Identity

[PackAttack12]

Did the coach say they throw the ball to Adams too much? I think I missed that. I think he was talking about the other 68 offensive plays. "We didn't get the ball to Jones enough". OK. When Adams was out, LaFleur used Jones all over the field, wideout, slot, motion...mostly wideout when not in the backfield...with several plays where Jones and Williams were both on the field.

He said (paraphrasing) that we have been overly reliant on Davante. It's hard to misunderstand that.

Uh, why not do both, feature both Adams and Jones in the passing game? That's what coach is telling you. H*ll, this roster doesn't even have a slot receiver. Allison looks pretty bad trying to do that job. Adams is the best slot among the wideouts, actually the 2nd. best WR on this team. There's a lot of configurations LaFleur can mix and match...Jones and MVS wide and Adams out of the slot, or flip Jones and Adams in a more conventional set. Move Jones around for mismatches and getting the defense off-balance.

That's seriously all that I am implying. I couldn't agree more. But when you have been relying too heavily on Davante, while not featuring Jones more out of the backfield, motioning out, etc., it creates (intentionally, or unintentionally) an over reliance on your only other elite playmaker in Davante.

Like I alluded to in my previous post, we need to get Jones more involved. Both of those guys being featured heavily will make them both more effective. Defenses then can't key on a certain playmaker.

I think we all agree that Adams and Jones are far and away the two best playmakers on the offense. Get back to making Jones more of a focal point.

The two comments went hand in hand.

1. we've been too reliant on Davante
2. we need to feature Jones more

 

[Dantés]

I'm not trying to argue any of that. I know he's not the problem, I know that HE is not hurting the offense. Please point out where I've made that assertion. I'm simply saying that the over reliance on him has been a contributing factor to the subpar offensive results. The wording can be changed to fit a certain narrative, but it's a part of the issue that needs to be resolved.

'Adams hurting the offense' and 'the over reliance on Adams is a little high' are two different statements.

We just need to adjust the targets and the scheme a bit. That's all. And I'm sure we will moving forward.

I wasn't trying to say that you think Adams is the problem. That's not what I meant. I was explaining my own position in this thread especially as it relates to other posters.

There are others in here that have essentially missed the headline-- the offensive problems against LA and SF were much more systemic than Adams' role. That's what I'm asserting.

 

[adambr2]

If you think that the line and offense as a whole functioned worse in the Chiefs game compared to the Chargers game, I can't help you.

Why do you keep putting words into my mouth that I didn't say and throwing out red herrings? I literally said in my last post, directly quoting myself, "Yet the Packer offense was able to function just fine that game".

And I gave you actual statistical measures of how the offensive line functioned even worse or at least as badly in the Chiefs game.

I am giving you real evidence but you have taken your position and dug in your heels so much that you just refuse to even hear it.

No one is saying Adams is bad. No one is saying Adams is the problem. People are saying the way in which Adams is utilized by both Rodgers and the offense IS PART of the problem. Something which MLF himself has admitted is probably true.

 

[Dantés]

Here are the offensive sequences from the 1st Quarter in the two really terrible offensive games (@LAC and @SF). This is from the beginning of the contests, when the gameplan should still be somewhat intact:

@LAC:

-1st and 10: Pass to A. Jones for -1 yard Negative Play
-2nd and 11: Penalty on B. Bulaga for -5 yards Negative Play
-2nd and 16: Pass to D. Adams for 8 yards
-3rd and 8: A. Rodgers sacked for -9 yards Negative Play
-4th and 17: Punt

-1st and 10: A. Jones run for 3 yards
-2nd and 7: Pass to J. Williams for 6 yards
-3rd and 1: Penalty of E. Jenkins for -5 yards Negative Play
-3rd and 6: Pass to D. Adams for 8 yards 1st Down
-1st and 10: A. Jones run for 5 yards
-2nd and 5: Penalty on D. Bakhtiari for -5 yards Negative Play
-2nd and 10: Pass incomplete to D. Adams
-3rd and 10: A. Rodgers sacked for -7 yards Negative Play
-4th and 17: Punt

-1st and 10: J. Williams run for 5 yards
-2nd and 5: J. Williams run for 5 yards; penalty on A. Lazard for -10 yards Negative Play
-2nd and 10: Penalty on A. Rodgers for -5 yards Negative Play
-2nd and 15: Pass to J. Graham for 1 yard
-3rd and 14: Pass to G. Allison for 13 yards; penalty on LAC for 15 yards 1st Down
-1st and 10: A. Jones run for 7 yards
-2nd and 3: A. Jones run for 3 yards 1st Down
-1st and 10: Pass incomplete to A. Jones
-2nd and 10: A. Jones run for 3 yards
-3rd and 7: Pass incomplete to A. Lazard
-4th and 7: Punt

@SF:

-1st and 10: A. Jones run for 5 yards
-2nd and 5: Pass to D. Adams for 10 yards; penalty of D. Adams for -15 yards Negative Play; 1st Down
-1st and 10: Incomplete pass to M. Valdez-Scantling
-2nd and 10: A. Jones run for no gain
-3rd and 10: A. Rodgers sacked for -11 yards; fumble recovered by SF Negative Play

-1st and 10: Pass to J. Graham for 7 yards
-2nd and 3: A. Jones run for -1 yard Negative Play
-3rd and 4: Pass incomplete to G. Allison
-4th and 4: Punt

-1st and 10: J. Williams run for -3 yards Negative Play
-2nd and 13: Pass to J. Williams for 4 yards
-3rd and 9: Incomplete pass to J. Williams
-4th and 9: Punt

-1st and 10: A. Rodgers run for 4 yards
-2nd and 6: A. Jones run for 5 yards; penalty on G. Allison for -10 yards Negative Play
-2nd and 16: Pass to G. Allison for 3 yards
-3rd and 13: Pass incomplete to D. Adams
-4th and 13: Punt

The actual problem with the offense in these two games is in bold, for easy recognition. How anyone watched this and came away thinking "if only Davante didn't come back" is beyond me.

If LaFleur wants more targets for Jones, awesome. If that means fewer for Adams, that's fine too. But if anyone thinks that that's the answer to what has ailed us lately on the road, you're kidding yourself.

 

[Dantés]

Why do you keep putting words into my mouth that I didn't say and throwing out red herrings? I literally said in my last post, directly quoting myself, "Yet the Packer offense was able to function just fine that game".

And I gave you actual statistical measures of how the offensive line functioned even worse or at least as badly in the Chiefs game.

I am giving you real evidence but you have taken your position and dug in your heels so much that you just refuse to even hear it.

No one is saying Adams is bad. No one is saying Adams is the problem. People are saying the way in which Adams is utilized by both Rodgers and the offense IS PART of the problem. Something which MLF himself has admitted is probably true.

No, you gave me sacks. Anyone who remembers those two games knows that any statistics that claim that the OL played worse in the KC game than in the LA game are misleading. The offense may have given up some sacks against KC, but it had time to function in between. In LA, Bosa and Ingram and wretched play from our OL completely blew up the offense. It wasn't that long ago. It should still be fresh in fans' memories.

You also said that Adams is the problem. The first thing you said in this thread was "Is Davante Adams hurting this offense? Seriously.." In the next post, you said that he makes the offense one dimensional. In the next post, you said that they are trying to "make him the offense."

LaFleur indicated that he doesn't want to be so reliant on Adams, specifically citing Jones' lack of targets. I think that's great. Involve Jones more. But that doesn't make Adams the problem, and anyone watching these games and thinking "if they only threw to Adams less" is missing it.

 

[adambr2]

I also gave you QB hits, (12 at KC versus 7 at LAC), but you're leaving out important information because it does not support your argument.

I am guessing that before I mentioned it, you would have never guessed the 5 sacks and 12 QB hits from the KC game without looking it up. We remember what we want to remember. It is easier to forget the offensive line play from the Chiefs game because other functions of the offense were working whereas they were not against the Chargers.

 

[HardRightEdge]

He said (paraphrasing) that we have been overly reliant on Davante. It's hard to misunderstand that.

You got a link to that? I'd like to see exactly what he said.

That's seriously all that I am implying. I couldn't agree more. But when you have been relying too heavily on Davante, while not featuring Jones more out of the backfield, motioning out, etc., it creates (intentionally, or unintentionally) an over reliance on your only other elite playmaker in Davante.

Like I alluded to in my previous post, we need to get Jones more involved. Both of those guys being featured heavily will make them both more effective. Defenses then can't key on a certain playmaker.

I think we all agree that Adams and Jones are far and away the two best playmakers on the offense. Get back to making Jones more of a focal point.

The two comments went hand in hand.

1. we've been too reliant on Davante
2. we need to feature Jones more

I can only repeat, of 80 offensive snaps in the 49er game, there were 68 (more than a typical full game's worth) where Adams was not involved. The offense did squat with those snaps.

 

[Dantés]

I also gave you QB hits, (12 at KC versus 7 at LAC), but you're leaving out important information because it does not support your argument.

I am guessing that before I mentioned it, you would have never guessed the 5 sacks and 12 QB hits from the KC game without looking it up. We remember what we want to remember. It is easier to forget the offensive line play from the Chiefs game because other functions of the offense were working whereas they were not against the Chargers.

I can only repeat that I remember those games and any assertion that the protection was worse or even close to as bad against KC as it was against LA is flat out wrong. Disagree if you like. It does not bother me.

 

[PackAttack12]

You got a link to that? I'd like to see exactly what he said.

I can only repeat, of 80 offensive snaps in the 49er game, there were 68 (more than a typical full game's worth) where Adams was not involved. The offense did squat with those snaps.

packers.com

 

[adambr2]

I can only repeat that I remember those games and any assertion that the protection was worse or even close to as bad against KC as it was against LA is flat out wrong. Disagree if you like. It does not bother me.

And disagree I do.

Here is a postgame link from the USA today following the Chiefs/Packers game:

https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2019/10/28/good-bad-and-ugly-from-the-packers-win-over-the-chiefs/

And from it came this very notable analysis:

The Ugly

• Pass Protection: For seven games, the Packers offensive line has looked to be one of the best in the NFL, allowing Aaron Rodgers to rarely have to worry about being pressured. On Sunday night, they took a step back, as Rodgers was pressured on half of his dropbacks against the Chiefs. Bryan Bulaga and David Bakhtiari – two of the best tackles in the league – had tough nights, with Bulaga getting beat often by Emmanuel Ogbah. Matt LaFleur said communication was an issue against the blitz in the first half. As a whole, the Packers offensive line allowed five sacks, and Rodgers looked to be under duress all night. Another tough matchup with the Los Angeles Chargers awaits, so look for the Packers offensive line to spend most of this week correcting the problems they displayed on Sunday

As I said, we remember things the way we want to remember, and memories become more biased over time. This is why I've tried to support my points to you with actual statistics and immediate analysis and feedback after that game rather than just insulting you with opinion-based generalities that don't offer anything substantial to the discussion like "You're kidding yourself" and "Anyone who remembers those two games knows" and "(you're) flat-out wrong".

 

[Dantés]

And disagree I do.

Here is a postgame link from the USA today following the Chiefs/Packers game:

https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2019/10/28/good-bad-and-ugly-from-the-packers-win-over-the-chiefs/

And from it came this very notable analysis:

The Ugly

• Pass Protection: For seven games, the Packers offensive line has looked to be one of the best in the NFL, allowing Aaron Rodgers to rarely have to worry about being pressured. On Sunday night, they took a step back, as Rodgers was pressured on half of his dropbacks against the Chiefs. Bryan Bulaga and David Bakhtiari – two of the best tackles in the league – had tough nights, with Bulaga getting beat often by Emmanuel Ogbah. Matt LaFleur said communication was an issue against the blitz in the first half. As a whole, the Packers offensive line allowed five sacks, and Rodgers looked to be under duress all night. Another tough matchup with the Los Angeles Chargers awaits, so look for the Packers offensive line to spend most of this week correcting the problems they displayed on Sunday

As I said, we remember things the way we want to remember, and memories become more biased over time. This is why I've tried to support my points to you with actual statistics and immediate analysis and feedback after that game rather than just insulting you with opinion-based generalities that don't offer anything substantial to the discussion like "You're kidding yourself" and "Anyone who remembers those two games knows" and "(you're) flat-out wrong".

Again, I remember those games. The offensive line was able to provide enough room and time for the offense to function @KC. This was not the case at LAC. And again, if you don't like that take, you don't have to agree with it.

I broke down the first quarter drives of both games for you and you never even acknowledged it. So spare me the lecture of not offering any support for my opinions. Your argument has basically devolved into "you remember wrong because you want to," which is easily the steamiest pile of ******** in this thread.

I also threw my opinion on this topic out in general to no one in particular. You responded with your take and I told you I don't buy it. You pursued this debate and now you're mad that I don't share your opinions. Get over it.

 

[SUGAMAN44]

Is Davante Adams hurting this offense? Seriously..

Yes, he's the best receiver on the team and it's not even close.

Yet, when he was out all of October, the Packer offense was rolling. Rodgers was averaging over 300 yards per game. 10 touchdowns to 1 INT in October. Since Adams returned, Rodgers has seen the endzone twice in 3 games and is averaging a pathetic 166 yards passing per game.

This is frustrating to say the least. Something is different about this offense with Adams in it. I can't explain it. Is it the secondary roles that everyone else takes when Adams is in? Is it just Rodgers paying no one else any attention? Logically, if the lack of weapons is the problem, the offense should have been nonexistent when Adams was out in October. But that's not what happened.

I agree. Rogers is Def just looking for Adams now.

 

[adambr2]

Again, I remember those games. The offensive line was able to provide enough room and time for the offense to function @KC. This was not the case at LAC. And again, if you don't like that take, you don't have to agree with it.

I broke down the first quarter drives of both games for you and you never even acknowledged it. So spare me the lecture of not offering any support for my opinions. Your argument has basically devolved into "you remember wrong because you want to," which is easily the steamiest pile of ******** in this thread.

I also threw my opinion on this topic out in general to no one in particular. You responded with your take and I told you I don't buy it. You pursued this debate and now you're mad that I don't share your opinions. Get over it.

I read your logs from the first quarter drives for both games. I didn't respond to that specifically because I have no idea what you're trying to prove by it. Everyone is well aware that the offense as a whole was better in the Chiefs game. Showing us the play by play doesn't tell us a thing about the pass rush difference between the Chiefs and Chargers which is where the disagreement was.

You're the only one getting mad and escalating. I don't need to get over anything. I don't need you to share my opinions. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. I'm just offering the evidence I have to support my points which is typical of a message board, nothing more.

 

[Dantés]

I read your logs from the first quarter drives for both games. I didn't respond to that specifically because I have no idea what you're trying to prove by it. Everyone is well aware that the offense as a whole was better in the Chiefs game. Showing us the play by play doesn't tell us a thing about the pass rush difference between the Chiefs and Chargers which is where the disagreement was.

You're the only one getting mad and escalating. I don't need to get over anything. I don't need you to share my opinions. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. I'm just offering the evidence I have to support my points which is typical of a message board, nothing more.

The point of the logs is that negative plays, not a fixation on Davante Adams, doomed the offense @LA and @SF.

 

[adambr2]

The point of the logs is that negative plays, not a fixation on Davante Adams, doomed the offense @LA and @SF.

Fair enough. Like I said, agree to disagree. Whatever the reason or reasons may be, they obviously need to be better on offense than they have been.

 

[Dantés]

Fair enough. Like I said, agree to disagree. Whatever the reason or reasons may be, they obviously need to be better on offense than they have been.

That is undoubtedly true. NYG and WAS should provide good opportunity to get right.

 

[gatorpack]

Is Davante Adams hurting this offense? Seriously..

Yes, he's the best receiver on the team and it's not even close.

Yet, when he was out all of October, the Packer offense was rolling. Rodgers was averaging over 300 yards per game. 10 touchdowns to 1 INT in October. Since Adams returned, Rodgers has seen the endzone twice in 3 games and is averaging a pathetic 166 yards passing per game.

This is frustrating to say the least. Something is different about this offense with Adams in it. I can't explain it. Is it the secondary roles that everyone else takes when Adams is in? Is it just Rodgers paying no one else any attention? Logically, if the lack of weapons is the problem, the offense should have been nonexistent when Adams was out in October. But that's not what happened.

I think the offense went off track when we stopped throwing the ball to the running backs. The Packers number one weapon just disappeared I have no idea why.

 

[HardRightEdge]

packers.com

LOL

 

[PackAttack12]

LOL

I figure you're smart enough to find the "recent videos" section.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I figure you're smart enough to find the "recent videos" section.

I did find it. I just figured you'd want to back up what you say.

"We want to make sure we're not overreliant [on Adams]. Two of those games were pretty bad."

Sounds like a throwaway line after earlier comments about getting beat in every phase of the game, which is kind of obvious.

 

[Dantés]

I did find it. I just figured you'd want to back up what you say.

"We want to make sure we're not overreliant [on Adams]. Two of those games were pretty bad."

Sounds like a throwaway line after earlier comments about getting beat in every phase of the game, which is kind of obvious.

That last part is the lede that this thread has buried.

 

[PackAttack12]

I did find it. I just figured you'd want to back up what you say.

"We want to make sure we're not overreliant [on Adams]. Two of those games were pretty bad."

Sounds like a throwaway line after earlier comments about getting beat in every phase of the game, which is kind of obvious.

There were references to it in the Sunday night presser and in the Monday one. You can call it a "throwaway" line to explain away the head coach acknowledging that it is an issue, even if a slight one, all you want.

But I guess when some have a difficult time admitting they might be on the wrong side of an argument they'll grasp at anything to avoid admitting the possibility of being wrong.

Feel free to let me know how many other throwaway lines he used so that I'll know what else he said that I should ignore.

 

[Ogsponge]

Anyone that does not realize the offense completely changed when Adams came back is blind. Anyone that thinks that is just a coincidence is also blind. The dynamic use of our running backs has disappeared and that is the problem as that was opening everything up

 

[Dantés]

Anyone that does not realize the offense completely changed when Adams came back is blind. Anyone that thinks that is just a coincidence is also blind. The dynamic use of our running backs has disappeared and that is the problem as that was opening everything up

Completely is an overstatement.

Aaron Jones's targets have dried up and that needs to change. But that's not an Adams problem.

The OL also had two of its worst games of the season against two defenses that were playing lights out.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Feel free to let me know how many other throwaway lines he used so that I'll know what else he said that I should ignore.

He uses a lot of throwaway lines. See the stuff about "communication". It's coach-speak. Of course, if he didn't notice that players not named Adams didn't do squat for the other 68 snaps, then he has a problem.