Re: Veteran WR Options
Posted: 22 Apr 2022 07:58
This would be his what, 15th year in the league? If he plays this year, kudos for him. He hasn't really been a relevant player in quite a while but has stuck around.
Packers Huddle
The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
Veteran WR Options
Page 15 of 16
Re: Veteran WR Options
Posted: 22 Apr 2022 08:34
Leads me to one of the most amazing stats of all time. If Desean Jackson is that incredibly old at 35...
Re: Veteran WR Options
Posted: 22 May 2022 11:21
I know not ALL of us are stuck quarantining with covid right now like me (totes fine, done with symptoms, just bored), but if anyone else is looking for something fun and football-related to do, just, like, read back through this thread and see ALL THE NAMES we collectively dropped. I am not sure there's a player who has caught a pass in the past three years that was not floated. I mean, Devin Funchess and DeAnthony Thomas came up, neither of whom has registered a stat since 2019.
What a wild ride.
Also, I have to say, if our WR room stinks this year I can't complain. Gutey gave me exactly what I wanted. I wanted to sign Sammy Watkins or Julio Jones, preferably Watkins. And I wanted to draft Christian Watson or Alec Pierce, preferably Watson; along with adding another rookie or 2 that is more ready-to-play. So, uhhhh. Yeah. If things don't work out, egg on my face along with the Packers'
What a wild ride.
Also, I have to say, if our WR room stinks this year I can't complain. Gutey gave me exactly what I wanted. I wanted to sign Sammy Watkins or Julio Jones, preferably Watkins. And I wanted to draft Christian Watson or Alec Pierce, preferably Watson; along with adding another rookie or 2 that is more ready-to-play. So, uhhhh. Yeah. If things don't work out, egg on my face along with the Packers'
Re: Veteran WR Options
Posted: 23 May 2022 06:19
Personally I think the Packers should give Watson in particular and all the rookies snaps. Play them, start them, so they will have a full year of experience in January. The last thing the Packers need is an over the hill veteran to take snaps away from them so that they will not be ready to contribute in the playoffs.
Re: Veteran WR Options
Posted: 23 May 2022 08:16
Phew! Good thing there isn’t a WR on the roster older than 28 right now, then (though turning 29)TheSkeptic wrote: ↑23 May 2022 06:19The last thing the Packers need is an over the hill veteran to take snaps away from them so that they will not be ready to contribute in the playoffs.
Re: Veteran WR Options
Posted: 23 May 2022 09:51
It will be nice to have a vet on the team that can lead practice and sit out long stretches of the season all to be ready come January. His name is Julio Jones. Pay him up to $5m for the sole purpose of being a WR room leader and showing up healthy for a few games in January
Re: Veteran WR Options
Posted: 23 May 2022 10:15
But like, no one would do that. How could you even justify the roster spot for a glorified PS player?Drj820 wrote: ↑23 May 2022 09:51It will be nice to have a vet on the team that can lead practice and sit out long stretches of the season all to be ready come January. His name is Julio Jones. Pay him up to $5m for the sole purpose of being a WR room leader and showing up healthy for a few games in January
The roster slots are important here. It doesn't make sense to add someone whose purpose will only be to ensure that a young guy who would otherwise contribute both on offense and STs gets cut. You can't claim to want to see STs improve, which is a huge point of yours, and then suggest cutting a core 4 STer to give us a bloated practice contract for a guy whose name you like.
That's why IF I were to add a WR, it would be Beckham, whose ACL tear puts him on ice for the first half of the season. I don't think we need him, honestly, but it makes decent sense.
I still say if I could add ONE free agent to this team, it would be CB/S Chris Harris, Jr.; if I could add TWO free agents it would be Harris and Justin Houston. If I could add 3, then I'd get to OBJ.
The WR room just isn't weak enough to merit another acquisition. The space that needs the most help is at the tippy top of the depth chart, and the guys on the street right now aren't moving the needle in that direction.
Here's a thought exercise:
Last season, the Packers' top 6 pass catchers (everyone with at least 300 yards) included 4 WRs and 2 RBs (the next 3 were all TEs). Those 6 pass catchers combined for 303 catches and 3,575 yards.
Based on realistic yards/catch numbers, here's an idea of what I would expect from the Packers' top 6 pass catchers this year: 3 WRs, 1 TE, 2 RBs.
- Sammy Watkins: 60 rec, 750 yards (12.5 ypc)
- Christian Watson 45 rec, 765 yards (17.0ypc)
- Allen Lazard 55 rec, 688 yards (12.5ypc)
- Bob Tonyan 50 rec, 565 yards (11.3ypc)
- Aaron Jones 50 rec, 400 yards (8.0ypc)
- AJ Dillon 40 rec, 320 yards (8.0ypc)
That's 300 catches for 3,488 yards; basically losing 100 yards from our top 6 pass catchers last year.
Look at the 2017 Rams, who had MLF as OC, traded for Sammy Watkins, drafted Cooper Kupp in the 3rd, and fielded a top 10 offense without a 1,000 yard receiver. Look at the 2019 49ers, who drafted Deebo in the 2nd, relied heavily on the TE (Kittle had a big year) and their top wide receiver was rookie Deebo around 800 yards, yet finished as a top 5 offense. Look at the 2019 Packers, when Adams missed 4 games and finished with 997 yards.
This team, these coaches, these players, this scheme... it works without an elite #1 WR. It has been shown to. We have seen it in spurts on our own team. We have seen it in different forms with the Rams and 49ers. We have seen it with Day Two rookies playing significant roles. We're all just kvetching over nothing because for some reason everyone randomly decided that even though it hasn't worked with an elite #1 WR, it also can't work without one.
Re: Veteran WR Options
Posted: 23 May 2022 10:57
Gute is playing moneyball this year. The question is, will AR play along and just throw to the open guy?YoHoChecko wrote: ↑23 May 2022 10:15But like, no one would do that. How could you even justify the roster spot for a glorified PS player?Drj820 wrote: ↑23 May 2022 09:51It will be nice to have a vet on the team that can lead practice and sit out long stretches of the season all to be ready come January. His name is Julio Jones. Pay him up to $5m for the sole purpose of being a WR room leader and showing up healthy for a few games in January
The roster slots are important here. It doesn't make sense to add someone whose purpose will only be to ensure that a young guy who would otherwise contribute both on offense and STs gets cut. You can't claim to want to see STs improve, which is a huge point of yours, and then suggest cutting a core 4 STer to give us a bloated practice contract for a guy whose name you like.
That's why IF I were to add a WR, it would be Beckham, whose ACL tear puts him on ice for the first half of the season. I don't think we need him, honestly, but it makes decent sense.
I still say if I could add ONE free agent to this team, it would be CB/S Chris Harris, Jr.; if I could add TWO free agents it would be Harris and Justin Houston. If I could add 3, then I'd get to OBJ.
The WR room just isn't weak enough to merit another acquisition. The space that needs the most help is at the tippy top of the depth chart, and the guys on the street right now aren't moving the needle in that direction.
Here's a thought exercise:
Last season, the Packers' top 6 pass catchers (everyone with at least 300 yards) included 4 WRs and 2 RBs (the next 3 were all TEs). Those 6 pass catchers combined for 303 catches and 3,575 yards.
Based on realistic yards/catch numbers, here's an idea of what I would expect from the Packers' top 6 pass catchers this year: 3 WRs, 1 TE, 2 RBs.
- Sammy Watkins: 60 rec, 750 yards (12.5 ypc)
- Christian Watson 45 rec, 765 yards (17.0ypc)
- Allen Lazard 55 rec, 688 yards (12.5ypc)
- Bob Tonyan 50 rec, 565 yards (11.3ypc)
- Aaron Jones 50 rec, 400 yards (8.0ypc)
- AJ Dillon 40 rec, 320 yards (8.0ypc)
That's 300 catches for 3,488 yards; basically losing 100 yards from our top 6 pass catchers last year.
Look at the 2017 Rams, who had MLF as OC, traded for Sammy Watkins, drafted Cooper Kupp in the 3rd, and fielded a top 10 offense without a 1,000 yard receiver. Look at the 2019 49ers, who drafted Deebo in the 2nd, relied heavily on the TE (Kittle had a big year) and their top wide receiver was rookie Deebo around 800 yards, yet finished as a top 5 offense. Look at the 2019 Packers, when Adams missed 4 games and finished with 997 yards.
This team, these coaches, these players, this scheme... it works without an elite #1 WR. It has been shown to. We have seen it in spurts on our own team. We have seen it in different forms with the Rams and 49ers. We have seen it with Day Two rookies playing significant roles. We're all just kvetching over nothing because for some reason everyone randomly decided that even though it hasn't worked with an elite #1 WR, it also can't work without one.
Re: Veteran WR Options
Posted: 23 May 2022 11:12
What choice does he have? Is he going to force feed Cobb and Tonyan because they're his buddies?
I have always thought Rodgers has the capability to be this player. But when you have Adams, WHY be that player? We relied so heavily on Adams not necessarily because we HAD to, but because we COULD. Keep it simple, ya know? You have the best WR in the league and anytime he's in man coverage, he likely wins. Half the time he's double teamed, he likely finds a a hole for Rodgers. So make the easy decision and feed him.
Whenever Rodgers has had to play without an elite #1, and I'm not just talking the 7 games without Davante, but just in general, like when Jordy and Cobb were fading before Adams had emerged... he spreads it just fine. He'll find his favorites and figure out who he trusts most in various situations, certainly. But Rodgers can see a field and read a defense if he doesn't have a pre-snap opinion of where he wants to go. It's not beyond him.
Re: Veteran WR Options
Posted: 23 May 2022 14:56
I think most of the time Adams was the only receiver that got open on schedule, I know we see screen shots of Lazard or another being open, but are they open when Rodgers is reading through the progressions? I really have my doubts concerning that, we often say it's a trust thing, and thats partially true, it human nature to trust people that consistently get it right most of the time.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑23 May 2022 11:12What choice does he have? Is he going to force feed Cobb and Tonyan because they're his buddies?
I have always thought Rodgers has the capability to be this player. But when you have Adams, WHY be that player? We relied so heavily on Adams not necessarily because we HAD to, but because we COULD. Keep it simple, ya know? You have the best WR in the league and anytime he's in man coverage, he likely wins. Half the time he's double teamed, he likely finds a a hole for Rodgers. So make the easy decision and feed him.
Whenever Rodgers has had to play without an elite #1, and I'm not just talking the 7 games without Davante, but just in general, like when Jordy and Cobb were fading before Adams had emerged... he spreads it just fine. He'll find his favorites and figure out who he trusts most in various situations, certainly. But Rodgers can see a field and read a defense if he doesn't have a pre-snap opinion of where he wants to go. It's not beyond him.
when Rodgers had JJ, Nelson, Cobb and Jones he spread the ball around, since 2016 it's been the consistent Adams, and the inconsistent others, I agree with Lupe in the sense that instead of spending 3 mid round picks on Scantling, Brown and that other jag, Guty should have drafted just one that was more ready to play or went out and bought a vet, he ham strung Rodgers at the end of his career, no wonder Rodgers said the heck with a home town discount.
It is what it is now, the the flood broke the dam, Rodgers attitude will never change Gute stuck it to him when he drafted the 3 mid rounders versus a more ready to play draftee or a FA vet, then did it again when he drafted Love, NO QB like Rodgers at the tail end of a HOF Career wants to deal with grooming up raw recruits, thats nothing but a insult, but would a great #2 receiver acquisition back then gotten Rodgers to take a home town discount, who can say, but I know it would have made more sense to me.
yep this idea that a team can just go to the QB tree and pluke a ready starter and contend for a SB on his cheap rookie contract is harder then it sounds, about 70% ( very conservative) are never even good enough to take there team to a PO game, let alone a SB,
Re: Veteran WR Options
Posted: 23 May 2022 15:19
If your name isn't Tom Brady, it's also been very hard for QB's on veteran contracts to win Super Bowls.Yoop wrote: ↑23 May 2022 14:56I think most of the time Adams was the only receiver that got open on schedule, I know we see screen shots of Lazard or another being open, but are they open when Rodgers is reading through the progressions? I really have my doubts concerning that, we often say it's a trust thing, and thats partially true, it human nature to trust people that consistently get it right most of the time.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑23 May 2022 11:12What choice does he have? Is he going to force feed Cobb and Tonyan because they're his buddies?
I have always thought Rodgers has the capability to be this player. But when you have Adams, WHY be that player? We relied so heavily on Adams not necessarily because we HAD to, but because we COULD. Keep it simple, ya know? You have the best WR in the league and anytime he's in man coverage, he likely wins. Half the time he's double teamed, he likely finds a a hole for Rodgers. So make the easy decision and feed him.
Whenever Rodgers has had to play without an elite #1, and I'm not just talking the 7 games without Davante, but just in general, like when Jordy and Cobb were fading before Adams had emerged... he spreads it just fine. He'll find his favorites and figure out who he trusts most in various situations, certainly. But Rodgers can see a field and read a defense if he doesn't have a pre-snap opinion of where he wants to go. It's not beyond him.
when Rodgers had JJ, Nelson, Cobb and Jones he spread the ball around, since 2016 it's been the consistent Adams, and the inconsistent others, I agree with Lupe in the sense that instead of spending 3 mid round picks on Scantling, Brown and that other jag, Guty should have drafted just one that was more ready to play or went out and bought a vet, he ham strung Rodgers at the end of his career, no wonder Rodgers said the heck with a home town discount.
It is what it is now, the the flood broke the dam, Rodgers attitude will never change Gute stuck it to him when he drafted the 3 mid rounders versus a more ready to play draftee or a FA vet, then did it again when he drafted Love, NO QB like Rodgers at the tail end of a HOF Career wants to deal with grooming up raw recruits, thats nothing but a insult, but would a great #2 receiver acquisition back then gotten Rodgers to take a home town discount, who can say, but I know it would have made more sense to me.
yep this idea that a team can just go to the QB tree and pluke a ready starter and contend for a SB on his cheap rookie contract is harder then it sounds, about 70% ( very conservative) are never even good enough to take there team to a PO game, let alone a SB,
Re: Veteran WR Options
Posted: 23 May 2022 15:23
Which Wr did you want early in the 2018 draft?? It's easy to say we shoulda but who. Who is the guys?
I was so against Josh Jackson. Thought he was a b but on the 2nd o understood that pick. DJ Chark and Gallup both went after that pick. There wasn't another wr that could be said was more ready or better then MVS is if it hurt ARs feeling that shows on his character
The hometown discount thing ended long long ago. Brady is not the standard.
I was so against Josh Jackson. Thought he was a b but on the 2nd o understood that pick. DJ Chark and Gallup both went after that pick. There wasn't another wr that could be said was more ready or better then MVS is if it hurt ARs feeling that shows on his character
The hometown discount thing ended long long ago. Brady is not the standard.
Re: Veteran WR Options
Posted: 23 May 2022 15:56
Re: Veteran WR Options
Posted: 23 May 2022 15:58
Probably a bit of both.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑23 May 2022 15:56Is that because he's Tom Brady or because his veteran contracts are significantly lower cost than his hall of fame QB peers?
Re: Veteran WR Options
Posted: 23 May 2022 15:59
He's the standard for success. So why shouldn't he be emulated?Backthepack4ever wrote: ↑23 May 2022 15:23The hometown discount thing ended long long ago. Brady is not the standard.
Homedown discounts "ended" because, as I have said, we are in a society-wide buy-in that it is the only rational, reasonable, and even sometimes ethical thing to do to maximize finances instead of maximizing some other forms of utility.
It's not that other players should be held to that standard, but simply that if players are serious about wanting to win championships and build a legacy, the guy who has done it best (and all the other evidence I've poured into these pages) should at least be considered a feasible option as a model.
People are like "wow nobody wins like Brady!" But also, no one else has even tried to win like he does. People make choices. Articulating the basis for those choices and how those choices impact various other factors is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Re: Veteran WR Options
Posted: 23 May 2022 20:24
after coming so close so often over the last decade and having one part of the team or another fail , how could that not change your motive for playing this game, failure is the norm, winning the exception.
after winning it all with a pretty well balanced team, and solid backups in 2010, the wheels fell off the defense and we became one dimensional on offense in 2011, a high powered passing attack with little else to go with it, the Giants brought the heat and played a deep coverage shell, and that was that, not much changed till we got a new GM and HC.
by the time Brady was a couple years into his 2nd contract he'd won 3 SB's, that alone would instill confidence to set some records that may never be broken, why not donate to that cause with team friendly contracts, to take less incentives have to be obvious, quality top flight defense and ST's year after year, ability to run the ball, and potent offensive passing schemes.
after winning it all with a pretty well balanced team, and solid backups in 2010, the wheels fell off the defense and we became one dimensional on offense in 2011, a high powered passing attack with little else to go with it, the Giants brought the heat and played a deep coverage shell, and that was that, not much changed till we got a new GM and HC.
by the time Brady was a couple years into his 2nd contract he'd won 3 SB's, that alone would instill confidence to set some records that may never be broken, why not donate to that cause with team friendly contracts, to take less incentives have to be obvious, quality top flight defense and ST's year after year, ability to run the ball, and potent offensive passing schemes.
Re: Veteran WR Options
Posted: 24 May 2022 06:47
Like I said Brady is not the standard. He's the exception. Nobody else does it. I can't fault players for wanting to make money. NFL is a biz that tries to make profit and players do as well. It is what it is. I would love for AR to say I'm playing for 10 mil the rest of the way bc I'm already loaded but I can't expect or be mad he doesn't.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑23 May 2022 15:59He's the standard for success. So why shouldn't he be emulated?Backthepack4ever wrote: ↑23 May 2022 15:23The hometown discount thing ended long long ago. Brady is not the standard.
Homedown discounts "ended" because, as I have said, we are in a society-wide buy-in that it is the only rational, reasonable, and even sometimes ethical thing to do to maximize finances instead of maximizing some other forms of utility.
It's not that other players should be held to that standard, but simply that if players are serious about wanting to win championships and build a legacy, the guy who has done it best (and all the other evidence I've poured into these pages) should at least be considered a feasible option as a model.
People are like "wow nobody wins like Brady!" But also, no one else has even tried to win like he does. People make choices. Articulating the basis for those choices and how those choices impact various other factors is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
I agree on the players and winning being #1. It isn't. they want to win sure but it's not the end all be all for these guys.
Re: Veteran WR Options
Posted: 24 May 2022 07:24
Or you have to be traded to a stacked team going all in like the Rams did last year.Acrobat wrote: ↑23 May 2022 15:19If your name isn't Tom Brady, it's also been very hard for QB's on veteran contracts to win Super Bowls.Yoop wrote: ↑23 May 2022 14:56I think most of the time Adams was the only receiver that got open on schedule, I know we see screen shots of Lazard or another being open, but are they open when Rodgers is reading through the progressions? I really have my doubts concerning that, we often say it's a trust thing, and thats partially true, it human nature to trust people that consistently get it right most of the time.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑23 May 2022 11:12
What choice does he have? Is he going to force feed Cobb and Tonyan because they're his buddies?
I have always thought Rodgers has the capability to be this player. But when you have Adams, WHY be that player? We relied so heavily on Adams not necessarily because we HAD to, but because we COULD. Keep it simple, ya know? You have the best WR in the league and anytime he's in man coverage, he likely wins. Half the time he's double teamed, he likely finds a a hole for Rodgers. So make the easy decision and feed him.
Whenever Rodgers has had to play without an elite #1, and I'm not just talking the 7 games without Davante, but just in general, like when Jordy and Cobb were fading before Adams had emerged... he spreads it just fine. He'll find his favorites and figure out who he trusts most in various situations, certainly. But Rodgers can see a field and read a defense if he doesn't have a pre-snap opinion of where he wants to go. It's not beyond him.
when Rodgers had JJ, Nelson, Cobb and Jones he spread the ball around, since 2016 it's been the consistent Adams, and the inconsistent others, I agree with Lupe in the sense that instead of spending 3 mid round picks on Scantling, Brown and that other jag, Guty should have drafted just one that was more ready to play or went out and bought a vet, he ham strung Rodgers at the end of his career, no wonder Rodgers said the heck with a home town discount.
It is what it is now, the the flood broke the dam, Rodgers attitude will never change Gute stuck it to him when he drafted the 3 mid rounders versus a more ready to play draftee or a FA vet, then did it again when he drafted Love, NO QB like Rodgers at the tail end of a HOF Career wants to deal with grooming up raw recruits, thats nothing but a insult, but would a great #2 receiver acquisition back then gotten Rodgers to take a home town discount, who can say, but I know it would have made more sense to me.
yep this idea that a team can just go to the QB tree and pluke a ready starter and contend for a SB on his cheap rookie contract is harder then it sounds, about 70% ( very conservative) are never even good enough to take there team to a PO game, let alone a SB,
Re: Veteran WR Options
Posted: 24 May 2022 09:36
Wait, this is the WR thread? I keep accessing it through notifications and didn't notice that the cheesehead chatter topic of QBs taking less had migrated.
I have erred!
Get it out!
I want to talk about how awesome our WRs will be this year over here! Did y'all read that feature on Christian Watson? Did you know he's a loyal, hard-working winner? We're gonna rock!
I have erred!
Get it out!
I want to talk about how awesome our WRs will be this year over here! Did y'all read that feature on Christian Watson? Did you know he's a loyal, hard-working winner? We're gonna rock!
Re: Veteran WR Options
Posted: 24 May 2022 13:53
huh.
I mean, I get that he's a 3rd/4th option putting up those numbers, so he's not drawing top coverage, but that is pretty rich. Wouldn't it be weird if Lazard is actually good?
