded 12 too. What a chance to reload. Obviously we would be looking at relying on an unproven QB. That doesn’t seem to be scaring the 49ers?

3 points
4
1
TarynsEyes's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:19 am

I voted 'no difference' and feel this vote is the only way to vote and can only be shown to be wrong by the result at season's end.

Yes, Rodgers is back, the Defense made a move outside the hoped/expected, and the Offense lost its most false (not negative)-productive player in Adams and the Packers are seeming, at the moment, still to be the favorite to win a Division Title that does nothing for them as to playoff performance, which it seems changes not, regardless of what the FO does or doesn't do to alter the fixation of winning the Division Title only, which of course has become the ceiling and the accepted success for any Packers' season the last 12 years.

4 points
5
1
Starrbrite's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:23 am

I’m for trading for Brandin Cooks. He’s good, fast, and only 28. Gutey has looked him previously and I thinks he’s worth another look.

0 points
1
1
Coldworld's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:51 am

Cooks plays a lot from the slot. He’s a slot build too, but smaller body than both Cobb and AmRod. Cut Cobb and possibly, but that’s not going to happen. We really need players who don’t play in the slot and over the middle. Cooks can do that, but he’s not a perfect fit for that and hasn’t done as well at it. I very much doubt that we could afford his market value either.

2 points
2
0
stockholder's picture

March 23, 2022 at 11:25 am

I saw who Detroit brought in for Stafford. They didn't help. Keep the picks and take 2 early.

1 points
2
1
Swisch's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:38 am

I'll go out on a limb and say our current group of wide receivers is going to be at least very good with MVS and Lazard and Amari Rodgers leading the way, and one of the others such as Winfree or Taylor stepping up into a significant role.
I think MVS has the potential to be a star.
Yes, draft a wide receiver or two, as well. It's always good to improve our receiving corps, while trying to find a star.
***
Although I've been a big fan of Randall Cobb over the years, I don't think he's going to be all that helpful in the future. I hope I'm wrong.
I'd much prefer Cole Beasley if he is available and affordable. If the Packers want one of those guys who is reliable on third downs to move the chains, I think Beasley can still do the job with verve.
***
If there's a potential star at tight end available in the first two rounds of the draft, let's take him.
Better a great tight end than a good wide receiver.
Of course, we could try for both, but the main point is that it seems time for the Packers to put a greater emphasis on the position of tight end.
Glad to have Tonyan back with the Packers, but, once again, it's always good to improve our receiving corps, while trying to find a star.

-1 points
1
2
Coldworld's picture

March 23, 2022 at 11:25 am

MVS is visiting Kansas today after they got a request to be traded from Hill. We may not have him. Hill wants Adams money.

2 points
2
0
stockholder's picture

March 23, 2022 at 11:33 am

Everybody wants to be the highest paid. The cap tried to prevent this from happening. Good Luck with that now.

3 points
3
0
PeteK's picture

March 23, 2022 at 11:53 am

Hill just got traded to Miami. Imagine if we had cap money to sign him. I don't mind long term, it's guaranteed money that is the issue. Adams got 65mill guaranteed, I would give a young Hill that.

0 points
1
1
Swisch's picture

March 23, 2022 at 12:28 pm

It seems to say something good about MVS if the Chiefs want him for their high-powered passing attack.
From the point of view of MVS, it may be highly attractive if he hears that Patrick Mahomes is excited about giving him many more targets than he's had with the Packers.
Would that Rodgers say something along those lines (if he hasn't already) to encourage MVS to stay. That's a way in which Rodgers can use his voice for the good of the team, and signal that he's becoming a better kind of leader.
A lot of how good our receiving corps is going to be this season depends on Rodgers working with them and encouraging them and bringing out the best in them.
***
My concern is that MVS will emerge as a star for another team due to lack of appreciation and utilization by the Packers.
As an avid football player in days long past -- more enthusiastic than talented -- I can't stress enough how discouraging it was to run route after route without much hope of the ball getting thrown my way.
To be involved in the offense is to be energized and enabled for top performances.
For some players in the NFL, an active role may mean even more than money, especially if the money is close between two or more teams.

0 points
1
1
splitpea1's picture

March 23, 2022 at 11:33 am

The Packers would be better off in the short term with Davante, but as the season wears on and the "real" MLF offense hopefully takes shape with more even ball distribution (and that includes the running game), we'll be better off without him--and hopefully peaking come playoff time.

Douglas: That's okay if he doesn't intercept as many passes. Maybe Alexander and Stokes can pick up the slack--as good and/or promising as these guys are, that's the one part their game that we could use more of: being in the right place at the right time or making the break to capture those turnovers.

2 points
2
0
Swisch's picture

March 23, 2022 at 12:31 pm

Good stuff on both our offense and defense, splitpea, IMO.

1 points
1
0
splitpea1's picture

March 23, 2022 at 12:38 pm

Stokes had a good shot at an INT late in the SF playoff game if he had broken towards the ball instead of circling back to make the tackle. As he gains experience, hopefully the instincts will take over and he'll make that play.

1 points
1
0
Packers0808's picture

March 23, 2022 at 11:45 am

Tyrek Hill has been given permission to seek a trade and MVS is going out for an interview with the Chiefs. Always revolving doors. Wish Packers get afford/get Hill!

0 points
1
1
BirdDogUni's picture

March 23, 2022 at 11:49 am

WOW... Tyreek Hill trade!

1st 2022
2nd 2022
4th 2022
4th 2023
6th 2023

SMH

LOLDOLPHINS

4 points
4
0
BruceC1960's picture

March 23, 2022 at 12:24 pm

Not hard to see why the Chiefs keep winning. Even with a high $$ QB.

3 points
3
0
Coldworld's picture

March 23, 2022 at 12:26 pm

Better positioned and younger. Desperate team. Be interesting to see what MVS gets.

1 points
1
0
Swisch's picture

March 23, 2022 at 12:33 pm

It may have been better to have signed MVS already.
The price for him may go up the way it did for Z.

2 points
2
0
Ya_tittle's picture

March 23, 2022 at 01:11 pm

He's gone. He will get his $10 million. Speed can't be taught.

5 points
5
0
BirdDogUni's picture

March 23, 2022 at 10:47 pm

Apparently KC let him out of the building without a deal, so we must still be in play!

Hope we are. I think MVS in KC would have 1,000 yards easy with Andy designing plays for him.

I think he could for us too, if AR doesn't miss him when he is open...

1 points
1
0
Minniman's picture

March 23, 2022 at 02:29 pm

Re Z

Him going to the Vikes makes sense for him.

Pettine and Mike Smith are there and the $$$ were good - a no-brainer decision for him AND them

2 points
2
0
SinceLombardi's picture

March 23, 2022 at 09:20 pm

The best thing that’s happened in years is KEVIN KING IS GONE!

0 points
1
1
croatpackfan's picture

March 24, 2022 at 04:54 am

Well, late on discussion, I can say that this discussion covered all opinions on what trade of DA meaning and what should Packers FO do.

It is another gem in gem basket of your articles, Al.

I would add only one opinion, short and direct. While I agree with many (71%) trade of DA makes Packers different, and by subtraction, better, and that DA is the one of the premium WR in the NFL, if not the best, I do not understand why many are still on the side that losing AR by trade will make Packers ruined. That might be also addition by subtraction.

If Packers traded AR, the team would be completely different. And, D would be focal point for improvement. Packers would change philosophy of their approach to game planning. On the other hand, offensive side of the ball would allow MLF to establish only his offensive philosophy and to finally become true HC. Packers offense would be completely different and, because of that, at least in the year one will be quite problem for opponents DCs,

Through my life I found that every subtraction is addition, it only depends how you'll react to challenge and change that happened. It can ruin you or it can rise you to the occasions.

1 points
1
0
greengold's picture

March 24, 2022 at 05:22 am

I’m seeing nothing polluted here.. All good. Ordered my draft guide, and I’m looking forward to seeing that too. Thanks, Al.

0 points
0
0