Driver vs Nelson

[ivo610]

Should Jordy be starting ahead of Donald?

 

[AmishMafia]

no. But we run 3 WRs quite often and over the course of the game Jordy should be getting more plays - Don should be rested more.

 

[DevilDon]

Not imho but he will have his chance sometimes this year. I think Driver brings a different kind of routes to the game that Jordy cannot. I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more of him this season, I've been singing his praises all last year.
We might see more of Cobb than we all expect.

 

[YouFrgotPoland]

Let's pretend for a second that we re-sign Jones. Prior to last season it seemed like a lot of people were claiming Jones will take Driver's spot when Driver is finally done. I always leaned more toward Jordy and hoped it would be him. Anyone think that when Driver DOES finally get moved down from number 2 that it'll be Jordy at 2?

 

[ivo610]

I dont see the pack resigning Jones. I expect to resign a fullback and wouldnt be surprised at one or two others but resigning Jones would surprise me.

 

[Eis Bowl]

I'd say no. Driver is such a fighter and though maybe down last year in yards he's very impressive still.

 

[PackersRS]

IMHO we don't have any starters on the WR position.

Jennings will play most of the snaps, but when in jumbo formation (1wr) Nelson will be the starter, as he's the best blocker.

But I do understand what you're saying, that if we go 2 wr formation, should Nelson be the starter opposing Jennings? Depends on how Driver will return. We need to remember that he played all of 2010 hurt, after he had a great 2009 season (remember the multiple one handed catches?).

I say, right now, yes, Nelson should be the "starter", but if Driver shows he's fully recovered and still has that shiftness in him, he'll be the starter.

 

[armand34]

To me,

Jordy's consistency is in question...he is definitely capable of making plays, but we need to see him do it every game...The Younger Jordy has a good chance of surpassing the aging Driver...so far Driver is still the better all around WR...but Jordy is right on his heels

 

[TheGiftedApe]

by the end of the seaons jordy should be starting hopefully.

 

[The Real Pack Attack]

If Jones is resigned, Jones would be ahead of Jordy. Either way Driver still is the starter opposite Jennings.

 

[DevilDon]

IMHO we don't have any starters on the WR position.

Jennings will play most of the snaps, but when in jumbo formation (1wr) Nelson will be the starter, as he's the best blocker.

But I do understand what you're saying, that if we go 2 wr formation, should Nelson be the starter opposing Jennings? Depends on how Driver will return. We need to remember that he played all of 2010 hurt, after he had a great 2009 season (remember the multiple one handed catches?).

I say, right now, yes, Nelson should be the "starter", but if Driver shows he's fully recovered and still has that shiftness in him, he'll be the starter.

WTF are you talking about? We don't have a starting receiver? Are you suggesting we start in the Jumbo? IF WE go 2 wr formation? Do you watch the Packers dude? Not trying to start an argument but I don't get what the hell you're talking about?
The Packers use multiple receivers often. The Jumbo you're talking about is an unusual formation and still puts a TE or WR in the TE spot in the slot.
Greg Jennings is the starter opposite Donald Driver. There is no ambiguity. They have #1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 receivers. I don't know what team you've been watching.

 

[PackersRS]

WTF are you talking about? We don't have a starting receiver? Are you suggesting we start in the Jumbo? IF WE go 2 wr formation? Do you watch the Packers dude? Not trying to start an argument but I don't get what the hell you're talking about?
The Packers use multiple receivers often. The Jumbo you're talking about is an unusual formation and still puts a TE or WR in the TE spot in the slot.
Greg Jennings is the starter opposite Donald Driver. There is no ambiguity. They have #1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 receivers. I don't know what team you've been watching.

Wow. Just wow.

Michael Irwin never got off the field, in any formation. Only when tired. The same goes for Rice, Sharpe, Moss, Owens...

In jumbo personel (any variation that only has 1 WR) Nelson is the WR. Not Jennings.

Do you have any idea what consitutes starters? The first formation used in the game. Not the player that plays the most snaps at a position.

If by any chance the Packers start the game in the opposite 5 yard line and go jumbo personel, that would make Nelson the starter of that game. Not Jennings. Not Driver.

Is it an "unusual" formation as you call it? It's certainly less used than the posse personel. But the posse personel still only consitutes 40% or so of the formations used in a game. In fact, by your definition, Nelson IS a starter, as the most used formation is the posse.

But in today's NFL, there are no starters (outside of the OL and the QB, and a RB in some teams). In the past, even in the 90's, teams always lined up with 2 starting WRs, and used multiple receiver sets only occasionally.

Nowadays, the multiplicity of formations don't allow the technical term of "starter" to be used precisely. In fact, the Packers are the team that most often employs different personel groupings in the entire league: Tricky offenses could be casualties of lockout - NFL- NBC Sports

On the flip side, here are the most complex offenses.

1. Packers (Simplicity Score 0.9)
Sudden shifts from empty backfields to jumbo T-formations made the Packers hard to defend last year, but the crazy personnel groupings and formation shifts cannot be easy to master on a tight deadline.

I only quoted part of the article, so read the rest if you're interested in understanding something about formations.

So, BECAUSE the Packers use a multitude of formations (and not only 2 and 3 wrs like you think they do), one can only attribute the definition of a starter by each and every formation.

So... Yes, I do know what the **** I'm talking about. And, yes, I do watch the Packers.

And the jumbo formation may or may not have someone lined up at the slot. What it necessarily means is that there's no more than one player lined up far from the OL. He may be in the slot (y), he may be in the flanker (z) or as a split end (x). Heck, it may even mean that there's no player lined up far from the OL, as is the case in a T formation we used against the Eagles, with Starks Kuhn and Hall in the backfield, and Crabtree (IIRC) lined up as a typical TE...

 

[Wood Chipper]

driver is a much better slot receiver in my opinion

 

[ivo610]

I would like to see the packers keep the snaps down for DD early in the season

 

[PackersRS]

I would like to see the packers keep the snaps down for DD early in the season

VERY smart idea. For the second year in a row, Driver starter the season well (he started it REALLY well in 09) but fell off as the season wore on.

Saving him for the postseason would be a really smart idea, considering the plethora of weapons we have.

Of course, that is considering we actually play to our level and do well early in the season, because our team has a tendency to struggling early on...

 

[DevilDon]

Wow. Just wow.

Michael Irwin never got off the field, in any formation. Only when tired. The same goes for Rice, Sharpe, Moss, Owens...

In jumbo personel (any variation that only has 1 WR) Nelson is the WR. Not Jennings.

Do you have any idea what consitutes starters? The first formation used in the game. Not the player that plays the most snaps at a position.

If by any chance the Packers start the game in the opposite 5 yard line and go jumbo personel, that would make Nelson the starter of that game. Not Jennings. Not Driver.

Is it an "unusual" formation as you call it? It's certainly less used than the posse personel. But the posse personel still only consitutes 40% or so of the formations used in a game. In fact, by your definition, Nelson IS a starter, as the most used formation is the posse.

But in today's NFL, there are no starters (outside of the OL and the QB, and a RB in some teams). In the past, even in the 90's, teams always lined up with 2 starting WRs, and used multiple receiver sets only occasionally.

Nowadays, the multiplicity of formations don't allow the technical term of "starter" to be used precisely. In fact, the Packers are the team that most often employs different personel groupings in the entire league: Tricky offenses could be casualties of lockout - NFL- NBC Sports



I only quoted part of the article, so read the rest if you're interested in understanding something about formations.

So, BECAUSE the Packers use a multitude of formations (and not only 2 and 3 wrs like you think they do), one can only attribute the definition of a starter by each and every formation.

So... Yes, I do know what the **** I'm talking about. And, yes, I do watch the Packers.

And the jumbo formation may or may not have someone lined up at the slot. What it necessarily means is that there's no more than one player lined up far from the OL. He may be in the slot (y), he may be in the flanker (z) or as a split end (x). Heck, it may even mean that there's no player lined up far from the OL, as is the case in a T formation we used against the Eagles, with Starks Kuhn and Hall in the backfield, and Crabtree (IIRC) lined up as a typical TE...

It seems you want to rewrite what a "starting" WR is. That's up to you but nobody and I mean NOBODY in the NFL past or present doesn't recognize Driver and Jennings as the starting WRs. The fact that the Packers offense is so versatile and complex doesn't negate the fact that everyone recognizes who the "starting" WR are. It's not who you line up on a given play, it's who sees the regular action. And that my friend are Driver and Jennings.
And here is where you are confused. When playing basketball it's the first players out on the court. But a football team might decide to come out in a different formation to confuse defenses. Just because the WR wasn't the first WR on the field doesn't mean he's not the starter. I think YOU'RE confused. If a team decided to play Jumbo from the first play you'd put that WR as a "starter"???????
Look it up, look at how many plays the Packers had and how many times Jennings and Driver were in the game. That's what defines a "starter" versus a 2nd or 3rd WR.
The reason they put Nelson in Jumbo is because he's the biggest WR. It's all by design, but if Nelson plays in the first play of the game and then doesn't play for the rest of the series he's not a "starter"
I acknowledge that in Brazil that "starter" might mean something else. But in the NFL the starter is the guy who gets all the snaps.
I'm not trying to argue, I get you're a fan, but to say the Packers don't have true starters is to ignore the way every other fan of NFL football sees it.
It's a small point, but important in the way you defined your previous post.
BTW, all those other receivers were from different organizations and different offenses. Back in the day with our previous QB they didn't have as much diversity and you could (by your definition) define starters and backups. But it doesn't change they way the NFL and all it's fans perceive "starters"
BTW I'd welcome any other fan's enlightening of RS as to what constitutes a "starter" in the NFL.

 

[PackersRS]

It seems you want to rewrite what a "starting" WR is. That's up to you but nobody and I mean NOBODY in the NFL past or present doesn't recognize Driver and Jennings as the starting WRs. The fact that the Packers offense is so versatile and complex doesn't negate the fact that everyone recognizes who the "starting" WR are. It's not who you line up on a given play, it's who sees the regular action. And that my friend are Driver and Jennings.
And here is where you are confused. When playing basketball it's the first players out on the court. But a football team might decide to come out in a different formation to confuse defenses. Just because the WR wasn't the first WR on the field doesn't mean he's not the starter. I think YOU'RE confused. If a team decided to play Jumbo from the first play you'd put that WR as a "starter"???????
Look it up, look at how many plays the Packers had and how many times Jennings and Driver were in the game. That's what defines a "starter" versus a 2nd or 3rd WR.
The reason they put Nelson in Jumbo is because he's the biggest WR. It's all by design, but if Nelson plays in the first play of the game and then doesn't play for the rest of the series he's not a "starter"
I acknowledge that in Brazil that "starter" might mean something else. But in the NFL the starter is the guy who gets all the snaps.
I'm not trying to argue, I get you're a fan, but to say the Packers don't have true starters is to ignore the way every other fan of NFL football sees it.
It's a small point, but important in the way you defined your previous post.
BTW, all those other receivers were from different organizations and different offenses. Back in the day with our previous QB they didn't have as much diversity and you could (by your definition) define starters and backups. But it doesn't change they way the NFL and all it's fans perceive "starters"
BTW I'd welcome any other fan's enlightening of RS as to what constitutes a "starter" in the NFL.

Yeah, you don't know what constitutes a starter...

As I said, it's who plays the first snap in the game.

Let's do the math:

Greg Jennings: 16 games last year. 16 starts
Greg Jennings NFL & AFL Football Statistics - Pro-Football-Reference.com

Donald Driver: 15 games last year. 15 starts
Donald Driver NFL & AFL Football Statistics - Pro-Football-Reference.com

James Jones: 16 games last year. 3 starts
James Jones NFL & AFL Football Statistics - Pro-Football-Reference.com

Jordy Nelson> 16 games last year. 4 starts
Jordy Nelson NFL & AFL Football Statistics - Pro-Football-Reference.com

Wait! 38 starts??? How is that even possible?! A starter is someone "who sees regular action"! How could there be 6 more starts than games? I don't understand what's going on!!!???

It's because in some games the first play on offense was in posse personel, with 3 wrs.

"perceive". One can "perceive" that the Earth is flat, it doesn't make it so.

 

[PWC]

I would like to see the packers keep the snaps down for DD early in the season

I agree completely. It would be helpful to have the full range of Driver's talents later in the season.

Regardless, I don't doubt that Nelson will replace Driver in the next couple of seasons, if not sooner.

 

[TJV]

IMO the fact that multiple formations and situational personnel changes have become much more prolific in the NFL doesn't change the common usage of the term "starting wide receiver". And neither does the fact that McCarthy has the Packers open games in three WR sets on occasion. For example, read an article about James Jones' impending free agency and you'll see speculation that he wants, or that some team may be willing to offer him, "starters money". In-season check the depth chart of the Packers and every other team in the league - I'll bet almost every team lists two WRs as "first team". Ask any knowledgeable fan of any NFL team who the starting WRs are on his team and I'll wager fewer than 5% would answer with something like, 'there's no such thing…' The huge majority of them will answer with the names of two players.

Now which players are the starters may not matter as much as it previously did for prolific passing attack teams like the Packers, but even the players themselves recognize who the starters are: Players like Nelson and Jones aspire to be starting WRs, they aren't yet. Jennings and Driver were the starting WRs for the 2010 Packers. If you doubt that, ask yourself this question: During 2010, when all the wide receivers were healthy and the Packers began the game in a 2 WR formation, who started at WR?

 

[PackersRS]

IMO the fact that multiple formations and situational personnel changes have become much more prolific in the NFL doesn't change the common usage of the term "starting wide receiver". And neither does the fact that McCarthy has the Packers open games in three WR sets on occasion. For example, read an article about James Jones' impending free agency and you'll see speculation that he wants, or that some team may be willing to offer him, "starters money". In-season check the depth chart of the Packers and every other team in the league - I'll bet almost every team lists two WRs as "first team". Ask any knowledgeable fan of any NFL team who the starting WRs are on his team and I'll wager fewer than 5% would answer with something like, 'there's no such thing…' The huge majority of them will answer with the names of two players.

Now which players are the starters may not matter as much as it previously did for prolific passing attack teams like the Packers, but even the players themselves recognize who the starters are: Players like Nelson and Jones aspire to be starting WRs, they aren't yet. Jennings and Driver were the starting WRs for the 2010 Packers. If you doubt that, ask yourself this question: During 2010, when all the wide receivers were healthy and the Packers began the game in a 2 WR formation, who started at WR?

Again, common sense is stupid. Common sense says the Cowboys are america's team and that Peyton Manning is the best QB in the league. Common sense will vote Drew Brees and his 100 interceptions into the pro-bowl ahead of Rodgers.

As for the depth chart, it's changed game by game.

Look at the depth chart of the Super Bowl:
http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecenter/55162/GB_Gamebook.pdf

We started that game with 4 WRs. So the listed starters are Jennings, Driver, Nelson and Jones.

Same thing for defense.
There are 4 DL, 4 LB and only 3 DBs listed as starters, because that's the formation we started.

Again, this is not some common knowledge crap, this is NFL's OFFICIAL depth chart.

If you want to argue, argue with the game and it's rules. But it is what it is.

 

[TJV]

Again, common sense is stupid.

That's an interesting statement but it isn't relevant to what I posted. I posted regarding the common usage of the term "starting wide receiver" as it relates to the NFL.

Check the OFFICIAL depth chart of the Packers for any week and you will see two WRs listed as "First team". Those are the starting WRs. Check the OFFICIAL depth chart of any NFL team and you'll see the same thing. Ask Jordy Nelson if he's a starting WR for the Packers and he'll tell you 'no', just as Jones would even though they both have started games when the Packers opened the game in three or four WR sets.

As I said, it may not be as important to be a starting WR for a team like the Packers but nearly every Packers fan knows Jennings and Driver were the "starting WRs" for the Packers last year. Just like almost all NFL fans would name two players when asked who the starting WRs are for their favorite team. And BTW, the NFL has no official pronouncement which defines "starting WR". I'm just pointing out the obvious.

Here's a sampling of Packers' depth charts. All list Jennings and Driver as the starters.
http://www.packers.com/team/depth-chart.html
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/teams/gnb/depthchart
http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/depth/_/name/gb/green-bay-packers
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/teams/depth-chart/GB/green-bay-packers
http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/depth-chart-team/9/green-bay-packers

As I posted - that's the common usage of the term.

 

[PackersRS]

That's an interesting statement but it isn't relevant to what I posted. I posted regarding the common usage of the term "starting wide receiver" as it relates to the NFL.

Check the OFFICIAL depth chart of the Packers for any week and you will see two WRs listed as "First team". Those are the starting WRs. Check the OFFICIAL depth chart of any NFL team and you'll see the same thing. Ask Jordy Nelson if he's a starting WR for the Packers and he'll tell you 'no', just as Jones would even though they both have started games when the Packers opened the game in three or four WR sets.

As I said, it may not be as important to be a starting WR for a team like the Packers but nearly every Packers fan knows Jennings and Driver were the "starting WRs" for the Packers last year. Just like almost all NFL fans would name two players when asked who the starting WRs are for their favorite team. And BTW, the NFL has no official pronouncement which defines "starting WR". I'm just pointing out the obvious.

Here's a sampling of Packers' depth charts. All list Jennings and Driver as the starters.
http://www.packers.com/team/depth-chart.html
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/teams/gnb/depthchart
http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/depth/_/name/gb/green-bay-packers
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/teams/depth-chart/GB/green-bay-packers
http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/depth-chart-team/9/green-bay-packers

As I posted - that's the common usage of the term.

None of the ones you posted have any officiality to them.

In fact, the Packers.com depth chart clearly states that it's unnoficial.

So, I give an official depth chart where it lists 4 receivers as starters. Then you give a personal opinion, talk about common usage, and provide unnoficial depth charts....

And, yes, the NFL does have officiality of starter. It's the player who appears in the official depth chart of each game. If you read the link I provided, it clearly states "lineup", followed by "substitutions".

It doesn't get much clearer than that. I'm through arguing. Debate all you want what consitutes a starter or not. My original point was that I don't know if Nelson will take over the majority of snaps, but that it doesn't matter, because he still sees a lot of work, and will continue to be a vital point of the offense.

If he's labelled as a starter or not don't change at all my point.

 

[TJV]

This isn't a big deal PackersRS but it appears to me you have gone full circle on this thread. You've gone from saying:

IMHO we don't have any starters on the WR position.

To saying regarding "starters":

it's who plays the first snap in the game.

 

[PackersRS]

This isn't a big deal PackersRS but it appears to me you have gone full circle on this thread. You've gone from saying:



To saying regarding "starters":

When you quote me like that, yes, it does.

But taken into full context...

IMHO we don't have any starters on the WR position.

Jennings will play most of the snaps, but when in jumbo formation (1wr) Nelson will be the starter, as he's the best blocker.

But I do understand what you're saying, that if we go 2 wr formation, should Nelson be the starter opposing Jennings? Depends on how Driver will return. We need to remember that he played all of 2010 hurt, after he had a great 2009 season (remember the multiple one handed catches?).

I say, right now, yes, Nelson should be the "starter", but if Driver shows he's fully recovered and still has that shiftness in him, he'll be the starter.

WTF are you talking about? We don't have a starting receiver? Are you suggesting we start in the Jumbo? IF WE go 2 wr formation? Do you watch the Packers dude? Not trying to start an argument but I don't get what the hell you're talking about?
The Packers use multiple receivers often. The Jumbo you're talking about is an unusual formation and still puts a TE or WR in the TE spot in the slot.
Greg Jennings is the starter opposite Donald Driver. There is no ambiguity. They have #1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 receivers. I don't know what team you've been watching.

Wow. Just wow.

Michael Irwin never got off the field, in any formation. Only when tired. The same goes for Rice, Sharpe, Moss, Owens...

In jumbo personel (any variation that only has 1 WR) Nelson is the WR. Not Jennings.

Do you have any idea what consitutes starters? The first formation used in the game. Not the player that plays the most snaps at a position.

If by any chance the Packers start the game in the opposite 5 yard line and go jumbo personel, that would make Nelson the starter of that game. Not Jennings. Not Driver.

Is it an "unusual" formation as you call it? It's certainly less used than the posse personel. But the posse personel still only consitutes 40% or so of the formations used in a game. In fact, by your definition, Nelson IS a starter, as the most used formation is the posse.

But in today's NFL, there are no starters (outside of the OL and the QB, and a RB in some teams). In the past, even in the 90's, teams always lined up with 2 starting WRs, and used multiple receiver sets only occasionally.

Nowadays, the multiplicity of formations don't allow the technical term of "starter" to be used precisely. In fact, the Packers are the team that most often employs different personel groupings in the entire league: Tricky offenses could be casualties of lockout - NFL- NBC Sports



I only quoted part of the article, so read the rest if you're interested in understanding something about formations.

So, BECAUSE the Packers use a multitude of formations (and not only 2 and 3 wrs like you think they do), one can only attribute the definition of a starter by each and every formation.

So... Yes, I do know what the **** I'm talking about. And, yes, I do watch the Packers.

And the jumbo formation may or may not have someone lined up at the slot. What it necessarily means is that there's no more than one player lined up far from the OL. He may be in the slot (y), he may be in the flanker (z) or as a split end (x). Heck, it may even mean that there's no player lined up far from the OL, as is the case in a T formation we used against the Eagles, with Starks Kuhn and Hall in the backfield, and Crabtree (IIRC) lined up as a typical TE...

I never wanted to come off as arrogant, but I lose my temper when called ignorant, specially when I'm fully aware of what I'm saying.

The first thing I said was that the definition of starter doesn't apply here. Then DevilDon starts arguing that I don't know what I'm talking about, because the definition of starter is the 2 wrs that most play. Which was wrong. Then I procede to show what is, in fact, the definition of starter.

So, if you want to argue of the practical usage of starter, I'm good for it, because that's a matter of personal opinion. IMHO the starter depends on each formation, not who plays the most. But I understand if others don't feel this way.

But don't come and say that what you think is the official definition, because it's not. It's not up to debate what is the official, de jure definition.

But the de facto definition is very fluid and up to debate.

Two separate things that DevilDon mixed up and called me for it. Which was what starter the whole thing.

 

[PWC]

I don't understand the point of the point of this debate. The Packers vary their personnel so often that whoever is listed as the "starter" is irrelevant, no matter your definition of the term. What matters is the amount of snaps a WR is allowed to play and how productive he is.