The Amari Rodgers Thread

Magooch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
311
Reaction score
238
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the role of a back up to play when the starters are not available? I am not as adamant as tyni but I can only wonder if Amari's head was clear of his PR mistakes (he never should have made any this year because he never should have been back there this year) just how much progress he could have made as a WR.
Well, yes, of course that's true to some extent. Obviously not everyone can start. But my point isn't that Amari failed to secure a starting role on offense but that he failed to secure any sort of role whatsoever. While I'd agree that it wouldn't really be totally fair to expect him to unseat an established starting player by this point, I also don't think it's unfair to suggest that if he had truly shown *that* much "promise" at WR that he would've received more reps than he did - at least would've played his way into being something other than a last resort type of option.
 

Magooch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
311
Reaction score
238
While I agree that Amari wasn't cut out for returning punts, I disagree that it "ruined" him. 2 rookies blew right by him on the depth chart and even Winfree got more snaps on offense when he was called up.

I can't believe they released him, if they thought he had potential to be a good WR. Seems they gave him one last shot to make it and that was as a punt returner, not a WR.
Yep, that's kind of what I was getting at. I can't fault him too much for not carving out a big role as a rookie but he also didn't really make much of a "step" in year two and was pretty quickly surpassed by some rookies and in all likelihood probably found himself as our 7th-choice option at WR, best-case scenario (In no order, I would wager that all of Watson, Watkins, Cobb, Lazard, Doubs, and Toure are/were viewed ahead of him as WRs and I wouldn't be surprised if Winfree or even non-WRs were considered ahead, too). Recall last season when all of Adams, Lazard, and MVS were out vs the Cardinals; Amari got 16 snaps while Winfree got 54.

I think I already mentioned it but recall this exchange after week one (In which Amari received zero snaps on offense while Winfree was on the field for nine with Lazard absent):
Reporter: "Aaron, what is the outlook on Amari Rodgers and where he fits in this offense?" "...Last year, he was pretty non-existent on offense and then last week he didn't get out there for an offensive snap"
Aaron Rodgers: "Yeah, he's returning for us right now. That's all I got on that."

I think that should make it pretty clear where Amari's prospects stood on offense. I know Rodgers has his favorites and not-favorites but I seriously doubt that was his decision to make - in either direction, if (Aaron) Rodgers thought Amari had great promise as a WR and campaigned for him to get more snaps I guarantee he'd get more snaps. And if LaFleur or whoever were so convinced in Amari's promise, they'd give him more snaps, too.

As Pokerbrat2000 said, it seems to me less like the team viewed him as more suited to returning kicks than catching passes but rather that they fairly quickly determined there wasn't any fit for him in the offense (in spite of the WR room being completely gutted) and that a punt return position was pretty much his last shot at having any sort of appreciable impact on the team.

And of course in a twisted way they were right; he did have an appreciable impact on the team on punt returns, albeit largely a negative one. :D
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
4,264
Reaction score
684
Well, yes, of course that's true to some extent. Obviously not everyone can start. But my point isn't that Amari failed to secure a starting role on offense but that he failed to secure any sort of role whatsoever. While I'd agree that it wouldn't really be totally fair to expect him to unseat an established starting player by this point, I also don't think it's unfair to suggest that if he had truly shown *that* much "promise" at WR that he would've received more reps than he did - at least would've played his way into being something other than a last resort type of option.
I can't completely agree with this. Of course it is possible. And I am not here referring particularly to Amari. But these coaches do not tend to give people many chances to prove themselves. I don't think Toure would be playing at all if it was not for other injuries and he has things to offer in different situations. McDuffie right now looks very good and I don't think he would have been given much of a chance and may not in the future. Replacing Stokes was probably not even considered and that may work out very well. And others. And then fans can say well if he showed something in practice...
 

Spanky

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
532
Reaction score
278
Amari picked up by the Texans.


Picked up by a team that has zero desire to win any games for the rest of the season. That's actually pretty smart. They should make him their #1 punt returner and #1 WR. I'd even have him return kickoffs. He'd probably end the season with 20 fumbles and contribute significantly to several losses.

Roger Goodell: And with the first pick in the 2023 NFL draft, the Houston Texans select Bryce Young, Quarterback, from the University of Alabama.


Jim Irsay is probably wishing the Colts could have picked up Amari.
 
Last edited:

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
1,179
Reaction score
739
Picked up by a team that has zero desire to win any games for the rest of the season. That's actually pretty smart. They should make him their #1 punt returner and #1 WR. I'd even have him return kickoffs. He'd probably end the season with 20 fumbles and contribute significantly to several losses.

Roger Goodell: And with the first pick in the 2023 NFL draft, the Houston Texans select Bryce Young, Quarterback, from the University of Alabama.


Jim Irsay is probably wishing the Colts could have picked up Amari.
I'd go with Young.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
28,277
Reaction score
2,787
The NFL rule:

On a kickoff, a player may make a fair catch inside the 25 yard line and the offense will start 1st & 10 at the 25. If a player makes a valid fair-catch signal, but a teammate catches the kick, it is still a dead ball and no return, but the offense will have 1st & 10 at the spot of the catch.

I saw that has been posted on some sites as well but taking a look at the league's rulebook it's nowhere to be found. Here's the actual part on fair catches in the official rulebook:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!


Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the role of a back up to play when the starters are not available?

True, but with a lack of talent at wide receiver a third round pick entering his second season should have been able to make a legitimate run at being one of the starters.
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
1,179
Reaction score
739
Then you better tell the league and the officials that they're doing it all wrong this year, because that's exactly how the rule is interpreted. A free kick considered a kick off, that is not returned from being in the end zone, or fair caught inside the 20 yard line comes out to the 25 yard line. This does not apply to punts because they are not "free kicks" in the same sense, unless they are after a safety has occurred.

What I'm waiting for, and never see, is when a team calls a fair catch on a punt near midfield, with time nearly up, and goes for a free kick FG for the winner, or to end the first half. It happened years ago, with the Packers, calling a fair catch, and they kicked it through. It seems like such a good way to try to put an extra 3 points on the board at halftime. Especially if the wind is at your back for the kick.
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
2,950
Reaction score
994
Location
Northern IL
What I'm waiting for, and never see, is when a team calls a fair catch on a punt near midfield, with time nearly up, and goes for a free kick FG for the winner, or to end the first half. It happened years ago, with the Packers, calling a fair catch, and they kicked it through. It seems like such a good way to try to put an extra 3 points on the board at halftime. Especially if the wind is at your back for the kick.
That would be an extremely rare situation in which a team punts from their own endzone & the ball doesn't get out past their own 45 yard line on the fair catch... which would then lead to an approximately 62 yard FG attempt. To close the half a decent coach would have the punter run around in the end zone for a few seconds & then throw an incomplete pass out of bounds (before getting safetied) rather than punt & risk the fair catch/FG with no time remaining.
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
1,179
Reaction score
739
That would be an extremely rare situation in which a team punts from their own endzone & the ball doesn't get out past their own 45 yard line on the fair catch... which would then lead to an approximately 62 yard FG attempt. To close the half a decent coach would have the punter run around in the end zone for a few seconds & then throw an incomplete pass out of bounds (before getting safetied) rather than punt & risk the fair catch/FG with no time remaining.
The last time I recall that happening was when Paul Hornung kicked the then record setting FG for the Packers, of 52 yards, back in 1964.

When Lombardi called for the fair catch, and the kick, most people were confused. Even the officials had to determine what was going on. He split the uprights just before halftime, and it stood as the Packers longest FG for nearly 50 years.

A few years back, Mason Crosby tried a 69 yard attempt in a similar situation. He missed, but not by a heck of a lot.
 

SudsMcBucky

Cheesehead
Joined
May 17, 2022
Messages
77
Reaction score
54
I saw that has been posted on some sites as well but taking a look at the league's rulebook it's nowhere to be found. Here's the actual part on fair catches in the official rulebook:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!




True, but with a lack of talent at wide receiver a third round pick entering his second season should have been able to make a legitimate run at being one of the starters.


That is a college rule.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
27,734
Reaction score
5,289
Location
Madison, WI
Then you better tell the league and the officials that they're doing it all wrong this year, because that's exactly how the rule is interpreted. A free kick considered a kick off, that is not returned from being in the end zone, or fair caught inside the 20 yard line comes out to the 25 yard line. This does not apply to punts because they are not "free kicks" in the same sense, unless they are after a safety has occurred.
Pretty sure you are confusing the college rules of a Kickoff fair catch with what they are in the NFL. In the NFL, a fair catch (on a punt or kickoff), results in the receiving team getting the ball where the fair catch was made. If the Fair catch is made in the endzone, then it is spotted on the 25.
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
1,179
Reaction score
739
Could be I confused the two, but the 25 yard line rule is in effect in the NFL. Maybe not with the fair catch, but in the end zone.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
27,734
Reaction score
5,289
Location
Madison, WI
Could be I confused the two, but the 25 yard line rule is in effect in the NFL. Maybe not with the fair catch, but in the end zone.
I think you are, because I see it quite a bit in College, don't remember ever seeing it in the NFL. But yes, most definitely if the kickoff goes into the EZ it goes out to the 25. The players don't even have to FC or touch the ball, as long as it hits the EZ.

I think had their been a rule that brought the ball out to the 25 on a "kickoff FC", we would have seen the Packers doing it. I am guessing that their average starting field position, after a KO, over the last few years, is well short of the 25.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
28,277
Reaction score
2,787

I think had their been a rule that brought the ball out to the 25 on a "kickoff FC", we would have seen the Packers doing it. I am guessing that their average starting field position, after a KO, over the last few years, is well short of the 25.

For example, this season the Packers rank 26th in the league in average starting field position after a kickoff (24.44 yards).

Last year, they were 31st at 23.89 yards.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top