Rebuild a new LaFleur offense or get what Pettine needs on defense?

[GreenNGold_81]

Geronimo Allison isn't that far off physically from Cooper Kupp. Not all #2 WRs have to be speed demons.

If athleticism was everything, Jeff Janis would be in the HOF.

 

[mradtke66]

Allison's 39-yard touchdown catch vs. the Bears was impressive but the 64-yarder he scored vs. Washington was the result of the Redskins completely blowing the coverage. Trust me, I could have scored on that play

Heh, I don't doubt that. I like a good argument and Pack's argument doesn't strike me as good. Not that his position isn't defensible, but I find how he's doing so sloppy.

Then there's my pet peeve. The more absolute the position, the more I want to chip away at it.

 

[OldSchool101]

Allison's 39-yard touchdown catch vs. the Bears was impressive but the 64-yarder he scored vs. Washington was the result of the Redskins completely blowing the coverage. Trust me, I could have scored on that play

Lol. Somehow if you scored I’d have the feeling you wouldn’t let us forget that stat.
I keep imagining a Christmas card every year with your single game stat imbedded on the front.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

As it stands right now the Packers offense hasn't improved since the end of the 2018 season.

Gutekunst will definitely make moves to upgrade the unit before the start of the season but it's not a given that will end up in the team fielding a top 10 offense again in 2019.

Yes, as it stands the offense HAS improved, unless you think rookie receivers won't get better in their second year. None of the other positions on offense has gotten worse, as of now, and I would think a healthy Allison and improved rookie receivers would be a decent jump for the offense.

 

[PackAttack12]

Yes, as it stands the offense HAS improved, unless you think rookie receivers won't get better in their second year. None of the other positions on offense has gotten worse, as of now, and I would think a healthy Allison and improved rookie receivers would be a decent jump for the offense.

Did Randall and Rollins improve from their first to second seasons?

 

[GleefulGary]

Did Randall and Rollins improve from their first to second seasons?

They both had injuries that seriously hurt their year, and in Rollins's case, his career.

I believe Randall had a groin injury. You can't play CB well with a groin injury...can't get to speed, can't flip your hips, etc.

As always, context is needed here.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

All the players will be in a new scheme. That does not help 2nd year WR's who will have to learn a new playbook. Unless Lafleur can work his magic and get these guys on the same page early. I also don't think a team with win now intentions will be happy going into next year without a veteran WR added to the mix. Remember, Gute really wanted Allen Robinson last year. I see him making a play for another WR this year (hoping Humphries).

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yes, as it stands the offense HAS improved, unless you think rookie receivers won't get better in their second year. None of the other positions on offense has gotten worse, as of now, and I would think a healthy Allison and improved rookie receivers would be a decent jump for the offense.

There's no guarantee MVS or EQ improve next season for various reasons. Maybe they don't fit the new scheme, injuries could derail their development.....

As long as we don't see the offense improving it's naive to take it for granted that the unit will be top 10 in the league after what happened last year.

They both had injuries that seriously hurt their year, and in Rollins's case, his career.

I believe Randall had a groin injury. You can't play CB well with a groin injury...can't get to speed, can't flip your hips, etc.

As always, context is needed here.

I don't want to play devil's advocate here but that could happen to MVS or EQ as well.

 

[Mondio]

All the players will be in a new scheme. That does not help 2nd year WR's who will have to learn a new playbook. Unless Lafleur can work his magic and get these guys on the same page early. I also don't think a team with win now intentions will be happy going into next year without a veteran WR added to the mix. Remember, Gute really wanted Allen Robinson last year. I see him making a play for another WR this year (hoping Humphries).

There is obviously merit in all the players learning a "new" scheme, but there is a lot more to being in the NFL than the play called. There will be a learning curve for everyone, but at the same time, there are only so many routes to run and part of the biggest adjustment guys have to make is just learning how to sustain the grind and work all season long. The details matter at this level. In college many of these guys could be a bit more sloppy in what they did, because they'd just out athlete the guy across from them.

They can't do that and be successful in the NFL. The details in route running, how to attack the ball, how to study film, reads, etc are very similar and important across any offensive play book. I expect an improvement just from experience in the league alone. There is so much to be gained in the first year or 2 that would help players in any offense. So play calls will be different, but the skills needed to work on and perform in that offense will be the same. And they have a year of experience. They know better what they need to work on. I just hope they're working on it and they should make a nice jump.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I expect an improvement just from experience in the league alone. There is so much to be gained in the first year or 2 that would help players in any offense. And they have a year of experience. They know better what they need to work on. I just hope they're working on it and they should make a nice jump.

While a lot of second-year players have improved over their rookie seasons there are also a huge number of players there weren't able to develop any further or even regressed after having a decent first year in the league.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Did Randall and Rollins improve from their first to second seasons?

No. However, I'm not sure I'd look at the exception to rookies improving rather than looking at the majority of rookies who DO improve in their second seasons. But, if you'd like to assume that all rookies will get worse, then the front office has a LOT of work to do this offseason, like drafting three brand new WRs.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

While a lot of second-year players have improved over their rookie seasons there are also a huge number of players there weren't able to develop any further or even regressed after having a decent first year in the league.

So, are the Packers assuming no improvement? If so, does that mean they need to go WR heavy in the draft again? Assuming the worst, less likely case, for rookies isn't really the best way to plan for team building, in my opinion.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

There's no guarantee MVS or EQ improve next season for various reasons. Maybe they don't fit the new scheme, injuries could derail their development.....

As long as we don't see the offense improving it's naive to take it for granted that the unit will be top 10 in the league after what happened last year.

The Packers scored 38 points less than the 10th best offense in the NFL last year (the Falcons); they were 72 yards away from being top-10 in total yards as well. I'm pretty comfortable assuming that enough improvement will be made by the rookies that the Packers can score 3 more points a game on average, or gain 5 more yards per game, next year. Especially since they'll be playing a third place schedule next year.

People act like the Packers were SO far from being top-10 last year. They were underwhelming to be sure, but a decent coach should correct many of the issues the offense had, not even counting player improvement.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

No. However, I'm not sure I'd look at the exception to rookies improving rather than looking at the majority of rookies who DO improve in their second seasons. But, if you'd like to assume that all rookies will get worse, then the front office has a LOT of work to do this offseason, like drafting three brand new WRs.

So, are the Packers assuming no improvement? If so, does that mean they need to go WR heavy in the draft again? Assuming the worst, less likely case, for rookies isn't really the best way to plan for team building, in my opinion.

I'm quite sure the Packers expect their second-year players to improve but most likely it won't happen with everyone of them. In addition your thinking is pretty flawed as all other teams around the league find themselves in the same situation with their second-year players, therefore expecting the Packers to move back into the top 10 solely based on the development of those guys is unrealistic.

The Packers scored 38 points less than the 10th best offense in the NFL last year (the Falcons); they were 72 yards away from being top-10 in total yards as well. I'm pretty comfortable assuming that enough improvement will be made by the rookies that the Packers can score 3 more points a game on average, or gain 5 more yards per game, next year. Especially since they'll be playing a third place schedule next year.

People act like the Packers were SO far from being top-10 last year. They were underwhelming to be sure, but a decent coach should correct many of the issues the offense had, not even counting player improvement.

I don't care about yards as it's a terrible metric to measure success. While LaFleur being named head coach could improve the offense it's premature to assume that to happen. The third place schedule won't be a huge factor either.

 

[brandon2348]

So, are the Packers assuming no improvement? If so, does that mean they need to go WR heavy in the draft again? Assuming the worst, less likely case, for rookies isn't really the best way to plan for team building, in my opinion.

WR Heavy? I don't consider drafting 3 receivers on day 3 "WR Heavy". I call that betting on some long shots which they have been doing on offense for awhile now..

I'd be happy if the Pack invested a day 1 or day 2 pick at WR along with the rebuilding the right side of the OL. Then we can start talking about a top 10 offense.

 

[PackAttack12]

No. However, I'm not sure I'd look at the exception to rookies improving rather than looking at the majority of rookies who DO improve in their second seasons. But, if you'd like to assume that all rookies will get worse, then the front office has a LOT of work to do this offseason, like drafting three brand new WRs.

I'm not assuming anything. You're the one making assumptions. I'm not comfortable relying upon a couple of late round picks developing and progressing to the point where we need them to be.

Again, not saying they aren't going to get better. That much is up in the air. But I'm not okay with the offense remaining status quo.

 

[PackAttack12]

Especially since they'll be playing a third place schedule next year.

The Packers played a 3rd place schedule this past season as well...

 

[Sunshinepacker]

WR Heavy? I don't consider drafting 3 receivers on day 3 "WR Heavy". I call that betting on some long shots which they have been doing on offense for awhile now..

I'd be happy if the Pack invested a day 1 or day 2 pick at WR along with the rebuilding the right side of the OL. Then we can start talking about a top 10 offense.

Seems like a lot of work to improve the offense by three points a game...

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I don't care about yards as it's a terrible metric to measure success. While LaFleur being named head coach could improve the offense it's premature to assume that to happen. The third place schedule won't be a huge factor either.

That's why I used points scored first. Could the Packers use help on offense? Of course! They were THREE points a game from being top-10 last year but somehow some fans are convinced the team is in dire straits on offense. It shouldn't take much for this offense to score 3 nowm points a game, ESPECIALLY since the offense took half the year to figure out that Jones was the best RB, Rodgers had a bum knee for much of the year, the projected #2 WR was invited, and two rookie WRs played extensively. I mean, if only the first two improve (Jones actually used and Rodgers heathy) that alone should be worth 3 points a game.

 

[brandon2348]

Seems like a lot of work to improve the offense by three points a game...

Good Point. You used "The top 10 offense" as a goal for this team. I would feel much better with the offense being top 5 or better and were not gonna get there with the current cast of characters.

 

[Mondio]

That's why I used points scored first. Could the Packers use help on offense? Of course! They were THREE points a game from being top-10 last year but somehow some fans are convinced the team is in dire straits on offense. It shouldn't take much for this offense to score 3 nowm points a game, ESPECIALLY since the offense took half the year to figure out that Jones was the best RB, Rodgers had a bum knee for much of the year, the projected #2 WR was invited, and two rookie WRs played extensively. I mean, if only the first two improve (Jones actually used and Rodgers heathy) that alone should be worth 3 points a game.

AND we repeatedly had games where they left so many plays on the field. That last Bears game along, against a top flight defense there were easily 14-21 points left out there and all they had to do was make a better throw, or catch the ball. not even going to go find all the blown 3rd down conversions.

This offense could use help of course. But they'd be top 10 just by not under performing with what they have, and they did last year from the QB on down.

 

[brandon2348]

AND we repeatedly had games where they left so many plays on the field. That last Bears game along, against a top flight defense there were easily 14-21 points left out there and all they had to do was make a better throw, or catch the ball. not even going to go find all the blown 3rd down conversions.

This offense could use help of course. But they'd be top 10 just by not under performing with what they have, and they did last year from the QB on down.

How can you call it underperforming though?

What benchmark are you using?

Basically you have Aaron Rodgers and a bunch of day 3 picks and UDFA's. Maybe that was there top performance relying so heavily on marginal talent.

 

[Mondio]

While a lot of second-year players have improved over their rookie seasons there are also a huge number of players there weren't able to develop any further or even regressed after having a decent first year in the league.

I know that. They have work to do, and I said I hope they're putting in the time. They need to. But we can say this about anyone. Brown could come here and decide he has a problemwith everyone and sit out. he could get hurt. They could sign any number of vets that did well enough somewhere and don't do much here for a lot of different reasons. They could draft the best WR in the draft class and they could come in and flop. There are no hard and fast answers.

I am betting that at least 1 of those receivers makes a decent jump. I think just having Adams, Gmo healthy and 2nd year players will better. Get better protection, we're better, more flow to the offense and play calling, better. and just 10% in each of those areas better and suddenly this offense looks really good. But nothing is a given and even if it all lines up, something always happens they have to overcome.

 

[brandon2348]

I know that. They have work to do, and I said I hope they're putting in the time. They need to. But we can say this about anyone. Brown could come here and decide he has a problemwith everyone and sit out. he could get hurt. They could sign any number of vets that did well enough somewhere and don't do much here for a lot of different reasons. They could draft the best WR in the draft class and they could come in and flop. There are no hard and fast answers.
.

Only drafting Spriggs since 2014 on day 1 or 2 combined to address the offense is as "hard and fast answers" as you can get why were struggling.

 

[PackAttack12]

Seems like a lot of work to improve the offense by three points a game...

My goodness.

Since three points per game doesn't matter, hell why not go backwards 3 points a game if going forward 3 points a game doesn't matter. That'll put us with the likes of Denver and Detroit at 25th in the league.

The margin is so small in the NFL that every little thing matters.

Top 10 gets us back in business, but I'm shooting for top 5 anyway. But then again that's only a difference of 3.6 points per game so it doesn't really matter much either.