1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. 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

WR Past

Discussion in 'Draft Talk' started by tynimiller, Apr 13, 2021.

  1. tynimiller

    tynimiller Cheesehead

    Messages:
    5,003
    Likes Received:
    410
    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Packer Fan Since:
    1986
    The Packer Inbox made me think of something I was curious if anyone knew how to possible pull the data for easily or find a story (I'm looking) of something similar:

    The write in went like this:

    Mike from Altamonte Springs, FL

    I have wondered, when it comes to drafting a WR if the reasons why Green Bay hasn't gone for one in the early rounds could be: A) similar talent is there later at a much lower cost, B) earlier round WRs tend to be divas. Your thoughts?


    My thought is the Packers have drafted six receivers (Greg Jennings, James Jones, Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb, Davante Adams and Ty Montgomery) in the top 100 in the last 15 years. Comparatively, New Orleans has drafted four (Tre'Quan Smith, Michael Thomas, Brandin Cooks, and Robert Meachem) and New England has taken five (N'Keal Harry, Aaron Dobson, Taylor Price, Brandon Tate and Chad Jackson). So, let's get one thing straight here. The Packers have "gone for one in the early rounds" and usually have hit on the one they drafted. And because they hit on the one they drafted, the Packers haven't needed to draft another one to replace him.
    -------------------------------------------------

    I'd be curious if when looking at teams and how many top 100 WR picks they've had would compare to GB.

    I'll be honest, the track record we have when drafting a top 100 WR in the draft is dang freaking near perfection (Ty Montgomery wasn't an autrociou failure even and is the worst easily).
     
  2. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Messages:
    22,063
    Likes Received:
    2,473
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Packer Fan Since:
    1973
    I read the same article and definitely it's no secret that the Packers have nailed almost every Round 1-2 WR pick since 2000, with Terrence Murphy being the one exception and he never had much of a chance due to a career ending neck injury. Robert Ferguson might be the least productive 2nd Rounder in that time frame. As far as 3rd rounders, James Jones and Montgomery were the only 2 such picks. I would rate Montgomery a failure as a 3rd round WR.

    So all that said, what I think would be more interesting to find out is how successful have other teams been with drafting/UDFA WR's outside of Round 3? As far as the Packers go, Lazard and MVS are the only 2 I can think of since 1999 (Donald Driver) that have had much success. While they both might have futures in the NFL, I don't think their stories are complete yet.
     
  3. tynimiller

    tynimiller Cheesehead

    Messages:
    5,003
    Likes Received:
    410
    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Packer Fan Since:
    1986
    I'd toss Boykin in there, he should have stayed in GB - but played his way into another contract elsewhere.

    I think it depends what you think of successful for those such rounds. You draft a top 100 WR in a draft I think the plan is to see that person be a starter type level WR1/2/3 - I'd argue 4th round onward, you're happy if more, but not banking on that player being as significant - especially not out of the gate or even first couple years.
     
  4. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Messages:
    22,063
    Likes Received:
    2,473
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Packer Fan Since:
    1973
    Jarrett Boykin? He was an UDFA of the Jags that had a couple of games filling in for Jordy that he did well in. I would rate him lower than Jeff Janis.

    While I agree that you shouldn't expect more from a player once you get out of the 3rd round and beyond, that wasn't my point. The Packers really haven't gotten any "unexpected" payoffs from picks of WR's outside the 3rd round like they have seen at other positions on offense (RB, TE, OL). MVS, Lazzard and maybe EQ could change that.

    Really all I got from that article was Wes Hodkiewicz trying to shut someone down for saying that the Packers haven't invested enough high picks into the WR position. He really left a lot more on the table to talk about, but it wouldn't have backed up his point, so he didn't go there. Not to mention that he only used 2 teams, Saints and Patriots as his "comparative proof".
     
  5. Schultz

    Schultz Cheesehead

    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    12
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2021
    Packer Fan Since:
    1968
    As I was reading it I was thinking that the 2 teams he used in comparison was somehow then going to be turned into some correlation to having a top 5 QB. Guess I was wrong.
     
  6. tynimiller

    tynimiller Cheesehead

    Messages:
    5,003
    Likes Received:
    410
    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Packer Fan Since:
    1986
    You're right on Boykin completely spaced we didn't bring him in as UDFA
     
  7. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Messages:
    22,063
    Likes Received:
    2,473
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Packer Fan Since:
    1973
    What I would love to see is a weighted draft assets used on each position since 2005 by every team in the NFL. Using a draft value trade chart to value each pick. Would also probably want to coincide that with Free Agent signings for each position during that same time frame.

    My hunch, the Packers would be towards the bottom 5 in draft and FA assets used on WR's and pretty high on DB's and OLB's.
     
  8. Poppa San

    Poppa San Levelheaded Staff Member Super Moderator Moderator

    Messages:
    10,347
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Location:
    Brown County Wisconsin
    Packer Fan Since:
    1919
    You don't need to spend many assets if you hit on a player and keep him long term. QB is one spot. 3 - 1sts (inc trade), 1 2nd and a bunch of day 3 in the past 30 years.

    sidenote: while researching, I saw the Packers drafted Daryle (the mad bomber) Lamonica in 1963. I never knew that. He also was drafted by and played for Buffalo.
     
  9. PikeBadger

    PikeBadger Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    3,836
    Likes Received:
    238
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2013
    Packer Fan Since:
    1963
    I think the draft value chart would skew the results greatly. Maybe the spot picked would give truer results?
     
  10. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Messages:
    22,063
    Likes Received:
    2,473
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Packer Fan Since:
    1973
    Skew in what way? Not really sure what you mean, but you would have to weight the value of picks in some kind of way, in order to get some kind of comparison number. The draft value trade chart that Jimmy Johnson first introduced and has been modified several times since, seems the most logical to me?

    For example (using the chart):

    The Packers in the last 5 drafts have spent/invested the following:
    • CB (4 picks @ 1,945.8 points)
    • DT (6 picks @ 877.3 points)
    • QB (1 pick @ 700 points)
    • RB (5 picks @ 353.2 points)
    • WR (6 picks @ 113.1 points)
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2021
  11. PikeBadger

    PikeBadger Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    3,836
    Likes Received:
    238
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2013
    Packer Fan Since:
    1963
    Skewed because 1st round draft values are huge comparatively. The further into the draft you go, the differential between picks lessens considerably. I think it would be more truthful to give a 1-256 score based upon draft position chosen.
     
  12. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Messages:
    22,063
    Likes Received:
    2,473
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Packer Fan Since:
    1973
    Yes, first round picks ARE huge comparatively, it's why teams have to trade a ton to get them.

    Perhaps we can trade our final four picks for the Jets first rounder. ;)

    Are you saying the difference between the #1 pick and the 46th pick is about the same as that of the 201st and the 246th?

    I still don't understand your proposed system.

    If I had the first 3 picks in the Draft and you had the last 3. My point total would be 6 yours would be 765. So now tell me what that means comparatively.

    By your method, a #40 pick and a #220 pick would be equal to a #1 and a #259?
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2021
  13. OldSchool101

    OldSchool101 Pack

    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    579
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    My issue is that drafted players or incumbent WR’s resigned only makes up a portion of the total picture. It does not represent the full arsenal of WR personnel signed by these teams being compared.
    As an example, I just started with 2007 and New England as evidence. Just a small consecutive 5 year sample size..

    WR Randy Moss TRADE (#21 overall)
    WR Donte Stallworth FA (#13 overall)
    WR Kelley Washington FA (#65 overall)
    WR Sam Aiken FA (4th rounder)
    WR Joey Galloway FA (#8 overall)
    WR Torry Holt FA (#6 overall)
    WR Chad Ochocinco (Trade) (#36 overall)

    In the last 6 drafts GB has picked exactly

    ZERO Day 1-2 WR.



    In the last 6 seasons GB has suited up exactly

    ZERO day 1-2 drafted WR types who have been acquired through a trade or FA or any other means possible.

    ZERO is not reasonable and ZERO is not fair.

    In the words is the Late Great Coach Kevin Green
    It is time!! It is time !!!!!
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Messages:
    22,063
    Likes Received:
    2,473
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Packer Fan Since:
    1973
    But...but...but..."none of this matters because last year....." :roflmao::roflmao::sick::rolleyes:
     
  15. tynimiller

    tynimiller Cheesehead

    Messages:
    5,003
    Likes Received:
    410
    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Packer Fan Since:
    1986
    Whenever this comes up, the argument always just circles back to "we need to do so because see, other teams have done it."
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Messages:
    25,533
    Likes Received:
    1,261
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    Boykin put up significantly better numbers in his career than Janis did though.
     
  17. PikeBadger

    PikeBadger Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    3,836
    Likes Received:
    238
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2013
    Packer Fan Since:
    1963
    According to the chart:

    pick 16 is worth 1000 pts
    Pick 100 is worth 100 pts

    I most certainly do not believe that a mid 1st round pick is worth ten 3rd round compensatory picks.
     
  18. PikeBadger

    PikeBadger Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    3,836
    Likes Received:
    238
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2013
    Packer Fan Since:
    1963
    I don’t want to emulate other teams methods very often. I want other teams looking up at us trying to figure out how we stay up there for 30 years.
     
  19. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Messages:
    22,063
    Likes Received:
    2,473
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Packer Fan Since:
    1973
    I guess I find it difficult to use the word "significant" with what Boykin did. As well as try to use his stats as some kind of evidence as to him being of any significant value. Janis was a "significant" special teams player for a season or 2, but he still didn't stick around that long. Not to mention that the conversation was centered around "payback on investments into the WR position", I don't see either of those guys as very high investments and not that high of payout either.
     
  20. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Messages:
    22,063
    Likes Received:
    2,473
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Packer Fan Since:
    1973
    Whenever this comes up, the first part of the conversation, as it should be, is evaluating the Packer players themselves. I didn't hear any discussion of the Packers situation at WR prior to 4 or 5 years ago or more. Why? Because they had a great corp. group of WR's, so no need to discuss what other teams were doing.

    The natural tendency in any sport or just about any aspect in life, if you aren't satisfied with your own results, you look to see how others are achieving the results that you would like to. So whether its the Packers looking at how other teams put together a great WR room or how other teams try to figure out how the Packers put together a solid OL every year, its part of a process of self evaluation.

    The biggest divide in this discussion is simply that some posters feel that 2020 somehow proved that there is very little or no need to improve at WR and some of us disagree with that notion.
     
  21. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Messages:
    22,063
    Likes Received:
    2,473
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Packer Fan Since:
    1973
    As a GM, what do you think other teams would give you in exchange for Picks 100, 101 and 102?
     
  22. Mondio

    Mondio Cheesehead

    Messages:
    12,435
    Likes Received:
    1,113
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2014
    Packer Fan Since:
    1980
    I think everybody is in agreement this team has room to improve the quality of WR on this team with Adams being the only real stud. The crux is how much of a "need" is it and how impactful would it be? There are many ways to run an offense and many only have had 1 standout WR over the years. I'd still put WR below OL, DL, DB in terms of need and how impactful a good one would be on this team.
     
  23. tynimiller

    tynimiller Cheesehead

    Messages:
    5,003
    Likes Received:
    410
    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Packer Fan Since:
    1986
    I'd disagree, the divide is how far in the deep end folks jump about the WR room. Adding a solid weapon to the WR room is not anything anyone that I can think of is against or would be opposed to. However, this team didn't make it to the SB due to defense and offensive line issues - you can give me Nico Collins and Rondale Moore before our 3rd pick, and we have barely moved the needle on this team getting better. OL, DL, CB...if we don't get better along those fronts, this team will not be as good as it has been for the last two years. I would bet all I have on that.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Messages:
    22,063
    Likes Received:
    2,473
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Packer Fan Since:
    1973
    While I get your points and to some extent agree, it still feels like fuzzy math to me. "We don't have much of a problem at WR because our offensive production was tops, our QB is great, Adams is a stud, our OL was fantastic, our RB was top 5, etc......" Where in reality, the problem would probably look a lot bigger if some of those elements failed. Much like the OL failed in the NFCCG. How does that NFCCG end if Rodgers has better WR's? We will never know.

    I am not stupid enough to not see just how productive the offense was last year, but it also doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the fact, that as you said, "Adams being the only real stud" in the WR room, leaves plenty of room for improvement. Imagine what this offense might be capable of doing with a better group of WR's. Same thing goes for TE. Tonyan had a really good 2020 season, but was that because he is now a top 5 TE or because he is playing in a productive offense, with an MVP QB? What does the Packer offense look like with a Travis Kelce?

    LOL... you disagree with my conclusion, yet yours is the same one? If you go back and read my post, I think this is basically what I concluded, of course without the negative spin (deep end folks) that you put on it. ;)
    Also, saying "Adding a solid weapon to the WR room is not anything anyone that I can think of is against or would be opposed to" but then going out of your way to point out why you wouldn't or why its not really needed, is called hedging your bet.
     
  25. PikeBadger

    PikeBadger Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    3,836
    Likes Received:
    238
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2013
    Packer Fan Since:
    1963
    Totally agree. IMO, we need another staunch defender in both the d- line and LB area. On offensive line a Tackle that hopefully could play both right and left. The biggest need for receivers is a motion guy with ability to both run and catch to give LaFleur more playbook options that opponents haven’t seen. Need to keep the offense fresh and unpredictable. Other teams are scheming and trying to figure out how to stop us.
     

Share This Page

-->