2024 Roster Status/Tracker

Sanguine camper

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 14, 2014
Messages
2,225
Reaction score
792
Doubs and Watson and Reed all IMO have started their careers when healthy better than almost any receiver I’ve witnessed (will be 39 next year).
Do you mean just Packers receivers? JaMarr Chase seemed to break out in a big way his rookie season for the Bengals. Jefferson had a big rookie season for the Vikings. Lofton was before your time but he was pretty good from the get go even when the Packers QB's were terrible. Both Jordy and Cobb started off slow. Part of the reason is the Packers had Driver, Jennings and J-Mike so there wasn't a big need to target those guys.
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
15,101
Reaction score
5,705
Do you mean just Packers receivers? JaMarr Chase seemed to break out in a big way his rookie season for the Bengals. Jefferson had a big rookie season for the Vikings. Lofton was before your time but he was pretty good from the get go even when the Packers QB's were terrible. Both Jordy and Cobb started off slow. Part of the reason is the Packers had Driver, Jennings and J-Mike so there wasn't a big need to target those guys.

Yeah just Packers
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,956
Reaction score
9,146
Location
Madison, WI
Doubs and Watson and Reed all IMO have started their careers when healthy better than almost any receiver I’ve witnessed (will be 39 next year).
While I agree with this, you need to consider that all 3 were basically thrust right into action as rookies. More importantly, there weren't better/more experienced receivers ahead of them on the roster. That wasn't the case in Jordy or Davate's first few years with the Packers.

To be clear, I really don't consider Allen Lazard as a better receiver than any of them, maybe a better blocker. Lazard may have been more experienced in 2022, than Doubs and Watson but overall, all 3 current Packer WR's are more talented receivers than Lazard.
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
15,101
Reaction score
5,705
While I agree with this, you need to consider that all 3 were basically thrust right into action as rookies. More importantly, there weren't better/more experienced receivers ahead of them on the roster. That wasn't the case in Jordy or Davate's first few years with the Packers.

To be clear, I really don't consider Allen Lazard as a better receiver than any of them, maybe a better blocker. Lazard may have been more experienced in 2022, than Doubs and Watson but overall, all 3 current Packer WR's are more talented receivers than Lazard.

Oh I fully admit they didn’t have the vets ahead - so impossible to know wha the others might have been if thrust, but still remains what they have done was special.

In truth what MVS put up in his role in his young seasons was impressive, especially considering Adams was here and many say he was the first through third read.
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
5,812
Reaction score
1,511
At some point Jaire is going to have to play. There needs to be some kind of synergy back there. I like the way we are playing with the guys we have right now. They kind of remind me of 2010. We had backups playing in the defensive backfield and they got into a groove. Still, we have a couple of rookies just about ready? to come back. That's a little scary imho. Will they be able to mesh right away? They need to be playing together. And they need to be healthy. Tough. The vikings are going to be a good test to see what we need to do. Anyway, I'm thinking Jaire should play the 1st half of the bear's game so we and he, knows where we are at. And I still believe we need to keep out of those 2nd and 3 or 4s by just letting them have the short passes.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,956
Reaction score
9,146
Location
Madison, WI
At some point Jaire is going to have to play. There needs to be some kind of synergy back there. I like the way we are playing with the guys we have right now. They kind of remind me of 2010. We had backups playing in the defensive backfield and they got into a groove. Still, we have a couple of rookies just about ready? to come back. That's a little scary imho. Will they be able to mesh right away? They need to be playing together. And they need to be healthy. Tough. The vikings are going to be a good test to see what we need to do. Anyway, I'm thinking Jaire should play the 1st half of the bear's game so we and he, knows where we are at. And I still believe we need to keep out of those 2nd and 3 or 4s by just letting them have the short passes.

At this point, I would rather they put Jaire on ice until the playoffs. Seems he tried to come back too early in week 11 against the Bears and reaggravated his knee. Sure, would love to have him for the Vikings, but we shouldn't need him for the Bears.

As far as him meshing with the Defense, I think that is less critical for him, than it would be for Bullard, Williams or Cooper (rookies). Even with those guys, its week 16, you should know what you are doing out there.

The Packers are guaranteed to be in the playoffs and will most likely be on the road throughout them. If I had my choice of opponents, I would want to head out to Seattle again, but they are a long shot to be in. My guess is we head to LA or Landover for the first playoff game. Winning these final 2 games would be great, but I put health of the team over winning these 2 games.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,956
Reaction score
9,146
Location
Madison, WI
Why there? They can't win their division to host. Or were you referring to the NFCCG. You most likely meant Atlanta or Tampa. Better than Philly.
If the Commanders win their final 2 games and Eagles lose theirs, they would win their division and possibly host the Packers.

But yeah, the odds of Philly losing to both the Cowboys and Giants (both home games), while the Commanders beat the Falcons and win @Cowboys, is slim.

I think it was wishful thinking on my part that we play the Commanders.

The Packers can only secure the No. 5, No. 6 or No. 7 seed.

Of the potential teams we could face in round 1, I would prefer the following, with #1 being the most preferred.

1. Seahawks
2. Commanders
3. Falcons
4. Rams
5. Buccaneers
6. Vikings
7. Eagles
8. Lions
 
Top