August 23, 2019, 12:11:13 AM

Author Topic: WRs for the Pack  (Read 17187 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Antonio Andolini

  • Guest
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #15 on: December 28, 2012, 05:09:16 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...

You make excellent points about what is considered a #1WR and what teams actually need to be successful. I thought that Jennings wasn't a true #1  for a long time because he didn't have the height/leaping ability or 4.3 speed. I think my way of thinking is a bit old school and needs to be updated. However, 6-2 215 4.3 speed soft hands and excellent route runners will always be coveted, just not necessarily mandatory anymore.

Offline claymaker

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3023
  • Karma: +14/-1
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #16 on: December 28, 2012, 05:36:05 PM »


You make excellent points about what is considered a #1WR and what teams actually need to be successful. I thought that Jennings wasn't a true #1  for a long time because he didn't have the height/leaping ability or 4.3 speed. I think my way of thinking is a bit old school and needs to be updated. However, 6-2 215 4.3 speed soft hands and excellent route runners will always be coveted, just not necessarily mandatory anymore.

6'2+4.3 speed+good hands+great routes=top 3 pick. WRs with any combination of those four attributes never make it out of the first round.

There are only a handful of paper sheet, true #1 WRs in the NFL: C. Johnson, A. Johnson, B. Marshall, and maybe Fitzgerald. All are in the high echelon when it comes to dollars. Green Bay does not need that, imo. They've won games without Jennings and have a QB who doesn't need a Megatron.

With Rodgers at the helm players like Jennings are #1 receivers. I don't doubt Cobb, but Rodgers is an incredible athlete and most of their big hookups have been from Rodgers making unrivaled throws.  I'd like to see them bring in a young, big receiver if he's BPA. Keenan Allen is tops on my list.

Added to what morango said- Green Bay doesn't need to reach for one or even address it early, but if one is BPA I think you have to take him. A lot of people questioned the Dez Bryant pick, but that has worked out nicely. It just protects the future of the team, which is Aaron Rodgers, and we like to pass the ball.

Offline morango

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1481
  • Karma: +3/-0
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #17 on: December 28, 2012, 08:39:25 PM »

I would argue that any WR (Welker) who was 100+ receptions 4 out of the last 5 years is a #1 guy.
Yes, I agree, but my point is that he doesn't fit what some here are considering a "#1" receiver. He's a slot guy, and the argument is being made that a slot receiver cannot serve as your "#1" receiver. I guess all I'm saying is let's rethink the whole thing and not lock into a certain body type or speed number or draft tier.

Just let TT work his magic.

Offline Packinatl

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1708
  • Karma: +16/-7
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #18 on: December 29, 2012, 08:57:59 AM »

I would argue that any WR (Welker) who was 100+ receptions 4 out of the last 5 years is a #1 guy.
Yes, I agree, but my point is that he doesn't fit what some here are considering a "#1" receiver. He's a slot guy, and the argument is being made that a slot receiver cannot serve as your "#1" receiver. I guess all I'm saying is let's rethink the whole thing and not lock into a certain body type or speed number or draft tier.

Just let TT work his magic.

It all depends on scheme.  remember Sharpe was a slot for us and was a #1. 

"The day you sign a client is the day you start losing one."

Online Gregg

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2635
  • Karma: +19/-6
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #19 on: December 29, 2012, 10:28:30 AM »
Cobb has 80 catches and 8 TD's.  And this is his first season of starting really.

I always thought he would be the next Driver.  He is our number one right now.

Jordy is number two and Jones with 58 catches and 13 TD's is a first class number three.

I do hope we draft someone though.

Offline golfman

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11870
  • Karma: +9/-1
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #20 on: December 29, 2012, 11:01:58 AM »
Cobb has 80 catches and 8 TD's.  And this is his first season of starting really.

I always thought he would be the next Driver.  He is our number one right now.

Jordy is number two and Jones with 58 catches and 13 TD's is a first class number three.

I do hope we draft someone though.

Right NOW, Jennings is our #1. Watch and learn!
"Make the Packers Great Again! "

Online Gregg

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2635
  • Karma: +19/-6
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #21 on: December 29, 2012, 12:03:27 PM »
Cobb is the best WR we have.

And he is one of the best picks TT has ever made, because of his versatility, which Jennings cannot come close to.

The other thing I really like is the fact that Jones has really come into his own as a player.  With Nelson injured, Jones has actually played like a number two.

If we can keep Jennings OK.  But I would be perfectly fine with letting him go since these guys are all young with room to improve.  We would have to draft another WR for depth though.

Online Gregg

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2635
  • Karma: +19/-6
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #22 on: December 30, 2012, 07:25:21 PM »
I like Rogers from Tennessee Tech, and I  also like the two guys from W. Virginia, Tavon Austin and Steadman Bailey.

When all the underclassmen are in, there will be more than enough to choose from.  We will be bale to get a good prospect in the third or fourth round.

Offline vegas492

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1181
  • Karma: +13/-2
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #23 on: December 31, 2012, 06:41:06 AM »
Cobb is the best WR we have.

And he is one of the best picks TT has ever made, because of his versatility, which Jennings cannot come close to.

The other thing I really like is the fact that Jones has really come into his own as a player.  With Nelson injured, Jones has actually played like a number two.

If we can keep Jennings OK.  But I would be perfectly fine with letting him go since these guys are all young with room to improve.  We would have to draft another WR for depth though.
Jennings showed more in the slot yesterday than Cobb has.  IMO.  And that isn't saying that Cobb is bad, it is saying that GJ is just better.  And he will only get better.   I hope that TT finds a way to have both GJ and Cobb in the slot on Saturday.  If Cobb and play and be 100%.

Offline scoremore

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1639
  • Karma: +23/-7
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #24 on: December 31, 2012, 06:31:30 PM »
Another guy we could look at is Jordan Matthews (Vandy)...

Not elite speed but good reliable pass catcher.

Maybe not a #1 like Rogers or Patterson but a guy we could look at in the 3rd.

Better football player than athlete.

Sounds like a TT type pick. 

Call it a back up plan if no WR falls to us.  Solid possesion type.


57packer

  • Guest
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #25 on: December 31, 2012, 06:34:55 PM »
Watching Clemson and LSU right now and there is certainly some talent on the field.  Mingo sure looks like he'd be a solid addition though I suspect he's long gone.  A guy who fits our draft position a little better is DeAndre Hopkins.  Kid has decent size, nice feet and good route running skills, is catching everything thrown at him.  Consider me impressed.  I saw him earlier in the year and wasn't so sure then, but he's looking solid tonight.  A late 1st, top-half of the 2nd Rd guy it seems.

Offline Mazrimiv

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2563
  • Karma: +2/-0
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #26 on: January 01, 2013, 06:17:37 AM »
Jennings looked great vs MIN.  He's been injured so long I almost forgot how good he can be.  Unfortunately, the rest of the league saw the same thing, and I think he'll command a lot of cash if he follows up that performance with a solid showing in the playoffs.

If Jennings is indeed moving on, I have to think WR will be addressed in the first couple rounds.  I've slowly come around on Rodgers being the pick.

Online craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3870
  • Karma: +22/-4
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #27 on: January 01, 2013, 01:05:02 PM »
Jennings looked great vs MIN.  He's been injured so long I almost forgot how good he can be.  ...

Great point, that's exactly how I felt, too.

Ross looked awfully good on his returns.  And he's bigger/stronger looking than I'd realized. 

Does he have any kind of quality or potential as a pass receiver?  Is he very fast?   

Offline mancl

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Karma: +8/-1
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #28 on: January 02, 2013, 07:27:08 PM »
Terriminal mocked Patterson to the Packers and just like that his ( Patterson's) not T's stock took off.
GBN has him going 19th to the Vikes, Walters 24th to Baltimore and both Rang and Bugler at Draft Scout have him going 22nd to Titans.   So much for sneaking through to the Pack.

Offline Draft Hobbyist

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 743
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #29 on: January 02, 2013, 07:35:03 PM »
Terriminal mocked Patterson to the Packers and just like that his ( Patterson's) not T's stock took off.
GBN has him going 19th to the Vikes, Walters 24th to Baltimore and both Rang and Bugler at Draft Scout have him going 22nd to Titans.   So much for sneaking through to the Pack.

There's lots of time left yet. The combines haven't even hit yet. I hope he does go ahead of us, though, because that can make a better prospect drop.