Is it better to have a true #1 WR or is it better to have a bunch of guys that are just very good.

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,256
Reaction score
5,078
If by bunch you mean four or so plus I will forever say a that is better than having one alpha dog.

All of course so long as you have a competent QB...say Alex Smith level or better.
 
OP
OP
S

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
5,106
Reaction score
1,344
If by bunch you mean four or so plus I will forever say a that is better than having one alpha dog.

All of course so long as you have a competent QB...say Alex Smith level or better.
I think there is a difference between not having an alpha dog and not having one capable of being one. The Packers do not have one currently but I do think they have a few that would be capable of becoming that guy if they were pressed to be. Part of that comes from ability and part comes from attitude.

Right now it seems the young guys are content with being part of a crowded room where everyone gets their fair share. They are all young and learning. As long as that leads to winning it might be enough. However, the big paydays go to the guy putting up gaudy stats. At some point some of them might start thinking "if I'm ever going to be in that top tier of WRs pay wise I'm going to need the ball a heck of a lot more." that could lead to discount tents.

Attitude also comes into play even if every one is content to maintain the status quo. Even though they may not feel the NEED to be the top dog I think it is important for at least a few of them to believe they CAN BE the top dog. That's what keeps them striving to get better.

Right now I think the Packers have an excellent mix. They have the flat out speedster who can take the top off any defense. They have the guy who can get open and make the catches and move the chains. They have the guy who can make the contested catch if the defenses are playing particularly tough and they have the guy that can take the dump off in the flat or take a short slant and make a defender miss and bust it for a long one.

Its a great mix but I wouldn't mind if one of them upped his game so much that Love couldn't help but make him the go to guy.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,256
Reaction score
5,078
I think there is a difference between not having an alpha dog and not having one capable of being one. The Packers do not have one currently but I do think they have a few that would be capable of becoming that guy if they were pressed to be. Part of that comes from ability and part comes from attitude.

Right now it seems the young guys are content with being part of a crowded room where everyone gets their fair share. They are all young and learning. As long as that leads to winning it might be enough. However, the big paydays go to the guy putting up gaudy stats. At some point some of them might start thinking "if I'm ever going to be in that top tier of WRs pay wise I'm going to need the ball a heck of a lot more." that could lead to discount tents.

Attitude also comes into play even if every one is content to maintain the status quo. Even though they may not feel the NEED to be the top dog I think it is important for at least a few of them to believe they CAN BE the top dog. That's what keeps them striving to get better.

Right now I think the Packers have an excellent mix. They have the flat out speedster who can take the top off any defense. They have the guy who can get open and make the catches and move the chains. They have the guy who can make the contested catch if the defenses are playing particularly tough and they have the guy that can take the dump off in the flat or take a short slant and make a defender miss and bust it for a long one.

Its a great mix but I wouldn't mind if one of them upped his game so much that Love couldn't help but make him the go to guy.
Capable of becoming is by definition not having one. If they were one, you’d have one.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,256
Reaction score
5,078
FTR I still think Doubs is the highest likelihood to be the most consistent WR1…which is grossly different than Watson’s deadliest but I don’t see as consistent.

Reed and wicks and the rest are too young to even be projecting but those two sure come in to the discussion if they do well.

This crowded room is going to be trade bait for Gute I bet at least once to someone else if not twice over the next season and a half.
 

Calebs Revenge

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 21, 2024
Messages
113
Reaction score
35
This is a thread fans make when they don’t have a bonafide #1. Trust me….I’d know bc before we traded for DJ…..some in the fan base (I’ll admit I sipped that kool-aid for a few minutes) thought that Mooney could be a legit 1. He wasn’t…..isn’t.
To answer the original question it is better to have a bonafide #1.
 
OP
OP
S

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
5,106
Reaction score
1,344
This is a thread fans make when they don’t have a bonafide #1. Trust me….I’d know bc before we traded for DJ…..some in the fan base (I’ll admit I sipped that kool-aid for a few minutes) thought that Mooney could be a legit 1. He wasn’t…..isn’t.
To answer the original question it is better to have a bonafide #1.
Yeah but Mooney was your best WR at the time and you had no others that were even close. I'd take every one of the Packers top 5 WRs right now over Mooney at his best. When that's your best then yeah, you really need a #1.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,256
Reaction score
5,078
This is a thread fans make when they don’t have a bonafide #1. Trust me….I’d know bc before we traded for DJ…..some in the fan base (I’ll admit I sipped that kool-aid for a few minutes) thought that Mooney could be a legit 1. He wasn’t…..isn’t.
To answer the original question it is better to have a bonafide #1.

You’re talking to Packer fans who have seen the epitome of both options and even a third which is having no real even clear WR2 type.

Davante Adams was not just a WR1 but arguably for three years or so here the WR1 to many in the league.

Jordy Nelson was a WR1 in his prime that was top 15 or 20 in the league without blinking.

Jennings was legit same.

We’ve seen both, and I will forever pick a stable of higher level WRs than one alpha dog.
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
5,469
Reaction score
1,322
I like our wide receiver room. It would be a mistake to trade for a number 1 imho.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,256
Reaction score
5,078
I like our wide receiver room. It would be a mistake to trade for a number 1 imho.
Gute isn’t dumb. If he does a trade this year that involves a WR I’d bet hard money it would be another team hungry for one trading for one of ours.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,785
Reaction score
907
It's best to have a true #1 and then some other good receivers as well (think Jordy with Jennings, James Jones, and Jermichael Finley). Second would be to have a bunch of above average receivers but no real elite receiver the QB can count on for a play that might determine the game (this year's team). Third, having an elite WR coupled with below average receivers (think Adams with Lazard as the #2).

Having an elite player at any position should never be the preference. Why would anyone, fan/coach/player, ever think, "Gee, it would be better if that guy on our team wasn't as good as he is." Having only one elite guy allows really good defenses that you see in the playoffs to absolutely shut down that ONE guy and then the QB is forced to rely on a bunch of below-average players.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,413
Reaction score
2,514
Location
PENDING
How do we define a #1 receiver? Someone who gets most of the targets? Or someone who is very skilled and can be relied upon to get open and make plays?

I believe right now we have 3-5 guys who can be relied upon to get open and make plays.

Maybe if we only had one, and Love focused on him, and he put up gaudy stats, then he would be recognized as a #1, but the ball got spread around.

Right now we are so dangerous. Watson, Wicks, Reed, and Doubs are very capable. Add Musgrave in there as well from the TE position. On any given play, one of these guys is probably going to be open. Defenses are only so deep in the secondary. That 5th DB will have his hands full against one of the guys Iisted.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
How do we define a #1 receiver? Someone who gets most of the targets? Or someone who is very skilled and can be relied upon to get open and make plays?

I believe right now we have 3-5 guys who can be relied upon to get open and make plays.

Maybe if we only had one, and Love focused on him, and he put up gaudy stats, then he would be recognized as a #1, but the ball got spread around.

Right now we are so dangerous. Watson, Wicks, Reed, and Doubs are very capable. Add Musgrave in there as well from the TE position. On any given play, one of these guys is probably going to be open. Defenses are only so deep in the secondary. That 5th DB will have his hands full against one of the guys Iisted.
Yeah. I think we’re so used to having that Davante and just some other guys. That can work also, but a true WR1 is likely going to cost upwards of $30Mil. I like our position now whereas we don’t have 1/2 of that spread across the entire room.

The other thing of note here. The question posed is “very good” Receivers. Define “very good”, that can be very different to different people. Also define a “bunch”. I’d even say define a “WR1” that might even vary from one persons opinion to another’s. A WR1 might be 1,000+ to me and 1,500+ to you. A “bunch” might be
3-4 Receivers and to another 5-6 WR’s big big difference.. all very subjective
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
How do we define a #1 receiver? Someone who gets most of the targets? Or someone who is very skilled and can be relied upon to get open and make plays?

I believe right now we have 3-5 guys who can be relied upon to get open and make plays.

Maybe if we only had one, and Love focused on him, and he put up gaudy stats, then he would be recognized as a #1, but the ball got spread around.

Right now we are so dangerous. Watson, Wicks, Reed, and Doubs are very capable. Add Musgrave in there as well from the TE position. On any given play, one of these guys is probably going to be open. Defenses are only so deep in the secondary. That 5th DB will have his hands full against one of the guys Iisted.
Totally agree. I’d add Miles Bokeem Melton and Tucker Kraft in that mix. I think they both showed samples of being dynamic. Maybe not WR1 or TE1 but absolutely either could develop into very good secondary or reliable weapons. I like Kraft near the goal line because he’s hard to stop once in motion. A 205lb DB isn’t going to win that battle at the 3 yard line. He needs to stop hurdling though unless it’s to get into the Paint. Hes better off lowering his shoulder and pretending he’s a Farm Plow imo
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,413
Reaction score
2,514
Location
PENDING
Totally agree. I’d add Miles Bokeem Melton and Tucker Kraft in that mix. I think they both showed samples of being dynamic. Maybe not WR1 or TE1 but absolutely either could develop into very good secondary or reliable weapons. I like Kraft near the goal line because he’s hard to stop once in motion. A 205lb DB isn’t going to win that battle at the 3 yard line. He needs to stop hurdling though unless it’s to get into the Paint. Hes better off lowering his shoulder and pretending he’s a Farm Plow imo
Very true. They are both in my next category, which is promising but not enough info. I think Kraft at a minimum is very good, maybe a bit better than Chmura. Melton was noted as looking very good in OTAs which is impressive to stand out when we have so many talented receivers. Not writing off Heath, Dubois, or Toure for that matter, but they all will have quite a battle to make the team.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
Very true. They are both in my next category, which is promising but not enough info. I think Kraft at a minimum is very good, maybe a bit better than Chmura. Melton was noted as looking very good in OTAs which is impressive to stand out when we have so many talented receivers. Not writing off Heath, Dubois, or Toure for that matter, but they all will have quite a battle to make the team.
It’s like we’ve got a group of probably WR3 types. None of them would surprise me to get into a WR2 role this year or next (call it 750+/6TD’s or thereabouts)
I love the competition though it’s a very athletic grouping I’m not sure which ones have the drive to rise up. We shall see
Great news is we have the QB to make it happen. I think even Davante alluded to that. He basically said he thought Love was a top tier QB in so many words. He basically said no regrets which = possibly subtle regrets for what “could’ve been” but such is life. #10 to #17 would be a great pair.

I think we get our natural riser at WR or TE. I still think Musgrave has the tools to be a 1,000 yard contributor. Might take another season he was pretty raw out there last year. One thing is for sure, Musgrave moves quickly once in motion, his stride is incredible.
 
Last edited:

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,680
Reaction score
8,223
Location
Madison, WI
I guess I would ask the OP to define "True #1 WR" and "just very good".

On the surface, this is an easy answer for me. I will take a group (5-6) of very good WR's over having just 1 Top WR and 4-5 JAGS.


However, to be fair, one would really need to assign names to all 6 of the players and discuss their merits with the offense and QB that they are playing with.

Would I rather have the group of WR's that the Packers have right now, over the group they had in 2022? Heck yes. Then again, in 2022, they never had a true #1 or really in my mind, a true #2.

Would I rather have this group over the 2021 group, that included Davante Adams? Heck yes. Love Davante, but in 2021, he was about it.

Now, would I rather have the current group of WR's and say replace Doubs for Davante? 100%.

Like I said, to truly answer this question, you have to plug in facts.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
I guess I would ask the OP to define "True #1 WR" and "just very good".

On the surface, this is an easy answer for me. I will take a group (5-6) of very good WR's over having just 1 Top WR and 4-5 JAGS.


However, to be fair, one would really need to assign names to all 6 of the players and discuss their merits with the offense and QB that they are playing with.

Would I rather have the group of WR's that the Packers have right now, over the group they had in 2022? Heck yes. Then again, in 2022, they never had a true #1 or really in my mind, a true #2.

Would I rather have this group over the 2021 group, that included Davante Adams? Heck yes. Love Davante, but in 2021, he was about it.

Now, would I rather have the current group of WR's and say replace Doubs for Davante? 100%.

Like I said, to truly answer this question, you have to plug in facts.
I agree with 2021 and especially if we had to re up with $28m back then. Give me this group and I’m pretty confident there’s a pair that could eventually either clip 1,000 yards or clip 10 all purpose TD’s area. Call it our 2 top guys together sniffing 2,000 yards. I’m happy with that. I’d almost rather have a 1050 guy and a 900 yards guy close behind him.

Ideally you have 8 individual players all contributing 450 yards and 4 TD’s+. Thats hard to stop. I’m talking all position groups, with several contributors leftover. It’ll never work out that way though, partly due to snap counts etc.
 
Last edited:

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,256
Reaction score
5,078
To provide context to my thoughts of how much I like this years group...I'd take this year's group over the following somewhat recent years....

2022 / 2021 / 2020 / 2019 / 2018 / 2017

The first year back IMO that gets where most would disagree is 2016 I'd still take this year's team. That 2016 team was:
Jordy / Davant / Cobb / GMo / Janis / Davis

That said here's a spin that likely many may get mad about....MVS excelled as a rookie, Lazard looked amazing his first first year or two...

This year's bunch is talented and physically gifted....but Packer fans have been here before. A LOT of rubber is meeting the road if you will and we could exist the 2024 season with our heads spinning wonder what version of Wicks and Reed is the likely one of the future 2023 (great) or 2024 (far less)...???
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
To provide context to my thoughts of how much I like this years group...I'd take this year's group over the following somewhat recent years....

2022 / 2021 / 2020 / 2019 / 2018 / 2017

The first year back IMO that gets where most would disagree is 2016 I'd still take this year's team. That 2016 team was:
Jordy / Davant / Cobb / GMo / Janis / Davis

That said here's a spin that likely many may get mad about....MVS excelled as a rookie, Lazard looked amazing his first first year or two...

This year's bunch is talented and physically gifted....but Packer fans have been here before. A LOT of rubber is meeting the road if you will and we could exist the 2024 season with our heads spinning wonder what version of Wicks and Reed is the likely one of the future 2023 (great) or 2024 (far less)...???
I think there’s a different level of excitement because of the unknown. Yes that unknown can go either direction. Yet we have a long enough list of candidates that are capable. So I guess what I’m saying is a player or two could remain stagnant or even regress, but highly unlikely that all 5 WR’s do that (not saying you said that Tyni just making a point). I think the extra year of workouts and offseason can only help. I think experience in the system will allow Receivers to play a little more loose in years 2,3 instead of having to be so cognitive about routes and assignments. I look at what we did to a very good KC team last year. We literally outplayed Pat Mahomes. That’s impressive with Rookies and 2nd year players. We weren’t even playing anywhere close to capacity imo. Yet we outshined the Super Bowl Champs. We literally smothered Dallas and made them look like a 3 Win team. It was embarrassing level humiliating. That Team had not lost a game at home since early 2022 and we stomped the P$** out of them
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
I remember some stat that something like this. This Offense grouping was the youngest group to ever win a Postseason contest. We handily beat up on KC later last season and really should’ve beat SF imo
AT Levi!!
Had Carlson made that 40 yard FG? That last drive was to Win. I can actually say I think we matched up well to KC and had we played them again? We were every bit as good. Probably would win 3/5. Those were the best 2 Teams in the NFL and I think we were better. I don’t think anyone could argue that the Lions were better than 2023 GB with confidence.

I don’t think KC or SF will improve MORE than 2024 GB will. Frankly there may only be a couple teams that do. One team that should jump on Offense is Chicago, but they are still in their infancy also. I see them as a bigger threat in 2025-2026 area. I think it’s funny we chose players that harassed the crap out of Caleb Williams.


Oddly, I think it’s our TE group that could see a big production jump from last season. Actually RB might surprise us also. I see Musgrave as a potential 1,000 yard guy if they get him up to speed. A shave behind Jimmy Graham. He was tripping over himself and still effective. He’s nowhere close to ceiling. It’s been so long we’ve had a dominant TE that I think we forget how effective that position can be in this system.
 
Last edited:

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,680
Reaction score
8,223
Location
Madison, WI
The first year back IMO that gets where most would disagree is 2016 I'd still take this year's team. That 2016 team was:
Jordy / Davant / Cobb / GMo / Janis / Davis
You left Montgomery out of this group, but I think that might of been the year that the Packers switched him to RB? 2016 was Jordy's comeback year after missing 2015 due to blowing out his ACL in preseason. It would also be Jordy's final year of real contribution. Davante was still a question mark as to his future talent. Cobb, was on the decline. GMO, Janis and Davis were JAGS.

Anyway, 2016 was probably the start of TT and Gute letting the cupboards go bare. Davante was ascending, while the rest were in decline. Even when you look at the receiving group in 2015 (Jones, Cobb, Adams, Monty, Abbrederis and Janis) of course, that was the year Jordy didn't play.

2017 was TT's last and possibly his worst draft. His first 4 picks were Kevin King, Josh Jones, Montravious Adams and Vince Biegel. Had it not for Aaron Jones in the 5th round and Jamaal Williams in the 4th, that draft would have been a total trainwreck. That was the year that he should have gone after new blood for the receiving room in the first 2 days of the draft.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,680
Reaction score
8,223
Location
Madison, WI
Hard to believe that Ty Montgomery is still in the NFL (as of 2023), but if you wanted an example of a "JAG", he might be it.

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

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,256
Reaction score
5,078
Hard to believe that Ty Montgomery is still in the NFL (as of 2023), but if you wanted an example of a "JAG", he might be it.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!
I still argue if MLF had Monty he likely would have played a bigger role in the offense. He wasn’t a McCarthy offense
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top