Devin Funchess has opted out of the 2020 season

[tynimiller]

ESB barely saw many snaps in 2018, none in 2019 and 1 game in 2020....MVS hasn't missed much time at all, all 3 years...

To say we've seen enough of ESB to know what we have isn't logical in my opinion. MVS we probably know his ceiling is at best a #3b on a team

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

ESB and MVS "might" turn into decent, reliable receivers. The issue the Packers have is that they currently have one of the best QBs in the NFL and should be focused on trying to get that QB some reliable weapons. Instead, it has appeared the Packers are trying to rely on Rodgers to keep them afloat while they build for the future in the hopes that one day, maybe 5 years from now, they'll have QB almost as good as the one they have now.

I would add and maybe its implied in your post, having Aaron Rodgers as your QB can really cover up some deficiencies of the Receivers he has to work with and that might be why upgrading doesn't feel as urgent to Gute or some Packer fans. He can do more with less. How many WR's haven't done well in Green Bay and have gone on to have a successful career elsewhere? I don't count Fulgham as a Packer WR, since he was with them for what, long enough to have a beer and a sammich?

 

[swhitset]

I would add and maybe its implied in your post, having Aaron Rodgers as your QB can really cover up some deficiencies of the Receivers he has to work with and that might be why upgrading doesn't feel as urgent to Gute or some Packer fans. He can do more with less. How many WR's haven't done well in Green Bay and have gone on to have a successful career elsewhere? I don't count Fulgham as a Packer WR, since he was with them for what, long enough to have a beer and a sammich?

What frustrates me is that I don’t buy into the argument that Receivers are less important in this offense. I understand the argument, but when you have a QB that virtually everyone agrees is a first ballot HOFer, it is imperative that you give him as much talent to throw to as possible. Yeah I get it the running game is important, and it’s nice to have a system that doesn’t have to rely on Pro Bowlers at every position, but occasionally some team is going to beat that system.... that’s why it’s nice to have a QB that should be able to overcome that adversity and do the things that gave him the reputation as a HOFer in the first place. So .... Regardless of system WR should be a priority as long as we have a QB like Rodgers.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

What frustrates me is that I don’t buy into the argument that Receivers are less important in this offense. I understand the argument, but when you have a QB that virtually everyone agrees is a first ballot HOFer, it is imperative that you give him as much talent to throw to as possible. Yeah I get it the running game is important, and it’s nice to have a system that doesn’t have to rely on Pro Bowlers at every position, but occasionally some team is going to beat that system.... that’s why it’s nice to have a QB that should be able to overcome that adversity and do the things that gave him the reputation as a HOFer in the first place. So .... Regardless of system WR should be a priority as long as we have a QB like Rodgers.

Well said and I don't think it will come to any surprise to you that I am in full agreement. I can only imagine what the Offense would look like if Brett Hundley was our QB or god forbid, Boyle or Love had to run it. I think we all got a peek at that in 2017 when Rodgers went down in week 6. Hundley still had Nelson, Cobb and Adams and couldn't come close to duplicating what Rodgers could do. I also remember a few games in there when 1 or more of those receivers were hurt and it was a nightmare. Then there are all the times we have seen our starting receivers go down and Rodgers is dealing with the 5th and 6th guys and struggling.

So on the flip side of all of that, one has to wonder, "what would our offense look like if our WR group was?":

• Cooper, Gallup, Lamb, Wilson, Brown, Turner
• Cooks, Fuller, Cobb, Stills, Carter, Coutree
• Hill, Watkins, Hardman, Robinson, Pringle
• Jones, Ridley, Gage, Powell, Blake, Zacckheaus
  
• Locket, Metcalf, Moore, Dorsett, Hart, Swain
• Thomas, Smith, Sanders, Harris, Fowler, Callaway
  
• Evans, Godwin, Antonio Brown, Miller, Jonson, Mickens
• Ruggs, Agholor, Renfrow, Jones, Edwards, Gafford
• Moore, Samuel, Anderson, Cooper, Zilstra, Kirkwood
• Wood, Cupp, Reynolds, Jefferson, Webster, Jackson

Could probably insert 15-20 more teams WR groups, but I think you get the point.

This also isn't taking into consideration some teams TE group, which again, I would rank the Packers TE group as below average in regards to receiving.

 

[Mondio]

It's not that WR's don't have any importance, it's that you don't rely on having 5 wr's on your roster capable of being #1, #2 level WR's because your offense is completely out of balance in its attack and relies on converting 3rd and longs on a regular basis and winning with the big play all the time.

Why should a WR be a priority? many lesser QB's are doing ok with WR's that aren't highly invested in. We had a long run of great WR's and a HOF QB, how many championships has that resulted in? There are other ways to win football games. In the only game they've lost this year, WR is pretty far down on the list of reasons why we lost.

We could use another one, we all know that, we all wanted one, we all collectively groaned when we didn't get a new one, but life goes on. We don't NEED one to win. We need our guys to stay healthy and we'll do our share of winning. and gute isn't just sitting on his hands, He's always moving players and it was just leaked they tried trading for Ertz. It's obvious he's trying to get stuff done, at least to me. Just because people want to give 1sts and 2nds for juilio jones doesn't mean it's possible for all sorts of reasons, or smart. and just because Gute hasn't done it doesn't mean he's doing nothing.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

We could use another one, we all know that, we all wanted one, we all collectively groaned when we didn't get a new one, but life goes on. We don't NEED one to win.

Oh, you were talking about needing just one? No wonder we disagree.

If we don't need one to win, then in your mind, we are set, so why bother having this conversation?

I am trying to remember, but didn't you take the same stance a number of years ago, when the Packers were desperately trying to fix the secondary? I might have you mixed up with someone else.

Quite often, The good teams don't seem to sit idle, they make moves. We saw the 49'ers trade for Sanders last year, the Ravens sign Dez Bryant, the Buccaneers sign Antonio Brown, Belichick always seems to be tweaking his roster. If your argument against such a move is "those teams didn't or won't win a Superbowl because of that move", then why discuss anything any team does along the way? Only 1 team wins the SB each year. Does that make the other 31 teams decisions during the season bad or unnecessary ones?

 

[Mondio]

sometimes moves are just moves. Sanders brought no super bowl, Dez? does Dez have a catch? AB couldn't be gotten rid of fast enough for 3 teams that ate significant money and draft capital to get rid of him. Nice work.

and I could use more money, I don't need it. I could use a nicer car, I don't need one. I could use a new boat, yet i spent more than enough time on the water anyway. The packers could use another WR, they don't need one to win. Adams and Lazard as the top 2 and staying healthy and they have enough to win it all. They could use a better RT, they could use another DB, they could use a better TE, they could use. They could use all sorts of things.

 

[Dantés]

What frustrates me is that I don’t buy into the argument that Receivers are less important in this offense. I understand the argument, but when you have a QB that virtually everyone agrees is a first ballot HOFer, it is imperative that you give him as much talent to throw to as possible. Yeah I get it the running game is important, and it’s nice to have a system that doesn’t have to rely on Pro Bowlers at every position, but occasionally some team is going to beat that system.... that’s why it’s nice to have a QB that should be able to overcome that adversity and do the things that gave him the reputation as a HOFer in the first place. So .... Regardless of system WR should be a priority as long as we have a QB like Rodgers.

The previous offense passed more often, used more receivers, and relied on them to consistently create their own separation.

The current offense is more balanced in terms of run/pass, uses fewer receivers and uses them less often, and does a better job of scheming them open.

WR's are currently on pace to play 2485 snaps for LaFleur this season. In McCarthy's last year, they played 2920 snaps. This is because LaFleur uses a lot more 12, 21, 22, and 13 personnel than McCarthy did, and his offense features virtually zero 4+ wide receiver sets. The Packers were in 11 personnel on 77% of offensive snaps in 2018, and that fell to 62% last year. I don't have an exact % for 2020, but it's dropped again for sure-- there have been 400 total offensive snaps this year and WR's have only played 932 as a group.

In McCarthy's last year, the offense was in a 66/34 pass/run split. That was extreme even by McCarthy's standards, but it was 60/40 in 2017 and 62/38 in 2016. In 2019, it was down to 58/42, and in 2020 it's on a pace for 56/44.

And lastly, the foundation of McCarthy's offense is WR talent winning isolated matchups against man coverage. He uses very little motion and does not generally create separation for players with scheme. He counts on them to win. Given that he is almost always in 3+ receiver sets and he's one of the most pass happy coaches in the league, this means that his offense must have 3+ really good wide receivers to operate correctly.

LaFleur's offense is predicated on deception. It's designed to misdirect defenses with motion, run the same plays out of multiple personnel formations, use all of its players down the field (RB, HB, TE, etc), make run and pass action look identical to the defense (Play-action % went from 20% in 2018 to 23% in 2019 and now to 29% so far in 2020), and scheme players open for easy separation with crossers and rubs. Given that he's more balanced and doesn't use receivers as frequently, this means that his offense doesn't require the same level of WR talent to operate.

So from every conceivable angle, the WR position is less important in this offense. That does not mean it's unimportant by any stretch. But it does not rely on it nearly as heavily as other systems do, with the best contrasting example being the system that preceded it in Green Bay.

 

[Dantés]

Oh, you were talking about needing just one? No wonder we disagree.

If we don't need one to win, then in your mind, we are set, so why bother having this conversation?

I am trying to remember, but didn't you take the same stance a number of years ago, when the Packers were desperately trying to fix the secondary? I might have you mixed up with someone else.

Quite often, The good teams don't seem to sit idle, they make moves. We saw the 49'ers trade for Sanders last year, the Ravens sign Dez Bryant, the Buccaneers sign Antonio Brown, Belichick always seems to be tweaking his roster. If your argument against such a move is "those teams didn't or won't win a Superbowl because of that move", then why discuss anything any team does along the way? Only 1 team wins the SB each year. Does that make the other 31 teams decisions during the season bad or unnecessary ones?

You're upset that they didn't sign Dez Bryant??

If you think that was a winning move, then you must have thrown a parade when the Packers brought in Seth Roberts, yeah? At least the latter hasn't been out of football for two and a half years.

If there was ever an indication that you really just want to pitch a fit, this is it.

 

[swhitset]

The previous offense passed more often, used more receivers, and relied on them to consistently create their own separation.

The current offense is more balanced in terms of run/pass, uses fewer receivers and uses them less often, and does a better job of scheming them open.

WR's are currently on pace to play 2485 snaps for LaFleur this season. In McCarthy's last year, they played 2920 snaps. This is because LaFleur uses a lot more 12, 21, 22, and 13 personnel than McCarthy did, and his offense features virtually zero 4+ wide receiver sets. The Packers were in 11 personnel on 77% of offensive snaps in 2018, and that fell to 62% last year. I don't have an exact % for 2020, but it's dropped again for sure-- there have been 400 total offensive snaps this year and WR's have only played 932 as a group.

In McCarthy's last year, the offense was in a 66/34 pass/run split. That was extreme even by McCarthy's standards, but it was 60/40 in 2017 and 62/38 in 2016. In 2019, it was down to 58/42, and in 2020 it's on a pace for 56/44.

And lastly, the foundation of McCarthy's offense is WR talent winning isolated matchups against man coverage. He uses very little motion and does not generally create separation for players with scheme. He counts on them to win. Given that he is almost always in 3+ receiver sets and he's one of the most pass happy coaches in the league, this means that his offense must have 3+ really good wide receivers to operate correctly.

LaFleur's offense is predicated on deception. It's designed to misdirect defenses with motion, run the same plays out of multiple personnel formations, use all of its players down the field (RB, HB, TE, etc), make run and pass action look identical to the defense (Play-action % went from 20% in 2018 to 23% in 2019 and now to 29% so far in 2020), and scheme players open for easy separation with crossers and rubs. Given that he's more balanced and doesn't use receivers as frequently, this means that his offense doesn't require the same level of WR talent to operate.

So from every conceivable angle, the WR position is less important in this offense. That does not mean it's unimportant by any stretch. But it does not rely on it nearly as heavily as other systems do, with the best contrasting example being the system that preceded it in Green Bay.

Yep... i don’t disagree with any of that. However, I still believe that any offense featuring Aaron Rodgers should have top talent at WR... Furthermore any team that has Aaron Rodgers as their QB should be centered around his very elite talents.

 

[Heyjoe4]

ESB barely saw many snaps in 2018, none in 2019 and 1 game in 2020....MVS hasn't missed much time at all, all 3 years...

To say we've seen enough of ESB to know what we have isn't logical in my opinion. MVS we probably know his ceiling is at best a #3b on a team

I agree with your comment on ESB. He's been injured, and when not, hasn't impressed anyone. After 3 years, it's time for both to move on.

MVS is probably a good-enough #3 or #4.

I'm hoping Lazard is as good as he's looked. But Gluten needs at add a promising rookie WR(best route) or trade for a WR (worst route, due to cap). Too bad he whiffed on the opportunity this year.

ESB is a strange cat because he looks like he should be a good WR. We'll, he's got the rest of this season to prove it.

 

[Dantés]

Yep... i don’t disagree with any of that. However, I still believe that any offense featuring Aaron Rodgers should have top talent at WR... Furthermore any team that has Aaron Rodgers as their QB should be centered around his very elite talents.

I’m not opposed at all to upgrading the WR talent. But I think it’s become less important than it once was. And I would say this offense is making far better use of his talents than what we have seen for most of the last decade.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I’m not opposed at all to upgrading the WR talent. But I think it’s become less important than it once was. And I would say this offense is making far better use of his talents than what we have seen for most of the last decade.

Interesting observation Dantes, especially with the pass catching skills of Jones and Williams. I can't recall one GB RB with the route running and pass catching skills of Jones, much less the bonus we get in Williams. And the 5-1 record reflects that. That said, Williams will probably be gone next year, as he has the skills of a #1 RB. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's enjoy this run.

 

[swhitset]

Interesting observation Dantes, especially with the pass catching skills of Jones and Williams. I can't recall one GB RB with the route running and pass catching skills of Jones, much less the bonus we get in Williams. And the 5-1 record reflects that. That said, Williams will probably be gone next year, as he has the skills of a #1 RB. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's enjoy this run.

I have no clue what we will do with Williams, but At this point I would be surprised to see Jones get resigned.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

sometimes moves are just moves.

So your only rationale, as well as your measuring stick of a successful move, seems to be based on whether that team wins a Super Bowl? Otherwise, all moves are just filling perceived but not actual needs that a team perceives it might have. You also extend this to your own life by saying that you don't really need things either and you are comfortable with what you have. So for you, it is fine to just set the bar lower and not improve the situation, since a football team/you are comfortable as is? I never said that signing AB, Dez or Sanders was a guarantee to win a SB, nor a guarantee to improve. However, they are moves done by teams with winning records, trying to improve their chances at winning a SB. I think if you ask the GM's making such moves, they aren't just moves to make moves as you want to imply.

You seem to be set on saying the Packers (or you) don't "Need X", you are right, because there is a difference between "Need" and "could use". Nobody "needs" anything except air, water and food to survive. A football team only needs 11 players at a time on the field to play football. So yes you are correct, we can all settle for less and at the end of the day survive. Now if you are talking about success and making it to the top, your "could use" probably should be viewed with higher priority, but that just all depends where you set your own personal bar I guess. However, I don't think you should continue to measure the success of a football team or the moves it makes by using the ultimate bar, winning a Super Bowl, if you don't recognize the difference between "could" and "should".

 

[tynimiller]

I have no clue what we will do with Williams, but At this point I would be surprised to see Jones get resigned.

If we move from Jones, Williams will be signed and be our #1 on the depth chart for 2021. Honestly, as much as I HATE not resigning Jones and seeing him line up elsewhere. HATE IT. It is the move I fear the best argument is for doing when it comes to paying RBs BIG money - especially not when you have a HIGHLY paid QB and WR already.

 

[Mondio]

what are you talking about?

Do you think GB should just wrap up the season if they can't get another WR? or do you think this offense can be competitive with what we have? I'd like another WR, but then gaining another WR has a cost, so I don't think it's automatic it happens. I think it's likely it doesn't. Sanders isn't with the 9er's anymore. Was that a successful trade? a first and some other for julio as has been tossed around? insanity if you ask me.

and Do you think Gute is just sitting on his hands again? I don't.

 

[tynimiller]

Poker has seriously stated he'd like to see our offense fail - so Gute can eat it with his WR issues created.

Merely stating this as it brings some clarity to the frustration Poker expresses when dealing with anything WR related. Helps to understand him, even if one STRONGLY disagrees with him in some cases.

 

[tynimiller]

So your only rationale, as well as your measuring stick of a successful move, seems to be based on whether that team wins a Super Bowl? Otherwise, all moves are just filling perceived but not actual needs that a team perceives it might have. You also extend this to your own life by saying that you don't really need things either and you are comfortable with what you have. So for you, it is fine to just set the bar lower and not improve the situation, since a football team/you are comfortable as is? I never said that signing AB, Dez or Sanders was a guarantee to win a SB, nor a guarantee to improve. However, they are moves done by teams with winning records, trying to improve their chances at winning a SB. I think if you ask the GM's making such moves, they aren't just moves to make moves as you want to imply.

You seem to be set on saying the Packers (or you) don't "Need X", you are right, because there is a difference between "Need" and "could use". Nobody "needs" anything except air, water and food to survive. A football team only needs 11 players at a time on the field to play football. So yes you are correct, we can all settle for less and at the end of the day survive. Now if you are talking about success and making it to the top, your "could use" probably should be viewed with higher priority, but that just all depends where you set your own personal bar I guess. However, I don't think you should continue to measure the success of a football team or the moves it makes by using the ultimate bar, winning a Super Bowl, if you don't recognize the difference between "could" and "should".

To be fair, with what GB has done over the recent years - moves for the Super Bowl is literally the only higher rung on the ladder we have to motivate making moves.

Packer fans are one of only a very few fan bases that can say "Super Bowl is on the table for us this year" at the beginning of every season in the last decade because of what we have trotted out on the field behind center if no other reason. Patriots, KC of late and SEA with Russel might be the only others that wouldn't get a sideways glance some years.

 

[swhitset]

what are you talking about?

Do you think GB should just wrap up the season if they can't get another WR? or do you think this offense can be competitive with what we have? I'd like another WR, but then gaining another WR has a cost, so I don't think it's automatic it happens. I think it's likely it doesn't. Sanders isn't with the 9er's anymore. Was that a successful trade? a first and some other for julio as has been tossed around? insanity if you ask me.

and Do you think Gute is just sitting on his hands again? I don't.

I can’t speak for a Pokerbrat, but while I do believe the team can be and is competitive as it is, it could be better. If the right deal came along, I’d love another receiver. I was not a fan at all of the last draft, but that is now in the past so... frankly, I think we will most likely have to wait again for next year... but I can still hope something comes along that improves this year as well. That includes hoping someone like EQ turns into something useful however unlikely that appears to be.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

To be fair, with what GB has done over the recent years - moves for the Super Bowl is literally the only higher rung on the ladder we have to motivate making moves.

Packer fans are one of only a very few fan bases that can say "Super Bowl is on the table for us this year" at the beginning of every season in the last decade because of what we have trotted out on the field behind center if no other reason. Patriots, KC of late and SEA with Russel might be the only others that wouldn't get a sideways glance some years.

Exactly. So even a slight move by a team near the top, can take it over the top. A 5-1 team like the Ravens is playing well, but struggling with their Pass game. Does Dez Bryant give them an elite Pro Bowl WR? No, but he gives them some hope that their passing game improves enough to give them a better shot at going to a SB. The Packers signing of Andre Rison in 1996 wasn't a block buster, earth shattering move, but some point to it as one that was influential in their SB win that year.

Do I expect the Packers to instantly trade or sign 1-2 block buster WR's in the next 6 days? No, but IMO sitting pat on their current WR room might be something they regret later, especially if we lose Adams and/or Lazard again for any extended period of time or during the playoffs.

I may talk about the WR position a lot, mainly because its such a glaring weakness, but I wouldn't be opposed to the idea that they do something with the DL, if that is a move that makes the most sense and improves the team the most within their desired budget.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Poker has seriously stated he'd like to see our offense fail - so Gute can eat it with his WR issues created.

Merely stating this as it brings some clarity to the frustration Poker expresses when dealing with anything WR related. Helps to understand him, even if one STRONGLY disagrees with him in some cases.

Show me where I clearly stated this in a non-sarcastic way.

 

[tynimiller]

Exactly. So even a slight move by a team near the top, can take it over the top. A 5-1 team like the Ravens is playing well, but struggling with their Pass game. Does Dez Bryant give them an elite Pro Bowl WR? No, but he gives them some hope that their passing game improves enough to give them a better shot at going to a SB. The Packers signing of Andre Rison in 1996 wasn't a block buster, earth shattering move, but some point to it as one that was influential in their SB win that year.

Do I expect the Packers to instantly trade or sign 1-2 block buster WR's in the next 6 days? No, but IMO sitting pat on their current WR room might be something they regret later, especially if we lose Adams and/or Lazard again for any extended period of time or during the playoffs.

I may talk about the WR position a lot, mainly because its such a glaring weakness, but I wouldn't be opposed to the idea that they do something with the DL, if that is a move that makes the most sense and improves the team the most within their desired budget.

You and I both know they aren't standing pat though. It has been confirmed by multiple sources we have actively been out there discussing potential WR additions. We've also signed a LOW end experience vet in Seth Roberts much more equipped to succeed if injuries hit further than anyone we have not named Lazard or Adams IMO.

I don't see Fuller happening, we'd have to give up a lot. I'd rather give up a lot (some say Texans want a 2nd rounder) for a Hayden Hurst at ATL given you have him on his rookie contract, proven pass catcher but also can block in a MLF system that loves using TEs. The more I think on it the more Hurst is my top flight choice out of anyone that arguably is out there on the market...so much I'd gladly send them a 2nd and 6th for Hurst and a Day 3 pick back

 

[tynimiller]

Show me where I clearly stated this in a non-sarcastic way.

Ugh...you threw the non sarcastic part in.....LOL

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You and I both know they aren't standing pat though. It has been confirmed by multiple sources we have actively been out there discussing potential WR additions.

I will believe that when I see it. Its been kicked around for 2 seasons now. Funchess is the result. I don't think there was one person on this board, the media and perhaps even on the team, that expected Gute to not draft a WR this year.