WR Past

[tynimiller]

LOL... you disagree with my conclusion, yet yours is the same one? If you go back and read my post, I think this is basically what I concluded, of course without the negative spin (deep end folks) that you put on it.
Also, saying "Adding a solid weapon to the WR room is not anything anyone that I can think of is against or would be opposed to" but then going out of your way to point out why you wouldn't or why its not really needed, is called hedging your bet.

Not at all the same one. I in no way shape or form feel WR is a desperate need - this team has three positions of desperate need; OL, DL and CB. Place them in any order one desires, but to put any other position on the same level in my opinion is lunacy. Now, the good news is for those so desperately craving a WR - it appears based on a lot of the news out of GB, interview tracking and Gute's clear desire last year to nab a WR - that I'd bet if Gute even builds a "need factor or board" WR is #4 AND it shows in some of the official interviews we've been apart of and representation at Pro Days. Further add in the fact it is a fairly good depth class at OL and CB for Day 2 level guys...iDL while deep is very top heavy with only one clear Day 1 guy IMO at least. That means if the right WR drops in the 1st (think Bateman or Marshall type) the pick makes sense and could be defended....if we go OL or iDL or Gute simply goes BPA (an edge or LB) there is a VERY solid chance at #62 or #92 there might be a WR he really likes and will be able to justify nabbing.

It isn't hedging anything bet wise, it's logically approaching the situation we are in. The greatest reason to me WR is on the clock this year is due to the contract situations, not so much a glaring hole that needs plugged.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not at all the same one. I in no way shape or form feel WR is a desperate need - this team has three positions of desperate need; OL, DL and CB. Place them in any order one desires, but to put any other position on the same level in my opinion is lunacy. Now, the good news is for those so desperately craving a WR - it appears based on a lot of the news out of GB, interview tracking and Gute's clear desire last year to nab a WR - that I'd bet if Gute even builds a "need factor or board" WR is #4 AND it shows in some of the official interviews we've been apart of and representation at Pro Days. Further add in the fact it is a fairly good depth class at OL and CB for Day 2 level guys...iDL while deep is very top heavy with only one clear Day 1 guy IMO at least. That means if the right WR drops in the 1st (think Bateman or Marshall type) the pick makes sense and could be defended....if we go OL or iDL or Gute simply goes BPA (an edge or LB) there is a VERY solid chance at #62 or #92 there might be a WR he really likes and will be able to justify nabbing.

It isn't hedging anything bet wise, it's logically approaching the situation we are in. The greatest reason to me WR is on the clock this year is due to the contract situations, not so much a glaring hole that needs plugged.

Again, we aren't that far off, we just disagree as to the extent of the need the Packers have at WR, as well as possibly the impact that the improvement might have on the team.

If you look at many of my posts, I agree that OL, DL and CB are high needs and probably 3 that we will see addressed the most in the draft. I actually would have preferred WR being addressed via Free Agency and maybe that still will happen. Given Gutes track record, I don't see WR being addressed until the 3rd round at the earliest and probably much like he did in 2018, more like 2-3 picks in the later rounds.

Side note. After watching the Packers resign Jones this offseason, I'm "hindsightly disappointed" that Gute used a 2nd round pick on Dillion. Not that I don't like Dillion, but we now have a lot of resources stuck into the RB position, when in reality that 2nd round pick might have been better spent at DL, CB, OL or yes...even WR.

 

[tynimiller]

Again, we aren't that far off, we just disagree as to the extent of the need the Packers have at WR, as well as possibly the impact that the improvement might have on the team.

If you look at many of my posts, I agree that OL, DL and CB are high needs and probably 3 that we will see addressed the most in the draft. I actually would have preferred WR being addressed via Free Agency and maybe that still will happen. Given Gutes track record, I don't see WR being addressed until the 3rd round at the earliest and probably much like he did in 2018, more like 2-3 picks in the later rounds.

Side note. After watching the Packers resign Jones this offseason, I'm "hindsightly disappointed" that Gute used a 2nd round pick on Dillion. Not that I don't like Dillion, but we now have a lot of resources stuck into the RB position, when in reality that 2nd round pick might have been better spent at DL, CB, OL or yes...even WR.

I think Gute and MLF are illustrating to many fans a concept of how this system depends vastly more on RB/TE play than top level WR. However, this system is incredible when you factor in we have the best WR in Adams. *Perhaps after posting and thinking - the better way of saying that would have been this system depends more on the RB/TE play than what most traditional think of.

My hunch is we still walk away from this draft with two pass catching style weapons...my issue is trying to predict what type that is....is one of them a hybrid RB/WR - WR/RB like a Amari Rodgers or Demetric Felton....or are they two WRs of same or similar types...is one a TE. LaFluer and Gute will reload the skill positions for sure - however it will be interesting how though. While I still think we may take a Day 2 WR, I'm really thinking the Pack would love to add a TE like Tremble or Jordan to this offense as well. Gonna be interesting for sure.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

My hunch is we still walk away from this draft with two pass catching style weapons...my issue is trying to predict what type that is....is one of them a hybrid RB/WR - WR/RB like a Amari Rodgers or Demetric Felton....or are they two WRs of same or similar types...is one a TE.

Agree. For my money, you invest in an Amari Rodgers like player, but he isn't going to be around long enough I am afraid (gone before the Packers pick in the 3rd). He fills 2 needs, slot (eventually) and return guy. The Packers desperately need a return guy and a rookie WR like Rodgers can offer you that. Like I said, I don't see them spending a high pick on WR, nor do I expect an immediate impact on offense from a rookie WR selected outside of the first round, unless its in the return game. I agree with you though, given MLF's system, they don't need another Funchess, Lazard, MVS, EQ style of WR, let those 4 battle it out as to who lines up wide opposite Davante and the other 2/3 can be depth.

The good news, if Gute decides to pass on WR in the draft, I think he will still find some bargains in free agency. More of a short term fix, but I think wiser than playing the hand he currently has.

 

[Mondio]

While I get your points and to some extent agree, it still feels like fuzzy math to me. "We don't have much of a problem at WR because our offensive production was tops, our QB is great, Adams is a stud, our OL was fantastic, our RB was top 5, etc......" Where in reality, the problem would probably look a lot bigger if some of those elements failed. Much like the OL failed in the NFCCG. How does that NFCCG end if Rodgers has better WR's? We will never know.

I am not stupid enough to not see just how productive the offense was last year, but it also doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the fact, that as you said, "Adams being the only real stud" in the WR room, leaves plenty of room for improvement. Imagine what this offense might be capable of doing with a better group of WR's. Same thing goes for TE. Tonyan had a really good 2020 season, but was that because he is now a top 5 TE or because he is playing in a productive offense, with an MVP QB? What does the Packer offense look like with a Travis Kelce?



LOL... you disagree with my conclusion, yet yours is the same one? If you go back and read my post, I think this is basically what I concluded, of course without the negative spin (deep end folks) that you put on it.
Also, saying "Adding a solid weapon to the WR room is not anything anyone that I can think of is against or would be opposed to" but then going out of your way to point out why you wouldn't or why its not really needed, is called hedging your bet.

Every year, every team has room for improvement. and even if you have an all pro at every position, then half of them get knocked out with injury.

I'm not hedging any bet. You can never have enough good players and you never have the best at every postion. But that's not the point. Right now, if it's between an OT and a WR, both being all pro caliber, i'm taking the OT every single time. Every WR, RB, TE, QB we have is now better for it. If I can get a DL that can rush the passer and make TFL's in the run game, every time over a WR.

If we get a WR, but our Oline doesn't improve, our DL stays the same and our DB's are the same I dont' feel too good about our chances next year. If we take care of the OT, get another player on the DL, and a DB that can play, we can keep the same WR's and I feel pretty good about our chances. So yes, every WR besides adams could be replaced with better, but I still don't think it's nearly as important as the rest.

This team had a great oline, great QB and 5 legit WR's, did it win us a super bowl? nothing guarantees anything. I dont' think our Oline was great, I think they looked great because of the function of the offense. Put Cobb and Nelson back on last years team. Maybe we pass for a whole bunch more yards at times and maybe our Oline doesn't look nearly as good because Rodgers is trying to run around and pass every play leading to more sacks and look out blocks from Wagner that brings in an earlier start to the Love era.

So yes, I can say our WR's have room for improvement and still not think it's all that important in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Every year, every team has room for improvement. and even if you have an all pro at every position, then half of them get knocked out with injury.

I'm not hedging any bet. You can never have enough good players and you never have the best at every postion. But that's not the point. Right now, if it's between an OT and a WR, both being all pro caliber, i'm taking the OT every single time. Every WR, RB, TE, QB we have is now better for it. If I can get a DL that can rush the passer and make TFL's in the run game, every time over a WR.

If we get a WR, but our Oline doesn't improve, our DL stays the same and our DB's are the same I dont' feel too good about our chances next year. If we take care of the OT, get another player on the DL, and a DB that can play, we can keep the same WR's and I feel pretty good about our chances. So yes, every WR besides adams could be replaced with better, but I still don't think it's nearly as important as the rest.

This team had a great oline, great QB and 5 legit WR's, did it win us a super bowl? nothing guarantees anything. I dont' think our Oline was great, I think they looked great because of the function of the offense. Put Cobb and Nelson back on last years team. Maybe we pass for a whole bunch more yards at times and maybe our Oline doesn't look nearly as good because Rodgers is trying to run around and pass every play leading to more sacks and look out blocks from Wagner that brings in an earlier start to the Love era.

So yes, I can say our WR's have room for improvement and still not think it's all that important in the grand scheme of things.

A second good receiver (or corner but that's a different discussion) could have given the Packers the Super Bowl last year so I don't really agree with this. Packers got 2 turnovers in the second half and the offense did nothing because Jones got hurt and the defense focused on taking out Adams. I'm not trying to say the Packers have to go receiver, just that I don't think it's cut-and-dry that the receiving group is okay right now.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

A second good receiver (or corner but that's a different discussion) could have given the Packers the Super Bowl last year so I don't really agree with this. Packers got 2 turnovers in the second half and the offense did nothing because Jones got hurt and the defense focused on taking out Adams. I'm not trying to say the Packers have to go receiver, just that I don't think it's cut-and-dry that the receiving group is okay right now.

Agreed and well stated. I understand the needs at OL, DL, CB but to definitively say that they alone are what is needed to make a difference between last season and this season, which would be a trip to the SB, as you said, isn't that cut and dry. I can see a situation where current players could step up at all of those positions, including at WR, that makes drafting them unnecessary. Now the question is where is that improvement least likely to happen? I would say out of the 4 positions, DL probably the least likely. After that, CB, OL, WR. Yup, I said WR is 4th. However, I think adding an impactful WR, could potentially do just as much for the team as adding an impactful player at the other positions. Much of it has to do with how much development the Packers current players at each position will undergo. I think Gute and the coaches have a much better handle on that aspect then most of us.

 

[OldSchool101]

I'd disagree, the divide is how far in the deep end folks jump about the WR room. Adding a solid weapon to the WR room is not anything anyone that I can think of is against or would be opposed to. However, this team didn't make it to the SB due to defense and offensive line issues - you can give me Nico Collins and Rondale Moore before our 3rd pick, and we have barely moved the needle on this team getting better. OL, DL, CB...if we don't get better along those fronts, this team will not be as good as it has been for the last two years. I would bet all I have on that.

I agree that we should approach fixing positional weaknesses as a the default. Another thing we need to consider also is the potential of each position.

In regard to WR specifically As an example we have a deep threat with MVS and we have a Redzone threat and move the chains efficiency with Tonyan and Adams.
What we are missing to come near Offensive peak efficacy is an underneath threat with high YAC potential. We also have to be aware that our opponent has a needle that’s moving and we can’t expect Defenses will stay stagnant. We have to improve over last year in Offense and I realize how crazy that might sound, but it should always be the goal.

Whenever this comes up, the argument always just circles back to "we need to do so because see, other teams have done it."

Our goal should be perfection. If we fall slightly short so be it. I like using the NE Patriots template because they were as close to perfect as anyone over a 20 year stretch. For me personally idc what other teams are doing, that is until I see them doing it at a high level and it’s holding our team down. Then I care what other teams are doing very much and I believe we can learn from others success and failures.
IDC about looking good. I care about us being great and in doing so the rest will take care of itself.

 

[Poppa San]

Our goal should be perfection. If we fall slightly short so be it.

“Gentlemen, we will chase perfection, and we will chase it relentlessly, knowing all the while we can never attain it. But along the way, we shall catch excellence.”

― Vince Lombardi

 

[Deleted member 6794]

According to the chart:

pick 16 is worth 1000 pts
Pick 100 is worth 100 pts

I most certainly do not believe that a mid 1st round pick is worth ten 3rd round compensatory picks.

You will probably like that one better:

https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/how-to-value-nfl-draft-picks/

I don’t want to emulate other teams methods very often. I want other teams looking up at us trying to figure out how we stay up there for 30 years.

That's pretty easy to figure out. The main reason being that the Packers have had a HOF quarterback starting for ever single season since 1992.

I guess I find it difficult to use the word "significant" with what Boykin did. As well as try to use his stats as some kind of evidence as to him being of any significant value. Janis was a "significant" special teams player for a season or 2, but he still didn't stick around that long.

Well, Boykin had 49 catches in 2013 but you're right that overall he didn't have a significant impact either.

 

[RepStar15]

Not at all the same one. I in no way shape or form feel WR is a desperate need - this team has three positions of desperate need; OL, DL and CB. Place them in any order one desires, but to put any other position on the same level in my opinion is lunacy. Now, the good news is for those so desperately craving a WR - it appears based on a lot of the news out of GB, interview tracking and Gute's clear desire last year to nab a WR - that I'd bet if Gute even builds a "need factor or board" WR is #4 AND it shows in some of the official interviews we've been apart of and representation at Pro Days. Further add in the fact it is a fairly good depth class at OL and CB for Day 2 level guys...iDL while deep is very top heavy with only one clear Day 1 guy IMO at least. That means if the right WR drops in the 1st (think Bateman or Marshall type) the pick makes sense and could be defended....if we go OL or iDL or Gute simply goes BPA (an edge or LB) there is a VERY solid chance at #62 or #92 there might be a WR he really likes and will be able to justify nabbing.

It isn't hedging anything bet wise, it's logically approaching the situation we are in. The greatest reason to me WR is on the clock this year is due to the contract situations, not so much a glaring hole that needs plugged.

I know this is a WR thread, but this post sparked a thought. A few weeks ago I thought there was a strong possibility Christian Barmore could drop to the Packers, making the first round selection an easy one. I am beginning to think he does not get out of the top 15. After that there are some guys I do like as day 2 picks. Nixon, McNeil, Osa and Levi are guys that could be great fits on the Packers line. Some need more developing then others of course, but I cannot see a situation where the Packers come out of day 2 without a DL.

 

[PikeBadger]

You will probably like that one better:

https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/how-to-value-nfl-draft-picks/

Sure do. I think it’s a much better value chart. Thanks for tracking it down.

 

[thequick12]

I'll be honest, the track record we have when drafting a top 100 WR in the draft is dang freaking near perfection (Ty Montgomery wasn't an autrociou failure even and is the worst easily).

All the more reason why they should have kept going with that philosophy of drafting a wr in the 2nd or 3rd round every few years

 

[Poppa San]

You will probably like that one better:

https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/how-to-value-nfl-draft-picks/

my brain hurts.

 

[PikeBadger]

That's pretty easy to figure out. The main reason being that the Packers have had a HOF quarterback starting for ever single season since 1992.

.

they identified the QB in both cases, acquired him, and spent years coaching him up while building the team around him. Neither Favre or Rodgers walked into the building ready to be a competent NFL quarterback much less a future HOFer

 

[PackFan2]

my brain hurts.

It was a good read. Basically, draft picks after 100 pick, on average is a boom or bust. Either you get a relatively good player that plays a decent amount of games for you or barely any games. Picks 1- 100 are generally "safer" picks that should garner more weight.

For example the coefficient of variation graph they show, the black line is the predicted regression line. You see picks 1 - 100, they're close to that predicted regression line. Hence, you sorta know what you're going to get. After picks 100, on average, it becomes less predictable with highs and lows (more variability).

The issue here is that it's taking into account ALL averages (regardless of position). If we break it down and aggregate it by position the variability does change.

https://greg-hart.medium.com/analyzing-nfl-draft-positions-by-av-663a2633fc04

^The article by Hart does a better job. It allows us not to just see the averages but also lets us see the outliers by rounds.