Rate the 2008 draft

[Brandon494]

He's not going to be Jennings or Ward, IMHO. I don't see him being an outside receiver. Jennings and Ward can play outside (well, Ward when he was younger). That will mean that he's going to be mostly utilized in the slot. They are going to need Jennings and another receiver in two WR sets. I'm guessing that they'll get a long-term deal done with Nelson, and it will be Jennings and Nelson on the outside with Cobb mostly playing in the slot in 3 WR sets (in addition to putting him in the backfield and other gimmicky stuff).

Watch this video and explain to me why he can't play on the outside. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i09R2AWgFU

Right now obvisouly he will be used as a slot guy with Driver still being the #2 WR next season. I've watch Jordy for three seasons now and while he is a good football player he is nothing special. The special catches that you see Jennings and Driver make several times each season I've never once seen Nelson make. Cobb has the ability to be special and I'm usually right when it comes to projecting talent.

[Brandon494]

And you ARE a "defense coordinator"? I didn't realize. Please enlighten us with how you would defend against the Packer offense, if you wouldn't mind.

If a defensive coordinator took my approach against them, the Packer offense WOULD go through Finley, because the D would be busy keying on Jennings and Finley would be running routes against LBs a lot of the time. Hmmm... That sounds strangely similar to what Finley's highlights show.

When Finley was in the game Jennings would get one and one coverage because they would always have to use a safety to help out on Finley. Finley is too big to be covered by a CB and too fast to be covered by a LB. Hes a matchup nightmare and teams focus on stoping him before Jennings, atleast they did early in the season last year before he went down.

[Guiness]

And Cobb is nothing like Nelson either. Complimentary players that will make headaches for defenses. #2 as in starter or #2 as in production - it all depends on how McCarthy wants to use him. Whether that will be true this year, depends on how fast the labor dispute gets solved and how quick he picks things up. You have to believe McCarthy is sitting there in GB, drawing up packages with featuring Cobb and then banging his head against a wall because he doesn't know when the guy will be available.

Or going crazy because he doesn't know if Cobb is going to be closer to Corey Rodgers or Corey Bradford.

[Deputy Nutz]

This thread is queer. Brandon is a thread killer.

[get louder at lambeau]

When Finley was in the game Jennings would get one and one coverage because they would always have to use a safety to help out on Finley. Finley is too big to be covered by a CB and too fast to be covered by a LB. Hes a matchup nightmare and teams focus on stoping him before Jennings, atleast they did early in the season last year before he went down.

Here are the highlights of that game with your pic of Finley. Unfortunately they are more Vick than Finley or Jennings.
Watch Jennings at 2:45. Jennings on one side, Finley and two WRs on the other side, and Jennings draws a CB and a safety, beats them both deep for a TD. They weren't using the safety to help out on Finley there. He was over Jennings. Finley is single covered by the MLB after getting bumped and released at the line.-

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2010091210/2010/REG1/packers@eagles/watch

Next game, Bills. Finley beats #90, a FORMER DEFENSIVE END, man to man for a 32 yard catch. The announcer says, "Might as well put a nose tackle on him." Is that how you "focus on stopping" someone?-

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2010091901/2010/REG2/bills@packers/watch

Teams obviously want to stop all our guys, especially Jennings and Finley. They are both weapons. so are Jordy, Jones, and Driver. They can't stop them all, so they have to choose their poison. If I'm going against the Packers, stopping Jennings is job 1. Finley is a close 2nd. Either way, as an opposing DC, you are probably screwed.

[mraynrand]

Or going crazy because he doesn't know if Cobb is going to be closer to Corey Rodgers or Corey Bradford.

Or Corey Haim

[mraynrand]

Next game, Bills. Finley beats #90, a FORMER DEFENSIVE END, man to man for a 32 yard catch. The announcer says, "Might as well put a nose tackle on him." Is that how you "focus on stopping" someone?

Is was the Bills, after all.

[sharpe1027]

And you ARE a "defense coordinator"? I didn't realize. Please enlighten us with how you would defend against the Packer offense, if you wouldn't mind.

If a defensive coordinator took my approach against them, the Packer offense WOULD go through Finley, because the D would be busy keying on Jennings and Finley would be running routes against LBs a lot of the time. Hmmm... That sounds strangely similar to what Finley's highlights show.

You're right and wrong, the Bills were in single coverage against Finley for much of the game, and he had over 100 yards that game. Philly had a different plan and double and triple covered him all the time. And this isn't my opinion or from me watching highlights, it is from Rodgers.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/103255889.html

A week after being swarmed with defenders by the Philadelphia Eagles, the Green Bay Packers tight end actually saw the light of day against the Buffalo Bills, who were not as intent on double- and triple-teaming him Sunday in the Packers' 34-7 victory.
...
quarterback Aaron Rodgers said: "Philadelphia's game plan was really to double him at all times, so we've looked at some ways to get him in better matchups."

[channtheman]

When Finley was in the game Jennings would get one and one coverage because they would always have to use a safety to help out on Finley. Finley is too big to be covered by a CB and too fast to be covered by a LB. Hes a matchup nightmare and teams focus on stoping him before Jennings, atleast they did early in the season last year before he went down.

When Finley went down, did anyone else notice Rodgers play went up? The above picture demonstrates this very well. Rodgers (to me at least) seemed to be forcing the ball to Finley constantly in the first four games. So much so that he threw into triple coverage when he had no business doing so. I don't know if Rodgers was trying to keep Finley happy or what, but Finley getting hurt may be the reason we won the Super Bowl this year, as crazy as that sounds.

[Tarlam!]

No, that doesn't sound crazy. It sounds a lot like the "Booby Miles" syndrome.

[Brandon494]

I do believe Rodgers was trying to force the ball to Finley at times but I believe we were struggling due to having no running game and Rodgers starting off slow. Finley going down did not help this team win the Super Bowl, we barely made it in. With Finley we win the division IMO but who cares we still the champs!

[get louder at lambeau]

Finley going down did not help this team win the Super Bowl,

There's something we can agree on. The more weapons the better. The other tight ends were below average as receivers. Hopefully the two new draft picks will help build up the position to one with real depth, instead of one with a superstar and some scrubs. Quarless should be better this year too.

[King Friday]

I would certainly agree that Finley going down did not help the Packers in winning a world championship. However, considering the dynamic that played out as the season wore on, I think it is safe to say that the loss of Finley did help the passing game stop relying on "talent" and start relying on "team".

That isn't meant to be said in a negative way. In many ways, I think the change was very similar to what happened in Green Bay after Sterling Sharpe's career came to an abrupt end. Favre relied TOO heavily on Sharpe early in his career and even though it was successful to a point, an offense operates more efficiently when everyone contributes to production within the scope of the offense.

Once Favre learned to operate WITHIN THE OFFENSE rather than focus almost exclusively on Sharpe, he became the MVP caliber QB that dominated the league...and lesser talents like Robert Brooks, Mark Chmura and Edgar Bennett were more than able to "carry the load" as the sum of the parts proved far greater than one HOF caliber WR talent. Losing Sharpe didn't help Green Bay win anything...but it did sharpen the focus of everyone else and helped build the team.

I don't think it is just coincidence that we saw Rodgers grow up in much the same way last year after losing Grant and Finley. Football remains a TEAM game. Having superstars is great...and necessary...but superstars only function best when surrounded by role players who are reliable and can even stand out on occasion. While the offense certainly is better off having a talent like Finley on the field, it isn't better if Finley is the primary focus most of the time.

Bottom line, this offense is not designed to be played through one player...as some suggest we should do with Finley. This offense is designed to create favorable matchups that can free up various players depending on how the defense reacts. The defense may decide to take Finley away...so be it. Then Jennings or Driver or Nelson are free to make plays.

Focusing on one player and forcing the action is always a mistake in football.

[channtheman]

Thank you King Friday. That's the gist of what I was trying to say, but you said it better than I could ever have.

[Pugger]

I would certainly agree that Finley going down did not help the Packers in winning a world championship. However, considering the dynamic that played out as the season wore on, I think it is safe to say that the loss of Finley did help the passing game stop relying on "talent" and start relying on "team".

That isn't meant to be said in a negative way. In many ways, I think the change was very similar to what happened in Green Bay after Sterling Sharpe's career came to an abrupt end. Favre relied TOO heavily on Sharpe early in his career and even though it was successful to a point, an offense operates more efficiently when everyone contributes to production within the scope of the offense.

Once Favre learned to operate WITHIN THE OFFENSE rather than focus almost exclusively on Sharpe, he became the MVP caliber QB that dominated the league...and lesser talents like Robert Brooks, Mark Chmura and Edgar Bennett were more than able to "carry the load" as the sum of the parts proved far greater than one HOF caliber WR talent. Losing Sharpe didn't help Green Bay win anything...but it did sharpen the focus of everyone else and helped build the team.

I don't think it is just coincidence that we saw Rodgers grow up in much the same way last year after losing Grant and Finley. Football remains a TEAM game. Having superstars is great...and necessary...but superstars only function best when surrounded by role players who are reliable and can even stand out on occasion. While the offense certainly is better off having a talent like Finley on the field, it isn't better if Finley is the primary focus most of the time.

Bottom line, this offense is not designed to be played through one player...as some suggest we should do with Finley. This offense is designed to create favorable matchups that can free up various players depending on how the defense reacts. The defense may decide to take Finley away...so be it. Then Jennings or Driver or Nelson are free to make plays.

Focusing on one player and forcing the action is always a mistake in football.

+1