Jump to content

Packers 2020 WR Corps


TheOnlyThing

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, coachbuns said:

In a passing offense, most teams like smaller, shifty Wr's?  It's evident the Packers are looking to run the ball more and like bigger blocking types with some speed who can also catch the ball off play action.  

I mean that's fine, but why limit yourself instead of having both? It's been pointed out a few times already that one of the reasons GB struggled so much in the play-action passing game last year was because outside of Adams, we didn't have another real YAC guy on the field. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Disagree strongly. He's the floor for #2 for us. ESB is the ceiling for #2 for us.

Watched the Lions game @lambeau from last year, the 'hands to the face' game.  Got to watch a lot of Rick Wagner (he's no Bulaga) and saw a lot of our back up WRs.  Came away with a confirmed impression of MVS.....he's timid and non-physical.  He doesn't contend for the ball and he's not instinctive with the ball in his hands.  I really think/hope he is #5 for us this year, if he's our #5 we should be okay.  I'd put the depth chart at Adams, Funchess, St. Brown, Lazard with MVS and Kumerow battling it out for the 5th and final spot.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dubz41 said:

Watched the Lions game @lambeau from last year, the 'hands to the face' game.  Got to watch a lot of Rick Wagner (he's no Bulaga) and saw a lot of our back up WRs.  Came away with a confirmed impression of MVS.....he's timid and non-physical.  He doesn't contend for the ball and he's not instinctive with the ball in his hands.  I really think/hope he is #5 for us this year, if he's our #5 we should be okay.  I'd put the depth chart at Adams, Funchess, St. Brown, Lazard with MVS and Kumerow battling it out for the 5th and final spot.

Agreed. I like our top 5 of Adams/Funchess/ESB/Lazard/MVS and then if there's a young guy with promise battling for WR6 vs other positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, HighCalebR said:

You gotta take the L here. It's definitely dominate. And my moms sister is a substitute teacher, sometimes.

I can vouch for this. My neighbor's cousin saw her with Randy Moss in GB.

Edited by wgbeethree
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, packfanfb said:

We must know something the rest of the league doesn't then....because a lot of team have smaller, shifty WRs. 

Big/lanky WRs might have good long speed but tend to struggle coming out of breaks, rounding off routes and generally are more "fast" than "quick" which is why they struggle more with short/intermediate routes where that quickness and cutting creates separation. Exhibit A: MVS. 

 

Yea honestly, I am not a huge fan of having a majority of receivers 6'4+, especially with a QB that isn't going to use that height as an advantage. I have always agreed with the mindset that you want your WR corps to resemble a basketball starting 5. Have your 5'10-6''0 PG, 6'1-6'3 SG/SF, and your 6'4/6'5 PF/C. All of our best receivers over the last two decades have been 6'3 or shorter.

I know it is mentioned all the time but I really hope our FO isn't taking guys off their board if they aren't 6'3 or 6'4+

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...