Packers WR's vs Other Teams

[Bretsky]

Re: Packers WR's vs Other Teams

What NFC teams would you make that deal with? (Packers top 5 WR's straight up for theirs with no salary cap considerations).

Why stop there.......

What teams in the entire league would you make that deal with?

This time of year you have to project the top five. But all the talk makes it sound like the Packers would love to have what most teams already have. The reality may actually be quite different.

I would trade top 5 WRs with nearly ANY team in the NFL

I don't have time to go 5 deep on every roster and break it down...but I would guess that there are at least 24 of 32 teams that I would trade straight up for

The 4th and 5th receivers would be a small part when considering such a deal. You are saying you would make the trade with "at least" 24 teams right now. Well lets look at just the NFC........

Tampa.............NO
Atlanta.............NO
New Orleans......NO
Carolina............NO (???)

Dallas...............NO (???)
Giants...............NO
Philly................NO
Wash................NO (???)

Chicago.............NO
Minn.................NO
Detroit..............YES

San Fran...........NO
Seattle.............NO
Arizona.............YES
St. Louis...........?? (???)

There are 9 NO's (maybe 13) right there and it's only half the league. Which of the NO's above would you trade with 5 for 5 right now if you had to make the deal today?

Thank you. Most accurate post in this thread. Those who claim i'm way off that Ruvell and Holiday could be MANY NFL's 2nd receiver, other than about 7 teams, that is accurate. I did forget about the Bengals. But, Dallas? TO had a worse year than DD, and glenn is good, but aging, I'd rather have Jenning, Holiday, or Ruvell than him. Ruvell and Holiday are underestimated by most of you. They will, if healthy, prove you all wrong this year. They have great hands, and quickness, and Holiday has the ability to go deep and fight for the ball like Javon used to do. You'll see, if healthy, the problem MM will have at the end of preseason will be who to cut. Guaranteed.

I am a big fan of ruvell and holiday but i belive your still wrong when you say they would be a 2nd receiver for many teams, in the nfc the only teams i belive they could do that in are
Falcons eagles bucs 49ers

I would not take Ruvell Martin over any of those teams starting WR's.

The Niners might be considered.

[The Leaper]

Re: Packers WR's vs Other Teams

Tampa.............NO
Atlanta.............NO
New Orleans......NO
Carolina............NO

OK, let's break it down the way I did previously with GB using each teams top 3 WRs and top TE, which is a better representation of a team's receiving corp than the top 5 WRs. These ratings represent a combination of a receiver's ability now (short term) with his potential (long term). In that regard, a talented young WR could be far more valuable overall in terms of their value to a team than an elite 10 year veteran who is aging. Rookies will receive a tiered rating based on their draft position, as there is no other way to really quantify their value otherwise.

I'll use the top 3 receivers from last season in terms of receptions unless there is a notable addition this offseason or a player who is clearly a top receiver that will return from an injury plagued 2006 season. These rating are my opinion, and stats are over previous 2 seasons unless noted otherwise.

GREEN BAY TOTAL = 440
Driver 85/60=145...2500 yds, 13 TDs
Jennings 55/70=125...625 yds, 3 TDs [1 year]
Martin 45/55=100...350 yds, 1 TD [1 year]
Franks 35/35=70...450 yds, 1 TD

Compare to:

TAMPA BAY TOTAL = 420
Galloway 85/45=130...2300 yds, 17 TDs
Clayton 50/50=100...725 yds, 1 TD
Hilliard 50/40=90...625 yds, 3 TDs
Smith 50/50=100...625 yds, 5 TDs

NEW ORLEANS TOTAL = 520
Colston 70/80=150...1025 yds, 8 TDs [1 year]
Meachem 60/80=140...ROOKIE [#27 overall]
Henderson 60/60=120...1100 yds, 8 TDs
Johnson 55/55=110...300 yds, 2 TDs [1 year due to injury]

ATLANTA TOTAL = 505
Jenkins 60/70=130...950 yds, 10 TDs
White 55/60=115...950 yds, 3 TDs
Robinson 40/65=105...ROOKIE [#75 overall]
Crumpler 85/70=155...1650 yds, 13 TDs

CAROLINA TOTAL = 465
Smith 90/80=170...2725 yds, 20 TDs
Jarrett 50/75=125...ROOKIE [#45 overall]
Carter 45/55=100...450 yds, 4 TDs
Mangum 35/35=70...375 yds, 3 TDs

So, I would say NO to trading with Tampa Bay...but I would say YES to trading with either New Orleans, Atlanta or Carolina.

I'm not going to sit here and go through every team. Suffice it to say, your knee-jerk reaction to how "good" the Green Bay WRs are is well overstated. It seems that the ratio of teams we should trade with probably is much closer to my 75% (24 teams) than your 12.5% (4 teams).

[the_idle_threat]

I'm stunned that you would rate Meachem almost on par with Driver, and well ahead of Jennings. What has Meachem accomplished? He had exactly one good year in college and came out early. Your subjective ratings for rookies (Meachem, Jarrett, Robinson) and other young players (Jenkins, White) seem to be derived solely upon where they were drafted, and they don't reflect the reality that rookie receivers often fail to make an impact in year 1.

Also, I can't agree that Eric Johnson is so much better than Franks. I know we're all down on Franks around here, but Johnson has had only one good year, and it was several seasons ago now. You know ... back around the time Franks was a Pro-bowler too. At least Franks can block, and he generally stays healthy. Johnson has missed two full seasons out of the last four.

I would not trade our receiving corps for New Orleans', unless perhaps they throw in Reggie Bush and we throw in Morency.

Carolina is probably a little better than us at #1, although that is debatable. You might be surprised to learn that Driver has outproduced Smith in 4 of the 6 years they have been in the league together, including last year. Carolina has a huge hole at #2, and #3 and TE are just guys. No trade there.

And we should trade Driver and Jennings for underacheivers like Jenkins and White? No dice. Of course the real value is Crumpler for Franks, but aside from Crumpler, Atlanta really has nothing but question marks.

We'll have to agree to disagree I guess, but there is NO clear argument that any of these receiving corps are better than what we have, even on paper.

The big complaint about the Packers' receiving corps is that we have one Pro-Bowler and then a bunch of young question marks. At best, the same thing can be said about each of these receiving corps listed above. Most teams don't even have a Pro-Bowler, and several are expecting big things from rookies. When you actually look at the depth charts across the league, the Packers don't appear to be anywhere near the bottom ten in the league when you consider 1st, 2nd and 3rd receiver plus tight end.

[RashanGary]

I agree Idle. They look average but if Jennings steps up to the 70 catch 1000 yard area and Driver has another 1000 yard year it is a darn good tandem.

As far as #3 goes, there are about 6 young guys and all we need is one to step up to the #3 spot.

[the_idle_threat]

True, and when you look at #3 receivers around the league, Ruvell Martin's numbers last year were just about average for that position (21 catches, 358 yards, 1 TD). We have all kinds of guys who can give us that kind of production. I don't know that Ruvell is the answer, but we have enough options that we don't have a "huge hole" at #3 receiver.

[Bretsky]

True, and when you look at #3 receivers around the league, Ruvell Martin's numbers last year were just about average for that position (21 catches, 358 yards, 1 TD). We have all kinds of guys who can give us that kind of production. I don't know that Ruvell is the answer, but we have enough options that we don't have a "huge hole" at #3 receiver.

Martin also had the benefit of playing with BF on a team that could not run and was losing or needing to pass quite often.

If Ruvell Martin was a #3 TT would not have drafted a WR in both rounds 3 and 5.

[RashanGary]

Bretsky, at the very least it's an exaggeration to say we have a horrible squad. Our top guys is a probowler, our number 2 is pretty good with potential to be a probowler and we have a bunch of guys that that could be the #3 and we only need one of them to step up. No matter how you look at it, our WR's aren't that bad.

RB's are a different story if our two unprovens prove to be junk but WR's are fine unless injury and what team would be good with an injury to one of their top 2? Not too many is the asnwer. Maybe 4 or 5 but the vast majority of teams don't have 3 or 4 #1/#2 WR's.

[Bretsky]

Bretsky, at the very least it's an exaggeration to say we have a horrible squad. Our top guys is a probowler, our number 2 is pretty good with potential to be a probowler and we have a bunch of guys that that could be the #3 and we only need one of them to step up. No matter how you look at it, our WR's aren't that bad.

RB's are a different story if our two unprovens prove to be junk but WR's are fine unless injury and what team would be good with an injury to one of their top 2? Not too many is the asnwer. Maybe 4 or 5 but the vast majority of teams don't have 3 or 4 #1/#2 WR's.

I never said our WR's were horrible; I've always felt you need at least three starting caliber WR's and at this point we have two. History suggests one will get hurt and that is when we are truly in trouble.

Agree on the RB situation. And there too; if we get an injury we could be in trouble as well.

[The Leaper]

I'm stunned that you would rate Meachem almost on par with Driver, and well ahead of Jennings. What has Meachem accomplished? He had exactly one good year in college and came out early. Your subjective ratings for rookies (Meachem, Jarrett, Robinson) and other young players (Jenkins, White) seem to be derived solely upon where they were drafted, and they don't reflect the reality that rookie receivers often fail to make an impact in year 1.

EXACTLY WHAT OF MY POST DID YOU ACTUALLY READ? Some of you are so frustrating. I clearly pointed out how I was rating rookies. Obviously, rookies are nearly impossible to quantify. The only thing you can do is project their relative potential based on draft position. It is a guess...but a guy who is taken in the first round should have quite a bit of potential, don't you think? The ratings will change based on their future performance...but you have nothing else to go on right now.

As I also pointed out, younger players can have more worth to a team because of the fact they have a longer potential timeframe to help the team. Marvin Harrison is great...but I'd much rather have Calvin Johnson on my team right now. Wouldn't you?

Meachem was selected near the end of the first round. As such, I give him a rating of 60/80. That means he currently isn't even viewed as a reliable starter currently...which I consider to be a 70 rating. However, over the next 5+ years, he has the talent to become a potential very good player with a rating of 80. If you notice, that is LOWER than Driver's current rating of 85.

Also, I can't agree that Eric Johnson is so much better than Franks.

Fine. That is your opinion. Remember, this ranking is in terms of being a receiver...not an all-around TE. Bubba's contribution to the passing game the last 2 years has been next to nothing. What makes you think he is suddenly going to have a 500 yard, 5 TD season now?

In actuality, Johnson put up better numbers than Franks last year as the #2 TE in San Francisco. So, given the chance as a #1 receiver, he should be able to put up 45+ catches and 400+ yards. Not great...but certainly worthy of a 55/55 rating. How's that for proof he is better than Franks as a receiver? Do a little research before you throw out meaningless opinions based on no factual evidence whatsoever.

Carolina is probably a little better than us at #1, although that is debatable.

You are telling me that you wouldn't take Steve Smith over Donald Driver in a heatbeat? You are insane. I love Driver. He's a great player. He doesn't compare whatsoever to Steve Smith...who despite missing time to injury still posted 7 more TDs and 200+ yards than Driver over the last 2 years. He was injured in 2004, but was clearly has been a better receiver than Driver in the last 2 years. He is also almost 4 years younger than Driver.

And we should trade Driver and Jennings for underacheivers like Jenkins and White? No dice. Of course the real value is Crumpler for Franks, but aside from Crumpler, Atlanta really has nothing but question marks.

Yes the real value is Crumpler...however, Jenkins isn't a bad receiver and Vick is more of the underachiever. I only rated Jenkins as slightly better than Jennings...mainly due to his size and ability to put points on the board. Robinson is a guess...but as a first day draft pick, you have think he has more potential than Martin for now. The receivers for ATL aren't that much worse than Green Bay's...and Crumpler is ten times better than Franks in terms of receiving ability.

[Bossman641]

So, I would say NO to trading with Tampa Bay...but I would say YES to trading with either New Orleans, Atlanta or Carolina.

I'd take New Orleans and probably Carolina, but hell no to Atlanta and TB.

[woodbuck27]

# 85 Greg Jennings Position: WR Height: 5-11 Weight: 197
Born: 09/21/1983 College: Western Michigan NFL Experience: 2

Receiving

Year Team.... G.. GS.. Rec.. Yds.. Avg.. Lg.. TD.. 20+.. 40+.. 1st

2006 Packers 14. 11... 45... 632. 14.0. 75... 3.... 10.... 2..... 30
TOTAL...........14. 11... 45... 632. 14.0. 75... 3.... 10.... 2..... 30

Our #3 WR last season

# 18 Ruvell Martin Position: WR Height: 6-4 Weight: 217
Born: 08/10/1982 College: Saginaw Valley State NFL Experience: 2

Receiving

Year Team.... G.. GS... Rec... Yds... Avg... Lg... TD.. 20+... 40+... 1st

2006 Packers 13.. 3.... 21.... 358... 17.0.. 36.... 1.... 7...... 0....... 16
TOTAL........ 13.. 3.... 21.... 358... 17.0.. 36.... 1.... 7...... 0....... 16

Why is Ruvell Martin the forgotten man?

He only started 3 games last season and was coming on.

[pbmax]

Two is the definition of a lot?

Truthfully there are a LOT of team that are in better shape than the Packers.

Lions - Calvin Johnson, Roy Williams, Mike Furrey
Cardinals - Anquan Boldin, Larry Fitzgerald, Bryant Johnson


Which would you rather have? Really, does the 4th & 5th WR make that much difference? Seems that the top 3 are really the ones that matter.

Packers have a "weakness" right now. Perhaps one of the young guys steps up and it becomes a strength. We'll see. There are sure enough young guys that ONE ought to be able to step up...

[retailguy]

Two is the definition of a lot?

I'm a busy guy. Who has got the time to look at all this stuff?

Quite honestly, I picked two teams that SUCK for a reason. If they've got better guys than we do, we're in trouble....

We needed and still need a better #3, that could be a #2 in a pinch. If Jennings doesn't pan out, we're f_____ for 2007. It's that simple.

[the_idle_threat]

I'm stunned that you would rate Meachem almost on par with Driver, and well ahead of Jennings. What has Meachem accomplished? He had exactly one good year in college and came out early. Your subjective ratings for rookies (Meachem, Jarrett, Robinson) and other young players (Jenkins, White) seem to be derived solely upon where they were drafted, and they don't reflect the reality that rookie receivers often fail to make an impact in year 1.

EXACTLY WHAT OF MY POST DID YOU ACTUALLY READ? Some of you are so frustrating. I clearly pointed out how I was rating rookies. Obviously, rookies are nearly impossible to quantify. The only thing you can do is project their relative potential based on draft position. It is a guess...but a guy who is taken in the first round should have quite a bit of potential, don't you think? The ratings will change based on their future performance...but you have nothing else to go on right now.

As I also pointed out, younger players can have more worth to a team because of the fact they have a longer potential timeframe to help the team. Marvin Harrison is great...but I'd much rather have Calvin Johnson on my team right now. Wouldn't you?

Meachem was selected near the end of the first round. As such, I give him a rating of 60/80. That means he currently isn't even viewed as a reliable starter currently...which I consider to be a 70 rating. However, over the next 5+ years, he has the talent to become a potential very good player with a rating of 80. If you notice, that is LOWER than Driver's current rating of 85.

Also, I can't agree that Eric Johnson is so much better than Franks.

Fine. That is your opinion. Remember, this ranking is in terms of being a receiver...not an all-around TE. Bubba's contribution to the passing game the last 2 years has been next to nothing. What makes you think he is suddenly going to have a 500 yard, 5 TD season now?

In actuality, Johnson put up better numbers than Franks last year as the #2 TE in San Francisco. So, given the chance as a #1 receiver, he should be able to put up 45+ catches and 400+ yards. Not great...but certainly worthy of a 55/55 rating. How's that for proof he is better than Franks as a receiver? Do a little research before you throw out meaningless opinions based on no factual evidence whatsoever.

Carolina is probably a little better than us at #1, although that is debatable.

You are telling me that you wouldn't take Steve Smith over Donald Driver in a heatbeat? You are insane. I love Driver. He's a great player. He doesn't compare whatsoever to Steve Smith...who despite missing time to injury still posted 7 more TDs and 200+ yards than Driver over the last 2 years. He was injured in 2004, but was clearly has been a better receiver than Driver in the last 2 years. He is also almost 4 years younger than Driver.

And we should trade Driver and Jennings for underacheivers like Jenkins and White? No dice. Of course the real value is Crumpler for Franks, but aside from Crumpler, Atlanta really has nothing but question marks.

Yes the real value is Crumpler...however, Jenkins isn't a bad receiver and Vick is more of the underachiever. I only rated Jenkins as slightly better than Jennings...mainly due to his size and ability to put points on the board. Robinson is a guess...but as a first day draft pick, you have think he has more potential than Martin for now. The receivers for ATL aren't that much worse than Green Bay's...and Crumpler is ten times better than Franks in terms of receiving ability.

Leaper, we have a difference in opinion. Spouting off bullshit like I didn't read your post, I didn't do any research, or best yet, I am insane, is childish and ridiculous. Particularly ridiculous considering that I provided hyperlinks to pages at NFL.com to support a number of my points in the post you are ripping me for.

I read your post, I did research, and I come to a different opinion. My opinion is no less reasonable than yours.

In my opinion, you are overrating the other teams' guys and underrating our own. Based upon draft position---which is NOT the only way to evaluate young players; what about college production?---you give completely unproven guys gaudy ratings based upon potential alone. If this is your mode of thinking, why don't you have Fergie rated as our 3rd receiver with a rating similar to that of Greg Jennings?

Lemme guess ... because he's older and always injured? But so is Eric Johnson, and you conveniently ignore that fact with him. Sure, Johnson put up better numbers last year than Bubba Franks---barely---but what did Johnson do the season before last? Oh that's right---nothing! He was injured for the entire year.

We have a difference in opinion on several of these guys. I like Bubba, and I think he'll step up from his performances in the past 2 years, because he should not be needed as a 6th lineman as much. You like the chance of Eric Johnson repeating 2004, and not 2003 or 2005.

I like DD, with his rapport with Brett Favre and his consistent production in 4 of the last 5 years. You seem to prefer Steve Smith, who has been more on-and-off over the past 5 years, but had an explosive season in 2005.

I might be wrong, but you might be too. No need to act like you are the only one who can read and do research. Get over yourself.

[Bretsky]

I love Driver; seen him in person out of football and he's a wonderful man.

But he's not in Steve Smith's talent level as a WR IMO.

PFW, several magazines polled scouts and personell guys around the NFL as to the top WR's in the game. The guys that are consistently in the top 5 are Steve Smith and Tory Holt. Best route runners in football. I think Holt is tops, but would have no problem giving that honor to Smith.

I also hope Bubba returns, but I don't buy for a second it's all because they didn't send him out enough. In the past few years I've witnessed several several instances within the five yard line where Bubba was a primary receiver and the LB jams him up and he never gets out on his pattern. Wayne Simmons use to be wonderful as a LB at doing that. Bubba just didn't get out on his patterns and when that occurs the coaches lose confidence and don't call his number. Hopefully he regains that.