Um, is this the offseason? 😆 😆 😆

More than an entire page of posts in a Chris Harper thread dedicated to Charles Johnson? Who in the fuck is Charles Johnson? I mean, really, a guy we drafted late, never saw play, hung onto via IR for a year and waived, picked up by the world beater Browns.

As worthless as 7th round picks may be perceived to be, in walks Jeff Janis...

Some picks work. Some picks don't.

Every team invests heavily in gaining more or better draft info than their competitors. Scouting staffs and their evaluations, along with scheduled visits for private workouts, etc give teams their own info on players to go along with the canned info we fans get in Combines and pro days. This accounts for teams stacking their draft boards differently than others.

Some fans wanted heads to roll after our 3rd round selections this year. Were they reaches? We can't really know. If there are 5-8 other teams below us who feel the same player is rising on their board and we take him 10-20 spots ahead of their picks to insure we secure the player, is it really a reach?

Maybe our scouting staff feels the difference between other players on their board near to this selection is negligible based on their millions of $ worth of research.

Talents in scouting vary as widely as talents in playing the game. That is what heightens the fun of the offseason to me with regards to FA, the draft, and UDFA, and we won't know who trumps who until well after the season starts.

July seems very, very far away...

Originally Posted by: play2win 

I'm just shocked you've forgotten who Charles Johnson was....I would've thought you had him pegged as better than Sterling and the best ever to play in Green Bay without ever seeing him play a regular season snap for the Packers. Nah, you would never do such a thing. 😆

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

Every time Uffda goes on his speed rants, I think of guys like Willie Gault, Troy Williamson, Hayward Bey, Renaldo Nehimiah - you know, track stars that can't catch or play football. Then I think about that slow piece of shit Jerry Rice and if could have only unhitched the plow when he was on the field.

Just give me the guys that can catch the fuckin ball when it hits them between the numbers.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

Yep. Completely forgot who he was. 🙄

You are mistaken in saying that people here do not appreciate, or "discount" speed. Everyone here wants the fastest players with the best hands, abilities and instincts for the game.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to want to acknowledge that a player's 40 time might not exactly be completely and fully indicative of his on field speed, game speed, with all of his gear on, running on turf. Nor that plenty of track stars in 40 times don't necessarily make exceptional football players.

Regardless, I do think we all want exactly the same thing for the Packers. Players who are fast, instinctual, with great ball skills, and highly motivated to be the best they can possibly be at their positions.

Originally Posted by: play2win 

The things you've ascribed to me are false. Use the search function on 40 times and my posts regarding them. The part about you stating that track stars don't make great football players is especially false. I've never come anywhere near contending they do or have. What I have tried to consistently say is I want the Packers to feature at least ONE WR who has blazing speed. Sadly, we routinely trot out a group that doesn't feature a burner

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

This little blurb from rotoviz.com was interesting when it comes to speed:

As I mentioned, Boldin and Mike Clayton are the only wide receivers to post slower than 4.65 40 and have a top 30 wide receiver season since 1999. When speaking of Boldin and Rice, what you’re pointing out isn’t that a slower WR can succeed; you’re also pointing out exactly how rare it is for a slower WR to post usable fantasy numbers. It isn’t that it can’t be done, it’s just that it’s rare when it does happen.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

AD ain't AD without his speed... Megatron ain't megatron without his either.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

P2W can correct me if I'm wrong but he's not claiming you literally stated track stars don't make great football players. The comment about track stars comes from the inordinate amount of attention you give 40 times. It's taking the piss.

You seem obsessed with 40 times to an unhealthy level. If 40 times could be manifested as a woman I could almost see you sneaking into her house while she's out and stealing her finger nail clippings. It's creepy.



When I compiled the 40 times of all 34 receivers taken in the 2014 draft, only 1 had a 40 time slower than 4.65 (Jarvis Landry, and he has a pro day time at 4.58). 1 in 34.

I don't know how that compares to other years because I haven't pulled them. That said, I'd bet the sample size of wide receivers with a 40 time slower than 4.65 is quite small. If so, then it's not surprising that the subset of wide receivers posting top 30 seasons also contains a small percentage of receivers with a 40 time slower than 4.65. It's ultimately not a very revealing or meaningful statistic with zero context.

To put it another way with a slightly more extreme example, I could say no receiver taller than 7'6" has posted a top 30 season since 1999. Someone could read into that what they want: that being shorter than 7'6" must somehow be advantageous for NFL receivers. Yet, it wouldn't actually mean anything because no receiver in the league is taller than 7'6".



Both of those players are so much more than just their 40 times.

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 

Your 7'6 comment seems irrelevant to this discussion. There are time constraints beyond which a guy will all but be guaranteed of not being successful as an NFL WR. 4.65 is the threshold used in that piece quoted.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

I gave you a graph earlier that had 10 years worth of data.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

The things you've ascribed to me are false.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa