What production do you expect from GREG JENNINGS?

[mmmdk]

Now that we know Jennings is a football player, I think it's legit to ponder what we might see from Greg Jennings this season.

I think he's more talented than WR Mark Clayton from Baltimore and Clayton actually had a nice rookie season.

Mark Clayton had 44 catches, 471 yards and 2 TDs in 2005. Clayton got in gear late in the season and he even had some punt returns.

Greg Jennings will have 60 catches, 750 yards and 6 TDs. Jennings is more ready than M. Clayton. Jennings will make Driver a star, shoot, he might even help Ferguson get 40 catches this season. Ok, it's Driver who's the focus of Packers passing game but Jennings is more than solid. I can't wait to see the game vs Bengals - I'm gonna see it ALL - not just a half game. :mrgreen:

What do you expect?

[Merlin]

If Jennings is the #2 guy, I suspect he will get 1,000 yards receiving. He's got some speed and a vertical jump. He will be our deep threat, if not this year, the next. Look for Driver to go over 1,000 as well.

[gbgary]

Greg Jennings will have 60 catches, 750 yards and 6 TDs.

if he's a starter he should get AT LEAST that.

[HarveyWallbangers]

FIVE rookies in the history of the NFL have gotten 1,000 yards receiving--whether they started or not.

I'd be ecstatic if he got 55 receptions for 680 yards.

[mmmdk]

I wanted to go higher, with my Jennings prediction, but he's still a rookie and might have a midseason slump yet he'll bounce back. As I said previously; Greg Jennings will start out fast 'cos he's ready and might not slow down all season...if so, he could approach a 1000 yards. Lastly, he might get "figured out" by some defenses and do a wee bit less than I expect. I can't see that though. I mean, even Steve Smith has bad days (2 catches for 12 yards vs Packers last season).

[Cheesehead Craig]

Greg Jennings will have 60 catches, 750 yards and 6 TDs.
I'd be thrilled with this as well. That would be an outstanding rookie season.

[woodbuck27]

A solid Rookie season for Greg Jennings would be about 50 receptions and 650 yards and 5 TD's.

Good Luck.... Greg Jennings.

GO PACKERS ! FAITH FOR 2006 !!

[wist43]

Jennings is one of those rare "NFL ready" WR's.

Most WR's take at least a year to get a feel for what the defense is giving them, and how to react w/in the scheme - Jennings is well beyond that. He runs great routes, gets in and out of his breaks quickly, has great hands, etc...

60+ catches, 750yds, 3-5 TD's... All Rookie Team.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Jennings won't get a 1000 because of Ferguson. Ferguson is going to get a lot of snaps and he going to get a round 30-40 catches. Jennings may get get 50-60 catches for about 700 yards, but I doubt more than that. I think next year he could get 1000, but I doubt this year.

[Tony Oday]

bah reality is the lack of creativity and expression!!!!!!


1500 yards 10 TDs 80 catches Jennings
1800 yards 8 TDs 95 catches Driver


:mrgreen:


Ok prolly 50 catches 800 yards and 5 TDs but man how boring is a solid rookie season! ;)

[the_idle_threat]

It won't take long for Jennings to show he is better than Ferguson. It might have happened already.

Once Favre develops more confidence in Jennings than in Fergie (which, again, might have happened already), we'll see Jennnings stealing Fergie's snaps.

I think a 1000 yards season is attainable. Maybe 60-70 catches and 7 or 8 scores.

[sharpe1027]

Given the chance of injury and/or lack of playing time due to drops and other rookie mistakes:

40 Catches for 580 yards

[woodbuck27]

bah reality is the lack of creativity and expression!!!!!!


** 1500 yards 10 TDs 80 catches Jennings
1800 yards 8 TDs 95 catches Driver


:mrgreen:


Ok prolly 50 catches 800 yards and 5 TDs but man how boring is a solid rookie season! ;)


schitt Tony smarten up and go with **, that's YOU. :mrgreen:

GO PACKERS ! FAITH FOR 2006 !!

[BooHoo]

I will say he gets 700-800 yards this year.

[packrulz]

I don't like drafting WR's in the first round, I've seen many teams,(Lions), get burned doing that, and I'm so glad TT was able to take him in the 2nd round. Hawk/Jennings/Hodge, pretty sweet draft so far.

[BooHoo]

I don't like drafting WR's in the first round, I've seen many teams,(Lions), get burned doing that, and I'm so glad TT was able to take him in the 2nd round. Hawk/Jennings/Hodge, pretty sweet draft so far.

It appears it was a very good draft. Only time will tell if these guys are the real deal or just a bunch of bench sitters.

[BananaMan]

Barring any setbacks, I see 800 yards, 5TDs.

...and that's me being pessimistic.

[packrulz]

I don't like drafting WR's in the first round, I've seen many teams,(Lions), get burned doing that, and I'm so glad TT was able to take him in the 2nd round. Hawk/Jennings/Hodge, pretty sweet draft so far.

It appears it was a very good draft. Only time will tell if these guys are the real deal or just a bunch of bench sitters.

True, but I haven't seen so many draft picks show flashes of talent since the Ron Wolf years. Hawk/Jennings/Hodge have all had good games. I just find it refreshing. Then you think about Jolly, & Moll, Ingle & Ruvell Martin, I just think it was a great draft. They can teach Colledge. Wahle didn't pick it up right away either. Two other WR's were picked ahead of Jennings and they haven't done squat yet.

[BananaMan]

Honestly, I think he's going to turn out to be the best WR from that class. In today's NFL most GM's just look for speed, speed, speed. They see Holmes or Jackson's 4.3 they think they'll be great.

40 times are overrated. I'll take a WR who has actual football skills over a workout warrior.

[KYPack]

I got fooled.

I fell for the "pretty girl with the curls" syndrome TT talks about.

Chad jackson was my guy & I was sorry we didn't snag him.

Jennings starts, I'll take 50 grabs & 700 yds all day long.

He defintely has skills and I love the Mark Clayton analogy.

[MasonCrosby]

i don't think i had any doubts about jennings when he was drafted... his college career resume looked pretty good to me even though he wasn't playing at a big name school...

[Scott Campbell]

I think he's more talented than WR Mark Clayton from Baltimore and Clayton actually had a nice rookie season. What do you expect?

I think Jennings will be Super Duper.

[Scott Campbell]

bah reality is the lack of creativity and expression!!!!!!


1500 yards 10 TDs 80 catches Jennings
1800 yards 8 TDs 95 catches Driver




Holy crap. If that happens Brett is looking at his 4th MVP.

[Scott Campbell]

FIVE rookies in the history of the NFL have gotten 1,000 yards receiving--whether they started or not.

I'd be ecstatic if he got 55 receptions for 680 yards.

Somebody has to be the 6th in history - at some point. It might as well be Jennings. A rookie isn't likely to find a better pitcher to chuck it at him than Favre.

And I think the last rook to get 1000 was also a 2nd rounder - Boldin of the Cards.

[Tony Oday]

bah reality is the lack of creativity and expression!!!!!!


1500 yards 10 TDs 80 catches Jennings
1800 yards 8 TDs 95 catches Driver




Holy crap. If that happens Brett is looking at his 4th MVP.

Every time he starts a new season he is looking at that ;) and a second ring...

[Patler]

Ok, lets analyze it:

Taking McCarthy at his word:

1.Emphasis on rushing this year, which means the Qbs may have only about 300-325 completions.

2. Bringing the TE's back into the offense - 60 to 70 receptions for the three TEs

3. Backs 100 receptions. (Their #s go downsomewhat as the TE's #s go up)

4. Driver 75 receptoins.

5. That leaves only about 75 receptions for the rest of the receivers. Ferguson will get his 25, "others" (Gardner, etc.) will have 10-20.

CONCLUSION - If Jennings has 40-50 receptions he will have had a very good year. More than likely it will be in the 35-40 neighborhood. His numbers go up only if others are injured, taking receptions away from driver, the backs or TEs.

[red]

i think that he could do 900 + yards, maybe 60-65 catches

brett already likes the kid, and the guys shown he's not a normal rookie WR. favre will look for him and throw the ball to him a lot. he's favres second option behind driver, and he looks to be a much better 2nd option then what we had last year

hell he could freak out a lot of people and go for that 1000 yard mark

we did not have two good wr's last year like we might this year. however we did have two good ones in 2004 in walker and driver. they had 84 and 80 catches. so it is possible for that second WR to get a lot of catches if he's up to the task

[MacCool606]

I guess I will have to wait to see the running attack before I assume it's going to be the focus. If the Pack can't run, the passing game could be wide open. It will also be interesting to see what mentality MM and Jags has when the Packers are up. Will we slow down the game and get conservative? Or continue to play "Packer Football"?

[SD GB fan]

MM said there will an emphasis on the running game..out if he keeps his word is another issue. ideally u want more running but if we get behind brett will be in for another 500 att season.

[b bulldog]

50-60 receptions for around 700 yards

[The Leaper]

The reason why many rookies look great in preseason their first year, only to falter somewhat in the regular season, is because defenses in preseason are incredibly vanilla...especially in the secondary. Why do you think Driver looked like Jerry Rice last Saturday? Driver is good...but he's not THAT good. In preseason, good WRs can put up some sick numbers if the QB is tossing the ball well. Defenses play basic man and zone schemes without a lot of different looks. That is why rookie QBs and WRs can look OK in preseason...but not look so hot once the real season begins.

Jennings might look NFL ready, but very few WRs truly are NFL ready in their first year. The guys lining up across from them starting week one are much more highly skilled and so much stronger than anything most guys have faced coming up through college. This is especially true for Jennings, who didn't play against elite competition in college.

If Jennings has more than 50 catches, it will be a phenominal season for him. Personally, I think he'll get about 40-45 catches for 500-550 yards.

[the_idle_threat]

FIVE rookies in the history of the NFL have gotten 1,000 yards receiving--whether they started or not.

I'd be ecstatic if he got 55 receptions for 680 yards.

Somebody has to be the 6th in history - at some point. It might as well be Jennings. A rookie isn't likely to find a better pitcher to chuck it at him than Favre.

And I think the last rook to get 1000 was also a 2nd rounder - Boldin of the Cards.

Bill Groman --- 1473 yards in 1960
Terry Glenn --- 1132 yards in 1996
Randy Moss --- 1313 yards in 1998
Anquan Boldin --- 1377 yards in 2003
Michael Clayton --- 1193 yards in 2004

Although it's happened only 5 times in history, recent history shows it may be becoming more common. Why? Perhaps because of the rules that severely limit defensive contact vs. wide receivers, which are being enforced more strictly each year in the interest of higher scoring. This neutralizes some of the size and strength advantage pro DBs have over college DB in the eyes of rookie receivers. This is especially true where the receiver is already a good route runner, and can get open.

I would be more conservative and predict 600 to 700 yards, but Jennings has a great combination going for him in that he's a good route runner, he appears to have picked up the system, and more important than those things, he has Brett Favre throwing to him, AND there is a huge void in the offense with the departure of Javon Walker (and the incompetence of the starter-by-default ... Robert Ferguson). Other rookie WRs frequently don't have the opportunity to earn so many snaps right off the bat ... they have to beat out an established starter.

The coaching staff has promised to focus more on the run, but how many times have you heard that? I think I've heard that from the Packers' coaching staff every single year ... it's what everyone says, but in reality they do what they need to do to win.

I stand by my prediction that Jennings is looking at a 1000 yard season ... IF he stays healthy.

[GBRulz]

Offensive ROY is that too much to ask?

[HarveyWallbangers]

How many of these other guys were #2 receivers? Or worse yet, split time at the #2 spot. Maybe Moss.

[the_idle_threat]

How many of these other guys were #2 receivers? Or worse yet, split time at the #2 spot. Maybe Moss.

How many of these other guys had a guy like Brett Favre slinging them the ball? And for those who think Favre is all washed up ... he led the NFC in passing yards last season with 3881, and was 2nd in the NFC in passing yards the season before with 4088. He can still throw for yardage.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't see that meaning anything. It's not like Brett has a history of going to rookie wideouts and padding their stats more than other QBs. Name the last rookie WR that did really well with Brett chucking him the ball.

[Scott Campbell]

I know it's a longshot. But it's August. So what the hell.

[the_idle_threat]

I don't see that meaning anything. It's not like Brett has a history of going to rookie wideouts and padding their stats more than other QBs. Name the last rookie WR that did really well with Brett chucking him the ball.

You're missing the point entirely. No rookie wideout has won a starting job in Favre's career ... but due to Javon Walker's exodus and Ferguson's incompetence, there is a good chance that will change this year. If Jennings wins the starting job, then why is it so difficult to believe he can get 1000 yards receiving, especially in an era where the passing game has been opened up by the officiating? Favre has averaged 3830 passing yards per season in his 14-year career as a starter, and the past 2 years have actually exceeded that average. Where are all the yards gonna go?

[the_idle_threat]

Sorry if I come across as a crabass in that last post, but I just read Cliff Christl's chat, and I think I've temporarily assumed his demeanor. :shock: :mrgreen:

[Patler]

Favre has averaged 3830 passing yards per season in his 14-year career as a starter, and the past 2 years have actually exceeded that average. Where are all the yards gonna go?

Where will it go?

1200 to Driver
700 to the tight ends, if MM is true to his offensive philosophy
700 to the HBs and FBs
385 to Ferguson, his average as the #2 or #3 receiver the last 4 years.

That leaves only about 800 yards for Jennings, Gardner and any other receiver that might catch a pass or two through out the season.

The only way Jennings can get 1000 yards is for him to have more opportunities due to injuries to others or if there is a change in offensive philosophy. However, if Driver stays healthy and if MM is true to his offensive philosophy of throwing more to the tightends and the short routes to backs, etc., with fullbacks used for more than just blocking, it will be difficult for a second receiver to get more than 1000 yards.

[woodbuck27]

i don't think i had any doubts about jennings when he was drafted... his college career resume looked pretty good to me even though he wasn't playing at a big name school...

Hey Packer fan nbarnett56.

WELCOME To YOUR Packer fan HOME.

Yes, we are really encouraged/enthused with this fine Rookie.

He deserves to be OUR starting WR along with Donald "the MAN" Driver when we entertain da Bears on Sept. 10/06.

He's looked v.good and a nice pick by Ted Thompson and his Team. :mrgreen:

GO PACKERS ! FAN FAITH FOR OUR FUTURE !!

[Bretsky]

The one thing that really has stuck in my head from this thread was Patler noting the TE's are going to get used more and estimating 60-70 catches.
That number seems a bit high for me.

I'd estimate 50-55 catches and 650yds and 5 TD's for Jennings.

[Patler]

The one thing that really has stuck in my head from this thread was Patler noting the TE's are going to get used more and estimating 60-70 catches.
That number seems a bit high for me.


It could be, but I'm taking MM and Jagodzinski at their word.

In 1992 Harris and West had 59
In 1993 Harris, West and Chmura had 69
In 1994 West, Chmura nd Wilner had 50
In 1995 Chmura, Jackson and Thomason had 70
In 1996 Chmura, Jackson and Thomason had 71
In 1997 Chmura, Thomason and Davis had 49
In 1998 Chmura, Davis and Thomason had 74

So under Holmgren's version of the WC offense, which used the TEs as receivers, they averaged just over 63 receptions per season. Under Sherman's offense that ignored the TE's except near the goal line, Franks alone has averaged 38 receptions in a 16 game season, and, believe it or not, the TEs averaged 62 receptions per season.

Last year, the TEs had 85 receptions!
Donald Lee had 33
David Martin had 27
Bubba Franks had 25

Now I know there was a shortage of WRs last season, which helped account for the 85 receptions by tightends, but I don't think dropping to 60-70 range is out of the questionif MM is really going to look for the TEs more..

[Terry]

Ok, lets analyze it:

Taking McCarthy at his word:

1.Emphasis on rushing this year, which means the Qbs may have only about 300-325 completions.

2. Bringing the TE's back into the offense - 60 to 70 receptions for the three TEs

3. Backs 100 receptions. (Their #s go downsomewhat as the TE's #s go up)

4. Driver 75 receptoins.

5. That leaves only about 75 receptions for the rest of the receivers. Ferguson will get his 25, "others" (Gardner, etc.) will have 10-20.

CONCLUSION - If Jennings has 40-50 receptions he will have had a very good year. More than likely it will be in the 35-40 neighborhood. His numbers go up only if others are injured, taking receptions away from driver, the backs or TEs.

Ok, Patler, although I agree with your more recent post in which you said that it was unlikely that a second receiver would gain more than a thousand yards, I would like to examine your reasoning in the above post a little more closely.

First of all, the supposed emphasis on rushing this year that McCarthy intends. The first question that comes to mind is what exactly McCarthy means by that. We seem to usually take that as an intention to run more than we pass. But for all we know, he might only be talking about rushing more than last year - last year, there were 626 passing attempts (607 by Favre) with 382 completions compared to 398 rushing attempts. Now, even if he changed that figure by 100 (526 pass att vs. 498 rush att), which would be a HUGE shift in emphasis (and an unlikely one, I imagine), the passing attempts would still exceed rushing attempts.

The other question that arises is how effective passing is vs. running. A lot of that answer depends on Green, because I think we all agree that without Green, we won't have much of a rushing attack. (I also think Green is a big factor in how many passes running backs catch this year also.) I think McCarthy has shown himself to be flexible enough to adjust to reality, so IF the running game is weak, we will probably see more passing - yet even appreciably more passing might be less proportionately than last year.

The point is that we really don't know exactly what McCarthy means in that statement about rushing. McCarthy has also said that he's intending to return to a more traditional west coast offense, which we know is heavily built on short passes. IF he meant that he would have more emphasis on rushing THAN THAT, that still doesn't necessarily translate to more rushing than passing. Personally, I think if you have Brett Favre behind center and you're running a WC offense, there's no way that you have more rushing attempts than passing, especially if Brett is playing 'within himself'.

I'd also like to look at your supposition that this emphasis on rushing means about 300-325 completions. Taking my number above of 526 passing attempts - which is a drastic drop (not counting his time in Atlanta, Brett has had less att than 526 only five times in his career, and that includes his first year in GB) - at a 60% completion rate, we're talking 316 completions. Brett has fallen to 60% completion or lower only 4 times in his career, which number includes his year under Rhodes and his first year under Sherman. If, as he usually does, Brett completes more than 60% of his passes, we're already very quickly up to the upper limit of your range of 300-325 completions and THAT is with an unlikely low number of attempts. In short, Brett has had 325 completions or less only six times in his entire career (not including Atlanta, but including his first year in GB).

On the other hand, Brett has had more than 350 completions three times - last year, he had 372 completions. So, again, more emphasis on running THAN LAST YEAR would still leave room for well over 325 completions and we're back to the same question. Furthermore, last year his completion percentage was only 61.3% (which is very close, btw, to his overall average, which includes of course all the worst years). I think it's fair to assume that his completion percentage will go up if the WC offense that McCarthy is implementing works well and if the play calling is sharp, the receivers hands are good, etc. Look who he had to throw to last year.

Additionally, he's had more than 340 completions an additional four times and more than 330 completions an additional one time - that's 8 times he's had more than 330 completions. I think it's fair to say that even with a greater emphasis on running, with at least a slightly better than average completion percentage, that Brett could quite easily throw 325-350 completions. At least I'd consider that more likely than 300-325. Assuming of course, that the O-Line doesn't fall apart; barring key injuries; etc. And, again, assuming that the running game doesn't break out wildly with Green setting new records for himself, that sort of thing.

So if you push your overall number up by 25 and leave everything else the same, you still have 25 more receptions to allocate to Jennings. :D

Finally, there's a lot more to examine here. How likely is it that the TE's will get 60-70 receptions. Sure, McCarthy would like to throw more to TE's, but things may not work out that way.

Also, you're being very generous with the passes to TEs and RBs. Sure, last year there were 85 receptions among all TEs, true. But that, again, was out of 381 completions (including Rodgers' completions) which presumably will drop dramatically with the greater emphasis on running. There were also more than 110 running back receptions, even with Green out so much. But then it was a poor year for WRs, with only Driver getting more than 50 (he had 86) - and only two WRs had more than 10 (Ferguson had 27, which is very like your estimate, and Chatman had 49). But that was a relatively low year for WRs, remember. And remember too that Henderson had 30 receptions last year, but his status this year is a little more uncertain, wouldn't you say?

In 2004, RBs also had over 110 recps, but TEs only had 43 between them. That year, two WRs had over 80 recps and two others had over 20.

In 2003, RBs had 102 recps and TEs had 63. WRs only had 145 recps that year, among the four of them. But that was a very low year for passing, with only 310 recps out of 474 attempts versus 507 rushing attempts. If THAT is what you think McCarthy means, then you are absolutely right - Jennings would be lucky to get 40 receptions. And your conclusion would be right also - that would be a good year for Jennings, but not so much for Brett. That year is the strongest support for your thesis, IF McCarthy means MORE RUNNING than passing when he says "more emphasis on running".

Personally, I can't see things going that way this year, unless Green is on fire all year.

Just to go back another couple of years, in 2002: 580 passing atts (361 cmps) and 451 rushing atts. Then two WRs (Driver and Glenn) had more than 50 recps (70 and 56 respectively) and two others had more than 20 (Ferguson and Walker). Considering that so many people felt that Sherman didn't use Glenn correctly, maybe Jennings could match those receptions, which got more than 800 yards for Glenn. In that year, TEs had 71 recps and RBs had 115 recps. Now THAT sort of year would seem to be just as likely as 2003, it matches (roughly) your distribution if Gardner gets ~20 recps, and still allows Jennings more than 50 recps. THAT year also had a greater emphasis on running than last year, but it was appreciably less than 50% proportionately.

In 2001, there were only 510 pass atts, but still only 410 rush atts. The completion number, nonetheless, was 314. Only two receivers had more than 50 recps, but none over 60. All WRs together had only 152 recps. Yet, TEs had only 53 recps between them. RBs had 109, but that year, that was an unusual distribution.

At the end of it all, if I redid your numbers, assuming a good year of ball control and a good but not great year for Green, based on maybe around 55-45 pass-run, there could easily be 350 recps. Give Driver 75, the backs 100, the TEs 75, Ferguson 25, 10-20 for all others, then Jennings still has over 50. Double team Driver five more times and maybe Jennings has 55. Drop the TEs to your numbers (60-70), and maybe Driver can go back up, but still maybe Jennings has 60. Give him a 15 YAC average and he's at 900 yards and suddenly 1000 isn't so far away. He's supposed to be strong at YAC, so maybe he goes higher.

I'm not suggesting that that is more likely than what you posted - in fact, I would see it as less likely. But I'm not sure that I can accept your conclusion that his receptions are more likely in the 35-40 neighborhood either. There are a lot of factors here. Maybe we have a bad year and only 300 pass completions - but there's no reason to assume that everyone else's numbers will come close to your estimates either. Maybe the TEs suck and WRs play a bigger part. Maybe Green is up and down and RB receptions suffer. It's hard to predict. The only point is that even in a bad year, it might be just as likely to see Jennings with more than 50 receptions as it is to see him getting 35.

[GoPack06]

45 grabs, 700 yards, 5 tds

I think we got the best WR in that draft.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Finally, there's a lot more to examine here. How likely is it that the TE's will get 60-70 receptions. Sure, McCarthy would like to throw more to TE's, but things may not work out that way.

Also, you're being very generous with the passes to TEs and RBs. Sure, last year there were 85 receptions among all TEs, true.

I think it's very likely that the TEs will get 60-70 receptions. Last year, like you pointed out, they had 85 receptions. I doubt they'll see a 25+ decrease in reception--especially for a coordinator who wants to get them MORE involved. Not only that, Bubba missed a lot of games. He's usually good for 35-40 receptions by himself. I think it would be shocking if Martin and Lee didn't combine for at least 20-25 more receptions.

[Zool]

Dont remember the exact games, but somewhere late in the season(when Taco was on the roster) Lee was lining up in the slot.

Man, did we really have Taco Wallace dressed for games last year or was it all just a terrible dream.

[Patler]

1. I fully EXPECT the Packers to pass more than they rush. I never suggested that they would run more than pass, just that they would continue with running plays even if it wasn't going well.

2, You suggested 100 fewer passing attempts. Thats over 60 fewer completions, on average. Last years 382 completions becomes 320.

3. Six times in his career, Favre has completed 325 or fewer passes.

4. Under Holmgren and Sherman both, the TEs averaged more than 60 receptions per year. If MM is emphasizing the TEs more, do you expect the number to fall short of what Sherman had? In three of Sherman's six years the TEs had more than 60 receptions. Only once did they have fewer than 50. Expecting 60-70, which is what they have averaged for the last 14 years, is not unreasonable.

5. If the running game is not effective, the WC offense typically sees more passing to the HB and FB. MM has stated less of a need for the bruising, blocking fullback. 60-70 receptions by HBs and 30-40 by FBs is not unusual.

6. By your own numbers for Sherman's years, the RBs and TEs have a combined yearly average of 165. I believe this fits pretty well in my prediction of 100 for the backs and 60-70 for the TEs.

7. There are a lot of factors, not the least of which is that rookie WRs tend to have "dormant periods" during the season, due to the competition, the length of the season, etc. If you have 2 or 3 games with only 1 or 2 receptions each, 50 for the season becomes very difficult if you are not the featured receiver in the offense. Unless Driver gets hurt, Jennings will not be the featured receiver.

8. For Jennings to have a 50/1000 season or anything close to it, he has to exceed what Walker did in his second season by a lot. Walker was 41/716. I will be very, very pleased if Jennings as a rookie can just match what Walker did in his second season.

[woodbuck27]

Getting their feet on the ground Patler. :mrgreen:

I was going to jump in here an hour ago but got started on a post in another thread....that took too long and well.....

YOUR "the Man".... :mrgreen:

GO PACK GO !! GREG JENNINGS - FOR ALL HE's GOING TO GET !!!

2006...2007...2008...2009.... :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

[mmmdk]

Taco Wallace...OH-MY-GOD!!! Never again, no more NFL Europe players and this comes the 'Euro Rat' :mrgreen:

[Zool]

As for Jennings:

35-500-4 would be just fine. That would give him a couple games where rooks just dont show up for what ever reason, and a couple of 5-6 catch games.

Should Ferguson actually man-up and play this year, he should be able to duplicate those numbers.

Driver

80-1100-8

That leaves about 170 catches for everyone else.

[BooHoo]

Wow, some great comments. Good reading.

[MasonCrosby]

i don't think i had any doubts about jennings when he was drafted... his college career resume looked pretty good to me even though he wasn't playing at a big name school...

Hey Packer fan nbarnett56.

WELCOME To YOUR Packer fan HOME.

Yes, we are really encouraged/enthused with this fine Rookie.

He deserves to be OUR starting WR along with Donald "the MAN" Driver when we entertain da Bears on Sept. 10/06.

He's looked v.good and a nice pick by Ted Thompson and his Team. :mrgreen:

GO PACKERS ! FAN FAITH FOR OUR FUTURE !!

why thank you for the welcome, it's good to be at a nice forum like this where you can discuss pack football without being overrun by trolls like on the ESPN message board...

[Terry]

Patler, I did use your own numbers near the end of the post. In fact, I think I used fractionally higher numbers and reckoned Jennings could still get 50 receptions. IF Favre had a lot of completions - which is not at all that unlikely if he has a better completion percentage. He WILL have a better completion percentage if they are emphasizing short to medium passes more.

I also said that my numbers were unlikely - AND that they were probably even more unlikely than your's.

Nonetheless, it may not be all that much MORE likely that he gets 35 receptions than that he gets 50. Walker's second year was a year in which he was still very much developing - arguably he was not playing as well as Jennings may play this year.

I also said that Favre has completed 325 or fewer passes 6 times. Two of those 6 times were his first and his second year in GB. Meanwhile, he has completed more than 325 passes 8 times. SEVEN times, he completed more than 340 passes. Even a median number would be 330-335. His average is actually 334. And THAT includes his first year, which had the fewest completions of his career.

Look, I don't mind that you disagree. But when you use things I already said in order to support your disagreement, that suggests to me that you didn't actually read the post.

[K-town]

I'd like Greg Jennings to have an Anquan Boldin kind of rookie year.

Year Team G GS Rec Yds Avg Lg TD 20+ 40+ 1st
2003 Arizona Cardinals 16 16 101 1377 13.6 71 8 20 6 62

If you're going to dream, dream big.

[Patler]

Look, I don't mind that you disagree. But when you use things I already said in order to support your disagreement, that suggests to me that you didn't actually read the post.

Of course I read your post, did you read mine? I intentionally used some of your numbers to demonstrate how nicely they fit with what I suggested, and I told you that I was doing it with several. The stats are the stats. I can't find different ones to use. You think some support your argument. I think some support mine. Besides, you repeated most of what I had in my earlier post about TE totals and the like, what's the difference? I'm not sure what else you might be talking about.

The long and the short of it is a difference of 10-15 receptions that I think he is very unlikely to get and that you think there is at least a possibility for him to get. Part of the reason that I disagree right now is that he has played 2 preseason games in which starters often play little or not at all and defenses are watered down from what he will see in games 1-16 that really count. I see nothing so far to indicate that Jennings is a truly elite rookie, just a good one so far. Hopefully he will develope into an elite one.

With 3 TE's capable of 85 receptions (or maybe even more, but probably a few less), Driver likely to get 75 if healthy and backs in an offense that often dishes them 100 or more, the numbers get a little tight. Favre has distributed the ball quite effectively in recent years, even when he has only one decent receiver, like last year. In my opinion, getting 50 or more receptions would be an outstanding accomplishment for Jennings, unless Driver gets hurt . Impossible? No, but unlikely in my opinion.

[RashanGary]

3.5 per game sounds about right. 56 at about 13 yards per catch so 728.

I do think Jennings is capable of that. Patler insisted a while ago that Murphy had the same hype and looked to be just as good of a player before he got injured. Once Patler starts an arguement, I've never seen him admit he may have been mistaken. Not once.

I think you can be a bit stubborn ol'Patler.

[Patler]

3.5 per game sounds about right. 56 at about 13 yards per catch so 728.

I do think Jennings is capable of that. Patler insisted a while ago that Murphy had the same hype and looked to be just as good of a player before he got injured. Once Patler starts an arguement, I've never seen him admit he may have been mistaken. Not once.

I think you can be a bit stubborn ol'Patler.

Well, then you haven't read all my posts because I have on occassion acknowledged that I was wrong on some information.

You are a bit mistaken about the argument concerning Murphy. I made that before TC started or in the first week or so of TC. The fact is that through the minicamps, OTAs etc. last year Murphy DID receive hype similar to what Jennings received at the same time this year. He did not receive similar hype through the end of TC, because Murphy was hurt through all but about 5 or 6 days of TC, first with one injury and then a second one. If you recall, I even posted the days he practiced and when he was hurt in TC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that Murphy even played in a single preseason game. My comments were made strictly about the player hype before games started. The fact that Jennings has gone on to do more does not make me wrong about that for when the argument was made.

The interesting thing is that many of the positives being said about Jennings are the same as were said about Murphy, that they grasped the offense much more quickly than most rookies and that they were where they should be when they should be there. That they did not act like rookies.

What am I supposed to admit to being wrong about, that Jennings WILL get 50 receptions and/or 1000 yards? I still think that is very unlikely. That Murphy didn't have similar hype in the off season events? Can't do that, because he did. That Murphy didn't do anything in preseason last year? I stated that long ago, before TC of 2006 even started. In fact that was my point as to why we really don't know how good Murphy really was or wasn't, if he was better or worse than Jennings, etc. All we know about Murphy is that the coaches really liked him and his career ended due to injury..

[HarveyWallbangers]

Patler,

You never admit you are wrong because you are never wrong. My Aunt tells me that I was a know it all when I was a kid, and that made all of the adults mad... because, damn it, I was always right.
:D

[Scott Campbell]

3.5 per game sounds about right. 56 at about 13 yards per catch so 728.

I do think Jennings is capable of that. Patler insisted a while ago that Murphy had the same hype and looked to be just as good of a player before he got injured. Once Patler starts an arguement, I've never seen him admit he may have been mistaken. Not once.

I think you can be a bit stubborn ol'Patler.



Nick,

I agree with Harv here. I don't think Patler is stubborn at all. He builds overwhelming cases based on cold hard facts. Lots of em.

[Patler]

Patler,

You never admit you are wrong because you are never wrong. My Aunt tells me that I was a know it all when I was a kid, and that made all of the adults mad... because, damn it, I was always right.
:D

It is tough isn't it Harv? :mrgreen:

[Bretsky]

I admitted I was wrong last week when I thought I made a mistake :mrgreen:

[Patler]

3.5 per game sounds about right. 56 at about 13 yards per catch so 728.

I do think Jennings is capable of that. Patler insisted a while ago that Murphy had the same hype and looked to be just as good of a player before he got injured. Once Patler starts an arguement, I've never seen him admit he may have been mistaken. Not once.

I think you can be a bit stubborn ol'Patler.



Nick,

I agree with Harv here. I don't think Patler is stubborn at all. He builds overwhelming cases based on cold hard facts. Lots of em.


:oops:

[ceeman]

[quote="Patler"][quote="Scott Campbell"][quote="GregJennings"]3.5 per game sounds about right. 56 at about 13 yards per catch so 728.

I do think Jennings is capable of that. Patler insisted a while ago that Murphy had the same hype and looked to be just as good of a player before he got injured. Once Patler starts an arguement, I've never seen him admit he may have been mistaken. Not once.




I think the hype on Jennings is much bigger than it was for Murphy. Murphy had Driver, Walker, and Ferguson in front of him. Jennings could be our #2. I think Jennings is more polished than Murphy was, and will make a bigger impact. All scouting reports say average speed, average size, good quickness, excellent route running. Sounds vaguley familiar of Marvin Harrison. Not saying he will be as good, but that's the best case scenario for his career.

[Terry]

Part of the reason that I disagree right now is that he has played 2 preseason games in which starters often play little or not at all and defenses are watered down from what he will see in games 1-16 that really count. I see nothing so far to indicate that Jennings is a truly elite rookie, just a good one so far. Hopefully he will develope into an elite one.

I agree with that. It's a good point. I was devil's advocating. :wink:


Patler,

You never admit you are wrong because you are never wrong.

I wish someone had told me sooner!

[Terry]

I admitted I was wrong last week when I thought I made a mistake :mrgreen:

Oh, you mean you were wrong last week when you thought you'd been wrong the week before.

[RashanGary]

Nothin wrong with being a little stubborn. I still insist that Jennings had more hype early, middle and late. Muphy's clips seemed like the usual fluff piece. Jennings had more substance to it. It could have been becasue I watched Jennings for many hours of practice and knew he was better than the rest, so that extra knowledge made me think the press was more legit. Who the hell knows...I just think Jennings is better right now than Murphy was even after 3 weeks of the season and I think the press articals represented it, although it could be me confusing it with my own observations.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Nick,

I think we went over this in another thread, and I took the effort to dig up all of the praise heaped on Murphy last year--with several links to articles about him saying a lot of the same things that were said about Jennings. Of course, Jennings has been healthy and played well in the preseason, so it's gone to a whole new level with him. Now, who is the one being stubborn?

[Badgepack]

I think that Jennings has taken command of his role of #2 or #3 receiver, where as Murphy only showed a hint of doing so.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think that Jennings has taken command of his role of #2 or #3 receiver, where as Murphy only showed a hint of doing so.

That's not the argument though. Neither patler or myself said that Jennings hasn't shown more. It's just that going into camp the buzz on Jennings was similar to Murphy. Murphy barely played last preseason, so he wasn't able to show what he could do. Until we actually watched Jennings in the scrimmage and preseason games, all of the buzz was just that. He had to prove it on the field--which he has done.

Go to this thread to see the arguments made previously:
http://packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=2304

[RashanGary]

Nick,

I think we went over this in another thread, and I took the effort to dig up all of the praise heaped on Murphy last year--with several links to articles about him saying a lot of the same things that were said about Jennings. Of course, Jennings has been healthy and played well in the preseason, so it's gone to a whole new level with him. Now, who is the one being stubborn?

Similar things were being said, but not on similar levels. It's a matter of interpratation I suppose. Many of these little debates end in whoever is more persistant getting the last word. I don't necessarily think there is one person who is right or wrong, however my interpratations of the articals was that Jennings was getting praised for similar things but at a higher level *example - Jennings compared to Harrison as far as how quickly he caught on and Murphy just being called a quick learner*. You and Patler can argue that it was the same thing, but I stand by my analysis that Jennings praise was done at a higher level. Also, I think Jennings continuing to take steps and continues to show that he is, in fact, better than Murphy was at this point last season, has some bearing on who was right or wrong. In the end it is all in perception and many here are masters of hiding behind that.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Jennings compared to Harrison as far as how quickly he caught on and Murphy just being called a quick learner*

Is the same WR coach that was here last year the same one who said this? Did he coach Marvin Harrison? All he said was that Jennings was an extremely quick learner. The coaches were basically saying the same things last year, but maybe they were less inclined to hyperbole. Talk about thick-headed. I guess the five articles we posted about how good Murphy looked last offseason has no weight.


in fact, better than Murphy was at this point last season, has some bearing on who was right or wrong. In the end it is all in perception and many here are masters of hiding behind that.

It has zero bearing. In fact, it's completely meaningless to go back after the fact and try to use this for the argument at the time. Nobody ever said Jennings wouldn't be better. Most of us cautioned that what we were hearing about Jennings we heard last year. Nobody can say for sure how Murphy would have looked had he actually been able to play in the preseason. The hype keeps building for Jennings. Who knows what kind of hype Murphy would have gotten had he in fact played well last preseason.

[RashanGary]

Well..If you think there is some black and white answer to this, so be it. I think it's all perception. Again, I've stated mine as a perception. YOu're stating yours as fact. If you and Patler want to win the battle of persistance like you usualy do, I'll just bow out.

[the_idle_threat]

GregJennings is right and Patler and Harvey are wrong on this one. Wait a second ... could that possibly be true??? :shock: :shock: :shock:

It is true.

Read what was being said about Murphy again, and then read what is being said about Jennings.

The talk about Murphy was all about how he was better than they expected, and a great worker with a great attitude.


"He's made some plays out here and is ahead of where I thought he would be," Sherman said.

That being the case, Murphy appears ready to contribute a bit more quickly than Ferguson did. Still, he does admit that learning the Packers' West Coast offense is a bit trying.

"Yeah, it's complicated," Murphy said. "Because I never ran the West Coast offense, I just ran the option with a few basic routes. I've got a lot to learn, but I'm learning from the older guys. Donald Driver and all those guys are helping me out."

Franklin seems confident Murphy will learn the offense quickly enough.

"He's an intelligent kid, a coach's kid, so I'm not concerned about that," Franklin said. "He's picking up the offense well and he's doing a great job."


Coach Mike Sherman denied on draft day that Murphy was a leverage pick against a holdout by Walker. Maybe so, but if Murphy develops faster at a position that has been notoriously difficult for rookies to master, the Packers will have options galore.

Size and speed are pluses for Murphy, but what might help him most in '05 is a mature approach.

"He came in and was a big surprise," Franklin said. "We expected him to be good, don't get me wrong. But this kid is very smart and has a great work ethic. Those two things will put the kid in position to contribute."


Crystal's blog, Friday 7/29:
"Wide receiver Terrence Murphy, one of the Packers’ two second-round draft choices, picked up where he left off in the second mini-camp. On the first day of full squad, twice-a-day workouts, he popped out in both practices for making a batch of catches. He looked smooth in and out of his cuts, held onto the ball and suggested that he’ll push for playing time as a rookie. “He’s pretty polished in terms of fundamentals,” said James Franklin, the Packers’ wide receiver coach. Murphy also appears to be deceptively fast."


Rosseley Liked him:

"During training camp, offensive coordinator Tom Rossley said Murphy had strong hands, a good change of direction and was a good runner after the catch. When he did practice, he didn't leave an imprint on the coaches' minds with one flashy play. It was his general consistency and reliability that they liked.

"There are a lot of guys that are willing to put the time in the weight room," said Green Bay wide receivers assistant coach James Franklin. "There are a lot of guys trying to be the hardest working guy on the practice field. There are a lot of guys who will spend time in the playbook learning the plays.

"It's not very often you find a guy who is willing to do all three of those things. He's that type of guy. He truly wants to be great and he's willing to sacrifice for it."

Given that he came from an option offense in college and was going to be learning the WCO, the coaches had muted expectations for the kid. He came in and blew those expectations away, causing the coaches to believe they might have a guy who could unexpectedly contribute in his rookie season. They were talking #4 receiver, behind DD, JWalk, and Fergie, beating out Antonio Chatman.

Beyond that, the talk was about development ... weight room dedication, willingness to study, willingness to stay in Green Bay in the offseason ... the want to be great. They were talking about the guy who would become a great receiver someday ...

Contrast this with the comments being thrown around regarding Greg Jennings:



"He's precise on what he does," said receivers coach Jimmy Robinson, who has been coaching in the NFL since 1990, including a stop with the Indianapolis Colts. "He understands what he's doing. Marvin Harrison was a guy that came out and understood what was going on right away. He was a starter from the very beginning. Other than that I can't really think of too many rookies that have come in and understood things as quickly as he has."


Jennings has been by far the star of training camp, leading all receivers in catches during 11-on-11 drills with 10 and continually running routes like a 10-year veteran. The second-round pick from Western Michigan has picked up the West Coast offense faster than any rookie receiver the Packers have had since Antonio Freeman.





Week by week, Jennings continues to establish himself as the clear-cut No. 2 wide receiver.

[b]"He's a young guy that's kind of hit his stride very early," McCarthy said. "And I don't think that's common in our league. He looks like the same guy that you watched playing in college playing every day down on our practice field and now out there under the lights.

"We're very excited about Greg and he's done everything we've asked. And he's only going to get better, so that's exciting."


WEDNESDAY, Aug. 16, 2006, 7:08 p.m.
Camp Report, Aug. 16

THUMBS UP

Rookie wide receiver Greg Jennings isn’t Randy Moss. Certainly as a rookie and maybe for the duration of his career, Jennings isn’t going to have defensive coordinators breaking into cold sweats, fretting that he might score on any given play from anywhere on the field if they don’t gear their coverage to stop him. But Jennings looks to be about as ready-made as any rookie receiver the Packers have had since Hall of Famer James Lofton in 1978. And that includes first-round draft picks Sterling Sharpe and Javon Walker, who made big impacts but not until their second year.

Wednesday was the 22nd practice of camp and Jennings as he has done on more than occasion made the biggest play of the day: Catching a deep bomb from Brett Favre down the sideline. Jennings might not have been the biggest – he’s 5-foot-11 and 197 pounds – or fastest receiver – his 40-yard dash time was 4.42 – in last spring’s draft. But he’s quick in and out of cuts, blessed with natural hands and probably more able than most rookies to escape bump coverage. On top of all that, he already acts and plays like a seasoned veteran. “His greatest strength is maybe his poise and maturity,” said wide receivers coach Jimmy Robinson.

If Jennings stays healthy and continues to improve, he could be a second-round steal and a productive receiver over a long career even if he never scares people like a Moss or Terrell Owens.

The praise for Jennings is not qualified by such phrases as "much better than expectations," "pretty good for a rookie," and "wants to be great [someday]."

They're throwing phrases around like "starter from the very beginning," "plays like a seasoned veteran," and "as ready-to-play as (pick one: Marvin Harrison, James Lofton, Antonio Freeman)."

This is a much higher level of praise. Coaches and observers were very impressed with Terrence Murphy, but they are even more impressed with Greg Jennings.

Now some of this might have to do with the fact that the team needs somebody to step up into the void left by Javon Walker's departure and Murphy's early and unexpected retirement ... so coaches might be lavishing unusual praise because they want it for him so much. But the higher praise is there nonetheless.

[HarveyWallbangers]

It would be valid, idle threat--if the quotes you were using for Jennings were from before training camp/preseason started. Again, we had this discussion before they were one week into training camp. Before the scrimmage. Long before any preseason games. Those quotes for Jennings are from August 16th, August 24th, etc. Dig up the quotes on Jennings before the preseason started, and let me know what the coaches were saying.

[mmmdk]

Another thing to consider; will these expectations towards Greg Jennings get to his head? Jennings seems like a pro and talks like a pro, heck he plays like a pro. I'm still saying 60 catches!

[the_idle_threat]

It would be valid, idle threat--if the quotes you were using for Jennings were from before training camp/preseason started. Again, we had this discussion before they were one week into training camp. Before the scrimmage. Long before any preseason games. Those quotes for Jennings are from August 16th, August 24th, etc. Dig up the quotes on Jennings before the preseason started, and let me know what the coaches were saying.

Give it up, Harvey. You and Patler are trying to deny the obvious, but no amount of skilled debating will make the sun rise in the west.

I took the first two quotes about Jennings directly from your discussion that took place three weeks ago. Only the last two quotes are newer.

The first quote about Jennings comes from this (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=479582) JSO article dated August 2, 2006. In this article, they are already talking about Jennings being an immediate starter and being better than most rookies they have ever seen.

Terrence Murphy wasn't hurt until August 2, 2005. Show me any kind of article from early last summer that comes close to this level of praise regarding Murphy.

I'll save you some time ... there isn't one.

All the praise about Murphy was that he was better than the average rookie, and he exceeded expectations. The talk about Jennings is that he's better than almost any rookie they have ever seen, and that he's already as skilled as a starting player.

[mmmdk]

Now that we know Jennings is a football player, I think it's legit to ponder what we might see from Greg Jennings this season.

I think he's more talented than WR Mark Clayton from Baltimore and Clayton actually had a nice rookie season.

Mark Clayton had 44 catches, 471 yards and 2 TDs in 2005. Clayton got in gear late in the season and he even had some punt returns.

Greg Jennings will have 60 catches, 750 yards and 6 TDs. Jennings is more ready than M. Clayton. Jennings will make Driver a star, shoot, he might even help Ferguson get 40 catches this season. Ok, it's Driver who's the focus of Packers passing game but Jennings is more than solid. I can't wait to see the game vs Bengals - I'm gonna see it ALL - not just a half game. :mrgreen:

What do you expect?

BUMP

[MJZiggy]

Offensive ROY is that too much to ask?

Perhaps not. Nice bump.

[MasonCrosby]

i still cannot believe the "experts" thought TT flubbed up by not drafting chad jackson...

[MJZiggy]

That's why he's the GM and they're the "experts."