Second Round WR - It’s Time

[CWood21]

13 minutes ago, SSG said:

Actually it's not.  Look at the way the Browns attacked the QB position over the last 5 years.  It is EXACTLY the way you want us to attack our DB issue.  Your first and second round pick don't work out immediately?  That's ok, wait a year and use that same first and second round.  And just to be safe, we'll use those same picks on the position group again for the next season.  Maybe the 3rd year in a row and 4th out of the last 5 drafts is the answer.

What was the Browns' solution?  Go out and sign some middle-of-the road veteran and hope that he becomes something he hasn't done before?  You have to find your franchise QB through the draft.  Drew Brees is the exception, not the rule.  Just because you made a misevaluation doesn't mean you should steer clear of the position.  By that logic, the Browns should have passed on Baker Mayfield for Bradley Chubb.  How many Browns' fans or FO personnel would make that trade right now?  None.

[Redt]

Last year everything was out of Sync when 12 went down in game 1. Allison, Cobb, and Graham either being injured or ineffective was a major problem that gets ignored contributing to the dysfunction. It is not so much as the rookie WR's being open as they are not in the right place (down and distance) based on scheme, this may partially explain Rodgers decision making.  MVS looked strong in the beginning of the year, but faded. EQ made some plays, nothing spectacular, but appeared  soft and will not be counted on. Nothing wrong with MVS  & EQ as your #4 and #5 WR's next year, but I certainly don't want them as #2 and #3.  Hoping for a FA slot (Tate), healthy Allison,  and a solid draft pick WR which may come later (Renfrow, Isabella, McLaurin, Hart).

As far as pick #44,  BPA for me, same with #12 and #30. Shaping up to be a solid draft and should be a good year to let the draft come to us and stick to BPA.  If we could land any combination of the three with our first three picks I would be happy;  #12 Simmons, White, Sweat, Wilkins, Ferrell, Ferguson,  Risner,  Dillard,  Lindstrom,  Jacobs,  Hokenson, Fant,  Samuel, "Hollywood". It's all about adding playmakers. 

[Shanedorf]

Also, note to the OP

In Packer Nation, we don't say " Its Time"
We say " IT. IS. TIME "

 

[Isherwood]

If there’s value at pick 44, sure we could draft a receiver. But I really don’t think we’re going to go into the draft with WR as a high priority. If Hollywood Brown is there, he very well could be BPA. But he probably won’t be. I expect us to target front 7 and OL heavily at the top of this draft. I suspect a skills position player taken in the first 3 picks will be the result of a big talent falling for some reason. 

[Rodjahs12]

AJ Brown>Hollywood IMO

[SSG]

7 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

We needed a #2 WR this year, and MVS still ended up only 3rd in large part because Randall Cobb wasn't healthy and Rodgers inexplicably stopped throwing to Jimmy Graham.  Need more proof?  Look at the number of snaps per target for our WRs.

Adams: 5.6 targets per snap
MVS: 9.6 targets per snap
ESB: 9.9 targets per snap
Cobb: 7.6 targets per snap
Allison: 8.0 targets per snap

That's not a coincidence that Cobb got more targets when he was on the field.  And I'm not sure anyone thinks Randall Cobb is better than MVS or ESB.  I want to put another number out there.  76.  That's the number of targets that Aaron Jones and Jamaal Williams had combined.  Our two RBs had more targets in the passing game combined than MVS had this year.  And that's coming from a guy who doesn't like throwing to his backs.

We'll have to agree to disagree.  The fact that we had to target RBs more this year than any season in AR12's career pretty clearly speaks more to the lack of talent at WR than Rodgers refusal to throw to rookie WRs (IMO).  It's been a long time since this offense has gotten consistent production from prospects the caliber of MVS or ESB.  A couple of superb athletes who weren't anything more than mediocre receivers in college despite having an athletic advantage over almost damn near every DB they've ever lined up against.  

[gopackgo27]

Gimme some Deebo, guy's a beast.

 

[gopackgo247]

59 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Also, note to the OP

In Packer Nation, we don't say " Its Time"
We say " IT. IS. TIME "

 

bring Greene back!!

[CWood21]

57 minutes ago, SSG said:

We'll have to agree to disagree.  The fact that we had to target RBs more this year than any season in AR12's career pretty clearly speaks more to the lack of talent at WR than Rodgers refusal to throw to rookie WRs (IMO).  It's been a long time since this offense has gotten consistent production from prospects the caliber of MVS or ESB.  A couple of superb athletes who weren't anything more than mediocre receivers in college despite having an athletic advantage over almost damn near every DB they've ever lined up against.  

MVS was 6th in receptions and 6th in yards.  Let me ask you this, what's the difference between MVS and Christian Kirk?  Kirk had 5 more receptions for 9 more yards, but you don't Cardinals' fans trying to bury him on the depth chart.  It's draft pick bias.  The Packers took a big, athletic raw WR and he produced.  If we would have taken him in the 2nd round, you'd be stoked for his future.

[Norm]

47 minutes ago, gopackgo27 said:

Gimme some Deebo, guy's a beast.

 

Jerk route

[squire12]

5 minutes ago, Norm said:

53 minutes ago, gopackgo27 said:

Gimme some Deebo, guy's a beast.

 

Jerk route

Why you picking on @ThatJerkDave?

[SSG]

39 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

MVS was 6th in receptions and 6th in yards.  Let me ask you this, what's the difference between MVS and Christian Kirk?  Kirk had 5 more receptions for 9 more yards, but you don't Cardinals' fans trying to bury him on the depth chart.  It's draft pick bias.  The Packers took a big, athletic raw WR and he produced.  If we would have taken him in the 2nd round, you'd be stoked for his future.

I'd have wanted the front office fired if they'd have taken a raw prospect like MVS in the second.  It would have been an Al Davis-esk pick completely ignoring his play on the field in favor of his work out in gym shorts.  MVS's 4 year college career was rather piss poor when you take into account his athletic advantage and the terrible competition in the AAC.  I    mean you want to compare him to Kirk but Kirk was a substantially better college player against an entirely different level of competition in the SEC.  

The difference between Kirk and MVS last year?  Kirk played in 3 fewer games, had fewer starts and 150 fewer snaps on one of the league's worst offenses.  He also had to deal with the what was easily the league's worst QB play.   Even then, he was still more consistent and productive than MVS.  But again, I'm supposed to believe that MVS's lack of production was the result of Aaron Rodgers refusal to throw the ball to rookies so maybe having one of the greatest QBs of all time is this huge disadvantage for MVS.

[SSG]

2 hours ago, CWood21 said:

What was the Browns' solution?  Go out and sign some middle-of-the road veteran and hope that he becomes something he hasn't done before?  You have to find your franchise QB through the draft.  Drew Brees is the exception, not the rule.  Just because you made a misevaluation doesn't mean you should steer clear of the position.  By that logic, the Browns should have passed on Baker Mayfield for Bradley Chubb.  How many Browns' fans or FO personnel would make that trade right now?  None.

The Browns solution was to draft a QB with the first pick after spending a high second rounder on a QB the year before.  A guy our front office was supposedly infatuated with.  Mayfield was the 7th premium  pick that they've spent on QB since 2007.  By my logic, they'd have passed on Mayfield for the guy whom they thought was their franchise QB the year before.  

It's a sad day when you are trying to use the Browns decisions as rational to make moves.  The Browns logic would be to cut King and Jackson and spend our first round picks on their replacements every single season until we get it right.

[CWood21]

14 minutes ago, SSG said:

I'd have wanted the front office fired if they'd have taken a raw prospect like MVS in the second.  It would have been an Al Davis-esk pick completely ignoring his play on the field in favor of his work out in gym shorts.  MVS's 4 year college career was rather piss poor when you take into account his athletic advantage and the terrible competition in the AAC.  I    mean you want to compare him to Kirk but Kirk was a substantially better college player against an entirely different level of competition in the SEC.  

Player A: 53 receptions, 879 receiving yards, 6 TD receptions
Player B: 71 receptions, 919 receiving yards, 10 TD receptions
Player C: 63 receptions, 761 receiving yards, 7 TD receptions
Player D: 53 receptions, 857 receiving yards 9 TD receptions

Care to guess who those players are?  Player A is MVS, Player B is Christian Kirk, Player C is Dante Pettis, and Player D is DaeSean Hamilton.  Now, look at who was throwing to those players.  DaeSean Hamilton had Trace McSorley throwing to him.  Dante Pettis had Jake Browning throwing to him.  And Christian Kirk had Kellen Mond and Nick Starkel throwing to him.  In terms of QBs, Flowers is closer to Mond/Starkel than he is McSorley or Browning.  Neither McSorley or Browning are anything special, but they're not RBs masquerading as QBs.  MVS was a HUGE question mark in terms of his ability to play WR, because he wasn't running a very diverse route tree and he never worked with a legitimate QB.  If you don't think playing with Flowers hurt MVS, I don't know what to tell you.

22 minutes ago, SSG said:

The difference between Kirk and MVS last year?  Kirk played in 3 fewer games, had fewer starts and 150 fewer snaps on one of the league's worst offenses.  He also had to deal with the what was easily the league's worst QB play.   Even then, he was still more consistent and productive than MVS.  But again, I'm supposed to believe that MVS's lack of production was the result of Aaron Rodgers refusal to throw the ball to rookies so maybe having one of the greatest QBs of all time is this huge disadvantage for MVS.

And Kirk was viewed as the safer, more NFL-ready prospect of the two, which I don't think anyone would disagree with.  But in terms of upside, there isn't that much there.  If you want to take Kirk's upside, go right ahead.  I wouldn't agree with it.

[CWood21]

4 minutes ago, SSG said:

The Browns solution was to draft a QB with the first pick after spending a high second rounder on a QB the year before.  A guy our front office was supposedly infatuated with.  Mayfield was the 7th premium  pick that they've spent on QB since 2007.  By my logic, they'd have passed on Mayfield for the guy whom they thought was their franchise QB the year before.  

It's a sad day when you are trying to use the Browns decisions as rational to make moves.  The Browns logic would be to cut King and Jackson and spend our first round picks on their replacements every single season until we get it right.

So...because the Browns stupidly used a 2nd round pick on a QB the year before they shouldn't take a QB the next year if they thought he was a franchise QB?  There's literally no argument to make here.  You don't draft with the assumption you're picking a bust.  You draft with the intention of getting a hit.  And getting a hit at arguably the most important position in ALL of professional sports stands to be the biggest part.  DeShone Kizer was picked 52nd btw, which wouldn't constitute a high 2nd round pick fwiw.  The Browns had THREE different opportunities to draft Kizer, and it wasn't until their 4th pick they did so.  That tells me that they didn't view him that highly, they just thought he was too good of value to not take that gamble in the 2nd round.

It's mind boggling to me that you're sitting here criticizing the Browns for taking Baker Mayfield simply because they took DeShone Kizer the year before.  Absolutely mind boggling.