Trade Watson?

[OldSchool101]

Once again, you are misinterpreting what I am saying. Or intentionally ignoring it.

When Watson is on the field, the offense is better. Evidence:

"Moreover, when Watson was on the field this year, the running game was 0.11 yards per play better and the passing game was 0.80 yards better." https://www.si.com/nfl/packers/onsi...t-card-grading-christian-watson-and-receivers
Random Short covering this:

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

I am NOT saying Kraft does not have a similar impact, merely that I have not seen it. I would like to see it, should it exists.

Oh cmon. I’m intentionally ignoring you? We’re having a simple conversation about who is more impactful either Watson or Kraft.

According to you

1. We can speak to financial benefits.
2. We can’t speak to raw Production in yards or TD’s or Teams value.
3. We can’t speak to blocking impact
4. We can’t speak to the offset list production value of the player lost (Kraft). As if losing Kraft has zero impact on the team.

 

[mradtke66]

Oh cmon. I’m intentionally ignoring you? We’re having a simple conversation about who is more impactful either Watson or Kraft.

According to you

1. We can speak to financial benefits.
2. We can’t speak to raw Production in yards or TD’s or Teams value.
3. We can’t speak to blocking impact
4. We can’t speak to the offset list value of the player lost.

So basically speaking to the above points is now “intentionally ignoring” your point that Watson is more valuable because he keeps a “2-high shell”.

Once again, you're ignoring what I have said and putting words in my mouth.

My first comment on this sub-thread, comment #46: "All that said, if you had to chose, I'm not sure it's as easy as you think. We have those handy stats about how much better Watson is when he is on the field, even when not targeted. I'd need to see those same stats for Kraft before I pick."

Please re-read that comment. No where did I say I we can or cannot talk about financial benefits. No where did I say we cannot talk about blocking. No where did I say we can't talk about value offset.

I have been making two points, maybe three depending how you slice it.

1. Watson being on the field has a measurable, positive impact on the offense. We have these stats.
1a. I am not aware of similar stats for Kraft. I AM NOT SAYING THEY DO NOT EXIST, MERELY I HAVE NOT SEEN THEM. IF THEY DO EXIST, I WANT TO SEE THEM!

2. Given 1 above, Watson vs. Kraft is not a simple as comparing their receiving output.

Those are my points.

My comments about "2-high" was supposition as to why Watson improves the offense. There could be other reasons.

 

[OldSchool101]

@mradtke66

Nobody is intentionally ignoring anything and I’m surprised that that assertion would he directed at me for simply stating strategic advantages of player A over player B. It’s such a silly accusation to make saying there’s intentional harm directed anyone. I’m responding to an argument of player A over player B. That simple and I’m sorry if you think you’re being ignored that was not intended.

YOU brought up double coverage or “2-high” I didn’t. This speaks to it at least in the only season I saw data. It shows what a minuscule variance this gets compared to other deep threats.
Here’s 1 area I could find but it was a chart from 2023. Watson actually held the least number of single coverage. That’s part was true. In his 447 total snaps, he was between 3-5% less single coverage over the next 9 players. 10 NFL players has single coverage between 25-30% of snaps. 19 more wide receivers were between 5.1-10% of Watson’s single coverage. That’s 28 WR’s between about 3% -10% of Watson Single coverage #.

GB used the Pass on 55.22% of the 2023 season. Meaning a little more than 1/2 of all Watson’s snaps were running plays. That’s 223 Pass plays giving him help all the way down to just 50% because he might’ve come off the field some more on 1st down. I’m giving him every benefit I can. Split the difference is 28 players were within 6.5% of snaps in single coverage. Thats 14.5 snaps across the 2023 season over 28 other Wideouts!

Christian Watson had approximately 1 snap PER GAME over average of the next 28 WR’s ranked in double coverage.

There’s 31 other teams, so 28 sample covers the vast majority of them. Some if those players may have been on same team. I know this because actually Wicks was in the top 29 most double teams.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

delivered in truth

A key statement when it comes to guarantees. Maybe Christian Kirk would have lived up to his big contract, but he didn't. Yes, injuries had a lot to do with it, however, that is kind of my point. Whether it is a drop in production and/or injuries, tying up a lot of guaranteed money in one player, can really bite a team. Christian Watson is just 1 WR on a team that will carry 6. Tying up the kind of money we are talking about in just that 1 WR, based mainly on "he should be this....if he stays healthy", is a big gamble for me.

I understand doing that for a QB, because you only pay 1 to start. I sort of understand doing that for Micah Parsons, because he is who he is and he has proven himself.

I think you and I are on the same page though when you once said "It all depends on the contract and the guarantees". When it comes to giving Watson another deal, I am not opposed to it, I just hope if they do, it isn't front loaded with a lot of guaranteed money.

 

[OldSchool101]

This idea that Watson is substantially Doubled more than a replacement player we would get just isn’t true. He might at best get 1 more double per game. We don’t even know if he was designed target on that 1 extra double team. I mean there’s 3 of 4 other guys getting the passes regularly like Watson. So he had maybe 5-10 times in the 2023 season he was doubled over his successor. It’s not like we’re going to replace Watson with a guy that had zero deep ability or that runs a 4.75 40-time here.

I’m not suggesting ditching Watson. I’d love to have both Watson and Kraft. However If Watson costs a true $22.5mil snd Kraft costs a true $15mil average cap hit each year? I’m going Kraft and his extra 5 TD’s! I’ll deal with the 1 snap off game I’ve gutted an extra Safety bearing down.

 

[milani]

This idea that Watson is substantially Doubled more than a replacement player we would get just isn’t true. He might at best get 1 more double per game. We don’t even know if he was designed target on that 1 extra double team. I mean there’s 3 of 4 other guys getting the passes regularly like Watson. So he had maybe 5-10 times in the 2023 season he was doubled over his successor. It’s not like we’re going to replace Watson with a guy that had zero deep ability or that runs a 4.75 40-time here.

I’m not suggesting ditching Watson. I’d love to have both Watson and Kraft. However If Watson costs a true $22.5mil snd Kraft costs a true $15mil average cap hit each year? I’m going Kraft and his extra 5 TD’s! I’ll deal with the 1 snap off game I’ve gutted an extra Safety bearing down.

And it depends who is on the field with him on offense. I know the Broncos certainly did not double him last year.

 

[mradtke66]

@mradtke66

Nobody is intentionally ignoring anything and I’m surprised that that assertion would he directed at me for simply stating strategic advantages of player A over player B. It’s such a silly accusation to make saying there’s intentional harm directed anyone. I’m responding to an argument of player A over player B. That simple and I’m sorry if you think you’re being ignored that was not intended.

I'm responding to you because you're responding to me.

My thesis is "Watson is more valuable that his personal statistics. As such, his value is harder to measure and potentially being under-valued. It is thus harder to weigh his value against Kraft."

I also never said which of the two I'd rather have.

YOU brought up double coverage or “2-high” I didn’t. <snipped>

I am not asserting Watson did get more double coverage. What I am asserting is that the offense, as a whole, is better when he is on the field vs. when he is not. I don't know why. More 2-high was supposition. Speculation. A guess.

 

[gopkrs]

It doesn't have to be, but this is a fine case where we can have this evidence. We DO have stats that show the Packers offense is more better/efficient with Watson on the field. I'm curious if there are similar stats for Kraft. Things beyond his own catches/touchdowns, etc.

You and I seem to agree that Watson is valuable past his individual contributions. I'm reluctant to pound the table without evidence. I consider that basic debate responsibility/etiquette.

Actually, I wasn't arguing about the offense doing better with one or the other player in the game. I was only saying that I think Watson demands more attention. Basically, throughout his route. From linebackers to slot def to corners to DBs. That allows imho Kraft to find open spaces ala Kelce. Of course it's not only Watson but he's pretty dangerous.

 

[mradtke66]

Actually, I wasn't arguing about the offense doing better with one or the other player in the game.

I also wasn't comparing the two. Without equivalent evidence to measure Krafts ability to elevate the offense, it isn't fair to compare..

What I said was "You and I seem to agree that Watson is valuable past his individual contributions." Nothing about that is meant to be a dig against Kraft. It is only comparing Watson on the field vs. Watson NOT on the field.

I was only saying that I think Watson demands more attention. Basically, throughout his route. From linebackers to slot def to corners to DBs.

Which is where I believe we agree.

 

[Magooch]

At least with regards to a trade, my gut says that Watson is more valuable to us than he would be to prospective "buyers". I don't think anyone is offering anything CLOSE to a first for Watson. Similarly we are not getting anything near a 1 for Reed either. IMO your absolute best case scenario is probably a 2nd for Watson (and even that's probably wishful thinking; probably a late 2 at best) and Reed you're probably looking at like a 4th. Maybe something like a 3rd if you send a pick in return. At those rates, it's a lot more sensible for us to try and hang on to them. Whenever I see these trade propositions I always have to ask myself what I'd do if the shoe was on the other foot - how much would I be comfortable with GB giving up in trade for a Watson or Reed-level player?

Anywho, that's of course contingent on the price for us, too. In a vacuum, it's easy to say "Watson is worth more to us than what we'd get in a trade," but if Watson is asking for 40m a year (hyperbole), well, then maybe you can decide that a late 2nd is worth more to us than Watson at 40m a year. There's always a balance there. Of course this is an extreme example but you get the point.

All that being said though unless Watson's demands are just outrageous it's hard for me to see the value in moving Watson right now. I haven't dug into the actual stats to see the difference in concrete terms (I think they are out there and have seen some allusions to them) but I can tell you that at least by the eye test our offense LOOKS so, so, so much better when he plays. Maybe he is not the only factor but I feel like - again, just speaking visually here - our offense looks night-and-day better when he is on the field than when he is off it. (I'd have to track it down but I remember reading that Love's passer rating was dramatically better when Watson is on the field - not even targeted, just when he's present)

Reed on the other hand I'm a little more ambivalent about. I like him but I think he's a considerably more replaceable player for us.

 

[OldSchool101]

I also wasn't comparing the two. Without equivalent evidence to measure Krafts ability to elevate the offense, it isn't fair to compare..

What I said was "You and I seem to agree that Watson is valuable past his individual contributions." Nothing about that is meant to be a dig against Kraft. It is only comparing Watson on the field vs. Watson NOT on the field.



Which is where I believe we agree.

For the record. Just because someone (me) responds to an idea you present doesn’t mean they are 100% against you or everything you said across multiple posts. I do often try in parenthesis to say (not that I thought you said that) because text can be very tricky and even perceived as confrontational when it’s often just informative. Nothing was an attack it’s more just a point that I think many of us didn’t realize how dynamic Kraft was. Had he not went out? He’s easily cracking 900+ and 10 TD’s area. I think I also read he was leading the league in YAC a good 5 or 6 games into 2025. That in itself puts a DC on notice to be keenly aware of where he’s at at all times.
When is the last time we’ve even had a TE capable of posting 1,136 yards and 15 TD pace?? That’s incredible, like All Pro 1-2 stuff. I mean Super Bowl era Paul Coffman or Jermichael were talented enough but not quite that level imo. I’d put my $$ on Kraft.

Both Watson and Kraft actually compliment each other. Although many were surprised we offered $13.5Mil at the time to an oft injured player. Neither are easily replaced. Yet I’m convinced after looking at the 2 that Kraft is superior. Watson needs to remain healthy for a full season and start putting up more than 650 yards imo. He's better than that and capable of much more, but he’s got a significant injury history that can’t be ignored also. #9 has missed 3 games, 8 games, 2 games, 7 games or 20 contests combined not including the games he was injured (5 games per season) and each season disjointed with missed games. To your point now, I think we recognize he draws attention we can agree on that.

Kraft has missed 9 games total but had a pair of seasons playing every contest including playoffs. 19+ 18 + 8 = 45 contests in a row

 

[mradtke66]

that I think many of us didn’t realize how dynamic Kraft was. Had he not went out? He’s easily cracking 900+ and 10 TD’s area. I think I also read he was leading the league in YAC a good 5 or 6 games into 2025. That in itself puts a DC on notice to be keenly aware of where he’s at at all times.
When is the last time we’ve even had a TE capable if 1,136 yards 15 TD pace? I mean Superboel era Paul Coffman or Jermichael were talented enough but I’d still take Kraft.

My issue isn't if Kraft was dynamic or not. I acknowledge that he is. I'm trying to weigh the impact of individual stats versus the impact beyond stats. In addition to the yards per play metric, Watson being on the field also improved Love's TD:Int Ratio. Something like 5.5 when he is on the field, 3.0 when he is not.

Consider a completely absurd example. We have a crystal ball that shows us two versions of 2027 where we have only kept one of the two in each. We keep Kraft and he goes off for 1500 yards and 16 TDs. We keep Watson and he only gets 800 yards and 8 TDs over the 17 games, never misses a start.

At first glance, you'd pick Kraft, obviously. But we pull the curtain back. In the world where we kept Kraft, Love doesn't even make it to 3000 yards passing and has a 1:1 TD:Int Ratio. In the one where we kept Watson, Loves makes it to 4500 yards and a 3:1 ratio.

Is this stupid? Of course and I have laid on the hyperbole super thick for some humor, but Watson does have this style of impact. We have the data to support this.

 

[OldSchool101]

At first glance, you'd pick Kraft, obviously. But we pull the curtain back. In the world where we kept Kraft, Love doesn't even make it to 3000 yards passing and has a 1:1 TD:Int Ratio. In the one where we kept Watson, Loves makes it to 4500 yards and a 3:1 ratio.

Is this stupid? Of course and I have laid on the hyperbole super thick for some humor, but Watson does have this style of impact. We have the data to support this.

I think I’m a mile and 3/4 away from you here. lol I don’t have the resources to unpack this without sounding insulting or offensive.

Let’s just agree to disagree.

pS. I’m a big proponent of Watson and I was before he landed in Green Bay.
I argued for Watson like he was family. I think there’s a song that would best fit my feelings. Know I love you @mradtke66 but in a wee bit too far away so I give up. I’m on to bigger dreams! Good luck!

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

 

[mradtke66]

I think I’m a mile and 3/4 away from you here. lol I don’t have the resources to unpack this without sounding insulting or offensive.

Sorry. I made up a contrived example. In a nut shell, would you rather have

the number 1 statistical TE and a middling offense overall

or

a borderline top 10 statistical WR and a top 3 overall offense.

 

[OldSchool101]

Sorry. I made up a contrived example. In a nut shell, would you rather have

the number 1 statistical TE and a middling offense overall

or

a borderline top 10 statistical WR and a top 3 overall offense.

Give me Christian Watson baby!

No wait.. give me Bo Melton. He’s cheaper and fans love the guy!

 

[tynimiller]

Weeks 8-18 in 2025, 10 games, though the idea of rate stats is that it matters significantly less. His contribution here is obvious.



So here's the fun part--Watson didn't play 100% of the snaps on the games he did play in, fluctuating between 40 and 83 precent, depending on the week. This accounts for most/all of your concerns outside of down and distance



This sounds suspiciously like ignoring evidence because it is counter to your position.



Doubs signed for ~17M annually, thus it is easy to extrapolate. The offense would be about 0.11 yards per play worse in the running game and 0.80 yards worse in the passing game with a receiver of that quality.

Doubs really signed for two years at 27.2 in all likelihood unless he lights it up that third year won’t happen…but if it does it would be 46 over three years or just over $15M/yr

 

[Heyjoe4]

Doubs really signed for two years at 27.2 in all likelihood unless he lights it up that third year won’t happen…but if it does it would be 46 over three years or just over $15M/yr

$15 mil/AAV sounds right to me for Doubs. Like all the Packer WRs, he's had to share the football and so hasn't put up a 1,000 yard season. He could do it as a #1 WR, with more targets.

Personally, I hated seeing him leave. He was deliberate in the way he played. He was a solid possession receiver with excellent hands. Just too many mouths to feed in the WR group and based on contract status, he was the odd man out.

I do wish him well. He played well as a Packer and was fun to watch.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

My thesis is "Watson is more valuable that his personal statistics. As such, his value is harder to measure and potentially being under-valued. It is thus harder to weigh his value against Kraft."

I would argue the same thing in regards to Kraft. ie. "He is more valuable than his stats may show."

I would also agree that Watson might receive a contract that pays him almost twice as much as Kraft.

Thus, any conversation involving The Packers giving either a new contract, needs to include their value to the team, as well as their cost to the team.

 

[DABIGZ]

Overall, I'd like Watson back. But like others have said (@tynimiller I think mentioned it?) it's all about the structure. We can give him a four year, $120 million deal, but if for instance only 40-50 is guaranteed? Sign me up!!

But if his camp baulks and wants 80 to 90 million guaranteed? I'd be a bit more hesitant.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Overall, I'd like Watson back. But like others have said (@tynimiller I think mentioned it?) it's all about the structure. We can give him a four year, $120 million deal, but if for instance only 40-50 is guaranteed? Sign me up!!

But if his camp baulks and wants 80 to 90 million guaranteed? I'd be a bit more hesitant.

Good points. IMO Watson has to prove what he can do over a season where he starts 15-17 games. He has to put up solid numbers to be considered for big money. Right now, I don't know what a contract would look like.

And in FA, he's very likely to get overpaid, a risk inherent in free agency.

I'm looking for a 1200-1500 yard season with 12-15 TDs. He can do this - he has a nose for the end zone. I hope this comes true and he stays with the Packers. Also IMO - his chronic injury years are behind him. He fixed the soft-tissue hamstring injury, and the ACL can happen to anyone - and his recovery and return were amazing. And even when he hurt his shoulder last season, I think he missed only one game.

Even so, he's in a "prove-it" situation. Fair or not, he has to stay healthy and produce. He'll do it.

 

[milani]

$15 mil/AAV sounds right to me for Doubs. Like all the Packer WRs, he's had to share the football and so hasn't put up a 1,000 yard season. He could do it as a #1 WR, with more targets.

Personally, I hated seeing him leave. He was deliberate in the way he played. He was a solid possession receiver with excellent hands. Just too many mouths to feed in the WR group and based on contract status, he was the odd man out.

I do wish him well. He played well as a Packer and was fun to watch.

We were fortunate to have enough to compensate for all the WR injuries. We just did not have a Davante any more.

 

[Heyjoe4]

We were fortunate to have enough to compensate for all the WR injuries. We just did not have a Davante any more.

Spot on. There is no "go to" guy. Hell everyone in the stadium and on both sides of the field knew Rodgers was gonna find Adams when a play was needed. And they pulled it off, over and over again.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Good points. IMO Watson has to prove what he can do over a season where he starts 15-17 games. He has to put up solid numbers to be considered for big money. Right now, I don't know what a contract would look like.

Just a guess, but Watson and his agent would want his contract to reflect the scenario that he is healthy for all games and he continues upward in his development. Whereas the Packers might want a contract that reflects his injury history and the fact that he probably won't be able to play all 17+ games, as well as the possibility that his numbers stay the same or go down. NFL history favors Watson and his agent to get closer to their number, due to supply and demand.

This is the inherent problem with NFL contract, players are typically paid based on projections. I have never liked that, but what has made it worse, is guaranteed money based off of those projections. Players are now being paid more than just 1 or 2 years upfront, they are getting guaranteed money equal to several years of high level, injury free performance. See "Deshaun Watson" if you want to see how this effects a team.

The Packers and Watson hammered out a deal last year, that given that he was coming off a major injury, was fair to both sides. Once recovered, he stayed healthy and put up good numbers. I don't doubt the Packers are a better team with Watson and they have him under contract in 2026. I think the Packers would be smart to ride out his current contract and risk having to pay Watson more than what he and his agent probably want right now. Or come late October, if the Packers don't see themselves a legit playoff team, trade him. They also could just let him walk after the season, sign a big deal elsewhere and hopefully get a nice compensatory pick out of it.

 

[Magooch]

I would argue the same thing in regards to Kraft. ie. "He is more valuable than his stats may show."

I would also agree that Watson might receive a contract that pays him almost twice as much as Kraft.

Thus, any conversation involving The Packers giving either a new contract, needs to include their value to the team, as well as their cost to the team.

I think the point that @mradtke66 is trying to make though (and correct me if I am wrong here, I don't want to put words in your mouth!) is that "Watson is more valuable than his *personal* stats show" is not exactly the same thing as "Kraft is more valuable than stats show".

The point is that Watson's impact on the overall offense IS measurable, even if it isn't borne out in his own personal stats accumulated. When Watson plays, there is objective data showing that our overall offense performs better, regardless of the impact (or lack thereof) on his personal stats.

So with Kraft it's not to say that this definitively ALSO isn't the case but just that I (we?) haven't seen that data yet. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist but I've not been made aware of it yet.

In other words:

- When Watson is on the field, Green Bay's offense performs objectively better, irrespective of Watson's personal involvement
- Therefore, we must ask: is there data to demonstrate that Green Bay's offense performs objectively better when Kraft is on the field, irrespective of his personal involvement?

 

[Heyjoe4]

I think the point that @mradtke66 is trying to make though (and correct me if I am wrong here, I don't want to put words in your mouth!) is that "Watson is more valuable than his *personal* stats show" is not exactly the same thing as "Kraft is more valuable than stats show".

The point is that Watson's impact on the overall offense IS measurable, even if it isn't borne out in his own personal stats accumulated. When Watson plays, there is objective data showing that our overall offense performs better, regardless of the impact (or lack thereof) on his personal stats.

So with Kraft it's not to say that this definitively ALSO isn't the case but just that I (we?) haven't seen that data yet. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist but I've not been made aware of it yet.

In other words:

- When Watson is on the field, Green Bay's offense performs objectively better, irrespective of Watson's personal involvement
- Therefore, we must ask: is there data to demonstrate that Green Bay's offense performs objectively better when Kraft is on the field, irrespective of his personal involvement?

Interesting. At least so far, and this is intuition, Watson draws more attention from the D than Kraft. I don't know if that's the case, and Kraft hasn't had the injury history as Watson. But Kraft is a rising star, and he's rising fast. And they technically play different possessions, although both are good at receiving AND blocking. Musgrave, in contrast, is just a big WR with no YAC ability.