1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

big 5 returns

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Eli Haugen, Jun 15, 2015.

  1. Eli Haugen

    Eli Haugen Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,529
    Ratings:
    +255
    i cant help but be optimistic. nelson, cobb are bread and butter. then throw in a tallent like davante adams and teams are already adjusting... im confident janis is going to destroying under sized, rookie nickel and dime backs... the only wonder is montgomery. judging from what i heard, and thompsons record drafting wrs. along with his stout stature being able to flat out fly. montgomery looks like a back breaker... even if a team could cover the first 4. they wont be able to cover monty. lets ne realistic. nobody can stop these wrs with rodgers throwing it. their only chance is to get to rodgers first. we have cobb and montgomery both able to take a short dump off, and run. just like we did with theslant the last big 5. this time our o line is solid too. it was fairly weak last time, and teams were able to expose our o line. not as easy with the interior guys we have now...
     
  2. Eli Haugen

    Eli Haugen Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,529
    Ratings:
    +255
    not saying any of the 5 couldnt take a short dump off. i just see cobb and monty as rbs that also play wr well. back in the day the quick slant worked. maybe now days its wr screens or reverses. either way we have 3 wrs who are 6'3" 220 range, who can block (hopefully). and the slant too. we used it because it worked. on of the 5 is always open if they all quick slant.
     
  3. Joe Nor Cal Packer

    Joe Nor Cal Packer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    535
    Ratings:
    +122
    I do like Janis' size and speed. WRs under 6ft 3 inches are going to die out eventually. Interesting though that most d backs are 6 feet or shorter. That probably won't change just because of the need for speed and flexible hips to adjust. After all, the receiver knows where he's going. The d back has to be fast and flexible, with the ability to change direction immediately. I just don't see a taller guy being able to do that.
     
  4. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,643
    Ratings:
    +6,605
    There´s no denying the Packers top three receivers are as good as any in the NFL but Janis and Montgomery still have to prove they´re capable of producing at the pro level. I expect the offense to line up with three WRs most of the time and include some packages with four and five receivers depending on the young guys development. You have to realize though that by suggesting to line up with five WRs Eddie Lacy won´t be on the field.

    Slot receivers will continue to be smaller than 6-3. I agree that most teams prefer smaller, flexible cornerbacks but there are some taller, succesful CBs in the league as well (Richard Sherman being the prime example).
     
  5. Mondio

    Mondio Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2014
    Messages:
    2,818
    Ratings:
    +1,786
    at this point, all signs point to Janis not having it between the ears yet to play on this team. Has he progressed enough to see the field? Reading between the lines, I"m guessing not. Has he shown enough ability to learn to keep him around longer? I guess that's the real question. Lots of tall guys, fast guys, and guys that could jump out of the stadium have come and gone and didn't even blip on the radar of the NFL.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,766
    Ratings:
    +3,711
    It sounds like Janis has hands issues when I read between the lines.
     
  7. tynimiller

    tynimiller Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,073
    Ratings:
    +331
    I sadly for some reason don't see Janis sticking...not that I don't want him too, just don't see it. I think Monty goes one of two directions (both he's staying)...he becomes a favorite of the staff due to his athleticism and huge upside and ability to line up as a RB, but struggles with the playbook and his hands. Or...he truly does become what we need, a Cobb "alternative" so we can protect Cobb more.

    If the 2nd is true than watch out because Cobb is a handful for teams to worry about, put two of them out there.....can you imagine a Lacy and Cobb/Monty in a split backfield with Nelson, Cobb/Monty and than a Richard Rodgers lined up. Lot of threats and options.

    Obviously even if Monty does turn into this kind of player, this will be is break in year...not his break out year. I suspect this is Adams break out year depending how things go.
     
  8. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,643
    Ratings:
    +6,605
    Montgomery will make the roster and I expect the Packers to use him primarily as a kick returner and some in the backfield as well as on screens. But I think he has a lot to improve as a traditional receiver before making a significant impact in the passing game.
     
  9. Jerellh528

    Jerellh528 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2015
    Messages:
    140
    Ratings:
    +78
    When you take what's being said about him at face value, and stop trying to read between the lines, it's obvious he's progressed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  10. Mondio

    Mondio Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2014
    Messages:
    2,818
    Ratings:
    +1,786
    considering nobody has seen him since 2 catches in the preseason almost a year ago, i think someone is doing a fair amount of reading between the lines themselves. How is something "obvious" you've never seen? when your HOF qb goes out of their way to avoid answering specifically about one guy, and then alludes to running routes, knowing offense and being where they're supposed to be, etc as a group and then for another answers specifically about that individuals ability to run routes, know the offense and be where they're supposed to be what does that tell you? nothing? tells me someone has more work to do before they're going to see the field
     
  11. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,766
    Ratings:
    +3,711
    First, it's hard to envision a scenario where the Packers would not retain their 3rd. round pick. Montgomery can be safely penned in as the #4 or #5. I maintain the rationale behind this pick is to cover the depth bases and provide insurance in the event the other wideouts don't make the jump. If Nelson or Adams is injured, Cobb can move outside with Montgomery manning the slot.

    I would not write off Janis quite yet, particularly if he looks good on KO returns in preseason even if hands issues remain.

    Again, reading between the lines, McCarthy's comments relating to "using catch radius" and "improving hands" suggests he has had trouble reaching for and/or holding on to Rodgers' short-to-intermediate bullets. The preoccupation with the athletic measurables among both fans and reporters borders on fetishistic. He has to prove he can catch the d*mn ball somewhere on the positive end of the stone-hands-to-glue-hands NFL spectrum to solidify a spot.

    Janis and Montgomery would appear to be a study in contrasts.

    Given reporters going gaga over a couple of deep balls Janis hauled in during camp last year, his stretch-the-field capability might earn him a spot even if the possession receiving skills may be in question.

    Conversely, Montgomery's drop/ball tracking issues in college seem to be concentrated in the deep balls. As a slot receiver, Montgomery would not often be called upon to haul in deep balls over his head.

    In the KO game, it will be worth watching carefully how Montgomery fields the ball in preseason. If he has trouble tracking deep passes, will that show up in the KO game as well? Will he look natural fielding the ball, in position to get giddyup in his get along, or will he field enough balls back on his heels to disqualify him?

    Given the Packers have unproven developmental players past the top 3, I would not be surprised if they keep 6, with backup competition continuing into the season. Either way, 5 or 6, the last spot or two should be competitive.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2015
  12. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,766
    Ratings:
    +3,711
    That may be the case. But progressed to where? Is it enough? That's what the preseason games will test.
     
  13. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,643
    Ratings:
    +6,605
    I think it´s an interesting suggestion to use Montgomery in the short to intermediate passing game while having Janis run some deep routes. I don´t think fielding kickoffs will be a problem for Montgomery. I expect the Packers to keep only five receivers on the 53 so with Montgomery a lock to make the team it will be interesting to see who grabs the last spot.
     
  14. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,766
    Ratings:
    +3,711
    But not at the same time! ;) That would suggest an injury or two we'd prefer not to contemplate.

    Besides Abbrederis, evidently a more polished route runner than Janis, we have Myles White, another field stretcher under the radar, even if neither are as physically impressive in height/weight. When we see Goodson getting first team reps in Hayward's absence, the premium placed on time in the system can't be ignored, which is a point in White's favor. While I think it's a stretch to think White will survive, I would not rule him out entirely.

    Another potential value Janis could provide would be as a gunner. It's generally overlooked that with Bush's and House's departures, the Packers are in the market for two. While the Packers, and the league in general, use DBs in that role, it's not unheard of to have a WR play the spot. Besides his size and speed, Janis' 20 Combine lifts suggest good strength to get off blocks. Who knows...the Packers could work in a fake punt here or there and throw him the ball.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,643
    Ratings:
    +6,605
    Yeah, aside of an occassional five receiver set I'd prefer to not have Montgomery and Janis on the field at the same time. In addition I agree with your take of Janis as a gunner is an intriguing possibility.

    Randall and Rollins already lined up with the #1 defense during last week's OTA ahead of Goodson, so while time in the system has some value talent is way more important.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Joe Nor Cal Packer

    Joe Nor Cal Packer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    535
    Ratings:
    +122
    Funny as soon as I hit the send button Richard Sherman popped into my head! He is tall, rangy and has very long arms. What is his height? Looks ro be 6 ft. 3. And you're right about the slot receivers - physically they're gonna be around 6 feet if not a little shorter. I think on the outside though teams are moving to taller guys. Fortunately we have a few of those on the roster! It would also help if R Rodgers took a big step forward this year. Speed and athleticism down the seam at TE has been missing in GB since Finley departed.

    I'm not sure if Ty Montgomery breaks into the rotation this year as a WR. Someone else posted he's like a bigger version of Cobb so I could see him lining up in the backfield. He has the size and strength to be used as a legitimate tailback. I would be happy if all he did this year was return kickoffs and punts as well as he did in college. Seems like the biggest step forward in this draft was STs, although I have a gut feeling Rollins will be special as a CB as well. Very premature as neither guy has played an NFL snap yet - but what else do we have to chat about this time of year?
     
  17. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    5,389
    Ratings:
    +4,176
    First, kudos to HRE for using the word "fetishistic" – I’ll bet that’s its first appearance here.

    Second regarding Montgomery in addition to standing out to McCarthy in shorts-and-helmets rookie camp, I was a little surprised to read Van Pelt not being concerned about his missing time with the league rookie orientation and completing his degree at Stanford.
    http://www.espnwisconsin.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=40&post_id=49951

    It looks like he won't struggle as much as the typical rookie to grasp the offense. If he can catch onto the post-snap adjustments (reading Ds, etc.) he could very well be entrenched at #4 WR.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
  18. sschind

    sschind Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,001
    Ratings:
    +503
    Don't TT and MM always say the goal is to keep the 53 best players on the team? I know that is probably pretty much the same as saying you draft the best player available (meaning you say it but you don't always do it) but if that is the case the battle may not come down to WRs vs WRs but WRs vs that last LB or that last O-lineman.

    Personally I am not sold on the big 5 right now. We may have a top 5 duo but after that we have nothing but promise and potential. Pretty much the same as most teams and maybe not as much as some. What gives us our advantage over 25 or so other teams in the WR department is not our 3 on down its our 1 and 2. Nelson and Cobb are better than almost every other duo in the league so that boosts our overall status. I think Adams can be a very good if not great one but based on one year, a good year but not a great one, I'd say as of right now he is nothing special and honestly I wouldn't even say anyone else rates that high. Every rookie has promise and potential or they wouldn't be in the NFL. Some GM saw as much in their 7th round WR they picked last year as TT saw in Janis. Does that mean Janis is better because the Packers took him or because TT took him. Not in my opinion it doesn't.

    Montgomery's size and athleticism have me very intrigued but I'm not convinced we will see a whole lot of him lining up in the backfield. From what I have read about this guy after he gets the ball I hope we can work him in more but I'm just not convinced it will happen.

    I like the fact that some of you are so high on our guys. I like the confidence and do share that confidence that our guys can and will step up. I'm just not convinced that, based on what we have right now, we have a big 5.
     
  19. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,766
    Ratings:
    +3,711
    Yeah, but what does that even mean?

    1) The 53 "best" players right at the moment when the Turk goes around on final cut down day?

    2) Does it include players who will surpass the "best" at the moment if they make the projected second year jump?

    3) Might "best" include players with some upside at the expense of an older "better" player who's hit the 30+ year old mark?

    4) Does cost or dead cap factor into the decision?

    I think we could agree it's the latter 3 points, which renders the word "best" pretty much useless.

    PS for Thx: That may be the first time the term "Turk" has been used in this forum. A little old school there. ;)
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2015
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    5,389
    Ratings:
    +4,176
    Thompson has made the point more than once that the "final 53" after the last preseason game is in flux as the season goes on, so it really isn't "final". What I think sschind means is they may keep "extra" players at one position because the last player of that group is more valuable (or "better") than another who it may seem to make more sense to keep from strictly a backup spot at another position. They used to do that more - I remember them keeping a lot of TEs (or even FBs?) mostly to help on STs in years past.
     
  21. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,766
    Ratings:
    +3,711
    Speaking of old school, Stanford runs a pro style West Coast offense. I would expect terminology and concepts to be largely transferable. It's no accident that Luck's transition from Stanford to the pros was nearly seamless.

    Also, Montgomery scored a 24 on the Wonderlic. While that's not the kind of score that would suggest a post-football career writing algorithms in nearby Silicon Valley, he would qualify as "smart" by NFL standards where the average wide receiver scores a 17.
     
  22. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,766
    Ratings:
    +3,711
    I think it goes without saying that 53 is never final. If nothing else, odds are that somebody at some point will have a season ending injury after the opening day roster is set.

    You bring up a good point regarding the "last player". However, there's the converse scenario.

    There's a certain minimum number of players at each position...7 for the O-Line, for example. If we assume that Tretter is #7, does that mean he's a "better" football player than anybody else who is cut? That would be hard to judge comparing positions, but it's not out of the question that a promising player gets cut just because of numbers at his position, whereas a C/G swing man is a necessity even if that guy is not projected as a future starter-caliber player. Perhaps not the best example, but it illustrates a point.

    In the final analysis, there are probably about 3 spots, give or take, that can swing to one position or another based on how promising certain players might be.

    I agree with sschind that saying the "best" 53 players are kept has about as much meaning as "best available player" does as a draft philosophy. Those are words with no content.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. sschind

    sschind Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,001
    Ratings:
    +503

    That's exactly what I meant. If we assume Janis and Abby are fighting for the #5 and #6 WR spot and both have great camps we might keep both. If one struggles a bit but some relative unknown O lineman has a great camp but not really good enough to take the roster spot of a lineman in front of him they may decide to keep the lineman instead of the WR. The final 53 is always in flux because there may always be someone available who is "better" than the "worst" player on your roster. In a lot of cases that last guy at that position is not someone who is being counted on to tribute much this year. He is a work in progress. If a linebacker suddenly becomes available who you think may be a more valuable to your team than the 6th WR, either this year or in the future, you cut the WR and sign the LB.
     
  24. sschind

    sschind Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,001
    Ratings:
    +503

    Substituting the words "most valuable to the team" would be more appropriate than words like better or best. Keeping an 8th O-lineman may be the better move if he shows more promise than the 6th WR.

    Those three spots you mentioned, which I agree with by the way, are probably about the same number of spots won by players in preseason games. I'm guessing that by time the preseason starts most teams probably have around 50 roster spots locked in based on veteran talent or camp performance.
     
  25. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,643
    Ratings:
    +6,605
    I don´t expect the Packers to use Montgomery as a traditional wide receiver but the offense should find a way to get the ball in his hands either on screens or hitches as well as lining him up in the backfield. Hyde has been a great punt returner over the last two seasons and I don´t see any reason to make a change there.

    I agree with your take about the Packers receivers behind the top three on the depth chart. Adams had a promising rookie season (he had more catches than Nelson and Cobb during their first year) and according to McCarthy and Rodgers he has taken a huge step in his development. I expect him to have a very good season in 2015.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2

Share This Page