uffda udfa
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.



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."


play2win
10 years ago

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. 😆


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
10 years ago
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.
UserPostedImage
+3
nerdmann
10 years ago

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.

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
10 years ago

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.

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.
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."


mi_keys
10 years ago

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

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



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.

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
+4
uffda udfa
10 years ago

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.
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."


mi_keys
10 years ago

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
10 years ago
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.
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."


play2win
10 years ago

The things you've ascribed to me are false.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



No, they are not.
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    dfosterf (6h) : Semper fi !
    Cheesey (8h) : This is why I have so much respect for those that have gone through battles
    Cheesey (8h) : I can't even imagine what that would have been like
    wpr (12h) : "Come on, you sons of bitches. Do you want to live forever?"
    wpr (12h) : Facing a line of machine guns 2 time medal of Honor recipient, First Sergeant Dan Daly told his men,
    wpr (12h) : Another detachment went into the Belleau Wood.
    wpr (12h) : On the 6th the Marines took Hill 142 but suffered terrible losses.
    wpr (12h) : It’s time to remember dfoster’s Marine brothers in Belleau Wood. The battle went on from June 1-26. Nearly 10,000 casualties.
    packerfanoutwest (6-Jun) : Nick Collins and Morgan Burnett have signed with the PACK
    packerfanoutwest (6-Jun) : he won't be wearing #12, maybe he will wear number two
    packerfanoutwest (6-Jun) : He will fail this season, should have retired
    Mucky Tundra (5-Jun) : Thus the cycle of Hall of Fame Packer QBs going to the Jets and then the Vikings is broken
    bboystyle (5-Jun) : Rodgers to steelers on 1 year contract
    Zero2Cool (5-Jun) : It's the cycle of civilizations. Get lazier, lazier, softer, softer and vanish.
    Martha Careful (5-Jun) : great point. every aspect of society, including art, culture and sports has degraded.
    dfosterf (4-Jun) : Green Bay sweep meant something to society about stopping pure excellence. We have the tush push now
    dfosterf (4-Jun) : We old Martha.
    Martha Careful (4-Jun) : *front four
    Martha Careful (4-Jun) : Re frout four, I wish we had some Green "People Eaters" or a fearsome foursome
    dfosterf (4-Jun) : *directions*
    dfosterf (4-Jun) : Just don't ask him for driving direct
    dfosterf (4-Jun) : Jim Marshall was an all-time great DE for the Purple People Eaters. Didn't like him. That's a compliment. RIP
    Zero2Cool (3-Jun) : ooppppss
    Zero2Cool (3-Jun) : “Kenny Clark played all of last season hurt by the way and got surgery to fix it in January”
    Mucky Tundra (3-Jun) : @ByRyanWood How much did the injury affect him last fall? “A lot.”
    Mucky Tundra (3-Jun) : @ByRyanWood Kenny Clark said he had foot surgery in January. Injured his foot in opener against Eagles and played through it all year.
    Zero2Cool (3-Jun) : Golden is wearing guardian cap again. I bet he plays with it on too.
    Mucky Tundra (3-Jun) : All the stuff I'm reading from Lions fans are pointing at his toe; he more or less has permanent turf toe in one of his big toes
    dfosterf (3-Jun) : Kenny played through it, and a shame he gets little credit for that, imo
    dfosterf (3-Jun) : Big men. I hope it's not the undoing of Kenny Clark
    dfosterf (3-Jun) : Probably his toe. Pretty much a great center. Toe injuries are brutal to bigen
    Mucky Tundra (2-Jun) : Lions All-Pro C Frank Ragnow retires
    wpr (30-May) : It's all good.
    beast (30-May) : Yeah, and I enjoyed your comments and just attempted to add to it. Sorry if I did it incorrectly.
    wpr (30-May) : Beast I never said Henderson was the salt of the earth. Nor even that he was correct. Just quoting the guy.
    Zero2Cool (29-May) : What did you do??
    Zero2Cool (29-May) : Whoa
    beast (29-May) : OMG the website is now all white, even some white on white text
    beast (29-May) : Henderson, who admits to taking cocaine during the Super Bowl against the Steelers, might dislike Bradshaw as he lost two Superbowls to him
    wpr (28-May) : Hollywood Henderson said Bradshaw “is so dumb, he couldn't spell 'cat' if you spotted him the C and an A.”
    Mucky Tundra (28-May) : Cooper stock=BUY BUY BUY
    Mucky Tundra (28-May) : Also notes he’s playing with more confidence.
    Mucky Tundra (28-May) : @AndyHermanNFL MLF says there was a time last year where Cooper was at 220 pounds. Now he’s at 240 and still flying around.
    Mucky Tundra (28-May) : And don't even get me started on Frank Caliendos "impersonations"
    Mucky Tundra (28-May) : I got tired of them being circle jerks with them overlaughing at each others jokes.
    Zero2Cool (28-May) : It used to be must watch TV for me. now it's "meh" maybe to hear injury update
    Mucky Tundra (28-May) : I haven't watched the pregame shows in years and I don't feel like I've missed a thing
    Zero2Cool (28-May) : Love says knee affected him all season, groin injury didn't help matters.
    Zero2Cool (28-May) : I used to enjoy him on FOX Pregame. Now it's like a frat party of former Patriots.
    Zero2Cool (28-May) : LaFleur on Watson: “Christian is doing outstanding. I would say he’s ahead of schedule.”
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2025 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
    COMMANDERS
    Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
    Browns
    Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
    Cowboys
    Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
    BENGALS
    Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
    Cardinals
    Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
    PANTHERS
    Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
    EAGLES
    Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
    Bears
    Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
    RAVENS
    Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
    Vikings
    Recent Topics
    46m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    5-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    5-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    1-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    29-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    27-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    27-May / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    24-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    23-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / greengold

    23-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / earthquake

    22-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    22-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    21-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / greengold

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.