2022 Draft Discussion

[NCF]

It's impossible to reason with people that purposely leave out the particulars concerning this thing, half the people in this forum wanted to trade Adams when he struggled year two with injury's and drops, yet they will support to the hilt the 3 stooges who never really amounted to anything other then Scantling having one decent year.

WTF are even talking about? Who are these people that support "the 3 stooges"? MVS amounted to plenty, but he was clearly the only one. I don't think that is argued or misunderstood. We have discussed the strategy of taking 3 guys in the later rounds and hoping 1 hits. There is some merit to that and I do think it turned out successful in this case. We didn't have the immediate need that year that we do now, though. I think everyone understands that, too. Shake the bong resin out of your head and actually read the words people are typing. In this epic all of us stupid people vs you battle, all anyone is really saying is temper your expectations because history shows (not just Packers history) that there is a steep learning curve at WR and very few produce right away. It's not impossible and there are recent examples and success stories to feel optimistic about our chances. It just could very easily break the other way, too, you know?

[Yoop]

It's impossible to reason with people that purposely leave out the particulars concerning this thing, half the people in this forum wanted to trade Adams when he struggled year two with injury's and drops, yet they will support to the hilt the 3 stooges who never really amounted to anything other then Scantling having one decent year.

WTF are even talking about? Who are these people that support "the 3 stooges"? MVS amounted to plenty, but he was clearly the only one. I don't think that is argued or misunderstood. We have discussed the strategy of taking 3 guys in the later rounds and hoping 1 hits. There is some merit to that and I do think it turned out successful in this case. We didn't have the immediate need that year that we do now, though. I think everyone understands that, too. Shake the bong resin out of your head and actually read the words people are typing. In this epic all of us stupid people vs you battle, all anyone is really saying is temper your expectations because history shows (not just Packers history) that there is a steep learning curve at WR and very few produce right away. It's not impossible and there are recent examples and success stories to feel optimistic about our chances. It just could very easily break the other way, too, you know?

I stand by every word I said, and we did have a need in 017, why would anyone think it's normal to target one player as much as we've had to use Adams, and when we double dip at a position it's usualy not mid round, specially skill positions, and people in this forum did complain about Adams, and it was beyond obvious why he didn't get more opertunity as a rookie, whats stupid is when people purposely over look that to make there stupid point as GPG just did.

Scantling was a #3 jag and he was a #3 because we didn't have anyone better, dropped half of everything thrown at him, I sort of expect the same from Guty tonight, a bunch of more D&D players

[NCF]

it was beyond obvious why he didn't get more opertunity as a rookie

Because he had Jordy and Cobb in front of him... Davante was a very productive rookie. It was his sophomore season that was disappointing.

[Yoop]

it was beyond obvious why he didn't get more opertunity as a rookie

Because he had Jordy and Cobb in front of him... Davante was a very productive rookie. It was his sophomore season that was disappointing.

thats the point, yet according to some, it's proof that rookie receivers can't and don't do well, there are reason for why stuff happens, Adams in our situation this season would have had a chance to be targeted more, same with some of the receivers in this class, this old dogma that rookie receivers will automatically struggle is such bunk, some in the right fit have done well.

when players play hurt they usually do poorly, wow that is not some sort of secret, and Adams battled injury most of his second season.

[Drj820]

it was beyond obvious why he didn't get more opertunity as a rookie

Because he had Jordy and Cobb in front of him... Davante was a very productive rookie. It was his sophomore season that was disappointing.

Yeah but people keep using Adams as an example of someone who didn’t contribute until year 3, conveniently leaving out the wildly different circumstances.

1) he was more productive than anyone currently on our roster
2) they say it to say “even the great Adams wasn’t ready”
I disagree
It’s Apple to oranges

[British]

Does anyone have a list of OL that tick all the Packers historical thresholds?

I read that there are quite a few day 3 guys that could fit what the Packers are after.

[NCF]

Does anyone have a list of OL that tick all the Packers historical thresholds?

I read that there are quite a few day 3 guys that could fit what the Packers are after.

I don't recall anyone putting that together this year. I don't think we have enough information to go off of, yet, but it does seem that the Packers have strayed from these historical markers in more recent years.

[NCF]

it was beyond obvious why he didn't get more opertunity as a rookie

Because he had Jordy and Cobb in front of him... Davante was a very productive rookie. It was his sophomore season that was disappointing.

Yeah but people keep using Adams as an example of someone who didn’t contribute until year 3, conveniently leaving out the wildly different circumstances.

1) he was more productive than anyone currently on our roster
2) they say it to say “even the great Adams wasn’t ready”
I disagree
It’s Apple to oranges

It is apples to oranges. The ask was different, too. Adams was asked to replace James Jones' production as WR3. Now it seems are asking a prospective rookie to come in and replace Davante Adams' production as WR1. That is just not happening. That guy coming in and producing like Davante Adams did in 2014 is a much more reasonable expectation.

For 2022, we have Watkins, Lazard, and Cobb (and anything we might get from Amari). Asking that rookie to come in a contribute anything and positioning himself to move into that top 2-3 position by 2023 would by my definition of a successful pick. Anything else is gravy and expecting more than that baseline is setting ourselves up for disappointment, IMO.

I do agree there is plenty of room to produce more if everything clicks because the guys in front lack the headliner we are used to having.

[Yoop]

If thats the course of things who wouldn't be disappointed, thats nor acceptable to me, It's not that I expect a 1000 freaking yrds year one, but I do expect decent production, specially if we take one of the top 5, which is what I want, trade a 2nd rounder move up and take one.

[YoHoChecko]

Does anyone have a list of OL that tick all the Packers historical thresholds?

I read that there are quite a few day 3 guys that could fit what the Packers are after.

I don't recall anyone putting that together this year. I don't think we have enough information to go off of, yet, but it does seem that the Packers have strayed from these historical markers in more recent years.

Not even remotely a comprehensive list, but a lot in this thread:

https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/viewt ... f=2&t=965

The degree to which the Packers have stated is greatly exaggerated by the Cole Madison pick and a lack of information on a couple guys.

[paco]

Aaron Jones announcing a 2nd round pick tomorrow. Hope for his sake it isn't a RB!

[Drj820]

I guess the only thing I would be really uphappy with is if we select Watson at 22. At 28, fine, whatever.

But I dont like guys that had one year of domination at the glorified HS level. Not in the first round.

He may have all the measurables, but I dont want him at 22

[paco]

I guess the only thing I would be really uphappy with is if we select Watson at 22. At 28, fine, whatever.

But I dont like guys that had one year of domination at the glorified HS level. Not in the first round.

He may have all the measurables, but I dont want him at 22

There is like zero difference between 22 and 28. If you are fine with him at 28, you're fine with him at 22. Otherwise, you aren't fine with him until later, and I understand that.

[Drj820]

I guess the only thing I would be really uphappy with is if we select Watson at 22. At 28, fine, whatever.

But I dont like guys that had one year of domination at the glorified HS level. Not in the first round.

He may have all the measurables, but I dont want him at 22

There is like zero difference between 22 and 28. If you are fine with him at 28, you're fine with him at 22. Otherwise, you aren't fine with him until later, and I understand that.

Really?

Im basically not fine with him until later but at 22 there are probably going to be more options for a WR than after the 5 selections in between at 28. If we were grab someone useful at 22 and then went watson because of limited options, i can stomach that alot better than going Watson at 22.

[paco]

I guess the only thing I would be really uphappy with is if we select Watson at 22. At 28, fine, whatever.

But I dont like guys that had one year of domination at the glorified HS level. Not in the first round.

He may have all the measurables, but I dont want him at 22

There is like zero difference between 22 and 28. If you are fine with him at 28, you're fine with him at 22. Otherwise, you aren't fine with him until later, and I understand that.

Really?

Im basically not fine with him until later but at 22 there are probably going to be more options for a WR than after the 5 selections in between at 28. If we were grab someone useful at 22 and then went watson because of limited options, i can stomach that alot better than going Watson at 22.

You have to think like teams do with their boards. Gutey even said they don't put round grades on them. They sure as hell don't have guys they like at 28 and not 22. It's about valuing them at a certain point in the draft and that changes draft to draft. I totally understand not valuing Watson as a 1st rounder. But the value between 22 and 28 is essentially the same. The Packers will have the same group of guys they are willing to take at either spot if I had to bet on it.

[Drj820]

There is like zero difference between 22 and 28. If you are fine with him at 28, you're fine with him at 22. Otherwise, you aren't fine with him until later, and I understand that.

Really?

Im basically not fine with him until later but at 22 there are probably going to be more options for a WR than after the 5 selections in between at 28. If we were grab someone useful at 22 and then went watson because of limited options, i can stomach that alot better than going Watson at 22.

You have to think like teams do with their boards. Gutey even said they don't put round grades on them. They sure as hell don't have guys they like at 28 and not 22. It's about valuing them at a certain point in the draft and that changes draft to draft. I totally understand not valuing Watson as a 1st rounder. But the value between 22 and 28 is essentially the same. The Packers will have the same group of guys they are willing to take at either spot if I had to bet on it.

You came pretty strong declaring there is no difference in the picks to be just an opinion. In 2020, the packers had the 30th pick. They gave up #30 and a 4th rounder to just move to 26.

Obviously the difference in the 4 slots was the value of a 4th rounder.

Of course what is an option and available at 22 is not the same as at 28.

[Yoop]

There is like zero difference between 22 and 28. If you are fine with him at 28, you're fine with him at 22. Otherwise, you aren't fine with him until later, and I understand that.

Really?

Im basically not fine with him until later but at 22 there are probably going to be more options for a WR than after the 5 selections in between at 28. If we were grab someone useful at 22 and then went watson because of limited options, i can stomach that alot better than going Watson at 22.

You have to think like teams do with their boards. Gutey even said they don't put round grades on them. They sure as hell don't have guys they like at 28 and not 22. It's about valuing them at a certain point in the draft and that changes draft to draft. I totally understand not valuing Watson as a 1st rounder. But the value between 22 and 28 is essentially the same. The Packers will have the same group of guys they are willing to take at either spot if I had to bet on it.

I think what DR J was getting at is that between slot 22 and slot 28 we might have as many as 10 players in between, hell even more then that, so Watson would have to be a targeted player for us to take him at 22 or even 28, because he carries a mid second round grade, what ever number that is on Guty's draft board, thats where most have him ranked.

He's raw, he drops passes, runs about 2 or 3 routes, he's not got the polish of a pierce or Pickens or some of the others u previously mentioned, Guy's like Watson are hard to grade simply because of who they played against, but give hima year and ya might have a gem, but ya shouldn't reach for the unpolished rock

[paco]

Really?

Im basically not fine with him until later but at 22 there are probably going to be more options for a WR than after the 5 selections in between at 28. If we were grab someone useful at 22 and then went watson because of limited options, i can stomach that alot better than going Watson at 22.

You have to think like teams do with their boards. Gutey even said they don't put round grades on them. They sure as hell don't have guys they like at 28 and not 22. It's about valuing them at a certain point in the draft and that changes draft to draft. I totally understand not valuing Watson as a 1st rounder. But the value between 22 and 28 is essentially the same. The Packers will have the same group of guys they are willing to take at either spot if I had to bet on it.

You came pretty strong declaring there is no difference in the picks to be just an opinion. In 2020, the packers had the 30th pick. They gave up #30 and a 4th rounder to just move to 26.

Obviously the difference in the 4 slots was the value of a 4th rounder.

Of course what is an option and available at 22 is not the same as at 28.

Yes, it costs to move around. A team is going to trade up if they have a player that is left on the board that is ranked higher than anyone else. So you move to make sure you get that guy.

So in that particular case, Love was mostly likely not ranked as a low 1st round value. He was ranked high or mid. So they spent another pick and got him. Still doesn't mean that 26 and 30 aren't the same value in the minds of teams.

[Drj820]

You have to think like teams do with their boards. Gutey even said they don't put round grades on them. They sure as hell don't have guys they like at 28 and not 22. It's about valuing them at a certain point in the draft and that changes draft to draft. I totally understand not valuing Watson as a 1st rounder. But the value between 22 and 28 is essentially the same. The Packers will have the same group of guys they are willing to take at either spot if I had to bet on it.

You came pretty strong declaring there is no difference in the picks to be just an opinion. In 2020, the packers had the 30th pick. They gave up #30 and a 4th rounder to just move to 26.

Obviously the difference in the 4 slots was the value of a 4th rounder.

Of course what is an option and available at 22 is not the same as at 28.

Yes, it costs to move around. A team is going to trade up if they have a player that is left on the board that is ranked higher than anyone else. So you move to make sure you get that guy.

So in that particular case, Love was mostly likely not ranked as a low 1st round value. He was ranked high or mid. So they spent another pick and got him. Still doesn't mean that 26 and 30 aren't the same value in the minds of teams.

i think there will be more options on the board to choose from at pick 22 than I do at pick 28.

This is actually a thought based in fact.

I really dont want Watson at all in the first, but if we take him at 28, where there are less options to choose from than at pick 22, I will be able to stomach it.

I dont think my take is controversial.

[paco]

You came pretty strong declaring there is no difference in the picks to be just an opinion. In 2020, the packers had the 30th pick. They gave up #30 and a 4th rounder to just move to 26.

Obviously the difference in the 4 slots was the value of a 4th rounder.

Of course what is an option and available at 22 is not the same as at 28.

Yes, it costs to move around. A team is going to trade up if they have a player that is left on the board that is ranked higher than anyone else. So you move to make sure you get that guy.

So in that particular case, Love was mostly likely not ranked as a low 1st round value. He was ranked high or mid. So they spent another pick and got him. Still doesn't mean that 26 and 30 aren't the same value in the minds of teams.

i think there will be more options on the board to choose from at pick 22 than I do at pick 28.

This is actually a thought based in fact.

I really dont want Watson at all in the first, but if we take him at 28, where there are less options to choose from than at pick 22, I will be able to stomach it.

I dont think my take is controversial.

I don't think it's controversial. It's also not based in fact. None of us on here have facts. The teams don't even have the facts. The draft is a living breathing thing controlled by 32 teams and countless individuals who don't communicate with each other about their plans. All having different needs/wants/opinions on the hundreds of prospects available. The only thing that is a fact, is the last team that picked and the picks that were placed before it.