Wide Receiver Options

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,743
Reaction score
1,056
Why? Anyone who's watched sumo knows the guy in blue is gettin' his sash kicked!! ;)
Its been a while. When did they start doing the pincushion thing to the groinal area. I thought the just made them mad by cinching the diaper up real tight but those skewers might work even better.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,082
Reaction score
444
There have been more than 2 different ways that teams have won Superbowls IMO. Defense, Rushing, top QBs. Average QBs. Luck. Coaching. The other team blew a big lead. Electrical malfunctions. So IMO your comment 19 teams one way and 1 team another way does not have any merit. Nice try though. IMO.

Sure, name all the teams that won with all-time defenses and below-average offenses in the last 20 years, I'll wait.
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
801
Reaction score
489
Super Bowl Winners
Balanced offense and defense
YearTeamOffensive RankingDefensive Ranking
1993Cowboys26
199449ers16
1995Cowboys19
1996Packers12
1997Broncos16
1999Rams12
2001Patriots76
2004Patriots54
2005Steelers64
2010Packers81
2013Seahawks91
2014Patriots38
2016Patriots51
2017Eagles44

Additional information on last 25 Champions, offense and defense. Stats
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,082
Reaction score
444
Super Bowl Winners
Balanced offense and defense
YearTeamOffensive RankingDefensive Ranking
1993Cowboys26
199449ers16
1995Cowboys19
1996Packers12
1997Broncos16
1999Rams12
2001Patriots76
2004Patriots54
2005Steelers64
2010Packers81
2013Seahawks91
2014Patriots38
2016Patriots51
2017Eagles44

Additional information on last 25 Champions, offense and defense. Stats

Not sure why anyone would care about the 90's? Game has changed quite a bit since then. Of teams that won with elite defenses and below-average offenses (in the last 20 years), you have the 2000 Ravens and 2002 Bucs; again, does anyone think the current Packers defense is going to be one of the best in NFL history? This link is 4 years old so I'll just add the last 4 rows here with their respective DVOA ranks:
2018 Pats - 5 and 19
2019 Chiefs - 3 and 14
2020 Bucs - 3 and 5
2021 Rams - 8 and 5

2003 Patriots were exactly average on offense so, for those advocating winning with a brutal running game and relying on the defense, you're going with the model that 2 teams have won with in the last 2 decades, the 2008 Steelers and 2015 Broncos. The stats prove my point, far more teams win with a good offense (14 of the past 20 Super Bowl winners had top-10 offenses) as opposed to 3 teams that were below-average on offense (the other 3 teams were 11th, 15th, and 16th on offense). I would add that 13 of the past 20 Super Bowl champions also had top-10 defenses, so I'm not saying that defense isn't important. Just that the offense needs to be a concern as well when assessing whether a team is a legit Super Bowl contender. I fully expect the Packers to take a step back on offense (they were 2nd in offensive DVOA last season) and, if they emphasize the run like the Titans or the 49ers then I wouldn't expect the offense to be good enough to carry them to a Super Bowl.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,186
Reaction score
2,205
I am probably the only fan that just doesn't see what everyone sees in Adams.
Don't get me wrong. I think he is an excellent receiver, but he has had games when he couldn't get separation. That's why I'm anxious to see how well he does with the raiders.
I have hope that Lazard can take another step. Watson can be at least as good as Cobb was when he started. In other words, I have hope that the combination of Receivers, RBs and TEs can keep things rolling.

Adams is definitely an elite receiver as he was double teamed a lot because the Packers lacked talent at receiver aside of him but he was able to put up impressive numbers anyway.

I hope the Packers will feature a solid group of pass catchers in 2022 as well but I'm not convinced about that happening.

I was wondering if someone could get us Adams stats when AR did not play?

In 10 games Hundley and Love have started since 2014 Adams had 48 receptions for 632 yards and six touchdowns.
 

Spanky

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
459
Reaction score
207
The Saints have signed Jarvis Landry for a deal worth up to $6 million depending on incentives. One year.

I'll say this--the Packers damn sure better sign Julio Jones if they can get him on a one year deal for that kind on money.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
27,021
Reaction score
4,843
Location
Madison, WI
The Saints have signed Jarvis Landry for a deal worth up to $6 million depending on incentives. One year.

I'll say this--the Packers damn sure better sign Julio Jones if they can get him on a one year deal for that kind on money.
I wish that the Packers had signed Landry for that kind of money. Both him and Jones have had their share of injuries and when healthy, Jones is the better WR, but Landry I think would have been the better investment. All that said, I still would like to see Julio in Green Bay. Odell is another option, but given his knee injury, I really don't want him for just a half of season.

The question I do have though, did the Packers make Landry an offer? Just guessing here, but if I am Landry and trying to build my resume on a one year deal, I am picking the Packers situation and #12 over JW and the Saints. That is if the Packers made a similar offer.
 

Spanky

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
459
Reaction score
207
I wish that the Packers had signed Landry for that kind of money. Both him and Jones have had their share of injuries and when healthy, Jones is the better WR, but Landry I think would have been the better investment. All that said, I still would like to see Julio in Green Bay. Odell is another option, but given his knee injury, I really don't want him for just a half of season.

The question I do have though, did the Packers make Landry an offer? Just guessing here, but if I am Landry and trying to build my resume on a one year deal, I am picking the Packers situation and #12 over JW and the Saints. That is if the Packers made a similar offer.


I would bet my next paycheck the Packers did not make an offer to Landry.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
8,258
Reaction score
2,088
I have no idea what Julio would want money wise? He’s in no man’s land. He had a $22 per year contract and didn’t live up to it and thus cut. Even in a season where WR was off the charts in demand, he’s been bypassed by multiple teams. I’m assuming he’s still thinking
$15-$20M+-range and he’ll be watching the SB from home at that rate.

GB doesn’t need Julio Jones to Win a SB. Yet wouldn’t it be a huge boost to have that type of veteran on board. The only way I see GB working him in is if Julio took a prove it deal in the single digits. $6-$9M kinda money. Im not sure the Packers can afford more than that anyway.

It’s possible we play patient Pat.
As someone said, the salary drops daily at this point. We’d likely have an opportunity to sign T.Y. Or OBJ for less money, if even a partial season. That might be more ideal in reality as far as taking the partial season discount double check.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,186
Reaction score
2,205
The question I do have though, did the Packers make Landry an offer? Just guessing here, but if I am Landry and trying to build my resume on a one year deal, I am picking the Packers situation and #12 over JW and the Saints. That is if the Packers made a similar offer.

I got the impression that Landry wanted to play for his home state Saints.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
8,823
Reaction score
2,031
Honestly the staff moving Gafford to CB rather than staying at WR illustrates two points to me personally, and this is confirmed from a source of mine:

#1 - The staff is confident they have that MVS role of deep threat in the WR room to replace MVS "blow the top" role. Whether that is Watkins, Watson or Doubs.
#2 - The staff is not as worried about the WR room as many fans are. Gafford wasn't a proven veteran by any stretch however he was an experienced NFL WR with sub 4.3 speed...if a WR room anywhere in the league is truly in dire straights chances are the team lets such a player battle for a spot...not here.
 

Spanky

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
459
Reaction score
207
Honestly the staff moving Gafford to CB rather than staying at WR illustrates two points to me personally, and this is confirmed from a source of mine:

#1 - The staff is confident they have that MVS role of deep threat in the WR room to replace MVS "blow the top" role. Whether that is Watkins, Watson or Doubs.
#2 - The staff is not as worried about the WR room as many fans are. Gafford wasn't a proven veteran by any stretch however he was an experienced NFL WR with sub 4.3 speed...if a WR room anywhere in the league is truly in dire straights chances are the team lets such a player battle for a spot...not here.


The Packers don't have a problem with the bottom end of their WR corps. They have a problem with the top end. As in, there's not enough talent there. The Gafford move, in my opinion, does nothing to change my opinion of where the Packers are at with their WR's. The UDFA Gafford had 2 catches in 3 years in the NFL.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
4,614
Reaction score
657
Honestly the staff moving Gafford to CB rather than staying at WR illustrates two points to me personally, and this is confirmed from a source of mine:

#1 - The staff is confident they have that MVS role of deep threat in the WR room to replace MVS "blow the top" role. Whether that is Watkins, Watson or Doubs.
#2 - The staff is not as worried about the WR room as many fans are. Gafford wasn't a proven veteran by any stretch however he was an experienced NFL WR with sub 4.3 speed...if a WR room anywhere in the league is truly in dire straights chances are the team lets such a player battle for a spot...not here.
Lol, I'm not sure how the staff could possibly even approach that level of panic and doom.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
8,258
Reaction score
2,088
Lol, I'm not sure how the staff could possibly even approach that level of panic and doom.
Move him to ST. That kid is lightning in a bottle. If he makes the edge on a Return? he’s gone!
I read somewhere that Rico ran at 23.5MPH when converting his speed over. He’s faster than a taxicab driven by an irate Iranian with a female passenger showing too much skin
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
8,823
Reaction score
2,031
The Packers don't have a problem with the bottom end of their WR corps. They have a problem with the top end. As in, there's not enough talent there. The Gafford move, in my opinion, does nothing to change my opinion of where the Packers are at with their WR's. The UDFA Gafford had 2 catches in 3 years in the NFL.

My post was discussing possible staff thoughts, not yours or any fan's though.
 

Spanky

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
459
Reaction score
207
My post was discussing possible staff thoughts, not yours or any fan's though.

If you think moving Gafford to CB means the staff thinks they're good at WR, you are welcome to think that. To me it indicates they don't believe Gafford has the chops to be a WR and they'd like to take a swing at a position change rather than release him outright.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
8,823
Reaction score
2,031
If you think moving Gafford to CB means the staff thinks they're good at WR, you are welcome to think that. To me it indicates they don't believe Gafford has the chops to be a WR and they'd like to take a swing at a position change rather than release him outright.

I think you need to reread what I actually said and check with what you’re claiming I’m saying. They’re not the same….and FTR I don’t envision a 53 with Gafford on it personally.
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
2,439
Reaction score
663
Location
Northern IL
I think you need to reread what I actually said and check with what you’re claiming I’m saying. They’re not the same….and FTR I don’t envision a 53 with Gafford on it personally.
Just to stir the pot a little... Gafford as Punt Returner, gunner & 5th CB? ;). Speed kills!!
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
8,258
Reaction score
2,088
Just to stir the pot a little... Gafford as Punt Returner, gunner & 5th CB? ;). Speed kills!!
I was also thinking backup as 4th Safety if he can tackle, like you said.. use him on ST, that’s a place that speed shows up.

Truthfully, WR is just so saturated deep with unproven speedsters.
I don’t think it’s a knock flipping positions, that’s more a compliment. Maybe he can play the Herb Waters role
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
8,823
Reaction score
2,031
Just to stir the pot a little... Gafford as Punt Returner, gunner & 5th CB? ;). Speed kills!!

Nixon is that I believe being Rich's signing coming over. Gafford's route to roster is returning IMO and nothing else. He could be a PS stache that does come up for reserve/injury work.
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
801
Reaction score
489
Maybe the idea of moving Gafford to defense was that they needed to insure the guys listed at WR were really good enough, and there was potentially room in the defensive backfield for an "athlete" who might be able to become a respectable back up at one of the positions, and at the same time may have the potential to be a legitimate special teams player?

The idea of what he can, or can't do, isn't exclusive. It could cover a broader base of potential.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
8,823
Reaction score
2,031
Jarvis Landry signed for a mere $6M....hate to say it but if it wasn't for Rodgers I fully would rather have Landry on this roster in the slot than Cobb...but whatever.
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
2,439
Reaction score
663
Location
Northern IL
Jarvis Landry signed for a mere $6M....hate to say it but if it wasn't for Rodgers I fully would rather have Landry on this roster in the slot than Cobb...but whatever.
Not saying I disagree, but Cobb brings a lot to the table mentoring the young guys on NFL-life, which I don't know that we'd get from Landry. Cobb will have his role and get 3-5 targets/game, probably some giving AR a known scramble-route-runner to find when a play breaks down. AR remaining engaged and not frustrated at his receivers is critical to the offense grinding-out long(er) drives.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top