MacReady Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 23 minutes ago, JBURGE said: Beasley 5'8 and Humphries 5'9... Not to set his standards but I'd probably say anything under 5'11 I don't really care though, if they can play they can play Humphries is 5'11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBURGE Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 1 minute ago, Outpost31 said: Humphries is 5'11 My mistake, went off wikipedia! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 2 hours ago, Outpost31 said: Yeah, I see no damn sense in Cole Beasley here. Beasley is literally white Randall Cobb. If you think I'm wrong, take a look at his 2018 season with Prescott and Cobb's 2017 season with Hundley. Guess which is which: 16 games, 65 receptions, 672 yards, 3 touchdowns. 15 games, 66 receptions, 653 yards, 4 touchdowns. People wanting Cole Beasley had better not be the people complaining about Cobb. Cobb is more capable of being a Beasley than Beasley is, and with Aaron's familiarity. If you want an upgrade over Cobb's role on this team, it's Humphries or a draft pick for me. Humphries is capable of more than Beasley or Cobb, and he's younger, too. If Cobb was making what Beasley made last season, NOBODY would be complaining about him this year. But Beasley is the type of player you sign as an UDFA or draft with a late round pick. A guy like Hunter Renfrow fits that mold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 37 minutes ago, SSG said: What's midget? 5'11 or less, and if it's shorter than 6'1 it better have blazing speed and a track record of getting deep vertically. Slot WRs running the seam and wheel routes is a staple of modern NFL offense. We ran it by moving Adams into the slot last year. Which should continue. But Cobb isn't at home on the boundary. He had a great skill set for the slot receiver spot in 2014. Even then he wasn't a boundary guy. But the role of the slot receiver has changed. It's far more similar to that of a boundary receiver than it was five years ago. There's less slants and short curls, more drags and posts. Add decreasing speed, mounting injuries, and a lack of skillset fit and you see the decreased production we've seen over the last several years. There's also been a reluctance on the part of McCarthy and staff to utilize Cobb in the backfield. Half of Cobb's value is that despite being short, he's a tough dude who could probably handle a handful of carries a game either on end arounds, pitches or even zone runs. It makes the defense play you differently if you want to run out of 01 personnel. Dude was a good athlete and a pretty natural runner. Less pure slot guy, more gadget player. Contract in hand makes it tough to put those hits on him, but I'm not sure contract in hand made sense (in the first place regardless, but that's a different conversation) if you weren't going to let him take those hits. Got way off track here, but we're seeing a large number of teams running their #1 receiver out of the slot to counter zone coverage looks. If you're putting your regular slot guy on the field here, then he goes to the boundary where he's useless. We're also seeing the slot role that used to be filled with small quick guys, be replaced with bigger (older and slower) possession receivers ala Jordy in his last year here, Fitz in Arizona, etc. Length opens up the route tree possibilities. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 7 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: We're also seeing the slot role that used to be filled with small quick guys, be replaced with bigger (older and slower) possession receivers..... We've got a couple bigger and downright fast guys now............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Just now, Leader said: We've got a couple bigger and downright fast guys now............ Which is why I'm not sweating WR. MVS and EQ on the boundary with Adams in the slot (and mixing and matching the alignments with those 3 guys, all of whom can physically play all of them. Mentally we'll see) should be just fine. If you want the small gadget guy who can also carry the ball, because you're going to utilize that set, draft him in the mid rounds and play him as your number 4. If he's not going to carry the ball, run your jet sweeps and the like with MVS. Resign Allison (for dirt cheap, RFA) to battle the sophomores for the 2/3/4 spot and for depth. This team just got out from under paying 13% of it's cap to receivers. Do not under any circumstances put yourself back into that hole because Rodgers is being prissy about wanting a vet. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Which is why I'm not sweating WR. MVS and EQ on the boundary with Adams in the slot (and mixing and matching the alignments with those 3 guys, all of whom can physically play all of them. Mentally we'll see) should be just fine. If you want the small gadget guy who can also carry the ball, because you're going to utilize that set, draft him in the mid rounds and play him as your number 4. If he's not going to carry the ball, run your jet sweeps and the like with MVS. Resign Allison (for dirt cheap, RFA) to battle the sophomores for the 2/3/4 spot and for depth. This team just got out from under paying 13% of it's cap to receivers. Do not under any circumstances put yourself back into that hole because Rodgers is being prissy about wanting a vet. You're good with Adams-MVS-ESB as your 1-2-3? Ehhh...that scares the absolute hell out of me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSG Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 52 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: 5'11 or less, and if it's shorter than 6'1 it better have blazing speed and a track record of getting deep vertically. Slot WRs running the seam and wheel routes is a staple of modern NFL offense. We ran it by moving Adams into the slot last year. Which should continue. But Cobb isn't at home on the boundary. He had a great skill set for the slot receiver spot in 2014. Even then he wasn't a boundary guy. But the role of the slot receiver has changed. It's far more similar to that of a boundary receiver than it was five years ago. There's less slants and short curls, more drags and posts. Add decreasing speed, mounting injuries, and a lack of skillset fit and you see the decreased production we've seen over the last several years. There's also been a reluctance on the part of McCarthy and staff to utilize Cobb in the backfield. Half of Cobb's value is that despite being short, he's a tough dude who could probably handle a handful of carries a game either on end arounds, pitches or even zone runs. It makes the defense play you differently if you want to run out of 01 personnel. Dude was a good athlete and a pretty natural runner. Less pure slot guy, more gadget player. Contract in hand makes it tough to put those hits on him, but I'm not sure contract in hand made sense (in the first place regardless, but that's a different conversation) if you weren't going to let him take those hits. Got way off track here, but we're seeing a large number of teams running their #1 receiver out of the slot to counter zone coverage looks. If you're putting your regular slot guy on the field here, then he goes to the boundary where he's useless. We're also seeing the slot role that used to be filled with small quick guys, be replaced with bigger (older and slower) possession receivers ala Jordy in his last year here, Fitz in Arizona, etc. Length opens up the route tree possibilities. The "draft tall, fast guys regardless of talent" thing is overblown IMO. How many of the league's best WRs were high end athletes who failed to produce quality production in college? One (and that's because of legal trouble)? Talent is talent and it will shine regardless of size. Antonio Brown, Jarvis Landry and OBJ fit into your "midget" category. Size is nice but it's just one tool. I'd much rather have a great route runner at 5'11" with good speed than a project who's 6'3" with great speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 1 minute ago, packfanfb said: You're good with Adams-MVS-ESB as your 1-2-3? Ehhh...that scares the absolute hell out of me. I'm quite happy with those 3 plus Allison for what they're cashing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, SSG said: The "draft tall, fast guys regardless of talent" thing is overblown IMO. How many of the league's best WRs were high end athletes who failed to produce quality production in college? One (and that's because of legal trouble)? Talent is talent and it will shine regardless of size. Antonio Brown, Jarvis Landry and OBJ fit into your "midget" category. Size is nice but it's just one tool. I'd much rather have a great route runner at 5'11" with good speed than a project who's 6'3" with great speed. No **** talent is talent, now look at the success rates of the guys drafted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSG Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 1 minute ago, packfanfb said: You're good with Adams-MVS-ESB as your 1-2-3? Ehhh...that scares the absolute hell out of me. I agree. I know some fans are infatuated with the way they played in shorts but our rookies looked terrible for the majority of the season. I'd argue that WR talent was one of the biggest reasons this team wasn't in the playoffs last year. There aren't many teams in the league with less talent at WR than Green Bay. If that's the plan going forward (Adams-MVS-ESB... With Allison) this offense is going to have MAJOR issues in the future if we those rookies aren't the stars their being made out to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBURGE Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Which is why I'm not sweating WR. MVS and EQ on the boundary with Adams in the slot (and mixing and matching the alignments with those 3 guys, all of whom can physically play all of them. Mentally we'll see) should be just fine. If you want the small gadget guy who can also carry the ball, because you're going to utilize that set, draft him in the mid rounds and play him as your number 4. If he's not going to carry the ball, run your jet sweeps and the like with MVS. Resign Allison (for dirt cheap, RFA) to battle the sophomores for the 2/3/4 spot and for depth. This team just got out from under paying 13% of it's cap to receivers. Do not under any circumstances put yourself back into that hole because Rodgers is being prissy about wanting a vet. Thoughts on Parris Campbell in the 30-40 range? Edited January 23, 2019 by JBURGE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: I'm quite happy with those 3 plus Allison for what they're cashing Sure, but cheap labor doesn't mean good labor. I'm not saying that MVS or ESB couldn't blossom into becoming a solid NFL WR, but they aren't there yet, and I'm not in a gambling mood. I think this team badly needs a No. 2 guy. MVS and ESB are still going to get their snaps and opportunities but if they don't produce it won't break the offense if they're the 3-4 options. The problem last year was that our No. 2 was Cobb who was being paid like a No. 1 but played like a No. 4. Thankfully, that's not our problem anymore, but I'm not ready to fill that role with a 2nd-year day 3 pick or Allison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, packfanfb said: The problem last year was that our No. 2 was Cobb who was being paid like a No. 1 but played like a No. 4. Thankfully, that's not our problem anymore, but I'm not ready to fill that role with a 2nd-year day 3 pick or Allison. I think based on stats Allison was our defacto #2. Could be wrong - but I'm fairly sure he was out producing Cobb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 15 hours ago, Arthur Penske said: Idk but whining about it on Twitter isn’t appealing. I didn't mind what he said. He was very respectful to the organization while acknowledging he thinks he can handle more in a more pass oriented offense. Beasley would be a good fit with Aaron because he does exactly what he's supposed to do on every down at all times. He can get more separation than Cobb at this point. But in the end it's not a huge upgrade aside from being cheaper, and the team needs more juice than Beas provides. I don't think he'll be more expensive than Humphries though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.