What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Historical Receiving Weapons (GB and STL) (1 Viewer)

Which GROUP of WRs would you rather have, spanning Rodgers and Bradford's respective starting te


  • Total voters
    48

Bob Magaw

Footballguy
Sorry if this sounds ludicrous, there is a background and context, which, for the purposes of the poll, I will leave aside for now.

Serious Question - INDEPENDENT OF THE QBs

In a comparison of the receiving weapons between Green Bay and St. Louis - Which group would you rather have?

Spanning the respective starting tenures of Rodgers and Bradford.

Rodgers were easier to remember... for several reasons I won't joke about, but obviously mostly because he hasn't had as many.

Not trying to skew the poll in a direction by not citing all Bradford's WRs/TEs as a starter (including Donnie Avery and Mark Clayton for a minute, Danny Amendola, Brandon Gibson, Greg Salas, Austin Pettis, Brian Quick, Chris Givens, Tavon Austin, Stedman Bailey), but between injuries (Amendola missed 15 games one season, for instance, and was probably widely viewed as one of the most fragile and brittle skill position in the league) and other factors, there has been a lot of churning and turnover at the position.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Would you rather have Greg Jennings with or without Rodgers?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bradford's WRs or Kenbrell Thompkins, Aaron Dobson, Julian Edelman, Danny Amendola, Josh Boyce, Matthew Mulligan & Austin Collie?

 
Golden Tate, Doug Baldwin, Ricardo Lockette, Sidney Rice, Jermaine Kearse, Luke Wilson & Kellen Davis.

 
thanks to Calbear for suggesting this poll (not literally, but giving me the idea based on a post).

what we are trying to get at, is WR weapons INDEPENDENT of QBs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not sure you can separate the two that easily.

Greg Jennings is a great example. He was a world beater with Rodgers throwing him the ball (16 ypc and double digit TDs year after year) and is a marginal player with the jokers in Minnesota throwing him the ball (12 ypc and 3 TDs in 11 games).

Rodgers was on pace for another 30 TD season (with an 8.8 YPA) without Jennings (and Finley, and Cobb at times). So what does that say about Rodgers weapons and Jennings?

 
Driver and Cobb by themselves are better than anything Bradford has had to work with.

The rest make this easy.

Frankly, I don't see the point of this thread.

 
Driver and Cobb by themselves are better than anything Bradford has had to work with.

The rest make this easy.

Frankly, I don't see the point of this thread.
I agree about Cobb but am not sure about Driver. Would he really have done anything significant without Favre and Rodgers throwing him the ball? I am not so sure. Cobb seems to be more dynamic on film, but again with Rodgers throwing him the ball it's hard to say with certainty.

I think it becomes easier to make these comparisons when WRs switch teams, or teams switch QBs. Like in the case of Jennings.

And I personally feel that if you took Bradford's weapons over the years and transported them to Green Bay that they would look a whole lot better than they did in St Louis. A lot of that feeling is based upon my feeling that Rodgers is a superior QB talent and a lot of that feeling is because I believe the GB coaching staff is better than what St. Louis has had.

 
Driver and Cobb by themselves are better than anything Bradford has had to work with.

The rest make this easy.

Frankly, I don't see the point of this thread.
i believe chaka (and the way of thinking chaka is emblematic of) is the answer to your question.

 
Driver and Cobb by themselves are better than anything Bradford has had to work with.

The rest make this easy.

Frankly, I don't see the point of this thread.
I agree about Cobb but am not sure about Driver. Would he really have done anything significant without Favre and Rodgers throwing him the ball? I am not so sure. Cobb seems to be more dynamic on film, but again with Rodgers throwing him the ball it's hard to say with certainty.

I think it becomes easier to make these comparisons when WRs switch teams, or teams switch QBs. Like in the case of Jennings.

And I personally feel that if you took Bradford's weapons over the years and transported them to Green Bay that they would look a whole lot better than they did in St Louis. A lot of that feeling is based upon my feeling that Rodgers is a superior QB talent and a lot of that feeling is because I believe the GB coaching staff is better than what St. Louis has had.
how old is jennings now? has he had some injuries lately?

would this be a little less ambiguous for you if you remind yourself of how good jennings was when he was younger and healthier? that helped favre break records? THAT GUY. rodgers had him when he was younger and healthier, before... before... before... oh yeah, the immortal trio of ponder/cassell/freeman.*

* which reminds me, which QB situation do you like better, rodgers or the immortal MIN triumvirate?

maybe, jennings numbers might suffer going from one situation to the other. ya think (and factor in he is older and has been injured recently, relative to when rodgers first had him in his arsenal)?

not only is it not credible, its bizarre to suggest any lowered numbers he might have are in any way, shape or form suggestive of the premise, whatever was good about jennings was entirely due to rodgers.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Driver and Cobb by themselves are better than anything Bradford has had to work with.

The rest make this easy.

Frankly, I don't see the point of this thread.
I agree about Cobb but am not sure about Driver. Would he really have done anything significant without Favre and Rodgers throwing him the ball? I am not so sure. Cobb seems to be more dynamic on film, but again with Rodgers throwing him the ball it's hard to say with certainty.

I think it becomes easier to make these comparisons when WRs switch teams, or teams switch QBs. Like in the case of Jennings.

And I personally feel that if you took Bradford's weapons over the years and transported them to Green Bay that they would look a whole lot better than they did in St Louis. A lot of that feeling is based upon my feeling that Rodgers is a superior QB talent and a lot of that feeling is because I believe the GB coaching staff is better than what St. Louis has had.
how old is jennings now? has he had some injuries lately?

would this be a little less ambiguous for you if you remind yourself of how good jennings was when he was younger and healthier? that helped favre break records? THAT GUY. rodgers had him when he was younger and healthier, before... before... before... oh yeah, the immortal trio of ponder/cassell/freeman.*

* which reminds me, which QB situation do you like better, rodgers or the immortal MIN triumvirate?

maybe, jennings numbers might suffer going from one situation to the other. ya think (and factor in he is older and has been injured recently, relative to when rodgers first had him in his arsenal)?

not only is it not credible, its bizarre to suggest any lowered numbers he might have are in any way, shape or form suggestive of the premis, whatever was good about jennings was entirely due to rodgers.
Jennings is 30 and has had no major injuries this season. Are you actually suggesting that Jennings made Rodgers and not the other way around?

The suggestion that Jennings may not have been particularly special but a product of a WR friendly system and two hall of fame caliber QBs is entirely credible and seems to be holding up.

The notion that Rodgers is somehow a product of his fantastic WRs and putting Bradford in GB would turn him into Rodgers is the point you are driving at with this poll, isn't it? And I think that is a highly suspect premise.

Cobb is the only weapon that Rodgers has that I think would be able to go into any system and be highly productive. Nelson, Finley & J.Jones (and Driver in years past) seem just as likely to be JAGs as special weapons.

I asked you in the other thread about where you see Bradford's upside. What is the point you are trying to make about him? You also act as if I am diminishing the guy, which is not the case.

 
Why Bradford? Aren't these topics more fun with comparable talents like Brady, Brees, Manning... :oldunsure:

You would think the last 5 weeks would have ended the "Rodgers is great because of all his weapons" narrative. Or am I missing the point of this thread? Certainly we're not suggusting Bradford is in the same ballpark, are we? :confused:

 
Driver and Cobb by themselves are better than anything Bradford has had to work with.

The rest make this easy.

Frankly, I don't see the point of this thread.
I agree about Cobb but am not sure about Driver. Would he really have done anything significant without Favre and Rodgers throwing him the ball? I am not so sure. Cobb seems to be more dynamic on film, but again with Rodgers throwing him the ball it's hard to say with certainty.I think it becomes easier to make these comparisons when WRs switch teams, or teams switch QBs. Like in the case of Jennings.

And I personally feel that if you took Bradford's weapons over the years and transported them to Green Bay that they would look a whole lot better than they did in St Louis. A lot of that feeling is based upon my feeling that Rodgers is a superior QB talent and a lot of that feeling is because I believe the GB coaching staff is better than what St. Louis has had.
how old is jennings now? has he had some injuries lately?

would this be a little less ambiguous for you if you remind yourself of how good jennings was when he was younger and healthier? that helped favre break records? THAT GUY. rodgers had him when he was younger and healthier, before... before... before... oh yeah, the immortal trio of ponder/cassell/freeman.*

* which reminds me, which QB situation do you like better, rodgers or the immortal MIN triumvirate?

maybe, jennings numbers might suffer going from one situation to the other. ya think (and factor in he is older and has been injured recently, relative to when rodgers first had him in his arsenal)?

not only is it not credible, its bizarre to suggest any lowered numbers he might have are in any way, shape or form suggestive of the premis, whatever was good about jennings was entirely due to rodgers.
Jennings is 30 and has had no major injuries this season. Are you actually suggesting that Jennings made Rodgers and not the other way around?The suggestion that Jennings may not have been particularly special but a product of a WR friendly system and two hall of fame caliber QBs is entirely credible and seems to be holding up.

The notion that Rodgers is somehow a product of his fantastic WRs and putting Bradford in GB would turn him into Rodgers is the point you are driving at with this poll, isn't it? And I think that is a highly suspect premise.

Cobb is the only weapon that Rodgers has that I think would be able to go into any system and be highly productive. Nelson, Finley & J.Jones (and Driver in years past) seem just as likely to be JAGs as special weapons.

I asked you in the other thread about where you see Bradford's upside. What is the point you are trying to make about him? You also act as if I am diminishing the guy, which is not the case.
Did you miss the rotoworld note the other day showing that Jennings has 15 catches, ~200 yards and 3 TDs in 2.5 games with Cassell as his QB?
 
Why Bradford? Aren't these topics more fun with comparable talents like Brady, Brees, Manning... :oldunsure:

You would think the last 5 weeks would have ended the "Rodgers is great because of all his weapons" narrative. Or am I missing the point of this thread? Certainly we're not suggusting Bradford is in the same ballpark, are we? :confused:
You can take it at face value, Jeremy.

There have been people (elsewhere, shall we say) who have unironically suggested that if you summed up all of the receiving weapons that rodgers and bradford have had during their respective tenures as starting QBs in GB and STL, bradford's were better.

This post has elicited a few huhs. for the record, i'm like whoever thought that exact same thing. the question shouldn't really be necessary. but as proof it is necessary, there are attempts in the thread RIGHT NOW, trying to make the case that it isn't obvious.

the poll might have even been phrased differently, if i had been more precise and accurate with what i was trying to get at (sometimes my thinking evolves along the way according to feedback in the thread, so thanks for that)... something like...

which QB X (not rodgers or bradford - could be a ryan or stafford, not the best, but above average, pretty good) would you expect to do better in a vacuum, with the GB or STL receiving weapons...

and also keep the sequence the same...

[GB has more overlap, the WR corp had some players together for years... STL more churning and turnover. people can draw their own conclusions about the implications of that]

QB X would get bradford's same year one receiving weapons in their counterpart year one... bradford's year two receiving weapons in their year two, and so on.

repeat with rodgers.

* the answer to your question has several levels.

but the main one is to find out how prevalent or non-prevalent the viewpoint was that STL had/has better receiving weapons during bradford's tenure, than GB during rodgers tenure.

if the shark pool is more like a bigger aquatic body, like an ocean or a river, than the threads might be like various tributaries feeding into it and away from it. so i was trying to determine if a VOCAL contingent elsewhere, represented a raging torrent of popular opinion, or was more like the thread equivalent of a stagnant, brackish backwater. :)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Who voted for Bradford? Was this a mark of contrarian thinking, or deliberate stupidity?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not sure you can separate the two that easily.

Greg Jennings is a great example. He was a world beater with Rodgers throwing him the ball (16 ypc and double digit TDs year after year) and is a marginal player with the jokers in Minnesota throwing him the ball (12 ypc and 3 TDs in 11 games).

Rodgers was on pace for another 30 TD season (with an 8.8 YPA) without Jennings (and Finley, and Cobb at times). So what does that say about Rodgers weapons and Jennings?
The poll results suggest that everybody so far in fact can separate the two that easily.

Think about it abstractly. When was Greg Jennings absolute peak? When he was 27? Whatever it was, he wasn't traded. But he could have been. If he was, the trade partner would have been forced to think in these abstract terms, INDEPENDENT of Rodgers. When MIA signed Mike Wallace or MIN Jennings, how else could they think about it but in terms of... what is that players INTRINSIC physical ability, athleticism, talent, skill set, etc. Film exists on their body of work. how fast are they? can they cut at full speed without having to gather themselves? do they have route tells? are they elusive in the open field? explosive off the line? can they defeat the jam at the LOS by aggressive DBs. leaping ability? hands? body control and agility. proximity sense of players and boundary awareness of sidelines and end zone. toughness, physicality and competitiveness. etc.

These can be isolated out and put under a microscope by scouts, than forensically scrubbed for details and information.

There are two ways i'll answer why i DON'T think if Jennings doesn't do as good with Ponder throwing to him than he did with Rodgers, this NECESSARILY means the WR "is" whatever he does wherever he goes.

Wouldn't you expect Jennings to do better with Rodgers than Ponder? That is because Rodgers is a better QB. If Jennings does worse with Ponder, it probably doesn't mean Jennings isn't a good WR. It means Ponder is a bad QB. Pretty non-controversial point, seemingly (but I would have thought the same in the case of GB having better receiving weapons than STL?)...

For instance, if a Rodgers-like QB X threw the ball 10 times to Jennings for 100 yard TDs and he went 10-1,000-10 in the game, that would be great for his stats. But if a lesser, Ponder-like QB Y throws the ball 10 times, but has a Tebow-like mechanical flaw and slams the ball into the ground 10 times, Jennings would have a 0-0-0 boxscore. Would you conclude from that, because Jennings didn't do as well with QB Y, Jennings wasn't very good?

Jennings is not in his prime. He has had some injuries in recent years. He may still be very good, but this poll doesn't have to think of Jennings at 30. Rodgers had him in his prime. In his prime, where Rodgers had him as he started, where would you have ranked him among WRs. Than think of ANY WR bradford had in his first few years. Would any rate as high as Jennings? Than do that for Cobb? Would you really have Donnie Avery or Brandon Gibson than Jordy Nelson? Lance Kendricks than Jermichael Finley?

Jennings is probably a microcosm of the thread. We have room to agree on some things, elsewhere. But I think on this, we seem to be pretty far apart. If you are this far apart about Jennings, maybe it shouldn't be a surprise if you are vexed by the thread. You seem to have an extreme oulier POV... like one of two people in the northern hemishere extreme outlier (there are also a few Yanamano Rain Forest Indians in the Amazon jungle). If you don't believe me, look at the poll results? It doesn't prove anything. Some might say it is suggestive. But maybe not. Maybe you are right, and everybody else that has voted in the poll is wrong? I think you can see it is a route. Other people don't view this like you do. Which is OK. Fantasy football and life would be boring if everybody thought indentically. But there is a point, where you can see you will be doing the thread equivalent of slamming your head into a wall in trying to convince others that Bradford had the benefit of superior receiving weapons in his first few years, compared to Rodgers.

So I appreciate the points, I might get to another, but we probably don't need hundreds of posts about how if Jennings doesn't do as well with Ponder as Rodgers, maybe he wasn't as good as we thought?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob are you honestly suggesting that Bradford could be Aaron Rodgers if we magically transferred the WRs & TEs from GB to StL?

 
Bob since you think this poll indicates anything substantial about Bradford v Rodgers why don't you set up a poll "Rodgers v Bradford choose one".

Do you think the results would be any different from this poll?

 
Driver and Cobb by themselves are better than anything Bradford has had to work with.

The rest make this easy.

Frankly, I don't see the point of this thread.
I agree about Cobb but am not sure about Driver. Would he really have done anything significant without Favre and Rodgers throwing him the ball? I am not so sure. Cobb seems to be more dynamic on film, but again with Rodgers throwing him the ball it's hard to say with certainty.

I think it becomes easier to make these comparisons when WRs switch teams, or teams switch QBs. Like in the case of Jennings.

And I personally feel that if you took Bradford's weapons over the years and transported them to Green Bay that they would look a whole lot better than they did in St Louis. A lot of that feeling is based upon my feeling that Rodgers is a superior QB talent and a lot of that feeling is because I believe the GB coaching staff is better than what St. Louis has had.
how old is jennings now? has he had some injuries lately?

would this be a little less ambiguous for you if you remind yourself of how good jennings was when he was younger and healthier? that helped favre break records? THAT GUY. rodgers had him when he was younger and healthier, before... before... before... oh yeah, the immortal trio of ponder/cassell/freeman.*

* which reminds me, which QB situation do you like better, rodgers or the immortal MIN triumvirate?

maybe, jennings numbers might suffer going from one situation to the other. ya think (and factor in he is older and has been injured recently, relative to when rodgers first had him in his arsenal)?

not only is it not credible, its bizarre to suggest any lowered numbers he might have are in any way, shape or form suggestive of the premis, whatever was good about jennings was entirely due to rodgers.
Jennings is 30 and has had no major injuries this season. Are you actually suggesting that Jennings made Rodgers and not the other way around?

The suggestion that Jennings may not have been particularly special but a product of a WR friendly system and two hall of fame caliber QBs is entirely credible and seems to be holding up.

The notion that Rodgers is somehow a product of his fantastic WRs and putting Bradford in GB would turn him into Rodgers is the point you are driving at with this poll, isn't it? And I think that is a highly suspect premise.

Cobb is the only weapon that Rodgers has that I think would be able to go into any system and be highly productive. Nelson, Finley & J.Jones (and Driver in years past) seem just as likely to be JAGs as special weapons.

I asked you in the other thread about where you see Bradford's upside. What is the point you are trying to make about him? You also act as if I am diminishing the guy, which is not the case.
In your opinion is Jennings at his physical peak or prime? Or more likely a few years ago. If the latter, than factor THAT into the poll. Whatever years Rodgers overlapped with Jennings as a starter in his first, second, third seasons, etc., that would be the age Jennings was for that given season. When I said not lately, I wasn't implying a few days ago. But recently. Not a long time ago. He missed 8 games. Last year. Before that, 3 missed games in 2011.

Focus on the sequence. I didn't blow into the thread and rapid fire staccato post after post (trying to hard too convince the thread that STL WRs were better than GB when the poll is a route and should tell you something about the extreme outlier position you are taking) about how if Jennings doesn't do well in MIN it is meaningful and that maybe he isn't that good.

NEXT in the exchange sequence, i responded that I disagreed if you meant "...whatever was good about jennings was entirely due to rodgers."

Notice that I'm not saying the complete opposite, which you seemed to be confused about, and distorted my position with this...

"Are you actually suggesting that Jennings made Rodgers and not the other way around?"

Do you understand the difference. Try and wrap your mind around the possibility that maybe Rodgers is great, and Jennings was very good. They don't have to be mutually exclusive in some kind of zero sum game. The better Rodgers is doesn't have to mean the worse Jennings is. The better Jennings is doesn't have to mean the worse Rodgers is. :) But I know you know this, just not sure why we have to clarify something that is so basic and elemental. Sometimes, trying to refute points leads to logic puzzle kind of exchanges that are unhinged from reality. Intuitively, if QB X slams the ball into the ground 10 times, that doesn't make Jennings bad.

Another point of yours below. If it isn't too much to ask, I have to say that I'm not really comfortable with you interpreting my meaning of the poll for the rest of the board. If I'm not sure what you mean, I'll do my best to ask you what you mean. I won't tell the rest of the board what you mean for you. Mainly because you got it wrong. I think you got the premise of the poll wrong. I think you got Jennings wrong. Wherever I look in the thread, I see wrong. I already explained elsewhere in the thread the point of the poll. I wanted to find out how left field and surreal is the premise that Bradford had the "advantage" of superior receiving talent to Rodgers. As it turns out, very. I also said there were several levels of intention with the poll. Some, from the "axiom" that of course Bradford had better weapons than Rodgers, might draw conclusions that they wouldn't otherwise if they thought that premise was heinously flawed (I'm doing my best to be generous and sympathetic there).

"The notion that Rodgers is somehow a product of his fantastic WRs and putting Bradford in GB would turn him into Rodgers is the point you are driving at with this poll, isn't it? And I think that is a highly suspect premise."

Lastly. I answered it there. Confusion arises and a lot of potential mischief is created when we don't make a distinction between whether we are talking about real football or fantasy. I actually said it in the very first post of that thread. But it still gets forgotten a lot (if by myself sometimes, i take responsibility for that). He was pacing for around top 12. I think he can be better than Trent Dilfer or Jason Campbell. Maybe if they add Jake Matthews and Sammy Watkins/Mike Evans, that could help him and he could do better? But that is the point. He could have upside. Many have written him off. IMO, it would be unfortunate if people wrote him off because he didn't do better with "WRs that were even better than Rodgers had in GB".

"I asked you in the other thread about where you see Bradford's upside. What is the point you are trying to make about him? You also act as if I am diminishing the guy, which is not the case."

I'm not trying to act like anything. I'm not attributing motives to you, or speaking for you to the thread. I've asked you to please not do it, and I will try to do the same. I think you mean what you say. I don't think you are posting out of an agenda. But it doesn't matter. I think you are mistaken is all that matter. Intent or motives don't enter into it. I'm just responding to your observations and questions, as you are to mine. I really do think GB had better WRs than STL. Pretty much everybody agrees with what seems like a point so obvious, some questioned why it was even necessary? So that ought to tell you all you need to know that I don't have an agenda. Diminishing? There have been some counterintuitive posts in here by you. Look at the poll, you will have to admit you have the extreme outlier position, not me. Maybe if there weren't multiple counterintuitive posts (like if Jennings doesn't set the world on fire with Ponder, it in some way means he isn't really that good), I wouldn't need to respond to multiple counterintuitive posts... and than you wouldn't think that i think you are diminishing the guy. I also think sometimes you respond to what you think I mean, when there was a more straightforward, face value meaning. Like saying I disagree that EVERYTHING that was good about Jennings is attributable to Rodgers. Than you comeback with I must have meant that Everything that was good about Rodgers came from Jennings (or the other WRs). Come on? I'm not saying Rodgers is bad, obviously. But if if some people build a house of generalizations and judgements on a cracked and broken foundation, it might fall down. IMO it is worth pointing out.

 
Chaka said:
Again I ask, what is your point about Bradford? After 7 pages of the other thread and this thread I still don't understand the point you are trying to make about him. Perhaps you articulated it in one of your many dissertations but I must have missed it. Can you articulate the point you are trying to make about Bradford in a sentence or two?
I don't think I can Chaka.

Here are a few sentences. You thought the ACTUAL poll question (don't get into subtexts) wasn't obvious. Based on the results of the poll, you are mistaken. THAT IS THE POINT. The poll results are about 90% to 10%. That is a landslide and the poll/thread equivalent of a mandate.

Some things in fantasy football are subjective and judgement calls. Check the poll. That should tell you this wasn't one of those cases.

Another reason it takes longer is there are times you respond to what I didn't say, and it is tedious extricating the meaning from these layers of misinterpretations, and it takes a while to wade through it. Communication is a two part process.

Sometimes the enormity of a mistake is so gargantuan, it is like a mansion rotten withn termites. An inspector can't do a thorough job of determining whether it needs to be destroyed or not, by popping in one room for a few seconds.

A last point, and this ISN'T DIRECTED AT YOU, but to the thread in general. I prefer truth to falsity. When I see falsity, to change the insect/exterminator metaphor, I think of the propogation of falsity and wrong thinking like... cockroaches. If you have coackroaches, what happens when you shine a light on them. They scatter (just speaking of wrong thinking). I would like to disperse wrong thinking (such as STL had better WRs than GB - IMO, and with all due respect) like extreminators do with cockroaches.

* Is it really necessary to rapid fire three posts in 30 seconds? You are trying way too hard. Am I supposed to respond to all three posts in the last 30 seconds. But than you will scold and reprimand for being too long. Which is it?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
this is why i traded Cobb.

he will likely sign with the highest bidder once his rookie contract is up and his production will go down much like Jennings.

 
this is why i traded Cobb.

he will likely sign with the highest bidder once his rookie contract is up and his production will go down much like Jennings.
But this doesn't really bear on whether GB had better WRs than STL.

unless you think guys like Donnie Avery and Brandon Gibson are better than Jennings and Cobb.

* where do you think he would rank if he were traded to another team in 2014.

Like with Manning, Brady or Brees. Obviously he could go to plenty worse teams, but what if he went to a good team.

What would the GAP be in dynasty rankings for you...

1 - assuming he moves on.

2 - if you thought he would stay in GB.

BTW, Jennings signed a three year extension in 2009. Is there any particular reason you think they won't want to sign him. Nelson isn't OLD old, but he isn't young like Cobb. James Jones is a good complementary WR, but I think they recognize him for what he is. Cobb is, if not the most talented WR on the roster (imo he is), represents the best intersection of talent, youth and upside.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
this is why i traded Cobb.

he will likely sign with the highest bidder once his rookie contract is up and his production will go down much like Jennings.
But this doesn't really bear on whether GB had better WRs than STL.

unless you think guys like Donnie Avery and Brandon Gibson are better than Jennings and Cobb.
sorry, i realize i'm not answering your original question.but i agree with the premise that we are actually discussing the chicken or the egg here.

 
this is why i traded Cobb.

he will likely sign with the highest bidder once his rookie contract is up and his production will go down much like Jennings.
But this doesn't really bear on whether GB had better WRs than STL.

unless you think guys like Donnie Avery and Brandon Gibson are better than Jennings and Cobb.

* where do you think he would rank if he were traded to another team in 2014.

Like with Manning, Brady or Brees. Obviously he could go to plenty worse teams, but what if he went to a good team.

What would the GAP be in dynasty rankings for you...

1 - assuming he moves on.

2 - if you thought he would stay in GB.

BTW, Jennings signed a three year extension in 2009. Is there any particular reason you think they won't want to sign him. Nelson isn't OLD old, but he isn't young like Cobb. James Jones is a good complementary WR, but I think they recognize him for what he is. Cobb is, if not the most talented WR on the roster (imo he is), represents the best intersection of talent, youth and upside.
imo the Packers realize that Rogers is the talent and they are not going to overpay for receivers. look at what's happened this season. the WR talent isn't exactly elevating Flynn, is it?

 
this is why i traded Cobb.

he will likely sign with the highest bidder once his rookie contract is up and his production will go down much like Jennings.
But this doesn't really bear on whether GB had better WRs than STL.

unless you think guys like Donnie Avery and Brandon Gibson are better than Jennings and Cobb.
sorry, i realize i'm not answering your original question.but i agree with the premise that we are actually discussing the chicken or the egg here.
No worries, I was just pointing it out for the thread. thanks for the clarification.

I edited in a few Cobb questions after your response, if you are interested.

Not sure about chicken and egg.

If Jennings is an example (?), which has been controversial...

does Rodgers make Jennings, or does Jennings make Rodgers (and BTW, I never said that, Chaka said I said that, but he was mistaken)? I can wrap my mind around the possibility that Rodgers can be great, and Jennings can be really good (not suggesting you can't, but caused some confusion with Chaka, so just splainin the thought process). They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

it isn't ALWAYS about the QB. if calvin johnson was on GB (what a nightmare that would be for NFC North defenses), I wouldn't trade him on the grounds mentioned earlier.

 
this is why i traded Cobb.

he will likely sign with the highest bidder once his rookie contract is up and his production will go down much like Jennings.
But this doesn't really bear on whether GB had better WRs than STL.

unless you think guys like Donnie Avery and Brandon Gibson are better than Jennings and Cobb.
sorry, i realize i'm not answering your original question.but i agree with the premise that we are actually discussing the chicken or the egg here.
No worries, I was just pointing it out for the thread. thanks for the clarification.

I edited in a few Cobb questions after your response, if you are interested.

Not sure about chicken and egg.

If Jennings is an example (?), which has been controversial...

does Rodgers make Jennings, or does Jennings make Rodgers (and BTW, I never said that, Chaka said I said that, but he was mistaken)? I can wrap my mind around the possibility that Rodgers can be great, and Jennings can be really good (not suggesting you can't, but caused some confusion with Chaka, so just splainin the thought process). They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

it isn't ALWAYS about the QB. if calvin johnson was on GB (what a nightmare that would be for NFC North defenses), I wouldn't trade him on the grounds mentioned earlier.
sure they can both be good. but my money is on the QB almost every time.

 
this is why i traded Cobb.

he will likely sign with the highest bidder once his rookie contract is up and his production will go down much like Jennings.
But this doesn't really bear on whether GB had better WRs than STL.

unless you think guys like Donnie Avery and Brandon Gibson are better than Jennings and Cobb.

* where do you think he would rank if he were traded to another team in 2014.

Like with Manning, Brady or Brees. Obviously he could go to plenty worse teams, but what if he went to a good team.

What would the GAP be in dynasty rankings for you...

1 - assuming he moves on.

2 - if you thought he would stay in GB.

BTW, Jennings signed a three year extension in 2009. Is there any particular reason you think they won't want to sign him. Nelson isn't OLD old, but he isn't young like Cobb. James Jones is a good complementary WR, but I think they recognize him for what he is. Cobb is, if not the most talented WR on the roster (imo he is), represents the best intersection of talent, youth and upside.
imo the Packers realize that Rogers is the talent and they are not going to overpay for receivers.look at what's happened this season. the WR talent isn't exactly elevating Flynn, is it?
So where would you rank Cobb in dynasty (the GAP), if you thought he was going or staying?

do you think they will re-sign other WRs in the future, or always churn them going forward?

GB isn't looking good, but is part of that related to not just Rodgers being out, but Cobb, too. Not putting them on the same level, but I can't say I'm that surprised. The Colts were a playoff team with Manning. He got a neck injury. Than they were so bad they were picking Luck in 2012? One player can be very important. But I wouldn't conclude from that Manning is the real talent and Reggie Wayne isn't that good.

If Manning has another neck injury, and Tebow comes out of retirement, and clangs 20 passes in a row off the ground, I don't see DEN saying, Manning was the real talent, we don't need Demaryius Thomas.

 
this is why i traded Cobb.

he will likely sign with the highest bidder once his rookie contract is up and his production will go down much like Jennings.
But this doesn't really bear on whether GB had better WRs than STL.

unless you think guys like Donnie Avery and Brandon Gibson are better than Jennings and Cobb.

* where do you think he would rank if he were traded to another team in 2014.

Like with Manning, Brady or Brees. Obviously he could go to plenty worse teams, but what if he went to a good team.

What would the GAP be in dynasty rankings for you...

1 - assuming he moves on.

2 - if you thought he would stay in GB.

BTW, Jennings signed a three year extension in 2009. Is there any particular reason you think they won't want to sign him. Nelson isn't OLD old, but he isn't young like Cobb. James Jones is a good complementary WR, but I think they recognize him for what he is. Cobb is, if not the most talented WR on the roster (imo he is), represents the best intersection of talent, youth and upside.
imo the Packers realize that Rogers is the talent and they are not going to overpay for receivers.look at what's happened this season. the WR talent isn't exactly elevating Flynn, is it?
So where would you rank Cobb in dynasty (the GAP), if you thought he was going or staying?

do you think they will re-sign other WRs in the future, or always churn them going forward?

GB isn't looking good, but is part of that related to not just Rodgers being out, but Cobb, too. Not putting them on the same level, but I can't say I'm that surprised. The Colts were a playoff team with Manning. He got a neck injury. Than they were so bad they were picking Luck in 2012? One player can be very important. But I wouldn't conclude from that Manning is the real talent and Reggie Wayne isn't that good.

If Manning has another neck injury, and Tebow comes out of retirement, and clangs 20 passes in a row off the ground, I don't see DEN saying, Manning was the real talent, we don't need Demaryius Thomas.
hey, i hear what you're saying. but i believe that there are many more WRs in the league that are situation dependent than there are QBs.

 
Chaka said:
Someone please PM me when Bob actually comes out with his point about Bradford.
here is an excerpt.

Is it really necessary to rapid fire three posts in 30 seconds? You are trying way too hard. Am I supposed to respond to all three posts in the last 30 seconds. But than you will scold and reprimand for being too long. Which is it?

 
this is why i traded Cobb.

he will likely sign with the highest bidder once his rookie contract is up and his production will go down much like Jennings.
But this doesn't really bear on whether GB had better WRs than STL.

unless you think guys like Donnie Avery and Brandon Gibson are better than Jennings and Cobb.

* where do you think he would rank if he were traded to another team in 2014.

Like with Manning, Brady or Brees. Obviously he could go to plenty worse teams, but what if he went to a good team.

What would the GAP be in dynasty rankings for you...

1 - assuming he moves on.

2 - if you thought he would stay in GB.

BTW, Jennings signed a three year extension in 2009. Is there any particular reason you think they won't want to sign him. Nelson isn't OLD old, but he isn't young like Cobb. James Jones is a good complementary WR, but I think they recognize him for what he is. Cobb is, if not the most talented WR on the roster (imo he is), represents the best intersection of talent, youth and upside.
imo the Packers realize that Rogers is the talent and they are not going to overpay for receivers.look at what's happened this season. the WR talent isn't exactly elevating Flynn, is it?
So where would you rank Cobb in dynasty (the GAP), if you thought he was going or staying?

do you think they will re-sign other WRs in the future, or always churn them going forward?

GB isn't looking good, but is part of that related to not just Rodgers being out, but Cobb, too. Not putting them on the same level, but I can't say I'm that surprised. The Colts were a playoff team with Manning. He got a neck injury. Than they were so bad they were picking Luck in 2012? One player can be very important. But I wouldn't conclude from that Manning is the real talent and Reggie Wayne isn't that good.

If Manning has another neck injury, and Tebow comes out of retirement, and clangs 20 passes in a row off the ground, I don't see DEN saying, Manning was the real talent, we don't need Demaryius Thomas.
hey, i hear what you're saying.but i believe that there are many more WRs in the league that are situation dependent than there are QBs.
gotcha.

again, thanks for the clarification.

we just differ in thinking he is one of those guys.

I had a startup dynasty league this year, and he went around 10-12 among WRs. I'm guessing the consensus expectations, may be different from yours (that Cobb is gone when his contract is up)... just noting that to put his place among WRs in the draft in context, they may have been operating from different assumptions (or maybe not?). If GB announced tomorrow, Cobb will categorically not be re-signed in GB, not sure his value would plummet. Would it go from 10 to 15 among receivers? Good question.

Of course, who you got in the trade is the biggest factor. if you got calvin johnson, you win whether he stays or not, or even if he did move on, and did even better in a place like DEN, NE or DEN.

 
also, DEN, NE, or DEN?

Peyton Manning is likely done in another year.

and when does New England over-pay for WR talent?

again, i understand your point, but it's just not very likely a guy like Cobb is going to walk into a better situation than he's in right now.

 
also, DEN, NE, or DEN?

Peyton Manning is likely done in another year.

and when does New England over-pay for WR talent?

again, i understand your point, but it's just not very likely a guy like Cobb is going to walk into a better situation than he's in right now.
I was trying to find out what NE paid Welker previously. Anyways, he was 32. Cobb is 23. Big difference. If Welker had been a lot younger (if not 23) perhaps they would have made a stronger effort to retain him?

I see what you mean, though.

 
Chaka said:
Chaka said:
Someone please PM me when Bob actually comes out with his point about Bradford.
here is an excerpt.

Is it really necessary to rapid fire three posts in 30 seconds? You are trying way too hard. Am I supposed to respond to all three posts in the last 30 seconds. But than you will scold and reprimand for being too long. Which is it?
You can answer posts in under 225 words y'know (that's been your average so far).

Are you ever going to reveal the point you are trying to make about Bradford or is this going to end up like Lost?

Is there a smoke monster smiley?
More stuff on Bradford in the Bradford thread. You might find what you are looking for there.

Good one with the smoke monster smiley. I'll request one. :)

BTW, a quick hitter on Jennings, just for perspective (contract terms from his wiki page below). Whatever you think about Jennings, and I think we are pretty far apart (where would you rank him in fantasy when he was in his prime - top 10-15? instead of Rodgers, put him with Roddy White and Matt Ryan in ATL, and they don't make the blockbuster trade for Julio Jones, using one of the picks to trade for Jennings instead), it is inconceivable to me, mind boggling, to think that some former Bradford "weapons", guys like Donnie Avery and Brandon Gibson (and their ilk) would command anywhere near this kind of contract. Note on his wiki page, they didn't even put the contract figure (guess his stature didn't warrant it). Fortunately, we don't need to speculate. Looked it up, three years, $10 million, not sure about guaranteed money.

"On March 15, 2013, Jennings signed a five-year, $47.5 million ($18 million guaranteed) contract with the Minnesota Vikings"...

"On March 15, 2013 Gibson signed with the Miami Dolphins."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaka said:
Chaka said:
Someone please PM me when Bob actually comes out with his point about Bradford.
here is an excerpt.

Is it really necessary to rapid fire three posts in 30 seconds? You are trying way too hard. Am I supposed to respond to all three posts in the last 30 seconds. But than you will scold and reprimand for being too long. Which is it?
You can answer posts in under 225 words y'know (that's been your average so far).

Are you ever going to reveal the point you are trying to make about Bradford or is this going to end up like Lost?

Is there a smoke monster smiley?
More stuff on Bradford in the Bradford thread. You might find what you are looking for there.

Good one with the smoke monster smiley. I'll request one. :)

BTW, a quick hitter on Jennings, just for perspective (contract terms from his wiki page below). Whatever you think about Jennings, and I think we are pretty far apart (where would you rank him in fantasy when he was in his prime - top 10-15? instead of Rodgers, put him with Roddy White and Matt Ryan in ATL, and they don't make the blockbuster trade for Julio Jones, using one of the picks to trade for Jennings instead), it is inconceivable to me, mind boggling, to think that some former Bradford "weapons", guys like Donnie Avery and Brandon Gibson (and their ilk) would command anywhere near this kind of contract. Note on his wiki page, they didn't even put the contract figure (guess his stature didn't warrant it). Fortunately, we don't need to speculate. Looked it up, three years, $10 million, not sure about guaranteed money.

"On March 15, 2013, Jennings signed a five-year, $47.5 million ($18 million guaranteed) contract with the Minnesota Vikings"...

"On March 15, 2013 Gibson signed with the Miami Dolphins."
Alvin Harper got a big contract too.

Jennings is a fine WR but he isn't a game changer on any level, never has been. I certainly don't think he would come close to matching Julio in Atlanta. I gotta say I am not convinced that Greg Jennings is significantly better than Harry Douglas. Considering what he is doing in Atlanta this year I think it is possible that Douglas could have put up similar numbers to Jennings had he been in Green Bay with Rodgers throwing the ball (I like Ryan but Rodgers>>>Ryan in my book. However I could see Ryan=Bradford if they swapped teams).

I also find the notion that 30 is somehow an age that WRs are no longer in their prime or see a decline in production to be specious.

 
Chaka said:
Chaka said:
Someone please PM me when Bob actually comes out with his point about Bradford.
here is an excerpt.

Is it really necessary to rapid fire three posts in 30 seconds? You are trying way too hard. Am I supposed to respond to all three posts in the last 30 seconds. But than you will scold and reprimand for being too long. Which is it?
You can answer posts in under 225 words y'know (that's been your average so far).Are you ever going to reveal the point you are trying to make about Bradford or is this going to end up like Lost?

Is there a smoke monster smiley?
More stuff on Bradford in the Bradford thread. You might find what you are looking for there.

Good one with the smoke monster smiley. I'll request one. :)

BTW, a quick hitter on Jennings, just for perspective (contract terms from his wiki page below). Whatever you think about Jennings, and I think we are pretty far apart (where would you rank him in fantasy when he was in his prime - top 10-15? instead of Rodgers, put him with Roddy White and Matt Ryan in ATL, and they don't make the blockbuster trade for Julio Jones, using one of the picks to trade for Jennings instead), it is inconceivable to me, mind boggling, to think that some former Bradford "weapons", guys like Donnie Avery and Brandon Gibson (and their ilk) would command anywhere near this kind of contract. Note on his wiki page, they didn't even put the contract figure (guess his stature didn't warrant it). Fortunately, we don't need to speculate. Looked it up, three years, $10 million, not sure about guaranteed money.

"On March 15, 2013, Jennings signed a five-year, $47.5 million ($18 million guaranteed) contract with the Minnesota Vikings"...

"On March 15, 2013 Gibson signed with the Miami Dolphins."
Alvin Harper got a big contract too.Jennings is a fine WR but he isn't a game changer on any level, never has been. I certainly don't think he would come close to matching Julio in Atlanta. I gotta say I am not convinced that Greg Jennings is significantly better than Harry Douglas. Considering what he is doing in Atlanta this year I think it is possible that Douglas could have put up similar numbers to Jennings had he been in Green Bay with Rodgers throwing the ball (I like Ryan but Rodgers>>>Ryan in my book. However I could see Ryan=Bradford if they swapped teams).

I also find the notion that 30 is somehow an age that WRs are no longer in their prime or see a decline in production to be specious.
Wasn't Jennings the focal point of the GB passing attack at times. Harper never was, Irvin was the alpha dog.In a five year stretch from 2007 to 2011, jennings had about 344 receptions, 5,500+ yards & 46 TDs.

I don't think as many WRs did better in that span as you seem to think so.

no no, Jennings isn't as good as Julio, but Julio probably in the top three or so most talented WRs in the league right now (Calvin, Josh Gordon and Julio). but sticking to the point of the poll/thread, FAR, FAR, FAR better than the likes of avery and gibson. I only mentioned ATL because how much Rodgers contribution to Jenning seemed to be a sticking point. I had to put him somewhere, and since Ryan not in Rodgers class, but better than Geno Smith with the Jets, seemed like a good place to put him. I think he would have graded out pretty well in ATL, too, and been very productive there, if not Julio good.

No argument, I like Rodgers >>> more than Ryan.

The Ryan=Bradford if switched teams mentioned in passing is significant to me, as a far better comp than any I have ever seen in the other thread. I used a comp of a lesser aggregate of Ryan, Rivers and Palmer there just now. that may be the single strongest point of agreement between us on a Bradford comp ever. I could have shut down that thread a long time ago if that comp had been mentioned earlier. :)

not sure if i implied ALL WRs crash and burn at 30 (?). nor even that Jennings has. just that his play, or production, has dropped off (partly due to injuries past two years prior to 2013, he has missed time and his stats have gone down accordingly). if you look at his numbers, he doesn't look like he is in the inflection point of an ascendant WR just about to explode. some of that probably has to do with Ponder, you would probably disagree. but Andre Johnson is an example of a player doing very well at 32 (how old is Wayne?). Welker is about 32. All still playing at a high level. if you look at hall of fame WRs, many played well into their mid-30s.

lastly, and back on point, i would rather have Jennings a few years ago in Rodgers first few years, he looked more explosive to me? that is who rodgers had, and when he had him. for myself, i see a difference. to anybody for who jennings looks 100% as good as when rodgers started out, it would be a moot point I guess. but again, that is who rodgers had, and the age when he had him, so get your highlights from then for anybody cross-checking and playing at home. :)

greg jennings career stats...

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JennGr00.htm

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Null vote. Is this the chicken and egg thing, which comes first the great QB or the great WR corps? So put Rodgers in St. Louis and he's Bradford and put Bradford in Green Bay and he's Rodgers?

No, just no.

Which QB has had to play with:

  • Late (4th from last) 7th round pick WR from Hofstra
  • undrafted WR from Toledo
  • a former 1st round bust who couldn't even make it as a 6th WR on a .500'ish team
  • A 5th round rookie WR who couldn't even get a thread mention here with Josh Boyce and Quentin Patton
  • A TE who didn't even start playing football until college?
  • A former straight-line runner SEC WR with hands of stone who couldn't even make it with the Redskins for a few weeks
And yet this QB has broken records held by Marino and Unitas.

It is definitely not all about the QB, it's really more about the coordinator and head coaches these guys get to play under and the systems they're in.

Bradford seemed to get upgrades across the board at WR & TE and the results have indeed been better but the team works better overall as a run first, defense oriented team anyway which might actually be better suited to a different kind of QB. Or maybe rather given the QB they do have the team would be better suited with a different offensive coordinator and head coach (if the priority is to maximize the QB's potential, which it's not).

Better yet, put Austin in Green Bay with Rodgers and you would see some crazy good football, but besides that I don't think anyone would say that the Rams receivers have ever matched up talent-wise with the Green Bay receivers, but then again a whole different offense altogether would be built around them by McCarthy if they were somehow magically transferred to Green Bay and who knows how that would look. I think one guy who would not transfer skills is Cook, this is a guy who obviously has trouble staying on the field for a variety of things he does that coaches don't like because it doesn't help them win football games.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I never said StL WRs > or = to GB WRs. I said that outside of Cobb I don't think the GB WRs were/are all that special.

Nelson, J.Jones, Jennings & Finley are maybe (MAYBE) above average WRs on most other teams.

I don't think they haven had a special WR since Sterling Sharpe.

Robert Brooks, Antonio Freeman, Bill Schroeder, Javon Walker & Jennings are all guys who looked like gangbusters in GB only to be, at best, average (at the ages of 28-30) when they left for another team.

'

I am not sure if your point with this thread is that 1) If Rodgers WRs were transported to StL then Bradford would = Rodgers production or 2) If Bradford were in GB and Rodgers were in StL then Bradford >= Rodgers. While I don't think either would necessarily be the case I find #2 more plausible than #1 and that by a wide margin.

 
Chaka said:
I never said StL WRs > or = to GB WRs. I said that outside of Cobb I don't think the GB WRs were/are all that special.

Nelson, J.Jones, Jennings & Finley are maybe (MAYBE) above average WRs on most other teams.

I don't think they haven had a special WR since Sterling Sharpe.

Robert Brooks, Antonio Freeman, Bill Schroeder, Javon Walker & Jennings are all guys who looked like gangbusters in GB only to be, at best, average (at the ages of 28-30) when they left for another team.

'

I am not sure if your point with this thread is that 1) If Rodgers WRs were transported to StL then Bradford would = Rodgers production or 2) If Bradford were in GB and Rodgers were in StL then Bradford >= Rodgers. While I don't think either would necessarily be the case I find #2 more plausible than #1 and that by a wide margin.
At least get the story directionally accurate. Robert Brooks played basically his whole career in GB, other than 4 games in Denver after sitting out a whole season. He never *really* played for another team.Bill Schroeder was not gangbusters in GB. Packer fans held their breath each time a ball was thrown his way, because he so often ran the wrong route or failed to come back to the ball. He was a subpar starter in GB.

Freeman and Walker are somewhat fair comments. Except that Walker was never the same player after his injury, and Freeman was physically done by the time he left GB.

I've already posted in this thread about Jennings and his performance with Cassell at QB. Ponder is a terrible QB, so not surprisingly he makes Jennings look bad. People have somehow forgotten that Jennings has been a very very good WR since basically his first training camp. He was compared favorably, at the time, to Marvin Harrison (by the same WR coach). Jennings just happened to be in an offense where they did the intelligent thing of not forcing the ball to a single WR on every play. (Hi Sterling Sharpe!)

 
Bob, I don't understand how you can deflect Bradford talk in this thread to the other one, when the entire premise of this thread is obviously an offshoot of the Bradford debate in the first place. You were just trying to make a point with this poll to use in that debate. So it's all fair game here, right? They are linked topics.

 
Chaka said:
I never said StL WRs > or = to GB WRs. I said that outside of Cobb I don't think the GB WRs were/are all that special.

Nelson, J.Jones, Jennings & Finley are maybe (MAYBE) above average WRs on most other teams.

I don't think they haven had a special WR since Sterling Sharpe.

Robert Brooks, Antonio Freeman, Bill Schroeder, Javon Walker & Jennings are all guys who looked like gangbusters in GB only to be, at best, average (at the ages of 28-30) when they left for another team.

'

I am not sure if your point with this thread is that 1) If Rodgers WRs were transported to StL then Bradford would = Rodgers production or 2) If Bradford were in GB and Rodgers were in StL then Bradford >= Rodgers. While I don't think either would necessarily be the case I find #2 more plausible than #1 and that by a wide margin.
At least get the story directionally accurate. Robert Brooks played basically his whole career in GB, other than 4 games in Denver after sitting out a whole season. He never *really* played for another team.Bill Schroeder was not gangbusters in GB. Packer fans held their breath each time a ball was thrown his way, because he so often ran the wrong route or failed to come back to the ball. He was a subpar starter in GB.

Freeman and Walker are somewhat fair comments. Except that Walker was never the same player after his injury, and Freeman was physically done by the time he left GB.

I've already posted in this thread about Jennings and his performance with Cassell at QB. Ponder is a terrible QB, so not surprisingly he makes Jennings look bad. People have somehow forgotten that Jennings has been a very very good WR since basically his first training camp. He was compared favorably, at the time, to Marvin Harrison (by the same WR coach). Jennings just happened to be in an offense where they did the intelligent thing of not forcing the ball to a single WR on every play. (Hi Sterling Sharpe!)
I never said Jennings was a bad WR, just that he is not some kind of upper tier game changer. He's an above average WR, at times he is better than that, who looked like a world beater in Green Bay.

That is not an insult, GB has run a WR friendly system since the Holmgren days. And having a couple hall of fame QBs throwing the ball just make him look that much better.

To be perfectly clear I think Jennings is better than any WR Bradford has thrown to. I will caveat that by saying that I think both Danario Alexander and Danny Amendola probably had the talent level to be comparable (different skill sets to Jennings though). But they could never stay on the field long enough to truly help Bradford's development and I don't think they will ever hit their potential.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top