Player Spotlight: Greg Jennings (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

Prior to last year, there were 22 other WRs that scored at least 10 TD in their first or second season (1970-2006). Collectively, here were their results:

SEASON W/10+ TD:

337 games played, 252 total TD (0.748 TD per game)

FOLLOWING SEASON:

328 games played, 186 total TD (0.567 TD per game)

And given that Jerry Rice posted a tidy 22 TD in that second category, the numbers are actually quite a bit worse if you factor him out:

SEASON W/10+ TD (Rice excluded)

321 games played, 237 total TD (.738 TD per game)

FOLLOWING SEASON (Rice excluded)

316 games played, 164 total TD (.519 TD per game)

I personally would be very surprised to see Jennings put up double digit TD again . . . especially without Favre. In fact, I think there's a better chance he gets 6-7 TD than 10.

I think the sharkier move is to target Driver later on (ADP 72) than take the risk of Jennings two rounds earlier (ADP 46). Driver has had 80+ receptions 4 years in a row and should be the security blanket for Rodgers IMO.

 

[sho nuff]

I don't think anybody in here doubts Jennings talent. I'm wondering how he puts up 1100/8 without Rodgers putting up Favre type numbers(4000/28) and/or Driver getting 900/4. In 2009 we could be projecting 1300/10 and no one would laugh. I'm not gonna laugh at 1300/10 projected for this year (just wonder HOW?) To me the real Question mark is J Jones and how many times does Green Bay run 3 WR sets or 2 TE's/more protection for the newer QB.

They will still run 3, 4 and 5 WR sets with Rodgers in there. As they did in the Dallas game.This line, while it has had issues in the run game is very good with pass protection.

 

[Team Legacy]

I couldn't believe there were 100 posts on Jennings. I come here to read insightful discussion, not stat spin doctoring to defend bruised egos.

In Favre's coming out party, he was certainly pass happy. The offense combined for a big big season, accounting for:

RBs 95 receptions for 605 yards

TEs 68 receptions for 718 yards 9 tds

WRs 220 receptions for 3140 yards 21 tds

That is a TON of balls NOT going to the wideouts in that offense. A young QB will likely continue with what works but due to Rodgers adjusting to NFL life, can we safely say each group will see at least a 15% reduction? I think so.

RBs 81 recepts 515 yards

TEs 58 recepts 610 yards 7 tds

WRs 187 recepts 2670 yards 17tds

Jennings represented 21% of all WR receptions last year. With his upward progress, and Rodgers needing to find his OWN go-to-guy, I'm bumping this to 30% this year.

56 receptions

He represented 34% of the yardage to wideouts, with a few deep balls from Favre skewing that a bit, however, due to the nature of his progress, I'm keeping this the same.

907 yards

Jennings represented 57% of Wide Receiver TDs last year. Nobody not named Randy can sustain that. I'm bumping this down to 40%.

7 Tds

Jennings is VERY talented and we're all pretty sure that Rogers is NO Brett Favre, so let's let Rogers to Jennings get some time under their belt in 2008. Obviously with SO many weapons in Green Bay, it is seriously hard to cover this guy but I believe next year will be the year to own him.

Anybody that puts up 53, 920 and 12 in 13 games is a stud, I don't care who is throwing the ball.

That entire offense in GB is dangerous from top to bottom, so expect a very nice (not dominant) year from Jennings in year one of Rodgers to Jennings.

56, 907 and 7 - Top 30WR in 2008, so at WR17, yes, Jennings represents an over-valued WR this year. I like this kid too. I traded for him straight up for Lee Evans (very tough for me to do), but I like what his potential is long term.

 

[MCguidance]

Prior to last year, there were 22 other WRs that scored at least 10 TD in their first or second season (1970-2006). Collectively, here were their results:SEASON W/10+ TD:337 games played, 252 total TD (0.748 TD per game)FOLLOWING SEASON:328 games played, 186 total TD (0.567 TD per game)And given that Jerry Rice posted a tidy 22 TD in that second category, the numbers are actually quite a bit worse if you factor him out:SEASON W/10+ TD (Rice excluded)321 games played, 237 total TD (.738 TD per game)FOLLOWING SEASON (Rice excluded)316 games played, 164 total TD (.519 TD per game)I personally would be very surprised to see Jennings put up double digit TD again . . . especially without Favre. In fact, I think there's a better chance he gets 6-7 TD than 10.I think the sharkier move is to target Driver later on (ADP 72) than take the risk of Jennings two rounds earlier (ADP 46). Driver has had 80+ receptions 4 years in a row and should be the security blanket for Rodgers IMO.

DY, assuming yuou have the players, can you post them. The reason I ask is because I would like to take a closer look. While you're trend is great information, I wouild like to see if individual stats, ie: did player A play 16 games, but then only 11, or vice versa, and did some players have different QBs (as Jennings will have) and how did those players fare; or even if there were significant additions (another WR or RB, linemen, etc) that would have played a part. I tend to agree with you, but I would like to take a closer look.Team Legacy, again those numbers are very close to what I predicted. Also, not to nitpick but when you mention "his natural progress" did you account for missed games? I would think yardage would be a bit higher. Anyway, thanks for this, its refreshing to see some informational posts.

 

[David Yudkin]

Prior to last year, there were 22 other WRs that scored at least 10 TD in their first or second season (1970-2006). Collectively, here were their results:SEASON W/10+ TD:337 games played, 252 total TD (0.748 TD per game)FOLLOWING SEASON:328 games played, 186 total TD (0.567 TD per game)And given that Jerry Rice posted a tidy 22 TD in that second category, the numbers are actually quite a bit worse if you factor him out:SEASON W/10+ TD (Rice excluded)321 games played, 237 total TD (.738 TD per game)FOLLOWING SEASON (Rice excluded)316 games played, 164 total TD (.519 TD per game)I personally would be very surprised to see Jennings put up double digit TD again . . . especially without Favre. In fact, I think there's a better chance he gets 6-7 TD than 10.I think the sharkier move is to target Driver later on (ADP 72) than take the risk of Jennings two rounds earlier (ADP 46). Driver has had 80+ receptions 4 years in a row and should be the security blanket for Rodgers IMO.

DY, assuming yuou have the players, can you post them. The reason I ask is because I would like to take a closer look. While you're trend is great information, I wouild like to see if individual stats, ie: did player A play 16 games, but then only 11, or vice versa, and did some players have different QBs (as Jennings will have) and how did those players fare; or even if there were significant additions (another WR or RB, linemen, etc) that would have played a part. I tend to agree with you, but I would like to take a closer look.

I cited the games played basically to show that the receivers essentially played in almost the same number of games (down only 2.7% from year to year).Here were the players and years if you want to dig deeper (which I really don't have time to do).Mark Clayton 1984 18 4Randy Moss 1998 17 11Jerry Rice 1986 15 22Isaac Bruce 1995 13 7John Jefferson 1978 13 10Mike Quick 1983 13 9Daryl Turner 1985 13 7Louis Lipps 1985 12 3Sterling Sharpe 1989 12 6Gene Washington 1970 12 4Randy Moss 1999 11 15Lynn Swann 1975 11 3Isaac Curtis 1974 10 7Mark Duper 1983 10 8Larry Fitzgerald 2005 10 6Earnest Gray 1980 10 2John Jefferson 1979 10 13Steve Largent 1977 10 8Anthony Miller 1989 10 7Andre Rison 1990 10 12Daryl Turner 1984 10 13Sammy White 1976 10 9Also of note is that Marques Colston also qualifies (11 TD last year in his second season).I'm not sure any of this means anything more than receiving TD are tough to predict and don't always carry over from year to year . . .

 

[Burning Sensation]

Prior to last year, there were 22 other WRs that scored at least 10 TD in their first or second season (1970-2006). Collectively, here were their results:

SEASON W/10+ TD:

337 games played, 252 total TD (0.748 TD per game)

FOLLOWING SEASON:

328 games played, 186 total TD (0.567 TD per game)

And given that Jerry Rice posted a tidy 22 TD in that second category, the numbers are actually quite a bit worse if you factor him out:

SEASON W/10+ TD (Rice excluded)

321 games played, 237 total TD (.738 TD per game)

FOLLOWING SEASON (Rice excluded)

316 games played, 164 total TD (.519 TD per game)

I personally would be very surprised to see Jennings put up double digit TD again . . . especially without Favre. In fact, I think there's a better chance he gets 6-7 TD than 10.

I think the sharkier move is to target Driver later on (ADP 72) than take the risk of Jennings two rounds earlier (ADP 46). Driver has had 80+ receptions 4 years in a row and should be the security blanket for Rodgers IMO.

I love when people do this. The real stats dont quite fit what your trying to prove, so just take out the numbers that hurt your point the most. Why not take out Mark Clayton's 1984 18 4? That seems more of an aberration than Rices 15 22.

 

[FUBAR]

Prior to last year, there were 22 other WRs that scored at least 10 TD in their first or second season (1970-2006). Collectively, here were their results:

SEASON W/10+ TD:

337 games played, 252 total TD (0.748 TD per game)

FOLLOWING SEASON:

328 games played, 186 total TD (0.567 TD per game)

And given that Jerry Rice posted a tidy 22 TD in that second category, the numbers are actually quite a bit worse if you factor him out:

SEASON W/10+ TD (Rice excluded)

321 games played, 237 total TD (.738 TD per game)

FOLLOWING SEASON (Rice excluded)

316 games played, 164 total TD (.519 TD per game)

I personally would be very surprised to see Jennings put up double digit TD again . . . especially without Favre. In fact, I think there's a better chance he gets 6-7 TD than 10.

I think the sharkier move is to target Driver later on (ADP 72) than take the risk of Jennings two rounds earlier (ADP 46). Driver has had 80+ receptions 4 years in a row and should be the security blanket for Rodgers IMO.

I love when people do this. The real stats dont quite fit what your trying to prove, so just take out the numbers that hurt your point the most. Why not take out Mark Clayton's 1984 18 4? That seems more of an aberration than Rices 15 22.

I agree with your point, but it isn't more of an aberration, as it seems to fit the trend more. You don't have to exclude anyone to see the point.

 

[Burning Sensation]

Prior to last year, there were 22 other WRs that scored at least 10 TD in their first or second season (1970-2006). Collectively, here were their results:

SEASON W/10+ TD:

337 games played, 252 total TD (0.748 TD per game)

FOLLOWING SEASON:

328 games played, 186 total TD (0.567 TD per game)

And given that Jerry Rice posted a tidy 22 TD in that second category, the numbers are actually quite a bit worse if you factor him out:

SEASON W/10+ TD (Rice excluded)

321 games played, 237 total TD (.738 TD per game)

FOLLOWING SEASON (Rice excluded)

316 games played, 164 total TD (.519 TD per game)

I personally would be very surprised to see Jennings put up double digit TD again . . . especially without Favre. In fact, I think there's a better chance he gets 6-7 TD than 10.

I think the sharkier move is to target Driver later on (ADP 72) than take the risk of Jennings two rounds earlier (ADP 46). Driver has had 80+ receptions 4 years in a row and should be the security blanket for Rodgers IMO.

I love when people do this. The real stats dont quite fit what your trying to prove, so just take out the numbers that hurt your point the most. Why not take out Mark Clayton's 1984 18 4? That seems more of an aberration than Rices 15 22.

I agree with your point, but it isn't more of an aberration, as it seems to fit the trend more. You don't have to exclude anyone to see the point.

I agree, if you are using stats, you cant use them selectively. I dont think Claytons numbers should have been left out, i was just trying to make a point.

 

[David Yudkin]

Prior to last year, there were 22 other WRs that scored at least 10 TD in their first or second season (1970-2006). Collectively, here were their results:

SEASON W/10+ TD:

337 games played, 252 total TD (0.748 TD per game)

FOLLOWING SEASON:

328 games played, 186 total TD (0.567 TD per game)

And given that Jerry Rice posted a tidy 22 TD in that second category, the numbers are actually quite a bit worse if you factor him out:

SEASON W/10+ TD (Rice excluded)

321 games played, 237 total TD (.738 TD per game)

FOLLOWING SEASON (Rice excluded)

316 games played, 164 total TD (.519 TD per game)

I personally would be very surprised to see Jennings put up double digit TD again . . . especially without Favre. In fact, I think there's a better chance he gets 6-7 TD than 10.

I think the sharkier move is to target Driver later on (ADP 72) than take the risk of Jennings two rounds earlier (ADP 46). Driver has had 80+ receptions 4 years in a row and should be the security blanket for Rodgers IMO.

I love when people do this. The real stats dont quite fit what your trying to prove, so just take out the numbers that hurt your point the most. Why not take out Mark Clayton's 1984 18 4? That seems more of an aberration than Rices 15 22.

I included everyone in the first set. I only excluded Rice from the second one because he accounted for 22 TD in only 12 games, which to me is pretty "out there" in terms of results. I'm pretty sure most would have a hard time thinking Jennings would equal that this year.Even including Rice, the totals reflect a 43-44% dropoff in touchdowns. I'm not sure I'd be willing to overlook that and willy nilly assign Jennings the same TD total as last year. Maybe he is another Rice or Moss, but there were some players on that list that really didn't do a whole lot later on. IMO, scoring a lot of TD early does not always lead to a blossoming career. We'll have to see how he fares with Rodgers to see what the future may hold.

 

[Burning Sensation]

Prior to last year, there were 22 other WRs that scored at least 10 TD in their first or second season (1970-2006). Collectively, here were their results:

SEASON W/10+ TD:

337 games played, 252 total TD (0.748 TD per game)

FOLLOWING SEASON:

328 games played, 186 total TD (0.567 TD per game)

And given that Jerry Rice posted a tidy 22 TD in that second category, the numbers are actually quite a bit worse if you factor him out:

SEASON W/10+ TD (Rice excluded)

321 games played, 237 total TD (.738 TD per game)

FOLLOWING SEASON (Rice excluded)

316 games played, 164 total TD (.519 TD per game)

I personally would be very surprised to see Jennings put up double digit TD again . . . especially without Favre. In fact, I think there's a better chance he gets 6-7 TD than 10.

I think the sharkier move is to target Driver later on (ADP 72) than take the risk of Jennings two rounds earlier (ADP 46). Driver has had 80+ receptions 4 years in a row and should be the security blanket for Rodgers IMO.

I love when people do this. The real stats dont quite fit what your trying to prove, so just take out the numbers that hurt your point the most. Why not take out Mark Clayton's 1984 18 4? That seems more of an aberration than Rices 15 22.

I included everyone in the first set. I only excluded Rice from the second one because he accounted for 22 TD in only 12 games, which to me is pretty "out there" in terms of results. I'm pretty sure most would have a hard time thinking Jennings would equal that this year.Even including Rice, the totals reflect a 43-44% dropoff in touchdowns. I'm not sure I'd be willing to overlook that and willy nilly assign Jennings the same TD total as last year. Maybe he is another Rice or Moss, but there were some players on that list that really didn't do a whole lot later on. IMO, scoring a lot of TD early does not always lead to a blossoming career. We'll have to see how he fares with Rodgers to see what the future may hold.

No more "out there" than a guy going from 18 to 4.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

It seems the general consensus is that Jennings just can't keep up the pace that he was on last year. The "shark" move is to draft Donald Driver later. Everyone keeps coming up with a different statistic why Jennings won't perform as well this year.

-His targets are too low.

-WRs in their first or 2nd years that score double digit TDs trend down.

-Aaron Rodgers is no Brett Favre.

-There's too many options in Green Bay.

I won't argue with any of those points. They are all true.

-Jennings targets are too low.

-Its very difficult to trend up when you've scored 12 TDs last season. Only six WRs scored that many in 2007, with two doing it in 2006.

-Brett Favre is a sure fire 1st ballot HOFer. Aaron Rodgers has to prove he can stay healthy more than one game.

-Ryan Grant emerged as a factor last year, plus Driver is still there, Jones is progressing and they drafted Jordy Nelson with their first pick.

Despite all of this, here's why I think Jennings will shine this year. I've watched him play every pro game of his career, and the guy can truly play. In the infamous words of Buddy Ryan, "all he does is score TDs". Seriously, whether its preseason, regular season or post season, when he's been healthy, he finds a way in the endzone. Sometimes its from a long ways out, sometimes in tight. Its not just the 14 TDs (including post season) that he scored last year. He scored 3 TDs in his first 5 games his rookie year as well, before an injury ruined the rest of that season. He led the NFL in preseason reception yards in 2006 with 328, scoring multiple TDs to go with it as well. He learned all three WR positions in this offense faster than anyone not named Marvin Harrison. (According to Jimmy Robinson WR coach for both Harrison and Jennings).

Are there things that could derail his season? No doubt. I just know what I have seen from a healthy Greg Jennings, and that is the fact he's the best player the Packers have on offense.

 

[David Yudkin]

I haven't gotten into the lack of Favre issue yet either. Historically, teams with departing future HOF QBs have not fared very well the year after. Basically, there's Young replacing Montana in the plus category and a whole lot QBs that were so so at best in the negative category.

We clearly don't have a lot to go on with regard to Rodgers, so the verdict is still out on what he can do. Maybe he turn out to be more like Young than the likes of Cliff Stoudt, Quincy Carter, or Jay Fiedler.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I haven't gotten into the lack of Favre issue yet either. Historically, teams with departing future HOF QBs have not fared very well the year after. Basically, there's Young replacing Montana in the plus category and a whole lot QBs that were so so at best in the negative category.We clearly don't have a lot to go on with regard to Rodgers, so the verdict is still out on what he can do. Maybe he turn out to be more like Young than the likes of Cliff Stoudt, Quincy Carter, or Jay Fiedler.

What about Steve Bono replacing Joe Montana in 1995? Bono put up a very solid year with 3100yds, 21td, 10int, and a rating of 80.Favre was far from a HoF QB by the time he left. The HoF days are long behind him and he was helped as much (probably far more) by the guys around him as the other way around.

 

[Sabertooth]

I don't think anybody in here doubts Jennings talent.

I'm wondering how he puts up 1100/8 without Rodgers putting up

Favre type numbers(4000/28) and/or Driver getting 900/4.

In 2009 we could be projecting 1300/10 and no one would laugh.

I'm not gonna laugh at 1300/10 projected for this year (just wonder HOW?)

To me the real Question mark is J Jones and how many times does Green Bay

run 3 WR sets or 2 TE's/more protection for the newer QB.

I don't think it's a slam dunk that James Jones is the #3 wideout in Green Bay. Jordy Nelson is going to fight him for playing time.

I read that piece as well about Nelson pushing Jones for the #3. Here it is: From CBS Sportsline./Green Bay Press Gazette.News: Packers' second-round pick Jordy Nelson looks like a promising addition to a good receiving corps and might push James Jones for the No. 3 job, reports the Green Bay Press-Gazette. Jones has an invaluable year of NFL experience and showed linebacker-like strength in the weight room after his first full offseason in the team's workout program. At 6-3, Nelson is a big target with an ability to play the ball in the air and surprising long speed, so he should be an occasional contributor as a rookie.Analysis: Jones' edge in experience could be the difference, and he has more Fantasy value than Nelson at this point. Regardless, expect both to play a lot. Consider Jones a No. 4 Fantasy option, with Nelson right behind him in deeper leagues. In rookie-only drafts, take Nelson with a middle-round selection.

What I actually took out of that articles is that is Jones has "linebacker-like strength" now with a full season in the team's workout program.

So all Jones does is show great hands in catching 47 passes for 676 yards and a couple of TDs in his rookie year. He was already a well built athlete for a WR, and now with a full offseason in the weight room, has the strength of an NFL linebacker. He'd be a prime break out candidate on many other teams.

I think this reporter was fishing for a story. Nelson will play some, but he's well behind the top 3.

Hadn't read that. Thanks for sharing it. I was simply going off of Nelson the highest picked wideout of the Thompson regime and that everything I've read on him states he is a special player. Jones is more of a role player I think but he sure looks good catching in traffic. Just doesn't have a huge burst. I think Nelson's ceiling is being a player like Boldin or Owens. I really do.

 

[David Yudkin]

I haven't gotten into the lack of Favre issue yet either. Historically, teams with departing future HOF QBs have not fared very well the year after. Basically, there's Young replacing Montana in the plus category and a whole lot QBs that were so so at best in the negative category.We clearly don't have a lot to go on with regard to Rodgers, so the verdict is still out on what he can do. Maybe he turn out to be more like Young than the likes of Cliff Stoudt, Quincy Carter, or Jay Fiedler.

What about Steve Bono replacing Joe Montana in 1995? Bono put up a very solid year with 3100yds, 21td, 10int, and a rating of 80.Favre was far from a HoF QB by the time he left. The HoF days are long behind him and he was helped as much (probably far more) by the guys around him as the other way around.

Yes, Bono had a decent first season (but didn't do a whole lot afterwards). But he was in his 10th season (admittedly as a backup), so the situation was a little different.Here are some other notable replacements . . .Marino --> Jay Fieldler 2402/14Fouts --> Mark Malone 1580/6Moon --> Billy Joe Tolliver 1287/6Moon --> Brad Johnson 3036/20Elway --> Brian Griese 3032/14Tarkenton --> Tommy Kramer 3397/23Kelly --> Todd Collins 2367/12Simms --> Dave Brown 2536/12Aikman --> Quincy Carter 1072/5McNair --> Vince Young 2199/12Bradshaw --> Cliff Stoudt 2553/12Stabler --> Jim Plunkett 2299/18Namath --> Richard Todd 1863/11I guess in theory the Packers may have a stronger team and offensive unit then some of the teams that these other guys inherited. And certainly whatever happened in the past on other teams has no direct bearing on how Rodgers will do this year.As for Favre not playing as a HOFer, he still ranked as the #11 and #8 fantasy QB the past two season. That's still good enough to be a fantasy starter in 12 team leagues. I count 6 staffers that have Rodgers as a QB1 . . . essentially suggesting that there will be very little dropoff at all. I wouldn't rank him that high. Maybe that one game against the Cowboys was enough to convince people he's for real.

 

[Sabertooth]

I haven't gotten into the lack of Favre issue yet either. Historically, teams with departing future HOF QBs have not fared very well the year after. Basically, there's Young replacing Montana in the plus category and a whole lot QBs that were so so at best in the negative category.

We clearly don't have a lot to go on with regard to Rodgers, so the verdict is still out on what he can do. Maybe he turn out to be more like Young than the likes of Cliff Stoudt, Quincy Carter, or Jay Fiedler.

What about Steve Bono replacing Joe Montana in 1995? Bono put up a very solid year with 3100yds, 21td, 10int, and a rating of 80.Favre was far from a HoF QB by the time he left. The HoF days are long behind him and he was helped as much (probably far more) by the guys around him as the other way around.

Yes, Bono had a decent first season (but didn't do a whole lot afterwards). But he was in his 10th season (admittedly as a backup), so the situation was a little different.Here are some other notable replacements . . .

Marino --> Jay Fieldler 2402/14

Fouts --> Mark Malone 1580/6

Moon --> Billy Joe Tolliver 1287/6

Moon --> Brad Johnson 3036/20

Elway --> Brian Griese 3032/14

Tarkenton --> Tommy Kramer 3397/23

Kelly --> Todd Collins 2367/12

Simms --> Dave Brown 2536/12

Aikman --> Quincy Carter 1072/5

McNair --> Vince Young 2199/12

Bradshaw --> Cliff Stoudt 2553/12

Stabler --> Jim Plunkett 2299/18

Namath --> Richard Todd 1863/11

I guess in theory the Packers may have a stronger team and offensive unit then some of the teams that these other guys inherited. And certainly whatever happened in the past on other teams has no direct bearing on how Rodgers will do this year.

As for Favre not playing as a HOFer, he still ranked as the #11 and #8 fantasy QB the past two season. That's still good enough to be a fantasy starter in 12 team leagues. I count 6 staffers that have Rodgers as a QB1 . . . essentially suggesting that there will be very little dropoff at all. I wouldn't rank him that high. Maybe that one game against the Cowboys was enough to convince people he's for real.

Do you really think there is that much of a difference between a 10 year backup and a 3 year backup?

 

[David Yudkin]

I haven't gotten into the lack of Favre issue yet either. Historically, teams with departing future HOF QBs have not fared very well the year after. Basically, there's Young replacing Montana in the plus category and a whole lot QBs that were so so at best in the negative category.

We clearly don't have a lot to go on with regard to Rodgers, so the verdict is still out on what he can do. Maybe he turn out to be more like Young than the likes of Cliff Stoudt, Quincy Carter, or Jay Fiedler.

What about Steve Bono replacing Joe Montana in 1995? Bono put up a very solid year with 3100yds, 21td, 10int, and a rating of 80.Favre was far from a HoF QB by the time he left. The HoF days are long behind him and he was helped as much (probably far more) by the guys around him as the other way around.

Yes, Bono had a decent first season (but didn't do a whole lot afterwards). But he was in his 10th season (admittedly as a backup), so the situation was a little different.Here are some other notable replacements . . .

Marino --> Jay Fieldler 2402/14

Fouts --> Mark Malone 1580/6

Moon --> Billy Joe Tolliver 1287/6

Moon --> Brad Johnson 3036/20

Elway --> Brian Griese 3032/14

Tarkenton --> Tommy Kramer 3397/23

Kelly --> Todd Collins 2367/12

Simms --> Dave Brown 2536/12

Aikman --> Quincy Carter 1072/5

McNair --> Vince Young 2199/12

Bradshaw --> Cliff Stoudt 2553/12

Stabler --> Jim Plunkett 2299/18

Namath --> Richard Todd 1863/11

I guess in theory the Packers may have a stronger team and offensive unit then some of the teams that these other guys inherited. And certainly whatever happened in the past on other teams has no direct bearing on how Rodgers will do this year.

As for Favre not playing as a HOFer, he still ranked as the #11 and #8 fantasy QB the past two season. That's still good enough to be a fantasy starter in 12 team leagues. I count 6 staffers that have Rodgers as a QB1 . . . essentially suggesting that there will be very little dropoff at all. I wouldn't rank him that high. Maybe that one game against the Cowboys was enough to convince people he's for real.

Do you really think there is that much of a difference between a 10 year backup and a 3 year backup?

Other than the fact that Bono had almost 500 passing attempts under his belt and Rodgers has around 50 . . . no. Still doesn't change my point that the majority of the time the offense morphs into something a little different and it usually takes time for the new guy to catch on (and if the team sticks with him).

 

[bcr8f]

Rodgers is like Young in the sense that he's had 3 years to learn. His health is the key issue I think. Jennings just needs the ball. It doesn't have to be a go route for him the take it the distance. He is very good at avoiding tacklers.

Brohm isn't ready yet. Were his injuries flukes or is he really injury prone?

 

[David Yudkin]

Rodgers is like Young in the sense that he's had 3 years to learn. His health is the key issue I think. Jennings just needs the ball. It doesn't have to be a go route for him the take it the distance. He is very good at avoiding tacklers. Brohm isn't ready yet. Were his injuries flukes or is he really injury prone?

Again, it won't really matter in Rodgers' case, but Young had 800-900 passing attempts long before the 49ers opted to go with him as their starter.Those pimping Rodgers have a much better argument with someone like Philip Rivers replacing Drew Brees. I don't think Rodgers will do terible, but I do think there will be some bumps along the way and a learning curve that will take something off the totals Favre put up last year.

 

[bcr8f]

Rodgers is like Young in the sense that he's had 3 years to learn. His health is the key issue I think. Jennings just needs the ball. It doesn't have to be a go route for him the take it the distance. He is very good at avoiding tacklers. Brohm isn't ready yet. Were his injuries flukes or is he really injury prone?

Again, it won't really matter in Rodgers' case, but Young had 800-900 passing attempts long before the 49ers opted to go with him as their starter.Those pimping Rodgers have a much better argument with someone like Philip Rivers replacing Drew Brees. I don't think Rodgers will do terible, but I do think there will be some bumps along the way and a learning curve that will take something off the totals Favre put up last year.

Definitely. Or like Romo. I think he'll be like the running game was last season, it took half the season for it to develop.

 

[Sabertooth]

I haven't gotten into the lack of Favre issue yet either. Historically, teams with departing future HOF QBs have not fared very well the year after. Basically, there's Young replacing Montana in the plus category and a whole lot QBs that were so so at best in the negative category.

We clearly don't have a lot to go on with regard to Rodgers, so the verdict is still out on what he can do. Maybe he turn out to be more like Young than the likes of Cliff Stoudt, Quincy Carter, or Jay Fiedler.

What about Steve Bono replacing Joe Montana in 1995? Bono put up a very solid year with 3100yds, 21td, 10int, and a rating of 80.Favre was far from a HoF QB by the time he left. The HoF days are long behind him and he was helped as much (probably far more) by the guys around him as the other way around.

Yes, Bono had a decent first season (but didn't do a whole lot afterwards). But he was in his 10th season (admittedly as a backup), so the situation was a little different.Here are some other notable replacements . . .

Marino --> Jay Fieldler 2402/14

Fouts --> Mark Malone 1580/6

Moon --> Billy Joe Tolliver 1287/6

Moon --> Brad Johnson 3036/20

Elway --> Brian Griese 3032/14

Tarkenton --> Tommy Kramer 3397/23

Kelly --> Todd Collins 2367/12

Simms --> Dave Brown 2536/12

Aikman --> Quincy Carter 1072/5

McNair --> Vince Young 2199/12

Bradshaw --> Cliff Stoudt 2553/12

Stabler --> Jim Plunkett 2299/18

Namath --> Richard Todd 1863/11

I guess in theory the Packers may have a stronger team and offensive unit then some of the teams that these other guys inherited. And certainly whatever happened in the past on other teams has no direct bearing on how Rodgers will do this year.

As for Favre not playing as a HOFer, he still ranked as the #11 and #8 fantasy QB the past two season. That's still good enough to be a fantasy starter in 12 team leagues. I count 6 staffers that have Rodgers as a QB1 . . . essentially suggesting that there will be very little dropoff at all. I wouldn't rank him that high. Maybe that one game against the Cowboys was enough to convince people he's for real.

Do you really think there is that much of a difference between a 10 year backup and a 3 year backup?

Other than the fact that Bono had almost 500 passing attempts under his belt and Rodgers has around 50 . . . no. Still doesn't change my point that the majority of the time the offense morphs into something a little different and it usually takes time for the new guy to catch on (and if the team sticks with him).

I can agree with that. The offense will have to adjust to Rodgers. I consider Rodgers to be more akin to Romo than Fiedler though. This is still a young team that can grow with him. Time will tell.

 

[sho nuff]

I haven't gotten into the lack of Favre issue yet either. Historically, teams with departing future HOF QBs have not fared very well the year after. Basically, there's Young replacing Montana in the plus category and a whole lot QBs that were so so at best in the negative category.

We clearly don't have a lot to go on with regard to Rodgers, so the verdict is still out on what he can do. Maybe he turn out to be more like Young than the likes of Cliff Stoudt, Quincy Carter, or Jay Fiedler.

What about Steve Bono replacing Joe Montana in 1995? Bono put up a very solid year with 3100yds, 21td, 10int, and a rating of 80.Favre was far from a HoF QB by the time he left. The HoF days are long behind him and he was helped as much (probably far more) by the guys around him as the other way around.

Yes, Bono had a decent first season (but didn't do a whole lot afterwards). But he was in his 10th season (admittedly as a backup), so the situation was a little different.Here are some other notable replacements . . .

Marino --> Jay Fieldler 2402/14

Fouts --> Mark Malone 1580/6

Moon --> Billy Joe Tolliver 1287/6

Moon --> Brad Johnson 3036/20

Elway --> Brian Griese 3032/14

Tarkenton --> Tommy Kramer 3397/23

Kelly --> Todd Collins 2367/12

Simms --> Dave Brown 2536/12

Aikman --> Quincy Carter 1072/5

McNair --> Vince Young 2199/12

Bradshaw --> Cliff Stoudt 2553/12

Stabler --> Jim Plunkett 2299/18

Namath --> Richard Todd 1863/11

I guess in theory the Packers may have a stronger team and offensive unit then some of the teams that these other guys inherited. And certainly whatever happened in the past on other teams has no direct bearing on how Rodgers will do this year.

As for Favre not playing as a HOFer, he still ranked as the #11 and #8 fantasy QB the past two season. That's still good enough to be a fantasy starter in 12 team leagues. I count 6 staffers that have Rodgers as a QB1 . . . essentially suggesting that there will be very little dropoff at all. I wouldn't rank him that high. Maybe that one game against the Cowboys was enough to convince people he's for real.

Bolded the key part for you.The situations are all different.

What Rodgers can and will do has nothing to do with what those other QBs did. Each were in different situations...after sitting different amounts of time with different coaches behind different starting QBs. Each had a completely different supporting cast as well.

And why add Young after McNair? Young was a rookie who did not even play the entire season.

 

[sho nuff]

Rodgers is like Young in the sense that he's had 3 years to learn. His health is the key issue I think. Jennings just needs the ball. It doesn't have to be a go route for him the take it the distance. He is very good at avoiding tacklers. Brohm isn't ready yet. Were his injuries flukes or is he really injury prone?

Again, it won't really matter in Rodgers' case, but Young had 800-900 passing attempts long before the 49ers opted to go with him as their starter.Those pimping Rodgers have a much better argument with someone like Philip Rivers replacing Drew Brees. I don't think Rodgers will do terible, but I do think there will be some bumps along the way and a learning curve that will take something off the totals Favre put up last year.

I don't think many are thinking there will not be a learning curve or some bumps along the way.

 

[H.K.]

People thinking Rodgers will throw to Jennings because he is his new "favorite" receiver do not take into account that the same system (WCO) is being run by the same people (McCarthy & Philbin). The Green Bay offense will stay the same which means that most of the time, Driver will still play the Z and Jennings will be the X. Other than QB, nothing has changed and Driver will still be the #1 WR for the Packers.

First pre-season game with Rodgers: 1) Driver gets the most targets (5) and receptions (4) for any WR with the first unit (and that was just one quarter, 5 targets!!!!!)2) Jennings can't play due to injuryThe more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[sho nuff]

People thinking Rodgers will throw to Jennings because he is his new "favorite" receiver do not take into account that the same system (WCO) is being run by the same people (McCarthy & Philbin). The Green Bay offense will stay the same which means that most of the time, Driver will still play the Z and Jennings will be the X. Other than QB, nothing has changed and Driver will still be the #1 WR for the Packers.

First pre-season game with Rodgers: 1) Driver gets the most targets (5) and receptions (4) for any WR with the first unit (and that was just one quarter, 5 targets!!!!!)2) Jennings can't play due to injuryThe more things change, the more they stay the same.

You mean like you posting about Greg Jennings only to watch him show you that you are wrong.

 

[H.K.]

People thinking Rodgers will throw to Jennings because he is his new "favorite" receiver do not take into account that the same system (WCO) is being run by the same people (McCarthy & Philbin). The Green Bay offense will stay the same which means that most of the time, Driver will still play the Z and Jennings will be the X. Other than QB, nothing has changed and Driver will still be the #1 WR for the Packers.

First pre-season game with Rodgers: 1) Driver gets the most targets (5) and receptions (4) for any WR with the first unit (and that was just one quarter, 5 targets!!!!!)2) Jennings can't play due to injuryThe more things change, the more they stay the same.

You mean like you posting about Greg Jennings only to watch him show you that you are wrong.

I watched him. He was on the sidelines in street clothes....again.

 

[sho nuff]

People thinking Rodgers will throw to Jennings because he is his new "favorite" receiver do not take into account that the same system (WCO) is being run by the same people (McCarthy & Philbin). The Green Bay offense will stay the same which means that most of the time, Driver will still play the Z and Jennings will be the X. Other than QB, nothing has changed and Driver will still be the #1 WR for the Packers.

First pre-season game with Rodgers: 1) Driver gets the most targets (5) and receptions (4) for any WR with the first unit (and that was just one quarter, 5 targets!!!!!)2) Jennings can't play due to injuryThe more things change, the more they stay the same.

You mean like you posting about Greg Jennings only to watch him show you that you are wrong.

I watched him. He was on the sidelines in street clothes....again.

You do know its preseason right?

 

[Burning Sensation]

People thinking Rodgers will throw to Jennings because he is his new "favorite" receiver do not take into account that the same system (WCO) is being run by the same people (McCarthy & Philbin). The Green Bay offense will stay the same which means that most of the time, Driver will still play the Z and Jennings will be the X. Other than QB, nothing has changed and Driver will still be the #1 WR for the Packers.

First pre-season game with Rodgers: 1) Driver gets the most targets (5) and receptions (4) for any WR with the first unit (and that was just one quarter, 5 targets!!!!!)2) Jennings can't play due to injuryThe more things change, the more they stay the same.

Driver also dropped more passes than Jennings, including one that hit him right in the numbers.

 

[H.K.]

People thinking Rodgers will throw to Jennings because he is his new "favorite" receiver do not take into account that the same system (WCO) is being run by the same people (McCarthy & Philbin). The Green Bay offense will stay the same which means that most of the time, Driver will still play the Z and Jennings will be the X. Other than QB, nothing has changed and Driver will still be the #1 WR for the Packers.

First pre-season game with Rodgers: 1) Driver gets the most targets (5) and receptions (4) for any WR with the first unit (and that was just one quarter, 5 targets!!!!!)2) Jennings can't play due to injuryThe more things change, the more they stay the same.

Driver also dropped more passes than Jennings, including one that hit him right in the numbers.

4 for 39 and a drop in one quarter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> donut. zip. zilch. nada.

 

[Burning Sensation]

People thinking Rodgers will throw to Jennings because he is his new "favorite" receiver do not take into account that the same system (WCO) is being run by the same people (McCarthy & Philbin). The Green Bay offense will stay the same which means that most of the time, Driver will still play the Z and Jennings will be the X. Other than QB, nothing has changed and Driver will still be the #1 WR for the Packers.

First pre-season game with Rodgers: 1) Driver gets the most targets (5) and receptions (4) for any WR with the first unit (and that was just one quarter, 5 targets!!!!!)2) Jennings can't play due to injuryThe more things change, the more they stay the same.

Driver also dropped more passes than Jennings, including one that hit him right in the numbers.

4 for 39 and a drop in one quarter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> donut. zip. zilch. nada.

True, now if Jennings misses the entire season, Driver may have some value.

 

[H.K.]

True, now if Jennings misses the entire season, Driver may have some value.

Driver is the overwhelming value play. Same offense & same role. He'll lead the team in targets and receptions regardless of what Jennings does.We can't overlook the fact that Jones looked amazing. Jennings better man up if he wants to stay with the ones. Either way, Jones is too much of a talent to not take more opportunity away from Jennings this season, anyway.Very poor start to the 2008 season for #85.

 

[I Am Rick James]

True, now if Jennings misses the entire season, Driver may have some value.

Driver is the overwhelming value play. Same offense & same role. He'll lead the team in targets and receptions regardless of what Jennings does.We can't overlook the fact that Jones looked amazing. Jennings better man up if he wants to stay with the ones. Either way, Jones is too much of a talent to not take more opportunity away from Jennings this season, anyway.Very poor start to the 2008 season for #85.

This sounds just like last year! Then Jennings became a beast when the real season began. Still, I wish I knew more about Jones because he's a FA in my league

 

[Burning Sensation]

True, now if Jennings misses the entire season, Driver may have some value.

Driver is the overwhelming value play. Same offense & same role. He'll lead the team in targets and receptions regardless of what Jennings does.We can't overlook the fact that Jones looked amazing. Jennings better man up if he wants to stay with the ones. Either way, Jones is too much of a talent to not take more opportunity away from Jennings this season, anyway.Very poor start to the 2008 season for #85.

Why am i even discussing this with you!?!?

 

[H.K.]

True, now if Jennings misses the entire season, Driver may have some value.

Driver is the overwhelming value play. Same offense & same role. He'll lead the team in targets and receptions regardless of what Jennings does.We can't overlook the fact that Jones looked amazing. Jennings better man up if he wants to stay with the ones. Either way, Jones is too much of a talent to not take more opportunity away from Jennings this season, anyway.Very poor start to the 2008 season for #85.

Why am i even discussing this with you!?!?

Entertainment? Beats working

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Great discussion here guys.

 

[H.K.]

Great discussion here guys.

Thanks!Any updates on the knee? Anyone know when/if Jennings will return?

 

[H.K.]

Great discussion here guys.

Thanks!Any updates on the knee?

Anyone know when/if Jennings will return?

8 more targets in a half for Driver. Doesn't look like Jennings suited, either.From the News:

August 14, 2008, 23:47

Packers :: RB, WR, TE, OL, DL, LB, DB

Eleven Packers Miss Practice Thursday

Greg A. Bedard, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

Green Bay Packers WR Brett Swain (quad contusion), RB Ryan Grant (hamstring), S Charlie Peprah (hamstring), LB A.J. Hawk (chest), LB Desmond Bishop (Achilles), OT Orrin Thompson (ankle), DT Ryan Pickett (hamstring), TE Tory Humphrey (Achilles), WR Greg Jennings (knee), DT Justin Harrell (back) and DE Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila (knee) did not practice on Thursday while they continue to recover from their injuries.

= 85 in Green Bay

 

[FreeBaGeL]

People thinking Rodgers will throw to Jennings because he is his new "favorite" receiver do not take into account that the same system (WCO) is being run by the same people (McCarthy & Philbin). The Green Bay offense will stay the same which means that most of the time, Driver will still play the Z and Jennings will be the X. Other than QB, nothing has changed and Driver will still be the #1 WR for the Packers.

First pre-season game with Rodgers: 1) Driver gets the most targets (5) and receptions (4) for any WR with the first unit (and that was just one quarter, 5 targets!!!!!)2) Jennings can't play due to injuryThe more things change, the more they stay the same.

Driver also dropped more passes than Jennings, including one that hit him right in the numbers.

4 for 39 and a drop in one quarter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> donut. zip. zilch. nada.

Wow, just when people started to think your posts about Greg Jennings couldn't possibly get any more ridiculous, you make sure not to disappoint and bring something like this out of the bag.How are you still allowed to post here? At the very least, how are you still allowed to post in Greg Jennings threads? I'm pretty sure that at this point we're missing out on a lot of good Greg Jennings discussion because people just don't want to come in here and have to deal with your nonsense.In all seriousness, what did the guy ever do to you. Did he urinate in your coffee 6 or 7 times? Because honestly, even if he urinated in your coffee once or twice that still wouldn't justify this absurd vendetta you have against him.Is it just that he made you look like a fool SO many times last year? I mean, in all my years of fantasy football (actually in all my years of anything), I have never seen anyone be wrong so many times in a row. Is this what's eating at you, so now you just have to state your piece 100 times in every thread that can be twisted into a Greg Jennings thread so you can hunt for the tiniest slip up and throw it back in everyone's face and say "I TOLD YOU SO!!".I mean, really. You may as well just come out and say it. "I TOLD YOU SO! I WAS WRONG 12 WEEKS IN A ROW LAST YEAR, BUT LOOK AT THIS, GREG JENNINGS MISSED A PRESEASON GAME WITH AN INJURY! BOOOOOOYA YOU FOOLS, I FREAKING TOLD YOU SO THIS GUY WAS WORTHLESS!!"

 

[hauser42]

Jennings is going to be a starter at WR for the Packers once the gun starts for the start of the season. Jones is not even close to pushing his way into the starting lineup.

Jennings may see a drop in numbers but they will not be as much as some are posting on this site.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

How are you still allowed to post here? At the very least, how are you still allowed to post in Greg Jennings threads? I'm pretty sure that at this point we're missing out on a lot of good Greg Jennings discussion because people just don't want to come in here and have to deal with your nonsense.

You must have missed every single Brandon Jacobs thread last year.