The Adams Poll

[Dantés]

If the offense had stunk without Adams, everyone would claim that that's super meaningful (they clearly can't move the offense without him, e.g.).

But the offense was super effective without Adams, so why would we dismiss that as not being meaningful?

 

[milani]

I think there is actually a very reasonable explanation.

Rodgers hyper-targets Adams. This yields the great result of an elite WR producing a lot, but it also yields the bad result of the offense becoming more predictable and less specific to the weaknesses of the opponent.

Adams had 169 targets last year (104 more than the next highest!), or 10 per game. While he was out, only once did a player top 8 targets. The passing game was more diverse, less predictable, and (I would assume) more specifically tailored to the opponent. The absence of Adams forced Rodgers to just take what the defense was giving him within the scheme, and he's so good that when he's doing that, it can be deadly.

And we have all seen the many still shots of Rodgers targeting a covered Adams over an open Lazard, MVS, Tonyan, etc.

I'll keep reiterating that I'm not saying they're better without him. But there is a rational explanation for why they thrived without him in those games and thus reason to believe that they can still be a top offense with different receiving options (though obviously if the season started today, they'd be in trouble).

Well said. I know in the first 3 years of Holmgren Sterling Sharpe was an overused target because he was over and above the rest as our one weapon. I believe a balanced, diverse offense is the hardest to defend if you can get those players to execute to a high enough degree.

 

[Dantés]

Well said. I know in the first 3 years of Holmgren Sterling Sharpe was an overused target because he was over and above the rest as our one weapon. I believe a balanced, diverse offense is the hardest to defend if you can get those players to execute to a high enough degree.

Agree.

And clearly they don’t have them right now.

But if they can add a WR or two who can account for ~100 *quality* targets and then spread the remaining 70 around to the existing players, the offense will still be really good.

 

[longtimefan]

So folks realize:

Dallas in 2019 - 8-8 Record
Detroit in 2019 - 3-12-1 Record
Oakland in 2019 - 7-9 Record
Kansas City in 2019 - Playoff team 12-4 Record
New Orleans in 2020 -Playoff team 12-4 Record
Atlanta in 2020 - 4-12 Record
Arizona in 2021 - Playoff team 11-6 Record

Wasnt dallas 4 and 0 when they played the packers? Then went on down slide?

 

[OldSchool101]

According to multiple sources that is incorrect. Yeah originally… like it last year… it was about the dollars, but when the Packers didn’t offer him what he wanted during negotiations last year he had already decided that he wasn’t coming back. So this year after getting confirmation from Rodgers that he would be back. The Packers did go all in and even reportedly offered Adams what he wanted … but he left anyway.

Oh I have zero doubt that Davante held a grudge, I’ve said as much and never disagreed with that. Matter of fact I’ve nearly screamed it through 13 separate posts.

GB did make LESSER offers at leaser twice through a non league high deal + franchise tag (per reports as low as 20m-23m area) Oakland put their BEST foot forward and gave him the BEST offer at $28.25m. Big big difference.
Davante was already looking to get out and then hit an offer more than $5,000,000 annual higher from a destination he already was open to (maybe even preferred).

The Packers only tried to match that offer to stay. In the business world, that type last second matching offer comes across as disingenuous at best.

So in fact, it was about the money. I might have done the same thing. I can’t stand when businesses try to “MATCH” my offer when they realize they have been whooped! Put your BEST offer forward and quit playing games. It’s just my opinion but had we offered him $29m out if the gate? In a courteous way? He’d be a Packer today.
Do NOT confuse me with someone who would’ve agreed with that approach. Let him go, he developed an unhealthy attitude towards our FO and that becomes dangerous to team mentality. We got the equivalent of a top #13 overall selection and banked the Balance of after Rookie salary. What’s that like $24,000,000?? Annual. That was a blessing and thank you God!

 

[longtimefan]

Well said. I know in the first 3 years of Holmgren Sterling Sharpe was an overused target because he was over and above the rest as our one weapon. I believe a balanced, diverse offense is the hardest to defend if you can get those players to execute to a high enough degree.

I agree with this and what Dante said.

If Adams gone for only 3 games and they went 3 and 0 that isnt something to bring up.

But 7 and 0 is a huge trend and shouldnt be ignored, but some do

 

[tynimiller]

Wasnt dallas 4 and 0 when they played the packers? Then went on down slide?

Could have been I didn’t research that deep

 

[OldSchool101]

I will add. When you do a “good” deal you expect that investment not to “break even”. When you buy an automobile and finance it 72 months.. are you happy if the electrical system burns out the vehicle at 71 months? Or are you like me.. do you brag you got 12 years snd 249,000 miles of use?

$28.25m (or more because of our slow approach to retain) plus losing Day 1+2 draft with 4-5 years Rookie salary is a massive cost (resign approach)

My view of a Davante resign is we would have to get 1,500+yards and 12TD’d to break even (every year 4 years straight) Who wants to break even spending those type resources?

For all our risk? Davante MUST Surpass 1,700 yards and 17Tds (every year of his contract) for us to say we had made a reasonable gain on investment. I’ll be watching him closely. He’d better be #1 by wide margin by years end. Now Rasul? He’ll likely bring us gain on $7m investment, give me 4 Rasuls and 2 draft picks and I’ll kiss you on both cheeks and bless your family too! God never wastes a hurt. Confucius say.. At first, The plant look n feel sad when pruned!

 

[PikeBadger]

It wasn't just trading Adams for draft picks. It was trading Adams for draft picks, Tonyan, Douglas and probably 1 other veteran body yet to be determined (probably MVS). I think 75-80M tied up in a QB/WR is just too restrictive over multiple years.

I think Firethorn's view most closely mirrors my own viewpoints on this subject.

I don't expect that the Packers will be able to put an all pro wide receiver on the field this year (and possibly for several seasons) but I also don't think that it is a necessary ingredient to win a super bowl. Adams/Rodgers has proven that they have been unable to win tough playoff games against tough defenses in the 4th quarter of those games. Time for a different approach imo. The two high draft picks is very good compensation for Adams imo.

The last week has really seen the roster coming into very good form. Kudos to mgmt on a job very well done. Plenty of time to fill in around the edges. Great core in place!

 

[swhitset]

Oh I have zero doubt that Davante held a grudge, I’ve said as much and never disagreed with that. Matter of fact I’ve nearly screamed it through 13 separate posts.

GB did make LESSER offers at leaser twice through a non league high deal + franchise tag (per reports as low as 20m-23m area) Oakland put their BEST foot forward and gave him the BEST offer at $28.25m. Big big difference.
Davante was already looking to get out and then hit an offer more than $5,000,000 annual higher from a destination he already was open to (maybe even preferred).

The Packers only tried to match that offer to stay. In the business world, that type last second matching offer comes across as disingenuous at best.

So in fact, it was about the money. I might have done the same thing. I can’t stand when businesses try to “MATCH” my offer when they realize they have been whooped! Put your BEST offer forward and quit playing games. It’s just my opinion but had we offered him $29m out if the gate? In a courteous way? He’d be a Packer today.
Do NOT confuse me with someone who would’ve agreed with that approach. Let him go, he developed an unhealthy attitude towards our FO and that becomes dangerous to team mentality. We got the equivalent of a top #13 overall selection and banked the Balance of after Rookie salary. What’s that like $24,000,000?? Annual. That was a blessing and thank you God!

Well… the actual point has been sidestepped and the post I was replying to has been conveniently deleted so … I’ll just drop it.

 

[OldSchool101]

Well… the actual point has been sidestepped and the post I was replying to has been conveniently deleted so … I’ll just drop it.

I’m so so sorry. Thank You for playing nice man

 

[Pkrjones]

GB did make LESSER offers at leaser twice through a non league high deal + franchise tag (per reports as low as 20m-23m area) Oakland put their BEST foot forward and gave him the BEST offer at $28.25m. Big big difference.
Davante was already looking to get out and then hit an offer more than $5,000,000 annual higher from a destination he already was open to (maybe even preferred).

Adams will NEVER see that "extra" $5Mil/year, not a chance. It's a 3yr/$67.5Mil deal, years 4&5 are base salary of $36.5Mil each. By that time LV will either cut Adams, renegotiate the deal another few years & spread out the money, OR have Adams take a pay cut to stick in the NFL. In essence, he's making $22.5Mil/year... just what Gute offered him.

 

[Magooch]

Adams will NEVER see that "extra" $5Mil/year, not a chance. It's a 3yr/$67.5Mil deal, years 4&5 are base salary of $36.5Mil each. By that time LV will either cut Adams, renegotiate the deal another few years & spread out the money, OR have Adams take a pay cut to stick in the NFL. In essence, he's making $22.5Mil/year... just what Gute offered him.

Does that take into account the income tax differences between WI and NV?

 

[gopkrs]

Adams will NEVER see that "extra" $5Mil/year, not a chance. It's a 3yr/$67.5Mil deal, years 4&5 are base salary of $36.5Mil each. By that time LV will either cut Adams, renegotiate the deal another few years & spread out the money, OR have Adams take a pay cut to stick in the NFL. In essence, he's making $22.5Mil/year... just what Gute offered him.

If Adams plays well though, they will either have to give him the money or Adams will be able to go to the free market. I don't see that part bad for Adams. Maybe a longer term with a huge signing bonus would have been better for him but it is what it is. And he has not slowed down yet. And the guy is a stud based on some of the dirty hits he has taken and how quickly he returned.

 

[Pkrjones]

Does that take into account the income tax differences between WI and NV?

@ 7.65% rate that would be $1.7Mil on income of $22.5Mil... but I highly doubt it would be close to that with a decent tax accountant & investments/deductions. Adams' bar bill after a huge game could heavily chisel into that "savings".

 

[OldSchool101]

Adams will NEVER see that "extra" $5Mil/year, not a chance. It's a 3yr/$67.5Mil deal, years 4&5 are base salary of $36.5Mil each. By that time LV will either cut Adams, renegotiate the deal another few years & spread out the money, OR have Adams take a pay cut to stick in the NFL. In essence, he's making $22.5Mil/year... just what Gute offered him.

Good to know! That’s what you get for leaving your post and shacking up with our enemy. (I meant Davante not you!!)

 

[milani]

Agree.

And clearly they don’t have them right now.

But if they can add a WR or two who can account for ~100 *quality* targets and then spread the remaining 70 around to the existing players, the offense will still be really good.

And hopefully, we can still use Jones and Dillon in the passing game as well.

 

[El Guapo]

People point to the 7-0 record without Adams. It's never that easy. However, I often like to look back to the Packers when Favre lost Sterling Sharpe, a guy who at the time was annually setting or flirting with the single season receptions record. He was the Devante Adams of the Packers back then. When he left, Favre was forced to spread the ball around. That's Robert Brooks and Chmura got more involved in the offense. Levens and Edgar Bennett also caught a lot of balls out of the backfield that season. Antonio Freeman was a young buck but really blossomed the following year in 1996. The point is that when forced to, Rodgers can be very effective throwing the ball around. He is one of the few QBs that can make decent WRs good and good WRs great.

 

[OldSchool101]

People point to the 7-0 record without Adams. It's never that easy. However, I often like to look back to the Packers when Favre lost Sterling Sharpe, a guy who at the time was annually setting or flirting with the single season receptions record. He was the Devante Adams of the Packers back then. When he left, Favre was forced to spread the ball around. That's Robert Brooks and Chmura got more involved in the offense. Levens and Edgar Bennett also caught a lot of balls out of the backfield that season. Antonio Freeman was a young buck but really blossomed the following year in 1996. The point is that when forced to, Rodgers can be very effective throwing the ball around. He is one of the few QBs that can make decent WRs good and good WRs great.

One thought to supplement our passing game after our loss of Adams would be to also grab another receiving geared TE.
In the draft I kinda like Lively and I think he’d produce relatively early. That’s someone you just might get between early round 3 and early 4th

 

[Poppa San]

Given our predicament with the cap, I was all for trading him. Id also use both our first round picks on WR's, and try to nab an EDGE and OT with our second rounders

I'd do the opposite. A deep WR draft. Good big bodies for the line are harder to get. Gute has had a tendency to lean defense first round most of his career.,

 

[pacmaniac]

People point to the 7-0 record without Adams. It's never that easy. However, I often like to look back to the Packers when Favre lost Sterling Sharpe, a guy who at the time was annually setting or flirting with the single season receptions record. He was the Devante Adams of the Packers back then. When he left, Favre was forced to spread the ball around. That's Robert Brooks and Chmura got more involved in the offense. Levens and Edgar Bennett also caught a lot of balls out of the backfield that season. Antonio Freeman was a young buck but really blossomed the following year in 1996. The point is that when forced to, Rodgers can be very effective throwing the ball around. He is one of the few QBs that can make decent WRs good and good WRs great.

And the Packers never made it past the divisional round with Sharpe, but made it to the NFC-CG the next season without him.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It wasn't just trading Adams for draft picks. It was trading Adams for draft picks, Tonyan, Douglas and probably 1 other veteran body yet to be determined (probably MVS). I think 75-80M tied up in a QB/WR is just too restrictive over multiple years.

Just for the record, the Packers could have afforded to re-sign Douglas and Tonyan if they had extended Adams using a similar structure as the Raiders did.

Reality is, the Packers have turned the Adams trade into a head start on moving on from the Rodgers era, by putting a couple of extra guys in play, who will be available to them for up to 5 years, and it only cost them one overly expensive piece.

That might have been a decent idea if the Packers didn't make every other move this offseason to indicate they're going all-in for next season.

Personally, I like the trade. If they did the same thing with Rodgers tomorrow, that wouldn't upset me either. But, only if the picks were in the top 3 in the first two rounds. I want to see one of the best players land on our roster, and have bargaining chips that allow them to snag a good QB down the road, if necessary.

The Packers can't trade Rodgers this offseason as they would take a massive additional cap hit because of it.

I think there is actually a very reasonable explanation.

Rodgers hyper-targets Adams. This yields the great result of an elite WR producing a lot, but it also yields the bad result of the offense becoming more predictable and less specific to the weaknesses of the opponent.

Adams had 169 targets last year (104 more than the next highest!), or 10 per game.

While Rodgers targeted Adams at a higher percentage compared to most other quarterback/receiver tandems a lot of fans make it sound like he did it on 70% of the passing attempts.

If the offense had stunk without Adams, everyone would claim that that's super meaningful (they clearly can't move the offense without him, e.g.).

But the offense was super effective without Adams, so why would we dismiss that as not being meaningful?

Don't get me wrong, I truly hope the Packers can keep it up without Adams for an entire season but I'm not convinced Rodgers spreading the ball around will work for an entire season with a subpar receiving corps.

Adams/Rodgers has proven that they have been unable to win tough playoff games against tough defenses in the 4th quarter of those games. Time for a different approach imo.

I have a hard time believing the Packers' chances improve of winning those tough playoff games without an elite receiver.

 

[Voyageur]

Personally, I like the trade. If they did the same thing with Rodgers tomorrow, that wouldn't upset me either. But, only if the picks were in the top 3 in the first two rounds. I want to see one of the best players land on our roster, and have bargaining chips that allow them to snag a good QB down the road, if necessary.

The Packers can't trade Rodgers this offseason as they would take a massive additional cap hit because of it.

----------------------------------------------------------------​

Saying that about Rodgers is figurative speech. Don't take it literally.

It's like saying; "If I could get a new Honda Pilot decked out like I want, for $35,000, I'd buy it in a heartbeat!"

Since I own a Pilot, and it cost nearly $50,000, and it's hardly broken in, I'm referencing that the price itself would be a great deal, under different circumstances. Meaning essentially that I'd buy it, if I didn't already own one. Sorry if it confused you. I like figure of speech statements.

 

[PikeBadger]

Just for the record, the Packers could have afforded to re-sign Douglas and Tonyan if they had extended Adams using a similar structure as the Raiders did.



That might have been a decent idea if the Packers didn't make every other move this offseason to indicate they're going all-in for next season.



The Packers can't trade Rodgers this offseason as they would take a massive additional cap hit because of it.



While Rodgers targeted Adams at a higher percentage compared to most other quarterback/receiver tandems a lot of fans make it sound like he did it on 70% of the passing attempts.



Don't get me wrong, I truly hope the Packers can keep it up without Adams for an entire season but I'm not convinced Rodgers spreading the ball around will work for an entire season with a subpar receiving corps.



I have a hard time believing the Packers' chances improve of winning those tough playoff games without an elite receiver.

I'm hoping we will see a larger commitment to the running game and more passing to RB's and TE's. Challenges for LaFleur to tweak the play calling and more importantly, getting his QB to play along.

 

[Poppa San]

I'm hoping we will see a larger commitment to the running game and more passing to RB's and TE's. Challenges for LaFleur to tweak the play calling and more importantly, getting his QB to play along.

Sounds a lot like the Joe Montana offense. Just need a Jerry Rice type player.