Would you trade for Jimmy Graham?· Page 14

play2win
Senior Member

10 years ago

Per target, Boykin's production is remarkably similar to Jeffery's. Minus Alshon's 3 fumbles of course. Which would cause me to drop him just below. Also considering Jarrett had to catch passes from 4 different QBs.

After his shaky start going 1 for 6 against Baltimore, Boykin was pretty good. Catching over 62% of his targets.

For the second half of the year, Boykin was as good as Jeffery, only he didn't fumble the ball as much.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister

I had no idea Dex! Cool!

I'm not down on Boykin at all. He could easily hold firm as our #3, or move up. I firmly believe this. I just cannot believe the talent right behind him...

Dexter_Sinister
Registered

10 years ago

#132

I had no idea Dex! Cool!

I'm not down on Boykin at all. He could easily hold firm as our #3, or move up. I firmly believe this. I just cannot believe the talent right behind him...

Originally Posted by: play2win

I think it is a combination of Jeffery being a little overrated and Boykin being very underrated. I also thinnk Marshall is a bit overrated.

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#133

I had no idea Dex! Cool!

I'm not down on Boykin at all. He could easily hold firm as our #3, or move up. I firmly believe this. I just cannot believe the talent right behind him...

Originally Posted by: play2win

Per target production? Okay.

Compare their stat lines. Not close.

Jeffery 2" taller and alot faster than Boykin. The two are not comparable and I'm not insinuating you said anything but Boykin was similar in a stat you won't find at NFL.com like drop %. However, to suggest that Jeffery is overrated and Boykin underrated as if that is to mean they're similar players that is dead wrong.

All 32 GM's including ours would swap Boykin for Jeffery in a flash. Yes, there is no proof of this but I believe that very strongly.

You post one stat and you've got the guy convinced that Sterling reincarnate was drafted this year and is ready to dominate is now lucky to be a 4 for us. BTW, how is Boykin "moving up" this year? He's going to displace either Cobb or Nelson because DS posted one stat among several measures? I firmly believe this is total insanity.

Some heads would explode if we had a talent like Jimmy Graham in Green Bay.

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

10 years ago

#134

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Yet another douchebag response from you.

What you for some reason cannot handle, is that we have maybe the deepest crop of receivers ever assembled in Green Bay.

We dont need Jimmy Graham and trading away for him is a really bad idea.

Mucky Tundra
Honored Member

10 years ago

#135

Originally Posted by: play2win

Woh! Slow down there chief! [wasntme] Even as much as I like Adams, Abby and the potential of Janis, they still haven't played a single NFL down. 😳 The deepest group and reigning champion remains the 2011 group. [boxing]

“Nah. I like having the island. It’s pretty cool...not too many visitors”

"I’ve got it." -Aaron Rodgers

play2win
Senior Member

10 years ago

#136

I said maybe....

In 2011 our Receivers put up this:
Nelson 68 rec 1263 yds 15 TDs
Jennings 67 rec 949 yds 9 TDs
Finley 55 rec 767 yds 8 TDs
Jones 38 rec 635 yds 7 TDs
Driver 37 rec 445 yds 6 TDs

You are right, those are some incredible numbers from 5 players. I just happen to think this group we will field will be better than even that collection of talent. At the time of these stats, the rest of the NFL was still attempting to figure out how to beat us. Romeo Crennel took care of that, but not till late in the season.

Now, we will be fielding a known quantity in terms of scheme, play calling, and Aaron Rodgers at QB. This could be difficult to quantify, given that 2011 team was Air McCarthy. He firmly did not emphasize running the football. That philosophy has changed. Our RBs had over 100 more attempts last season than in 2011.

I would argue that we probably have 3 receivers on this roster as or more talented than Greg Jennings was in his prime in Cobb, Boykin and Adams, and that is not including Jordy Nelson. Am I speculating in making that statement? Of course! Add to this, I believe we have a far more talented group of TEs as receivers. Jermichael Finely dropped more passes than any other TE in the NFL that season - C'MON! SAY IT WITH ME NOW! "YOTTO." Somehow, I don't believe that will be the case this year, in terms of our TEs and dropped passes. To me, both Richard Rodgers and Colt Lyerla will prove to be better pass catchers than Finley ever was. Add, Quarless was the 12th ranked pass catching TE last season in terms of efficiency, with a paltry 2 drops in 34 catchable balls for a 5.88% drop rate...The NFL leader in this category is Zach Miller from SEA, who dropped 1 of 34... We can go 4 deep at TE by adding Brandon Bostick to the equation, whom I belive is a better talent than Crabtree, Williams and Taylor from 2011.

I could also argue that both Abbrederis and Janis might be more talented than DD was that season, and both have the potential to put up better numbers than Jones did IMO, given the same opportunities.

Any records this group in 2014 may break will involve efficiency and quite possibly scoring. There are just too many good players and not enough targets. Rodgers is going to have a field day every game this year, if he can stay healthy...

sschind
Senior Member

10 years ago

#137

I think it is a combination of Jeffery being a little overrated and Boykin being very underrated. I also thinnk Marshall is a bit overrated.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister

Why does this comment not surprise me. I hear a lot of the same kind of talk from many Packer fans. Jeffery puts up a fantastic year and he is a little over rated and Boykin puts up a decent year and he is very under rated. I just don't see it but then again I don't have my glasses on. Only Boykin's momma would take him over Jefferey and she would have to think about it.

StarrMax1
Registered

10 years ago

#138

I believe if you can translate coach speak, the translation is we aren't very good at TE. Being wide open means they lost their guy (Finley) and have no clue who is going to replace him.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

I believe if you can translate coach speak, this means what it always means in early July.

"We probably have lost our #1 TE from last year, nobody is going to feel sorry for us, we must move foward as if Jermicheal is not coming back.
The positive news is that we have 2 veteran TE's who we are comfortable with, 2 guys who we felt good enough about to sign as UDFA's the past 2 years, and 3 guys aquired this year.
As a group we are "unsettled", which doesn't mean bad, it means the competition is going to be at a high level for a spot on the 53 man roster, and we are confident that at the end of TC. the 3, 4 or even 5 guys who make the final 53 will have shown they are ready to replace Jermichaeal."
"and of course since it is Mid-July, if you believe anything that is quoted from a coach, then you are our favorite kind of reporter, writer, fan, etc."

Jimmy Graham is pissed because he was thrown into the TE category when it comes to him getting paid.
Why would Ted Thompson give up 2 1st rnd picks, just to bring in a guy who is not going to play for 5-6 mil when he thinks he is worth 8-10 mil?
New orleans problem, The Packers don't need the distraction.

play2win
Senior Member

10 years ago

#139

from JSOnline.com: "I think we are pretty wide open at this point," Packers tight ends coach Jerry Fontenot said during minicamp in June. "I think guys have shown some progress, and those guys warrant a much bigger look. And I think once we get to training camp, we'll have an idea of a rotation, at least, and giving guys reps just to make sure they're ready to start the season."

Right now, though, Fontenot admits his positional group is the most unsettled on the team.

I believe if you can translate coach speak, the translation is we aren't very good at TE. Being wide open means they lost their guy (Finley) and have no clue who is going to replace him. "Shown some progress" means they're a long way from being ready to dominate at the TE position. Making sure they're ready...not really good but we have to trot someone out there. The non quote that is highlighted is the most ominous of all. Unsettled equals nobody's any good and his position group is weakest on the team.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

What an enormous leap and assumption.

You automatically read Fontenot's comments as meaning we aren't very good at the position, all because you have a hard on for the Packers to trade their future away for Jimmy Graham...

Of course, you haven't considered that the talent at TE is so -GOOD- that the competition within the group is "wide open." With 3 new rookies jumping into the equation, along with returning players Quarless, Bostick and Ryan, how do you make the leap that "showing progress" equates with "a long way from being ready?"

A position group being "unsettled" is not necessarily a statement saying they are not "any good and his position group is the weakest on the team." Being "unsettled" at the position could mean there is competition for ALL positions on this TE depth chart, and GB is returning 3 veteran players. This could easily be understood to mean the 3 rookies have so much talent that they are pushing our returning veterans for positions #1, 2, 3 and possibly 4 if they keep that many TEs.

Unless of course, it is you. Then that is not easily understood.

I saw Rodgers, Lyerla and Perillo in OTAs, and they looked pretty damn good. All three of them. Ryan Taylor also looked very good, much improved over anything I had seen from him previously.

The only words you said that I will agree with are these:

I would admit they'll never do this

😆

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#140

Originally Posted by: sschind

It is refreshing to read a post like this. I'm afraid before long we will have Boykin compared to Sterling Sharpe and some mysterious stat will be used to validate he's better than Sterling.

We now have a #3 who is better than our #2 or #1 and we have a rookie who is better than our 1, 2 or 3. On top of that we have a rookie 3rd rounder and UDFA who are already better players than Jermichael Finley. Our talent is so off the charts at TE that the reason we're "unsettled" isn't because we've got nobody, it's everybody is so talented it's going to be hard to just pick one to be the starter? The old saying if you have two quarterbacks you don't have one applies quite nicely to our TE situation. We couldn't say, right now, who is the starter because we don't know if Richard Rodgers is good enough to beat out a JAG like Quarless. Maybe, it's Brandon Bostick? I like the little I've seen of him.

There is a reason Adam Schefter directly stated that Seattle or Green Bay should cough two 1's for Graham. It is twofold... Graham is that good and the Packers need is that great. That tweet wasn't some deadline piece where the accusation is some guy is out there and the media just pairs up who they think could use that player. BTW, there is also a reason the media pairs certain players with certain teams. These articles didn't list more than 4 teams who should/could pursue Graham. The writer has recognized that those teams he's linked to Graham would benefit the most above all the others. To read about how stacked we are and how unnecessary Graham would be for us is bizarre. Yes, we can get by with what we have...always do... every team does. To me, it's like saying Marshall Newhouse or MD Jennings were good enough because they were Packers and you just trust Ted Thompson that he knows what he's doing. You did not have to be an NFL GM or scout to realize the Packers needed upgrades at safety and Marshall's role at the two tackle positions. The same can be said for TE coming into this season. Ted Thompson selected Richard Rodgers and added Lyerla and Perillo. Maybe, maybe, maybe one of those guys pans out. Maybe. It isn't a done deal guarantee like some have all but written in stone around here.

I really do wonder what would happen if we had a real superstar at WR or TE.

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."

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 (3h) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (5h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (15h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (15h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (15h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (15h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (15h) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (19h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (19h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (19h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (21h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (21h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (22h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (22h) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (22h) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (22h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (22h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (22h) : 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 (23h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23h) : 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 (23h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23h) : 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 (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

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

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS