Second Round WR - It’s Time

[SSG]

23 hours ago, Mazrimiv said:

With zero proof, I am confident that much of the group currently dismissing MVS and EQ has roots in a similar group which was ready to cut ties with Adams after his rough 2nd year.

I  don't recall anyone every wanting to "cut ties" with Adams but there was certainly a lot of doubt after his terrible sophomore year.  I  know I needed him to prove himself as he looked as bad as any starting WR I'd ever seen play in Green Bay.

Let's continue to assume that every single WR we ever roster develops at the Adams pace.  Can we wait 2 more years before MVS develops into a starting caliper WR?  Allison is an unrestricted Free Agent after next year.  Let's not forget that our front office hedge their bets at WR after Adam's rookie year by spending a top 100 pick on Montgomery despite that WR core being substantially more talented and experienced than our current one.  

 

[66fan]

Are the Packers down on Randall Cobb or is it just perception from the fans? He will be a free agent and I don’t see him getting much for offers for even half of the money that he is being paid now. Is he worse than Beasley or a player like Julian Edelman in the slot? He is 4 years younger than Edelman and I would think that Cobb could catch 75 passes for the Patriots and we as fans would blame Gutekust for the poor decision to let him go. I feel that we as fans many times wish for something that we don’t have. Maybe in the new system, Cobb can be rejuvenated and there isn’t the great need for a high draft pick at receiver.

[pacman5252]

2 hours ago, 66fan said:

Are the Packers down on Randall Cobb or is it just perception from the fans? He will be a free agent and I don’t see him getting much for offers for even half of the money that he is being paid now. Is he worse than Beasley or a player like Julian Edelman in the slot? He is 4 years younger than Edelman and I would think that Cobb could catch 75 passes for the Patriots and we as fans would blame Gutekust for the poor decision to let him go. I feel that we as fans many times wish for something that we don’t have. Maybe in the new system, Cobb can be rejuvenated and there isn’t the great need for a high draft pick at receiver.

I’m probably the closest thing to a Cobb defender there is here. His body is bad. Cobb can still be a really good player, when he’s healthy. We saw it week 1. The “if healthy” is a big kicker because he hasn’t been able to stay healthy for more than a few weeks, before succumbing to something. Each of the last 4 seasons, at some early point in the season. ( in week 3/4 ) he’s been on 1000 yard pace. Then a tweak or something happens and he’s questionable half the games the rest of the year. 

 

[Pugger]

2 hours ago, 66fan said:

Are the Packers down on Randall Cobb or is it just perception from the fans? He will be a free agent and I don’t see him getting much for offers for even half of the money that he is being paid now. Is he worse than Beasley or a player like Julian Edelman in the slot? He is 4 years younger than Edelman and I would think that Cobb could catch 75 passes for the Patriots and we as fans would blame Gutekust for the poor decision to let him go. I feel that we as fans many times wish for something that we don’t have. Maybe in the new system, Cobb can be rejuvenated and there isn’t the great need for a high draft pick at receiver.

Cobb just can't stay on the field.  I think fans might be more down on him because of that and his salary.

[Isherwood]

Cobb is a more physically gifted player than Julian Edelman, yet hasn’t regularly made the field around him look as open and big as Edelman did tonight in, what, 5 years? We need to find the next Cobb. It’s not him anymore. I’m almost upset at how easy Edelman makes it look. 

[66fan]

8 hours ago, Isherwood said:

Cobb is a more physically gifted player than Julian Edelman, yet hasn’t regularly made the field around him look as open and big as Edelman did tonight in, what, 5 years? We need to find the next Cobb. It’s not him anymore. I’m almost upset at how easy Edelman makes it look. 

I agree with all 3 replies on Cobb. As I watched last nights game, I couldn’t help but think that Edelman is what Packers fans want, but feel it is more the system than the player. I also envision Cobb signing with the patriots and being “that guy “ that we all want as fans. I agree that he can’t stay on the field 

[AlexGreen#20]

8 hours ago, Isherwood said:

Cobb is a more physically gifted player than Julian Edelman, yet hasn’t regularly made the field around him look as open and big as Edelman did tonight in, what, 5 years? We need to find the next Cobb. It’s not him anymore. I’m almost upset at how easy Edelman makes it look. 

The only way Cobb is more physically gifted than Edelman is if age has taken more off the 32 year old than the 28 year old, and Cobb has certainly looked like he's lost more to age. 

[mikemike778]

21 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

That is because we have Aaron Rodgers and we are doing exactly what we have to do.  You pay a QB that much money, they have to be able to do more with less. 

We've signed a major free agent tight end in each of the past three offseasons.  We've added Aaron Jones, MVS, ESB, and we paid Cobb/Nelson millions, and we have Davante Adams. 

Our offense has more talent right now than the Patriots offense.  Lack of draft capital on offense is not the reason our offense has suffered. 

I think this summarises the situation nicely ...

People arrogantly assume that because we have Rodgers, the offense will automatically be elite and you can use all your draft resources on defence. That simply isn't the case. Even when Rodgers was at his peak, we surrounded him with top weapons. Now, he isn't at his peak - he is regressing and limited physically and we are surrounding him with late round projects and a patchwork OL held together by UDFAs and what is left of Bulaga's knee. Surely its logical to look at these factors and acknowledge the offence is going one way and its not up.

We have totally lost our identity now. We don't have an elite offense, we don't have a feared passing game. We have a reasonable offence in decline and we don't have a Grade A defence to compensate. 

I don't care about the Patriots. They are a different team, a different franchise, a different situation.I care about the Packers and what I have seen is :

• We have drafted exclusively defence in the early rounds
• Our offense is going down the drain

Yes we have added stacks of late round picks to the offense. If using your late round picks constitutes investing in your offense, lets flip it round and use all our Day 1 and Day 2 picks on offense and all of our day 3 picks on defence. I think that would make it 4 picks on offense and 6 on defence which sounds like pretty good investment in the defence.

[CWood21]

On 2/2/2019 at 6:44 AM, Pugger said:

If a WR is the BPA on Gute's board at the time we are picking in the second round I say take him.  CB, S, OL and pass rush are needs but when you start taking players out of need often you are reaching.  I suspect this is what TT started to do in his last couple of drafts.

I think that goes without saying Pugger.  I don't think anyone is arguing that the Packers should go away from their board and draft for need  But if he value is close, what position are you passing on?  Are you going to wait to rebuild your OL until next year?  Are you going to wait to develop Jimmy Graham's replacement next year?  We only have so many picks, and you're not going to fix all of your issues in one offseason.  Right now, I'm more comfortable with MVS and ESB than I am with anyone in our safety groups.  I'm more comfortable with them than any of our OL that are on the bench.

[CWood21]

On 2/2/2019 at 6:56 AM, Pugger said:

Yes, but when Adams was a rookie he had Nelson and Cobb ahead of him (did we also have James Jones that year?).  Last year in front of MVS and St. Brown we basically had Adams and Graham who was a disappointment.  Cobb was hurt a lot of Allison was on IR for most of the season so we had to rely on young WRs who were learning on the fly.  I also suspect our youngsters ran into the "rookie wall" late in the season.  

I'm trying to prove a point that an opinion is being made on MVS in particular due to draft status.  IF he was a 2nd round pick, you'd be THRILLED with his production.  But because he's a 5th round pick, it's garbage stats or a byproduct of situation.  The reality is he was productive, and he deserves the benefit of the doubt.  If the Packers draft a WR in the second round, so be it.  But it's not because MVS was a 5th round pick.

[CWood21]

16 hours ago, SSG said:

I  don't recall anyone every wanting to "cut ties" with Adams but there was certainly a lot of doubt after his terrible sophomore year.  I  know I needed him to prove himself as he looked as bad as any starting WR I'd ever seen play in Green Bay.

There was a LARGE contingent who wanted to get rid of Adams.  Same thing with Fackrell.

[66PinG]

On 2 February 2019 at 5:45 PM, Outpost31 said:

My problem with people wanting a first/second receiver again this year is threefold :

1. People continue to neglect how very little an impact rookie receivers/tight ends have in their first year.  They all said that was going to change more and more with the new rules.  It didn't.  Rookie right ends with a catch this season (12) averaged 20 receptions this year.  1.6 touchdown average. 

2. They don't realize that the rule changes are making high picks on these positions LESS crucial.  That is LITERALLY why this position is becoming less important.  Before 2007, it made more sense to draft receivers who could beat press coverage, who had those physical tools, etc.  Now?  Now, we're seeing later picks thrive at greater rates.  Mark Andrews is a perfect example.  Wildly better season in yards, receptions, yards per reception and touchdowns.  Before you say, "But Hurst was hurt!" So what?  Hurst was healthy enough to play in 12 games.  Andrews played in 16 games and started OVER Hurst.  Andrews was a third round pick, Hurst was a 25-year-old first round pick.  Most receptions by a TE this year?  39 by Chris Herndon.  He was a 4th round pick.  Ian Thomas was 2nd with 36 catches.  ALSO a 4th round pick.  It's the same with receivers.  Calvin Ridley and DJ Moore had the most receptions, yes.  However, they were either the first or second WR for their respective teams virtually all season, and both played for teams that passed a good amount.  Calloway (4th), Kirk (2nd), Sutton (2nd) and MVS (5th) were next in receptions.  MVS, as the third or fourth option all year, was 6th in receptions and 6th in yards.  MVS, a 5th round pick, was 26 receptions on 19 less targets behind Calvin Ridley.  ESB was 13th in receptions, 11th in yards.  This is out of 26 rookie receivers. 

3. We HAVE talent.  As you see above, MVS was not far behind players drafted far ahead of him.  This in spite of having a poor WR coach, a poor offense, and a poor Aaron Rodgers by Aaron's own standards. 

Here's a little breakdown of first/second years. 

2015 Rookie Year 26 total: Rookie receivers averaged 18 receptions.
2016 (2015 rookies in second year 22 total): Second year receivers averaged 29 receptions. 

--This shows that LESS receivers averaged MORE receptions in their second year. 

2016 Rookie Year (26 total): Rookie receivers averaged 21 receptions.
2017 (2016 rookies in second year 20 total): Second year receivers averaged 26 receptions. 

--That's 6 less receivers averaging 5 more receptions. 

2017 Rookie year (27 total): Rookie receivers averaged 16 receptions.
2018 (2017 rookies in second year: Second year receivers averaged 35 receptions. 

--5 less receivers averaged 19 more receptions. 

The last time I brought up MVS comparing him to other rookies, I was told, "1988 has no bearing on right now."  Fine.  Granted. 

Here's where MVS ranks on receivers of ANY round drafted from 2014 on as far as first seasons. 

143 receivers have been drafted since 2014. 

MVS was 29th out of 143 in rookie seasons for receivers drafted in those years.  Who is 28 but Davante Adams, who had MVS beat by wait, no... Tied.  Davante and MVS both had 38 receptions in their rookie years. 

MVS was 24th out of 143 rookie receivers in yards. 

MVS was 12th out of 143 in yards per reception (minimum 20 receptions).

ESB was 51st in receptions out of 143.

ESB was 46th in yards out of 143.

ESB was 8th in yards per reception (minimum 20 receptions). 

The numbers our two rookie receivers had compared to other rookie receivers should do one of the following:

1. It should either show that second round receivers do NOT have very meaningful first seasons.

--OR--

2. It should quell any desire for another investment in a receiver considering how they match up with such investments, suggesting that they will have as big or bigger an impact in their second years as a second round receiver in their first year would. 

I am not sure which I'm angrier at between the notion that MVS/ESB are not legitimate options at WR or that we need a second round receiver. 

I pretty much agree with everything you wrote. Those that think circa 560 yards is ho- hum for a rookie WR need to re-evaluate their criteria. In other words, who was the last Packers WR to reach even this "ho-hum" level?

People wanted Jordy, Adams and Jones cut because of drops.

The more I pay attention to what other folks say, the more I realize how ignorant the general population of the world is.

in many situations, myself included. But, our WR group is just fine IMO.

[ThatJerkDave]

I would prefer an investment at TE or OL to WR in this draft.  IMO the arrow is pointing up or at least even for the receivers.  We will get to see an additional year of development out of Moore, MVS, ESB, and Kumerow.  We have the right of first refusal for Allison, and Cobb will be available at a significantly lower salary, should we decide to pursue that option.

 

We need an immediate starter at RG and we have 2 seasons to find a replacement for Lane Taylor if we don't want to pay him 3rd contract money.  We have a question mark at OT with Bulaga's health and pending free agency next season, combined with Spriggs' Jekel and Hyde style and pending free agency.  

 

TE is one of the three worst position groups on the team, with safety and edge rusher.  

 

I think early WR is a luxury that the team really can't afford. 

 

[Leader]

33 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Right now, I'm more comfortable with MVS and ESB than I am with anyone in our safety groups.  I'm more comfortable with them than any of our OL that are on the bench.

This is true.

Do we have anyone in our Safety group? I seem to have lost track of the playmakers at the position.....

Briefly switching gears to yesterdays SB - I thought Gilmore played an *excellent* game. Cant say I caught all the plays he was involved in - but of those I did - shutdown comes to mind. Excellent game - which (and CW I know you'll particularly enjoy this next comment.......) his natural skills/instincts were supported by a front 5/6 along the defensive line that was getting pressure. We could use some (or more) of both qualities in our D.

[vegas492]

55 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I'm trying to prove a point that an opinion is being made on MVS in particular due to draft status.  IF he was a 2nd round pick, you'd be THRILLED with his production.  But because he's a 5th round pick, it's garbage stats or a byproduct of situation.  The reality is he was productive, and he deserves the benefit of the doubt.  If the Packers draft a WR in the second round, so be it.  But it's not because MVS was a 5th round pick.

Imagine those MVS stats if Rogers could have thrown a halfway accurate deep ball last year.