Lazard Situation...

OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
13,775
Reaction score
4,802
I wasn't trying to grade Gute, I was simply pointing out why I thought Lazard was so heavily used in Green Bay, the other options were bad. I will be shocked if a team gives Lazard a #2 receiver contract; he's basically a small TE without exceptional speed who doesn't win contested catches.

Although looking at contracts, Kendrick Bourne was the 48th highest avg $/year WR last season at $5m per year which I'm sure Lazard will get so the claim could be made that he's in the top 60 and therefore being paid like a #2 receiver. I don't believe that's a good argument but it's mathematically accurate.

I expect a borderline #2/#3 type money similar to MVS. We have to remember while he was their default "#2" in part, Travis Kelce is really that teams receiving option 1
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
2,267
Reaction score
1,812
So, which is a more accurate way of evaluating a guy's ability level? Obviously, you need to compare him to his peers. Does that mean the players around the league, or the players on his own team? A guy could be a #1 on his own team, but projected on stats, be no better than a #2 or #3 on another team. Even when it comes to drops, there's inconsistencies. Drops include those where the ball is in a guy's hands and it just slips through his fingers, and he's not even touched. Then there's the "coulda caught it" passes where the guy gets his bell rung, and drops the ball, because he was hit so hard when it went into his hands, he couldn't hold on to it. Whether or not it was a drop is subjective, and not all people evaluating the potential catch are equal in their judgement. Then you have the QB. Does he throw to guys, to help them get open, and not take huge hits? Or, like we often see, is he a QB who throws to guys not seeing what's about to happen to them, and they get clobbered?

As we put the pieces together on a player, all those things "should" enter the picture. But there's a lot more. What do the coaches see as the guy's primary routes? Where do they place them on the field? Slot? Wide out? A simple question as well.... are the getting clobbered because there are only two or three specific routes where they are the primary receiver? Defenses will define that, and put the hammer down, to insure they're shut down. We see it every week. A top receiver suddenly goes stone cold silent on the field, because the defense is laying on their primary routes where they are the #1 option. It's also where the majority of INTs come from when a defender cuts underneath the receiver to take the ball away. It doesn't just happen by accident. The defense has it on good authority, from diagnosis of the opponent's games in the past, where they can steal that pass.

Even the pass protection has an impact on the abilities of a receiver and his stats. Shorter routes, in tight quarters often leads to some really hard hits. That's why "possession receivers" often spend time on the sideline trying to shake the pain from that last hit. It's also the reason the NFL started penalizing hits of "defenseless receivers." They get punished for even attempting to make those catches. It's almost a suicide mission on each play, with some teams. Even coaches fail to react to it, as well as QBs.

So, how do you really judge Lazard? You can't judge him on stats alone. You need to judge him on how he handled his routes, and made catches "under pressure," where is when the true test of when the rubber hits the road. Lazard did a decent enough job in that category, despite having to do a lot of diving and distortions from keeping his head taken off by defenders. He took more than his share of hard licks out there.

So, what's he worth? He's an average WR. But, he's willing to handle those short routes, and the hard hits. That adds to his value. To some teams, even if they only see him as a 3rd down player, he could be worth $10 mill, maybe more. It depends on the make up of their team, and what they need.

The fact is, Lazard is going to be paid a decent amount of money, and the question is whether or not the Packers are willing to match it, or walk away, figuring they can build, in-house, to match what he can offer. My guess is they cut the bidding off at about $7-8 Mill. Above that, Lazard plays elsewhere. Meanwhile, his agent is already out there, listening to gossip about how much he's worth, and where he'd best fit on teams. He's going to get offers, and then the Packers will decide if they even want to show up with an offer.

My opinion? He's gone. They're going to build from within, and the draft. Don't look for anybody with experience coming down the road. They've been burned enough on that it recent years at WR. If there is any position they may even look at for a ball catcher in free agency, it might be at TE.
 

Magooch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
794
Reaction score
759
Lazard getting the second most snaps among wide receivers on a team indicates a lack of talent at the position.
That's more or less how I'd read it.
How many snaps would Lazard get in a WR room with Jennings, Jones, Driver, Jordy? OR so on...

I said it elsewhere prior...the "average" 2nd-choice receiving option across the league posted about 60 rec, 725 yards, 4TD this season. Lazard finished with 60 rec, 788 yards and 6TD. But this was also arguably Lazard's career-best year and one in which he was ostensibly his team's #1 WR. In other words: Lazard's absolute best-case scenario is that of an average #2 WR.

But how about when he is not getting "first-choice" targets/touches? Prior to this year (and excluding his rookie year when he hardly played) he averaged 53 targets, 36 rec, 480 yards, and 5 TD. Comparatively, the "average" 3rd-choice receiving target across the league this season? 66 targets, 42 rec, 510 yards, 3TD. So, again, more or less an "average" 3rd-choice receiver.

And I'm sure other teams are fully aware of that. Are many teams going to be willing to give him "#2" money when his career thus far has shown that he's only a mid-range #2 in an absolute best-case scenario (and a mid-range #3 in most other situations)? I don't know. Contracts seem to be trending upwards so perhaps it happens but I sure don't see it for us.

Ultimately I always think it's a question of replacement cost and/or value for the money. How much do you have to pay to get what Lazard brings to the table? Lazard got paid approx. 4m this year and I'm seeing projections for Lazard of 8m, 10m, even as high as 12m (Spotrac I believe). Just a random look around the league and you see the Rams paying Van Jefferson just 1.4m this year (24 rec / 369 yards / 3TD), the Falcons giving Olamide Zacchaeus 2.4m (40/533/3), the Chiefs with Juju making 3.8m (78/933/3) and so on. I guess it depends on how high a dollar value you put on the blocking Lazard brings to the table but if I'm putting together my roster I'd have a hard time giving him more than 5, 6, 7m tops before I start feeling like I can probably replace that production for less money elsewhere.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Although looking at contracts, Kendrick Bourne was the 48th highest avg $/year WR last season at $5m per year which I'm sure Lazard will get so the claim could be made that he's in the top 60 and therefore being paid like a #2 receiver. I don't believe that's a good argument but it's mathematically accurate.

When taking a look at the list of highest paid players based on average salary per season you need to consider that players on a rookie deal in nearly all cases don't make that list but might end up being far superior players than the ones listed on top of them.

Just a random look around the league and you see the Rams paying Van Jefferson just 1.4m this year (24 rec / 369 yards / 3TD), the Falcons giving Olamide Zacchaeus 2.4m (40/533/3), the Chiefs with Juju making 3.8m (78/933/3) and so on.

As mentioned above, Jefferson was still on his rookie deal last season while the Falcons tendered Zaccheaus, resulting in them making less money than a wide receiver signed in unrestricted free agency.
 

Magooch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
794
Reaction score
759
When taking a look at the list of highest paid players based on average salary per season you need to consider that players on a rookie deal in nearly all cases don't make that list but might end up being far superior players than the ones listed on top of them.



As mentioned above, Jefferson was still on his rookie deal last season while the Falcons tendered Zaccheaus, resulting in them making less money than a wide receiver signed in unrestricted free agency.
So are you of the opinion that we could not get Lazard-level production out of a receiver on a rookie contract then?
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
13,775
Reaction score
4,802
Didn't Watson basically just do that?
Purely from a receiving yards and TD lines which most go to, yes he was on par with Lazard type production prior to this year yard wise and his string of special TD moments which was atypical was of course higher than Lazard's this year by 1.

However, there are very few rookie WRs each year that can play as many snaps out the gate as Lazard could for the GB system let alone another system most likely. Watson simply wasn't ready for a high high percentage of snaps, especially early of course...but that is all normal.

I suspect even if we sign Lazard back or a street FA vet in the off season that Watson will eclipse 70% of snaps or be very close. Which for reference Lazard last three seasons has been 73%, 73% and 89% of the snaps....referencing another player Davante's last three seasons here were 84%, 85%, 85%
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,077
Reaction score
7,893
Location
Madison, WI
I suspect even if we sign Lazard back or a street FA vet in the off season that Watson will eclipse 70% of snaps or be very close.
Actually, something I was thinking about the other day. Who are the Packers #1, 2 and 3 WR's going into 2023? Right now it would be Watson, Doubs and Toure?. Kind of scary really. 3 second year guys, one who played very little.

I know a lot will change between now and Sept. but how? Do you use a high pick and add another rookie to the bunch? Do you go after a thin FA market and try to find someone there? Might have a lot to do with the Rodgers decision and if 2023 is without him, I say save the cap space, go with the youth and build on it.
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
13,775
Reaction score
4,802
Actually, something I was thinking about the other day. Who are the Packers #1, 2 and 3 WR's going into 2023? Right now it would be Watson, Doubs and Toure?. Kind of scary really. 3 second year guys, one who played very little.

I know a lot will change between now and Sept. but how? Do you use a high pick and add another rookie to the bunch? Do you go after a thin FA market and try to find someone there? Might have a lot to do with the Rodgers decision and if 2023 is without him, I say save the cap space, go with the youth and build on it.

Not worried too much either way...if we are switching to Love going young quick is the way to go...if Rodgers return look for Cobb to be back and also a veteran of somekind also.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
So are you of the opinion that we could not get Lazard-level production out of a receiver on a rookie contract then?

No, the point I was trying to make is that when you take a look at a player's ranking in average salary per season you need to consider that there are a lot of players at the position currently on rookie deals as well. Therefore MVS currently being paid like a top 40 wide receiver doesn't mean the league is considering him to be in that category but most likely a tier below.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
Actually, something I was thinking about the other day. Who are the Packers #1, 2 and 3 WR's going into 2023? Right now it would be Watson, Doubs and Toure?. Kind of scary really. 3 second year guys, one who played very little.

I know a lot will change between now and Sept. but how? Do you use a high pick and add another rookie to the bunch? Do you go after a thin FA market and try to find someone there? Might have a lot to do with the Rodgers decision and if 2023 is without him, I say save the cap space, go with the youth and build on it.

Depressing thought, huh? More depressing is the way the offense played when Watson was out; the Packers currently have nobody to open up the offense with speed if Watson is out so we can (as of now) look forward to Jordan Love captaining the same constipated mess we saw last season unless Watson plays every game. The Packers don't just need additional depth at receiver, they need to add someone that can at least provide that deep threat the team currently lacks if Watson misses any time.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,077
Reaction score
7,893
Location
Madison, WI
Depressing thought, huh? More depressing is the way the offense played when Watson was out; the Packers currently have nobody to open up the offense with speed if Watson is out so we can (as of now) look forward to Jordan Love captaining the same constipated mess we saw last season unless Watson plays every game. The Packers don't just need additional depth at receiver, they need to add someone that can at least provide that deep threat the team currently lacks if Watson misses any time.
The "good news", the receiving room is young and showed some promise last season. If Rodgers is traded, I honestly don't see the need to spend money in Free Agency on the position. Love will need at least the 2023 season to start learning how to be a starting QB in the NFL each week. Basically, I don't expect to see a lot out of the offense. so why bring in a high priced FA WR. If this is the start of a new era at QB, now is the time to load up on a quality TE and WR in the draft. I actually would put that and an OT as my top 3 draft priorities.
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
13,775
Reaction score
4,802
Posts here made me want to go back and look through the WR room and game logs more. Right/Wrong our four main WRs were Lazard, Watson, Doubs and Cobb....I think somewhat of misremembering is going on with the performances and such.

9/11 @ Vikings - L 23-7 No Lazard...whole team played ludacrisly bad and we got a big L
9/18 vs CHI - W 27-10, all four played
9/25 @ TB - W 14-12. No Watson
10/2 vs NE - W 27-24 OT. No Watson (Lazard was a BEAST)
10/9 vs NYG - L 27-22. All four played
10/16 vs NYJ - L 27-10. No Watson - Terrible game by team.
10/23 @ WSH - L 23-21. No Watson and No Cobb
10/30 @ BUF - L 27-17. No Lazard/No Cobb and Watson barely played seeing only 6 snaps
11/6 @ DET - L15-9. No Cobb...but Doubs gets hurt and sees one snap only.
11/13 vs DAL - W 31-28 OT. No Cobb or Doubs
11/17 vs TEN - L 27-17. No Doubs
11/27 @ PHI - L 40-33. No Doubs
12/4 @ CHI - W28-19. No Doubs

12/19 vs LAR - W 24-12. All played
12/25 @ MIA - W 26-20. All played
1/1 vs MIN - W 41-17. All played
1/8 vs DET - L 20-16. All played

When all four played we went 4-2 (losses to DET and NYG).
When we didn't have Lazard we went 0-2
When we didn't have Watson we went 2-2 (2-3 if you include the BUF)
When we didn't have Cobb we went 1-3
When we didn't have Doubs we went 2-2 (2-3 if you include the DET)

When we had two or more of the four out we went 1-2 (1-3 if you include on the DET game)

Now I disagree with this observation just blindly proving a value of one over the other, BUT it is VERY clear we were a different team when all four were on the field.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,077
Reaction score
7,893
Location
Madison, WI
Posts here made me want to go back and look through the WR room and game logs more. Right/Wrong our four main WRs were Lazard, Watson, Doubs and Cobb....I think somewhat of misremembering is going on with the performances and such.

9/11 @ Vikings - L 23-7 No Lazard...whole team played ludacrisly bad and we got a big L
9/18 vs CHI - W 27-10, all four played
9/25 @ TB - W 14-12. No Watson
10/2 vs NE - W 27-24 OT. No Watson (Lazard was a BEAST)
10/9 vs NYG - L 27-22. All four played
10/16 vs NYJ - L 27-10. No Watson - Terrible game by team.
10/23 @ WSH - L 23-21. No Watson and No Cobb
10/30 @ BUF - L 27-17. No Lazard/No Cobb and Watson barely played seeing only 6 snaps
11/6 @ DET - L15-9. No Cobb...but Doubs gets hurt and sees one snap only.
11/13 vs DAL - W 31-28 OT. No Cobb or Doubs
11/17 vs TEN - L 27-17. No Doubs
11/27 @ PHI - L 40-33. No Doubs
12/4 @ CHI - W28-19. No Doubs

12/19 vs LAR - W 24-12. All played
12/25 @ MIA - W 26-20. All played
1/1 vs MIN - W 41-17. All played
1/8 vs DET - L 20-16. All played

When all four played we went 4-2 (losses to DET and NYG).
When we didn't have Lazard we went 0-2
When we didn't have Watson we went 2-2 (2-3 if you include the BUF)
When we didn't have Cobb we went 1-3
When we didn't have Doubs we went 2-2 (2-3 if you include the DET)

When we had two or more of the four out we went 1-2 (1-3 if you include on the DET game)

Now I disagree with this observation just blindly proving a value of one over the other, BUT it is VERY clear we were a different team when all four were on the field.
Good stuff. Obviously and you point it out, probably too small of a data set to be pulling too many conclusions out of it. I think a lot of the later season success had something to do with Watson not just being healthy, but him starting to play like the WR that the Packers thought they were drafting and the offense having its full compliment of receivers available.

Let's face it, Rodgers can make an offense look pretty good, with receivers that are average and above. I would say that the whole group was way below average at the start of the season and by the end of the season, was collectively playing below average, but closer to average than the start.

The 2 games that I think were not just down turns in the Packer seasons, but games that told me, it was going to be a long, bumpy season with both the offense and the defense. Those games were against the Giants and @ Detroit. In the Giant game, the offense played pretty well in the first half and then crapped the bed in the second half. Meanwhile, the Defense couldn't hold on to the 20-10 halftime lead. The Lions game was the tale of 2 Rodgers. He had his highest single game passing yds in that game (292), but threw 3 interceptions, was sacked 8 times and could only put 9 points on the board. The defense had a relatively good day and held the Lions to just 15 points.
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
13,775
Reaction score
4,802
The "good news", the receiving room is young and showed some promise last season. If Rodgers is traded, I honestly don't see the need to spend money in Free Agency on the position. Love will need at least the 2023 season to start learning how to be a starting QB in the NFL each week. Basically, I don't expect to see a lot out of the offense. so why bring in a high priced FA WR. If this is the start of a new era at QB, now is the time to load up on a quality TE and WR in the draft. I actually would put that and an OT as my top 3 draft priorities.

If we roll with Love, I concur, at most I'm doing a veteran one year deal at WR if it is a guy I see being a good locker room fit and mentor while being mildly productive as a bonus.

I'm curious how much demand Marvin Jones sees...most places are saying only around $3-$4M price range. Now I don't blame him if he'd get a multi-year deal elsewhere....but a guy like him that has been and still was in 2022 a 500+ yard production guy, played a high volume of snaps and could stabilize a young room while also not at all being the type that will be a blockade to the youngins as well if they progress.

Few other names (honestly this is the perfect year for this type of FA signing...terrible year for WR1 types though):

Nelson Agholor if he doesn't retire would be one of the least preferred of this list but a guy I'd talk to for sure.

Olamide Zaccheaus...a name not many may recognize but he's a consistent lower level guy that won't cost a ton and will be there if needed. He also could relish the idea of a wide open WR room on a one year "bet on yourself" type deal. This dude just for reference has built upon each year since entering the league...he also is a pure slot type which is something we do not presently have:
You must be logged in to see this image or video!


Zach Pascal - may be the guy that would cost literally the vet minimum but also might offer the least in return potentially. He had banger years in INDY for 2019 and 2020 campaigns but has been slipping down last two. He still was active all 17 games for the Eagles this past year...but only saw 3 or more targets one game...and many it was 0 or 1.

Parris Campbell - Has the most ceiling of the guys listed but has been a let down honestly for what folks thought he would be...he also though is going to be the most costly of the guys I list IMO. To me he is the perfect FA if Rodgers is coming back - he signs a one year prove deal and make bank hopefully in 2024.

Mack Hollins - A Raiders WR that is showing promise for sure (4th rounder in 2017)...he put up 690 yards this past season on 94 targets and played in all games (started 14). He is a TALL 6'4' and 221 build so Gute would like him :) That size he ran a 4.53 forty which honestly is impressive for that size.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
The "good news", the receiving room is young and showed some promise last season. If Rodgers is traded, I honestly don't see the need to spend money in Free Agency on the position. Love will need at least the 2023 season to start learning how to be a starting QB in the NFL each week. Basically, I don't expect to see a lot out of the offense. so why bring in a high priced FA WR. If this is the start of a new era at QB, now is the time to load up on a quality TE and WR in the draft. I actually would put that and an OT as my top 3 draft priorities.

I don't want a high priced free agent but the receiver room is very young and VERY empty of production. There are currently two receivers with actual NFL production under contract for 2023 (Watson and Doubs). The packers obviously need WAY more depth at receiver and I'm sure at least some will be veteran to add some experience in the receiver room. I'm fine with adding some more rookies but vets are helpful on the field AND off the field in showing the young guys how to prepare.
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
13,775
Reaction score
4,802
I don't want a high priced free agent but the receiver room is very young and VERY empty of production. There are currently two receivers with actual NFL production under contract for 2023 (Watson and Doubs). The packers obviously need WAY more depth at receiver and I'm sure at least some will be veteran to add some experience in the receiver room. I'm fine with adding some more rookies but vets are helpful on the field AND off the field in showing the young guys how to prepare.

Toure technically too but your point is unchanged. You'll appreciate my post above yours mentioning a few options in FA on that lower end of vets.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,077
Reaction score
7,893
Location
Madison, WI
While I concur with you both that our WR room is super young and inexperienced, if Love is the QB in 2023, I would rather see the Packers build that room from the ground up with young guys. Bringing in a veteran, even a cheap one, just takes snaps away from guys that will be with the Packers at least 3 more seasons (Watson, Doubs and Toure). Save the money, work on fixing the cap and go with youth, that can develop with a young QB. If it turns out Love is legit and he needs more WR help in 2024, then you go hit the FA market.

Not sure if its been said or maybe it has its own thread, but if Rodgers is traded, I wouldn't be all that sad to see the Packers try and trade Bahk and Jones, to secure more draft capital and further slim down the future cap hits.
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
13,775
Reaction score
4,802
While I concur with you both that our WR room is super young and inexperienced, if Love is the QB in 2023, I would rather see the Packers build that room from the ground up with young guys. Bringing in a veteran, even a cheap one, just takes snaps away from guys that will be with the Packers at least 3 more seasons (Watson, Doubs and Toure). Save the money, work on fixing the cap and go with youth, that can develop with a young QB. If it turns out Love is legit and he needs more WR help in 2024, then you go hit the FA market.

Not sure if its been said or maybe it has its own thread, but if Rodgers is traded, I wouldn't be all that sad to see the Packers try and trade Bahk and Jones, to secure more draft capital and further slim down the future cap hits.

I think you overlooked that a few of the guys I shared are not your "seasoned veterans" albeit still "NFL Veterans". A guy like Olamide is a perfect example, still very young and just coming off a rookie contract...proved he is a NFL worthy roster guy, but not a guy that has clear big money written on him. If you add a guy like him that is merely experienced that helps that room but also a guy like him is not going to squelch or hold back growth of Watson or Doubs or even Toure....essentially add experience but not at the cost that snaps may be withheld from the younger guys solely because of cost.

I actually would really like a Olamide signing....short but has proven can produce in the slot, replace Cobb and takes pressure off of finding that "type" in the draft more so, while truly not competing with any of our young three the organization likes a lot (Watson/Doubs/Toure). I also believe we should add a top 125 pick at WR too....and depending how the board falls don't remove the idea of double dipping or triple dipping (if one is in the 7th) at the position if Love is the QB. Saturate the room with youth for bonds to form and cream to rise if you will.

Also while this WR prospect class is NOT that amazing at the Top Tier day 1 STUDs potentially...the like top 5-20 WRs honest to God are VERY close to the point I could see any one of them go 5th or go 20th...it is a highly skilled tier two WR room this year in this draft IMO.
 

Schultz

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
2,651
Reaction score
1,537
I love your list as none of those guys will cost that much and are also young enough to get on the Love train if he is any good. Sign one of them to a 1 yr. deal and if they have chemistry with Love it would be good for both parties to re-sign them.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,077
Reaction score
7,893
Location
Madison, WI
I think you overlooked that a few of the guys I shared are not your "seasoned veterans" albeit still "NFL Veterans".
I will admit, I didn't go look up every guy. That said, as long as a FA is young and talented, if you can sign him on just above vet minimum type deal, might be worth it. If Love is the QB, I just wouldn't want to see another Watkins/Cobb/ type signing, 1 year and gone.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
While I concur with you both that our WR room is super young and inexperienced, if Love is the QB in 2023, I would rather see the Packers build that room from the ground up with young guys. Bringing in a veteran, even a cheap one, just takes snaps away from guys that will be with the Packers at least 3 more seasons (Watson, Doubs and Toure). Save the money, work on fixing the cap and go with youth, that can develop with a young QB. If it turns out Love is legit and he needs more WR help in 2024, then you go hit the FA market.

Not sure if its been said or maybe it has its own thread, but if Rodgers is traded, I wouldn't be all that sad to see the Packers try and trade Bahk and Jones, to secure more draft capital and further slim down the future cap hits.

I do believe that vets are important to show young players what's required to succeed in the league. I'm not calling for some high-priced guy, I'm just hopeful that someone will be brought in that the younger guys can learn from.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,262
Reaction score
5,661
So, which is a more accurate way of evaluating a guy's ability level? Obviously, you need to compare him to his peers. Does that mean the players around the league, or the players on his own team? A guy could be a #1 on his own team, but projected on stats, be no better than a #2 or #3 on another team. Even when it comes to drops, there's inconsistencies. Drops include those where the ball is in a guy's hands and it just slips through his fingers, and he's not even touched. Then there's the "coulda caught it" passes where the guy gets his bell rung, and drops the ball, because he was hit so hard when it went into his hands, he couldn't hold on to it. Whether or not it was a drop is subjective, and not all people evaluating the potential catch are equal in their judgement. Then you have the QB. Does he throw to guys, to help them get open, and not take huge hits? Or, like we often see, is he a QB who throws to guys not seeing what's about to happen to them, and they get clobbered?

As we put the pieces together on a player, all those things "should" enter the picture. But there's a lot more. What do the coaches see as the guy's primary routes? Where do they place them on the field? Slot? Wide out? A simple question as well.... are the getting clobbered because there are only two or three specific routes where they are the primary receiver? Defenses will define that, and put the hammer down, to insure they're shut down. We see it every week. A top receiver suddenly goes stone cold silent on the field, because the defense is laying on their primary routes where they are the #1 option. It's also where the majority of INTs come from when a defender cuts underneath the receiver to take the ball away. It doesn't just happen by accident. The defense has it on good authority, from diagnosis of the opponent's games in the past, where they can steal that pass.

Even the pass protection has an impact on the abilities of a receiver and his stats. Shorter routes, in tight quarters often leads to some really hard hits. That's why "possession receivers" often spend time on the sideline trying to shake the pain from that last hit. It's also the reason the NFL started penalizing hits of "defenseless receivers." They get punished for even attempting to make those catches. It's almost a suicide mission on each play, with some teams. Even coaches fail to react to it, as well as QBs.

So, how do you really judge Lazard? You can't judge him on stats alone. You need to judge him on how he handled his routes, and made catches "under pressure," where is when the true test of when the rubber hits the road. Lazard did a decent enough job in that category, despite having to do a lot of diving and distortions from keeping his head taken off by defenders. He took more than his share of hard licks out there.

So, what's he worth? He's an average WR. But, he's willing to handle those short routes, and the hard hits. That adds to his value. To some teams, even if they only see him as a 3rd down player, he could be worth $10 mill, maybe more. It depends on the make up of their team, and what they need.

The fact is, Lazard is going to be paid a decent amount of money, and the question is whether or not the Packers are willing to match it, or walk away, figuring they can build, in-house, to match what he can offer. My guess is they cut the bidding off at about $7-8 Mill. Above that, Lazard plays elsewhere. Meanwhile, his agent is already out there, listening to gossip about how much he's worth, and where he'd best fit on teams. He's going to get offers, and then the Packers will decide if they even want to show up with an offer.

My opinion? He's gone. They're going to build from within, and the draft. Don't look for anybody with experience coming down the road. They've been burned enough on that it recent years at WR. If there is any position they may even look at for a ball catcher in free agency, it might be at TE.
Sounds about right.

I have Lazard here:
If Rodgers stays I’d put his offer in that 7-12m area low to high, depending on other contract particulars.
If Rodgers is gone in a trade? Lazard isn’t getting more than $7-8m tops and there’s a 50/50 chance they don’t offer him anything. In this scenario we will draft at least 1 WR inside 2-4 rounds and if Cobb and Lazard are gone? Likely 2 WR’s get drafted with 1 being top 50 area or higher. Keep in mind we should have at least 5+ separate Day1-Day2 selections here.

If Rodgers retires we likely walk Lazard
 
Last edited:

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,077
Reaction score
7,893
Location
Madison, WI
I do believe that vets are important to show young players what's required to succeed in the league. I'm not calling for some high-priced guy, I'm just hopeful that someone will be brought in that the younger guys can learn from.
So like a Marvin Jones Jr. type of vet? I see Spotrac has his "estimated market value" at $3.4M. I could get on board with a guy like that.

While I think a WR vet presence in practice, on the field and in the locker room is nice, it isn't absolutely necessary. There is a fine line between throwing FA money away on a guy like Sammy Watkins ($1.85 M) and over spending, which $12M on Lazard, IMO would be.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,262
Reaction score
5,661
So like a Marvin Jones Jr. type of vet? I see Spotrac has his "estimated market value" at $3.4M. I could get on board with a guy like that.

While I think a WR vet presence in practice, on the field and in the locker room is nice, it isn't absolutely necessary. There is a fine line between throwing FA money away on a guy like Sammy Watkins ($1.85 M) and over spending, which $12M on Lazard, IMO would be.
I still can’t believe Sammy Watkins barely contributed. I thought even at a low he would finish in that 400-500 yards, 3-4TD area. He had the perfect setup in GB and he was all over the wrong place.
 

Staff online

Members online

Latest posts

Top