Random Packer News & Notes

[R T]

46 minutes ago, craig said:

Thanks for that link, deathstar.  The calculation that WR's are one of the higher-impact position groups is interesting and surprising, given the conventional board wisdom that WR's aren't worth much draft capital.  

Perhaps the value of a good WR is underestimated even by smart analysts?  

I think you are mixing two different things here as the same thing. WR's have a high impact on offenses, but that doesn't mean that high end draft capital should be spent there because of it either. Good WR's are relatively easy to find, I would say the NFL is overrun with them. I remember an interview James Lofton did when he was coaching WR's for the Chargers, he said in training camp that they had a dozen WR's there that were NFL caliber WR's and more than half of them would never get a chance to play a down in a NFL regular season game. It's not that they aren't high impact on the outcome of games, it's that they are very replaceable.    

[squire12]

Top 20 WR/TE in yardage all time.

Rice, Bruce, Harrison, Wayne, Boldin, Holt are super bowl winners.  2 sets of teammates. 

 

Rank	Player	Yds	Years	Tm
1	Jerry Rice+	22,895	1985-2004	3TM
2	Larry Fitzgerald	17,492	2004-2020	crd
3	Terrell Owens+	15,934	1996-2010	5TM
4	Randy Moss+	15,292	1998-2012	5TM
5	Isaac Bruce+	15,208	1994-2009	2TM
6	Tony Gonzalez+	15,127	1997-2013	2TM
7	Tim Brown+	14,934	1988-2004	2TM
8	Steve Smith	14,731	2001-2016	2TM
9	Marvin Harrison+	14,580	1996-2008	clt
10	Reggie Wayne	14,345	2001-2014	clt
11	Andre Johnson	14,185	2003-2016	3TM
12	James Lofton+	14,004	1978-1993	5TM
13	Cris Carter+	13,899	1987-2002	3TM
14	Anquan Boldin	13,779	2003-2016	4TM
15	Henry Ellard	13,777	1983-1998	3TM
16	Torry Holt	13,382	1999-2009	2TM
17	Andre Reed+	13,198	1985-2000	2TM
18	Steve Largent+	13,089	1976-1989	sea
19	Jason Witten	13,046	2003-2020	2TM
20	Julio Jones	12,896	2011-2020	atl

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, craig said:

Thanks for that link, deathstar.  The calculation that WR's are one of the higher-impact position groups is interesting and surprising, given the conventional board wisdom that WR's aren't worth much draft capital.  

Perhaps the value of a good WR is underestimated even by smart analysts?  

No.  That isn't it.

Receivers can be found all over the draft.  Taking one, say, at the top third of the first round is kind of foolish when the drop off from there to the second round isn't all that great.  In most cases.  Kind of like a running back.

If you take a WR in the first, especially higher up, he's gotta have some pretty elite athletic traits.  Like a Julio Jones, AJ Green.  Size/Speed/Hands guys.

 

[craig]

50 minutes ago, R T said:

I think you are mixing two different things here as the same thing. WR's have a high impact on offenses, but that doesn't mean that high end draft capital should be spent there because of it either. Good WR's are relatively easy to find, I would say the NFL is overrun with them. I remember an interview James Lofton did when he was coaching WR's for the Chargers, he said in training camp that they had a dozen WR's there that were NFL caliber WR's and more than half of them would never get a chance to play a down in a NFL regular season game. It's not that they aren't high impact on the outcome of games, it's that they are very replaceable.    

https://www.pff.com/war

Thanks, RT, helpful.  I may actually be mixing 4 different things, actually.  

But your statement " It's not that they aren't high impact on the outcome of games, it's that they are very replaceable", I'm not sure I get that, or accept it.  Or else perhaps that's a perspective that disputes the conclusions of the https://www.pff.com/war link.  

The conclusion of that link was the WR *do* have high impact, on games, and that there is a wider spread of impact from WR than from players of most other skill position groups.  The whole "WAR" concept is to evaluate wins ABOVE replacement.  Your statement is that WR are "very replaceable"; the pff study says that high-end WR are harder to replace than any skill group other than QB.  

Thoughts:  1.  It's one link with one study with one process of quantification.  You might simply argue that pff's study is faulty, contrary to Lofton's input, and that we should dismiss the study's conclusions.  2.  But *IF* we hypothetically assume that the study was done effectively, the conclusion that there is more impactful WAR separation between good-versus-replacement WR than at any skill position other than QB, that's really interesting.  To me, it's an unexpected perspective.  (Again, sometimes if a study seems to conclude something that doesn't make sense, it means I should re-evaluate my perspective.  Other times, if a study's conclusions don't make sense it may be a clue that the study is faulty.  I'm not sure which is the deal here....)

I think it may also be that while finding anti-awful WR isn't hard, that getting an excellent one is.  Lofton may be correct that there are a lot of guys who could be anti-awful WR who don't even get a chance, that may not mean many of them had much chance to be top-end? 

It may also be that while WR is high-impact and has more WAR-capacity, that still may not necessarily dictate that spending high draft capital on them is wise?  Perhaps some of the qualities that separate high-WAR WR aren't that distinguishable from combine measurable, and you may be able to get high-WAR WR in the 2nd/3rd/4th rounds more easily than for other position groups?  I don't know.  

All I'm saying, really, is that the data in that study seems to draw a somewhat different conclusion than yours.  *IF* the study and it's conclusions are accurate, I'm not sure what implications that has.  For example, maybe it's hard to ID the good ones, so burning 1st round picks isn't wise; but perhaps once you know you DO have one, it's more worthwhile than we assume to spend some $$ to keep a good one?   

It's possible that what Gute does with Adams might give some insight into whether Gute thinks the PFF study and it's conclusions is flawed and bogus, versus good and true?  

[ThatJerkDave]

48 minutes ago, squire12 said:

Top 20 WR/TE in yardage all time.

Rice, Bruce, Harrison, Wayne, Boldin, Holt are super bowl winners.  2 sets of teammates. 

 

Rank	Player	Yds	Years	Tm
1	Jerry Rice+	22,895	1985-2004	3TM
2	Larry Fitzgerald	17,492	2004-2020	crd
3	Terrell Owens+	15,934	1996-2010	5TM
4	Randy Moss+	15,292	1998-2012	5TM
5	Isaac Bruce+	15,208	1994-2009	2TM
6	Tony Gonzalez+	15,127	1997-2013	2TM
7	Tim Brown+	14,934	1988-2004	2TM
8	Steve Smith	14,731	2001-2016	2TM
9	Marvin Harrison+	14,580	1996-2008	clt
10	Reggie Wayne	14,345	2001-2014	clt
11	Andre Johnson	14,185	2003-2016	3TM
12	James Lofton+	14,004	1978-1993	5TM
13	Cris Carter+	13,899	1987-2002	3TM
14	Anquan Boldin	13,779	2003-2016	4TM
15	Henry Ellard	13,777	1983-1998	3TM
16	Torry Holt	13,382	1999-2009	2TM
17	Andre Reed+	13,198	1985-2000	2TM
18	Steve Largent+	13,089	1976-1989	sea
19	Jason Witten	13,046	2003-2020	2TM
20	Julio Jones	12,896	2011-2020	atl

More than 2 sets of teammates... 

 

 

[ThatJerkDave]

1 hour ago, R T said:

I think you are mixing two different things here as the same thing. WR's have a high impact on offenses, but that doesn't mean that high end draft capital should be spent there because of it either. Good WR's are relatively easy to find, I would say the NFL is overrun with them. I remember an interview James Lofton did when he was coaching WR's for the Chargers, he said in training camp that they had a dozen WR's there that were NFL caliber WR's and more than half of them would never get a chance to play a down in a NFL regular season game. It's not that they aren't high impact on the outcome of games, it's that they are very replaceable.    

What is your opinion of Malik Taylor?

[R T]

10 minutes ago, craig said:

https://www.pff.com/war

Thanks, RT, helpful.  I may actually be mixing 4 different things, actually.  

But your statement " It's not that they aren't high impact on the outcome of games, it's that they are very replaceable", I'm not sure I get that, or accept it.  Or else perhaps that's a perspective that disputes the conclusions of the https://www.pff.com/war link.  

The conclusion of that link was the WR *do* have high impact, on games, and that there is a wider spread of impact from WR than from players of most other skill position groups.  The whole "WAR" concept is to evaluate wins ABOVE replacement.  Your statement is that WR are "very replaceable"; the pff study says that high-end WR are harder to replace than any skill group other than QB.  

Thoughts:  1.  It's one link with one study with one process of quantification.  You might simply argue that pff's study is faulty, contrary to Lofton's input, and that we should dismiss the study's conclusions.  2.  But *IF* we hypothetically assume that the study was done effectively, the conclusion that there is more impactful WAR separation between good-versus-replacement WR than at any skill position other than QB, that's really interesting.  To me, it's an unexpected perspective.  (Again, sometimes if a study seems to conclude something that doesn't make sense, it means I should re-evaluate my perspective.  Other times, if a study's conclusions don't make sense it may be a clue that the study is faulty.  I'm not sure which is the deal here....)

I think it may also be that while finding anti-awful WR isn't hard, that getting an excellent one is.  Lofton may be correct that there are a lot of guys who could be anti-awful WR who don't even get a chance, that may not mean many of them had much chance to be top-end? 

It may also be that while WR is high-impact and has more WAR-capacity, that still may not necessarily dictate that spending high draft capital on them is wise?  Perhaps some of the qualities that separate high-WAR WR aren't that distinguishable from combine measurable, and you may be able to get high-WAR WR in the 2nd/3rd/4th rounds more easily than for other position groups?  I don't know.  

All I'm saying, really, is that the data in that study seems to draw a somewhat different conclusion than yours.  *IF* the study and it's conclusions are accurate, I'm not sure what implications that has.  For example, maybe it's hard to ID the good ones, so burning 1st round picks isn't wise; but perhaps once you know you DO have one, it's more worthwhile than we assume to spend some $$ to keep a good one?   

It's possible that what Gute does with Adams might give some insight into whether Gute thinks the PFF study and it's conclusions is flawed and bogus, versus good and true?  

You make some great points craig, well thought out. I think there are other variables that may come into play when it comes to WR's and the grading of WAR. The length of time that a QB and WR have been together will probably lead to better stats for the WR, but doesn't mean he is a far greater player than the next man up. Yet the 'WAR' leads us to believe he is harder to replace, when maybe in just a matter of time the replacement reaches the same leveling point? 

[R T]

12 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

What is your opinion of Malik Taylor?

Seems like a loaded question. I think he is in a real battle to make the 53. 

[vegas492]

47 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

What is your opinion of Malik Taylor?

 

34 minutes ago, R T said:

Seems like a loaded question. I think he is in a real battle to make the 53. 

If he returns another kickoff, I'm gonna.....

Well.  Probably come here and complain.

[Leader]

Acme Packing -  While everyone continues to hold their breath about Aaron Rodgers, there is concern about just how bad the Green Bay Packers could be without the three-time MVP.

Obviously losing him would be a big blow and would cause the team to take a step back. You don’t lose a generational player and at least not feel some kind of aftershock (provided Jordan Love doesn’t somehow immediately start torching opponents).

That said, some prognosticators of doom seem to act like the Packers are devoid of talent on the roster and a season like 2017 with Brett Hundley under center is inevitable. The feeling is Green Bat would suddenly turn into one of the worst teams in football.

That is simply not the case and here are two reasons why: Davante Adams and Aaron Jones.

[packfanfb]

43 minutes ago, Leader said:

Acme Packing -  While everyone continues to hold their breath about Aaron Rodgers, there is concern about just how bad the Green Bay Packers could be without the three-time MVP.

Obviously losing him would be a big blow and would cause the team to take a step back. You don’t lose a generational player and at least not feel some kind of aftershock (provided Jordan Love doesn’t somehow immediately start torching opponents).

That said, some prognosticators of doom seem to act like the Packers are devoid of talent on the roster and a season like 2017 with Brett Hundley under center is inevitable. The feeling is Green Bat would suddenly turn into one of the worst teams in football.

That is simply not the case and here are two reasons why: Davante Adams and Aaron Jones.

What's funny about this is that we really don't want to end up in the middle. I agree with Love we wouldn't be a 3-4 win team with this roster, but it's a virtual certainty we also are not winning 12-13 games. We probably win 7-9. While individually, it would be fun as a fan to watch Love win 7-9 games, as a collective, all that does is leave us in the bottom half of the draft order without a playoff appearance, the worst place you can be as a franchise. 

[VonKarman]

It leaves you with a QB capable of winning 7-9 games on his first year playing professional football. That's far more valuable than ending with 4-5 wins. What you say is valid when you know the worth of your QB and he isn't on his rookie contract.

[ThatJerkDave]

2 hours ago, R T said:

Seems like a loaded question. I think he is in a real battle to make the 53. 

I agree, but isn't he an NFL caliber player, and a "good" WR using James Lofton's definition? 

I am not trying to fool you, or anyone else for that matter.  Taylor was very efficient in his limited opportunities last season.  5 catches on 6 targets, 4 first downs, and a touchdown.  Possibly better than EQ last season.  But don't get too hung up on Taylor specifically, he is just an example that was on the Packers roster last season.

I kind of want to expand on the thought, that there are a lot of "NFL Caliber" WRs.  How far up the depth chart can we put these kinds of low investment players? Allen Lazard is our 2 or 3 right now.  Jarrett Boykin had that one real nice season.  

[squire12]

3 hours ago, R T said:

You make some great points craig, well thought out. I think there are other variables that may come into play when it comes to WR's and the grading of WAR. The length of time that a QB and WR have been together will probably lead to better stats for the WR, but doesn't mean he is a far greater player than the next man up. Yet the 'WAR' leads us to believe he is harder to replace, when maybe in just a matter of time the replacement reaches the same leveling point? 

Small sample, but GB did quite well without Adams in 2019 and 2020.

Function of how an offense is designed.   QB ability to adjust to not having there #1 WR.  Coaching ability to adjust without a key piece.  To put it all on WR #1 being out and WR 2-4 needing to step up seems very singular focused.

[craig]

3 hours ago, squire12 said:

Small sample, but GB did quite well without Adams in 2019 and 2020.

Function of how an offense is designed.   QB ability to adjust to not having there #1 WR.  Coaching ability to adjust without a key piece.  To put it all on WR #1 being out and WR 2-4 needing to step up seems very singular focused.

https://www.pff.com/war

Yeah, an individual non-QB skill guy is rarely worth even 1 WAR, over a full season.  So not surprising that losing a guy for a subset of a season, you don't see that really costing you wins in any obvious way.  That's a factor when considering contracts, too.  If a guy has <1 WAR value, losing such guy should cost you ≤1 win.  Not that huge a deal.  (Especially since $$ unspent on one guy is usually spent instead on others.). It's a team game.