Packers Huddle

salmar80 wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2021 12:04

BF004 wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2021 11:55

Make it some unnecessarily complicated points based model.

Not saying punters are people or that snappers aren't mostly fish, but zero points for 98 combined games is rough, man...

BF004 wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2021 11:55

Make it some unnecessarily complicated points based model.


Assign points based on accolades
4 - HOF Caliber
3 - Pro Bowler
2 - Starter
1 - Plays out Rookie contract

Then apply a position multiplier
QB - 4
DE, DT, LT, WR, CB - 3
RT, G, C, RB, S, LB - 2
K, P - 1

(e.g., Aaron will get you 16 points, Kenny Clark as a pro-bowler, likely not HOF quality would be 9)

Then divide all of that by the natural log of our total draft capital for that year (if you have a top 10 pick or multiple first rounders, you will need better players.


Also add points for adding future picks, to the tune of 1st round - 5, 2nd 4, 3rd 3, 4th 2, 5th 1


I got 2018 just barely squeeking into the above average range.


image.png

I love this so, so much.

Should probably tweek that some, Bradley, MVS, EQ and Burks combine to one more point that Jaire is counting

BF004 wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2021 11:55

Make it some unnecessarily complicated points based model.


Assign points based on accolades
4 - HOF Caliber
3 - Pro Bowler
2 - Starter
1 - Plays out Rookie contract

Then apply a position multiplier
QB - 4
DE, DT, LT, WR, CB - 3
RT, G, C, RB, S, LB - 2
K, P - 1

(e.g., Aaron will get you 16 points, Kenny Clark as a pro-bowler, likely not HOF quality would be 9)

Then divide all of that by the natural log of our total draft capital for that year (if you have a top 10 pick or multiple first rounders, you will need better players.


Also add points for adding future picks, to the tune of 1st round - 5, 2nd 4, 3rd 3, 4th 2, 5th 1


I got 2018 just barely squeeking into the above average range.


image.png

I love it. Only question I have is how did you determine the average, above average, elite scale?

go pak go wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2021 12:08

I love this so, so much.

Let's just say this isn't the first I thought about this, lol, first time actually throwing out some numbers to see how it actually looks.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2021 12:12

I love it. Only question I have is how did you determine the average, above average, elite scale?

I either used some 324 feature, 73 node deep learning neural network, with hyper parameter selection and gradient boosting bias analysis removal.

Or I pulled them out of my bum after seeing the results of 2018 and wanting to assign it to a level I deemed appropriate.

BF004 wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2021 12:16

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2021 12:12

I love it. Only question I have is how did you determine the average, above average, elite scale?

I either used some 324 feature, 73 node deep learning neural network, with hyper parameter selection and gradient boosting bias analysis removal.

Or I pulled them out of my bum after seeing the results of 2018 and wanting to assign it to a level I deemed appropriate.

I will assume the former!

We could actually get somewhere with this. For position multiplier you could use actual NFL salary or cap data to determine positional importance and reduce that down to a nice, neat scale.

Should also probably have a bonus point for Kiper instant reaction grade.

NCF wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2021 12:29

We could actually get somewhere with this. For position multiplier you could use actual NFL salary or cap data to determine positional importance and reduce that down to a nice, neat scale.

Should also probably have a bonus point for Kiper instant reaction grade.

When doing something similar in the past, I've just used the franchise tag number. Although that can kind of screw with interior OL and 3-4 OLBs.

Likewise PFF grade would probably be better than somewhat ranking system I have.

I know everyone hates Madden ratings, but those are easily obtainable and honestly not far from reality. At least a lot cheaper and easier to get than PFF grades.

BF004 wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2021 12:40

NCF wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2021 12:29

We could actually get somewhere with this. For position multiplier you could use actual NFL salary or cap data to determine positional importance and reduce that down to a nice, neat scale.

Should also probably have a bonus point for Kiper instant reaction grade.

When doing something similar in the past, I've just used the franchise tag number. Although that can kind of screw with interior OL and 3-4 OLBs.

Likewise PFF grade would probably be better than somewhat ranking system I have.

I know everyone hates Madden ratings, but those are easily obtainable and honestly not far from reality. At least a lot cheaper and easier to get than PFF grades.

I can get you PFR AV by career or year. For example, here is a list of all the 2017 draftees with 32 starts and a Career AV over 10:
https://stathead.com/tiny/3U81k

That's 64 guys which includes Kevin King. Here is it if we bump it up to 20, which is an average of 5 AV per year:
https://stathead.com/tiny/ThkZh

There is no one on that list I would say is NOT a quality starter. That said, that's only 49 guys or less than 1/5th of the total draftees from 2017.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2021 11:20

But I don't think you go into a draft each year and say "ok, the team is bad so we need a top 16 pick to be a star" or "the team is good so we need to focus on need over value." It's always a balancing act, and the variability should be more to make specific evaluations between players than broader team circumstances, with fairly few exceptions.

imo Ted was a needs drafting GM, specially early, he didn't like buying ufa, so he had to draft for need, what choice is there with those limitations, it's why we took Perry, and Datone Jones, Mathews and BJ Raji and the 3 or 4 high drafted DL, and the half doz CB's, and I think this is how most GM's operate, it's a luxury to do BPA outside of tier one draft talent, the goal as Ted demonstrated was to move up or down slightly to align draft value with the selection, I think BPA took a back seat sorta ever since UFA started.

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2021 14:00

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2021 11:20

But I don't think you go into a draft each year and say "ok, the team is bad so we need a top 16 pick to be a star" or "the team is good so we need to focus on need over value." It's always a balancing act, and the variability should be more to make specific evaluations between players than broader team circumstances, with fairly few exceptions.

imo Ted was a needs drafting GM, specially early, he didn't like buying ufa, so he had to draft for need, what choice is there with those limitations, it's why we took Perry, and Datone Jones, Mathews and BJ Raji and the 3 or 4 high drafted DL, and the half doz CB's, and I think this is how most GM's operate, it's a luxury to do BPA outside of tier one draft talent, the goal as Ted demonstrated was to move up or down slightly to align draft value with the selection, I think BPA took a back seat sorta ever since UFA started.

Because team positional groups essentially turn every 2 - 3 years, literally every pick, outside of maybe QB, is a "need" pick.

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2021 14:00

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2021 11:20

But I don't think you go into a draft each year and say "ok, the team is bad so we need a top 16 pick to be a star" or "the team is good so we need to focus on need over value." It's always a balancing act, and the variability should be more to make specific evaluations between players than broader team circumstances, with fairly few exceptions.

imo Ted was a needs drafting GM, specially early, he didn't like buying ufa, so he had to draft for need, what choice is there with those limitations, it's why we took Perry, and Datone Jones, Mathews and BJ Raji and the 3 or 4 high drafted DL, and the half doz CB's, and I think this is how most GM's operate, it's a luxury to do BPA outside of tier one draft talent, the goal as Ted demonstrated was to move up or down slightly to align draft value with the selection, I think BPA took a back seat sorta ever since UFA started.

Where TT messed up IMO was his inability to adapt to modern FA. Teams use 1 year mercenary deals heavily now and TT just refused. He could have easily found a bridge player to fill weaknesses but instead he would make some just god awful picks toward the end of his career. He really ran the franchise into the ground from 2016 on. It was a miracle that team made the NFCC but it was obvious watching that defense down the stretch. They had absolutely no future talent outside Clark.

Gutey to an extent will do those, sort term deals to fill some needs. Unfortunately he doesnt fix all of them. I consider it inexcusable and negligence for the WR, IDL, and LB position to struggle year in and year out.

Ted Thompson gave the Green Bay Packers a majority of the current impact players on the current “believed to be a contender as of preseason” team.

go pak go wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2021 16:46

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2021 14:00

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2021 11:20

But I don't think you go into a draft each year and say "ok, the team is bad so we need a top 16 pick to be a star" or "the team is good so we need to focus on need over value." It's always a balancing act, and the variability should be more to make specific evaluations between players than broader team circumstances, with fairly few exceptions.

imo Ted was a needs drafting GM, specially early, he didn't like buying ufa, so he had to draft for need, what choice is there with those limitations, it's why we took Perry, and Datone Jones, Mathews and BJ Raji and the 3 or 4 high drafted DL, and the half doz CB's, and I think this is how most GM's operate, it's a luxury to do BPA outside of tier one draft talent, the goal as Ted demonstrated was to move up or down slightly to align draft value with the selection, I think BPA took a back seat sorta ever since UFA started.

Because team positional groups essentially turn every 2 - 3 years, literally every pick, outside of maybe QB, is a "need" pick.

sure do to player resign cost and prior draft misses, but we tend to resign our draft hits, whatever, the point is the same, GM have to draft according to positional need, specially at the key positions in the first couple rounds, or the odds of filling with a more ready player go way down.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2021 18:17

Ted Thompson gave the Green Bay Packers a majority of the current impact players on the current “believed to be a contender as of preseason” team.

Sure, offensively I’ll say he did. Defensively he completely failed our organization.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2021 18:25

Drj820 wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2021 18:17

Ted Thompson gave the Green Bay Packers a majority of the current impact players on the current “believed to be a contender as of preseason” team.

Sure, offensively I’ll say he did. Defensively he completely failed our organization.

early years I'd agree, last 5 years I think he did better on defense, mostly because thats where he spent the high picks, some panned out, many didn't, but that tends to be normal on defense, unless a GM uses ufa a defense will often have glaring weak positions, it's what separates Belichick from most of the rest, he'd bring in vets with a year or two of quality play left in them, it helped Brady and his offense win games.

Ted was just the opposite, if the draft or UDFA didn't pan out, neither did the defense, and it was left to Rodgers and the few quality impact players to out score our opponents, and it stayed this way for years because they where able to do so till we faced well balanced teams that where good on both sides of the ball, unless the offense played mistake free ball ( which is really to tall a order and few teams ever accomplish) we lost the big games, and of course Rodgers and those few impact players where blamed for there imperfections, when the real culprits where to many weak positions, and questionable game time decisions.

Yoop wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2021 08:15

unless the offense played mistake free ball ( which is really to tall a order and few teams ever accomplish) we lost the big games, and of course Rodgers and those few impact players where blamed for there imperfections, when the real culprits where to many weak positions, and questionable game time decisions.

At what point does having insane expectations of our beloved playmakers balance or equal out with expectations of mistake free operation from the front office?

I mean it's literally the same argument just swapping the "side" or party.

When you compare Aaron Rodgers and the Packers to Tom Brady and New England, we fall short - as does every other player or team in the history of the league. When you compare the Packers and Rodgers to any other team/QB the last 14 years, we are doing just fine.

Let's start with 2017 and move backward. Criteria will be 32 games started with an AV of 20 or more (5 per year average).

Here is the 2017 breakdown by team:

Arizona - 1
Atlanta - 0
Baltimore - 1
Buffalo - 3
Carolina - 2
Chicago - 2
Cincinnati - 1
Cleveland - 2
Dallas - 0
Denver - 1
Detroit - 2
Green Bay - 1
Houston - 2
Indianapolis - 1
Jacksonville - 1
Kansas City - 1
LA Rams - 2
Las Vegas - 0
Miami - 0
Minnesota - 1
New England - 0
New Orleans - 4
NY Giants - 1
NY Jets - 1
Philadelphia - 0
Pittsburgh - 3
San Diego - 3
Seattle - 2
San Francisco - 1
Tampa Bay - 1
Tennessee - 2
Washington - 2

Here is the other thing, what do we do with guys cut/traded before their rookie contract was up? That includes:

Jabrill Peppers - Cleveland
Pat Elflein - Minnesota
Leonard Fournette - Jacksonville
Kareem Hunt - Kansas City
Jamal Adams - NY Jets

I would be inclined to say traded means they count for the team, cut means they don't. Thoughts?

Here is the list again: https://stathead.com/tiny/upyfJ

Also, is this criteria too stringent? It comes out to a mean of 1.375 per team. Should I lower the AV to 12, which would be 3 on average in the first 4 years?

This is a really easy way to look at it because I can pull data easily, but also it does incorporate what most people see as quality starters.

Thoughts?

go pak go wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2021 08:48

Yoop wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2021 08:15

unless the offense played mistake free ball ( which is really to tall a order and few teams ever accomplish) we lost the big games, and of course Rodgers and those few impact players where blamed for there imperfections, when the real culprits where to many weak positions, and questionable game time decisions.

At what point does having insane expectations of our beloved playmakers balance or equal out with expectations of mistake free operation from the front office?

I mean it's literally the same argument just swapping the "side" or party.

When you compare Aaron Rodgers and the Packers to Tom Brady and New England, we fall short - as does every other player or team in the history of the league. When you compare the Packers and Rodgers to any other team/QB the last 14 years, we are doing just fine.

Exactly.

And if you are going to neglect a position, wouldn't ILB be a logical one to ignore on early draft picks?