2019 WR Corps

[Fl0nkerton]

I thought we were convinced that account was trolling, no?

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

14 hours ago, SSG said:

"An elite rookie WR" who was less productive than Jarrett Boykin was in his first opportunity to start in that same #2 roll.  

Looking at production and ignoring the situation isn't all that important to me.  The fact that Jarrett Boykin was a better, more productive WR in his first opportunity to start in that #2 roll (with fewer snaps) has me questioning why production and only production is paid attention to.  

I wasn't here in 2014 but was the word elite being thrown around when JB was being discussed?  

A couple of points:

Jarrett Boykin was never a #2 for any significant period of time.  In his best year, 2013, he was a #3 behind Jordy Nelson and James Jones.  In 2014, he was little used.

Boykin was not a rookie in 2013.

I get it, Boykin looked promising as a #3 or #4 at the end of 2013, but the comparison to a rookie in a complex scheme for the WR is specious at best.

Your arguments are simply based on past performance, which while legitimate, do not necessarily carry forward real well in a totally different offensive philosophy which uses the players differently.  As Rodgers said yesterday, the current offense goes back to classic progressions, scheming 1 or 2 guys open with fallback plans if that fails, as opposed to just looking to one side of the field and seeing if anyone beats their man.  Last year's offense was a difficult one for any rookie to exist in.

While you are entitled to your concerns based on past performance, why not just wait and see what happens this year before bring the disappointment?  

[Leader]

3 hours ago, deathstar said:

This, I think, further adds to the narrative of how hard it is to find good, accurate information. This information is coming from this tweet:

Rotoworld added in the bit about him being the #4. And the MRI I guess. @incognito_man

That shouldnt be. If so, they completely changed the character of Demovsky's comment. I mean, they'd have attributed thoughts to Demovsky that didnt exist. I'd think they'd hear about doing stuff like that no?

[deathstar]

1 minute ago, Leader said:

That shouldnt be. If so, they completely changed the character of Demovsky's comment. I mean, they'd have attributed thoughts to Demovsky that didnt exist. I'd think they'd hear about doing stuff like that no?

It's pretty strange that they would editorialize like that, but if you search for St. Brown and MRI the time it's been reported that he had one was his freshman year. Further if you look through Demovsky's timeline he never refers to St. Brown as the #4. Makes you wonder what else they embellish. 

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, deathstar said:

It's pretty strange that they would editorialize like that, but if you search for St. Brown and MRI the time it's been reported that he had one was his freshman year. Further if you look through Demovsky's timeline he never refers to St. Brown as the #4. Makes you wonder what else they embellish. 

Reading through it - I think they just pulled the #s from the depth chart.

[Leader]

1 minute ago, deathstar said:

It's pretty strange that they would editorialize like that, but if you search for St. Brown and MRI the time it's been reported that he had one was his freshman year. Further if you look through Demovsky's timeline he never refers to St. Brown as the #4. Makes you wonder what else they embellish. 

Exactly - which kills them as a reliable source of info - which makes me question that Demovsky never made the comments. I've not searched Twitter (or the referenced data source) to "back up" Roto's comments. Just figured if they were attributing them so directly.....they had to be on target.

[SSG]

3 hours ago, CWood21 said:

If you're incapable of realizing how bad Aaron Rodgers was, especially against the Cardinals you're incapable or unwilling to be critical of Aaron Rodgers.  That alone tells me that you aren't looking at this objectively.  You point to the drop in snap count, and what was the common denominator in those two games (against the Falcons and Bears)?  Davante Adams AND Randall Cobb played in both of those games.  Outside of those two games, from Week 4 on MVS played in over 70% of the snaps in all but 3 games (including against the Bears and Falcons).  The 3rd game was against the Rams, and MVS, Geronimo Allison, and Randall Cobb all played roughly 60% of the snaps.  MVS actually came in 2nd in terms of snaps amongst WRs in that game behind Davante Adams.  Last year, MVS finished 6th among rookie WRs in receptions and receiving yards.

Davante Adams AND Randall Cobb played against Arizona.  I don't think MVS's benching had anything to do with the return of Cobb (Adams, Cobb and MVS had started previous games where all 3 were healthy).  Not only did EQ stay in the starting lineup but he out snapped MVS a huge margin.  The ONLY reason MVS was inserted back into the starting lineup was because of injury.  You are correct.  MVS got a massive snap share prior to the embarrassing effort he gave in the Arizona game which led to him getting benched and passed on the depth chart by EQ.  Heck, he was getting the same snap share as Kumerow at the time of the EQ injury. 

I could care less about where he finished among rookies last year.  Jarrett Boykin in his first opportunity to start in the NFL looked serviceable in this offense because of opportunity.  I don't ever remember the word "elite" being attacked to his name?  He was more productive with fewer snaps.

 

3 hours ago, CWood21 said:

I'm not really sure why you mentioned it.  If Rodgers needs a bunch of All Pro WRs to be successful, maybe he's not as good as we're making him out to be.  You're so caught up in the draft status, and using that as a crux in a ridiculous bad argument.  If MVS was a 2nd round pick, you would have been THRILLED with his production.  Most teams don't revamp their WR corps quite like the Packers did, especially with a proven QB like Aaron Rodgers.  That's why you're not going to find much of a track record.

There is a large gap between quality starters and All pros. James Jones was never anything close to an all pro but he was part of an offense that wasn't top 10 in the NFL just one time in his career.  I'm not finding a track record because it's never happened.  We're expecting Aaron Rodgers to be an all pro caliber QB last year with a supporting cast no modern day high volume passing offense has ever had high end success with (that I can find at least).  Heck, in the last 20+ years Green Bay has developed 1 late round WR into a starter and we're expecting Rodgers to double or triple that success rate in one year.  The fact that this franchise has seen 15 failures compared to one success in the last 20 years with low end WR prospects is large reason I find it unrealistic that we're going to get 3 quality starting WRs out of last year's class.  You'd be talking about the more popular opinion and one of the single greatest hauls in NFL history from a first year GM.

 

3 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Yes.  Back-to-back top 10 in ANYA.  You want to give all the credit to the WR in this.  Jared Goff played with Jeff Fisher, a notorious QB killer.  Anyone who thought he was a major bust refused to realize that you don't have Jeff Fisher as your HC and expect your QB (especially a young QB) succeed.  Nobody viewed Sean McVay as the best offensive mind when he was hired by the Rams.  In fact, most viewed the hire as a reach.  The reality is that the QB is the one throws the ball to the WR.  You're not going to just insert a QB and see that same kind of success.

 

No sense in arguing about McVay or the best WR in the NFL if you truly believe that Goff is the reason for his success.

 

3 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Except it clearly is, otherwise you wouldn't be parroting around the whole being drafted late.  The fact is that MVS was a top 6 rookie WR last year.  Fact.  Rodgers was in his arguably his worst season in a LONG time.  Fact.  But somehow the fact that he was that productive, he isn't good.  You're going to ignore the fact that Aaron Rodgers was on pace to blow by the record for most throwaways.  Again, if you need a slew of All Pro WRs, then maybe Rodgers isn't as good as we think he is.  Or maybe it was our franchise QB openly feuding with his HC.  One is more logical than the other.

Nobody said he was trying to lose.  What we saw was a QB who was openly challenging his HC.  He was calling audibles away from what the original play call was.  He was throwing away from WRs not named Davante Adams.  Davante Adams last year had 169 targets last year, and his career high prior to that was 121 in 2016.  That's 48 more targets than the previous season.  This is on top of the well noted fact that Rodgers isn't a fan of rookie WRs.  Since Rodgers was our starting QB, the rookie WR with the most targets was Jordy Nelson in 2008 with 54 targets (33 receptions, 366 receiving yards) until MVS had 73 targets (38 receptions, 581 receiving yards) this year.  There is video proof of Rodgers missing wide open WRs, and you're throwing it out the window.

Rodgers did have his worst season as a pro and I believe the fact that he needed 20 starts from low end rookie WR prospects had something to do with it.  Not everyone is in Bill Belichick's or Sean Payton's offenses.  There is a reason that Ted Thompson invested more high end draft capital into the WR position than any other position on the team.  You might be right though.  Rodgers may not be as good as we think he is if the expectation is truly something that no QB in NFL history has ever been able to do. 

Unless you are telling me that you are capable of seeing through Rodger's face mask from those videos I could care less about your video proof.  I don't care if a WR breaks open after Rodgers missed him in his progressions because he wasn't where he was supposed to be.  Reminds me of all the "video proof" of Jeff Janis always being open.  The same Jeff Janis who's lack of production also got left at the feet of Rodgers. 

If you are accusing Rodgers of picking a throwaways instead of a wide open WR, you are accusing him of throwing football games.  PERIOD.  And if you are correct and we've got QB trying to throw games then we'ev got bigger issues than WR.  Seems like Mike McCarthy would be black balled from the NFL forever if he playing a player who he could see on tape was intentionally trying to lose.  It would speak to the absolute ineptness of every single coach on that staff if a bunch of twitter experts are able to see a QB throwing games when the coaching staff couldn't.

[Leader]

Yikes. Did I stumble into the War & Peace thread by accident?

[SSG]

2 hours ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

A couple of points:

Jarrett Boykin was never a #2 for any significant period of time.  In his best year, 2013, he was a #3 behind Jordy Nelson and James Jones.  In 2014, he was little used.

Boykin was not a rookie in 2013.

I get it, Boykin looked promising as a #3 or #4 at the end of 2013, but the comparison to a rookie in a complex scheme for the WR is specious at best.

Your arguments are simply based on past performance, which while legitimate, do not necessarily carry forward real well in a totally different offensive philosophy which uses the players differently.  As Rodgers said yesterday, the current offense goes back to classic progressions, scheming 1 or 2 guys open with fallback plans if that fails, as opposed to just looking to one side of the field and seeing if anyone beats their man.  Last year's offense was a difficult one for any rookie to exist in.

While you are entitled to your concerns based on past performance, why not just wait and see what happens this year before bring the disappointment?  

You are correct.  Boykin was our #3 that year.  Not sure if that helps or hurts the arguement that MVS is a sure fire quility starting WR or not.  

Boykin was a second year UDFA who was getting his first chance at consistant playing time after barely seeing the field as a rookie.  My point isn't to compare the players.  My point is that there is no such thing as a guarantee.  If scrub like Jarrett Bokin can be more productive in that offense in a lesser role there is no guarantee MVS is a starting caliber WR.  Looking at production alone means very little IMO.  

Unless you are basing your arguement on an assumption, past performance is about all we have to go on until the season starts.  This is my opinion now and it could change drastically during the season.  i'll gladly admint I'm wrong if posters are indead right and Gute has one of the best draft hauls in NFL history.  Getting 3 quility starting WRs late in the same draft would be a modern day NFL first.

[TheOnlyThing]

Looking forward to seeing my favorite #10 since Matt Flynn perform tonight.

https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2019/08/13/rookie-wr-darrius-shepherd-surprising-packers-earning-more-opportunities/

[CWood21]

49 minutes ago, SSG said:

Davante Adams AND Randall Cobb played against Arizona.  I don't think MVS's benching had anything to do with the return of Cobb (Adams, Cobb and MVS had started previous games where all 3 were healthy).  Not only did EQ stay in the starting lineup but he out snapped MVS a huge margin.  The ONLY reason MVS was inserted back into the starting lineup was because of injury.  You are correct.  MVS got a massive snap share prior to the embarrassing effort he gave in the Arizona game which led to him getting benched and passed on the depth chart by EQ.  Heck, he was getting the same snap share as Kumerow at the time of the EQ injury. 

I could care less about where he finished among rookies last year.  Jarrett Boykin in his first opportunity to start in the NFL looked serviceable in this offense because of opportunity.  I don't ever remember the word "elite" being attacked to his name?  He was more productive with fewer snaps.

You're kidding yourself if you don't think Randall Cobb being available didn't directly impact the number of snaps of MVS did, and MVS "benching" lasted all of two games.  Against the Falcons, the Packers gave Randall Cobb 68% of the snaps, ESB 52% of the snaps, and MVS 46% of the snaps.  Against the Bears, the Packers gave Randall Cobb 69% of the offensive snaps, ESB 62% of the snaps, Jake Kumerow and MVS had 21% of the snaps.  The only other games that ESB got more snaps than MVS was against the Rams I believe.  MVS was ahead of ESB on the depth chart, and the snaps are there to prove it.  There's a reason why Cobb had more targets per snap than MVS.  he was on the field because Rodgers trusted Cobb.  MVS was always ahead of the depth chart over ESB, and the snaps prove that.  During that Falcons/Bears stretch, they split the snaps up amongst the young WRs a bit more.

You keep bringing up Jarrett Boykin as reasons why MVS numbers are an allusion, and there's a DRASTIC difference between a Y2 WR playing with Rodgers and a rookie WR.  Have you missed the training camp tweets about MVS creating a ton of big plays?  Trying to compare a rookie WR to a second year WR is a ridiculous claim, especially when most view the jump from Y1 to Y2 as the biggest room for improvement.  And nobody claimed MVS or Jarrett Boykin to be elite, but nice try.  But I'll ask this, what separates MVS' production from say Courtland Sutton or Anthony Miller aside from draft status?

1 hour ago, SSG said:

There is a large gap between quality starters and All pros. James Jones was never anything close to an all pro but he was part of an offense that wasn't top 10 in the NFL just one time in his career.  I'm not finding a track record because it's never happened.  We're expecting Aaron Rodgers to be an all pro caliber QB last year with a supporting cast no modern day high volume passing offense has ever had high end success with (that I can find at least).  Heck, in the last 20+ years Green Bay has developed 1 late round WR into a starter and we're expecting Rodgers to double or triple that success rate in one year.  The fact that this franchise has seen 15 failures compared to one success in the last 20 years with low end WR prospects is large reason I find it unrealistic that we're going to get 3 quality starting WRs out of last year's class.  You'd be talking about the more popular opinion and one of the single greatest hauls in NFL history from a first year GM.

Jordy Nelson, Greg Jennings, Davante Adams...that's a trio of WRs that just about any QB would love to have over the course of their career.  I think that's 3 legitimate #1 WRs.  People talk about how great the Packers' history has been with QBs, but it hasn't been too shabby on the WR side.  LIS, if he needs an elite WR or two to play good football, maybe he's not as good as we make him out to be.  Go back and look at the history of your offenses, how many teams have revamped their WR corps like the Packers did?  You won't find a team who was a top 10 offense who jettisoned one of their top 2 WRs and essentially started two rookies for a large majority of their rookie year.  You're trying to make a correlation that isn't there, simply because the concept never happened.  Aaron Rodgers made Jarrett Boykin look decent.  He made James Jones look good.  Why can't Rodgers make MVS or ESB look good?  He can, he just chose not to.  No, I don't think we're getting 3 quality starting WRs.  I think we're going to get one good one (MVS), one solid one (ESB), and one poor one (Moore).

And look at Rodgers' numbers last year.  His completion percentage was the lowest of his career as a starting QB with the exception of 2015.  His INT% (0.3) was the lowest of his career as a starting QB was less than a third of his career low up until that point which was 1% back in 2014 and a fifth of his career INT% of 1.5%.  His ANY/A was his 3rd worst of his career when he played in 16 games and below his career average.  You want your INT% rate to be low, but when it's that low ALONG with his COMP% being that low, it shows you that he's played risk-adversed football, which is exactly what you see when you put the tape on.  He's not even giving his WRs a chance to make plays.  Half the time, the read is Davante Adams or throw the ball away.  There's a reason why his INT% and CMP% were near the bottom of his career, and it wasn't all because of his WRs despite your opinion otherwise.

1 hour ago, SSG said:

No sense in arguing about McVay or the best WR in the NFL if you truly believe that Goff is the reason for his success.

Nobody thought Sean McVay was the brightest young mind in NFL prior to the Rams hiring him.  In fact, they were kinda laughed at.  If you don't think the guy who is throwing the ball has a LARGE factor in that offenses' success than you're kidding yourself.  Sean Mannion isn't running that offense that well.  Just any average QB isn't going to run that offense well.  Goff finally getting a HC who wasn't going to break him was the reason why the Rams are suddenly successful.  Not the WRs.

1 hour ago, SSG said:

Rodgers did have his worst season as a pro and I believe the fact that he needed 20 starts from low end rookie WR prospects had something to do with it.  Not everyone is in Bill Belichick's or Sean Payton's offenses.  There is a reason that Ted Thompson invested more high end draft capital into the WR position than any other position on the team.  You might be right though.  Rodgers may not be as good as we think he is if the expectation is truly something that no QB in NFL history has ever been able to do. 

Unless you are telling me that you are capable of seeing through Rodger's face mask from those videos I could care less about your video proof.  I don't care if a WR breaks open after Rodgers missed him in his progressions because he wasn't where he was supposed to be.  Reminds me of all the "video proof" of Jeff Janis always being open.  The same Jeff Janis who's lack of production also got left at the feet of Rodgers. 

If you are accusing Rodgers of picking a throwaways instead of a wide open WR, you are accusing him of throwing football games.  PERIOD.  And if you are correct and we've got QB trying to throw games then we'ev got bigger issues than WR.  Seems like Mike McCarthy would be black balled from the NFL forever if he playing a player who he could see on tape was intentionally trying to lose.  It would speak to the absolute ineptness of every single coach on that staff if a bunch of twitter experts are able to see a QB throwing games when the coaching staff couldn't.

The "proof" that you're completely ignoring.  Whether it be the video or the numbers, at this point you're putting your head in the sand.  Again, Rodgers isn't very good if he isn't able to make solid guys look better than they are.  There's no reason that Rodgers shouldn't be able to create the illusion that these mediocre WRs aren't better than they are.  Drew Brees has managed to do it.  Tom Brady has made a career of it.  Why can't Rodgers?  And if it comes at the expense of other positions, I'd rather avoid using draft picks on WRs.  How did investing in all those WRs do for the rest of the team?  Our defense hasn't been able to stop anyone since 2010.

It's not throwing games.  It's realizing that Rodgers has his faults.  You refuse to admit him.  There's long HISTORY of shortcomings that Aaron Rodgers have.  He's publicly shown that he doesn't trust rookie WRs, because they're not assignment-sure like veteran WRs are.  He's got a history of holding onto the ball too long looking for the big play instead of the obvious checkdowns.    The fact that you're so entrenched in this opinion is mind-boggling.  Throwing the ball away isn't throwing the game.  Players don't stay open forever, and if Rodgers passes up on the open play early on it might not be open later on.  And that's where the throwaways are coming from.

[Uffdaswede]

CWood pounding away👍🏻

CWood has 62,000 posts. 

The Indianapolis Colts forum has 1,030 posts. 

And a post like the one above shows that is hasn’t been 62,000 posts that say “This!”

[Packer_ESP]

3 minutes ago, Uffdaswede said:

CWood pounding away👍🏻

CWood has 62,000 posts. 

The Indianapolis Colts forum has 1,030 posts. 

And a post like the one above shows that is hasn’t been 62,000 posts that say “This!”

I believe forum posts were reset with the forum migration but user counts were not.

[skibrett15]

37 minutes ago, Packer_ESP said:

I believe forum posts were reset with the forum migration but user counts were not.

Rip @stallyns (sic)

[MacReady]

Still with Boykin.  Lol.