Devin Funchess has opted out of the 2020 season

[Dantés]

What's silly at times is straddling both sides of the fence. Admitting that there are serious flaws in the WR room, but because some feel others are too exuberant in their critiques, they are consequently shoehorning and throwing hissy fits. In your critiques, you have to hedge by saying well it isn't great, but let me attempt to show you that it's "fine".

Stats can be cherry picked to death all day long. And then there's something called watching the games and seeing MVS drop bunnies that kill drives. Fumbling the ball when the game is on the line. But thank goodness for his air yards. I'm in no way diminishing his importance as a vertical threat and as a run blocker, but there are far more elements of his game that deserve scrutiny.

So the Packers don't use a lot of wide receivers and the other guys have been fine. But by your admission they liked Reagor, they liked Aiyuk, but since they didn't get one of those two guys the search should be over. The Packers don't use a lot of wide receivers, but they were in the hunt for one at the trade deadline this season. To me that seems to suggest they aren't satisfied with what they have, despite MVS and others performing at a "fine" clip.

But instead of allocating a legitimate resource to improving upon the position group, lets take flyers on Begelton, let's run back the Darrius Shepherd experiment since it went so well last season, let's keep Kumerow on board only to release him before the season starts even though Rodgers likes him and feels he can produce (remember last year when Rodgers said can we get 13 on the field in the Detroit game?), lets sign Funchess, a big time commodity after he sat on the market for over two weeks. Other NFL teams who could've signed him said "nah, we good". But the Packers say hold my beer. Then shop for guys like Taylor and Fulgham on the clearance rack.

Now. With every bit of this being said, I could stand corrected if postseason success is presented to me. I've never had an issue with admitting that I'm wrong about anything. Some people in my life would gladly tell you that I'm never right about much of anything , but I simply believe it's a bigger issue than you do. And that should be okay. But it doesn't mean that it's a silly exercise to dare pointing out the flaws with the WR room and not clinging to an air distance stat to debunk all of the skepticism.

What you see as fence straddling is my attempt to acknowledge that reality is not black and white.

The wide receiving corps on this team, top to bottom, is not a strength of the roster. And yet it has been good enough for this offense to be elite and hasn’t caused the issue that some thought it would. Is that such a crazy take?

I mean, you and I basically just said the same thing about MVS in different ways. I highlighted the role he has in the offense, which is important, while acknowledging that he has serious flaws. You highlighted the flaws while acknowledging he has a role. So we agree?

So let me be clear. I’m not saying it’s silly to scrutinize the receiving talent. What I’m calling silly is the effort is the to make every negative outcome on offense a referendum on the receiving corps. @Pokerbrat2000 has literally said this year that he would be kind of glad for the offense to struggle just to prove his point about the position. @captainWIMM is trying to use an Adams drop as evidence that the receiving corps is a problem (as though we need to replace Adams?). Meanwhile, neither have attempted to explain why or how the offense has, on balance, been so good when Adams isn’t the leading receiver.

It’s just confirmation bias and I’m pointing that out.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Had that last year and got pantsed in the NFC Championship game. I fail to see your point.

That wasn't the whole post, but no matter. Something you mentioned in your last post is telling. If this team ends with another loss, close or otherwise, in any post-season game leading to the SB, then something should have been done about the WR group. And apply that to the SB as well. It's negligent to have done otherwise with an MVP quarterback. It's not good enough in GB to be anything but the last team without a post-season loss this season.

 

[PackAttack12]

What you see as fence straddling is my attempt to acknowledge that reality is not black and white.

The wide receiving corps on this team, top to bottom, is not a strength of the roster. And yet it has been good enough for this offense to be elite and hasn’t caused the issue that some thought it would. Is that such a crazy take?

I mean, you and I basically just said the same thing about MVS in different ways. I highlighted the role he has in the offense, which is important, while acknowledging that he has serious flaws. You highlighted the flaws while acknowledging he has a role. So we agree?

So let me be clear. I’m not saying it’s silly to scrutinize the receiving talent. What I’m calling silly is the effort is the to make every negative outcome on offense a referendum on the receiving corps. @Pokerbrat2000 has literally said this year that he would be kind of glad for the offense to struggle just to prove his point about the position. @captainWIMM is trying to use an Adams drop as evidence that the receiving corps is a problem (as though we need to replace Adams?). Meanwhile, neither have attempted to explain why or how the offense has, on balance, been so good when Adams isn’t the leading receiver.

It’s just confirmation bias and I’m pointing that out.

This is fair.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think we'll do ok on defense, but considering recent history, I don't know why a team with an effective running game would ever feel stressed about the score at any point against GB. Early leads are great, but they leave so much time to recover and the Titans are clearly good enough to recover from a 21pt deficit in the 1st quarter. Late in the game maybe? but then that means we've been limiting their offense much of the day I guess, but I don't foresee the Titans leaving their game plan even down 2 scores heading into the 4th.

The Packers have won 71 consecutive games entering the fourth quarter with a lead of at least 14 points with the last last occurring in 2003.

I'm quite sure the Titans would have to change the approach on offense in thst scenario.

Teams that run this offense are nearly all using 3 or 4 WR sets less than anyone in the league, which is a clear indicator that it's part of the design of the offense. And yet the manufactured explanation is a lack of WR talent.

It could be an indicator for a team lacking talent at wide receiver as well. In addition the Titans and Vikings both have dominant running backs factors into it as well.

As a side note, while the Packers use three receivers less often than most teams they still line up in that formation on more than half of the snaps.

The Packers offense, and Rodgers in particular, is exceptionally effective all season when Adams is out or not the leading receiver. And yet the manufactured explanation is a lack of WR talent.

Adams not being the leading receiver is a curious stat to use as opponents definitely game plan to limit his impact allowing others to receive more opportunities. While that has worked against some teams it's pretty obvious the Bucs and Panthers found a way to slow down the Packers offense that way with a lack of talent behind #17 at WR definitely contributing to it.

The Packers' elite WR causes an interception two months ago and that's used as evidence that the WR corps was the problem, which makes no sense at all.

I didn't mention anything like that at all. I was just pointing out that you were wrong that the wide receiving corps wasn't part of the problem vs. the Bucs.

But the failure to spend a high draft pick on the WR position just has not hurt the Packers the way a lot of people thought it might. Their offensive design doesn't use a lot of WR's, and the supporting cast guys have been fine. Rodgers has bought into the system and is executing it at an extremely high level. They've scoring 434 points this season, which is 3rd (the Chiefs have scored 435 and the Titans 436).

As mentioned in this thread I'm surprised the Packers offense has been one of the highest scoring units in the league despite a lack of talent at wide receiver. They could be even more dangerous with better players at the position though and might have an answer to opponents being able to limit Adams' impact.

And yet there are posters with the same refrain every week, talking about the receivers and predicting the team's demise based on the receivers. They're shoe-horning whatever happens into that narrative. It's silly.

We still have to wait and see if the Packers receiving corps is good enough to win the Super Bowl this season.

@Pokerbrat2000 has literally said this year that he would be kind of glad for the offense to struggle just to prove his point about the position. @captainWIMM is trying to use an Adams drop as evidence that the receiving corps is a problem (as though we need to replace Adams?). Meanwhile, neither have attempted to explain why or how the offense has, on balance, been so good when Adams isn’t the leading receiver.

I'm quite sure Pokerbrat didn't mention that he would be glad if the offense struggles. Once again, I'm not using Adams drop vs. the Bucs as evidence that the receiving is lacking talent but that you were wrong in mentioning it didn't contribute to the offensive woes against the Bucs.

The Packers facing teams that combine to rank 22nd in points allowed in the games Adams wasn't the leading receiver definitely contributed to the offense not struggling in some of those games. Unfortunately the Packers won't face a lot of teams with below average defenses in the playoffs.

 

[Mondio]

Do you read the entire post, or just find that single part to nitpick?

 

[Dantés]

It could be an indicator for a team lacking talent at wide receiver as well. In addition the Titans and Vikings both have dominant running backs factors into it as well.

Adams not being the leading receiver is a curious stat to use as opponents definitely game plan to limit his impact allowing others to receive more opportunities. While that has worked against some teams it's pretty obvious the Bucs and Panthers found a way to slow down the Packers offense that way with a lack of talent behind #17 at WR definitely contributing to it.

We still have to wait and see if the Packers receiving corps is good enough to win the Super Bowl this season.

I'm quite sure Pokerbrat didn't mention that he would be glad if the offense struggles. Once again, I'm not using Adams drop vs. the Bucs as evidence that the receiving is lacking talent but that you were wrong in mentioning it didn't contribute to the offensive woes against the Bucs.

The Packers facing teams that combine to rank 22nd in points allowed in the games Adams wasn't the leading receiver definitely contributed to the offense not struggling in some of those games. Unfortunately the Packers won't face a lot of teams with below average defenses in the playoffs.

This is a distillation of my point— everything has to be backfilled with the WR talent narrative. I pointed out before the season ever started that LaFleur and those who use the same basic system use a lot of 12, 13, and 21 personnel. But when it happens, it can’t be by design— it’s a result of not drafting a WR.

Your point has been that the offense struggles when Adams is limited. So I looked up how the offense has done when he has been out or hasn’t been the leading receiver. And now you don’t like that measure?

We do have to wait and see how the WR corps and the entire team performs in the playoffs. But based on the regular season, I’m sure any struggle will get pinned on the wide receivers, regardless of what actually happens .

 

[tynimiller]

Post season success doesn't change the strength or weakness the WR room is. Judging it in this manner just isn't right IMO at all.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

This is a distillation of my point— everything has to be backfilled with the WR talent narrative. I pointed out before the season ever started that LaFleur and those who use the same basic system use a lot of 12, 13, and 21 personnel. But when it happens, it can’t be by design— it’s a result of not drafting a WR.

I'm quite sure MLF would use 11 personnel more often if the Packers had more talent at wide receiver. Otherwise I wonder why the Rams used it more than any other team in the league (81.4% on the plays) while he was their offensive coordinator back in 2017.

Your point has been that the offense struggles when Adams is limited. So I looked up how the offense has done when he has been out or hasn’t been the leading receiver. And now you don’t like that measure?

Adams not being the leading receiver in a single game doesn't account for the opponent shifting coverage his way resulting in others receiving more opportunities nor the fact the Packers faced the 29th, 31st and dead last ranked scoring defenses in three of those games.

Post season success doesn't change the strength or weakness the WR room is. Judging it in this manner just isn't right IMO at all.

Yeah, it's way smarter to evaluate their performance against teams with terrible defenses that end up not making the playoffs

 

[Mondio]

Post season success doesn't change the strength or weakness the WR room is. Judging it in this manner just isn't right IMO at all.

Nobody has argued we have a great WR room with talent bursting at the seams. Everyone can see that's not the case. The debate has always been that football is a team sport and they had a plan to make this team go. A team is not dependent solely on the WR position and how strong it is. Some offenses need better than others to make them go. Just like some teams have better defenses, better run games, better QB's better special teams etc. Heck the Bears made it with **** Rexy as their QB. They went to a super bowl on pretty much special teams and defensive scores one year. The Pats were Brady, Gronk and Oline and people for decades practically. and defense.

But I think it's plenty obvious, while we'd like "better" WR's, there are limited resources and they've put together a pretty good team. I'd say if anything, the offense has looked better or worse almost entirely on the way the offensive line has been playing more than anything else. But then there are no 1 way streets in football. the run game and WR's effect the job of the Oline and vice versa. it all matters.

as far as how good does this team do in the post season?
I'd say Oline, Rodgers, defensive front, special teams and run game are going to be more impactful than another WR.

 

[tynimiller]

I'm quite sure MLF would use 11 personnel more often if the Packers had more talent at wide receiver. Otherwise I wonder why the Rams used it more than any other team in the league (81.4% on the plays) while he was their offensive coordinator back in 2017.



Adams not being the leading receiver in a single game doesn't account for the opponent shifting coverage his way resulting in others receiving more opportunities nor the fact the Packers faced the 29th, 31st and dead last ranked scoring defenses in three of those games.



Yeah, it's way smarter to evaluate their performance against teams with terrible defenses that end up not making the playoffs

Stop. I hold the belief that our WRs group could shine or fail in playoffs and it doesn't magically change the projection of them or the need to arguably still seek a solid #2 to add.

I dont care if Lazard and MVS average 100 yards and a TD each, neither presently or projecting as a surefire #2. They are amazing and well deserving #3s each IMO.

My judgement of them isn't place solely on the season against terrible teams as you claim NOR solely the post season either.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'd say Oline, Rodgers, defensive front, special teams and run game are going to be more impactful than another WR.

Once again, I have mentioned that I'm surprised how well the offense has performed over the first 14 games while lacking talent at wide receiver behind Adams.

But the point many of us are making is that they could be better with draft picks having a bigger impact than Love, Dillon, Deguara and the pick used to trade up for Love.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Stop. I hold the belief that our WRs group could shine or fail in playoffs and it doesn't magically change the projection of them or the need to arguably still seek a solid #2 to add.

I dont care if Lazard and MVS average 100 yards and a TD each, neither presently or projecting as a surefire #2. They are amazing and well deserving #3s each IMO.

My judgement of them isn't place solely on the season against terrible teams as you claim NOR solely the post season either.

Gotcha, although I would argue that both Lazard and MVS are average #3 receivers at best.

 

[PackAttack12]

Post season success doesn't change the strength or weakness the WR room is. Judging it in this manner just isn't right IMO at all.

I fail to understand this. You want for your players to stand up to the pressure of the postseason, and to stiffer competition. If you have players that shrink under the brightest lights, what else matters? Postseason success is the ultimate goal, especially 'round these parts.

For the record...I'll be judging the WR corps separate from actual wins and losses. I want to see how they perform. How they live up. The same way if the defense ***** the bed again. Doesn't sound like an outlandish theory to me.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm quite sure Pokerbrat didn't mention that he would be glad if the offense struggles.

LOL...good point. I do find it funny how some posters continue to say things like that about other posters. Maybe their insecurity over being incorrect about something is being deflected onto others? I can't tell you how many times I have said "I so hope I am wrong about this, but....." Of course, to some posters, me pointing out what I feel is a flaw is only me wishing the flaw blows up in the Packers face and they don't win a Super Bowl, just so that I can say "I told you so".

 

[Dantés]

I'm quite sure MLF would use 11 personnel more often if the Packers had more talent at wide receiver. Otherwise I wonder why the Rams used it more than any other team in the league (81.4% on the plays) while he was their offensive coordinator back in 2017.

Adams not being the leading receiver in a single game doesn't account for the opponent shifting coverage his way resulting in others receiving more opportunities nor the fact the Packers faced the 29th, 31st and dead last ranked scoring defenses in three of those games.

Yeah, it's way smarter to evaluate their performance against teams with terrible defenses that end up not making the playoffs

Because McVay really refers to use 11 personnel and he oversaw the offense. What happened when LaFleur was in charge of his own offense? Can you tell me why you'd prefer to look at an offense that he was not in charge of, instead of one that he was?

There have been 7 games this season when Adams was not the leading receiver. They're 6-1 and +64 in scoring differential in those games. According to the argument you've been making, the offense should have struggled in those games, because he was limited and there isn't adequate talent otherwise. It didn't happen.

My argument is that it's way smarter to evaluate what has actually happened on the field this season, as opposed to what you might have expected to happen after the draft.

 

[Poppa San]

Unfortunately the Packers won't face a lot of teams with below average defenses in the playoffs.

League average is 24.8 points allowed. Packers are at 24.2 defensively so technically they are better than average. The only team worse than average in the playoffs is today's opponent.

 

[Mondio]

Once again, I have mentioned that I'm surprised how well the offense has performed over the first 14 games while lacking talent at wide receiver behind Adams.

But the point many of us are making is that they could be better with draft picks having a bigger impact than Love, Dillon, Deguara and the pick used to trade up for Love.

and they could have been worse. We could have gotten another Sherrod, Worthy and Kyrie Thornton.

 

[longtimefan]

LOL...good point. I do find it funny how some posters continue to say things like that about other posters. Maybe their insecurity over being incorrect about something is being deflected onto others? I can't tell you how many times I have said "I so hope I am wrong about this, but....." Of course, to some posters, me pointing out what I feel is a flaw is only me wishing the flaw blows up in the Packers face and they don't win a Super Bowl, just so that I can say "I told you so".

Dbl ck your history...you did say something very similar to what dante is claiming you said

I definitely want the Packers to win, but a part of me wants to see both MVS and Shepherd struggle a bit. Why? So maybe Gute will actually realize that he has built an incredibly weak WR group and fix it.

 

[Dantés]

Here's an analogy that occurs to me.

I spent a long time on this board talking about how Taysom Hill is not an NFL quarterback. I said he's merely a gadget player and (this may shock some people) I did so with some level of snark.

Well, the Saints needed a backup QB, and they tapped Hill for the job. He proved me to be wrong, and significantly so.

Is he a great QB? No. But was I wrong about him being able to play the position? Absolutely.

So if I now went back and nit picked his starts and attempted to show that everything he did was a fluke, that would just be me backfilling a narrative in order to try and prove that I was right, when I was actually wrong. Or if I persisted in saying he would prove me right, given enough time, that would just be me clinging to a narrative because I argued for it so strongly.

Well the same goes for the WR issue. There are some posters who predicted the demise of the offense based on the failure of the FO to draft a WR. Is the position a strength of the roster? Absolutely not. But the offense has been elite with the talent in house, and there has been very little evidence that a lack of WR talent has been at fault when the team has lost.

But there are still some posters committed to the narrative, who are willing to re-interpret everything that happens through this lens, and who have the same comments week after week no matter what happens.

Could the WR position contribute to a loss in the playoffs? Of course. So could any unit on the field, if they don't execute. But there's been no evidence this season that the WR position is any likelier to be the problem than any other position on the field (I'd actually be way more frightened of the 2nd level of the defense blowing a game). People predicting it are doing so based on theory, not evidence. And that's my point.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Dbl ck your history...you did say something very similar to what dante is claiming you said

I definitely want the Packers to win, but a part of me wants to see both MVS and Shepherd struggle a bit. Why? So maybe Gute will actually realize that he has built an incredibly weak WR group and fix it.

I was replying to Captains post, no clue what Dante said, since I have him on ignore.

There is a big difference in saying "a part of me wants to see MVS and Shepherd struggle a bit so that Gute recognizes the need to improve the position" than taking the inferred stance of "I hope the offense struggles". Shepherd struggled more than a bit and he is gone. MVS, has he not struggled? Lazard? I think it is GREAT that the offense is LeFlourishing, but I don't attest that to a great WR group more than I do a FHOF QB, Adams, Jones a deep OL and a coach who has learned how to use the tools given to him. As Captain, I and a few other posters have stated over and over, the WR depth is weak and if it wasn't, who knows just how good this offense could be and just how far it could carry an average defense.

 

[longtimefan]

I was replying to Captains post, no clue what Dante said, since I have him on ignore.

There is a big difference in saying "a part of me wants to see MVS and Shepherd struggle a bit so that Gute recognizes the need to improve the position" than taking the inferred stance of "I hope the offense struggles". Shepherd struggled more than a bit and he is gone. MVS, has he not struggled? Lazard? I think it is GREAT that the offense is LeFlourishing, but I don't attest that to a great WR group more than I do a FHOF QB, Adams, Jones a deep OL and a coach who has learned how to use the tools given to him. As Captain, I and a few other posters have stated over and over, the WR depth is weak and if it wasn't, who knows just how good this offense could be and just how far it could carry an average defense.

He said

So let me be clear. I’m not saying it’s silly to scrutinize the receiving talent. What I’m calling silly is the effort is the to make every negative outcome on offense a referendum on the receiving corps. @Pokerbrat2000 has literally said this year that he would be kind of glad for the offense to struggle just to prove his point about the position.


**some one claimed you never said anything like that

 

[Dantés]

I was replying to Captains post, no clue what Dante said, since I have him on ignore.

There is a big difference in saying "a part of me wants to see MVS and Shepherd struggle a bit so that Gute recognizes the need to improve the position" than taking the inferred stance of "I hope the offense struggles". Shepherd struggled more than a bit and he is gone. MVS, has he not struggled? Lazard? I think it is GREAT that the offense is LeFlourishing, but I don't attest that to a great WR group more than I do a FHOF QB, Adams, Jones a deep OL and a coach who has learned how to use the tools given to him. As Captain, I and a few other posters have stated over and over, the WR depth is weak and if it wasn't, who knows just how good this offense could be and just how far it could carry an average defense.

The bottom line is that if you're hoping that the receivers fail so that you can be proven right, you're a conclusion in search of evidence and not the other way around.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

He said

So let me be clear. I’m not saying it’s silly to scrutinize the receiving talent. What I’m calling silly is the effort is the to make every negative outcome on offense a referendum on the receiving corps. @Pokerbrat2000 has literally said this year that he would be kind of glad for the offense to struggle just to prove his point about the position.

Sorry, but as a Moderator, you of all people should know that circumventing an ignore by posting what I chose to not read in the first place, if not against the TOS, is kind of a **** move. Just saying.

That being said, I stopped at "he said". I'm intelligent enough to infer what "he said" based on Captain and yours posts, quite frankly, I could care less what he said, which is why he is on ignore.

 

[Dantés]

Sorry, but as a Moderator, you of all people should know that circumventing an ignore by posting what I chose to not read in the first place, if not against the TOS, is kind of a **** move. Just saying.

That being said, I stopped at "he said". I'm intelligent enough to infer what "he said" based on Captain and yours posts, quite frankly, I could care less what he said, which is why he is on ignore.

Probably a good call. You wouldn't like what came after.

 

[Mondio]

Here's an analogy that occurs to me.

I spent a long time on this board talking about how Taysom Hill is not an NFL quarterback. I said he's merely a gadget player and (this may shock some people) I did so with some level of snark.

Well, the Saints needed a backup QB, and they tapped Hill for the job. He proved me to be wrong, and significantly so.

Is he a great QB? No. But was I wrong about him being able to play the position? Absolutely.

So if I now went back and nit picked his starts and attempted to show that everything he did was a fluke, that would just be me backfilling a narrative in order to try and prove that I was right, when I was actually wrong. Or if I persisted in saying he would prove me right, given enough time, that would just be me clinging to a narrative because I argued for it so strongly.

Well the same goes for the WR issue. There are some posters who predicted the demise of the offense based on the failure of the FO to draft a WR. Is the position a strength of the roster? Absolutely not. But the offense has been elite with the talent in house, and there has been very little evidence that a lack of WR talent has been at fault when the team has lost.

But there are still some posters committed to the narrative, who are willing to re-interpret everything that happens through this lens, and who have the same comments week after week no matter what happens.

Could the WR position contribute to a loss in the playoffs? Of course. So could any unit on the field, if they don't execute. But there's been no evidence this season that the WR position is any likelier to be the problem than any other position on the field (I'd actually be way more frightened of the 2nd level of the defense blowing a game). People predicting it are doing so based on theory, not evidence. And that's my point.

I still don't think he's a good QB and will backfill all day long He's 1 read and run, tossing to wide open WR's or running the football, or sitting back there playing backyard football where he can do one of the previously mentioned options or getting sacked and fumbling. His new guns and grown brow also tell me he's a nice athlete receiving plenty of "help"