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

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 still argue if MLF had Monty he likely would have played a bigger role in the offense. He wasn’t a McCarthy offense
Maybe, but Monty only had a few decent games at RB and then it was like defenses figured him out or maybe he just physically broke down. If I recall, it was due to a rash of injuries at RB (Lacy and Starks) that the Packers decided to put him in the backfield? He really wasn't built like a RB and if I remember, ran way too upright. He did have that monster game against the Bears, but otherwise, nothing spectacular. As far as his WR skills...about the same, nothing spectacular.

I think MLF thought he might be able to use Amari Rodgers or Keisean Nixon in a similar role to what you are referring to, but that never came to fruition for either of them.
 

Poppa San

* Team Owner *
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
13,002
Reaction score
2,865
Location
20 miles from Lambeau
Just slightly improve last seasons stats to where Love gets 380 rec, 36TDs, and 4200 yards and I expect five receivers to collect 75% of those stats. That averages a relatively pedestrian 57 rec, 5 TDs, and 620 yards or so. Romeo Doubs/Brandon Cooks type numbers. That leaves 9TDs, 95 rec, and 1050 yards to be parceled out to the remaining 5 or so. (averaging MVS~Bo Melton numbers.)
If the first group contains the 5 of Watson, Doubs, Reed, Musgrave, Jacobs that leaves Dillon, Lloyd, Kraft, Melton, Wicks, Heath and the rest of the churn divvying up a few looks per week.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
S

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
5,106
Reaction score
1,344
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
Ok, replace true #1with Justin Jefferson and very good with the guys we have now. I mean thats really what we have been talking about since the hamstring thread took this turn. My guess is many fans would take the guys we have now simply because thats all we have but would not have a problem if one of them turned into a Justin Jefferson type.

Keep in mind if we do get one or two to emerge the chances of being able to fill out the room with guys of the same talent we have now go down. You either have a couple of 8/9/10 type guys and several 2/3/4 or you've got a bunch of 5/6 type guys who have the potential to move up. I'd rather have the latter.

But, as Poker says it does depend on who your QB is and who is calling your plays. A poorer QB might benefit from a go to guy that can bail him out while a better QB who can utilize the talents of the other WRs might benefit from a wider range of talents. On the other hand a great QB with a rare talent at WR can be fun and scary. And they had better be because you won't be able to afford anyone else.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
Ok, replace true #1with Justin Jefferson and very good with the guys we have now. I mean thats really what we have been talking about since the hamstring thread took this turn. My guess is many fans would take the guys we have now simply because thats all we have but would not have a problem if one of them turned into a Justin Jefferson type.

Keep in mind if we do get one or two to emerge the chances of being able to fill out the room with guys of the same talent we have now go down. You either have a couple of 8/9/10 type guys and several 2/3/4 or you've got a bunch of 5/6 type guys who have the potential to move up. I'd rather have the latter.

But, as Poker says it does depend on who your QB is and who is calling your plays. A poorer QB might benefit from a go to guy that can bail him out while a better QB who can utilize the talents of the other WRs might benefit from a wider range of talents. On the other hand a great QB with a rare talent at WR can be fun and scary. And they had better be because you won't be able to afford anyone else.
Sure. The other argument is cost. If we spread the ball it makes more sense whoever we do retain won’t cost as much. MVS was a good example of guys we have now. He signed a 3$30mil if I recall with KC. Maybe $12-13Mil yearly today. Thats kind of Watsons area right now he hadn’t really defined himself.
This year should answer some big time questions as to the direction of our WR room. It’s possible we could even trade one for a draft pick in 2025 if we have too much overlap. We tend to like to develop our own draft picks. Getting a 6th in return or trading our 5th rounder for an 4th Rounder etc. could get us some firepower to keep them in the seasonal pipeline.

OL, CB and WR are position you either need to draft regular or double or triple down if you take a year off drafting at those positions. We had the benefit of passing at both WR/TE this year. That gave us huge firepower with picks 45,58,91,111,169,255 on Defense.
 
Last edited:

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,256
Reaction score
5,078
Just slightly improve last seasons stats to where Love gets 380 rec, 36TDs, and 4200 yards and I expect five receivers to collect 75% of those stats. That averages a relatively pedestrian 57 rec, 5 TDs, and 620 yards or so. Romeo Doubs/Brandon Cooks type numbers. That leaves 9TDs, 95 rec, and 1050 yards to be parceled out to the remaining 5 or so. (averaging MVS~Bo Melton numbers.)
If the first group contains the 5 of Watson, Doubs, Reed, Musgrave, Jacobs that leaves Dillon, Lloyd, Kraft, Melton, Wicks, Heath and the rest of the churn divvying up a few looks per week.
MVS average production was too high for that comp….think Janis that one year or G Allison type or more recently Toure type
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,785
Reaction score
907
While fun, I still don't think anyone here (or working with the Packers) would prefer Watson NOT become a superstar WR.
 

Poppa San

* Team Owner *
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
13,002
Reaction score
2,865
Location
20 miles from Lambeau
MVS average production was too high for that comp….think Janis that one year or G Allison type or more recently Toure type
I used last year NFL stats. Looked at a high and low range to get around an average then used names people would recognize immediately.
 

Curly Calhoun

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
2,079
Reaction score
522
Discuss if you care to.

It's a great question. Green Bay certainly had success when Devante was here, and there was no question he was the Alpha receiver. I rather like the set-up the way it is now however, as it must stress the opposing defenses. Jordan will throw to whoever's open and doesn't have to worry about appeasing any one guy by getting them their touches. How long it will stay that way is anyone's guess.

I do wonder, however, if that would have been the case had Christian Watson not missed so much time with injuries...Would he have emerged as a clear Alpha, and the rest of the group become relegated to supporting roles? Maybe we're better off not knowing.
 

SudsMcBucky

Cheesehead
Joined
May 17, 2022
Messages
204
Reaction score
159
Location
Buford, GA
It's a great question. Green Bay certainly had success when Devante was here, and there was no question he was the Alpha receiver. I rather like the set-up the way it is now however, as it must stress the opposing defenses. Jordan will throw to whoever's open and doesn't have to worry about appeasing any one guy by getting them their touches. How long it will stay that way is anyone's guess.

I do wonder, however, if that would have been the case had Christian Watson not missed so much time with injuries...Would he have emerged as a clear Alpha, and the rest of the group become relegated to supporting roles? Maybe we're better off not knowing.
The other thing I like about the "bunch of very goods" vs "one alpha dog" is if your 1 alpha dog gets hurt, you're ******. If 1 of your very goods gets hurt, you still got others to go to.
 
OP
OP
S

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
5,106
Reaction score
1,344
The other thing I like about the "bunch of very goods" vs "one alpha dog" is if your 1 alpha dog gets hurt, you're ******. If 1 of your very goods gets hurt, you still got others to go to.
This might be the best reason yet. Salary caps can be manipulated and bruised egos can be assuaged but the guy can't do anything if he can't play. Next man up is a great attitude to have but it only goes so far. If the next man is simply not as good as the first man it isn't going to work.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,680
Reaction score
8,223
Location
Madison, WI
This might be the best reason yet. Salary caps can be manipulated and bruised egos can be assuaged but the guy can't do anything if he can't play. Next man up is a great attitude to have but it only goes so far. If the next man is simply not as good as the first man it isn't going to work.
The other thing I like about the "bunch of very goods" vs "one alpha dog" is if your 1 alpha dog gets hurt, you're ******. If 1 of your very goods gets hurt, you still got others to go to.

I'm going to combine the 2 thoughts and just say that when you put way too much money into 1 player, at a position where you need several goods ones, it isn't doing your roster a lot of good. I loved Davante, but glad that the Packers moved on and weren't on the hook for his big contract. How many times was Rodgers working with a pretty marginal receiving group when Davante or Jordy weren't playing? Throw in Cobb going down on a few occasions and you have games where a FHOF QB is working with guys that not only weren't starting quality, they wouldn't make another teams roster.

Whether is was intentional or not, I like what the Packer receiving room has evolved into. A lot of young talented guys playing WR and TE and when 1 goes down, you don't notice it a whole lot. Add to that, the combined salaries of the entire receiving room is probably less than what Davante makes, gives the Packers a lot of financial freedoms with the rest of the roster.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
The big component that affects this decision is snap count. Which means health and usage and all that. Snap counts will limit the number of higher producers. I think often teams get 1 higher producer because of health and reliability. Sometimes it’s just a connection with the QB.

Another argument about having a true #17 is it gives you a player that transcends others in a big moment. They can go up and get a ball with sheer athletic performance and determination. Nothing wrong with that.

A true #1 also takes extra focus from Defenders from other players. This gives their contribution to the team some indirect benefits as well. Same idea on a micro level as “play action” is on a macro level.
 
OP
OP
S

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
5,106
Reaction score
1,344
I'm going to combine the 2 thoughts and just say that when you put way too much money into 1 player, at a position where you need several goods ones, it isn't doing your roster a lot of good. I loved Davante, but glad that the Packers moved on and weren't on the hook for his big contract. How many times was Rodgers working with a pretty marginal receiving group when Davante or Jordy weren't playing? Throw in Cobb going down on a few occasions and you have games where a FHOF QB is working with guys that not only weren't starting quality, they wouldn't make another teams roster.

Whether is was intentional or not, I like what the Packer receiving room has evolved into. A lot of young talented guys playing WR and TE and when 1 goes down, you don't notice it a whole lot. Add to that, the combined salaries of the entire receiving room is probably less than what Davante makes, gives the Packers a lot of financial freedoms with the rest of the roster.
I agree but I do think it will continue to evolve and we will have a guy or two who will be paid. Maybe not 30 million plus, but 20-25 million and that will mean if everyone continues to develop we won't be able to keep them all (they will all want their fair share) and we will have to continue to hit the draft for young replacements. This has been discussed before with regards to trading one or two of them.
 

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 agree but I do think it will continue to evolve and we will have a guy or two who will be paid. Maybe not 30 million plus, but 20-25 million and that will mean if everyone continues to develop we won't be able to keep them all (they will all want their fair share) and we will have to continue to hit the draft for young replacements. This has been discussed before with regards to trading one or two of them.
I hope that eventually we will have 4 WR's that should be paid like top 10 WR's, that would be a very good problem to have. Now if that does happen, I would be just fine with spreading our good fortune around the league and cashing them in for top draft picks and not take on massive contracts for WR's.

I think it takes more than just having a top WR on your team (see Raiders, Vikings, Cowboys, etc.). You need a very well balanced team/roster. Again, I love Davante and he is no doubt a great WR, but the Packers won zero SB's with him and were smart to duck out of locking into a big contract with him.

Keep the youth movement in Green Bay going and try to avoid weighting the team down with massive contracts for positions other than QB.
 

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 big component that affects this decision is snap count. Which means health and usage and all that. Snap counts will limit the number of higher producers. I think often teams get 1 higher producer because of health and reliability. Sometimes it’s just a connection with the QB.

Another argument about having a true #17 is it gives you a player that transcends others in a big moment. They can go up and get a ball with sheer athletic performance and determination. Nothing wrong with that.

A true #1 also takes extra focus from Defenders from other players. This gives their contribution to the team some indirect benefits as well. Same idea on a micro level as “play action” is on a macro level.
I get what you are saying, but when the Packers had Davante and JAGS at both WR and TE, the better defenses could often shut the Packers offense down. Yes, they had to devote more resources to Davante and yes that occasionally allowed a guy like MVS to streak down the field for a big one, but more often than not, those JAGS just didn't give the Packer offense enough fire power to beat the better defenses.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,785
Reaction score
907
If we could just keep Watson healthy he’s likely a 1,000 yard guy (all-purpose)

If healthy, he's the clear-cut best guy to think will become a true #1. With the number of 1/2 and 2/1 formations that MLF likes to run I just don't think Reed will be on the field often enough to become a truly elite #1 receiver. I like Reed and think he's a truly talented player, but he was on the field for about 53% of the offensive snaps last season. When healthy, Watson was on the field for about 81% of the offensive snaps. That "when healthy" part is huge though.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
I get what you are saying, but when the Packers had Davante and JAGS at both WR and TE, the better defenses could often shut the Packers offense down. Yes, they had to devote more resources to Davante and yes that occasionally allowed a guy like MVS to streak down the field for a big one, but more often than not, those JAGS just didn't give the Packer offense enough fire power to beat the better defenses.
That’s true. I think the ideal scenario is a WR1 and a maybe a couple of strong 3’s. Or a 1-2-3 punch. Call it 1,200+ 900+ 600+

It’s always going to be hard to beat a handful where any one has 900+ potential.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top