October 18, 2019, 04:18:02 AM

Author Topic: WRs for the Pack  (Read 17503 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Arrigo

  • Guest
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #30 on: January 02, 2013, 08:25:43 PM »
T,

I disagree with you on Woods. Kiffin was down on him because he had ankle surgery in the offseason and didn't want to push it to come back by spring. Kiffin wanted to get Lee the ball at all costs in 2012. That being the case Woods took his "demotion" and did everything that he was asked to do without complaining.

I actually think Woods will not only be a better pro then NCAA player, but maybe the most "complete" overall WR in the class in terms of overall skill set and ready to play from day 1.

I actually wrote an article that should be up on PC in a day or two and it touches on the WR's in this class and possible Packers fits.


Offline Terranimal

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
  • Karma: +8/-0
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #31 on: January 02, 2013, 08:54:43 PM »
T,

I disagree with you on Woods. Kiffin was down on him because he had ankle surgery in the offseason and didn't want to push it to come back by spring. Kiffin wanted to get Lee the ball at all costs in 2012. That being the case Woods took his "demotion" and did everything that he was asked to do without complaining.

I actually think Woods will not only be a better pro then NCAA player, but maybe the most "complete" overall WR in the class in terms of overall skill set and ready to play from day 1.

I actually wrote an article that should be up on PC in a day or two and it touches on the WR's in this class and possible Packers fits.

The thing is this- What is the number gripe on Packer Boards when it comes to WRs and TEs?

Answer: Drops

Question 2- What is the second biggest discussion over players on Packer Boards?

answer-injuries

The 3 WRs have on this thread have good hands and been healthy for the most part. Haven't really found anything negative on the injury front with Hopkins, Rogers, or Patterson. And all 3 can become number 1 Go-To WRs here.

Rogers probably has the best hands have seen since Sharpe/Rice/Fritzgerald.

Have gone through quite a few WRs here this fall and then went and re-watched them. Not saying others won't fit here but kept to a certain criteria(size, hands, routes, speed,etc) and stayed away from number 2 types. And we have a Slot WR in Cobb which is a reason have stayed away from the smaller WV players and the like.

I did watch on Woods and saw the same thing I did on Hunter of Tenn- they weren't the same player they were before the injuries. Maybe they'll show that they are again at the combine, but am going strictly off game film of the last two seasons.

besides, think Woods has a good chance to be off the board before our pick anyways. Especially if he has a good workout and numbers at the combine.

Offline Terranimal

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
  • Karma: +8/-0
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #32 on: January 02, 2013, 09:01:11 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.

Think I used Matthews in a Mock once earlier this year. Aaron Mellette is another one that's intriguing. Both could be had most likely round 4 on at this stage.(Know some sites have Matthews in the round 2-3 area) Ur right they aren't number 1 types and fall into the 2/3 type. Matthews 40 is also not to be that fast from have gathered. Mellette might be the more interesting player with upside though....

Arrigo

  • Guest
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #33 on: January 02, 2013, 09:10:54 PM »
T,

I disagree with you on Woods. Kiffin was down on him because he had ankle surgery in the offseason and didn't want to push it to come back by spring. Kiffin wanted to get Lee the ball at all costs in 2012. That being the case Woods took his "demotion" and did everything that he was asked to do without complaining.

I actually think Woods will not only be a better pro then NCAA player, but maybe the most "complete" overall WR in the class in terms of overall skill set and ready to play from day 1.

I actually wrote an article that should be up on PC in a day or two and it touches on the WR's in this class and possible Packers fits.

The thing is this- What is the number gripe on Packer Boards when it comes to WRs and TEs?

Answer: Drops

Question 2- What is the second biggest discussion over players on Packer Boards?

answer-injuries

The 3 WRs have on this thread have good hands and been healthy for the most part. Haven't really found anything negative on the injury front with Hopkins, Rogers, or Patterson. And all 3 can become number 1 Go-To WRs here.

Rogers probably has the best hands have seen since Sharpe/Rice/Fritzgerald.

Have gone through quite a few WRs here this fall and then went and re-watched them. Not saying others won't fit here but kept to a certain criteria(size, hands, routes, speed,etc) and stayed away from number 2 types. And we have a Slot WR in Cobb which is a reason have stayed away from the smaller WV players and the like.

I did watch on Woods and saw the same thing I did on Hunter of Tenn- they weren't the same player they were before the injuries. Maybe they'll show that they are again at the combine, but am going strictly off game film of the last two seasons.

besides, think Woods has a good chance to be off the board before our pick anyways. Especially if he has a good workout and numbers at the combine.

If that is Da'Rick Rodgers he was twice asked to leave the Tennessee football program. He got back on once but again got into more trouble & was booted for good. He will be a mini-Plaxico Burress with his attitude.

Woods tail off was due to Kiffin NOT getting him the ball, not injuries. He was still separating from DB's just fine, but plays were not called for him. He didn't miss any time this year due to any injury. In fact, he missed parts of 1 or 2 games due to the ankle last year (when he caught 111 balls) and played through the injury.

Woods was not known for dropping balls, that was Lee. Woods BY FAR had the best hands on the USC team and maybe all of college football. This kid reminds me of Marvin Harrison and Greg Jennings coming out. He is a smooth route runner that runs the entire route tree with ease. He has loos hips to get in and out of his breaks and is great after the catch. He high points the ball as well as any WR and is a nice blocker. While he isn't a 4.3 "burner",  he is a 4.4 guy that plays faster then his timed speed.

   

Offline Terranimal

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
  • Karma: +8/-0
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #34 on: January 02, 2013, 09:28:03 PM »
T,

I disagree with you on Woods. Kiffin was down on him because he had ankle surgery in the offseason and didn't want to push it to come back by spring. Kiffin wanted to get Lee the ball at all costs in 2012. That being the case Woods took his "demotion" and did everything that he was asked to do without complaining.

I actually think Woods will not only be a better pro then NCAA player, but maybe the most "complete" overall WR in the class in terms of overall skill set and ready to play from day 1.

I actually wrote an article that should be up on PC in a day or two and it touches on the WR's in this class and possible Packers fits.

The thing is this- What is the number gripe on Packer Boards when it comes to WRs and TEs?

Answer: Drops

Question 2- What is the second biggest discussion over players on Packer Boards?

answer-injuries

The 3 WRs have on this thread have good hands and been healthy for the most part. Haven't really found anything negative on the injury front with Hopkins, Rogers, or Patterson. And all 3 can become number 1 Go-To WRs here.

Rogers probably has the best hands have seen since Sharpe/Rice/Fritzgerald.

Have gone through quite a few WRs here this fall and then went and re-watched them. Not saying others won't fit here but kept to a certain criteria(size, hands, routes, speed,etc) and stayed away from number 2 types. And we have a Slot WR in Cobb which is a reason have stayed away from the smaller WV players and the like.

I did watch on Woods and saw the same thing I did on Hunter of Tenn- they weren't the same player they were before the injuries. Maybe they'll show that they are again at the combine, but am going strictly off game film of the last two seasons.

besides, think Woods has a good chance to be off the board before our pick anyways. Especially if he has a good workout and numbers at the combine.

If that is Da'Rick Rodgers he was twice asked to leave the Tennessee football program. He got back on once but again got into more trouble & was booted for good. He will be a mini-Plaxico Burress with his attitude.


Check out his thread here. I have gathered everything possibly could him both good and bad. After watching his body language with his new head coach and team in the pre season news conference, feel better about him. He owned what happened. Also some not so good stuff has come since on his the former Tenn coach and his way with players. Add in that Rogers' new coach checked him out with former Tenn players/coaches, his HS coach and former players, as well as guys on his new team that grew up with him...again check out the thread here and the links.....


Woods tail off was due to Kiffin NOT getting him the ball, not injuries. He was still separating from DB's just fine, but plays were not called for him. He didn't miss any time this year due to any injury. In fact, he missed parts of 1 or 2 games due to the ankle last year (when he caught 111 balls) and played through the injury.

Woods was not known for dropping balls, that was Lee. Woods BY FAR had the best hands on the USC team and maybe all of college football. This kid reminds me of Marvin Harrison and Greg Jennings coming out. He is a smooth route runner that runs the entire route tree with ease. He has loos hips to get in and out of his breaks and is great after the catch. He high points the ball as well as any WR and is a nice blocker. While he isn't a 4.3 "burner",  he is a 4.4 guy that plays faster then his timed speed.

 

Arrigo

  • Guest
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #35 on: January 02, 2013, 09:36:37 PM »
T,

I can go by what my scouting friends have told me and the info they have on him. The same way Hawaii CB Mike Edwards kept his nose clean at UH & the JC he went to but was involved and arrested on armed robbery charges (with Janzen Jackson and Nu’Keese Richardson) while attending UT. He did plead out to reckless endangerment which eventually led him to U of Hawaii.

He was a kid that was committed to UGA for a LONG TIME before flip flopping on NSD.

I love his size and skill set, but my friend, I don't like the attitude he has and according to my sources, they don't either.

Side note: I think this maybe the first time we don't agree on a player (and I missed you my friend. I hope all is well)!
« Last Edit: January 02, 2013, 09:44:17 PM by Arrigo »

Offline Terranimal

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
  • Karma: +8/-0
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #36 on: January 03, 2013, 02:45:19 PM »
Tried to post last night and it wouldn't let me for some reason...

Anyways will put it to you like this: I trust Thompson and his gut on players. So if in round two we haven't already drafted a WR and TT drafts him, would have to think he checked out more then just okay and that TT felt he wouldn't be a problem here. We do have a nice veteran team these days and not all these guys can be choir boys. If off his talent alone, we would be discussing him as one of the top 3 WRs in this draft. He's not the first player to have had issues with pot. Warren Sapp and Randy Moss both had issues also.

I don't know what issues of attitude your friends have told you, but everything I have gotten is that he's been a great team mate from players on both teams.

Offline mitch connor

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #37 on: January 03, 2013, 04:29:21 PM »
Agreed with Joe on Rodgers. The pot thing by itself would be only a minor concern, IMO, but ever since he arrived on campus at Tennessee, all you ever heard about was him starting trouble, letting down his teammates and not being a bit remorseful about it. From my experience, those guys don't get better when you give them money. I appreciate his talent, but really don't want him here, especially with so many strong wr options in this class.

Offline Terranimal

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
  • Karma: +8/-0
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #38 on: January 03, 2013, 06:43:27 PM »
Agreed with Joe on Rodgers. The pot thing by itself would be only a minor concern, IMO, but ever since he arrived on campus at Tennessee, all you ever heard about was him starting trouble, letting down his teammates and not being a bit remorseful about it. From my experience, those guys don't get better when you give them money. I appreciate his talent, but really don't want him here, especially with so many strong wr options in this class.

Boy that sure contradicts what i have been able to find out so far, but will check into with someone who might be able to tell me more about it.......see what i can find.....

Online scoremore

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1652
  • Karma: +24/-7
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #39 on: January 03, 2013, 07:04:43 PM »
Could be a smokescreen T...

Kid does sound like an elite talent.

He won't last until the 2nd and might be the first WR taken.

Maybe all the bashing will let him slip to us.

If he is a real head case well then just take him off the board completely.

Offline Terranimal

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
  • Karma: +8/-0
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #40 on: January 03, 2013, 07:25:05 PM »
Could be a smokescreen T...

Kid does sound like an elite talent.

He won't last until the 2nd and might be the first WR taken.

Maybe all the bashing will let him slip to us.

If he is a real head case well then just take him off the board completely.

Elite talent but former pot issues will drop him as it did Sapp and Randy Moss. How far is the question. Thinking somewhere round 2 right now, provided he checks out of course. though if he checks out would have no problem taking him at 32 ...... ;)

Offline backthepack4ever

  • All Pro
  • ****
  • Posts: 368
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #41 on: January 04, 2013, 12:20:59 PM »
new to the board so just read the topic.   Great job on it T!

i agree with you 100% on the pack finding another WR weapon and a true #1 for the future.  1 it will be alot cheaper then keeping jennings and 2 its always nice to add youth to a exp wr group.  any rookie can learn alot from this group. 

There are some nice options and a few gems in the draft this year.  I do like your top to choices with Rogers and Patterson and i think both could be had by either trading back in the 1st, like we did with nelson, and adding a pick or two, or keeping our 1st and trading up in the 2nd.  Rogers had all the tools.  Patterson looks like a weapon but just by the eye test isnt there yet. 

I do like that woods is a good WR and can become a #1 as well.  injury really held him back this year and i think we would be smart to stay in school.  having said that we would be good value at a late 2 or in the 3rd. 

look forward to alot of draft talk on here in the future

Offline Terranimal

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
  • Karma: +8/-0
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #42 on: January 04, 2013, 02:55:24 PM »
new to the board so just read the topic.   Great job on it T!

i agree with you 100% on the pack finding another WR weapon and a true #1 for the future.  1 it will be alot cheaper then keeping jennings and 2 its always nice to add youth to a exp wr group.  any rookie can learn alot from this group. 

There are some nice options and a few gems in the draft this year.  I do like your top to choices with Rogers and Patterson and i think both could be had by either trading back in the 1st, like we did with nelson, and adding a pick or two, or keeping our 1st and trading up in the 2nd.  Rogers had all the tools.  Patterson looks like a weapon but just by the eye test isnt there yet. 

I do like that woods is a good WR and can become a #1 as well.  injury really held him back this year and i think we would be smart to stay in school.  having said that we would be good value at a late 2 or in the 3rd. 

look forward to alot of draft talk on here in the future

Thanks and welcome aboard!

Offline Bud

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2203
  • Karma: +13/-0
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #43 on: January 04, 2013, 03:10:35 PM »
Could be a smokescreen T...

Kid does sound like an elite talent.


Elite talent but former pot issues will drop him as it did Sapp and Randy Moss. How far is the question. Thinking somewhere round 2 right now, provided he checks out of course. though if he checks out would have no problem taking him at 32 ...... ;)

smokescreen indeed... :o

“Gold medals aren't really made of gold. They're made of sweat, determination, and a hard-to-find alloy called guts.” ~ Dan Gable

Offline pmikep

  • Rookie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: WRs for the Pack
« Reply #44 on: January 04, 2013, 03:53:57 PM »
With the talent of wr's in this years draft. (#1 type ) This could be the year that the best player on TT board is a wideout. Between Woods,Patterson, Hopkins & Rogers I believe 2 of the 4 will still be on the board when it is our turn to pick. With this in mind I can see Ted trading out of round 1 and grabbing one of then in the top half of round 2.   GREAT year to draft a stud WR and pick up a extra selection.  GO PACK !!