Three Moves For 2022 Push To Consider...

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
2,530
Reaction score
716
Location
Northern IL
While I think we’d be functional with the current group, I see us 1 more weapon away from turning the group into a fierce competition for top dog. If we were able to get Julio for anything in the single digits? I’d be elated. The guy is still formidable if left unchecked, even at this stage of his career. Tie his contract to his playing time as long as it doesn’t exceed 10M ceiling range.

It’s like a bunch of WR misfits, but us kids LOVED the island of Misfits!

Julio
Watson
Lazard
Cobb
Watkins
Doubs

Sending JJ, Watson and Doubs deep while Lazard, Cobb and Watkins tear you up underneath. That doesn’t look so bad at all. Might even be a dangerous group of misfits if they work together well. :)

In 2021 GB lined-up 3 WR's 61% of the plays, and 29% used 2 WR's. 90% of the offensive plays used 3 or less WR's and only 4% of the formations utilized 4 WR's. We would all like to see a slightly more run-oriented play-call mix and I'd love to see more 2 RB sets, whether run or pass out of it. Don't know that we really need Julio or any other aging vet, just need the WR's we have to run the correct routes and continue blocking well on runs.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
1,101
You stated we took no wide receivers and listed one amongst the picks.

Only way around that is if you edited you post. Not a big deal was amusing as all.
Yeah, I get it. I meant no WR of consequence as of yet. Besides I originally typed if we had taken a WR with all those picks and decided to add the "or any" afterwards. I shoulda left it alone.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,159
Reaction score
477

In 2021 GB lined-up 3 WR's 61% of the plays, and 29% used 2 WR's. 90% of the offensive plays used 3 or less WR's and only 4% of the formations utilized 4 WR's. We would all like to see a slightly more run-oriented play-call mix and I'd love to see more 2 RB sets, whether run or pass out of it. Don't know that we really need Julio or any other aging vet, just need the WR's we have to run the correct routes and continue blocking well on runs.

Why would we want a more run oriented approach? I get that the packers might be forced to go that route, but the passing game makes for FAR better offense in today’s NFL and intentionally trying to fight against rule changes that emphasize passing seems nonsensical. Especially when your team just signed the QB to the highest average salary in NFL history.
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
2,530
Reaction score
716
Location
Northern IL
Why would we want a more run oriented approach? I get that the packers might be forced to go that route, but the passing game makes for FAR better offense in today’s NFL and intentionally trying to fight against rule changes that emphasize passing seems nonsensical. Especially when your team just signed the QB to the highest average salary in NFL history.
I said "slightly" more run oriented, and why not with RB talent of Jones AND Dillon? In '21 they only lined up with 2RB-1TE-2WR on 2% of plays. I think that would be an incredibly flexible (run or pass) & productive formation...but I'm not the OC. :(. It drives me crazy when GB attempts 3 passes & then the offense is standing on the sidelines. Love 10 play, grind out 1st down scoring drives, which require a solid run game.
 
Last edited:

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,593
Reaction score
2,352

In 2021 GB lined-up 3 WR's 61% of the plays, and 29% used 2 WR's. 90% of the offensive plays used 3 or less WR's and only 4% of the formations utilized 4 WR's. We would all like to see a slightly more run-oriented play-call mix and I'd love to see more 2 RB sets, whether run or pass out of it. Don't know that we really need Julio or any other aging vet, just need the WR's we have to run the correct routes and continue blocking well on runs.

I don't think anyone is advocating for the Packers to use 4+ wide receiver sets more often but to improve the talent of the ones actually on the field.

It drives me crazy when GB attempts 3 passes & then the offense is standing on the sidelines.

Just for the record, the Packers had a total of 42 three-and-outs last season, only 11 of them after they threw the ball three times.
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
2,530
Reaction score
716
Location
Northern IL
Just for the record, the Packers had a total of 42 three-and-outs last season, only 11 of them after they threw the ball three times.
So you're saying I went crazy 11 times last season?!?! ;) There's no reason this team, with AR at QB, should be punting more than once or twice/game. The offense needs to move the chains and score, 2.333 3&outs per game is unacceptable, IMHO. GB was the least penalized team in the league in 2021 and I expect that to continue, so it shouldn't be an excuse. https://www.footballdb.com/stats/penalties.html
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
8,903
Reaction score
2,293
So you're saying I went crazy 11 times last season?!?! ;) There's no reason this team, with AR at QB, should be punting more than once or twice/game. The offense needs to move the chains and score, 2.333 3&outs per game is unacceptable, IMHO. GB was the least penalized team in the league in 2021 and I expect that to continue, so it shouldn't be an excuse. https://www.footballdb.com/stats/penalties.html
One factor is going to be improved ST. Our starting field position is a key to avoid stalling drives. Once we advance past the opponent 45 yard line and get in a 3rd-4th n short, it makes it much easier to keep pressing on Offense. Expect us to pound our way to moving the chains if we’re less than 2 yards.
Also as someone else said, playing clean No ST penalty yardage or O false starts, holding calls etc..

It helps starting at our 30-40 yard-line occasionally. One 1st down puts you near midfield.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,159
Reaction score
477
I said "slightly" more run oriented, and why not with RB talent of Jones AND Dillon? In '21 they only lined up with 2RB-1TE-2WR on 2% of plays. I think that would be an incredibly flexible (run or pass) & productive formation...but I'm not the OC. :(. It drives me crazy when GB attempts 3 passes & then the offense is standing on the sidelines. Love 10 play, grind out 1st down scoring drives, which require a solid run game.

I enjoy teen play drives as well, but i also know that drives with a play of over 20+ yards are VASTLY more likely to get points than drives that are just a series of 3-4 yard plays with a couple 10 yarders thrown in there.

The packers are already one of the more run oriented offenses in the league, i really don’t want them to go full Titans.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
8,903
Reaction score
2,293
Actually the Packers ranked 17th in '21, 7th highest run/pass ratio in '20, and 18th in '19. https://www.fftoday.com/stats/21_run_pass_ratios.html
The Packers are so much more capable at Running the ball than the 2021 season. The biggest area of improvement is upfront blocking. We have a pretty good excuse with up to 4 starters out at one point in the season.

Im ok with running it slightly more.. top 10-15 range, but I’m more interested in us attaining a better per carry rushing average. I think that can improve between 0.5-1.0 yards per carry if we put some focus on it. Especially with all the investment at OL and returning OL talent this season.

Increasing the carries to 475 (from 446) range and increasing the per carry average by .75 yard per carry is 356 yards more per season. That alone would get teams to increase their commitment to our Run game. That’s exactly what we want. Punish them underneath, bring them into the Box, then Annihilate them in the passing game.
 
Last edited:

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
4,685
Reaction score
695

In 2021 GB lined-up 3 WR's 61% of the plays, and 29% used 2 WR's. 90% of the offensive plays used 3 or less WR's and only 4% of the formations utilized 4 WR's. We would all like to see a slightly more run-oriented play-call mix and I'd love to see more 2 RB sets, whether run or pass out of it. Don't know that we really need Julio or any other aging vet, just need the WR's we have to run the correct routes and continue blocking well on runs.
I'm all in on the 2 RB sets. Jones on any given play teamed with Dillon can line up in the backfield, split wide as a WR, or in the slot. He can also motion between any of the 3 positions and be used on end arounds or jet sweeps. Aaron Jones alone can keep the entire back 7 of the defense guessing as to how he is used on any given play. Imo, this will stress defensive communications, schemes and responsibilities.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
1,101
I'm all in on the 2 RB sets. Jones on any given play teamed with Dillon can line up in the backfield, split wide as a WR, or in the slot. He can also motion between any of the 3 positions and be used on end arounds or jet sweeps. Aaron Jones alone can keep the entire back 7 of the defense guessing as to how he is used on any given play. Imo, this will stress defensive communications, schemes and responsibilities.
If only someone reading this could find out just how many times Dillon and Jones were on the field at the same time. My guess is not very many. I'm not sure I would expect many more this year either. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing it more I'm just not sure it will happen.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
4,685
Reaction score
695
If only someone reading this could find out just how many times Dillon and Jones were on the field at the same time. My guess is not very many. I'm not sure I would expect many more this year either. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing it more I'm just not sure it will happen.
If I were the play caller, I'd show that package at least once on every drive. If for no other reason than to see the defense's ability to react to it and defend it adequately.
I think the package has a myriad of ways to screw with the heads of defenders, especially teams that have more than one rookie playing in the back 7 or 8. I'd be looking for ways to confuse and exploit those kids. I think Rodgers would love being a part of that.
 
Last edited:

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,593
Reaction score
2,352
So you're saying I went crazy 11 times last season?!?! ;) There's no reason this team, with AR at QB, should be punting more than once or twice/game. The offense needs to move the chains and score, 2.333 3&outs per game is unacceptable, IMHO.

The Packers were seventh best in punts and eighth best in three-and-outs per drive. While that numbers aren't elite they're better than most other teams in the league.

Our starting field position is a key to avoid stalling drives.

Actually the Packers had the sixth best starting field position per drive (29.88) in the league last season.
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
2,530
Reaction score
716
Location
Northern IL
The Packers were seventh best in punts and eighth best in three-and-outs per drive. While that numbers aren't elite they're better than most other teams in the league.
The Packers had the league MVP at QB in AR, the best WR in Adams, and the 3rd best RB duo w/ Jones & Dillon in 2021. GB led the league in fewest penalties... why weren't they 1st in both categories? I'm not satisfied with top-25% when the offense has that much talent. Even without Adams I expect much better things from this offense.

 
Last edited:

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,593
Reaction score
2,352
The Packers had the league MVP at QB in AR, the best WR in Adams, and the 3rd best RB duo w/ Jones & Dillon in 2021. GB led the league in fewest penalties... why weren't they 1st in both categories? I'm not satisfied with top-25% when the offense has that much talent. Even without Adams I expect much better things from this offense.


Most importantly, the Packers finished only 10th in points scored last season. I expected them to perform at a higher level as well but it might be smart to usr it as a cautionary tale that just because of Rodgers the offense will excel no matter who lines up at receiver.
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
9,152
Reaction score
2,164
Here's another move I'd jingle Buffalo's phone for....

AJ Epenesa is buried on their roster now after not becoming what they'd hoped after being picked 54th in 2020 draft. They not only took Rousseau in round 1 (2021) they also took Carlos Basham in the 2nd round who did well in limited games....they've also now added Von Miller and brough back Shaq Lawson...

If Buffalo would come off of Epenesa for a reasonable pick in return at this point (conditionally maybe becomes a 4th) it could be a win/win for both teams if Gute prefers to go future prospect over a veteran option for depth. Personally I like our young guys (Garvin, Enagabare, Manac) and prefer a veteran, however this is an intriguing thought and one with merit depending how high Gute and Co were on Epenesa that year in the draft.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
14,095
Reaction score
2,240
Top 10 is pretty good considering the constant revolving door along the offensive line, no TE's to speak of and limited WR's. Handicap an offense with poor WR's, they're ok, we were pretty good. Hamstring them with no TE's, they can get by, we did better than get by. Decimate their Oline? They usually suck all season, we continued to win and we didn't get stuck with 1 of those things, we had all 3 and then our top 3 RB duo was a 1 man show in our last game. and still it would have been enough had we fielded a mediocre ST's
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,159
Reaction score
477
Most importantly, the Packers finished only 10th in points scored last season. I expected them to perform at a higher level as well but it might be smart to usr it as a cautionary tale that just because of Rodgers the offense will excel no matter who lines up at receiver.

Packers scored on 44.5% of their offensive possessions last season (7th in the league and 0.7% away from 5th). The offense was very good last season and the 9 missed field goals certainly didn't help the points ranking.

The offense will most likely be lower ranked this season because the defense should hold opponents to few enough points that the offense can run time off the clock rather than be forced to try and outpace opponents every week AND the offense will almost certainly start the first half of the year slowly while they figure out the passing offense.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,593
Reaction score
2,352
Packers scored on 44.5% of their offensive possessions last season (7th in the league and 0.7% away from 5th). The offense was very good last season and the 9 missed field goals certainly didn't help the points ranking.

You're right, the Packers finishing only 31st in field goal percentage definitely factored into them not finishing in the top five in points scored last season.
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
9,152
Reaction score
2,164
I just don't understand not moving on from Lowry more and more everyday. Yes he isn't a bad player, however the dude is carrying a price tag of $8M this year and 5+M could be saved with releasing/cutting him. We've added Reed, Wyatt and Slaton was growing late into last season.

Not too mention there are plenty of "role" type guys like Ryan Kerrigan, Justin Houston, Alex Okafor, Everson Griffin or even Carl Nassib out there that could easily be added for a 1/4 of Lowry's cost most likely as insurance of losing him. That would leave about $2-$4M depending which could easily cover cost of PS elevations, in season moves and/or an experienced OLB for that crucial 3rd/4th spot at OLB we are thin or inexperienced at.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
1,101
I just don't understand not moving on from Lowry more and more everyday. Yes he isn't a bad player, however the dude is carrying a price tag of $8M this year and 5+M could be saved with releasing/cutting him. We've added Reed, Wyatt and Slaton was growing late into last season.

Not too mention there are plenty of "role" type guys like Ryan Kerrigan, Justin Houston, Alex Okafor, Everson Griffin or even Carl Nassib out there that could easily be added for a 1/4 of Lowry's cost most likely as insurance of losing him. That would leave about $2-$4M depending which could easily cover cost of PS elevations, in season moves and/or an experienced OLB for that crucial 3rd/4th spot at OLB we are thin or inexperienced at.
We can save the 5 million at any point if we need it. Its not like its going anywhere. If someone comes along that we want and we need the money cut him. If no one comes along keep him. I get what you are saying about similar but cheaper guys do you cut a guy that knows your system just to have the money in the bank so to speak. We can get that money at any point as long as we cut him before the season starts so there is no real need to cut him now.
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
9,152
Reaction score
2,164
We can save the 5 million at any point if we need it. Its not like its going anywhere. If someone comes along that we want and we need the money cut him. If no one comes along keep him. I get what you are saying about similar but cheaper guys do you cut a guy that knows your system just to have the money in the bank so to speak. We can get that money at any point as long as we cut him before the season starts so there is no real need to cut him now.

Believe me I get this as well.
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
9,152
Reaction score
2,164
So why the hurry to get rid of him?
Because I believe that side of the argument potentially builds a better team than current.

If he makes getting a legit #3 OLB veteran and say a fourth CB or maybe afford Julio addition I’m all in
 

Members online

Top