2020 General Draft Discussion

[YoHoChecko]

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.

I made an excel spreadsheet a couple years ago where I just enter pick numbers and it spits out values according to the Jimmy Johnson trade chart (traditional) the Rich Hill chart ("reactive"--based on a decade of trades that actually took place in the NFL) and the Chase Stewart chart (analytic--based on some advanced analytics of what draft picks are actually worth, using, I think, pro football reference's AV value average by draft pick). So doing expirimental trade homework is super simple for me.

As you can see from the images, the analytic chart has absolutely no relation to the real world trades that occur, while the other two are usually very close--yet another indication that real NFL teams use a fairly traditional trade chart to complete trades.

[British]

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.

If a pro like Funchess can't 'learn the offense' then it seems highly unlikely a rookie with no offseason program was going to do any better.

The lack of offseason I think is being overlooked. Gute was right when he said they didn't think any WR drafted after the 3rd would make this team. It's a tough position to be good at straight away.

I'd much rather have guys like MVS, ESB and Lazard already in the system and a vet like Funchess or even Begelton whose played in a variety of places, rather than a rookie coming in even colder than usual.

[British]

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.

If Dillon can pick up pass protection assignments on 3rd down we will be in business. The guy's strength is off the charts and I'd love to see him using that 250lb frame to knock out blitzing corners etc. Could be like having an extra blocking TE back there.

[YoHoChecko]

If Dillon can pick up pass protection assignments on 3rd down we will be in business. The guy's strength is off the charts and I'd love to see him using that 250lb frame to knock out blitzing corners etc. Could be like having an extra blocking TE back there.

Yeah, that's the hard part. He's basically never been asked to do it. They really didn't throw the ball. There's a chance he's a total natural at it, but otherwise, that may be a season away. Given his shird & short ability, though, it would be a CRUCIAL part of him becoming more of a 3rd down back, which seems like a thing because Gutey kept talking about how surprisingly adept he was at route running in combine drills given that he was never asked to do it at BC.

[British]

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.

One criticism of the TT-MM years was that Ted would give Mike and Dom loads of rookies when they wanted vets. Dom's scheme was notoriously complicated and didn't always mesh with the fact that often the only source of new players was from the draft.

That can't be said about Gute and LeFleur. It seems like Gute is giving his coach exactly the kind of players he wants.

[YoHoChecko]

One criticism of the TT-MM years was that Ted would give Mike and Dom loads of rookies when they wanted vets. Dom's scheme was notoriously complicated and didn't always mesh with the fact that often the only source of new players was from the draft.

That can't be said about Gute and LeFleur. It seems like Gute is giving his coach exactly the kind of players he wants.

I still think MLF prefers not to play rookies when he can avoid it. I have warned most of the offseason that we're probably only going to have room for a rookie WR to make a big impact unless an ILB was forced into a larger role by a Kirksey injury.

Only one rookie was given an opening day starting role, and it was at a terribly deficient position with zero other options (Savage - FS).

Taylor was given the nod over Jenkins, for the expressly-stated reason that MLF was more comfortable with someone who had experience. Jenkins only took over due to injury. Rashaan Gary played very few snaps despite being a high pick because he didn't have to. Dexter Williams remained on the bench when the team promoted Tra Carson from the PS and inserted Carson instead.

It COULD be that these players were all simply not good or not ready. Or it COULD be that we have a coach who wants to minimize the number of rookies on the field. It's another reason why IMMEDIATE needs weren't prioritized in the draft as highly as we would like. Gutey said it himself, after a certain point, he didn't think the available WRs could make an impact THIS YEAR. After a certain point, he didn't think any of the WRs were a lock to make the team. That's why the BIGGEST needs were filled with veterans, even if they aren't the guys we wanted (Funchess at WR, Kirksey at ILB, Wagner at RT).

I expect 300-500 snaps from Dillon and Deguara--but that doesn't mean they won't be fairly important contributors schematically and in certain packages. I expect Love, all the OL, and the S to be backups (I think even if Rodgers gets hurt, Boyle will get the time). The only guy I think who will legitimately compete for a regular role barring injury might be Martin for the second ILB spot--but that doesn't get used that much, anyway; and there will be competition for it.

I think you'll see a big jump in participation from last year's class--Sternberger, Gary, maybe Ty Summers or Bolton. Maybe Dexter Williams makes he team and takes Jamaal's job. We have no way of knowing what the coaches are seeing from young guys in practices. It seems more like coaching preference than a deficiency in talent--but I'm speculating based on a sample size of one season; so we shall see.

[Chilli]

I think the Packers would've been happy with any one of Jefferson, Reagor, Murray, Aiyuk and Ruiz. One by one they quickly went. We had no shot at landing them. Even trading up was too costly, for example:

The Chargers gave up a 2nd and 3rd to move up to pick 23 to land Murray (now that I think about it that's way too cheap - not sure what Belichick was thinking here - it may have cost them the opportunity to get Love). I think Belichick passed on Murray and traded down because it gave him extra ammo for a couple of trade up scenarios involving Uche and Love. Had we got involved I think the Patriots would've demanded our 1st, more than what the Chargers gave up.

The 49ers gave up a 1st, 4th AND 5th to move up to pick 25 and grab Aiyuk. (unlike Belichick the Vikings did very well to get a 1st out of it). Again far too costly for us. This was a deep WR class and the thinking was we could always get a solid WR later on in the draft.

Then there was Love, who dropped all the way down to the mid twenties. QBs with that kind of arm talent very rarely reach the bottom end of the first round. It was a rare and unique opportunity for teams to nab a QB of this calibre at this stage in the draft. I'm sure many NFL teams knew this including Green Bay and it was highly likely that there was going to be a scramble to win the trade up. If we wanted him then it was absolutely necessary for us to give up the 4th round pick.

Among the number of interested teams the ones best positioned to make the trade up were the Patriots and Colts who both needed a QB but the Packers had one major advantage, we still had our 1st round pick. The Patriots traded out of the 1st round and the Colts gave away their 1st in the Buckner trade.

Love was probably rated equally among that group of players we were targeting and if we wanted him we had no choice but to trade up before the Patriots or the Colts did. This was an opportunity that Gute and LaFleur was looking for, a chance to stamp their mark on this franchise.

I have absolutely no issues with the trade up. We have an aging QB and when a talented QB like him falls you absolutely have to seriously consider making the move. It's not every day an opportunity like this presents itself in the lower half of the draft. It happened once before with Rodgers in 2005, it happened again with Wilson in 2012 which we ignored with serious ramifications for our super bowl aspirations, 2018 with Lamaar Jackson, and now Love. Hopefully he will be as good as those QBs, Trading up and drafting him was absolutely the right thing to do.

[British]

One criticism of the TT-MM years was that Ted would give Mike and Dom loads of rookies when they wanted vets. Dom's scheme was notoriously complicated and didn't always mesh with the fact that often the only source of new players was from the draft.

That can't be said about Gute and LeFleur. It seems like Gute is giving his coach exactly the kind of players he wants.

I still think MLF prefers not to play rookies when he can avoid it. I have warned most of the offseason that we're probably only going to have room for a rookie WR to make a big impact unless an ILB was forced into a larger role by a Kirksey injury.

Only one rookie was given an opening day starting role, and it was at a terribly deficient position with zero other options (Savage - FS).

Taylor was given the nod over Jenkins, for the expressly-stated reason that MLF was more comfortable with someone who had experience. Jenkins only took over due to injury. Rashaan Gary played very few snaps despite being a high pick because he didn't have to. Dexter Williams remained on the bench when the team promoted Tra Carson from the PS and inserted Carson instead.

It COULD be that these players were all simply not good or not ready. Or it COULD be that we have a coach who wants to minimize the number of rookies on the field. It's another reason why IMMEDIATE needs weren't prioritized in the draft as highly as we would like. Gutey said it himself, after a certain point, he didn't think the available WRs could make an impact THIS YEAR. After a certain point, he didn't think any of the WRs were a lock to make the team. That's why the BIGGEST needs were filled with veterans, even if they aren't the guys we wanted (Funchess at WR, Kirksey at ILB, Wagner at RT).

I expect 300-500 snaps from Dillon and Deguara--but that doesn't mean they won't be fairly important contributors schematically and in certain packages. I expect Love, all the OL, and the S to be backups (I think even if Rodgers gets hurt, Boyle will get the time). The only guy I think who will legitimately compete for a regular role barring injury might be Martin for the second ILB spot--but that doesn't get used that much, anyway; and there will be competition for it.

I think you'll see a big jump in participation from last year's class--Sternberger, Gary, maybe Ty Summers or Bolton. Maybe Dexter Williams makes he team and takes Jamaal's job. We have no way of knowing what the coaches are seeing from young guys in practices. It seems more like coaching preference than a deficiency in talent--but I'm speculating based on a sample size of one season; so we shall see.

Does any coach actively prefer rookies over vets? Not many. But point is from what we're hearing about LaFleur wanting Love and the fits at other positions, this draft felt very much like Gute and his coach in lock step.

[Yoop]

Chill, Love did not drop, if he had been worth the 23 slot Belechick would have taken him, I doubt Bill ever had designs on Love, they need a QB far more then we do, instead of taking Love he traded the pick, when it comes to taking a QB round one, 10 slots one way or the other doesn't mean squat, if a kid gets a round one grade, and you need one, doe sit really matter if your taking one early or late 20's? and if you do want him trading the pick to get more picks and then hope to trade back up for him is a gamble even Bill wouldn't take.

[YoHoChecko]

Does any coach actively prefer rookies over vets? Not many. But point is from what we're hearing about LaFleur wanting Love and the fits at other positions, this draft felt very much like Gute and his coach in lock step.

Well sure, but I guess MLF put his money where coaches' mouths are by actually not playing them. MM may have preferred not to play rookies, either, but he did.

[YoHoChecko]

image.png (1.08 MiB) Viewed 470 times

[YoHoChecko]

Reporters who gave the Packers the lowest (at least tied) draft grade in the league:

• Chad Reuter, nfl.com
  Vinnie Iyer, Sporting News
  Pro Football Focus Staff
  Luke Easterling, The Draft Wire
  Darryl Slater, NJ.com
  Doug Farrar, TD Wire
  Dan Kadar, SB Nation
  Mark Maske, Washington Post
  Mel Kiper Jr, ESPN
  Thor Nystrom, Rotoworld

Reporters who DIDN'T give the Packers the lowest draft grade in the league:

• Andy Benoit, The MMQB
  Ryan Dunleavy, NY Post
  Nate Davis, USA Today

[NCF]

Good. These are the same guys that gave us A's in past years.

[YoHoChecko]

Good. These are the same guys that gave us A's in past years.

I'm trying to decide whether I want to hate read the articles or not. Maybe with a bottle of wine or a pint of whiskey

[go pak go]

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.

I missed a lot of conversation about this because my work computer blocks this site.

But I am getting a little sick of the whole 680 yards thing as the rallying cry for Rodgers is perfectly fine it's the receivers fault and our offense will explode.

I have already brought up in numerous threads how the Packers were actually in the top third in the league in terms of drops. Our WRs actually did well.

Why I say the 680 yards is misleading is first off...are they taking account yards after the catch? And secondly there was basically 4 or 5 plays that made up a resounding majority of these lost yards.

1. MVS dropped catch against Chicago at Lambeau
2. Jimmy Graham dropped catch at Detroit
3. Devante Adams dropped catch vs Carolina at Lambeau
4. Aaron Jones dropped catch vs. Detroit at Lambeau
5. Lazard dropped catch at Detroit

I mean there is like 250 - 300 lost yards just on these plays alone.

The other thing that is important to note is a significant culprit of the drops were from Jimmy Graham and G Allison. They aren't Packers anymore. And a lot more of Devante Adams than Packers fans want to admit.

Here is a compilation of all our 2019 drops.

[go pak go]

Good. These are the same guys that gave us A's in past years.

Yeah. I remember how stoked I was about the 2018 draft class. I mean I thought we KILLED it.

So I don't care about draft grades anymore.

[YoHoChecko]

Here is a compilation of all our 2019 drops.

YIKES, speaking of hate-watching that needs some alcohol....

Honestly, if someone told me nothing about the Packers and just asked me to watch this tape, my first recommendation would be to cut that #17 guy, who probably had 3 of the 5 worst drops on the tape.

I wish they would linger a bit longer before cutting it so I could see who some of them are. Couldn't tell which were Lazard and which were MVS when all I could see was the -3 on the jersey.

[YoHoChecko]

Yeah. I remember how stoked I was about the 2018 draft class. I mean I thought we KILLED it.

So I don't care about draft grades anymore.

I mean, we got our CB1, our P1 and our LS1 for years. Three starters

If EQSB or MVS break out this year, and Oren Burks at least becomes a ST player, I'm gonna be fine

[go pak go]

Yeah. I remember how stoked I was about the 2018 draft class. I mean I thought we KILLED it.

So I don't care about draft grades anymore.

I mean, we got our CB1, our P1 and our LS1 for years. Three starters

If EQSB or MVS break out this year, and Oren Burks at least becomes a ST player, I'm gonna be fine

For sure. Honestly if we can get 1 player from 2018 between Josh Jackson, Oren Burks, MVS or EQSB to make great contribution and production and 1 more to give meaningful snaps...2018 will turn around be known as a fantastic draft.

That's how crazy thin the NFL margins are.

[go pak go]

Here is a compilation of all our 2019 drops.

YIKES, speaking of hate-watching that needs some alcohol....

Honestly, if someone told me nothing about the Packers and just asked me to watch this tape, my first recommendation would be to cut that #17 guy, who probably had 3 of the 5 worst drops on the tape.

I wish they would linger a bit longer before cutting it so I could see who some of them are. Couldn't tell which were Lazard and which were MVS when all I could see was the -3 on the jersey.

MVS had 3 big ones

Chicago, at KC and I think against MN.

Lazard had at Detroit and against Oakland (it was the play right before Kumerow)

What's also interesting though. Is every game that showed a drop (except one smaller drop vs LAC)...the Packers still won. Drops weren't reasons we lost games.

They were close....but not the reason.