uffda udfa
7 years ago

Commonly accepted it takes 3 years to properly and accurately evaluate a player. We've kept Jeff Janis around going into his 4th year and the guy has shown us absolutely nothing outside of special teams. 😁

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



Janis is only around because of ST's. If he was judged on his WR acumen, he should've been kicked to the curb awhile ago.

3-4 for the CB position is way too long. It's really poor to have a stable of young guys of which none of us know if ONE of them is any good. That's why we're hoping that some UDFA from E. Carolina can just be acceptable. Not how it should be on a team with SB aspirations especially after what we all saw last year.

A guy like Nick Collins took his time but that's fine if it's a player here and there. With the FA activity we had this year, because we had to with the departure of so many, it's amazing we could only come up with a castoff from Jax at the position that killed us last season.

It should NEVER take 4 years for anyone to get it...even a QB. After 2 years you have a pretty good idea what you have. I understand the old mantra of not judging a draft class until 3 years but you have a good idea if you have a player after two. He will show signs of life. He's not going to be absolutely atrocious for 2 years and then be a star in year 3. There may be an outlier but tell me about all the great CB's we've had who came on in year 3?
UserPostedImage
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."


beast
7 years ago
Aaron Rodgers sucked until his 3rd training camp I believe.

Jordy Nelson sucked his first 2.5 years and then caught on fire.

Some people were demanding to start Spriggs and cast off Bak in his 4th year... though to be fair that wasn't Bak fault...

Took Nick Perry until year #5 to breakout.

People were wanting to bench Nick Collins for Rouse because Rouse could catch INT and Collins at the time couldn't. I believe in Collins 3rd year though like Bak above that was probably more fans fault...

But in Collins 2nd year he was still having a ton of problems with zone switching off coverages and biting too hard on fake hand offs passes.


How many years before Lang broke out again?
Driver too?

Lots of Packers players took more than 2 years to break out....
UserPostedImage
uffda udfa
7 years ago
I was asking about the CB, specifically. How many guys do you remember taking 3 years to get it? I can't think of a single one. Terrell Buckley is about the only guy I can conjure and he didn't get it until he was long gone from us. Ahmad Carroll didn't get it immediately and never did get it...wasted bust 1st rounder.

If you're a guy who can cover, you can cover almost immediately. Craig Newsome and Sam Shields come immediately to mind. Doug Evans, also.

That is a position like RB. You're unlikely to see some huge jump from a player 3 years in...you pretty much know after a year, or two, what you have at positions like those. Understandably, if you're a UDFA from Nowhere State it's more likely it will take you longer but, again, coverage skill should be immediately seen. The safety position would be harder to learn. A CB lines up against a guy and covers him...I know there are schemes and times where a guy has to know when to let a guy go, etc. but coverage skill is something you can see in a CB almost immediately just like you can see speed and decisiveness and ability to break tackles from a runner. Doesn't take 3 years to see any of that.

I'm aware of guys like Nelson, and Collins, as I referenced Nick. We could see Jordy had skills. What do we see from our CB group? Not a whole lot and that's likely because there isn't anything there, today, or for down the road. Often, coming on after a few years is due to actual playing time in real games. Guys like Driver and Jordy didn't get a whole lot early in their careers. When given it, they blossomed. We've seen plenty of Randall and Rollins and Davon House also. Not one of those guys is anywhere near a shutdown corner. Thinking Hawkins or Herb Waters might be an answer is really really sad in light of the amount of high picks dumped to fix that position and letting Hayward walk.

Man, do I wish it was different but our CB situation is frightful. King has been bad in practice and was awful vs. Philly. I wish he had the start Greg Jennings did...the reports on Jennings were good out of the gates and stayed that way. When a report is awful on a player like Jamal Reynolds or Ahmad Carroll or Khyri Thornton it very rarely swings the other way.
UserPostedImage
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."


beast
7 years ago

I was asking about the CB, specifically. How many guys do you remember taking 3 years to get it? I can't think of a single one. Terrell Buckley is about the only guy I can conjure and he didn't get it until he was long gone from us. Ahmad Carroll didn't get it immediately and never did get it...wasted bust 1st rounder.

If you're a guy who can cover, you can cover almost immediately. Craig Newsome and Sam Shields come immediately to mind. Doug Evans, also.

That is a position like RB. You're unlikely to see some huge jump from a player 3 years in...you pretty much know after a year, or two, what you have at positions like those. Understandably, if you're a UDFA from Nowhere State it's more likely it will take you longer but, again, coverage skill should be immediately seen.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



Someone else mentioned another position position as well, so I thought they might of meant more position.

As for CB there is Al Harris and Tramon Williams, both of which were cut their rookie years and it surely wasn't seen immediately with them... as the CB position is NOT like RB, as CB have a lot of different techniques and angles  to learn and a lot of little tricks to the trade, heck Fitzgerald even got Woodson on a couple of tricks that Woodson wasn't expecting. They might learn it all in college and have nothing more to learn... but a lot don't in the current college spread offenses... especially considering the Packers have a college coverage FS and a one year football guy among them.

Shields didn't have to because the combination of his great speed and instincts... as a rookie Shields could only play one technique, but it was the trail technique which was perfect for a guy that gets beat a lot but has amazing catch-up speed like Shields did. But clearly he's more the exception to the rule...

Hawkins ball skills were seen immediately ... but it looked like he got used to either playing in zone coverage in college or simply being a better athlete, where he could purposely give the WR room and bait the QB... and get to the ball before the ball gets to the WR. Last year he needed a lot of work in man coverage.
UserPostedImage
Barfarn
7 years ago

We can't afford to wait much longer for Hawkins to develop. This is his 3rd year. It seems all but Davon House are in this 3-4 year development window. We can't have a stable of young guys all trying to develop playing such an important position.

Hawkins either gets it this year or it's time to send him away along with a bunch of other guys who have had far too long to get it. It didn't take Sam Shields as long as it's been taking everyone but House at CB and he was a UDFA just like Hawkins. Plus, Sam was converted back to CB from WR at The U. You either can play or you can't at that position. It shouldn't take 3-4 years for anyone to develop and you really shouldn't be going with that philosophy at that position in the first place.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



Things are not so absolute; some guys take longer!

Players have varying levels of intellect and football acumen, some have cognitive impairments. Some are more adept at processing things into their play taken from a book, diagram and/or film; others need hands-on experience to process classroom stuff into on-field performance.

Hayward had the skill, but he is a dog. He simply refused to be dedicated and disciplined in his technique. When he focused on his technique he played very well; but WAY too often he refused the coaching. You cant have a veteran in the lockerroom serving as an example to the young DBs teaching them to be careless, me-first, assholes. This opinion of this value was universal, that’s why he only got $15M/3 years/2.5M guaranteed and its why GB didn’t want him back for any price. I don’t know if he played better in SD, but if he did, it was ONLY because he moved on.

Tramon Williams showed so little in camp w/ Texans [2006] he was cut, no practice squad and NO ONE picked him up, until GB got him on PS in November. It wasn’t until 3rd year he looked like he had a chance to be elite. And he continued to get better thru his time in GB.

When a CB plays, opposing players and coaches search for weaknesses. Not if, but WHEN they’re found, they will be exploited. The CB adjusts/makes a correction to his technique or he’ll wash out. This is why some guys flash early and wash-out.

We had some discussions about Davante a while back. I kept preaching that WRs don’t
get separation with speed, they do it with technique and timing. Similarly, CBs limit separation with technique, timing and reading WR’s tells, not with speed or loose hips. In addition to knowing various GB’s defense, knowing the opposing offense allows the CB to anticipate the WR’s move. Then the CB needs to learn not to over commit to this anticipation. The CBs have to learn to subtly hold and redirect the WR with their hands and body so as not to draw a flag and they must learn to conceal their tells from WRs.

If it only took 2-3 years for a CB to get good; a ton of CBs from schools like Ohio St and ‘Bama with pedigree and pro coaching would be NFL-ready when drafted; but rarely can DBs play in their rookie year. Most CBs take a path like Devon House or Dre Kirkpatrick, they don’t start because of their play [they may start due to injury] until years 3, 4 or 5 and like OLmen it is very common for them to show decent improvement each year deep into their careers.

I'd suggest go to draft site, get a list of all CB drafted in rounds 1-2, 4, 5 and 6 years ago and learn that most did not become capable starters until year 3; this will adjust your expectations to reality rather than relying on outlier examples. And note the characteristics of the busts.
uffda udfa
7 years ago
Perhaps, Barfarn. My point was you will see something in the first two years. Has to be some flashes. They aren't just terrible for two straight years and then star in year 3.


UserPostedImage
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."


Barfarn
7 years ago

Perhaps, Barfarn. My point was you will see something in the first two years. Has to be some flashes. They aren't just terrible for two straight years and then star in year 3.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



The issue is about what you think you are seeing! You need to look in the right places to see the things that are important.

You saw Hawkins for 8 plays last year, so you don’t know shit about him. What you know is with a cavalcade of injuries he couldn’t see the field. Now he started in 2nd PS game and wasn’t close to getting burnt to a crisp. Your “eyeball test” should be telling you this guy has really improved. But, it seems you reach opinions of a player’s worth even by ignoring your own unreliable “eyeball test” when you need to.

A GM evaluates a player for a roster spot, playing time and/or contracts by charting the quality of the execution of his assignments in the scheme v. the quality of his opponent [not from measureables, not draft status, not stats, not results of the play (EG whether or not a pass was completed), etc.] at different points in time. As important as his level of play is the trajectory of his growth.

Hayward wasn’t bad but his trajectory was flat to regressing, so they didn’t want him back. If Gunter or Hawkins in year 4 reach Hayward’s year 4 level; they may be offered a 2nd contract because their trajectory will still be upward.

Hawkins’ trajectory is upward!
uffda udfa
7 years ago

The issue is about what you think you are seeing! You need to look in the right places to see the things that are important.

You saw Hawkins for 8 plays last year, so you don’t know shit about him. What you know is with a cavalcade of injuries he couldn’t see the field. Now he started in 2nd PS game and wasn’t close to getting burnt to a crisp. Your “eyeball test” should be telling you this guy has really improved. But, it seems you reach opinions of a player’s worth even by ignoring your own unreliable “eyeball test” when you need to.

A GM evaluates a player for a roster spot, playing time and/or contracts by charting the quality of the execution of his assignments in the scheme v. the quality of his opponent [not from measureables, not draft status, not stats, not results of the play (EG whether or not a pass was completed), etc.] at different points in time. As important as his level of play is the trajectory of his growth.

Hayward wasn’t bad but his trajectory was flat to regressing, so they didn’t want him back. If Gunter or Hawkins in year 4 reach Hayward’s year 4 level; they may be offered a 2nd contract because their trajectory will still be upward.

Hawkins’ trajectory is upward!

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



If you're playing for a team with one of the worst secondaries in the NFL you better be trending upward.

What I think of Hawkins is documented here. I don't believe he'll ever be a reliable corner for us. You do? I know you thought Richard Rodgers was going to be a star TE but he's now 3rd string which is what he ever was at best even though we had him higher due to nothing else at the position. This is not unlike that. Our CB situation is as bad as our TE situation was when RR was forced into playing 1st string due to draft status.

I'm no scout, but I feel like my track record over the years on players has been very good.
UserPostedImage
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."


Barfarn
7 years ago

I'm no scout, but I feel like my track record over the years on players has been very good.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



[Face Palm] are you freaking kidding me?

What % of 5'10 UDFA CBs make it? Damn! How do you have the courage to go out on such a limb?

Most draft picks dont make it, either thru injury or transitioning to pros. If you declare every GB draft pick a bust, you'll be right more often than wrong.

But, when when you are unequivocally wrong, like saying Ted effed-up drafting Bulaga, look what you do to protect your "track record:" you conjure up an asinine basis to opine that Bulaga was a bad pick. Of course if you keep score like this you will remain a legend in your own mind.

Fact is you've never been right about any player; because you use irrelevant to tangential bullshit things to establish your opinion. This renders your opinion nothing more than a lucky guess. If you took the time to learn how to really evaluate players, Ted and Mike wouldn't look like such morons.
uffda udfa
7 years ago
Why are you so up in arms? Hawkins is getting all this pub. Why? Our CB situation is awful. Looking for a ray of hope...Sam Shields 2.0.

You mock me after you hype Hawkins up? I don't care about limbs. I've seen him. I've read about him.

Are you still upset about Richard Rodgers? You made this big case for him based off your extensive film study. I could see he wasn't very good. A player playing for my favorite team doesn't make me lose objectivity. I fear it does for you.

As to my track record...I've been watching this team for close to 40 years and have formed opinions on many players here and elsewhere long before our paths crossed.

Last year I was all in on Brice. This season he's set for a bigger role at our reported biggest area of strength. I pounded the drum for him. This year I pound it for Aaron Jones despite hearing a few weeks ago he may not even make the team.

Of course, I loved Janis. Still love his measurables. Just rare. It's sad he hasn't gotten more opportunities. Guys at TP think it's an Mike McCarthy conspiracy. It is odd that when he is on the field in any capacity good things usually happen.


UserPostedImage
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."


Fan Shout
beast (4h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (9h) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (10h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (20h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (20h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (20h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (20h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (21h) : 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.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
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
49m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

6h / Random Babble / beast

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16h / GameDay Threads / Mucky Tundra

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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

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