Packers sign Devin Funchess

[Fredrik87]

Trivia question, which Packer WR was open the most in 2019?

Does this include TE's? If so I think I remember reading somewhere it was Jimmy Graham as impossible as it seems.

 

[gatorpack]

Just from reading...a big guy who catches half of the balls thrown to him for about 11 yards. He does seem to be a red zone threat. But I admit I don't really like red zone threats. Prefer to have an all around receiver.

Let's not forget cam was his QB for most of his career

 

[gatorpack]

No guarantee Funchess even makes the cut. He's the slowest of the Packer's big-bodied wide receivers and has problems with drops. I'd rather keep Lazard and St Brown over Funchess. He could battle Kumerow for the sixth WR position.
Here is how I see the WR position group
1 Adams
2. High draft pick
3. Lazard
4. St. Brown
5. Low draft pick
6. Kumerow or Funchess

St. Brown is faster and has better hands in my opinion with a higher up side.

He will be #2 he finally has a real qb to throw him the football. Lazard is the only one I see being able to maybe beat him out for the #2 if he can make a big jump in yr 2

 

[tynimiller]

He will be #2 he finally has a real qb to throw him the football. Lazard is the only one I see being able to maybe beat him out for the #2 if he can make a big jump in yr 2

It all depends on how you define #2...by year's end depending on the role or WR type drafted (as I am assuming still we draft one before end of 3rd round) they may out produce him stat wise, but I also believe he or Lazard will be the primary #2 snap count guy opposite of Adams.

 

[AmishMafia]

I'm not trusting any "stat" or "opinion" on a subjective topic such as open or not.

You are wrong.


Well it is quantified. It was from nextgen stats (I think) and gave the average yardage separation per target. Now, you could argue that those are the only times he got open, but that would not be very likely.

It was GMo. He was top 10 in the NFL. Yet only received 56 targets. Lazard had 1 less target and 1 more reception.

Adams was 18ish. Of course he faced more double teams and has the #1 CB usually covering him.

 

[AmishMafia]

Does this include TE's? If so I think I remember reading somewhere it was Jimmy Graham as impossible as it seems.

Just limiting to WRs, but you are right. Graham was one of the top ones in the NFL.

 

[tynimiller]

You are wrong.


Well it is quantified. It was from nextgen stats (I think) and gave the average yardage separation per target. Now, you could argue that those are the only times he got open, but that would not be very likely.

It was GMo. He was top 10 in the NFL. Yet only received 56 targets. Lazard had 1 less target and 1 more reception.

Adams was 18ish. Of course he faced more double teams and has the #1 CB usually covering him.

Sorry you cannot claim me wrong as I cannot substantiate the claim their wrong, as it is a subjective topic being discussed.

 

[AmishMafia]

Sorry you cannot claim me wrong as I cannot substantiate the claim their wrong, as it is a subjective topic being discussed.

Not subjective it is quantified. Now if you want to invalidate the quantification, you can make that argument. I personally see several issues with the quantification logic.

1. Only looks at targets.
2. Play may be diagnosed defensively and coverage shifted
3. Maybe a few plays that GMo excelled at
4. Maybe GMo was often the hot route on plays with off coverage artificially inflating the stats.


Etc.


Its okay to think about stuff and discuss and just not say "no no no, I dont agree and refuse to consider."

 

[tynimiller]

Not subjective it is quantified. Now if you want to invalidate the quantification, you can make that argument. I personally see several issues with the quantification logic.

1. Only looks at targets.
2. Play may be diagnosed defensively and coverage shifted
3. Maybe a few plays that GMo excelled at
4. Maybe GMo was often the hot route on plays with off coverage artificially inflating the stats.


Etc.


Its okay to think about stuff and discuss and just not say "no no no, I dont agree and refuse to even think."

Declaring a receiver open it is a subjective thing to say. I can quantify subjective things all day long, it doesn't change whether they're subjective or not. To an extent "pressures" is a similar thing...or the amount of keepers I caught the other day fishing...subjective.

I'm not throwing the idea of conversing about how well someone seems to find the open spot or come uncovered...I will not however declare a subjective thing as a definitive thing is all.

 

[AmishMafia]

Declaring a receiver open it is a subjective thing to say. I can quantify subjective things all day long, it doesn't change whether they're subjective or not. To an extent "pressures" is a similar thing...or the amount of keepers I caught the other day fishing...subjective.

I'm not throwing the idea of conversing about how well someone seems to find the open spot or come uncovered...I will not however declare a subjective thing as a definitive thing is all.

Subjective = cannot be quantified, based on opinion

Quantified = express with measurement

Distance is a Measurement


I just throw stuff out there for discussion purposes. I thought it was interesting and not what one would think or expect.

 

[Dantés]

I'm just wondering why the league's pro personnel departments didn't recognize Allison for the elite separator that he clearly must be and sign him in the first wave of free agency.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Trivia question, which Packer WR was open the most in 2019?

oh no you don't! lol

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

 

[HardRightEdge]

You are wrong.


Well it is quantified. It was from nextgen stats (I think) and gave the average yardage separation per target. Now, you could argue that those are the only times he got open, but that would not be very likely.

It was GMo. He was top 10 in the NFL. Yet only received 56 targets. Lazard had 1 less target and 1 more reception.

Adams was 18ish. Of course he faced more double teams and has the #1 CB usually covering him.

https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/stats/receiving#average-separation

Click on the "SEP" heading to sort.

Among all WRs and TEs according to this ranking:

Jimmy Graham: Led the league at 3.9 yards. 9 of the top 10 are TEs
Allison: T8th among WRs at 3.3 yards
Adams: T12th among WRs at 3.2 yards
Lazard (2.9 yards) and MVS (2.6 yards) are well down the list. Somebody else can count the WRs down to their name if they want an exact ranking.

In 2018, MVS was T11 among WRs at 3.3 yards.

 

[AmishMafia]

I'm just wondering why the league's pro personnel departments didn't recognize Allison for the elite separator that he clearly must be and sign him in the first wave of free agency.

I'm wondering why you arent a GM for some team with those impressive analytical skills.

 

[AmishMafia]

https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/stats/receiving#average-separation

Click on the "SEP" heading to sort.

Among all WRs and TEs according to this ranking:

Jimmy Graham: Led the league at 3.9 yards. 9 of the top 10 are TEs
Allison: T8th among WRs at 3.3 yards
Adams: T12th among WRs at 3.2 yards
Lazard (2.9 yards) and MVS (2.6 yards) are well down the list. Somebody else can count the WRs down to their name if they want an exact ranking.

In 2018, MVS was T11 among WRs at 3.3 yards.

Thanks! I found it interesting.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Two recurring themes in one player:

A big body WR, a carryover theme from last two years. An injury reclamation bet as with the two top FAs signed this year. I presume his contract is not a needle-mover.

Seems....redundant?

Green Bay already has a stable of big, and otherwise undistinguished wide receivers, and now they have one more. One with a history of drops.

I do understand the desire to sign a veteran, but I'm not sure Funchess brings a lot to the table. I hope I'm terribly wrong about that.

Meh.

 

[bigbubbatd]

Seems....redundant?

Green Bay already has a stable of big, and otherwise undistinguished wide receivers, and now they have one more. One with a history of drops.

I do understand the desire to sign a veteran, but I'm not sure Funchess brings a lot to the table. I hope I'm terribly wrong about that.

Meh.

He may be redundant but I wouldnt really call him undistinguished. He much more distinguished than what we have on the roster. His 2017 is vastly superior to what we have seen produced and his 2018 was better as well

 

[Deleted member 6794]

No guarantee Funchess even makes the cut. He's the slowest of the Packer's big-bodied wide receivers and has problems with drops. I'd rather keep Lazard and St Brown over Funchess. He could battle Kumerow for the sixth WR position.

It would be exciting if Lazard, MVS and St. Brown move past Funchess on the depth chart but at this point he offers a decent veteran presence as the third option.

Just from reading...a big guy who catches half of the balls thrown to him for about 11 yards. He does seem to be a red zone threat. But I admit I don't really like red zone threats. Prefer to have an all around receiver.

Just for the record, Funchess has averaged 13.8 yards per reception in his career.

He will be #2 he finally has a real qb to throw him the football. Lazard is the only one I see being able to maybe beat him out for the #2 if he can make a big jump in yr 2

I fully expect a rookie selected early in the draft to end up being the #2 receiver with the Packers next season.

 

[GleefulGary]

Seems....redundant?

Green Bay already has a stable of big, and otherwise undistinguished wide receivers, and now they have one more. One with a history of drops.

I do understand the desire to sign a veteran, but I'm not sure Funchess brings a lot to the table. I hope I'm terribly wrong about that.

Meh.

He's very meh.

He's also better than a lot of the WR's we used last year.

 

[tynimiller]

As a receiver he has proven to be capable in this league vastly more than anyone not named Lazard on our entire roster. I find it hilarious how dismissive some are of him. I don't care if he is literally the replica of Lazard, just with more experience. Give me production like he has illustrated he is capable of (albeit with freaking Cam Newton throwing to him) and I'm happy.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Not subjective it is quantified. Now if you want to invalidate the quantification, you can make that argument. I personally see several issues with the quantification logic.

1. Only looks at targets.
2. Play may be diagnosed defensively and coverage shifted
3. Maybe a few plays that GMo excelled at
4. Maybe GMo was often the hot route on plays with off coverage artificially inflating the stats.

Its okay to think about stuff and discuss and just not say "no no no, I dont agree and refuse to consider."

There are other things going on. Why are TEs high on the list despite running more short routes? Why are 100 target receivers scattered across the rankings, pretty equally distributed, and not concentrated at the top of the list? I've got a couple of thoughts.

TE's are frequently targetted on underneath routes in zone seams. Zone D on short routes is oriented more toward containment, limiting YAC, rather than defending the pass. That's one theory.

As for WRs, it is worth repeating that the separation stats are for targets, not plays where the guy is not thrown the ball. Though not in every case, the fact NFL QBs in general do not high-target guys with the best separation (those players are scattered throughout the rankings) suggests some other factors: trust, or confidence if one prefers.

Trust or confidence covers a number of things. Does the receiver run the route in the way the QB expects whereby he can be thrown open in tight coverage? That may be the most important factor. Is the receiver physical and competitive at the ball? Does the receiver have reliable hands to come down with competitive balls? Can the guy be trusted to get YAC when throwing under the first down marker? All things being equal, the physical traits that go into throwing to tight coverage are catch radius (height, arm length, vertical) and strength (however you measure that, though I think you'd find receiver physicality correlates to lifts.)

If one were to roll all these factors into a score, receivers with high scores are more likely to get throws in tight coverage.

Alternatively, at the other end of the spectrum where things are not always equal, we see Edelman far down the list at 2.8 yards yet with 153 targets. We know why--he's one of a long line of little NE slots who can catch a ball in a phone booth and Brady has high confidence he will. Further, the kinds of routes a receiver is called upon to execute is a factor. Running a lot of short slot routes against man is bound to suppress separation stats.

So what does this stat mean? Not much without examining individual cases. I'll say this much. If a WR is not a trusted route runner, he'll see the ball less often and when he does it will most often be after he makes his break with separation. Of course by then, the progression or the pass rush moving off the QB off his spot may result in that receiver being passed by. And you don't want to be staring the guy down waiting to see his break. That's a recipe for INTs, or in Rodgers case, throwaways.

Some of the best receivers may well be the ones with high productivity and a low separation number, a high trust factor that works. You'd of course prefer both, like Adams.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Seems....redundant?

Green Bay already has a stable of big, and otherwise undistinguished wide receivers, and now they have one more. One with a history of drops.

I do understand the desire to sign a veteran, but I'm not sure Funchess brings a lot to the table. I hope I'm terribly wrong about that.

Meh.

There is a evident preference for guys with a big catch radius. Some of the guys are holdovers from the McCarthy regime, but getting Lazard on the field and now Funchess it appears to be a preference in the current regime.

Gutekunst does not strike me as an, "I'll pick the ingredients, you cook the meal," kind of guy, borrowing the famous phrase from Parcells. I could be wrong, but I expect LaFleur is bought in to that approach.

I'm agnostic on the approach, especially now where small/quick/fast receivers (like short QBs) are not discounted in the draft as much as they used to be. It comes down to the system and the players that can execute it.

One issue I do have with this receiving group is depite their size there isn't a lot of tackle breaking going on. My preference in the draft is a a good route runner who can impose physicality against DBs more than a gaudy 40 time, though nobody would turn down speed in the bargain.

 

[bigbubbatd]

I think remember some people interested in Tajae Sharp. He just signed with the Vikings. I didnt realize how little he has actually done in the NFL. He had a solid rookie campaign but went backward the last two years and did very little last year. Will be interesting to see how the contracts compare

 

[AmishMafia]

There are other things going on. Why are TEs high on the list despite running more short routes? Why are 100 target receivers scattered across the rankings, pretty equally distributed, and not concentrated at the top of the list? I've got a couple of thoughts.

TE's are frequently targetted on underneath routes in zone seams. Zone D on short routes is oriented more toward containment, limiting YAC, rather than defending the pass. That's one theory.

As for WRs, it is worth repeating that the separation stats are for targets, not plays where the guy is not thrown the ball. Though not in every case, the fact NFL QBs in general do not high-target guys with the best separation (those players are scattered throughout the rankings) suggests some other factors: trust, or confidence if one prefers.

Trust or confidence covers a number of things. Does the receiver run the route in the way the QB expects whereby he can be thrown open in tight coverage? That may be the most important factor. Is the receiver physical and competitive at the ball? Does the receiver have reliable hands to come down with competitive balls? Can the guy be trusted to get YAC when throwing under the first down marker? All things being equal, the physical traits that go into throwing to tight coverage are catch radius (height, arm length, vertical) and strength (however you measure that, though I think you'd find receiver physicality correlates to lifts.)

If one were to roll all these factors into a score, receivers with high scores are more likely to get throws in tight coverage.

Alternatively, at the other end of the spectrum where things are not always equal, we see Edelman far down the list at 2.8 yards yet with 153 targets. We know why--he's one of a long line of little NE slots who can catch a ball in a phone booth and Brady has high confidence he will. Further, the kinds of routes a receiver is called upon to execute is a factor. Running a lot of short slot routes against man is bound to suppress separation stats.

So what does this stat mean? Not much without examining individual cases. I'll say this much. If a WR is not a trusted route runner, he'll see the ball less often and when he does it will most often be after he makes his break with separation. Of course by then, the progression or the pass rush moving off the QB off his spot may result in that receiver being passed by. And you don't want to be staring the guy down waiting to see his break. That's a recipe for INTs, or in Rodgers case, throwaways.

Some of the best receivers may well be the ones with high productivity and a low separation number, a high trust factor that works. You'd of course prefer both, like Adams.

Good points.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Vikings just signed WR Tajae Sharpe to a one year deal. He was someone I thought that the Packers might pursue. Will be interesting to see what we got Funchess for and how much the Vikings shelled out for Sharpe.