Healthy Jennings, Newcomer Jones Should Boost Passing Game

[packers11]

www.packers.com/news/stories/2007/05/23/1/

Healthy Jennings, Newcomer Jones Should Boost Passing Game

by Mike Spofford, Packers.com
posted 05/23/2007

While much has been said during the offseason about the wide receiver the Packers didn't acquire, last weekend's minicamp put significant focus on two offensive weapons that have been added to the passing game since the end of the 2006 season.

One is Greg Jennings, or a healthy Greg Jennings that is. That's a weapon the Packers didn't have for the final 10 1/2 games last season.

The other is James Jones, a third-round draft choice who was doing his best to impersonate the 2006 second-round pick, Jennings, at least as far as first impressions go.

Though he never used the ankle injury sustained in Miami in Week 7 as an excuse, Jennings clearly wasn't the same player from then on in his rookie season. Because of other injuries and youth at the position, his return to the field just two weeks later was a sign more of the team's need for his skills, even at less than 100 percent, than the fact that he was actually healthy.

But the bum ankle is long behind him now, and Jennings looked like his old self at this past weekend's minicamp, cutting and coming out of breaks smoothly and at full speed.

"He's back," Head Coach Mike McCarthy said after the first minicamp practice. "I think you're going to see an improved Greg Jennings. He's more mature, he's stronger. You can see that in his body."

Despite playing in eight straight games after missing just one (vs. Arizona, Oct. 29) with the ankle injury, Jennings wasn't really full strength until the final week of the season, according to McCarthy. And then he didn't even play in that final game, missing it to be with his wife for the birth of their child.

Should Jennings remain healthy this season, his offensive contributions are likely to increase from last year, when he was still named to Pro Football Weekly's All-Rookie team despite less production later in the year.

Through the first five games last season, Jennings had 20 catches for 364 yards and three touchdowns, including two 100-yard games. Beginning with the Miami game, when he was hurt late in the second quarter on a 14-yard catch over the middle and missed the rest of the contest, Jennings had 25 catches for 268 yards and no TDs over the final 11 games.

"Greg is a great receiver, he's a young guy that knows he can play this game," veteran Donald Driver said. "He stepped up last year. I think if he wouldn't have gotten hurt last year, he probably would have had 1,000 yards."

Projecting his healthy statistics over a full 16-game season, Driver is right - Jennings would have 64 catches for 1,165 yards with nine TDs and six 100-yard games. Pair that with another solid season from Driver, who has posted three consecutive 1,200-yard seasons, and the Packers should have a productive starting duo.

"We feel there's enough weapons, and I'm one of those weapons, hopefully," Jennings said. "I definitely think we're going to be a better offense than we were last year.

"We have a lot of young guys. Myself, I have a year of experience, so I have something to build off of, and I know what to expect, and so do some of the other guys."

One of those young guys still learning what to expect is Jones, who has made a favorable first impression similar to Jennings last season.

While it would be unfair to Jones to heap those kinds of expectations on him, he does exhibit a physical development to his body and a fluidity to his movements that suggest a maturity beyond his rookie status. Backup quarterback Aaron Rodgers noted he was impressed with Jones' hands and his body control, already reading his body language as far as how he runs his routes.

"He always catches the ball extended away from his body," McCarthy said. "That's what you're always trying to teach young guys, and he does it extremely natural. I think the young man has a bright future."

McCarthy said similar things about Jennings in the early going last year, but it's too early to take the comparisons any further. Jennings came to Green Bay as a three-year college starter with three 1,000-yard seasons, whereas Jones was a full-time starter only last year at San Jose State.

But he also comes in with no worries about competing for a starting job, which should help him maintain his confidence even if he drops a pass or two like he did in the final practice on Sunday.

"I definitely take pride in catching everything with my hands," Jones said. "I don't let too much hit my body.

"Since college I've believed I could be a good NFL receiver. To come up here and get coaching from these guys and see how everybody plays and see what it takes to be up here, I'm getting it."

Like Jennings, Jones also is certain to benefit from battling against veteran cornerbacks Al Harris and Charles Woodson regularly in practice. He said he was teased by Harris during one of Saturday's practices for pushing off and "using that college technique," but that's all part of the learning process, and he's already using Driver and Jennings as teachers in that respect as well.

"They've been giving me a couple tips and reminders, how to beat certain defenses and things like that from what they've seen," Jones said. "It's definitely a help because I'm still doing it the college way. It's definitely a help to get in here and play against the guys and see how fast this stuff is going to be."

[packers11]

I think Favre will have better numbers next year with an improved O-LINE, and a receiving core that is gaining more depth...

No more Taco Boy lining up to the left side of Favre :)

[The Shadow]

I think Jennings will be the player we will all be talking about this year as he has a true breakout season.

[The Leaper]

From everything I've read, Jones didn't exactly make a name for himself at either the rookie or regular mini-camps. Personally, I doubt very much that he is going to provide much of anything in 2007. Jennings clearly wore down during the year last year...and he proved himself over several years in college at a similar level of play to what Jones faced for more or less one season. Jennings also make a quick splash last year and looked good right away...leading the NFL in receiving during preseason.

Jones may become a solid #2 receiver down the road...but I just don't see him bringing much to the table short term.

[packinpatland]

From everything I've read, Jones didn't exactly make a name for himself at either the rookie or regular mini-camps. Personally, I doubt very much that he is going to provide much of anything in 2007. Jennings clearly wore down during the year last year...and he proved himself over several years in college at a similar level of play to what Jones faced for more or less one season. Jennings also make a quick splash last year and looked good right away...leading the NFL in receiving during preseason.

Jones may become a solid #2 receiver down the road...but I just don't see him bringing much to the table short term.

Come on! Try to spread just alittle sunshine? :roll:

[wist43]

I don't expect much from Jones... and while I like Jennings, and expect his production to be more consistent, I still don't expect the passing game to be very productive as a whole.

For the most part, I see them picking up right where they left off at the end of last season, i.e. no red zone offense, max protect, inconsistent running; and, given that they don't have a RB that can move the pile, I expect they'll struggle mightily in short yardage situations.

[Chubbyhubby]

Thats true with Jennings having more experience in college and averaging 1,000 yards per season helped his rookie year. Lets not get ahead of ourselves here. Most rookie WR have trouble adjusting. Like several posters have said, 2007 might not be that productive for Jones but look out for 2008 and beyond.

[MJZiggy]

Where the hell is Piglet when we need him??

[woodbuck27]

I don't expect much from Jones... and while I like Jennings, and expect his production to be more consistent, I still don't expect the passing game to be very productive as a whole.

For the most part, I see them picking up right where they left off at the end of last season, i.e. no red zone offense, max protect, inconsistent running; and, given that they don't have a RB that can move the pile,I expect they'll struggle mightily in short yardage situations.

''I expect they'll struggle mightily in short yardage situations'' fr. above

Did Ted Thompson account for that possibility in our off season?

Did he provide us with that big bruising RB that can get the 3rd and shorts done?

Guessing now that wasn't in HIS PLAN.

[The Leaper]

Did he provide us with that big bruising RB that can get the 3rd and shorts done?

What the hell do you call Wynn? How about utilizing the FB more now that creaky Henderson is out of the picture?

There are 5 or 6 backs on the final roster...you don't need all of them to be 6'2" and 250.

[woodbuck27]

Did he provide us with that big bruising RB that can get the 3rd and shorts done?

What the hell do you call Wynn? How about utilizing the FB more now that creaky Henderson is out of the picture?

There are 5 or 6 backs on the final roster...you don't need all of them to be 6'2" and 250.

Ohh geee really screwed myself there.

I was ' of course ' thinking FA, and that 'of course' isn't in TT's PLAN.

Yup . . .we've got the No. 228th 7th Rd. pick DeShawn Wynn as an option. Of course, that fits TT's budget constraints. :)

Some day will Ted Thompson be able to author a book entitled. . .

Being an NFL GM 'on the cheap' - 101 ???

[Cheesehead Craig]

I don't expect much from Jones... and while I like Jennings, and expect his production to be more consistent, I still don't expect the passing game to be very productive as a whole.

For the most part, I see them picking up right where they left off at the end of last season, i.e. no red zone offense, max protect, inconsistent running; and, given that they don't have a RB that can move the pile, I expect they'll struggle mightily in short yardage situations.
Well, if the defense can pick it up from the end of last season, I can live with that.

[woodbuck27]

We're going to need decent passing game to win.

If the running game is as good as some here believe it will be. Then there is no reason that we can't be legitimate NFCN contenders.

I do trust that the OL will grow into it's second season with the ZBS.With that being a reality our running game will advance from what we saw in 2006.

That should reflect better Red Zone production.

I do trust that we will see a reduction in dropped pass's. Again lending towards better production in the RED.

I trust that our 'D' will pick up fast fr. where it was at the end of 2006; yet examine that portion of our schedule fr. last season before you get over confident with our 'D's 'status.

On the plus side last season we began to see some TO's for our side and our ability to sack the QB return.

There are alot of 'if's' but the final answers don't begin till September.

GO PACKERS !

[wist43]

I think the defense can be ok against the weak sisters of the NFC North, and other offensively challenged teams; but against better teams, they'll be exposed.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Big bruising RBs don't usually have good one-cut ability. That's why the Falcons got rid of Duckett, the Broncos haven't had big RBs, and Davenport and Gado were bad fits last year in the ZBS.

I suspect our running game isn't going to be as bad as people project. We did spend a 2nd round pick on a RB that I like. Also, Morency flashed some ability last year (over 200 yards in 2 starts). While I don't think he was as good as Ahman was last year (mainly because of who he got his carries against), he's a young guy that should get better.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think the defense can be ok against the weak sisters of the NFC North, and other offensively challenged teams; but against better teams, they'll be exposed.

Hey, what are you predicting for this season? I think you projected 4 victories last year, and we got 8. I projected 8 (maybe it was 7), and we got 8.

[woodbuck27]

I think the defense can be ok against the weak sisters of the NFC North, and other offensively challenged teams; but against better teams, they'll be exposed.

Hey, what are you predicting for this season? I think you projected 4 victories last year, and we got 8. I projected 8 (maybe it was 7), and we got 8.

You as I did, projected 7 wins last season Harvey.

[woodbuck27]

I think the defense can be ok against the weak sisters of the NFC North, and other offensively challenged teams; but against better teams, they'll be exposed.

Hey, what are you predicting for this season? I think you projected 4 victories last year, and we got 8. I projected 8 (maybe it was 7), and we got 8.

I believe that it's too soon to really project how we'll do in regards to number of wins.

Our SOS is alot harder than in 2006. We need to learn more on our teams real capability on 'O'.

[wist43]

I think the defense can be ok against the weak sisters of the NFC North, and other offensively challenged teams; but against better teams, they'll be exposed.

Hey, what are you predicting for this season? I think you projected 4 victories last year, and we got 8. I projected 8 (maybe it was 7), and we got 8.

It's still early... but I'll come in at about 7-9 at this point.

If Favre weren't there, I'd be looking at 3-13/4-12.

As for last year, they may have finished 8-8, but they were a 4-12 team IMO. Those last 4 games were deceiving... and I know you're familiar with the arguments against Detroit, Minnesota, and Chicago. SF is just one of those teams that GB has their number.

So I severely discount those last 4 games. When they played good teams, they got absolutely hammered.

[packinpatland]

I think the defense can be ok against the weak sisters of the NFC North, and other offensively challenged teams; but against better teams, they'll be exposed.

Weak sisters, :lol: :lol:

[The Leaper]

I suspect our running game isn't going to be as bad as people project. We did spend a 2nd round pick on a RB that I like. Also, Morency flashed some ability last year (over 200 yards in 2 starts). While I don't think he was as good as Ahman was last year (mainly because of who he got his carries against), he's a young guy that should get better.

If our running game fails, it won't be because of the RBs. It will be due to a weak OL that can't open holes effectively. Our RBs aren't Pro Bowlers...but they have the talent and desire to put up good numbers if given a fair chance at it.

[Fritz]

I think the defense can be ok against the weak sisters of the NFC North, and other offensively challenged teams; but against better teams, they'll be exposed.

Hey, what are you predicting for this season? I think you projected 4 victories last year, and we got 8. I projected 8 (maybe it was 7), and we got 8.

It's still early... but I'll come in at about 7-9 at this point.

If Favre weren't there, I'd be looking at 3-13/4-12.

As for last year, they may have finished 8-8, but they were a 4-12 team IMO. Those last 4 games were deceiving... and I know you're familiar with the arguments against Detroit, Minnesota, and Chicago. SF is just one of those teams that GB has their number.

So I severely discount those last 4 games. When they played good teams, they got absolutely hammered.

WTF??? I love ya, Wist old buddy, but how can you "discount" any win? Had they lost, you and everybody would have wiped the floor with the Pack, saying they really should have won...but when they do win those games, you "discolunt" the win. Not sure what you want, then.

Should New England "discount" their win against Green Bay last year? Should everybody get credit for only half a victory when they beat Arizona or Detroit?

[Merlin]

I don't think Chicago was a "weak" team. Pundits say that they didn't bring their "A" game which is complete bullshit. They brought it, and we played better, then and only then did they concede the loss. Lovie Smith didn't take the loss lightly and he stated before the game that he may not rest anyone because they needed the practice.

[HarveyWallbangers]

As for last year, they may have finished 8-8, but they were a 4-12 team IMO. Those last 4 games were deceiving... and I know you're familiar with the arguments against Detroit, Minnesota, and Chicago. SF is just one of those teams that GB has their number.

So I severely discount those last 4 games. When they played good teams, they got absolutely hammered.

You can't discount any win, but I agree it was a very soft 8-8. However, we all knew Detroit and San Francisco would be terrible. We also knew that Minnesota likely wouldn't be that good, and that was at home in December. Most should have predicted a victory in those 3 games, so in that respect you can't discount those when determining how good your prediction was. You should have predicted victory in those 3 games. Thus, Nostradamus you are not. On the other hand, I predicted 7 wins. Minus the Bears gift, I was spot on. Predicting who will be able to sit their starters in the final game is a little tougher.
:D

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't think Chicago was a "weak" team. Pundits say that they didn't bring their "A" game which is complete bullshit. They brought it, and we played better, then and only then did they concede the loss. Lovie Smith didn't take the loss lightly and he stated before the game that he may not rest anyone because they needed the practice.

I tend to agree with you. Chicago was certainly above average, and they certainly played their starters for 3 quarters. Then again, it's hard to predict how they game would have gone if Chicago had something to play for. Actually, of the final 3 victories, this ranks as the top one. Chicago didn't want to sit their starters, they played for 3 quarters, and the only reason they sat in the 4th quarter is because they were getting stomped. I also think beating San Fran when we did was more impressive than people think. It was at San Fran, and San Fran was playing some good ball (won 3 of 5 and one of the losses was a last second loss at St. Louis). They also had a better record than us. They went on to win 2 of their final 3 games--including a victory at Denver when Denver was playing for a playoff spot. San Fran finishes 8-8 if they beat us, so beating them at their place when they were playing their best ball isn't a bad win at all.

[The Leaper]

I tend to agree with you. Chicago was certainly above average, and they certainly played their starters for 3 quarters.

Who cares if they "played"...it was very evident those guys were simply out there going through the motions. They had nothing to play for...and Green Bay had everything to play for (Favre's potential last game, getting shut out by the Bears earlier in the year)...and it showed.

Make no mistake people...if Chicago had something to play for in that game, our chances of winning would have been fairly slim. Hell...we beat the Bears just as convincingly as the Colts did in the Super Bowl, so are you going to suggest we are as good as the Colts?

I put very little stock in the win over Chicago to close out last year. I thought the win over SF was more impressive...but they still weren't a winning ballclub.

[Merlin]

I don't think Chicago was a "weak" team. Pundits say that they didn't bring their "A" game which is complete bullshit. They brought it, and we played better, then and only then did they concede the loss. Lovie Smith didn't take the loss lightly and he stated before the game that he may not rest anyone because they needed the practice.

I tend to agree with you. Chicago was certainly above average, and they certainly played their starters for 3 quarters. Then again, it's hard to predict how they game would have gone if Chicago had something to play for. Actually, of the final 3 victories, this ranks as the top one. Chicago didn't want to sit their starters, they played for 3 quarters, and the only reason they sat in the 4th quarter is because they were getting stomped. I also think beating San Fran when we did was more impressive than people think. It was at San Fran, and San Fran was playing some good ball (won 3 of 5 and one of the losses was a last second loss at St. Louis). They also had a better record than us. They went on to win 2 of their final 3 games--including a victory at Denver when Denver was playing for a playoff spot. San Fran finishes 8-8 if they beat us, so beating them at their place when they were playing their best ball isn't a bad win at all.

I agree about the San Fran game. People forget that they were in the hunt for the NFC West Division right up until the end.

[Merlin]

I tend to agree with you. Chicago was certainly above average, and they certainly played their starters for 3 quarters.

Who cares if they "played"...it was very evident those guys were simply out there going through the motions. They had nothing to play for...and Green Bay had everything to play for (Favre's potential last game, getting shut out by the Bears earlier in the year)...and it showed.

Make no mistake people...if Chicago had something to play for in that game, our chances of winning would have been fairly slim. Hell...we beat the Bears just as convincingly as the Colts did in the Super Bowl, so are you going to suggest we are as good as the Colts?

I put very little stock in the win over Chicago to close out last year. I thought the win over SF was more impressive...but they still weren't a winning ballclub.

I couldn't disagree more. It was NOT evident that they were going through the motions. I think you need to watch that game again. We took it to them and it was only after that did they start playing like that. Are you a Packer fan or just another bandwagoner pundit?

[The Leaper]

I couldn't disagree more. It was NOT evident that they were going through the motions. I think you need to watch that game again. We took it to them and it was only after that did they start playing like that. Are you a Packer fan or just another bandwagoner pundit?

I did watch the game. The Bears had nothing to play for...and it showed. Grossman PUBLICALLY ACKNOWLEDGED after the game that he didn't prepare properly for the game. What the hell else do you need to convince you? A signed letter on Bears letterhead? Or are you claiming that YOU know better about how the Bears prepared and played the game than Grossman did?

You can sit here all you want and pretend to believe Green Bay is a better team than Chicago. The fact of the matter is that they are not. Maybe you need to go back and rewatch their first meeting and watch how bad the Bears whipped our ass when they had as much at stake in the game as we did. As I pointed out...this was an EMOTIONAL game for Green Bay with it being on prime time and with the potential for it being Favre's final game. It isn't surprising Green Bay came out far more inspired...and it showed.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The Bears had nothing to play for...and it showed. Grossman PUBLICALLY ACKNOWLEDGED after the game that he didn't prepare properly for the game.

As for Grossman's public acknowledgement, I think that was a dude that was taking serious heat for several weeks trying to excuse his poor play. How much preparation could he have needed. They know Green Bay's defense well. The defense didn't change that much, scheme-wise, from week one. I don't blame his poor throws on not being prepared.

On the other hand, there is something to a team not having something to play. I just don't think it's a given that on that day, the Bears would have won if they had something to play for. That's not a given in the NFL. If you want to take public statements, then take the fact that the Bears players said they wanted to win that game--mainly because of the rivalry.

[Merlin]

I couldn't disagree more. It was NOT evident that they were going through the motions. I think you need to watch that game again. We took it to them and it was only after that did they start playing like that. Are you a Packer fan or just another bandwagoner pundit?

I did watch the game. The Bears had nothing to play for...and it showed. Grossman PUBLICALLY ACKNOWLEDGED after the game that he didn't prepare properly for the game. What the hell else do you need to convince you? A signed letter on Bears letterhead? Or are you claiming that YOU know better about how the Bears prepared and played the game than Grossman did?

You can sit here all you want and pretend to believe Green Bay is a better team than Chicago. The fact of the matter is that they are not. Maybe you need to go back and rewatch their first meeting and watch how bad the Bears whipped our ass when they had as much at stake in the game as we did. As I pointed out...this was an EMOTIONAL game for Green Bay with it being on prime time and with the potential for it being Favre's final game. It isn't surprising Green Bay came out far more inspired...and it showed.

It's funny that you take what was said pre-game and what was said post game and then draw a conclusion based on the post game, ignoring the pre-game. Any excuse made after the game by any Bear is just that, an excuse. They stunk the place up and it had nothing to do with "nothing to play for". I admit the Packers played more emotionally but to say that the Bears were a better team heading into the playoffs then the Packers is pure speculation. The Bears defense didn't play all that well in the play offs and their offense was horrendous. Face it, according to your logic "nothing to play for" could apply to those performances as well right?

[The Shadow]

The Bears did not want to lose that game.
No team wants to head into the playoffs with a loss.
Yes, they rested some players, but they were beaten.

[The Leaper]

The Bears did not want to lose that game.
No team wants to head into the playoffs with a loss.
Yes, they rested some players, but they were beaten.

Of course they didn't WANT to lose. No one does.

The point is that they had NO MOTIVATION WHATSOEVER to win. Of course guys are going to say the "right things" before the game. What the hell do you expect them to say when the coach has committed his first string to significant playing time? If they say "we don't care" before the game, Lovie would have been absolutely CRUCIFIED in the press for risking injury to his players for no reason when they didn't care.

I've played sports all my life...and I'm sure most of you have as well. When you are in a position where the game doesn't matter...EVEN IF YOU WANT TO WIN...you still rarely come into the game with the same determination and focus. That is just the way it is. That is clearly what happened with the Bears.

I'm not trying to take all props away from Green Bay for the win. They came out and played how they needed to in order to get the victory. That is to their credit. However, to sit here and suggest that the Bears were 100% focused on victory seems pretty far fetched IMO. As others have pointed out, the NFL is a league where ANYONE can win on a given day...so any loss of focus is significant and should not be poo-pooed as much as some would suggest.

As far as not wanting to lose heading into the postseason...who cares? That especially held true for Chicago, who was getting a bye week anyway. It wasn't like they were going to hold some kind of momentum over a two week period. I don't buy that for one second.

[Bretsky]

The Bears did not want to lose that game.
No team wants to head into the playoffs with a loss.
Yes, they rested some players, but they were beaten.

Of course they didn't WANT to lose. No one does.

The point is that they had NO MOTIVATION WHATSOEVER to win. Of course guys are going to say the "right things" before the game. What the hell do you expect them to say when the coach has committed his first string to significant playing time? If they say "we don't care" before the game, Lovie would have been absolutely CRUCIFIED in the press for risking injury to his players for no reason when they didn't care.

I've played sports all my life...and I'm sure most of you have as well. When you are in a position where the game doesn't matter...EVEN IF YOU WANT TO WIN...you still rarely come into the game with the same determination and focus. That is just the way it is. That is clearly what happened with the Bears.

I'm not trying to take all props away from Green Bay for the win. They came out and played how they needed to in order to get the victory. That is to their credit. However, to sit here and suggest that the Bears were 100% focused on victory seems pretty far fetched IMO. As others have pointed out, the NFL is a league where ANYONE can win on a given day...so any loss of focus is significant and should not be poo-pooed as much as some would suggest.

As far as not wanting to lose heading into the postseason...who cares? That especially held true for Chicago, who was getting a bye week anyway. It wasn't like they were going to hold some kind of momentum over a two week period. I don't buy that for one second.


As you both probably know, most of the time I agree with Leaper and disagree with Shadow with his Turtle appreciative views.

But I'd fall closer to the Shadow's views here.

I don't consider it any great accomplishment to defeat a Bears squad who was clearly overlooking Green Bay, but the Packers do get a good amount of credit for doing so. They still beat a team better than them and we shold not ignore that.

I'm sticking by my view that in a terribly bland NFC, the Packers were an 8-8 team and in the weak NFC the Snapper needs to show improvement on that.