2005 vs 2008 WR's

[packers11]

2005 : (best 7)

80 Driver
82 Gardner
83 Chatman
81 Thurman

IR : Robert Ferguson, Terrence Murphy, Javon Walker

2008 : (best 7)

80 Driver
85 Jennings
89 Jones
87 Nelson
82 Martin
16 Swain/Bodiford

It blows my mind away that at the end of the 2005 season that such frauds were playing... No wonder why Favre got his head knocked off that season, those receivers are awful... Besides Driver, there was no other WR on that list that should have been on that field (besides Walker )... That season was set up for disaster... There was no depth at all...

Its amazing how a weakness a couple years ago is probably now one of the strongest positions in the league...

[chain_gang]

2005 : (best 7)

80 Driver
82 Gardner
83 Chatman
81 Thurman

IR : Robert Ferguson, Terrence Murphy, Javon Walker

2008 : (best 7)

80 Driver
85 Jennings
89 Jones
87 Nelson
82 Martin
16 Swain/Bodiford

It blows my mind away that at the end of the 2005 season that such frauds were playing... No wonder why Favre got his head knocked off that season, those receivers are awful... Besides Driver, there was no other WR on that list that should have been on that field (besides Walker )... That season was set up for disaster... There was no depth at all...

Its amazing how a weakness a couple years ago is probably now one of the strongest positions in the league...


I think this is a bit misleading, due to the fact that your basing Green Bay's 2005 wide receiver depth in the middle/end of the season, and the 2008 depth before a single game, or a TC practice has completed.

Actually the list should look more like this, which still isn't completely accurate due to the fact that in 2005 this was our opening day depth chart.

2005
84 Walker
80 Driver
89 Ferguson
85 Murphy
83 Chatman

2008
80 Driver
85 Jennings
89 Jones
87 Nelson
82 Martin
16 Swain/Bodiford


Now in all honesty they are both pretty comparable depth wise. Walker at the time was coming off a huge season, Murphy was looked at as the potential replacement of Driver or Walker. Much like Jones/Nelson is for Driver down the road. I really liked Green Bay's depth at WR in 2005, especially the top 3, but injuries demolished the Packer's depth. Which made us sign players like Andrae Thurman, Rod Gardner, and made us start players like Ferguson and Chatman(at times).

The point being, right now our depth at WR looks great, but even one injury to a starter, or a starter and a number 3 wr, can turn out WR depth into the 2005 version very quickly.(Hopefully it doesn't happen though)

[Brando19]

Terrence Murphy had potential. I was at the game (@ Carolina, MNF) when he suffered his career ending injury. It was a scary moment.

[red]

way to bring us down

we were high on the 2005 wr group just like we are this one

man that year blew

[gbpackfan]

I'm not sure why Ruvell Martin is ranked below Nelson. How many catches does Nelson have in the NFL? Hmmmm. Oh yeah, none! Here is the real list:

Driver
Jennings
Jones
Martin
Nelson


(I left the rest of the guys off the list because they will be cut. No point in adding players to the list that won't be around in Sept.)

[Bretsky]

I'm not sure why Ruvell Martin is ranked below Nelson. How many catches does Nelson have in the NFL? Hmmmm. Oh yeah, none! Here is the real list:

Driver
Jennings
Jones
Martin
Nelson


(I left the rest of the guys off the list because they will be cut. No point in adding players to the list that won't be around in Sept.)



After Ruvell dropped that pass at the Giants 10 yard line on 3rd down we threw him back in the crapper

[HarveyWallbangers]

I wouldn't say Ruvell has bad hands, and drops are going to happen. He's a solid backup receiver who gives the team something other guys don't (height). He's made some big plays the last two years. The catch on Winfield vs. Minnesota in 2006, and big games in both games against the Vikes in 2007. He's a Vikes killer. We should keep him just for that.
:D

We have enough young prospects. It's good to have a backup that you can rely on. It's going to be the top 5 + Swain if he proves he's worth keeping. Our WR group is outstanding.

[RashanGary]

I'm not a very big Ruvell Martin fan. I'm hoping Swain, Bodiford or someone else beats him out.

[gbpackfan]

I'm not a very big Ruvell Martin fan. I'm hoping Swain, Bodiford or someone else beats him out.

Prediction:

Swain = Practice Squad
Bodiford = Cut

The Pack will probably go into the season 5 deep at WR.

[RashanGary]

To me Martin is the worst kind of #5 WR you can have. He's never going to develop into anything more and he can't play ST's. I'd rather have a guy who plays ST's or has upside or both (peferably). Cole falls into that same category.


When you don't have a very deep or strong roster it's nice to have consistant, slightly below average guys around. When you have a deep roster, I'd rather see those last spots used to develop guys or kick ass on ST's. I'm hoping we can do better than Martin and Cole. I don't like either although they are OK in a pinch.

[Bretsky]

To me Martin is the worst kind of #5 WR you can have. He's never going to develop into anything more and he can't play ST's. I'd rather have a guy who plays ST's or has upside or both (peferably). Cole falls into that same category.


When you don't have a very deep or strong roster it's nice to have consistant, slightly below average guys around. When you have a deep roster, I'd rather see those last spots used to develop guys or kick ass on ST's. I'm hoping we can do better than Martin and Cole. I don't like either although they are OK in a pinch.

Completely agree with this

[HarveyWallbangers]

We have enough guys to develop. If one of our starters goes down, I'd like to have a veteran that you know can get the job done. We don't know if Nelson and Swain can. I'd rather not have our 4th AND 5th receivers be rookies--with no veteran to supplement them. The 5th WR often plays a lot.

[Bretsky]

We have enough guys to develop. If one of our starters goes down, I'd like to have a veteran that you know can get the job done. We don't know if Nelson and Swain can. I'd rather not have our 4th AND 5th receivers be rookies--with no veteran to supplement them. The 5th WR often plays a lot.

Gosh I'd sure as h@ll hope that Jordy Nelson is better then Ruvell Martin even in the short term. I'd expect a high 2nd round pick to be better than last year's #4/#5 WR...which were pretty much interchangeable.

[Brohm]

With the improved qualty depth at TE, I could see Finely stepping into the "big WR" role that Martin now has in the Fab 5, leaving the 5th WR slot open for a more developmental/ST playing prospect. Definatley would bring some mismatch problems and give Finely more PT. Will be interesting to see what new wrinkles there are in TC.

Would be 5 WR and 3 TE this year (with Humphery) as opposed to the 6 and 2 we had last year.

[RashanGary]

There are definitly worse things than having Ruvell Martin as your #5 reciever (like having Ahmad Carrol as your starting corner back). He's our #5 WR and he's probably a better starting WR than Robert Thomas was a starting LB or Hardy Nickerson (when we had him washed up) or Cletidus Hunt, Ahmad Carrol, Mark Roman, Will Henderson (at the end), Samkon Gado, Antonio Chatman or David Martin. Obviously the roster problems today pale in comparsion to the roster problems just a couple years ago.

I don't think you just can him because he sucks (he doesn't suck). I think you replace him IF something nearly equal but younger or nearly equal but better on ST's comes along.

[Patler]

Ruvell Martin brings a little to the roster...but not a lot. He is better than some of the 5th receivers they have had recently, but that is not saying much. As others have suggested, the biggest threat he faces is from another receiver who demonstrates special teams abilities, and that could be Swain or even one of the unheard FA signings.

I will not be surprised either way with Martin; if he makes it or is cut.

[ahaha]

The reason the coaches like Ruvell so much is because he's a devastating blocker. He helped break some of Grant's big runs. And, with an offense that relies on shorter passes and receivers running for lots of YAC, it helps to have a receiver that can make a path.

[The Leaper]

To me Martin is the worst kind of #5 WR you can have. He's never going to develop into anything more and he can't play ST's. I'd rather have a guy who plays ST's or has upside or both (peferably).

I'm not sure I agree when looking at Green Bay's current situation.

Unlike the #5 DT or the #5 DB, our #5 WR will see the field probably 6-15 times a game...depending on the gameplan. McCarthy knows he has a ton of WR depth, and he will use that to his advantage by utilizing 5 WR sets...probably more this year than he has in the past.

Clearly, the WRs are even deeper than they were last year...but even more importantly, we will have a MOBILE SCRAMBLING THREAT at QB. Favre wasn't a threat to gain a yard on a QB scramble, but Rodgers certainly will be. With an empty backfield and 5 dangerous WRs, it presents a huge problem for the defense. They need to keep lots of players back to defend the pass, but if Rodgers breaks containment he will kill teams with 4-8 yard ground gains...something Favre was unable to do last year.

I think having 4-5 highly capable WRs is VERY important this season...at least far more important than having a developmental ST guy.

[cheesner]

I agree, if we continue to run 5 WR sets, we will need to have some depth there, and I think we will carry 6 WRs.

[Patler]

Unlike the #5 DT or the #5 DB, our #5 WR will see the field probably 6-15 times a game...depending on the gameplan. McCarthy knows he has a ton of WR depth, and he will use that to his advantage by utilizing 5 WR sets...probably more this year than he has in the past.


If GB's 5th wide receiver plays that much, there will be something very wrong with the offense, or a lot of injuries.

He may use some 5 receiver formations, but they will use Lee, or Finley or even Jackson as part of the formation, assuming everyone will be healthy. If the 5th WR is not a special teams contributor, he may not even be on the game day active roster some of the time.

[The Leaper]

If GB's 5th wide receiver plays that much, there will be something very wrong with the offense, or a lot of injuries.

Why?

As I point out, our offense will be MORE capable in 5 WR sets now that we have a mobile QB who forces the defense to respect his scrambling ability as well as the legion of receivers. I would expect to see more spreading of the field in 2008 than we did in 2007.

I'm sorry, but our TE crew isn't talented enough or experienced enough to have them be on the field the majority of the time in multiple TE sets. We don't have Chewy and Jackson to utilize. Lee is nice, but he's not a stud. None of our TEs are capable both in blocking and receiving.

I expect to see a ton of receivers in 2008. That is our strength...and without Favre, we will need to play even more to our strengths than before. As such, we will need capable depth there...due to fatigue and injury. Rotating in fresh WRs will wear down the defense...just as rotating DTs does the same.

[Patler]

If GB's 5th wide receiver plays that much, there will be something very wrong with the offense, or a lot of injuries.

Why?

As I point out, our offense will be MORE capable in 5 WR sets now that we have a mobile QB who forces the defense to respect his scrambling ability as well as the legion of receivers. I would expect to see more spreading of the field in 2008 than we did in 2007.

I'm sorry, but our TE crew isn't talented enough or experienced enough to have them be on the field the majority of the time in multiple TE sets. We don't have Chewy and Jackson to utilize. Lee is nice, but he's not a stud. None of our TEs are capable both in blocking and receiving.

I expect to see a ton of receivers in 2008. That is our strength...and without Favre, we will need to play even more to our strengths than before. As such, we will need capable depth there...due to fatigue and injury. Rotating in fresh WRs will wear down the defense...just as rotating DTs does the same.

As I wrote earlier, I expect to see 5 receiver formations, but many will use one of the TEs, or even Jackson, and four of the WRs. I just don't see Martin as giving them all that much in a strictly passing situation. Finley especially could provide a big guy with speed and hands comparable to, or better than Martin. Sure he doesn't block well, but if you are going with a 5 receiver formation he has no one to block for anyway until the pass is completed.

I think the options with Lee or Finley on the field along with 4 WRs are better than with Martin on the field. The might use 5 WRs once in a while, but not anywhere near as many as the 6-15 times per game that you suggested. I would expect to see more 2 TE situations, or 1 TE and 4WR than I would expect to see 5 WRs. Besides, Jackson has good hands and is expected to provide a lot in the passing game.

I can actually see Martin having more value in 3 WR formations that are really pass/run options. He would provide a decent receiving possibility, and his blocking could be used on a run. In a strictly passing situation using 5 receivers, I think Lee, Finley or Jackson would provide as much or more in possibilities.

[HarveyWallbangers]

just don't see Martin as giving them all that much in a strictly passing situation.

You usually have a WR or two go down throughout the year. Martin has basically been the last WR on the team each of the last two years, and he's played enough to have 37 catches for 600 yards and 5 TDs. He's made big plays in several games to help the team win--yet people seem to remember a drop more. He's not a horrible receiver. It's not like he's Taco Wallace just using up a roster spot.

[The Leaper]

I think Lee, Finley or Jackson would provide as much or more in possibilities.

Finley hasn't even stepped on an NFL field yet...and certainly wasn't dominant in college. He's got a hell of a long way to go to make an impact in 2008 anywhere near what Martin could offer.

Jackson? He's a RB, not a receiver. Sure, he may turn into a capable threat out of the backfield, but again...a hell of a long way to go to match Martin's potential impact in 2008 in the receiving game.

Lee certainly can be a capable receiver when split wide...yet again, Martin is more athletic and capable of more.

I'm sorry...I don't see your point of how Lee, Finley or Jackson are going to prove we need to dump Martin. Even if we don't use a lot of 5 WR sets, we certainly will use a ton of 3 and 4 WR sets...and with the potential for injury, you don't skimp on that #5 WR spot because you want someone for special teams.

[cpk1994]

I think Lee, Finley or Jackson would provide as much or more in possibilities.

Finley hasn't even stepped on an NFL field yet...and certainly wasn't dominant in college. He's got a hell of a long way to go to make an impact in 2008 anywhere near what Martin could offer.

Jackson? He's a RB, not a receiver. Sure, he may turn into a capable threat out of the backfield, but again...a hell of a long way to go to match Martin's potential impact in 2008 in the receiving game.

Lee certainly can be a capable receiver when split wide...yet again, Martin is more athletic and capable of more.

I'm sorry...I don't see your point of how Lee, Finley or Jackson are going to prove we need to dump Martin. Even if we don't use a lot of 5 WR sets, we certainly will use a ton of 3 and 4 WR sets...and with the potential for injury, you don't skimp on that #5 WR spot because you want someone for special teams.My God, if your head was any furtrer up Martin's ass you could see what he had for breakfast. Does Martin have comprimising photos of you or something? You are WAY WAY overating Martin. He is terrible.

[Zool]

Its not too far fetched to think Martin will get goal line opportunities this year. He's tall and seems to be able to separate well enough. Also, as Harv said, he's been relatively productive for a #5 the last 2 years. Injuries happen, and I would rather have a guy with 3 years in the offense stepping in than a guy with 3 months.

[The Leaper]

My God, if your head was any furtrer up Martin's ass you could see what he had for breakfast. Does Martin have comprimising photos of you or something? You are WAY WAY overating Martin. He is terrible.

My God! You must have missed where I spoke highly of Martin. Oh wait, I didn't speak highly of him.

Claiming that Finley and Jackson, with a combined 16 NFL receptions between them, have better potential for production in 2008 than Martin is crazy. Martin is at best a #3/#4 WR in the NFL...but his size, speed and experience in the system make him far more dangerous right now than Finley or Jackson.

Sure, Finley or Jackson probably have far more potential long term...but I'm not talking long term.

[Patler]

just don't see Martin as giving them all that much in a strictly passing situation.

You usually have a WR or two go down throughout the year. Martin has basically been the last WR on the team each of the last two years, and he's played enough to have 37 catches for 600 yards and 5 TDs. He's made big plays in several games to help the team win--yet people seem to remember a drop more. He's not a horrible receiver. It's not like he's Taco Wallace just using up a roster spot.

I do not disagree with any of that, and I think he can be a useful man on the roster for just those reasons. However, what I think Leaper and I were discussing, at least what my comment that you quoted was directed to, were situations in which they put 5 receivers on the field at one time. It was those situations that I do not thin Martin gives a lot in options as a 5th receiver. I think a TE like either Lee or Finley (hopefully) or a RB like Jackson lined up out of the backfield might be better than Martin.

I wasn't talking about the 5th spot on the roster for WRs. Martin might fill that OK, but I am also one who thinks it should go to a ST performer, just likje the last roster spots for LBs, DBs, etc.

[Patler]

I'm sorry...I don't see your point of how Lee, Finley or Jackson are going to prove we need to dump Martin. Even if we don't use a lot of 5 WR sets, we certainly will use a ton of 3 and 4 WR sets...and with the potential for injury, you don't skimp on that #5 WR spot because you want someone for special teams.

OK, now you are talking about different things than what you first stated. You wrote:


our #5 WR will see the field probably 6-15 times a game...depending on the gameplan. McCarthy knows he has a ton of WR depth, and he will use that to his advantage by utilizing 5 WR sets...probably more this year than he has in the past.

I took this to mean that you expect to see many formations, perhaps as many as 6-15 times per game in which Driver, Jennings, Jones, Nelson and Martin would be on the field at the same time. I simply don't see that happening. I can see alignments with 1 TE and 4WRs, 2 & 3, or various combinations of WRs and TEs along with a back shifting out of the backfield to alignments with 5 receivers going out. I just don't see 5 wide receivers on the field at the same time all that often.

For that reason, and as I wrote before, absent injuries or a really screwed up offense, I don't see the 5th WR getting 6-15 snaps per game. If injuries make him the #4 or #3 for that game, sure; but not as the #5.

I never said we need to dump Martin, he will battle with Swain and other for the #5 spot. BUT among the 4th, 5th and 6th LBs (if the keep 6), the 4th and 5th WRs (and 6th if they keep 6) you HAVE to have some ST performers. They will contribute more in that way than the few plays they will see the field for on offense or defense, again barring injuries that moves them up in the pecking order.

Martin is OK, but nothing special. He very well could be replaced by a stellar special teams performer, who would have more immediate value to the team than Martin as a 5th receiver waiting for someone to be hurt.

[Patler]

Finley hasn't even stepped on an NFL field yet...and certainly wasn't dominant in college. He's got a hell of a long way to go to make an impact in 2008 anywhere near what Martin could offer.

Jackson? He's a RB, not a receiver. Sure, he may turn into a capable threat out of the backfield, but again...a hell of a long way to go to match Martin's potential impact in 2008 in the receiving game.

Lee certainly can be a capable receiver when split wide...yet again, Martin is more athletic and capable of more.


I agree, Finley is unproven. When discussing him directly I wrote "could" for that very reason. On the other hand, I don't think he has to do a whole lot to surpass Martin. I don't hate Martin, and if he ends up as #5, fine. But I don't think that means he will play a lot if #1-#4 remain healthy.

You seem to miss my point completely regarding Jackson. Of course he is a back. That is exactly why I think he is more likely than Martin to see the field in those situations where MM wants 5 receivers. He may start out in the backfield and shift, or break the huddle directly to a slot position. Either way it disguises the 5 receiver alignment until it is too late for a defensive player substitution. The coaches have said he runs routes and catches the ball like a receiver. I think we could see them exploit that more this year.

I wouldn't bet that Martin is much faster or much more athletic than Lee or Finley. Martin looks pretty slow to me, and not overly athletic for a WR.

Depending on how Finley comes around, I think he and Jackson could give the Packers enough options on passing plays that the Packers could use the 5th WR spot for a special teamer. A special teams demon of lesser receiving skills than Martin might be of more value to the team than Martin. Tracy White has made the team for a couple years for his special teams play, not his abilities as a linebacker. The same could happen at WR now because the 5th WR is less important as a receiver with other capable pass catchers on the team.

[KYPack]

just don't see Martin as giving them all that much in a strictly passing situation.

You usually have a WR or two go down throughout the year. Martin has basically been the last WR on the team each of the last two years, and he's played enough to have 37 catches for 600 yards and 5 TDs. He's made big plays in several games to help the team win--yet people seem to remember a drop more. He's not a horrible receiver. It's not like he's Taco Wallace just using up a roster spot.

I do not disagree with any of that, and I think he can be a useful man on the roster for just those reasons. However, what I think Leaper and I were discussing, at least what my comment that you quoted was directed to, were situations in which they put 5 receivers on the field at one time. It was those situations that I do not thin Martin gives a lot in options as a 5th receiver. I think a TE like either Lee or Finley (hopefully) or a RB like Jackson lined up out of the backfield might be better than Martin.

I wasn't talking about the 5th spot on the roster for WRs. Martin might fill that OK, but I am also one who thinks it should go to a ST performer, just likje the last roster spots for LBs, DBs, etc.

It will definitely be a dogfight for the last WR spots.

WR

Donald Driver
Greg Jennings
James Jones
Jordy Nelson,
Ruvell Martin
Brett Swain
Shaun Bodiford
Chris Francies
Johnny Quinn
Jake Allen
Rod Harper
Taj Smith.

I'd think they would keep 6. Last season, they went with 5, mainly due to all the DL's they kept. That is needed depth, so maybe 5 WR's will be the direction this year. Bodiford would have an advantage with his ST work.

I like Martin, he seems like he could be the jumbo/possession guy and he has shown steady improvement. M3's offense takes awhile for a young guy to "get it". Martin has done a lot of that work and this is that pivotal 3rd year, where many young guys really take off.

It could be real interesting if Swain comes in here and blows everybody's socks off.

As has been pointed out, Finley could help us like crazy if our 5th player in a 5 wide is a TE.

It would seem like neither Bodiford or Martin are trade bait. We will probably cut one or two guys that play for other teams. We will have Denver and Philly watching our roster like hawks.

One way or the other, M3 gets more toys this season. TT (love him or hate him) has done a spectacular job of turning over the roster and adding depth and talent.


There's 5 or 6 spots and 12 guys. Let the games begin.

[Patler]

The decision to keep 5 or 6 WRs could depend on Tory Humphrey or some other TE. If they keep 3 TEs it is more likely they will keep only 5 WRs.

I am intrigued to hear more about 6'8" 264 lbs Joey Haynos as a tight end prospect.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Didn't they keep 6 for most of last year? Driver, Jennings, Jones, Robinson, Martin, and Bodiford.

[KYPack]

Didn't they keep 6 for most of last year? Driver, Jennings, Jones, Robinson, Martin, and Bodiford.

I thought it was 5, then 6 when the DL's went down and Robinson came back.

[The Leaper]

I took this to mean that you expect to see many formations, perhaps as many as 6-15 times per game in which Driver, Jennings, Jones, Nelson and Martin would be on the field at the same time. I simply don't see that happening. I can see alignments with 1 TE and 4WRs, 2 & 3, or various combinations of WRs and TEs along with a back shifting out of the backfield to alignments with 5 receivers going out. I just don't see 5 wide receivers on the field at the same time all that often.

I don't think 5 WRs will happen often either...probably on average 3-4 times a game in 2008, although the matchup/situation in some games will dictate more usage. When McCarthy first pulled it out against the Vikings, he came to the line in that set six times.

Personally, with a mobile QB, I think the potential for the empty backfield set goes up...because it is a mismatch that greatly favors our offense. McCarthy loves to attack mismatches. I would not be shocked to see McCarthy employ it 10 times in games he feels it presents an advantage and where it is working successfully. We have a ton of great receivers...McCarthy isn't going to leave them riding the pine. It also prevents the defense from being able to come after the QB as aggressively, which helps our OL.

I also expect the #5 receiver to see some time on the field in a 4 WR set from fatigue, if nothing else. If you run a bunch of 4 WR sets, the WRs are going to get gassed occasionally. There is going to need to be a rotation at some point to keep them fresh.


Martin is OK, but nothing special. He very well could be replaced by a stellar special teams performer, who would have more immediate value to the team than Martin as a 5th receiver waiting for someone to be hurt.

I doubt that Green Bay would only keep 5 WRs if one of them was viewed basically as simply a special teams ace. If that is the case, I think we keep 6 WRs.

[Patler]

I doubt that Green Bay would only keep 5 WRs if one of them was viewed basically as simply a special teams ace. If that is the case, I think we keep 6 WRs.

Could be, although Chatman was #5 a few years, and for several of those years he was only a return man. He developed some receiving skills the last year, but still wasn't much of a receiver. I think they could have found better receivers than he was.

To some extent, TT seems willing to have unusual numbers in position groups, if he thinks players' abilities dictate it. Thus, unusually large number of DL last year. Could bode well for WRs this year, because as a group they might be the deepest.