Packers have slowest receiving corps in the NFL

  • Thread starter Deleted member 6794
  • Start date

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
6,428
Reaction score
1,498
Well, that doesn't help matters, and is a hindrance to improving. You can't teach or coach speed.
 

PFanCan

That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
2,067
Reaction score
491
Location
Houston, TX
Then again, some of the "fastest teams" on that list are the Browns (ranked #2) and Lions (ranked #3), Chiefs and Titans (tied, #5) while the second worst team (ranked #31) just above the Packers is the Patriots.

So, this stat/fact does not seem to be significant when it comes to wins and losses.
 

Vrill

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
137
The lack of speed has been showing on the field too.

We need someone to take the top off a defense. Even WITH Jordy, we need a guy like that.
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
Well I've noticed one thing,Richard Rogers might be the worst "after the catch" starting tight end in the league. He's essentially a catch-and-fall-down tight end.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
Cobb, Adams, Montgomery, Rodgers, Lacy, Starks, janis and abbrederis are all fast enough to be successful as a receiver in this league.

I don't care if Rogers falls down, if he can run to the sticks and catch, that's good enough for me. Be that guy that can be depended on to catch it, even covered and block a defender from the ball. But he hasn't done a great job of anything this year and that has disappointed me so far.

That said, we have all the speed we need at WR, what we don't have currently is an offensive line that can block well enough to run on 6 defenders or keep 4 and 5 man rushes off our quarter back for any length of time. Until we do that we could have all the speed in the world and it won't matter.
 

Raptorman

Vikings fan since 1966.
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
3,168
Reaction score
438
Location
Vero Beach, FL
I question those numbers. Vikings slowest WR is Theilen at 4.49. So to average 3+1 TE and get 4.55, the TE has to be super slow. If I take the 3 slowest Vikings WR's and Rudolph, I get what they have. If I take the 3 fastest with Rudolph, I get 4.49.
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Hhcd the only one in the secondary flying to the ball. He's trying to do to much for the lack of the under performing players on D. Now if you said Burnett is garbage I might agree with ya. Burnett is as soft as tissue paper.

Cobb, Adams, Montgomery, Rodgers, Lacy, Starks, janis and abbrederis are all fast enough to be successful as a receiver in this league.

I don't care if Rogers falls down, if he can run to the sticks and catch, that's good enough for me. Be that guy that can be depended on to catch it, even covered and block a defender from the ball. But he hasn't done a great job of anything this year and that has disappointed me so far.

That said, we have all the speed we need at WR, what we don't have currently is an offensive line that can block well enough to run on 6 defenders or keep 4 and 5 man rushes off our quarter back for any length of time. Until we do that we could have all the speed in the world and it won't matter.

It would for sure help if the Packers had a fast receiver capable of stretching a defense. Janis has the speed to do it but doesn't see the field enough.

We all get your point about the offensive line by now but the team has some other issues as well.

Yeah but how much does R. Rodgers drag the average speed down?

The Packers are tied for 26th taking only the top three receivers into consideration.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
It would for sure help if the Packers had a fast receiver capable of stretching a defense. Janis has the speed to do it but doesn't see the field enough.

We all get your point about the offensive line by now but the team has some other issues as well.



The Packers are tied for 26th taking only the top three receivers into consideration.
apparently you don't because you think Janis being on the field will suddenly make a defense that can hit our QB quickly with 4 guys rushing will "Stretch" a defense. So I'll say it again. Until our offensive line can run against 6 in the box, or pick up 4 guys rushing the passer, nothing else matters.
 

JBlood

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
467
Maybe practicing against our front 7 has lulled the o-line to sleep....
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
apparently you don't because you think Janis being on the field will suddenly make a defense that can hit our QB quickly with 4 guys rushing will "Stretch" a defense. So I'll say it again. Until our offensive line can run against 6 in the box, or pick up 4 guys rushing the passer, nothing else matters.

You're acting like Rodgers isn't even able to throw the ball anymore. I'm not convinced Janis has the playbook down but I would like him to get more playing time to add some speed to out receiving corps.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
31,986
Reaction score
7,829
Location
Madison, WI
You can't teach speed, this is true. However, someone is going to need to convince me that size of hands, route running, catching a ball, running after the catch, understanding the playbook, chemistry with the QB, etc. etc. isn't just as important when evaluating wide receivers. Yes, some of those things can be "taught", but the learning curve isn't the same for all. So before I put much stock in "The combined average 40 time of receivers" without pads, right out of college being the litmus test that Rob Demovsky (author of article) seems to think it is, I'm going to have to figure out a way to explain the skill sets of those talented WR's in the history of the NFL that didn't have blazing speed.
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
You can't teach speed, this is true. However, someone is going to need to convince me that size of hands, route running, catching a ball, running after the catch, understanding the playbook, chemistry with the QB, etc. etc. isn't just as important when evaluating wide receivers. Yes, some of those things can be "taught", but the learning curve isn't the same for all. So before I put much stock in "The combined average 40 time of receivers" without pads, right out of college being the litmus test that Rob Demovsky (author of article) seems to think it is, I'm going to have to figure out a way to explain the skill sets of those talented WR's in the history of the NFL that didn't have blazing speed.

There's no doubt a receiver can be succesful in the NFL without having blazing speed. But IMO teams that don't have any fast guys on their roster tend to struggle with the Packers being a prime example for it right now.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
31,986
Reaction score
7,829
Location
Madison, WI
There's no doubt a receiver can be succesful in the NFL without having blazing speed. But IMO teams that don't have any fast guys on their roster tend to struggle with the Packers being a prime example for it right now.

I agree with you in the fact that having speed as a WR helps and could help the Packers stretch the field. However, IMO Rob Demovsky really dumbs things down in this article in an attempt to explain the woes of the Packers offense. I get it, we all are guilty of saying "ah haaa, I discovered the problem!" But we aren't reporters, getting paid to analyze the Packers. I just don't see the merits of using the average 40 times of all the starting WR's on a team and come to the conclusion that he did. First, if you look at his chart and then compare it to the current Stat of Total Passing Yards by team, there is no correlation . Finally, if we sat Jones and Adams and replaced them with Janis and Abby, by his "formula", we should be a lot better? To me the "40 time" is just one of many tools to evaluate talent, but he is really watering it's value down in the way he is using it.
 
Last edited:

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
I don't care if Rogers falls down, if he can run to the sticks and catch, that's good enough for me. Be that guy that can be depended on to catch it, even covered and block a defender from the ball. But he hasn't done a great job of anything this year and that has disappointed me so far.
I'll second that. Not only hasn't he improved in his second season, it seems like he's regressed. I wonder what he did in the off season: If he added muscle he should be able to block better than he has and perhaps make a yard or two after contact. He certainly didn't work on improving his speed. He can still obviously improve, but he's a disappointment so far.
 

7thFloorRA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
2,573
Reaction score
331
Location
Grafton, WI
I expect much more out of RR with his father being an NFL coach. He should know how to work harder, know the pitfalls, know what to work on, how to work on it and what resources to use to get better. He kind of looks like he was an entitled lazy bum after coming out of nowhere last year.
 

Vrill

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
137
Cory Coleman out of Baylor looks good right about now...lol
 

Raptorman

Vikings fan since 1966.
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
3,168
Reaction score
438
Location
Vero Beach, FL
Speed alone does not make an NFL WR. I can give you several examples. Troy "Stone Hands" Williamson. 4.32. He could run, but he couldn't catch.

Cordaralle Patterson. 4.42. He can run. But he has a problem getting open.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top