Defending Janis

[Deleted member 6794]

If you read the first article, the metrics make a very compelling case for that argument.

And 50 catches is an extremely hollow stat when you're targeted nearly 100 times and typically all in the short to medium pass range.

Absolutely no doubt he had terrible numbers for a player being targeted 94 times last season. Nevertheless having had 50 catches eliminates him from having a historically bad season, at least in my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Football Outsiders has Adams ranked 76th out of 81 receivers in their +/- rating. As I've mentioned before for sure a terrible season but not historically bad.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2016/2015-receiving-plus-minus

 

[Croak]

Heh. I thought he was using "historically bad" as hyperbole.

 

[easyk83]

I didn't read the article you linked to so I'm sorry to ask this but is this your comment or was it from the article. Not that it matters because my response would be the same. Its time we stop using the fact that he was a 7th round pick from a DII school as an excuse. His rookie year, sure, its a big enough jump from the college game to the pros and JJ probably had a bigger jump to make than most. I completely understand that and I'll give him that one. His second year, OK, I get it, he maybe didn't get the opportunities in his rookie year, for whatever the reason, and that coupled with the fact he was a seventh round pick from a DII school could have hampered his development. I'll give him that one as well. Now he is going into his 3rd year. The time for excuses are done. If he can't get it now its not because he was a seventh round pick from a DII school, its because he just can't get it.

From the article, but here's the thing. With most pro players they say that if a player doesn't get it by year three he never will. In the case of Janis as a small school player it seems common for them to not really get the game until year 4. Nick Collins was something of an uninstinctive player with a dearth of football smarts who only survived on his exceptional talent during his first three years, it wasn't until his 4th season that he broke out. If Janis manages to be a contributor this year and progresses to let's say a 20-30 receptions and a couple TDs we can say that he's advanced and then wait and see what he does in year 4. If he can't make it onto the field at all maybe then it'll be time to just regard him as a special teams stud. I think the coaching situation might partly explain his apparent lack of development at wide receiver, I don't think last year's situation was good for developing project types.

 

[easyk83]

The article did highlight whats intriguing and frustrating with Janis. The way he ran right by Randall and Dix, neither one of whom is a physical slouch and with them probably knowing he was going to run a go route and he still runs right by them. Sure the best usually combine talent with skill but sometimes a player is so talented that they manage to break schemes and flat out beat players even when the other guy knows whats coming. Of course he still dropped a beautiful ball.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

From the article, but here's the thing. With most pro players they say that if a player doesn't get it by year three he never will. In the case of Janis as a small school player it seems common for them to not really get the game until year 4. Nick Collins was something of an uninstinctive player with a dearth of football smarts who only survived on his exceptional talent during his first three years, it wasn't until his 4th season that he broke out.

The comparison is flawed though as Collins started at safety from week 1 on during his rookie season.

 

[PackerDNA]

The excuse of not knowing the playbook or routes wears thin for me quickly, whether it be Janis or anyone else. This is football, not high level physics or rocket science. If you can't learn a playbook in 3 or 4 freaking years, then you're something of an idiot and need to look for another job.

 

[PackerDNA]

As to Adams, I never checked with any statistical sites, I just watched him play. And across the board, he flat out sucked.

 

[GBkrzygrl]

I just have one more comment. If I remember correctly the first year that Janis was here he had the shingles and was not able to participate in some of the training camp. It may or may not have put him somewhat behind.

I am in the camp that believes that he needed a designated coach. It also wouldn't have hurt if Rodgers would have given him a little 1:1 time.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I just have one more comment. If I remember correctly the first year that Janis was here he had the shingles and was not able to participate in some of the training camp. It may or may not have put him somewhat behind.

Janis missed seven training camp practices in his rookie season because of the shingles. Hardly an excuse for not have grasped the playbook by now.

 

[TeamTundra]

The excuse of not knowing the playbook or routes wears thin for me quickly, whether it be Janis or anyone else. This is football, not high level physics or rocket science. If you can't learn a playbook in 3 or 4 freaking years, then you're something of an idiot and need to look for another job.

Do you think Jordy Nelson is an idiot? He has gone on record multiple times saying that he
didn't fully understand the playbook until maybe his third year. It isn't just memorizing
routes, but rather situational football. Knowing when to make an adjustment on the fly
based on what the defense is offering. Even Rodgers and the veteran receivers will sometimes
appear to not be on the same page and it usually isn't because the receiver doesn't know the
route, but interpreted it different from the quarterback.

 

[RRyder]

Do you think Jordy Nelson is an idiot? He has gone on record multiple times saying that he
didn't fully understand the playbook until maybe his third year. It isn't just memorizing
routes, but rather situational football. Knowing when to make an adjustment on the fly
based on what the defense is offering. Even Rodgers and the veteran receivers will sometimes
appear to not be on the same page and it usually isn't because the receiver doesn't know the
route, but interpreted it different from the quarterback.

There's a vast difference between not having the nuances down at this point, which is more than understandable, and not understanding basic route running concepts which is where Janis still resides which is what DNA was referring to I believe

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Do you think Jordy Nelson is an idiot? He has gone on record multiple times saying that he
didn't fully understand the playbook until maybe his third year.

Do you have a link to Nelson mentioning something like that as I can't remember him talking about it with the media.

 

[Half Empty]

For what it's worth, from an interview in January, 2012 http://blog.packers.com/tag/packers-wide-receivers/


After how you finished last season and your performance in the Super Bowl (nine catches, 140 yards, TD), did you come into 2011 feeling more established?

I did. Going into training camp, there was a lot less on my mind, a lot less thinking on the field. I knew the playbook in and out. I was able to think about how I was going to run a route and reading the coverage, how I was going to try to beat the guy in front of me. I could spend time thinking about that instead of concentrating on the route.

 

[bigbubbatd]

I think there is a difference from knowing the playback in and out compared to Janis seeming consistently out of place. Read the recent article on Abbrederis to see what the Packers want out of their wrs. This a direct quote from McCarthy.

“I think his route running is exemplary for a young guy. His ability to recognize coverages, and his time clock, his breaking points, his ability to drop his weight. Just all the specifics and details and techniques of route running, I think he's exceptional. He just needs to continue to work on getting stronger and so forth. He plays the position technically and fundamentally at a very high level.”

http://m.jsonline.com/383314691.htm

 

[TeamTundra]

Do you have a link to Nelson mentioning something like that as I can't remember him talking about it with the media.

Half Empty - Thank you for posting the link.

I couldn't find the interview I was referring to on line, but it was from earlier this year during
OTA's and I live near the Green Bay area so it may have been a local news station piece. The
message though was similar to the 2012 interview.

I highly doubt that Janis comes close to ever matching Jordy's skill set, but my point is that it
Is still too early in his career to write him off as ever being a productive NFL receiver. I remember
watching Donald Driver early in his career and never in the best case scenario thought he would
have a productive career in the NFL.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I highly doubt that Janis comes close to ever matching Jordy's skill set, but my point is that it
Is still too early in his career to write him off as ever being a productive NFL receiver. I remember
watching Donald Driver early in his career and never in the best case scenario thought he would
have a productive career in the NFL.

It's possible that Janis turns into a productive receiver at the pro level but him still constantly running wrong routes in practice in his third season is concerning. I'm not convinced he's capable of ever fully grasping the team's playbook.

 

[PackerDNA]

There's a vast difference between not having the nuances down at this point, which is more than understandable, and not understanding basic route running concepts which is where Janis still resides which is what DNA was referring to I believe

Thank you RRyder! I swear sometimes you could say 1 + 1 = 2 and get an argument here.

 

[Poppa San]

Thank you RRyder! I swear sometimes you could say 1 + 1 = 2 and get an argument here.

But 1+1=2 is incorrect for very large or small values of 1. I've seen the argument for 2+2=5 and assume it holds true for the others. [/smartAzz response]

 

[PackerDNA]

But 1+1=2 is incorrect for very large or small values of 1. I've seen the argument for 2+2=5 and assume it holds true for the others. [/smartAzz response]

Heh, I kew you wouldn't let me down, Poppa.

 

[TeamTundra]

Thank you RRyder! I swear sometimes you could say 1 + 1 = 2 and get an argument here.

So everything is black and white to you? Okay, got it.

 

[PackerDNA]

You obviously don't get much of anything , so don't assume what anything is to me. Not being able to learn a football playbook or what your routes/job are in 3 or 4 years doesn't speak highly to that person's intelligence level. You seem to have a problem grasping that concept.

 

[sschind]

But 1+1=2 is incorrect for very large or small values of 1. I've seen the argument for 2+2=5 and assume it holds true for the others. [/smartAzz response]

I don't know about that 1+1 stuff but I do know that 7 x 13=28.

Here's the proof.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[PackerDNA]

I don't know about that 1+1 stuff but I do know that 7 x 13=28.

Here's the proof.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Sheer genius, weren't they? I also liked the one where Bud asks Lou to loan him $20. Lou says "i only have ten"; Bud says okay, give me the ten and you owe me ten. It goes on until it's Lou owing Bud a bunch of money.

 

[Poppa San]

I don't know about that 1+1 stuff but I do know that 7 x 13=28.

Here's the proof.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

I also "know" that 5X14=25.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!