packfanfb Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 Interesting. Clearly sticking up for his guy because 32-year old Jordy isn't touching 29-year old Dez, but again it raises what I think is a critical point....why cut Jordy and add nothing to the WR position absent a few Day 3 projects? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinneasGage Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 This the first time since 2013 CM3 wasn't listed w/ a hamstring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted May 22, 2018 Author Share Posted May 22, 2018 58 minutes ago, packfanfb said: Interesting. Clearly sticking up for his guy because 32-year old Jordy isn't touching 29-year old Dez, but again it raises what I think is a critical point....why cut Jordy and add nothing to the WR position absent a few Day 3 projects? I think you're fooling yourself if Dez puts up more yards in GB in 2018 than Jordy. We've beaten your question to death and gone nowhere, it's simple, we have new blood at GM, he looked to see if he could find value in FA and didn't. He's not worried about receivers when you have Aaron Rodgers. I'll go right ahead and say it, if Aaron cannot get it done with a 4 deep of Adams, Cobb, Graham and Allison he belongs nowhere near GOAT conversations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: I'll go right ahead and say it, if Aaron cannot get it done with a 4 deep of Adams, Cobb, Graham and Allison he belongs nowhere near GOAT conversations. Correct. Take it to the bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 7 hours ago, vegas492 said: You seem to take offense to anyone stating that this year's team isn't as talented as some teams from the past. I'm not sure why that is. But, you've done it before and you are doing it again. I didn't say that this is a poor team, or a bad team. Just stating that it isn't as talented as it has been in the past. That is a FAR CRY from stating this is a bad roster. Heck, it has Rodgers on it, right there it is going to win 10 games, plus or minus one...if he is healthy. I'd hardly say I'm offended by the statement, it just appears that you're focusing on a handful of positions and projecting them onto the franchise as a whole. If you wanna argue that WR and OL are worse than they were in previous years, that's fine. But you better be willing to argue other positions (namely DL and LB) as a whole look better than previous years. We've got our issues, mostly depth at EDGE and youth in our defensive backfield. But this isn't a team that's suddenly going to fail to be competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 3 hours ago, mikemike778 said: The problem for me isn't that receiver is inferior or the line is inferior or that we have no depth at tight end or that any of these positions have been neglected in the draft. As you say, things are cyclical - there is no guarantee you can get the TE you want or the OL you want - some positions will be neglected in the draft. The problem is that most of the areas that are being neglected in the draft are on one side of the ball. The team lives and dies with Rodgers but for 4 years, we have given him virtually nothing in the draft other than late round picks. I think we can probably get by patching the offense this season and still have a top offense. The bigger concern is in a couple of years. You draft for a few years down the line and the level of young talent on offense in a few years could be truly desperate unless the late-rounders hit - combine that with an ageing Rodgers and the offense could fall off a cliff. You can end up chasing your tail here - defense is bad so pump all your draft capital into defense (and it pretty much is all your draft capital- the late rounders wont make much of a dent in the value chart) until you fix it and by then you have holes all over your offense - do you then use all your draft capital on offense ? For me, you need a bit of balance. One year drafting defense is fine but 4 years is too much. If your early round draft picks are being picked for 3-5 years down the road, you're not doing a very good job of drafting. Your Day 1 picks should be immediate Day 1 starters, unless you're drafting a position that historically isn't a big producer until Year 2 (i.e. QB). If your Day 1 pick isn't at the very least getting a significant amount of snaps, I'd argue that you probably whiffed on that pick. Your Day 2 picks should be guys who are entrenched as a starter by their second year in the league. They might get some significant burn towards the end of their rookie year, but if they're projected Day 1 starters than that's more an indicator of your roster talent level IMO. But let's look at this for the next 2-3 years. Davante Adams will be a Packers short of something drastic happening over that period. Randall Cobb at least sees out the rest of this contract, and perhaps he gets an extension. I'm not betting on it, but it's a possibility. But the Packers are clearly taking the same approach they did last offseason throwing multiple picks at a position and hoping one sticks. If that fails miserably, I'd imagine they'll be more willing to use an earlier pick on a WR. But the '18 WR class was pretty damn bad, especially for what you had to invest in one early. But Rodgers should be able to produce at a high level with our current receiving corps. I mean, Tom Brady has done an amazing job with even less. Rodgers can and will masquerade most of the offensive issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopackgonerd Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 4 hours ago, NormSizedMidget said: Inb4 omg the hamstring injuries fire s and c staff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 16 hours ago, CWood21 said: If your early round draft picks are being picked for 3-5 years down the road, you're not doing a very good job of drafting. Your Day 1 picks should be immediate Day 1 starters, unless you're drafting a position that historically isn't a big producer until Year 2 (i.e. QB). If your Day 1 pick isn't at the very least getting a significant amount of snaps, I'd argue that you probably whiffed on that pick. This argument is a bit all over the place. Your first sentence. I doubt there is one poster here who would be ok with waiting 4-5 years for a starter, 3 maybe, not 4-5, so that is a bit of a strawman argument. Day1 picks need not be immediate starters and we are not just talking QB. Positions that can take more than a year to learn include TE, WR, DT, S, ILB, CB.........in fact most positions, bar RB. Kenny Clark was a starter for just 2 games in his rookie season, sure he played some in each game but he wasn't a starter. Jordy Nelson started 2, 0, 4, games in his first three years. Aaron Rodgers waited three years for a proper run as starter. I could name more. Next you said: if a Day 1 pick isn't at the very least getting a significant number of snaps, you have probably whiffed. Aside from the word 'significant' (which is so imprecise it can mean, well, anything), that isn't the very least you could expect, that is about average. So many things feed into how much play a rookie (1st rounder) gets. Is there enough quality ahead of him this year, to feed him in to the rotation slowly - and how good is his play relative to the guy ahead ? As he gets close enough to the guy ahead (coaches call here), he gets more and more snaps, and because he is still ascending, he doesn't need to be better to get starts, he just needs to be close to the previous starter, and still improving. Injuries are another thing that can force a coach to start a rookie. Being an immediate starter says more about the absolute lack of quality ahead of the guy, than being a measure to decide if it was or wasn't a whiffed pick. Also, a first round pick is sometimes taken for his elite measurables, though he isn't ready to start day 1. This year, if the Packers had taken Tremaine Edmunds, maybe Davenport as well, they would in all likelihood not be starters day 1, maybe not even season 1.......sometimes you gamble on greatness in round one, when you have a guy with elite tools but for whatever reason he isn't that close to a finished product yet (and the Packers do love guys with elite tools). So I'd say dump the too-high, year one expectations. If a round one pick feeds into the rotation more and more as the season progresses, and if he looks like he is improving as he goes, that is just fine. If he doesn't shine until year two, that is also acceptable. If he only shines on his third year, that is longer than anyone wants to wait, but sometimes it takes that long - it is the career production that is important in the long run, much more important than how fast he starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HyponGrey Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 9 hours ago, Gopackgonerd said: Bacon? I mean technically, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hands Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 Didn't TT try to remake the WR position a couple of times? He drafted Johnson and Dorsey in 2013, Adams, Abbey, and Janis in 2014, Davis in 2016, and finally Yancy and Dupree in 2017. The only starter was Adams with Janis and Davis as special team guys. So maybe high picks weren't used except for one, but a lot of draft capital has been used to improve the WRs. Now they have used three more picks for that position, yet almost everyone on this board (me included) expects a different outcome. I think there are two potential starters in this year's draft class compared to previous year's draft. The bottom line...optimism reigns supreme this time of year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ham Sammich Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 14 hours ago, Gopackgonerd said: I feel like I belong in this conversation, so here I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, Hands said: Didn't TT try to remake the WR position a couple of times? He drafted Johnson and Dorsey in 2013, Adams, Abbey, and Janis in 2014, Davis in 2016, and finally Yancy and Dupree in 2017. The only starter was Adams with Janis and Davis as special team guys. So maybe high picks weren't used except for one, but a lot of draft capital has been used to improve the WRs. Now they have used three more picks for that position, yet almost everyone on this board (me included) expects a different outcome. I think there are two potential starters in this year's draft class compared to previous year's draft. The bottom line...optimism reigns supreme this time of year! Whenever your talking late round picks your taking a flier. People are acting like we are expecting one of these new guys to be day 1 No 1 or No 2 WRs. At most, they are No 3 but you could probably argue that counting Graham that there fighting for No 4 or 5 spots. I don't feel its that unreasonable to have low draft picks fighting over that spot. Especially considering the amount of low draft picks and UDFA we have over the last two years fighting for those spots. People get way too bent out of shape over back up roles. No one in the league has a roster full of starters and known back ups. It just doesn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HyponGrey Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 14 minutes ago, Spartacus said: Whenever your talking late round picks your taking a flier. People are acting like we are expecting one of these new guys to be day 1 No 1 or No 2 WRs. At most, they are No 3 but you could probably argue that counting Graham that there fighting for No 4 or 5 spots. I don't feel its that unreasonable to have low draft picks fighting over that spot. Especially considering the amount of low draft picks and UDFA we have over the last two years fighting for those spots. People get way too bent out of shape over back up roles. No one in the league has a roster full of starters and known back ups. It just doesn't happen. See, you're not counting Graham because he was going to be on the field regardless of what happens at WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.