Official Studs n Duds Cinncy

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
4,731
Reaction score
277
I'm pretty sure that every QB in the NFL would prefer to throw the ball to Adams (who is very rarely ever covered well) instead of MVS/Lazard/Tonyan/Cobb. The difference in skill between the best WR in the NFL and MVS (who might charitably be a low-end #2 WR) is just enormous.

Do I like that Adams currently leads the league in target share at ~38% (next closest are Brandin Cooks and Cooper Kupp at ~33%)? No, but that's why fans have been clamoring for the team to sign/draft some better prospects. MVS got a ton of hype this offseason but he's not the route runner he needs to be to earn a large target share. Hopefully Cobb can start to cut down on the work Adams is getting but, let's be real here, Aaron Rodgers throwing to Adams a LOT has worked out REALLY well for the Packers the past couple of seasons.
 

Schultz

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
433
Reaction score
138
This is why I have never advocated for the Pack to draft a WR on day 1 or even day 2 the last 5 drafts. I do not care who they would have drafted (even JJeff who I loved) they would not cut into Adams target % in any significant way. I do not care who you got in a trade, Fuller, Julio, or MThom same thing. Rodgers is going to throw to Adams because it works. Now when DA is out sure guys like those are nice to have (Claypool was another guy I loved). But using a early pick or trading draft capital for more salary at WR never made sense to me. If they would have hit on one of the bust corners, (Jones, Jackson, King) along with Jaire, Gary and Savage and hopefully Stokes as well as drafting TJ Watt when they had the chance I doubt there would be much complaining. The strategy of going defense was sound but the execution fell just short. I am not blaming Gute because he IMO made up for it with later picks such as A. Jones, Linsley. Jenkins, Jamaal, and hopefully Runyan and Newman.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
I'm just glad that the Packers didn't give Tonyan a long term, expensive deal based on his stats last year. I think there were a few here that were comparing him to elite TE's and sorry, but he isn't elite. While I agree that he is probably being asked to stay in and protect more, I just don't see his route running and speed as top notch. That said, I agree that once the OLine is back to full strength, perhaps we will see Bobby T catch more passes.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
I'm pretty sure that every QB in the NFL would prefer to throw the ball to Adams (who is very rarely ever covered well) instead of MVS/Lazard/Tonyan/Cobb. The difference in skill between the best WR in the NFL and MVS (who might charitably be a low-end #2 WR) is just enormous.

Do I like that Adams currently leads the league in target share at ~38% (next closest are Brandin Cooks and Cooper Kupp at ~33%)? No, but that's why fans have been clamoring for the team to sign/draft some better prospects. MVS got a ton of hype this offseason but he's not the route runner he needs to be to earn a large target share. Hopefully Cobb can start to cut down on the work Adams is getting but, let's be real here, Aaron Rodgers throwing to Adams a LOT has worked out REALLY well for the Packers the past couple of seasons.
Well said and I agree. No doubt Adams is a top 1-5 WR in the NFL, but some of that is AR, as well as having no WR's on his team that are even close to his talent. People saying that Adams should always be the primary target because he is always open are right on the first part, but I've seen Rodgers choose a well covered Adams over an open receiver.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
917
Reaction score
117
I'm just glad that the Packers didn't give Tonyan a long term, expensive deal based on his stats last year. I think there were a few here that were comparing him to elite TE's and sorry, but he isn't elite. While I agree that he is probably being asked to stay in and protect more, I just don't see his route running and speed as top notch. That said, I agree that once the OLine is back to full strength, perhaps we will see Bobby T catch more passes.
Maybe not the long term but he has surprised me as well as he has played with the Packers. We have not had Jermichael Finley in a long time and his career was short. Tonyan just has not figured in the mix as much this year as a receiver but a lot as a blocker much like Lazard. Fans bubble up at pass catching and yards gained. But QBs and Head Coaches are thrilled when the blocking is solid. If that is the winning formula let Adams and co. do the rest.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
But QBs and Head Coaches are thrilled when the blocking is solid. If that is the winning formula let Adams and co. do the rest.
While I don't have Red Zone stats, I would say after Sundays game, not having more than one really talented WR in Adams hurts you, especially in the Red Zone. If they are having to keep Bobby T and Jones in more to block, you lose some of your weapons. I noticed a couple of times on Sunday where Jones lined up outside, but when Rodgers looked at the defense, he motioned AJ to come back behind him for protection.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
917
Reaction score
117
While I don't have Red Zone stats, I would say after Sundays game, not having more than one really talented WR in Adams hurts you, especially in the Red Zone. If they are having to keep Bobby T and Jones in more to block, you lose some of your weapons. I noticed a couple of times on Sunday where Jones lined up outside, but when Rodgers looked at the defense, he motioned AJ to come back behind him for protection.
I think the one flaw on the roster the last couple years and it may just be the LaFleur offense is not having a FB. The red zone gets better when you have a John Kuhn to block for Dillon or Jones. And no, the TE is not a substitute. A FB can also run the ball which few Yes can do. Henderson, Kuhn, Vonta Leach. We have had a few decent ones. After that INT by Campbell we lost 5 yards in 2 carries. Maybe a FB gains us 5 and Crosby's kick is 30 instead of 40.
 

Krabs

I take offense to that sir.
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
505
Reaction score
154
After that INT by Campbell we lost 5 yards in 2 carries. Maybe a FB gains us 5 and Crosby's kick is 30 instead of 40.
The loss of five in two carries was due to play calling. It was far from creative. Sure, there are points of the game where one says, "line up the big heavies and lets see who the man is". However, down three starting offensive lineman, maybe running right up the middle wasn't such a great idea. If they were going to do that why not just kick the FG on 1st down? Heck, one of those nice TE screen plays would have worked better than trying to run off center. They knew it was coming. I'm not sure a FB gains us five yards there. Just saying.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
917
Reaction score
117
The loss of five in two carries was due to play calling. It was far from creative. Sure, there are points of the game where one says, "line up the big heavies and lets see who the man is". However, down three starting offensive lineman, maybe running right up the middle wasn't such a great idea. If they were going to do that why not just kick the FG on 1st down? Heck, one of those nice TE screen plays would have worked better than trying to run off center. They knew it was coming. I'm not sure a FB gains us five yards there. Just saying.
In general I think the absence of a FB effects a number of situations. Many teams use one. Many do not. It is a spot on the roster one way or another.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
In general I think the absence of a FB effects a number of situations. Many teams use one. Many do not. It is a spot on the roster one way or another.
I'm not a big X and O's guy, but I think MLF's offense is more designed for TE's and WR's to do the blocking when needed. While McCarthy used his fullbacks for various things, I like the versatility of TE's that can slide all over the place, seems to keep the defense guessing a bit more than a big fullback standing in the backfield. I also think Dillon gives you the power of a FB, but better running ability.

Paul Chryst and the Badgers love their FB's and use them very well. Much like the Badgers O lineman and running backs, quite a few of their FB's have recently landed jobs in the NFL (Watt, Ingold, Groshek, Stokke).
 

Krabs

I take offense to that sir.
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
505
Reaction score
154
In general I think the absence of a FB effects a number of situations. Many teams use one. Many do not. It is a spot on the roster one way or another.
The Packers do not have a FB on the roster this year. That is, unless you mean they are using a TE as one.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
6,060
Reaction score
827
I'm not a big X and O's guy, but I think MLF's offense is more designed for TE's and WR's to do the blocking when needed. While McCarthy used his fullbacks for various things, I like the versatility of TE's that can slide all over the place, seems to keep the defense guessing a bit more than a big fullback standing in the backfield. I also think Dillon gives you the power of a FB, but better running ability.

I absolutely love when we go Dillon and Jones in the backfield - opens up for sure the fattest stack of plays at his disposal. Can motion Jones out, shoot even Dillon but not to the same degree, line up in a power I even with Dillon at FB...split them and have the option to power run or sweep either way...both backs could stay in releasing both TEs or the one TE from blocking to slip free or ....I mean the options are endless.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
6,060
Reaction score
827
The Packers do not have a FB on the roster this year. That is, unless you mean they are using a TE as one.

Guys like Dafney and Deguara are listed as TE but are precisely the role a FB plays in the system. Versatility makes some TEs really a hybrid of course FB.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,523
Reaction score
250
The defense was literally the only bright spot of the game besides Adams. This was a game we most definitely deserved to lose in the history of NFL games. MLF was especially bad today. His worst game as head coach by far. Some of the worst play calling I've seen.

If you would've told me before the game that the defense would be the bright spot of the game I would've had you committed.
It's like we have a new coach this year. Where are the RPOs and jet sweeps that made this offense so hard to defend the last two years? After Adams completed that 50 plus yard bomb from Rodgers to the Cincy six, MLF ran three straight plays into the teeth of a 7 or 8 man box, then kicked a field goal. They struggle to score TDs in the red zone (or to defend against them). When you have that many guys in the box, you don't even need great linemen. I honestly don't recall a single RPO or sweep this year, although I'm sure he's run a few.

It's a mystery. And when GB's D outperforms the O, it's a problem.
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
3,222
Reaction score
300
We are in a great position now with all these wins. Probably LaFleur wants to save some stuff (not much) for playoff time. And that is certainly when we want to peak. I mean peak going into the playoffs. We have those luxuries now because of winning imo. I am not worried about red zone scoring. But we do have a hard time against real defenses because we rely on Jones and Adams so much. Definitely don't agree with some that think Dillon can just take the ball and run over people. Or worse, just move the line forward.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
Also playing into the play calling on offense is the state of the offensive line. Yes, they have done a great job, but as Rodgers pointed out, no way would he have envisioned at the start of the season an offensive line composed of a combination of some guys with very little experience. As a result, I think MLF has had to change his playbook and keep more TE's, RB's and even WR's home to help block in passing situations.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
It's a mystery. And when GB's D outperforms the O, it's a problem.

I have heard people criticizing the offensive performance on Sunday. Could it have been better? Yes. However, if you take into account playing with an OL like the one we saw on Sunday, on the road, missed FG's/XP and Rodgers missing a wide open Davante for a TD, it explains a bit of the drop in points. That wasn't all that bad of a defense we were up against either. The Packers scored more points than any of the Bengals previous opponents this season. I like the direction that the offense is heading. Get Jenkins, Myers and Bahk back and look out.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,523
Reaction score
250
I have heard people criticizing the offensive performance on Sunday. Could it have been better? Yes. However, if you take into account playing with an OL like the one we saw on Sunday, on the road, missed FG's/XP and Rodgers missing a wide open Davante for a TD, it explains a bit of the drop in points. That wasn't all that bad of a defense we were up against either. The Packers scored more points than any of the Bengals previous opponents this season. I like the direction that the offense is heading. Get Jenkins, Myers and Bahk back and look out.
I agree with you. It was a road game after all, and a pretty stressful game at that. And Burrow and those receivers, especially Chase, are the real deal.

And as you point out, we were dealing with some significant injuries - OL, WR, CB - at the Pro Bowl level no less. I would like to see MLF run more RPOs and jet sweeps, similar to last year - although that may require MVS back in the lineup.

And hey, I didn't think the team would be 4-1 at this point. The schedule gets tougher, so the more Ws we can put up now, the better.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,523
Reaction score
250
So I watched as much of the game I could get ahold of. I will say I think Stokes deserves a bipolar rating as well like Crosby - the dude at times looks legit ready to be a #1 at times and then rookie slip ups bite him hard. All and all we are seeing a TON asked of him and likes of rest of CBs plus young LBs to come out of Cincy with a win - which is no slouch team and have shown offense can be special is awesome.

Everyone wants to dog the team, but we are setting in the drivers seat of the division, running for the top in conference and have insane number of injuries. Shut up and be happy that despite all that and needing young or inexperienced guys play more snaps than anyone wants - we are sitting 4-1
Pretty good point. As for Stokes, he's a rookie so I'm ok with him being up and down (mostly up, please). He's gonna be fine. Crosby let that early missed PAT slip into his brain and spoke him all afternoon. It happens with kickers. Strange lot. At lease we've only see him do it twice. Normally, he's money from the 50 more inside. He's never been a 60 yard kind now guy. He has been reliable.

They won so we can let them both slide, this week. The schedule gets much tougher as we move along, but I expect nothing but a W against the Bears.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
917
Reaction score
117
I'm not a big X and O's guy, but I think MLF's offense is more designed for TE's and WR's to do the blocking when needed. While McCarthy used his fullbacks for various things, I like the versatility of TE's that can slide all over the place, seems to keep the defense guessing a bit more than a big fullback standing in the backfield. I also think Dillon gives you the power of a FB, but better running ability.

Paul Chryst and the Badgers love their FB's and use them very well. Much like the Badgers O lineman and running backs, quite a few of their FB's have recently landed jobs in the NFL (Watt, Ingold, Groshek, Stokke).

I'm not a big X and O's guy, but I think MLF's offense is more designed for TE's and WR's to do the blocking when needed. While McCarthy used his fullbacks for various things, I like the versatility of TE's that can slide all over the place, seems to keep the defense guessing a bit more than a big fullback standing in the backfield. I also think Dillon gives you the power of a FB, but better running ability.

Paul Chryst and the Badgers love their FB's and use them very well. Much like the Badgers O lineman and running backs, quite a few of their FB's have recently landed jobs in the NFL (Watt, Ingold, Groshek, Stokke).
Sometimes the modern offenses are not built for a FB in the mix. Misdirection and motion play a part. And it also takes a versatile FB. Offenses do not lineup to run the ball 35 times a game any more. Passing is the dominant way.. But some success at the goal line and the red zone lends itself to a FB.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,523
Reaction score
250
Also playing into the play calling on offense is the state of the offensive line. Yes, they have done a great job, but as Rodgers pointed out, no way would he have envisioned at the start of the season an offensive line composed of a combination of some guys with very little experience. As a result, I think MLF has had to change his playbook and keep more TE's, RB's and even WR's home to help block in passing situations.
Hmmm, that may be why were seeing fewer RPOs and jet sweeps as well. I dunno. Get Bakh, Jenkins, and even rookie Myers back and it's a totally different OL. Justbin time for the hardest part of the schedule.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
917
Reaction score
117
The Packers do not have a FB on the roster this year. That is, unless you mean they are using a TE as one.
NFB.No we do not have one. And if we put a TE in the backfield it pretty much gives away the play. A FB can have more variables. But it is not in our offense.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,523
Reaction score
250
NFB.No we do not have one. And if we put a TE in the backfield it pretty much gives away the play. A FB can have more variables. But it is not in our offense.
NFB.No we do not have one. And if we put a TE in the backfield it pretty much gives away the play. A FB can have more variables. But it is not in our offense.
I thought Josh D was going to serve as the TE/FB in MLF's system. And I thought MLF's system relied on a FB. And now that I think of it I haven't heard Josh D's name in a long time. Anyone know what's up with Josh D?
 

Krabs

I take offense to that sir.
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
505
Reaction score
154
I thought Josh D was going to serve as the TE/FB in MLF's system. And I thought MLF's system relied on a FB. And now that I think of it I haven't heard Josh D's name in a long time. Anyone know what's up with Josh D?
He came out of concussion protocol again the 49ers and should have been active last week. I don't remember seeing him out there.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
6,060
Reaction score
827
He came out of concussion protocol again the 49ers and should have been active last week. I don't remember seeing him out there.

He has been active four of the five weeks. Done an admirable job in the blocking, not amazing though. Hasn't been asked to do much in the receiving game, did catch the only target he has had (in Niner game).

Since returning he has seen 17, 24 and 13 snaps. Personally MLF has used him less than I thought he would, but having Jones and Dillon and wanting them both on the field eats some snaps no doubt for Josiah.
 
Top