Training Camp 2015 - Judgment Day (Pg 14)

[RRyder823]

[quote="RRyder823"]I wouldn't take any teams WR over ours either simply saying the phrase deep doesn't apply to them unless Montgomery continues doing what he has been.

Nelson, Cobb and Adams are our starters and as good if not better then anyone.

But not a single reserve of ours which includes Janis, Abby, White or Montgomery has proven a thing yet. If we were deep we could suffer an injury to a starter and not be rolling out any of 4 players who could be out of the league in 3 years.

Oline we're 7 deep at. RB is another position I'd call deep with Starks backing up Lacy. Those are position groups were if a starter goes down for a week or two we don't have to drastically alter the game plane. If Janis, Cobb or Adams go down we do. There's talent behind them but that doesn't mean any of them are sure things to develop

Depth is relative and relative to other teams the Packers are deeeeeep.[/quote]

In terms of the top 3 yes. Any team with a 4-6 WR receiver who has done anything is ahead in those spots.

It's simple if we're so deeeeeep as you put it where's our depth behind Janis, Cobb and a Adams?

[Buckrageous]

There are very, very few 4-6 WRs that have "done anything."

[RRyder823]

There are very, very few 4-6 WRs that have "done anything."

I agree. That has no bearing however on whether the Packers should be considered deep at WR right now.

[WeekapaugGroove]

No baktari today because of a knee injury. Anyone heard an update? Random knee injuries scare me after what happened with Bulaga two years ago


Edit: I do consider it encouraging that it was Barclay filling in at LT today. I assume if it was a "significant" injury they would move Bulaga to LT and have Barclay and tretter compete for the RT spot.

[WeekapaugGroove]

[quote="Buckrageous"]There are very, very few 4-6 WRs that have "done anything."

I agree. That has no bearing however on whether the Packers should be considered deep at WR right now.[/quote]
No bearing? I don't agree. If you want to have a "depth" argument then it has to be in comparison to the rest if the league. Otherwise "depth" becomes an arbitrary value that only you are defining and it becomes a pointless argument.

Just like I could say I only consider a team deep at rb of they have 3 future hall of famers on the roster then arguing that every team in the league isn't deep because they don't fit my definition of deep. Pointless

[RRyder823]

[quote="RRyder823"][quote="Buckrageous"]There are very, very few 4-6 WRs that have "done anything."

I agree. That has no bearing however on whether the Packers should be considered deep at WR right now.[/quote]
No bearing? I don't agree. If you want to have a "depth" argument then it has to be in comparison to the rest if the league. Otherwise "depth" becomes an arbitrary value that only you are defining and it becomes a pointless argument.

Just like I could say I only consider a team deep at rb of they have 3 future hall of famers on the roster then arguing that every team in the league isn't deep because they don't fit my definition of deep. Pointless[/quote]

Probably a poor choice of words on my part but i said It because if your trying to call the Packers deep at WR cause it actually proves my point that they aren't deep when you bring up that most teams 4-6 are unproven entities. It means the Packers depth is average with the rest of the league at WR currently just like most other teams having just untested players in those spots. You guys are pretty much just arguing "Well there aren't many teams with quality #4 WRS so we must be deep because i like the talent of our guys behind our top 3."

I get what everyone's saying. The problem that I'm having and the reason why I'm disagreeing with those calling the Packers deep at WR is that those that are are doing so because they are PROJECTING Montgomery to carry the success he's had so far in camp into the season and/or one of Janis, Abby or White to take a step and contribute. My point is you can't count on that and that it's not guranteed at this point and acting like it is happens to be absurd.

There's a reason why even the best teams in the league can only be considered deep at one or two positions generally going into a season and it's because the turnover rate is so high but just because there aren't alot of great #4s out there doesn't elevate ours above theirs just yet untill it's done on the field

[WeekapaugGroove]

[quote="WeekapaugGroove"][quote="RRyder823"][quote="Buckrageous"]There are very, very few 4-6 WRs that have "done anything."

I agree. That has no bearing however on whether the Packers should be considered deep at WR right now.[/quote]
No bearing? I don't agree. If you want to have a "depth" argument then it has to be in comparison to the rest if the league. Otherwise "depth" becomes an arbitrary value that only you are defining and it becomes a pointless argument.

Just like I could say I only consider a team deep at rb of they have 3 future hall of famers on the roster then arguing that every team in the league isn't deep because they don't fit my definition of deep. Pointless[/quote]

Probably a poor choice of words on my part but i said It because if your trying to call the Packers deep at WR cause it actually proves my point that they aren't deep when you bring up that most teams 4-6 are unproven entities. It means the Packers depth is average with the rest of the league at WR currently just like most other teams having just untested players in those spots. You guys are pretty much just arguing "Well there aren't many teams with quality #4 WRS so we must be deep because i like the talent of our guys behind our top 3."

I get what everyone's saying. The problem that I'm having and the reason why I'm disagreeing with those calling the Packers deep at WR is that those that are are doing so because they are PROJECTING Montgomery to carry the success he's had so far in camp into the season and/or one of Janis, Abby or White to take a step and contribute. My point is you can't count on that and that it's not guranteed at this point and acting like it is happens to be absurd.

There's a reason why even the best teams in the league can only be considered deep at one or two positions generally going into a season and it's because the turnover rate is so high but just because there aren't alot of great #4s out there doesn't elevate ours above theirs just yet untill it's done on the field[/quote]
Sure people are basing their assertion that the pack are deep at wr based on expecting the unproven guys to be good. My counter would be the Packers have a great track record of evaluating, drafting, and developing wrs so it's not a huge leap of faith to think guys like Montgomery and Janis will produce if needed.

[RRyder823]

[quote="RRyder823"][quote="WeekapaugGroove"][quote="RRyder823"][quote="Buckrageous"]There are very, very few 4-6 WRs that have "done anything."

I agree. That has no bearing however on whether the Packers should be considered deep at WR right now.[/quote]
No bearing? I don't agree. If you want to have a "depth" argument then it has to be in comparison to the rest if the league. Otherwise "depth" becomes an arbitrary value that only you are defining and it becomes a pointless argument.

Just like I could say I only consider a team deep at rb of they have 3 future hall of famers on the roster then arguing that every team in the league isn't deep because they don't fit my definition of deep. Pointless[/quote]

Probably a poor choice of words on my part but i said It because if your trying to call the Packers deep at WR cause it actually proves my point that they aren't deep when you bring up that most teams 4-6 are unproven entities. It means the Packers depth is average with the rest of the league at WR currently just like most other teams having just untested players in those spots. You guys are pretty much just arguing "Well there aren't many teams with quality #4 WRS so we must be deep because i like the talent of our guys behind our top 3."

I get what everyone's saying. The problem that I'm having and the reason why I'm disagreeing with those calling the Packers deep at WR is that those that are are doing so because they are PROJECTING Montgomery to carry the success he's had so far in camp into the season and/or one of Janis, Abby or White to take a step and contribute. My point is you can't count on that and that it's not guranteed at this point and acting like it is happens to be absurd.

There's a reason why even the best teams in the league can only be considered deep at one or two positions generally going into a season and it's because the turnover rate is so high but just because there aren't alot of great #4s out there doesn't elevate ours above theirs just yet untill it's done on the field[/quote]
Sure people are basing their assertion that the pack are deep at wr based on expecting the unproven guys to be good. My counter would be the Packers have a great track record of evaluating, drafting, and developing wrs so it's not a huge leap of faith to think guys like Montgomery and Janis will produce if needed.[/quote]

Fair enough. I hope they prove to be deep but i simply wouldnt make the assurtion till they got a few games under the belt but thats just me.

But I would like to point out you could've heard people say that it wouldn't take a big leap of faith to believe Janis would contribute last year after the preseason if needed if only as a deep threat and he still couldn't even overtake Boykins.

[trwi7]

Quoting is hard.

[Iheartfootball]

[quote="RRyder823"]I wouldn't take any teams WR over ours either simply saying the phrase deep doesn't apply to them unless Montgomery continues doing what he has been.

Nelson, Cobb and Adams are our starters and as good if not better then anyone.

But not a single reserve of ours which includes Janis, Abby, White or Montgomery has proven a thing yet. If we were deep we could suffer an injury to a starter and not be rolling out any of 4 players who could be out of the league in 3 years.

Oline we're 7 deep at. RB is another position I'd call deep with Starks backing up Lacy. Those are position groups were if a starter goes down for a week or two we don't have to drastically alter the game plane. If Janis, Cobb or Adams go down we do. There's talent behind them but that doesn't mean any of them are sure things to develop

Depth is relative and relative to other teams the Packers are deeeeeep.

In terms of the top 3 yes. Any team with a 4-6 WR receiver who has done anything is ahead in those spots.

It's simple if we're so deeeeeep as you put it where's our depth behind Janis, Cobb and a Adams?[/quote]

You're kidding right? How many roster spots are there at WR? Janis probably won't even make the cut. You're grasping at straws. Are you just bored or trolling?

[GB_Packers]

Most teams are going to struggle if they have to rely on their 4-6 receivers. Better have one of Rodgers, Brady, Peyton or someone like Brees if your receiver situation is that bad.

[BUCKnation]

This is one of the WOAT discussions weve had on this board. Not deep at WR? Wut

[emunney]

But if our top 3 WRs all get hurt we won't be as good.

[RRyder823]

But if our top 3 WRs all get hurt we won't be as good.

Yeah cause that exactly what I'm saying. Feel free to continue with that narrative though.

Being deep isn't about the guys at the top of the depth chart it's about the guys at the bottom

[HKPackFan]

Being deep isn't about the guys at the top...it's about the guys at the bottom

That's what she said. Sorry couldn't help myself.

[midranger]

When you're standing in a foot of water, you're actually standing in 6 inches of water because the stuff on top doesn't count. This is how depth works.

[humanrefutation]

Being deep isn't about the guys at the top...it's about the guys at the bottom

That's what she said. Sorry couldn't help myself.

More like that's what he said.

[humanrefutation]

Too early to say, but I wonder if this draft will turn out like our '99 draft when we picked three DBs (Edwards, Vinson, McKenzie) and the best one was our 3rd rounder. I bring this up because Randall has been struggling a bit with his injuries while Rollins is impressing folks.

http://espn.go.com/blog/green-bay-packers/post/_/id/22320/packers-rookie-quinten-rollins-acts-plays-like-he-belongs

[RRyder823]

Being deep isn't about the guys at the top...it's about the guys at the bottom

That's what she said. Sorry couldn't help myself.

Well played good sir.... Well played

[RRyder823]

Too early to say, but I wonder if this draft will turn out like our '99 draft when we picked three DBs (Edwards, Vinson, McKenzie) and the best one was our 3rd rounder. I bring this up because Randall has been struggling a bit with his injuries while Rollins is impressing folks.

http://espn.go.com/blog/green-bay-packers/post/_/id/22320/packers-rookie-quinten-rollins-acts-plays-like-he-belongs

Definitely possible. I really liked Rollins when we drafted him and think he'll be a stud in due time but it's worth noting that when Randall has been able to practice he's also been turning heads repeatedly but the again a players best ability can be there availability.

Hell if it truly turns out like the 99 draft and Rollins turns into a clearly superior player and we move Randall for a Ahman Green level of player like we did with Vinson I'd call that a win. Admittedly not very likely to happen again though