With their 3rd pick in the 2021 draft GB selects WR Amari Rodgers Clemson

I'll go against the grain here and say I am lukewarm to the pick, like the player a lot BUT it somewhat goes against the principles of ML base offense. Anytime you see a coach offense/defense go against their base...it's a redflag.

tc(
With the Deebo Samuel comparison, is it possible ML wants to incorporate some of that type of game into his offense? Rodgers goes strongly against Gutes type of WR as well, they must’ve wanted him for a reason.
 
A. The small slot is 100% against the base offense that the whole scheme is built on. A big hands player that moves the chains is what the scheme desires.
B. Trying to be something your not is a big coaching no-no.... unless of course, your drafting said player just to make certain people happy, in which case your a group of spineless weasels and it'll blow upon you.
 
With the Deebo Samuel comparison, is it possible ML wants to incorporate some of that type of game into his offense? Rodgers goes strongly against Gutes type of WR as well, they must’ve wanted him for a reason.
Can Samuel be really compared to Rodgers? Samuel is 6'0 while Rodgers is 5'9. Three inches is a lot.
 
Packers have assigned #8 to Amari Rodgers. He will be the first WR for the GB to wear a single digit.
 
A. The small slot is 100% against the base offense that the whole scheme is built on. A big hands player that moves the chains is what the scheme desires.
B. Trying to be something your not is a big coaching no-no.... unless of course, your drafting said player just to make certain people happy, in which case your a group of spineless weasels and it'll blow upon you.
Well Gute pretty much said as much with his I hope everyone in the building is happy with this. And yes just another way to screw it all up.

As far as scheme this has Murphy written all over it. I'm willing to bet this is not the type of WR that ML had in mind.
 
While this kind of player isn't part of what is believed to be ML's core offensive concepts, their use of Tyler Ervin in multiple roles tells you that ML had incorporated some different ideas over the past 2 seasons. Yes, I think this is MLs choice.

They pursued Ervin twice and used him as more than a returner. ML didn't need to expand Ervins role unless you think he's wimpy enough to take play-call suggestions from Murphy. It seems ML is asking for this kind of player since this guy is way off Gute's WR checklist.

It seems the offense is evolving and adding new wrinkles. For a different example, look at the Rams and Sean McVay. Another guy from the Shanahan tree, like ML. They just took the smallest guy I've ever seen in the NFL - Tutu Atwell, all 149lbs of him.
 
While this kind of player isn't part of what is believed to be ML's core offensive concepts, their use of Tyler Ervin in multiple roles tells you that ML had incorporated some different ideas over the past 2 seasons.

They pursued Ervin twice and used him as more than a returner. It seems ML is asking for this kind of player since this guy is way off Gute's WR checklist.

It seems the offense is evolving and adding new wrinkles. For a different example, look at the Rams and Sean McVay. Another guy from the Shanahan tree, like ML. They just took the smallest guy I've ever seen in the NFL - Tutu Atwell, all 149lbs of him.
I get your point but your missing mine, when you start drifting from your core to add "wrinkles" it mostly hurts you not helps. Teams that run fewer plays but run them to perfection play faster and are more disruptive. The fact he's doing this just doesn't give me warm fuzzies....again I think Rodgers is a solid player just not thrilled they want to incorporate him into the scheme for the reasons they are.
 
I completely understand what you're saying Mark. I'm just addressing what's happening, right or wrong. It was more addressed at CDs post. I don't know if it'll end up being good or bad for ML to go this direction, just saying that it looks like a conscious decision, and it's coming from him. As you say, it could backfire. I hope not.
 
Back
Top