What does the hiring of Tom Clements mean?

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,383
Reaction score
4,105
Location
Milwaukee
Yes, Rodgers was instrumental in the hiring, LaFleur said, but it wasn’t white-smoke confirmation that the four-time MVP is set to come back for an 18th season in Green Bay.
“He had a significant role, and I would say that in terms of just our conversations over the last couple years and how much he credits Tom for his development,
 

BrokenArrow

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
2,928
Reaction score
1,356
The Packers had significantly more talent at wide receiver around Nelson than they had over the past few years aside of Adams.

It shouldn't surprise anyone Rodgers is targeting Adams on a significant percentage of throws.
That's not the issue. The issue is targeting him when he's not open and other guys ARE.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,574
Reaction score
5,867
If Love remains intact in GB, I think Clements will do wonders for Loves development. Sometimes a more experienced second opinion is just what the Dr. Ordered.

One way or another, I think Clements year end evaluation of Love will ultimately decide the direction we go with him.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
That's not the issue. The issue is targeting him when he's not open and other guys ARE.

While I agree that Rodgers sometimes passes on throwing to an open receiver and targets Adams instead that happens with every other quarterback around the league as well. For most, at a much higher rate than it does with Rodgers.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,247
Reaction score
5,072
While I agree that Rodgers sometimes passes on throwing to an open receiver and targets Adams instead that happens with every other quarterback around the league as well. For most, at a much higher rate than it does with Rodgers.

I don't have the time but percentage of targets of the highest guy for each QB would be an interesting stat to see if it indicates you're right or not.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I don't have the time but percentage of targets of the highest guy for each QB would be an interesting stat to see if it indicates you're right or not.

Well, Stafford targeted Kupp on 31.31% of his throws last season and the Rams ended up winning the Super Bowl. That's a larger percentage than Rodgers to Adams (29.64%).

Taking a look at the numbers of other quarterbacks they don't target a single receiver that often but the situation with Rodgers and Adams is unique compared to most other teams as either they don't have a legit #1 receiver or have decent other options on the roster.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,247
Reaction score
5,072
Well, Stafford targeted Kupp on 31.31% of his throws last season and the Rams ended up winning the Super Bowl. That's a larger percentage than Rodgers to Adams (29.64%).

Taking a look at the numbers of other quarterbacks they don't target a single receiver that often but the situation with Rodgers and Adams is unique compared to most other teams as either they don't have a legit #1 receiver or have decent other options on the roster.

I get the massive targets towards Adams, but likewise I've also seen countless game examples of Rodgers and the team excelling without him - even with our "terrible" receiving options. That says something to me....and is why I still don't think we will ever see a high draft pick used on a WR as long as Adams is here, it simply isn't worth it - would have to be a special player ranked high on Gute's board to fall I feel. Especially more so if Cobb redoes deal and is here...
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,383
Reaction score
4,105
Location
Milwaukee
I get the massive targets towards Adams, but likewise I've also seen countless game examples of Rodgers and the team excelling without him - even with our "terrible" receiving options. That says something to me....and is why I still don't think we will ever see a high draft pick used on a WR as long as Adams is here, it simply isn't worth it - would have to be a special player ranked high on Gute's board to fall I feel. Especially more so if Cobb redoes deal and is here...
You mean 7 and 0 with out Adams?
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I get the massive targets towards Adams, but likewise I've also seen countless game examples of Rodgers and the team excelling without him - even with our "terrible" receiving options. That says something to me....and is why I still don't think we will ever see a high draft pick used on a WR as long as Adams is here, it simply isn't worth it - would have to be a special player ranked high on Gute's board to fall I feel. Especially more so if Cobb redoes deal and is here...

I really don't have an explanation for the Packers being 7-0 without Adams over the past three seasons, averaging 31.6 points in those games.

In my opinion the team is significantly more talented with him on the field though. In addition I would prefer Gutekunst to add a legit #2 receiver to make the offense more unpredictable.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,574
Reaction score
5,867
Honestly, it is those games where Rodgers has truly showcased just how freaking good he is.
Yea. I remember Favre doing the same thing. Targeting every player eligible to catch a ball in the same game. That’s the result of good QB coaching, utilizing O playbook and stellar QB play combined.
That shows me that there’s multiple ways to Win a game Offensively. Had The Packers had a legitimate #1 TE or #2WR in that last Divisional we would’ve chunked Our way around the field similar to the first series. Instead they just honed in on Adams and our O game plan was neutralized. That and the loss of a cold weather, power RB

The explanation for 31.6 points without our #1 is pretty clear. It speaks to spreading the ball around being formidable when opponents don’t have much film on it. That’s the lack of predictability and it’s a powerful tool and should be used more often. There’s no reason Aaron Rodgers shouldn’t be scoring 28+ average.
 
Last edited:

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
5,468
Reaction score
1,322
Well, Stafford targeted Kupp on 31.31% of his throws last season and the Rams ended up winning the Super Bowl. That's a larger percentage than Rodgers to Adams (29.64%).

Taking a look at the numbers of other quarterbacks they don't target a single receiver that often but the situation with Rodgers and Adams is unique compared to most other teams as either they don't have a legit #1 receiver or have decent other options on the roster.
So is Stafford throwing a lot to his halfback like ARod does or is Stafford also throwing more to his receivers? The 30% seems a lot more when the halfbacks are getting most of the rest.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
That shows me that there’s multiple ways to Win a game Offensively. Had The Packers had a legitimate #1 TE or #2WR in that last Divisional we would’ve chunked Our way around the field similar to the first series. Instead they just honed in on Adams and our O game plan was neutralized. That and the loss of a cold weather, power RB

Just for the record, Rodgers also targeted Jones 10 times in the playoffs vs. the Niners.

So is Stafford throwing a lot to his halfback like ARod does or is Stafford also throwing more to his receivers? The 30% seems a lot more when the halfbacks are getting most of the rest.

Rodgers (19.3%) targeted running backs at a higher rate than Stafford (12.7%) last season.
 

BrokenArrow

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
2,928
Reaction score
1,356
While I agree that Rodgers sometimes passes on throwing to an open receiver and targets Adams instead that happens with every other quarterback around the league as well. For most, at a much higher rate than it does with Rodgers.
I truly do not know what games you've been watching but for you to claim Rodgers has LESS tunnel vision than most QBs just has no basis at all in reality.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I truly do not know what games you've been watching but for you to claim Rodgers has LESS tunnel vision than most QBs just has no basis at all in reality.

I don't know what games you've been watching but if you don't realize the back-to-back MVP is better than every other quarterback in the league there's no basis at all in reality.
 

BrokenArrow

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
2,928
Reaction score
1,356
I don't know what games you've been watching but if you don't realize the back-to-back MVP is better than every other quarterback in the league there's no basis at all in reality.

That's a different topic that has nothing to do with Rodgers tunnel vision problems with #17. BTW, I couldn't care less about MVPs. I want Lombardis.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
That's a different topic that has nothing to do with Rodgers tunnel vision problems with #17. BTW, I couldn't care less about MVPs. I want Lombardis.

I don't care about MVPs either but it works as evidence that Rodgers is the best quarterback in the league. He's not perfect by any means but you make it sound like every other starter around the league is better than him, something that's ridiculous.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top