wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
8 years ago

If RR slims down, he should be able to run a little better. If they use him like they did in that Detroit game, I think he can do some things. But I really like our depth now.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 



It is frustrating to watch the TE go down on first contact as often as RR has. If Cook breaks a tackle half of the time I will be thrilled.
UserPostedImage
musccy
8 years ago

Exhibit B: From 2009-13; Finley had 311 targets; 217-2711-12.5-19. In that time, all other TEs combined had 237-153-1,568-10.25-17.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



First, using team offensive yards to prove the value of someone receiving the ball seems like an extraordinarily broad brush to paint with. Not only ST/field position, but the offense gaining an early lead, PI calls, or bad weather all affect offensive yards. Too many variables to prove a correlation, IMO.

Even the stats listed above - Finley trumped all the 'JAGS' so I don't get your point.

I'm really not a huge Finley homer - I thought he was pretty solid, the team was better off with than w/o him, but I never felt he was the same after 2010. I'm just saying I disagree with how you're trying to make your case.
Barfarn
8 years ago

First, using team offensive yards to prove the value of someone receiving the ball seems like an extraordinarily broad brush to paint with. Not only ST/field position, but the offense gaining an early lead, PI calls, or bad weather all affect offensive yards. Too many variables to prove a correlation, IMO.

Even the stats listed above - Finley trumped all the 'JAGS' so I don't get your point.

I'm really not a huge Finley homer - I thought he was pretty solid, the team was better off with than w/o him, but I never felt he was the same after 2010. I'm just saying I disagree with how you're trying to make your case.

Originally Posted by: musccy 



The total offense yard stat [attempts to] measure Finley’s impact on overall offensive production and yes there are too many variables to "prove" my argument. To remove most of the variables you'd have to do a play by play thing. Heck, like i said Finley played only 62% of snaps maybe in a game where the O only gained 300 yards, 299 were gained when Finley was playing; that said:

I don’t give a flying hoot about whether a TE is a good receiver; he must be a COMPLETE player to make the offense more potent, which is the ONLY thing that matters. Ed West was infinitely better than Finley and limiting your opinion to receiving stats might lead to a misunderstanding of the truth. In Finley’s “best” year [2011] he had 5 penalties; 11 drops [12% DR] and his blocking was horrible. Wouldn’t we have been better with a TE with half the yards on a few more than half the targets, 0 or 1 drops, 0 or 1 penalties, that caused 3 less sacks, 15 less pressures and 30 less bad run blocks? And don’t forget: the other 40 or so targets don’t go away; they go to a WR or RB. So When Finley is replaced by, say Ed West, West catches half the yards, which is almost made up by the other targets to WRs and RBs; you don’t get the drops or stupid penalties; the passing game improves because the QB is better protected; and the run game improves because you got 6 blockers instead of 5. And whadda ya know: with Ed West the offense is 40-60 yards per game better than with Finley. Of course, Finley’s idiocy and bad blocking was countermanded by Mike McCarthy to a degree by allowing him on the field only 62% of the time.

Finley didn’t “trump” the JAGS. My “point” is that even in receiving, Finley’s greatest strength, he BARELY out performed these LESS THAN JAGS. And if you adjust for the 10 games that the less than JAGs had w/o AR, which accounts for about 20-25% of their target opportunities, it could be argued that Finley was out performed by the less than JAGs in receiving, his only strength.

Just like with Finley: the number of drops, penalties, bad blocks and INCs and INTs thrown because of a bad routes run will be the judge of whether Cook is valuable, whether the stat sheet shows him with 300 or 1000 yards receiving in 2016. How’s that for getting back on topic?😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂
Zero2Cool
8 years ago

First, using team offensive yards to prove the value of someone receiving the ball seems like an extraordinarily broad brush to paint with. Not only ST/field position, but the offense gaining an early lead, PI calls, or bad weather all affect offensive yards. Too many variables to prove a correlation, IMO.

Even the stats listed above - Finley trumped all the 'JAGS' so I don't get your point.

I'm really not a huge Finley homer - I thought he was pretty solid, the team was better off with than w/o him, but I never felt he was the same after 2010. I'm just saying I disagree with how you're trying to make your case.

Originally Posted by: musccy 



I won't ink up 5,000 words and drown you with meaningless rah rah stuff, but I'll add this little bit of information. Defensive Coordinators facing the Packers said the value of Jermichael Finley comes from what he could do, more than what production he provides. And that's what I was talking about earlier about how a tight end who can stretch the field improves your perimiter game. Which a month or two later Mike McCarthy completely ripped off my unique/brilliant/never-thought-of-before concept.

UserPostedImage
Porforis
8 years ago

I won't ink up 5,000 words and drown you with meaningless rah rah stuff, but I'll add this little bit of information. Defensive Coordinators facing the Packers said the value of Jermichael Finley comes from what he could do, more than what production he provides. And that's what I was talking about earlier about how a tight end who can stretch the field improves your perimiter game. Which a month or two later Mike McCarthy completely ripped off my unique/brilliant/never-thought-of-before concept.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



Playing the devil's advocate here, his presence and required coverage opening up other people should show up in the overall offensive stats (and overall offensive scoring).

Summary of entire debate: It's hard to compare one man on a 52 man roster to other people on a DIFFERENT 52 man roster (or even the same) based on the team's overall stats or scoring.
beast
8 years ago

The most interesting Finley stat that I know of, is that since drafting Finley, the Packers did a heck of a lot better without in him the playoffs than they with him... not that he directly had anything to do with, as the defense seemed to play bad when Finley with the team in the playoffs. But still I find it very interesting

With Finley the Packers were 1-3 in the playoffs,
[list]
  • Only beating the Vikings (when their 3rd QB was starting)
  • One tough OT loss to the Cards
  • Two games where the other team got 37 or more points
  • [/list]

    Without Finley the Packers have have been 6-3 in the playoffs
    [list]
  • Super Bowl Victory
  • Two tough OT losses
  • A tough last second, game ending FG to break a tie[/list]

  • So for what ever reason, since drafting Finley, the Packers have been tied or winning going into the last play of the 4th quarter, of all the playoffs games that Finley has not played in.

    I'm not sure it has anything to do with Finley... but it's an interestingly odd stat.



    UserPostedImage
    Zero2Cool
    8 years ago

    The most interesting Finley stat that I know of, is that since drafting Finley, the Packers did a heck of a lot better without in him the playoffs than they with him... not that he directly had anything to do with, as the defense seemed to play bad when Finley with the team in the playoffs. But still I find it very interesting

    With Finley the Packers were 1-3 in the playoffs,
    [list]

  • Only beating the Vikings (when their 3rd QB was starting)
  • One tough OT loss to the Cards
  • Two games where the other team got 37 or more points
  • [/list]

    Without Finley the Packers have have been 6-3 in the playoffs
    [list]
  • Super Bowl Victory
  • Two tough OT losses
  • A tough last second, game ending FG to break a tie[/list]

  • So for what ever reason, since drafting Finley, the Packers have been tied or winning going into the last play of the 4th quarter, of all the playoffs games that Finley has not played in.

    I'm not sure it has anything to do with Finley... but it's an interestingly odd stat.

    Originally Posted by: beast 



    "The playoff win analysis is bogus."


    UserPostedImage
    musccy
    8 years ago

    Playing the devil's advocate here, his presence and required coverage opening up other people should show up in the overall offensive stats (and overall offensive scoring).

    Originally Posted by: Porforis 



    I remember what he looked like in 2009. Towards the season he seemed to be in a mode where Aaron Rodgers could just say "f'it" I'll just throw to JF and make him get it, esp the Cards and Pitt game. I don't know how you quantify that stat or his impact on the defense.

    Yes he was a diva who was allergic to blocking and acquired the dropsies That said, he provided a THREAT the Packers haven't had in a while. I felt there were benefit to that. With the eye test, Cook seems to provide similar athleticism.
    beast
    8 years ago

    "The playoff win analysis is bogus."

    Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



    Your just 😠 because it goes against your argument 😁 😝

    But seriously, I said in the post, it was more about the defense... Finley just some how has missed the games where the defense plays well in the playoffs.

    And the playoff win analysis can be very good... the last 3 years the Packers offense hasn't scored enough points in the playoffs, before that (not counting the Super Bowl year) it was the defense that couldn't keep playoff teams low in the playoffs.

    UserPostedImage
    nerdmann
    8 years ago

    Your just 😠 because it goes against your argument 😁 😝

    But seriously, I said in the post, it was more about the defense... Finley just some how has missed the games where the defense plays well in the playoffs.

    And the playoff win analysis can be very good... the last 3 years the Packers offense hasn't scored enough points in the playoffs, before that (not counting the Super Bowl year) it was the defense that couldn't keep playoff teams low in the playoffs.

    Originally Posted by: beast 



    We were robbed in '09.

    We were absolutely going all the way that year.
    “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.”
    Fan Shout
    beast (1h) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
    beast (9h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
    packerfanoutwest (14h) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
    Martha Careful (16h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
    Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
    buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
    buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
    Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
    Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???
    packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
    packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
    packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
    bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
    bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
    bboystyle (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
    beast (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
    bboystyle (23-Dec) : 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.
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2024 Packers Schedule
    Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
    Eagles
    Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
    COLTS
    Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
    Titans
    Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
    Rams
    Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
    CARDINALS
    Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
    TEXANS
    Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Jaguars
    Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Bears
    Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
    49ERS
    Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
    DOLPHINS
    Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
    Seahawks
    Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
    SAINTS
    Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
    Vikings
    Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
    BEARS
    Recent Topics
    2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    5h / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

    11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    12h / Random Babble / beast

    17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    23-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

    19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

    16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.