Are You Satisfied with the WR Position?

[Dantés]

Gallup would a great addition.

My main concern with the move is that He would likely cost a day 2 pick to acquire. And with that amount of investment, they’d have to extent him. You can’t spend a 2nd or 3rd round pick and then just rent a guy.

And the prospect of extending him would run us into the cap issues. It’s not impossible, but it would make things very difficult.

 

[Dantés]

So it would seem that, based on the poll results, there is no large swath of Packer fans who are just totally fine with the WR position.

 

[tynimiller]

I'd also venture the one yes @Curly Calhoun is a yes for one of two reasons: trolling OR is merely content with it because it truly hasn't hurt us yet. Winning cures all worries baby!

 

[scotscheese]

did we really need another thread about WR's, even taking into account the poll?

the question is very biased imo, as at the start of the season(pre-covid) we had DA, had signed funchess(as probably a no2), then had Lazard/MVS/ESB fighting it out for spots 3/4(Laz had probably edged it tail end of last season). the fact that to use your "as is" as a former for our opinion when 2 of our top 3 are out for various reasons, means are we happy using our backups as starters when they were never planned as starters in the first place. I'm struggling to find your point in this thread and poll because of this? leaving funchess and Laz out is an unfair assesment on the WR corp imo.

Also, please name one team, that in our position of having 2 starters out would be happy playing their backups in place

Run D needs more attention in my eyes

 

[scotscheese]

So it would seem that, based on the poll results, there is no large swath of Packer fans who are just totally fine with the WR position.

I have voted yes, largely due to my reasons in post above.

to be fair, are any of us really entirely happy with the quality of any position? I would imagine not, we would all like to have elite starters, with great backups all over the field, but thats why we have the cap

 

[Mavster]

Why would we include Funchess? He hasn't played a single down for GB so of course he should be excluded. Even then, if Funchess was our #2 (I don't believe he would've been) that's still quite poor in comparison to the rest of the NFC, minus maybe SF.

 

[scotscheese]

Why would we include Funchess? He hasn't played a single down for GB so of course he should be excluded. Even then, if Funchess was our #2 (I don't believe he would've been) that's still quite poor in comparison to the rest of the NFC, minus maybe SF.

I thought i was obvious with why

our WR corp is operating without 2 of our intended 3 starters, it is an unfair assessment on the group.

as we weren't comparing against other teams in the NFL, let alone the NFC, then that is a moot point to add

 

[swhitset]

I thought i was obvious with why

our WR corp is operating without 2 of our intended 3 starters, it is an unfair assessment on the group.

as we weren't comparing against other teams in the NFL, let alone the NFC, then that is a moot point to add

I think you missed the point of the poll... which is why you are answering the way you are. You have to go back and read all the pointless arguing that has been going on. For some reason the argument has morphed into a discussion about whether or not some people have claimed that they are happy with the WR group AS IT STANDS TODAY. The point of the poll was to prove that no one actually said that. Again, as I said previously, I’m don’t think that is actually worth arguing about, but that is the point of this poll and thread.

 

[Dantés]

I think you missed the point of the poll... which is why you are answering the way you are. You have to go back and read all the pointless arguing that has been going on. For some reason the argument has morphed into a discussion about whether or not some people have claimed that they are happy with the WR group AS IT STANDS TODAY. The point of the poll was to prove that no one actually said that. Again, as I said previously, I’m don’t think that is actually worth arguing about, but that is the point of this poll and thread.

Pretty much this.

After every game, there is a certain cadre of posters that come on and say something to the effect of "Despite all the Packer fans who think the WR corps is great, it's still a problem..."

A lot of us were wondering who exactly these fans are that are supposedly overjoyed with our WR's.

 

[gopkrs]

you would not get anything from me because i am ok where we are but of course it could be better. so i dont vote. polling can be difficult if you want to do it right. you have to ask the question just so. at least for the discerning poll taker which i am humbly going to claim to be.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

I'd also venture the one yes @Curly Calhoun is a yes for one of two reasons: trolling OR is merely content with it because it truly hasn't hurt us yet. Winning cures all worries baby!

I voted yes because the corps has been productive, and I believe the run defense requires more attention than any offensive unit.

So, I guess that makes you incorrect.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I voted yes because the corps has been productive, and I believe the run defense requires more attention than any offensive unit.

So, I guess that makes you incorrect.

It helps to look at the secondaries the Packers have played. It hasn't exactly been a murderers' row. Packers played the best passing defense (by DVOA) in the Bucs and looked like amateurs. Against the 15, 16, 24, and 31st ranked passing defenses, Packers looked pretty good. I'm guessing it's likely the Packers have to play good passing defenses in the playoffs.

Plus, getting run support will involve getting dline help, and that's more expensive in trade than receivers (cause Rodgers can improve the play of the receiver, but the dline players are on their own).

 

[PikeBadger]

It helps to look at the secondaries the Packers have played. It hasn't exactly been a murderers' row. Packers played the best passing defense (by DVOA) in the Bucs and looked like amateurs. Against the 15, 16, 24, and 31st ranked passing defenses, Packers looked pretty good. I'm guessing it's likely the Packers have to play good passing defenses in the playoffs.

Plus, getting run support will involve getting dline help, and that's more expensive in trade than receivers (cause Rodgers can improve the play of the receiver, but the dline players are on their own).

The passing game looked very effective against Tampa until Rodgers threw the back to back ints. He looked like Jay Cutler then.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The passing game looked very effective against Tampa until Rodgers threw the back to back ints. He looked like Jay Cutler then.

And? You can't pretend everything would have been fine when it wasn't.

 

[Mavster]

The passing game looked very effective against Tampa until Rodgers threw the back to back ints. He looked like Jay Cutler then.

Yep, the two first drives that ended in points definitely outweigh what occurred the rest of the game lol.

It must be too hard to simply give credit to Tampa for dominating the GB offense?

 

[Dantés]

I'm solidly in the camp that hopes that Gutekunst adds a pass catcher, because I do believe that the offense needs another one.

But what's funny about the Tampa game is that the offensive meltdown was not really on the wide receivers, outside of Adams causing the second INT. And I don't see anyone saying that Adams is the problem in the WR corps.

That game was primarily on Rodgers and the offensive line.

But that's the thing-- there are certain fans who have predetermined that if the offense struggles, it's automatically because of the wide receivers. And that, friends, is called confirmation bias.

 

[PikeBadger]

And? You can't pretend everything would have been fine when it wasn't.

I do think everything would have played out differently. We had a 10-0 lead and the ball in decent field position and had moved the chains nicely up until the pick 6. We certainly are not talking about a 38-10 game if he doesn’t throw those 2 ints.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I do think everything would have played out differently. We had a 10-0 lead and the ball in decent field position and had moved the chains nicely up until the pick 6. We certainly are not talking about a 38-10 game if he doesn’t throw those 2 ints.

This discussion is about the receivers. The Packers didn't have a group to HELP Rodgers recover. Instead, Rodgers wasn't able to support them like he usually does. That's the problem.

 

[Do7]

I don't think anyone proposed this, but what about getting a guy like Golden Tate from The Giants? As much as I don't like him for the fail mary, I think he would be a decent addition. Pretty smart, decent hands.

 

[Dantés]

I don't think anyone proposed this, but what about getting a guy like Golden Tate from The Giants? As much as I don't like him for the fail mary, I think he would be a decent addition. Pretty smart, decent hands.

I think Tate could help them this year but I wouldn’t trade for that contract.

 

[Do7]

I think Tate could help them this year but I wouldn’t trade for that contract.

I'm not aware of the contract. How bad is it?

 

[Dantés]

I'm not aware of the contract. How bad is it?

He'd cost about 4M in space this year, which can't then roll over to next year. And his base in 2021 is 8.475M.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

He'd cost about 4M in space this year, which can't then roll over to next year. And his base in 2021 is 8.475M.

The Packers could release him after this season without any implications on the cap though.

 

[gonzozab]

DK Metcalf is looking good. Just sayin'.

 

[gopkrs]

Our wide receivers look better when MVS and EQ are on the bench.