Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Consider the 49ers running game
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 879106"><p>By the same token, their opponents playing catch up throw the ball by necessity widening the disparity.</p><p></p><p>As with most things, the reality lies below the superficial.</p><p></p><p>Speaking only for myself, I can think of any number of position groups that could have been upgraded in Day 1 and Day 2 other than WR, or backstopped for 2021 given the free agency and cap situations in that year. My baseline expectation was a trade down out of the first round, not reaching for players. Even so, at this time next year with Adams in a contract year, assuming he plays in 2020 as we've become accustomed, I will not be surprised by the "pay the man" howling as he goes unextended.</p><p></p><p>In your SF model of success, to summarize and belabor my earlier post, they expended their cap and draft capital to reload both the O-Line and D-Line while drafting a third receiving weapon in the first round. At the same time they're de-rostering their running back group, trading Breida, not paying Mostert the puny $2 mil raise he was asking for, drafting no backs, signing no backs other than a couple of UDFAs, while prioritizing getting Kittle locked up. Their backup QB as protection against a short-term Garoppolo injury who can keep them in the hunt is C.J. Bethard, a guy who's done nothhing but lose football games, 1-9 as a starter playing with fundamentally the same roster that was winning with Garoppolo.</p><p></p><p>There is a theory extant that the line (or more correctly line+TE+FB/Hback on selected snaps) makes the runner. It would appear SF is subscribing to that. While that may be absurd at the extremes-- the elite runner or the one who is clueless--there is truth to that in the vast middle. The Packers drafted a RB who's profile is to get yards on his own.</p><p></p><p>If you want to lay out the exact opposite approach to SF's evolved approach to roster building you don't have to look very far in this precinct. If you're going to look through this Packer draft to some comparable offense or approach to roster building, looking at SF is barking up the wrong tree. Better to look at LaFleur's 2018 Titans. However, LaFleur's a pretty bright guy and has demonstrated creativity. I don't think he's stupid enough to cast Rodgers in the same role as you would with the limited Mariotta.</p><p></p><p>Nobody debates that a balanced attack is needed. As noted before, you can also throw to RBs on swings and screens as run substitution plays. The Packers ran or threw to RBs on 44% of snaps last season. That's plenty of balance.</p><p></p><p>Why Dillon, then? Because we have two RBs in contract years. Why Deguara? Because other than Lewis who is old and snap-limited this TE group are not good blockers. One might want to consider whether these moves are an effort to stay balanced not turning into to some run first affair. Frankly, I have no problem with these Day 1 and 2 picks other than they look like reaches, each worthy of being picked a round or two lower.</p><p></p><p>You probably should figure on Rodgers dropping back a minimum of 600 times, or prorated over a shortened season, around 38 times per game which would actually be about 3 fewer than last year which would be a significant difference. That's if the team is winning late in games. Otherwise, the choice will be clear and the numbers different.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 879106"] By the same token, their opponents playing catch up throw the ball by necessity widening the disparity. As with most things, the reality lies below the superficial. Speaking only for myself, I can think of any number of position groups that could have been upgraded in Day 1 and Day 2 other than WR, or backstopped for 2021 given the free agency and cap situations in that year. My baseline expectation was a trade down out of the first round, not reaching for players. Even so, at this time next year with Adams in a contract year, assuming he plays in 2020 as we've become accustomed, I will not be surprised by the "pay the man" howling as he goes unextended. In your SF model of success, to summarize and belabor my earlier post, they expended their cap and draft capital to reload both the O-Line and D-Line while drafting a third receiving weapon in the first round. At the same time they're de-rostering their running back group, trading Breida, not paying Mostert the puny $2 mil raise he was asking for, drafting no backs, signing no backs other than a couple of UDFAs, while prioritizing getting Kittle locked up. Their backup QB as protection against a short-term Garoppolo injury who can keep them in the hunt is C.J. Bethard, a guy who's done nothhing but lose football games, 1-9 as a starter playing with fundamentally the same roster that was winning with Garoppolo. There is a theory extant that the line (or more correctly line+TE+FB/Hback on selected snaps) makes the runner. It would appear SF is subscribing to that. While that may be absurd at the extremes-- the elite runner or the one who is clueless--there is truth to that in the vast middle. The Packers drafted a RB who's profile is to get yards on his own. If you want to lay out the exact opposite approach to SF's evolved approach to roster building you don't have to look very far in this precinct. If you're going to look through this Packer draft to some comparable offense or approach to roster building, looking at SF is barking up the wrong tree. Better to look at LaFleur's 2018 Titans. However, LaFleur's a pretty bright guy and has demonstrated creativity. I don't think he's stupid enough to cast Rodgers in the same role as you would with the limited Mariotta. Nobody debates that a balanced attack is needed. As noted before, you can also throw to RBs on swings and screens as run substitution plays. The Packers ran or threw to RBs on 44% of snaps last season. That's plenty of balance. Why Dillon, then? Because we have two RBs in contract years. Why Deguara? Because other than Lewis who is old and snap-limited this TE group are not good blockers. One might want to consider whether these moves are an effort to stay balanced not turning into to some run first affair. Frankly, I have no problem with these Day 1 and 2 picks other than they look like reaches, each worthy of being picked a round or two lower. You probably should figure on Rodgers dropping back a minimum of 600 times, or prorated over a shortened season, around 38 times per game which would actually be about 3 fewer than last year which would be a significant difference. That's if the team is winning late in games. Otherwise, the choice will be clear and the numbers different. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
rmontro
Latest posts
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
36 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: OldSchool101
Today at 3:42 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: OldSchool101
Today at 2:53 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Wisky newbie
Latest: milani
Today at 2:09 PM
Introduce Yourself
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: milani
Today at 1:46 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Consider the 49ers running game
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
