Jump to content

Random Packer News & Notes


Recommended Posts

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.    

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...