OT: Non-Hockey Sports Thread XII - Heeeeeeressss JJ! (Percy Harvin Edition)
- Thread starter TaLoN
- Start date
So, if they signed him right now he probably wouldn't be ready to play till game 3, and it sounds like Love will be ready to come back by game 5? Don't see that being very appealing, even though GB is a good team.
What do you think of your receivers, or is it too soon to tell?
1. Reed - he’s the best of the bunch and a difference maker. Better slot receiver than Randall Cobb IMO.
2. Doubs - not explosive, but he’s consistent and reliable.
3. Watson - explosive, but has a track record of being unreliable due to hamstring injuries.
4. Wicks - very underrated. He didn’t have a good first game this year.
5. Melton - I like him, but not as anything more than a #5. He was great when we needed him last year with all the injuries.
6. Heath - special teams player. I cannot recall the last time he played a meaningful offensive snap
Watson has the highest upside of all the receivers on the team. He’s the biggest, likely fastest, and most dynamic guy of the group. Sounds like he was working with a professional in Madison about how to deal with his hamstring injuries over the summer.
There’s so many decent receivers on the team that it is hard to get any one guy a ton of touches.
Maybe I just heard it through my green and gold ears, but Judd Zulgad seemed pretty darn happy that Love got injured on the three episodes of purple daily I listened to last night. Like overjoyed that the packers might be bad for 3 weeks. He also said that Love didn’t play well… now keep in mind, Love threw for 260 yards on what looked like an ice rink at times and had several passes go through the fingertips of his receivers (and one through a DB’s fingers thankfully). Just really a strange take from “sports dad”
You can also tell the Vikings getting their first 3 score win in years is going to all of their heads…
You can also tell the Vikings getting their first 3 score win in years is going to all of their heads…
Watson is a terrible route runner, and the Packers play better when he's in a role that doesn't rely on him regularly.
I think he HAD the most potential, but Reed has jumped so far ahead of him, the team is realizing they're better off with Watson as just a role player 4th receiver.
Watson’s role doesn’t rely on route running. He’s the deep threat, which is his best asset, and helps open up the areas of the field that Reed can take advantage of.
Yes, because they have given up on him being anything more than a go route 4th receiver finally, which was my point.
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
It's a fine line to walk, not being "happy" that Love got hurt, but being "happy" that the Packers might struggle for the next 2-4 weeks, even though the prospective struggles will be due to him getting hurt.
Makes little sense, but then again, so does sports.
He’s not the #4 though, which is my point.
If you go by snap count against the eagles: Doubs is first (58), Reed is second (48), Watson is third (42), Wicks is fourth (31), and Melton is fifth (8).
At 6’4”, he is the only “go up and get it” receiver the packers have. He should have had two TDs against the eagles, but he slipped on one early due to poor field conditions.
Who was the Vikings #4 last year? Osborn, whom had like 100 more yards in 7 more games played? Powell, whom had fewer yards than Watson in 7 more games played?
Minnewildsota
He who laughs last thinks slowest
- Jun 7, 2010
- 8,873
- 3,089
Osborn was the #3 IIRC
Jefferson, Addison, then Osborn
But comparing stats didn’t really make sense because the Packers don’t have WRs close to the caliber of JJ or Addison- they get a bulk of the targets
Exactly. They have four pretty equal guys who each get a share of the targets. No one guy gets a bulk of the targets. Therefore, it’s hard to stand out amongst the group. For instance, I don’t think anyone can definitively say Doubs is better than Watson if they are both healthy.
If you take Watson’s target pace for 17 games last year (100 targets), that would have lead Green Bay. Then you have Doubs at 96 and Reed at 94. I would assume Wicks’ targets (58 in 15 games) are lower because he isn’t on the field in 11 or 12 personnel.
Reed had the first big game of the year. But we saw constantly last year that the WR popping off was different game by game. It’s just hard to label Watson a #4 IMO.
Reed is going to make big strides this year IMO and will be the clear #1. Doubs is #2 - but more of a possession type of guy. Wicks has the potential to move ahead of Doubs... Watson is what he is. A limited but fast receiver with size - has redzone value, but can't run any route consistently aside from a go route.
Football teams in Wisconsin might be cursed this year. Tyler Van Dyke left the game early with a knee injury.
Packers have almost 200 yards rushing and there is just over 12 minutes left in the 2nd quarter... Holy smokes
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
Jbcraig1883
Registered User
Sad People
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2021
- 4,286
- 1,998
People overlooked how good of an offseason the Vikings had. Almost like they just saw Sam Darnold was out starting QB and wrote us off. With that said we arent SB contenders but we arent some pushovers either
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
Doesn't seem so far-fetched anymore, I'd say.
Minnewildsota
He who laughs last thinks slowest
- Jun 7, 2010
- 8,873
- 3,089
And we were without Addison for the whole game and JJ for like half. Not to mention Hock.
Minnewildsota
He who laughs last thinks slowest
- Jun 7, 2010
- 8,873
- 3,089
Against the Colts… don’t get too excited over there.261 yards rushing and a win without the starting QB. I’ll take it
CMC is the engine for the 49ers. Purdy lost them the game with turnovers.
If that post represents “excitement” I don’t know what to say. I’ll take a win any day without our best player.
BagHead
Registered User
Credit where it's due. The Packers had a great rushing game today, and the Vikings beat a team that was in the Superbowl last year. We can all be happy until we play each other. We deserve this, we're good people, and doggonit, people like us.
