2019 WR Corps

[TheOnlyThing]

11 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

It is all about perspective.

Montgomery wasn't a star, but when healthy he can be a solid contributor.  The issue is whether he can stay healthy.  If the point is that he wasn't worthy of a third round pick, then maybe, maybe not.  It all depends on how you view injuries and whether they are predictable.  Certainly he hasn't had optimal durability.

I agree it really is about perspective.

If Montgomery had been drafted to be a receiving back, by a team that actually utilized/valued receiving backs in its offense, I think he may well have flourished in that role (though his blocking would have still been a concern).

However, Montgomery was not healthy for a majority of 2 of the 3 full seasons he played in GB and I don't think he was really suited to be a lead RB, which is the role assigned to him by the Packers after his rookie year.

Oh well, water under the bridge.

Edited August 29, 2019 by TheOnlyThing

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

emphatically and objectively: yes.

He more than doubled the expected contribution of historical picks at the same spot. When the comparison pool is "memorable" 3rd round picks (as everyone who isn't looking at empirical data is relying on), he will obviously compare worse. Because those peers that are memorable outshine the field significantly. Ty Mont was inarguably a good pick that exceeded reasonable expectations.

I think one can get lost in highly processed numbers that try to summarize performance.  

Certainly he had big contributions.  The 160 yd running game agains the Bears was anything but pedestrian.  Getting roughly 800 yds of total offense over 10 games is not pedestrian either. How much his ankle surgery kept him out of early games in 2016 is up for debate, and whether he was another player misused by the packers could be debated. 

Fundamentally though, he was missing the key factor of availability.  That will discount performance for any player.  A good player is only good if he can play, and a team gets hurt if they keep a guy on the roster because of ability, but find he is only there for half of the games.

[incognito_man]

18 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

I think one can get lost in highly processed numbers that try to summarize performance.  

Certainly he had big contributions.  The 160 yd running game agains the Bears was anything but pedestrian.  Getting roughly 800 yds of total offense over 10 games is not pedestrian either. How much his ankle surgery kept him out of early games in 2016 is up for debate, and whether he was another player misused by the packers could be debated. 

Fundamentally though, he was missing the key factor of availability.  That will discount performance for any player.  A good player is only good if he can play, and a team gets hurt if they keep a guy on the roster because of ability, but find he is only there for half of the games.

what percent of 3rd round picks even take a snap in a regular season game?

good player =/= good 3rd round pick

[Norm]

Stop arguing with someone who isn't arguing in good ******* faith dudes

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

what percent of 3rd round picks even take a snap in a regular season game?

good player =/= good 3rd round pick

Sure.  The thread has been debating the definition of a good pick without saying that.

I contend it is the difference between a prospective and retrospective frame of reference.

Prospectively, draft picks are full of uncertainty, and everyone knows that third round picks don't work out all that often, so getting about a year and a half worth of reasonable performance can be viewed as a positive.  He beat the average, so he wasn't a bad pick.  Did he beat it by enough to be a definite good pick?  

 If a team wants to be dominant in the league, they need picks like that to be healthy and outperform by more than Montgomery did. SSG's point, using a retrospective view, is that he didn't beat the average by enough to ensure the WR corps moved forward with multiple proven weapons, so he didn't serve the purpose for which he was presumably drafted.  If he had been a James Jones equivalent, this whole thread would have a different tone.

I view it like Josh Gordon- when he plays he is far above the average wide receiver, but he doesn't play often, and as such, I wouldn't give up a third round pick for him even though he would probably have an AV above the average of third round picks.

I would phrase it that he was a good pick with a disappointing outcome.  He could have been much worse, he could have been much better.  

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

Sure.  The thread has been debating the definition of a good pick without saying that.

I contend it is the difference between a prospective and retrospective frame of reference.

Prospectively, draft picks are full of uncertainty, and everyone knows that third round picks don't work out all that often, so getting about a year and a half worth of reasonable performance can be viewed as a positive.  He beat the average, so he wasn't a bad pick.  Did he beat it by enough to be a definite good pick?  

 If a team wants to be dominant in the league, they need picks like that to be healthy and outperform by more than Montgomery did. SSG's point, using a retrospective view, is that he didn't beat the average by enough to ensure the WR corps moved forward with multiple proven weapons, so he didn't serve the purpose for which he was presumably drafted.  If he had been a James Jones equivalent, this whole thread would have a different tone.

I view it like Josh Gordon- when he plays he is far above the average wide receiver, but he doesn't play often, and as such, I wouldn't give up a third round pick for him even though he would probably have an AV above the average of third round picks.

I would phrase it that he was a good pick with a disappointing outcome.  He could have been much worse, he could have been much better.  

I appreciate the nuance and agree there's a legitimate debate about HOW good of a pick he was. But that's not the tone of discussion I was picking up on. Having the versatility to transition from a failed WR to a RB (and/or returner) is a PLUS for him, not a negative as SSG is suggesting.

Anytime you get more than twice the expected value, the only sensible debate is HOW good the value is, not if it was good or not.

[boratt]

J’mon Moore sounded really dejected and defeated this week. He knows he’s not performing. I felt really bad listening to him, actually. I hope me makes the PS so he can have a chance to get through those mental hurdles.

 

It’s so much easier to not like a guy like Josh Jones who thinks he’s so great compared to a guy like Moore who’s trying so hard but can’t fix it.

[Golfman]

15 minutes ago, boratt said:

J’mon Moore sounded really dejected and defeated this week. He knows he’s not performing. I felt really bad listening to him, actually. I hope me makes the PS so he can have a chance to get through those mental hurdles.

 

It’s so much easier to not like a guy like Josh Jones who thinks he’s so great compared to a guy like Moore who’s trying so hard but can’t fix it.

Might honestly be better for the kid to get a fresh start. Tough to be a receiver when you struggle catching the ball. 

[SSG]

46 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I appreciate the nuance and agree there's a legitimate debate about HOW good of a pick he was. But that's not the tone of discussion I was picking up on. Having the versatility to transition from a failed WR to a RB (and/or returner) is a PLUS for him, not a negative as SSG is suggesting.

Anytime you get more than twice the expected value, the only sensible debate is HOW good the value is, not if it was good or not.

How did Shawn Tangen's self concocted draft chart based off PFR's flawed metric suddenly become the end all be all of determining draft value?  Had we selected Jarrett Boykin with that selection instead of Monty his draft chart would have determined it a value.  Boykin's AV rating is based off one season of NFL production in a system that churns out WRs. After that season he was basically gone from the NFL forever at the age of 26.  That would have been good value for a top 100 pick?  The metric values that one season just as much as it value's Gmo's entire NFL career.  

Transition to RB was certainly a plus for Monty, he wouldn't be in the NFL without it.  It however was not a plus for the Packers.  

I'll never agree that you can base a players value on a metric that isn't based off anything but box scores.  It doesn't take into account that Monty was beaten out by the likes of Trevor Davis, Abby or Janis as a WR.  It doesn't take into account that every single RB we've started since that failed experiment has been an upgrade.  Jeff Saturday in 2012 was PFR's 3rd highest rated Packer despite him getting benched for being awful.  The metric inflates the value of bad players if they play in good offenses.  

[incognito_man]

8 minutes ago, SSG said:

How did Shawn Tangen's self concocted draft chart based off PFR's flawed metric suddenly become the end all be all of determining draft value?  Had we selected Jarrett Boykin with that selection instead of Monty his draft chart would have determined it a value.  Boykin's AV rating is based off one season of NFL production in a system that churns out WRs. After that season he was basically gone from the NFL forever at the age of 26.  That would have been good value for a top 100 pick?  The metric values that one season just as much as it value's Gmo's entire NFL career.  

Transition to RB was certainly a plus for Monty, he wouldn't be in the NFL without it.  It however was not a plus for the Packers.  

I'll never agree that you can base a players value on a metric that isn't based off anything but box scores.  It doesn't take into account that Monty was beaten out by the likes of Trevor Davis, Abby or Janis as a WR.  It doesn't take into account that every single RB we've started since that failed experiment has been an upgrade.  Jeff Saturday in 2012 was PFR's 3rd highest rated Packer despite him getting benched for being awful.  The metric inflates the value of bad players if they play in good offenses.  

It's not the end-all, but it's a hell of a lot better than your eye test 😂 I don't know any better system for judging value based on draft position that includes the entire dataset of drafted players. I'm all ears if you know of a better system (but you don't).

The boykin/Allison argument is weird. They have nearly identical production and the same AV through 3 seasons. Thanks for making an argument for me?

It was absolutely a plus that Ty Mont could play RB. That allowed the team to get additional value for him. Another strange argument. You are suggesting GB would have been better off if he busted at WR and was out of the league? That's nonsensical.

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, Norm said:

Stop arguing with someone who isn't arguing in good ******* faith dudes

It's weird because the logic doesn't match the grammar ability. I can't figure this one out.

[SSG]

9 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

It's not the end-all, but it's a hell of a lot better than your eye test 😂 I don't know any better system for judging value based on draft position that includes the entire dataset of drafted players. I'm all ears if you know of a better system (but you don't).

The boykin/Allison argument is weird. They have nearly identical production and the same AV through 3 seasons. Thanks for making an argument for me?

It was absolutely a plus that Ty Mont could play RB. That allowed the team to get additional value for him. Another strange argument. You are suggesting GB would have been better off if he busted at WR and was out of the league? That's nonsensical.

There is no system.  It's all opinion based.  A ranking that the owner said he could formulate without watching 1 second of football isn't a good system IMO.  

How does Boykin support your argument?  It shows that a terrible player in a good offense can severely skew the ranking with just one above average season.  If anything it shows the opposite.  

I  didn't say that Monty busting at WR was a plus for Green Bay.  I said him having to be moved to RB instead of playing at the level that we'd traditionally got from WRs drafted in that range was bad for Green Bay.  Thankfully Green Bay went all in on RB in 2017 instead of banking on him being the LTA for RB.  

[CWood21]

On 8/28/2019 at 3:45 PM, Donzo said:

Gees, the nonsense you spew while trolling.

What position he was drafted for is as irrelevant as your barbie doll collection when evaluating his value as a draft pick or on a football field.

At his best, he was a dynamic three down back as he was in 2016. Which is the opposite of your trolling hate spin indicates.

Good day, madam.

The trolling and personal attacks need to stop.  Either put SSG on ignore or don’t post.

[pacman5252]

2 hours ago, incognito_man said:

what percent of 3rd round picks even take a snap in a regular season game?

good player =/= good 3rd round pick

I in general agree with the point you are making. Especially end of third (picks in the 90s where Ty went) you are to do a lot of development players who are out of the nfl in 3-4 years. Ty who, had a few moments and had decent rotational production (averaged 45 yards from scrimmage) performed about to pick expectation. Compared to peers taken around there he was at least middle of the pack.

[CWood21]

On 8/28/2019 at 1:29 PM, SSG said:

IMO we're batting better than .500.  The only outright miss we've had at WR with a top 100 pick since 2005 was Ty Montgomery.  Murphy's career was cut short because of injury before he can be counted as a positive or negative IMO.  Greg Jennings, James Jones Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb and Davante Adams were 5 straight home runs that Thompson picked with a top 100 pick in an 8 year span.  Ted Thompson put more high end assets more frequently into WR than any other position on the team IMO.  He made sure that the WR core was always loaded with high end WR talent.  IMO, it was a lot more than just restocking.  

Saying they batted near 100 is a bit disengenious.  James Jones and Randall Cobb were solid picks, but I'd hardly argue that they were home runs.  James Jones and Randall Cobb were solid doubles, but neither are what I'd consider home runs.  The other three I'd consider home runs though.  But the point still remains, if the Packers sink that much draft capital into the WR position, that's less we're investing elsewhere.  What do you want, a stud EDGE or a stud WR?