Wide Receiver Outlook

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Davis isn't being helped by not being available.  He needs to get healthy so he can get out there and show some growth as a player.

[MantyWrestler]

14 hours ago, Leader said:

?? Who is it then?

Thought I had it wrong. Guess I shouldn’t have be reading and driving either. 

[Leader]

Just now, MantyWrestler said:

Thought I had it wrong. Guess I shouldn’t have be reading and driving either. 

No problem. A later reading of my initial post questioning who it was - showed me the answer was right in front of my face the entire time.
Social media blinders......sometimes your fingers hit the keypad before your brain's fully engaged.

[St Vince]

7 hours ago, FinneasGage said:

appreciate the fact that diondre borel's name still floats around your brain man 

Taco Wallace still floats around in mine after all these years.

[Beast]

10 hours ago, squire12 said:

Diondre Borel and Tori Gurley in 2011/2012 were generating a lot of TC buzz with a WR group of Jennings, Nelson, Driver, Jones, Cobb

Yes but that group of WRs is CLEARLY very talented and so you can easily say we don't need another guy, while I think almost everyone agrees the Packers are going to keep 6 this year and the top 3 talented aren't a sure thing... so it's a different position than those years. Though I have to admit, I'm surprised Gurley never caught on anywhere in the NFL.

5 hours ago, CWood21 said:

The whole Kumero hype is getting out of hand.  He's competing with Geronimo Allison for that same roster spot, so it's either him or Allison.  Take your pick.

If Kumero is completing for the #3 WR spot, then it's more than hype. Personally, I don't think he's competing for the #3 WR spot (at least not yet).

But by most Packers beat reporters, Kumero has looked like the 4th best WR... while it might be unlikely, it's possible they could keep both.

[craig]

11 hours ago, Beast said:

Yeah, so far... it's been harder to find ways that 7 WRs DON'T make the top 25 offensive players, then finding ways to fit 7 WRs in.

I mean when you're looking at the 53 man roster, I guess you could always keep some extra DBs for ST coverage line Goodson and Evans... but they're not exactly exciting or have a ton of potential on the defensive side of the ball. Heck while WR Davis isn't in my top 7 WR, I could argue keep him for returner duties just to keep Cobb, Alexander, Williams, etc off punt return duty. Right now it's easier to find ways to put 7 WRs on than keep 7 off.

• Without running start, I wonder if speed/acceleration might be somewhat more valuable on kickoff ST than before?  
• For roster construction and special teams, to some degree it's more useful to think about the 46-man Game-Day roster than the 53. 
• 7 inactive spots have no ST value.  
• Therefore several of the inactive spots can be allocated to developmental guys of any position group.   
• Think that's why TT had such variation in  position group numbers. 
• You'd like to rest injured guys who aren't IR-needful on inactive, so you'd prefer positional variation. 
• So *if* Daniels needs to sit for a couple of weeks, you'd like to replace him from Inactive if possible, that way you don't need to IR or waive anybody. 
• So, it's not like they can have 7 WR inactives or anything too ridiculous.  But in the 10-OL year, didn't they often have 3 OL-inactives?  
• So, I kinda think they usually have at least several completely discretionary Inactive spots, to assign to their most talented long-term developmental guys that they do NOT want to expose to waivers.    
• So *IF* they were to keep deep WR and CB groups, don't see why several of those Inactive spots couldn't be utilized for them

[Beast]

4 hours ago, Cadmus said:

Trade Geronimo Allison to Indy for Erik Swoope.

Cut Lance Kendricks.

Profit.

Yeah but it'd be even more profit if you trade Cobb and Kendricks... get Cobb's 10 million off the Packers cap space AND both of their dead cap space.

I'm not saying we should trade a WR... just that it's be more profit money wise this way.

[craig]

• MM often talks about the 63-man roster. 
• For good reason, because as injuries happen, replacements are often pulled form the PS, not always from the Inactive group. 
• Think case like Linsley is a good example.  If he gets injured on a Sunday, he needs to be covered by one of the other 7 game-day active OL.  Presumably Patrick.  But maybe Day is actually better at center than is Patrick.  So Day will need to be game-day active by following Sunday.  But he could be just pulled up from PS, no need to have been wasting an Inactive 53-man spot on him every week until then.  
• To do so, you'll need to IR or waive somebody, so that's not fun.  But, you'd have had to do that if you wanted to carry Day on the 53-man and Inactive group all season long anyway.  So why waste a 53-man spot in September on a guy you hopefully won't need, at least for a while?  

• So basically, *IF* a guy has value as injury insurance; but a) won't be 46-man active anyway; and b) you aren't too scared that another team will claim him; then you should park that injury-insurance guy on the practice squad, not the 53.  
• This frees up Inactive spots on the 53-man for Developmental guys who  you'd otherwise fear getting claimed if exposed to PS.  

[craig]

Dumb question:  Is there a reason slot guys tend to be shorter?

• Someone mentioned that Cobb's body type is somewhat unique, and Yancey might be a better match than the new long guys
• Is that a priority?
• I understand the value of short, quick, change-of-direction stop-and-go guys working over the middle, and taking advantage of slower, less-quick linebackers?  That's part of the usual profile, right?  (The Wes Welder profile?) 
• But many teams use big, tall TE's to work the middle as well.  And prior to signing Cook, MM talked extensively about the value/importance/opportunity of having big guys working the middle of the field.  
• Several posters have noted how effective Jordy tended to be while playing slot and running slants and crossing routes.  
• So, we've got Wes Welker types working the middle; but we've also got Gronkowski types working, and Jordy profile. 
• So, is it possible that next year, short Cobb would be replaced not by another short guy, but by tall people? 
• Might tall fast guys like Kumerow/EQ/Moore/JVS not only be candidates to replace Allison outside, but also to replace Cobb inside?  
• Seems to me that long fast guys slanting and crossing could make pretty good targets over the middle?

[Beast]

15 minutes ago, craig said:

• Without running start, I wonder if speed/acceleration might be somewhat more valuable on kickoff ST than before?

I think they were already extremely valuable on kick unit, acceleration might of become more valuable.

But I generally agree with the announcers of the hall of frame preseason game. There is STILL that 15 yards get up to speed buffer zone... that didn't change. It's just that coverage units don't get a running start BUT returning units have to now retreat under the new rules too... in other words, they forced the 15 yard collisions to happen at the 35 yard line, instead of the 40 yard line... but they'll still happening.

The big changes is that they banded a certain type of block, and without the running head start the returner gets more time... which means possibility 5 yards longer returns (on average) which means possibly more returns.

If their goal was to create more excitement, I think they did a good job, if their jobs was safety (which is what they claim), I don't see how this is any safer... other than banning the combo wedge blocks.

15 minutes ago, craig said:

• For roster construction and special teams, to some degree it's more useful to think about the 46-man Game-Day roster than the 53. 
• 7 inactive spots have no ST value.  
• Therefore several of the inactive spots can be allocated to developmental guys of any position group.   
• Think that's why TT had such variation in  position group numbers. 
• You'd like to rest injured guys who aren't IR-needful on inactive, so you'd prefer positional variation. 
• So *if* Daniels needs to sit for a couple of weeks, you'd like to replace him from Inactive if possible, that way you don't need to IR or waive anybody. 

I feel like you made two different points that go against each other. I agree with the bottom two... that it's about positional depth and talent,  which is why I construct rosters using 53 man roster, because at the end of the day it's about about talent and positional variation depth. But you look at how much potential a guy has, weather it's one of the first 46 spots or it's one of 7 other spots, so I don't see any reason to break them up.

Last year my mock 53 man roster was only off one player, OG McCray, I had him not making it... and I was wrong about him.

I think MM was in control of the roster (TT let MM control it)... MM had such variation in position groups, because he attempted to keep the best talent... and different years the talent is at different positions.

15 minutes ago, craig said:

• So, it's not like they can have 7 WR inactives or anything too ridiculous.  But in the 10-OL year, didn't they often have 3 OL-inactives?  
• So, I kinda think they usually have at least several completely discretionary Inactive spots, to assign to their most talented long-term developmental guys that they do NOT want to expose to waivers.    
• So *IF* they were to keep deep WR and CB groups, don't see why several of those Inactive spots couldn't be utilized for them

Yes, for game day 46 rosters, most teams have only 7 OL active, the starting 5, back-up C and back-up OT. There are a few exceptions, namely teams that use an OL as a blocking TE and heavy run first teams.

Of course some of those inactive spots can be used in which ever why the coaches like... just get the best talent there after you generally get the numbers you want.

[Beast]

21 minutes ago, craig said:

Dumb question:  Is there a reason slot guys tend to be shorter?

• I understand the value of short, quick, change-of-direction stop-and-go guys working over the middle, and taking advantage of slower, less-quick linebackers?  That's part of the usual profile, right?  (The Wes Welder profile?)

I feel like you're asking and answering your own questions... so these are rhetorical question?

21 minutes ago, craig said:

• So, is it possible that next year, short Cobb would be replaced not by another short guy, but by tall people? 
• Might tall fast guys like Kumerow/EQ/Moore/JVS not only be candidates to replace Allison outside, but also to replace Cobb inside?  
• Seems to me that long fast guys slanting and crossing could make pretty good targets over the middle?

 

For the slot, I think quickness, movement (which might be quickness?) and toughness are the main things... which is why extremely quick small guys (that are tough) make good slot players. Got to have that toughness because the slot has to go over the middle some of the time and over the middle is where defenders really like to light a receiver up and give them the harder hit they can deliver... and if you get alligator arms after the big hits, you're not going to be a very good slot WR.

But also guys like Jimmy Graham, he's got a lot of quickness and toughness too, he just happens to be tall.

From what I've heard, early on EQ was mostly working on slot, while the other two rookies were working mostly on the outside. I don't know if that was just a numbers thing, spreading them out, but I was thinking EQ potentially be a good fit there too, being that he's got good quickness and is tough. 

 

[Arthur Penske]

4 hours ago, Donzo said:

 

Unpopular- ?... That's the group think agenda here (very popular).

If the three rookies keep popping their skill set and Kumerow keeps doing his thing, there's no room for Davis.

Well I guess the misjudged the opinion of most... I thought most wanted Davis to stay 

[craig]

44 minutes ago, Beast said:

I feel like you're asking and answering your own questions... so these are rhetorical question?

For the slot, I think quickness, movement (which might be quickness?) and toughness are the main things... which is why extremely quick small guys (that are tough) make good slot players. ....

From what I've heard, early on EQ was mostly working on slot, while the other two rookies were working mostly on the outside. I don't know if that was just a numbers thing, spreading them out, but I was thinking EQ potentially be a good fit there too, being that he's got good quickness and is tough. 

Thanks.  Partly rhetorical, but partly putting out my tentative answer to my own question to figure out whether my maybe-naive answer is too simplistic, or if there are elements I'm not considering that you would, or could further refine my answer?  

I'm seeing advantage to small+quick; but I'm likewise seeing advantage to long-and-fast.  So I'm hypothetically thinking either can work, and that there are great advantages for either profile.  My tentative perspective is that we don't need to get locked into the short+quick profile.  If you've got a terrific short-and-quick guy, Welker-type or fresh-legged young healthy Cobb, awesome, put them to use.  But *IF* Cobb were to leave next year, I'm not seeing why a long-style EQ-type guy might not actually work out fantastic?  Or Moore, if he could both master the mental game AND get beyond the drops?  Or Kumerow?  

Your point about the "toughness" factor is well taken, though, and one I hadn't considered.  A long slender guy getting nailed from every side on a stretch-out catch, that's kinda scary, and might be a reason to NOT use the long-lean guys.  EQ has talent, no question there; toughness, I suspect there may be significant question as to that?  

[craig]

1 hour ago, Beast said:

I feel like you made two different points that go against each other. I agree with the bottom two... that it's about positional depth and talent,  which is why I construct rosters using 53 man roster, because at the end of the day it's about about talent and positional variation depth. But you look at how much potential a guy has, weather it's one of the first 46 spots or it's one of 7 other spots, so I don't see any reason to break them up.

....Of course some of those inactive spots can be used in which ever why the coaches like... just get the best talent there after you generally get the numbers you want.

Think we are on same page, Beast, in that it's all about best long-term talent.  Which is why I think we are open to the possibility of carrying a flukishly long group of WR on the roster this year.... *IF* that's where the talent is.  

My point in distinguishing the 46 from the 53 is I'm trying to process how persuasive or essential it is for back-of-roster guys to have ST use.   

• CWood among others has emphasized how critical ST capacity is, both for WR or for any back-of-roster guy.
• And several have argued that 7 WR are too many.   

My feeling is that if, for example, you like EQ's talent but don't like his ST, and don't actually think he's ready to be trusted from scrimmage.... who cares?  Can still use one of the 7 inactive spots on the 53 to protect him.  

You're right, I was seeing two sides of the "Inactive" coin.  

• If they aren't active, who cares what position group they are from?  Doesn't matter, so you can carry some very long groups on the 53 in a given year, if the talent calls for it.
• But the flip is that all else equal, you'd *prefer* to have a reasonable degree of positional distribution.  (All-else-equal being key).  If a DL gets hurt one Sunday and misses next, it would be more convenient to activate guy from Inactive who's already on the 53, rather than waive or IR a guy from 53 so that you can activate a guy from PS.  If one of your OL won't be active next Sunday, it would be easier to have a replacement already on the 53 rather than needing to kick somebody off the 53 in order to activate a guy from PS.  Same goes for any of the position groups.
• But overall, I think the talent factor is more important/essential than the preference to have positional injury-insurance on the 53.  If/when you need to clear a 53-man spot, so be it; but until that's necessary, carry the best talent and best long-term prospects that you can.  

[Lodestar]

EQ definitely played the majority of his snaps in the slot.