Packers Huddle

packman114 wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024 19:13

I dont understand the love for LT more than RT anymore. TJ Watt, Bosa, Hunter, etc all rush from the RT side more than LT side now. The days of premier rushers on the LT side is over. Plus I think QBs know how to scan the field and the blind side isn't as big a deal anymore.

I say keep Tom where he is and don't mess with a good thing. Same with Jenkins at LG. Walker could be the real deal but I would draft someone to challenge him.

I think some teams really like that, #1) their best pass rusher is going against teams 2nd best OT, and #2, some teams really want a QB seeing the pressure come at them. Pressure equals picks. It forces bad decisions.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024 21:10

packman114 wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024 19:13

I dont understand the love for LT more than RT anymore. TJ Watt, Bosa, Hunter, etc all rush from the RT side more than LT side now. The days of premier rushers on the LT side is over. Plus I think QBs know how to scan the field and the blind side isn't as big a deal anymore.

I say keep Tom where he is and don't mess with a good thing. Same with Jenkins at LG. Walker could be the real deal but I would draft someone to challenge him.

I think some teams really like that, #1) their best pass rusher is going against teams 2nd best OT, and #2, some teams really want a QB seeing the pressure come at them. Pressure equals picks. It forces bad decisions.

But the pro in #2 is also the con. If pressure comes from the place a QB can see it clearly in his regular or peripheral field of vision, the QB can adjust and adapt. That's why the LT is valued more as a pass rusher--because the potential for a QB to get strip sacked or to not "feel" the pressure and react, but instead to get hit without expecting to is so much higher.

I agree that the gap between the two tackles has flattened, but as long as QBs primarily face one side or the other, the person protecting the QB's blind side will have a much higher pass blocking requirement.


And just like some might not get the "LT better than RT" thing, I don't get the "don't mess with a good thing" on a 1-year starter. He's an exceptionally talented pass blocker who played LT in college and who only didn't play LT for us because we had an all pro coming back to health and they wanted to get the high-ceiling young guy reps where he could actually win the job.

Once Bakh got hurt, it was too late to reverse that course midstream, but without Bakh, you want to put your most reliable pass blocker on the blind side. It's not about who they face on defense; it's about the direction the offense and QB faces.

Tom is our best OL right now. His skillset fits the most valuable position. You make that marriage happen.

Yoop wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024 20:57

go pak go wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024 19:51

MY_TAKE wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024 19:15

My philosophy also.

It's the Packers philosophy every year.

what makes you think that?

I suppose if you consider Gary to be a BPA, in reality edge rusher, and CB are always need positions, same with ILB in a Barry/Fangio defense

to me all of Alexander, Wyatt, Savage, Stokes, King, LVN, Walker where positional needs, after the top tier group of players BPA is determined by the GM.

was Walker the consensus 22nd best player in that class? or Wyatt 28th? I think not, and none of us think Savage was even a first round talent, no we needed those positional up grades, we took LVN, not only for ability, but also because we'll possibly lose Smith after this season, thats a need pick imo.

if ya don't have pass rush and coverage, it gets really bad really fast

Me trying to read where BPA was ever mentioned in the original APB post you responded to.

Yoop wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024 20:57

go pak go wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024 19:51

MY_TAKE wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024 19:15

My philosophy also.

It's the Packers philosophy every year.

what makes you think that?

I suppose if you consider Gary to be a BPA, in reality edge rusher, and CB are always need positions, same with ILB in a Barry/Fangio defense

to me all of Alexander, Wyatt, Savage, Stokes, King, LVN, Walker where positional needs, after the top tier group of players BPA is determined by the GM.

was Walker the consensus 22nd best player in that class? or Wyatt 28th? I think not, and none of us think Savage was even a first round talent, no we needed those positional up grades, we took LVN, not only for ability, but also because we'll possibly lose Smith after this season, thats a need pick imo.

if ya don't have pass rush and coverage, it gets really bad really fast

I feel like we have this conversation every other month, draw the same conclusions each time, then you renew it every $%@# time with your absolutist framing.

One more time for you: it's not all or BPA vs need, it's a combination. If a player is available with a significantly higher grade, it's BPA. If the team has a relatively equal grade on multiple players at their pick, they'll go with the player at the position of high value or need.

This shouldn't be this hard.

Talk to you again in a couple months...

APB wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024 11:00

Yoop wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024 20:57

go pak go wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024 19:51

It's the Packers philosophy every year.

what makes you think that?

I suppose if you consider Gary to be a BPA, in reality edge rusher, and CB are always need positions, same with ILB in a Barry/Fangio defense

to me all of Alexander, Wyatt, Savage, Stokes, King, LVN, Walker where positional needs, after the top tier group of players BPA is determined by the GM.

was Walker the consensus 22nd best player in that class? or Wyatt 28th? I think not, and none of us think Savage was even a first round talent, no we needed those positional up grades, we took LVN, not only for ability, but also because we'll possibly lose Smith after this season, thats a need pick imo.

if ya don't have pass rush and coverage, it gets really bad really fast

I feel like we have this conversation every other month, draw the same conclusions each time, then you renew it every $%@# time with your absolutist framing.

One more time for you: it's not all or BPA vs need, it's a combination. If a player is available with a significantly higher grade, it's BPA. If the team has a relatively equal grade on multiple players at their pick, they'll go with the player at the position of high value or need.

This shouldn't be this hard.

Talk to you again in a couple months...

oh please You, Yoho, and GPG where referring to BPA in round one, and thats fine just admit it.

I don't think the Packers select BPA in Round 1.

The Packers select most athletic upside and player ceiling in Round 1 with a lean towards premium positions and large boy positions. I don't know how you can measure BPA. If you measure it based on immediate contribution...no. The Packers often do not select Rd1 based on contribution immediacy.

go pak go wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024 11:23

I don't think the Packers select BPA in Round 1.

The Packers select most athletic upside and player ceiling in Round 1 with a lean towards premium positions and large boy positions. I don't know how you can measure BPA. If you measure it based on immediate contribution...no. The Packers often do not select Rd1 based on contribution immediacy.

of course they don't draft BPA, as you've said countless times, every team has positions of need, positions left unfilled would have a negative affect on team performance, specifically CB, Edge rusher, QB, WR, RB, minus talent at either and ya might as well forfeit games.

sure it could be said that everyone of em was BPA, but there where just as much positions we needed or would need a year later.

go pak go wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024 11:23

I don't think the Packers select BPA in Round 1.

The Packers select most athletic upside and player ceiling in Round 1 with a lean towards premium positions and large boy positions. I don't know how you can measure BPA. If you measure it based on immediate contribution...no. The Packers often do not select Rd1 based on contribution immediacy.

I lump athletic upside players in with BPA. If it coincides with a value position or need then naturally the player is prioritized. That is the hybrid aspect of it.

The point is it is not all of one or the other. It may be for a particular pick but bpa/need/value positions are all considered for every pick and sometimes one trait outweighs another and vice versa.

go pak go wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024 11:23

I don't think the Packers select BPA in Round 1.

The Packers select most athletic upside and player ceiling in Round 1 with a lean towards premium positions and large boy positions. I don't know how you can measure BPA. If you measure it based on immediate contribution...no. The Packers often do not select Rd1 based on contribution immediacy.

I am not an NFL scout , but I assume there a few things that go into a grade. If one doesn't like the term BPA, then don't use it. I don't clearly know if the Packers/Gute have that philosophy or not and what is exactly weighted and how much into their grades. E.G. Maybe character is weighed more heavily in some GM's overall grade. To me, its just the player with highest ceiling and best chance to get to that blue chip level, and maybe HOF at the end. I disqualify QB for obvious reasons. Just don't disqualify a position early in the draft because its not considered a position of need. Stick to your draft grade. If your a GM, hopefully you got that position because your a football guy and know your stuff.

Don't pass on Randy Moss just because you think your strong at WR early in the draft. Thats just my general philosophy. I am not even going to argue if its right, its just what I think.
I think positions of strength can become positions of weakness fairly fast in the NFL.

The way I interpret it, the players are put into groups/tiers. Within the players available in that tier, GB selects the best fit for the team, using a variety of factors, with the position they play one of the those factors. If the tier has a lot of players in it, they may move back- and if a player is still avoidable that they value as a tier above the next, they may move up.

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024 11:07

The way I interpret it, the players are put into groups/tiers. Within the players available in that tier, GB selects the best fit for the team, using a variety of factors, with the position they play one of the those factors. If the tier has a lot of players in it, they may move back- and if a player is still avoidable that they value as a tier above the next, they may move up.

Well if that ain't exactly right. It's almost as if this has been explicitly explained for like a decade and a half by TT and those close to the team during that period of time

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024 11:07

The way I interpret it, the players are put into groups/tiers. Within the players available in that tier, GB selects the best fit for the team, using a variety of factors, with the position they play one of the those factors. If the tier has a lot of players in it, they may move back- and if a player is still avoidable that they value as a tier above the next, they may move up.

thats it, in a nut shell, even the top tier ( dependent on class I'am talking the top 8 to 12 slots) the grades are often over lapping and so close 2 or 3 from that group could have a consensus same grade, I always eliminate QB from these top tier players, they get there own group basically because there skills are so different from other positions.

as some smart football guy once said, give me a QB a WR, edge rusher and CB, and I'll figure out the rest, makes sense 3 of those positions are the most heavily drafted

Draft priority for the Packers, by position:

1. QB
2. WR
3. TE
4. OLB/Edge
5. RB
6. ILB
7. CB
8. S

Oh yeah, read from the bottom of the list first!
;-)

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024 11:07

The way I interpret it, the players are put into groups/tiers. Within the players available in that tier, GB selects the best fit for the team, using a variety of factors, with the position they play one of the those factors. If the tier has a lot of players in it, they may move back- and if a player is still avoidable that they value as a tier above the next, they may move up.

Hopefully your front office people know what they are doing when putting players into tiers!!1

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024 16:33

Draft priority for the Packers, by position:

1. QB
2. WR
3. TE
4. OLB/Edge
5. RB
6. ILB
7. CB
8. S

Oh yeah, read from the bottom of the list first!
;-)

Need OL in there somewhere.

This team desperately needs a C and RG.

1st Round - Premium OL, DL, DE, or CB

2nd Round - CB, Lines, DE

3rd to 5th - Lines, TE, CB, S

6th, 7th, and UDFA - RB, Athletes

-----------------

We have a QB for ten+ years, I think. The hogs up front (Lines) make everyone else better. Build that. Build a team that hopefully with some luck can bring home another Lombardi.

I am a fan of Wilson (RB) and Nichols (RB -IR). I think the answer to RB in a post Dillon/Jones world may already be on the roster. And even if not RBs can be had very late as long as they fit scheme and the OFF line can block.

I'd also like to see competition at K and back up QB.

I agree about continuing to give priority along both sides of the LOS. Even if we feel we have enough depth, add more.

We have our QB. And Clifford is hopefully a legit backup.

We have as deep a WR corps as anybody. And our TE group is strong too.

We simply do not draft RBs high in Green Bay. And we've made it work for generations now. (This might actually be a good idea for a thread.)

Our OLB group has real talent and potential.

We could truly add at CB and S. I really think we must add there with high picks.

So, I'd support as many round 1-3 picks at OLine/DLine, CB, and S as possible, if the right talent is there.

We are getting pick #41 from the Jets.

So for Aaron Rodgers, pick 15 and pick 170

we got

pick 13, pick 42, pick 207 and a future pick 41



Turned Aaron Rodgers, pick 15 and 170 into Lukas Van Ness, Luke Musgrave, Anders Carlson and a player yet to be picked at 41.


I think we would have had pick #81 if Buffalo lost yesterday.

Penix is garbage without a perfect pocket. Drop that dude out of the first two days.