October 18, 2019, 04:19:33 AM

Author Topic: WRs for the Pack  (Read 17504 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Terranimal

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
  • Karma: +8/-0
WRs for the Pack
« on: December 19, 2012, 02:37:36 PM »
So a lot of early talk on WRs for the Pack already. Skilled positions always get the fan's attention.  We have our Slot WR down in Cobb and Nelson with Jones are nice pieces, but will become free agents in '14 (Jones) and '15(Nelson) and both will be near that 30 mark.

So what have been targeting is guys with potential to become true #1 Go-To WRs who are big to take hits over the middle and have some speed. 4 in that mold are Allen, Patterson, Rogers, and Hopkins.

Keenan Allen of Cal has recently been mocked to us at the end of round 1. Now while I like him, I just don't see teams passing over who most consider the best WR in this class for other WRs. So am excluding him from the list based on realism. Of course if he fell to us would have have to think for about New York minute before seeing Thompson hand the card in on him.

Another WR getting a lot of talk is Justin Hunter, but am not big on him for two reasons: Drops and not being back 100% yet. Not even sure I would say he was best WR on his team and actually like a team mate of his better. More in a minute on that.
 

Another with a lot of talk and falling down boards is Robert Woods. people compare him to Jennings. But I'm not on board for him as others for these reasons:

1.) Am always concerned on USC WRs in the NFL....the ratio of those who were suppose to be great and didn't pan out is great.

2.) Woods wasn't the best WR on his team, wasn't back to the form he had last year and isn't 100% yet. In fact there is talk he might return to school.
 

For all the knocks against Rogers last year with the pot and so on, haven't heard anything bad on him from this season and he was the sole weapon on his team and still put up great numbers with other teams game planning against him. Allen did the same on his team. Don't know if we have a snowball chance at Allen, though Walt's has been mocking him to us lately. (For more info on Rogers, see the thread in draft talk).

 Patterson is a player that could be used in multiple ways in GB and initially replace Cobb as the returner in the vein of former Packer greats: Brooks and Freeman. Patterson was a scoring machine as he has score touchdowns running out of the backfield, being a receiver, a punt returner, and a kick returner. Has great size and speed. So again, seeing how it takes WRs a year to get use to this offensive system usually, Patterson could pay dividends right away by taking over for Cobb on special teams.

Hopkins is another player we spoke on in depth in posts here this fall. Drew initially started the talk on him.

This list has changed from some WRs spoke of early this fall...Terrance Williams of Baylor and Quinton Patton of LA Tech. Went back and watch film on them. No doubt they have good hands and run good routes, but what was troubling and why i cooled on them was their lack of RAC. Too many times saw them go down on first contact or run out of bounds to avoid contact. Also am concerned about them beating jams off the line on the next level.

Now remember the criteria here before jumping all over with why was this guy left off the list and why not this player or that one? Was concentrating on finding a bigger Go-To WR to pair up with Cobb as our next generation, not a possible number 2 type as we have those already on the team.

If just on talent alone and everything being equal, would have Rogers number one on my list, as he has hands and takes hits like two former NFL WRs I loved: Sterling Sharpe and Jerry Rice. One could compare him to Larry Fitzgerald with his hands as well.

Patterson would be my second choice as think he would just light it up here as a weapon.

Antonio Andolini

  • Guest
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2012, 03:05:22 PM »
Nice post T, it will be interesting if one of these guys is there along with a OC or DE to see which way TT would go. I know he had thoughts about Crabtree in '10 and has remembered Wolf's lament on not keeping Favre stocked with weapons. That is countered with what seems to be his preference for big guys in rd1.

Offline mancl

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • Karma: +8/-1
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2012, 04:53:32 PM »
  I think they will be fine next year with the 3 returning guys, figuring Jennings is gone.  Ideally, in my book,  the Pack would get some 'big uglys in the early rounds and get a WR in the 3-4 round area who can help next year on special teams and work their way up the ladder.   Any idea who that might be?

Offline golfman

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11870
  • Karma: +9/-1
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2012, 06:05:57 PM »
I think they will be fine next year with the 3 returning guys, figuring Jennings is gone.   Ideally, in my book,  the Pack would get some 'big uglys in the early rounds and get a WR in the 3-4 round area who can help next year on special teams and work their way up the ladder.   Any idea who that might be?

Why do you think that? We struggled mightily while Jennings was out. Nelson could beat doubles and had what 6 catches in 5 games. Throw into the mix that we probably lose Finley and we're suddenly thin at skilled positions. I'm OK with standing pat as long as Jennngs is retained. Otherwise, we need another playmaker IMO.
"Make the Packers Great Again! "

Offline Terranimal

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
  • Karma: +8/-0
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2012, 12:57:06 PM »
  I think they will be fine next year with the 3 returning guys, figuring Jennings is gone.  Ideally, in my book,  the Pack would get some 'big uglys in the early rounds and get a WR in the 3-4 round area who can help next year on special teams and work their way up the ladder.   Any idea who that might be?

IMO we don't need any 2/3 types, what we need is a true number 1 type or at least a player with the chance to become one. Nelson, Jones and Cobb aren't that. Cobb is the number one target of course now, but will he last at that size year in and out?

Am thinking about the future also in a year or two when we could be w/o both Nelson and Jones as they near 30. Also Cobb will be a free agent the same time as nelson is in '15.

This draft has a lot of WRs that could work their way up to being a 2 or a 3. The rules and odds say that after round 2 the odds of finding a guy to become a true number 1 Go-TO WR go waaaaaay down. See Ourlads for all of this research on Twos.

Offline mitch connor

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2012, 02:09:05 PM »
I've become more and more a Patterson guy as the season has progressed. I don't think this draft has a Megatron or AJ Green sure thing superprospect, but Patterson is one of the few I could easily see becoming a true #1 in the NFL.

66_Ray

  • Guest
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2012, 02:50:00 PM »
  I think they will be fine next year with the 3 returning guys, figuring Jennings is gone.  Ideally, in my book,  the Pack would get some 'big uglys in the early rounds and get a WR in the 3-4 round area who can help next year on special teams and work their way up the ladder.   Any idea who that might be?

IMO we don't need any 2/3 types, what we need is a true number 1 type or at least a player with the chance to become one. Nelson, Jones and Cobb aren't that. Cobb is the number one target of course now, but will he last at that size year in and out?

Am thinking about the future also in a year or two when we could be w/o both Nelson and Jones as they near 30. Also Cobb will be a free agent the same time as nelson is in '15.

This draft has a lot of WRs that could work their way up to being a 2 or a 3. The rules and odds say that after round 2 the odds of finding a guy to become a true number 1 Go-TO WR go waaaaaay down. See Ourlads for all of this research on Twos.
I agree T fans sometimes do not understand what a number one receiver means to an offense. If Jennings leaves it would be a wise choice to get a number one or potential number one in the draft and that means a higher pick. I myself hope a reasonable contract can be done with Jennings. I want OL, RB, and DL not in that order necessarily
« Last Edit: December 20, 2012, 02:52:08 PM by 66_Ray »

Offline Terranimal

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
  • Karma: +8/-0
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2012, 02:51:06 PM »
I've become more and more a Patterson guy as the season has progressed. I don't think this draft has a Megatron or AJ Green sure thing superprospect, but Patterson is one of the few I could easily see becoming a true #1 in the NFL.

I'm tied between Patterson and Rogers for the Pack if going off talent alone. Ironic that both were Tenn WRs and haven't been overly high on Tenn WRs in the past. Patterson would need a bit longer to grow into the possible number 1 WR slot. However, he could pay off right away like Brooks, Freeman, and Cobb did as a Returner. Both of these players have high ceilings imo.

Rogers if not for his past a season ago, would be in discussion for Top WR in the upcoming draft.

Offline mitch connor

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2012, 05:23:28 PM »
Agreed about Rogers' ceiling, but he scares the crap out of me. I've come down in favor of some "character concern" guys before, so I don't even have a reason why he should be different. Something just seems wrong. ( I know that's pretty unsound as a means for evaluating a player)

Offline Terranimal

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
  • Karma: +8/-0
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2012, 05:33:30 PM »
Agreed about Rogers' ceiling, but he scares the crap out of me. I've come down in favor of some "character concern" guys before, so I don't even have a reason why he should be different. Something just seems wrong. ( I know that's pretty unsound as a means for evaluating a player)

Won't tell you what to think, but see the thread on him below with links on everything and judge for yourself. I dug as much as i could from everywhere for a person being on the outside-both positive and negative. Plus I trust the Packer brass that if Thompson drafted him things would work out and the odds would favor us.
 

Offline Dubz41

  • All Pro
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • Government Cheese
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2012, 11:22:47 AM »
I would like to foward a thought..... How about we set a new trend in football.  With a QB who spreads the ball around like ARod, why not just supply him with weapons and not get hung up on the proto typical #! receiver?  I'm interested to see what people think about Denard Robinson? He was small for a QB but a very nice size for a WR.  He could probably be had in the 3-4 round area, provide instant return abilities and provide insurance for the WR corp.  He is an exceptional athlete and excellent runner , leaving us to address OL-LB-RB in the early rounds.  ???
It's not what he doesn't know that bothers me. It's what he knows for sure that just ain't so!-Will Rogers

Offline efoesch4

  • Rookie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #11 on: December 21, 2012, 04:38:18 PM »
I'd like to see a true number 1.  I think Jones/Nelson/Cobb as solid 2's,  but I'd like some speed/size #1. I see drop of at times when Jennings is not around.  But we still been looking good.  Not confident in this years crop of #1 receivers coming out.  Like Allen out of Cal, but think we'd have to trade up maybe 10 spots or more to get him.

Offline Gregg

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2663
  • Karma: +21/-6
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #12 on: December 27, 2012, 09:13:48 PM »
I think we have to draft a WR fairly high this year since I think Jennings is gone. 

And for what he wants, that is fine with me.

We have the corps of our WR here already.  Man, has Jones become a really good option now.  And Cobb is playing like a young Driver. And I always liked Nelson.

But we need to have a really good developing guy on the bench.  Plus, in case someone gets hurt.

BTW, why did TT brig Driver back? Because AR and Jennings like having him around?

Offline morango

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Karma: +6/-0
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #13 on: December 28, 2012, 01:38:18 PM »

IMO ... what we need is a true number 1 type or at least a player with the chance to become one. Nelson, Jones and Cobb aren't that.

T - I understand what you're after here - in the case of Jennings departure for TT to select one of the top WRs in the draft - A guy 6'2" 215 lbs or bigger, with blazing speed to play on the outside and win jump balls from Rodgers. I just don't think it is going to happen, nor does it need to.

Actually I agree somewhat with Dubz in his post above. What really is a #1 receiver?

All we have to do is look at NE, where Belichek and Brady are operating the number one offense (about 430 yds per game) without the player you seek. Welker is not him, nor is Gronk.

For us to make pronouncements about what type of player can or cannot be a "number 1" WR in the NFL these days is to limit the creativity and resourcefulness of the coaches and players doing the job. In my opinion, even if Jennings leaves, TT does not have to lock in on a top-notch WR in the first round. No he doesn't need to trade up to get his guy. He should still let the draft come to him and pick the best available player. My preference is O-Line, D-Line, TE, Safety or LBer long before WR.

One other problem with the premier college WRs is so many of them are absolute head-cases. Diva attitudes, me-first players...

Megatron of course is an exception...
« Last Edit: December 28, 2012, 01:43:41 PM by morango »

Offline Packinatl

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1708
  • Karma: +16/-7
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #14 on: December 28, 2012, 02:40:52 PM »

IMO ... what we need is a true number 1 type or at least a player with the chance to become one. Nelson, Jones and Cobb aren't that.

T - I understand what you're after here - in the case of Jennings departure for TT to select one of the top WRs in the draft - A guy 6'2" 215 lbs or bigger, with blazing speed to play on the outside and win jump balls from Rodgers. I just don't think it is going to happen, nor does it need to.

Actually I agree somewhat with Dubz in his post above. What really is a #1 receiver?

All we have to do is look at NE, where Belichek and Brady are operating the number one offense (about 430 yds per game) without the player you seek. Welker is not him, nor is Gronk.

For us to make pronouncements about what type of player can or cannot be a "number 1" WR in the NFL these days is to limit the creativity and resourcefulness of the coaches and players doing the job. In my opinion, even if Jennings leaves, TT does not have to lock in on a top-notch WR in the first round. No he doesn't need to trade up to get his guy. He should still let the draft come to him and pick the best available player. My preference is O-Line, D-Line, TE, Safety or LBer long before WR.

One other problem with the premier college WRs is so many of them are absolute head-cases. Diva attitudes, me-first players...

Megatron of course is an exception...

I would argue that any WR (Welker) who was 100+ receptions 4 out of the last 5 years is a #1 guy.
"The day you sign a client is the day you start losing one."