I'm back

[Partial]

Not only an infamous magazine cover, but an article about my homeboy JJ.

Interesting that he hid the surgery from reporters. I have a lot of confidence in JJ becoming a star. I have said it time and time again, but I think he looked infinitely more impressive as a rookie than Nelly did.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090812/PKR01/90812134/1058/PKR01/WR-James-Jones---I-m-definitely-back-&referrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL

[SkinBasket]

Not only an infamous magazine cover, but an article about my homeboy JJ.

Interesting that he hid the surgery from reporters. I have a lot of confidence in JJ becoming a star. I have said it time and time again, but I think he looked infinitely more impressive as a rookie than Nelly did.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090812/PKR01/90812134/1058/PKR01/WR-James-Jones---I-m-definitely-back-&referrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL

Looking and performing are two different things. The first is rather subjective while the latter is objectively measured and while Jones had a better (save those fumbles) rookie year, the difference between the two was hardly infinite. Furthermore, obviously Nelson had a better year last year production-wise. I hope they both do well, as it can only benefit the team to have two legitimate 3rd WRs who bring different talents on the roster.

[sharpe1027]

Jones (Rookie): Rec: 47 Yds: 676 Yds/Rec: 14.4 TDs: 2

Nelson (Rookie): Rec: 33 Yds: 366 Yds/Rec: 11.1 TDs: 2

Almost double the yards is a pretty significant and really points out the difference I see between the two. Nelson made catches for 6-15 yds. Jones threatened the defense downfield both before and after the catch.

Nelson has shown that he is more than capable as a #3, so having to decide which guy gets more snaps it is a very good problem to have.

Too much has been made of Jones' two fumbles against Chicago. Had the fumbles been spaced out over a season, few people would remember. Instead, it happened within a few minutes of the same game. Unfortunate, but in the grand scheme of things, not necessarily any worse.

[SkinBasket]

Almost double the yards is a pretty significant and really points out the difference I see between the two. Nelson made catches for 6-15 yds. Jones threatened the defense downfield both before and after the catch.

Well, if you look at as only 300 more yards over 16 games, it's not nearly as significant. Using the "double" comparison is like saying 2 is twice is much as one and therefore significant.

[sharpe1027]

Well, if you look at as only 300 more yards over 16 games, it's not nearly as significant. Using the "double" comparison is like saying 2 is twice is much as one and therefore significant.

I disagree. I understand your argument to mean that 300 yards is not significant. Logically, that means that Nelson's contribution last year was not significant. So, is 600 yards singificant? If so, the objective facts and your subjective standard of 300 yards being insignifcant would result in Jones' rookie year being significant and Nelson's rookie year being insignificant. :wink:

IMHO, 300 yards difference is alot for a third receiver and especially for a rookie. Also, Jones' yds/catch was 14.4 vs 11.1 for Nelson. So, focusing on the objective components paints a pretty clear distinction between the relative success of the two receivers.

[Partial]

Not only an infamous magazine cover, but an article about my homeboy JJ.

Interesting that he hid the surgery from reporters. I have a lot of confidence in JJ becoming a star. I have said it time and time again, but I think he looked infinitely more impressive as a rookie than Nelly did.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090812/PKR01/90812134/1058/PKR01/WR-James-Jones---I-m-definitely-back-&referrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL

Looking and performing are two different things. The first is rather subjective while the latter is objectively measured and while Jones had a better (save those fumbles) rookie year, the difference between the two was hardly infinite. Furthermore, obviously Nelson had a better year last year production-wise. I hope they both do well, as it can only benefit the team to have two legitimate 3rd WRs who bring different talents on the roster.

Agree that his numbers aren't that much more impressive, but his ability looked to be much greater. He looked more capable in traffic, and much more athletic and natural to me.

Can't really compare last year as Jones played in 6 games and was hurt most of the year.

I think of Jones as a 2B, and Nelson as a 3. Here's hoping they both turn out to be excellent players.

[SkinBasket]

Well, if you look at as only 300 more yards over 16 games, it's not nearly as significant. Using the "double" comparison is like saying 2 is twice is much as one and therefore significant.

I disagree. I understand your argument to mean that 300 yards is not significant. Logically, that means that Nelson's contribution last year was not significant. So, is 600 yards singificant? If so, the objective facts and your subjective standard of 300 yards being insignifcant would result in Jones' rookie year being significant and Nelson's rookie year being insignificant. :wink:

IMHO, 300 yards difference is alot for a third receiver and especially for a rookie. Also, Jones' yds/catch was 14.4 vs 11.1 for Nelson. So, focusing on the objective components paints a pretty clear distinction between the relative success of the two receivers.

I guess we've deviated from the original term I had issue with of being "infinitely more impressive" to "significantly more productive." I wouldn't say Nelson's contribution was insignificant, but it certainly wasn't significant either.

I suppose I also put more stock in comparing last year's numbers, despite Jones' injury, due to more team based and opponent based factors being the same. I feel they're in about the same place right now. Others think Jones has better upside, maybe because he's black or his muscles are bigger, and others feel Nelson's got the edge because he's white and runs more precise routes. Then there's the whole hands issue.

I just don't think either is infinitely, or significantly, better than the other right now. They're different types of receivers and will bring a welcome variety to our sets if they both stay healthy.

[sharpe1027]

I guess we've deviated from the original term I had issue with of being "infinitely more impressive" to "significantly more productive." I wouldn't say Nelson's contribution was insignificant, but it certainly wasn't significant either.

I suppose I also put more stock in comparing last year's numbers, despite Jones' injury, due to more team based and opponent based factors being the same. I feel they're in about the same place right now. Others think Jones has better upside, maybe because he's black or his muscles are bigger, and others feel Nelson's got the edge because he's white and runs more precise routes. Then there's the whole hands issue.

I just don't think either is infinitely, or significantly, better than the other right now. They're different types of receivers and will bring a welcome variety to our sets if they both stay healthy.

Yes, infinitely better is an overstatement in my book too. I did not mean to imply support for Partial's words. When I posted the respective numbers and offered my own opinion, I meant for it to stand on its own.

I can understand the reluctance to compare stats from two different years, but I think it is still useful.

Nelson contributed to 9.05% of the total passing yards last year.
Jones contributed to 15.15% of the total passing yards two years ago.

Even last year, Jones did equally well in objective stats if you discount games not played by each.

Nelson had a catch in every game, but he never had more than four catches in any one game and he never broke 50 yards in a game. Consistently below-average, IMO.

[Iron Mike]

http://izismile.com/img/img2/20090810/selection_216_75.jpg

[swede]

I wouldn't say Nelson's contribution was insignificant, but it certainly wasn't significant either.

So it was insignificant?

No.

So then it was significant?

No.

So...it was ignificant? iffyignicant? jagnificant?

[CaptainKickass]

I wouldn't say Nelson's contribution was insignificant, but it certainly wasn't significant either.

So it was insignificant?

No.

So then it was significant?

No.

So...it was ignificant? iffyignicant? jagnificant?




It wasn't overwhelming.

It wasn't underwhelming.

It was just whelming.

[SnakeLH2006]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH1WxZ1MZW8 :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:shock: Maybe this new Partial is onto something. 8-)

You beat Skin in a post-a-thon for the first time Snake can rememember! I like you both, but damn!!!

I agree with most so far on this topic....JJ's numbers were better, he flashed more play-making skills, and I remember clutch catches, TD's that helped us win games. Jordy...(Snake has seen EVERY Packer game since 1989)...not so much. He might be OK, but JJ, right now, if healthy, shows he has much more game-changing ability IMO......but regardless that is Snake's opinion...which isn't much. :?

But posting up those stats, showed much more. JJ is eons better as a rook (or even now) than Jordy has shown. Jordy is white-hype till he does anything to shake a tackle (1.8 YAC just don't cut it yo).

[SkinBasket]

I wouldn't say Nelson's contribution was insignificant, but it certainly wasn't significant either.

So it was insignificant?

No.

So then it was significant?

No.

So...it was ignificant? iffyignicant? jagnificant?




It wasn't overwhelming.

It wasn't underwhelming.

It was just whelming.

That pretty much sums it up. We're talking about 3rd WRs here. Put Ruvell Martin in the 3rd spot and he'll get 300-600 yards. I guess some people just get much more excited about James Jones than I do. Maybe it's that sexy smile.

[Partial]

James Jones dropped his first pass thrown to him of camp yesterday.

[sharpe1027]

That pretty much sums it up. We're talking about 3rd WRs here. Put Ruvell Martin in the 3rd spot and he'll get 300-600 yards. I guess some people just get much more excited about James Jones than I do. Maybe it's that sexy smile.

IDK, with the emphasis on the low end of that range, then maybe Ruvell would get that much. I have my doubts about Ruvell getting 600 yards as a starter.

It is not so much a matter of getting over excited about JJ as it is being comparatively less excited about Nelson.

[Patler]

Lets look at the stats in even more depth:

Player - Year - GS - Rec - Yds - TDs
Jennings -'06 - 11 - 45 - 632 - 3
J. Jones -'07 - 9 - 47 - 676 - 2
J. Nelson -'08 - 2 - 33 - 366 - 2

It might be easier to compare the rookie seasons of Jennings and Jones, because they played similar roles in starting quite a few games. Jennings was a starter, but missed some time too as a rookie. Jones started a lot in his rookie seasons due to injuries to both Jennings and Driver. Nelson didn't have that same opportunity, having Driver and Jennings ahead of him and healthy the whole season.

As rookies, Jennings probably had the best opportunity to perform, being a starter but also missing a couple games. Jones started often in place of both Jennings and Driver who were dinged up in '07. Nelson had less of an opportunity, being the 3rd receiver in virtually all of '08.

Looking strictly at their rookie performances, there is a lot to be said for Jones. Statistically, Jones outperformed Jennings as rookies, even though Jennings probably had more opportunity as the #2 receiver the entire season. Jennings hurt an ankle, which slowed him, but Jones was on the field less as a third receiver.

I'm not suggesting that Jones will be as good as or better than Jennings. But he should have the opportunity to be a very good receiver. Nelson I think is still a little unknown. He had a "quiet" but very solid rookie season. I'm just not sure how high his ceiling is.

[BZnDallas]

just wondering has anybody given the thought that when James Jones was a rookie, he was the only decent WR body out there as a no. 3... when Nelson was a rookie, JJ was there and played in what 6 games??? therefore taking plays and production away from Nelson.. had Nelson been in Jones' place and been the only other decent no. 3 WR on the playing field his numbers probably would have been better...

but just for the record i like both them sons a bitches and i'm soo f'n ready for some football!!!

[sharpe1027]

just wondering has anybody given the thought that when James Jones was a rookie, he was the only decent WR body out there as a no. 3... when Nelson was a rookie, JJ was there and played in what 6 games??? therefore taking plays and production away from Nelson.. had Nelson been in Jones' place and been the only other decent no. 3 WR on the playing field his numbers probably would have been better...

but just for the record i like both them sons a bitches and i'm soo f'n ready for some football!!!

Good catch. However, Nelson's numbers in the games JJ missed were still pretty pedestrian.