JMoore, ESB, MVS. Future outlook.

[skibrett15]

On 2/22/2019 at 5:46 PM, CWood21 said:

Going into 2019 with our current roster isn't the end of the world.  Maybe not ideal, but certainly not the end of the world.  Why can't Allison/MVS/ESB be our #2 WR?  We're getting back into draft pick bias.  They're produced in the limited snaps.

they all can be.  The offense was dysfunctional with them as the #2.  You're relying on significant improvement and picking up a new offensive scheme from young players in ESB and MVS or asking a relatively untalented player in Allison to win against more talented competition.  If the scheme and new offense is totally money, it won't really matter who the guys are at WR like it did with MM.

[Hands]

18 hours ago, skibrett15 said:

they all can be.  The offense was dysfunctional with them as the #2.  You're relying on significant improvement and picking up a new offensive scheme from young players in ESB and MVS or asking a relatively untalented player in Allison to win against more talented competition.  If the scheme and new offense is totally money, it won't really matter who the guys are at WR like it did with MM.

Green Bay didn't have a #2 receiver last year, just some good #3 and 4s. I would love to see ESB/MVS take over that #2 slot, but until they do Allison has a pretty firm control on it.  

[ReadyToThump]

On 2/25/2019 at 9:41 AM, squire12 said:

Most would likely have said that EQ would not be there in the 6th, but would have been happy with the value and potential he offered.  

Moore would have been a decent value.  MVS would have been more a reach as I think most would have him as a 7th/UDFA priority 

That would've been my biggest thing, no way EQ lasts until the end of the 6th! he's a 3rd round pick guaranteed! 

The value we got there was amazing. 

[JBURGE]

33 minutes ago, ReadyToThump said:

That would've been my biggest thing, no way EQ lasts until the end of the 6th! he's a 3rd round pick guaranteed! 

The value we got there was amazing. 

In the last few drafts, we have Grady Jarrett, Desmond King, Maurice Hurst, and I'm sure other ones who were notable draft day slides due to different reasons (Hurst is the only real one I understand) who have been awesome. EQ to a lesser extent obviously. I remember in Jarrett's draft everyone was mad every round we passed on him

[ReadyToThump]

2 hours ago, JBURGE said:

In the last few drafts, we have Grady Jarrett, Desmond King, Maurice Hurst, and I'm sure other ones who were notable draft day slides due to different reasons (Hurst is the only real one I understand) who have been awesome. EQ to a lesser extent obviously. I remember in Jarrett's draft everyone was mad every round we passed on him

All those guys fell to the 5th round too, that's crazy, I remember I was screaming for King. Bucky Hodges was another guy that fell that I really wanted. 

 

[JBURGE]

1 hour ago, ReadyToThump said:

3 hours ago, JBURGE said:

In the last few drafts, we have Grady Jarrett, Desmond King, Maurice Hurst, and I'm sure other ones who were notable draft day slides due to different reasons (Hurst is the only real one I understand) who have been awesome. EQ to a lesser extent obviously. I remember in Jarrett's draft everyone was mad every round we passed on him

All those guys fell to the 5th round too, that's crazy, I remember I was screaming for King. Bucky Hodges was another guy that fell that I really wanted. 

King was weird. I remember him "being too small and slow to play corner" but he refused to play safety and that's why he fell? 

[SSG]

On 2/24/2019 at 8:20 PM, CWood21 said:

 

It really isn't.  Go look at the history of TEs, and it's not anything special.  Mark Andrews was the most productive rookie TE this year, and 9th in receptions amongst WRs and TE and 7th in receptions.  Among TEs, Andrews ranked 19th in receptions and 16th in receiving yards.  The most productive rookie TE this year was a middle-of-the-pack TE.

 

You've got a bad habit of comparing every single rookie that has ever played like they are all in exactly the same situations.

What you failed to mention about Andrews is that he was the most productive rookie TE despite being 3rd among the TEs on his team in starts.   If we're not ignoring snap count,s Mark Andrews was substantially better and more productive than Jimmy Graham and we just made him the highest paid player in NFL history at his position.  

 

I'm unsure how you can be so unbelievably enamored with  38 catches on 78 targets for 581 yards and 2 TDs  in 691 snaps (64%) during 10 starts but dismissive about 34 catches on 50 targets for 552 yards and 3 TDs in 414 snaps during 3 starts.  Mark Andrews was 3rd among the TEs on his team in starts and never played more than 45% of the offensive snaps in a game yet you are comparing him to other TEs around the NFL like there was absolutely no difference in the amount of opportunity (Graham seen more than 45% of GB's offensive snaps in 14 of the 16 games).  Just an observation but it seems like you don't hold the same standard for other rookies around the NFL while having MASSIVELY inflated opinions about any and all packer first year guys.  

[ReadyToThump]

2 hours ago, JBURGE said:

King was weird. I remember him "being too small and slow to play corner" but he refused to play safety and that's why he fell? 

That's what I remember, and it's still weird to me. He had good overall #s, top of the line instincts and a 4.5-4.6 40 time. I love/hate 40yd dashes. 

[vegas492]

14 hours ago, ReadyToThump said:

That's what I remember, and it's still weird to me. He had good overall #s, top of the line instincts and a 4.5-4.6 40 time. I love/hate 40yd dashes. 

Kevin King combine numbers...

6'3'', 200 pounds.  4.43 40 yard dash.  11 reps on the bench.  39.5 vertical!  6.56 3 cone! 3.89 20 yard shuttle!  11.14 60 yard shuttle!

What I remember about King...every time I watched Washington film, he popped.  I was watching for Sidney Jones, feel in love with King.  Lateral movement.  Good deep speed.  Huge wingspan makes it hard to "feather one in" over the top of him.  

[ReadyToThump]

14 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Kevin King combine numbers...

6'3'', 200 pounds.  4.43 40 yard dash.  11 reps on the bench.  39.5 vertical!  6.56 3 cone! 3.89 20 yard shuttle!  11.14 60 yard shuttle!

What I remember about King...every time I watched Washington film, he popped.  I was watching for Sidney Jones, feel in love with King.  Lateral movement.  Good deep speed.  Huge wingspan makes it hard to "feather one in" over the top of him.  

We were talking about Desmond King and why he fell to the 5th. 

But yeah, Kevin had an insane combine, even moreso when you factor in his size. Just hope his shoulder can hold up. He's looked damn good, when he's on the field! 

[OneTwoSixFive]

I want a WR when the value is there (probably after the most critical needs of OT, Edge, FS are met). I don't think the need for WR is serious (this year). Next year we will all have a much better idea how MVS, ESB and J'Mon Moore shake out, and just maybe we find we ARE in need of a no.2 receiver..........I'm hoping that isn't true, of course, but it just might be.

Therefore, for this year, I'd be more interested in slot receivers and punt/kick returners. That means later picks, maybe 4th-6th rounders. I'm not counting out ESB as a slot guy, he isn't the classic small, sharp-cut slot guy - but big guys have their own advantages there, like catch radius. This desire to look at a later pick WR meshes with the talent available in this years draft, it is not exceptional at the top, but it is a deep draft for WRs.

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, ReadyToThump said:

We were talking about Desmond King and why he fell to the 5th. 

But yeah, Kevin had an insane combine, even moreso when you factor in his size. Just hope his shoulder can hold up. He's looked damn good, when he's on the field! 

Ah.  Got.  Sorry about that, I had a different "King" on my brain.

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

I want a WR when the value is there (probably after the most critical needs of OT, Edge, FS are met). I don't think the need for WR is serious (this year). Next year we will all have a much better idea how MVS, ESB and J'Mon Moore shake out, and just maybe we find we ARE in need of a no.2 receiver..........I'm hoping that isn't true, of course, but it just might be.

Therefore, for this year, I'd be more interested in slot receivers and punt/kick returners. That means later picks, maybe 4th-6th rounders. I'm not counting out ESB as a slot guy, he isn't the classic small, sharp-cut slot guy - but big guys have their own advantages there, like catch radius. This desire to look at a later pick WR meshes with the talent available in this years draft, it is not exceptional at the top, but it is a deep draft for WRs.

Paris Campbell is sitting 3rd roundish right now...   Seems like a lot of receivers above him.  Could change with a 40 time, but he's the one I'm really watching.

[CWood21]

On 2/26/2019 at 3:57 PM, SSG said:

You've got a bad habit of comparing every single rookie that has ever played like they are all in exactly the same situations.

What you failed to mention about Andrews is that he was the most productive rookie TE despite being 3rd among the TEs on his team in starts.   If we're not ignoring snap count,s Mark Andrews was substantially better and more productive than Jimmy Graham and we just made him the highest paid player in NFL history at his position.  

 

I'm unsure how you can be so unbelievably enamored with  38 catches on 78 targets for 581 yards and 2 TDs  in 691 snaps (64%) during 10 starts but dismissive about 34 catches on 50 targets for 552 yards and 3 TDs in 414 snaps during 3 starts.  Mark Andrews was 3rd among the TEs on his team in starts and never played more than 45% of the offensive snaps in a game yet you are comparing him to other TEs around the NFL like there was absolutely no difference in the amount of opportunity (Graham seen more than 45% of GB's offensive snaps in 14 of the 16 games).  Just an observation but it seems like you don't hold the same standard for other rookies around the NFL while having MASSIVELY inflated opinions about any and all packer first year guys.  

I'm sorry I don't make the assumption that the best case scenario for a rookie TE is going to break dozens of years of history.  Could he be more productive than Jimmy Graham in 2019?  Possible.  Would I bet on it?  Absolutely not.  We have a franchise QB who doesn't like throwing to rookies.  Mark Andrews played in 414 snaps last year, and he got 50 targets (8.3 snaps per target).  MVS had 691 snaps and he had 73 targets (9.5 snaps per target), and ESB had 358 snaps and 36 targets (9.9 targets per snap).  Both were rookie WRs last year, and WRs usually get more targets than TEs to begin with.  Hell, Jimmy Graham had 795 snaps on 89 targets, which is 8.9 targets per snap.

If you want to make the argument that Mark Andrews (or a rookie TE) plus the $6M (or whatever it is) is better than Jimmy Graham, that's probably a legitimate argument.  But the notion that a rookie TE is going to outproduce Jimmy Graham isn't likely.

[CWood21]

On 2/26/2019 at 3:57 PM, SSG said:

Just an observation but it seems like you don't hold the same standard for other rookies around the NFL while having MASSIVELY inflated opinions about any and all packer first year guys.  

That's definitely not the case.  You're taking a rookie TE who was one of the more productive years as a rookie TE, and making the assumption that the rookie TE we draft will do the same.  When the reality is that rookie TEs usually aren't that productive.