LOL. Jennings played in 3 of those first 5 games and the Lions, Bears and Vikings games you cite. The Packers are averaging more points per game without Jennings than they are with him. Try again.
Jennings was hurt in the first game of the year against the 49ers..tried to gut it out (very pun-ny), then had to get his surgery and is now just coming back. Having a hurt player as your go-to will certainly hinder any offense. Point is, without him being healthy at any point, their offense hasn't been nearly as effective overall.
Don't worry, with Ireland as the teams GM, he won't be looking to sign any offensive play makers in free agency. The Dolphins traded for both Marshall and Bush, but they haven't signed a productive play maker in free agency since they signed Bess as a college free agent, five years ago. Ireland will probably sign some offensive or defensive linemen, who will lucky to make it through training camp.
First, he's not really their go-to. They spread the ball around a lot, which is why Philbin said he didn't really see the need for the proverbial No. 1 receiver. Second, the Packers passing offense was better this year without Jennings than it was in 2010 with him. Third, the Packers passing offense was as productive last year without him as it was with him. Fourth, the Packers offense has scored more without him than with him this year. Claiming that the fact the Packers haven't duplicated one of the greatest offensive seasons in NFL history is due to Greg Jennings being unhealthy is nonsense. He's a good player, but not a real difference-maker IMO. If the Packers feel otherwise, they'll resign him. It does not look like that will happen.
He's led them in receiving every season since 2008, except last year when Jordy Nelson went bananas, probably in large part due to the coverage Jennings was demanding. I'd say that's go-to. In 2010 their passing offense averaged 257 yards per game In 2011 their passing offense averaged 307 yards per game Now in 2012 they are averaging 240 passing yards per game. How is that better? He's certainly a difference maker, and would be a welcome addition to any team. The emergence of Randall Cobb is probably the thing that hurts his chances to be back in GB.
2010 also didn't have Randall Cobb, a 3rd year and not as good Jordy Nelson, and a less effective Donald Driver. Apples to Mangoes. Apples to Mangoes.
Which is why I pointed out that Jennings' lack of health (he suffered the injury in Week 1) in addition to his absence may have had an effect. You have no point here.
He's had about the same number of targets as the other starting receiver, which is why he isn't really a go-to, and even that number is a smaller percentage of the team's overall passing attempts than what starting receivers get on most teams. That's why he's not really a go-to. Passing yards is a very poor measure of passing game efficiency or effectiveness. Passer rating is a much better measure and the Pack's is better this year (105.2) than it was in 2010 (98.9). And the Packers' running game has been better this year than it was in 2010, which is also part of why the passing yardage is down a little. He's not really a difference maker. they really ahven't been better with him than without him. Randall Cobb is a good player too, but he's not a real difference maker either. If you have been rendered obsolete by Randall Cobb you are not a real difference maker.
It's also may be that any difference in Rodgers' numbers may be due to the change in offensive coordinator or Rodgers having trouble with his wife or girlfriend, etc. In other words, a myriad of things "may" have had an effect. You have no support for your assertion, which is why you are the one who has no point here.
1. For what its worth, the Packers have averaged 31.7 points in 2011 and 2012 with Greg Jennings in the game. They've averaged 27.8 points without him. 2. You're moving the goal posts. You asserted that the Packers offense is getting on just fine this year and that any fall-off is due to it being "delusional" for anyone to expect them to replicate their success from 2011. I've demonstrated that in fact they're not fine and that going from 31.9 points per game to 22.6 points per game, a 9.3 point difference, is a hell of a lot more than just pulling off from a record high. Now you're bringing up all these other reasons why the Packers offense might be falling off a cliff and rest assured, I fully agree with you that there isn't ONE reason they're falling off...nor did I ever say there was just one reason and that Greg Jennings is that sole reason. But in changing this argument you're essentially admitting that your initial reaction and response to my post was completely wrong.
I'm not saying their offense is falling off the cliff at all. But I have come to expect that kind of ridiculous misrepresentation from you. Yes, there is a difference in their passing numbers from last year to this year. Last year, their passing game was the best in NFL history. A decline from that previously unprecedented level was not just expected, but nearly certain. But their 105.2 team passer rating does not, in any way, shape or form suggest that they are stumbling, struggling or have fallen off a cliff. Dan Marino had one season in his career that was better than that. Most other HOF QB had none. The Packers averaged 31.33 pts per game in games Jennings missed in 2011. Including the playoff game, they averaged 32.4 in games he played in 2011. That difference is negligible and, considering the small sample size of games he missed, of no statistical significance. In 2010, he played in all 16 games and all playoff games, so there is no available comparison. This year, they have averaged 22.1 pts per game in games Jennings played and 26.4 in games he didn't play. I haven't changed the argument or admitted that my initial reaction and response to your post was wrong. The Packers still have the top rated passing offense in the NFL. Your assertion that it has been stumbling all year and/or has fallen off a cliff is demonstrably false.
LOL. They're scoring 22.6 points per game of offense as opposed to 31.9 points per game a year ago and my assertion that they've been stumbling and/or have fallen off a cliff is "demonstrably false". That's so...you.
Maybe it is. Not denying that factors into it. But it IS worse. That's the real argument which Fineas has tried to back pedal on.
I'm not backpedaling on anything nor did I say it wasn't worse. In fact, I said it would have been ridiculous to expect it to not be worse since it was so unusually good last year. What I said is that the passing game hasn't been stumbling (as evidenced by the 105.2 rating) and that the drop from last year's NFL record high was very unlikely to be due to Greg Jennings missing part of this year. The real argument is the one that relates to the topic of the thread -- Greg Jennings -- not the Packers overall offensive scoring. The Packers have the top rated passing game in the NFL this year. If your position is that Jennings hasn't really been himself all season, then they have done that effectively without Greg Jennings. Last year, without Jennings, Matt Flynn threw for 480 yards and 6 TDs in a single game. Greg Jennings is not the person responsible for making that passing go the way it does.
It's accurate to say that the Green Bay offense is worse than last year but considering how well they played last year, what else would you expect? Mike McCarthy has answered questions on the topic and stated that they've taken a different approach to attacking defenses this year in hope of improving his own defense.
So the offense goes from 31.9 points per game down to 22.6 points per game and that's just normal pullback off a high. Riiiiiight. LOL. Given that you were wrong and indeed the Packers offense HAS fallen off this year, yes it's very arguable that Greg Jennings is not the most important reason why. It's even arguable that he has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of opinion. The matter of fact is that you were totally wrong to question me when I asserted that the Packers offense has stumbled a bit this year. You say last year Matt Flynn threw for 480 yards and 6 TDs without Greg Jennings in Week 17. Ok. Fair enough. But last year the Green Bay Packers also lost to the lowly Kansas City Chiefs, only scoring 14 points in the process. This was also without Greg Jennings. Oh but I'm sure you'll invent some reason one game is more meaningful than the other.
I think it's pretty ridiculous to think Green Bay, with or without Jennings, would duplicate or come close to last years performance. I'd love Greg Jennings in Miami. I don't think he's done or close to being done.
What would I expect? Better than 22.6 points per game which ranks only #12 in the league. The New England Patriots and New Orleans Saints had offensive totals very close to the Packers' from a year ago. In fact, the Saints scored more points of offense. The Saints scored 32.4 points per game, the Packers 31.9 points per game, and the Patriots 30.3 points per game. Nobody else came even close. Combined the Patriots and Saints averaged 31.3 points per game in 2011, and combined they average 29.0 points per game this year. They were #3 and #1 in offensive point scoring a year ago, and are #1 and #2 respectively today while the Packers have sunk to #12. A certain amount of dropoff is to be expected. But 9.3 points? You don't IMO just drop 9.3 points in your offensive point production, going from elite ranking to mediocre ranking, and then just chalk it up to "Well we can't always set records..."
As ridiculous as it would be for the Patriots to play half a year without Rob Gronkowski and actually increase their point production by 2 points? Keeping in mind that the Patriots point production in 2011 was very close to the same as the Packers?
I think people are struggling with the idea that the Packers are never going to have a "dominant" receiver. They're not going to have a #1 in the traditional sense, someone who is going to be a primary option on most all plays, who is going to have a huge amount of targets, etc. and so on. It's about quality over quantity. In a sense their receivers are not producing as much as they could be, but they are doing so efficiently. They are cutting down on interceptions, forced passes, defenses being effectively shut down a game-plan by shutting down a featured player, etc. and so on. Look at the target breakdowns for Green Bay: 2011: Greg Jennings 96 Jordy Nelson 93 Donald Driver 54 James Jones 54 Randall Cobbs 31 2010: Greg Jennings 120 James Jones 85 Donald Drivers 82 Jordy Nelson 61 2009: Greg Jennings 107 Donald Driver 109 James Jones 60 Jordy Nelson 28 2012( a bit anomalous because of injury) Randall Cobb 97 targets Jordy Nelson 66 targets Greg Jennings 38 targets James Jones 76 targets They balance their workload in terms of targets. The fact that in a lot of cases, the numbers add-up makes me curious about how they do their snap rotations for players. Donald Driver/James Jones in 2011 add up to close to the same target workload that Jennings/Nelson have, for example.
I agree with this. As for your snap count total question, in order Jennings, Nelson, Driver and Jones had 490, 454, 383 and 344 pass snaps in 2011. I believe that's out of 636 possible for each. So yes, very egalitarian.
The packers may spread the ball around efficiently, doesn't mean they don't have # 1 s running around doing it, probabaly why they set all time records and sh##..
The main difference between the Packers' offense between 2011 and 2012 is that while both were/are efficient, the 2011 offense was prolific. The sheer efficiency of their offense leads me to believe it's not so much a coaching issue. They're still getting what needs to be done, done. The fact that they're less prolific is a talent issue IMO. I think Greg Jennings is a major piece of that. For the Packers to be efficient, they need good coaching. They need to know what spots on the field to hit, which plays to call, and players to attack. They're still doing that. What is different is that they appear to just not be able to hit the cylinders they did hit last season. Aside from that Texans game, the Packers do not do the same things they did last season, this season. In the recent Lions game for example, they just seemed to not be able to muster the type of offense they did. They also placed a fair amount of emphasis on running the ball as well. Could potentially be that they just can't do what they want to. Jennings, along with being a good route runner, is very fast. Schematically, a reliable and fast receiver is an amazing asset and I believe he was a major part of what allowed Jordy Nelson to breakout last season.
I would prefer Wallace myself. I don't agree withthe OP as we don't have any starting WR's. Hartline has shown his worth, and not only this season.
I mean in terms of the wide receiver "positions". Do James Jones and Donald Driver have comparable targets because they are basically in many cases an either/or proposition that substitute in with each other while Nelson and Jennings did not so much?
True, but also consider that Rodgers has been under pressure on 30.1% of dropbacks this year versus 27.5% last year...a rise but kind of a marginal one. It suggests that Rodgers is getting pressured close to the same but taking more sacks. In my opinion that could be a sign of comfort level on plays and that very well could be an issue related to a big part of the passing game that is missing and/or ineffective due to injury.
No, probably not just, but that's probably a big part of it. The change in OC is probably a factor. The fact that Rodgers has been under pressure more frequently this year is probably a factor. the fact that rodgers has been sacked more this year is probably a factor. The fact that GB has been penalized much more than last year is probably a factor. The fact that GB is averaging 50% fewer takeaways per game (and thereby fewer favorable offensive opportunities) is undoubtedly a factor. The fact that GB's rushing attempts are up by a few per game is probably a factor. But a large amount of it is probably normal pullback off a high. After Peyton Manning's great 2004 season, his numbers came down the next year in very much the same way Rodgers' have this year and the Colts scored about 5 ppg less. That happened with the same WRs, same coach, same OC, etc. After Marino's great 1984 season, his rating dropped 25 points witht he same cast and the team's scoring dropped by about 6 ppg the next season. After Brees' great 2009 season, his rating dropped about 20 points and his team's scoring dropped by 8 points a game the next year despite the same cast and coaches. After Brady's great 2007 season, his rating in his next full season in 2009 was about 20 points lower and the team scored about 10 points less per game despite having the same receivers, head coach, etc. They did have a change in OC, much like the Packers this year. Again, I wasn't wrong about anything. I never said the Packers offense hasn't declined this year. I made it clear that it would have been ridiculous to expect anything different. You are dueling with your own strawman . . . and losing. Ah, so now it's that Jennings may or may not have anythign whatsover to do with any decline in the GB offense's production and that the Packers may have "stumbled a bit." Before it was "There are systemic issues in that passing game anyway, as evidenced by Jermichael Finley's suddenly becoming a bad player, and Jordy Nelson's being far off his pace from a year ago. With Jennings gone I think Rodgers has had to feel his way out on how to operate the passing offense" and "The irony of that argument of course would be that there's a strong possibility that Jennings unavailability and health may be one of the big factors in that offense suddenly stumbling all year." The better team loses a lot in the NFL. Happens several times every single week. That's why only 1 team in NFL history has gone undefeated. The "lowly" chiefs last year were a 7-9 team with the NFL's 12th ranked defense and its 7th ranked pass defense in terms of passer rating allowed and 6th in yards allowed. So the Chiefs had a very good pass defense and the Packers had a bad day. A few weeks later, with Jennings, the Packers mustered only 20 points against the Giants' 21st ranked pass defense. It happens.
You're basically making my case for me. In all those other cases, including the cases I brought up of the Saints and Patriots from 2011 to 2012, there wasn't a dropoff in offensive effectiveness as the Packers have seen this year. So...thanks for that. You suggested that the passing game has been just as effective and that the difference in point scoring should've been expected based on how much they scored a year ago. Now you've totally recanted and have begun exploring reasons aside from just pullbacks off a cyclical high to show why the Packers have pulled back to an abnormal degree, as demonstrated by your own examples. So yeah. You're pretty much reversing your argument. ...and? How did anything I said there contradict anything I've said since? Yes, it does happen, which is why you focus on increasing the data pool instead of trying to drill down to individual examples. Again, you're making my point for me. So thanks for that.
What's the point of the back and forth? Fineas, are you arguing against signing Jennings as not being an impactful receiver?
No, your case was that Jennings is probably a big reason for it. But you have already conceded that that may not be the case at all. So thank you for that. There were significant dropoffs in all of the examples I cited and a 10 pt dropoff in the other one that also had a change in OC. And as I pointed out there are a lot of probable causes of the dip that have nothing whatsover to do with Greg Jennings. You either have a serious reading comprehension problem or are trying to intentionally misrepresent what I said. I never suggested the passing game has been just as effective. I said it would have been unreasonable to expect it to be because it was so unusually good last year. It is, however, still the top rated passing attack in the NFL with a passer rating that has rarely been matched by even HOF QBs. And I don't think they have pulled back to an abnormal degree at all. I think its about what one would expect coming of a historic season with a change in OC. That is clear from what is bolded. I did focus on the data pool and looked back at the past 3 years. I used the Matt Flynn game as an anecdote to illustrate how effective that offense was without Jennings even when Rodgers was out. It is absolutely true that not all of their games were that good. But on balance, it has been as good (actually a little better) without Jennings as it has been with him. Packers QBs have a 115 passer rating the last 2 years when Jennings doesn't play, as compared to a 110.5 when he does.
He's a good receiver, but not a difference maker IMO. I don't think he significantly upgrades the offense or gives it a dimension it doesn't have. While marginally faster than Hartline in the 40, he has actually been less effective on deep passes. Over the last 2 years, Hartline has caught twice as many deep passes for about twice as many yards and catches a slightly higher percentage of them too (despite not having Aaron Rodgers throwing them to him). I'd be fine with Jennings on a 3 year, $12-15 million deal but don't think he'll accept something like that. I certainly wouldn't pay him anything close to twice that amount. GB has a long history of system WRs. They have plugged in guys of solid, but unspectactular physical talent, for many years and gotten good production out of all of them -- Robert Brooks, Antonio Freeman, Bill Schroeder, Donald Driver, Javon Walker, Greg Jennings, Jordy Nelson, James Jones, Randall Cobb. Walker was a unique physical talent and a 1st round pick, but none of the others were. They were basically guys that came out of nowhere. And when they left they generally went back to nowhere. Walker had one nice season in Denver and had injury issues. Freeman left GB at age 29 and was out of the league two years later. Brooks left at age 28 and was also out of the NFL two years later. Schroeder was 30 when he left GB after 3 900+ yard seasons and he did very little in Detroit and was out of the league after 3 years. Jennings isn't actually the same guy, but I'd be pretty concerned that he'll have about as much impact after leaving GB as these other guys had.
Because this thread is about signing possible free agents. It is not about trading for a player or players. Also, Ireland traded two # 2's for Marshall and traded him away two years later for two #3's. One of these three's is Egnew, who it doesn't appear is a very good NFL prospect, since he can't even make the active roster. So when he does trade for a offensive play maker, he finds a way to screw that up too.
And yet, the Dolphins offense is scoring less points with Philbin as the teams HC than it did with Sparano as the HC in 2011. Personally I don't think the Packers miss Philbin at all. It is all the injuries they have had on offense this year which has affected the Packers scoring. If Philbin was the offensive guru you seem to think he is. This offense wouldn't be one of the lowest scoring offenses in all the NFL.
