2020 General Draft Discussion

From Lambeau to Lombardi, Holmgren, McCarthy and LaFleur and from Starr to Favre, Rodgers and now Jordan Love we’re talking Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers football. This Packers Forum is the place to talk NFL football and everything Packers. So, pull up a keyboard, make yourself at home and let’s talk some Packers football.

Moderators: NCF, salmar80, BF004, APB, Packfntk

YoHoChecko
Reactions:
Posts: 9713
Joined: 26 Mar 2020 11:34

Post by YoHoChecko »

Yoop wrote:
27 Apr 2020 11:32
you make my point, they didn't do enough either, why do you keep comparing us to other teams, NE is the bench mark, yet I've never said anything about winning a BUNCH of SB's, can't I want to win just one or two more then we have, or for that matter expect to at least play in them.
I'm comparing us to other teams because I have long held the mantra that evaluation requires you to compare against peers, rather than against perfection.

You're right, though, New England is the gold standard. And here's the thing (two things) I'll just say.
  • Bill Belichick is the best football coach at least in the modern era. There is only one of him.
  • Tom Brady is a better QB than Aaron Rodgers (not more talented, but better). I have long said I want Aaron Rodger sto be Tom Brady when he grows up. What I mean by that is that as Rodgers' escapability and mobility becomes less a part of his game, I want him to win by getting the ball out quickly and not taking sacks. By moving the ball methodically and not fishing for big plays. By winning with that great, beautiful brain of his more than with that rare golden arm of his.
If Rodgers adjusts his game as he ages, there's NO reason the Packers can't win the next 3 Super Bowls (plenty of reasons why they might not, but no reason why they can't). But he seemed to be going the opposite direction in the latter years of MM. That's why it was time for a change. That's why I support paying big money for the defense and investing in running. Rodgers takes too many sacks, he holds the ball too long, and he throws WAY too many 50/50 heaves instead of finding an easier outlet. I's not because he's not talented. It's not because he's not smart. It's not because his team sucks. It's because he's been honing the wrong skills and practicing the wrong approach for a QB moving toward his late 30s.

Aaron Rodgers can do it. He is SO talented; he has a firm grasp on football. But I want to see more Brees and Brady in his game these days than I used to. Those guys focus on COMPLETING passes and doing it quickly. Risks are measured; the safe completion is prioritized on early downs and early in games. Heck, even look at Favre. He had the best completion percentages of his career in his last year with us and his following years with the Jets and Vikings (his 3 highest were 2007, 2008, and 2009). And he went to two NFC Championship games with 2 different teams in those 3 years.

That's what I want. Tom Brady does it. And it's one of the reasons why he's the best. And that's one of the reasons why the Patriots win so much (and Belichick. Always Belichick.)

User avatar
NCF
Reactions:
Posts: 8305
Joined: 17 Mar 2020 16:04
Location: Hastings, MN

Post by NCF »

Image

Read More. Post Less.

User avatar
Yoop
Huddle Heavy Hitter
Reactions:
Posts: 12355
Joined: 24 Mar 2020 09:23

Post by Yoop »

YoHoChecko wrote:
27 Apr 2020 11:48
Yoop wrote:
27 Apr 2020 11:32
you make my point, they didn't do enough either, why do you keep comparing us to other teams, NE is the bench mark, yet I've never said anything about winning a BUNCH of SB's, can't I want to win just one or two more then we have, or for that matter expect to at least play in them.
I'm comparing us to other teams because I have long held the mantra that evaluation requires you to compare against peers, rather than against perfection.

You're right, though, New England is the gold standard. And here's the thing (two things) I'll just say.
  • Bill Belichick is the best football coach at least in the modern era. There is only one of him.
  • Tom Brady is a better QB than Aaron Rodgers (not more talented, but better). I have long said I want Aaron Rodger sto be Tom Brady when he grows up. What I mean by that is that as Rodgers' escapability and mobility becomes less a part of his game, I want him to win by getting the ball out quickly and not taking sacks. By moving the ball methodically and not fishing for big plays. By winning with that great, beautiful brain of his more than with that rare golden arm of his.
If Rodgers adjusts his game as he ages, there's NO reason the Packers can't win the next 3 Super Bowls (plenty of reasons why they might not, but no reason why they can't). But he seemed to be going the opposite direction in the latter years of MM. That's why it was time for a change. That's why I support paying big money for the defense and investing in running. Rodgers takes too many sacks, he holds the ball too long, and he throws WAY too many 50/50 heaves instead of finding an easier outlet. I's not because he's not talented. It's not because he's not smart. It's not because his team sucks. It's because he's been honing the wrong skills and practicing the wrong approach for a QB moving toward his late 30s.

Aaron Rodgers can do it. He is SO talented; he has a firm grasp on football. But I want to see more Brees and Brady in his game these days than I used to. Those guys focus on COMPLETING passes and doing it quickly. Risks are measured; the safe completion is prioritized on early downs and early in games. Heck, even look at Favre. He had the best completion percentages of his career in his last year with us and his following years with the Jets and Vikings (his 3 highest were 2007, 2008, and 2009). And he went to two NFC Championship games with 2 different teams in those 3 years.

That's what I want. Tom Brady does it. And it's one of the reasons why he's the best. And that's one of the reasons why the Patriots win so much (and Belichick. Always Belichick.)
well, you'll never convince me that MCCcarthy schemes where as much of a problem or AR declined do to them minus what a couple receivers wouldn't have cured, your defending changing everything versus just getting him those receivers, our draft actions the last few seasons wasted some of the best years of his career, I don't know how that can't be more obvious, when he had receivers that could win the iso routes and one on one matchups he wasn't taking near the risk's, sacks or extending plays as much.

sure I get that times change, McCarthy had a long tenure, schemes get old, but imo that stuff deteriated because of receiver decline more then anything else.

YoHoChecko
Reactions:
Posts: 9713
Joined: 26 Mar 2020 11:34

Post by YoHoChecko »

Yoop wrote:
27 Apr 2020 12:08
well, you'll never convince me that MCCcarthy schemes where as much of a problem or AR declined do to them minus what a couple receivers wouldn't have cured, your defending changing everything versus just getting him those receivers, our draft actions the last few seasons wasted some of the best years of his career, I don't know how that can't be more obvious, when he had receivers that could win the iso routes and one on one matchups he wasn't taking near the risk's, sacks or extending plays as much.

sure I get that times change, McCarthy had a long tenure, schemes get old, but imo that stuff deteriated because of receiver decline more then anything else.
I mean, no, you're right about a bunch here.

MM's scheme required WRs who consistently won 1-on-1 matchups, and over the years, we didn't have guys who were doing that as consistently. Jordy, Adams, Cobb was a great trio, but with Cobb being too-often knicked up, and Jordy's juice declining, we probably tried to squeeze a bit more out of them than we should have, and didn't have the kind of ready-for-action depth to move on from them like we did when Jordy, Jones, and Cobb emerged as Driver and Jennings departed.

We probably could have kept going with MM if we kept an insane WR room going--but that's what it was. What we had in 2011, when we had the end of Driver's career supplemented by 2nd round pick Jennings, 2nd round pick Jordy, 2nd round pick Cobb, 3rd round pick Jones... we were drafting a Day Two WR every year, and they were all hitting. You view that as the standard for how to make the best use of Rodgers. I, and some others, view that as unsustainable. We view the depletion of defensive talent on the team after Collins and Woodson moved on in part because we were stocking the cubboard with WRs over and over again.

So we shifted; we started drafting defense. The picks weren't all hits. So both the defense and the WR room suffered. But we went from INCREDIBLE WR room to a normal one, with a legit top guy and some other lesser players. And MM didn't adjust, as coaches should do. What's worse, MM AND Rodgers over-bought into the "big plays = wins" philosophy that each cited, out loud, openly, frequently. And they stopped playing short to set up those long plays, and started trying to just create those big plays out of thin air, with WRs who weren't up to the task.

That was both a failure of MM to understand how to interpret and implement the analytics he had discovered, and Rodgers developing a lot of really bad habits and learning the wrong lessons from that.

It's not necessarily anyone's fault or that Rodgers is a bad QB or MM is a bad coach. It's just that both seemed to move in the wrong direction together, and the fact that it didn't work probably left both frustrated with the other that their ideas weren't being implemented correctly. So it was time for a change. And Rodgers needs to re-focus himself on completing passes first, looking for the downfield shot later. He needs to rrust the scheme to uncover WRs even if they aren't his trusted buddies.

And meanwhile, MM goes down to Dallas where Amari Cooper, Michael Gallup, and CeeDee Lamb will win 1-on-1 matchups, particularly with Zeke forcing teams to respect the run and a solid OL. It's going to work out fine for everyone.

But keeping a WR room that looked like 2011 and 2012 is a VERY tall task. It's asking a lot. And it comes with a price--the opportunity cost of adding talent to other positions. And now we've brought in a guy who, everywhere this scheme is run, has seen QB success regardless of who the secondary weapons are. Mohammed Sanu, Taylor Gabriel, Justin Hardy in Atlanta... and Corey Davis and whoever in Tennessee had Mariota's career high completion percentage (and he only had one year). Absolute no-name WRs in San Fran with Shanny right now. A constantly rotating cast of WR characters on the Rams with McVay right now, and making a star out of Cooper Kupp, who is no more athletic or talented than many of our guys.

Things change. And you're not wrong that better WRs would have led to more offensive and QBing success under MM and AR. But you also have to understand why we didn't have them and how hard it is to keep them. And you should accept that change is afoot and there are other ways to succeed. Right now, we need Rodgers to trust the open guy, whoever it is, trust the scheme, and focus on completing passes. And yeah, we need Gutey to find weapons that fit the scheme. And we need MLF to use the scheme to put put talent in the best position to succeed. But simply tripling down on drafting WRs again won't necessarily mean they all pan out like they did for us from 2006-2011.

Sorry, I rambled.

User avatar
Yoop
Huddle Heavy Hitter
Reactions:
Posts: 12355
Joined: 24 Mar 2020 09:23

Post by Yoop »

thanks for the splaning, wasn't rambling to me.

So we shifted; we started drafting defense. The picks weren't all hits. So both the defense and the WR room suffered. But we went from INCREDIBLE WR room to a normal one, with a legit top guy and some other lesser players. And MM didn't adjust, as coaches should do. What's worse, MM AND Rodgers over-bought into the "big plays = wins" philosophy that each cited, out loud, openly, frequently. And they stopped playing short to set up those long plays, and started trying to just create those big plays out of thin air, with WRs who weren't up to the task.

what hits? for Teds last 5 drafts Clark is the only starter, it's been a revolving door of misses year after year even before that, Capers was a saint for even hanging around (sorta) lol. surely we could have spared one high pick for a WR between all those misses lol. arhhhh

when I look back at the beginning of Ted, sure he took Berts replacement, but Favre was holding the GM ransom well before Teddy arrived, Sherman probably consulted with Rodgers prior to his drafts, what did Ted do, he new Don Drive was not enough, he took Jennings the next draft, then Jones and Nelson , then Cobb and Adams, then nada once they played themselves out, to me thats when Mac's schemes declined and Rodgers started trying to force them to work, and why I redundently claim it's mostly been a receiver problem all along, and I still contend the easiest fix was just to do whatever it takes to get those hard to get receivers again, other teams have done that.

hey now I'am rambling, you know I'll get on board with this, I've always been stubborn about changes like these, and the direction we are going is probably best to extend Rodgers career, as he said he loves the increased play action, and the little bit of uptempo plays we did use he looked pretty good to me, and it sounds like there will be a lot more of that coming.

big chunk plays eliminate the chance for mistakes, young more evolving player rosters, more chance of error, small ball and short passing usually require more plays to score, hense more oppertunity for goofing up, more stalled drives, I like big chunk plays :aok:

User avatar
Waldo
Reactions:
Posts: 980
Joined: 19 Mar 2020 10:33

Post by Waldo »

So what exactly was The Problem™?

Well for one, GB's offense was incredibly average.

15th in points scored
12th in scoring % per drive
18th in yards gained
13th in plays run
18th in yards per play
16th in first downs
16th in passing attempts
17th in passing yards
14th in passing TD's
16th in NYPA passing
12th in times sacked
10th in sack %
18th in yards lost due to sacks
18th in 1st downs gained by passing
18th in 1st downs gained by rushing
13th in rushing att
15th in rushing yd
14th in rushing ypa

Some things they did really well:
2nd in turnovers lost
1st in times intercepted
2nd in turnover %
9th in total penalties
5th in fewest penalty yards
6th in 1st down by penalty
7th in rushing TD's
7th in fumbles lost
8th in red zone TD%

They did the little things well (turnovers, penalties) but were on whole, quite ho hum offensively.

But, there are some oddities.

They were 21st in 3rd down sacks. The other 3 championship weekend teams were #1, #7, #8
However Rodgers was sacked the 4th most of any QB on 3rd downs. Most teams worse than GB racked up the 3rd down sacks with multiple QB's.
Half of GB's sacks (18/36) occurred on 3rd down.
Rodgers had a rating of 87.5 on 3rd down, 19th in the league
They were 18th in 3rd down penalties. Kan was dead last, by itself not much of an indicator.
They were 16th in 3rd down conversion %. Average overall despite being worse than average at 3rd down sacks and penalties.

They were 3rd in # drives of 12 plays or more. They had a ton of super long drives.
They were 26th in drives of 6 plays or more. But were awful at sustaining drives.
They were 8th in number of punts. They punted more that you'd expect out of an average team.
They were 30th in field goals attempted. They attempted way less field goals than you'd expect.


All those stats above, them being a very average offense, feed into what I have bolded. What I have bolded is what I think is The Problem™.

But what does this mean? A we a better WR away from making the problem go away? They had a ton of drives that went nowhere. They were one of the worst teams in the league at putting drives together. But when they did, things really clicked and they were able to march down the field and score as good as just about any team. In a sense they were super hot and cold.

I don't think you can look at this primarily as a personnel issue. Severe hot and cold issues like that (even within a game) look to me like the growing pains of a new offense and play caller. They fix that root problem, the utter inability to get drives going, and the offense should improve quite a bit. And the ability is there, as shown by how good they were at putting together ultra long drives and how good they were at punching it in once they got close. Play selection and approach (looking less for the kill shot...) would go a long way to shoring this up.

MLF surely is focusing this offseason on what worked to get his team in a rhythm to get drives going, because that was The Problem™.
Last edited by Waldo on 27 Apr 2020 13:40, edited 1 time in total.

YoHoChecko
Reactions:
Posts: 9713
Joined: 26 Mar 2020 11:34

Post by YoHoChecko »

Interesting nugget from Peter King's Monday Morning column:
One last note: Gutekunst said the Packers had two receivers they were targeting in early and middle part of the second round. They tried to move up with several teams, he said, until the second receiver they preferred got picked, and then they stopped. Seven wideouts went in the first 27 picks of the second round; Green Bay, with the 62nd overall pick, took running back A.J. Dillon. Not good. As much as the draft pick itself, the price for Love included not addressing that big need at receiver. We’ll see if that comes back to haunt the team this year or next.
So now we know; the second round receiver group is where the Packers' value seemed to cut off. We can't know which 2 he was trying to trade up for, but the candidates are Shenault, Van Jefferson, Chase Claypool, Denzel Mims, and KJ Hamler. (since the first 2 WRs went picks 1 and 2 of the round, it's clear they weren't trying to trade up throughout the round for them)

YoHoChecko
Reactions:
Posts: 9713
Joined: 26 Mar 2020 11:34

Post by YoHoChecko »

Waldo wrote:
27 Apr 2020 13:15
But, there are some oddities.

They were 21st in 3rd down sacks. The other 3 championship weekend teams were #1, #7, #8
However Rodgers was sacked the 4th most of any QB on 3rd downs. Most teams worse than GB racked up the 3rd down sacks with multiple QB's.
Half of GB's sacks (18/36) occurred on 3rd down.
Rodgers had a rating of 87.5 on 3rd down, 19th in the league
They were 18th in 3rd down penalties. Kan was dead last, by itself not much of an indicator.
They were 16th in 3rd down conversion %. Average overall despite being worse than average at 3rd down sacks and penalties.
The 3rd down sacks KILLED me. It got to the point where if it was 3rd down and they dropped back, I expected a sack (or throw away).

One note on KC's 3rd down penalties is that they had UNREAL 3rd and long conversion percentage with Mahomes bailing them out a ton. Not the way you want to live.

Honestly, if we can JUST get Rodgers to eliminate 3rd down sacks (especially on shorter yardage conversions), the offense will go up a ton in my book. He takes some absolutely unacceptable sacks.

Part of that may be better outlet weapons. So maybe using Jamaal Williams less on 3rd downs (his pass protection made him a prime choice there) or having Deguara in there or having Jones do some underneath dump-off stuff would help. But we don't want every 3rd down to turn into scramble drill => sack or throw away when the scramble drill doesn't work. Just get. the. ball. out.

User avatar
Pckfn23
Huddle Heavy Hitter
Reactions:
Posts: 14479
Joined: 22 Mar 2020 22:13
Location: Western Wisconsin

Post by Pckfn23 »

25th in offensive 3 and Outs
Image
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."

User avatar
Waldo
Reactions:
Posts: 980
Joined: 19 Mar 2020 10:33

Post by Waldo »

YoHoChecko wrote:
27 Apr 2020 13:34
Interesting nugget from Peter King's Monday Morning column:
One last note: Gutekunst said the Packers had two receivers they were targeting in early and middle part of the second round. They tried to move up with several teams, he said, until the second receiver they preferred got picked, and then they stopped. Seven wideouts went in the first 27 picks of the second round; Green Bay, with the 62nd overall pick, took running back A.J. Dillon. Not good. As much as the draft pick itself, the price for Love included not addressing that big need at receiver. We’ll see if that comes back to haunt the team this year or next.
So now we know; the second round receiver group is where the Packers' value seemed to cut off. We can't know which 2 he was trying to trade up for, but the candidates are Shenault, Van Jefferson, Chase Claypool, Denzel Mims, and KJ Hamler. (since the first 2 WRs went picks 1 and 2 of the round, it's clear they weren't trying to trade up throughout the round for them)
The way its worded make it sound like Mims was NOT one of them, as he didn't go in the early/middle, he wend much closer to GB's pick.

As much as GB fans focused on Mims, I'm guessing that NFL teams didn't share that optimism as most teams passed on him twice.

YoHoChecko
Reactions:
Posts: 9713
Joined: 26 Mar 2020 11:34

Post by YoHoChecko »

Waldo wrote:
27 Apr 2020 13:45
The way its worded make it sound like Mims was NOT one of them, as he didn't go in the early/middle, he wend much closer to GB's pick.

As much as GB fans focused on Mims, I'm guessing that NFL teams didn't share that optimism as most teams passed on him twice.
I tend to agree with you, but it feels like pretty loose wording so I didn't want to draw conclusions.

I definitely see Mims' ceiling. My take on him has always just been that he's much more boom/bust and risky than I was looking for in this draft. If we took a WR this year, I wanted it to be someone who either
  • would have a clearly-defined role and package right away as a fun gadgety player or speed threat--think Ruggs... gap... Reagor.... gap... Ayiuk, Shenault. I guess Hamler could fit that but when you're tiny AND have bad hands, AND didn't work out prior to the draft, "speedy" is too much of a gamble for me
OR
  • someone who can step right in and run NFL routes and master the intricacies. Think either Jefferson (Justin, Van), or even Pittman, though I didn't want his particular body type.
Mims or Edwards in the 3rd would have been fine with me, risky. Antonio Gibson (not a WR) or Bowden (maybe a WR?) in the 3rd would have been fine with me, gadgety.

But by our pick in the 3rd they were gone, too.

Anyway, we're getting a clearer look at what Gutey meant about WR value.

User avatar
Waldo
Reactions:
Posts: 980
Joined: 19 Mar 2020 10:33

Post by Waldo »

YoHoChecko wrote:
27 Apr 2020 13:41
Waldo wrote:
27 Apr 2020 13:15
But, there are some oddities.

They were 21st in 3rd down sacks. The other 3 championship weekend teams were #1, #7, #8
However Rodgers was sacked the 4th most of any QB on 3rd downs. Most teams worse than GB racked up the 3rd down sacks with multiple QB's.
Half of GB's sacks (18/36) occurred on 3rd down.
Rodgers had a rating of 87.5 on 3rd down, 19th in the league
They were 18th in 3rd down penalties. Kan was dead last, by itself not much of an indicator.
They were 16th in 3rd down conversion %. Average overall despite being worse than average at 3rd down sacks and penalties.
The 3rd down sacks KILLED me. It got to the point where if it was 3rd down and they dropped back, I expected a sack (or throw away).

One note on KC's 3rd down penalties is that they had UNREAL 3rd and long conversion percentage with Mahomes bailing them out a ton. Not the way you want to live.

Honestly, if we can JUST get Rodgers to eliminate 3rd down sacks (especially on shorter yardage conversions), the offense will go up a ton in my book. He takes some absolutely unacceptable sacks.

Part of that may be better outlet weapons. So maybe using Jamaal Williams less on 3rd downs (his pass protection made him a prime choice there) or having Deguara in there or having Jones do some underneath dump-off stuff would help. But we don't want every 3rd down to turn into scramble drill => sack or throw away when the scramble drill doesn't work. Just get. the. ball. out.
But yet they were totally average for 3rd down conversion rate, very much in line with the rest of their offensive output.

It wasn't a blanket 3rd down problem, it was very drive specific. They really struggled to get most drives going. But once they did, gaining yards, converting 3rd downs, and scoring wasn't an issue at all.

packman114
Reactions:
Posts: 785
Joined: 27 Mar 2020 14:45

Post by packman114 »

So what I don't get is this take that just adding another WR fixes our offense. Maybe that would be true if MM were still here but LaFleur doesn't use that style offense. Last year we drafted for defense and some of what MLF wanted on offense in Jace and Jenkins. This year we took the players that fit the MLF offense better with the big RB and TE/HB plus some interior linemen. This is what GMs do, find talent to match the system being utilized. We did add 3 WRs this year to the group, EQ, Funchess, and Begelton. Plus we have Sheppard trying to redeem himself after playing really well last year until that one game. I'll also throw in Ervin who can split wide and give us all sorts of options.

Do we have a possible replacement for Adams, no but maybe we see them extend him and give us a couple of more years to find that guy.

Drj820
Huddle Heavy Hitter
Reactions:
Posts: 10110
Joined: 26 Mar 2020 12:34

Post by Drj820 »

As I’m doing more research of our players, what we got and the opportunity cost picking them means in terms of who that means we couldn’t get...

It’s already been said that I would rather have grabbed queen, but beyond that...

I wonder what it would have taken to get up a few more spots and have either Kenneth Murray available or aiyuk. Would a 4 have gotten us to 25? Would a 4 and a 6 have gotten us to 23,24?

Lots of words to say, not only would I have rather had queen over love at 26. I would rather have given up more if possible to get Murray or even aiyuk. I loved aiyuk.

Love might be the next star of the league and I’l be wrong, but for now I’m content to say we have plenty of time to replace Rodgers, or could have drafted Eason much later, and there will be other loves abailable in years to come.

I think aiyuk would be perfect for our system and I think the value of having him would be worth waiting to address qb later.
I Do Not Hate Matt Lafleur

User avatar
NCF
Reactions:
Posts: 8305
Joined: 17 Mar 2020 16:04
Location: Hastings, MN

Post by NCF »

Drj820 wrote:
27 Apr 2020 14:46
Love might be the next star of the league and I’l be wrong, but for now I’m content to say we have plenty of time to replace Rodgers, or could have drafted Eason much later, and there will be other loves abailable in years to come.
There will be and they will likely go in the Top-10, so we likely won't have a crack at them. I did like Eason, too. Big, impressive arm, but he was not making the throws that Love was making. There is just no comparison. My #1 gripe right now, and not saying this is you because I know it isn't, is people are still saying these things and haven't even bothered to watch a cut up or even a highlight reel to see what he can do.
Image

Read More. Post Less.

Freewheelingutey
Reactions:
Posts: 67
Joined: 24 Mar 2020 16:39

Post by Freewheelingutey »

They also had 680 yards of lost offense by dropped passes. It's clear that the wr and te's were very inconsistent. How do we know that Funchess or Begelton won't struggle to learn the offense or have the drops? They signed Ryan Grant last year and he never saw the field. With the way colleges run the more pro style offenses these days..who knows maybe a rookie coukd step in.

What if Dillon and that other te we drafted struggle, with players still finishing school and not much of an offseason to learn. Then we are stuck with the same run game. I am sure they must have to learn the blocking schemes so Jones doesn't get steam rolled trying to block a lb on 3rd down.

YoHoChecko
Reactions:
Posts: 9713
Joined: 26 Mar 2020 11:34

Post by YoHoChecko »

Drj820 wrote:
27 Apr 2020 14:46
As I’m doing more research of our players, what we got and the opportunity cost picking them means in terms of who that means we couldn’t get...

It’s already been said that I would rather have grabbed queen, but beyond that...

I wonder what it would have taken to get up a few more spots and have either Kenneth Murray available or aiyuk. Would a 4 have gotten us to 25? Would a 4 and a 6 have gotten us to 23,24?

Lots of words to say, not only would I have rather had queen over love at 26. I would rather have given up more if possible to get Murray or even aiyuk. I loved aiyuk.

Love might be the next star of the league and I’l be wrong, but for now I’m content to say we have plenty of time to replace Rodgers, or could have drafted Eason much later, and there will be other loves abailable in years to come.

I think aiyuk would be perfect for our system and I think the value of having him would be worth waiting to address qb later.
I genuinely wonder if our 2nd could have gotten us up to 17 to take Lamb. The Cowboys didn't need a WR and have been known to stockpile picks by trading back (yes, even Jerry), but I'm not sure they'd have been willing to drop that far. But the trade value chart says 62 should bring us to 18, which is awfully close. And it was a good market to move up and a bad market to move down, based on what most GMs are saying. For instance, it should have cost more than our 4th to move up those 4 spots, but it didn't.

There are a million what-ifs, and I have no problem with playing what-if games, so long as they aren't accompanied by the kinds of "this GM suck, I could do better" mentality that lupe brings to the game. Honest musings, alternatives, wonderings... those are always interesting to think through.

As for Ayiuk at 25, the 49ers traded up. So we can see that the Vikings got a 4th (117) and a 5th (176) to move back to 31. Would they have made the deal for our 4th (136) and our 5th (175) instead? That's not as good of a deal, but it also keeps them one slot higher. But it's also with a division rival. I don't think that gets it done.

Here's the trade for pick 25 as it actually happened, showing the 49ers (Team B) got the better end of the trade-up deal by two common trade charts by a fairly small amount:
image.png
image.png (15.04 KiB) Viewed 539 times
And here's the trade for our 4th and 5th, showing we (team B) get the better of the deal by a slightly larger amount:
image.png
image.png (14.96 KiB) Viewed 539 times
So the Vikings would probably want something better from us. For instance, our 3rd:
image.png
image.png (14.89 KiB) Viewed 539 times
This deal is still right in line with the trade value charts, but in this deal, the Vikings (Team A) gets the slightly better end of the deal. This is what it would likely have cost to move from 30 to 25, even though we managed to get up to 26 for a pick a full round lower. But since there was an actual alternative trade on the table in this case, the cost was higher.

Gutey said they didn't "seriously" consider making the move up to 23 that the Chargers made with the Patriots. But for kicks, here's what that trade looks like:
image.png
image.png (14.74 KiB) Viewed 539 times
The commonly-used trade charts are split on whether the Patriots (Team A) or the Chargers (Team B) got the better end of a very even;y balanced deal. In order for us to make that trade, we would have to beat that value. Offering our 3rd round pick doesn't get it done, while offering our 2nd round pick is TOO much value. So I checked our 3rd and 5th... very close, but nope, not quite. 3rd and 4th gets it done to move up to 23.

Because there were actual trades at 23 and 25 (and 26), it's really easy to get a feel for what it would have taken. Now, with the 3rd and 5th option being SO close to the Chargers 37 and 71 option, it's possible that Belichick would have preferred our offer to stay in the first round at 30, rather than to go farther back, given approximate value. But for sure, it would have cost at least our 3rd and an additional mid-round pick
Last edited by YoHoChecko on 27 Apr 2020 15:34, edited 1 time in total.

YoHoChecko
Reactions:
Posts: 9713
Joined: 26 Mar 2020 11:34

Post by YoHoChecko »

Freewheelingutey wrote:
27 Apr 2020 15:04
They also had 680 yards of lost offense by dropped passes. It's clear that the wr and te's were very inconsistent. How do we know that Funchess or Begelton won't struggle to learn the offense or have the drops? They signed Ryan Grant last year and he never saw the field. With the way colleges run the more pro style offenses these days..who knows maybe a rookie coukd step in.

What if Dillon and that other te we drafted struggle, with players still finishing school and not much of an offseason to learn. Then we are stuck with the same run game. I am sure they must have to learn the blocking schemes so Jones doesn't get steam rolled trying to block a lb on 3rd down.
Why is "what if [free agent signing] or [draft pick] fails?" a question that pushes toward ne draft pick or another. What if Ayiuk fails? What if Jeudy fails? What if Mims fails? What if Tee Higgins fails?

Also, all teams drop passes. Listing the yards lost without context is useless. The Packers were not anywhere near the top of the league in drops; they were closer to the bottom. Funchess, though, does have consistent drop problems, just like Allison did.

Drj820
Huddle Heavy Hitter
Reactions:
Posts: 10110
Joined: 26 Mar 2020 12:34

Post by Drj820 »

YoHoChecko wrote:
27 Apr 2020 15:08
Drj820 wrote:
27 Apr 2020 14:46
As I’m doing more research of our players, what we got and the opportunity cost picking them means in terms of who that means we couldn’t get...

It’s already been said that I would rather have grabbed queen, but beyond that...

I wonder what it would have taken to get up a few more spots and have either Kenneth Murray available or aiyuk. Would a 4 have gotten us to 25? Would a 4 and a 6 have gotten us to 23,24?

Lots of words to say, not only would I have rather had queen over love at 26. I would rather have given up more if possible to get Murray or even aiyuk. I loved aiyuk.

Love might be the next star of the league and I’l be wrong, but for now I’m content to say we have plenty of time to replace Rodgers, or could have drafted Eason much later, and there will be other loves abailable in years to come.

I think aiyuk would be perfect for our system and I think the value of having him would be worth waiting to address qb later.
I genuinely wonder if our 2nd could have gotten us up to 17 to take Lamb. The Cowboys didn't need a WR and have been known to stockpile picks by trading back (yes, even Jerry), but I'm not sure they'd have been willing to drop that far. But the trade value chart says 62 should bring us to 18, which is awfully close. And it was a good market to move up and a bad market to move down, based on what most GMs are saying. For instance, it should have cost more than our 4th to move up those 4 spots, but it didn't.

There are a million what-ifs, and I have no problem with playing what-if games, so long as they aren't accompanied by the kinds of "this GM suck, I could do better" mentality that lupe brings to the game. Honest musings, alternatives, wonderings... those are always interesting to think through.

As for Ayiuk at 25, the 49ers traded up. So we can see that the Vikings got a 4th (117) and a 5th (176) to move back to 31. Would they have made the deal for our 4th (136) and our 5th (175) instead? That's not as good of a deal, but it also keeps them one slot higher. But it's also with a division rival. I don't think that gets it done.

Here's the trade for pick 25 as it actually happened, showing the 49ers (Team B) got the better end of the trade-up deal by two common trade charts by a fairly small amount:
image.png

And here's the trade for our 4th and 5th, showing we (team B) get the better of the deal by a slightly larger amount:
image.png

So the Vikings would probably want something better from us. For instance, our 3rd:
image.png

This deal is still right in line with the trade value charts, but in this deal, the Vikings (Team A) gets the slightly better end of the deal. This is what it would likely have cost to move from 30 to 25, even though we managed to get up to 26 for a pick a full round lower. But since there was an actual alternative trade on the table in this case, the cost was higher.

Gutey said they didn't "seriously" consider making the move up to 23 that the Chargers made with the Patriots. But for kicks, here's what that trade looks like:
image.png

The commonly-used trade charts are split on whether the Patriots (Team A) or the Chargers (Team B) got the better end of a very even;y balanced deal. In order for us to make that trade, we would have to beat that value. Offering our 3rd round pick doesn't get it done, while offering our second round pick is TOO much value. So I checked our 4rd and 5th... very close, but nope, not quite. 3rd and 4th gets it done to move up to 23.

Because there were actual trades at 23 and 25 (and 26), it's really easy to get a feel for what it would have taken. Now, with the 3rd and 5th option being SO close to the Chargers 37 and 71 option, it's possible that Belichick would have preferred our offer to stay in the first round at 30, rather than to go farther back, given approximate value. But for sure, it would have cost at least our 3rd and an additional mid-round pick
Hmm...nice job doing all that homework and getting the info. I do think the 30 is more attractive than the 37. If we could have done the 4th and 5th for Murray I would have to say no brainer let’s do it.

4th and one of our extra 6s for aiyuk Im still probably in.

But if the cost was a 3rd and a 4, or even a 3 and a 5...that’s probably too rich for my blood.

3 and a 6 and they’ve got me thinking hard. Just imagine if Murray is what I think he will be, a 3 and a 6 gives you the ILB spot locked up for potentially a 7-8 years. :lol:

But I understand the team doesn’t seem to care if we have a staple there for that long. I just wanted to think it out of what it would cost, and would I have wanted to do it. Thanks for the good info.
I Do Not Hate Matt Lafleur

User avatar
Yoop
Huddle Heavy Hitter
Reactions:
Posts: 12355
Joined: 24 Mar 2020 09:23

Post by Yoop »

Drj820 wrote:
27 Apr 2020 14:46
As I’m doing more research of our players, what we got and the opportunity cost picking them means in terms of who that means we couldn’t get...

It’s already been said that I would rather have grabbed queen, but beyond that...

I wonder what it would have taken to get up a few more spots and have either Kenneth Murray available or aiyuk. Would a 4 have gotten us to 25? Would a 4 and a 6 have gotten us to 23,24?

Lots of words to say, not only would I have rather had queen over love at 26. I would rather have given up more if possible to get Murray or even aiyuk. I loved aiyuk.

Love might be the next star of the league and I’l be wrong, but for now I’m content to say we have plenty of time to replace Rodgers, or could have drafted Eason much later, and there will be other loves abailable in years to come.

I think aiyuk would be perfect for our system and I think the value of having him would be worth waiting to address qb later.
Aiyuk or Reager, both I thought might be available to us, but sure, I would have moved up even more then we did for Love for either, I still think it's a couple years early to bring in Rodgers replacement, and While Love has shown he has the physical skills, the mental part is why most fail, hope it pans out, but I have more faith that Reager and Ayuik will.

Post Reply