A lot of things are possible I suppose. I would tend to go with Occam's razor here though.
As far as the younger receivers needing more time to get on the same page, perhaps Rodgers said this simply because it is true? If we look at the early part of various WRs that GB has drafted they tend to not contribute much in the first year. It's reasonable to assume that the way the Packer's offense is designed and set up requires more experienced players, this is evident if we look at the receivers production. I recall various players and coaches mentioning precisely this over the years but can't remember a specific quote at the moment.
Adams didn't get over 500 yards until year 3. Cobb didn't do much in his rookie season, but had a solid 2nd year before getting hurt in his 3rd and bouncing back for his best season in year 4. It took Nelson until year 4 to break out. James Jones had a fairly productive 1st year but his 2nd and 3rd were nothing to write home about. We have to go back to Greg Jennings to find a Packer's WR that had over 500 yards in each of his two seasons. All of these guys are 2nd round picks except for Jones who went in the 3rd round.
With this in mind, it's both indicative of the depth (lack thereof) at the position, and frankly rather impressive that MVS, a 5th round pick, managed to have a 500+ yard season this year. MVS start in some ways mimic's Jennings'. When Jennings was drafted GB had a clear #1 (Donald Driver), but not much else to speak of at the position after trading Javon Walker (Robert Ferguson anyone?). I think MVS is well positioned to be the Packer's most productive WR in his first two seasons since Jennings. With a new HC and likely new OC I'm not sure I would bet on it though.
Now, what did Rodgers
really mean with his comment about Dez Bryant? Again, I'm not sure what lines we're trying to read between here, but perhaps he meant exactly what he said? Once Jordy was cut it was clear they wanted to go younger at the position. So why swap one past his prime veteran for another past his prime veteran? I suppose he could have just said nothing to the question or given some generic Patriot's-esq response, but I'm not convinced that a non-statement there wouldn't have been analyzed and criticized even more than what he said, as seems to be the nature of things these days. He was rather direct and yet we're sitting here trying to figure out the true meaning of what he said, just imagine if he would have been vague lol.
Unfortunately they swapped a past his prime WR for a past his prime TE, but there was at least some logic to that one, that perhaps Jimmy Graham was a poor fit in the run-first SEA offense.