Packers Huddle

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2021 10:09

How long will it take for people to understand that a) this is the way teams should do it, and b) this is the way our team does it? If we have a need right now, the draft isn't the answer. If we make a pick that "won't play much" for a year or two, it is intentional and not a waste of resources. This is team building. And it works.

No. We need to go back to the times where we force rookie into prominent roles so they can lose their confidence and get cut in year 3 of their of their rookie contract.

Because damnit....it made me feel good that we filled a hole that April/May and got a good "draft grade" from pundits.

go pak go wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2021 10:40

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2021 10:09

How long will it take for people to understand that a) this is the way teams should do it, and b) this is the way our team does it? If we have a need right now, the draft isn't the answer. If we make a pick that "won't play much" for a year or two, it is intentional and not a waste of resources. This is team building. And it works.

No. We need to go back to the times where we force rookie into prominent roles so they can lose their confidence and get cut in year 3 of their of their rookie contract.

Because damnit....it made me feel good that we filled a hole that April/May and got a good "draft grade" from pundits.

there is probably somewhere in the middle of the two philosophies that would be ideal. Starting all your draft picks year one is a sign of a bad team, your first 4 picks in a draft not being starters after two years might be a sign of a bad draft or not allocating resources properly.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2021 11:58

go pak go wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2021 10:40

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2021 10:09

How long will it take for people to understand that a) this is the way teams should do it, and b) this is the way our team does it? If we have a need right now, the draft isn't the answer. If we make a pick that "won't play much" for a year or two, it is intentional and not a waste of resources. This is team building. And it works.

No. We need to go back to the times where we force rookie into prominent roles so they can lose their confidence and get cut in year 3 of their of their rookie contract.

Because damnit....it made me feel good that we filled a hole that April/May and got a good "draft grade" from pundits.

there is probably somewhere in the middle of the two philosophies that would be ideal. Starting all your draft picks year one is a sign of a bad team, your first 4 picks in a draft not being starters after two years might be a sign of a bad draft or not allocating resources properly.

This is a big year for Gute and his draft picks no doubt.

If AJ Dillon, Rashan Gary, Darnell Savage and even Josiah Dugauara join Jaire Alexander and Elgton Jenkins as top contributors....suddenly Gute is a genius.

If they don't, then Gute F'ed it up. Just too early to say right now because Savage, Gary and Dillon have shown enough potential flash to give hope they could be real special.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2021 10:34

Do y'all remember all those no-free-agent years under TT when the go-to complaint was that the team is forced to play too many rookies and that even though they're good players, they're bound to make some back-breaking rookie mistakes from time to time and we need to use free agency to fill out some veteran role players to make rookies force their way onto the field instead of being handed the role?

How even big TT fans like myself were still annoyed that more low-risk, low-money free agents weren't brought in as band-aids to fill immediate holes?

Like this is exactly what we asked for. And now it's "we wasted picks" if they don't play prominent roles right away.

Right now we have actual holes at CB and C. Both positions have guys who are not rookies who might be ready to step up; both positions should add a rookie for competition, and hopefully at least one position gets a low-end vet option to compete.

Everything else on the roster is a "could upgrade" not an actual hole. And so we'll continue drafting good players and hope that we find and develop upgrades. If the "right" fit comes along to provide a splash upgrade that requires clearing some space or taking a risk, I'd hope that gets explored and maybe done. But for the most part, we have 2 holes to fill and a lot of roster depth to draft and develop in the mean time.

Sorry, this is very Packers-centric in the around the league thread, but I said what I said.

Somehow a lot fans league-wide (especially on the FF forum) get into a one-year hole-filling "22 starters is all we need" -mindset when the off-season arrives. And the only acceptable fillers of those holes are a) high draft picks who should start from day 1, and b) big name UFAs.

In this mindset, if you'd just spend those resources to have one good player per starting position, that would be the bestest way to the SB, since injuries, fatigue and player development don't exist in this simplified fantasy world of 22-man rosters. All other options of building a roster are unthinkable and mean there's a glaring hole and all hope for SB is lost. Things like depth and value and long-term strategy and development from within disappear in poofs of logic.

It's an understandable way of thinking about building a team. Even a little kid can understand "there are holes, holes must be filled, here's a small bucket of big name pieces to fill 'em".

It's also totally unrealistic.

How many of those 9 were drafted in the top 64, let alone the top 15?

Gary is in year 3. If he is not starting then the team either missed with the pick or the roster/cap is being mismanaged.

Given the schedule next year I wouldn't be surprised to see GB go 9-8 or 10-7 if we don't get upgraded play from Preston Smith, DL, and a CB.

Ghost_Lombardi wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2021 15:53

How many of those 9 were drafted in the top 64, let alone the top 15?

Gary is in year 3. If he is not starting then the team either missed with the pick or the roster/cap is being mismanaged.

Given the schedule next year I wouldn't be surprised to see GB go 9-8 or 10-7 if we don't get upgraded play from Preston Smith, DL, and a CB.

Or Gary's situation doesn't fall into the traditional thinking about starters and backups.

If you like, we can call Preston and Gary "starters" at OLB and call Z a "starter" at DE. Then they'd all be starters and no money nor draft picks wasted and everyone would be happy and go to the SB.

salmar80 wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2021 15:43

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2021 10:34

Do y'all remember all those no-free-agent years under TT when the go-to complaint was that the team is forced to play too many rookies and that even though they're good players, they're bound to make some back-breaking rookie mistakes from time to time and we need to use free agency to fill out some veteran role players to make rookies force their way onto the field instead of being handed the role?

How even big TT fans like myself were still annoyed that more low-risk, low-money free agents weren't brought in as band-aids to fill immediate holes?

Like this is exactly what we asked for. And now it's "we wasted picks" if they don't play prominent roles right away.

Right now we have actual holes at CB and C. Both positions have guys who are not rookies who might be ready to step up; both positions should add a rookie for competition, and hopefully at least one position gets a low-end vet option to compete.

Everything else on the roster is a "could upgrade" not an actual hole. And so we'll continue drafting good players and hope that we find and develop upgrades. If the "right" fit comes along to provide a splash upgrade that requires clearing some space or taking a risk, I'd hope that gets explored and maybe done. But for the most part, we have 2 holes to fill and a lot of roster depth to draft and develop in the mean time.

Sorry, this is very Packers-centric in the around the league thread, but I said what I said.

Somehow a lot fans league-wide (especially on the FF forum) get into a one-year hole-filling "22 starters is all we need" -mindset when the off-season arrives. And the only acceptable fillers of those holes are a) high draft picks who should start from day 1, and b) big name UFAs.

In this mindset, if you'd just spend those resources to have one good player per starting position, that would be the bestest way to the SB, since injuries, fatigue and player development don't exist in this simplified fantasy world of 22-man rosters. All other options of building a roster are unthinkable and mean there's a glaring hole and all hope for SB is lost. Things like depth and value and long-term strategy and development from within disappear in poofs of logic.

It's an understandable way of thinking about building a team. Even a little kid can understand "there are holes, holes must be filled, here's a small bucket of big name pieces to fill 'em".

It's also totally unrealistic.

Great post. I get annoyed with the "here are our holes and therefore this is how we must draft approach"

As you state, it's super simplistic which is why it is attractive as outside fans, but super unsuccessful at chasing a ring. I liken every offseason of "if we just fill this hole we are SB bound no doubt" to watching a 4 year old soccer game with all the kids just chasing the ball and never actually getting anywhere.

Agreed, great points above.

I also think it's smart strategy to use some picks to elevate certain positions from Good to Elite/Dominant -- that's what separates good teams from great ones. You might even call them "luxury picks" but players who give you that added dimension on either side are always worth it, IMO.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2021 11:58

go pak go wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2021 10:40

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2021 10:09

How long will it take for people to understand that a) this is the way teams should do it, and b) this is the way our team does it? If we have a need right now, the draft isn't the answer. If we make a pick that "won't play much" for a year or two, it is intentional and not a waste of resources. This is team building. And it works.

No. We need to go back to the times where we force rookie into prominent roles so they can lose their confidence and get cut in year 3 of their of their rookie contract.

Because damnit....it made me feel good that we filled a hole that April/May and got a good "draft grade" from pundits.

there is probably somewhere in the middle of the two philosophies that would be ideal. Starting all your draft picks year one is a sign of a bad team, your first 4 picks in a draft not being starters after two years might be a sign of a bad draft or not allocating resources properly.

ahhhhh we see rookies start and play well every season, Alexander, Mathews, Raji, Greg Jennings, Bakteria, Lacy, just off the top of my head, Hayward etc, I believe most do take a year even two to be coached up, but first rounders and high picks have that status because usually they are close to ready to step in and start.

this is a high player turn over era, if ya have to wait till a players 3rd season to see starter ability how would you ever field a team of 40 starters and lead rotators? your losing players faster then you can replace them with UFA, now days you have to have 3 starters per class more then ever before, or you'll have to spend big money for UFA.
Gary didn't get to start, but I think he could have and given the same or better performance that Preston did last year, depending on talent often a Rookie just can't beat out the starter, but that doesn't mean he wasn't starter capable.
I simply disagree with the point of view that we shouldn't expect rookies to start, obviously we should expect many to be able to, look around the league, Rookies start or play a lot of snaps as rookies.

as to drafting per needy position, please show a list of teams you don't think do that, seriously how do you not have to do that? teams lose whole positions during a previous season ( hell it happened to us on defense for almost a decade) so ya have to fill that depleted position, hell we'll probably do it again at CB this year in the first two rounds hoping to find a ROOKIE that can START (when was the last time we drafted a CB with the 1st that didn't start?)

often a team has two or more positions that demand retooling, so a GM would have more choices to line up value with player, even then though they are positional drafting, filling weak positions.

BF004 wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2021 13:33

Hunter may be unhappy, but he had neck surgery last year. He is also under contract for the next 3 years. I would be surprised if the Vikings change anything before the end of this season.

The Lions cut NT Danny Shelton and QB Chase Daniel.

Shelton is a very big boi, and could be a long shot option to back Kenny C up.

Speaking of positions of need, the Bills declined to tender CB Levi Wallace. He’s a still ascending, solid young CB who may be worth a look. PFF graded him as middling, just above a 60 grade. Not a burner and likely never gonna be a #1 CB, he’s a decent tackler and coverage CB who won’t break the bank.

Ghost_Lombardi wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2021 15:53

How many of those 9 were drafted in the top 64, let alone the top 15?

Gary is in year 3. If he is not starting then the team either missed with the pick or the roster/cap is being mismanaged.

Given the schedule next year I wouldn't be surprised to see GB go 9-8 or 10-7 if we don't get upgraded play from Preston Smith, DL, and a CB.

I don’t know why the logic of “this player must be doing ____”. Take Gary. He was picked high, no doubt. But instead of “starting” and playing every snap, why not look at it like whether or not he is playing in the role that the coaches want. If he doesn’t “start” and still plays 45+ snaps, that is significant. Good grief, the guy is starting to get around the QB as much as anybody and we’re still talking as if he is a possible bust? No way. He’s already a good player and the coaches play him as they see fit.
:-)

The point is that Gary is obviously not a bust. We wasted cap space when P Smiths replacement is already on the roster and performing at a higher level than P Smith himself.

paco wrote: ↑

16 Mar 2021 16:39

I mean is Jay Cutler honestly the best player at the quarterback position for the Bears in their history?

go pak go wrote: ↑

16 Mar 2021 18:29

I mean is Jay Cutler honestly the best player at the quarterback position for the Bears in their history?

Naah, Sid Luckman was a 5-time All-Pro (4 of them due to him not fighting in WWII).

But Cutler is probably their best since the Korean War.

I can only imagine a Bears fan stumbling on our forum to find us complaining about acquiring a successor to a MVP QB a year or two too early, after having enjoyed 30 years of great quarterbacking.

go pak go wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2021 10:40

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2021 10:09

How long will it take for people to understand that a) this is the way teams should do it, and b) this is the way our team does it? If we have a need right now, the draft isn't the answer. If we make a pick that "won't play much" for a year or two, it is intentional and not a waste of resources. This is team building. And it works.

No. We need to go back to the times where we force rookie into prominent roles so they can lose their confidence and get cut in year 3 of their of their rookie contract.

Because damnit....it made me feel good that we filled a hole that April/May and got a good "draft grade" from pundits.

You know if we drafted players we would have some use either last season or this season they wouldnt be rookies but sophomore players with experience.

But we got a backup draft class so thats cool....