'Splain this one Lucy?

[Pokerbrat2000]

However no one player outside or QB IMO has that great or an impact

Fully agree and especially not so big of an impact, that you pay the guy $28+ Million per year. I know the cap is rising and teams can figure out a way to pay that amount, but when you have an MVP QB, that is getting paid $50M/year, I would prefer 3 average+ WRS at $28M total, than 1 WR making all that money. Not to even mention that you still have to pay 5 extra WR's to round out your depth chart in the Adams scenario and 3 in the other. Not saying Adams won't be missed, but I think eventually the Packers can become a lot more balanced on offense without him and are better off spreading that money around.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Here's a crazy thing that illustrates how efficient Lazard is...if you add just one more target per game he adds 125 yards a year to this totals and quickly is in the range of being a WR2. He is targeted at a rate of just 3.78 for the last 3 years, which compared to Watkins is even VERY low...shoot Aaron Jones has been targeted 4.35 times a game in that same three year window.

I only say all this because too many folks just look at stats and don't break it down to the efficiency of those figures - I guarantee Gute, scouts and everyone in the league 100% does.

I like Lazard, so don't take this the wrong way. However, are his targets less than you think they should/could be because Rodgers doesn't throw to him enough or are they lower because he isn't getting open due to not being all that fast or a great route runner? Probably a combination of the 2.

 

[Schultz]

Your response does not address the age issue. If we're talking about past production, I agree, there's a vast difference, but you can't have it both ways. Saying it's age, when convenient, then saying it's past performance when it's convenient is like comparing apples to bananas.

Watkins is still at an age where - if healthy - could possibly produce some seriously decent numbers with a QB like Rodgers making him one of his favorite targets.

I doubt very much that the Packers were stupid enough to sign someone to a contract that they didn't believe could contribute to a healthy passing game.

I respect the opinion of others on this issue, as long as they don't keep changing their criteria for judgement. So, which is it, age or production that determines what the prime age is to play in the NFL? It can't be both.

If 2 players near the same age have a huge discrepancy in production then that probably means that in their prime and after their prime the more productive receiver will continue that trend. In this case Adams, even though he is older and possibly past his prime has been trending up, while Watkins who may still (based on your criteria of age) be in his prime has been trending down. I believe talent, injuries, as well as wear and tear on the body play a big roll in just when and how long a players prime is. Age is not the only criteria.

 

[Schultz]

I like Lazard, so don't take this the wrong way. However, are his targets less than you think they should/could be because Rodgers doesn't throw to him enough or are they lower because he isn't getting open due to not being all that fast or a great route runner? Probably a combination of the 2.

On that note, has Watkins targets per game been so low because he can't get open?

 

[Voyageur]

If 2 players near the same age have a huge discrepancy in production then that probably means that in their prime and after their prime the more productive receiver will continue that trend. In this case Adams, even though he is older and possibly past his prime has been trending up, while Watkins who may still (based on your criteria of age) be in his prime has been trending down. I believe talent, injuries, as well as wear and tear on the body play a big roll in just when and how long a players prime is. Age is not the only criteria.

Addressing the age issue on prime. According to statistics, WRs actually peak at age around 26-27, and start declining after that. So, both players would technically be past prime. Your statement about wear and tear is very true. As an example, with RBs, their prime is around 23-25, and downhill after that. Lots of hits accumulating on them.

Injuries can go both ways. They can prolong a career as much as shorten it. The player who is injured, and takes fewer hits because of it, could just as well end up with a longer period for prime than the guy who is playing at his peak and been injury free.

 

[Voyageur]

On that note, has Watkins targets per game been so low because he can't get open?

Often, if you're #2 or #3, it doesn't matter whether or not you are open. Sometimes the QB throws to #1, and sometimes, if there's a rush, they throw the outlet pass, which could be an RB out of the backfield. You can't always determine if a guy was or wasn't open. The time the QB has to find #2 or #3 is critical.

Yet, to a point your statement is true. That can be part of the case as well.

 

[tynimiller]

I like Lazard, so don't take this the wrong way. However, are his targets less than you think they should/could be because Rodgers doesn't throw to him enough or are they lower because he isn't getting open due to not being all that fast or a great route runner? Probably a combination of the 2.

Combo of both no doubt....but I do lean to a larger part is the weapons around him....Adams, a healthy Tonyan and Aaron Jones - he at the highest on the field is the 4th best option

 

[tynimiller]

On that note, has Watkins targets per game been so low because he can't get open?

Like Lazard he has never been the fixture of an offense as the clear #1 option. Closest he got to that was his first two seasons in Buffalo - where he got 8 targets a game and then 7.38 targets a game.

He however of course isn't a WR you gameplan the entire game for like you do with Adams as well.

 

[tynimiller]

If 2 players near the same age have a huge discrepancy in production then that probably means that in their prime and after their prime the more productive receiver will continue that trend. In this case Adams, even though he is older and possibly past his prime has been trending up, while Watkins who may still (based on your criteria of age) be in his prime has been trending down. I believe talent, injuries, as well as wear and tear on the body play a big roll in just when and how long a players prime is. Age is not the only criteria.

Just for the record Adams is older. Watkins was born June 14th in 1993 he is 28 and will be 29 before the next season. Adams was born dec-24th 1992 and will turn 30 in the next season.

 

[tynimiller]

Addressing the age issue on prime. According to statistics, WRs actually peak at age around 26-27, and start declining after that. So, both players would technically be past prime. Your statement about wear and tear is very true. As an example, with RBs, their prime is around 23-25, and downhill after that. Lots of hits accumulating on them.

Not saying wrong or right but can I see backing for the claim of peaking? Looking at many of the greats in the game presently or very recently (Adams, Hopkins, Larry Fitz, Julio and such) it doesn't appear to jive with that....

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not that it will happen, but you never know. Imagine if Watkins has a better year than Adams. If I was a betting man, I would say Adams will have a good season, but won't have as great of one as last season. Watkins, if he stays healthy or even only misses a few games, we could see 600-1000 yds from him.

 

[OldSchool101]

Regarding Lazard. I was just surprised at how efficient he was with the targets he got. I do not have info on his “separation” levels. However, if you extrapolate his production out to 150% usage and Round down some to be safe?
He’d finish in the 60/90 750yds
11 TD’s range. I fully realize it’s not a perfect science. But he’s absolutely got good potential if he steps up his game. He’d probably got an opportunity to get paid handsomely if he just hits those marks above. We haven’t even factored his blocking prowess and that’s a valued asset as Poker or someone said.

If he becomes a primary target with just 80 catches. He’s a 1000 yard Receiver and those guys make big $$$. Before we 2nd tendered him, I read that Arizona and Atlanta and several other teams were sniffing around his corner.

As far as age. He’s just 26yrs old and according to internal forum sources (the most reliable off all sources ) he’s at the perfect age and with the perfect QB to rise to the occasion. If he’s smart, he’ll invite Rodgers to his Memorial Day party and schmooze him

 

[tynimiller]

Regarding Lazard. I was just surprised at how efficient he was with the targets he got. I do not have info on his “separation” levels. However, if you extrapolate his production out to 150% usage and Round down some to be safe?
He’d finish in the 60/90 750yds
11 TD’s range. I fully realize it’s not a perfect science. But he’s absolutely got good potential if he steps up his game. He’d probably got an opportunity to get paid handsomely if he just hits those marks above. We haven’t even factored his blocking prowess and that’s a valued asset as Poker or someone said.

If he becomes a primary target with just 80 catches. He’s a 1000 yard Receiver and those guys make big $$$. Before we 2nd tendered him, I read that Arizona and Atlanta and several other teams were sniffing around his corner.

As far as age. He’s just 26yrs old and according to internal forum sources..he’s at the perfect age and with the perfect QB to rise to the occasion.

As I stated just one additional target higher a game and he adds 125 yards a season, that's incredibly efficient.

 

[PikeBadger]

Here's a crazy thing that illustrates how efficient Lazard is...if you add just one more target per game he adds 125 yards a year to this totals and quickly is in the range of being a WR2. He is targeted at a rate of just 3.78 for the last 3 years, which compared to Watkins is even VERY low...shoot Aaron Jones has been targeted 4.35 times a game in that same three year window.

I only say all this because too many folks just look at stats and don't break it down to the efficiency of those figures - I guarantee Gute, scouts and everyone in the league 100% does.

Another thing that most people do, who throw stats around to try and tell us we have had none of the mythical #2 receivers here is, they don't take into account the fact that you just can't keep piling up numbers of touches and targets like the number of offensive plays is going to magically climb to infinity. No matter how good your offense is, the average number of offensive plays/game is never going to exceed 80 imo. So some skill players will not get the number of touches that others do. When you have dynamic players like Adams and Jones, and now Dillon starting to possibly enter that territory, TE's and tertiary WR's must get less. It's very simple mathematics. It doesn't mean that these other players sukk. It just means they don't have that role.

I swear, we have too many fantasy football freaks on this planet!

 

[PikeBadger]

Regarding Lazard. I was just surprised at how efficient he was with the targets he got. I do not have info on his “separation” levels. However, if you extrapolate his production out to 150% usage and Round down some to be safe?
He’d finish in the 60/90 750yds
11 TD’s range. I fully realize it’s not a perfect science. But he’s absolutely got good potential if he steps up his game. He’d probably got an opportunity to get paid handsomely if he just hits those marks above. We haven’t even factored his blocking prowess and that’s a valued asset as Poker or someone said.

If he becomes a primary target with just 80 catches. He’s a 1000 yard Receiver and those guys make big $$$. Before we 2nd tendered him, I read that Arizona and Atlanta and several other teams were sniffing around his corner.

As far as age. He’s just 26yrs old and according to internal forum sources (the most reliable off all sources ) he’s at the perfect age and with the perfect QB to rise to the occasion. If he’s smart, he’ll invite Rodgers to his Memorial Day party and schmooze him

Lol, he doesn't need to. Rodgers has liked Lazard plenty since his UDFA days as a rookie.
My humble apologies to Ted Thompson for talking about UDFA's.

 

[Voyageur]

Another thing that most people do, who throw stats around to try and tell us we have had none of the mythical #2 receivers here is, they don't take into account the fact that you just can't keep piling up numbers of touches and targets like the number of offensive plays is going to magically climb to infinity. No matter how good your offense is, the average number of offensive plays/game is never going to exceed 80 imo. So some skill players will not get the number of touches that others do. When you have dynamic players like Adams and Jones, and now Dillon starting to possibly enter that territory, TE's and tertiary WR's must get less. It's very simple mathematics. It doesn't mean that these other players sukk. It just means they don't have that role.

I swear, we have too many fantasy football freaks on this planet!

Those are always facets of the game itself people need to understand. That's why I believe that the Packers can succeed in being a successful passing team by committee, not reliant on one person, like Adams.

I've never believed you win with a one man show.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Your response does not address the age issue. If we're talking about past production, I agree, there's a vast difference, but you can't have it both ways. Saying it's age, when convenient, then saying it's past performance when it's convenient is like comparing apples to bananas.

Watkins is still at an age where - if healthy - could possibly produce some seriously decent numbers with a QB like Rodgers making him one of his favorite targets.

I doubt very much that the Packers were stupid enough to sign someone to a contract that they didn't believe could contribute to a healthy passing game.

I respect the opinion of others on this issue, as long as they don't keep changing their criteria for judgement. So, which is it, age or production that determines what the prime age is to play in the NFL? It can't be both.

I never mentioned anything about Watkins' age being a factor. My point is that he hasn't been overly productive since after the 2015 season though.

IF you amended Adams figures to fit the targeted per games amount that Watkins has had over his career and vice versa if you amended Watkins figures using Adams amount of Targets a game (using each of their catch percentages over their career) their yardage output becomes

I'm sorry tyni, but it doesn't make any sense to look at it that way. There's a reason Watkins hasn't been targeted as much as Adams and you can't just prorate his numbers based on his performance on a smaller amount of targets to project what he would have done on an increased number of targets.

Besides the QB(s) that each player has played with, I think you also have to look at the entire picture, that being the offense as well as the players around said player. Adams has been the Packers #1 back since...a long time. Was Watkins the #1 ever at Buffalo? I would also say Watkins being on 4 (now 5) teams since drafted, isn't going to help his numbers either.

As mentioned above, there's a reason Watkins never was a true #1 receiver and has been with several teams in the past few years.

Here's a crazy thing that illustrates how efficient Lazard is...if you add just one more target per game he adds 125 yards a year to this totals and quickly is in the range of being a WR2.

Once again, that's not how this works though.

I do not have info on his “separation” levels.

According to NFL's Next Gen Stats Lazard had an average separation of 2.6 yards when targeted last season. That ranked tied for 97th among 127 receivers and tight ends with at least 45 targets last season.

 

[tynimiller]

I'm sorry tyni, but it doesn't make any sense to look at it that way. There's a reason Watkins hasn't been targeted as much as Adams and you can't just prorate his numbers based on his performance on a smaller amount of targets to project what he would have done on an increased number of targets.

You actually can, and it is to illustrate the efficiency of a receiver. Adams does more with his targets than a TON of WRs. It helps illustrate yet again why Adams is a higher level WR in his efficiency with targets. As with any statistical reflections or projection - it isn't a perfect science of course, however it is purely an exercise of comparison and shouldn't be overthought too much or also shouldn't be written off.

The amount of targets a WR gets is of course a product of multiple different things...a downfield type weapon could see a lower amount of targets if a team has terrible line play, a QB without a deep arm, a WR's inability to create space or he could be a teams' 4th/5th or even 6th option. A wide range of items can impact a players target number....but measuring their efficiency when targeted is a metric I and many appreciate - it is one way folks can see separation of WRs.

 

[tynimiller]

Once again, that's not how this works though.

It actually is...within reason. The depth of normal targets Lazard is capable of producing inside this offensive structure mixed with his normal catch rate allows one to see the potential he might hold or produce should he be targeted more. This 100% is how such a projection works. It isn't saying you magically can make more targets for a player, it is saying if this player type, given their tendencies in production were to see an increase in "Y" it is relatively reasonable to assume "X" will see an increase or decrease.

 

[gopkrs]

According to NFL's Next Gen Stats Lazard had an average separation of 2.6 yards when targeted last season. That ranked tied for 97th among 127 receivers and tight ends with at least 45 targets last season.

Still, 2 1/2 yards seems like enough considering the routes he runs. And on the longer ones, he does not seem to get that kind of separation which must affect his stat. Maybe the more important stat would be separation when not targeted.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Now that more details have been released about Watkins contract, I hope those people that are all worried about the signing, can come to terms with it. Given how little the Packers invested, it wouldn't surprise me to see them sign another FA Vet WR, which will probably be put on hold until they see who they get in the draft.

In todays market, this was an absolute steal on the Packers part. These are the kinds of contracts that I like. If Watkins can't make the roster or has a injury filled year, the Packers aren't out a ton of money. If Watkins has a good year, he gets paid.

Signing bonus: $350,000
Base: $1.12 M
Roster bonus: $19,441/game active
Workout bonus: $50,000
Total: $1.85M
Reportedly had incentives up to $4 million but no details on those yet.

 

[tynimiller]

Now that more details have been released about Watkins contract, I hope those people that are all worried about the signing, can come to terms with it. Given how little the Packers invested, it wouldn't surprise me to see them sign another FA Vet WR, which will probably be put on hold until they see who they get in the draft.

In todays market, this was an absolute steal on the Packers part. These are the kinds of contracts that I like. If Watkins can't make the roster or has a injury filled year, the Packers aren't out a ton of money. If Watkins has a good year, he gets paid.

Signing bonus: $350,000
Base: $1.12 M
Roster bonus: $19,441/game active
Workout bonus: $50,000
Total: $1.85M
Reportedly had incentives up to $4 million but no details on those yet.

OMG....if this is the case and it could stay beneath $2M (incentives must be rather low maybe) that is an absolute STEAL

 

[tynimiller]

Still, 2 1/2 yards seems like enough considering the routes he runs. And on the longer ones, he does not seem to get that kind of separation which must affect his stat. Maybe the more important stat would be separation when not targeted.

He is 2.5 while Adams according to Next Gen is 2.9....I'm honestly shocked at that separation not being more of a difference between the two honestly.

 

[tynimiller]

Watkins deal, few more details of incentives:

This deal contains just $1.85 million in base value with just $350,000 guaranteed. Watkins will have incentives for snaps, catches, and receiving yards, with three levels of incentives for each; to start collecting extra cash, Watkins will need to play 55 percent of snaps, catch 50 passes, and/or rack up 550 yards.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Watkins deal, few more details of incentives:

This deal contains just $1.85 million in base value with just $350,000 guaranteed. Watkins will have incentives for snaps, catches, and receiving yards, with three levels of incentives for each; to start collecting extra cash, Watkins will need to play 55 percent of snaps, catch 50 passes, and/or rack up 550 yards.

I'm just fine with him hitting his $4M with incentives, it will mean that he had a decent season. Now if they could convince Julio or AJ to sign a similar contract, we could go into the draft not needing to find a day 1 starter at WR. I still think they have to draft for 2023 and beyond, by using a first rounder and maybe a second if you really like the guy. However, if somehow they could snag Williams and Watson, they have their Rookie years to get healthy (Williams) and learn the offense.