Emmanuel Sanders

[Curly Calhoun]

He's 32 but should be available as most Broncos think they should trade him out.

With a better QB there should still be done mileage.

Probably a 2 yr contract if we don't pay Ott?

I watched him play against Green Bay earlier this season, and he looked old and ineffective. Just one game, but that's my impression.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Here's an honest question back: when was the last time that Rodgers was given a new wide receiver who wasn't a rookie? "They need time together" is indeed a common theme, but I can't think of that happening with a veteran-- only rookies (who may just need time anyways).

This is why I brought up Cook, Bennett and Graham. 3 Receivers he didn't instantly connect with and that was after going through camp and preseason with them.

Also, it really isn't the fact that he is only being given "rookies" to work with, since Shepherd is the only current "rookie" on the team. It is more the fact that he has been ask to work with and rely on a lot of mid to late round picks or UDFA's, without a lot of experience or just really aren't all that good. I won't list all the WR's that have failed in Green Bay in the last 10 years, but many of them weren't rookies when the Packers finally decided that they just weren't that good of a WR.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I watched him play against Green Bay earlier this season, and he looked old and ineffective. Just one game, but that's my impression.

While I am not in favor of pursuing him at this point, that one game against the Packers, would be an anomaly IMO.

 

[elcid]

I have a fair question to ask of posters and it isn't being asked knowing the answer, nor probably do the Packers know the answer.

How long do you think it will take for a new WR to not only come in and learn the Packers playbook, but more importantly get in sync with Rodgers?

I don't see how this should affect the decision of pursuing a WR or not, given that there are also receivers that can come in and make an immediate impact halfway during the season. Amari Cooper to the 'Boys comes to mind.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't see how this should affect the decision of pursuing a WR or not, given that there are also receivers that can come in and make an immediate impact halfway during the season. Amari Cooper to the 'Boys comes to mind.

Well the Packers aren't the Cowboys (thank god) and Aaron Rodgers isn't Dak Prescott. Like I said, I don't know the answer to my question and the only "data" we have are 3 TE's and how they meshed into the system and with Rodgers.

Last thing I would want to see happen is bring in a one year rental, give up a draft pick and money and he doesn't do much, other than take snaps away from someone who will be with the team next year.

That being said, I would be much more on board with trying to obtain a guy that is more long term and younger than Sanders. Sure, Sanders might help this season and if he has success here, you try to resign him, but how much gas does he have left in the tank and how much would it cost to resign him?

 

[Dantés]

This is why I brought up Cook, Bennett and Graham. 3 Receivers he didn't instantly connect with and that was after going through camp and preseason with them.

Also, it really isn't the fact that he is only being given "rookies" to work with, since Shepherd is the only current "rookie" on the team. It is more the fact that he has been ask to work with and rely on a lot of mid to late round picks or UDFA's, without a lot of experience or just really aren't all that good. I won't list all the WR's that have failed in Green Bay in the last 10 years, but many of them weren't rookies when the Packers finally decided that they just weren't that good of a WR.

But it may also just be that he doesn't favor using the tight ends, since none of the relevant examples are wide receivers.

And ok... obviously Rodgers doesn't always have *only* rookies to work with. I have a hard time seeing how you took that from what I said.

Whenever Rodgers has been developing chemistry with a *new* receiver, that receiver has almost always been a rookie when their relationship as QB/WR began (unless there is someone I can't recall who was a FA/Trade acquisition). So isn't is possible that the time it has taken to find chemistry has been as much about the player being young/inexperienced as it has been about Rodgers' personal quirks? Doesn't it make sense to think that a veteran, experienced receiver would catch on with him much faster than a rookie who needs to be seasoned anyhow?

And yes, clearly not all draft picks work out. I fail to see the relevance of that point.

Basically my counter point is this: it's fair to wonder how long it would take for Rodgers and an acquisition to get on the same page, but it's far from conclusive because, to my memory, Rodgers has never been given a new receiver who was already an established, capable veteran.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

"They need time together" is indeed a common theme, but I can't think of that happening with a veteran-- only rookies (who may just need time anyways).

And ok... obviously Rodgers doesn't always have *only* rookies to work with. I have a hard time seeing how you took that from what I said.

Maybe because you said it above.

Basically my counter point is this: it's fair to wonder how long it would take for Rodgers and an acquisition to get on the same page, but it's far from conclusive because, to my memory, Rodgers has never been given a new receiver who was already an established, capable veteran.

Yes, I acknowledged the fact that Rodgers has never been given an already "pre-made WR". Even Jordy, Cobb and Adams took time to develop. Part of that development is themselves as players and the other part is chemistry with Rodgers. For the most part, we have seen anyone obtained after the 3rd round, flame out. Some of those guys had been with the team numerous years, not just one. Obviously, the jury is still out on the current players.

Which is why I asked the question of would it be different with a well established vet WR? It wasn't with TE's, so I don't know the answer. I can see it going either way, but lean towards it taking some time. Just how long? Who knows. But that time element should factor into the decision and how it effects the Packers beyond 2019. If you can find a quality WR that will definitely (contractually) be in GB after this season, you have somewhat hedged your investment against this concern.

 

[Scotland Yard]

The Packers would be nearly out of cap space in that scenario as well not being able to roll over any into next season to further improve the roster as well as re-sign Clark.

Gutekunst needs to improve the position but with the 2020 receiver class being extremely talented it might be smart to make it happen that way.

No. Jimmy Graham would have been cut. They could have cut Crosby, too, he can't even kick off anymore. They could have made it work.

How long until your 2020 draft pick is up to snuff? 2021? 2022? Will Rodgers be washed up by then? Brady is an anomoly, not the norm...Rodgers ain't Brady.

 

[RRyder]

No. Jimmy Graham would have been cut. They could have cut Crosby, too, he can't even kick off anymore. They could have made it work.

How long until your 2020 draft pick is up to snuff? 2021? 2022? Will Rodgers be washed up by then? Brady is an anomoly, not the norm...Rodgers ain't Brady.

Well there are still more then a few young receivers on the roster that could develop.

I know people dont like hearing it but you cant just go out and sign a bunch among starting caliber players every year and at a certain point when you've invested draft capital in a position you need to bank on it developing otherwise all you do is create other holes on the team

 

[Scotland Yard]

Well there are still more then a few young receivers on the roster that could develop.

I know people dont like hearing it but you cant just go out and sign a bunch among starting caliber players every year and at a certain point when you've invested draft capital in a position you need to bank on it developing otherwise all you do is create other holes on the team

What draft capital is at WR? Adams and Scantling, that is it. Exactly what draft capital are we giving up on had they traded for Beckham?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I know people dont like hearing it but you cant just go out and sign a bunch among starting caliber players every year and at a certain point when you've invested draft capital in a position you need to bank on it developing otherwise all you do is create other holes on the team

THAT, actually is kind of what has the Packers up against the wall right now. TT and Gute had to invest a ton of high draft capital in the secondary, due to failing on too many previous attempts and in the process *insert what ever word you want here (ignored, put off, delayed) other positions of need.


So yes, Gute invested 3 draft picks (4th, 5th and 6th) in 3 WR's last year. Moore (4th) is gone, MVS isn't bad for a 5th, but by no means is a solid player yet and EQ is a wait and see. Expecting too much out of your 4th round and later picks, especially expecting starting quality WR's by their 2nd year, isn't a good way to build a team IMO.

 

[Mondio]

Give me your best receivers in the NFL and then compare them physically to MVS and EQ, tell me what the difference is? So what was the solutions? Pay to bring in someone proven? Like it worked with Graham? It ensures or insures nothing. Draft one? when? 4th round? or are you sending back Gary for a 1st round WR? Savage? Amos? ZSmith? PSmith? either of our starting guards?

I can promise had we done that there would be never ending complaints about lack of depth at OLB or lack of players period. Complaining about the lack of safeties. Or complaining about lack of depth at the oline.

Yes it would be better if we had the equivalent of Jordy, Jennings, Driver, Jones, Cobb right now but we don't.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yes it would be better if we had the equivalent of Jordy, Jennings, Driver, Jones, Cobb right now but we don't.

This point I agree with you. However, using Graham as a constant example of how Free Agents don't always fix things, isn't a good way to look at it IMO. I could simply counter with Smith, Smith and Amos for starters. Sure, we can wait around and see what all the WR's not named Davante Adams do this season, but IMO, so far its not looking all that great and looking more like what happened with the secondary, waiting for players to develop, that never did. It's fine when those developing players aren't asked to produce much while they develop, but with Adams injury, we suddenly have a very weak group of WR's.

How did you fix it? Some patience like you suggest, but also investing capital in the position, something the Packers haven't done since 2014.

 

[swhitset]

This point I agree with you. However, using Graham as a constant example of how Free Agents don't always fix things, isn't a good way to look at it IMO. I could simply counter with Smith, Smith and Amos for starters. Sure, we can wait around and see what all the WR's not named Davante Adams do this season, but IMO, so far its not looking all that great and looking more like what happened with the secondary, waiting for players to develop, that never did. It's fine when those developing players aren't asked to produce much while they develop, but with Adams injury, we suddenly have a very weak group of WR's.

How did you fix it? Some patience like you suggest, but also investing capital in the position, something the Packers haven't done since 2014.

I agree with a lot of this ... but Graham is a good example to use when arguing against free agents at the tail end of their career... Frankly as soon as I hear that someone is north of 30 years of age... I am predisposed to say “pass”. The Smiths and Amos imo are the way to use free agency. Get them going into their prime.

 

[Mondio]

Graham will always be an example that you can’t just plug someone in who is a veteran and watch them play .

The argument isn’t that free agency doesn’t work it can and clearly it needed to because outside linebacker and safeties on this defense are having a much larger impact than any free-agent wide receiver we would have went and got . It has nothing to do with using Free Agency to build a team or not.

We have 6, SIX good to absolutely fantastic starters replaced on this team this offseason. that's significant. While our receivers and the offense have been disappointing, it was to be expected regardless of the receivers. It's a new damn offense. It's a new coach it takes time. He doesn't even know what we have.

So get a FA? go spend that money? why? you think MLF knew exactly what everyone was going to be and what he needed before conducting a practice? Ok, big gamble, do it. Now who's not here? MVS and EQ have all the talent and potential you can expect from a young WR. You say a starting guard could go and now where does that leave us? Better?

Draft? 4th round? that's different how? No Gary, no Savage, no other side starting guard? are we better? Smith, Smith, Fackrell and who? Keep Reggie Gilbert? How do you think that season plays out for us?

So we're weak at WR with nobody stepping up. Up until this week and next nobody could even accurately say it was because of the WR's or because the offense just isn't working yet. They don't learn it in a week, or even a month.

What do you think being 3 deep already at guard and now looking at RT would do without the 2 starters we got, 1 FA and 1 draft? who cares who the WR's are then. It won't matter.

 

[Dantés]

Give me your best receivers in the NFL and then compare them physically to MVS and EQ, tell me what the difference is? So what was the solutions? Pay to bring in someone proven? Like it worked with Graham? It ensures or insures nothing. Draft one? when? 4th round? or are you sending back Gary for a 1st round WR? Savage? Amos? ZSmith? PSmith? either of our starting guards?

I can promise had we done that there would be never ending complaints about lack of depth at OLB or lack of players period. Complaining about the lack of safeties. Or complaining about lack of depth at the oline.

Yes it would be better if we had the equivalent of Jordy, Jennings, Driver, Jones, Cobb right now but we don't.

For the record, I'm not calling for MVS to be replaced. Really, I'm calling for Allison to be replaced with a player who adds a needed dimension to the offense.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The Packers shouldn't be interested in a 32-year old wide receiver. In that case it would have been better to hold on to Cobb.

You don't have than option now in 20/20 hindsight so the comparison is gratuitious.

The question before the court is whether he Packers should attempt to trade for rent-a-player at WR for the balance of the season. I think it's a little early. If the Packers are 6-2 leading up to the trade deadline, it might be worth a shot paying a guy like Sanders 1/2 his 2019 salary. If it is 4-4, then I'd say save the money and the draft pick.

 

[Mondio]

For the record, I'm not calling for MVS to be replaced. Really, I'm calling for Allison to be replaced with a player who adds a needed dimension to the offense.

right now on the roster, Shepherd is about the only guy offering something different. He's back from injury, but very young and raw. And i'm not arguing that our WR's are set. Just that this team was going to have a weakness, it had too big and too many holes to expect it to be "fixed".

We're heading to that point in the season where it's decision time, is it the offense that needs learning, or the players that need experience or the players need replacing. Whether someone is available or not at this point is fine to debate and I hope if we need one, there's one there. Even then it's a couple weeks to get up to speed even for a vet.

I expect playmakers on offense to be addressed next offseason. While I might want or like another WR, that's different than saying the FO didn't do their job this offseason. They did, and then some if you ask me.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I agree with a lot of this ... but Graham is a good example to use when arguing against free agents at the tail end of their career...

I know what you and Mondio are saying about Graham, but again, that is mostly using hindsight and shouldn't be the measuring stick you use in the future. It should be part of the equation, a cautionary tale so to speak, but not "look what happened to Graham, we will never sign a 31 year old player again." I really don't think the Packers or many of us thought Graham was at the end of his career when he signed. Jared Cook is 5 months younger than Graham, in hindsight, it would have been a better move just to resign Cook. I would say the bigger mistake with Graham was giving him a 3 year deal, but guessing they didn't want to lose him on a one year deal, IF he happened to play really good last year. Cook woke the Packers up to just how effective Rodgers could be with a solid TE, I think they hoped they were getting an even better player in Graham than they had in Cook, appears they may have guessed wrong.

I am all about improving the WR group, I was at the end of last season. I just don't think mid season (trade deadline) is the time you do it on a one year rental guy, unless you are pretty confident he might be the missing piece to a SB. If the Packers are looking for an upgrade in WR and they have to spend some future draft capital and cap now, do it on a guy that has a longer future in GB than just 8 games.

 

[swhitset]

I know what you and Mondio are saying about Graham, but again, that is mostly using hindsight and shouldn't be the measuring stick you use in the future. It should be part of the equation, a cautionary tale so to speak, but not "look what happened to Graham, we will never sign a 31 year old player again." I really don't think the Packers or many of us thought Graham was at the end of his career when he signed. Jared Cook is 5 months younger than Graham, in hindsight, it would have been a better move just to resign Cook. I would say the bigger mistake with Graham was giving him a 3 year deal, but guessing they didn't want to lose him on a one year deal, IF he happened to play really good last year. Cook woke the Packers up to just how effective Rodgers could be with a solid TE, I think they hoped they were getting an even better player in Graham than they had in Cook, appears they may have guessed wrong.

I am all about improving the WR group, I was at the end of last season. I just don't think mid season (trade deadline) is the time you do it on a one year rental guy, unless you are pretty confident he might be the missing piece to a SB. If the Packers are looking for an upgrade in WR and they have to spend some future draft capital and cap now, do it on a guy that has a longer future in GB than just 8 games.

I hear you... but will still stand by what I said about signing free agents over the age of 30... especially with receivers where a tenth of a second off of their 40 time might just make the difference between being dominant and completely ineffective.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I expect playmakers on offense to be addressed next offseason. While I might want or like another WR, that's different than saying the FO didn't do their job this offseason. They did, and then some if you ask me.

I don't think anyone or least I haven't, questioned what the FO did on defense, people including myself are super excited about it. Ok, I did question the ILB position But overall, an Grade of A.

However, if the offense continues to trend the way it has been, only one quality WR, I think at the end of the season you are correct, the focus will become offense. However, I will continue to say the mistake the FO did make in 2019 was sitting pat on the WR's they had. This wasn't a case of signing or drafting incorrectly in 2019 in regards to WR's, it was a case of doing nothing and completely putting too much reliance on a young, inexperienced and unproven group. You can continue to say "they were tapped out, what could they do?" but I don't buy that. Had they thought there was a depth issue at WR, they would have done something. What that something was, is anyone's guess, I don't particularly think a high draft pick of a WR does you much for 2019, but it may have helped you in 2020 and beyond. All that said, the Packers may have no choice but to sign a top notch FA WR next year, because expecting even a first rounder to fix things, is again probably asking too much.

 

[Mondio]

I don't think anyone or least I haven't, questioned what the FO did on defense, people including myself are super excited about it. Ok, I did question the ILB position But overall, an Grade of A.

However, if the offense continues to trend the way it has been, only one quality WR, I think at the end of the season you are correct, the focus will become offense. However, I will continue to say the mistake the FO did make in 2019 was sitting pat on the WR's they had. This wasn't a case of signing or drafting incorrectly in 2019 in regards to WR's, it was a case of doing nothing and completely putting too much reliance on a young, inexperienced and unproven group. You can continue to say "they were tapped out, what could they do?" but I don't buy that. Had they thought there was a depth issue at WR, they would have done something. What that something was, is anyone's guess, I don't particularly think a high draft pick of a WR does you much for 2019, but it may have helped you in 2020 and beyond.

To which I ask, who are you drafting? And are we better without a starting guard, safety or olb to sign a WR?

And who of those first 3 picks are you sending back for your higher drafted WR. And physically why should I believe they’re better than MVS or EQ?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I hear you... but will still stand by what I said about signing free agents over the age of 30... especially with receivers where a tenth of a second off of their 40 time might just make the difference between being dominant and completely ineffective.

I tend to agree with you, but guessing there are plenty of examples that prove you right and wrong. Just like RB's, age is an important factor, but shouldn't be the only one IMO.

 

[swhitset]

I tend to agree with you, but guessing there are plenty of examples that prove you right and wrong. Just like RB's, age is an important factor, but shouldn't be the only one IMO.

Agreed... but to me it’s a big enough one that I would not want to make a large investment. Now if we can grab someone without having to give up a high round pick and or pay them ridiculous money... by all means give it a shot.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

To which I ask, who are you drafting? And are we better without a starting guard, safety or olb to sign a WR?

And who of those first 3 picks are you sending back for your higher drafted WR. And physically why should I believe they’re better than MVS or EQ?

Again, I said drafting one probably doesn't do you much for 2019, but potentially helps you a year or two out. As far as picks go, I like Gary, but was he necessary with the #1 pick? Sternberger at the #3 pick? All sorts of ways those 3 picks could have turned out and one of them easily could have been a WR and still got Savage.

As far as signing a FA, we have done this dance in another thread. Not going to repeat it.

Again, I ask, did you think we were fine going into 2019 with the WR's we had? I think the Packers thought so. I just didn't and I stated it many times over the last 5 or so months. Telling me that they couldn't do anything isn't true, but if you told me that the Packers didn't do a thing, because they didn't see a need, I would believe that.