Simi Fehoko Checks a Lot of Boxes at WR

Stanford WR Simi Fehoko would be a Packers-like pick in this year's draft. 

When discussing the draft, Green Bay Packers fans have become obsessed was a prospect’s Relative Athletic Score (RAS). Almost to a fault, the fanbase will discount a potential draft choice if his RAS score isn’t up to snuff. In which case, a ton of talented wide receivers aren’t going to be on Green Bay’s draft board next week if fans had their way. Well, if the Packers are as unyielding toward RAS scores as the fans have come to believe, Stanford wide receiver Simi Fehoko is just the right “type” of player this team looks for.

At 6-3, 222 pounds, Fehoko was one of the best testers among wide receiver prospects in the 2021 draft class. His RAS score of 9.17 ranks 10th among this year’s group of pass-catchers. He also fits the team’s mold for wide receiver, which consists of being tall, long, and having good straight-line speed. Fehoko ran a 4.44 in his 40-yard dash.

Fehoko is projected as a day three pick, which also makes Green Bay a favorable landing spot for no other reason than the team choosing not to prioritize the position in the past. General Manager Brian Gutekunst has selected only three wide receivers. All of which were in 2018 and drafted in the fourth round or later. Therefore, prime Fehoko territory.

This could be the year the Packers choose to address wide receiver sooner than usual. Outside of Davante Adams, the cupboard is looking pretty bare beyond next season. However, the team also has pressing needs at offensive tackle and corner. When it comes time to make a decision, Gutekunst may be coerced into waiting to select a wide receiver yet again.

If Green Bay doesn’t select a wide receiver until day three, Fehoko is a player to keep an eye on. In three seasons at Stanford, he caught 62 passes for 1,146 yards and nine touchdowns. Last season, Fehoko hauled in a career-high 32 receptions, totaling 574 yards in just six games.  

In the NFL, Fehoko will be highly coveted due to his blend of size and athleticism. However, his route running needs work, and his body of work isn’t all that impressive. But hey, look at that RAS.

Marquez Valdes-Scantling and Equanimeous St. Brown are two receivers who have stuck around from Gutekunst’s inaugural draft in 2018. Both happened to score very well in terms of RAS. Valdes-Scantling scored a 9.27 out a of possible 10.0, and St. Brown recorded a 9.84. Fehoko isn’t far behind.

As far as what he does well, Fehoko is a blazer. He can stack corners and continue to run by them while tracking the football. He also has a wide catch radius, which comes in handy when earning the trust of one Aaron Rodgers. Fehoko can pluck balls away from his frame and bring it in over the outstretched hands of a defensive back. He also has a ton of upside as a special teams contributor, especially as a gunner.

So, if you like RAS scores and you’re looking for potentially a future wide receiver for the Packers in this year’s draft, get yourself acquainted with Fehoko.  He could find himself in Green Bay in the near future.

 

 

Brandon Carwile is a Packers writer who also enjoys watching and breaking down film. Follow him on Twitter @PackerScribe.

3 points

Comments (60)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
Razer's picture

April 23, 2021 at 12:29 pm

I would not have a problem with this pick in the third round but I would have a problem with a first round pick of Bateman. If the Packers can find a trade down from the first round and pick up a 2nd and 3rd rounder (we might need to throw in a late 4th), we would be in great shape to highgrade that big clump of 2-3 round talent. Perfect draft to move back.

3 points
7
4
CoachDino's picture

April 23, 2021 at 05:41 pm

Did you see Bateman came in shorter than he had been published. Same with Rondale Moore.

I'm all over Fehuko, he can spend a year or two developing behind MVS and Lazard. He will either pass them by or will replace them if they become too expensive.

I hoping for one big body like him or Nico Collins and one gadget/slot D Eskridge, Iowa guy or maybe Elijah Moore??? The Gadget guys could at least be able to contribute sooner than a normal draft pick.

1 points
2
1
jannes bjornson's picture

April 24, 2021 at 11:40 am

Low fourth or the fifth , no higher.

2 points
2
0
Leatherhead's picture

April 23, 2021 at 01:29 pm

Considering that he’ll be a decoy or blocker on 90% of his snaps, is he better at that than our current guys?

4 points
5
1
PackEyedOptimist's picture

April 23, 2021 at 01:37 pm

The answer is "Yes," because he's a good blocker AND will be an excellent special teams player.

3 points
3
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2021 at 03:00 pm

...and he'll be cheap, under contract, and have a year in the system for 2022.

3 points
3
0
Leatherhead's picture

April 23, 2021 at 03:44 pm

He won’t be a better blocker than Lazard, and we shouldn’t return punts.

-1 points
2
3
CoachDino's picture

April 23, 2021 at 05:47 pm

Hopefully he would be better but that's a long shot.
He will learn the offense, what Arod likes, Develop his limited Route tree etc..Takes a year or two. He won't be a better blocker than Lazard maybe ever but he has a much bigger up side and as much as I agree blocking in this scheme is key you still need to bring it as a rec first or they won't even be a decoy. It's Like MVS, he frustrates us with his drops but opponents respect him and need to shade him due to his speed.

1 points
2
1
HankScorpio's picture

April 24, 2021 at 09:23 am

The Packers scheme is no different than any other. In it, WRs are paid to catch passes. Any blocking they contribute is a bonus. As Jerry Glanville said, NFL means Not For Long for the dominant run blocking WR that cannot catch a cold.

Which is why we discuss Lazard and MVS as blockers and never, ever discuss Davante Adams' blocking. People are grasping at straws to justify Lazard and MVS being on the field and they need to dig deep to do it. The justification for Adams is plainly evident in doing what he's supposed to do.

It's different for TEs and FBs, of course. Which is why they are more important in ML's scheme that favors run far more than MM's did. But both offenses pass more than they run. Which means pass catching is important for TE/FB moreso than blocking is important for WRs.

That may be harsh but it is true.

2 points
4
2
jannes bjornson's picture

April 24, 2021 at 11:47 am

LaFleur respects the WCO of Walsh and Hackett's father.

0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

April 23, 2021 at 05:34 pm

Do we want to replace Lazard? Slightly smaller version of what we have. Would seem to me to be a poor choice as a result. This year we would have 3 tall, physical receivers. He’s not slow but he doesn’t play close to his pro day. Doesn’t have burst. I’d be looking for an Adams or Jennings type.

4 points
4
0
HankScorpio's picture

April 23, 2021 at 05:56 pm

"Decoy" lol. Another word for it is "covered". It sure would be nice if the Packers had a 2nd WR that was so hard to cover that wasn't used as a "decoy" so often.

As for blocking, that's a little like tackling for a CB.. It is nice to be good at it but that alone won't keep a guy employed for very long. Especially if he is easy to turn into a "decoy" with single coverage. Or worse yet, he "self decoys" with dropping easy passes.

2 points
3
1
Leatherhead's picture

April 23, 2021 at 06:59 pm

Hank.....

Given that Rodgers completed 70% of his passes, and led the league in passing TDs and passer rating, .....and was rarely sacked....why are you under the impression that people were “covered”? And I know you realize that pass plays frequently involve clearing out areas for the target....i.e a decoy.

And the best CBs still give up completions. You have to get the guy on the ground afterwards or it’s a touchdown. So yeah, tackling is important. And when half of your plays are runs, it’s important to get guys blocked. You should go back and look at what Lazard is doing on some of more successful runs, because he’s taking a second level tackler out of the play.

2 points
4
2
HankScorpio's picture

April 23, 2021 at 08:02 pm

I agree that Rodgers is a good QB. He had excellent protection. The RB group was outstanding taking handoffs and catching passes. The coaching staff was brilliant.

And with all those advantages given to the WRs, outside of Davante Adams, they sucked. The overall brilliance of the offense did not obscure the flaming turd from my eyes. Not one could manage 35 catches or 800 yards. Those are not big numbers. 50/1000 is more like it. They weren't "decoys". They were poor performers in the passing game.

The level of play needs to be raised. I am highly skeptical that the current group has it in them to do so but do not rule out the possibility entirely.

That's my opinion. You're welcome to hold another one.

0 points
3
3
Leatherhead's picture

April 23, 2021 at 08:47 pm

MVS and Lazard combined for 66 catches and 1100 yards and 9 TDS. We led the league in offense.

MVS is one of the league’s premiere deep threats. Rodgers had a QB rating of over 120 on throws to Lazard. This notion that primary pieces of the top passing attack in the league need to raise their level of play is bizarre.

One football. 65 snaps. 40 plays to the RBs. 10 to Adams. The remaining 15 plays go to TEs and the remaining WRs

Should we pass more? Give it to the RBs less? Throw it to Tonyan or Adams less so that our other WRs could have bigger numbers? What’s your suggestion?

My suggestion is we should keep doing what we’re doing because it’s working real well.

3 points
4
1
HankScorpio's picture

April 23, 2021 at 11:14 pm

I mostly agree. The offense does work really well. As I said, great play from QB, RB and OL with a fantasic approach/design by the offensive staff. What part of that led you to think I want major changes? I don't. I think one small spot leaves a lot to be desired and that spot is WRs not named Davante Adams.

What's wrong with wanting better play at WR? Hell, I want better play from every position on the field. If the Packers are not looking to get better everywhere, they're doing it wrong.

4 points
4
0
PeteK's picture

April 24, 2021 at 10:47 am

Good debate , probably premeditated by the WRs unable to score in the red zone in championship game. I agree with both. Offense was great because of a successful combo (WR,TE, RB). However, I think we need a change of pace WR, quick twitch. It's too bad Ervin is so injury prone because his combo of receiving, rushing , and return abilities served the team very well. The offense becomes very difficult to defense because of its complexity when a gadget player is present.

2 points
2
0
jannes bjornson's picture

April 23, 2021 at 07:41 pm

When I think of the WR position, I do not generally think blocker and the single-wing offense.

4 points
4
0
Leatherhead's picture

April 23, 2021 at 10:03 pm

Maybe you should. Because unless you’re the #1 receiver, that’s what you re doing on most plays.

0 points
1
1
PhantomII's picture

April 24, 2021 at 04:00 pm

Can he catch the ball at higher than 51% of the time? Okay, he had a catch rate of 63% and runs 4.4 40. Yes he will be much better than all but Adams.

0 points
1
1
greengold's picture

April 23, 2021 at 01:33 pm

My first thought is that Progressive commercial: "We all see it... We ALLLLL see it."

"H -H- H- His hair is blue!"

-3 points
0
3
PackEyedOptimist's picture

April 23, 2021 at 01:35 pm

I end up with Fehoko in practically every mock draft I do. He's another Jeff Janis, but with better ball skills, and that's not a bad player to have as WR 4 or 5. Like Janis, Fehoko was excellent on special teams, but additionally, it's possible he will develop more than Janis did, and then you have a WR 2. Jacob Harris is the same type; I really hope we get one of those two.

6 points
6
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2021 at 03:03 pm

You hit on a key idea: just by his level of competition, he'll have a leg up on Janis.

1 points
1
0
Handsback's picture

April 23, 2021 at 01:45 pm

Here's your guy, or one of them....
MIKE STRACHAN: Charleston 6-5.3, 226 lbs. | rSR. Freeport, Bahamas (Liberty Christian) 8/13/1997 (age 23)

A two-year starter at Charleston, Strachan was the X receiver while also winning several conference titles
on the track team. He became the first player in school history to reach 1,000 yards receiving in a season, and he did it twice, finishing the 2019 season with 19 touchdowns (third-most at the Division II level).
Strachan looked like the Division II version of Chase Claypool on tape with his acceleration, ball tracking skills and
humongous catch radius to climb the ladder or snatch away from his frame. He won’t be able to physically dominate with his size/speed alone in the NFL, but he will benefit from not having another sport to focus on in the offseason for the first time in his life.
Overall, Strachan will require development time before he is ready for the jump in talent at the pro level, but the athletic traits, body control and tracking skills for a player that size are uncommon and worth the day 3 investment.

4 points
4
0
Coldworld's picture

April 23, 2021 at 05:35 pm

Much better choice for a team with Lazard still an RFA next year and Funchess this year.

3 points
3
0
jannes bjornson's picture

April 24, 2021 at 11:56 am

Scrub talk, free agent (UDFA).

1 points
1
0
frankthefork's picture

April 23, 2021 at 02:02 pm

At pick 178 or 212 I say go for it on Fehoko.

2 points
2
0
splitpea1's picture

April 23, 2021 at 03:15 pm

I don't know about other Packers fans, but this one here certainly isn't obsessed with RAS scores. Past and present Packers with notably high scores include Tony Mandarich, Kevin King, Jeff Janis, Brett Hundley, Jason Spriggs, Oren Burks, and we even have Admad Carroll at 9.64. ESB registered at 9.8, while Davante checked in at 6.54; Randall Cobb? 3.65.

So why are people paying so much attention to this statistical clutter?

4 points
6
2
ckoski's picture

April 23, 2021 at 03:55 pm

Because regardless of how much it should or should not matter, it is obvious that it does matter to the Packers. You can not have a realistic discussion of a Packers draft without talking about RAS scores.

3 points
5
2
splitpea1's picture

April 23, 2021 at 04:21 pm

Have fun! I know I've already discussed it enough....

2 points
3
1
CoachDino's picture

April 23, 2021 at 06:07 pm

Because its a proven fact that it matters. Does anyone really think that us fans are smarter than the GMs and realize that RAS scores don't really matter. Showing a few examples of where RAS doesn't matter shows that it isn't everything, that why on tape counts for something, its a balancing act. If RAS didn't matter than why isn't there a ton of guys from small schools who know the game better, may have better hands and technique, etc in the NFL? Because like any sport it's not how good you are at the level you are at its how good you project to be at the next level. RAS is all about and proven to be a very strong indicator. Is it 100% accurate indicator? Nope but if your playing the odds and you see that 90% of the players at a certain position have an RAS score or in many cases a specific measurement within the RAS score that meets threshold unless the rest of the evaluation overrides the difference its not prudent.

Should you take a card at 16 if the dealer shows a 5? No,of course not. But if you did you might hit 21etc and win or if you don't the dealer may still beat you. It's playing the odds is all, the odds are factual not subjective like a scouts "opinion"

Why do older players get beat out/retire? Because they lose their athleticism. Unfortunately in my case like 99.9% of people it didn't matter how good I was I didn't have the Size, for others its speed. As a coach its hard to tell a kid what I think but I can tell very quickly who has potential to reach the next level and who doesn't and it's not because of who is better at the moment.

Being in Wi melvin Gordon came into my gym for training one day while home before the draft. The guy looked like no one i've seen in here before. These guys are special.

1 points
4
3
splitpea1's picture

April 23, 2021 at 06:26 pm

What a laugh! There are a WHOLE lot more than a "few examples" of RAS not being a good predictor of long-term success if you check out the list of Packer draft picks over the last 30-plus years. I know some people like to believe we have the best GM and the most pertinent criteria for selecting prospects, but that really remains to be seen.

-2 points
3
5
Befuddled's picture

April 23, 2021 at 06:40 pm

The way I see it, RAS should be a factor, not thee factor in player evaluation.

4 points
4
0
Coldworld's picture

April 24, 2021 at 12:03 pm

You can have an elite RAS without even seeing a football. Of course it’s not a predictor in isolation. It’s just one of a number of metrics that may indicate an ability to translate athletically to the NFL.

If it were more than that, owners could slash scouting costs and the draft would be largely decided at the combine.

0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

April 23, 2021 at 06:57 pm

Nobody (beside you) is claiming RAS, or any other system that measures athleticism is a "predictor". it is an important evaluation point, like many others. It must be considered and balanced with many other points when forming an evaluation of a player.

It is plainly obvious that not all great athletes are great football players. Everyone knows that. It is equally obvious that being a great athlete is of value for a player that otherwise know how to play. Everyone should know that just as well.

You're making it harder than it needs to be.

4 points
5
1
splitpea1's picture

April 23, 2021 at 07:20 pm

Oh, I didn't use the exact wording...Coach Dino says it's proven to be a "very strong indicator" and infers that it must be because it's a billion-dollar industry. You want to nitpick about any more words? And what is this "you're making things harder than they have to be."? Are you one of my parents or something? Get the hell outta here!

-1 points
2
3
HankScorpio's picture

April 23, 2021 at 07:33 pm

What I take away from waht Coach Dino is saying is that athleticism is an important consideration but hardly the only one. I agree with him. And so do the Packers. Dating back to 1987, they have drafted 147 players with a RAS of 7 or more and 89 with a RAS of less than 7. So the top 30% of athletes have accounted for well over half their draft picks.

Sure a bunch of the 147 were busts. Same as the group of 89 that were not such great athletes. That's the nature of the draft. But that's real data. Naming the players from one group or the other are just data points.

If I cared enough to look at the other teams RAS pages, I would guess that things would be substantially the same. Running faster is better than running slower. Moving quicker is better than being sluggish. Being stronger is better than being weaker. Everyone knows it. It's plainly obvious.

3 points
3
0
CoachDino's picture

April 23, 2021 at 06:55 pm

True, I'm sure there is a whole lot more but that doesn't change the ratio of those with and those w/o.

Since Ron Wolf through Gute the packers have been one of the best drafters in football according to studies done. Examples Available on line by the athletic (they have an example out today) PFF and numerous other Statistical Analytics. The athletics study (2008/2018) shows the packers being one of the best drafters of WR and OL. I thought that was interesting, to me it shows how well they have taken care of AR in the two most important areas determining his success. That's even factoring in Sherrod which was a tough luck devastating injury and not Jenkins who has been a jackpot. kinda shows how much the national Media really know with the poor AR narrative.

1 points
2
1
jannes bjornson's picture

April 24, 2021 at 11:59 am

I'll take a Spriggs and raise you a Josh Jones. Watch the Games; watch the Film.

0 points
1
1
PackEyedOptimist's picture

April 23, 2021 at 04:28 pm

Because it isn't "clutter." It's a part of the picture. If someone ONLY has a high RAS, they aren't a great prospect, but if they have a great resume, great tape, great health, etc. AND a high RAS they are a great prospect.
One of the typical things that results in a lower RAS like Cobb's is when the prospect is much shorter or lighter than average. In those cases, it's important to look at their injury history. That's why I wouldn't draft Rondale Moore in the first round--probably not in the second either; he has a high RAS, but he's 5'9" 175# with an injury history.

6 points
7
1
splitpea1's picture

April 23, 2021 at 06:10 pm

I know about Cobb. The point I was trying to make is that he caught the ball and made important plays for us.

I'd rather take more of a position of defensive need in the second round, but how about Elijah Moore?

Let's be diplomatic: the RAS is a cluttersome part of the picture. Another example: Donald Driver. I couldn't even find his RAS score (it was listed at 0.00--hard to believe, but maybe true) even though I was able to locate the scores of other seventh round picks. But as we all know, he was an excellent athlete in college and turned out to be one tough football player and our all-time leading receiver. Also we have Leroy Butler, a borderline Pro Football HOFer, coming in at 5.05--about as average as you can get. In summary, the RAS score is a useful metric for scouts and the front office, but is it anything more than a small part of the picture when predicting long-term success at the pro level?

3 points
3
0
CoachDino's picture

April 23, 2021 at 06:23 pm

PEO, Did you hear, Rondale Moore came in at 5'7".

Naming exceptions doesn't prove anything other than it shouldn't be the only determination. There's data out there that PROVES that RAS and in many cases specific measurements are a major determinant to success.

CB its your 40 time
OT its your arm length

are two of the most accurate determinants.

It's a Billion dollar industry, they have spent the money to do the research to gain any advantage possible. Just because you don't meet a RAS score expectation doesn't mean you won't be drafted, most likely later or even an UDFA, so if you have the ability you can still make it and guys do. Its just a proven fact that RAS scores are an excellent indicator when used properly (position, specific metric, etc) of success and why wouldn't you use that tool when making decisions on how to use draft capital. Don't take my word for it just do a google search on RAS and read up on it for a bit. The science is out there.

0 points
2
2
splitpea1's picture

April 23, 2021 at 06:48 pm

Okay, Mr. Science, take a look at the Packers' draft picks over the last 30-plus years (just do a Google search) and see how many of them with high RAS scores flopped or didn't make any kind of lasting impact.

And our current punter, by the way, has a great RAS score of 8.6, but he's inconsistent as hell and can't tackle worth a lick when called upon to do so.

3 points
3
0
HankScorpio's picture

April 23, 2021 at 07:07 pm

Ask yourself a simple question. If you had a magic spell that could make everyone on the current roster 10% faster or 10% stronger or 10% quicker, would you use it?

Unless the answer is no, then RAS is a point to consider.

1 points
2
1
Leatherhead's picture

April 23, 2021 at 07:42 pm

10% is a lot.

But it takes 0.2 seconds to blink. That’s the difference, over 40 yards, between a 4.4 and a 4.6. I think other factors, like quick recognition and instincts, count more.

I’ve coached good athletes, and I’ve coached good football players. I know beyond any doubt which I prefer.

1 points
1
0
splitpea1's picture

April 23, 2021 at 08:01 pm

I never said RAS wasn't a point to consider--I was originally responding to the author's assertion that fans have become obsessed with it. Sure we want the best athletes, but we also want them to be smart, dedicated, coachable, and as healthy as possible. So if other people want to immerse themselves in athletic scores, fine--I'm just not one of them.

4 points
4
0
HankScorpio's picture

April 23, 2021 at 08:05 pm

Great! Common ground. I think we all agree.

2 points
2
0
splitpea1's picture

April 23, 2021 at 08:25 pm

All right! I was hoping to avoid one of those Hundred Year's Wars. You know some people like to do that here....

3 points
3
0
HankScorpio's picture

April 23, 2021 at 10:51 pm

Yes, I most certainly do know.

1 points
1
0
CoachDino's picture

April 23, 2021 at 07:56 pm

I didn't create the science, I'm just the messenger. Once again I don't dispute your point that it isn't everything. You have given great examples of that.

PS - Using the punter as an example of how RAS isn't - insert your opinion - is awesome. I wonder how many punters made it due to their RAS score and tackling?

As to the Punter, this will really ingratiate statistics and me with you, he was the second best punter in the NFL according to PFF. His distance was avg with the second best hang-time in the League. he also was ranked high in non returnable punts.

Where he sucked was in return yards. IMO and in that of PFF methodology, that has very little to do with his punts but more to do with the coverage team. Seeing the Punt and Kick-off coverage teams for GB ranked near last it looks to not be a Punter issue. That said I do agree he was inconsistent and some of the long returns are due too line drive punts if memory serves.

2 points
2
0
splitpea1's picture

April 23, 2021 at 08:21 pm

I thought it was fun to bring up the punter because I noticed that Sam Koch, the Ravens punter of 15 years and still under contract, also had no RAS score (0.00) when he was drafted. Now Koch may not be a perennial Pro Bowler and I have no idea what his PFF grade is, but Coach Harbaugh is a special teams guy, and if he didn't think the punter was cutting it, he would replace him in a nanosecond.

2 points
2
0
jannes bjornson's picture

April 23, 2021 at 07:46 pm

Well, Barry Sanders came in at 5'-8"

4 points
4
0
Coldworld's picture

April 24, 2021 at 12:16 pm

And 200 pounds.

Who the hell cares about a punter’s RAS? Completely irrelevant. Why even discuss it.

0 points
0
0
splitpea1's picture

April 24, 2021 at 01:00 pm

That's the point I was trying to make. I just thought it was interesting that JK Scott received such a high score. Jeez, I hope that didn't factor into Gute's thinking when he drafted him, but you never know.

0 points
0
0
PhantomII's picture

April 24, 2021 at 03:42 pm

Game tape settles all the doubts for me.

2 points
2
0
LambeauPlain's picture

April 23, 2021 at 08:21 pm

Day 3...sure. But when a guy with his measurables after 3years is very average ... yeah, day three flyer.

1 points
1
0
alinger84's picture

April 24, 2021 at 03:50 am

UDFA

2 points
2
0
PatrickGB's picture

April 24, 2021 at 11:52 am

I am new to the idea of RAS. It’s a good tool for draft and develop philosophy especially for teams at the bottom of the draft order. Where it falls short is that some great players are simply overachievers and have the heart, mind and skill to outperform their RAS. And the opposite holds true for some who have a high RAS yet lack in the aforementioned intangibles. Then there is the size issue. Some guys score higher or lower based simply on their size. It’s the “Looks like Tarzan, plays like Jane” syndrome. And of course there is the mental issue. Are they smart and can they be coached?

2 points
2
0
Coldworld's picture

April 24, 2021 at 12:28 pm

Yes, well put. It’s also useful to ignore the RAS average in favor of certain key indicators, such as agility tests or explosiveness and to look for red flags, for example a DL with good size and long speed but poor first ten yards is likely not getting penetration due to lack of explosion. We have one, Lancaster, who has a 9.4 RAS. That’s why he should only be used at NT.

It’s a useful tool. I severely doubt it’s the only one the Packers or any team use, even if it is one of the measures actually used by them. Not a given.

0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

April 24, 2021 at 12:47 pm

It seems to me that the Packers are more into the RAS lately than their fans.

Also, "up to snuff," not "up to snub."

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/5109a04e-a6d2-479f-90ca-2f230bdcb408/gif

3 points
3
0