1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Top receiving unit in nfl?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by ivo610, May 12, 2015.

  1. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,590
    Ratings:
    +4,273
  2. sschind

    sschind Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    997
    Ratings:
    +498
    Lions just signed Lance Moore as well. Might not move them up but it makes them stronger top to bottom.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. AKCheese

    AKCheese Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2014
    Messages:
    319
    Ratings:
    +146
    No slam dunk because our #3 is pretty questionable and our TE is ????

    But we have one of the top duos for sure
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. rodell330

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,510
    Ratings:
    +1,282
    We don't have a tightend who's much of a threat IMO and as good as Adams can be he was inconsistent his first year. We NEED a tightend ....still.
     
  5. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,597
    Ratings:
    +6,592
    I really don´t get all the negativity about Adams. He had a solid rookie season with some big games against New England and Dallas while making a heads-up play late in the Miami game.

    BTW I think it´s funny that Bucky Brooks calls Nelson an exceptional return specialist coming out of college. While he had some success returning punts during his senior years he had a total of six punt returns over three seasons.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. Sunshinepacker

    Sunshinepacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,909
    Ratings:
    +731
    While I think the Packers corps is terrific, I have to say I think the Lions group is better. Too much of the quarterback play is getting mixed into the analysis. Does anyone really think that Calvin Johnson wouldn't have insane seasons if his QB was Rodgers? Nelson is one of the best receivers in the NFL but he's not Calvin Johnson. Golden Tate, in the Packers offense, could do what Cobb does (receiving, he did have 1,300 yards last season). People are down on Ebron (I never understand the push for first round TEs, rookie TEs NEVER make an impact) but he did have a better season than Rodgers with a worse QB. Adams will be good but he's a projection at this point.

    And please don't take the above as a knock against the Packers. It's not. It's an acknowledgement that the Lions have the best receiver in the game and another receiver who is also a legitimate number one guy, just like the Packers do. The gap between Nelson and Johnson is just a little larger than the gap between Tate and Cobb. Remember, Aaron Rodgers is making a large difference in receiving numbers. I would have zero issues with the Packers corp being tied for second with the Broncos and Colts (Colts have better TEs than Packers).

    Finally, am I crazy to think that the Patriots should be ranked in the top-5 solely based on Gronk? I mean the guy is uncoverable AND he makes a HUGE difference in the running game. Johnson might be the best receiver in the NFL but I think Gronk is probably the best non-QB offensive weapon in the NFL.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  7. Carl

    Carl Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2013
    Messages:
    2,766
    Ratings:
    +1,909
    Our offense is very good year after year without a stud TE and we was fine the year Finley went down. Not having a really good one does not affect the offense much.

    Besides, we just picked up a 3rd round TE a season ago. No reason to give up on him already.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. Jdeed

    Jdeed Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2014
    Messages:
    187
    Ratings:
    +32
    I noticed its the teams with better QB's listed....You have to believe that given a better QB some teams WR's would do far better.
     
  9. tynimiller

    tynimiller Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,073
    Ratings:
    +331
    Everyone does realize Adams had a better rookie campaign than Nelson and Cobb did in their rookie years if I'm not mistaken?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. sschind

    sschind Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    997
    Ratings:
    +498
    I don't take it as a knock at all. i think it is an honest and fair assessment. For a time I would have said the Packers had the best group. Even after Jennings left and Driver retired I would have said they were #1 top to bottom with Nelson, Cobb, Jones et al. After Jones left though it was too much of a drop off and several other teams crept into the mix. I don't know who the other top teams have top to bottom but I would say arguably 5 (Packers, Lions, Colts, Cowboys, Giants) teams could make the claim and yes, not surprisingly all of them have pretty good QBs. Then you have teams like the Bengals, Bucs, Cards, Falcons and a few others who would round out the top 10 and even push for a top 5 spot.

    The thing the Packers and and maybe to a lesser extent the Lions have going for them are their relatively young established #2 guys. The Packers with Cobb and the Lions with Tate. I have a difficult time putting that much faith in 2nd year guys and in some cases even third year guys. Yes, Bryant may be the best WR in the game in Dallas but I still have doubts about Williams. The same holds for the Steelers. Brown is a stud and Wheaton and Bryant look great but they are both still very young. Give them 1 more year and they may rise to the top of lists like this. They are certainly close right now.

    Then you have teams like the Bucs, Cards, and Colts, where one of their top two guys is probably past his prime (Jackson, Fitzgerald, Johnson) which doesn't mean they are not good and can't post great numbers just that they are on the decline. If you argue that Hilton is the #1 in Indy would you take Johnson over Cobb? I wouldn't.

    I think the Colts, with Johnson, Hilton, Moncrief and now Dorsett (if you want to bank on potential) look really good as do the Steelers and Cardinals.

    One thing I didn't do is factor in the TEs because beyond Gronk and Graham any one of maybe 10 TEs in the league could end up at#3 and I don't really think the WRs in New England or Seattle are good enough to push their receiving corps into the mix.


    I don't see all the negativity you are talking about. I see cautious optimism. There are a ton of rookies last year who had better numbers than Adams. Obviously you have Beckham, Evans, Cook, Benjamin, Watkins who everybody knows about but then you had Landry, Matthews, Hurns, Robinson, Brown and maybe a few others (list I looked at only listed top 10) who had more catches. Four of them plus Gabriel had more yards. Granted some of these guys were not the #3 wr on their team and that does say a lot about Adams but it also says a lot about how much the Packers throw the ball. Would you have such an unguarded opinion of the last 6 on the list as you do about Adams? They are all rookies that had pretty good years for rookies but every year we see young player flash then fail (remember that Boykin dude we had?) I don't think it will happen to Adams but I am not ready to put him up as evidence that our WR corps is better than any one of a half a dozen other teams because I think there are a lot of 2nd and 3rd year guys that could do what Adams did in GB. Still, it does work in our favor that he is our#3 so there is that.
     
  11. Uncle Rico

    Uncle Rico Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    50
    Ratings:
    +29
    This breakdown focuses on the passing game as a whole. Not just the receiving unit. Packers have the best passing attack in the league, but we also have one of the best QBs to ever play the game throwing the ball.

    That being said, I still think GB has at least a top 2 or 3 receiving unit. Jordy and Randall are obviously standouts and I think Adams is well on his way to being right there with them. Still don't understnad all the negativity I hear about him.
     
  12. tynimiller

    tynimiller Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,073
    Ratings:
    +331
    I would also point out that while Quarless and Rodgers are not "elite"...they are very serviceable and I'm beginning to see more and more that Quarless is simply a gritty game time player...and I like it. Rogers began to show signs of being "special" at the end of the year and playoffs....I still think we are above average at TE and I think TT and Mike feel it is a good thing we don't have to shell out big money to either right now.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,518
    Ratings:
    +1,990
    As someone said in the PowerRankings thread, 'Who cares about specific spots.' We are legitimately a top 5 receiving corps in the league, both because of the receivers and of course because of Aaron. I really liked what Richard Rodgers was able to do in his rookie season and see no reason to worry unless he fails, but while Quarless has underachieved he can do enough when called upon if Rodgers takes a step back.

    As usual the GM has a fine group of targets for his franchise QB to throw to, so he's got Tasks #1 and #2 done perfectly.
     
  14. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,518
    Ratings:
    +1,990
    In this thread at least, it's only come from one person and that's Captain Negative 330
     
  15. adambr2

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    2,791
    Ratings:
    +2,174
    Yeah Adams had a great rookie season and we've got plenty of reason to be optimistic about him.

    While I also wanted a TE, I think Richard Rodgers can definitely turn into a 50 catch or so TE. Keep in mind he also had a much better year as a rookie than Finley did. I see him taking another step this year.
     
  16. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,597
    Ratings:
    +6,592
    There were 15 tight ends that had more receptions than all of our TEs combined, so I don't think we're above average at the position.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,518
    Ratings:
    +1,990
    The most important stat (which I can't verify due to lack of interest) is that he came up with some clutch catches when needed, which tells me a lot more about him than # of catches. The ideal is Mr. Clutch combined with Mr. Receptions but if I had to pick just one I'd go for Mr. Clutch.
     
  18. tynimiller

    tynimiller Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,073
    Ratings:
    +331
    Not production wise, I concede and agree....just personal wise I think we have above average....will stats show it at some point, doubtful with Cobb/Nelson and maybe Adams chewing up the chunks of performance and who knows about Montgomery/Janis/Abb.

    I think if our TEs can produce 600 yards with somewhere in the 6-9 TDs, that'd be great, that's if our top 3 WRs go unhurt the whole season.
     
  19. Ace

    Ace Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    Messages:
    1,174
    Ratings:
    +525
    TT gets an A++ grade when it comes to drafting WR's I don't think anyone can or will question that (at least I don't think so).

    I wonder how much of Ron Wolf being his mentor and Wolf's stating that his biggest regret is not getting #4 more targets throughout his career plays into TT always looking at that position. That's something I've always wondered
     
  20. sschind

    sschind Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    997
    Ratings:
    +498
    The breakdown in the article focuses on the receiving corp ( I read that as WR and TE and to a lesser extent the RBs out of the backfield though that seems to have been neglected) not the passing game.


    I wouldn't say A++. He has had great success drafting WRs in rounds 1-3. In the later rounds his success is not so great. Based on the production he has gotten out of his top round picks and the fact that a given percentage or draft picks will not work out I'd give him an A without the pluses.
     
  21. rodell330

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,510
    Ratings:
    +1,282
    Wow because I think we need more productivity from the tightends? Ok haha. So when you complain about the red zone woes next season just know that having a better tightend would help fix that.
     
  22. Vrill

    Vrill Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,782
    Ratings:
    +828
    I think our TE's are serviceable to average. They aren't bad, but at the same time, not great either. I wouldn't exactly say that our TE position is "terrible"...I think that'd be hyperbole to say so.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2015
  23. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,518
    Ratings:
    +1,990
    No, because you complained about Adams' inconsistency instead of merely recognizing that he played good for a rookie. 90% of your posts since joining this forum have been of a negative nature in some fashion. You expect perfection out of everyone in the organization, and while that was a fine mantra for Lombardi to push upon his team in the 1960s, it's unrealistic from a fan perspective. Let's look at your recent posts in the past few days:

    - You dumped on Ted Thompson (a frequent past time for you) in the FA Signings thread
    - You lamented Clinton-Dix's play in the conference game in the HHCD Cover Corner thread
    - You dumped on TT in the Perry's Option Declined thread
    - You dumped on TT in the USA Today draft rating thread
    - You dumped on the team in general in the Making Sense Of Our Picks thread

    Your posts are negative most of the time. It shouldn't be a surprise when pointed out to you.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  24. rodell330

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,510
    Ratings:
    +1,282
    No I'm used to it actually ... Everything that's said not agreeing is usually deemed "negative" right off the bat 90% if the time. I'm Allowed to voice my option just like you are so if it bothers you so much here's a solution..don't read it? Our fans are some of the most passionate fans as well as some of the most sensetive fans I've ever encountered! This may come as a shock but TT is not above criticism nor is the organization perfect... Truth hurts I know haha. It'll be ok buddy I promise;)
     
  25. rodell330

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,510
    Ratings:
    +1,282
    More targets for #4 would've just meant more interceptions. As much as I try not to see it that it's probably true. Let's face it there wasn't a throw on the field # 4 wouldn't attempt..double coverage of not haha.
     

Share This Page