Wide Receiver Outlook

[Beast]

5 minutes ago, craig said:

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.    

I disagree with the 46 viewpoint, because it seems like if using 46 viewpoint, one would first put on STers players like (return) Davis, (gunners) Evans and Goodson... BEFORE the high potential development projects (HPDP for short).... when my personal order is the other way around. Talented players, HPDP and then if you have any spots left (you almost always do) then the STs players.

But I think NFL teams place their HPDP (say such as the 3 drafted rookie WRs) over the STers (such as WR Davis).

IF the 46 viewpoint puts HPDP before STers, then I could agree with it... but that just seems backwards in my mind, and for my personal mind, thinking of it as a 53 unit works much better... but I've always been told my way of thinking is a bit different that most, so maybe that hang up is just me. 

 

ALSO: I have been arguing against 7 WRs for YEARS, if not a decade now... every year it seems like people are saying it's going to happen this year and I say it's never going to happen, the Packers always keep 5 or 6 WRs (and yes one year they only kept 4 with 4 TEs).

BUT: Like that 4 WR year exception (the exception where they only keep 10 OL if they draft two and both show good potential)... I think this could be the year there is an exception to the rule... because they got 3 talented rookies, a 1st year player (Kum) who's stepping up, the top group (Cobb/Allison) haven't proven that much lately and are FAs after the season.  I'm not saying it's going to happen... but I certainly see a potential perfect storm exception to the normal standard rule. 

 

I think there are 3 spots that the 3rd QB, 3rd RB, 7th WR, 4th TE, 9th OL and/or 26 defender are all fighting for. 3rd RB is a lock (at least once Jones gets back from suspension). But 4th TE, and 9 OL spots are looking bad to me (unless they force 5 "OT"s with Spriggs and Bell). But my roster is down to 2 spots for 3rd QB, 7th WR and/or 26 defender.

[craig]

Yeah, HPDP come first.  Agree for sure.  

The 46 needs to cover several essentials:

• Somebodies to  return punts and kicks.   
• Guys to populate all ST units
• Somebody who is the next-man-up in case of injury for every essential "regular" position. 
• That's where you might have a long LB (or WR) group on the 53, all of whom seem well-suited for ST.  But you need to distribute your 46 to ensure positional backups. 
• So even if all four of GMo and Kumerow and the Rookies are super ST guys, you don't have injury-coverage for the other positions if you carry 7 WR on the 46.  One or more will need to be parked Inactive, in which case having one-or-more who aren't ST-demons, who cares?  

Again, a point I'm making is that every game there are 7 guys who aren't doing anything:  not backing anybody up, not providing injury insurance, and not playing ST.  So if EQ is a HPDP guy but stinks at ST, who cares, if he's inactive anyway?  

Obviously SOMEBODY needs to returns punts and kicks.  My feeling is that an inexperienced guy or just honestly a lesser guy might be worth using, *IF* doing so enables you to keep an extra HPDP.  Even the most punt-return-oriented posters don't want to use Jaire, because of the injury risk.  Even though his speed and quickness (and quick instinctive decision-making) might I think make him more electric and exciting than Davis or anybody else.  Posters who don't want Jaire, even *IF* hypothetically he might be the most electric play-making return guy we've got, are willing to compromise on return ability, because they know there are other factors to consider.  I'm with the majority, I think, who would also be willing to compromise a little bit and use a return guy a little less dangerous and less electric than Davis, *IF* it enables the team to keep an extra HPDP.  

And who knows, maybe a big high-speed guy like MVS might be a big-play return guy after all, and actually be just as good or better?  Davis is fast, so he's got a shot to make some plays.  But the statistical evidence for his top-5-ness last year is statistics; one big play changed the average big-time.  Does his big-return last year mean he'll have one again this year?   Beats me.  It might be that a high-speed long-strider like MVS could get from end-zone to the 20 pretty quick; and might be able to leap over or stiff-arm some tackler and get through a narrowing lane just in time to create a big return?  I have no idea.  Hard to predict big returns, given how rare they are.  

[craig]

33 minutes ago, Beast said:

But my roster is down to 2 spots for 3rd QB, 7th WR and/or 26 defender.

For the moment, I'd vote for 26th defender and 7th WR.  

Keep Kizer, PS Boyle, cut Hundley.  (that's the HPDP conception).  

I'm still hopeful that Waters and Pipkens have a chance to be long-term NFL contributors.  

[Beast]

9 minutes ago, craig said:

Yeah, HPDP come first.  Agree for sure.  

The 46 needs to cover several essentials:

• Somebodies to  return punts and kicks.   
• Guys to populate all ST units

I don't think you need to care about populating the ST units much... just build the offense and defense and the STs will come (other than K, P, and LS).

Just offense, defense, 3 STs, and athletes in general. That's all you need... no real need to break STs units down that much. Offense and defense are way more important because they get a lot more snaps... and STs can have different guys step in, as they do though out the season.

[craig]

35 minutes ago, Beast said:

ALSO: I have been arguing against 7 WRs for YEARS, if not a decade now... every year it seems like people are saying it's going to happen this year and I say it's never going to happen, the Packers always keep 5 or 6 WRs (and yes one year they only kept 4 with 4 TEs).

Yeah, would be different if Cole Madison was populating the last OL spot. 

Agree, it's a unique-case landscape with the two expiring WR and four new candidates.  And with the lack of competition at some other position groups.  

Abnormal landscape allows for abnormal distributions.  

Last note:  I wonder if management always goes by HPDP/talent?  Probably easiest to just go off your own evaluation.  But might sometimes be some obscure undrafted o-linemen or TE who you see as being really promising, but you're pretty sure nobody else knows yet, and that nobody will take.  Maybe you love Tonyan, but have so little concern about him getting snagged that you shoot him to PS with no anxiety?  Or Day or Light?  Who knows, perhaps that's how it was for Bengals with Kumerow?  

[skibrett15]

This coming week the competition is really going to heat up, and we should start to see some separation once rodgers starts playing a little bit with them.

 

All of the guys did something in the preseason game, and they should push each other.  Allison made a really nice catch as well, so he's kind of the pace car for these young guys to reach for.  

Kumerow has little to no chance of sticking.  Davis needs to get back returning punts and proving that's his value, otherwise he will be on the outside as well.

[Beast]

6 minutes ago, craig said:

Last note:  I wonder if management always goes by HPDP/talent?  Probably easiest to just go off your own evaluation.  But might sometimes be some obscure undrafted o-linemen or TE who you see as being really promising, but you're pretty sure nobody else knows yet, and that nobody will take.  Maybe you love Tonyan, but have so little concern about him getting snagged that you shoot him to PS with no anxiety?  Or Day or Light?  Who knows, perhaps that's how it was for Bengals with Kumerow?  

If they don't show up to much on preseason tape, you might be able to sneak them though... but at the end of the day, you can only keep so many players, if you have too many, you got to try to sneak some though... like I thought WR Clarks might of been claimed last year.

Though I don't think any of the players mentioned are HPDP... not even Kumerow... he's more of an average potential BUT developed his skill set player... meaning his ceiling isn't the higher, but he's worked hard so his floor is pretty high too, which is why he'd be kept, if they're keeping him... because his floor seems higher than the rookies.. and we could use a #4 WR (especially if one of the top 3 got hurt).

[Shanedorf]

Here's an article from Football Outsiders OL guru, Ben Muth

In it, he details several plays from the saints/vikes playoff game from last year. The one I am calling attention to is a critical 3rd and 1 play where the WR whiffed on his block and allowed the vikes to stuff the run.... and stop the clock with enough time to throw a Miracle to end the game. First link is the full article, 2nd link is the play in question

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/word-muth/2018/word-muth-au-revoir-new-orleans

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/images/Muth/wom118-5.gif

"Frickin' wide receivers not blocking will get your *** beat in the run game. Willie Snead (83), craps the bed here. He has to block that safety, or at least try to. I'm not in the Saints meeting room, but I've been in enough meetings to know that they aren't tightening the wide receivers' splits on third-and-1 so he can **** around blocking the outside leveraged corner on an inside run. That play is there for a first down if a defensive back doesn't come flying in unblocked from the edge. And we all know what happened when the Vikings got the ball back. "

 

Blocking isn't something that the rookie WRs are used to yet in the NFL but its a key component of their development and the overall success of the offense.

When Edgar Bennett was the WR coach, those Receivers really took pride in their blocking abilities. Its certainly not Job 1 for the WRs, but it is another layer to consider as GB sorts out the WR room

[Cheech]

51 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Here's an article from Football Outsiders OL guru, Ben Muth

In it, he details several plays from the saints/vikes playoff game from last year. The one I am calling attention to is a critical 3rd and 1 play where the WR whiffed on his block and allowed the vikes to stuff the run.... and stop the clock with enough time to throw a Miracle to end the game. First link is the full article, 2nd link is the play in question

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/word-muth/2018/word-muth-au-revoir-new-orleans

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/images/Muth/wom118-5.gif

"Frickin' wide receivers not blocking will get your *** beat in the run game. Willie Snead (83), craps the bed here. He has to block that safety, or at least try to. I'm not in the Saints meeting room, but I've been in enough meetings to know that they aren't tightening the wide receivers' splits on third-and-1 so he can **** around blocking the outside leveraged corner on an inside run. That play is there for a first down if a defensive back doesn't come flying in unblocked from the edge. And we all know what happened when the Vikings got the ball back. "

 

 

Blocking isn't something that the rookie WRs are used to yet in the NFL but its a key component of their development and the overall success of the offense.

When Edgar Bennett was the WR coach, those Receivers really took pride in their blocking abilities. Its certainly not Job 1 for the WRs, but it is another layer to consider as GB sorts out the WR room

Great post.  Obviously there is more to the position than most people think about.  

Someone on twitter mentioned how much more vertical our receivers were getting in the PS game vs. The last few years.  I wonder if that is Philbin back in the office, more athletic receivers, or a combination of both?  Either way, I like that element being incorporated again.  The underneath stuff will be there much more often.

[Beast]

1 hour ago, Shanedorf said:

"Frickin' wide receivers not blocking will get your *** beat in the run game. Willie Snead (83), craps the bed here. He has to block that safety, or at least try to. I'm not in the Saints meeting room, but I've been in enough meetings to know that they aren't tightening the wide receivers' splits on third-and-1 so he can **** around blocking the outside leveraged corner on an inside run. That play is there for a first down if a defensive back doesn't come flying in unblocked from the edge. And we all know what happened when the Vikings got the ball back. "

Good stuff, I'm guessing here, that Snead (83) thought the TE was going to block that Safety, since he was lined up across from him, instead of going after the MLB. I'm thinking the either the WR got confused where the run was going... and thought the TE would block the guy across from him and he'd try to get the deeper Safety.

[JQ1]

2 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

“...Blocking isn't something that the rookie WRs are used to yet in the NFL but its a key component of their development and the overall success of the offense.

When Edgar Bennett was the WR coach, those Receivers really took pride in their blocking abilities. Its certainly not Job 1 for the WRs, but it is another layer to consider as GB sorts out the WR room.

Blocking for the run, AND downfield blocking in the passing game. For years the Packer receivers either were at or near the top in YAC, and it’s because the WRs were blocking for each other after a catch. I’d hope this remains a point of emphasis even though Bennett has moved on.

[CWood21]

5 hours ago, craig said:

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.  

But you can only use those 7 "extra" spots so many times.  When you're looking at your active 46, you have a baseline for what you need to suit up on a given day.  You're going to carry 2 QBs, 2 RBs, 2 TE/FBs, 4 WRs, 7 OLs, 4 DL, 4 OLB, 3 ILB, 4 CBs, 3 S, and 3 STs.  That right there is 38 players that are accounted for right there.  You're probably going to carry a 3rd TE/FB, so that's 39.  You could probably carry a 5th WR, but not a huge need unless that player is offering ST value, which Davis/MVS could provide so let's say that 40.  The Packers don't run a LOT of 4 WR sets and they run very little 5 WR sets.  You could probably add another DL to have extra bodies, so you're at 41 right there.  Figure another pass rusher and CB to have enough healthy bodies, and that's 43 which means you have 3 spots you can keep open.  So you're either having a healthy scratch or you're bringing in someone whose got ST value, which would likely lead to positions that aren't WRs.

[Beast]

I feel like we're making this way more complex than it has to be.

I simply prefer the 53 position numbers method. It's a lot more simpler, at least to me.

• They normally keep (note, this "normal" defense is before Pettine arrived)
  • 2 or 3 QBs
  • 3 RBs
  • 1 FB
  • 3 TEs
  • 5 or 6 WRs
  • 8 or 9 OL
  • 5 or 6 DL
  • 6 OLB
  • 3 ILB (used to be 4 ILB)
  • 5 S (used to be 4 S)
  • 6 CB
  • 3 ST (K, P, LS)
• I think this gets you between 49 and 55 players... and a few adjustments to get to 53
• Though I did attempted to check Pettine's 3-4 normal by taking his 53 man rosters by taking his last 5 season defensive position average (The lone Bills' season was a 4-3, so I took that out, so down to 4 season average) and it was basically the same except more DL, less OLB and 4 each of ILB and S (though a lot of teams have been going to 3 ILB and 5 Safety since Pettine last coached so, he might of changed to there, especially the with light ILB depth).

[craig]

Yes, Wood, healthy-scatch inactive.  You've got seven inactives, almost always several healthy-scatches.  (Especially early.)  In past, they've often carried a couple of healthy scratches from a single position group (2-3 OL, 2-3 corners...).  Finley spent most of his rookie year there.  They've wasted plenty healthy-scratch weeks on Callahan and the like. 

I'm arguing that there are usually discretionary healthy-scratch spots available, in addition to injured-scratch.  So it's just a question of who to use them on.  With Cobb and GMo both expiring and somewhat limited as players, I think it's reasonable to consider using one or two healthy-scratches on EQ and/or Moore.  No less reasonable then when they kept three developmental OL, or used ones on Joe Callahan or Graham Harrell.  Or less reasonable than carrying 3 OT's and parking Spriggs or Bell there.  

Sure hope all seven spots aren't need for injured-scratches in Week 1 already!  Obviously the ratio of injured-to-healthy scratches will change, unpredictably, over the course of the season.   A healthy-scratch in September may get waived in October (Joe Callahan, right?)  Or a healthy-scratch in September may flip with a position-colleague in November.  (For example, Pipken or Waters go Active while House or King go injured-inactive; Eq goes from inactive to active when Cobb needs some injured-scratch time.....)  

[craig]

14 minutes ago, Beast said:

I simply prefer the 53 position numbers method. It's a lot more simpler, at least to me.

• They normally keep ....
• I think this gets you between 49 and 55 players... and a few adjustments to get to 53

That way is fine, too, and gives analogous bottom line.  Either approach gets to the same true answer, that  there will be several discretionary "extra" spots.  So use them on your best prospects, and if anything skew them toward positions of impending need (which obviously includes WR).  

Normal is normal, but every year is unique.  Minima is actually only like 46.  There is no **necessity** of carrying 3 QB's; or a 3rd RB while Jones is inactive; or 6 OLB if you're only going to use 3-4 from scrimmage; or 3 ILB, if you're going to play Brice or Jones in the box ahead of your 3rd UDFA ILB anyway...... 

• 2 QBs
• 2 RBs
• 1 FB
• 3 TEs
• 5 WRs
• 8 OL
• 5  DL
• 5 OLB
• 2 ILB (used to be 4 ILB)
• 4 S 
• 6 CB
• 3 ST (K, P, LS)
• 21 offense, 22 defense, 3 ST = 46.  7 spots to play with.