Jump to content

MVS Appreciation Thread


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

#2 Receivers by yardage in the NFC (bold indicates more receiving yards than MVS):

Bears: Darnell Mooney (42)

Lions: Danny Amendola (37)

Vikings: Adam Thielen (4/64 contract) (60)

Saints: Emmanuel Sanders (44)

Falcons: Julio Jones (3/66 contact) (51)

Bucs: Chris Godwin (51)

Panthers: DJ Moore (1st round pick) (50)

Cardinals: Christian Kirk (38)

49ers: Kendrick Bourne (39)

Rams: Robert Woods (4/65 contract) (76)

Seahawks: Tyler Lockett (3/31 contract) (81)

Giants: Sterling Sheppard (45)

Cowboys: Ceedee Lamb (1st round pick) (61)

Washington: Cam Sims (19)

Philadelphia: Greg Ward (46)

 

In conclusion MVS is the best cheap #2 WR by production in the NFC. 

What defines "production" for a WR? Yards? I think you're cherry-picking MVS's best stat a bit because he's a pretty good "deep threat" in the NFL (when he catches the ball). The Detroit game was one of the first in his career where he actually made a few nice plays on a less-than-7 route. MVS has 31 receptions. That ranks him #115 in the league in Rec, and is equal to 2.38 Rec per game. 

I have italicized the players above who have more than him. The only player MVS has more receptions than is Sims. 

So what is production for a No. 2 WR? A guy who over a three game span has 3 rec for 100 yards? or a guy who over that three-game span has 15 rec for 90 yards? 

I'd be right there with you if MVS was at around 50-600-5 right now, but 31 receptions doesn't ring "No. 2" WR for me. It tells me, MVS is an all-or-nothing WR who could go for 3-100 one game and then you forget he's on the team the next 2 weeks. 

Maybe the Detroit game was a sign of things to come because it would be great if he can become a reliable intermediate threat guy to go with his home-run ability. 

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

What defines "production" for a WR? Yards? I think you're cherry-picking MVS's best stat a bit because he's a pretty good "deep threat" in the NFL (when he catches the ball). The Detroit game was one of the first in his career where he actually made a few nice plays on a less-than-7 route. MVS has 31 receptions. That ranks him #115 in the league in Rec, and is equal to 2.38 Rec per game. 

I have italicized the players above who have more than him. The only player MVS has more receptions than is Sims. 

So what is production for a No. 2 WR? A guy who over a three game span has 3 rec for 100 yards? or a guy who over that three-game span has 15 rec for 90 yards? 

I'd be right there with you if MVS was at around 50-600-5 right now, but 31 receptions doesn't ring "No. 2" WR for me. It tells me, MVS is an all-or-nothing WR who could go for 3-100 one game and then you forget he's on the team the next 2 weeks. 

Maybe the Detroit game was a sign of things to come because it would be great if he can become a reliable intermediate threat guy to go with his home-run ability. 

Yards, touchdowns, first downs, and per target metrics are all aspects of receiver production. 

If your choice is 3/100 on 6 targets or 15/90 on 25 targets, you would be a ******* moron to pick 15 receptions. That's losing 19 drop backs being targeted at other players for like 8 yards each. 

High yardage on low catches/targets is a very good thing. Not a bad thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Packers don't have or need a #2 WR, I don't know why this discussion continually exists.

Everything MVS struggles with, Lazard excels at, everything Lazard struggles with, MVS Excels at. Together they make next to nothing cap wise and combined have about 1000 yards and 8 TDs with Lazard missing half the year. 

When you add in how much our backs are now involved in the pass game and that we have a true #1 TE, that's plenty of production from 2/3.

This offense doesn't need a WR, and we can stop comparing other offenses #2 receivers to ours. We're #1 in PPG, #1 in DVOA, #1 in PFF score and our QB is #1 in MVP ranking. We don't need another damn receiver. Add Funch and a 3rd - 4th round pick and we're fine.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we do need a WR...one to be developed next year and step up if we choose not to bring back some receivers the following year.

That's about where I am at concerning a "want" for a WR.  I do want a guy with nice skills that can be developed for one year and then play.  We don't have a need next year for someone to come in and contribute right away.  We may need one 2 years from now that is ready to roll right away.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2020 at 7:33 PM, Arthur Penske said:

We traded up. One spot from the ASU WR and Jefferson went nearby. I’m not saying I wanted to but they were attainable, if you wanted them enough

Yes, and I wasn't a fan of that move.   I have my doubts but Love better be better than a lot of us think or the 2020 draft will be a bust IMO.  How much more would we have had to cede to get Aiyuk or Jefferson?  And you need a willing partner to make the trade.   I can't see SF or MN wanting to make a deal with us.  I guess time will tell if this last draft was any good.

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

The Packers don't have or need a #2 WR, I don't know why this discussion continually exists.

Everything MVS struggles with, Lazard excels at, everything Lazard struggles with, MVS Excels at. Together they make next to nothing cap wise and combined have about 1000 yards and 8 TDs with Lazard missing half the year. 

When you add in how much our backs are now involved in the pass game and that we have a true #1 TE, that's plenty of production from 2/3.

This offense doesn't need a WR, and we can stop comparing other offenses #2 receivers to ours. We're #1 in PPG, #1 in DVOA, #1 in PFF score and our QB is #1 in MVP ranking. We don't need another damn receiver. Add Funch and a 3rd - 4th round pick and we're fine.

I forgot about Funchness.  He was a second round pick by the Panthers in 2015.  We signed him a couple of weeks before the 2020 draft.  He was supposed to be that #2 guy some of us are clamoring for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

I think we do need a WR...one to be developed next year and step up if we choose not to bring back some receivers the following year.

That's about where I am at concerning a "want" for a WR.  I do want a guy with nice skills that can be developed for one year and then play.  We don't have a need next year for someone to come in and contribute right away.  We may need one 2 years from now that is ready to roll right away.

Yes, exactly.  What we have now is fine.... for now.  And for next year.  For now production is excellent, and production-per-dollar is even better.  

Adams, MVS, EQ, and Funchess will all be UFA after next season (Lazard RFA).  For whichever guys we keep, the pay rate is going to jump; production-per-dollar efficiency is going to dive.  

A Nowacrat argument has been circulated at each of the last two drafts:  Premise:  WR don't often produce much as rookies.  Thus new draft picks are unlikely to help this year.  Thus don't draft WR.   But "WR don't produce as rookies" logic is why a Buildican GM should draft WR talent ahead of the need.  

There are other needs for sure, so as desirable as a talented WR for the future is, I have no idea how that desirability balances versus others.  But it would be pretty nice if somewhere in the 2nd/3rd/4th round they drafted a talented WR who might become a mainstay value by 2013.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, craig said:

Yes, exactly.  What we have now is fine.... for now.  And for next year.  For now production is excellent, and production-per-dollar is even better.  

Adams, MVS, EQ, and Funchess will all be UFA after next season (Lazard RFA).  For whichever guys we keep, the pay rate is going to jump; production-per-dollar efficiency is going to dive.  

A Nowacrat argument has been circulated at each of the last two drafts:  Premise:  WR don't often produce much as rookies.  Thus new draft picks are unlikely to help this year.  Thus don't draft WR.   But "WR don't produce as rookies" logic is why a Buildican GM should draft WR talent ahead of the need.  

There are other needs for sure, so as desirable as a talented WR for the future is, I have no idea how that desirability balances versus others.  But it would be pretty nice if somewhere in the 2nd/3rd/4th round they drafted a talented WR who might become a mainstay value by 2013.  

 

Yes, and this shows how good Jefferson is.  I'm sure we would have had to pay a much steeper price to get a chance at him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Packerraymond said:

The Packers don't have or need a #2 WR, I don't know why this discussion continually exists.

Everything MVS struggles with, Lazard excels at, everything Lazard struggles with, MVS Excels at. Together they make next to nothing cap wise and combined have about 1000 yards and 8 TDs with Lazard missing half the year. 

When you add in how much our backs are now involved in the pass game and that we have a true #1 TE, that's plenty of production from 2/3.

This offense doesn't need a WR, and we can stop comparing other offenses #2 receivers to ours. We're #1 in PPG, #1 in DVOA, #1 in PFF score and our QB is #1 in MVP ranking. We don't need another damn receiver. Add Funch and a 3rd - 4th round pick and we're fine.

The case be closed. Clear the courtroom!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Minnesota had just traded Diggs.  

There is no way they would have traded with GB so we could take a receiver, when they needed one.  Let's just shut the book on that possible idea.

Aiyuk and the San Fran pick? Maybe.  Maybe that could have happened.

It's all hindsight, so play the fun game and take our first, trade down and see who we could have had in the second round and later, with those picks.  That is the more fun game to play if we are using hindsight.  And I'm not opposed to that kind of fun.

But in the end, we have who we have and I'm still optimistic about Love.  And who knows, maybe that did help light a fire under Rodgers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2020 at 9:55 AM, vegas492 said:

I think we do need a WR...one to be developed next year and step up if we choose not to bring back some receivers the following year.

That's about where I am at concerning a "want" for a WR.  I do want a guy with nice skills that can be developed for one year and then play.  We don't have a need next year for someone to come in and contribute right away.  We may need one 2 years from now that is ready to roll right away.

We felt a pinch when Lazard went down earlier this season and ESB is a WR3 at best so I agree that we need to have a back-up plan in place. Granted, Funchess probably could've been that guy and perhaps he removes any pressure in having to draft a guy, which may happen anyway. I too like the idea of looking at someone early Day 3, but we'll probably use that 4th round pick to trade up for who knows given our latest drafting trends. I still hold out hope that MVS can be a true WR2, but as @Packerraymondmentioned, we really don't need a WR2. Each WR seems to have a role in this offense and despite the production, you could even say that Davante's really not a WR1 in the sense that his role is very specific and he's our Michael Thomas, only better given the type of routes he typically runs. 

What's also getting lost in the conversation is the Ervin/Austin role in this offense. The pundits were all saying Austin's supposed to get more targets this week so that just makes our next draft more interesting in regards to who we'll draft; I'd like to see what MLF can do with both guys available. If our role players are cheap, easily replaceable, and productive in their respective areas the discussion shifts to when we think we will have to use the draft to replace certain players; especially after Davante retires in a few years. I can't see us NOT extending him after his current contract ends after next season barring a major injury.

 

In any event, I have to reiterate that a lot of us were down on Davante that one year, myself included. Boy were we all wrong - perhaps this is MVS's turn to go through those bumps and he'll come back and blow up next year.

Edited by Joe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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...