Wide Receiver Outlook

[Packerraymond]

45 minutes ago, TheBitzMan said:

Did I say season outlook? Did I say Cobb wasn't important? Did I say I am angry at Cobb for not having 110 catches? No

What I did say is that Gute likes athletic WRs with versatility. He clearly values explosive athletes - Cobb is not one of those. Just look at the athletic scores of the WRs. He is not in Gute's mold. 

RAS of current WRs. 

1. EQ - 9.92
2. MVS - 9.2
3. T. Davis - 9.12
4. Yancey - 8.89
5. Moore - 8.27
6. Adams - 7.65
7. Kumerow - 5.7
8. Cobb - 3.0
9. Allison - 2.8

I am not underrating Cobb - He is an average football player who has more value here because Rodgers likes him. He is also an old 28, coming off ankle surgery with declining production and a big cap hit. 

There are reasons to moving on from Cobb and reasons to keep him. Either way our WR OUTLOOK isn't ****ed. I think out of three rookies and Kumerow we can get 66 receptions and 600 yards (those are Cobb's last two seasons of production). 

Your whole point about 4th-6th round rookies completely disregards opportunity. I am guessing the 87% that didn't get 20 catches weren't the 3rd receiver in an offense led by Aaron Rodgers with Davante Adams and Jimmy Graham in it. Just a guess though. 

Cobb is way better than you make him out to be. He's a dynamic YAC guy. Don't care about his RAS score.

[Mendeleev]

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

I forget our 4th-6th round rookie receivers are going to transcend NFL history and each surpass the 13% odds of having over 20 receptions in their rookie season, but still... 

Based on pro-football-reference, it looks like 27% of 4th round WRs, 17% of 5th rd WRS and 7% of 6th rd WRs have had 20 or more receptions in their rookie season. (2005-2017).

 

Just for fun, if you take all those probabilities, that means there is a 45% chance at least one of them has more than 20 catches. (1-(1-.027)*(1-.017)*(1-0.07))

[MacReady]

If you want to talk about Cobb's production over the past two years...

Let's say 60 receptions.  26 receivers drafted in ANY round had 60 receptions in their rookie years. 

26/509 receivers in ANY round have had 60 receptions in their rookie years since 2000.  That's 5%. 

I'm seriously wondering why people are expecting much out of our rookie receivers.  This isn't me saying we should trade Rodgers.  This isn't me ranting about a first round receiver/guard.  This isn't me putting my own personal feelings into the discussion, this is pointing to a trend in the NFL that has seen only 170 / 509 (33%) of receivers drafted in ANY round having over 20 receptions in their rookie year. 

That's a 33% chance, based on the history of the league, of our rookie receivers having a big impact.  So I'm citing two thirds of every single receiver over the past 17 years and I'm the one being ridiculous? 

And that's ANY round.  Anquan Boldin, Michael Thomas, Odell Beckham Jr, Jarvis Landry, Mike Evans are on that list. 

It's commonly accepted here that Moore probably needs time.  When you get into the 5th-7th rounds, you're at 20/202 rookies having over 20 catches.  Less than 10% over 17 years.  Antonio Brown wasn't even able to get to 17 catches. 

It's not a potential thing I'm arguing here.  It's a learning curve thing here and the reality of the NFL.  These players (Moore, St. Brown, MVS) statistically have a better chance at being out of the league in three years than they do of having 20 catches in their first season. 

[MacReady]

Just now, Mendeleev said:

Based on pro-football-reference, it looks like 27% of 4th round WRs, 17% of 5th rd WRS and 7% of 6th rd WRs have had 20 or more receptions in their rookie season. (2005-2017).

 

Just for fun, if you take all those probabilities, that means there is a 45% chance at least one of them has more than 20 catches. (1-(1-.027)*(1-.017)*(1-0.07))

@mathman. @Malfatron, can you confirm that he incorporated the fact that the three players are all on the same team fighting for the same opportunities?  I left my math skills in my other pants. 

[TheBitzMan]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Cobb is way better than you make him out to be. He's a dynamic YAC guy. Don't care about his RAS score.

Are we sure about that? Coming off of ankle surgery...the guy has 3 receptions over 30 yards the last 3 years combined. 

Also I am not saying just cut him for no reason. If the cap space leads to a bigger move I am all for it. 

[Packerraymond]

Just now, TheBitzMan said:

Are we sure about that? Coming off of ankle surgery...the guy has 3 receptions over 30 yards the last 3 years combined. 

Also I am not saying just cut him for no reason. If the cap space leads to a bigger move I am all for it. 

The bigger move better be a WR then. It's like trading a big league player for a rental in MLB. A big move signifies you're going for it. To make a big move and then at the same time down grade your roster at another position is totally counter-productive.

[MacReady]

Just now, TheBitzMan said:

Also I am not saying just cut him for no reason. If the cap space leads to a bigger move I am all for it. 

For what?  Another receiver?  Which receiver is available that is better than Cobb?  None.

You're gonna weaken the WR position for which position?  Who is even available that would cost anything close to an amount that we'd need to cut Cobb to afford it?

And now it's cutting Cobb?  Now we're cutting Cobb?  You're seriously advocating to cut Cobb? 

[TheBitzMan]

23 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

If you want to talk about Cobb's production over the past two years...

Let's say 60 receptions.  26 receivers drafted in ANY round had 60 receptions in their rookie years. 

26/509 receivers in ANY round have had 60 receptions in their rookie years since 2000.  That's 5%. 

I'm seriously wondering why people are expecting much out of our rookie receivers.  This isn't me saying we should trade Rodgers.  This isn't me ranting about a first round receiver/guard.  This isn't me putting my own personal feelings into the discussion, this is pointing to a trend in the NFL that has seen only 170 / 509 (33%) of receivers drafted in ANY round having over 20 receptions in their rookie year. 

That's a 33% chance, based on the history of the league, of our rookie receivers having a big impact.  So I'm citing two thirds of every single receiver over the past 17 years and I'm the one being ridiculous? 

And that's ANY round.  Anquan Boldin, Michael Thomas, Odell Beckham Jr, Jarvis Landry, Mike Evans are on that list. 

It's commonly accepted here that Moore probably needs time.  When you get into the 5th-7th rounds, you're at 20/202 rookies having over 20 catches.  Less than 10% over 17 years.  Antonio Brown wasn't even able to get to 17 catches. 

It's not a potential thing I'm arguing here.  It's a learning curve thing here and the reality of the NFL.  These players (Moore, St. Brown, MVS) statistically have a better chance at being out of the league in three years than they do of having 20 catches in their first season. 

Your whole argument lacks context. For example Antonio Brown had 19 total targets his rookie year. You are completely disregarding opportunity in this whole argument. 

Show me rookie WRs with 50+ targets with an elite QB.

[TheBitzMan]

6 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

For what?  Another receiver?  Which receiver is available that is better than Cobb?  None.

You're gonna weaken the WR position for which position?  Who is even available that would cost anything close to an amount that we'd need to cut Cobb to afford it?

And now it's cutting Cobb?  Now we're cutting Cobb?  You're seriously advocating to cut Cobb? 

I wouldn't cut Cobb unless I absolutely needed the cap space. I would only do it if it meant getting Mack. 

[TheBitzMan]

10 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

The bigger move better be a WR then. It's like trading a big league player for a rental in MLB. A big move signifies you're going for it. To make a big move and then at the same time down grade your roster at another position is totally counter-productive.

Who has more value to this team. Randall Cobb or Khalil Mack? That is the only move I would advocate trading or cutting Cobb for space purposes.

[TheBitzMan]

47 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

You know we'd still be paying that money to Cobb if he was traded, right? 

This is just completely false? There would be $3.65M in dead cap but that's it....

[MacReady]

Just now, TheBitzMan said:

Your whole argument lacks context. For example Antonio Brown had 19 total targets his rookie year. You are completely disregarding opportunity in this whole argument. 

Oh, I completely forgot players doing the right thing and getting open don't get targets.  Emmanuel Sanders had 50 targets that year.  As a rookie.  So you're saying that Antonio Brown, the best receiver in the NFL right now, took more time to be ready for frequent targets than a third round pick?  Crazy to think that higher picks are picked higher because they're probably more NFL ready.  Crazy.  Just crazy to think that as a later round rookie receiver he was less ready for the NFL than an early round rookie. 

 

[MacReady]

Just now, TheBitzMan said:

Who has more value to this team. Randall Cobb or Khalil Mack? That is the only move I would advocate trading or cutting Cobb for space purposes.

Tell me a team with a worse receiving corps than Davante Adams and Geronimo Allison as their 1 and 2. 

If - giant if - the Packers need the cap space for Mack, they keep Cobb and cut Matthews.  It makes zero sense to pay 3.65 million in dead cap to make one position weaker to upgrade at another position when it costs 0 dollars to cut a player at the position you're improving. 

We'd save 11 million cutting Matthews and still improve at pass rush.
We'd save 9 million cutting Cobb and get worse at one position, better at another.

There's no logical advocating for cutting Cobb involved here.  There's no logical advocating for trading Cobb here unless it's for a receiver, and who is going to pay 9 million dollars to Cobb if he sucks as much as you think he does?

There's no amount of logic involved here.

If Cobb sucks as much as you say he does, what team will pay him 9 million?
If Cobb doesn't suck enough to be worth the 9 million, why would we trade him?
Why would we cut him to afford Mack when cutting Matthews saves us more money?

There's no ground to stand on in this argument. 

[TransientTexan]

25 minutes ago, Mendeleev said:

Based on pro-football-reference, it looks like 27% of 4th round WRs, 17% of 5th rd WRS and 7% of 6th rd WRs have had 20 or more receptions in their rookie season. (2005-2017).

 

Just for fun, if you take all those probabilities, that means there is a 45% chance at least one of them has more than 20 catches. (1-(1-.027)*(1-.017)*(1-0.07))

that's probably being a bit generous. if we want to play math games , I'm betting the average draft position of that data set is the middle of each round, so it's more like 27% for mid-4th-round picks, 17% for mid-5th, 7% for mid-6th. Moore, MVS, and EQ were all picked at or near the end of their rounds, so it's more like Moore is halfway between your 4th & 5th, MVS halfway between your 5th & 6th, etc. So using those numbers, the chance that at least 1 meets the 20 catches is ~36% 

[MacReady]

Just now, TheBitzMan said:

This is just completely false? There would be $3.65M in dead cap but that's it....

Somebody convinced me that trading Clinton-Dix wouldn't save us any money because of how trades work and I don't know if I'm right or wrong with this, so I'm not going to argue this because I don't know if you're as wrong here as you are about the sense involved in cutting/trading Cobb.