Packers Huddle

His RAS is low because of his size. He's a half inch shorter than Shields and 4 pounds lighter. Take that for what it is worth.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2021 08:07

His RAS is low because of his size. He's a half inch shorter than Shields and 4 pounds lighter. Take that for what it is worth.

Oh, that actually makes me feel much, much better about him.

Just a friendly reminder that for all we know, RAS is simply a proxy for things the Packers care about; they have their own internal guidelines, possibly their own advanced metrics, possibly varying position by position metrics. When we say "they seem to care about RAS" what we're actually observing is that the factors that make up RAS seem to be correlated with the factors that the Packers value, to varying degrees, at varying positions.

Drafted players, especially broken down by position, are an inherently small sample size. It's nearly impossible to know, from the outside, where any hard cutoff lines are for any factor. We also have a new-ish GM so the sample size is even smaller. And even with all that said, there have been RAS "exceptions." One might argue that last year there were probably several; we just don't have the information to confirm that because there were so few workouts done.

So it's a good guideline, but if a guy comes in at 7.5 and not 8, don't take him off your Packers board.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2021 09:11

Just a friendly reminder that for all we know, RAS is simply a proxy for things the Packers care about; they have their own internal guidelines, possibly their own advanced metrics, possibly varying position by position metrics. When we say "they seem to care about RAS" what we're actually observing is that the factors that make up RAS seem to be correlated with the factors that the Packers value, to varying degrees, at varying positions.

Drafted players, especially broken down by position, are an inherently small sample size. It's nearly impossible to know, from the outside, where any hard cutoff lines are for any factor. We also have a new-ish GM so the sample size is even smaller. And even with all that said, there have been RAS "exceptions." One might argue that last year there were probably several; we just don't have the information to confirm that because there were so few workouts done.

So it's a good guideline, but if a guy comes in at 7.5 and not 8, don't take him off your Packers board.

For sure. I do believe the athletic markers are WAY more important to the Packers than size. I do think they have their hard cutoffs for certain things, but I think they value athleticism more. There may be some gray area, but I think there is plenty of data to suggest a big CB with below average athleticism is not something they are looking for.

Also, I want to really send this home about cornerbacks:

Ahmad Carrol was 5' 9 5/8" (Ron Wolf pick)
Tramon Williams was 5' 11 and 1/8" (TT UDFA)
Sam Shields was 5' 10 and 3/4" (TT UDFA)
Damarious Randall was 5' 10 7/8" (TT pick)
Quinten Rollins was 5' 11 1/8" (TT pick)
Jaire Alexander is 5' 10 1/4"

The notion that we have a hard line at CB height and have for some time is based on a history of exceptions.

"Oh look they broke their rule and it was a draft bust" about Carroll
"Sam Shields doesn't count because he was an UDFA"
"Damarius Randall rounds up to 5'11" "
"Jaire Alexander is... close enough?"

Honestly mostly people just mis-quote Alexander's height to round him up; But he's 5' 10 1/4"

Kevin King, Josh Jackson, Charles Woodson... taller than 5111. That's really about it. It is as common for us to start CBs under 5'11" as over it.

Kadar Hollman is 5' 11 3/4"
Josh Jackson is 6' 0 3/8"
Demetri Goodson was 5' 11" even
Casey Hayward was 5' 11 3/8"

You could make an argument that the Packers don't like drafting CBs 6'1" or taller and that Kevin King was the exception, rather than the Packers like CBs over 5'11" and Jaire Alexander was the exception (not mutually exclusive; they may prefer players between 5'10" and 6'1")

But the "5'11" cutoff" is the most ridiculously long-lasting, over-quoted, unfounded myth in Packers drafting.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2021 09:28

But the "5'11" cutoff" is the most ridiculously long-lasting, over-quoted, unfounded myth in Packers drafting.

I believe that very thing exists (basically because TT said so in roundabout ways numerous times), but the number isn't 5'11".

Also, maybe the cutoffs are qualified.

If under this, then needs this, etc. We'll never know exactly.

NCF wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2021 09:35

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2021 09:28

But the "5'11" cutoff" is the most ridiculously long-lasting, over-quoted, unfounded myth in Packers drafting.

I believe that very thing exists (basically because TT said so in roundabout ways numerous times), but the number isn't 5'11".

Yes, agreed. They absolutely have a cutoff, but due to small sample sizes and the potential for some picks being "exceptions," we can't tell what it is.

But also, TT and Ron Wolf's rules do not necessarily apply to Gutey.

But for everyone talking about 5'11" (which is not an attack on British, who put this in his draft board; this number/rule/guideline is EVERYWHERE in Packers draft internet), think about how wild it is to say that the Packers have a "rule" about CBs, and in the past 17 years, they have broken that rule in the first round three separate times (Carroll, Randall, Alexander) once by each GM that supposedly has that rule (Wolf, TT, and Gutey). In fact EVERY first round CB the Packers have taken since 2004 has been under 5'11"

That's not a rule.

The cutoff may be 5'10" and Carroll was an exception. It may be 5'9 1/2" but we just haven't happened to have seen anyone since Carroll who was the best value and fell between 5'9 1/2" and 5' 10 1/8"

But assigning it a value, excusing the exceptions, and then not adjusting the narrative is a poor excuse for insight into Packers draft strategies.

Yeah Samuel has a lower RAS because of his height and weight. Height and Weight is the easiest way to have a good RAS as you need to be elite elsewhere to make up for it.

Jaw has 16 pounds on Samuel but Jaw is also considerably better in the agility drils and broad jump which is really helping his RAS over Samuel.
Then again, if Samuel had those amazing numbers....we would have zero shot at drafting him as he would be top 20. I think the tape of Samuel makes me still really want him.

I don't know why Samuel had such a poor 3 cone. Just seems like a player who should have really excelled at that drill. At least he was below 7.

One thing I AM interested in is what happens when they start drafting WRs again.

Three years ago, we took three guys that were all tall--J'Mon Moore at 6' 2 5/8", MVS at 6'4" and EQSB at 6' 4 3/4".

We also signed Allen Lazard and Robert Tonyan (both 6' 4 5/8") off the street in 2017 and 2018 under Gutey, brought in Jake Kumerow (6' 4 1/2") and signed Devin Funchess last year (6' 4 1/4").

Begelton and Malik Taylor are the "smaller" guys at a bit over 6 feet tall.

That indicates to me, through all forms of acquisition, Gutey's preference for height at the position. But it doesn't indicate if there are lines he won't cross or if that was just one body type he was trying to fill.

It's occurred to me that with all the attention being paid to this year's WR class (including by me) we've spent a lot more time looking at more traditionally-sized guys, and smaller gadget players to fill a desired role (I guess Tavon Austin can enter this conversation, as well)...

...but maybe we're all missing the boat and we'll draft Trevon Grimes from UF instead of Kadarius Toney. Maybe we're looking at Jacob Harris and Michal Stratchan as small school prospects with bigtime height and speed combinations. Maybe we're targeting Ole Miss' Cryrus Mitchell in the 7th or free agency, not Elijah Moore early on. Or, god I hope not, maybe we'll get caught up in Semi Feheko and Nico Collins' height/weight/speed combination way too early in rounds 3 or 4 even though neither has the production to warrant the draft status.

Just seems like there's a whole host of names that fits a LOT of what we've looked at (height, blocking, surprising athleticism for the size) that we don't really talk much about because we, as fans, are kinda sick of the projects and big guys who can't separate on their own. What if the team is less sick of it?

there are always exceptions, we pass on a 5.9 RB in order to take a behemoth LT, who was total draft bust while the 5.9 Sanders goes on to a HOF Career, thats what having draft rules do for ya

if A CB is 69.8 inches, 180 lbs, ran 4.4, jumped 38" could fly 10.5 ft would you not take him based on being a 1' short of desired height? I sure wouldn't.

Oh god, I just realized I forgot that Mike Sherman was ever GM. Sorry Ron Wolf, for blaming you for Ahmad Carroll

go pak go wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2021 09:56

I don't know why Samuel had such a poor 3 cone. Just seems like a player who should have really excelled at that drill. At least he was below 7.

I know this is going to sound wild, but for some reason, I get the sense that prospects are practicing the 3-cone less than usual.

This is purely a hunch based on small anecdotes. It goes all the way back to 2002 when I attended USC's Pro Day while working for the athletic office there. It was Pete Carroll's first year as head coach and the players kept slipping while doing the 3-cone. All the scouts were mumbling about how ridiculous it was that the players weren't prepared for the drills.

Now, add to that how much the 3-cone has improved over the years. it used to be that anything under a 7 was good, under a 6.9 was pretty excellent. Then a bunch of players started hitting the 6.6s. Pretty clearly, this is the type of drill where if you practice it, the unusual motion becomes rote and you can really improve your time. Obviously, it still has relative value on your twitch. But the times have dropped not because athletes are SO much quicker than 2 decades ago, but because the combine has become so much more-thoroughly prepared-for.

I think that the unusual circumstances of COVID, the lack of a combine, a lot of guys doing their work more individually or disparately, they're practicing less; I read a quote from a Pro Day attendee from an SEC school and I wish I could remember where, but he made a comment about how weird the 3-cone was and how he'd have done better if he'd practiced. And it just set off alarm bells. Like why wasn't the school training them for that test?

Anyway. I think there's a big possibility for disparity in this year's 3-cones. Short shuttles, same. One guy (I think Brugler) said that in alll the pro day data he had accumulated only 2 players breached 4.00 on the short shuttle. That's unusually low.

I would just feel way more comfortable with Samuel in the 2nd, but he may not be there in 2nd for us.

https://www.mockdraftable.com/player/asante-samuel-2021 - Physically he is more of an exception than a rule.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2021 11:09

I would just feel way more comfortable with Samuel in the 2nd, but he may not be there in 2nd for us.

https://www.mockdraftable.com/player/asante-samuel-2021 - Physically he is more of an exception than a rule.

100%

I feel very very strongly that after the top 4 CBs, there's no one I NEED to have before pick 62; their values are all intermixed and jumbled in there.

Honestly, I'm still not out on Elijah Molden, which is wild since I generally care about 40-times. I just think there WILL be a guy at 62 who is not much different than whoever CB5 will be for someone. I like both of the guys from Georgia. I like Aaron Robinson. I like Melifonwu. I could talk myself back into Adebo. Unless Newsome falls all the way to us, I don't see strong value at CB in the first. At the very least, trade down if you want one.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2021 09:28

Also, I want to really send this home about cornerbacks:

Ahmad Carrol was 5' 9 5/8" (Ron Wolf pick)
Tramon Williams was 5' 11 and 1/8" (TT UDFA)
Sam Shields was 5' 10 and 3/4" (TT UDFA)
Damarious Randall was 5' 10 7/8" (TT pick)
Quinten Rollins was 5' 11 1/8" (TT pick)
Jaire Alexander is 5' 10 1/4"

The notion that we have a hard line at CB height and have for some time is based on a history of exceptions.

"Oh look they broke their rule and it was a draft bust" about Carroll
"Sam Shields doesn't count because he was an UDFA"
"Damarius Randall rounds up to 5'11" "
"Jaire Alexander is... close enough?"

Honestly mostly people just mis-quote Alexander's height to round him up; But he's 5' 10 1/4"

Kevin King, Josh Jackson, Charles Woodson... taller than 5111. That's really about it. It is as common for us to start CBs under 5'11" as over it.

Kadar Hollman is 5' 11 3/4"
Josh Jackson is 6' 0 3/8"
Demetri Goodson was 5' 11" even
Casey Hayward was 5' 11 3/8"

You could make an argument that the Packers don't like drafting CBs 6'1" or taller and that Kevin King was the exception, rather than the Packers like CBs over 5'11" and Jaire Alexander was the exception (not mutually exclusive; they may prefer players between 5'10" and 6'1")

But the "5'11" cutoff" is the most ridiculously long-lasting, over-quoted, unfounded myth in Packers drafting.

I agree that we can get hung up about cut offs but it's one of the few data points we have to work with. Not being in the draft room we know very little about how the Packers identify players and so thresholds become one of the few things we can study and learn from.

Looking at the above list of CBs, I actually feel even more happy to use 5'11 as a general rule of thumb as a cut off for the Packers. It seems clear they prefer guys over that height but will make exceptions when the talent is clear like Jaire or the value is cheap like Shields.

The fact Gute has seemed pretty obsessed about really tall WRs also factors in, considering CBs are their direct defensive opponents. If Gute et al feels there's a competitive advantage with height at that position or that is the direction the league is going in, then it would figure it could be possible that he sees value in avoiding overly short CBs.

Also, the fact one of our long term starters at CB is 5'10 makes me think they would like the other side to be covered by a guy with a bit more height to aid with match ups. Kevin King is on a stop gap 1 year deal. It seems like Gute wouldn't want to give Joe Barry the job of gameplanning with two 5'10 CBs if he could avoid it.

All these thresholds are is a guide to filtering over 400 prospects into possible Packer targets. And that filtering process itself is quite fun.

British wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2021 12:02

Looking at the above list of CBs, I actually feel even more happy to use 5'11 as a general rule of thumb as a cut off for the Packers. It seems clear they prefer guys over that height but will make exceptions when the talent is clear like Jaire or the value is cheap like Shields.

No way. I use 5'10" as the guideline/rule of thumb so I don't have to explain why the last three times they took a CB in the first round they "broke the rule of thumb"

Using 5'11" as a target makes sense. As a lower boundary makes none.

Like you can't say "the Packers like to do X" if they routinely don't do X. That's not an analysis of the trend. That's fitting the data to a pre-existing narrative and an interpretation of "wants" that we can't get any info on. It does not seem "clear that they prefer guys" taller than the ones they routinely draft in round one and/or put onto the football field. It is NOT clear that they prefer those guys. That is my whole point. It is clear that all but two players they have taken at the position fall between 5'10" and 6'1". Ahmad Carroll below it, and Kevin King above it. Both were disappointing. You could infer they have a preference for CBs that fall within that range if you want. But insisting on that extra inch from 5'10" to 5'11" is just stubborn refusal to accept the obvious evidence.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2021 13:12

British wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2021 12:02

Looking at the above list of CBs, I actually feel even more happy to use 5'11 as a general rule of thumb as a cut off for the Packers. It seems clear they prefer guys over that height but will make exceptions when the talent is clear like Jaire or the value is cheap like Shields.

No way. I use 5'10" as the guideline/rule of thumb so I don't have to explain why the last three times they took a CB in the first round they "broke the rule of thumb"

Using 5'11" as a target makes sense. As a lower boundary makes none.

Like you can't say "the Packers like to do X" if they routinely don't do X. That's not an analysis of the trend. That's fitting the data to a pre-existing narrative and an interpretation of "wants" that we can't get any info on. It does not seem "clear that they prefer guys" taller than the ones they routinely draft in round one and/or put onto the football field. It is NOT clear that they prefer those guys. That is my whole point. It is clear that all but two players they have taken at the position fall between 5'10" and 6'1". Ahmad Carroll below it, and Kevin King above it. Both were disappointing. You could infer they have a preference for CBs that fall within that range if you want. But insisting on that extra inch from 5'10" to 5'11" is just stubborn refusal to accept the obvious evidence.

I don't think anyone is saying the Packers have 5'11 as a hard cut off. And I don't think Ahmad Carroll is a super relevant data point for the 2021 Packers. Of the 7 CBs on the roster, 6 are 5'11 or above and 5 of them are over 6'0. And all 6 of the Safeties are over 5'11 with 4 of them over 6'0. In the last five years the Packers have drafted four CBs, 75% of them have been 6'0 or over.

It seems clear that the Packers prefer their DBs to be at least 5'11. Ultimately that is what is useful when looking for prospects in the 2021 Draft.

excerpted from an interview Ron Wolf conducted with JSO on his 1st round picks.
It goes all the way back to 1992 - and at that time RAS as we know it- did not exist

1992, CB Terrell Buckley (fifth overall selection): Buckley had three disappointing seasons in Green Bay, was nicknamed 'Toast', and was eventually released. Wolf had offensive lineman Bob Whitfield rated higher, but eventually settled on Buckley.
"The offense wanted a particular player, the defense wanted a particular player and I wanted a particular player," Wolf recalled. "And the end result, when it all broken down, the player I wanted is the player we should have taken. And the guy I wanted was Whitfield, and he's still playing (with Atlanta). That's one time I was probably right.

"We were never going to take (Eagles cornerback Troy) Vincent. If (Desmond) Howard and Buckley were gone, we were going to take Whitfield. But what happened with the pick of Buckley is suddenly, we all realized, you can't play with little defensive backs in Green Bay. You can't play with little people up there in November and December. It's too hard. We had to get big people and a certain kind of person. So maybe that failed, but in the end result, we won because of it."
.