Free Agency: Packers Should Green Bay Pursue?

[tynimiller]

The worst parts of sports talk are the false dichotomies.

There are gradations here.

Could it be possible that Rodgers needs to play better AND that the talent at the skill positions sucked?

If you say the latter, people accuse you of saying Rodgers is faultless in all things. If you say the former, people accuse you of saying that the skill position talent is great.

1. Rodgers held the ball too much in his whole career and did not operate the offense as efficiently as he needs to.

2. The talent at WR and TE on this team, beyond Adams, sucked and needs to be improved.

These two things are not mutually exclusive. The effort to try and prove that there was actually great skill position talent on this team last year is as ridiculous as the effort to prove that Rodgers never makes mistakes.

Corrected for you LOL

 

[Mondio]

While I see your point, that a high round picked rookie WR put on the current team will most likely get more opportunities and thus "better stats" then we have seen from previous high picks that played less. I am unsure that it will translate into better quality production. Basically, it could go either way. You could have a rookie that doesn't skip a beat between being a star in college and one in the NFL. A guy that instantly is a starter due to very little competition and he shines. Or you could have a rookie that struggles to learn the playbook, connect with Rodgers, isn't ready for the pressure of being a starter, is always matched against a #1 or #2 CB, etc. In other words, you may not know what you are getting until its too late and you have to count on it.

You are right though, when the Packers drafted Jordy, Cobb and Adams, they were coming to a team where they were the 4th or 5th guys in. Not fully needed yet, so really less pressure to instantly produce and more time to learn how to be an NFL WR from the shadows so to speak. I don't recall any of those 3 completely jumping out at me as rookies when they did get a chance to play, but maybe you have some stats that can tell us. Just looking at simple stats, I would say that going off of Catch rates and yds/catch, Cobb played the best, followed by Jordy and then Adams?

I can't remember a specific play from Cobb, I just remember him being exciting with the ball and that 100+ yard return against the Saints. I remember Jordy seemingly having a big 3rd down reception almost every game it seemed. Showed me he could show up when it mattered. The play in Dallas with time running down will always be my lasting impression that the game would not be too big for Adams. Then he was hurt all 2nd year and I remember saying if he makes it thru that mentally, he could be really good.

I can't help but think any of those 3 would have produced more being pressed into more service than they had to be. I'm not sure any would have been a 90+ reception 10TD guy their rookie year, but could easily see 60-70 catches and some TD's for each one of them.

I don't think we need a super star, we need consistency and add a 50-60 catch guy that can move the chains and I think we've more than taken care of the problem. I think a good rookie could fill that role.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I can't remember a specific play from Cobb, I just remember him being exciting with the ball and that 100+ yard return against the Saints. I remember Jordy seemingly having a big 3rd down reception almost every game it seemed. Showed me he could show up when it mattered. The play in Dallas with time running down will always be my lasting impression that the game would not be too big for Adams. Then he was hurt all 2nd year and I remember saying if he makes it thru that mentally, he could be really good.

I can't help but think any of those 3 would have produced more being pressed into more service than they had to be. I'm not sure any would have been a 90+ reception 10TD guy their rookie year, but could easily see 60-70 catches and some TD's for each one of them.

I don't think we need a super star, we need consistency and add a 50-60 catch guy that can move the chains and I think we've more than taken care of the problem. I think a good rookie could fill that role.

I'm not discounting the fact that a high picked rookie can't step in and produce, what I am saying is that it somewhat ignores the history of the Position in Green Bay. I think more importantly is the fact that if you are wrong or only partially right on that one rookie, you haven't done nearly enough to improve a very weak group of WR's. I would liken it to having one Stud in your secondary and a bunch of backups and expect to dramatically improve your pass defense by just using a high pick on a CB or a S.

 

[GleefulGary]

I'm not discounting the fact that a high picked rookie can't step in and produce, what I am saying is that it somewhat ignores the history of the Position in Green Bay. I think more importantly is the fact that if you are wrong or only partially right on that one rookie, you haven't done nearly enough to improve a very weak group of WR's. I would liken it to having one Stud in your secondary and a bunch of backups and expect to dramatically improve your pass defense by just using a high pick on a CB or a S.

It would make sense that an offense predicated on timing, precision, and route adjustments would be difficult for a rookie to adjust to. We ain't running that offense anymore. The history, is irrelevant. New coach, new offense, new routes.

NFL offenses are becoming more similar to college, in certain ways. We've seen rookie WR's succeed in SF, and LA, the offenses that LaFleur draws from. With the talent in this draft, and the history of the offense we currently run, it's reasonable to expect a good contribution from a rookie WR, depending of course who it is.

 

[Mondio]

I'm not discounting the fact that a high picked rookie can't step in and produce, what I am saying is that it somewhat ignores the history of the Position in Green Bay. I think more importantly is the fact that if you are wrong or only partially right on that one rookie, you haven't done nearly enough to improve a very weak group of WR's. I would liken it to having one Stud in your secondary and a bunch of backups and expect to dramatically improve your pass defense by just using a high pick on a CB or a S.

There's no getting around it in this league though. you MUST have a rookie or 2 from each draft class step in and play well if you're going to be successful. Doesn't matter what position it is, whether it's a 4th or 7th round tackle or 2nd Round WR. Someone has to.

This team in particular right now is looking at DL, ILB, WR, 3/4 DB and maybe OT if bulaga isn't re-signed as we need someone to step in and play well and it's likely one or more of them is going to have to be a rookie.

I look at the offense and we have 2 RB's, we're light on TE, we're set at QB, could be ok at OL or have a huge hole at RT. We have Adams and Lazard that is everything you need already as a #3 type guy and could be more. So yes, if we get a rookie that can consistently do his job and get use 50-60 catches, it would help this offense a lot.

Of course that doesn't address depth or any of that, but this team has too many needs to think we're going to fix starters and depth at all those positions without rookies playing their part somewhere in the equation.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

There's no getting around it in this league though. you MUST have a rookie or 2 from each draft class step in and play well if you're going to be successful. Doesn't matter what position it is, whether it's a 4th or 7th round tackle or 2nd Round WR. Someone has to.

Agreed. However, there are positions that a rookie has a better chance at making an impact in Green Bay. I just happen to disagree with many of you that one of those positions is WR. TE is probably even worse, so that compounds the Packers needs on offense. I do think if OL, DL, RB or perhaps ILB are your bigger needs, a Rookie probably has a better shot at excelling in on one of those spots.

Let's get through resigns and free agency, before we really hardcore discuss our needs and how we think the Packers should go about filling them.

 

[GleefulGary]

Agreed. However, there are positions that a rookie has a better chance at making an impact in Green Bay. I just happen to disagree with many of you that one of those positions is WR. TE is probably even worse, so that compounds the Packers needs on offense. I do think if OL, DL, RB or perhaps ILB are your bigger needs, a Rookie probably has a better shot at excelling in on one of those spots.

Let's get through resigns and free agency, before we really hardcore discuss our needs and how we think the Packers should go about filling them.

We've seen plenty of rookie WR's have success the past few years. Why would this class be any different?

 

[tynimiller]

We've seen plenty of rookie WR's have success the past few years. Why would this class be any different?

I don't think he is making a definitive statement saying they couldn't or wouldn't. He is saying what many/most draft analysts would admit that some positions across the board are more typical to see rookies contribute than others. Offensive line is one, which is proven yearly by day one or by year's end starters along lines drafted at any round it seems. I agree with PB2000 that DL is another, and especially RB these days in the systems which exist and pass happy leagues a RB can be found and expected impact almost known until you get into the later rounds.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

He is saying what many/most draft analysts would admit that some positions across the board are more typical to see rookies contribute than others.

Not sure who you were responding to, I must have them on ignore. I think this could change from team to team and player to player. Maybe a rookie WR fits in better with a different QB and offense? Let's just say that Rodgers and new players haven't seemed to light up the airways. If the Packers do end up signing a Vet FA WR, it will also be interesting to see how quickly they fit in with the offense and Rodgers too. I mean why didn't Ryan Grant ever suit up? I look back at TE Free agents, with both Clark and Graham needing obvious time to learn the offense and create some chemistry with Rodgers.

 

[AmishMafia]

I don't think he is making a definitive statement saying they couldn't or wouldn't. He is saying what many/most draft analysts would admit that some positions across the board are more typical to see rookies contribute than others. Offensive line is one, which is proven yearly by day one or by year's end starters along lines drafted at any round it seems. I agree with PB2000 that DL is another, and especially RB these days in the systems which exist and pass happy leagues a RB can be found and expected impact almost known until you get into the later rounds.

I think the shift for college offenses to more pro style, has better prepared both QBs and WRs for the NFL transition over the last few years. Now that I think about it, OLine seems to be better as well and the guards and centers seem to me to be better in recent years. OTs have lagged the last bunch of years, but this crop seems to offer a lot of talent.

Therefore, the axiom if having to wait a few years for a WR to get up to speed may not still hold true.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think the shift for college offenses to more pro style, has better prepared both QBs and WRs for the NFL transition over the last few years.

I think you could say that about the guys defending those receivers too. Again, I am not saying that a rookie WR can't have an immediate impact in Green Bay. What I am saying is that given just how thin the Packers are at WR and based on the history of the position directly in relation to the Packers and Aaron Rodgers, I would not want to fully bank on it happening, unless we were in a rebuild mode.

 

[AmishMafia]

I think you could say that about the guys defending those receivers too. Again, I am not saying that a rookie WR can't have an immediate impact in Green Bay. What I am saying is that given just how thin the Packers are at WR and based on the history of the position directly in relation to the Packers and Aaron Rodgers, I would not want to fully bank on it happening, unless we were in a rebuild mode.

I think there are 5 or 6 guys in this draft who can contribute significantly as rookies in this draft class. Another 8 or 10 guys who can contribute meaningfully. Should we count on that? Probably not, but I dont think we need to.

I dont think our WR corps is as bad as many believe (for reasons I have stated and probably shouldnt repeat) and in such a dire need to replace.

I still see it as a need, and the amount of talent is very impressive in this draft. I believe this may be the most talented position group in draft history. If we go BPA, we almost cant help getting a WR in the first 3 rounds.

 

[GleefulGary]

Not sure who you were responding to, I must have them on ignore. I think this could change from team to team and player to player. Maybe a rookie WR fits in better with a different QB and offense? Let's just say that Rodgers and new players haven't seemed to light up the airways. If the Packers do end up signing a Vet FA WR, it will also be interesting to see how quickly they fit in with the offense and Rodgers too. I mean why didn't Ryan Grant ever suit up? I look back at TE Free agents, with both Clark and Graham needing obvious time to learn the offense and create some chemistry with Rodgers.

Lol that this guy has me on ignore. He can't take the heat!

 

[Heyjoe4]

I think there are 5 or 6 guys in this draft who can contribute significantly as rookies in this draft class. Another 8 or 10 guys who can contribute meaningfully. Should we count on that? Probably not, but I dont think we need to.

I dont think our WR corps is as bad as many believe (for reasons I have stated and probably shouldnt repeat) and in such a dire need to replace.

I still see it as a need, and the amount of talent is very impressive in this draft. I believe this may be the most talented position group in draft history. If we go BPA, we almost cant help getting a WR in the first 3 rounds.

While I think the talent of the current WR group is suspect, it would only take one, every down impact WR to make a LOT of difference. Can GB get a guy like that in the draft? I don’t know, but if there’s ever been a year to find out, this is it.

 

[tynimiller]

Not sure who you were responding to, I must have them on ignore. I think this could change from team to team and player to player. Maybe a rookie WR fits in better with a different QB and offense? Let's just say that Rodgers and new players haven't seemed to light up the airways. If the Packers do end up signing a Vet FA WR, it will also be interesting to see how quickly they fit in with the offense and Rodgers too. I mean why didn't Ryan Grant ever suit up? I look back at TE Free agents, with both Clark and Graham needing obvious time to learn the offense and create some chemistry with Rodgers.

it was GleefulGary and while opinionated, kinda shocks me anyone would have him on ignore...maybe something old triggered it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I still see it as a need, and the amount of talent is very impressive in this draft. I believe this may be the most talented position group in draft history. If we go BPA, we almost cant help getting a WR in the first 3 rounds.

How about this, as a compromise between you, me, Gute and several other posters. Since our first round pick in 2021 will be at #32 , we trade that pick and try to accumulate another 2nd and 3rd round pick or even better two 2nds with a team like Indy or Miami in this draft. Use Free Agency to fill the needs at TE and ILB or OL and wait for the draft to pick 2 WR's in the 2nd and/or 3rd round?

 

[tynimiller]

How about this, as a compromise between you, me, Gute and several other posters. Since our first round pick in 2021 will be at #32 , we trade that pick and try to accumulate another 2nd and 3rd round pick or even better two 2nds with a team like Indy or Miami in this draft. Use Free Agency to fill the needs at TE and ILB or OL and wait for the draft to pick 2 WR's in the 2nd and/or 3rd round?

Love the #32 nod! I'll say this if a team like Miami and/or Indy would do our 2021 First Rounder for their 2020 2nd and 3rd rounders...with this WR class and that being a big need, I'd give SOME SERIOUS consideration to that idea.

 

[tynimiller]

I mean imagine if we this draft had the
#30, #44 or #34, #62, #75 and #94 (if trading with Indy)

OR

#30, #39 or #56, #62, #70 and #94

In a draft heavy with OTs and WRs it seems...could you imagine having this to play with!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I mean imagine if we this draft had the
#30, #44 or #34, #62, #75 and #94 (if trading with Indy)

OR

#30, #39 or #56, #62, #70 and #94

In a draft heavy with OTs and WRs it seems...could you imagine having this to play with!

That scenario definitely maximizes your 2020 draft potential, but at the sacrifice of giving up your first pick in 2021, that for all we know could end up being a top 10.

It could also play out that a QB (or another player) that someone REALLY values highly drops to #30 and the Packers are able to trade out of the first and pick up a second and third, without having to give up that future first. I would almost favor that scenario, since I think a team will be more willing to overpay if that guy they really covet is sitting there at #30.

 

[tynimiller]

That scenario definitely maximizes your 2020 draft potential, but at the sacrifice of giving up your first pick in 2021, that for all we know could end up being a top 10.

It could also play out that a QB (or another player) that someone REALLY values highly drops to #30 and the Packers are able to trade out of the first and pick up a second and third, without having to give up that future first. I would almost favor that scenario, since I think a team will be more willing to overpay if that guy they really covet is sitting there at #30.

Which is precisely what my personal last Mock Draft predicted. A trade with the Colts for our #30 pick, we got their #34, swamped our 3rd rounders and while I didn't put it one could assume value wise a 6th or 7th as well. But in essence our #30 for their #34 and swap of 3rds (#94 up to #75).

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Depending on what he is able to do in Free Agency, I fully expect to see "Let's Make a Gute Deal" during the draft. That could be trading forward or back.

 

[AmishMafia]

How about this, as a compromise between you, me, Gute and several other posters. Since our first round pick in 2021 will be at #32 , we trade that pick and try to accumulate another 2nd and 3rd round pick or even better two 2nds with a team like Indy or Miami in this draft. Use Free Agency to fill the needs at TE and ILB or OL and wait for the draft to pick 2 WR's in the 2nd and/or 3rd round?

Okay. Agreed. I will call Gute and let him know.

Seriously, my plan would be to trade back 12-15 picks and get another 3rd. I saw Jeremiah say there were 30 WRs have at least 3rd round grades. This means almost every 3rd pick could be a WR. That wont happen, so there will be 2nd round talent available at our #94 pick. This is how you win at the draft, you get the most value from your picks. So if we take both our 2nd rounders (in my trade scenario) and take 2 WRs that have 1st round grades, I'm good with that.

This is shaping up to be a great draft. Damn shame last year wasnt so deep when we had high picks and an extra first.

 

[tynimiller]

This is shaping up to be a great draft. Damn shame last year wasnt so deep when we had high picks and an extra first.

Honestly I was so sure we'd trade back that #12 pick I went and got something to eat when we were close to being on the clock. Last year's draft wasn't nearly as deep in positions we needed.

 

[Dantés]

If they let Bulaga walk, and Veldheer or someone of his caliber is the de facto RT, I could see a trade up from #30 to get a tackle who can start immediately.

After the "big four"-- Becton, Wills, Thomas, Wirfs-- there is only one guy that I think who hold the starting spot down immediately, and that's Josh Jones (Houston). Austin Jackson and Ezra Cleveland are talented, and both had some mitigating factors to explain their play in 2019, but they are developmental prospects for sure. Starting them as rookies could lead to some very ugly results.

Of the five teams picking immediately in front of Green Bay, four could very easily draft a tackle in the first round. Minnesota (25) is probably going to let Reiff go, leaving them with a hole at LT. Miami (26) has the worst starting duo at tackle in the entire NFL. Seattle (27) is probably losing their starting RT to free agency (by choice). Tennessee (29) will be big players for a tackle if they allow Conklin to leave, which seems like the plan.

The trade chart is far from set in stone, but just viewing it as a guideline, jumping ahead of these teams to #24 (the Saints) is worth 120 points. The Packers 3rd round pick is worth 124. So it's possible that #30 and #94 could get Green Bay to #24.

If Jones is on the board, and we are in that situation at RT that I described, I wouldn't be opposed to the move. A disastrous situation at a tackle spot could have big adverse effects on an important season for the Packers. It would hurt to lose a 3rd round pick, but it would be preferable to getting picked off like the Texans last year.

 

[GleefulGary]

If they let Bulaga walk, and Veldheer or someone of his caliber is the de facto RT, I could see a trade up from #30 to get a tackle who can start immediately.

After the "big four"-- Becton, Wills, Thomas, Wirfs-- there is only one guy that I think who hold the starting spot down immediately, and that's Josh Jones (Houston). Austin Jackson and Ezra Cleveland are talented, and both had some mitigating factors to explain their play in 2019, but they are developmental prospects for sure. Starting them as rookies could lead to some very ugly results.

Of the five teams picking immediately in front of Green Bay, four could very easily draft a tackle in the first round. Minnesota (25) is probably going to let Reiff go, leaving them with a hole at LT. Miami (26) has the worst starting duo at tackle in the entire NFL. Seattle (27) is probably losing their starting RT to free agency (by choice). Tennessee (29) will be big players for a tackle if they allow Conklin to leave, which seems like the plan.

The trade chart is far from set in stone, but just viewing it as a guideline, jumping ahead of these teams to #24 (the Saints) is worth 120 points. The Packers 3rd round pick is worth 124. So it's possible that #30 and #94 could get Green Bay to #24.

If Jones is on the board, and we are in that situation at RT that I described, I wouldn't be opposed to the move. A disastrous situation at a tackle spot could have big adverse effects on an important season for the Packers. It would hurt to lose a 3rd round pick, but it would be preferable to getting picked off like the Texans last year.

I'm just kind of firing off the hip here, but if the chips don't fall their way in the draft, next year's OT class is also supposed to very good.

It is conceivable they could try to band aid it with veteran help (Veldeheer and Turner), a developmental pick (Peart, Cleveland, Bartch, LSU guy), and if those guys don't work out well, then they know there are viable options in the next draft.

It's a risky option, but I do think it's a viable one.