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
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?

Well I would never want to rob a guy of a good baffling, but it turns out that these two ideas aren't contradictory.

Adams was head and shoulders the best target on the team, so it made sense that he would lead the team in targets by a wide margin. I've never seen or heard of anyone blaming Rodgers for targeting Adams more than everyone else.

But Rodgers still over-did it at times to the detriment of the entire offense, and that would explain why the offense was still strong without Adams-- spreading the ball around within the context of the scheme proved very effective.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,781
Reaction score
905
But Rodgers still over-did it at times to the detriment of the entire offense, and that would explain why the offense was still strong without Adams-- spreading the ball around within the context of the scheme proved very effective.

This is the part I don't get. I trust that the guy who is better at his job than literally anyone else in the world knows what he's doing. Further, I will tend to look at things in a favorable light for that person; in this case it just tells me that the other receivers weren't reliable/good enough to earn that target share. The blame gets put on Rodgers for something that should really be blamed on the other receivers and, even more so, on Gute for not getting other players on the team that could earn those targets.

Basically, I don't get the idea that the 5th round WR was certifiably more deserving of targets just because Rodgers threw the ball to Adams so much. Just because a 5th rounf WR was the 2nd best receiver on the team doesn't detract from the fact that he was still a day 3 pick and it's EXTREMELY rare for those guys to amount to much in the NFL.

I get that the Packers played well without Adams which says a lot about the coaches but saying the offense was not as good without Adams because Rodgers was forced to pass to sub-par receivers is a logic I just can't get behind.
 
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,115
Reaction score
3,036
This is the part I don't get. I trust that the guy who is better at his job than literally anyone else in the world knows what he's doing. Further, I will tend to look at things in a favorable light for that person; in this case it just tells me that the other receivers weren't reliable/good enough to earn that target share. The blame gets put on Rodgers for something that should really be blamed on the other receivers and, even more so, on Gute for not getting other players on the team that could earn those targets.

Basically, I don't get the idea that the 5th round WR was certifiably more deserving of targets just because Rodgers threw the ball to Adams so much. Just because a 5th rounf WR was the 2nd best receiver on the team doesn't detract from the fact that he was still a day 3 pick and it's EXTREMELY rare for those guys to amount to much in the NFL.

I get that the Packers played well without Adams which says a lot about the coaches but saying the offense was not as good without Adams because Rodgers was forced to pass to sub-par receivers is a logic I just can't get behind.

I hear what you’re saying. Truly, I do.

But I don’t think that pointing out a flaw in Rodgers, specifically hyper targeting Adams, is de facto saying that I know better than him. He’s immeasurably beyond me in how he understands, processes, and plays the game. But, with the benefit of hindsight and a bird’s eye view, I can still see where he’s flawed.

I think we all agree about this, right? Don’t we all see flaws in various players? Because if we extended the logic, none of us could ever say anything negative about any player because they all know a lot more than we do about playing the game.

And I think this particular critique authenticates itself because results are results. When Rodgers was forced to spread the ball around, the offense was actually better.

I don’t think that’s as much a comment on the other players as much as a comment on the system.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,239
Reaction score
1,530
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.
Well. It worked in the days of Hornung and Taylor. Why not? Defenses rarely see a true deuce backfield anymore. Give them something else to worry about.
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,382
Reaction score
4,105
Location
Milwaukee
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?
then how did they get to 7 n 0 with out Adams if all the other recieving options aren't very good?
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,781
Reaction score
905
then how did they get to 7 n 0 with out Adams if all the other recieving options aren't very good?

Good coaching and an amazing QB over intermittent games? Going into a game or two without a guy is vastly different than going without that guy for an entire season; certain plays and tricks you run without Adams might be surprising for a few games but does the coaching staff have enough to do that for 17 games and the playoffs? Do you honestly believe the Packers will now go 17-0 without Adams?
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,382
Reaction score
4,105
Location
Milwaukee
Good coaching and an amazing QB over intermittent games? Going into a game or two without a guy is vastly different than going without that guy for an entire season; certain plays and tricks you run without Adams might be surprising for a few games but does the coaching staff have enough to do that for 17 games and the playoffs? Do you honestly believe the Packers will now go 17-0 without Adams?
Again with that stupid question but of course they won't... I never once said they would.. you and a few others seem to deny it's a fact

maybe it forces Aaron and Matt to re think things

Dante already posted the teams they played with out and the ranking. It wasn't like those teams were horrible..

it wasnt 2 games, it was almost a half of a season worth of games and huge numbers put up to boot.
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,382
Reaction score
4,105
Location
Milwaukee
Some numbers on the Packers under LaFleur when missing Adams.

2019, Week 5, @DAL:

-34 points scored (allowed 20.1/gm in 2019)
-Rodgers: 22/34, 238 yards, 0 TD, 0 INT
-Jones: 19/107/4 (rushing TD's of 1, 3, 5, and 18 yards)
-No player over 8 targets
-13 catches for running backs

2019, Week 6, Vs DET:

-23 points scored (allowed 26.4/gm in 2019)
-Rodgers: 24/39, 2 TD, 1 INT
-No player over 7 targets
-8 catches for running backs

2019, Week 7, Vs OAK:

-42 points scored (allowed 26.2/gm in 2019)
-Rodgers: 25/31, 429, 5 TD, 0 INT
-No player over 5 targets
-10 catches for running backs

2019, Week 8, @KC:

-31 points scored (allowed 19.3/gm in 2019)
-Rodgers: 23/33, 305 yards, 3 TD, 0 INT
-No player over 8 targets
-10 catches for running backs

2020, Week 3, @NO:

-37 points scored (allowed 21.1/gm in 2020)
-Rodgers: 21/32, 283 yards, 3 TD, 0 INT
-No player over 8 targets
-5 catches for running backs

2020, Week 4, Vs. ATL:

-30 points scored (allowed 25.9/gm in 2020)
-Rodgers: 27/33, 327, 4 TD, 0 INT
-No player over 8 targets
-14 catches for running backs

2021, Week 8, @ ARI:

-24 points scored (allowed 21.5/gm in 2021)
-Rodgers: 22/37, 184 yards, 2 TD, 0 INT
-Aaron Jones w/ 11 targets; no one else over 6
-7 catches for running backs

Totals:

-Record: 7-0
-Points/Game: 31.6
-Rodgers Totals: 164/239 (68.6%), 2049 yards (8.6 YPA), 19 TD, 1 INT
-Points above opp. average: 8.6*
-Only one instance of a player topping 8 targets
-67 catches for running backs, or just shy of 10 per game

*This means that the Packers outscored the opponents' average points allowed number by an average of 8.6 ppg.
@Sunshinepacker here are facts and stats for those 7 games
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,781
Reaction score
905
@Sunshinepacker here are facts and stats for those 7 games

The Packers are a very good team. I agree that I don't think Adams leaving the team is going to crater the offense. I would also point out that none of those teams across that sample were what I would call a good defense. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the Packers are truly better without a single good receiver and just relying entirely on Rodgers. I would prefer the team to have at least two good receivers but that's just my opinion.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,488
Reaction score
1,820
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.
I didn't see anything to distinguish him from Malik Taylor. They look similar to me.
 
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,115
Reaction score
3,036
This debate is becoming tedious to me. Seems like a lot of talking past each other.

Losing Adams does NOT make the Packers better.

Playing more within the structure of the offense could help mitigate his loss, though the total effect of losing Adams is clearly negative.

Adding talent to the WR corps via FA, trade, and draft combined with playing more within the context of the offense could mean the offense is as good or better in 2022 as it’s been the last two seasons.
 
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,115
Reaction score
3,036
The Packers are a very good team. I agree that I don't think Adams leaving the team is going to crater the offense. I would also point out that none of those teams across that sample were what I would call a good defense. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the Packers are truly better without a single good receiver and just relying entirely on Rodgers. I would prefer the team to have at least two good receivers but that's just my opinion.

A couple of them were pretty strong defenses. But regardless, the Packers scored on average 9 more points than what the opposing defense typically allowed.
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,382
Reaction score
4,105
Location
Milwaukee
A couple of them were pretty strong defenses. But regardless, the Packers scored on average 9 more points than what the opposing defense typically allowed.
The Packers are a very good team. I agree that I don't think Adams leaving the team is going to crater the offense. I would also point out that none of those teams across that sample were what I would call a good defense. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the Packers are truly better without a single good receiver and just relying entirely on Rodgers. I would prefer the team to have at least two good receivers but that's just my opinion.
Points allowed

Dallas ended up with number 11 in points given up

KC was 7

NO was 5

Ari was 11

yeah not very good def
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,781
Reaction score
905
Points allowed

Dallas ended up with number 11 in points given up

KC was 7

NO was 5

Ari was 11

yeah not very good def

Huh, didn't know that. Thanks for the update. I'm still leery of believing the Packers will be fine without any above-average receivers but maybe they will be.
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,382
Reaction score
4,105
Location
Milwaukee
Huh, didn't know that. Thanks for the update. I'm still leery of believing the Packers will be fine without any above-average receivers but maybe they will be.
If you didn't know why claim as you did?

you may not believe it, I do understand how you feel. it makes no sense , but facts are there.

doesn't mean this year it works. But it also doesn't mean it can't work.
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
2,481
Reaction score
1,961
Everyone needs to take a deep breath, and exhale slowly. The Packers will find a respectable WR or two out of free agency, and they will more than likely draft the best one available with their first pick in the draft, if one is available.

For a player whose career has been shattered by an injury, and is looking for redemption, a two-year contract, with an out in year two is a great opportunity in GB with Rodgers at QB. A chance to rebuild a career, through one year of rehab in a proven system for wide receivers.

The angst everyone has is the same as there was in the past, when it came to the offensive line, and they found ways to plug those gaps as well.
 

thequick12

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
3,179
Reaction score
587
then how did they get to 7 n 0 with out Adams if all the other recieving options aren't very good?
The Packers are a very good team. I agree that I don't think Adams leaving the team is going to crater the offense. I would also point out that none of those teams across that sample were what I would call a good defense. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the Packers are truly better without a single good receiver and just relying entirely on Rodgers. I would prefer the team to have at least two good receivers but that's just my opinion.

Rodgers is best when he has 5 or 6 very good pass catching options...think Driver Jennings, Jones, Nelson, Cobb, and Finley
 

realitybytez

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 19, 2021
Messages
727
Reaction score
337
Location
central coast california
Rodgers is best when he has 5 or 6 very good pass catching options...think Driver Jennings, Jones, Nelson, Cobb, and Finley
the problem is that gute never picked any of those guys - or anyone like them. and gutes the guy who will make the decisions in this draft. as i've said before, i do not trust his judgment at all when it comes to drafting wide receivers.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
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.

That's correct aside of the fact that the Packers could save up to $9.8 million of cap space by extending Alexander.

The angst everyone has is the same as there was in the past, when it came to the offensive line, and they found ways to plug those gaps as well.

Rodgers definitely made the offensive line look way better than it actually was last season.
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
2,481
Reaction score
1,961
Coaching helped make the offensive line look better last year, as well as Rodgers. They quicker release in passes, moving the pocket, play action, and a lot of short pass routes, all gauged to give them a better opportunity to succeed.

But, no matter how good the plan is, from the coaching, you gotta have that QB who can make it happen. Rodgers does.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,239
Reaction score
1,530
Coaching helped make the offensive line look better last year, as well as Rodgers. They quicker release in passes, moving the pocket, play action, and a lot of short pass routes, all gauged to give them a better opportunity to succeed.

But, no matter how good the plan is, from the coaching, you gotta have that QB who can make it happen. Rodgers does.
I just hope Clements is able to give Rodgers some insight that he will actually use in the game. As smart as he is and as great as he is even the best of us tend to put blinders on once in a while. Maybe that will enlighten him to spread the ball more and go to some of those other targets. That is of course if we get those targets.
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
2,481
Reaction score
1,961
I just hope Clements is able to give Rodgers some insight that he will actually use in the game. As smart as he is and as great as he is even the best of us tend to put blinders on once in a while. Maybe that will enlighten him to spread the ball more and go to some of those other targets. That is of course if we get those targets.
I think all of that comes into play. At the NFL level, people like Clements, LeFleur, and Rodgers, all know how important the dynamics of covering for weaknesses you have are. They'll be working on getting rid of the ball quicker, and turning some of those enthusiastic pass rushes against them into nice running gains through delayed hand offs, and play action.

This is not a dumb group of people, and we need to remember that when we talk about how they will or won't succeed.

Personally, I believe this is going to be an exciting year in regards to the offense. It may start a little haphazard, but I think it's going to be something that makes us all take notice before the season is over.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Maybe that will enlighten him to spread the ball more and go to some of those other targets. That is of course if we get those targets.

With Adams gone Rodgers will be forced to spread the ball around more than in the past few seasons. It remains to be seen if the talent level at receiver will be good enough for it to work successfully.
 

Staff online

Members online

Latest posts

Top