Jump to content
TheOnlyThing

Packers 2020 WR Corps

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

Odd then, that he was taken in RD6 in a weak WR draft.

Again, the reason he fell was family/character 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ben Fennell -   Easy to forget Packers WR Marquez Valdes-Scantling is 6'4 210lbs that runs 4.37 - can be a vertical presence or take a hot throw for 70 yards after the catch! 14 catches of +25 yards in his young career - 2020 a big season for him!

Has also drawn 3 DPIs downfield - 33yds, 26yds, 39yds.

//////////

We're gonna be fine at WR this year folks. Just fine. Plug some more holes elsewhere and bring it on!

Edited by Leader
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

It was a mistake.

Eh...In hindsight it was a mistake, but hindsight is 50/50
At the time Gute made the decision, had a full stable of horses. He took a reasonable gamble on sitting one that was gonna miss 6-8 weeks no matter what
Either way, EQ is gonna have a fantastic 2020 and he's been training like a demon in his Dads garage-gym per the reports I read. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Green19 said:

Honestly people don’t agree but clearly the packers think highly of funchess, Lazard, EQ and MVS

Your wrong assumption is you think the Packers actually thought. What a disaster the WR corps is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've entered the "justification" phase. Look, I get that we're probably going with what we have at WR now and that's fine, but no need to spend considerable amounts of time building up guys like St. Brown when every single person in this forum was clamoring for a WR all off-season that likely (a) would have taken his spot or (b) would have pushed him further down the depth chart. 

Just because we struck out on signing Emmanuel Sanders and chose Love over the 2nd tier WR group because we were unlucky and the 1st tier guys were gone by pick 26 doesn't suddenly make EQ the "hidden gem" that erases our WR need. At best, it's going to give a guy, who was out of football last year, more reps where he'll have a "chance" to improve upon his rookie season when he caught 21 passes. Let's have reasonable expectations. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy the people who apparently think that GB's personnel dept spends their workday eating Cheetos and watching the Real Housewives; then Murph calls them up "so, who are we looking at in the draft tonight?" Gute: "Crap, that's TONIGHT?!" *clicks on CBS Sportsline top-50 draft page*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's weird to me how down people are on this receiving corps. You got Adams who's an elite #1, Funchess who has proven able to be a reliable and productive #2 and big slot, then you have two HWS freaks who have shown flashes in real NFL games (EQ/MVS), a HWS guy who's more average but produced more consistently (Lazard), and then some back of the roster guys of various types and values. And that's for a team that's likely to play a lot more 12 personnel this year anyway.

Like, Adams alone means this is far from the worst receiving corps in football. I'd much rather have a true WR1 and weaker depth than a collection of ok WR2-WR3s. And this receiving corps to a man is a hell of a group of blockers. Sure MVS/Adams don't play as rough as the rest, but this is still a group that will produce some big runs just from that aspect.

And now they've drafted a move TE and receiving focused H-Back in consecutive drafts, and their backup Y is a former college receiver. There's no shortage of receiving talent on this team. There's a shortage of proven receiving talent, sure, but a rookie doesn't change that. Regardless you're relying on young guys playing well.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, gizmo2012 said:

Your wrong assumption is you think the Packers actually thought. What a disaster the WR corps is.

 No it’s not. They’re young and had some rough moments but they also had some big ones. A few better passes by Aaron, and I’m not dogging him, and they would have had more big plays.

Everyone also has to remember this was the first year in the system and playbook for the offense and more importantly a young WR group. 

Edited by MantyWrestler
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

We've entered the "justification" phase. Look, I get that we're probably going with what we have at WR now and that's fine, but no need to spend considerable amounts of time building up guys like St. Brown when every single person in this forum was clamoring for a WR all off-season that likely (a) would have taken his spot or (b) would have pushed him further down the depth chart. 

Just because we struck out on signing Emmanuel Sanders and chose Love over the 2nd tier WR group because we were unlucky and the 1st tier guys were gone by pick 26 doesn't suddenly make EQ the "hidden gem" that erases our WR need. At best, it's going to give a guy, who was out of football last year, more reps where he'll have a "chance" to improve upon his rookie season when he caught 21 passes. Let's have reasonable expectations.

Ease off projecting your own expectations first. I've been pulling for EQ since we drafted him. Believe it or dont..not a concern for me. Plus - I'm amazingly consistent in that I'm *ALWAYS* (and I mean always.....) in favor drafting more WR/RB talent or difference makers. Call it a bias of mine.....but at least I own up to it.

Edited by Leader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

We've entered the "justification" phase. Look, I get that we're probably going with what we have at WR now and that's fine, but no need to spend considerable amounts of time building up guys like St. Brown when every single person in this forum was clamoring for a WR all off-season that likely (a) would have taken his spot or (b) would have pushed him further down the depth chart. 

Just because we struck out on signing Emmanuel Sanders and chose Love over the 2nd tier WR group because we were unlucky and the 1st tier guys were gone by pick 26 doesn't suddenly make EQ the "hidden gem" that erases our WR need. At best, it's going to give a guy, who was out of football last year, more reps where he'll have a "chance" to improve upon his rookie season when he caught 21 passes. Let's have reasonable expectations. 

 

Incorrect. I for one said several times I felt we were ok at WR. I will admit, I felt we would still take one because it was such a good year for them but in no way did I ever feel it was a must for us. 

Edited by MantyWrestler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MantyWrestler said:

 No it’s not. They’re young and had some rough moments but they also had some big ones. A few better passes by Aaron, and I’m not digging him, and they would have had more big plays. Everyone also has to remember this was the first year in the system and playbook for the offense and more importantly a young WR group. 

This ^

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

We've entered the "justification" phase. Look, I get that we're probably going with what we have at WR now and that's fine, but no need to spend considerable amounts of time building up guys like St. Brown when every single person in this forum was clamoring for a WR all off-season that likely (a) would have taken his spot or (b) would have pushed him further down the depth chart. 

Just because we struck out on signing Emmanuel Sanders and chose Love over the 2nd tier WR group because we were unlucky and the 1st tier guys were gone by pick 26 doesn't suddenly make EQ the "hidden gem" that erases our WR need. At best, it's going to give a guy, who was out of football last year, more reps where he'll have a "chance" to improve upon his rookie season when he caught 21 passes. Let's have reasonable expectations. 

 

I mean, I've been adamantly anti-drafting-a-receiver-high for awhile. I'm perfectly content to roll with this group, and yes EQ is part of the reason why. He was a 1st-2nd round talent who fell for character reasons that certainly all look to be fine. There's no reason to act like he's a late round flier; if had been able to come out after his Sophomore year he's almost certainly a 2nd round pick. Man is 6'5", 215 lbs and ran 4.48. Didn't drop a single pass in 2018, and made a handful of very nice plays in his small sample size. Why shouldn't I look at him as an expected contributor next season?

Edited by MrBobGray
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MrBobGray said:

I mean, I've been adamantly anti-drafting-a-receiver-high for awhile. I'm perfectly content to roll with this group, and yes EQ is part of the reason why. He was a 1st-2nd round talent who fell because for character reasons that certainly all look to be fine. There's no reason to act like he's a late round flier; if had been able to come out after his Sophomore year he's almost certainly a 2nd round pick. Man is 6'5", 215 lbs and ran 4.48. Didn't drop a single pass in 2018, and made a handful of very nice plays in his small sample size. Why shouldn't I look at him as an expected contributor next season?

Define this? Over/under 35 receptions? 

He'll "contribute" just by being on the roster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s another point I’ll make again. After Cede, Judy and Jefferson we’re off the board (most polished of WR in this draft) who was going to make a day one difference for us?

Adams took 3-4 years, Jordy didn’t start for 5, Jennings, Jones, Driver... all backups their first year or so. EQ, MVS and Lazard are all 2-3 years more seasoned then any WR we could draft!

Our best bet for upgrading our WR was our current group maturing and playing better. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, packfanfb said:

Define this? Over/under 35 receptions? 

He'll "contribute" just by being on the roster. 

You're trying to be sarcastic, but I actually agree with this. That's exactly my point. A legitimate high end talent is on the roster who straight wasn't last year. Can you explain why you think that shouldn't be factored into this group? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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...