Michael Fox Fan
Footballguy
Sorry, can't provide a link but heard it from a local Green Bay reporter. Probably not a huge deal for fantasy owners, but it reinforces the team's faith in the WR corps.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Rumor: Packers to cut Koren Robinson (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Michael Fox Fan
- Start date
bcr8f
Footballguy
He isn't a drunk now. Besides this is just gossip.
duece2626
Footballguy
So much for the gossip.
mr. furley
Footballguy
just read it on Packers.com
pretty much makes it a done deal
pretty much makes it a done deal
FavreCo
Footballguy
THAT would be interesting.In first with the Koren Robinson to the Bengals posting.
I hope Koren can catch on somewhere for a few more years. I think he can be a solid WR in the NFL yet.
I'd love it if the Bears could sign him. When he isn't guzzling whiskey he is a pretty versatile player.
CalBear
Footballguy
Maybe they both suck.
FavreCo
Footballguy
One thing they have in common is the ability to drop a pass.
smackdaddies
Footballguy
headline to this post should be
Best Viking WR in 10 years cut to make room for a 7th round draft pick
Best Viking WR in 10 years cut to make room for a 7th round draft pick
LOL. Randy Moss or Chris Carter down?!
nittanylion
Footballguy
I'd like to see him back in Seattle, where Branch is still rehabbing, Engram is at his best working from the slot and their current best option is Burleson...
...anyone working with any rendition of the WCO might wind up giving him a tryout. Wonder how much Zornese he speaks?
...anyone working with any rendition of the WCO might wind up giving him a tryout. Wonder how much Zornese he speaks?
Tackling Dummies
Footballguy
I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up with the Patriots.
Phurfur
Footballguy
That is a very sad post, I don't know what the purpose was. Robinson played for Minn 1 year starting 4 games, WTF????LOL. Randy Moss or Chris Carter down?!
M & M
Footballguy
There is a plethra of teams that need a decent #2-#3 option. If Krob and his agent are smart about it they will go to a team that has strong veteran leadership and has a chance to be successful this coming year. Short list in my mind would be Indy, San Diego, or Dallas. Cincy would be cutting their own throat if they sign him and he runs into further trouble.
Donnybrook
Footballguy
Clueless
Interseptopus
Footballguy
This guy really is clueless... 1. Robinson hasn't been the best Viking WR in the last 10 years... he barely even started for them when he played2. He wasn't cut for a 7th round draft pick (Swain). In fact, GB's WRs:*Driver*Jennings*Jones*Nelson*Martin*SwainRobinson (now cut)BodifordFranciesGB typically carries 5 WRs on its team. This year may be an exception as there are 6 WRs worthy of a spot as of now (see *). However, last season GB selected a WR round 5 and he was cut pretty quickly. Robinson wasn't cut to make room for Swain. Robinson was cut because James Jones is a better #3 WR than him, and Jordy Nelson needs some time in the offense after being selected so high. He'll be the #3/#4 WR. Sure, GB could have kept him on and seen if Swain would pan out, but why? Robinson would have been wasted money. Yes, GB is much under the cap, but that doesn't mean keep an expensive player when a suitable, younger replacement is set and ready to go. Ruvell Martin is an amazing #5 WR- possibly one of the best run blocking WRs on the team. And he's that guy that you can't just ignore otherwise he'll come up with a big first down play.3. I appreciate the sarcasm and attempt to poke fun at the Vikings and how they've managed to fail at the WR position ever since they traded Randy Moss away, but you need to get your years right. And while sarcasm is the lazy man's way of being funny- in attempt to not really think of anything clever but to just be sarcastic and hope to get some laughs, you still have to try even a little bit on your sarcasm- otherwise it makes you look like the horses ace and a fool
Last edited by a moderator:
Nah, just a
, I'm sure.Although another thought I had today was this: Sidney Rice vs. Greg Jennings. I'm sure that Packer-Backers will cite stats to say that Jennings is WAY better than Rice. However, if folks have actually seen him in-action in practice and on game day, they might think that the gap between those two is really not that great, if any "gap" exists at all. Put Jennings with T-Jax and Rice with Favre, and you're looking at an entirely different ballgame.Donald Driver >> Berrian. You'll get no qualms from me about that one! However, Rice isn't really far behind Jennings (if at all) when it comes to talent/potential...and Bobby Wade, Aundrae Allison and others are every-bit as good as the WR3s that the Packers are trotting out on to the field. In my own opinion, of course...since I am a bit biased as a Vikings fan.I'd say you're pretty close on the Jennings/Rice comparison. Although I'd give the edge to Jennings in RAC and the edge to Rice in jump ball ability.Packer fan here and last year's Viking draft class was just amazing.Nah, just a, I'm sure.Although another thought I had today was this: Sidney Rice vs. Greg Jennings. I'm sure that Packer-Backers will cite stats to say that Jennings is WAY better than Rice. However, if folks have actually seen him in-action in practice and on game day, they might think that the gap between those two is really not that great, if any "gap" exists at all. Put Jennings with T-Jax and Rice with Favre, and you're looking at an entirely different ballgame.Donald Driver >> Berrian. You'll get no qualms from me about that one! However, Rice isn't really far behind Jennings (if at all) when it comes to talent/potential...and Bobby Wade, Aundrae Allison and others are every-bit as good as the WR3s that the Packers are trotting out on to the field. In my own opinion, of course...since I am a bit biased as a Vikings fan.
mr. furley
Footballguy
datonn said:
i'm biased but 
jurrassic
Footballguy
Jennings is WAY better than Rice. You are projecting Rice on potential. Jennings is proven and has played damn well. He was the 2nd rated wr last year in ypc for wr's with 50 or more receptions with an average of 17.4, only behind Galloway. Rice averaged 12.8 with 20 fewer receptions. Jennings was tied for 4th in the league in td's with Burress and Housh with 12 td's. Jennings averaged 70 yards a game to Rice's 30. He only caught 22 more balls than Rice but was about 4 times more productive.Rice might turn out to be just as productive but he isn't even close right now. Jennings was also highly productive in the game against the Cowboys in which Rodgers played 3 quarters. So it isn't only about Favre. In addition, he does alot of his damage after the catch, which again isn't as dependent on the qb.datonn said:Nah, just a, I'm sure.Although another thought I had today was this: Sidney Rice vs. Greg Jennings. I'm sure that Packer-Backers will cite stats to say that Jennings is WAY better than Rice. However, if folks have actually seen him in-action in practice and on game day, they might think that the gap between those two is really not that great, if any "gap" exists at all. Put Jennings with T-Jax and Rice with Favre, and you're looking at an entirely different ballgame.Donald Driver >> Berrian. You'll get no qualms from me about that one! However, Rice isn't really far behind Jennings (if at all) when it comes to talent/potential...and Bobby Wade, Aundrae Allison and others are every-bit as good as the WR3s that the Packers are trotting out on to the field. In my own opinion, of course...since I am a bit biased as a Vikings fan.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just to address the bolded, actually the QB play does have quite a bit to do with that. If your QB is consistently throwing it behind the receivers, over their head, at their feet, etc. the WR is not able to maintain his stride after catching the ball.Jennings is WAY better than Rice. You are projecting Rice on potential. Jennings is proven and has played damn well. He was the 2nd rated wr last year in ypc for wr's with 50 or more receptions with an average of 17.4, only behind Galloway. Rice averaged 12.8 with 20 fewer receptions. Jennings was tied for 4th in the league in td's with Burress and Housh with 12 td's. Jennings averaged 70 yards a game to Rice's 30. He only caught 22 more balls than Rice but was about 4 times more productive.Rice might turn out to be just as productive but he isn't even close right now. Jennings was also highly productive in the game against the Cowboys in which Rodgers played 3 quarters. So it isn't only about Favre. In addition, he does alot of his damage after the catch, which again isn't as dependent on the qb.datonn said:Nah, just a, I'm sure.Although another thought I had today was this: Sidney Rice vs. Greg Jennings. I'm sure that Packer-Backers will cite stats to say that Jennings is WAY better than Rice. However, if folks have actually seen him in-action in practice and on game day, they might think that the gap between those two is really not that great, if any "gap" exists at all. Put Jennings with T-Jax and Rice with Favre, and you're looking at an entirely different ballgame.
Donald Driver >> Berrian. You'll get no qualms from me about that one! However, Rice isn't really far behind Jennings (if at all) when it comes to talent/potential...and Bobby Wade, Aundrae Allison and others are every-bit as good as the WR3s that the Packers are trotting out on to the field. In my own opinion, of course...since I am a bit biased as a Vikings fan.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Give me James Jones over Wade and Allison at this point.Hell, Id take Ruvell Martin over them.And we have not seen what Nelson will ddatonn said:Nah, just a, I'm sure.Although another thought I had today was this: Sidney Rice vs. Greg Jennings. I'm sure that Packer-Backers will cite stats to say that Jennings is WAY better than Rice. However, if folks have actually seen him in-action in practice and on game day, they might think that the gap between those two is really not that great, if any "gap" exists at all. Put Jennings with T-Jax and Rice with Favre, and you're looking at an entirely different ballgame.Donald Driver >> Berrian. You'll get no qualms from me about that one! However, Rice isn't really far behind Jennings (if at all) when it comes to talent/potential...and Bobby Wade, Aundrae Allison and others are every-bit as good as the WR3s that the Packers are trotting out on to the field. In my own opinion, of course...since I am a bit biased as a Vikings fan.
n Jennings vs. Rice. Good comparison and time will tell with both of them. As Jennings possibly starts moving into more of a #1 WR role as Driver declines with age.
The quarterback, and the head coach/play-calling. I know I am a Vikings homer, but Rice has SKILLS. Crazy...MAD skills. From the first mini-camp last year, you could see he was special. When he's in fourth-gear, he looks like he's just gliding out there...only fast. That, and he seems to have just a touch of "Cris Carter" in him too when it comes to the stick-um you'd swear he's got on his hands. If it's close, he's hauling it in. Either that, or maybe a few seasons of Troy Williamson makes him look like Cris Carter by comparison, LOL. I'll stand by my comments about Wade, Allison, Ferguson, et al. The Vikings WR3BC. They aren't super-stars by any stretch of the imagination. However, neither are Jones/Martin/Nelson. I love it though when guys cite stats to talk about how guys are "better" in NFL terms. That's when I know that we've all been playing FFL a little too long. That'd be like saying that Ryan Grant is two-thirds as good as Adrian Peterson, because he had roughly 2/3 as many rushing yards and TDs in 2007. Anyone care to claim that Ryan Grant is "two-thirds" as "good" as Adrian Peterson? I'm not even sure what that means, since it is a ridiculous and flawed argument to begin with...but stats <> talent/skills. There are just WAY too many variables that impact stats:
- supporting cast
- offensive/defensive scheme
- coaching staff and play-calling
- health of supporting cast
- etc, etc, etc.
Maybe I just don't know Jones/Martin/Nelson as well as I should though?
The bit I've seen of them so far (more of Jones and Martin, of course) doesn't look like anything special to me, but I'm open to being educated too...
Last edited by a moderator:
trader jake
Footballguy
Rampant speculation that Koren isn't 100% clean (local rumors via some radio guys who would know). Add his brother getting arrested for trafficking ecstacy out of the house KRob owns and you have a player not worth the headache.
sho nuff
Footballguy
I think it had more to do with his knee still bothering him than that.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Stand by your comments on your #3 all you want...only makes you look foolish...especially listing Robert Ferguson in there.The guy that was never even a good #3 before he was cut by the Packers.The quarterback, and the head coach/play-calling. I know I am a Vikings homer, but Rice has SKILLS. Crazy...MAD skills. From the first mini-camp last year, you could see he was special. When he's in fourth-gear, he looks like he's just gliding out there...only fast. That, and he seems to have just a touch of "Cris Carter" in him too when it comes to the stick-um you'd swear he's got on his hands. If it's close, he's hauling it in. Either that, or maybe a few seasons of Troy Williamson makes him look like Cris Carter by comparison, LOL.
I'll stand by my comments about Wade, Allison, Ferguson, et al. The Vikings WR3BC. They aren't super-stars by any stretch of the imagination. However, neither are Jones/Martin/Nelson. I love it though when guys cite stats to talk about how guys are "better" in NFL terms. That's when I know that we've all been playing FFL a little too long. That'd be like saying that Ryan Grant is two-thirds as good as Adrian Peterson, because he had roughly 2/3 as many rushing yards and TDs in 2007. Anyone care to claim that Ryan Grant is "two-thirds" as "good" as Adrian Peterson? I'm not even sure what that means, since it is a ridiculous and flawed argument to begin with...but stats <> talent/skills. There are just WAY too many variables that impact stats:
- supporting cast
- offensive/defensive scheme
- coaching staff and play-calling
- health of supporting cast
- etc, etc, etc.
Maybe I just don't know Jones/Martin/Nelson as well as I should though?
trader jake
Footballguy
I hope you're right.
REALLY hard to look foolish around here when you're competing with:
ScottyFargo
Footballguy
All the WR's on the roster stated that Ferguson was instrumental in helping them achieve strong blocking downfield, so while it's possible he might get cut this year, he was an impactful player. As a WR, yeah his numbers aren't great, and the Vikings have obvious needs in Passing to balance out with their running strength. I wouldn't write him off with a cursory glance, though.Stand by your comments on your #3 all you want...only makes you look foolish...especially listing Robert Ferguson in there.The guy that was never even a good #3 before he was cut by the Packers.
I'll stand by my comments about Wade, Allison, Ferguson, et al. The Vikings WR3BC. They aren't super-stars by any stretch of the imagination. However, neither are Jones/Martin/Nelson. I love it though when guys cite stats to talk about how guys are "better" in NFL terms. That's when I know that we've all been playing FFL a little too long. That'd be like saying that Ryan Grant is two-thirds as good as Adrian Peterson, because he had roughly 2/3 as many rushing yards and TDs in 2007. Anyone care to claim that Ryan Grant is "two-thirds" as "good" as Adrian Peterson? I'm not even sure what that means, since it is a ridiculous and flawed argument to begin with...but stats <> talent/skills. There are just WAY too many variables that impact stats:
- supporting cast
- offensive/defensive scheme
- coaching staff and play-calling
- health of supporting cast
- etc, etc, etc.
Maybe I just don't know Jones/Martin/Nelson as well as I should though?
jurrassic
Footballguy
Of course the qb has to be competent but we are talking about the NFL. The qb's in the GB offense will be able to make the necessary throws. My point is that even though Jennings averaged 17.4 a catch, most of that yardage was gained after he caught a 5 yard slant. Obviously the qb, wr, and coach all have to be on the same page, but I was trying to point out that Jennings is not Corey Bradford. He is not running streak patterns all game.Just to address the bolded, actually the QB play does have quite a bit to do with that. If your QB is consistently throwing it behind the receivers, over their head, at their feet, etc. the WR is not able to maintain his stride after catching the ball.Jennings is WAY better than Rice. You are projecting Rice on potential. Jennings is proven and has played damn well. He was the 2nd rated wr last year in ypc for wr's with 50 or more receptions with an average of 17.4, only behind Galloway. Rice averaged 12.8 with 20 fewer receptions. Jennings was tied for 4th in the league in td's with Burress and Housh with 12 td's. Jennings averaged 70 yards a game to Rice's 30. He only caught 22 more balls than Rice but was about 4 times more productive.Rice might turn out to be just as productive but he isn't even close right now. Jennings was also highly productive in the game against the Cowboys in which Rodgers played 3 quarters. So it isn't only about Favre. In addition, he does alot of his damage after the catch, which again isn't as dependent on the qb.datonn said:Nah, just a
Donald Driver >> Berrian. You'll get no qualms from me about that one! However, Rice isn't really far behind Jennings (if at all) when it comes to talent/potential...and Bobby Wade, Aundrae Allison and others are every-bit as good as the WR3s that the Packers are trotting out on to the field. In my own opinion, of course...since I am a bit biased as a Vikings fan.
sho nuff
Footballguy
One was a jab at Vikings WRs lately (as foolish as it was)...one seriously tried to mention Robert Ferguson as a #3 guy and possibly better than the Packers #3.The latter seems worse as it was serious...the first was a joke (though a poorly put together joke)REALLY hard to look foolish around here when you're competing with:
jurrassic
Footballguy
Noone would argue Grant is better than Peterson, just like noone who actually watches football would argue that right now Rice is as good as Jennings. For that matter, the Vikings are pretty mush universally viewed as having one of the worst wr corps in the league, while last year the Packers were viewed, nationwide, as having one of the top 5 units. The fact that you are trying to argue that journeymen like Fergusson and Wade are as good as the youth and talent the Packers have is ridiculous.
I'll stand by my comments about Wade, Allison, Ferguson, et al. The Vikings WR3BC. They aren't super-stars by any stretch of the imagination. However, neither are Jones/Martin/Nelson. I love it though when guys cite stats to talk about how guys are "better" in NFL terms. That's when I know that we've all been playing FFL a little too long. That'd be like saying that Ryan Grant is two-thirds as good as Adrian Peterson, because he had roughly 2/3 as many rushing yards and TDs in 2007. Anyone care to claim that Ryan Grant is "two-thirds" as "good" as Adrian Peterson? I'm not even sure what that means, since it is a ridiculous and flawed argument to begin with...but stats <> talent/skills. There are just WAY too many variables that impact stats:
- supporting cast
- offensive/defensive scheme
- coaching staff and play-calling
- health of supporting cast
- etc, etc, etc.
Maybe I just don't know Jones/Martin/Nelson as well as I should though?
sho nuff
Footballguy
Thats great that he was supposedly helping in that.But the conversation was about the Vikings #3WRBC being better than Jones/Martin/Nelson (which I find utterly ridiculous).I would write him off based on what I saw out of him in GB. Looks good in preseason, you think it will be his year, tons of praise from the QB even...only to have him suck it up on the field, alligator arms, does not fight for balls thrown into coverage, and ends up hurt every single year.The guy was a huge disappointment and not a good WR when you get right down to it.
My larger point in mentioning Grant vs. Peterson was this: How do you quantify "better?" Is it stats? Is it what you see on the field, whether a guy has the ball or not? Is it practice? Measurables? Is it the color of their uniform and helmet? What magical formula does one use to back-up their claims of "better" when evaluating NFL talent?I personally think what it is is the fact that anyone wearing Green and Gold is "better" in the eyes of ANYONE in Central and Eastern Wisconsin...except my poor cousin, a doctor and Vikings fan in Milwaukee, who probably fears for his life every time he leaves the house in a Purple and Gold jersey!jurrassic said:
I'm not saying Jones and Martin suck (jury is still obviously out on Nelson), but rather am saying that you guys have a bit of the glasses when evaluating them...along with the fact that:- Wade isn't as bad as guys are making him out to be
- Allison has talent, albeit he hasn't proven ANYTHING on the field as of yet
- Ferguson is a serviceable WR3. NOT a great WR, but good enough to be out there on the field
I think you guys might finally get it this year when you've got Aaron Rodgers throwing the football instead of the gunslinger. That hasn't happened in, what, 15-16 seasons? You've been very blessed to have one of the best QBs in the history of the game at the helm for a good chunk of your adult lives (probably), and now you get to experience how the "other half" in the NFL live. It's hard, for example, to average 12 YAC when the QB lays you out or throws the ball at your ankles instead of right between the numbers. If/when Rodgers sucks it up, does that mean that Donald Driver and Greg Jennings have magically experienced a substantial drop in talent in 2008? If the Packers go with more of a focus on the running game and decide to grind it out, and Driver's/Jenning's numbers drop 20-25%, has their TALENT dropped off by 20-25%? Hardly, but who knows how other guys out there are thinking.
That's the point I am trying to hammer home around here...to all the people who think that Berrian/Rice/Wade/Allison/Ferguson is so-substantially below Driver/Jennings/Jones/Martin/Nelson in talent. With Rodgers at the helm in 2008 though, you guys might FINALLY start to understand. The O-Line is the "heart" and the WRs and RBs are the arms and legs...but the QB is the brain that makes it all work, and the arms and legs don't work so well when the brain keeps mucking-up when it is sending out its marching orders...
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
I would not say that claiming they are better than the Vikings #3 guys is much of a homerstic call.My larger point in mentioning Grant vs. Peterson was this: How do you quantify "better?" Is it stats? Is it what you see on the field, whether a guy has the ball or not? Is it practice? Measurables? Is it the color of their uniform and helmet? What magical formula does one use to back-up their claims of "better" when evaluating NFL talent?I personally think what it is is the fact that anyone wearing Green and Gold is "better" in the eyes of ANYONE in Central and Eastern Wisconsin...except my poor cousin, a doctor and Vikings fan in Milwaukee, who probably fears for his life every time he leaves the house in a Purple and Gold jersey!jurrassic said:I'm not saying Jones and Martin suck (jury is still obviously out on Nelson), but rather am saying that you guys have a bit of the
Nor is he good...a team that is strapped for WRs in Tennessee pretty much just let him walk before last season.
Jones has talent too...and has proven it on the field.
Serviceable to a team who is thin at WR...when he actually makes it onto the field.
Yes...we have been lucky to have Favre for so long. But Rodgers has seen "some" though very limited action. And Jennings ran just fine after the catch.Im sure Rodgers will suck it up a few times...but he may not.I think you guys might finally get it this year when you've got Aaron Rodgers throwing the football instead of the gunslinger. That hasn't happened in, what, 15-16 seasons? You've been very blessed to have one of the best QBs in the history of the game at the helm for a good chunk of your adult lives (probably), and now you get to experience how the "other half" in the NFL live. It's hard, for example, to average 12 YAC when the QB lays you out or throws the ball at your ankles instead of right between the numbers. If/when Rodgers sucks it up, does that mean that Donald Driver and Greg Jennings have magically experienced a substantial drop in talent in 2008? If the Packers go with more of a focus on the running game and decide to grind it out, and Driver's/Jenning's numbers drop 20-25%, has their TALENT dropped off by 20-25%? Hardly, but who knows how other guys out there are thinking.
That's the point I am trying to hammer home around here...to all the people who think that Berrian/Rice/Wade/Allison/Ferguson is so-substantially below Driver/Jennings/Jones/Martin/Nelson in talent. With Rodgers at the helm in 2008 though, you guys might FINALLY start to understand. The O-Line is the "heart" and the WRs and RBs are the arms and legs...but the QB is the brain that makes it all work, and the arms and legs don't work so well when the brain keeps mucking-up when it is sending out its marching orders...
And yes...Berrian/Rice/Wade/Allison/Ferguson is quite a bit below the Packer WRs...that is not just homer talk...its a generally accepted truth around the NFL.
Oh...and I believe Rodgers will be quite a bit better than Tjax too.
Interseptopus
Footballguy
Moss made Culpepper look reeeeeaaaaal good. Without Moss Culpepper is without a job. Braylon Edwards and Kellen Winslow made Derek Anderson look real good. I highly doubt he's a top 10 QB in talentMy larger point in mentioning Grant vs. Peterson was this: How do you quantify "better?" Is it stats? Is it what you see on the field, whether a guy has the ball or not? Is it practice? Measurables? Is it the color of their uniform and helmet? What magical formula does one use to back-up their claims of "better" when evaluating NFL talent?I personally think what it is is the fact that anyone wearing Green and Gold is "better" in the eyes of ANYONE in Central and Eastern Wisconsin...except my poor cousin, a doctor and Vikings fan in Milwaukee, who probably fears for his life every time he leaves the house in a Purple and Gold jersey!jurrassic said:glasses when evaluating them...along with the fact that:
- Wade isn't as bad as guys are making him out to be
- Allison has talent, albeit he hasn't proven ANYTHING on the field as of yet
- Ferguson is a serviceable WR3. NOT a great WR, but good enough to be out there on the field
I think you guys might finally get it this year when you've got Aaron Rodgers throwing the football instead of the gunslinger. That hasn't happened in, what, 15-16 seasons? You've been very blessed to have one of the best QBs in the history of the game at the helm for a good chunk of your adult lives (probably), and now you get to experience how the "other half" in the NFL live. It's hard, for example, to average 12 YAC when the QB lays you out or throws the ball at your ankles instead of right between the numbers. If/when Rodgers sucks it up, does that mean that Donald Driver and Greg Jennings have magically experienced a substantial drop in talent in 2008? If the Packers go with more of a focus on the running game and decide to grind it out, and Driver's/Jenning's numbers drop 20-25%, has their TALENT dropped off by 20-25%? Hardly, but who knows how other guys out there are thinking.
That's the point I am trying to hammer home around here...to all the people who think that Berrian/Rice/Wade/Allison/Ferguson is so-substantially below Driver/Jennings/Jones/Martin/Nelson in talent. With Rodgers at the helm in 2008 though, you guys might FINALLY start to understand. The O-Line is the "heart" and the WRs and RBs are the arms and legs...but the QB is the brain that makes it all work, and the arms and legs don't work so well when the brain keeps mucking-up when it is sending out its marching orders...
Tory Holt, Issac Bruce, and Az. Hakim made Warner into a pro-bowler (from previously packing groceries)
Without Terrell Owens we'd never know how badly Tony Romo could sing "take me out to the ball game"
So good WRs can't overcome a bad QB? Sure, the QB has to be smart and make the right choices, but clearly a QB can be successful with great offensive pieces around him! Put those QBs above on ANY other team and they are NOT probowl QBs. Culpepper is without a job. Derek Anderson would be a backup on any other team except for the Bears or Vikings. Warner is a fill in until the rookie QB can step it up (as clear after he left STL). And Romo would be a bottom tier QB in the league if he started. Put him on the Vikings and he's just as bad as Tavaris...
So yes, I do expect Rodgers to do well this year. Top 50% of the league at least. He has peices all around him to succeed, he just needs to stay healthy. Look at that second half of the Dallas game and think about that every week. Now THATS what you should get your
ready forYou think Driver/Jennings/Jones/Nelson/R.Martin/Swain is just as good as the jokers you have? This is the DEEPEST talent at WR in the league. GB could go 5 WR wide (as they did last year) and just dominate. Each of their WRs 2-4 could be a #2 WR on most NFL teams. Martin is a legitimate #3 WR on most NFL teams. Ferguson is awful, Berrian is a #2 WR thrown into a #1 role, and the rest of those guys are #3 WRs at best
Last edited by a moderator:
1. Never said they were "equal"....primarily because Driver >> Berrian IMHO. Berrian's got skills, but he drops too many balls to ever be a true WR1 in my opinion. I think folks significantly, SIGNIFICANTLY under-estimate (and under-value) the talent of Sidney Rice though...which is how this all started. 2. I hope....PRAY the Packers spread the field and go five-wide in their two games against the Purple this Fall without Favre. Who's the emergency QB for the Pack again? It might come to that if they don't keep a little "max-protect" and keep Jared Allen and Company from pinning their ears back and planting Rodgers a few feet into the turf. The Vikings pass rush and DBs (with the additions of Williams and Johnson) are much, MUCH better than they were in previous seasons...and they've retained one of the premier rushing defenses in the NFL on top of it. If the Pack goes five-wide on the Purple now with Aaron Rodgers at the helm, it could get VERY ugly and VERY painful, VERY quickly.
3. You're right...Berrian IS a WR2. Even on the Vikings...as soon as 2009.
Rice is the real-deal...he's just "stuck" in a hyper-conservative and run-first offense (Childress) with a bottom-10 NFL quarterback (Jackson). None of you guys has yet answered my question though for how that translates into Rice having "less talent."
Last edited by a moderator:
A QB who has attempted 59 passes in his three-year career, and folks are ready to assume that he is going to perform somewhere in the same solar system as probably one of the greatest players to ever play the QB position? I hope for your sake you're right...or there could be a LOT of agitated, depressed and suicidal folks East of the St. Croix during the next few seasons.
Driver >> Berrian, for sure. After that though, I'm not sure I agree with the previous claims. Packers WR corps > Vikings WR corps, true. However, I just don't think that the gap is as wide as folks are claiming it is after WR1 is off the board.Rodgers *might* be a lot better than T-Jax, sure! Not that hard to do, at least up to this point.
Here's the point though: What if he isn't? What if he IS better, but only marginally better? What do you think happens to that vaunted Packers WR corps? Doesn't mean that Driver, Jennings, etc. now magically "suck." It means that their QUARTERBACK sucks, that's all. That's the point I'm trying to hammer home. Bobby Wade, for example, has had Bears QBs , Vince Young and T-Jax throwing him the ball during his career. Think his stats might look different if he were in the WR3 slot in Indianapolis? New England? Green Bay PRE-Favre retirement?
Last edited by a moderator:
ScottyFargo
Footballguy
Culpepper's best year came with Moss out of commission for the majority of it due to injuries. His lack of a job right now is thanks to playing in two of the worst situations in the NFL, Miami and Oakland, coming off of major knee injuries. It wasn't just Moss, Culpepper was a good quarterback until the injury (aside from his tyrannasauras rex hands and fumble issues.)Five wide had just as much to do with Favre as anything, I seriously doubt you'll see that any where near as much this year.Moss made Culpepper look reeeeeaaaaal good. Without Moss Culpepper is without a job. Braylon Edwards and Kellen Winslow made Derek Anderson look real good. I highly doubt he's a top 10 QB in talentMy larger point in mentioning Grant vs. Peterson was this: How do you quantify "better?" Is it stats? Is it what you see on the field, whether a guy has the ball or not? Is it practice? Measurables? Is it the color of their uniform and helmet? What magical formula does one use to back-up their claims of "better" when evaluating NFL talent?I personally think what it is is the fact that anyone wearing Green and Gold is "better" in the eyes of ANYONE in Central and Eastern Wisconsin...except my poor cousin, a doctor and Vikings fan in Milwaukee, who probably fears for his life every time he leaves the house in a Purple and Gold jersey!glasses when evaluating them...along with the fact that:
- Wade isn't as bad as guys are making him out to be
- Allison has talent, albeit he hasn't proven ANYTHING on the field as of yet
- Ferguson is a serviceable WR3. NOT a great WR, but good enough to be out there on the field
I think you guys might finally get it this year when you've got Aaron Rodgers throwing the football instead of the gunslinger. That hasn't happened in, what, 15-16 seasons? You've been very blessed to have one of the best QBs in the history of the game at the helm for a good chunk of your adult lives (probably), and now you get to experience how the "other half" in the NFL live. It's hard, for example, to average 12 YAC when the QB lays you out or throws the ball at your ankles instead of right between the numbers. If/when Rodgers sucks it up, does that mean that Donald Driver and Greg Jennings have magically experienced a substantial drop in talent in 2008? If the Packers go with more of a focus on the running game and decide to grind it out, and Driver's/Jenning's numbers drop 20-25%, has their TALENT dropped off by 20-25%? Hardly, but who knows how other guys out there are thinking.
That's the point I am trying to hammer home around here...to all the people who think that Berrian/Rice/Wade/Allison/Ferguson is so-substantially below Driver/Jennings/Jones/Martin/Nelson in talent. With Rodgers at the helm in 2008 though, you guys might FINALLY start to understand. The O-Line is the "heart" and the WRs and RBs are the arms and legs...but the QB is the brain that makes it all work, and the arms and legs don't work so well when the brain keeps mucking-up when it is sending out its marching orders...
Tory Holt, Issac Bruce, and Az. Hakim made Warner into a pro-bowler (from previously packing groceries)
Without Terrell Owens we'd never know how badly Tony Romo could sing "take me out to the ball game"
So good WRs can't overcome a bad QB? Sure, the QB has to be smart and make the right choices, but clearly a QB can be successful with great offensive pieces around him! Put those QBs above on ANY other team and they are NOT probowl QBs. Culpepper is without a job. Derek Anderson would be a backup on any other team except for the Bears or Vikings. Warner is a fill in until the rookie QB can step it up (as clear after he left STL). And Romo would be a bottom tier QB in the league if he started. Put him on the Vikings and he's just as bad as Tavaris...
So yes, I do expect Rodgers to do well this year. Top 50% of the league at least. He has peices all around him to succeed, he just needs to stay healthy. Look at that second half of the Dallas game and think about that every week. Now THATS what you should get your
You think Driver/Jennings/Jones/Nelson/R.Martin/Swain is just as good as the jokers you have? This is the DEEPEST talent at WR in the league. GB could go 5 WR wide (as they did last year) and just dominate. Each of their WRs 2-4 could be a #2 WR on most NFL teams. Martin is a legitimate #3 WR on most NFL teams. Ferguson is awful, Berrian is a #2 WR thrown into a #1 role, and the rest of those guys are #3 WRs at best
sho nuff
Footballguy
2. Why? Are the Vikings going to hit Rodgers late alot? You do realize when they went 5 wide that it was not 5 step drops and wait for long patterns to develop don't you? It was quick passes...(a great way to neutralize the pass rush)...and Im not worried about Jared Allen...Clifton can handle him. The addition of Williams is nice...Johnson...meh. They are not yet that much better. And that premier rush D was torn apart by GB in their 2nd meeting last year...3. Its not that it is conservative by choice...you have little at QB and WR to justify not running behind that line with ADP.1. Never said they were "equal"....primarily because Driver >> Berrian IMHO. Berrian's got skills, but he drops too many balls to ever be a true WR1 in my opinion. I think folks significantly, SIGNIFICANTLY under-estimate (and under-value) the talent of Sidney Rice though...which is how this all started. 2. I hope....PRAY the Packers spread the field and go five-wide in their two games against the Purple this Fall without Favre. Who's the emergency QB for the Pack again? It might come to that if they don't keep a little "max-protect" and keep Jared Allen and Company from pinning their ears back and planting Rodgers a few feet into the turf. The Vikings pass rush and DBs (with the additions of Williams and Johnson) are much, MUCH better than they were in previous seasons...and they've retained one of the premier rushing defenses in the NFL on top of it. If the Pack goes five-wide on the Purple now with Aaron Rodgers at the helm, it could get VERY ugly and VERY painful, VERY quickly.
3. You're right...Berrian IS a WR2. Even on the Vikings...as soon as 2009.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Where have I or anyone assumed he was going to perform near Favre? Oh wait...I did not...nor did anyone else.A QB who has attempted 59 passes in his three-year career, and folks are ready to assume that he is going to perform somewhere in the same solar system as probably one of the greatest players to ever play the QB position? I hope for your sake you're right...or there could be a LOT of agitated, depressed and suicidal folks East of the St. Croix during the next few seasons.
I disagree...the only place you all are close is on Rice vs Jennings...after that, despite all your talk...the Vikings cannot put 5 wide out there that is nearly as scary as what GB puts out there.
If he is marginally better...the Packers are probably about even with Minny.I think some of you underestimate how good GB's D is as well.Rodgers *might* be a lot better than T-Jax, sure! Not that hard to do, at least up to this point.
Bobby Wade is not a great or even that good of a WR. Please quit acting as if he is.
