despite weapons, offense needs another piece

[Patriotplayer90]

Allison's had more than one good performance and he's come up with some pretty timely catches for this team. I'll never forget what Janis provided in the Arizona game, but again, Allison is ahead of Janis on the depth chart for a reason.

Someone could always establish themselves as a top dog, but there isn't a top dog on this team. There isn't a single receiver that you can continually go to like a Julio, OBJ, AB, Green, etc. We don't have the luxury of having a guy like that. So you're going to see an offense in Green Bay that shares the football among multiple targets. Force feeding any receiver isn't going to help this offense be potent.

There isn't a single guy on the roster separating himself right now.

Montgomery - 18 catches, 129 yards, 1 TD
Cobb - 15 catches, 145 yards, 0 TD
Adams - 14 catches, 206 yards, 1 TD
Nelson - 13 catches, 131 yards, 3 TD
Bennett - 11 catches, 102 yards, 0 TD
Allison - 9 catches, 146 yards, 0 TD
Kendricks - 4 catches, 70 yards, 1 TD (he'll get more opportunities in the coming weeks)

When you look at the targets, it suggests even more balance, or "mouths to feed". These are our top 3 receivers, top back, and top TE:

23, 21, 23, 21, 17.

Mouths to feed for me mean that we have to exhibit balance among the team for the offense to operate on the highest level.

You can talk about garbage time all you want, but you can't just throw out certain areas of the season to prove your point about a particular player. Lets also consider that Rodgers hasn't even been playing his best ball right now. We won't see an accurate reflection of what this offense is until midseason.

What will the narrative be if Adams goes for 115 and two TD's tonight in a close game? Does that change your opinion? Are we totally neglecting what he did for us last season? It's still veeeeery early in the season.

Well it's just my opinion, but any unit in the league posts numbers like that with Rodgers, save the awful ones.

 

[PackAttack12]

Well it's just my opinion, but any unit in the league posts numbers like that with Rodgers, save the awful ones.

Look, I agree that Rodgers makes everyone look better. I think our WR group is overrated by many. I've said it repeatedly. But the Adams criticism in my opinion isn't warranted this early in the season, especially with what we saw last year from him throughout the year.

And again, regardless of what Rodgers is able to do, Allison has proven to be more valuable to our offense than Janis.

Sort of to your point, with the limitations we have with our receiving group, it makes all the more sense to spread the ball around to multiple guys. We saw what happened when Rodgers was trying to force feed Jordy early in the year last year, and what happened when he was constantly looking for the deep ball and none of our receivers could create separation down the field. That should speak to the deficiencies our receivers possess.

What works with this group is ball control, short, quick hitting passing game that was on display in the 2nd half of the year last year, with multiple guys contributing.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Well it's just my opinion, but any unit in the league posts numbers like that with Rodgers, save the awful ones.

The 2015 Packers should work as evidence to the contrary.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Look, I agree that Rodgers makes everyone look better. I think our WR group is overrated by many. I've said it repeatedly. But the Adams criticism in my opinion isn't warranted this early in the season, especially with what we saw last year from him throughout the year.

And again, regardless of what Rodgers is able to do, Allison has proven to be more valuable to our offense than Janis.

Sort of to your point, with the limitations we have with our receiving group, it makes all the more sense to spread the ball around to multiple guys. We saw what happened when Rodgers was trying to force feed Jordy early in the year last year, and what happened when he was constantly looking for the deep ball and none of our receivers could create separation down the field. That should speak to the deficiencies our receivers possess.

What works with this group is ball control, short, quick hitting passing game that was on display in the 2nd half of the year last year, with multiple guys contributing.

I'll agree with that. I think an offense which allowed Adams and Cobb to get the ball in space, with the occasional intermediate and deep route, is a better use of their skillsets. Iso routes aren't.

The 2015 Packers should work as evidence to the contrary.

Hence why I said, save the awful ones.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Hence why I said, save the awful ones.

That illustrates that the 2017 Packers' receiving corps definitely isn't an awful unit though.

 

[gopkrs]

Don't know how much this has been mentioned but TT really did try and address the tackle situation by drafting Spriggs. I guess he should have gone after some more depth after Sprigg already disappointed last year though. Maybe they still thought he would improve. But they really should be scouring every possibility including checking out players who maybe never had a chance to make the NFL. In the 1995 SB run we found Wilkerson who did a fine job. An old tackle at the time. Gotta keep looking. Maybe unretire somebody. You can't just keep men on the roster that let pass rushers just fly by them. If that is all we have; then we have to handcuff ourselves and give them help on every play. Keep Ripkowski in along with a halfback maybe.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Don't know how much this has been mentioned but TT really did try and address the tackle situation by drafting Spriggs. I guess he should have gone after some more depth after Sprigg already disappointed last year though. Maybe they still thought he would improve. But they really should be scouring every possibility including checking out players who maybe never had a chance to make the NFL. In the 1995 SB run we found Wilkerson who did a fine job. An old tackle at the time. Gotta keep looking. Maybe unretire somebody. You can't just keep men on the roster that let pass rushers just fly by them. If that is all we have; then we have to handcuff ourselves and give them help on every play. Keep Ripkowski in along with a halfback maybe.

To be fair, Thompson signed Ulrick John within the past few days. I'm not convinced he was the best option available though.

 

[swhitset]

That illustrates that the 2017 Packers' receiving corps definitely isn't an awful unit though.

or that it is lol considering we have almost the same receivers ..... I agree btw that they are not awful

 

[Dantés]

None of the players around Rodgers are any good. He makes them all appear that way; it's a mirage. Which is why no other teams ever want to pay GB receivers/linemen and why Rodgers' play never dips when his starters are out.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

None of the players around Rodgers are any good. He makes them all appear that way; it's a mirage. Which is why no other teams ever want to pay GB receivers/linemen and why Rodgers' play never dips when his starters are out.

This is why people have problems with you homers. You take exception to anyone who doesn't believe this roster was assembled by the gods themselves.

And as we saw past week, Rodgers can put the team on his shoulders and mount a comeback victory when his o line and WR are banged up, and there is no running game. And can take a WR group comprised of car salesmen to OT in the playoffs against Arizona. And I'm sure if any other team thought they could make James Jones a 900 yard 18 YPC receiver, they would have signed him. And Jared Cook's annual salary went up how much after playing with Rodgers?

So yeah, there are plenty of guys who appeared to be better players with Rodgers as a QB. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

 

[Dantés]

This is why people have problems with you homers. You take exception to anyone who doesn't believe this roster was assembled by the gods themselves.

And as we saw past week, Rodgers can put the team on his shoulders and mount a comeback victory when his o line and WR are banged up, and there is no running game. And can take a WR group comprised of car salesmen to OT in the playoffs against Arizona. And I'm sure if any other team thought they could make James Jones a 900 yard 18 YPC receiver, they would have signed him. And Jared Cook's annual salary went up how much after playing with Rodgers?

So yeah, there are plenty of guys who appeared to be better players with Rodgers as a QB. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

There's no question about the following:

1) Rodgers is far and away the most important factor in the Packers' success.

2) Rodgers makes his pass catchers better.

3) The FO has had its failings in roster construction.

4) The coaching staff is imperfect in their use of the talent.

All of that said, it's also completely true that there is and has been a lot of good talent around Rodgers. Sitton and Lang departed and are still really good guards. James Jones was still a good wide receiver for a bad Oakland team, despite being older when he got there. Jared Cook is on pace to do a lot more for the Raiders than he ever did the Packers. And frankly, we don't often see Packers go on to make impacts with other teams because Thompson doesn't let them get out of Green Bay. He almost always gets good players back on a second deal.

Along those same lines, the Packers currently have a lot of talent on offense that would be good anywhere. The receiving corps and offensive line (when the starters are healthy) are top 5 units in the league. We will see what happens with Bennett, but if we base our assessment on their careers to date, the TE group is also among the league's best And when those units are decimated, as they have been to start this season, or as they were for the NFCCG last year, it's reflected in Rodgers play.

If all of this makes me a homer, cool. Have fun pushing your agenda.

 

[Dantés]

Despite Weapons, Offense Needs Another Piece

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Patriotplayer90]

There's no question about the following:

1) Rodgers is far and away the most important factor in the Packers' success.

2) Rodgers makes his pass catchers better.

3) The FO has had its failings in roster construction.

4) The coaching staff is imperfect in their use of the talent.

All of that said, it's also completely true that there is and has been a lot of good talent around Rodgers. Sitton and Lang departed and are still really good guards. James Jones was still a good wide receiver for a bad Oakland team, despite being older when he got there. Jared Cook is on pace to do a lot more for the Raiders than he ever did the Packers. And frankly, we don't often see Packers go on to make impacts with other teams because Thompson doesn't let them get out of Green Bay. He almost always gets good players back on a second deal.

Along those same lines, the Packers currently have a lot of talent on offense that would be good anywhere. The receiving corps and offensive line (when the starters are healthy) are top 5 units in the league. We will see what happens with Bennett, but if we base our assessment on their careers to date, the TE group is also among the league's best And when those units are decimated, as they have been to start this season, or as they were for the NFCCG last year, it's reflected in Rodgers play.

If all of this makes me a homer, cool. Have fun pushing your agenda.

He's had good players around him, no doubt. But the same Seattle D line which gave us fits and wouldn't allow us to run was Stonewalled by the Titans' O line. I believe 2 total pressures was all they could manage and allowed 200 rushing yards. So when we're talking "top 5", there is an obvious gap between 1 and 5 and it's not small. The receiving group didn't seem to have nearly the same problem as ours did getting open either. The players around Rodgers are good, I just think we disagree on exactly how good they are.

 

[Dantés]

He's had good players around him, no doubt. But the same Seattle D line which gave us fits and wouldn't allow us to run was Stonewalled by the Titans' O line. I believe 2 total pressures was all they could manage and allowed 200 rushing yards. So when we're talking "top 5", there is an obvious gap between 1 and 5 and it's not small. The receiving group didn't seem to have nearly the same problem as ours did getting open either. The players around Rodgers are good, I just think we disagree on exactly how good they are.

I agree on that last part. I feel like you're using individual games anecdotally to disagree with season's worth of data. But that's fine that we disagree.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

I agree on that last part. I feel like you're using individual games anecdotally to disagree with season's worth of data. But that's fine that we disagree.

A team with a top 5 O line should be able to run the ball, IMO.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

A team with a top 5 O line should be able to run the ball, IMO.

The Packers offensive line, even when having all of their starters healthy, is definitely not within the top five units in the league blocking for the run.

 

[Dantés]

A team with a top 5 O line should be able to run the ball, IMO.

The Packers' OL has been a stellar pass protecting unit. Their strength hasn't been in the running game. Every unit is going to have strengths and weaknesses. But they've been extremely well suited to what they've been asked to do and kept a QB who holds the ball about as long as anyone pretty darn clean.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

The Packers' OL has been a stellar pass protecting unit. Their strength hasn't been in the running game. Every unit is going to have strengths and weaknesses. But they've been extremely well suited to what they've been asked to do and kept a QB who holds the ball about as long as anyone pretty darn clean.

You could look at the pass blocking and say they are one of the best units, but then you could look at the run blocking and say they are one of the worst. Dallas, Tennessee, and Atlanta are stellar at both. Just saying.

 

[Dantés]

You could look at the pass blocking and say they are one of the best units, but then you could look at the run blocking and say they are one of the worst. Dallas, Tennessee, and Atlanta are stellar at both. Just saying.

I disagree that those current lines can hang with what Green Bay does in pass protection. But I also think those are great lines.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

I disagree that those current lines can hang with what Green Bay does in pass protection. But I also think those are great lines.

I have watched every Tennessee and GB game these past two seasons. Trust me, they can.

 

[Dantés]

I have watched every Tennessee and GB game these past two seasons. Trust me, they can.

I can't trust you to know that because Tennessee doesn't have to protect as long as Green Bay. While Mariota holds the ball longer than most, there's still a significant gap between him and Rodgers. That's what makes the Green Bay line so impressive.

But taken all together, I would agree that they're one of the teams with a better line than the Packers. Especially now with Lang being replaced by Evans. But I never claimed that GB has the best line in football-- just that their lines recently have been in the top 5.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You could look at the pass blocking and say they are one of the best units, but then you could look at the run blocking and say they are one of the worst. Dallas, Tennessee, and Atlanta are stellar at both. Just saying.

There's absolutely no doubt the Packers should aim for the offensive line to improve blocking for the run. Unfortunately I don't see it happening this season.

 

[GleefulGary]

He's had good players around him, no doubt. But the same Seattle D line which gave us fits and wouldn't allow us to run was Stonewalled by the Titans' O line. I believe 2 total pressures was all they could manage and allowed 200 rushing yards. So when we're talking "top 5", there is an obvious gap between 1 and 5 and it's not small. The receiving group didn't seem to have nearly the same problem as ours did getting open either. The players around Rodgers are good, I just think we disagree on exactly how good they are.

One has to realize a couple things in regards to the comparison you're making.

1) Tennessee has a very good OL.
2) Our OL wasn't completely healthy vs Seattle.
3) We run a lot of long developing pass routes. ******* OL.
4) Practically nobody isolates his OT's as much as McCarthy does.
5) Tennessee runs the ball a lot.
6) Tennessee doesn't run the route tree our WR's do.

 

[GleefulGary]

It would be nice for the Packers to be better at run blocking, but if they have to sacrifice that to be a great pass blocking team, that's a fair trade off imo.

Passing is much, much, much more important than running the ball.

As good as Ezekiel Elliot is, the Cowboys win because of Prescott. As good as Freeman/Coleman are, the Falcons win because of Ryan. Keep your QB's safe, let them make plays.

This isn't to say I don't value a running game. I still miss the days of 3 yards and a cloud of dust, but values change over time. Passing is more valuable than running. Shoot, look at Chicago. They have a good OL, specifically a great iOL, they have two very good backs, but they still suck because their QB sucks.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

One has to realize a couple things in regards to the comparison you're making.

1) Tennessee has a very good OL.
2) Our OL wasn't completely healthy vs Seattle.
3) We run a lot of long developing pass routes. ******* OL.
4) Practically nobody isolates his OT's as much as McCarthy does.
5) Tennessee runs the ball a lot.
6) Tennessee doesn't run the route tree our WR's do.

As they shouldn't. And we shouldn't. You can bring up the success of the offense, but it is still a lot of strain on the O line to protect Rodgers until he can do his Professor X thing and improvise as if it were the designed play.

Tennessee still runs ISO routes, maybe not as exclusively as GB, but they also have one of the best TEs in the league who is practically impossible to cover. You have one guy who is guaranteed to be open unless more attention is paid to him, it makes the entire system work. GB doesn't currently have that guy, IMO.

It would be nice for the Packers to be better at run blocking, but if they have to sacrifice that to be a great pass blocking team, that's a fair trade off imo.

Passing is much, much, much more important than running the ball.

As good as Ezekiel Elliot is, the Cowboys win because of Prescott. As good as Freeman/Coleman are, the Falcons win because of Ryan. Keep your QB's safe, let them make plays.

This isn't to say I don't value a running game. I still miss the days of 3 yards and a cloud of dust, but values change over time. Passing is more valuable than running. Shoot, look at Chicago. They have a good OL, specifically a great iOL, they have two very good backs, but they still suck because their QB sucks.

The point is, there doesn't have to be a trade off. There are several teams who are excellent at blocking for the run and pass. 2015 was the last year we were good at both, which was wasted on an awful WR group and a fat RB.

And I think it's silly to suggest that the success in the running game isn't equally important for teams like Dallas. If the running game were as pedestrian as ours and more attention could be paid to Prescott, we would see how much they could actually win.