Will Cobb be a threat to Jordy Nelson this year?

[okcpackerfan]

That's not looking at the season as a whole, that's just looking at some of their stats from the regular season.

The key drops and fumbles from both guys isn't accounted in there, and the postseason games isn't accounted in there.

I'm not saying any way, that Jones or Nelson is better. All I'm saying is the way you're looking at it doesn't tell if one is better or not, or was better last season.

Drops and fumbles are a big part of it, I agree. When comparing a 3rd and 4th WR though and "whose better" its really speculative and subjective. I put the stats up there to give an overall picture of the season as a whole, because it actually does give a fairly accurate picture of what the receiver did on the field which is what they are judged upon.

I want to have them both on the packers, and if I had to bet I would bet a large sum that cobb will have LESS THAN 25 catches this year. Its an exciting time in Green Bay and we have offensive and defensive weapons a plenty.

Go Pack Go

 

[G0PackG0]

I guess I was thinking slot receiver. Also I have very little faith in James Jones. I want him to do better.. We will see I guess.

 

[greenandgold]

I don't no that he won't cut into Jordy's numbers some. But from a Packers standpoint, that might be a good thing. All the NFL needs, ANOTHER good Packers receiver.

 

[VBJunkie]

Nelson and Cobb are completely different recievers. Nelson is a sideline guy and Cobb is a slot guy. If anyone has to worry about Cobb cutting into their production it's Driver.

 

[DevilDon]

This is incorrect

Last Years Stats
James Jones 50-679-5
Jordy Nelson 45-582-2

I don't think you should get caught up on the big game Jordy had in the superbowl, he could have had an even bigger game had he not dropped some passes. You have to look at the season as a whole and james jones made a lot more big plays for us. Randall Cobb will fit nicely in the mix when Donald retires which will either be after this season or the next by all accounts.

Also, jordy and randall play different positions.

Go Pack Go

This is incorrect.
Not getting caught up in the big game Jordy had in the Super Bowl. Both players could have had a bigger game had they BOTH not dropped passes (JJ had a TD in his hands). Let's ignore the performance of the likely MVP if he didn't have such a devastatingly good QB. Looking at the season as a whole (not including playoffs)
Completion percentage (thrown to and receptions are
DD: 60.7, GJ: 60.8, Jones: 57.4, Nelson: 70.3.
There is no subjective or speculative part here. It's easy to see why alot of people consider Jordy Nelson a better prospect than James Jones, also, Jones has had another year more than Nelson to cure dropsies.
Jordy Nelson is the only tall receiver the Packers have, Jones is a smaller shifty type receiver which we just drafted. If anybody on the WR roster should be looking over their shoulder it's Jones.
And please let me know, how in the world you've decided that Jordy and Randall play different positions? You do know they are both wide receivers right?

 

[okcpackerfan]

This is incorrect.
Not getting caught up in the big game Jordy had in the Super Bowl. Both players could have had a bigger game had they BOTH not dropped passes (JJ had a TD in his hands). Let's ignore the performance of the likely MVP if he didn't have such a devastatingly good QB. Looking at the season as a whole (not including playoffs)
Completion percentage (thrown to and receptions are
DD: 60.7, GJ: 60.8, Jones: 57.4, Nelson: 70.3.
There is no subjective or speculative part here. It's easy to see why alot of people consider Jordy Nelson a better prospect than James Jones, also, Jones has had another year more than Nelson to cure dropsies.
Jordy Nelson is the only tall receiver the Packers have, Jones is a smaller shifty type receiver which we just drafted. If anybody on the WR roster should be looking over their shoulder it's Jones.
And please let me know, how in the world you've decided that Jordy and Randall play different positions? You do know they are both wide receivers right?

lol umadbro? It is STILL subjective, speculative, and dependent upon the system you're running, what other receivers you have on your roster etc... etc... etc... on who is more important to a team. It's very easy to understand. Also, if you don't understand that even in high school (let alone the NFL) at the wide receiver position there are different positions WITHIN a position then there might be no hope for you. That said I am not mad or angry or trying to talk down to you, I just try to think things through logically and don't really get caught up with emotion. We can agree to disagree.

Go Pack Go

 

[PackersRS]

This is incorrect.
Not getting caught up in the big game Jordy had in the Super Bowl. Both players could have had a bigger game had they BOTH not dropped passes (JJ had a TD in his hands). Let's ignore the performance of the likely MVP if he didn't have such a devastatingly good QB. Looking at the season as a whole (not including playoffs)
Completion percentage (thrown to and receptions are
DD: 60.7, GJ: 60.8, Jones: 57.4, Nelson: 70.3.
There is no subjective or speculative part here. It's easy to see why alot of people consider Jordy Nelson a better prospect than James Jones, also, Jones has had another year more than Nelson to cure dropsies.
Jordy Nelson is the only tall receiver the Packers have, Jones is a smaller shifty type receiver which we just drafted. If anybody on the WR roster should be looking over their shoulder it's Jones.
And please let me know, how in the world you've decided that Jordy and Randall play different positions? You do know they are both wide receivers right?

The only way you can ignore postseason performance is if you don't think postseason matters.

Completion percentage does tell a better story than yards receptions and tds, but it still doesn't evaluate how good a receiver is, just how good his hands are.

And as far as being wide receivers, there's the 4 positions a wide receiver can play, lined up wide at the right, left, or as a slot receiver in each side. Not all wide receivers can play those positions. Not to mention the different roles each receiver has. Randy Moss was weak in short routes and running in the middle of the field, just an example.

But I do agree that it is too premature to say that Cobb plays a different role than Jones. I don't agree to label Jones a shifty receiver, though. Even though he's not as tall as Jordy, he has better body control to play in the sidelines. But, all in all, our receivers are very well rounder and similar, everyone can do anything they're asked to, it's just that each one is better in some areas than the other.

 

[DevilDon]

lol umadbro? It is STILL subjective, speculative, and dependent upon the system you're running, what other receivers you have on your roster etc... etc... etc... on who is more important to a team. It's very easy to understand. Also, if you don't understand that even in high school (let alone the NFL) at the wide receiver position there are different positions WITHIN a position then there might be no hope for you. That said I am not mad or angry or trying to talk down to you, I just try to think things through logically and don't really get caught up with emotion. We can agree to disagree.

Go Pack Go

No, no, no, not at all angry. I was just pointing out that you started your post saying someone else was incorrect. I just said what you said to point out that you can use stats to say alot of different things.
And it may be subjective or speculative for you as a fan to judge a receiver but I assure you it's not for the Packers organization.
Using your premise that it depends on what other receivers you have on your team, doesn't it make sense that having that one tall receiver would give your receiving corps more versatility?
I do get that there is an X,Y,Z receiver and so on. It doesn't play that way in Green Bay where they move receivers to every position to confuse coverage. So it IS a little different than the high school ball you're so fond of comparing pro football to. So then, is there hope for me?
As for being mad, I guess I have a way of posting things that seem standoffish, I really do not mean to write it that way. This is a discussion forum, not an argument forum. I hope you understand that if I see things differently I'm still going to post my view. I don't intend it to be talking down to anybody either.
I did take a tiny issue with you responding to someone else's post with:
"This is wrong" It implies that your viewpoint is the only correct one.
Just MHO, I don't think the Packers look at Randall Cobb as only a slot reciever, I think in time he'll play as a flanker and split end too.

 

[DevilDon]

The only way you can ignore postseason performance is if you don't think postseason matters.

Completion percentage does tell a better story than yards receptions and tds, but it still doesn't evaluate how good a receiver is, just how good his hands are.

And as far as being wide receivers, there's the 4 positions a wide receiver can play, lined up wide at the right, left, or as a slot receiver in each side. Not all wide receivers can play those positions. Not to mention the different roles each receiver has. Randy Moss was weak in short routes and running in the middle of the field, just an example.

But I do agree that it is too premature to say that Cobb plays a different role than Jones. I don't agree to label Jones a shifty receiver, though. Even though he's not as tall as Jordy, he has better body control to play in the sidelines. But, all in all, our receivers are very well rounder and similar, everyone can do anything they're asked to, it's just that each one is better in some areas than the other.

I DO think postseason matters, I was responding to okcpackerfan's post suggesting we don't put too much emphasis on Nelson's SB performance so I just threw out postseason. Besides, I was lazy and regular season stats were easier to find. If anybody cares to look up the postseason stats and add them to the stats I put up I'm all eyes.
And yea, I agree any one stat doesn't define a good or mediocre or even poor receiver but if someone is going to use stats to say Jones is better than Nelson, I'm going to throw out a stat that suggests otherwise. Especially if the statistician starts his post with "this is wrong"
I spoke about the different receiver positions in my previous post. I recognize that there are different positions, but largely the Packers use all of their WRs at all positions, it's what makes them so dangerous. I agree Cobb will not be used that way early, but he does seem to be a student of the game and I think he'll be playing other positions sooner than many WRs.
You don't have to agree that Jones is a shifty receiver, but then please tell me what type of receiver he is? I guess it's the way you view the term. I think he's shifty because of the body control you mentioned. I think when YOU think of shifty you probably think a footwork kind of guy. I think we agree on what kind of receiver he is, we just use different terms to define him.
I'll tell you this much though, we can agree Donald Driver is "crafty".

 

[okcpackerfan]

No, no, no, not at all angry. I was just pointing out that you started your post saying someone else was incorrect. I just said what you said to point out that you can use stats to say alot of different things.
And it may be subjective or speculative for you as a fan to judge a receiver but I assure you it's not for the Packers organization.
Using your premise that it depends on what other receivers you have on your team, doesn't it make sense that having that one tall receiver would give your receiving corps more versatility?
I do get that there is an X,Y,Z receiver and so on. It doesn't play that way in Green Bay where they move receivers to every position to confuse coverage. So it IS a little different than the high school ball you're so fond of comparing pro football to. So then, is there hope for me?
As for being mad, I guess I have a way of posting things that seem standoffish, I really do not mean to write it that way. This is a discussion forum, not an argument forum. I hope you understand that if I see things differently I'm still going to post my view. I don't intend it to be talking down to anybody either.
I did take a tiny issue with you responding to someone else's post with:
"This is wrong" It implies that your viewpoint is the only correct one.
Just MHO, I don't think the Packers look at Randall Cobb as only a slot reciever, I think in time he'll play as a flanker and split end too.

I don't exactly understand your thought process, but that's why the world has many different cultures. I can assure you that it absolutely is subjective and speculative on the front office part to determine a players worth and value. A player that could fit a good role on one team might be useless on another. Also a number of other reasons but this is basic knowledge.

As to your point of saying "doesn't having one tall receiver give you more versatility?" Well the short answer is no. Now, dependent upon the offense and how well that particular receiver plays are infinitely more important then height. You, among a lot of fans get caught up on the height and speed aspect of a receiver, but if he can't run proper routes, get separation, catch the ball, secure the ball etc... then he will not succeed in the NFL. This is why slot receiver like Wes Welker who doesn't have world class speed and is 5'8 succeed in the nfl.

Different wide receiver positions absolutely play an important role in the Green Bay offense, way more than me and you will ever know or understand.

I never compared pro-football and high school football, I mentioned there are even different WR positions in high school ball. That would be like saying they use the pick n roll offense in high school basketball and you would think thats comparing a high school offense to the utah jazz for the past 20 years. I thought it was a rather easy comparison to understand.

We just think differently, good luck to you.

Go Pack Go

 

[IAMtunechi]

I don't exactly understand your thought process, but that's why the world has many different cultures. I can assure you that it absolutely is subjective and speculative on the front office part to determine a players worth and value. A player that could fit a good role on one team might be useless on another. Also a number of other reasons but this is basic knowledge.

As to your point of saying "doesn't having one tall receiver give you more versatility?" Well the short answer is no. Now, dependent upon the offense and how well that particular receiver plays are infinitely more important then height. You, among a lot of fans get caught up on the height and speed aspect of a receiver, but if he can't run proper routes, get separation, catch the ball, secure the ball etc... then he will not succeed in the NFL. This is why slot receiver like Wes Welker who doesn't have world class speed and is 5'8 succeed in the nfl.

Different wide receiver positions absolutely play an important role in the Green Bay offense, way more than me and you will ever know or understand.

I never compared pro-football and high school football, I mentioned there are even different WR positions in high school ball. That would be like saying they use the pick n roll offense in high school basketball and you would think thats comparing a high school offense to the utah jazz for the past 20 years. I thought it was a rather easy comparison to understand.

We just think differently, good luck to you.

Go Pack Go

great post

 

[PackersRS]

I DO think postseason matters, I was responding to okcpackerfan's post suggesting we don't put too much emphasis on Nelson's SB performance so I just threw out postseason. Besides, I was lazy and regular season stats were easier to find. If anybody cares to look up the postseason stats and add them to the stats I put up I'm all eyes.
And yea, I agree any one stat doesn't define a good or mediocre or even poor receiver but if someone is going to use stats to say Jones is better than Nelson, I'm going to throw out a stat that suggests otherwise. Especially if the statistician starts his post with "this is wrong"
I spoke about the different receiver positions in my previous post. I recognize that there are different positions, but largely the Packers use all of their WRs at all positions, it's what makes them so dangerous. I agree Cobb will not be used that way early, but he does seem to be a student of the game and I think he'll be playing other positions sooner than many WRs.
You don't have to agree that Jones is a shifty receiver, but then please tell me what type of receiver he is? I guess it's the way you view the term. I think he's shifty because of the body control you mentioned. I think when YOU think of shifty you probably think a footwork kind of guy. I think we agree on what kind of receiver he is, we just use different terms to define him.
I'll tell you this much though, we can agree Donald Driver is "crafty".

Yeah, I agree with this a lot.

My point regarding Jones and Jordy has always been the same. They're a little bit different, but there simply can't be said that one is clearly better than the other. They're awfully close in their career, and IMHO in their potential.

Yes, regarding shifty, I see Jones as more of a Roddy White than a Greg Jennings. Shifty would be how quick a guy can turn directions. I don't think Nelson is "shiftier" than Jones, but I do think Nelson works the middle of the field, specially against zones, better than Jones, and Jones works the sidelines, with positioning, jumping etc, better than Nelson.

As for Cobb, he's stronger than I thought initially, but not as quick as I thought. I really see a lot of similarities to Percy Harvin. I don't see the quickness of a DD in his prime or a Jennings. If any of the Packers receivers, he actually looks more like Jones, a little quicker and not as imposing. As for if he can play the sidelines, body control does help, but is not crucial. The Packers don't ask their sidelines receivers to be great jumpers, or to be great at positioning. The key for a GB receiver to play in the sidelines IMHO is to have the speed to win in a go, and the agility to gain separation in a comeback or a backshoulder comeback.

Cobb IMHO is a hybrid between Driver and Jones. But he needs to learn how to run routes, so far, I've not liked what I've seen.

 

[greenandgold]

Still, having to pick out who the best receivers are when you have so many good ones is a NICE problem for the coaches.

 

[FrankRizzo]

Cobb was seen on crutches last night out about town.

 

[G0PackG0]

I'm sorry lol

 

[DevilDon]

I don't exactly understand your thought process, but that's why the world has many different cultures. I can assure you that it absolutely is subjective and speculative on the front office part to determine a players worth and value. A player that could fit a good role on one team might be useless on another. Also a number of other reasons but this is basic knowledge.

I'm not sure I understand your thought process either and I certainly don't think it has anything to do with culture. But maybe you can enlighten us as to how culture has anything to do with this.
How can you assure me it's subjective and speculative on the front office? Do you work for an NFL front office? Sorry if your assurance isn't enough. Got anything else to back up your assertion?
A good player is a good player, any NFL team with any kind of moxy would be able to use a good player. Please give one example of a good player on one team that would be useless on another?
You also suggest a "number of other reasons but this is basic knowledge" Well you're not elaborating so let's say your assertions are that he's not crippled or being charged with murder. Those would be basic knowledge reasons not to hire a football player right?

As to your point of saying "doesn't having one tall receiver give you more versatility?" Well the short answer is no. Now, dependent upon the offense and how well that particular receiver plays are infinitely more important then height. You, among a lot of fans get caught up on the height and speed aspect of a receiver, but if he can't run proper routes, get separation, catch the ball, secure the ball etc... then he will not succeed in the NFL. This is why slot receiver like Wes Welker who doesn't have world class speed and is 5'8 succeed in the nfl.

\
Having a 6'3" receiver isn't giving you more versatility? You say no but offer no reason why it doesn't. You say dependent upon the offense (let's say Packers cause it's a Packers board) and how well that reciever plays are infinitely more important. Well, Jordy has a better ratio of catch to pass, all other receivers on our squad are similar in height/weight. It's kind of like when you posted "this is wrong" you just kind of assume you have the final answer. I get that you deny height has any bearing on the NFL. But we're talking about Jordy Nelson, not some unknown, I think it's safe to say he's established himself as a receiver who can do all the things required of an NFL receiver right? I know you want to discount the SB but the guy did have 140 yards, that's not an accident, he made those catches to cement the world championship.
One question.... Does Wes Welker suck on our team? I mean, you suggest an obvious fringe talent in height/weight only brings value to their team and their scheme, would Wes Welker flourish in Green Bay?[/QUOTE]

Different wide receiver positions absolutely play an important role in the Green Bay offense, way more than me and you will ever know or understand.

Well now we're getting to the meat of the matter. You admit you're clueless as to the goings on of an NFL championship team. The difference is that I DO know how it works. The Packers use a duplicity in their scheme. They mirror routes, so the X is mirroring the Z. The slot can bend or break or slide. The TE can run any routes. In other words, the receivers the Packers employ run all the routes of any other receiver position. Go watch a game and see how they line up and run plays.[/QUOTE]

I never compared pro-football and high school football, I mentioned there are even different WR positions in high school ball. That would be like saying they use the pick n roll offense in high school basketball and you would think thats comparing a high school offense to the utah jazz for the past 20 years. I thought it was a rather easy comparison to understand..

Yes, you did compare. You suggested that I didn't understand the receiver position. We are on a pro football forum, we're talking pro football players and YOU suggested I should know high school football.
The funny thing is that you made the reference to high school ball and now you want to tell me high school basketball isn't the same as professional basketball? I think we're in agreement, the problem seems to be that you forgot your initial premise.

We just think differently, good luck to you.

Go Pack Go

There's no question we think differently.
Go Pack Go!

 

[okcpackerfan]

The funny thing is I actually am involved in NFL front offices and admit that I still know very little.

I laid out logical statements that the majority of people understand, yet there is always someone who thinks they know more than everyone else.

I will not respond to this guy anymore but will definitely continue to post rational thought out posts without letting emotions get the best of me like some people.

 

[PackersRS]

Sigh... You people making me work really gets in my nerves.

Why can't you people act like adults and stop with the personal jabs?

 

[packerfan4ever]

I think Cobb is going to learn fast Jones more than Nelson needs to step it up,even though it is preseason jsonline a few days ago say they like West and the other 2 at w.r but I like the problem.

 

[TJV]

I laid out logical statements…

Your arguments may be logical but IMO your language use is sloppy. For example, I understand saying front office decisions are subjective since no human being can be absolutely objective. However, a common definition of the term subjective is, "based upon opinions or feelings rather than facts or evidence" and using that definition I disagree Thompson and company's decisions are subjective, in spite of your absolute assurances (which I hope you can see as at least slightly humorous).

However, IMO saying those decisions are speculative isn't a close call, it's just incorrect. Speculation, when not concerning financial transactions/decisions is commonly defined as, "an opinion or reasoning based upon incomplete information". That does not describe what goes on in the front office because while "perfect" information is beyond the reach of humans, the Packers front office has as complete information as humanly possible.

Of course this is just my opinion. Perhaps it's colored by my culture, having been brought up by cannibals.

The funny thing is I actually am involved in NFL front offices and admit that I still know very little.

With which NFL front office are you "involved" and what is the nature of your involvement?