Chris Harper ready to muscle his way into Packers' receiver corps· Page 4

uffda udfa
Veteran Member

10 years ago

Um, is this the offseason? 😆 😆 😆

More than an entire page of posts in a Chris Harper thread dedicated to Charles Johnson? Who in the fuck is Charles Johnson? I mean, really, a guy we drafted late, never saw play, hung onto via IR for a year and waived, picked up by the world beater Browns.

As worthless as 7th round picks may be perceived to be, in walks Jeff Janis...

Some picks work. Some picks don't.

Every team invests heavily in gaining more or better draft info than their competitors. Scouting staffs and their evaluations, along with scheduled visits for private workouts, etc give teams their own info on players to go along with the canned info we fans get in Combines and pro days. This accounts for teams stacking their draft boards differently than others.

Some fans wanted heads to roll after our 3rd round selections this year. Were they reaches? We can't really know. If there are 5-8 other teams below us who feel the same player is rising on their board and we take him 10-20 spots ahead of their picks to insure we secure the player, is it really a reach?

Maybe our scouting staff feels the difference between other players on their board near to this selection is negligible based on their millions of $ worth of research.

Talents in scouting vary as widely as talents in playing the game. That is what heightens the fun of the offseason to me with regards to FA, the draft, and UDFA, and we won't know who trumps who until well after the season starts.

July seems very, very far away...

Originally Posted by: play2win

I'm just shocked you've forgotten who Charles Johnson was....I would've thought you had him pegged as better than Sterling and the best ever to play in Green Bay without ever seeing him play a regular season snap for the Packers. Nah, you would never do such a thing. 😆

sschind... Bust me all day every day. Makes it fun. I want a guy who can run... really fast. I know it continually is discounted here, but think Sam Shields. I loved when we grabbed him. He had speed beyond belief. He wasn't even drafted and Joe Whitt was saying he had more talent than any 1st rounder from that draft he didn't get taken in. Bold, bold words. I recall that YouTube clip where he ran that KO reverse for a TD vs. our beloved Badgers. If you've never seen it... do yourself a favor and go watch it. We have a nice WR group with some great skill set but the one subset that is missing is pure speed. Janis has that. Harper doesn't. Harper is just another guy with middling speed. Diversify the portfolio!

Oh, and here's that clip... called back by penalty, but watch the entire clip to see just how far and how fast he ran.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

play2win
Senior Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#32

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Yep. Completely forgot who he was. 🙄

You are mistaken in saying that people here do not appreciate, or "discount" speed. Everyone here wants the fastest players with the best hands, abilities and instincts for the game.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to want to acknowledge that a player's 40 time might not exactly be completely and fully indicative of his on field speed, game speed, with all of his gear on, running on turf. Nor that plenty of track stars in 40 times don't necessarily make exceptional football players.

Regardless, I do think we all want exactly the same thing for the Packers. Players who are fast, instinctual, with great ball skills, and highly motivated to be the best they can possibly be at their positions.

DakotaT
Select Member

10 years ago

#33

Every time Uffda goes on his speed rants, I think of guys like Willie Gault, Troy Williamson, Hayward Bey, Renaldo Nehimiah - you know, track stars that can't catch or play football. Then I think about that slow piece of shit Jerry Rice and if could have only unhitched the plow when he was on the field.

Just give me the guys that can catch the fuckin ball when it hits them between the numbers.

nerdmann
Premier Member

10 years ago

#34

Originally Posted by: DakotaT

Driver was a track guy. Then again he had his share of drops earlier in his career.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

uffda udfa
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#35

Originally Posted by: play2win

The things you've ascribed to me are false. Use the search function on 40 times and my posts regarding them. The part about you stating that track stars don't make great football players is especially false. I've never come anywhere near contending they do or have. What I have tried to consistently say is I want the Packers to feature at least ONE WR who has blazing speed. Sadly, we routinely trot out a group that doesn't feature a burner.

This little blurb from rotoviz.com was interesting when it comes to speed:

As I mentioned, Boldin and Mike Clayton are the only wide receivers to post slower than 4.65 40 and have a top 30 wide receiver season since 1999. When speaking of Boldin and Rice, what you’re pointing out isn’t that a slower WR can succeed; you’re also pointing out exactly how rare it is for a slower WR to post usable fantasy numbers. It isn’t that it can’t be done, it’s just that it’s rare when it does happen.

As that little blurb points out, it is very rare for a slow WR to fare well at NFL level. The Packer fan that wants to shout...Boykin!...Boykin! doesn't realize how truly rare that is that he is able to produce as he does.

What do you routinely hear about NFL WR's when they get older? They lost their legs and can't run anymore... clearly speed is very important. I have never said it is the only thing that is important but it is critical. AD ain't AD without his speed... Megatron ain't megatron without his either.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

mi_keys
Senior Member

10 years ago

#36

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

This little blurb from rotoviz.com was interesting when it comes to speed:

As I mentioned, Boldin and Mike Clayton are the only wide receivers to post slower than 4.65 40 and have a top 30 wide receiver season since 1999. When speaking of Boldin and Rice, what you’re pointing out isn’t that a slower WR can succeed; you’re also pointing out exactly how rare it is for a slower WR to post usable fantasy numbers. It isn’t that it can’t be done, it’s just that it’s rare when it does happen.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

When I compiled the 40 times of all 34 receivers taken in the 2014 draft, only 1 had a 40 time slower than 4.65 (Jarvis Landry, and he has a pro day time at 4.58). 1 in 34.

I don't know how that compares to other years because I haven't pulled them. That said, I'd bet the sample size of wide receivers with a 40 time slower than 4.65 is quite small. If so, then it's not surprising that the subset of wide receivers posting top 30 seasons also contains a small percentage of receivers with a 40 time slower than 4.65. It's ultimately not a very revealing or meaningful statistic with zero context.

To put it another way with a slightly more extreme example, I could say no receiver taller than 7'6" has posted a top 30 season since 1999. Someone could read into that what they want: that being shorter than 7'6" must somehow be advantageous for NFL receivers. Yet, it wouldn't actually mean anything because no receiver in the league is taller than 7'6".

AD ain't AD without his speed... Megatron ain't megatron without his either.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Both of those players are so much more than just their 40 times.

Born and bred a cheesehead

uffda udfa
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#37

P2W can correct me if I'm wrong but he's not claiming you literally stated track stars don't make great football players. The comment about track stars comes from the inordinate amount of attention you give 40 times. It's taking the piss.

You seem obsessed with 40 times to an unhealthy level. If 40 times could be manifested as a woman I could almost see you sneaking into her house while she's out and stealing her finger nail clippings. It's creepy.

When I compiled the 40 times of all 34 receivers taken in the 2014 draft, only 1 had a 40 time slower than 4.65 (Jarvis Landry, and he has a pro day time at 4.58). 1 in 34.

I don't know how that compares to other years because I haven't pulled them. That said, I'd bet the sample size of wide receivers with a 40 time slower than 4.65 is quite small. If so, then it's not surprising that the subset of wide receivers posting top 30 seasons also contains a small percentage of receivers with a 40 time slower than 4.65. It's ultimately not a very revealing or meaningful statistic with zero context.

To put it another way with a slightly more extreme example, I could say no receiver taller than 7'6" has posted a top 30 season since 1999. Someone could read into that what they want: that being shorter than 7'6" must somehow be advantageous for NFL receivers. Yet, it wouldn't actually mean anything because no receiver in the league is taller than 7'6".

Both of those players are so much more than just their 40 times.

Originally Posted by: mi_keys

Yes, both those players are more than their 40 times, but they wouldn't be what they are without them which is the point.

Your 7'6 comment seems irrelevant to this discussion. There are time constraints beyond which a guy will all but be guaranteed of not being successful as an NFL WR. 4.65 is the threshold used in that piece quoted. I gave you a graph earlier that had 10 years worth of data.

I think you'll find, if you use the search function, that my perspective on 40 times is right on the money, not obsessive even though you feel that way because the majority of you are obsessed in the other direction as it doesn't really matter much. This all started with our drafting a 4.56 and 4.87 guy in the draft in the first 3 rounds and my disappointment with it. Not sure how many times I need to say it but I was hopeful for a guy with unique speed...not another mid 4.5 guy...got enough guys in 4.5 range.

I'm thrilled with the Jeff Janis selection. A rare athlete. My kind of guy. Hoping he can play, too.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

mi_keys
Senior Member

10 years ago

#38

Your 7'6 comment seems irrelevant to this discussion. There are time constraints beyond which a guy will all but be guaranteed of not being successful as an NFL WR. 4.65 is the threshold used in that piece quoted.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

And you missed the point. 7'6" is irrelevant because no receiver is 7'6" or taller. 4.65 is irrelevant if almost no receiver was clocked at slower than 4.65. In such a case they might as well have said receivers running slower than an 8 second 40. It does almost nothing in establishing the correlation of 40 times and success as an NFL receiver, let alone any potential causal effects.

I gave you a graph earlier that had 10 years worth of data.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Which watered the data down into averages of arbitrarily selected draft pick ranges, giving no context to sample size, medians, outliers or what the distribution actually looks like. As such, it had almost no value in the context of showing how 40 times were correlated to where players are selected in the draft.

Born and bred a cheesehead

uffda udfa
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#39

There is nothing that says a 7'6 WR can't be found... there is no issue with height being a bad thing. However, there is an issue with not enough speed being an issue and you know that and I know that.

Most guys who run 4.65+ aren't going to be WR's. Correct? Why is it so wrong to be concerned when we have guys who are closer to it rather than further away? I don't think Davante Adams can't be a very good WR because of his 4.56 speed. However, I think he'd be an even better and more attractive one if he ran 4.36. Right?

Would the Packers have ever picked up Sam Shields if he ran in the 4.6 range? No...he was added for his unique gift of speed. I'm not sure what the issue is with drafting it instead of UDFA'ing it? Again, I was hopeful we'd find guys who were great prospects up high who had very good speed. We did not. We found two bottom end guys speed wise. That's disappointing to me... Dix can be thrown in there, also. Another middling speed guy. You aren't bothered by middle to low end speed prospects and I am. Just a different view between you and me. I get the Jerry Rice example...painfully Boykin type slow and one of the best of all time. I can only imagine how much more dominant he would've been running like Randy Moss.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

play2win
Senior Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#40

The things you've ascribed to me are false.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

No, they are not.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

packerfanoutwest (1h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (1h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (1h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (4h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (4h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (4h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (4h) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (4h) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (4h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (4h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (4h) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (5h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (6h) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (6h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (6h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (6h) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (6h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (6h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (7h) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (7h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (8h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (8h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (8h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (8h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (8h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (8h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (9h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (9h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (10h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (10h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (10h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (10h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (10h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (10h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (10h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (10h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (10h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (10h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (10h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (11h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (11h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (11h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (11h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (11h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (11h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (11h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (11h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (11h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (11h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (11h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS