Wide Receiver Options

[Packerbacker1996]

Every day I check the NFL transactions to see that Gutey has done to plug the hole created by the departure of DA and now MVS. Every day I see nothing. I realize the season doesn't start tomorrow but I'd like to see some action. I'm feeling mighty uneasy right now.

I don't think WR is a position where you can expect your problems to be solved with the draft in the first year--even two 1st round picks.

Or maybe we get lucky and land the next Ja'Marr Chase

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Every day I check the NFL transactions to see that Gutey has done to plug the hole created by the departure of DA and now MVS. Every day I see nothing. I realize the season doesn't start tomorrow but I'd like to see some action. I'm feeling mighty uneasy right now.

I don't think WR is a position where you can expect your problems to be solved with the draft in the first year--even two 1st round picks.

I fully expect Gutekunst to make a move for a receiver before the draft but it might take some more time for one of the veterans to accept a reasonable deal with the Packers.

Or maybe we get lucky and land the next Ja'Marr Chase

Unfortunately the chances of that happening are pretty slim with the 22nd overall pick or later.

 

[Spanky]

I looked at the last 4 years of the NFL draft for WR's drafted between 1-39. Of the 19 WR's drafted that high, 2 were impact WR's in year 1: Ja'Marr Chase (5th overall) and Justin Jefferson (22nd overall).

4 were what I would call very good (900-1099 yards receiving) but only 1 of those 4 were available after the 19th pick in the 1st round (33rd pick, Tee Higgins 67/908/13.6--of course we all know the Packers could have drafted Higgins instead of Jordan Love and would not have needed to trade up to do so).

I expect the Packers to get a WR in 20's who will put up something like 50 catches for 600 yards (12 yard average). Even Devante took a couple of years to get to be a very high level WR (38/446/11.7 in year 1).

Of course there's a possibility they get the next Justin Jefferson--but I would not bet on it.

 

[Voyageur]

Who's to say that the Packers don't bundle their two firsts to move up into the top 10-15?

 

[realitybytez]

Who's to say that the Packers don't bundle their two firsts to move up into the top 10-15?

you still have to figure out which receiver is going to be an impact player in year 1, and i do not trust gute's judgment on wide receivers. i'd rather have two shots at that goal than one.

 

[sschind]

you still have to figure out which receiver is going to be an impact player in year 1, and i do not trust gute's judgment on wide receivers. i'd rather have two shots at that goal than one.

Same here. I don't like the idea of going WR with both 1st round picks either like some mocks have them doing but I would prefer that to bundling them to move up to get 1. Bundling 1 of them with a later round pick to move up to get someone they really want would be OK but all in all I'd rather them stay put in the first. Moving up in the second would be fine if it didn't take to much to get it done but I really like the idea of 2 1sts, 2 2nds and a third rounder.

 

[Voyageur]

I too prefer the draft picks. I don't think the Packers are going to blow it in who they grab. They're going to be pulling in some talent with those first 4 picks particularly.

 

[gopkrs]

Same here. I don't like the idea of going WR with both 1st round picks either like some mocks have them doing but I would prefer that to bundling them to move up to get 1. Bundling 1 of them with a later round pick to move up to get someone they really want would be OK but all in all I'd rather them stay put in the first. Moving up in the second would be fine if it didn't take to much to get it done but I really like the idea of 2 1sts, 2 2nds and a third rounder.

I too like the idea of keeping the first 4 picks. But I would have no problem with going W/O with both number 1 picks.

 

[sschind]

I too like the idea of keeping the first 4 picks. But I would have no problem with going W/O with both number 1 picks.

I guess I shouldn't say I don't like the idea, it just wouldn't be my preferred route to take. It would be exciting but I'd like to see some of the other issues addressed as well (DL for example)

 

[Todd Princl]

It’s all an overreaction. Colin Cowherd is has now labeled the GBP as “no longer SB contenders”.

What Colin isn’t smart enough to understand is that the Packers have zero intentions of going into week 1 with this group + 1 Draft selection (that was his assertion). He also said specifically that no one on the Green Bay Packers was capable of anything beyond a 4th WR on any other playoff contender (that part ain’t far off).

I predict GB will have 2-3 Wideouts added to todays current Stable before Regular season. Those will likely include an established NFL veteran and a top 5 ranked college WR.

Talk about a premature emotional overreaction (not directed at you Sschind) You’d think an asteroid is on collision course with planet Earth!
We might as well just hang up our cleats and go home and quit. Cancel your NFL packages everyone Davante ran away like a crybaby!.
I actually have a 3yr old (I’m a very late bloomer) that takes adversity in stride better.

I agree!! For one thing, I enjoyed watching Rodgers spray the field when Davante was out. After it is all said and done we just might have a veteran free agent starter, wide receiver rookie, and rookie tight end starting (Trey McBride) game one. You just gotta love all that draft capital!!

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Packers could probably trade a 2nd for Cooks and then use a 1st round pick on a high-upside rookie. Or, better yet, trade a 2nd for Cooks, a 3rd for Parker, and then use a first on a rookie receiver. Lots of options but going into the season with the current receiving corps and just adding rookies is a great way to burn out the offense by forcing them into relying on smoke-and-mirrors most of the year.

 

[Dantés]

Packers could probably trade a 2nd for Cooks and then use a 1st round pick on a high-upside rookie. Or, better yet, trade a 2nd for Cooks, a 3rd for Parker, and then use a first on a rookie receiver. Lots of options but going into the season with the current receiving corps and just adding rookies is a great way to burn out the offense by forcing them into relying on smoke-and-mirrors most of the year.

My ideal scenario would be to sign Will Fuller to replace the MVS vertical role, trade for Cooks as a do everything option, and then draft Burks as a YAC weapon.

That would be a diverse, talented receiving corps.

 

[gopkrs]

I guess I shouldn't say I don't like the idea, it just wouldn't be my preferred route to take. It would be exciting but I'd like to see some of the other issues addressed as well (DL for example)

Yes, it would be exciting. I'm not going to cry if we got a stud DL either. I remember one time SF drafted two corners in the first round of a draft and they were very good for them for a long time. The most important thing, obviously, is to make good picks. I hope we do not trade up. We really don't have to go boom or bust imho, just get good players.

 

[Todd Princl]

Yes, it would be exciting. I'm not going to cry if we got a stud DL either. I remember one time SF drafted two corners in the first round of a draft and they were very good for them for a long time. The most important thing, obviously, is to make good picks. I hope we do not trade up. We really don't have to go boom or bust imho, just get good players.

Was that the year they drafted cornerbacks Ronnie Lott and Eric Wright, and safety Carlton Williamson? And then started all three!!

 

[DoURant]

If there ever was a year for the Packers to draft a WR in the 1st Rd.... obviously this is the year. A case could definitely be made to draft 2 of the top 5 WR's in the 1st rd., hoping to hit gold with one, and the motherload, if you nail both picks, which would set up the receiving core for years. In all honesty, I see at least 1 of the 1st rd picks on OL or DL, and most likely OL. (Departures of Turner, Patrick, plus Big E is going to miss some time, plus the Jarran Reed signing makes DL less urgent) As for my WR preferences, I'm shading my #1 toward Burks, (I like his size, and YAC ability) My #2 guy is Olave, as they need someone to take the top off, replacing MVS... plus he just runs great routes. I would be perfectly fine drafting either one in the 1st, and if they somehow went against all Packers drafting precedent, and ended up drafting both.... WHOA NELLY!!! When it comes to FA WR's, I wouldn't mind them picking up a vet like TY Hilton, I think he could still be a great #2 WR option, should come fairly cheap, and I think he could be a guy Aaron would trust. I don't want them to trade any of the picks they received in the Adams trade for a veteran, I think it would be too steep a price, and definitely not DK Metcalf, as his next contract is going to be big $$$$. One last point, if they go with a high draft pick and a vet, I would definitely be okay drafting Metchie in the 3rd, even if means it's a red shirt year, while he rehabs from his injury... if not for the injury, he would be a lock for the 1st rd. and possibly a top 20 pick.

 

[KiDcUdI]

The time to have a WR ready to take over was 2 years ago. Unfortunately, due to incompetence we are where we are and relying on most likely a rookie.

 

[Jerellh528]

Sign Fuller to replace MVS on a 1 yr prove it. There are no FA options available to take care of our Wr1 issue, I expect that we trade for one. Then use one of our first round picks on a WR(Jameson Williams?) replace Fuller in the starting lineup in a season or two. The dream trade acquisition would be Metcalf. Cooks would be another decent option, but I thought he mentioned he would retire if traded again. Next season metcalf, fuller, Cobb. The season after, Metcalf, Williams, Amari. Either way, we need to add 3 WRs to this roster, and at least one bonafide veteran with WR1 talent.

 

[kevans74]

My ideal scenario would be to sign Will Fuller to replace the MVS vertical role, trade for Cooks as a do everything option, and then draft Burks as a YAC weapon.

That would be a diverse, talented receiving corps.

Yeah I like this idea. I believe 2 veteran WRs could be had and helps offset the pressure on a rookie WR to produce right away. Because again the odds of landing a Chase or Jefferson are pretty low, but if we can get a rookie to produce like Davante/Jennings/Jones/etc that would be o

I also believe that with MLFs scheme, AR could/would be better with this actually lol

But which 2? I still believe Green and Jones could fit or Fuller and Cooks would also be great

I believe in the next week, be first week of April we will know

 

[realitybytez]

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

 

[Voyageur]

What would you give up for Metcalf? He's going to be a free agent after this year. Always remember that if you give up a first for him, you have now essentially traded Adams for a guy that's under one year contract and a 2nd round pick.

If it's the latter, of our two 2nd rounders, not so bad.

I'm not enthused about it above that 2nd rounder, at the most. Also eats up a fairly sizable chunk of cap room, which they probably will regret losing somewhere along the line.

 

[realitybytez]

What would you give up for Metcalf?

a ham sammich and a diet coke.

 

[Schultz]

My ideal scenario would be to sign Will Fuller to replace the MVS vertical role, trade for Cooks as a do everything option, and then draft Burks as a YAC weapon.

That would be a diverse, talented receiving corps.

Not sure they have the money for those 2 moves.

 

[Spanky]

The knock on DK Metcalf coming out of college is that he was a one trick pony. Go routes and that's about it. In other words, he was not a good route runner--just able to outrun college DB's.

I don't watch the Seahawks much at all. I assume his game has evolved given his success in the NFL? Is he a much better route runner than he was in college?

Personally, I don't see AR being happy with a guy who has lid lifting speed but can't run the precise routes that Rodgers demands of his receivers.

 

[gopkrs]

The knock on DK Metcalf coming out of college is that he was a one trick pony. Go routes and that's about it. In other words, he was not a good route runner--just able to outrun college DB's.

I don't watch the Seahawks much at all. I assume his game has evolved given his success in the NFL? Is he a much better route runner than he was in college?

Personally, I don't see AR being happy with a guy who has lid lifting speed but can't run the precise routes that Rodgers demands of his receivers.

I think Rodgers has lightened up on that perfectionism crap. Not that I want Metcalf.

 

[Dantés]

The knock on DK Metcalf coming out of college is that he was a one trick pony. Go routes and that's about it. In other words, he was not a good route runner--just able to outrun college DB's.

I don't watch the Seahawks much at all. I assume his game has evolved given his success in the NFL? Is he a much better route runner than he was in college?

Personally, I don't see AR being happy with a guy who has lid lifting speed but can't run the precise routes that Rodgers demands of his receivers.

Metcalf has proven to have better COD skills that people initially thought he might. But he's still best off on a linear route tree (slants, posts, corners, go's, screens).

If that move happened, which would be great, he would be replacing MVS's role in the offense, not Adams'.

However, that role would obviously expand tremendously with a much better player in it.