Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Adams Poll
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dantés" data-source="post: 953570" data-attributes="member: 12283"><p>I think there is actually a very reasonable explanation.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Adams had 169 targets last year (104 more than the next highest!), or 10 per game. While he was out, only once did a player top 8 targets. The passing game was more diverse, less predictable, and (I would assume) more specifically tailored to the opponent. The absence of Adams forced Rodgers to just take what the defense was giving him within the scheme, and he's so good that when he's doing that, it can be deadly. </p><p></p><p>And we have all seen the many still shots of Rodgers targeting a covered Adams over an open Lazard, MVS, Tonyan, etc. </p><p></p><p>I'll keep reiterating that I'm not saying they're better without him. But there is a rational explanation for why they thrived without him in those games and thus reason to believe that they can still be a top offense with different receiving options (though obviously if the season started today, they'd be in trouble).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dantés, post: 953570, member: 12283"] 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. Adams had 169 targets last year (104 more than the next highest!), or 10 per game. While he was out, only once did a player top 8 targets. The passing game was more diverse, less predictable, and (I would assume) more specifically tailored to the opponent. The absence of Adams forced Rodgers to just take what the defense was giving him within the scheme, and he's so good that when he's doing that, it can be deadly. And we have all seen the many still shots of Rodgers targeting a covered Adams over an open Lazard, MVS, Tonyan, etc. I'll keep reiterating that I'm not saying they're better without him. But there is a rational explanation for why they thrived without him in those games and thus reason to believe that they can still be a top offense with different receiving options (though obviously if the season started today, they'd be in trouble). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Staff online
PikeBadger
Moderator
Members online
Firethorn1001
PikeBadger
tynimiller
Pkrjones
ExpatPacker
gatorpack
gonzozab
sschind
shockerx
Sanguine camper
weeds
MadCat
gopkrs
Latest posts
2024 draft discussion thread
Latest: PikeBadger
A moment ago
Draft Talk
2024 Draft-- Media Stuff
Latest: Thirteen Below
46 minutes ago
Draft Talk
S
2024 Salary Cap as related to Free Agency
Latest: sschind
Today at 8:11 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Posting draft picks
Latest: Poppa San
Today at 7:33 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
162-0
Latest: weeds
Today at 6:47 PM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Adams Poll
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top