Jimmy Graham, A Contrarian's View.

[abstract_thought]

1 hour ago, AZBearsFan said:

Projecting the rate of production for his 2 most recent seasons across 80 targets (5 per game) you get 50/581. For the $6M he’s due in 2020 I’m good with that. It’s not superstar Jimmy Graham but it’s definitely solid NFL receiving TE production, which was the need going into FA. Getting it from Ebron may have been more desirable and may have had more upside, but also was probably the more volatile move. Availability was clearly a key part of this signing after we were destroyed by the lackthereof from Burton, Shaheen and even Braunecker in 2019.

This is a fair analysis. My entire point was to dismiss the article which compares him to TEs like Hooper, Kelce, and Kittle because of a metric with an extremely limited scope.

Graham and Ebron are pretty similar across many metrics over the last few years. It's a fair comparison. The question is whether Graham can continue to produce that way given his age and noted decline from his peak.

[soulman]

6 hours ago, abstract_thought said:

This is a fair analysis. My entire point was to dismiss the article which compares him to TEs like Hooper, Kelce, and Kittle because of a metric with an extremely limited scope.

Graham and Ebron are pretty similar across many metrics over the last few years. It's a fair comparison. The question is whether Graham can continue to produce that way given his age and noted decline from his peak.

Then you missed the entire point Dannehy was making which was comparing ONLY his explosive plays to that of Kelce and Kittle as a way of countering those who say "he can no longer" run or get downfield.  Obviously he did as those videos showed and the stats that he presented tend to confirm that as well.  Yes, it's a limited metric but it's a primary metric for showing he can still get downfield and catch.

He didn't compare any other stat to Kelce and Kittle or anyone else although he did indicate that a major change in the schemes run by LeFleur may have contributed to an overall decline in his stats and also why he is no longer worth $10 mil a year in their current schemes. You even admitted that how a player is used and how much he's used will play a big role in his stats.  AZ pointed that out as well.

I think you were so focused on believing Dannehy was comparing his overall stats to Kelce and Kittle (Hooper was barely mentioned) and dismissing it that you failed to get what he wanted readers to digest instead of dissing the trade as bad out of hand.  All Dannehy is saying is that maybe just maybe Graham isn't as "washed up" as some believe he is and that he may surprise some people.

No one, least of all me, is trying to convince anyone Graham is as productive now as Kelce and Kittle or maybe even Hooper.  That was never the point of the article either.  The point was maybe he's not as bad as some believe he is and as I said in the title Dannehy's is a contrarian point of view.  He's simply disputing the idea that Graham is washed up not that he's the equivalent of the others mentioned.

[dll2000]

Packers insider (Locked on Packer host) says he is still explosive and fast if he can get into his full stride.  He is also a better blocker than people give him credit for.  Though you should just use him to block enough to keep teams honest.  

His problem is he doesn’t leap up and win 50/50 balls or end zone fades anymore and he has started dropping more passes. 

 

[dll2000]

I thought he said somewhere he was playing with a broken or hurt digits both years with GB.   That could cause some drops.  

[Cheesehawk]

35 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

I thought he said somewhere he was playing with a broken or hurt digits both years with GB.   That could cause some drops.  

It also seems like he forgets that he can use both hands to try to catch a football. The number of one hand catches he attempted that he dropped over the past couple years was infuriating. Especially in the RZ/EZ.

[BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW]

I'm hoping I'm wrong, but sign me up for the contrary to the contrarian side:  This was a signing way out of character for Pace, he's mostly been careful to sign upside players and been good at avoiding injury risks. I know Graham hasn't missed a lot of games, but his age alone makes him a risk. And the money involved compared to other FA TEs who have signed with other teams make this look like a desperate move to plug a hole.  I would have preferred Hooper for his deal instead.

[abstract_thought]

3 minutes ago, RunningVaccs said:

I'm hoping I'm wrong, but sign me up for the contrary to the contrarian side:  This was a signing way out of character for Pace, he's mostly been careful to sign upside players and been good at avoiding injury risks. I know Graham hasn't missed a lot of games, but his age alone makes him a risk. And the money involved compared to other FA TEs who have signed with other teams make this look like a desperate move to plug a hole.  I would have preferred Hooper for his deal instead.

IIRC he doesn't miss a lot of games but he's had nagging injuries. I'd have taken Ebron who got a smaller deal, is younger, and provides similar production.

Edited March 26, 2020 by abstract_thought

[soulman]

1 hour ago, RunningVaccs said:

I'm hoping I'm wrong, but sign me up for the contrary to the contrarian side:  This was a signing way out of character for Pace, he's mostly been careful to sign upside players and been good at avoiding injury risks. I know Graham hasn't missed a lot of games, but his age alone makes him a risk. And the money involved compared to other FA TEs who have signed with other teams make this look like a desperate move to plug a hole.  I would have preferred Hooper for his deal instead.

And that's fine.  Contrarian views seldom if ever are supported by the majority.

As for the rest Pace signed players with upside when his goal was to build towards a championship team.  Now that he's opened that window his approach has necessarily had to change,  He feels he has no time to bet on upside that may take a year or more to materialize. He believes we need production now which typically means paying more for established vets and that's what he's done.

As for Hooper.  Pace tried to get him and I'm sure his offer was more than he offered Graham.  Hooper chose Cleveland and for far more money than we're giving Graham.  We can't blame Pace for that.

Edited March 26, 2020 by soulman

[dll2000]

4 hours ago, abstract_thought said:

IIRC he doesn't miss a lot of games but he's had nagging injuries. I'd have taken Ebron who got a smaller deal, is younger, and provides similar production.

That does seem logical.  I have heard negative things about Ebron's personality though and everyone loves Graham.  Could have been a factor.

 

[AZBearsFan]

1 hour ago, dll2000 said:

That does seem logical.  I have heard negative things about Ebron's personality though and everyone loves Graham.  Could have been a factor.

 

Sure comes across like a guy you want on your team from everything I read about his conference call today. 

[WindyCity]

8 hours ago, RunningVaccs said:

I'm hoping I'm wrong, but sign me up for the contrary to the contrarian side:  This was a signing way out of character for Pace, he's mostly been careful to sign upside players and been good at avoiding injury risks. I know Graham hasn't missed a lot of games, but his age alone makes him a risk. And the money involved compared to other FA TEs who have signed with other teams make this look like a desperate move to plug a hole.  I would have preferred Hooper for his deal instead.

Maybe out of character is good. In character signings haven't been super successful way for team building.

[G08]

 

[JAF-N72EX]

15 hours ago, Cheesehawk said:

It also seems like he forgets that he can use both hands to try to catch a football. The number of one hand catches he attempted that he dropped over the past couple years was infuriating. Especially in the RZ/EZ.

I don't particular care for the signing but I'm gonna have to ask you to provide proof of this. Because I've been going back and watching every one of his snaps that he was targeted on over the last 2 years and I'm not seeing it. Granted I'm not finished yet (i'll post it when I'm done) but so far I have only seen three plays that may have looked like he tried to catch the ball with one hand and none of them were in the red zone. 

One was against the Bears in week 1 where Rodgers threw the ball high and outside and into heavy traffic where he left Graham high and dry to get laid out by Callahan.

Another was against the Bills where Graham had his man beat over the middle on a short slant running full speed and Rodgers threw the ball too soon and too far behind him and Graham stuck his left hand out in a natural reaction. Had Rodgers waited a split second later for Graham to get over the top of the underneath defender, Graham had some room. 

Another came against the Lions where Graham tipped the ball floating over his head at full-speed that MAY have been intended for another receiver. If it was intended for Graham, then it was a poor throw by Rodgers . If it was intended for the other receiver then Graham saved a potential INT because his trailing defender had the inside track on the throw and no doubt would have picked it off. So either way, that play could be looked at in two ways; either a under-thrown pass by the QB or a tipped pass by Graham that potentially saved an INT. Either way, you can't put that on the target.