Update on Watson's Hamstrngs

Status
Not open for further replies.

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,256
Reaction score
5,078
Don’t be too sure of that. Rodgers did it in his first 2 starting seasons. 2008,2009. Then He had 5 seasons where he had either 2 or 3 WR’s post 950+. He had another where had Jermichael played the last 6.5 games he was on pace to break 1000. So health absolutely played a prominent role in accomplishing that in a 6th season. Those were all 16 game seasons btw.
I think we underestimate what a good QB can do once he has enough weapons. We have enough it’s more a matter of who rises

I said if everyone stays healthy...in 2008 Jennings and Driver were the only two consistently out there WRs...I wish snap counts were tracked faithfully back then but they weren't.

I don't see a MLF system and a QB like Love forcing over 100 attempts on two receivers like those two years...2008 Driver/Jennings got 48.7% of all targets for the team but 70% of the targets just for WRs - 2009 Driver/Jennings got 42% of the targets for the team but 71% of the targets for WRs on the year.

The dispersal if every one is healthy is going to for sure lean towards two or three rather than the spreading across the room like we saw in 2023 but this was the breakdown below:

Reed and Doubs were are top duo...they accounted for 33.8% of the team total targets but only 51% of the WR targets on the whole. List of all WRs first number is % of total targets and second is % of WR room targets:

Reed 16.7 / 25.6
Doubs 17.1 / 26.1
Wicks 10.3 / 15.8
Watson 9.4 / 14.4
Melton & Heath 4.3 / 6.5
Toure 3.2 / 4.9
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
I said if everyone stays healthy...in 2008 Jennings and Driver were the only two consistently out there WRs...I wish snap counts were tracked faithfully back then but they weren't.

I don't see a MLF system and a QB like Love forcing over 100 attempts on two receivers like those two years...2008 Driver/Jennings got 48.7% of all targets for the team but 70% of the targets just for WRs - 2009 Driver/Jennings got 42% of the targets for the team but 71% of the targets for WRs on the year.

The dispersal if every one is healthy is going to for sure lean towards two or three rather than the spreading across the room like we saw in 2023 but this was the breakdown below:

Reed and Doubs were are top duo...they accounted for 33.8% of the team total targets but only 51% of the WR targets on the whole. List of all WRs first number is % of total targets and second is % of WR room targets:

Reed 16.7 / 25.6
Doubs 17.1 / 26.1
Wicks 10.3 / 15.8
Watson 9.4 / 14.4
Melton & Heath 4.3 / 6.5
Toure 3.2 / 4.9
Good stuff. For the record I really don’t care if we have two Receivers who crack 1000 or 4 that crack 750. Actually I’d probably prefer the 4 scenario. As I started this whole concept notice it was founded upon the principle that we really spread the ball around nicely in 2023. Thats really the exact opposite of arguing I’d want 2 guys eating all the targets it’s not what I meant at all. It doesn’t take a leap of faith to expect our WR individual production to go up. I never said we’d have 3-5 WR all go 1000 simultaneously that would be ludicrous. I said we have 3-5 Pass catchers capable of 1000+ “talent wise” not all “simultaneously” that would = 5000 yards. I could see if we peaked having someone roll past 1,100 and then a ~1,000 and then a 800-900 TE etc. I think that’s conceivable once we peak across 17 games. Brees to TE, Graham put up 3,500+ in seasons 2,3,4 across 16 game seasons. So yeah, I’ll include Musgrave as a potential 1,000 producer somewhere across the next few seasons. Those are big numbers but he’s a big potential receiver if he stays healthy.

The bi-product of 2023 was what I appreciated. That was at least 2-fold.
1-we learned we had talent deep into our ranks.
2-we created some natural confusion and D coverage breakdowns because we used different players running different routes week to week.
 
Last edited:

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,256
Reaction score
5,078
Good stuff. For the record I really don’t care if we have two Receivers who crack 1000 or 4 that crack 750. Actually I’d probably prefer the 4 scenario. As I started this whole concept notice it was founded upon the principle that we really spread the ball around nicely in 2023. Thats really the exact opposite of arguing I’d want 2 guys eating all the targets it’s not what I meant at all. It doesn’t take a leap of faith to expect our WR individual production to go up. I never said we’d have 3-5 WR all go 1000 simultaneously that would be ludicrous. I said we have 3-5 Pass catchers capable of 1000+ “talent wise” not all “simultaneously” that would = 5000 yards. I could see if we peaked having someone roll past 1,100 and then a ~1,000 and then a 800-900 TE etc. I think that’s conceivable once we peak across 17 games. Brees to TE, Graham put up 3,500+ in seasons 2,3,4 across 16 game seasons. So yeah, I’ll include Musgrave as a potential 1,000 producer somewhere across the next few seasons. Those are big numbers but he’s a big potential receiver if he stays healthy.

The bi-product of 2023 was what I appreciated. That was at least 2-fold.
1-we learned we had talent deep into our ranks.
2-we created some natural confusion and D coverage breakdowns because we used different players running different routes week to week.

For sure.

Crazy thing is if we have another year where yardage is dispersed across four or five decently across the board it sets up a very tricky 2025 contract year for Doubs and Watson - but continued dispersal could be the ticket to keeping one or both at a reasonable not crazy contract.
 
OP
OP
Thirteen Below

Thirteen Below

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 15, 2022
Messages
725
Reaction score
509
For sure.

Crazy thing is if we have another year where yardage is dispersed across four or five decently across the board it sets up a very tricky 2025 contract year for Doubs and Watson - but continued dispersal could be the ticket to keeping one or both at a reasonable not crazy contract.
This is exactly what I was wondering when I read OldSchool's post.... where he said he didn't care whether we had 2 1000 yard receivers, or 4 750's. My first thought was, "which is cheaper?" I looked up a few contracts on Spotrac, and it appears that it works out roughly the same either way - $20M per year apiece for a pair of 1000-yard guys, or $10M apiece for 4 750-yarders. So you probably get more yards per dollar for 4 750-yarders.

Maybe it's in the team's best interest for Gutekunst to persuade LaFleur to have Jordan spread the ball around; keep Doubs, Watson, Reed, and Wicks to around 750 a year.

Seriously, though.... any way you look at it, we'll never be able to afford all these guys at anything even close to what appears to be their current rate of growth. At some point very soon, the best we can do is pick one or two each year to extend, and count on Gutekunst to have more coming in the pipeline behind them. Look for a couple of WRs to be picked on Day Two/ early Three every year.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,256
Reaction score
5,078
This is exactly what I was wondering when I read OldSchool's post.... where he said he didn't care whether we had 2 1000 yard receivers, or 4 750's. My first thought was, "which is cheaper?" I looked up a few contracts on Spotrac, and it appears that it works out roughly the same either way - $20M per year apiece for a pair of 1000-yard guys, or $10M apiece for 4 750-yarders. So you probably get more yards per dollar for 4 750-yarders.

Maybe it's in the team's best interest for Gutekunst to persuade LaFleur to have Jordan spread the ball around; keep Doubs, Watson, Reed, and Wicks to around 750 a year.

Seriously, though.... any way you look at it, we'll never be able to afford all these guys at anything even close to what appears to be their current rate of growth. At some point very soon, the best we can do is pick one or two each year to extend, and count on Gutekunst to have more coming in the pipeline behind them. Look for a couple of WRs to be picked on Day Two/ early Three every year.


I'd argue that if just one of Reed/Wicks/Heath and Melton showcase out big time in 2024 - and one other to show likely able to do solid WR3 work in future that we move Watson or Doubs in a trade. Abundance creates options.
 

Curly Calhoun

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
2,079
Reaction score
522
I'd argue that if just one of Reed/Wicks/Heath and Melton showcase out big time in 2024 - and one other to show likely able to do solid WR3 work in future that we move Watson or Doubs in a trade. Abundance creates options.

Possibly.

On the other hand, Gutekunst likes productive players still on a rookie contract.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
6,859
Reaction score
1,928
Depends on whether you are building for mass or strength. Muscle mass doesn't alway equal strength. Before I went to college I was a bit of a bodybuilder, ok a very little bit of a body builder. We always trained with lighter weights and higher reps to failure. There was a guy in our gym who was training for powerlifting, he was about 2/3 my size and didn't really look all that muscular but he could lift more than I could in any of the three PL moves and more than many of the serious bodybuilders. He trained with the heaviest weights he could for a maximum of 5 reps. I don't know if training has changed (I haven't picked up a weight in 30 years) but if you want to get stronger you need to lift heavy weights. I'm guess that as a lineman Tom was going for strength more than mass. As a TE Kraft probably was too.
My trainer has me use lighter weights and train to "fail". So I can curl 15 lbs with one arm like 25 to 30 times before I can't do another rep. His philosophy is lift so you can do between 5 and 30 reps. Heavier weights will build muscle mass with lower reps - to your point, not necessarily functional strength.

Now pro athletes are different animals. So I'm sure Tom and Kraft were going for muscle mass and strength. But instead of failing, where the muscle just fatigues, they were lifting so much weight the pec tore. This was probably offseason stuff, or at least with out a strength coach involved. It's kinda stupid, but hey, these guys are in their early to mid 20s and feel indestructible.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,785
Reaction score
907
Why do some fans seem to want to either avoid having a truly elite player on the roster or, as soon as the Packers get one, revel in the chance to trade them for an unknown? I get the fun of having a bunch of potential in the receiver room, but actually achieving that potential is how players help the team win Super Bowls. Do i want a receiver as expensive as Jefferson on the team? Not with an elite QB, but I certainly wouldn't be averse to having a receiver being in the top-15 of annual earnings because that means there's another really, REALLY good player on the team to help the Packers win a Super Bowl.
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
2,481
Reaction score
1,961
I think it's best having several receivers who can make plays. It protects you from injuries decimating the group. It protects you from having defenses that find a way to shut down a top receiver, limiting what the QB can do. It's beneficial in every phase of the game. It also tells the QB that he can use his progressions with a degree of certainty that when he finds the guy who can get open, he can make the play.

What makes this Packer offense so unique is that we really do have 4 WRs in house who can put up the numbers, we really do have three RBs in the house who can carry the mail, and we also have two really solid players at TE. I think this is about the deepest offense based on weapons that I've seen in GB for quite some time.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
6,859
Reaction score
1,928
Why do some fans seem to want to either avoid having a truly elite player on the roster or, as soon as the Packers get one, revel in the chance to trade them for an unknown? I get the fun of having a bunch of potential in the receiver room, but actually achieving that potential is how players help the team win Super Bowls. Do i want a receiver as expensive as Jefferson on the team? Not with an elite QB, but I certainly wouldn't be averse to having a receiver being in the top-15 of annual earnings because that means there's another really, REALLY good player on the team to help the Packers win a Super Bowl.
I agree. just my opinion, but every WR group needs the go-to guy, the money guy. That was Davante Adams, who probably got too much attention from Rodgers. No matter, the Packers need a guy like that. I don't know if he's on the roster though. Then again, it's a very young group. Certainly a few have the potential - Reed, Watson, maybe Wicks.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,275
Reaction score
1,695
Location
Land 'O Lakes
The debate is do you want a solid group of #2 WRs that teams struggle to contain (our current situation), or a WR group with a "go-to" guy like Adams with not much depth behind it. THAT IS THE DEBATE.

That is the debate because of course we all agree that having a top #1 WR along with a solid group of WRs is the ideal. We all want that, but it is seldom realized in the modern NFL.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
Why do some fans seem to want to either avoid having a truly elite player on the roster or, as soon as the Packers get one, revel in the chance to trade them for an unknown? I get the fun of having a bunch of potential in the receiver room, but actually achieving that potential is how players help the team win Super Bowls. Do i want a receiver as expensive as Jefferson on the team? Not with an elite QB, but I certainly wouldn't be averse to having a receiver being in the top-15 of annual earnings because that means there's another really, REALLY good player on the team to help the Packers win a Super Bowl.
I see that point. I also see the point of maybe having a group of talented WR where eventually there is a surfacing of a couple guys who flirt with a 1,000 yards etc. but are on Rookie deals.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
6,859
Reaction score
1,928
The debate is do you want a solid group of #2 WRs that teams struggle to contain (our current situation), or a WR group with a "go-to" guy like Adams with not much depth behind it. THAT IS THE DEBATE.

That is the debate because of course we all agree that having a top #1 WR along with a solid group of WRs is the ideal. We all want that, but it is seldom realized in the modern NFL.
Gotcha. Then just based on recent history in GB, I'd go with option 1 with a group of solid #2 WRs. I saw once too often Rodgers rely solely on Adams in critical game situations, only to miss an open WR. That's not a shot at Rodgers, I'd do the same with a talent like Adams and a game on the line.

But even the greatest WRs get double and triple teamed, and otherwise schemed for by a defense.

The other argument for this is that the salary cap is easier to manage. Somehow Miami managed to pay both Hill and Waddle, but at a combined annual cost of over $50 mil. When TT gets his deal, that will be three guys accounting for $100 mil in cap space. Something has to give.

Cincinnati now has that "problem" with Tee Higgins who they just tagged. They already pay Borrows and Chase is due.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
6,859
Reaction score
1,928
I see that point. I also see the point of maybe having a group of talented WR where eventually there is a surfacing of a couple guys who flirt with a 1,000 yards etc. but are on Rookie deals.
Yeah on rookie deals or not getting $30 mil plus/year. Eventually, one guy is gonna rise to the top and get paid. A talented player is gonna want to evolve to that position. I don't mind that, but it may be better to have say 3 talented but not spectacular WRs, and an otherwise solid team. Maybe that's wishful thinking. But let's face it, as good (and expensive) as Rodgers and Adams were/are, they never took GB to a SB, much less win one.

And if Love follows in the footsteps of Rodgers and Favre, he's gonna want his own go-to guy. I'm happy with things as they are - the team has better balance. I wouldn't mind seeing Reed or Watson or someone else grow into a real #1.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,256
Reaction score
5,078
And if Love follows in the footsteps of Rodgers and Favre, he's gonna want his own go-to guy. I'm happy with things as they are - the team has better balance. I wouldn't mind seeing Reed or Watson or someone else grow into a real #1.

Rodgers was at his best when we had deep WR rooms...I still argue that if Cobb doesn't get hurt he stays in GB and a Cobb/Adams lead room gets us a SB...but ifs and buts are worthless and not worth talking about.

I just know Rodgers didn't hone into Adams alone until quite late in his time in GB...now was part of that the level of the room sure, was part of that Rodgers no longer able to play with guys who are not doing precisely what he wanted sure, was part of it Adams and he had rose to a level of knowing eachother to the point it was difficult to trust anyone else sure....

I know Love and MLF right now have six deep at WR and two TEs that they truly trust to make plays - and that is a DEADLY thing to have, IMO more deadly than if you gave him Adams back, but a room full of Geronimo Allisons, EQSB and similar types with maybe a Big Dawg at TE.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,413
Reaction score
2,514
Location
PENDING
I think we are having a different conversation if Rodgers is the QB and McCarthy is still the HC. Rodgers would have picked his favorite and MM would focus the passing game on him. The conversation would be back to about not having other receiving threats.

The whole #1 guy, a go-to receiver, is a construct.

MM, and a lot of teams back in the day, would create plays for the #1 to draw a favorable coverage situation and get open.

If you got a WR who runs a good route, understands coverages, and has good hands, he can produce in the MLF offense. He doesn't need to be a superstar. The pattern concept with 4 or 5 receiver options, it doesn't matter which defense was called. One of the guys is going to be open. Each route exploits a different coverage scheme.

We absolutely don't need or should want a big name stud expensive WR.

We have a QB who understands the offense and the defenses, and is willing to work within the offensive scheme. Love, the receivers, and this offense, are set to go for a big season.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,490
Reaction score
1,822
I'm locking this thread for now because it gives some of us heart palpitations when we see this thread title pop up at the top of the list thinking something bad has happened again. I hope I never have to unlock it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top