Veteran WR Options

[YoHoChecko]

Under the radar underwhelming name with potential untapped upside but probably just a low-level option: Tajae Sharpe. Had a promising rookie year, had a foot injury, and then never really did much as a possession role player. But he has experience with MLF in Tennessee (and was in Atlanta with Arthur Smith last year) and is a big guy who might surprise with the right opportunities.

That would underwhelm me, too, honestly, but it's the kind of signing I wouldn't be surprised to see brought in as our typical camp body with potential.

[Ghost_Lombardi]

Still good veteran WRs out there. Their value drops after the draft. I suspect most deals will get done before then, but who knows. Some guys drafted high or coming off of big deals may still think they will be getting $$$$ thrown at them, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

[British]

The way top WRs are now getting QB money, I wonder if long term the smart approach is to build a WR corps of cheap savvy vets like Julio, Watkins, Green etc and rookie studs.

Then before their second contract, sell the studs and repeat.

Getting DK on the Packers would help my dynasty fantasy team but the cost would be dumb imo.

The Packers have never seemed to value the position like others, hence the lack of 1st round investment and not paying Davante for the last year.

Would love to sign two vets and draft two rookies.

Olave, Christian Watson, Watkins, AJ Green, Lazard, Cobb, Amari would be a better group than we've had in some time.

[Foosball]

I’ll toss out a few other names, more complimentary veterans who potentially wouldn’t make the final 53, especially with a WR heavy draft.

TY Hilton, age and injuries starting to slow in production, numbers going down. Has had poor QBs in recent memory. Might be worth a look.

Albert Wilson, small little jet sweep, kick returner, add on. Limited production recent years as well, although Tua can’t get that ball deep to him.

Keenan Cole, consistently in that 500-700 yard range with the QBs they’ve had in Jacksonville and the Jets. Also a ST players, kick returner and some punts. Only 28. Could potentially be like a Devondre/Rasul addon, just needs a good fit and good QB and he could really add something to the team.

I was looking at Keenan Cole, too. Solid player who has been stuck with sub-par QBs most of his career. I'd bet he's better than his career numbers suggest.

DeVante Parker is still prob my fav bargain target right now. He makes a lot of sense as a player and contractually.

I hate to contradict an earlier post of mine favoring Devante Parker but I read an analysis about him; “Devante Parker was not put on God’s green earth to block…”

So he doesn’t fit the Packers system.

[RingoCStarrQB]

I’ll toss out a few other names, more complimentary veterans who potentially wouldn’t make the final 53, especially with a WR heavy draft.

TY Hilton, age and injuries starting to slow in production, numbers going down. Has had poor QBs in recent memory. Might be worth a look.

Albert Wilson, small little jet sweep, kick returner, add on. Limited production recent years as well, although Tua can’t get that ball deep to him.

Keenan Cole, consistently in that 500-700 yard range with the QBs they’ve had in Jacksonville and the Jets. Also a ST players, kick returner and some punts. Only 28. Could potentially be like a Devondre/Rasul addon, just needs a good fit and good QB and he could really add something to the team.

I was looking at Keenan Cole, too. Solid player who has been stuck with sub-par QBs most of his career. I'd bet he's better than his career numbers suggest.

DeVante Parker is still prob my fav bargain target right now. He makes a lot of sense as a player and contractually.

I hate to contradict an earlier post of mine favoring Devante Parker but I read an analysis about him; “Devante Parker was not put on God’s green earth to block…”

So he doesn’t fit the Packers system.

I'll take any receiver that can consistently get separation. Right now the Packers have no WR that has shown their ability to consistently get separation. Some can't even consistently catch passes either. I suppose it can only get better, because it can't get much worse. Who is the WR coach anyway?
GO PACK GO!!

[BF004]

Yeah, Davante wasn’t a good blocker. Nor should we ask him too.

Deion Sanders was a &%$@ tackler, but it didn’t matter.


Sometime you just gotta be good at the primary skill set for your position and you can still be a HOF player.

I think our prerequisite of must be a good blocker at WR isn’t as big a deal as some think here.


Unless we want to switch to the Wing-T, we should probably focus on a WR or two who can excels at running routes first and foremost.

[YoHoChecko]

Yeah, Davante wasn’t a good blocker. Nor should we ask him too.

Deion Sanders was a &%$@ tackler, but it didn’t matter.


Sometime you just gotta be good at the primary skill set for your position and you can still be a HOF player.

I think our prerequisite of must be a good blocker at WR isn’t as big a deal as some think here.


Unless we want to switch to the Wing-T, we should probably focus on a WR or two who can excels at running routes first and foremost.

I guess my point is that no one available in free agency right now is good enough to forgive issues of fit and scheme. So you have to lean on issues of fit and scheme.

Davante and Deion are exceptions to the rule. You only make exceptions for exceptional players. When filling out a depth chart off of the scrap heap, so to speak, you prioritize guys who might excel if they fit your scheme and for what you do.

And to be clear, talking about size isn’t ONLY about blocking, but also about a pretty clear preference from our front office. They’ve openly discussed the way the weather turns in Green Bay makes them crave bigger, thicker, more physical players at skill positions.

The only wiry speed receivers we’ve brought in are MVS and he’s 6’4” and Tavon Austin and he was a gadget player and return man who didn’t actually work out or stick.

[British]

Yeah, Davante wasn’t a good blocker. Nor should we ask him too.

Deion Sanders was a &%$@ tackler, but it didn’t matter.


Sometime you just gotta be good at the primary skill set for your position and you can still be a HOF player.

I think our prerequisite of must be a good blocker at WR isn’t as big a deal as some think here.


Unless we want to switch to the Wing-T, we should probably focus on a WR or two who can excels at running routes first and foremost.

I guess my point is that no one available in free agency right now is good enough to forgive issues of fit and scheme. So you have to lean on issues of fit and scheme.

Davante and Deion are exceptions to the rule. You only make exceptions for exceptional players. When filling out a depth chart off of the scrap heap, so to speak, you prioritize guys who might excel if they fit your scheme and for what you do.

And to be clear, talking about size isn’t ONLY about blocking, but also about a pretty clear preference from our front office. They’ve openly discussed the way the weather turns in Green Bay makes them crave bigger, thicker, more physical players at skill positions.

The only wiry speed receivers we’ve brought in are MVS and he’s 6’4” and Tavon Austin and he was a gadget player and return man who didn’t actually work out or stick.

I'm a fan of Gute but I've thought for a while the obsession with big tall WRs feels like the kind of WR group you'd create for an inaccurate rookie QB throwing up jump balls, not a precision passer like Rodgers.

Rodgers always seemed good at throwing with anticipation and getting the ball to players that were able to get open.

Maybe we need them big to block in MLF's run scheme, in which case, fair enough. But EQ and MVS were picked before he arrived I think so it may just be a front office thing.

[RingoCStarrQB]

Yeah, Davante wasn’t a good blocker. Nor should we ask him too.

Deion Sanders was a &%$@ tackler, but it didn’t matter.


Sometime you just gotta be good at the primary skill set for your position and you can still be a HOF player.

I think our prerequisite of must be a good blocker at WR isn’t as big a deal as some think here.


Unless we want to switch to the Wing-T, we should probably focus on a WR or two who can excels at running routes first and foremost.

I guess my point is that no one available in free agency right now is good enough to forgive issues of fit and scheme. So you have to lean on issues of fit and scheme.

Davante and Deion are exceptions to the rule. You only make exceptions for exceptional players. When filling out a depth chart off of the scrap heap, so to speak, you prioritize guys who might excel if they fit your scheme and for what you do.

And to be clear, talking about size isn’t ONLY about blocking, but also about a pretty clear preference from our front office. They’ve openly discussed the way the weather turns in Green Bay makes them crave bigger, thicker, more physical players at skill positions.

The only wiry speed receivers we’ve brought in are MVS and he’s 6’4” and Tavon Austin and he was a gadget player and return man who didn’t actually work out or stick.

I'm a fan of Gute but I've thought for a while the obsession with big tall WRs feels like the kind of WR group you'd create for an inaccurate rookie QB throwing up jump balls, not a precision passer like Rodgers.

Rodgers always seemed good at throwing with anticipation and getting the ball to players that were able to get open.

Maybe we need them big to block in MLF's run scheme, in which case, fair enough. But EQ and MVS were picked before he arrived I think so it may just be a front office thing.

This WR blocking ability thing/discussion seems like an artificial and wasteful way for some interested in ignoring the importance of having receivers that can consistently get separation. Throwing dump offs in the flat in the progression doesn't consistently move the chains. Old way of thinking / prior strategy with respect to progression decisions has not brought a NFCCG win lately. It's been a long time since we were doing the Raji!

[YoHoChecko]

100% size at the cost of separation really held us back with Lazard, EQ, and MVS all being examples of that, though to different degrees. That’s how I feel about a bunch of players, like Allen Robinson, Michael Pitman, and soon to be drafted Drake London. Great players, but need to be complemented by guys who CAN separate.

Adams was an instant separator. I think we’ve learned through the years that you need more than one of those. Cobb was brought in to help alleviate that. Without Adams, we need to prioritize separators again, but we’re also looking for players with the dimensions to hold up on the boundary. That doesn’t have to be EQ and Lazard sized. But size and physicality plays into it.

I’m looking for guys who can separate and have size. From there, I’ll look for speed. I’ve pinpointed some guys in the draft that can separate and are physical and have a nice catch radius. But this isn’t the thread for that.

When I put Sammy Watkins atop my wish list, it’s as someone with the short area quickness to run good routes and get open quickly within the scheme, but still adequate, Davante-esque size. When I ask for a Julio Jones, I’m taking the tail end of a career of an absolute freak in terms of size, speed, route running, and savvy.

I don’t think people looking for a more physical brand of receiver are putting blocking above everything. We’re simply applying a historical observation that the Packers rarely deviate from at least a minimum size for their wideouts, and that the General Manager has himself openly addressed, saying that you ALWAYS want more size in an athlete of you can get it. It’s not the only consideration, but it’s always a consideration.

So with that knowledge, why on earth wouldn’t the more physical, bigger, but still-athletic players on the market be considered the best fits for us?

[Ghost_Lombardi]

Jarvis Landry gets a new agent. Now look for some bloated deal that says 20+ mill for 5 years when in fact it is two years for 25.

[RingoCStarrQB]

100% size at the cost of separation really held us back with Lazard, EQ, and MVS all being examples of that, though to different degrees. That’s how I feel about a bunch of players, like Allen Robinson, Michael Pitman, and soon to be drafted Drake London. Great players, but need to be complemented by guys who CAN separate.

Adams was an instant separator. I think we’ve learned through the years that you need more than one of those. Cobb was brought in to help alleviate that. Without Adams, we need to prioritize separators again, but we’re also looking for players with the dimensions to hold up on the boundary. That doesn’t have to be EQ and Lazard sized. But size and physicality plays into it.

I’m looking for guys who can separate and have size. From there, I’ll look for speed. I’ve pinpointed some guys in the draft that can separate and are physical and have a nice catch radius. But this isn’t the thread for that.

When I put Sammy Watkins atop my wish list, it’s as someone with the short area quickness to run good routes and get open quickly within the scheme, but still adequate, Davante-esque size. When I ask for a Julio Jones, I’m taking the tail end of a career of an absolute freak in terms of size, speed, route running, and savvy.

I don’t think people looking for a more physical brand of receiver are putting blocking above everything. We’re simply applying a historical observation that the Packers rarely deviate from at least a minimum size for their wideouts, and that the General Manager has himself openly addressed, saying that you ALWAYS want more size in an athlete of you can get it. It’s not the only consideration, but it’s always a consideration.

So with that knowledge, why on earth wouldn’t the more physical, bigger, but still-athletic players on the market be considered the best fits for us?

Look at some of these receivers getting separation. This was a rebuild season. Lynn Dickey



[

image.png (4.67 MiB) Viewed 520 times

img] [/img]

[Pugger]

I suspect we won't sign a vet WR until after the draft - it looks like other teams might be doing the same thing. With 2 first round picks perhaps Gute will take one if a receiver with first round value is on the board at 22 or 28.

[Scott4Pack]

Oh those late 70s Packers teams were bad!

BTW, John Facenda, who did the commentary on that video was a familiar voice for so long. Good commentator! Better than those Packer teams.

[flapackfan]

Would love to have the same level of results with our 2 first rounders as the '77 draft! James Lofton and John Anderson!

[go pak go]

I suspect we won't sign a vet WR until after the draft - it looks like other teams might be doing the same thing. With 2 first round picks perhaps Gute will take one if a receiver with first round value is on the board at 22 or 28.

I think this makes the most sense. Either right before or after the draft is when the deals are there. We can't afford anyone. So we have to wait.

[Drj820]

I think there is going to be a run on WRs in the teens. I think our need is such that we should strongly consider packaging some picks and moving up and getting a "near" lock for success. The "locks" may be gone by 22, especially with so few QBs in the picture this draft. Im not really into mocks, so i dont know who those "near locks" might be, but if there are some in the teens...we should go get one.

[go pak go]

There are at least 5 WRs I would be very happy at selecting at 22 or 29

Wilson
Williams
Olave
London
Burkes

I would be shocked if one of them doesn't last to 22. Yet again, if that happens, I say grab the other players that have fallen as a result and go for your 2nd/3rd round guys.

I'm much more about trading back than trading up with the Packers current roster state.

[Drj820]

There are at least 5 WRs I would be very happy at selecting at 22 or 29

Wilson
Williams
Olave
London
Burkes

I would be shocked if one of them doesn't last to 22. Yet again, if that happens, I say grab the other players that have fallen as a result and go for your 2nd/3rd round guys.

I'm much more about trading back than trading up with the Packers current roster state.

why though? We are "all in" and have very few holes. We dont need 8+ new rookies to sprinkle in different spots across the roster. I say go get 2 or 3 guys who can be expected to make an impact during this window.

[go pak go]

There are at least 5 WRs I would be very happy at selecting at 22 or 29

Wilson
Williams
Olave
London
Burkes

I would be shocked if one of them doesn't last to 22. Yet again, if that happens, I say grab the other players that have fallen as a result and go for your 2nd/3rd round guys.

I'm much more about trading back than trading up with the Packers current roster state.

why though? We are "all in" and have very few holes. We dont need 8+ new rookies to sprinkle in different spots across the roster. I say go get 2 or 3 guys who can be expected to make an impact during this window.

Because I don't think any of those players justify trading up for outside of Williams. I love Williams enough to use a 3rd rounder to trade up to where we need. But that is it.

I also love a lot of players who will go in Round 2 or 3 and don't think the value for the top guys is that much better than taking 2 WRs on day 2 and see if one of them sticks.

I have seen a lot of teams over the years try and fill their "lost WR slot" by using their 1st round pick on a WR and it not working well. Meanwhile I have seen a lot of Packers Day 2 selections at WR be absolute money.

But you will always see that with me. I am never a "draft by position or immediate need" guy. I never was and I never will be. Especially with first round selections.