Packers Huddle

APB wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 06:58

Drj820 wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 04:54

bud fox wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2023 23:18

I think most would have wanted to trade down in this draft but you really only get that opportunity when someone calls wanting to go up not vice versa.

13 was a strange spot this year because instead of like one premium guy left, there was like 4 guys who would have been acceptable to take. That tanks the trade back value. You knew the value was low when the eagles just gave a 2024 4th to jump to 9.

The Eagles traded up one spot, from 10 to 9, and the value in picks they gave Chicago was consistent with the traditional trade value chart and other trades consummated throughout the night.

The value narrative you're attempting to set does not exist.

Besides being an ahole and cynical toward my post, what makes you think I am driving a narrative about “value”? I simply said I don’t think we traded back because I don’t think there were many offers…due to how the draft fell. And due to there being a handful of guys that seemed acceptable to take at 13.

My opinion on the matter was rooted in Gutey saying the phones were more quiet than usual.

I wasn’t planting a narrative either way. My comment was a benign opinion.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 07:48

APB wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 06:58

Drj820 wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 04:54

13 was a strange spot this year because instead of like one premium guy left, there was like 4 guys who would have been acceptable to take. That tanks the trade back value. You knew the value was low when the eagles just gave a 2024 4th to jump to 9.

The Eagles traded up one spot, from 10 to 9, and the value in picks they gave Chicago was consistent with the traditional trade value chart and other trades consummated throughout the night.

The value narrative you're attempting to set does not exist.

Besides being an ahole and cynical toward my post, what makes you think I am driving a narrative about “value”? I simply said I don’t think we traded back because I don’t think there were many offers…due to how the draft fell. And due to there being a handful of guys that seemed acceptable to take at 13.

My opinion on the matter was rooted in Gutey saying the phones were more quiet than usual.

I wasn’t planting a narrative either way. My comment was a benign opinion.

Oh boo hoo. Somebody had the gall to respond to one of your posts in the same cynical, passive-aggressive style that you use over and over. What's the saying? You can dish it out, but....?

It was pretty clear the top echelon players had been taken by pick 13. Also pretty clear the hype surrounding Levis was just that: hype.

At that point, there was little reason for any team to try and jump up. The board had already shifted to the next tier of players, of which the values of multiple players across multiple position groups evened out.

The Eagles pick of Carter marked that shift point. Their decision to move up the one spot was obviously a move to block someone else from getting the last player from the top tier talent group. However, their compensation to Chicago was in no way an indicator of lessor value. They paid a cost consistent with other trades and the traditional chart.

Your opinion of the Eagles basically getting a discount, while free to express, is wrong.

the Bears gained a 4th round pick, gave up a chance to nab the last blue chipper and took a RT only ol man, no wonder Chicago is a bottom feeder, that is down right embarrassing

Yoop wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 08:43

the Bears gained a 4th round pick, gave up a chance to nab the last blue chipper and took a RT only ol man, no wonder Chicago is a bottom feeder, that is down right embarrassing

I think they just had character concerns regarding Carter and weren’t interested while knowing others would be. They got an additional pick while still getting, in their mind, their guy one spot later.

Not a terrible strategy.

If Darnell Wright turns out to be a stud, it’s a good move. That’s a big “if” though.

The Eagles definitely moved up at a discount with the Bears.

The Eagles 2024 4th rounder? Its the Eagles, so it is very likely to be end of the round, and then discounted a year.

Sure the point value is similar, because 9 is close-ish to 10. But that 4th rounder doesn't even make up half the value difference.

APB wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 08:48

Yoop wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 08:43

the Bears gained a 4th round pick, gave up a chance to nab the last blue chipper and took a RT only ol man, no wonder Chicago is a bottom feeder, that is down right embarrassing

I think they just had character concerns regarding Carter and weren’t interested while knowing others would be. They got an additional pick while still getting, in their mind, their guy one spot later.

Not a terrible strategy.

If Darnell Wright turns out to be a stud, it’s a good move. That’s a big “if” though.

Well I think Darnell Wright is one of the more versatile lineman in the draft. I think he'll get a LT shot, he could play anywhere but center. So I don't think he is RTO. And according to McGinn, he has a lot of character concerns himself.

BF004 wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 08:59

The Eagles definitely moved up at a discount with the Bears.

The Eagles 2024 4th rounder? Its the Eagles, so it is very likely to be end of the round, and then discounted a year.

Sure the point value is similar, because 9 is close-ish to 10. But that 4th rounder doesn't even make up half the value difference.

I think the Bears had a guy they wanted - Wright - and didn’t want to drop back too far out of fear of losing him. Somebody here did the trade point breakdown last night and it showed consistency with the traditional chart values.

That said, it wouldn’t surprise me to see it eventually play out as a “discount” with the Eagles expected to compete for the SB thus making that pick a late round 4th.

It still works out well for Chicago if they felt that strongly about Wright. They may have turned down better offers at the expense of ensuring getting their guy.

APB wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 08:48

Yoop wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 08:43

the Bears gained a 4th round pick, gave up a chance to nab the last blue chipper and took a RT only ol man, no wonder Chicago is a bottom feeder, that is down right embarrassing

I think they just had character concerns regarding Carter and weren’t interested while knowing others would be. They got an additional pick while still getting, in their mind, their guy one spot later.

Not a terrible strategy.

If Darnell Wright turns out to be a stud, it’s a good move. That’s a big “if” though.

they took Wright over higher graded tackles because he limited Anderson Jr. to just two pressures last year, Jones and Skoronski IMO would have been better choices.

I read the Jets where planning to take Broderick Jones, then the Steelers traded with NE and grabbed Jones out from under them

APB wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 09:11

Somebody here did the trade point breakdown last night and it showed consistency with the traditional chart values.

Yes, Yoho, and like I said, it was close-ish, because 1600 is close to 1700 (made up numbers), because 9 is close to 10, but like only 40 of those 100 points were recouped.

It was a positive move for the Bears, they got their guy and another pick. Wouldn't be surprised if they got better offers that they really didn't want to take, cause they wanted Wright. Then told the Eagles move up or we're giving the pick to X, and Eagles threw them something.

But it definitely wasn't a straight up trade chart value kind of trade.

APB wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 08:30

Drj820 wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 07:48

APB wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 06:58

The Eagles traded up one spot, from 10 to 9, and the value in picks they gave Chicago was consistent with the traditional trade value chart and other trades consummated throughout the night.

The value narrative you're attempting to set does not exist.

Besides being an ahole and cynical toward my post, what makes you think I am driving a narrative about “value”? I simply said I don’t think we traded back because I don’t think there were many offers…due to how the draft fell. And due to there being a handful of guys that seemed acceptable to take at 13.

My opinion on the matter was rooted in Gutey saying the phones were more quiet than usual.

I wasn’t planting a narrative either way. My comment was a benign opinion.

Oh boo hoo. Somebody had the gall to respond to one of your posts in the same cynical, passive-aggressive style that you use over and over. What's the saying? You can dish it out, but....?

It was pretty clear the top echelon players had been taken by pick 13. Also pretty clear the hype surrounding Levis was just that: hype.

At that point, there was little reason for any team to try and jump up. The board had already shifted to the next tier of players, of which the values of multiple players across multiple position groups evened out.

The Eagles pick of Carter marked that shift point. Their decision to move up the one spot was obviously a move to block someone else from getting the last player from the top tier talent group. However, their compensation to Chicago was in no way an indicator of lessor value. They paid a cost consistent with other trades and the traditional chart.

Your opinion of the Eagles basically getting a discount, while free to express, is wrong.

Yes, the top echelon was gone at 13 and many similar rated guys were in our window of picks, which is why we didn’t get enough value in an offer to make us wanna move back. Glad we agree

Yoop wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 09:14

APB wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 08:48

Yoop wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 08:43

the Bears gained a 4th round pick, gave up a chance to nab the last blue chipper and took a RT only ol man, no wonder Chicago is a bottom feeder, that is down right embarrassing

I think they just had character concerns regarding Carter and weren’t interested while knowing others would be. They got an additional pick while still getting, in their mind, their guy one spot later.

Not a terrible strategy.

If Darnell Wright turns out to be a stud, it’s a good move. That’s a big “if” though.

they took Wright over higher graded tackles because he limited Anderson Jr. to just two pressures last year,

I for some reason remember this interaction between us.

viewtopic.php?p=120224#p120224

I would guess Pittsburgh called and offered us the same 17 and 4th rounder (120) to go to 14. Maybe even with a 6 or 7 thrown in.


Love our 4th rounders, but yeah, that wouldn't have been enough.

BF004 wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2023 21:57

Sweet, one of my least favorite consensus first round prospects to my least favorite team.

Jaire dominance forced their hand.

I’m kind of sick of the media and the whole “Packers don’t help their QB because they don’t pick WRs in the 1st round.”

1. The Packers have been near the top of the league for decades. That means they’re picking near the bottom of the 1st round. Hello! The top WRs are gone by the time the Packers pick.

2. Yes, there have been a few drafts where the Packers have had higher draft picks but not many. They’ve chosen to go with the bigger athletic DL and OLBers. Why? Because there are a lot of good QBs in the league and if you don’t have a pass rush, you’ll get toasted.

3. How many great pass rushers were taken after the first round as compared to how many great WRs?

4. Years back Detroit took a WR in the 1st rd 3 years in a row. How’d that work out for them?

5. Looking at what Gute has done over the past few years, I see the formation of a defensive line similar to the 49ers. Not right now but a year from now. Guess what? The Niners are dominant. If they had a decent QB they would have won a SB or 2 in the last 5 years.

6. If the Packers sucked every year and had a high draft pick every year, then guess what? They would have taken a stud WR, but that’s not the case.

7. This year the hype was around Smith-Njigba (I should get props for spelling). I watched his highlights, I’m sorry I don’t see a #1 pick for him. If you notice almost all his big plays Stroud hit him perfectly on the run. He was open but not that wide open. It won’t be that easy for him in the NFL. He’s a taller Amari Rodgers with a little more quickness.

8. Yes, Gute could have traded back and possibly picked an edge rusher & WR, but I like his pick. Every scout on Van Ness states that this guy is explosive. He’s young and has a big upside. When watching his highlights my first thought was this guy is brutal. A couple of his sacks probably would have been called for roughing the passer in the NFL. He is staunch against the run and even blocked some kicks.

So please, enough about not picking a WR in the first round. If the Packers have a top 10-12 pick and there is a “real” stud WR, then I believe Gute would pick him.

BF004 wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 09:38

BF004 wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2023 21:57

Sweet, one of my least favorite consensus first round prospects to my least favorite team.

Jaire dominance forced their hand.

Yeah, it’s amazing good speed for anybody that size. Micah Parsons said he likes LVN, except that “he doesn’t play that fast.” I guess we’ll see.

Foosball wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 09:40

I’m kind of sick of the media and the whole “Packers don’t help their QB because they don’t pick WRs in the 1st round.”

(...)
So please, enough about not picking a WR in the first round. If the Packers have a top 10-12 pick and there is a “real” stud WR, then I believe Gute would pick him.

Add to your list:

9. going all the way back to Greg Jennings in 2006 and as recently as last year with Watson, GB has been unusually successful at drafting WRs in Round 2, to a point where they are often just as good or better than the guys drafted in Round 1 in the same year.

bud fox wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 00:31

BF004 wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 00:02

bud fox wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2023 23:11

Mayer or Hyatt would be nice in the 2nd.

Change the or to an and


Although I have a small lean towards Rice and Mingo.

Bless him for all the posts he makes on the draft and giving us stuff to read, but Yoho is off on Mingo.

Hyatt can be a difference maker. I also still think Mayer is the best TE in the draft so would be great to get him.

I would say YoHo has little to no impact on how I feel about WR’s. If anything I trend towards the opposite.

OL 100%, but not WR’s.

I think he’s really really good, and again, a really really great fit on a roster with Doubs and Watson. Those 3 could cover the whole field.

Foosball wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 09:40

So please, enough about not picking a WR in the first round. If the Packers have a top 10-12 pick and there is a “real” stud WR, then I believe Gute would pick him.

I have very little faith that Gute would do that, after all according to those mentioning our lack of WR picks in the first, it has been 21 years, in that span we have used 18 first round picks on defense eight freaking teen, and our defense has been mediocre for most of that span.

I will repeat, the term that defense wins championships doesn't apply to us as much as people seem to think, ya simply need one a little better then we've had, teams that are able to score quickly win the big games, imo our inability to sustain drives and score points in the closing minutes of games we lost has hurt us the most.

Ted got it right, and Guty finally used a high 2nd round pick on a receiver, and we saw the fruits of that in Watson last year, but to go 6 years not doing that left the WR group bare.

It's not so much that folks here demanded a first round WR pick, it's that both top rounds where avoided and both Ted and Gute passed over some very good prospects in order to use those picks on building a mediocre defense, and now he did it again, and if Ness takes as long to get on the field as Gary did it becomes unconscionable, that would be two very high picks on developmental prospects, no sale for me.

Hyatt is baaaad man

Yoop wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 10:10

Foosball wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2023 09:40

So please, enough about not picking a WR in the first round. If the Packers have a top 10-12 pick and there is a “real” stud WR, then I believe Gute would pick him.

I have very little faith that Gute would do that, after all according to those mentioning our lack of WR picks in the first, it has been 21 years, in that span we have used 18 first round picks on defense eight freaking teen, and our defense has been mediocre for most of that span.

I will repeat, the term that defense wins championships doesn't apply to us as much as people seem to think, ya simply need one a little better then we've had, teams that are able to score quickly win the big games, imo our inability to sustain drives and score points in the closing minutes of games we lost has hurt us the most.

Ted got it right, and Guty finally used a high 2nd round pick on a receiver, and we saw the fruits of that in Watson last year, but to go 6 years not doing that left the WR group bare.

It's not so much that folks here demanded a first round WR pick, it's that both top rounds where avoided and both Ted and Gute passed over some very good prospects in order to use those picks on building a mediocre defense, and now he did it again, and if Ness takes as long to get on the field as Gary did it becomes unconscionable, that would be two very high picks on developmental prospects, no sale for me.

I think Gute was planning on drafting a WR the year they drafted Love. However, all the top receivers came off the board before the Packers pick and there sat Love.