Would you want Cole Beasley in GB?

[Dantés]

I hate drafting receivers in general. I know there are always exceptions, but where does an elite receiver really get you? Funneling money and EARLY draft picks on receivers never made sense to me. I mean without Odell the Giants miss the playoffs, with him, also miss the playoffs. Steelers and Brown miss playoffs. Shoot you could even argue that Julio Jones when removed from Atlanta barely changes them. Atlanta has those running backs. I'd rather get cheap vets and draft receivers later than waste money and early picks on a position that imo is not a difference maker.

In summary- WR is not a difference maker position. (exceptions excluded)

The position is not as critical as quarterback, offensive line, pass rusher, or coverage DB, but it is certainly still important. You look at what happened to Rodgers the last time he was in the playoffs-- all of his playmakers were out or playing hurt and he had no ability to move the offense when necessary. I would certainly advocate for prioritizing the OL, but I do think you have to give the WR position its due.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I would diagnose it as "Janis Fatigue." I think people are just tired of certain players getting so much hype before they have actually accomplished anything.

Agreed and I think its just an overall case of "Pre-Season Hopefuls" being elevated too high in peoples minds before they truly prove they are any good in regular season play. Or in the case of Janis, one game with 2 hail Mary catches. I don't even have to list names here, there are usually at least 1 or 2 of them each year for every team. They have a big game or 2 in the preseason and all of a sudden they are knocking on the Hall of Fame Door in some fans minds.

Fun to watch and get excited about, but seems the coaches have a better idea on just how good some of these guys really are and they either don't make the team or don't see much playing time in the regular season.

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

The position is not as critical as quarterback, offensive line, pass rusher, or coverage DB, but it is certainly still important. You look at what happened to Rodgers the last time he was in the playoffs-- all of his playmakers were out or playing hurt and he had no ability to move the offense when necessary. I would certainly advocate for prioritizing the OL, but I do think you have to give the WR position its due.

I agree. Where would you draw you line? Like if you could be GM how far would you go for a receiver? And I do want to clarify I know you need some middle of the road receivers talent wise. I was more thinking of the "elite" receivers. I don't care for spending QB or pass rusher money on an elite receiver like the other teams I mentioned do. Thats what I meant

 

[Dantés]

I agree. Where would you draw you line? Like if you could be GM how far would you go for a receiver? And I do want to clarify I know you need some middle of the road receivers talent wise. I was more thinking of the "elite" receivers. I don't care for spending QB or pass rusher money on an elite receiver like the other teams I mentioned do. Thats what I meant

I would never trade way up for a wideout the way Atlanta did for Julio. Much like RB, LB, or S, to take one in the top half of round one would have to mean that they're special. If I'm picking in the latter half of the first, they're fair game along with anything else.

They are one of the riskier FA propositions. I'd never be the guy trying to pay Sammy Watkins 14M/season. I'd be more in favor of buy low candidates.

 

[thequick12]

I don't necessarily think that drafting a guy and signing one need to be mutually exclusive choices. But the better the guy you sign, the less pressing the draft need is.

If they were to somehow acquire Wilson, Crowder, or Humphries, then I would say drafting a slot/YAC receiver is low priority as those guys are young and would fill the role for the foreseeable future.

If they were to address it by resigning Cobb or by bringing in an older veteran like Tate or Beasley, then I would say that such a player should be in play as high as pick #30.

So I guess if we're talking about a relatively high draft pick, it would look like this:

1. Wilson (trade)
2. Crowder
3. Humphries
4. Draft Pick
5. Cobb (resign)
6. Tate




7. Beasley

Bringing Cobb back on a reasonable one year deal and drafting a slot/YAC/PR player is actually not a bad route. You're hedging your bets both ways. Cobb's experience and rapport is there to fill the gap as it's unlikely that a rookie just steps in and is ready day one, and the rookie is there developing and (hopefully) somewhat ready if/when Cobb goes down-- all while giving the Packers an actual viable answer in the punt return game.

Yeah I prefer your last option as long as Cobb comes back for reasonable money or something having to do with per game roster bonuses because you don't wanna tie up cap on a guy who doesn't get on the field.
Either way no matter who they sign I'm for drafting an explosive slot type guy for lack of a better term I'll call em a tyreek hill clone. Apparently a guy the Packers are interested in is Georgia State receiver Penny Hart 5-8 180 not just fast but a route runner I guess

 

[gbgary]

WR is not a difference maker position. (exceptions excluded)

it is when your QB is as WR sensitive as Rodgers is.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

Dang, I'm just not seeing this thread?

I would be interested in Beasley, he's quicker than fast, and usually makes all his impact on all the money downs. Cobb probably is the better athlete, but without doing any research, I'm sure Beasley has been healthy a lot more than he has. As the saying goes, your best ability is your availability.

 

[Do7]

it is when your QB is as WR sensitive as Rodgers is.

WR sensitive? Wut?

 

[Patriotplayer90]

it is when your QB is as WR sensitive as Rodgers is.

How many young receivers have succeeded in McCarthy's system? And how many vet receivers have we seen acquired by this team? That should address your comment.

 

[Arod2gjdd]

Nah

 

[OldSchool101]

I find it interesting that a guy who’s taking passes from an average at best passing QB (Dak) is making 4M annual and has nearly the same production as Randall Cobb, who’s working with a HOF QB and makes 10M annual.

I don’t care one way or another about Beasley but he’s 250% better than Cobb per dollar paid from a purely value perspective. That’s not even taking into consideration how Aaron has a history of making WRs look better than they are while Dak can make Amari Cooper look pedestrian.

I’d rather have someone more on the Amari Cooper level or above if we go FA.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

I find

I’d rather have someone more on the Amari Cooper level or above if we go FA.

That would be basically Robby Anderson. It's doubtful he leaves New York, and it's doubtful we want him.

Humphries would be the big sign. John Brown or Crowder maybe. I guess it comes down to the type of receiver we feel we're missing or want to contribute more. To me, the slot needs a reliable presence and I don't trust any of our young WR's to occupy that role.

 

[Do7]

Man I wish we had a chance to get Fitzgerald when we had the chance. I love the dude, and he and Rodgers are good friends off the field. Him, Jordy, Cobb, Adams. A guy can dream right?

 

[Dantés]

I find it interesting that a guy who’s taking passes from an average at best passing QB (Dak) is making 4M annual and has nearly the same production as Randall Cobb, who’s working with a HOF QB and makes 10M annual.

I don’t care one way or another about Beasley but he’s 250% better than Cobb per dollar paid from a purely value perspective. That’s not even taking into consideration how Aaron has a history of making WRs look better than they are while Dak can make Amari Cooper look pedestrian.

I’d rather have someone more on the Amari Cooper level or above if we go FA.

I don't see what their production relative to their previous contract value has to do with it. Cobb is a FA and would need to be on a new deal. If he wants to be overpaid on a new deal, the Packers can simply pass.

So we're comparing the two strictly as players. The raw numbers may have been similar, and Rodgers is indeed a better QB, but the eye test tells another story. And Cobb has been doubling up Beasley in terms of YAC (6.7 vs. 3.4 the last two years), which obviously has a lot less to do with their QB play.

The comment on Cooper is curious. "Can make him look pedestrian..." He was better with Dak than he was before getting traded.

 

[OldSchool101]

The comment on Cooper is curious. "Can make him look pedestrian..." He was better with Dak than he was before getting traded.

Keeping in mind what text doesn’t convey, I meant that with tongue n cheek because I’m not super fond of Prescott. He did good but nothing remarkable either. In Comparing his first 3 full seasons with Oakland (and his only 3 full seasons) Cooper was down .5 yards per catch with Dallas and had essentially the same TD output.
( 6 vs 6 albeit in 2 less games but it’s essentially the same because he scored every 2.66 games)
So looking at the stats and productivity, I would absolutely argue Amari was every bit as good before he went to Dallas. His game did not improve.. at least not enough to make that statement.
So while his game may not be arguably pedestrian in comparison to the average WR. His game WAS pedestrian compared to his past performance and ceiling. We’re talking Amari now not Beasley
He’s a 1,000+ yard/8-10TD receiver easy with Rodgers tossing the ball. Amaris ceiling with Prescott is Amaris floor with Rodgers.

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

Slight side track here, does anyone know why we got rid of Jared Cook? Was it simply because we planned to get Graham later? I thought Jared Cook and Rodgers worked well together? What was that about?

 

[Patriotplayer90]

I don't see what their production relative to their previous contract value has to do with it. Cobb is a FA and would need to be on a new deal. If he wants to be overpaid on a new deal, the Packers can simply pass.

So we're comparing the two strictly as players. The raw numbers may have been similar, and Rodgers is indeed a better QB, but the eye test tells another story. And Cobb has been doubling up Beasley in terms of YAC (6.7 vs. 3.4 the last two years), which obviously has a lot less to do with their QB play.

The comment on Cooper is curious. "Can make him look pedestrian..." He was better with Dak than he was before getting traded.

Despite the difference in YAC, their YPC are very similar. Meaning that Beasley is actually getting open, while Cobb is a glorified RB. He's getting barely over 2 air yards per catch. What good is that?

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

Despite the difference in YAC, their YPC are very similar. Meaning that Beasley is actually getting open, while Cobb is a glorified RB. He's getting barely over 2 air yards per catch. What good is that?

I dont know all the stats myself, but this is what my eyes sense as well. He barely gets open, when he does he can break tackles and get down the field. But I dont think I really care about that right now. Get open, get open fast, hit the slant, go down. Sling it out to Aaron Jones if you want YAC

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Slight side track here, does anyone know why we got rid of Jared Cook? Was it simply because we planned to get Graham later? I thought Jared Cook and Rodgers worked well together? What was that about?

If I remember correctly, it wasn't necessarily that the Packers didn't want Cook back, it was just felt that he was asking too much. Actually, it wasn't Graham the Packers signed to replace Cook, it was Martellus Bennett. At the time, Bennett seemed to be the better player by most, but we all know how that turned out.

 

[C-Lee]

Slight side track here, does anyone know why we got rid of Jared Cook? Was it simply because we planned to get Graham later? I thought Jared Cook and Rodgers worked well together? What was that about?

Cook's agent wanted more money, TT wasn't willing to dish it out for him.

Cook is now a Pro Bowler. For the Raiders.

 

[Do7]

If I remember correctly, it wasn't necessarily that the Packers didn't want Cook back, it was just felt that he was asking too much. Actually, it wasn't Graham the Packers signed to replace Cook, it was Martellus Bennett. At the time, Bennett seemed to be the better player by most, but we all know how that turned out.

On top of that Rodgers was advocating for Cook to be resigned, but The Packers didn't. This is why I scoff at the idea that Rodgers runs the organization like some people here suggest. Losing Cook was a mistake, the dude is still balling out in spite of being a bad team.

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

Cook's agent wanted more money, TT wasn't willing to dish it out for him.

Cook is now a Pro Bowler. For the Raiders.

Do you know if it was more, less, or the same as what we are paying Graham?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Do you know if it was more, less, or the same as what we are paying Graham?

To keep it Apples to Apples, since Graham wasn't available at the time, it was Mo Bennett.

Cook signed a two year deal with total earnings of $10.6 million. That is significantly less than what Martellus Bennett received when he signed with the Packers (three-years, $21 million).

Graham I believe signed a 3 year deal at $10M/year.

Using hindsight.....none of it seems to have worked out well for the Packers, so far.

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

To keep it Apples to Apples, since Graham wasn't available at the time, it was Mo Bennett.

Cook signed a two year deal with total earnings of $10.6 million. That is significantly less than what Martellus Bennett received when he signed with the Packers (three-years, $21 million).

Graham I believe signed a 3 year deal at $10M/year.

Using hindsight.....none of it seems to have worked out well for the Packers, so far.

Right I am asking if what we would have paid for Cook then is similar to what we pay for Graham now. Seems like virtually yes. Which is what I was wondering. In hindsight, paying Cook was the head and shoulders right answer no?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Right I am asking if what we would have paid for Cook then is similar to what we pay for Graham now. Seems like virtually yes. Which is what I was wondering. In hindsight, paying Cook was the head and shoulders right answer no?

Looking back 2 years and all things stay the same, yes, the Packers would have been much better off resigning Cook at $5.3M/year in 2017. I will go one step further, not only should they have resigned him at that price, but they should have given him a 4 year deal at that price.

All that said, I think I remember Cook's agent was seeking $7M/year at the time and the Packers said "No" and signed Bennett, who most thought was a better option at the time.