No receivers taken· Page 2

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

4 years ago

#11

This is strange.
image.png You have insufficient rights to see the content.

beast
Select Member

4 years ago

#12

This is strange.
image.png You have insufficient rights to see the content.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

Yeah, that's one thing that I'm heavily questioning is value, as there are a couple of players that I wonder if someone just didn't fall in love with, and we over drafted them by a round or more (especially the TE).

Also while it certainly seems LaFleur had more say, how much say did he have, as usually coaches make bad scouts as they fall in love and over draft guys, and reportedly LaFleur has a good coachin friend that help coached the TE and yeah I wondered if that had anything to do with it.

Also shocked how many of the players we added have a connection To QB Love, as I think I read he worked out with the RB and ILB that we drafted, for UDFAs, we signed one of his college teammates, we signed one of his high school teammates, we talked with his 2018 coach, who's at a new school in 2019 and we signed an UDFA from there too.

When this kind of thing happens by accident, it's pretty cool... but this sure happened a freaking lot in this one single year, more than other years, kinda makes me wonder if this is not by coincidence. Not that they planned it this way, but some sort of subconscious biased? Or changes to scouting due to the Corona Virus?

That being said, I am impressed by the TEs versatility (with is important in this scheme, and the TE and some of the OL are aggressive and scrappy as hell, even if they get beat, they're still fighting to get back into the rep for the win. I don't think the OL are as upside talented (at least not athletically), but their aggressive style sorta reminded me of TJ Lang, which gave me hope for the future of the interior OL.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

4 years ago

#13

“We thought (the receiver class) was really strong at the top. I don’t know that as we got to the middle and the end that we thought it was as strong as others did,” Gutekunst said. “The runs went pretty early and once we went to a certain spot ... we just felt there wasn’t a lot of great candidates who were locks to make our team.”

Hmm.

KRK
Veteran Member

4 years ago

#14

Packers were 5th in the league in passing yards per game and 4th in points per game.

So if our receivers suck so bad, Rodgers must be frigging great.

In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK

beast
Select Member

4 years ago

#15

Packers were 5th in the league in passing yards per game and 4th in points per game.

So if our receivers suck so bad, Rodgers must be frigging great.

Originally Posted by: KRK

I think you're looking at post season stats, if so, that's out of 12.

For the season, out of 32, they were 17th in the league in passing yards and 15th points per game.

Cheesey
Preferred Member

4 years ago

#16

I don’t understand this “get Aaron a ring” crap. If the Packers win another Super bowl, does that only benefit Aaron Rodgers???
So why put it like they are doing things to make Rodgers happy?
Some think AR runs the entire franchise.
He doesn’t hire or fire anyone.
Isn’t the entire team and office people have the same goal to get a SB ring?
Helping Rodgers with getting weapons for him helps the entire franchise.
Isn’t that SUPPOSED to be the goal????

TheKanataThrilla
Veteran Member

4 years ago

#17

I asked the question in another thread about how many WRs we will be keeping on the active roster next season? I am guessing 5 given our RBs and TEs are expected to be more active in the offense.

WRs
MVS
Malik Taylor
ESB
Shep
Kumerow
Lazard
Funchess
Begelton
Adams
and that 1 UDFA Darrell Stewart

If we draft a WR or 2 and we only plan to keep 5 are we just keeping rookies on the active roster so they don't get scooped? I really think that this messed up offseason may have come into play as well. Rookies will likely struggle and if OTAs is limited what are the odds that any WR will develop any type of rapport with Rodgers?

I read articles with people saying that drafting a WR is about win now, but I am starting to have a problem seeing that as I don't see 7 WRs on the roster anymore.

go.pack.go.
Veteran Member Topic Starter

4 years ago

#18

I don’t understand this “get Aaron a ring” crap. If the Packers win another Super bowl, does that only benefit Aaron Rodgers???
So why put it like they are doing things to make Rodgers happy?
Some think Aaron Rodgers runs the entire franchise.
He doesn’t hire or fire anyone.
Isn’t the entire team and office people have the same goal to get a SB ring?
Helping Rodgers with getting weapons for him helps the entire franchise.
Isn’t that SUPPOSED to be the goal????

Originally Posted by: Cheesey

Exactly. The fact that a lot of people think it’s only about getting Rodgers help is alarming. Getting Rodgers help = better offense which = more wins which = better chance at Super Bowl which = championships for the franchise.

beast
Select Member

4 years ago

#19

Originally Posted by: go.pack.go.

True, though there are multiple ways to help a QB, and an old phase that a good running game.is a QB's beat friend, which is basically basis of the Moto of this entire offensive scheme.

Take if from the first starting QB in this scheme and what he said about the second great QB in this scheme.

"Number one, we're going to have good balance on the offensive side," Elway, now the team's general manager, said Thursday. "What I can say, late in my career, that was my best friend, the running game. And I think that running game will be Peyton's best friend also."

NFL.com wrote:

This entire office is build around getting the running game going, to control the game and get the passing game going off of that, including play action passes, and using the RB in passing routes instead of pass protection, to force a LB to try to tackle the RB one on one, on a swing pass.

Though, I'll still argue that Brett Favre's best friend was the defense, because Favre would.make something happened TD or Int, he'd just need them to bail him out when it was the INT.

And we did sign a FA WR (though to a one year deal), but he's got a WR/TE tweener build, which might be good for this system.

Originally Posted by: TheKanataThrilla

Usually we keep 5 or 6. But yes, I had a similar thoughts about drafting later WR, we already have depth at WR, we've just missing a top end quality guy (or two).

But I'm not sure how much a mid to late round rookie will help vs say Kumerow. Though maybe if they develop, but that might take time.

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member

4 years ago

#20

If we draft a WR or 2 and we only plan to keep 5 are we just keeping rookies on the active roster so they don't get scooped? I really think that this messed up offseason may have come into play as well. Rookies will likely struggle and if OTAs is limited what are the odds that any WR will develop any type of rapport with Rodgers?

I read articles with people saying that drafting a WR is about win now, but I am starting to have a problem seeing that as I don't see 7 WRs on the roster anymore.

Originally Posted by: TheKanataThrilla

Exactly. Unlike Ted Thompson, Gutekunst seems to be a pretty straight shooter. If he says he didn't see any wide receivers on the board who were likely to make the roster, I'm inclined to believe him. Fans and pundits are roasting him now, but how furiously would they be raking him over the coals if one of the receivers he took ended up on the waiver wire? Which is worse: to not take a receiver at all, or to waste a pick on a player who fails to make the final cut? This was clearly a scheme-oriented draft with an eye to the next two or three years. If neither LaFleur nor the scouting staff saw a player they felt would be a fit in their system, it stands to reason that Gutekunst would prioritize other needs.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (2h) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!

dfosterf (3h) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am

wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days

beast (18-Apr) : 6 days

wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep

dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire

dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.

dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission

dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"

dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that

dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.

dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move

dfosterf (15-Apr) : My wife just told the ancient Japanese sushi dude not enough rice under his fish

Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I think a dozen is what I need

dfosterf (14-Apr) : Go fund me for this purpose just might work. A dozen nurses show up at 1265 to provide mental health assistance.

dfosterf (14-Apr) : Maybe send a crew of Angels to the Packers draft room on draft day.

Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I am the Angel that gets visited.

dfosterf (14-Apr) : Visiting Angels has a pretty good reputation

Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : what

Martha Careful (14-Apr) : WINNING IT, not someone else losing it. The best victory though was re-uniting with his wife

Martha Careful (14-Apr) : The manner in which he won it was just amazing and wonderful. First blowing the lead then getting back, then blowing it. But ultimately

Zero2Cool (12-Apr) : I'm guessing since the thumb was broken, he wasn't feeling it.

dfosterf (10-Apr) : Looking for guidance. Not feeling the thumb.

Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : If they knew about it or not

Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : I don't recall that he did which is why I asked.

Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Guessing they probably knew. Did he have cast or something on?

Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : Did they know that at the time or was that something the realized afterwards?

Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Van Ness played most of season with broken thumb

wpr (9-Apr) : yay

Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Mark Murphy says Steelers likely to protect Packers game. Meaning, no Ireland

Zero2Cool (8-Apr) : Struggling to figure out what text editor options are needed and which are 'nice to have'

Mucky Tundra (8-Apr) : *CHOMP CHOMP CHOMP*

Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : WR who said he'd break Xavier Worthy 40 time...and ran slower than you

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

25 - 27

Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

22 - 24