Veteran WR Options

[BF004]

haha

Yes, your negativity getting hilarious, we are all laughing.

Would your trade our WR straight up for the bears or lions right now?

sure, why not.

Probably because they are worse?

Eq St. Brown pencilled in as a starter in Chicago right now.

I get you want us to be worse than we are to fill some kind of weird narrative right now, but reality matter.

Is it a good WR group? No, of course not.

Is it the worst group in the league? No, of course not.

Are we done adding to the group? No, of course not.

[Drj820]

Yes, your negativity getting hilarious, we are all laughing.

Would your trade our WR straight up for the bears or lions right now?

sure, why not.

Probably because they are worse?

Eq St. Brown pencilled in as a starter in Chicago right now.

EQ would be a starter for us too right now. not sure what that proves.

its not "negativity" to call our current WR crop what it is, and that awful.

Cobb is old and cant stay healthy, Winfree is a PS player, Lazard is a TE. Watkins is a mystery bag with upside.

Not saying our crew will look like this come september, but its okay to call it what it is for now.

And yes the Bears and Lions crew is bad too. The three of us are probably competing for the 30th, 31st, and 32nd positions on the WR power rankings.

[BF004]

EQ would be a starter for us too right now. not sure what that proves.

No

[Drj820]

Yes, your negativity getting hilarious, we are all laughing.

Would your trade our WR straight up for the bears or lions right now?

sure, why not.

Probably because they are worse?

Eq St. Brown pencilled in as a starter in Chicago right now.

I get you want us to be worse than we are to fill some kind of weird narrative right now, but reality matter.

Is it a good WR group? No, of course not.

Is it the worst group in the league? No, of course not.

Are we done adding to the group? No, of course not.

did i ever say that we were done working on the group?

It actually is really close to the worst in the league at the moment. Certainly the worst BY FAR of any of the 14 teams with playoff dreams.

Its not some "narrative", its calling the situation what it is. I am sure we will work to improve it.

[Drj820]

The top 6 WRs for the Packers had less than 1400 combined yards last year receiving in the NFL. Thats 6 guys, COMBINED.

Lazard was the only guy over 500 yards, and that was barely.

Sammy less than 400, Cobb less than 400.

Why are we defending this crew again??

Lets just call it what it is...currently god awful, with plenty of chances to improve by September.

Lazard cant get open with the top two secondary members giving all their attention to Adams, you will hate to see what happens when he gets first look from defenders.

[bud fox]

The top 6 WRs for the Packers had less than 1400 combined yards last year receiving in the NFL. Thats 6 guys, COMBINED.

Lazard was the only guy over 500 yards, and that was barely.

Sammy less than 400, Cobb less than 400.

Why are we defending this crew again??

Lets just call it what it is...currently god awful, with plenty of chances to improve by September.

Lazard cant get open with the top two secondary members giving all their attention to Adams, you will hate to see what happens when he gets first look from defenders.

Isn't it obvious why? Same people will complain about Rodgers despite being back to back mvp and highest pass rating.

As Mark Murphy said Rodgers is able to work with less.

[Yoop]

Agree best wr on our roster which is terrible. Disagree he will contribute more than any rookie.

that isn't what Yoho said, I wish if people are going to quote others they would get the story straight.

there are some rookies in this class that would quickly become the #1 depending on the team that drafts them, and we are such a team, Sammy probably doesn't matter when it comes to those few receivers, one thing for sure though, his presence will force them to work harder to be the best they can be, Signing Watkins was smart money

He literally said he is the best wr on our team and more ready to contribute than any available rookie wr. Without our capital we can probably get any rookie wr.

He literally said what you are saying he didn't - read it again.

You left out the part where he says ALMOST any rookie, basically he allowed that one or more of these rookie receivers could start and do well, Watkins is easily our best receiver, at least for the time being.
thing is that just because Watson had minimal success the last couple years he is capable of much more, and we can't know how well he'll do, neither can the FO, the price was right, and they felt he was worth the gamble, I have my doubts that picking him up will affect Gutes draft board, same with Reed at DT, if Gute likes one he'll take him.

[Drj820]

that isn't what Yoho said, I wish if people are going to quote others they would get the story straight.

there are some rookies in this class that would quickly become the #1 depending on the team that drafts them, and we are such a team, Sammy probably doesn't matter when it comes to those few receivers, one thing for sure though, his presence will force them to work harder to be the best they can be, Signing Watkins was smart money

He literally said he is the best wr on our team and more ready to contribute than any available rookie wr. Without our capital we can probably get any rookie wr.

He literally said what you are saying he didn't - read it again.

You left out the part where he says ALMOST any rookie, basically he allowed that one or more of these rookie receivers could start and do well too.
thing is that just because Watson had minimal success the last couple years he is capable of much more, and we can't know how well he'll do, neither can the FO, the price was right, and they felt he was worth the gamble, I have my doubts that picking him up will affect Gutes draft board, same with Reed at DT, if Gute likes one he'll take him.

Is anyone arguing with this?

As in, does anyone think grabbing Watson is not worth the investment and does anyone think grabbing Watson will impact Gutes draft board?

Who amongst us thinks this??

[Yoop]

He literally said he is the best wr on our team and more ready to contribute than any available rookie wr. Without our capital we can probably get any rookie wr.

He literally said what you are saying he didn't - read it again.

You left out the part where he says ALMOST any rookie, basically he allowed that one or more of these rookie receivers could start and do well too.
thing is that just because Watson had minimal success the last couple years he is capable of much more, and we can't know how well he'll do, neither can the FO, the price was right, and they felt he was worth the gamble, I have my doubts that picking him up will affect Gutes draft board, same with Reed at DT, if Gute likes one he'll take him.

Is anyone arguing with this?

As in, does anyone think grabbing Watson is not worth the investment and does anyone think grabbing Watson will impact Gutes draft board?

Who amongst us thinks this??

you seem to be arguing with anyone and everyone, you don't even have the player names right, we signed Watkins to be a stop gap player, it's a one year contract, whatever, if healthy he is probably our #1 to start the season, and probably will remain our #1 unless we trade up to get one of the top 4 or so.

[BF004]

The top 6 WRs for the Packers had less than 1400 combined yards last year receiving in the NFL. Thats 6 guys, COMBINED.

Lazard was the only guy over 500 yards, and that was barely.

Sammy less than 400, Cobb less than 400.

Why are we defending this crew again??

Lets just call it what it is...currently god awful, with plenty of chances to improve by September.

Lazard cant get open with the top two secondary members giving all their attention to Adams, you will hate to see what happens when he gets first look from defenders.

Isn't it obvious why? Same people will complain about Rodgers despite being back to back mvp and highest pass rating.

As Mark Murphy said Rodgers is able to work with less.

You guys are sure good at hearing what you want to hear.

There is nothing wrong with being accurate.

Noting that this isnt currently the worst WR group in the league isn’t really defending the group. Just actually looking at WR groups around the league and making a smarter more accurate statement rather than just saying things to stick to some kind of weird narrative.

I’m assuming you must think I’m one of those ‘same people’ who complain about Rodgers since I’m the one in the discussion. Well first off, go find a quote from me. Secondly, again, nothing wrong with trying to be accurate. No &%$@ Rodgers is great. One can still point out a bad pass or decision, though. I’ll prefer that to blind, blanket statements any day.


I see more posts calling out people for complaining about rodgers than i do people actually complaining about rodgers.

[Drj820]

You left out the part where he says ALMOST any rookie, basically he allowed that one or more of these rookie receivers could start and do well too.
thing is that just because Watson had minimal success the last couple years he is capable of much more, and we can't know how well he'll do, neither can the FO, the price was right, and they felt he was worth the gamble, I have my doubts that picking him up will affect Gutes draft board, same with Reed at DT, if Gute likes one he'll take him.

Is anyone arguing with this?

As in, does anyone think grabbing Watson is not worth the investment and does anyone think grabbing Watson will impact Gutes draft board?

Who amongst us thinks this??

you seem to be arguing with anyone and everyone, you don't even have the player names right, we signed Watkins to be a stop gap player, it's a one year contract, whatever, if healthy he is probably our #1 to start the season, and probably will remain our #1 unless we trade up to get one of the top 4 or so.

Who was I arguing with when I asked if anyone was unhappy with the signing or if anyone thinks the signing affects the draft board?

[YoHoChecko]

All I care about is how he can help us. Realistically a 4 or tc cut depending on his contract. Still time to find someone.

Realistically a 4? Are you kidding me? Realistically the best WR on our roster and more ready to contribute than almost any available rookie.

It sure seems like this statement started a lot more mess than I anticipated, so I guess I'll add some detail.

Anatomy of a Sentence

Realistically the best WR on our roster and more ready to contribute than almost any available rookie.

Let's take this piece by piece:

"Realistically the best WR on our roster"

By this I mean that Sammy Watkins has a higher level of skill right now than Allen Lazard, Randall Cobb, and Amari Rodgers. If you look at career high numbers, Cobb does have a couple years when he out-produced Watkins, but they are much farther removed. Watkins also started out his career bigger and faster than Cobb and Rodgers, and much father than Lazard.

Watkins also passes "better than" with the eye test on the field. He has made plays in Kansas City and Baltimore that still show a high level athlete. Several were posted in the Sammy Watkins thread.

Do we disagree with this portion of the statement? Does anyone think that Watkins at age 29 is not better than Cobb at age 32, Amari Rodgers, and Allen Lazard? Lazard's career high in yards (513) has been surpassed by Watkins 5 separate times in his career and as recently as 2019.

"and more ready to contribute than almost any available rookie."

There are several parts to this statement. So let's break it down further:

"More ready to contribute than almost any rookie" refers to the fact that a 7-year veteran who has played in a scheme coordinated by our head coach in 2017 and who played for two years in a WR room in which our Passing Game Coordinator was the offensive quality control coach will be ready to step in from day one and play his role in the scheme. He will not be learning anything from scratch. He has played in detail-oriented schemes with high-end QBs before and knows how to be in the right place at the right time. There will be a smooth transition to the team and scheme due to coaching familiarity and veteran presence.

While people will cite Jamar Chase and Justin Jefferson, the reality is that very few WRs make large year-one impacts. Andy Herman found that only 11 of the 33 WRs picked in the first 2 rounds over the past 3 years made strong contributions as rookies. The odds are one in three of getting an instant impact player. Even those instant impact players will still be learning as they go, and "impact" may mean 750-800 yards in a medium-high volume attack. If you look at what Watkins has done on a per-catch or per-target basis, he comes off looking perfectly acceptable as a starting WR in this league. He has simply played in systems that favor the run or are organized around other targets for most of his career (Bills were run-first back in the day. Chiefs were all about Hill and Kelce. Baltimore is run-first).

"More ready to contribute than available rookies" refers to the fact that by pick 22, the likeliest instant-impact players will probably be taken. It is true that I did not consider, when I made that statement, players that we could trade up for as "available." That can be considered a flaw in my argument, but more realistically, it's just that I was saying something different than what people may have thought I was saying, and now I am explaining it.

Andy Herman's 33 WRs, again, which found that 11 were ready to go--of those 11, 6 came from the top 15 or 20 (I forget his cutoff).The odds of getting an instant-impact rookie after pick 20 are less than 1 in 3. It's like 1 in 5.

And that brings us to the final analysis of the small, simple statement that kicked off over a page of back-and-forth: almost.

If the odds of getting an instant-impact WR in the draft where we pick are 1 in 5, and if we're dealing with a sample of maybe, I dunno, ten WRs likely to be picked in the 22 to 59 range where we have 4 picks, then only two WRs in that range are likely to have an instant impact as rookies. So sure, we MIGHT draft someone who can instantly relegate an athletically gifted veteran with scheme and coach familiarity to a secondary role in the passing game. But the overwhelming odds are that we will not.

ALMOST no AVAILABLE rookie is more ready to contribute.

[Yoop]

Is anyone arguing with this?

As in, does anyone think grabbing Watson is not worth the investment and does anyone think grabbing Watson will impact Gutes draft board?

Who amongst us thinks this??

you seem to be arguing with anyone and everyone, you don't even have the player names right, we signed Watkins to be a stop gap player, it's a one year contract, whatever, if healthy he is probably our #1 to start the season, and probably will remain our #1 unless we trade up to get one of the top 4 or so.

Who was I arguing with when I asked if anyone was unhappy with the signing or if anyone thinks the signing affects the draft board?

first of all you tagged me after I simply clarified a post, why? you new exactly why I did it, ( some rookies are better then other rookies, Almost in Yoho's sentence brings that out.

as to who you where arguing, just re read some of your post, you seem upset that we bought Sammy WAtkins, and make it sound as though that means Guty wont adress the position in the draft, or at slot 22, or that he wont trade up to slot ???? to get a targeted receiver with the ability to be #1 over Watkins? well imo, if anything it's hard to say what Gute will do.

Happy Easter to you and all.

[Drj820]

you seem to be arguing with anyone and everyone, you don't even have the player names right, we signed Watkins to be a stop gap player, it's a one year contract, whatever, if healthy he is probably our #1 to start the season, and probably will remain our #1 unless we trade up to get one of the top 4 or so.

Who was I arguing with when I asked if anyone was unhappy with the signing or if anyone thinks the signing affects the draft board?

first of all you tagged me after I simply clarified a post, why? you new exactly why I did it, ( some rookies are better then other rookies, Almost in Yoho's sentence brings that out.

as to who you where arguing, just re read some of your post, you seem upset that we bought Sammy WAtkins, and make it sound as though that means Guty wont adress the position in the draft, or at slot 22, or that he wont trade up to slot ???? to get a targeted receiver with the ability to be #1 over Watkins? well imo, if anything it's hard to say what Gute will do.

Happy Easter to you and all.

Yea man

[bud fox]

All I care about is how he can help us. Realistically a 4 or tc cut depending on his contract. Still time to find someone.

Realistically a 4? Are you kidding me? Realistically the best WR on our roster and more ready to contribute than almost any available rookie.

It sure seems like this statement started a lot more mess than I anticipated, so I guess I'll add some detail.

Anatomy of a Sentence

Realistically the best WR on our roster and more ready to contribute than almost any available rookie.

Let's take this piece by piece:

"Realistically the best WR on our roster"

By this I mean that Sammy Watkins has a higher level of skill right now than Allen Lazard, Randall Cobb, and Amari Rodgers. If you look at career high numbers, Cobb does have a couple years when he out-produced Watkins, but they are much farther removed. Watkins also started out his career bigger and faster than Cobb and Rodgers, and much father than Lazard.

Watkins also passes "better than" with the eye test on the field. He has made plays in Kansas City and Baltimore that still show a high level athlete. Several were posted in the Sammy Watkins thread.

Do we disagree with this portion of the statement? Does anyone think that Watkins at age 29 is not better than Cobb at age 32, Amari Rodgers, and Allen Lazard? Lazard's career high in yards (513) has been surpassed by Watkins 5 separate times in his career and as recently as 2019.

"and more ready to contribute than almost any available rookie."

There are several parts to this statement. So let's break it down further:

"More ready to contribute than almost any rookie" refers to the fact that a 7-year veteran who has played in a scheme coordinated by our head coach in 2017 and who played for two years in a WR room in which our Passing Game Coordinator was the offensive quality control coach will be ready to step in from day one and play his role in the scheme. He will not be learning anything from scratch. He has played in detail-oriented schemes with high-end QBs before and knows how to be in the right place at the right time. There will be a smooth transition to the team and scheme due to coaching familiarity and veteran presence.

While people will cite Jamar Chase and Justin Jefferson, the reality is that very few WRs make large year-one impacts. Andy Herman found that only 11 of the 33 WRs picked in the first 2 rounds over the past 3 years made strong contributions as rookies. The odds are one in three of getting an instant impact player. Even those instant impact players will still be learning as they go, and "impact" may mean 750-800 yards in a medium-high volume attack. If you look at what Watkins has done on a per-catch or per-target basis, he comes off looking perfectly acceptable as a starting WR in this league. He has simply played in systems that favor the run or are organized around other targets for most of his career (Bills were run-first back in the day. Chiefs were all about Hill and Kelce. Baltimore is run-first).

"More ready to contribute than available rookies" refers to the fact that by pick 22, the likeliest instant-impact players will probably be taken. It is true that I did not consider, when I made that statement, players that we could trade up for as "available." That can be considered a flaw in my argument, but more realistically, it's just that I was saying something different than what people may have thought I was saying, and now I am explaining it.

Andy Herman's 33 WRs, again, which found that 11 were ready to go--of those 11, 6 came from the top 15 or 20 (I forget his cutoff).The odds of getting an instant-impact rookie after pick 20 are less than 1 in 3. It's like 1 in 5.

And that brings us to the final analysis of the small, simple statement that kicked off over a page of back-and-forth: almost.

If the odds of getting an instant-impact WR in the draft where we pick are 1 in 5, and if we're dealing with a sample of maybe, I dunno, ten WRs likely to be picked in the 22 to 59 range where we have 4 picks, then only two WRs in that range are likely to have an instant impact as rookies. So sure, we MIGHT draft someone who can instantly relegate an athletically gifted veteran with scheme and coach familiarity to a secondary role in the passing game. But the overwhelming odds are that we will not.

ALMOST no AVAILABLE rookie is more ready to contribute.

Look at actual numbers of rookie wrs and look at sammy watkins numbers - you will be surprised.

Rookie wrs that put up 1000 yards in the first year are rare but they don't need to do that to produce more than recent Watkins.

Also not many rookie wrs are designated 1 and given that many targets.

[Drj820]

i think watkins will be defacto #1 just because of experience in the league. Lazard is just not that guy and Cobb is at the stage of his career where he should probably be mummified and preserved and unwrapped in January. Like Kyler Murray, he just cant hang for 17 games.

The new rookie WRs will have every chance to come in and make an impact. I would be excited to come to GB if i was a WR just because playing time is there for the taking. You really just need to have a pulse and some basic coordination.

[Drj820]

you don't even have the player names right

All in good fun Yoop.

[texas]

Our current WR corps is pretty terrible. But

1) Opening day lineup almost surely will not look like this
2) Don't need a great WR corps to dominate, especially in the Shanahan scheme which I would assume MLF is trying to move towards

EQSB would be a starter with us currently. I would probably take the Lions WRs over ours, as it currently stands.

[williewasgreat]

Why all the discussion about if EQSB would b a starter if still with the Packers? Even if he was, it would last all of 10 minutes before he was injured. Given his history, how could anyone ever count on him playing very long?

[go pak go]

The Packers are paying 4 times as much to keep Allen Lazard over EQSB.

To me that is pretty telling that the Packers coaches and front office clearly believes that Lazard is significantly a more quality player than EQSB.

I too wanted to keep Q over Lazard because the cost was less and I felt Q could take over the Lazard role. But I also can't overlook that those "in the know" put their money where their mouth was when determining who would be a starter between Lazard and EQSB.

So I will definitively say that Q would not be a starter on this current Packers roster because the front office and coaches actively stated this offseason that he is not good enough for our roster - let alone a starter. Even at a significant cost discount.