The Adams Poll

What would you choose if you could go back and pick?

  • Keep Adams

  • Take the Deal


Results are only viewable after voting.
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,115
Reaction score
3,036
While Rodgers targeted Adams at a higher percentage compared to most other quarterback/receiver tandems a lot of fans make it sound like he did it on 70% of the passing attempts.

Don't get me wrong, I truly hope the Packers can keep it up without Adams for an entire season but I'm not convinced Rodgers spreading the ball around will work for an entire season with a subpar receiving corps.

I have a hard time believing the Packers' chances improve of winning those tough playoff games without an elite receiver.

I don't know who those fans are, but in my post that you're quoting I gave actual numbers. The %'s would be 32% of pass attempts and 34% of completions. To put those numbers in some context, here are a few comps:

TB: 18% and 20%
BUF: 25% and 25%
KC: 24% and 25%

To your second comment, let me just say that I agree that if the season started today, and Rodgers' top receivers were Allen Lazard, Randall Cobb, and Amari Rodgers, I would not argue that spreading targets would be enough to keep them at an elite level for an entire season. They have to add quality options to the offense. My argument is that a variety of quality options has proven and could continue to prove more effective that a single elite option soaking up an outsized amount of offensive focus and making the offense more predictable than it ought to be. Bear in mind that the entire philosophy of this offense is to avoid predictability.

Say, just hypothetically, they traded for Tyler Lockett, re-signed MVS, and then drafted a receiver in rounds 1 and 2.

A receiving corps of Lockett, MVS, rookie, Lazard, and Cobb, plus the options at RB and TE could absolutely result in a more effective passing game than they had with Adams on the roster, especially if Rodgers doesn't start hyper-focusing on any one of those players.

As far as the playoffs go, I don't really see why we would assume we need an elite receiver to win tough playoff games when we've had that elite receiver for the last three postseasons and it didn't amount to anything.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,239
Reaction score
1,530
I don't know who those fans are, but in my post that you're quoting I gave actual numbers. The %'s would be 32% of pass attempts and 34% of completions. To put those numbers in some context, here are a few comps:

TB: 18% and 20%
BUF: 25% and 25%
KC: 24% and 25%

To your second comment, let me just say that I agree that if the season started today, and Rodgers' top receivers were Allen Lazard, Randall Cobb, and Amari Rodgers, I would not argue that spreading targets would be enough to keep them at an elite level for an entire season. They have to add quality options to the offense. My argument is that a variety of quality options has proven and could continue to prove more effective that a single elite option soaking up an outsized amount of offensive focus and making the offense more predictable than it ought to be. Bear in mind that the entire philosophy of this offense is to avoid predictability.

Say, just hypothetically, they traded for Tyler Lockett, re-signed MVS, and then drafted a receiver in rounds 1 and 2.

A receiving corps of Lockett, MVS, rookie, Lazard, and Cobb, plus the options at RB and TE could absolutely result in a more effective passing game than they had with Adams on the roster, especially if Rodgers doesn't start hyper-focusing on any one of those players.

As far as the playoffs go, I don't really see why we would assume we need an elite receiver to win tough playoff games when we've had that elite receiver for the last three postseasons and it didn't amount to anything.
I just do not see Amari Rogers in the mix unless he had a phenomenal preseason. I would think he will get beat out by someone else whoever that is and from wherever he comes.
 
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,115
Reaction score
3,036
I just do not see Amari Rogers in the mix unless he had a phenomenal preseason. I would think he will get beat out by someone else whoever that is and from wherever he comes.

Agree with that.

The way he looked to me on the field last year, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't make the team. Maybe he shows a lot more. I hope so.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,250
Reaction score
1,675
Location
Land 'O Lakes
I just do not see Amari Rogers in the mix unless he had a phenomenal preseason. I would think he will get beat out by someone else whoever that is and from wherever he comes.
I don't think that anybody has a reason to argue against that based upon what we saw in 2021. However, it's possible that the kid will start to figure it out after a full off-season and some self reflection.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I'm hoping we will see a larger commitment to the running game and more passing to RB's and TE's. Challenges for LaFleur to tweak the play calling and more importantly, getting his QB to play along.

The Packers lack talent at tight end to prominently feature them in the passing game as well.

I don't know who those fans are, but in my post that you're quoting I gave actual numbers. The %'s would be 32% of pass attempts and 34% of completions. To put those numbers in some context, here are a few comps:

TB: 18% and 20%
BUF: 25% and 25%
KC: 24% and 25%

It's interesting to compare it to the team which actually won the Super Bowl as well though:

LAR: 31% and 35%

My argument is that a variety of quality options has proven and could continue to prove more effective that a single elite option soaking up an outsized amount of offensive focus and making the offense more predictable than it ought to be. Bear in mind that the entire philosophy of this offense is to avoid predictability.

As far as the playoffs go, I don't really see why we would assume we need an elite receiver to win tough playoff games when we've had that elite receiver for the last three postseasons and it didn't amount to anything.

I would prefer the Packers having several quality receivers instead of only one elite as well and I agree that it's not mandatory to have one to win playoff games. My concern is that the team is currently far away from having enough talent to feature a potent passing offense though.

I just do not see Amari Rogers in the mix unless he had a phenomenal preseason. I would think he will get beat out by someone else whoever that is and from wherever he comes.

Rodgers would have to beat out by four newcomers to not make the team. I don't see that happening.
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
2,481
Reaction score
1,961
Why are people throwing Amari Rodgers under the bus, before he gets a chance to prove himself? It sounds like the same thing that happened with Donald Driver. People might want to take a look at how his career developed. It was tiring hearing people want him kicked to the curb back then too.

Driver's early stats: The log is targets, catches, yards, TDs. His first 3 years in Green Bay.

1999 - 6 - 3- 31 - 1
2000 - 49 - 21 - 322 - 1
2001 - 19 - 13 - 167 - 1
2002 - 113 - 70 - 1064 - 9

Amari Rodgers stats:

2021 - 8 - 4 - 45 - 0

Looks a lot like Driver, starting out. He also had to come through a first year where there was limited preseason, and camp. Before we start sending him packing, at least give him a chance to show if he belongs there. If we'd listened to all the downers and their sky is falling back when Driver came to Green Bay, we would have passed on one hell of a receiver.
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
3,860
Reaction score
1,769
Location
Northern IL
Why are people throwing Amari Rodgers under the bus, before he gets a chance to prove himself? It sounds like the same thing that happened with Donald Driver. People might want to take a look at how his career developed. It was tiring hearing people want him kicked to the curb back then too.

Driver's early stats: The log is targets, catches, yards, TDs. His first 3 years in Green Bay.

1999 - 6 - 3- 31 - 1
2000 - 49 - 21 - 322 - 1
2001 - 19 - 13 - 167 - 1
2002 - 113 - 70 - 1064 - 9

Amari Rodgers stats:

2021 - 8 - 4 - 45 - 0

Looks a lot like Driver, starting out. He also had to come through a first year where there was limited preseason, and camp. Before we start sending him packing, at least give him a chance to show if he belongs there. If we'd listened to all the downers and their sky is falling back when Driver came to Green Bay, we would have passed on one hell of a receiver.
I'm hoping Amari Rodgers turns out to be productive for GB, but to compare him (or his stats) to Driver's is misleading. Driver was a world-class high jumper and phenomenal athlete... Amari Rodgers is average at best. It took Driver a couple of years to get up to speed with the NFL after coming from Alcorn State... Amari Rodgers was highly productive at Clemson which should be a quick, smooth transition to the NFL.

Amari Rodgers needs to show a lot in OTA's & TC that he's ready to make the 2nd year jump or he may not make it to the 53.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,239
Reaction score
1,530
Why are people throwing Amari Rodgers under the bus, before he gets a chance to prove himself? It sounds like the same thing that happened with Donald Driver. People might want to take a look at how his career developed. It was tiring hearing people want him kicked to the curb back then too.

Driver's early stats: The log is targets, catches, yards, TDs. His first 3 years in Green Bay.

1999 - 6 - 3- 31 - 1
2000 - 49 - 21 - 322 - 1
2001 - 19 - 13 - 167 - 1
2002 - 113 - 70 - 1064 - 9

Amari Rodgers stats:

2021 - 8 - 4 - 45 - 0

Looks a lot like Driver, starting out. He also had to come through a first year where there was limited preseason, and camp. Before we start sending him packing, at least give him a chance to show if he belongs there. If we'd listened to all the downers and their sky is falling back when Driver came to Green Bay, we would have passed on one hell of a receiver.
Although when Driver came aboard we had Antonio Freeman and Bill Schroeder. Bubba Franks joined the mix soon and our QB was the gunslinger. Driver was not on the field much in 1999. Credit Mike Sherman for his development. He saw something in him and believed he would develop. Even though Sherman made the Packers a run first offense he let Favre work down the field off of that. In fact I remember Driver crying at his press conference when the Packers gave him that 1st big contract. He told his grandmother she would never have to work again. All QBs have their favorites certainly, but Favre gave everyone a chance. He had, too. There was a time when he said he did not even know the names of a couple of his receivers but he threw to them anyway. Donald became special to him for a long time.
 

Schultz

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
2,862
Reaction score
1,631
And hopefully, we can still use Jones and Dillon in the passing game as well.
I have already sent MLF suggestions on how to do this. My plan is to have both of them on the field multiple times during a game. Splitting Jones out, and the way Dillon has been as a receiver will give defenses headaches. This doesn't solve everything but I truly believe this is a great way to pick up some of the slack from the loss of DA.
 

Schultz

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
2,862
Reaction score
1,631
Just for the record, the Packers could have afforded to re-sign Douglas and Tonyan if they had extended Adams using a similar structure as the Raiders did.



That might have been a decent idea if the Packers didn't make every other move this offseason to indicate they're going all-in for next season.



The Packers can't trade Rodgers this offseason as they would take a massive additional cap hit because of it.



While Rodgers targeted Adams at a higher percentage compared to most other quarterback/receiver tandems a lot of fans make it sound like he did it on 70% of the passing attempts.



Don't get me wrong, I truly hope the Packers can keep it up without Adams for an entire season but I'm not convinced Rodgers spreading the ball around will work for an entire season with a subpar receiving corps.



I have a hard time believing the Packers' chances improve of winning those tough playoff games without an elite receiver.
Make up my mind. In an earlier post you refuted someone's argument by stating that the Packers made some moves this off season with the future in mind. Then you say this above.
 

thequick12

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
3,179
Reaction score
587
You need 1 truly elite wr and 2 really good wrs to win in the playoffs in todays nfl...

Thats called a generalization but I ll stand by it because it has been proven true majority of the time
 
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,115
Reaction score
3,036
It's interesting to compare it to the team which actually won the Super Bowl as well though:

LAR: 31% and 35%

I would prefer the Packers having several quality receivers instead of only one elite as well and I agree that it's not mandatory to have one to win playoff games. My concern is that the team is currently far away from having enough talent to feature a potent passing offense though.

Rodgers would have to beat out by four newcomers to not make the team. I don't see that happening.

That's a good point on Kupp's stats.

I think we're saying the same thing, but just with different emphasis-- you on the immediate need and me on the opportunity to address the need before the season.

Rodgers could make the roster-- we will see who all gets added. But he just looked really bad to me in his rookie year. Not in terms of production as much as just looking slow and unimpressive in his movement skills.
 
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,115
Reaction score
3,036
You need 1 truly elite wr and 2 really good wrs to win in the playoffs in todays nfl...

Thats called a generalization but I ll stand by it because it has been proven true majority of the time

I think this view is the result of be a prisoner of the moment. The most recent playoffs support this theory, but more data does not.
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
2,481
Reaction score
1,961
Regardless as to how people want to disassociate the beginnings of Driver and Amari, the reality is that year one for almost all rookie receivers is a learning year. Only those who come onto a team that is without decent receivers really get a shot at being their reception leader from day one.

Until he proves otherwise, there was something in Amari that they saw, that made them pick him when they did. He's not a big receiver, so best out of the slot, and not overly fast, at a little over 4.5 in the 40. But, if he does fill the needs, and learns from Cobb, he could be effective.

So, let's assume we're set in the slot with Amari & Cobb. Now, let's say between arguably our 3 TEs who can produce, Tonyan, Deguara, and Lewis, along with one more if they choose, and probably will, that's two spots filled.

Is Lazard ready to step up and be #1? Let's look at his stats. He's shown that he has the ability to step up, and this is his chance. Will he be our #1? I think he will, if for no other reason than his familiarity with Aaron, and the fact that Aaron was starting to feel some comfort with him as the #2 or #3. His catch percentage isn't over the top, but it's not bad either. He does know how to challenge for catches. I think he'll put up over 1,000 yards easily this year.

To me, that leaves one spot open, and it could come from free agency, but I doubt it, because the Packers just can't afford a big bucks guy. It's possible they'll spend on of their first round picks on a plug and play type guy coming out of college. There are a few that are having their coming out party this year. Remember, the Packers run an offense that also likes to use RBs as receivers.


YearAgeTmPosNo.GGSTgtRecYdsY/RTD1DLngR/GY/GCtch%Y/TgtRushYdsTD1DLngY/AY/GA/GTouchY/TchYScmRRTDFmbAV
GamesReceivingRushingTotal Yds
201823GNB13101177.0071.07.0100.0%7.017.07000
201924GNB13163523547713.6324432.229.867.3%9.2121012121.01.30.13613.8498304
202025GNBwr13109463345113.7323723.345.171.7%9.821701198.51.70.23513.4468305
202126GNBWR131513604051312.8828422.734.266.7%8.6332021410.72.10.24312.7545805
Career
��
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Why are people throwing Amari Rodgers under the bus, before he gets a chance to prove himself?

Looks a lot like Driver, starting out. He also had to come through a first year where there was limited preseason, and camp. Before we start sending him packing, at least give him a chance to show if he belongs there.

I don't think anybody is throwing Amari under the bus but there's no doubt he was a disappointment in his rookie season.

As a side note, there were no limitations in offseason practices, training camp or preseason games last year anymore.

Make up my mind. In an earlier post you refuted someone's argument by stating that the Packers made some moves this off season with the future in mind. Then you say this above.

It seems you confuse me with another poster. I was pretty clear about that the Packers seemed to be going all-in for the next few years while not putting a lot of emphasis on future seasons before they traded Adams.

Regardless as to how people want to disassociate the beginnings of Driver and Amari, the reality is that year one for almost all rookie receivers is a learning year. Only those who come onto a team that is without decent receivers really get a shot at being their reception leader from day one.

Nobody expected Amari to be the Packers' leading receiver last season, but to be more productive than he was.

Is Lazard ready to step up and be #1? Let's look at his stats. He's shown that he has the ability to step up, and this is his chance. Will he be our #1? I think he will, if for no other reason than his familiarity with Aaron, and the fact that Aaron was starting to feel some comfort with him as the #2 or #3.

The Packers would be in huge trouble if they enter the season with Lazard as the #1 receiver.

To me, that leaves one spot open, and it could come from free agency, but I doubt it, because the Packers just can't afford a big bucks guy.

The Packers currently have approximately $9 million of effective cap space available. That's definitely enough to sign a veteran free agent receiver.
 

Schultz

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
2,862
Reaction score
1,631
Do you come up with that $9 mill number after including signing their draft class and setting money aside for in season moves?
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,488
Reaction score
1,820
Agree with that.

The way he looked to me on the field last year, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't make the team. Maybe he shows a lot more. I hope so.
Gotta give the young guys some time to get acclimated.
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
3,860
Reaction score
1,769
Location
Northern IL
Do you come up with that $9 mill number after including signing their draft class and setting money aside for in season moves?
Using rough numbers for the '22 rookie pool estimates on OTC, it appears that with the addition of LV's #1 & #2 picks Gute will need close to $10mil to sign draft picks. Was estimated $5.8mil, but Raider's picks were over $4mil. Not much room to design any FA's without more cap-magic. :(
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
2,481
Reaction score
1,961
Using rough numbers for the '22 rookie pool estimates on OTC, it appears that with the addition of LV's #1 & #2 picks Gute will need close to $10mil to sign draft picks. Was estimated $5.8mil, but Raider's picks were over $4mil. Not much room to design any FA's without more cap-magic. :(
So Cap's figures didn't include this? It makes it even more difficult in finding cap room as needed during the season, let alone for a free agent signing.

The only thing I see happening is a possible free agent signing where they can release someone already on the roster, and free up cap in the meantime because of it.
 

kevans74

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 16, 2017
Messages
1,122
Reaction score
274
Location
USA
Gotta give the young guys some time to get acclimated.

Yeah rookie WRs "usually" look kind of bad and are historically the hardest to develop

I mean, I'd love to have had Justin Jefferson or Jamar Chase, but that doesn't always happen
 

realitybytez

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 19, 2021
Messages
727
Reaction score
337
Location
central coast california
Do you come up with that $9 mill number after including signing their draft class and setting money aside for in season moves?
Using rough numbers for the '22 rookie pool estimates on OTC, it appears that with the addition of LV's #1 & #2 picks Gute will need close to $10mil to sign draft picks. Was estimated $5.8mil, but Raider's picks were over $4mil. Not much room to design any FA's without more cap-magic. :(

i'm not sure but i think you may be mistaken. otc currently says that we are $15,139,028 under the cap. otc has rookie pool (total cap dollars) at $13,625,941. they also say this about the rookie pool: "Cap space required to sign rooks is less than rookie pool b/c every draft pick will replace a player already counting against the cap." Effective cap space needed = Rookie Pool - ($705,000 x number of picks) = $5,870,941"

by my calculation, that means we have about $9,268,087 in cap space if you include signing the draft picks. but this does not include setting aside money for in-season moves. and of course, if/when we extend jaire, that would likely free up another 5 or 6 million.
 
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,115
Reaction score
3,036
Gotta give the young guys some time to get acclimated.

I’d be happy for him to succeed and he will certainly have the chance, but I just didn’t see the flashes at all to make me think that he will.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,781
Reaction score
905
I think there is actually a very reasonable explanation.

Rodgers hyper-targets Adams. This yields the great result of an elite WR producing a lot, but it also yields the bad result of the offense becoming more predictable and less specific to the weaknesses of the opponent.

This still baffles me at times. Why do fans blame the best QB in NFL history for targeting Adams? Why don't fans use that hyper-targeting as evidence that maybe, just maybe, the other receivers aren't very good?

Which is more likely? That the best QB in the league is wrong or that the crap-shoot that is the NFL draft (especially late-round NFL draft) isn't a sure-fire way to build the receiver room?
 

Staff online

Members online

Latest posts

Top