PackFanWithTwins
15 years ago

I don't think we'll have a legitimate #1 receiver until Aaron Rodgers shows that he favors some receivers over others.

Right now, it doesn't look like it'll happen soon. If you look at the numbers he put up, he did an outstanding job spreading the ball around. The only thing I would've liked to see was more opportunities for D. Lee.

I judge #1 receivers by how much the opposing defense has to plan against him. Only a few receivers have that distinction--that belongs to Terrell Owens and Randy Moss and more recently... Larry Fitzgerald. You can throw Andre Johnson into the mix too, it's just that he plays for a horrible team.

Only one smaller receiver has that dynamic spunk to him--that's Steve Smith. You can say what you want about his attitude and say he's overrated--but look at the Panthers game we should've won this season. Aside from the fact that our defense and special teams choked big time, you just KNEW it was going to be Smith making the play. Had Smith not been on the field--we win.

In terms of potential, Greg Jennings probably won't be looked at as a "Dynamic #1", but he's definitely considered elite. Coming out of college, he drew comparisons to Marvin Harrison. Marvin Harrison is about the same size as Jennings and Driver, and Harrison is probably going to be going to the Hall of Fame one day because of his attitude and his consistency.

Jennings has to stay consistent, and he'll be a "Mr. Reliable" type of receiver.

He has the potential to be better than Marvin Harrison too. I can't think of any receiver who has his breakaway capabilities. Even early on in Harrison's career, he wasn't the same playmaker Jennings currently is. Harrison just breaks ankles with his route running.

Back to the payday--fair value for him is somewhere upwards of 35-40 million dollars. Something similar to what Lee Evans is paid, as someone stated.

"blueleopard" wrote:



Do we really want Rodgers to start throwing to any single WR more. I don't think so. It has been said that Sharpe leaving was the best thing for Favre because he learned to throw to other WRs and he was praised for spreading the ball around after that.

Rodgers has been spreading the ball around from day 1. I would prefer having 4 WR with 900 yards that 1 or 2 with 1000-1200. I hope he keeps spreading it around. that makes the life of defenses more difficult.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
blueleopard
15 years ago
The post was made with the intention of saying that with the way Rodgers is playing, he doesn't need an all-pro WR because it's all within the system and how smart everyone on the team is.

Then I go on to talk about what Jennings is bound for, whether he remains a Packer or not.
Danreb Victorio A Believer of Greg Jennings
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago

I would prefer having 4 WR with 900 yards that 1 or 2 with 1000-1200. I hope he keeps spreading it around. that makes the life of defenses more difficult.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:



I agree with this wholeheartedly. For one thing, having multiple lower-yardage WRs keeps them cheaper. 😉 More importantly, though, fewer tackles puts less wear and tear on them, increasing their longevity. No. 1 receivers who are fortunate enough to last tend to catch the eyes of teams desperate for deep-threat talent, who are willing to drop a fortune on them. There, they get ridden like donkeys.

Randy Moss was an exception to this trend, because he virtually disappeared in Oakland. Then again, last season may have been an anomaly borne of a fantastic confluence of factors. After all, his statistics came crashing back down to earth this year. He was solid, but hardly spectacular: 1,008 yards for 11 TDs vs. 1,493 yards for 23 TDs in 2007. Maybe Ted Thompson's decision to pass on Moss wasn't so terrible after all. (Yes, yes, I know the almighty Brady was out this year, but if anything, you'd think the fledgling first-year starter would have been even more dependent on his marquee receiver.)

I don't want to see Greg Jennings leave any more than the next guy, but if he was bait for a monster offensive lineman who would protect our QB from having to run for his life every play, I'd pull the trigger in a heartbeat. Even with lesser receivers, I can see Rodgers throwing for more yards and more TDs if he were given more time to plant his feet.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
15 years ago

I would prefer having 4 WR with 900 yards that 1 or 2 with 1000-1200. I hope he keeps spreading it around. that makes the life of defenses more difficult.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



I agree with this wholeheartedly. For one thing, having multiple lower-yardage WRs keeps them cheaper. 😉 More importantly, though, fewer tackles puts less wear and tear on them, increasing their longevity. No. 1 receivers who are fortunate enough to last tend to catch the eyes of teams desperate for deep-threat talent, who are willing to drop a fortune on them. There, they get ridden like donkeys.

Randy Moss was an exception to this trend, because he virtually disappeared in Oakland. Then again, last season may have been an anomaly borne of a fantastic confluence of factors. After all, his statistics came crashing back down to earth this year. He was solid, but hardly spectacular: 1,008 yards for 11 TDs vs. 1,493 yards for 23 TDs in 2007. Maybe Ted Thompson's decision to pass on Moss wasn't so terrible after all. (Yes, yes, I know the almighty Brady was out this year, but if anything, you'd think the fledgling first-year starter would have been even more dependent on his marquee receiver.)

I don't want to see Greg Jennings leave any more than the next guy, but if he was bait for a monster offensive lineman who would protect our QB from having to run for his life every play, I'd pull the trigger in a heartbeat. Even with lesser receivers, I can see Rodgers throwing for more yards and more TDs if he were given more time to plant his feet.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:



Boy you took that a lot farther than I was willing to. Would it be safe to say that we will be drafting another receiver, probably as high as the third round?
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago
If history is any indication, I would say yes.
UserPostedImage
blueleopard
15 years ago

[quote="PackFanWithTwins"]
Randy Moss was an exception to this trend, because he virtually disappeared in Oakland. Then again, last season may have been an anomaly borne of a fantastic confluence of factors. After all, his statistics came crashing back down to earth this year. He was solid, but hardly spectacular: 1,008 yards for 11 TDs vs. 1,493 yards for 23 TDs in 2007. Maybe Ted Thompson's decision to pass on Moss wasn't so terrible after all. (Yes, yes, I know the almighty Brady was out this year, but if anything, you'd think the fledgling first-year starter would have been even more dependent on his marquee receiver.)

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



A certain first-year starter who wasn't a rookie and wasn't named Aaron Rodgers had a rather excellent season.

That player is Matt Cassel. That player wouldn't have half the stats he put up if it weren't for Randy Moss.

If you need proof, just look at Daunte Culpepper.
Danreb Victorio A Believer of Greg Jennings
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago
Matt Cassel did indeed have an excellent year. Randy Moss's contributions represented 27% of Cassel's passing yards and 52% of his TD passes. Jennings represented 32% of Rodgers' passing yards and 32% of his TD passes.

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make though. It sounded like you were trying to disagree with me, yet you basically restated my point in different words.
UserPostedImage
Dulak
15 years ago
IMO Jennings is a Very gifted receiver and has ALOT of heart. And brings inspiration to the team.

Also IMO GB needs to pay what he is worth. He is one of the key players in are O. I would probably say the 2nd most valuable player on O besides our QB.

Stats or no stats I am impressed everytime I see the ball thrown towards jennings - usually gives it 100%.
Zero2Cool
15 years ago

A certain first-year starter who wasn't a rookie and wasn't named Aaron Rodgers had a rather excellent season.

That player is Matt Cassel. That player wouldn't have half the stats he put up if it weren't for Randy Moss.

If you need proof, just look at Daunte Culpepper.

"blueleopard" wrote:

I'm not even sure what this thread is about anymore, but what did Randy Moss do for the Oakland Raiders QB's? 😉
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
dfosterf (17h) : Maybe
Mucky Tundra (17h) : Yes
Zero2Cool (18h) : No.
Mucky Tundra (20h) : End of a Degu-era
dhazer (21h) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
Zero2Cool (23h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
Zero2Cool (28-Mar) : They do not do it for "content sake".
dfosterf (28-Mar) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Haha
Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
beast (27-Mar) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
1h / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.