Greg Jennings...Potential Bust

[stonewall 647]

Assuming that he will be fine from his concussion, and remain healthy for the entire season, I am beginning to be concerned that he may not meet his 2nd round WR1 expectations.

 

I continue to see GB WR's Nelson and Jones healthy and really play well, and Driver dosent seem to have lost a step. Add in the emergence of TE Finley, and I can see the ball getting distributed around much more than last season. I am beginning to think that 1000/7 could be the sad reality. Not bad......but not a fantasy champion WR1. Anyone agree?

[Willie Mays Hayes 0]

Assuming that he will be fine from his concussion, and remain healthy for the entire season, I am beginning to be concerned that he may not meet his 2nd round WR1 expectations.

 

I continue to see GB WR's Nelson and Jones healthy and really play well, and Driver dosent seem to have lost a step. Add in the emergence of TE Finley, and I can see the ball getting distributed around much more than last season. I am beginning to think that 1000/7 could be the sad reality. Not bad......but not a fantasy champion WR1. Anyone agree?

 

 

FWIW, I agree with your logic. I took Reggie Wayne over Jennings (2nd round) in a recent draft and everyone acted like I made the wrong decision. Maybe it's me but I have a hard time believing in "little receivers" as 1st or 2nd round picks. Steve Smith may be the one exception to the rule. They just tend to get nicked up a lot during the season and it only takes a couple missed games each season to make players like this feel more worth a 4-5th round pick, as opposed to a Top 10 WR selection.

[PackYourNut 47]

I would say, no. That offense looks to be one of the best in the league this year. If it is, then the #1 WR should put up great numbers barring injury.

[Turf CamelToe 1]

That's what I thought last year...this year I jumped aboard the Jennings train.

[Kingstowne Dealers 14]

It's all about expectations. 1000 and 7 TD's? Bust smust, I'll take it

[stonewall 647]

It's all about expectations. 1000 and 7 TD's? Bust smust, I'll take it

 

 

Yes, good numbers.....I'll take it from my WR2.....but I need more from my #1.

 

My expectation is to win the trophy

[Phurfur 70]

FWIW, I agree with your logic. I took Reggie Wayne over Jennings (2nd round) in a recent draft and everyone acted like I made the wrong decision. Maybe it's me but I have a hard time believing in "little receivers" as 1st or 2nd round picks. Steve Smith may be the one exception to the rule. They just tend to get nicked up a lot during the season and it only takes a couple missed games each season to make players like this feel more worth a 4-5th round pick, as opposed to a Top 10 WR selection.

 

 

 

Greg Jenning = 5' 11'', 198 lbs, age 25

 

Reggie Wayne = 6' 0', 198 lbs, age 30

[Smurphy118 0]

Although I like Jennings, I'm targeting Driver, the poor man's Jennings, with a later pick. Still get exposure to that high powered offense but for a cheaper price.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Every player you draft has bust potential.

 

Jennings is a young, talented, and now proven WR on a really good offense with a really good QB. Of course that offense will spread it arounds a little, but that is expected. Brees hits Lance Moore too. Brady fills Welker up. Peyton will hit up A-Goz. Good offenses have multiple weapons.

 

I see no reason why if Jennings stays healthy he will not mirror what he did last year. Which was put up some damn good fantasy numbers.

[FeelingMN 273]

My expectation is to win the trophy

 

 

So you don't like Jennings because there's too much competition for targets within the GB offense? But I assume you like Fitz/Boldin? Wayne? Colston? AJ? Moss? White?

 

All those guys play on offenses with multiple threats at receiver. Why aren't their values diminished?

 

 

I guess you better target SS and Cal Johnson, since they're the only two WR1 who don't have any other viable receiving threat.

 

[Kent 228]

Jennings is a stud with hands and speed in a great offense.

 

I'll worry about other players busting before I worry about him.

 

And shouldn't Wayne go before him anyway? That's supposed to happen.

[Kingstowne Dealers 14]

Yes, good numbers.....I'll take it from my WR2.....but I need more from my #1.

 

My expectation is to win the trophy

 

I guess I don't understand what your definition of bust is. When Braylon Edwards went from 1200+ yards and 16 TDs to just 800 and 3 the next season I think that was a bust.

 

For Jennings to go from 1200 and 9 to 1000 and 7 doesn't quite reach the bust label IMHO.

[Gladiators 1,904]

Assuming that he will be fine from his concussion, and remain healthy for the entire season, I am beginning to be concerned that he may not meet his 2nd round WR1 expectations.

 

I continue to see GB WR's Nelson and Jones healthy and really play well, and Driver dosent seem to have lost a step. Add in the emergence of TE Finley, and I can see the ball getting distributed around much more than last season. I am beginning to think that 1000/7 could be the sad reality. Not bad......but not a fantasy champion WR1. Anyone agree?

 

We always see 2 sides to these arguments.

 

Some say they don't want multiple weapons on the offense because it takes opportunities away from the #1. The others say that having multiple weapons is good because it takes away the double coverage and typically results in a higher powered offense. If you're in the boat that thinks having 1 main weapon on the offense is a good thing, then make a guy like Dwayne Bowe or Calvin Johnson your #1 guy (not saying to take them first round obviously, but grab them where you can). If you're in the boat of thinking that having multiple weapons and a high powered offense is better, then go with the guy that has a great supporting cast.

 

I definitely like to target guys that are on a solid offense with multiple weapons...Jennings, R White, Wayne, Colston, Fitz, Moss, etc.

[Laurence Maroney's Nuts 2]

I guess I don't understand what your definition of bust is. When Braylon Edwards went from 1200+ yards and 16 TDs to just 800 and 3 the next season I think that was a bust.

 

For Jennings to go from 1200 and 9 to 1000 and 7 doesn't quite reach the bust label IMHO.

 

He means that given Jennings ADP as one of the early receivers off the board, that 1000 / 7 would not justify such an early pick. You can get that kind of production from receivers several rounds later (Cotchery, S Moss, D Mason, Royal, Berrian, etc)... It's all relative to a player's value given his draft status.

[rickmaule 0]

While I agree that Jennings has value, it would not surprise me to see his stats dip this year. The Packers were behind in most of their games in 2008 and were forced to go to the air more than they wanted to. (This is one of the reasons Grant's production slipped). Jennings was gold on the deep routes but his size might keep him from being a sure possession receiver, which is more likely what they will need in 2009. Everyone is predicting a more balanced offense and a better defense this time around. The Pack will be in control of more games. It doesn't mean that Jennings will stink in 09, but it points to fewer opportunities to do what he does best.

[listen2me 23 1,542]

This makes no sense to me. Sure they have good 3rd and 4th WRs, but that is what they are...3rd and 4th WRs. Marvin, Wayne, Clark, Edge could put up numbers together. Stokely and that crew did also. Faulk, Bruce, Holt.

 

I just don't get this post.

[ed_jones 0]

Jennings is a stud with hands and speed in a great offense.

 

I'll worry about other players busting before I worry about him.

 

And shouldn't Wayne go before him anyway? That's supposed to happen.

 

 

 

I agree with Kent here, Jennings is too good to be a total bust. Could he have a 1000/7 year? sure, things happen and even the best have down years but I have no concerns about Jennings at all. And I agree about Wayne as well, I have him ranked #5 this year right behind the big 4 (Fitz, Moss, Andre 3000 and Megatron) so I definately agree that he should be taken before Jennings.

[Phurfur 70]

This makes no sense to me. Sure they have good 3rd and 4th WRs, but that is what they are...3rd and 4th WRs. Marvin, Wayne, Clark, Edge could put up numbers together. Stokely and that crew did also. Faulk, Bruce, Holt.

 

I just don't get this post.

 

 

AZ had 3 - 1000 yard receivers last year.

[Gladiators 1,904]

While the Packers' defense has looked good in the preseason, I don't see the gameplan changing much from last year. There's no way this defense will be a Baltimore Ravens or Pittsburg Steeler type defense. Certainly not this year at least. The Packers are still going to need to put up high point totals to win, and I don't see them taking a 7, 10, or even a 14 point lead into the 4th quarter and just trying to run the clock out. If anything, I think the offense might actually open up a little bit compared to last year. From what I saw last year, it seemed that McCarthy was relatively conservative with Rodgers. It looked like he was trying to prevent Rodgers from losing the game, as opposed to letting him go out there to win the game. He obviously proved last year that he's the real deal, so I'm thinking the leash is going to be loosened quite a bit this year. This should help the running game as well.

 

Edit: I wouldn't be surprised to see 35 td's from Rodgers, with 10+ going to Jennings.

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

Greg Jenning = 5' 11'', 198 lbs, age 25

 

Reggie Wayne = 6' 0', 198 lbs, age 30

 

I read his "little receivers" remark knowing damn well they were the same size too. It made me lol, and I hate to lol.

 

This thread is nonsense.....hysterical nonsense. I have no idea how it's gotten this many responses by my stupid azz just added to it as well.

[stonewall 647]

This thread is nonsense.....hysterical nonsense.

 

Nonsense? Perhaps.

Hysteria? No.

 

I fail to see anything hysterical about posing the possibility/likelihood of a schenario in which a 2nd round WR1 produces more like a WR3 (Lance Moore/Chris Henry/Lee Evans), and inviting commentary about it. Of course, you are free to agree or disagree about Jennings #'s this season but, the fact remains, that a mediocre year from your WR1 can make or break your season. For instance, if you pass on Jennings in the late 2nd round (after securing your RB1 in the 1st) and grab a Rodgers/Rivers/Manning, and then get a 1000/7 WR later (like a Housh), you have helped your chances of a championship tremendously.

 

Draft stragegy.....this is what this all boils down to. Or perhaps you would have felt this thread would have been more credible with a "Just drafted. Rate my team" title. Sheeeeeesh.

[stonewall 647]

He means that given Jennings ADP as one of the early receivers off the board, that 1000 / 7 would not justify such an early pick. You can get that kind of production from receivers several rounds later (Cotchery, S Moss, D Mason, Royal, Berrian, etc)... It's all relative to a player's value given his draft status.

 

 

Exactly. Thank you.

[Kingstowne Dealers 14]

Nonsense? Perhaps.

Hysteria? No.

 

I fail to see anything hysterical about posing the possibility/likelihood of a schenario in which a 2nd round WR1 produces more like a WR3 (Lance Moore/Chris Henry/Lee Evans), and inviting commentary about it. Of course, you are free to agree or disagree about Jennings #'s this season but, the fact remains, that a mediocre year from your WR1 can make or break your season. For instance, if you pass on Jennings in the late 2nd round (after securing your RB1 in the 1st) and grab a Rodgers/Rivers/Manning, and then get a 1000/7 WR later (like a Housh), you have helped your chances of a championship tremendously.

 

Draft stragegy.....this is what this all boils down to. Or perhaps you would have felt this thread would have been more credible with a "Just drafted. Rate my team" title. Sheeeeeesh.

Ok, so 1000/7 from your WR1 is considered unacceptable to you. What numbers are you expecting from your #1 WR? Forget size/weight/ surrounding talent and all that other stuff, what numbers would Jennings have to hit in order not to be a bust?

[DeaLerZ 0]

Ok, so 1000/7 from your WR1 is considered unacceptable to you. What numbers are you expecting from your #1 WR? Forget size/weight/ surrounding talent and all that other stuff, what numbers would Jennings have to hit in order not to be a bust?

 

1200-1400yds, with 8-12 tds.....

 

but i dont know what all this talk is about.. GB's offense looks they are going to light the skies up with fireworks this year... I would say Jones/Nelson, one of them could possibly even emerge as a 1000yd WR with 6-8 tds.... and GB could possibly have three 1000 yd WR's this year... I think Jennings with a QB/Offense like that can only benefit

[tditty 0]

Ok, so 1000/7 from your WR1 is considered unacceptable to you. What numbers are you expecting from your #1 WR? Forget size/weight/ surrounding talent and all that other stuff, what numbers would Jennings have to hit in order not to be a bust?

 

Still not getting it. He isn't saying 1000/7 from your WR1 is unacceptable (although I would say those numbers are unacceptable for a WR1.) What was said is the fact that IF Jennings put up 1000/7 and you take him in Rd 1 or 2 you would be much better off taking a player in a different position which will give you more return and STILL be able to get a WR in a later round that would produce the same 1000/7.

 

DeaLerZ, no way GB has 3 - 1000 yd receivers.......they don't get to play Detroit every week.

[DeaLerZ 0]

DeaLerZ, no way GB has 3 - 1000 yd receivers.......they don't get to play Detroit every week.

 

First of all i never said, "I THINK THEY WILL HAVE THREE 1000yd RECEIVERS"... i said its a possibility... READ FIRST BEFORE POSTING IT HELPS

 

and secondly, You don't think 3 out of that bunch can potentially average 63 yards per game throughout the season?? With Aaron Rodgers behind center and looking like he has... and with the talent they have at WR.. i don't think it is too far fetched... but it was just a thought

[Kingstowne Dealers 14]

Still not getting it. He isn't saying 1000/7 from your WR1 is unacceptable (although I would say those numbers are unacceptable for a WR1.) What was said is the fact that IF Jennings put up 1000/7 and you take him in Rd 1 or 2 you would be much better off taking a player in a different position which will give you more return and STILL be able to get a WR in a later round that would produce the same 1000/7.

 

DeaLerZ, no way GB has 3 - 1000 yd receivers.......they don't get to play Detroit every week.

 

Then why does the thread title say bust?

[tditty 0]

First of all i never said, "I THINK THEY WILL HAVE THREE 1000yd RECEIVERS"... i said its a possibility... READ FIRST BEFORE POSTING IT HELPS

 

Chill dude, you had an opinion and so did I.......no need to take it personally and post in all caps.

 

To add something relevant to this topic, I think Jennings will have 1200+ yds and 10+ TDs. Had him last year and Rodgers loves to look his way on the slant inside the 10 yd line, plus he'll still get quite a few long balls thrown his way.

[enis_44 0]

Barring injury, which is a wildcard, Jerricho Cotchery is not going to out-produce Greg Jennings, or even come close. That is my favorite, when someone says "You don't have to take good player A, you can wait and take X player later for the same stats" Then they list X player, and it's some scrub/hack. You know what, go ahead and wait for Cotchery and his crapazz offense with a rookie Qb. I'd rather take the stud on one of the best passing offenses in the league who has already shown he can score 10+ Td's, which IMO is the bogey for a true #1 Wr. Done and done.

[jgcrawfish 232]

While I agree that Jennings has value, it would not surprise me to see his stats dip this year. The Packers were behind in most of their games in 2008 and were forced to go to the air more than they wanted to. (This is one of the reasons Grant's production slipped). Jennings was gold on the deep routes but his size might keep him from being a sure possession receiver, which is more likely what they will need in 2009. Everyone is predicting a more balanced offense and a better defense this time around. The Pack will be in control of more games. It doesn't mean that Jennings will stink in 09, but it points to fewer opportunities to do what he does best.

 

Jennings worries me that he'll have a drop off in #'s. I don't think the GB defense i gonna stonewall anybody, but they will better this year which should keep the games tighter and keep the GB offense more balanced. He's not just gonna fall off the map, or bust, but I do expect GB to be more balanced this year and be less reliant on slinging it so much.

[mambokings 0]

...another thread which completely misunderstands and misrepresents the "bust" label

[Zackattack 0]

It will be a career year for Jennings. He is a young stud WR and he has a great young QB ready for his best year yet also.

 

If you pass on Jennings you will regret it.

[Gladiators 1,904]

Jennings worries me that he'll have a drop off in #'s. I don't think the GB defense i gonna stonewall anybody, but they will better this year which should keep the games tighter and keep the GB offense more balanced. He's not just fall off the map, or bust, but I do expect GB to be more balanced this year.

 

The way I see it, if the defense does better than last year it should equate to more offensive possessions than last year. This should also translate to a higher time of possession. I'm hoping to see similar, or better, passing numbers and a better overall running attack with more total yards from scrimmage this year. I don't see a downgrade in passing numbers, but an increase in the rushing. This is, of course, assuming the defense steps it up.

[Ras66not99 0]

Although I like Jennings, I'm targeting Driver, the poor man's Jennings, with a later pick. Still get exposure to that high powered offense but for a cheaper price.

I snagged Driver as my # 3 Wr in the 8th round after going RB RB RB the first 3 rounds.... I couldn't be happier...

[Young_Grasshopper 0]

Green Bay faces really easy passing defenses this year, and a slightly tough schedule for running defenses. Donald Driver is another year older, and in non-PPR leagues isn't nearly as good as PPR. Green Bay should post more wins this year, and hopefully not have the minor injury drama from the QB. So, all good signs for another great year for Jennings.

 

I had Jennings graded as my #4 WR behind Fitz, Moss, and A Johnson. I narrowly missed drafting him... very bummed.

[rickmaule 0]

Check out the 08 stats: When the Pack were leading games - Jennings had only 17 catches and 258 yards, when trailing opponents? 41 catches and 743 yards. All I'm saying is that they will be leading in more games in 09 and Jennings is not as much of a ball-control weapon. I guess we'll see...

[Willie Mays Hayes 0]

Greg Jenning = 5' 11'', 198 lbs, age 25

 

Reggie Wayne = 6' 0', 198 lbs, age 30

 

 

I stand corrected. I should have looked up their measurables. I can't explain it but I would swear that Wayne looked taller than he really is and Jennings looked smaller. I had them at 6'2" and 5'10" in my mind.

[jgcrawfish 232]

Check out the 08 stats: When the Pack were leading games - Jennings had only 17 catches and 258 yards, when trailing opponents? 41 catches and 743 yards. All I'm saying is that they will be leading in more games in 09 and Jennings is not as much of a ball-control weapon. I guess we'll see...

 

my point exactly. when you're in the game or leading the game, you nurse the clock, and unless you're the pats or saints, you don't do with passes..and if you do pass...it's short ball control, which doesn't favor Jennings. I still view him as a top 10 WR, but his upside is nowhere near as high as Calvin, Moss, AJ or Fitz.

[stonewall 647]

Check out the 08 stats: When the Pack were leading games - Jennings had only 17 catches and 258 yards, when trailing opponents? 41 catches and 743 yards. All I'm saying is that they will be leading in more games in 09 and Jennings is not as much of a ball-control weapon. I guess we'll see...

 

Excellent post and relevant stats..........stats that I was unaware of. (Of course, they were behind in most games last season)

[9-Route 0]

my point exactly. when you're in the game or leading the game, you nurse the clock, and unless you're the pats or saints, you don't do with passes..and if you do pass...it's short ball control, which doesn't favor Jennings. I still view him as a top 10 WR, but his upside is nowhere near as high as Calvin, Moss, AJ or Fitz.

 

his total upside is right on the heels of these guys due to his already proven elite TD potential. this guy has posted seasons of 12TDs and 9TDs over the past 2 campaigns, plus his qb looks like he is ready to attain jedimaster control of his offense.

 

this alone puts him ahead of the next guys on the wr list---wayne's only elite TD yr was the record 49passes of manning back in 2004; roddy has not hit that tally yet, and would be hard pressed to do so even with an increase in the play of ryan because of gonzo's presence; steve shrimp has hit 10+TDs only once ever [career yr 2005] and cannot smell that tally since. as a matter of fact, andre johnosn himself is a crap TD threat [8 scores off 115 grabs last yr, a terrible ~15recs/TD ratio].

 

for the OP to say he is not superior wr1 material is foolish; he is not yet ultra elite, but he is elite.