Jump to content

This team needs a 2nd round WR/TE/RB or equivalent FA

skibrett15

By skibrett15
in Green Bay Packers

 Share

Recommended Posts

AlexGreen#20

AlexGreen#20

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, pacman5252 said:

If ESB and MVS are our 2/3 wrs next year I'll be very concerned.

Why bring up Cobb? He's been hurt all season and missed like 7 games who is also at the end of the line. Yeah, he's been better than Cobb. He's having a better year than Jordy Nelson did in 2015 too.

You said he would be our worst #2 receiver since Bill Schroeder. He's either been our #2 this year or better than our #2 guy (Cobb)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CWood21

CWood21

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, pacman5252 said:

Have you ever thought Rodgers missed throws this year have been partially on the WRs? Before this week, Rodgers passer rating dropped about 30 points when not targeting Adams, Cobb, or Allison. He didn't make every throw 7 years ago either and missed a few a game then too. It is just compounded because we haven't been scoring as much. In addition, misses have a lot to do with route running and communication too.

Maybe.  But the fact that he's also missing Randall Cobb, Davante Adams, and Jimmy Graham doesn't stick out to you?  Whatever it is whether it be his knee, afraid to be hit after the Barr tackle, etc., Rodgers hasn't looked like his usual self.   He didn't make every throw, but most of his "misses" were because of the WR.  He was on pace to shatter the throwaway stat early in the season.  I haven't seen an update, but I'd venture a guess to say it's still near the top if not the highest in NFL right now.  Rodgers is playing ultra conservatively right now, for better or worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CWood21

CWood21

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, pacman5252 said:

A few things,

You left Cobb off for some reason ( catch/target rate as a rookie)

Outside Jennings, MVS has been behind all of the Packer wrs in completion rate (which is also inflated due to the NFL evolving more to shorter perimeter routes. Completion rate is up about 3-5% around the NFL since 2005.

MVS right now would be our wr 2. Even if he makes a jump, we are pretty deficient at WR and need to put resources in the position. With AR at QB, to get back to where we were 7 years ago, we need 4 WRs that can play.

MVS right now would be our #2 wr next year. The guys above were our #3-4s. Even if he makes a second year jump, which I hope he does,

Yeah, left Cobb out of it, but doesn't really change the equation tbh.  He had the least amount of receptions as a rookie and slightly more receiving yards than Jordy Nelson despite more catches.

Yes, the catch rate does bring some red flags for me.  But that's also before you remember where he came from.  He came from a USF offense with a RB masquerading as a QB, and an offense that he wasn't asked to run very many routes.  His catch rate (54.5%) is higher than Greg Jennings (43.3%), but lower than Davante Adams (57.6%), James Jones (58.8%), Jordy Nelson (61.1%), and Randall Cobb (80.6%).  IIRC, Cobb was used more as a utility player than a traditional receiver, which is why he had a higher completion percentage.  All of them improved their catch rate as they continued to play for the Packers.  Why does MVS not get that same faith?  MVS' catch rate might only be 55% right now, but I'd bet it ends up around ~60%.

And I'd actually argue that Allison (if healthy) is our #2 WR especially with the way he played to start the year.  Right now, I'd argue that Adams, Allison, and MVS are our starting WRs next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Arthur Penske

Arthur Penske

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, pacman5252 said:

Based off historical evidence, there is a higher % chance they are out of the NFL in 5 years than good starters.  If one of them pans out to be even a #2 wr, that would be beating the odds. Moore already seems like a bust (no PT and getting beaten by a 3rd year UDFA).

Percentages are fine, but they don’t guarantee an outcome for ESB or MVS 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CWood21

CWood21

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, pacman5252 said:

In 2018 you need 3 starting wrs and another guy who is good enough to step in for the inevitable injury. If we didn't make any additions via the draft or FA, we'd be going in with Adams, MVS, ESB, Kumerow, and Moore. That is hoping 2 late round guys make a large enough jump to be starters, and at least 1 guy improves enough to get 400 snaps. That is a lot of projection for starters and really no depth.

In contrary, you want 2 starting edge players and a really good backup. We'll have Fackrell, pick 1, maybe perry, plus the Gilbert. That group isn't bad

Wait, are we now not including Davante Adams?  Saying the Packers need 3 starting WRs is a joke for two reasons.  First, off we still Davante Freaking Adams on the roster.  Secondly, go count how many 4 WR sets we run.  Please do.  We don't really run a ton of 4 WR sets, I'm pretty sure @AlexGreen#20 did that breakdown a year or two ago.  We run almost exclusively 2 or 3 WR sets.  We really haven't ran a whole lot of 4 WR sets.  I guess unless you want to include when we flex Jimmy Graham out like a WR.

You're also excluding Geronimo Allison from the mix, which I think is a mistake on your part.  He was on a torrid pace to begin the year before he got injured.  Right now, I'm comfortable rolling into 2019 with Adams, Allison, our 3 youngsters, and then bringing in a veteran FA (think JJ Nelson, Adam Humphries, etc.) and a H/W/S specimen and letting them dual it out.  Would I like an elite WR next to Adams?  Absolutely, but not at the expense of another position.

You're entirely way higher on our current EDGE group than I am.  Nick Perry looks like a near obvious cap casualty, and his snaps are likely to be replaced by a high draft pick.  We have to replace Clay Matthews' snaps somewhere and short of us spending a TON in FA, you're going to have to fill it by committee.  Kyler Fackrell (to me) is an ideal #3 OLB.  Not someone you want starting, but a guy you're going to give 40%+ of the snaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CWood21

CWood21

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, pacman5252 said:

Most of those WRs weren't forced to take 500 snaps because of necessity.

Similar situation (not quite a rookie, but low experience) Charles Johnson. He was a 7th round rookie in 2013 from us who got cut. He ended up having 31 receptions on 59 targets, 475 yards in 2014 for the Vikes his first year of PT because the team was garbage at WR and they needed bodies. If you give a WR 500 snaps, he'll get a few catches. The low efficiency of MVS (low end of completion/target), and the increased throw aways this year is a result of the lack of talent/experience we have.

Who gives a damn why they're in there.  The simple question, are they producing when they're in there?  Talent is talent regardless of whether or not they force the issue or the coaching staff is forced to do it.  You're arbitrarily picking where the line in the sand is with absolutely no reasoning behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...