Packers re-sign Aaron Jones

[sschind]

So you would agree that you could say that about almost every position on the field?

Better RB play might have made a difference.

Better TE play might have made a difference.

Better OL play might have made a difference.

Better DL play might have made a difference.

Better ED play might have made a difference.

Better LB play might have made a difference.

Better DB play might have made a difference.

Why the preoccupation with the WR position in a game in which they produced?

You've explained why you left QB off the list but are we to assume that you don't think the special teams could have played any better. You left them off as well.

 

[Dantés]

You've explained why you left QB off the list but are we to assume that you don't think the special teams could have played any better. You left them off as well.

Can't believe my oversight. Thank you.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm not suggesting the depth at wide receiver was the main reason the Packers lost the NFCCG by any means but a more talented #2 WR might have made a difference.

Agreed. But I think both of us and a few others are wasting our time continually stating the rather obvious. I laugh at those who keep saying "but...but...but the offense led the league in all these categories, how can we be any better? That proves your premise to be false" Pathetic excuse for settling and trying to deflect away from what most of the NFL world recognizes, Adams has been the only legit starting caliber WR for the Packers since Cobb and Jordy left and that hasn't changed much.

 

[Dantés]

Agreed. But I think both of us and a few others are wasting our time continually stating the rather obvious. I laugh at those who keep saying "but...but...but the offense led the league in all these categories, how can we be any better? That proves your premise to be false" Pathetic excuse for settling and trying to deflect away from what most of the NFL world recognizes, Adams has been the only legit starting caliber WR for the Packers since Cobb and Jordy left and that hasn't changed much.

What's pathetic is people like this ^, who sunk their teeth into a narrative a year ago and refuse to let it go no matter what actually happens in real life. Nevermind that people like me were explaining to him last spring/summer how and why this offense could thrive without a ton of WR talent (which is exactly what happened).

But I get it. When you've tied virtually everything around the team into your own personal hobby horse issue, and then are proved laughably ignorant by the results, staying the course is more appealing than a giant steaming plate of crow.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Agreed. But I think both of us and a few others are wasting our time continually stating the rather obvious. I laugh at those who keep saying "but...but...but the offense led the league in all these categories, how can we be any better? That proves your premise to be false" Pathetic excuse for settling and trying to deflect away from what most of the NFL world recognizes, Adams has been the only legit starting caliber WR for the Packers since Cobb and Jordy left and that hasn't changed much.

It is obvious. No one wants to talk about it, at least not constructively, because Rodgers won the MVP - so he must have a great corp of WRs, right? Wrong. In fact, the weak WR group (sans Adams) is one reason why he won the MVP. And as far as offensive prowess, well that's fine. But how much better could Adams be if he wasn't doubled so much? You just can't settle or explain away not winning a championship. To paraphrase Bill Bellichek (sp?) - At the end of the season there's one winner, and 31 plane crashes.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It is obvious. No one wants to talk about it, at least not constructively, because Rodgers won the MVP - so he must have a great corp of WRs, right? Wrong. In fact, the weak WR group (sans Adams) is one reason why he won the MVP. And as far as offensive prowess, well that's fine. But how much better could Adams be if he wasn't doubled so much? You just can't settle or explain away not winning a championship. To paraphrase Bill Bellichek (sp?) - At the end of the season there's one winner, and 31 plane crashes.

Yup and have mercy on Jordan Love or whoever else has to step in and back up Rodgers in the event of an injury. Don't get me wrong, I like the potential of Lazard, as well as Tonyan, but what would 2020 look like for those 2 guys had Mitch Turdbiscuit been the Packer QB? I get people saying they did well in the system, hard to deny, since the system did well. However, that doesn't mean the system can't be better with better players.

 

[Mondio]

It is obvious. No one wants to talk about it, at least not constructively, because Rodgers won the MVP - so he must have a great corp of WRs, right? Wrong. In fact, the weak WR group (sans Adams) is one reason why he won the MVP. And as far as offensive prowess, well that's fine. But how much better could Adams be if he wasn't doubled so much? You just can't settle or explain away not winning a championship. To paraphrase Bill Bellichek (sp?) - At the end of the season there's one winner, and 31 plane crashes.

Adams is going to be doubled, get used to it. It didn't matter when we could go with Jordy, Jones, Jennings, Cobb either. not enough WR prowess?

There are 1000 ways to win, or lose. Every team could be better with better players at every position, it also guarantees nothing. Rodgers won the MVP because he had a great year, Mahomes won it with talent everywhere, he also didn't win it with talent at every playmaking position either.

Trubisky sucks, they have good pass catchers and RB's in Chicago. News flash, it's difficult to win with a crappy QB with playmaking talent or not. It's not some secret we wouldn't be as good without a HOF QB.

and nobody is saying we have a great corps of WR's. People have been saying we had a good offense, and we did, almost historically so. There's more ways to run an offense than thru WR's. Yes Rodgers is good, but this team wasn't all Rodgers last year either. At moments, he made HOF plays, because that's what he is. But he also won a lot of games because of the jobs of everyone else.

 

[gopkrs]

One thing I have been thinking might be a weakness of ARod and a difference between him and Brady is that Brady has no problem with e.g., throwing the ball in the dirt when a back is a little open in the flat but is obviously not going anywhere and there will probably be a loss of yardage. I think whereas Brady throws it away, Aaron tries to complete it. I think they both hold on to the ball if a receiver is not open and look around while they have time (both have great awareness back there), but Brady might try and thread the needle more often and he will throw the ball away more often. With Rodgers being a bit less mobile now; I think it would be good for him to change into that strategy a bit more. Just something I have been thinking about. Rodgers is and has been a great QB.

 

[GleefulGary]

The presumed WR2 in the Tampa game went for 4/115/1.

Would a better WR crew help the offense? Of course it would. Is the current WR crew the reason they lost to Tampa? No, it is not.

GB lost to Tampa because of the OL. They couldn’t handle the pass rush with Bakh out, and weren’t able to take advantage of the mistakes the defense made Brady make.

So yeah, better WR’s would help, but anybody acting like that’s the reason GB lost to Tampa clearly did not watch the game.

 

[longtimefan]

^^^

and weren’t able to take advantage of the mistakes Brady had

People forget that

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So you would agree that you could say that about almost every position on the field?

Better RB play might have made a difference.

Better TE play might have made a difference.

Better OL play might have made a difference.

Better DL play might have made a difference.

Better ED play might have made a difference.

Better LB play might have made a difference.

Better DB play might have made a difference.

Why the preoccupation with the WR position in a game in which they produced?

In my opinion the play of the offensive line and cornerbacks not named Alexander were the main reasons for the Packers losing in the NFCCG with Jones significantly contributing with his fumble lost deep in their own territory.

That doesn't mean better wide receivers would have improved their chances of winning the game.

But I get it. When you've tied virtually everything around the team into your own personal hobby horse issue, and then are proved laughably ignorant by the results, staying the course is more appealing than a giant steaming plate of crow.

On the other hand I'm still waiting for you to eat some crow for proclaiming the Rams were the only legit threat in the NFC to the Packers' Super Bowl aspirations while completely dismissing the Bucs' chances before the start of the playoffs.

Trubisky sucks, they have good pass catchers and RB's in Chicago. News flash, it's difficult to win with a crappy QB with playmaking talent or not. It's not some secret we wouldn't be as good without a HOF QB.

It shouldn't be a secret the Packers could be even better on offense with an improved receiving corps while having a HOF quarterback. That seems to get completely ignored around here.

So yeah, better WR’s would help, but anybody acting like that’s the reason GB lost to Tampa clearly did not watch the game.

Anybody acting like anybody suggested the wide receivers were the reason the Packers lost to the Bucs clearly didn't read the last few posts.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Adams is going to be doubled, get used to it. It didn't matter when we could go with Jordy, Jones, Jennings, Cobb either. not enough WR prowess?

There are 1000 ways to win, or lose. Every team could be better with better players at every position, it also guarantees nothing. Rodgers won the MVP because he had a great year, Mahomes won it with talent everywhere, he also didn't win it with talent at every playmaking position either.

Trubisky sucks, they have good pass catchers and RB's in Chicago. News flash, it's difficult to win with a crappy QB with playmaking talent or not. It's not some secret we wouldn't be as good without a HOF QB.

and nobody is saying we have a great corps of WR's. People have been saying we had a good offense, and we did, almost historically so. There's more ways to run an offense than thru WR's. Yes Rodgers is good, but this team wasn't all Rodgers last year either. At moments, he made HOF plays, because that's what he is. But he also won a lot of games because of the jobs of everyone else.

The team definitely is more balanced under MLF, and that takes some pressure off Rodgers. I'm not going to argue about two 13-3 seasons. And yeah, WR isn't the only position group needing improvement. With limited cap space remaining, my question is how can the Packers best use their limited resources to get over the NFCCG hump? I'd like to see improvement at WR, but that's not the only way to improve this team.

 

[GleefulGary]

Sorry. Suggesting a more talented #2 WR would have made a difference is probably wrong. Wouldn’t have fixed the OL. Wouldn’t have fixed dumb defensive plays.

 

[Heyjoe4]

The presumed WR2 in the Tampa game went for 4/115/1.

Would a better WR crew help the offense? Of course it would. Is the current WR crew the reason they lost to Tampa? No, it is not.

GB lost to Tampa because of the OL. They couldn’t handle the pass rush with Bakh out, and weren’t able to take advantage of the mistakes the defense made Brady make.

So yeah, better WR’s would help, but anybody acting like that’s the reason GB lost to Tampa clearly did not watch the game.

And to prove your point, Rodgers was sacked 5 times. Lots of reasons why they lost the NFCCG. IMO the number one reason is they lost it on the line of scrimmage. Don't be surprised to see an OL selected with the first pick, and don't be surprised if Gluten drafts 3 OLmen.

 

[Dantés]

In my opinion the play of the offensive line and cornerbacks not named Alexander were the main reasons for the Packers losing in the NFCCG with Jones significantly contributing with his fumble lost deep in their own territory.

That doesn't mean better wide receivers would have improved their chances of winning the game.

On the other hand I'm still waiting for you to eat some crow for proclaiming the Rams were the only legit threat in the NFC to the Packers' Super Bowl aspirations while completely dismissing the Bucs' chances before the start of the playoffs.

It shouldn't be a secret the Packers could be even better on offense with an improved receiving corps while having a HOF quarterback. That seems to get completely ignored around here.

I totally agree! I think you're exactly right, adding in the unequal way that penalties were called on defensive backs. And yeah, better wide receiver would have improved their chances just like better players at literally any position would have improved their chances.

Furthermore-- wait no longer! I admit the obvious, that my prediction was wrong about the Packers winning the SB if they got past the Rams was incorrect. That's hardly a parallel, however, as I have not turned every thread since into a referendum on my incorrect guess.

As to your last comment in bold... I don't know one would spend time on this forum and have that opinion. Far from being ignored, people bring up their desire for better WR's basically every day.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

^^^

and weren’t able to take advantage of the mistakes Brady had

People forget that

but...but...but....we had the best offense in the NFL, so it doesn't matter.

 

[GleefulGary]

but...but...but....we had the best offense in the NFL, so it doesn't matter.

Your inability to think without regurgitating whatever you’ve seen elsewhere is unparalleled.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I totally agree! I think you're exactly right, adding in the unequal way that penalties were called on defensive backs. And yeah, better wide receiver would have improved their chances just like better players at literally any position would have improved their chances.

Furthermore-- wait no longer! I admit the obvious, that my prediction was wrong about the Packers winning the SB if they got past the Rams was incorrect. That's hardly a parallel, however, as I have not turned every thread since into a referendum on my incorrect guess.

As to your last comment in bold... I don't know one would spend time on this forum and have that opinion. Far from being ignored, people bring up their desire for better WR's basically every day.

Like your last comment. After looking at this and these threads for so long, I'm convinced the Packers got as far as they deserved. I was worried after they played the Bucs in Week 6, not because of Brady but because of that D. And I don't think the Bucs had Vita Vea in the first game.

Silverstein actually wrote a very good article yesterday about how Gluten is managing personnel decisions, given the cap constraints. It's a really good article, even though it implicitly suggests that FA won't help the Packers. But it does point out that resigning Jones was a FA transaction, and that's the right way to look at it.

Gonna need to have a solid draft, with at least two, ideally three of the picks becoming starters and having an impact on the goal to win the SB (or maybe just the first goal to win the NFCCG.....). From here, FA won't impact the team much.

 

[Dantés]

Like your last comment. After looking at this and these threads for so long, I'm convinced the Packers got as far as they deserved. I was worried after they played the Bucs in Week 6, not because of Brady but because of that D. And I don't think the Bucs had Vita Vea in the first game.

Silverstein actually wrote a very good article yesterday about how Gluten is managing personnel decisions, given the cap constraints. It's a really good article, even though it implicitly suggests that FA won't help the Packers. But it does point out that resigning Jones was a FA transaction, and that's the right way to look at it.

Gonna need to have a solid draft, with at least two, ideally three of the picks becoming starters and having an impact on the goal to win the SB (or maybe just the first goal to win the NFCCG.....). From here, FA won't impact the team much.

I disagree. I think the Packers were overall the best team in football last year.

The Bucs matched up well with them and got help from the officiating. And even still, it all basically swung on one play-- Jones' fumble. That one play on its own was at least a 7 point swing, if not 14. And obviously the margin in the end was 5 points.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I disagree. I think the Packers were overall the best team in football last year.

The Bucs matched up well with them and got help from the officiating. And even still, it all basically swung on one play-- Jones' fumble. That one play on its own was at least a 7 point swing, if not 14. And obviously the margin in the end was 5 points.

Hard to argue. My "one play" from that game was King giving up a TD at the end of the half to a #3 WR....... And you had miscues by the Bucs too, Brady's INTs that we did nothing with.

I don't necessarily disagree that the Packers were the best team in the NFL last year. But after I shake off my disappointment I accept the final result. The Bucs were the better team on the day they beat GB. For us fans it sucks but it's all that counts.

 

[Dantés]

Hard to argue. My "one play" from that game was King giving up a TD at the end of the half to a #3 WR....... And you had miscues by the Bucs too, Brady's INTs that we did nothing with.

I don't necessarily disagree that the Packers were the best team in the NFL last year. But after I shake off my disappointment I accept the final result. The Bucs were the better team on the day they beat GB. For us fans it sucks but it's all that counts.

Yeah, that's true. If the Packers don't give up a super preventable TD and then turn around and fumble inside the 10 coming out of halftime, they win that game in a walk. They were better than the Bucs.

But in the NFL, you play games, not series. So the outcomes are more volatile than in other sports, and the critical mistakes matter all that much more.

 

[Schultz]

The absolute key play in that game was the Aaron Jones fumble. Not only did that play give TB another 7 but Jones was lost for the game. The people who talk about GB not scoring on the Brady turnovers pretty blame the WR corps. I firmly believe with Jones on the field the odds of either he or Adams scoring greatly increase.

 

[Heyjoe4]

The absolute key play in that game was the Aaron Jones fumble. Not only did that play give TB another 7 but Jones was lost for the game. The people who talk about GB not scoring on the Brady turnovers pretty blame the WR corps. I firmly believe with Jones on the field the odds of either he or Adams scoring greatly increase.

Very good point about the loss if Jones in the second half. And yeah, that was a two-part TO. The Bucs score a TD and Jones is gone for the game.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Yeah, that's true. If the Packers don't give up a super preventable TD and then turn around and fumble inside the 10 coming out of halftime, they win that game in a walk. They were better than the Bucs.

But in the NFL, you play games, not series. So the outcomes are more volatile than in other sports, and the critical mistakes matter all that much more.

It's frustrating and heartbreaking for us Packers' fans. The loss to the Bucs was similar to the 2014 loss to the Seahags. GB had the better team in both cases. The final scores said otherwise........

And I'm sure if the Packers had won the NFCCG, they would have beaten KC. First of all, it's just hard to win two in a row. But Reid had to be distracted by the trouble his son was in back in KC. Worst game I've seen KC play, all credit though to the Bucs for a dominating win.

 

[GleefulGary]

KC was missing half their OL starters I think. Actually pretty relevant to a lot of topics here.

KC has a top 3 QB, top 3 WR, top 2 TE, 1st round RB, and had other good WR’s. They still got pummeled because their OL sucked that game. So how much did having a great #2 option help them?

The priority for GB this draft should be fixing the OL. You cannot win without a good OL.