I guess I'm just not as excited about a WR who averaged 58 yards a game while being a preferred option in the passing game for the majority of the time. After Rodgers went down most D's were expecting heavy doses of Eddie Lacy and James Starks. I think it makes sense to be very excited about Lacy than it does about Boykin averaging 58 yards a game as a preferred option in our passing game minus Finley and Cobb.

Boykin is a fine player... I like him. Love his hands and ability to go up and get it. It still can't be refuted we took 4 WR's (5 if you count Charles Johnson) and didn't draft Jarrett. We liked those other 5 WR's better. We obviously liked Boykin enough to offer him a tryout but if you want to compare DRAFTING 5 WR's vs. offering a tryout to a cut guy there is no question we valued the 5 we drafted more. If those drafted show to justify our faith by their performance this TC and pre-season, I don't know why Boykin is a lock. He's not. He's a good bet...but we have no idea what these others are going to offer because we haven't gotten there yet. All could be money big time players. I've heard more buzz on Janis and Dorsey than I have on Boykin...Harper, as well. Abby would be in that group, also. Abbrederis is a guy I think is going to be better than Jarrett. That would drop Boykin to a 5th if Abby had stayed healthy and I was correct. You're then comparing Boykin vs. a guy like Janis who has better measurables than almost any WR coming out in the last few years...and you drafted that guy and Boykin you didn't.

Lock is the wrong term for Boykin. Good bet. Is more accurate.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

Since they were in different drafts all it really says is that we like those WRs in their draft more than we liked Boykin in his, that doesn't automatically mean they had better draft grades and it doesn't really mean anything in regards to how they feel about said players now. The fact that they trusted him as the #4 last year after he hadn't ever shown anything in an actual game and even waited until the 7th round to go for a WR in '13 says something about how much they liked him. I don't know why we are crapping on 58ypg for our #3 wr when that's almost a 1k season.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 

I'm not crapping on it...I did the math on that before I hit enter on the post... 933 yards if you average 58 a game. Let's also not forget Jarrett appeared in all 16 games...not just 12. Also, he played 4 full games with Aaron. His stat line in those 4 games: 16 receptions 243 yards and 2 TD only one receiving and an average of 61 per game. He appeared in 4 other games with Aaron and wasn't targeted a single time so I didn't average that in but I should've. His average per game drops to 30 if you factor the other 4 games. He clearly cleaned up with the focus on Lacy.

The O was treated different without 12. D's knew we didn't have a star QB anymore and expected and played run. I'm not impressed a guy had numbers in that scenario. Jordy did well, also... as well as he likely would've with Aaron...probably better. I've read that some think Jordy would've done even better and have said things like...Just imagine what he would've done with Aaron at QB. I think the exact opposite. The game was a different game without Aaron. Let's see how Boykin does if he makes the cut. [grin1]

I was wrong on the draft of Dorsey and Johnson being during Boykin's time...Jarrett predated them by a year.

We all know how Ted Thompson loves his draft picks...even his 7th's. Boykin wasn't the investment Dorsey was, nor Janis and definitely not Abby or Davante. No lock.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

You call Boykin " too slow" based on his 40 time, then claim that Jerry Rice's 4.71 40 time has no relevance. I don't doubt your packers loyalty, but I consider you a shock jock. Outlandish statements made to stir the pot with nothing to back them up.

Originally Posted by: voiceofreason 

You call Boykin " too slow" based on his 40 time, then claim that Jerry Rice's 4.71 40 time has no relevance. I don't doubt your packers loyalty, but I consider you a shock jock. Outlandish statements made to stir the pot with nothing to back them up.

Originally Posted by: voiceofreason