Packers Depth Grades

[Deleted member 6794]

Agreed... in fact, If Thompson.. or now Gut were to trade a 1st round pick for some some team’s 2nd round backup QB I have no doubt that all hell would break loose in this forum.

True, but at the time Wolf traded for Favre in 1992 the Packers didn't have the best quarterback in the league on the roster.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I don't think they adjust on every play and I think Rodgers prefers it that way. That was kind of my point. I think there should be more freedom. I'm not really complaining. I mean it has been great watching Rodgers so far. Just trying to tweak. You never get perfection you can only get better. But I guess there is always the possibility of ******** something good up. Just do not want defenses knowing where we are going.

There's at least some minor adjustment to at least to be considered on every snap. Even in a quick timing route, like an Adams short slant (money!), it may look like 3 steps and cut, right out of the playbook, with Adams as the primary, and he may in fact track right on the line in the playbook if the defender is playing too far off and the middle blitz comes. However, if it's press coverage, Adams might give the defender his shake and bake (sudden!). He may need to adjust the angle coming out of the break depending on where the ILB is sitting or moving. Those are possible adjustments that affect timing on a bang-bang throw and the QB needs to know what that receiver will do and the reciever needs to execute what the QB expects in that situation.

 

[HardRightEdge]

When you have probably the greatest pre-snap and on the fly QB in the history of the game breaking down a defense and delivering the ball, It's probably best to adjust to him and not the other way around.

I don't know about pre-snap. Pretty much all the great QBs were great largely because of what they see and say pre-snap. Greatest on the fly? There's a strong argument there. If we discount the guys who would take off running at the drop of a hat (Young, Vick in his prime, and the like) and just consider passing on broken plays, Fran Tarkenton is a name that comes to mind. Ken Stabler wasn't called "The Snake" for nothing, but those were different times and different games.

 

[PackerDNA]

There's at least some minor adjustment to at least be considered on every snap. Even in a quick timing route, like an Adams short slant (money!), it may look like 3 steps and cut, right out of the playbook, with Adams as the primary, and it may in fact track right on the line in the playbook if the defender is playing too far off and the middle blitz comes. However, if it's press coverage, Adams might give the defender his shake and bake (sudden!). He may need to adjust the angle coming out of the break depending on where the ILB is sitting or moving. Those at least possible adjustments that affect timing on a bang-bang throw and the QB needs to know what that receiver will do and the reciever to execute what the QB expects in that situation.

Good analysis, HRE. It's "the game within the game".

 

[HardRightEdge]

By adjusting to him scrambling I mean in which direction he is going and how much trouble it appears he is in. Getting to a place where he can see them and also have a hole for however short a time. If the hole plugs; more adjusting is needed and fast. They can't just stand there. Maybe they can draw a defender away from another receiver. You can call it freelancing or you can call it adjusting.

I'm sure there are rules of thumb on what to do on a broken play. They may even practive a scramble drill some. If the free safeties come up or roll with the QB vacating the deep middle, the opposite side receiver should head there. If the near side receiver is driving deep and he sees the other guy heading deep middle, the rule of them may be the come back hard to the sidelines (something you'd see Nelson do quite a bit). Don't run to the same spot as another guy who has his back to you. He might in fact "just stand there" if his defender abandons him, hoping the QB seens him, as Fitzgerald seemed to be doing on that fateful play.

At the risk of opening old wounds:

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

Stuff like that. But the scamble play is a fluid and feel thing, unscripted. There's a lot of playground in it.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Agreed... in fact, If Thompson.. or now Gut were to trade a 1st round pick for some some team’s 2nd round backup QB I have no doubt that all hell would break loose in this forum.

Gutekunst DID trade a 1st. round pick for somebody's 2nd. round backup QB. While many may consider Randall a bust or an attitude problem, Cleveland thought enough of Randall to put a 5th. year option on him. There's a fair chance by the end of this season there will be bellyaching over letting him go as with Hayward and Hyde. Besides, Randall's departure probably factored into taking that second corner in the second round in this past draft which gets you pretty close to an similar scenario.

A first round pick NOW for a QB? Of course not. Been there, done that, with Kizer. By next year's draft, if the Packers consider both Hundley and Kizer as not starter material and Rodgers is not yet signed, and the right guy shows up at one of the 1st. round picks, a guy who would be in his 3rd. year after Rodgers first frachise tag year, then that should not be a shock.

 

[Mondio]

I don't know about pre-snap. Pretty much all the great QBs were great largely because of what they see and say pre-snap. Greatest on the fly? There's a strong argument there. If we discount the guys who would take off running at the drop of a hat (Young, Vick in his prime, and the like) and just consider passing on broken plays, Fran Tarkenton is a name that comes to mind. Ken Stabler wasn't called "The Snake" for nothing, but those were different times and different games.

Then I take it back, Rodgers is just average? He's in the conversation as one of the best ever, to me, that's reason enough to say he's probably the best ever. point being, Rodgers isn't some guy unaware back there. If we're going to say WR's or QB's are going to dictate what should be run when and where, i'm going to defer to my QB in this situation. He's very, very, very good. Or should I have only used on 2 very's? was 3 appropriate LOL

 

[HardRightEdge]

Then I take it back, Rodgers is just average?

Now you're being silly. Where did I say anything about "average"? I questioned your point that he is "probably the greatest pre-snap" QB. To think that perhaps Peyton Manning's or Drew Brees' or Tom Brady's pre-snap reads are at least on a par with Rodgers is hardly a stretch.

Where Rodgers may be the greatest of all time is in the percentage of throws that are accurate into tight windows relative to the low interception rate.

 

[Mondio]

Now you're being silly. Where did I say anything about "average"? I questioned your point that he is "probably the greatest pre-snap" QB. To think that perhaps Peyton Manning's or Drew Brees' or Tom Brady's pre-snap reads are at least on a par with Rodgers is hardly a stretch.

Where Rodgers may be the greatest of all time is in the percentage of throws that are accurate into tight windows relative to the low interception rate.

Of course they are on par. and neither one moved worth a **** even at the height of their careers. I'm not proclaiming that Rodgers is the greatest single entity to ever walk the earth as an NFL QB. so you've now got Brady and Manning, cool. So he's one of three? Like I said, in the conversation as the greatest, that's good enough for me to say "probably the greatest". is it safe for me to say i'd defer to him as the QB to get things right rather than a group of WR's that come and go. Because that WAS the point

 

[OldSchool101]

It's difficult to correctly analyze depth entering a season but in my opinion the Packers lack quality depth at wide receiver with only Adams and Cobb having proven being NFL caliber.

Yes it’s difficult to ascertain depth before the season starts. My guess grading us substantially at WR comes from the fact we have DeAngelo, J’Mon, Marquez, and Equanimeous in the mix now. Remember we also have Montgomery (depending on his position designation) and Geronimo as very capable WR’s. I see Davis as more ST.
It’s anybody’ guess as to who starts opposite Adams (excluding slot). I think the amount of competition will make the depth take care of itself. The only problem is will someone steal whoever gets stashed on the PS.
I think we will keep 6 and 1 PS.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Of course they are on par. and neither one moved worth a **** even at the height of their careers. I'm not proclaiming that Rodgers is the greatest single entity to ever walk the earth as an NFL QB. so you've now got Brady and Manning, cool. So he's one of three? Like I said, in the conversation as the greatest, that's good enough for me to say "probably the greatest". is it safe for me to say i'd defer to him as the QB to get things right rather than a group of WR's that come and go. Because that WAS the point

Now you're just arguing with yourself.

 

[Mondio]

Now you're just arguing with yourself.

Oh

 

[Deleted member 6794]

A first round pick NOW for a QB? Of course not. Been there, done that, with Kizer. By next year's draft, if the Packers consider both Hundley and Kizer as not starter material and Rodgers is not yet signed, and the right guy shows up at one of the 1st. round picks, a guy who would be in his 3rd. year after Rodgers first frachise tag year, then that should not be a shock.

Last year should work as evidence that Hundley isn't starter material. Hopefully Rodgers will be extended by next year's draft and we didn't have to find out if Kizer was up to the task replacing #12.

My guess grading us substantially at WR comes from the fact we have DeAngelo, J’Mon, Marquez, and Equanimeous in the mix now. Remember we also have Montgomery (depending on his position designation) and Geronimo as very capable WR’s. I see Davis as more ST.
It’s anybody’ guess as to who starts opposite Adams (excluding slot). I think the amount of competition will make the depth take care of itself. The only problem is will someone steal whoever gets stashed on the PS.
I think we will keep 6 and 1 PS.

While the Packers definitely have enough quantity at wide receiver unfortunately I'm not convinced the quality is there as well. Hopefully one of the rookies will step up.

McCarthy has repeatedly mentioned that Montgomery is a running back.

 

[ExpatPacker]

While the title of this thread is Packer Depth Grades, I'd like to depart from that a bit to consider what I would call Packer Step Up Grades and Step Back Grades.

So over the last two years the players who have stepped up IMO are:

Kenny Clark
Davante Adams
Lane Taylor

The players who have taken a step back are:

Ty Montgomery
HaHa Clinton Dix
CMIII

The players I''m hoping will be the next to take the step up this season are:

Montravius Adams
Kevin King
Aaron Jones

The players I'm hoping will bounce back are:

Haha Clinton Dix
Ty Montgomery

The players I'm hoping will be strong out of the gate are:

Jaire Alexander

There are a lot of wait-and-see players. Vince Biegel, Jason Springs, Josh Jackson, Josh Jones. They might be good but I won't be surprised if they aren't.

Anybody I missed?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Gutekunst DID trade a 1st. round pick for somebody's 2nd. round backup QB. While many may consider Randall a bust or an attitude problem, Cleveland thought enough of Randall to put a 5th. year option on him. There's a fair chance by the end of this season there will be bellyaching over letting him go as with Hayward and Hyde. Besides, Randall's departure probably factored into taking that second corner in the second round in this past draft which gets you pretty close to an similar scenario.

A first round pick NOW for a QB? Of course not. Been there, done that, with Kizer. By next year's draft, if the Packers consider both Hundley and Kizer as not starter material and Rodgers is not yet signed, and the right guy shows up at one of the 1st. round picks, a guy who would be in his 3rd. year after Rodgers first frachise tag year, then that should not be a shock.

Not sure anyone should be allowed to complain about Randall in the same fashion that they complained about Hayward or Hyde. Hayward and Hyde were good to great on the Packers; Randall occasionally approached good for a couple of plays before his allergies kicked in and he had to run away from good as fast as possible.

 

[Mondio]

Hyde was good here, but let's not overstate what he was. He was a solid player when healthy. And that's good, but he was not great or a game changer by any means. Hayward had like 1-1.5 years out of 4 where he was good. The rest he did nothing. Randall had his moments good and bad. And when healthy he definitely has the physical skills to be pretty good. Only bias or just not watching would lead someone to a different conclusion. Funny that 2 of the 3 guys many wanted to take over as GM for the Packers and one of their top scouts thought enough to bring him over and commit to a rather large pay increase as well for the guy.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Hyde was good here, but let's not overstate what he was. He was a solid player when healthy. And that's good, but he was not great or a game changer by any means. Hayward had like 1-1.5 years out of 4 where he was good. The rest he did nothing. Randall had his moments good and bad. And when healthy he definitely has the physical skills to be pretty good. Only bias or just not watching would lead someone to a different conclusion. Funny that 2 of the 3 guys many wanted to take over as GM for the Packers and one of their top scouts thought enough to bring him over and commit to a rather large pay increase as well for the guy.

That's why i said good to great. Hyde was good. Hayward was GREAT his first year and very good his final year. Why is this a dispute? Are you trying to imply that Randall was somehow as good as either?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not sure anyone should be allowed to complain about Randall in the same fashion that they complained about Hayward or Hyde. Hayward and Hyde were good to great on the Packers; Randall occasionally approached good for a couple of plays before his allergies kicked in and he had to run away from good as fast as possible.

There weren't any fans complaining about the Packers letting either Hayward or Hyde walk away in free agency. Hopefully it wasn't another mistake to trade Randall this offseason.

 

[Mondio]

That's why i said good to great. Hyde was good. Hayward was GREAT his first year and very good his final year. Why is this a dispute? Are you trying to imply that Randall was somehow as good as either?

Yeah,I am. Randall is easily a superior athlete to Hyde and is close to Hayward in that regard.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Randall is easily a superior athlete to Hyde and is close to Hayward in that regard.

You're well aware that athleticism isn't the only trait needed to be successful in the NFL though.

 

[Mondio]

You're well aware that athleticism isn't the only trait needed to be successful in the NFL though.

I am. The only thing holding Randall back is his attitude. The guy has everything else to be very good in this league.

His rookie highlights are easily as good and better than any season Hyde ever had for us. Other than hanging on to a few more INTs it was probably close to Haywards best with us too.

I don't think we got the most out of that draft pick by any means.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The only thing holding Randall back is his attitude. The guy has everything else to be very good in this league.

His rookie highlights are easily as good and better than any season Hyde ever had for us. Other than hanging on to a few more INTs it was probably close to Haywards best with us too.

It might be extremely tough to change Randall's attitude for him to excel at the pro level though.

There's no doubt he had a solid rookie season but it was definitely not anywhere close to the one Hayward had with the Packers. I agree that Hyde never performed at a special level with in Green Bay.

 

[AmishMafia]

You're well aware that athleticism isn't the only trait needed to be successful in the NFL though.

Coaching: motivation, system, teaching, and utilization.
Knowledge: understanding system
Heart: dedication and focus
Athleticism: balance, coordination, control
Measurables: speed and strength
Teammates: a player compensating for shortcomings of teammate will be less effective.
Toughness: fearless and plays through pain


They are all important to success. I have them in order of importance, in my mind, although there are thresholds to each. That is, a WR who runs a 5.4 40 can only do so much even with greatest coach, heart, and football IQ. Likewise, if Jerry Rice was played as a NT he would have failed miserably. Exaggerating, of course, but Rice played in a West Coast Offense which perfectly matched his skills. If he played in a run and shoot, he probably would not have done as great.

 

[Mondio]

It might be extremely tough to change Randall's attitude for him to excel at the pro level though.

There's no doubt he had a solid rookie season but it was definitely not anywhere close to the one Hayward had with the Packers. I agree that Hyde never performed at a special level with in Green Bay.

I'd say if he had held on to a few of those balls he had his hands on, it would be debatable. On a whole, i'm not saying he equaled Hayward, but he made plays like he did and as is pointed out so often he wasn't always at the slot position like Hayward was. Which is the reason everyone says we can't count Rollins as having a good rookie season either, because he was "just" covering the slot guy.

I watch those plays, and I don't see Hayward making any plays Randall can't. Anyway, i'm not here to say one would or wouldn't be this or that with GB as neither are here. I don't think it's a stretch to say, we didn't get the most out Damarious Randall and even with what we got, he was somewhere between Hyde and Hayward. Someone else seems to imply he was a scrub that couldn't play. It will be interesting to see who has more headlines this year at safety. Hyde or Randall. One has his head on straight and we'd know what to expect from. The other could go either way, and he seemed to do better here once he did. Now put him at a position he "wants" to play, i'm leaning towards things will be ok for him.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'd say if he had held on to a few of those balls he had his hands on, it would be debatable. On a whole, i'm not saying he equaled Hayward, but he made plays like he did and as is pointed out so often he wasn't always at the slot position like Hayward was.

I don't think it's a stretch to say, we didn't get the most out Damarious Randall and even with what we got, he was somewhere between Hyde and Hayward.

Hayward's rookie season was special, according to PFF he recorded the lowest passer rating allowed by a cornerback since they began grading in 2006. In addition it seems a lot of fans have forgotteb that Capers lined him up on the outside that year as well with him getting four of his six interception on the perimeter.

I agree that the Packers didn't get the most out of Randall though, possible partly because they played him out of position.