A franchise in shambles...

[#66]

I disagree with some previous posts urging the signing of a small and quick slot WR. As I have previously stated, I am concerned with stunting the growth of the WRs already on the roster.  Additionally, I would argue that GB needs to continue to counter with size at WR.  The Chicago loss to Philly shows precisely how larger CBs can eliminate the smaller WRs in the passing game.  #sizematters

[Shinesman]

Claiming that making young players ease into the role and sit behind a proven vet stunts their development is ludicrous. If anything, it eases them into their role and the size and speed of the NFL and will give them a better chance to adjust and succeed. They will get snaps, but baptism by fire is stupid at this level unless absolutely necessary.

Case and point, the QB position is widely regarded as the most important position on the team. So why is it that the best approach is to draft a guy and let him learn for awhile getting limited snaps behind a veteran for him, but every other positional player should be tossed into the arena against the best competitor so that they can "develop" by being outmatched?

The ability to learn in the classroom, practice with your teams best players, and eventually ease into the starting spot is the most probable path to success. It may not be necessary for the chosen few, but it's the best path for most. These days, careers are 13-14 years long for anyone above the bottom tier, so the first 2-3 years learning and developing behind someone is a benefit, not a hindrance.

[dannobanano]

I disagree with some previous posts urging the signing of a small and quick slot WR. As I have previously stated, I am concerned with stunting the growth of the WRs already on the roster.  Additionally, I would argue that GB needs to continue to counter with size at WR.  The Chicago loss to Philly shows precisely how larger CBs can eliminate the smaller WRs in the passing game.  #sizematters

And in that same Philly vs CHI game it was 5-10/197 Golden Tate (slot receiver) who caught the game winning touchdown for Philly.
Hmmmmmm.........

I think it's not so much that #sizematters as it is as much that #skill/talentmatters.

Don't give the "size thing" to Julian Edelman. He'll punch anyone who plays that card.

Lots of good undersized WR's in the league. It's how they are used that makes the difference.

[skcusICH]

I guess some of the NFL WR's failed to get the memo that they were too small

Tyreek Hill
Antonio Brown
TY Hilton
Brandin Cooks
Odell Beckham Jr.
Jarvis Landry
Tyler Lockett
Emmanuel Sanders
Julian Edelman
DeSean Jackson

Massive amounts of production and success among this group here.

My thought is that every team should prioritize having 1 of each body. A true #1 do it all WR, a possession receiver, a deep threat, a large radius target, and a shifty slot guy. A 6th guy would only be a ST's ace or a spot for an incredibly deep unit. It's always puzzled me when teams somewhat shoot for just one particular type of WR.

[ricky]

I think it's not so much that #sizematters as it is as much that #skill/talentmatters.

Don't give the "size thing" to Julian Edelman. He'll punch anyone who plays that card.

Lots of good undersized WR's in the league. It's how they are used that makes the difference.

Highlighted the most important and phrase in your post, IMO. Which is why (cross referencing to another thread) the Packers keeping Hill wouldn't have made any difference. Because NO found ways to utilize Hill's talents; for the Packers, he was an afterthought. Why? Because NO has guys who are creative. The Packers lacked those guys for several years. Hopefully that has now changed.

[Shinesman]

I think it's not so much that #sizematters as it is as much that #skill/talentmatters.

Don't give the "size thing" to Julian Edelman. He'll punch anyone who plays that card.

Lots of good undersized WR's in the league. It's how they are used that makes the difference.

Highlighted the most important and phrase in your post, IMO. Which is why (cross referencing to another thread) the Packers keeping Hill wouldn't have made any difference. Because NO found ways to utilize Hill's talents; for the Packers, he was an afterthought. Why? Because NO has guys who are creative. The Packers lacked those guys for several years. Hopefully that has now changed.

Coincidence you say this. I'm watching Sean Peyton dismantle McVeys team. And McVeys buddies are getting all the coaching gigs. Maybe Dan Campbell should have got a closer look.

Makes me sick we hired MM instead of Peyton. And I know that everyone will make accusations of hindsight and point out they only won one super bowl and had down season. But, there were many factors. The one thing they didn't do was go stale with creating and calling plays. If Peyton was paired with the teams we had fielded for years, I think he would have won at least two superbowls and maybe even gotten to a few more. The man is truly an offensive guru.

[JerryA]

 
[/quote]

Coincidence you say this. I'm watching Sean Peyton dismantle McVeys team. And McVeys buddies are getting all the coaching gigs. Maybe Dan Campbell should have got a closer look.

Makes me sick we hired MM instead of Peyton. And I know that everyone will make accusations of hindsight and point out they only won one super bowl and had down season. But, there were many factors. The one thing they didn't do was go stale with creating and calling plays. If Peyton was paired with the teams we had fielded for years, I think he would have won at least two superbowls and maybe even gotten to a few more. The man is truly an offensive guru.
[/quote]

IF Rogers would let him!

[ricky]

Makes me sick we hired MM instead of Peyton. And I know that everyone will make accusations of hindsight and point out they only won one super bowl and had down season. But, there were many factors. The one thing they didn't do was go stale with creating and calling plays. If Peyton was paired with the teams we had fielded for years, I think he would have won at least two superbowls and maybe even gotten to a few more. The man is truly an offensive guru.

This is indeed hindsight. And really not fair, IMO. MM and Payton were equally successful and innovative for quite some time. Then MM got satisfied/stubborn/predictable, while Payton continued to innovate.Both teams won one SB. Something changed after the 2014 season with MM. He lost his creativity and became more stubborn/satisfied/conservative. Whatever you want to call it. But my greatest fear is that if the Packers had been in that SB with the Pats, they very well could also have lost on a goal line interception. But it still would have been nice to have had the chance.

Still, NO the last couple of years seems to really be snakebit. Last year it was a miracle play by the Vikes that knocked them out; this year a non-call that was so horrible, it makes the "Fail Mary" seem reasonable.

[Shinesman]

Makes me sick we hired MM instead of Peyton. And I know that everyone will make accusations of hindsight and point out they only won one super bowl and had down season. But, there were many factors. The one thing they didn't do was go stale with creating and calling plays. If Peyton was paired with the teams we had fielded for years, I think he would have won at least two superbowls and maybe even gotten to a few more. The man is truly an offensive guru.

This is indeed hindsight. And really not fair, IMO. MM and Payton were equally successful and innovative for quite some time. Then MM got satisfied/stubborn/predictable, while Payton continued to innovate.Both teams won one SB. Something changed after the 2014 season with MM. He lost his creativity and became more stubborn/satisfied/conservative. Whatever you want to call it. But my greatest fear is that if the Packers had been in that SB with the Pats, they very well could also have lost on a goal line interception. But it still would have been nice to have had the chance.

Still, NO the last couple of years seems to really be snakebit. Last year it was a miracle play by the Vikes that knocked them out; this year a non-call that was so horrible, it makes the "Fail Mary" seem reasonable.

Is it hindsight if I was opposed to MM in the first place? If you want to go back to my first appearance on this site it would be opposed to MM. I almost see this as vindication and a testament to TT being a terrible GM.

[ricky]

Is it hindsight if I was opposed to MM in the first place? If you want to go back to my first appearance on this site it would be opposed to MM. I almost see this as vindication and a testament to TT being a terrible GM.

In that case, no. It would be prescience. And foresight that is uncanny. Because I was a strong defender of MM for years. Then the last year or two, it became harder and harder to defend him. So, congratulations. Though being ahead of the curve often means being ignored and disrespected. Kudos to you for sticking to your beliefs, which were eventually vindicated.

[Shinesman]

Is it hindsight if I was opposed to MM in the first place? If you want to go back to my first appearance on this site it would be opposed to MM. I almost see this as vindication and a testament to TT being a terrible GM.

In that case, no. It would be prescience. And foresight that is uncanny. Because I was a strong defender of MM for years. Then the last year or two, it became harder and harder to defend him. So, congratulations. Though being ahead of the curve often means being ignored and disrespected. Kudos to you for sticking to your beliefs, which were eventually vindicated.

Thank you I appreciate that. Although sometimes I wish I was wrong. As crazy as it seems, talking to packers fans all over, I ran into a lot of fans who were never MM supporters, but when you look at media and forums, it almost seemed as though everyone loved him. I will say that the fact he doesnt have a job is testament to what other organizations must have thought of him.

[#66]

It absolutely matters how they are used, I agree.  However, it is much easier to marginalize smaller WRs than WRs with greater stature when all other things are equal.

[ricky]

Thank you I appreciate that. Although sometimes I wish I was wrong. As crazy as it seems, talking to packers fans all over, I ran into a lot of fans who were never MM supporters, but when you look at media and forums, it almost seemed as though everyone loved him. I will say that the fact he doesnt have a job is testament to what other organizations must have thought of him.

The problem is that Payton has the same number of SB's as MM with a HOF QB. So, would Payton have made a big difference in GB? We don't know.

Here are MM's career numbers in GB: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/McCaMi0.htm

The same thing for Payton: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/PaytSe0.htm

The main thing is that MM got stuck in a rut; Payton hasn't. But neither has shown the ability to create a team that can make multiple SB appearances. Because their teams have only been there once. This is the problem, like it is in discussing whether its Belichick or Brady who is more important in NE. We don't know, though the season that Brady was on IR after game one, the team went 10-6. But was that a one year fluke, like Cassell?

[dannobanano]

If anything, the league is a copycat league.

One or two teams have great success doing something different, and shortly thereafter you get several team trying to do the same things with hopes of duplicating that success.

The same is true of skill position players.

About 10-12 years ago BIG WR's started to show up in the league. Calvin Johnson epitomized the trend to bigger WR's. Everyone started looking for the next CJ.

To combat the evolution to big WR's, defenses started looking for BIG CB's. Defenders who could match up physically with the big WR's. Tit-for-tat/copy cat.

What I see offenses, yet again, morphing to in an effort to gain an edge over the ever changing defenses (trying to slow them down), is a blend of WR's body and skill types.

Teams are trending towards big/medium/small WR's to get the right personnel packages on the field to try and find ways to create mismatches against the defense.

Deep threats
Possession
Good YAC
ETC.

I don't think teams want all big, or all small, these days. It just doesn't fit with the multi-faceted types of offenses that are successful at the moment.

Green Bay has plenty of BIG WR's (Adams, Allison, Kumerow, MVS, ESB). Cobb was supposed to be that small slot/scat type WR but he fell flat after he got his big pay day. Some of it was injury related, but I think some of it was that "C" word we've been hearing about lately.

Packers need a smaller "slot" WR who can get YAC.

Look at the problems that Edelman presented for KC yesterday. It seemed nearly every time NE was faced with 3rd & 10, Edelman makes a big catch to get a new set of downs.

Being successful isn't just about throwing 40-50 yard bombs to a streaking BIG WR. It might be, visually, fun ........... but keeping the chains moving brings success. It might not be sexy, but it is proven. Just ask the Patriots.

[Shinesman]

Thank you I appreciate that. Although sometimes I wish I was wrong. As crazy as it seems, talking to packers fans all over, I ran into a lot of fans who were never MM supporters, but when you look at media and forums, it almost seemed as though everyone loved him. I will say that the fact he doesnt have a job is testament to what other organizations must have thought of him.

The problem is that Payton has the same number of SB's as MM with a HOF QB. So, would Payton have made a big difference in GB? We don't know.

Here are MM's career numbers in GB: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/McCaMi0.htm

The same thing for Payton: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/PaytSe0.htm

The main thing is that MM got stuck in a rut; Payton hasn't. But neither has shown the ability to create a team that can make multiple SB appearances. Because their teams have only been there once. This is the problem, like it is in discussing whether its Belichick or Brady who is more important in NE. We don't know, though the season that Brady was on IR after game one, the team went 10-6. But was that a one year fluke, like Cassell?

As far as peyton goes, I think when this green bay team was at its peak (talent-wise), he would have brought home another trophy. I have watched the saints play many times over the years. One thing he is very good at is adjustments and motivating players. The saints would come out flat, and then come raging back in a lot of games. The same cant be said for the packers in most situations. I also think green bay had a better number of good players than peyton did for quite awhile. This would have helped as well.

As for Belichek, werent the Pat's down to a 4th string QB at one point a few seasons ago and still winning? I think Belichek is the strength there. Brady is the worlds most okayest quarterback, and he happens to play for one of the best minds in the modern football era.