Javon Bullard, S, Georgia, 2024 2nd round pick #58

[YoHoChecko]

I generally agree with this overall draft philosophy and it depends on the class on any given year, but I personally would extend the “looking for a starter” versus “filling out the depth and special teams of a roster; and hey! If we hit on a flier, bonus!” line to the first FOUR rounds, not three.

But given the way the draft is broken up and packaged and the roundness of the third round usually ending at right around 100 picks I understand putting it at three.

But anyway, Bullard is a starter day one just like you’d want from a Day Two pick.


As for the positional conversation, I think he starts at safety. The day three picks give us flexibility down the line, but I don’t think you start moving a rookie all over the formation right away. And I don’t think you put him at nickel, where route recognition and processing happens so fast.

I think he and X are the starting safeties. I think Nixon starts at nickel for now. I think Evan Williams primarily backs up Bullard at safety and similarly cross trains at nickel. I think AJJ is X’s primary backup. I think Oladapo will have a specific package when we want a box safety in run heavy situations and possibly as a dime back. I also think King is primarily play in the slot for us and will compete with Nixon (and Bullard) there for playing time by the end of the season. That’s how i see the secondary playing out moving forward.

[RingoCStarrQB]

#20

[Yoop]

There's a saying that Round 3 and beyond are not drafted to ever be starters. Round 3 and beyond is for Special Teams, Depth, and hope you strike lightening and get a real player at least once out of your 4+ picks every day 3 of the draft.

obviously those that say those things aren't familiar with our OL

It is very well known and envious of how good GB is on Day 3. Especially on the Oline.

We have 5 elite players and another 1 - 3 okay Olinemen drafted on Day 3 since the TT era (about 20 years)

the goal for a GM concerning any pick is to find a starter, obviously lofty, but that is the goal, take some time and go look at the starters on every team, your going to find starters from every round of the draft process, and some who where not drafted as well, no GM thinks, I'll take this kid at slot 96 or even 196 with the idea he will always be a backup or a teamer, obviously success rate diminishes the farther away you get from slot 1,

while the HOF list of 1st rounders is higher, look at the 2nd and 3rd rounders

also of our 28 HOF players only 7 came in the first 2 rounds according to this

https://www.profootballhof.com/hall-of- ... t-round/#3

[go pak go]

obviously those that say those things aren't familiar with our OL

It is very well known and envious of how good GB is on Day 3. Especially on the Oline.

We have 5 elite players and another 1 - 3 okay Olinemen drafted on Day 3 since the TT era (about 20 years)

the goal for a GM concerning any pick is to find a starter, obviously lofty, but that is the goal, take some time and go look at the starters on every team, your going to find starters from every round of the draft process, and some who where not drafted as well, no GM thinks, I'll take this kid at slot 96 or even 196 with the idea he will always be a backup or a teamer, obviously success rate diminishes the farther away you get from slot 1,

while the HOF list of 1st rounders is higher, look at the 2nd and 3rd rounders

also of our 28 HOF players only 7 came in the first 2 rounds according to this

https://www.profootballhof.com/hall-of- ... t-round/#3

Exactly. Most of the really good players are selected in the top 100 which is pretty much your first 3 rounds. The drop off after that is a material drop off.

As of the Packer HOFer's...I really don't put much into that as the majority of our HOF'ers are legacy players where draft process, information, etc are vastly different than today. But if you look at the modern era Packers in the HOF:

Reggie White - 4th overall
Brett Favre - 2nd round
LeRoy Butler - 2nd round
Charles Woodson - 2nd round

[NCF]

Charles Woodson - 2nd round

[Yoop]

It is very well known and envious of how good GB is on Day 3. Especially on the Oline.

We have 5 elite players and another 1 - 3 okay Olinemen drafted on Day 3 since the TT era (about 20 years)

the goal for a GM concerning any pick is to find a starter, obviously lofty, but that is the goal, take some time and go look at the starters on every team, your going to find starters from every round of the draft process, and some who where not drafted as well, no GM thinks, I'll take this kid at slot 96 or even 196 with the idea he will always be a backup or a teamer, obviously success rate diminishes the farther away you get from slot 1,

while the HOF list of 1st rounders is higher, look at the 2nd and 3rd rounders

also of our 28 HOF players only 7 came in the first 2 rounds according to this

https://www.profootballhof.com/hall-of- ... t-round/#3

Exactly. Most of the really good players are selected in the top 100 which is pretty much your first 3 rounds. The drop off after that is a material drop off.

As of the Packer HOFer's...I really don't put much into that as the majority of our HOF'ers are legacy players where draft process, information, etc are vastly different than today. But if you look at the modern era Packers in the HOF:

Reggie White - 4th overall
Brett Favre - 2nd round
LeRoy Butler - 2nd round
Charles Woodson - 2nd round

[go pak go]

Charles Woodson - 2nd round

1st round

[APB]

There's a saying that Round 3 and beyond are not drafted to ever be starters. Round 3 and beyond is for Special Teams, Depth, and hope you strike lightening and get a real player at least once out of your 4+ picks every day 3 of the draft.

Round three and beyond not drafted to ever be starters?



I sure hope the Packers GM and scouting staff don't subscribe to this. If their accepted expectation for round three picks and beyond is basically backup roster churn and to "hopefully catch lightening in a bottle", fire your entire GM and scouting staff.

I mean would you not agree that finding a long term starter on Day 3 is a massive success?

I think you're a little too surprised here.

I mean last year is insane because we might have TWO maybe even THREE in Wicks, Brooks, and Valentine. That is absolute elite status if we get three long time starters beyond pick 100.

You stipulated “round 3 and beyond.” Round 3 is a day two draft pick and generally falls within picks 70-100. If you’re not looking for starter level talent, you’re doing it wrong.

Further, I’d frame later rounds picks as finding players who have starter potential but need some refinement coached into their game before they’re ready for starter level duty. Players with the physical traits who compete at D3 level or who needed to bulk up, for example.

Packer drafts are littered with R3 and later picks who eventually (or even immediately) become starters. I’d wager there are more drafts with multiple picks within that criteria who become starters than drafts without. It isn’t nearly as rare as you seem to be insinuating.

[go pak go]

Round three and beyond not drafted to ever be starters?



I sure hope the Packers GM and scouting staff don't subscribe to this. If their accepted expectation for round three picks and beyond is basically backup roster churn and to "hopefully catch lightening in a bottle", fire your entire GM and scouting staff.

I mean would you not agree that finding a long term starter on Day 3 is a massive success?

I think you're a little too surprised here.

I mean last year is insane because we might have TWO maybe even THREE in Wicks, Brooks, and Valentine. That is absolute elite status if we get three long time starters beyond pick 100.

You stipulated “round 3 and beyond.” Round 3 is a day two draft pick and generally falls within picks 70-100. If you’re not looking for starter level talent, you’re doing it wrong.

Further, I’d frame later rounds picks as finding players who have starter potential but need some refinement coached into their game before they’re ready for starter level duty. Players with the physical traits who compete at D3 level or who needed to bulk up, for example.

Packer drafts are littered with R3 and later picks who eventually (or even immediately) become starters. I’d wager there are more drafts with multiple picks within that criteria who become starters than drafts without. It isn’t nearly as rare as you seem to be insinuating.

I gotta say we did a lot better than I thought. Looks like about 19 starter level players drafted Rd 3 and beyond from 2010 - 2023 out of roughly 98 draft picks. One of those starters was not with us (Lawrence Guy)

Just about 20% which is about 5% more than I thought it would be.

Now it comes down to words and semantics. My statement wasn't far off.

Round 3 and beyond is for Special Teams, Depth, and hope you strike lightening and get a real player at least once out of your 4+ picks every day 3 of the draft.

Packers reality is getting a real player (earned starter) about one in every 5 picks Rd 3 and beyond.

[Yoop]

I mean would you not agree that finding a long term starter on Day 3 is a massive success?

I think you're a little too surprised here.

I mean last year is insane because we might have TWO maybe even THREE in Wicks, Brooks, and Valentine. That is absolute elite status if we get three long time starters beyond pick 100.

You stipulated “round 3 and beyond.” Round 3 is a day two draft pick and generally falls within picks 70-100. If you’re not looking for starter level talent, you’re doing it wrong.

Further, I’d frame later rounds picks as finding players who have starter potential but need some refinement coached into their game before they’re ready for starter level duty. Players with the physical traits who compete at D3 level or who needed to bulk up, for example.

Packer drafts are littered with R3 and later picks who eventually (or even immediately) become starters. I’d wager there are more drafts with multiple picks within that criteria who become starters than drafts without. It isn’t nearly as rare as you seem to be insinuating.

I gotta say we did a lot better than I thought. Looks like about 19 starter level players drafted Rd 3 and beyond from 2010 - 2023 out of roughly 98 draft picks. One of those starters was not with us (Lawrence Guy)

Just about 20% which is about 5% more than I thought it would be.

Now it comes down to words and semantics. My statement wasn't far off.

Round 3 and beyond is for Special Teams, Depth, and hope you strike lightening and get a real player at least once out of your 4+ picks every day 3 of the draft.

Packers reality is getting a real player (earned starter) about one in every 5 picks Rd 3 and beyond.

come on now

your whole comment was wrong, the main part is saying that GM's don't expect mid rounders to ever be starters, that was the main point I took exception to, and the rest is wrong because this league is full of mid round starting players or guys that play a ton of rotation.

and to say that we are one of very few teams that draft and develop lineman with success is also wrong, if there are any positions where D&D has success it's lineman on both sides of the ball and with every team, where not unique concerning that at all.

[APB]

I mean would you not agree that finding a long term starter on Day 3 is a massive success?

I think you're a little too surprised here.

I mean last year is insane because we might have TWO maybe even THREE in Wicks, Brooks, and Valentine. That is absolute elite status if we get three long time starters beyond pick 100.

You stipulated “round 3 and beyond.” Round 3 is a day two draft pick and generally falls within picks 70-100. If you’re not looking for starter level talent, you’re doing it wrong.

Further, I’d frame later rounds picks as finding players who have starter potential but need some refinement coached into their game before they’re ready for starter level duty. Players with the physical traits who compete at D3 level or who needed to bulk up, for example.

Packer drafts are littered with R3 and later picks who eventually (or even immediately) become starters. I’d wager there are more drafts with multiple picks within that criteria who become starters than drafts without. It isn’t nearly as rare as you seem to be insinuating.

I gotta say we did a lot better than I thought. Looks like about 19 starter level players drafted Rd 3 and beyond from 2010 - 2023 out of roughly 98 draft picks. One of those starters was not with us (Lawrence Guy)

Just about 20% which is about 5% more than I thought it would be.

Now it comes down to words and semantics. My statement wasn't far off.

Round 3 and beyond is for Special Teams, Depth, and hope you strike lightening and get a real player at least once out of your 4+ picks every day 3 of the draft.

Packers reality is getting a real player (earned starter) about one in every 5 picks Rd 3 and beyond.

I guess it depends on your definition of "starter level" players. I counted 24 players 2010-2023 (not including ST specialists) from just a quick perusal who lined up as a starter a significant number of times. Sure, a guy like Royce Newman (primary starting RG 2021), for example, didn't last long in that role but it doesn't negate the fact he started an entire season and 8 starts beyond that. I didn't count a guy like Ty Montgomery (14 starts over 3 seasons), though, although I think you could make the argument.

Again, and back to the premise of your argument, I disagree wholly that teams are drafting players R3-7 just to fill backup roles. They're looking for high potential players who simply aren't ready for the big stage...yet.

[go pak go]

You stipulated “round 3 and beyond.” Round 3 is a day two draft pick and generally falls within picks 70-100. If you’re not looking for starter level talent, you’re doing it wrong.

Further, I’d frame later rounds picks as finding players who have starter potential but need some refinement coached into their game before they’re ready for starter level duty. Players with the physical traits who compete at D3 level or who needed to bulk up, for example.

Packer drafts are littered with R3 and later picks who eventually (or even immediately) become starters. I’d wager there are more drafts with multiple picks within that criteria who become starters than drafts without. It isn’t nearly as rare as you seem to be insinuating.

I gotta say we did a lot better than I thought. Looks like about 19 starter level players drafted Rd 3 and beyond from 2010 - 2023 out of roughly 98 draft picks. One of those starters was not with us (Lawrence Guy)

Just about 20% which is about 5% more than I thought it would be.

Now it comes down to words and semantics. My statement wasn't far off.

Round 3 and beyond is for Special Teams, Depth, and hope you strike lightening and get a real player at least once out of your 4+ picks every day 3 of the draft.

Packers reality is getting a real player (earned starter) about one in every 5 picks Rd 3 and beyond.

I guess it depends on your definition of "starter level" players. I counted 24 players 2010-2023 (not including ST specialists) from just a quick perusal who lined up as a starter a significant number of times. Sure, a guy like Royce Newman (primary starting RG 2021), for example, didn't last long in that role but it doesn't negate the fact he started an entire season and 8 starts beyond that.

Correct. I don't count the player if he starts by default. So Newman was not picked by me. But I did count Ty Mont and Mean Dean Lowry because they were NFL startng level players for a number of years. Even if they were below average starting players.

I get your disagreement and perspective. I believe it is more about wordage than anything. Of course GMs hope they get a starter with their last 4 picks as a whole. But the expectation for the individual pick has to be more realistic.

I believe Sam Seale even said in his interview something to the effect when asked about his scouting success that "Lot of players done great things but even more of them haven't made it. That's scouting"

[YoHoChecko]

Again, and back to the premise of your argument, I disagree wholly that teams are drafting players R3-7 just to fill backup roles. They're looking for high potential players who simply aren't ready for the big stage...yet.

Interesting conversation. One piece of evidence to consider is that many draft analysts—especially guys who have NFL front office experience—explain their prospect grades in these exact terms: projected role at the next level.

I think the source between some of this tension is the idea of “talent” versus “expected outcomes.”

Yes on day three there are MANY guys with starter or better ceilings. But there are factors that make that outcome a long shot. So the grade and draft stock reflect a probable special teamer with starter upside.

Where I have problems with grading systems with that sort of framing is that I think as you move back in the draft the outcome probabilities diverge along at least two directions, not a linear path.

To explain: there’s like a sliding scale of ceilings, high to low; and of risk/variance, which includes development needed, experience, whether the film projects cleanly to the NFL or there are schematic/positional protections

So as you go deeper in the draft, the TOTAL of those two factors, ceiling and risk, is declining; but some players on Day three are safe, low ceiling depth and species teams pieces. Some Day three picks are high ceiling dice roles whose most likely outcome is special teams and depth until they flame out, but who become a big hit if the universe aligns for them.

So yeah, teams are still looking for starter level talent littered throughout Day three, but you can’t define the players only by their ceilings. Teams are considering LIKELY OUTCOMES and saying the most likely outcome for a Day three pick is roster depth over the first 3-4 years in the league and then move on or minimum-ish contract to hang around the league. And that probability is based not just on ceiling, but on variance.

[Yoop]

we strive for perfection hoping to achieve excellence.

A GM obviously knows most day 3 picks will never amount to full time starters, many not even rotational talent, but they don't just draft these players accepting that fate for any of em, same thing with UDFA, there optimistic that everyone brought in can be coached into a NFL star, and many go on to be that.

again when someone says a GM isn't expecting to find starters in day 3 it just doesn't make any sense to me at all

[APB]

again when someone says a GM isn't expecting to find starters in day 3 it just doesn't make any sense to me at all

For me, as well, but as @YoHoChecko just expanded upon, it's a matter of framing in one's own mind as to probable outcomes. I do believe all GMs go into R3-7 with the expectation of at least a couple guys panning out as eventual starters which, to me, speaks beyond a hope-and-prayer approach to those picks.

But we're basically nit-picking on semantics.