Jump to content
squire12

Preseason WEEK 1, GDT vs Tennessee

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

I disagree, respectfully. QB is the most important position. What if Boyle turns out to be the next Kurt Warner? We have three high potential young WRs (four with Kumerow). Exposing one of them to waivers is offset by keeping the others. 

Kumerow has a high floor, but also has a limited ceiling.  I would not label him as a player with high potential.  At 26, I'm not even sure I'd label him as young.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

I disagree, respectfully. QB is the most important position. What if Boyle turns out to be the next Kurt Warner? We have three high potential young WRs (four with Kumerow). Exposing one of them to waivers is offset by keeping the others. 

You can't operate under that belief, especially when historically speaking undrafted QBs rarely amount to anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mazrimiv said:

Kumerow has a high floor, but also has a limited ceiling.  I would not label him as a player with high potential.  At 26, I'm not even sure I'd label him as young.

Kumerow is an interesting prospect. He is a young veteran in his prime who benefited from time on various practice squads. He followed a very traditional path for small school prospects. Had some physical talent, but went undrafted. Used the practice squad system to develop his talent and now is poised to make a roster. I wouldn't hold any of that against him. I like the three WRs the Packers drafted (although I have doubts about Moore's hands), But I'm not sure it's a good idea to have three rookies behind the three veterans (Adams, Cobb, and Allison). In the Packer's offense it takes at least a year for a rookie to be effective, and sometimes two years. For that reason, I always felt the Packers needed one more veteran (if you search way back, you will see that statement by me at the start of free agency). Having failed to sign anyone in FA, the Packers have three internal candidates for that "one more veteran": Davis, Yancey, and Kumerow. They can keep one, possibly two if Moore goes to the practice squad, which I think he should. I'm not an expert by any means, but Davis, Yancey, and Kumerow seem like three very different kinds of receivers. Kumerow and Yancey seem to have the confidence of #12, which gives them an edge. Yancey didn't look half bad Thursday night. I could see both Kumerow and Yancey making the 53, with Davis the odd man out. That would set the Packers up well for losing Cobb after this season. Disclaimer: I have not yet had my morning coffee!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't hold a roster spot for Boyle but sure hope he makes the PS. He's shown more in one game than Mike's previous prodigies Graham Harrell and Joe Callahan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, packfanfb said:

Wouldn't hold a roster spot for Boyle but sure hope he makes the PS. He's shown more in one game than Mike's previous prodigies Graham Harrell and Joe Callahan. 

@Norm. You want to discuss this?  Acting president of the Joe Callahan fan club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

But I'm not sure it's a good idea to have three rookies behind the three veterans (Adams, Cobb, and Allison).

You should have had your coffee. 

Most teams trying to revamp a position with rookies is going to have to rely on at least one of them for some big time production.  Right now those 3 guys are behind the three vets, plus Graham (who isn't really a TE), Kendricks, and Lewis, plus a stable of backs that is dangerous out of the backfield.  If they keep 7 and hang on to Kumero, they would never have to throw any of the rookies out there unless they deem them ready.  

Yancey has clearly progressed since last year, but he just has a limited ceiling.  His athletic profile is similar to a young James Jones.  Not bad by any stretch, but he just doesn't stretch the field the way the rookies do and he's limited after the catch as well.  

Davis still can't get off of the line.  He's just way too slight and gets manhandled by NFL DB's once the pads go on.  His route tree is OK, he's got good hands, but he's just not a high ceiling guy.  He's never going to develop into a legit #3 option.  Any of the three rookies could be #1 or #2 guys if they are given a chance to develop.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, packfanfb said:

Wouldn't hold a roster spot for Boyle but sure hope he makes the PS. He's shown more in one game than Mike's previous prodigies Graham Harrell and Joe Callahan. 

Completely agree.  A few folks online have fallen in love with the guy after he chucked the ball down field a few times with pressure in his face.  If you listen to McCarthy, he spoke clearly how Boyle put himself in a good position.  He said rather than look to the 3 receiver side, Boyle did a good job of looking the other way and delivering the ball where there isn't much traffic.  That's great, but that doesn't mean he's ready to be on an NFL roster. 

A lot of people are saying we should have kept the kid that the Saints scooped up last year.  Sure - but he really only played special teams for the Saints last year and Boyle isn't that type of athlete.  

If we cut 2 guys I'd imagine one or both will be picked up by other teams.  QB's are just hard to find and some teams prefer to carry 3.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, squire12 said:

@Norm. You want to discuss this?  Acting president of the Joe Callahan fan club.

I can't imagine @Norm disagreeing with me. We never disagree on anything...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Cheech said:

Most teams trying to revamp a position with rookies is going to have to rely on at least one of them for some big time production.  Right now those 3 guys are behind the three vets, plus Graham (who isn't really a TE), Kendricks, and Lewis, plus a stable of backs that is dangerous out of the backfield.  If they keep 7 and hang on to Kumero, they would never have to throw any of the rookies out there unless they deem them ready.  

Thats why he thinks to keep Kumerow, exactly so that you'd never have to throw to a rookie unless deemed ready.  

Note:  I think the "rookies can't be used" is perhaps exaggerated a little on the board?  Allison, Adams, Cobb, Jordy, Jones, Jennings all produced as rookies.  No, they didn't get gobs of snaps, or massive yardage, and they weren't as productive as they became later. (OK, I'm projecting as regards allison!)  But they weren't useless.  

We're not looking for the 4th/5th WR to be 800-yard primary targets.   We're looking for somebodies to fill in a few snaps in special sets or situations, or to fill in for some short-term injury replacement.  And even when they fill in, we're not assuming MM and Aaron are going to set up lots of plays for them as primary targets.  

But yeah, this is kind of the puzzle.  **IF** you can find a way to keep Kumerow, then you'd have no *need* to play the rookies at all, until two of the first-four guys are injured (perish the thought).  So Kumerow has appeal.  

Note:  the perception is that Kumerow is "low ceiling".  I don't know anything, but I wonder how true that is, or how different that is from Moore or EQ?  Wasn't his speed about the same as EQ, or close, and faster than Moore?  If he's just as fast, why is his ceiling necessarily that much lower?  Or is he clearly less fast, and perhaps less flexible and less change-of-direction quick and capable? 

I have no idea.  Just wondering if the perception is more logically induced/assume (if he had ceiling, he'd have been drafted or activated) than based on actual size/speed physical traits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, craig said:

Note:  the perception is that Kumerow is "low ceiling".  I don't know anything, but I wonder how true that is, or how different that is from Moore or EQ?  Wasn't his speed about the same as EQ, or close, and faster than Moore?  If he's just as fast, why is his ceiling necessarily that much lower?  Or is he clearly less fast, and perhaps less flexible and less change-of-direction quick and capable? 

I think Kumerow is a guy that just fits really well in the system.  Timing, hands, and size are all positive attributes.  He seems to be a smart receiver so he's earned Rodgers' trust.  He isn't a guy who is going to just run by someone on a 'go' route.  He could break a few plays like Allison has the ability to, but he's just not a threat to do that every time he touches the ball.  

Years ago the buzz around the Packers receiving core was all about the YAC.  (Either contact or the catch - either way - creating something out of nothing.)  Cobb, Jennings, Jordy, (forgot Driver) and Finley all had that ability to break a tackle or run away from a defense.  Those big plays have just been absent from this offense since Jordy and Cobb both lost a step years ago.  I think a lot of people see that ability in the 3 rookies, and not so much from Cobb, Kumero, Allison, or Yancey.  

Edited by Cheech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kumerow got open a lot versus Tennessee. Early on, there was one where Hundley missed him badly. Later, he made a nice outside-inside move on a reception, drew a penalty on a slant and go, and then of course there was the 52-yard touchdown. I think he's actually quite fast and has some YAC ability. And he's big. So physically, he passes the test for me. 

As to whether he can get any better, I think reps playing with Aaron Rodgers will make anyone better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kumerow pro day 

ates: 03/11/15@Wisconsin 
Height: 6044
Weight: 209
40 Yrd Dash: 4.54
20 Yrd Dash: 2.60
10 Yrd Dash: 1.62
225 Lb. Bench Reps: 15
Vertical Jump: 31
Broad Jump: 09'05"
20 Yrd Shuttle: 4.26
3-Cone Drill: 6.90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

I disagree, respectfully. QB is the most important position. What if Boyle turns out to be the next Kurt Warner? We have three high potential young WRs (four with Kumerow). Exposing one of them to waivers is offset by keeping the others. 

It's not good to play the what-if game (other than pure fun), because what-if you're what-if is completely wrong instead of being completely right?

What if Boyle is the next Kurt Warner, or Aaron Rodgers, or Brian Brohm, or McBum or SirBumalot? The if can be extremely good or extremely bad.

Though I find it interesting you mentioned Kurt Warner, because Boyle did reminded me of Warner, from the perspective of standing tall in the pocket and delivering a good pass as a blitzer is about to straight up nail you. Mike Martz offenses had a lot more 7 step drops in them which allowed more pass rush time, which led to a lot more hits on his QBs (which is why most of Martz's QBs were either injured or sucked). But Warner had the toughness for it and could deliver the ball well even with a defender in his face and about to nail him... and Boyle did do that well.

That being said, most coaches have suggested that with the new CBA limiting time you can coach, they don't have time to really develop 3rd QBs anymore, where Kurt Warner not only played under the old CBA which gave him more time, but he also got to play in NFL Europe to develop. And really since the new rules were put in place... MM hasn't been able to develop any successful QBs (Rodgers/Flynn were under the old CBA).

But I think the WR draft pick rookies are safe... Kumerow is the iffy 7th spot guy (even though he might be out playing the rookies according to reports, they have more potential and younger)... but what if Kumerow is the next Donald Driver? The what if guy can be all over the place.

Though I will note, that in my personal mock roster, I did had Boyle, took Kumerow off (FOR A SECOND), then decided either RB Mays (holding Jones spot until suspension) or OL Bell had to go... I choose Bell had to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×