2022 Draft Discussion

[BF004]

He's missing Jaquan Brister, age 22, RAS 9.14, Big Ten.

[paco]

He's missing Jaquan Brister, age 22, RAS 9.14, Big Ten.

He turned 23 5 days ago.

[BF004]

Well done Brave, lol

image.png (53.77 KiB) Viewed 351 times

[packman114]

Just a general question as I don't really watch much college football. Why do so many "experts" and people on this board say we need a to draft a WR in the 1st round? I hear many saying the Packers have only been to one SB with Rodgers because of no 1st round WRs. But Brady made it to all those SBs with only Terry Glenn who was drafted by Parcells and N'Keal Harry who didn't do anything for them. We had arguably the best WR in the league the last 3 years on our team and didn't make a SB.

I can definitely see we need to draft a couple of WRs but I don't think it MUST be a 1st rounder. Seems to me there are a lot of WRs available this year but not so many DL or inside LBs. It seems to make sense to me to get what there is less of and wait to get the position there are a lot of choices.

[paco]

[BF004]

Just a general question as I don't really watch much college football. Why do so many "experts" and people on this board say we need a to draft a WR in the 1st round? I hear many saying the Packers have only been to one SB with Rodgers because of no 1st round WRs. But Brady made it to all those SBs with only Terry Glenn who was drafted by Parcells and N'Keal Harry who didn't do anything for them. We had arguably the best WR in the league the last 3 years on our team and didn't make a SB.

I can definitely see we need to draft a couple of WRs but I don't think it MUST be a 1st rounder. Seems to me there are a lot of WRs available this year but not so many DL or inside LBs. It seems to make sense to me to get what there is less of and wait to get the position there are a lot of choices.

Careful now, thinking logically and not emotionally in absolutes might get you in hot water around here.

[BF004]

Check out the 5th tab.

I am using an older version of Rich Hill's chart, the top is the same, but its a little flatter. I think the chart got a little skewed from a couple of these crazy 3, 4, 5 pick trade up for QB's. Frankly I think is more accurate and more relevant this year given indication more teams looking to trade down.

[Yoop]

Just a general question as I don't really watch much college football. Why do so many "experts" and people on this board say we need a to draft a WR in the 1st round? I hear many saying the Packers have only been to one SB with Rodgers because of no 1st round WRs. But Brady made it to all those SBs with only Terry Glenn who was drafted by Parcells and N'Keal Harry who didn't do anything for them. We had arguably the best WR in the league the last 3 years on our team and didn't make a SB.

I can definitely see we need to draft a couple of WRs but I don't think it MUST be a 1st rounder. Seems to me there are a lot of WRs available this year but not so many DL or inside LBs. It seems to make sense to me to get what there is less of and wait to get the position there are a lot of choices.

so you think it's best to scramble for the hardest to find, and pass on all the low hanging fruit? I don't quite understand that reasoning, we lack ready to play WR talent, guys in the 2nd or later rounds often need some seasoning in, coaching up, do we have that kind of time to wait?

also Belichick used a ton of two TE sets and very good slot receivers to win SB.

when Rodgers had a stable of quality receivers we had one of the most potent offenses in the league, our reasons for failure had to do more with defense and ST's.
It's a passing league, it will always be a passing league, there fore Quality WR's matter.

[BF004]

I also think there is a little brownie factor built in when quantity of picks isn't even.

I.e., when then Packers traded up for Savage, they gave up two 4th's, which at the time had a lower value than the 3rd, which still seemed to be more than a fair trade on our end. But since we were giving up 3 picks for just 1, I think that held more value than just what the chart says.

[BF004]

Just a general question as I don't really watch much college football. Why do so many "experts" and people on this board say we need a to draft a WR in the 1st round? I hear many saying the Packers have only been to one SB with Rodgers because of no 1st round WRs. But Brady made it to all those SBs with only Terry Glenn who was drafted by Parcells and N'Keal Harry who didn't do anything for them. We had arguably the best WR in the league the last 3 years on our team and didn't make a SB.

I can definitely see we need to draft a couple of WRs but I don't think it MUST be a 1st rounder. Seems to me there are a lot of WRs available this year but not so many DL or inside LBs. It seems to make sense to me to get what there is less of and wait to get the position there are a lot of choices.

so you think it's best to scramble for the hardest to find, and pass on all the low hanging fruit? I don't quite understand that reasoning, we lack ready to play WR talent, guys in the 2nd or later rounds often need some seasoning in, coaching up, do we have that kind of time to wait?

also Belichick used a ton of two TE sets and very good slot receivers to win SB.

when Rodgers had a stable of quality receivers we had one of the most potent offenses in the league, our reasons for failure had to do more with defense and ST's.
It's a passing league, it will always be a passing league, there fore Quality WR's matter.

So you want someone NFL ready and like two TE sets, but you are against acquiring Waller (if he's actually available)?

I think you are over-estimating the likelihood of getting really good rookie contribution.

[Pckfn23]

45 rookie WRs drafted since 2000 have eclipsed the 800 yard receiving mark.

22 rookie TEs drafted since 2000 have eclipsed the 450 yard receiving mark.

There are about 3 TOTAL passes catchers in each draft that could be considered impactful their rookie season.

[BF004]

Also relevant for this thread.






Say we do actually trade Love to Atlanta. Let's just say pick 43 is included (not 8),


With picks 22, 28, 43, 53 and 59, how could we/should we target our QB situation?

Aggressively make a move for a QB this year? Not sure what that would really mean. Get up ahead of Pittsburgh at least, maybe make sure you get ahead of Washington, Minnesota, maybe even Seattle, and where New Orleans might be looking to trade up to make sure you get the guy you want.

See if a guy we likes falls a little, or maybe even reach for a bit for more of a developmental guy, ideally around 28 to get that 5th year option?

Try to push significant draft capital into next year to make a play then for what is rumored to be a better QB class? This would likely also require signing a competent veteran this year.

[paco]

I'm fine with Benkert as a vet backup. No one else will be any better that's available. Don't think we need to trade for one.

I don't know the QBs that well this year. But I think you stand pat at 22, maybe move up a few slots to grab Desmond Ridder. To me, he's the most likely target for us compared to Corral or Howell. He can sit behind Rodgers for a year or 2 before starting.

I wouldn't get overly aggressive going for him though. If he's not the guy they want, then do try to get extra draft capital next year to pick someone then.

[Yoop]

Just a general question as I don't really watch much college football. Why do so many "experts" and people on this board say we need a to draft a WR in the 1st round? I hear many saying the Packers have only been to one SB with Rodgers because of no 1st round WRs. But Brady made it to all those SBs with only Terry Glenn who was drafted by Parcells and N'Keal Harry who didn't do anything for them. We had arguably the best WR in the league the last 3 years on our team and didn't make a SB.

I can definitely see we need to draft a couple of WRs but I don't think it MUST be a 1st rounder. Seems to me there are a lot of WRs available this year but not so many DL or inside LBs. It seems to make sense to me to get what there is less of and wait to get the position there are a lot of choices.

so you think it's best to scramble for the hardest to find, and pass on all the low hanging fruit? I don't quite understand that reasoning, we lack ready to play WR talent, guys in the 2nd or later rounds often need some seasoning in, coaching up, do we have that kind of time to wait?

also Belichick used a ton of two TE sets and very good slot receivers to win SB.

when Rodgers had a stable of quality receivers we had one of the most potent offenses in the league, our reasons for failure had to do more with defense and ST's.
It's a passing league, it will always be a passing league, there fore Quality WR's matter.

So you want someone NFL ready and like two TE sets, but you are against acquiring Waller (if he's actually available)?

I think you are over-estimating the likelihood of getting really good rookie contribution.

didn't say this, what is obvious is that there are ready to play WR's in this class, and since we badly need one we should take one.

ya know what is laugh out loud funny, is all the talk from people in this forum that first round receivers don't amount to much or contribute year one, when for the last 10 years they do, I just brought evidence that slightly less then half go to the PB, about a 5th become all pro, yet people here claim different and bring nothing to back up there claims.

do we need our first round receiver to get a K as a rookie, of course not, simply getting half that will help others contribute more as a result, same with any receiver taken later.

I don't understand some in this forum shooting down obvious first round receiver talent in this draft.

[NCF]

what is obvious is that there are ready to play WR's in this class, and since we badly need one we should take one.

That is not obvious. It is far from obvious. In fact, I would say it is highly unlikely.

[paco]

Here's who has been invited to the draft. Who's sitting for a long time? I see a few names that could be.

Matt Corral, QB, Ole Miss
Charles Cross, OT, Mississippi State
Jordan Davis, DT, Georgia
Nakobe Dean, LB, Georgia
Ickey Ekwonu, OT, N.C. State
Sauce Gardner, CB, Cincinnati
Kyler Gordon, CB, Washington
Kyle Hamilton, S, Notre Dame
Aidan Hutchinson, Edge, Michigan
Jermaine Johnson II, Edge, Florida State
Zion Johnson, OL, Boston College
George Karlaftis, Edge, Purdue
Devin Lloyd, LB, Utah
Drake London, WR, USC
Evan Neal, OT, Alabama
Chris Olave, WR, Ohio State
Kayvon Thibodeaux, Edge, Oregon
Malik Willis, QB, Liberty
Garrett Wilson, WR, Ohio State
Devonte Wyatt, DT, Georgia
Jameson Williams, WR, Alabama

[Pckfn23]

what is obvious is that there are ready to play WR's in this class, and since we badly need one we should take one.

That is not obvious. It is far from obvious. In fact, I would say it is highly unlikely.

If it was obvious, we would be able to name them, would we not?

[Yoop]

what is obvious is that there are ready to play WR's in this class, and since we badly need one we should take one.

That is not obvious. It is far from obvious. In fact, I would say it is highly unlikely.

I beg to differ, in fact I think all 3 of Wilson Olave and London will start day one, Burks, Pickens, Dotson likely as well, depending on the team that picks them, Pickens and London should be ready, and Williams will start as soon as he heals, and another half dozen will contribute at some point as rookies.

this old school mentality of receivers needing a year to build chemistry with the QB or learn the entire play book seems out of date now, teams need there talent on the field not in a class room, give them a smaller play book and put them on the field.

[BF004]

ya know what is laugh out loud funny, is all the talk from people in this forum that first round receivers don't amount to much or contribute year one, when for the last 10 years they do, I just brought evidence that slightly less then half go to the PB, about a 5th become all pro, yet people here claim different and bring nothing to back up there claims.

do we need our first round receiver to get a K as a rookie, of course not, simply getting half that will help others contribute more as a result, same with any receiver taken later.

I don't understand some in this forum shooting down obvious first round receiver talent in this draft.

Sigh...

Either you don't understand the debate we are having or you don't understand the 'evidence' you brought. We are talking about year 1 impact, correct? Well your made up numbers are for their careers. So your 'evidence' isn't supporting your claims.

First off your 'evidence' is wrong, 27% of 1st round WR's have been voted into the pro bowl (not as replacements) IN THEIR CAREERS. Not their first year. Amari Cooper was the last WR in 2015 to be voted to the probowl. A few have been replacements, not voted in, like Justin Jefferson. 10.4% become all-pros, again, in their careers (definitely not a 1/5th and definitely not as rookies).

These numbers are likely understated because a few young WR's likely will make pro-bowls or all-pro teams who haven't yet.

25% of 1st round WR's have less than 100 career catches. They have about an equal chance of making the pro-bowl in their careers as they do completely busting out of the league. A statistic irrelevant to their rookie years.

All numbers since 2000 - https://www.milehighreport.com/2020/4/2 ... is-century


So no one is shooting anything down, most of us it would appear are simply using accurate facts and figures to set realistic expectations.

[Yoop]

Rookie wide receivers with at least 750 receiving yards since 2018
Player Year Receiving yards
Justin Jefferson 2020 1,400
A.J. Brown 2019 1,051
CeeDee Lamb 2020 935
Terry McLaurin 2019 919
Tee Higgins 2020 908
D.K. Metcalf 2019 900
Chase Claypool 2020 873
Jerry Jeudy 2020 856
Deebo Samuel 2019 802

not to mention the other doz or so that only got about 500 yrds

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-which-rook ... fense-2021

this shows that slightly less then half of the first round WR taken the last 20 year made the PB or better, doesn't say as Rookies, but I'd expect it happened for most in there first 3 years.

https://www.milehighreport.com/2020/4/2 ... -this-cent