Devin Funchess has opted out of the 2020 season

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Adults should be able to figure it out without ignoring a poster.

The moderators here for the most part do an excellent job of curtailing trolls. Ignoring someone bc you don’t like their opinions? That’s weak sauce. It should be okay to disagree and move on with your life!

We have a saying, "Don`t try to teach your granny to suck eggs !" I did the job.

 

[Dantés]

We have a saying, "Don`t try to teach your granny to suck eggs !" I did the job

1. That's amazing.

2. I feel like British people could tell Americans that anything is a saying, and we would believe it.

"Don't crumble your crumpets while you're riding the lift" if you know what I mean!

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

1. That's amazing.

2. I feel like British people could tell Americans that anything is a saying, and we would believe it.

"Don't crumble your crumpets while you're riding the lift" if you know what I mean!

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

Happy New Year

 

[Dantés]

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

Happy New Year

Ya'll proud of that guy or nah?

 

[longtimefan]

Ya'll proud of that guy or nah?

Or in Wisconsinese

Yous proud of dat guy er no?

 

[Mondio]

Yeah, no

 

[swhitset]

Adults should be able to figure it out without ignoring a poster.

The moderators here for the most part do an excellent job of curtailing trolls. Ignoring someone bc you don’t like their opinions? That’s weak sauce. It should be okay to disagree and move on with your life!

Perhaps you should have this discussion with your fellow moderators in private since it is clear that you are in direct conflict with their long standing opinion in this matter. Furthermore.... I would suggest that you try and separate your own personal feelings since it is well known how much it had bothered you that a particular poster had you on ignore.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It's the moronic posters who make the ignore feature necessary. I only have one person on ignore, someone who made idiotic comments about how the coronavirus is a hoax.

only 1?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If your at a party, and some one you never got along, just leads to arguments every time sits by you.

do you try to be civil and strike up a convo and hope it doesn’t end in a fight

sit there and not speak at all

get up and move away

same thing here.. it’s to avoid any conflict, it never ends well. Some people just need to avoid each other

it isn’t just disagreeing, its a personality conflict and it happens everywhere . Work, home, parties

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner

To be quite blunt, the people that don't understand this, are probably the ones thinking that their sh*t never stinks and can't figure out why someone wouldn't like them.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

McVay and LaFleur come out of the same basic "tree" of offensive system. But the clear indicator is that, within that scheme, McVay likes to use 11 personnel more than LaFleur does. LaFleur tends more towards the Shanahan iteration of the offense, which uses more 12, 21, 22, and 13 than McVay has.

It's just an assumption that MLF doesn't want to use 11 personnel less often than McVay. And a strange one as well considering he was named the Rams offensive coordinator.

LaFleur hasn't had the same talent at wide receiver since leaving LA, therefore it's impossible to figure out if he truly likes to use different personnel more often or it's just a matter of a lack of talent at the position.

Games is which Adams isn't the leading receiver seems like a more reasonable, objective criteria than "games chosen because they fit the narrative."

Adams being the leading receiver in a single game doesn't fairly represent the impact he had on that specific game.

Let's take the Bucs game as another example. While he was the Packers' receiver putting up the most yards in that game there's absolutely no doubt Tampa was able to limit his impact on the game.

As mentioned before it's not a great indicator of evaluating offensive success.

 

[Dantés]

It's just an assumption that MLF doesn't want to use 11 personnel less often than McVay. And a strange one as well considering he was named the Rams offensive coordinator.

LaFleur hasn't had the same talent at wide receiver since leaving LA, therefore it's impossible to figure out if he truly likes to use different personnel more often or it's just a matter of a lack of talent at the position.

Adams being the leading receiver in a single game doesn't fairly represent the impact he had on that specific game.

Let's take the Bucs game as another example. While he was the Packers' receiver putting up the most yards in that game there's absolutely no doubt Tampa was able to limit his impact on the game.

As mentioned before it's not a great indicator of evaluating offensive success.

To the extent that none of us are Matt LaFleur and have the ability to speak for him, it is an assumption. But that literally describes everything you or I might deduce about this offense.

But here's what we know:

-In 2018, LaFleur's Titans were 30th in the league in 3+ WR formations behind only SF and BAL.
-In 2019, LaFleur's Packers were 22nd in the league in 3+ WR formations.
-In 2020, LaFleur's Packers are 27th in the league in 3+ WR formations.

So what's most reasonable to assume, that his offense doesn't use a lot of 3+ WR formations relative to the rest of the league (again-- that's relative to the rest of the league; not saying they're never using 3+ WR's), or that he just hasn't had the personnel?

Consider that the Packers led the league in 11 personnel % the year before LaFleur showed up with a lot of the same personnel that he had in 2019. They still dropped 21 spots, and another 6 since then.

Consider also that of the teams that come out of the same offensive philosophy (SF, CLEV, LA, MIN, TEN), only LA runs a lot of 3+ WR sets. Those other teams, the 49ers, the Browns, the Vikings, the Titans, are all filling out the very bottom of the league in terms of 3+ WR sets.

So my assumption has all of that as a basis. What's behind your assumption?

And as I've mentioned, the Bucs loss was about spotting TB 14 points and an inability to protect Rodgers. The disruption from the LOS didn't give the offense a chance to see if the WR's were going to be good enough or not.

And if you don't think that looking at games in which Adams was absent or not the leading receiver is a good measure, feel free to suggest a different measure.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

To the extent that none of us are Matt LaFleur and have the ability to speak for him, it is an assumption. But that literally describes everything you or I might deduce about this offense.

But here's what we know:

-In 2018, LaFleur's Titans were 30th in the league in 3+ WR formations behind only SF and BAL.
-In 2019, LaFleur's Packers were 22nd in the league in 3+ WR formations.
-In 2020, LaFleur's Packers are 27th in the league in 3+ WR formations.

So what's most reasonable to assume, that his offense doesn't use a lot of 3+ WR formations relative to the rest of the league (again-- that's relative to the rest of the league; not saying they're never using 3+ WR's), or that he just hasn't had the personnel?

Taking a look at the wide receiving corps MLF has had at his disposal since leaving the Rams it's entirely possible a lack of talent at the position has resulted in him using less 11 personnel than most other teams in the league.

Consider that the Packers led the league in 11 personnel % the year before LaFleur showed up with a lot of the same personnel that he had in 2019. They still dropped 21 spots, and another 6 since then.

FWIW the Packers ranked second in 11 personnel percentage in 2018 behind the Rams. In addition they had a decent #2 receiver that season in Cobb on the roster.

And if you don't think that looking at games in which Adams was absent or not the leading receiver is a good measure, feel free to suggest a different measure.

It might make more sense to take a look at games in which Adams didn't have 100 receiving yards and played all game.

 

[Dantés]

Taking a look at the wide receiving corps MLF has had at his disposal since leaving the Rams it's entirely possible a lack of talent at the position has resulted in him using less 11 personnel than most other teams in the league.

FWIW the Packers ranked second in 11 personnel percentage in 2018 behind the Rams. In addition they had a decent #2 receiver that season in Cobb on the roster.

It might make more sense to take a look at games in which Adams didn't have 100 receiving yards and played all game.

With a clear pattern developing over three season's worth of evidence, it's a much smaller assumption that this is just what he wants to do, rather than trying to argue that it's because of personnel issues that have persisted over three seasons on two different teams.

That measure that you gave would leave you with the games against TB, MIN, JAC, CHI, and CAR.

The Packers scored 10, 22, 24, 41, and 24.

The Tampa Bay game, as I've stated, was about the turnovers and then a breakdown in protection in my opinion. You may not see it the same way.

The Vikings game was not actually a poor offensive showing overall. It was largely about Minnesota limiting Rodgers' opportunities. They only got 7 drives in the entire contest, which includes the 47 second opportunity they had to try and score at the end. 22 points on 7 drives is 3.14 points per drive, which would be #1 overall in the NFL this year (the Packers, incidentally, are #1 with 2.99 points/drive).

The Jacksonville and Carolina games are interesting. In the Jags' game, Rodgers had a pretty strong pass rating (108), but the offense was not nearly as effective as normal. In the Panthers' game, they were reading Rodgers/Lafleur's mail in the RPO game. They caught on to some tendencies there and exploited them.

The first Bears game was obviously a good offensive showing.

I think the evidence is mixed, but I see this as a much more valid point. I appreciate you providing a criterion that makes more sense.

I do think, however, that including the games that Adams missed all or some of the contest with injury (weeks 2-4), hurts the case. The Packers scored 42, 37, and 30 in those games, and one of them was against the Saints.

 

[longtimefan]

With a clear pattern developing over three season's worth of evidence, it's a much smaller assumption that this is just what he wants to do, rather than trying to argue that it's because of personnel issues that have persisted over three seasons on two different teams.

That measure that you gave would leave you with the games against TB, MIN, JAC, CHI, and CAR.

The Packers scored 10, 22, 24, 41, and 24.

The Tampa Bay game, as I've stated, was about the turnovers and then a breakdown in protection in my opinion. You may not see it the same way.

The Vikings game was not actually a poor offensive showing overall. It was largely about Minnesota limiting Rodgers' opportunities. They only got 7 drives in the entire contest, which includes the 47 second opportunity they had to try and score at the end. 22 points on 7 drives is 3.14 points per drive, which would be #1 overall in the NFL this year (the Packers, incidentally, are #1 with 2.99 points/drive).

The Jacksonville and Carolina games are interesting. In the Jags' game, Rodgers had a pretty strong pass rating (108), but the offense was not nearly as effective as normal. In the Panthers' game, they were reading Rodgers/Lafleur's mail in the RPO game. They caught on to some tendencies there and exploited them.

The first Bears game was obviously a good offensive showing.

I think the evidence is mixed, but I see this as a much more valid point. I appreciate you providing a criterion that makes more sense.

I do think, however, that including the games that Adams missed all or some of the contest with injury (weeks 2-4), hurts the case. The Packers scored 42, 37, and 30 in those games, and one of them was against the Saints.

Last year when adams was out?

Just curious

 

[Dantés]

Last year when adams was out?

Just curious

Good thought.

Weeks 5-8

34 points @ DAL
23 points Vs DET
42 points Vs OAK
31 points @ KC

IIRC, this was the string of games that sparked the silly "offense is better off without Davante" narrative, because the Packers went on to score 11, 24, and 8 points in the three games following his return.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That measure that you gave would leave you with the games against TB, MIN, JAC, CHI, and CAR.

The Packers scored 10, 22, 24, 41, and 24.

The Tampa Bay game, as I've stated, was about the turnovers and then a breakdown in protection in my opinion. You may not see it the same way.

The Vikings game was not actually a poor offensive showing overall. It was largely about Minnesota limiting Rodgers' opportunities. They only got 7 drives in the entire contest, which includes the 47 second opportunity they had to try and score at the end. 22 points on 7 drives is 3.14 points per drive, which would be #1 overall in the NFL this year (the Packers, incidentally, are #1 with 2.99 points/drive).

The Jacksonville and Carolina games are interesting. In the Jags' game, Rodgers had a pretty strong pass rating (108), but the offense was not nearly as effective as normal. In the Panthers' game, they were reading Rodgers/Lafleur's mail in the RPO game. They caught on to some tendencies there and exploited them.

The first Bears game was obviously a good offensive showing.

I think the evidence is mixed, but I see this as a much more valid point. I appreciate you providing a criterion that makes more sense.

I do think, however, that including the games that Adams missed all or some of the contest with injury (weeks 2-4), hurts the case. The Packers scored 42, 37, and 30 in those games, and one of them was against the Saints.

I agree the games Adams missed should be accounted for as well. It should be noted that the teams the Packers played early this season struggled on defense at that point though.

Good thought.

Weeks 5-8

34 points @ DAL
23 points Vs DET
42 points Vs OAK
31 points @ KC

It's the same when taking a look at last season. The Packers mostly faced defenses which struggled all season or weren't playing up to their potential at the time.

 

[Dantés]

I agree the games Adams missed should be accounted for as well. It should be noted that the teams the Packers played early this season struggled on defense at that point though.

It's the same when taking a look at last season. The Packers mostly faced defenses which struggled all season or weren't playing up to their potential at the time.

I still think putting 37 on the Saints was impressive, even if they were still working out some kinks.

But the evidence is mixed is, I think, the bottom line.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I still think putting 37 on the Saints was impressive, even if they were still working out some kinks.

But the evidence is mixed is, I think, the bottom line.

I agree, scoring 37 points vs. the Saints without Adams was impressive as well as putting up 41 against the Bears with him only having 61 receiving yards.

I'm just worried that the Packers offense could struggle against a good defense capable of limiting his impact in the playoffs because of not having another receiver capable of picking up the slack consistently.

 

[Dantés]

I agree, scoring 37 points vs. the Saints without Adams was impressive as well as putting up 41 against the Bears with him only having 61 receiving yards.

I'm just worried that the Packers offense could struggle against a good defense capable of limiting his impact in the playoffs because of not having another receiver capable of picking up the slack consistently.

The one team where this really concerns me is LA. Because Ramsey is capable of really taking Adams away, and they generate enough pressure to disrupt the scheme that would allow the other options to produce.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The one team where this really concerns me is LA. Because Ramsey is capable of really taking Adams away, and they generate enough pressure to disrupt the scheme that would allow the other options to produce.

I'm worried about the Bucs defense as well.

 

[Dantés]

I'm worried about the Bucs defense as well.

Rationally, I think I should be, but I'm just not.

For whatever reason, if Rodgers and LaFleur got a second crack at them at home, I think they put up 35+.

 

[Mondio]

Rationally, I think I should be, but I'm just not.

For whatever reason, if Rodgers and LaFleur got a second crack at them at home, I think they put up 35+.

It would take a multi turnover game by Rodgers again which I don't see happening and I think they learned their lesson and wouldn't run laterally to try and attack them, but at them with both Jones and Dillon and 35+ would be reality.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Rationally, I think I should be, but I'm just not.

For whatever reason, if Rodgers and LaFleur got a second crack at them at home, I think they put up 35+.

I hope you right about it as in my opinion it's most realistic the Packers will face them next week.

 

[PackAttack12]

If the Packers can keep Rodgers clean against the Bucs front, their secondary can really be taken advantage of.

 

[tynimiller]

I have no clue if Funchess is a cut or sees training camp in 2021...but I'm not worried one bit about his being off year affecting just his overall physical health. Dude appears to have been just killing workouts all off season and even got baptized...even if not your thing, many of us know you get your head in a good place of peace/clarity that can play a factor too.

Really looking forward to seeing just what can he do when back....the nuts part is not a soul knows...he could lose out and not make the 53 or I could see him become our #2...it is nuts to think about really.