Irrationality

[Sunshinepacker]

I disagree that MVS was a viable starter for the Packers at any point.

No, MVS was a viable starter but primarily because the Packers other options were so poor that he had to start. It's all relative to the competition when it comes to starting. E.g., I think Nijman is a better tackle than Jawaan Taylor but the truth of the matter is that Taylor is a starting tackle while Nijman is a backup. (this was in jest though the point remains that MVS was forced to play far more snaps than he should have because the position was ignored for so long).

 

[tynimiller]

I disagree that MVS was a viable starter for the Packers at any point.

If you mean a teams WR2 starter I’d not pushback but so many teams starting three wideouts nowadays he was and is absolutely a viable starter and proved that.

I am betting you meant WR2 tho

 

[Sunshinepacker]

If you mean a teams WR2 starter I’d not pushback but so many teams starting three wideouts nowadays he was and is absolutely a viable starter and proved that.

I am betting you meant WR2 tho

He’d be deep threat receiver on most teams. Between the 20’s he’d probably be WR3. At most he’d be the fourth receiver in the red zone. I’m not trying to nitpick, just pointing out that his skillet is so one-dimensional (a valuable dimension to be sure) that he’d normally be a specialty receiver, just doing what he does best which is go routes. Good for a day 3 receiver but not an ideal starter.

 

[ARPackFan]

"Fan," short for "fanatical." Fans (myself included) are not well known for rationality. And that's OK. It's fun to have passion for something like a sports team. It makes things more fun.

The person who needs to be rational is Brian Gutekunst. And he is.

He's not.

The time to draft a WR that may develop into a solid receiver this year was sometime in the 2019, 2020 or even as late as the 2021 draft. Amari Rodgers was drafted in 2021 and no WRs were drafted in 2019 or 2020. The three WRs taken in the 2018 draft either didn't succeed or they signed with another team this free agency period. It's common for teams to have 6 WRs on the 53 man roster. Simple math tells me a team should be taking a WR almost every year just to keep pace with turnover at the position. It was irrational of Gutekunst to ignore the WR position until last year and taking three WRs this year is proof of mismanaging the position. I guess the Packers are all set now and can wait until 2026 to draft three more.

 

[McKnowledge]

Let me first be clear about me not having an issue with the Packers not spending a first rounder on a wide receiver in this year's draft. But it's also irrational to expect one being selected in the second round to end up being successful just because the Packers had success in the past drafting players at the position in that round.

In some respects I agree with you.

I understand the principal of your agreement.

But the argument doesn't take into account the variables.

Watson is coming to the Packers under ideal conditions.

He has a QB maestro. He has an elite running game. The O-Line is formidable.

The coach is offensive minded. The city surrounding his new team is not so different from his college.

These variables are rational facts that create the expectation of success.

Watson just has to get better each day. Mentally and physically progressing and contributing his best.

There shouldn't be any pressure on him because there is none.

 

[McKnowledge]

I disagree that MVS was a viable starter for the Packers at any point.

I was always biased towards EQ St. Brown because I thought he had potential, so I thought MVS was one dimensional. And really he is.

Never developed a route tree and I found his adjustment to the catch really suspect (4 years in the league?).

I thought EQ St. Brown couldn't catch a break.

Often injured, he couldn't stay on the field but availability is the best ability.

MVS seized the opportunity (Tyreke Hill exodus) in free agency and got his money.

 

[OldSchool101]

If Lazard isn’t already a success to someone I’d argue they are clueless at grading prospects and success stories of players.

I know I shouldn’t have to give these examples. However, there’s several “someones” right here in this forum.

I just don’t see the WR catastrophe that a big group of posters see. I think we’d be surprised what spreading the ball around can do in mitigating the loss of Davante production. I highly doubt Aaron Rodgers doesn’t come close or surpass 4000-4200 passing yards this season. That is essentially the similar production to last season.

I’d bet there’s a better chance we surpass his 4200 yards area than to pass for less than 3,900. Also What we miss in passing yards vs. the 2021 season, I see us largely making up in rushing.

Not to mention I’ll be very surprised if we don’t crack a top 10 Scoring Defense by seasons end.

 

[Poppa San]

MVS seized the opportunity (Tyreke Hill exodus) in free agency and got his money.

This tells me that many here under rate his ability and value to the team. Pretty good pocket change for the Chiefs to take a flyer on a one trick pony.

 

[tynimiller]

This tells me that many here under rate his ability and value to the team. Pretty good pocket change for the Chiefs to take a flyer on a one trick pony.

Yup they clearly know he is merely a WR4 and worthless in the red zone or they’d paid him $20M a year…..lol

 

[longtimefan]

No, MVS was a viable starter but primarily because the Packers other options were so poor that he had to start. It's all relative to the competition when it comes to starting. E.g., I think Nijman is a better tackle than Jawaan Taylor but the truth of the matter is that Taylor is a starting tackle while Nijman is a backup. (this was in jest though the point remains that MVS was forced to play far more snaps than he should have because the position was ignored for so long).

I guess kc paid 10 mill for a non starter?

 

[kevans74]

I agree with sunshine, you have to look at PRODUCTION ultimately

I mean MVS career high was what 38 catches? Lol

Good for him to get paid, but i would hope that Sammy Watkins, Watson and Doubs could ALL EACH produce 40+ catches this year ...

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If you mean a teams WR2 starter I’d not pushback but so many teams starting three wideouts nowadays he was and is absolutely a viable starter and proved that.

I am betting you meant WR2 tho

In my opinion MVS is a borderline #3 receiver. I would prefer to have him coming off the bench to take advantage of his talent but don't want him to play the majority of snaps.

In some respects I agree with you.

I understand the principal of your agreement.

But the argument doesn't take into account the variables.

Watson is coming to the Packers under ideal conditions.

He has a QB maestro. He has an elite running game. The O-Line is formidable.

The coach is offensive minded. The city surrounding his new team is not so different from his college.

These variables are rational facts that create the expectation of success.

Watson just has to get better each day. Mentally and physically progressing and contributing his best.

There shouldn't be any pressure on him because there is none.

I'm not suggesting Watson won't be successful with the Packers. My point is that just because second rounders at wide receiver worked out in the past for the Packers doesn't mean anything for him.

This tells me that many here under rate his ability and value to the team. Pretty good pocket change for the Chiefs to take a flyer on a one trick pony.

I believe the Chiefs hugely overpaid for MVS and will regret giving him that kind of money.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I guess kc paid 10 mill for a non starter?

I guess.

 

[tynimiller]

I agree with sunshine, you have to look at PRODUCTION ultimately

I mean MVS career high was what 38 catches? Lol

Good for him to get paid, but i would hope that Sammy Watkins, Watson and Doubs could ALL EACH produce 40+ catches this year ...

If all three of those get 40 catches I'm guessing that means Cobb and Lazard are hurt and don't play more than a few games...there are not an endless amount of catches.

 

[sschind]

Like Knowledge says Watson is coming to a team without a #1 WR. I believe he will get more opportunities to be that guy than he would if we were not so depleted at WR. That is why I feel he could put up very good numbers. I agree with James Jones that he is a dark horse candidate for OROY. A similar opportunity is there for Doubs and even to a lesser extent Toure. They don't have a lot of stellar competition so if they can pick things up early they have a very good opportunity to contribute.

What the Packers have done historically has no impact on how Watson develops. When people say the Packers have done pretty well developing day 2 talent my reply is they had no choice. They had 2 HOF QBs for the last how many years and they never had much for 1st round WRs. HOF QBs are obviously talented on their own but I don't think they become HOF level without some WR help along the way. If a QB plays at that level its clear that some non day 1 WRs are going to develop. In the Packers case it had to be day 2 guys because IMO their day 3 selections pretty much sucked. Ill give you 1 A+ in Donald Driver and a C+ in MVS and thats about it.

So thats my take. The rookies have a chance to contribute based on their talent and their team situation and not based on where they were drafted. Of the three if 1 becomes an all pro, 1 becomes decent and 1 washes out, I don't really care which is which. It is still 1 all pro, 1 decent and 1wash out.

 

[Magooch]

Teams often make hasty and/or questionable decisions when they've gotta replace a star player who's left. Sometimes that means overpaying for their replacement or feeling a bit panicked and making a move that you wouldn't typically make in other circumstances.

And I think most fans understand that - and even the ones who are very pro-MVS generally seem to think the Chiefs overpaid. Think if it was reversed: If MVS had been playing for the Chiefs and was a free agent - would anyone want us to pay 3 years/30m for him? I've not seen anyone suggesting that we should've done that.

Of course there are differences in cap situations and whatnot but I think it's hard to be very consistent in effectively saying "MVS is good, the price the Chiefs paid proves it...but also we shouldn't have paid that much for him, he's not worth that money for us"

 

[Poppa San]

Teams often make hasty and/or questionable decisions when they've gotta replace a star player who's left. Sometimes that means overpaying for their replacement or feeling a bit panicked and making a move that you wouldn't typically make in other circumstances.

And I think most fans understand that - and even the ones who are very pro-MVS generally seem to think the Chiefs overpaid. Think if it was reversed: If MVS had been playing for the Chiefs and was a free agent - would anyone want us to pay 3 years/30m for him? I've not seen anyone suggesting that we should've done that.

Of course there are differences in cap situations and whatnot but I think it's hard to be very consistent in effectively saying "MVS is good, the price the Chiefs paid proves it...but also we shouldn't have paid that much for him, he's not worth that money for us"

Spotrac has both Lazard and MVS in the $8m per range. MVS a bit more. KC payed a slight premium for a deep threat.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Spotrac has both Lazard and MVS in the $8m per range. MVS a bit more. KC payed a slight premium for a deep threat.

Lazard was given a second round tender. His contract isn't really a free-market contract. I'm not trying to claim he would have earned much more in free agency, just that MVS received a contract slightly above a second round tender for a restricted free agent.

I think the most telling thing is that an EXTREMELY receiver-needy team that is most familiar with MVS (the Packers) didn't want to make him the 30th highest paid receiver (by average value). That tells me more than the Chiefs being willing to sign him.

 

[longtimefan]

Lazard was given a second round tender. His contract isn't really a free-market contract. I'm not trying to claim he would have earned much more in free agency, just that MVS received a contract slightly above a second round tender for a restricted free agent.

I think the most telling thing is that an EXTREMELY receiver-needy team that is most familiar with MVS (the Packers) didn't want to make him the 30th highest paid receiver (by average value). That tells me more than the Chiefs being willing to sign him.

What did packers offer him?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Lazard was given a second round tender. His contract isn't really a free-market contract. I'm not trying to claim he would have earned much more in free agency, just that MVS received a contract slightly above a second round tender for a restricted free agent.

MVS will earn $9 million in 2022 while Lazard's second round tender is for close to $4 million. That's more than a slight difference.