What production do you expect from GREG JENNINGS?

[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.

[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.

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.

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.