Packers Huddle

Just my philosophy but, the Pack are not really good enough to target any position in the first 3 rounds. Take BPA except QB(unless you think Love is garbage) and TE at this point. Any player that becomes blue chip at this point would be a welcome addition regardless where they lineup. O-line, WR, RB, anything on defense would be fine if they end up a blue chipper. Having exceptional players at any position is how you win superbowls. The past doesn't lie. Ask Brett Favre, Reggie White, Leroy Butler, Aaron Rodgers, Clay Matthews, Charles Woodson and probably a couple more you could add

MY_TAKE wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2023 22:07

Just my philosophy but, the Pack are not really good enough to target any position in the first 3 rounds. Take BPA except QB(unless you think Love is garbage) and TE at this point. Any player that becomes blue chip at this point would be a welcome addition regardless where they lineup. O-line, WR, RB, anything on defense would be fine if they end up a blue chipper. Having exceptional players at any position is how you win superbowls. The past doesn't lie. Ask Brett Favre, Reggie White, Leroy Butler, Aaron Rodgers, Clay Matthews, Charles Woodson and probably a couple more you could add

I agree after the 2nd round. Unless we are getting generational talents or steals we need to stop burning picks to develop 3 years. It’s killing our ability to maintain the cap and field starting units. We just don’t get good value from our rookie contracts in our early picks. We also need to stop using high draft capital on low priority positions.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2023 22:19

We also need to stop using high draft capital on low priority positions.

That is one place i feel like we are super strong on to a fault.

I can think maybe 3 picks in like the last 15 years that weren’t QB, OT, DT, Edge, CB.

Haha, savage and quay.

Go back 20 years to ‘04 and only AJ Hawk is added.

MY_TAKE wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2023 22:07

Just my philosophy but, the Pack are not really good enough to target any position in the first 3 rounds. Take BPA except QB(unless you think Love is garbage) and TE at this point. Any player that becomes blue chip at this point would be a welcome addition regardless where they lineup. O-line, WR, RB, anything on defense would be fine if they end up a blue chipper. Having exceptional players at any position is how you win superbowls. The past doesn't lie. Ask Brett Favre, Reggie White, Leroy Butler, Aaron Rodgers, Clay Matthews, Charles Woodson and probably a couple more you could add

thing is it's still possible to get blue chip players positional drafting, Mathews was a positional pick, imho so was Gary, both Reggie and Woodson where positional additions, counting his injured season we lost 3 years of Gary's rookie contract, we lost out on the cheapest years we'll ever get from that pick

once the top tier ( depending on class) are gone who's to say who is BPA in the next 20 or 30 slots, I doubt you'd get a consensus of any 5 GM's on who the BPA is in those slots, point is GM's have to line up team needs when drafting or use UFA to fill those weak positions, and drafting them is much cheaper then the UFA market. jmo

Yoop wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023 06:06

GM's have to line up team needs when drafting or use UFA to fill those weak positions, and drafting them is much cheaper then the UFA market. jmo

This is absolutely true, however, you can't reach for a need position when a significantly superior player is available at another position. If the players are evaluated as relatively equal in terms of BPA then, sure, draft the position of need. But you can't bypass superior players just to fill a need. See Rollins and Randle as recent examples of that blunder.

APB wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023 07:05

Yoop wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023 06:06

GM's have to line up team needs when drafting or use UFA to fill those weak positions, and drafting them is much cheaper then the UFA market. jmo

This is absolutely true, however, you can't reach for a need position when a significantly superior player is available at another position. If the players are evaluated as relatively equal in terms of BPA then, sure, draft the position of need. But you can't bypass superior players just to fill a need. See Rollins and Randle as recent examples of that blunder.

you have to, Rollins and Randle where the best players available at position of need, that they where misses is no different then taking some of the other DB's or other players that didn't play up to slot value over the years.

this BPA thing has always been miscued, again unless it's top tier, or after the first 30 or so players BPA is in the eye of the GM and his scouts, and as we so often see GM's will trade a few spots to line up draft value.

ya have to remember, where trying to build a team, and not so much just assembling talent, when you see Gute or the late great Teddy T. draft the same position in the first few rounds there not doing the later, there attempting to fix a position, Guty's last couple drafts exemplify that, he double dipped at TE, WR, DT because those where positions of need

Yoop wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023 07:29

ya have to remember, where trying to build a team, and not so much just assembling talent, when you see Gute or the late great Teddy T. draft the same position in the first few rounds there not doing the later, there attempting to fix a position, Guty's last couple drafts exemplify that, he double dipped at TE, WR, DT because those where positions of need

I will stick to my guns on what I said. Stick to your draft grade. I believe if you try to fill positions early you will fail because you end up reaching. If your out to fill positions then you better be willing to trade up or down. This is what GM's do. That is what makes sense to me. I think you sometimes you need some luck there.

Didn't we get burned for instance in not just drafting TJ Watt instead of getting cute trying fill fricken CB positions? I guess that is the perfect example I am talking about. We didnt draft an exceptional player because CB was considered a need. I think thats dangerous in the early rounds.

I also said the Packers are not good enough to have that mentality. They just flat out need more Talent regardless of position. Get enough talent and things will work out.

ONe more thing. If the Packers have more money now because of contracts coming off the books then some positions of so called need to could be addressed a little bit in free agency or trades also. Ron Wolf seemed good at that. See Sean Jones, Santana Dotson or Eugene Robinson.

I don't think there is a straight-up BPA versus need dichotomy. It sounds to me like they have the draft pool broken down into tiers, and you tend to pick guys in the highest tier in order of how much value they bring to your team ("need" being one of the bigger determinators of value, but not the only one).

But yes, it is better to pick a non-need player in a higher tier over a need player in a lower tier.

MY_TAKE wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023 10:06

ONe more thing. If the Packers have more money now because of contracts coming off the books then some positions of so called need to could be addressed a little bit in free agency or trades also. Ron Wolf seemed good at that. See Sean Jones, Santana Dotson or Eugene Robinson.

We have a little bit of money freed up in 2024 because Rodgers is off the books but there is still a lot of 2020 - 2023 deferred dollars getting recognized in 2024.

I would temper your expectations of 2024 offseason spend. I think that window is more like 2025 and 2026. I certainly don't expect a 2019 free agency but we probably have more wiggle room than a 2022 and 2023 free agency.

MY_TAKE wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023 09:56

Yoop wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023 07:29

ya have to remember, where trying to build a team, and not so much just assembling talent, when you see Gute or the late great Teddy T. draft the same position in the first few rounds there not doing the later, there attempting to fix a position, Guty's last couple drafts exemplify that, he double dipped at TE, WR, DT because those where positions of need

I will stick to my guns on what I said. Stick to your draft grade. I believe if you try to fill positions early you will fail because you end up reaching. If your out to fill positions then you better be willing to trade up or down. This is what GM's do. That is what makes sense to me. I think you sometimes you need some luck there.

Didn't we get burned for instance in not just drafting TJ Watt instead of getting cute trying fill fricken CB positions? I guess that is the perfect example I am talking about. We didnt draft an exceptional player because CB was considered a need. I think thats dangerous in the early rounds.

I also said the Packers are not good enough to have that mentality. They just flat out need more Talent regardless of position. Get enough talent and things will work out.

Amen. You draft for a 3 - 7 year outlook for a player. Not an immediate need. Just draft good players and everything else will sort itself out.

The rosters are designed to basically do a full turn every 2 - 3 years. What that means is your deep positions will become a position of need in two - three years. You are basically always in a perpetual state of needing to fill positions. And that's not even considering the injury risk

Now for this draft, I think it is safe to say that QB, WR, and TE are likely good to go. But I wouldn't be mad at all if we took a WR that fell in our laps and the value is just super strong.

MY_TAKE wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023 09:56

Didn't we get burned for instance in not just drafting TJ Watt instead of getting cute trying fill fricken CB positions? I guess that is the perfect example I am talking about. We didnt draft an exceptional player because CB was considered a need. I think thats dangerous in the early rounds.

I seem to remember a injury issue with one of the Watts bros. I get the TJ's and the JJ's confused

heres the thing, where was the value in using slot 12 on Gary, sure we are seeing some of that now and had his 3rd year, and I don't want to rag him over the injury, still that was another lost season on his rookie contract, and he certainly would be considered as a luxury pick sense we just paid big money for starters in the Smiths, my point is this, if your using high picks on futures returns how does that help ya win in the present?

I get all this BPA stuff, I want great athletes as well, but I wont sacrifice the present on a promissory note, which imo is what Gary was, to many misses in the draft for that. jmo

also what are the draft records of other GM's drafting late round 1? I'd bet it's just as bad as ours have been, maybe many are far worse, imo (feel free to check me out) slots 20 to around slot 35 have just about as many draft busts as slots 35 to 50, it's why mamy of us have hoped we'd slid out of round one.
rambling

go pak go wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023 10:20

MY_TAKE wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023 09:56

Yoop wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023 07:29

ya have to remember, where trying to build a team, and not so much just assembling talent, when you see Gute or the late great Teddy T. draft the same position in the first few rounds there not doing the later, there attempting to fix a position, Guty's last couple drafts exemplify that, he double dipped at TE, WR, DT because those where positions of need

I will stick to my guns on what I said. Stick to your draft grade. I believe if you try to fill positions early you will fail because you end up reaching. If your out to fill positions then you better be willing to trade up or down. This is what GM's do. That is what makes sense to me. I think you sometimes you need some luck there.

Didn't we get burned for instance in not just drafting TJ Watt instead of getting cute trying fill fricken CB positions? I guess that is the perfect example I am talking about. We didnt draft an exceptional player because CB was considered a need. I think thats dangerous in the early rounds.

I also said the Packers are not good enough to have that mentality. They just flat out need more Talent regardless of position. Get enough talent and things will work out.

Amen. You draft for a 3 - 7 year outlook for a player. Not an immediate need. Just draft good players and everything else will sort itself out.

The rosters are designed to basically do a full turn every 2 - 3 years. What that means is your deep positions will become a position of need in two - three years. You are basically always in a perpetual state of needing to fill positions. And that's not even considering the injury risk

Now for this draft, I think it is safe to say that QB, WR, and TE are likely good to go. But I wouldn't be mad at all if we took a WR that fell in our laps and the value is just super strong.

no it wont, UFA changed the land scape, if your picks hit you can't afford to pay em all, you'll lose half those guys, how many Gary's can a team pay for, you have to get 4 years of production , and that does not happen picking futures and grooming them up

Yoop wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023 10:43

go pak go wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023 10:20

MY_TAKE wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023 09:56

I will stick to my guns on what I said. Stick to your draft grade. I believe if you try to fill positions early you will fail because you end up reaching. If your out to fill positions then you better be willing to trade up or down. This is what GM's do. That is what makes sense to me. I think you sometimes you need some luck there.

Didn't we get burned for instance in not just drafting TJ Watt instead of getting cute trying fill fricken CB positions? I guess that is the perfect example I am talking about. We didnt draft an exceptional player because CB was considered a need. I think thats dangerous in the early rounds.

I also said the Packers are not good enough to have that mentality. They just flat out need more Talent regardless of position. Get enough talent and things will work out.

Amen. You draft for a 3 - 7 year outlook for a player. Not an immediate need. Just draft good players and everything else will sort itself out.

The rosters are designed to basically do a full turn every 2 - 3 years. What that means is your deep positions will become a position of need in two - three years. You are basically always in a perpetual state of needing to fill positions. And that's not even considering the injury risk

Now for this draft, I think it is safe to say that QB, WR, and TE are likely good to go. But I wouldn't be mad at all if we took a WR that fell in our laps and the value is just super strong.

no it wont, UFA changed the land scape, if your picks hit you can't afford to pay em all, you'll lose half those guys, how many Gary's can a team pay for, you have to get 4 years of production , and that does not happen picking futures and grooming them up

If you draft 4 Gary level players in a draft I think you have a really, really good problem. It means you are drafting fantastically. Now if you are able to repeat that year over year, you won't need to sign all 4 Blue Chip Players because you will have their replacements waiting to take over the role.

Our problem is we have had a few years with very poor draft performance. Drafting good players solves a lot of things. Don't underestimate the power of just drafting really good players.

Yoop wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023 10:40

MY_TAKE wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023 09:56

Didn't we get burned for instance in not just drafting TJ Watt instead of getting cute trying fill fricken CB positions? I guess that is the perfect example I am talking about. We didnt draft an exceptional player because CB was considered a need. I think thats dangerous in the early rounds.

I seem to remember a injury issue with one of the Watts bros. I get the TJ's and the JJ's confused

heres the thing, where was the value in using slot 12 on Gary, sure we are seeing some of that now and had his 3rd year, and I don't want to rag him over the injury, still that was another lost season on his rookie contract, and he certainly would be considered as a luxury pick sense we just paid big money for starters in the Smiths, my point is this, if your using high picks on futures returns how does that help ya win in the present?

I get all this BPA stuff, I want great athletes as well, but I wont sacrifice the present on a promissory note, which imo is what Gary was, to many misses in the draft for that. jmo

also what are the draft records of other GM's drafting late round 1? I'd bet it's just as bad as ours have been, maybe many are far worse, imo (feel free to check me out) slots 20 to around slot 35 have just about as many draft busts as slots 35 to 50, it's why mamy of us have hoped we'd slid out of round one.
rambling

Now hold on a second...

I have seen you make numerous arguments over the years insisting rookies are generally very limited in their contributions in their first year. Some more than others, sure, but generally you've made the case that you don't really get much from them until years 2-3. If memory serves, that was part of the argument you made against the Gary pick, along with it not being a position of need.

But now it seems you're arguing the opposite. That the draft is intended for immediate needs with the expectation that those rookies will contribute immediately...

I have always held you draft BPA, especially at the top of the draft, so that you don't miss out on the Watt's or the Gary's because you chose a Stokes, Rollins, or Randle to fill a need. If, after the draft, you still have needs to fill, then FA is the best way to find an experienced immediate contributor. No, they likely won't be an All-Pro, but they'll provide competent play until you're able to develop the eventual successor.

[mention]MY_TAKE[/mention] summed it up very nicely earlier. His position closely mirrors what I'm trying to convey.

APB wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023 11:03

Yoop wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023 10:40

MY_TAKE wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023 09:56

Didn't we get burned for instance in not just drafting TJ Watt instead of getting cute trying fill fricken CB positions? I guess that is the perfect example I am talking about. We didnt draft an exceptional player because CB was considered a need. I think thats dangerous in the early rounds.

I seem to remember a injury issue with one of the Watts bros. I get the TJ's and the JJ's confused

heres the thing, where was the value in using slot 12 on Gary, sure we are seeing some of that now and had his 3rd year, and I don't want to rag him over the injury, still that was another lost season on his rookie contract, and he certainly would be considered as a luxury pick sense we just paid big money for starters in the Smiths, my point is this, if your using high picks on futures returns how does that help ya win in the present?

I get all this BPA stuff, I want great athletes as well, but I wont sacrifice the present on a promissory note, which imo is what Gary was, to many misses in the draft for that. jmo

also what are the draft records of other GM's drafting late round 1? I'd bet it's just as bad as ours have been, maybe many are far worse, imo (feel free to check me out) slots 20 to around slot 35 have just about as many draft busts as slots 35 to 50, it's why mamy of us have hoped we'd slid out of round one.
rambling

Now hold on a second...

I have seen you make numerous arguments over the years insisting rookies are generally very limited in their contributions in their first year. Some more than others, sure, but generally you've made the case that you don't really get much from them until years 2-3. If memory serves, that was part of the argument you made against the Gary pick, along with it not being a position of need.

But now it seems you're arguing the opposite. That the draft is intended for immediate needs with the expectation that those rookies will contribute immediately...

I have always held you draft BPA, especially at the top of the draft, so that you don't miss out on the Watt's or the Gary's because you chose a Stokes, Rollins, or Randle to fill a need. If, after the draft, you still have needs to fill, then FA is the best way to find an experienced immediate contributor. No, they likely won't be an All-Pro, but they'll provide competent play until you're able to develop the eventual successor.

@MY_TAKE summed it up very nicely earlier. His position closely mirrors what I'm trying to convey.

not sure how you got that impression of me, but I'am the guy who thinks first rounder should start at some point that first season, after all the main reason there first rounders is readiness to play at this level.

yes BPA is relevant picking top tier, which again is ( JMO) only the top 6 to 10 player, even then teams will often just take positions of need.

any player taken is a draft and develop player, obviously the later the pick amounts to more development, and ya can expect more time the later the pick, but early picks have to play sooner, this idea that sitting a 12 slotter for 2 or 3 years grooming him is insane imho, who the hell does that? who can afford to do that, ya just lost 3 years off the guy, who cares how good a guy is if he doesn't see the field.

every GM says he's a BPA drafter, it's hilarious, of course he would say that, reality is that is rarely the case, they move for a player they want lining slot value the best they can.

Yoop wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023 12:39

APB wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023 11:03

Yoop wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023 10:40

I seem to remember a injury issue with one of the Watts bros. I get the TJ's and the JJ's confused

heres the thing, where was the value in using slot 12 on Gary, sure we are seeing some of that now and had his 3rd year, and I don't want to rag him over the injury, still that was another lost season on his rookie contract, and he certainly would be considered as a luxury pick sense we just paid big money for starters in the Smiths, my point is this, if your using high picks on futures returns how does that help ya win in the present?

I get all this BPA stuff, I want great athletes as well, but I wont sacrifice the present on a promissory note, which imo is what Gary was, to many misses in the draft for that. jmo

also what are the draft records of other GM's drafting late round 1? I'd bet it's just as bad as ours have been, maybe many are far worse, imo (feel free to check me out) slots 20 to around slot 35 have just about as many draft busts as slots 35 to 50, it's why mamy of us have hoped we'd slid out of round one.
rambling

Now hold on a second...

I have seen you make numerous arguments over the years insisting rookies are generally very limited in their contributions in their first year. Some more than others, sure, but generally you've made the case that you don't really get much from them until years 2-3. If memory serves, that was part of the argument you made against the Gary pick, along with it not being a position of need.

But now it seems you're arguing the opposite. That the draft is intended for immediate needs with the expectation that those rookies will contribute immediately...

I have always held you draft BPA, especially at the top of the draft, so that you don't miss out on the Watt's or the Gary's because you chose a Stokes, Rollins, or Randle to fill a need. If, after the draft, you still have needs to fill, then FA is the best way to find an experienced immediate contributor. No, they likely won't be an All-Pro, but they'll provide competent play until you're able to develop the eventual successor.

@MY_TAKE summed it up very nicely earlier. His position closely mirrors what I'm trying to convey.

not sure how you got that impression of me, but I'am the guy who thinks first rounder should start at some point that first season, after all the main reason there first rounders is readiness to play at this level.

yes BPA is relevant picking top tier, which again is ( JMO) only the top 6 to 10 player, even then teams will often just take positions of need.

any player taken is a draft and develop player, obviously the later the pick amounts to more development, and ya can expect more time the later the pick, but early picks have to play sooner, this idea that sitting a 12 slotter for 2 or 3 years grooming him is insane imho, who the hell does that? who can afford to do that, ya just lost 3 years off the guy, who cares how good a guy is if he doesn't see the field.

every GM says he's a BPA drafter, it's hilarious, of course he would say that, reality is that is rarely the case, they move for a player they want lining slot value the best they can.

The basic "Premise" of this discussion was basically don't chase or reach because of perceived need early in the draft. Frankly with as many injuries as there are in football, isnt every position a need at some point during the year anyway? Don't pass on a possible game changing defensive player just to draft o-line at pick 12 or wherever the packers end up picking. Pick the player that has the BEST chance to become "exceptional, game changing, blue chip, pick your adjective. Simple as that. You would think that would happen all the time but apparently not.

Anyone wanna go splitskis on a pff mock draft simulator pro account?

Think it would roughly be like $85 for a full year subscription and basically about the same doing it month by month for 5 months. Pretty much negligible.

https://www.pff.com/draft/nfl-mock-draft-simulator

BF004 wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2023 15:29

I gotta think they’re gonna trade out of the pick. My gut tells me they stick with Fields.

My guess is they’ll swap it for a top 5 pick and gain another 1st next year and then some. Gotta admit, I’m a little envious of their current position to build with some really great picks.