Random Packer News & Notes

[CWood21]

On 2/18/2019 at 1:52 PM, Outpost31 said:

This is why I get so angry with people over OG.  We aren't nearly as bad as people think, and OG really isn't all that important.

Even if we take PFF at it's numbers (and that's not something I'd suggest), it shows you how average (or mediocre) our OG are.  Justin McCray only played in 12 games (5 starts) and he was slightly better than Lane Taylor whom most think is an average starter.  I think it shows you how bad the NFC North guards are when a banged up T.J. Lang came out as the highest graded OG.  I'm not sure anyone is advocating for spending premium on an OG (either via the draft or in FA), but looking to upgrade the position shouldn't be out of the question.

[CWood21]

23 hours ago, YaddaHolla said:

Just for discussions sake are we gonna be in on AB? You gotta think Gute will put the feelers out a bit

No.  It was a toss-up before he was talking about wanting to re-do his contract.  It's out the window now.

[CWood21]

15 hours ago, packfanfb said:

So this is for WRs taken 174+.... First glaring problem I see here is we'd need the snap counts for all rookie WRs at pick 174+. MVS and ESB played a bunch because our WR core was a weaker unit from day 1 and Cobb and Allison got hurt early, opening the door for MVS and ESB to play a lot. Id imagine not many 174+ rookie WRs even hardly see the field year 1 because they're deep on a team's depth chart. 

Not saying MVS and ESB didnt make the most of their opportunities but the fact they got a lot of opportunity is probably the driving force behind those stats more than anything else. 

I keep hearing this, and it still hasn't been proven true.  How many teams that draft a WR that late are truly stacked at the WR position?  Probably not very many of them.  Talent is going to play regardless of whether they're drafting 1st or 256th.  At some point, the player is going to get the opportunity to see the field and if they produce, they'll continue to play.  I keep hearing about how MVS/ESB produced because there was a lack of talent ahead of them, which is partially true but the reality is that isn't the only reason why players have success.  They did exactly what they were supposed to do AND then some.  Trying to make excuses why they produced isn't a solution.

[packfanfb]

4 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I keep hearing this, and it still hasn't been proven true.  How many teams that draft a WR that late are truly stacked at the WR position?  Probably not very many of them.  Talent is going to play regardless of whether they're drafting 1st or 256th.  At some point, the player is going to get the opportunity to see the field and if they produce, they'll continue to play.  I keep hearing about how MVS/ESB produced because there was a lack of talent ahead of them, which is partially true but the reality is that isn't the only reason why players have success.  They did exactly what they were supposed to do AND then some.  Trying to make excuses why they produced isn't a solution.

Not about making excuses, just the facts. MVS played a considerable amount of the year as the No. 2 WR. ESB played a considerable amount of snaps as the No. 3 WR. By that very fact alone, they are going to be targeted more than the average 5th round+ WR who's No. 4-5 on the depth chart for another team. 

For a large part of the year last year, we were down to Adams and rookies at WR. Simply put, MVS and ESB don't have the same numbers if Cobb and Allison play all year, the opportunities simply would not have been there and the Packers weren't going to sit Cobb, and probably not even Allison, in favor of MVS for snaps. Doesn't have anything to do with talent at that point. More than likely with a healthy Cobb and Allison, you would have seen MVS with stats closer to ESB (if that) and ESB would not have seen the field much at all as a No. 5. 

The narrative that MVS and ESB played solely due to their talent implies that they leap-frogged someone else for playing time and that did not happen. They played because there was no one else to play and out of the 3 rookies, MVS and ESB were the most ready to fill those voids as needed,  and for the most part, made the most of their opportunities. 

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, packfanfb said:

Not about making excuses, just the facts. MVS played a considerable amount of the year as the No. 2 WR. ESB played a considerable amount of snaps as the No. 3 WR. By that very fact alone, they are going to be targeted more than the average 5th round+ WR who's No. 4-5 on the depth chart for another team. 

For a large part of the year last year, we were down to Adams and rookies at WR. Simply put, MVS and ESB don't have the same numbers if Cobb and Allison play all year, the opportunities simply would not have been there and the Packers weren't going to sit Cobb, and probably not even Allison, in favor of MVS for snaps. Doesn't have anything to do with talent at that point. More than likely with a healthy Cobb and Allison, you would have seen MVS with stats closer to ESB (if that) and ESB would not have seen the field much at all as a No. 5. 

The narrative that MVS and ESB played solely due to their talent implies that they leap-frogged someone else for playing time and that did not happen. They played because there was no one else to play and out of the 3 rookies, MVS and ESB were the most ready to fill those voids as needed,  and for the most part, made the most of their opportunities. 

Players don't produce by accident though.  Sure, they'll get opportunities that some players don't usually get, but when they're on the field they're either producing or they won't.  If they weren't producing, they would have been replaced by someone else.  Trying to "penalize" them because they made it on the field isn't a logical argument, unless you have some way to prove they wouldn't have gotten on the field.  I've already shown that when Cobb was on the field, Rodgers "favored" him which goes along with the belief that Rodgers doesn't trust rookie WRs.  On a per game basis, Cobb received more targets than MVS or ESB.  This isn't a case of a blind squirrel finding a nut.  They produced when they are on the field, which is exactly what you're hoping out of your young guys.  Again, if MVS was a Day 2 pick, you'd be THRILLED with his production but instead since they are Day 3 picks, they're looked at with extreme skepticism.  It's draft pick bias.  And no, I'm not advocating putting all our eggs in their basket before you try and spin this the complete opposite direction.

[packfanfb]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

Players don't produce by accident though.  Sure, they'll get opportunities that some players don't usually get, but when they're on the field they're either producing or they won't.  If they weren't producing, they would have been replaced by someone else.  Trying to "penalize" them because they made it on the field isn't a logical argument, unless you have some way to prove they wouldn't have gotten on the field.  I've already shown that when Cobb was on the field, Rodgers "favored" him which goes along with the belief that Rodgers doesn't trust rookie WRs.  On a per game basis, Cobb received more targets than MVS or ESB.  This isn't a case of a blind squirrel finding a nut.  They produced when they are on the field, which is exactly what you're hoping out of your young guys.  Again, if MVS was a Day 2 pick, you'd be THRILLED with his production but instead since they are Day 3 picks, they're looked at with extreme skepticism.  It's draft pick bias.  And no, I'm not advocating putting all our eggs in their basket before you try and spin this the complete opposite direction.

If true, then we're pretty much on the same page.  

[JBURGE]

24 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Players don't produce by accident though.  Sure, they'll get opportunities that some players don't usually get, but when they're on the field they're either producing or they won't.  If they weren't producing, they would have been replaced by someone else.  Trying to "penalize" them because they made it on the field isn't a logical argument, unless you have some way to prove they wouldn't have gotten on the field.  I've already shown that when Cobb was on the field, Rodgers "favored" him which goes along with the belief that Rodgers doesn't trust rookie WRs.  On a per game basis, Cobb received more targets than MVS or ESB.  This isn't a case of a blind squirrel finding a nut.  They produced when they are on the field, which is exactly what you're hoping out of your young guys.  Again, if MVS was a Day 2 pick, you'd be THRILLED with his production but instead since they are Day 3 picks, they're looked at with extreme skepticism.  It's draft pick bias.  And no, I'm not advocating putting all our eggs in their basket before you try and spin this the complete opposite direction.

I think I'm comfortable with Adams - MVS - Allison - ESB - Kumerow - Moore next year. Unless there is incredible value, I'm good with the WRs. It took me a while, but I do believe with what we are paying Rogers and Adams the rest have to be fillers. I was in on Brown until the guaranteed money issue came up. I would still love a weapon, and I've always preferred that to come from someone who takes carries. 

[Leader]

Kruse:

Packers rookie DL Tyler Lancaster was in on 15 tackles stopping plays within two yards of the line of scrimmage.

[Leader]

2 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

I would still love a weapon, and I've always preferred that to come from someone who takes carries. 

From the early reading of MLFs game plan - thats not a far fetched possibility.
The running game seems to be a focus of his and as much as I like Jones - his injury situation is concerning. We'd need more horses to carry the rock.

[JBURGE]

1 minute ago, Leader said:

6 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

I would still love a weapon, and I've always preferred that to come from someone who takes carries. 

From the early reading of MLFs game plan - thats not a far fetched possibility.
The running game seems to be a focus of his and as much as I like Jones - his injury situation is concerning. We'd need more horses to carry the rock.

I don't want to run more. I just would rather have someone who can line up in the slot and also in the backfield, like Cobb, but who can stay healthy and has more quickness

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

Even if we take PFF at it's numbers (and that's not something I'd suggest), it shows you how average (or mediocre) our OG are.  Justin McCray only played in 12 games (5 starts) and he was slightly better than Lane Taylor whom most think is an average starter.  I think it shows you how bad the NFC North guards are when a banged up T.J. Lang came out as the highest graded OG.  I'm not sure anyone is advocating for spending premium on an OG (either via the draft or in FA), but looking to upgrade the position shouldn't be out of the question.

In looking at the draft, I think you can get a day one starter at guard in rounds 3-4.  There's just a lot to like out there.  Obviously some will go earlier, too, but I like this interior OL class.

[Shanedorf]

52 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

I don't want to run more. I just would rather have someone who can line up in the slot and also in the backfield, like Cobb, but who can stay healthy and has more quickness

Did Tevin Coleman fill that role in ATL ( Shanahan/LaFleur)  as a pass-catching RB or are you thinking more of a WR-type like Cobb/Monty ?

[JBURGE]

48 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

1 hour ago, JBURGE said:

I don't want to run more. I just would rather have someone who can line up in the slot and also in the backfield, like Cobb, but who can stay healthy and has more quickness

Did Tevin Coleman fill that role in ATL ( Shanahan/LaFleur)  as a pass-catching RB or are you thinking more of a WR-type like Cobb/Monty ?

Natural runner who can move around. I shouldn't have said Cobb, I would prefer a runner first. Think Cohen, McCaffrey. Bryce Love could end up being that player, I haven't watched him so I don't know if he ever splits out. But that gadget player

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, vegas492 said:

In looking at the draft, I think you can get a day one starter at guard in rounds 3-4.  There's just a lot to like out there.  Obviously some will go earlier, too, but I like this interior OL class.

I think you're more looking in the bargain bin for a veteran you can have compete with McCray and a draft pick or two.  And then draft an OL late Day 2, early Day 3.

[vegas492]

40 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I think you're more looking in the bargain bin for a veteran you can have compete with McCray and a draft pick or two.  And then draft an OL late Day 2, early Day 3.

Yes.  That is what I'd do.  I'd wait probably until the draft is over to land a guard in free agency.  See how the draft plays out first.  I don't want a higher paid guard, as I think we can get one to play right away in round 3 or 4.  And in free agency, we need to find one that can play better than McCray or Patrick, and on the cheap, who is that?  I'm unsure if those other guys are that much better.  Foster from Pitt is one that I'll keep my eye on, as he may be affordable and an upgrade there.