Packers Huddle

Can I just randomly say how insane it is to me that there are random Packers fans and publications who have correctly identified Packers-type WRs in the draft with incredible accuracy (there is a 2-year span in which 9 players were IDed as "tier one Packers type" by like cheeseheadTV and 4 of those 9 were on the Packers roster) and then the talk around the league is like "wow, the Packers are so good at drafting WRs!" (the exception being the 3-year window from 2015 to 2017 where they didn't really try much) and like, no one is over-valuing Packers-type WRs around the league to compensate. Like they just keep letting us do it.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2024 09:05

Can I just randomly say how insane it is to me that there are random Packers fans and publications who have correctly identified Packers-type WRs in the draft with incredible accuracy (there is a 2-year span in which 9 players were IDed as "tier one Packers type" by like cheeseheadTV and 4 of those 9 were on the Packers roster) and then the talk around the league is like "wow, the Packers are so good at drafting WRs!" (the exception being the 3-year window from 2015 to 2017 where they didn't really try much) and like, no one is over-valuing Packers-type WRs around the league to compensate. Like they just keep letting us do it.

I'm curious. What is a "Packers-type WR"? One that catches the ball?

Raptorman wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2024 09:32

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2024 09:05

Can I just randomly say how insane it is to me that there are random Packers fans and publications who have correctly identified Packers-type WRs in the draft with incredible accuracy (there is a 2-year span in which 9 players were IDed as "tier one Packers type" by like cheeseheadTV and 4 of those 9 were on the Packers roster) and then the talk around the league is like "wow, the Packers are so good at drafting WRs!" (the exception being the 3-year window from 2015 to 2017 where they didn't really try much) and like, no one is over-valuing Packers-type WRs around the league to compensate. Like they just keep letting us do it.

I'm curious. What is a "Packers-type WR"? One that catches the ball?

It's a size, measurable thing. They usually have really good 3-cone times if I recall correctly. The quickness seems to matter more than the raw speed (Davante, Wicks, DuBose, Heath, all in the mid-4.5s; Doubs at 4.50 flat)

Different people have different specifics that they use when they come up with their "Packer type," but the success in identifying guys the team drafts shows a ton of merit to the predictive properties.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2024 09:45

Raptorman wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2024 09:32

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2024 09:05

Can I just randomly say how insane it is to me that there are random Packers fans and publications who have correctly identified Packers-type WRs in the draft with incredible accuracy (there is a 2-year span in which 9 players were IDed as "tier one Packers type" by like cheeseheadTV and 4 of those 9 were on the Packers roster) and then the talk around the league is like "wow, the Packers are so good at drafting WRs!" (the exception being the 3-year window from 2015 to 2017 where they didn't really try much) and like, no one is over-valuing Packers-type WRs around the league to compensate. Like they just keep letting us do it.

I'm curious. What is a "Packers-type WR"? One that catches the ball?

It's a size, measurable thing. They usually have really good 3-cone times if I recall correctly. The quickness seems to matter more than the raw speed (Davante, Wicks, DuBose, Heath, all in the mid-4.5s; Doubs at 4.50 flat)

Different people have different specifics that they use when they come up with their "Packer type," but the success in identifying guys the team drafts shows a ton of merit to the predictive properties.

Don't ever fall in love with the small, light WR's. The Packers don't even look at them on Day 3 or in UDFA. A few exceptions with height, but weight is another huge qualifier with no notable exceptions.

Worth noting: similar thing with OL--usually easy to identify Packers types and Packers disappointments have usually come when they deviate from the norm, not when they lean into it; yet still Zach Tom was available in the 4th round just like Bakhtiari was in the 5th round a decade earlier. Nearly carbon copies measurably (Tom was more athletic in cod drills but I think the testing prep has advanced because a lot of OL are better now). And they just sit there waiting for us.

Raptorman wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2024 09:32

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2024 09:05

Can I just randomly say how insane it is to me that there are random Packers fans and publications who have correctly identified Packers-type WRs in the draft with incredible accuracy (there is a 2-year span in which 9 players were IDed as "tier one Packers type" by like cheeseheadTV and 4 of those 9 were on the Packers roster) and then the talk around the league is like "wow, the Packers are so good at drafting WRs!" (the exception being the 3-year window from 2015 to 2017 where they didn't really try much) and like, no one is over-valuing Packers-type WRs around the league to compensate. Like they just keep letting us do it.

I'm curious. What is a "Packers-type WR"? One that catches the ball?

we'll show ya this year

NCF wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2024 11:33

Still insane to how the NFL works sometimes. How is Jaire still the highest paid corner at 21 per?

Like 10-15 WR's make more than that not.

Team still don't hesitiate to take CB's top 10 or top 5, nearly always regarded as a premium position.

Was there just no elite talent at CB around like the 2018-2020 drafts that no one has signed a big contract? Will Sauce and Surtain change this conversation in a year or two?

BF004 wrote: ↑

01 Aug 2024 07:29

Still insane to how the NFL works sometimes. How is Jaire still the highest paid corner at 21 per?

Like 10-15 WR's make more than that not.

Team still don't hesitiate to take CB's top 10 or top 5, nearly always regarded as a premium position.

Was there just no elite talent at CB around like the 2018-2020 drafts that no one has signed a big contract? Will Sauce and Surtain change this conversation in a year or two?

The analytics answer is that CBs are super variable from year to year almost without exception. Even Revis will have a random season where he simply doesn't live up to the hype. Jaire had one last season, in fact. WRs are more consistent, even as they are reliant on QBs. I dunno if that's the market answer--seems like a level of discretion and forethought that too many teams don't utilize when handing out money. But it's a thought.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

01 Aug 2024 09:17

BF004 wrote: ↑

01 Aug 2024 07:29

Still insane to how the NFL works sometimes. How is Jaire still the highest paid corner at 21 per?

Like 10-15 WR's make more than that not.

Team still don't hesitiate to take CB's top 10 or top 5, nearly always regarded as a premium position.

Was there just no elite talent at CB around like the 2018-2020 drafts that no one has signed a big contract? Will Sauce and Surtain change this conversation in a year or two?

The analytics answer is that CBs are super variable from year to year almost without exception. Even Revis will have a random season where he simply doesn't live up to the hype. Jaire had one last season, in fact. WRs are more consistent, even as they are reliant on QBs. I dunno if that's the market answer--seems like a level of discretion and forethought that too many teams don't utilize when handing out money. But it's a thought.

Bolded portion #1:

Interesting that the perception of Jaire's play last year varies so wildly. One generally respected site doesn't even have him in their top 25. Yet another respected source places him no. 13.

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-cornerback ... in-the-nfl

https://www.profootballnetwork.com/best ... -rankings/

What to make of it? Who knows? I suppose you could make the argument he didn't live up to the hype but I wonder if his actual play is being clouded by his locker room missteps and subsequent suspension...?

Bolded portion #2:

The same argument applies to CBs. They are heavily dependent on QB play and decision making.

I went looking for player stats that define CB targets, passes defended, yardage allowed, and coverage grades but have been unable to locate anything outside of a paywall. I think those stats are telling when determining whether a CB was effective or not. For instance, if Jaire's man isn't being consistently targeted, or is only being targeted on high completion percentage/low yardage attempts (screens, hooks, digs, etc), then I think we can make the determination his stats may not necessarily reflect an elite level of play but it is nonetheless. The opposite is also obviously true.

Anybody have access to data like that?

I think CBs hold value still but not as much on comparison.

First, nobody runs that much man coverage anymore. Zone relies more on team defense as a whole instead of man which is purely skill and athleticism.

Second, most CBs don’t follow a teams best receiver anymore. It’s easier for them to just play sides and work technically from the left or right of the field. It’s the same as a lineman switching sides. With that it’s pretty easy to scheme against an elite CB. You just simply focus your offense to attack the other 75% of the field through scheme.

Third, CBs do not impact as many plays as other parts on the defense, or their counterparts on offense. The OL and DL impact every single play because that’s where it starts. The QB touches the ball every single play. WRs are the new and improved way to move the ball down the field. That’s why we see all of them get paid.

The main reason why I think CBs aren’t getting paid though is that’s it’s just so easy to play zone with less talented CBs especially during the short Brandon Staley/Vic Fangio Dede dive stint which took place during the window in question about CBs not getting large deals. It’s hard to shine in a scheme that gives up everything underneath and forces you to tackle. No one is paying CBs to tackle.

Corrupt judge didn't like the jury's decision in Subday Ticjet trial so he tossed the whole case.

The NFL needs to lose their anti trust exemption.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/407 ... et-verdict

hitting on the last couple posts

I think having good DB's is always going to remain paramount in the age of the passing offense. You might win a fair number of games with just marginal ones set up in zone all the time with exceptional defense around them, but I think you'll always fall short. There are lots of ways to win with defense, nothing is absolute, but most times I'd put premium picks and dollars on DB's and DL vs LB's or safeties. That said, when a special safety or LB is there, they can change a defense that is just mediocre at those other positions too. nothing is absolute.

as for anti-trust? I agree, the NFL benefits immensely from this arrangement to the point it is more than unfair to other businesses or competition that doesn't have those protections. and this latest ruling is more proof that people with the money make the rules

That said, if they abolished all that, it definitely wouldn't be better for the league, it wouldn't be better for the players and it wouldn't be better for us IMO. The stadiums would disappear in time, the frenzy would fade, many current fans are just here because it's the place to be, they don't really care about football much and would disappear, the TV contracts would shrink, they'd create less fans by watered down exposure wash rinse repeat until all that's left is some various leagues that nobody really cares about.

It wouldn't happen overnight, the popularity is huge right now, built on a different set of rules, but changing those rules will certainly change the sport, who watches, plays, and how it's delivered. and I don't think any of us would like it.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2024 09:05

Can I just randomly say how insane it is to me that there are random Packers fans and publications who have correctly identified Packers-type WRs in the draft with incredible accuracy (there is a 2-year span in which 9 players were IDed as "tier one Packers type" by like cheeseheadTV and 4 of those 9 were on the Packers roster) and then the talk around the league is like "wow, the Packers are so good at drafting WRs!" (the exception being the 3-year window from 2015 to 2017 where they didn't really try much) and like, no one is over-valuing Packers-type WRs around the league to compensate. Like they just keep letting us do it.

awe shucks, what the hay

I have to admit it when our last 3 GM's put there mind to it, have drafted some really good receivers, my issue is after filling the corral, they quit taking those pony's .

I don't know that they have a preference, tall, short, we've struck gold with both, I tend to lean pass over run now days, mostly because that's the quickest way to score, I'am loving this, and have asked for it a long time

BF004 wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2024 11:36

I approve of this. Personally I think it makes SF weaker overall. He is a really good player. Doesn't eliminate them or anything but they're definitely not the same or a better team if he's gone.

I like this for real football and the packers.

I don’t like this for dynasty football and George Pickens’ target share

I mean with Deebo, Kittle, and CMCs injury histories this really put a lot of faith in them staying healthy. If one of them goes down they are seriously limiting their offense.