Packers Depth Grades

[Deleted member 6794]

Brett was seen as a busted 2nd round pick by Atlanta too.

It's completely unrealistic to expect Kizer following Favre's path though.

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

Packers got Favre for their 1992 first round pick. The Pick ended up being #19 and the Falcons used it to draft RB Tony Smith, who was basically a complete bust.

Wasn't Darrel Thompson in the trade?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Wasn't Darrel Thompson in the trade?

Nope. Thompson was drafted by the Packers in 1990 (19th pick in 1st round) and played only with them in the NFL until 94 and during some of that time, played with Favre. I think all the Packers traded for Favre was their 1992 1st round pick.

 

[Half Empty]

Our starting running back as I remember correctly

As above, it was strictly our 1st rounder. My comment was in response to your statement that we gave up nothing for our future HOFer. A 1st round choice for a 2nd round backup is not nothing.

 

[OldSchool101]

As far as depth grades..

QB: C+
Kizer is an upgrade over Hundley

RB: B
I like our situation here.

WR: A-
My prediction would be this will be our most solid area of depth and possibly the most improved, even post Clark news.

TE: C
Our depth is in the middle of the league

OL: C+
I’m concerned most about the lack of quality depth at this position because it should never score below a B to B- range at a position that has a history of injury rotations. We’re getting ready to have the highest paid player in the history of the NFL potentially behind some of these depth players. That’s a little disconcerting.

DL: B
I still believe Montravious has a good shot at shining, Im glad he’s not a rookie anymore and I think he will shake off the nerves and give this depth position some serious competitiveness. Overall, this may be potentially become one of our strongest depth positions going into 2018.

OLB: D
Next to our OL depth, this may be the position that needs the most focus. It’s our weekest link and now with Perry back into his usual injury status, we’re seriously depleted. With Biegel, there’s a lot of thought that goes into the opening day 3 draft pick, you have all night to ponder this one and IMO he was likely a serious consideration when Montravious got picked round 3. Time to shine

ILB: B-
I’m anxious to see what Burks can bring to the table.

CB: B+
I like this position upgrade a lot. I think we will finally have that swagger back. Lots of talent here.

S: C-
We Didn’t do much to fix the Hole Morgan just left. Its an area of concern at the least.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

WR: A-
My prediction would be this will be our most solid area of depth and possibly the most improved, even post Clark news.

It's difficult to correctly analyze depth entering a season but in my opinion the Packers lack quality depth at wide receiver with only Adams and Cobb having proven being NFL caliber. There's no doubt the defensive line is currently the deepest position group on the roster.

 

[Mondio]

While I think our WR's are probably the weakest overall in terms of experience and production that we've had in a long time here, I think we're better prepared for it than at any other time as well. We have 2 legitimate RB's I believe in both Jones and Williams. Tough yards, explosive yards and receiving game. I think they complement each other perfectly as well too. The same for the TE's. Both complement each others skill set, both are very good at what they do and will allow this offense to be a lot more varied than it has been recently. Adams and Cobb are about it from a past production and experience aspect and other than having hope for some of the new guys to step up there isn't much there. I don't believe i've seen anything from any of our recently drafted WR's to think they're going to step in and be something this year. Allison has shown the most and I think he can just be serviceable. I don't dislike him, but I don't think his ceiling is much higher than we've seen. The rest? I'm not even holding a roster spot for them

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Brett was seen as a busted 2nd round pick by Atlanta too.

The comparisons aren't similar.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

While I think our WR's are probably the weakest overall in terms of experience and production that we've had in a long time here, I think we're better prepared for it than at any other time as well. We have 2 legitimate RB's I believe in both Jones and Williams. Tough yards, explosive yards and receiving game. I think they complement each other perfectly as well too. The same for the TE's. Both complement each others skill set, both are very good at what they do and will allow this offense to be a lot more varied than it has been recently. Adams and Cobb are about it from a past production and experience aspect and other than having hope for some of the new guys to step up there isn't much there. I don't believe i've seen anything from any of our recently drafted WR's to think they're going to step in and be something this year. Allison has shown the most and I think he can just be serviceable. I don't dislike him, but I don't think his ceiling is much higher than we've seen. The rest? I'm not even holding a roster spot for them

Luckily the Packers have a great QB who can make the WRs better. That's the one advantage to having Rodgers. The team can afford to skimp at WR because Rodgers can throw the guys open and buy time in the pocket.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Luckily the Packers have a great QB who can make the WRs better. That's the one advantage to having Rodgers. The team can afford to skimp at WR because Rodgers can throw the guys open and buy time in the pocket.

That depends. If the receiver does not run the routes Rodgers expects in the way Rodgers expects once too often, or if he drops one too many balls before he's banked sufficient trust, it will be "next man up" and you can start the process all over again. The point being Rodgers is exacting and demanding of his receivers in the fundamentals. If the fundamentals are there, he can make a guy of average NFL measurables look better than he is; if the guy lacks those fundamentals he won't since that guy will be on the bench. That is the challenge for the rookies and limited experience guys in a nutshell.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Allison has shown the most and I think he can just be serviceable. I don't dislike him, but I don't think his ceiling is much higher than we've seen. The rest? I'm not even holding a roster spot for them

Allison most likely has the inside track to be #3 receiver entering this season but hopefully at least one of the rookies will be able to move past him on the depth chart at some point in 2018. On the other hand if he's to replicate his performance against the Bengals from last season the Packers might be fine with him starting.

If the receiver does not run the routes Rodgers expects in the way Rodgers expects once too often, or if he drops one too many balls before he's banked sufficient trust, it will be "next man up" and you can start the process all over again.

Rodgers has a habit of immediately going back to a receiver that dropped a ball but he can't deal with any of them making mental mistakes resulting in being in the wrong spot.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Rodgers has a habit of immediately going back to a receiver that dropped a ball....

...if that player is established and trust is gained.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

...if that player is established and trust is gained.

That's true for inexperienced receivers as well.

 

[gopkrs]

One negative I saw about Rodgers. It was a 3rd and 10 and Boykin went to the 1st down spot and turned around. The corner was close but he was open. Rodgers threw the ball about 8 yards and it was short. Rodgers was very mad at Boykin whereas Boykin was right. But that did not matter to Rodgers. The negative being he ends up not liking the receiver because he does not run the right route even though it was the right decision. He never would have made the 1st down. I think Rodgers needs to be more flexible on letting receivers run routes based on the coverage they get. ala Tom Brady. That said, obviously so happy Arod is a Packer! And I think Philbin might want a little more flexibility for the receivers.

 

[HardRightEdge]

One negative I saw about Rodgers. It was a 3rd and 10 and Boykin went to the 1st down spot and turned around. The corner was close but he was open. Rodgers threw the ball about 8 yards and it was short. Rodgers was very mad at Boykin whereas Boykin was right. But that did not matter to Rodgers. The negative being he ends up not liking the receiver because he does not run the right route even though it was the right decision. He never would have made the 1st down. I think Rodgers needs to be more flexible on letting receivers run routes based on the coverage they get. ala Tom Brady. That said, obviously so happy Arod is a Packer! And I think Philbin might want a little more flexibility for the receivers.

There are plenty of Rodgers mistakes one could cite, nobody is perfect, but this may not be one of them.

Perhaps Boykin ran an out instead of a slant and Rodgers' late adjustment on screwed up timing put the ball in the ground. He could have been upset because he was about to release to that slant into INT territory.

I recall seeing this very same thing happen with James Jones, Rodgers threw inside, the ball was intercepted, and Rodgers was pissed.

Perhaps Boykin was supposed to drive further down the field and come back to the first down marker to close off the route jump.

If we could see the tape we might get some inkling.

Is the QB always right? Couldn't possibly be. But it is incumbent on the receiver to read the coverage as the QB reads it and make the adjustments the QB expects.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not to mention that besides 2013, when Boykin saw playing time due to all the starters getting hurt, he could never crack the starting lineup. Besides that year, Boykin did nothing in the NFL. I will error on the cautious side and say "Rodgers trusts talented players and if they make too many mistakes, whether its in practice or during a game, he isn't afraid to show his frustration and IMO, rightfully so, at that level, guys are suppose to play relatively mistake free football.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think Rodgers needs to be more flexible on letting receivers run routes based on the coverage they get.

The receivers have to adjust their routes based on the coverage they face. If they end up running the wrong one the risk of Rodgers being intercepted increases significantly though.

 

[Mondio]

The receivers have to adjust their routes based on the coverage they face. If they end up running the wrong one the risk of Rodgers being intercepted increases significantly though.

When you have probably the greatest pre-snap and on the fly QB in the history of the game breaking down a defense and delivering the ball, It's probably best to adjust to him and not the other way around.

 

[gopkrs]

When you have probably the greatest pre-snap and on the fly QB in the history of the game breaking down a defense and delivering the ball, It's probably best to adjust to him and not the other way around.

If you mean when he is scrambling well yes, they have to adjust to him.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If you mean when he is scrambling well yes, they have to adjust to him.

The receivers adjust on every single route based on what the defense is doing according to predetermined concepts. When Rodgers starts to scramble it's time for them to freelance to get open.

 

[gopkrs]

The receivers adjust on every single route based on what the defense is doing according to predetermined concepts. When Rodgers starts to scramble it's time for them to freelance to get open.

By adjusting to him scrambling I mean in which direction he is going and how much trouble it appears he is in. Getting to a place where he can see them and also have a hole for however short a time. If the hole plugs; more adjusting is needed and fast. They can't just stand there. Maybe they can draw a defender away from another receiver. You can call it freelancing or you can call it adjusting.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

By adjusting to him scrambling I mean in which direction he is going and how much trouble it appears he is in. Getting to a place where he can see them and also have a hole for however short a time. If the hole plugs; more adjusting is needed and fast. They can't just stand there. Maybe they can draw a defender away from another receiver. You can call it freelancing or you can call it adjusting.

It doesn't matter how I call it as on those plays receivers don't have any predetermined adjustments to make. While Rodgers definitely prefers having a guy on the field being able to get open in those situations as well these are not the plays that are talked about when mentioning him not trusting receivers because of making mental mistakes.

 

[gopkrs]

The receivers adjust on every single route based on what the defense is doing according to predetermined concepts. When Rodgers starts to scramble it's time for them to freelance to get open.

I don't think they adjust on every play and I think Rodgers prefers it that way. That was kind of my point. I think there should be more freedom. I'm not really complaining. I mean it has been great watching Rodgers so far. Just trying to tweak. You never get perfection you can only get better. But I guess there is always the possibility of ******** something good up. Just do not want defenses knowing where we are going.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't think they adjust on every play and I think Rodgers prefers it that way. That was kind of my point. I think there should be more freedom. I'm not really complaining. I mean it has been great watching Rodgers so far. Just trying to tweak. You never get perfection you can only get better. But I guess there is always the possibility of ******** something good up. Just do not want defenses knowing where we are going.

Rodgers demands perfection from his receivers though. As an example, if he's able to draw the defense offside or catch them with too many men on the field a receiver has to be aware of being required to go deep on that play. Otherwise he won't see the field a lot.

 

[swhitset]

As above, it was strictly our 1st rounder. My comment was in response to your statement that we gave up nothing for our future HOFer. A 1st round choice for a 2nd round backup is not nothing.

Agreed... in fact, If Thompson.. or now Gut were to trade a 1st round pick for some some team’s 2nd round backup QB I have no doubt that all hell would break loose in this forum.