What production do you expect from GREG JENNINGS?

[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.

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"....

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

2006...2007...2008...2009....

[mmmdk]

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

[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.

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.

[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.