Packers Huddle

wow, that is REMARKABLY consistent. I thought 2020 would be a down year due to the offseason limitations, but nope.

Thanks!

go pak go wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 12:02

Like if you move that meter to 12 games started I bet it drops significantly.

29 in 2018.

33 in 2019.

35 in 2020.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 12:08

wow, that is REMARKABLY consistent. I thought 2020 would be a down year due to the offseason limitations, but nope.

Thanks!

There is minimal evidence that the covid offseason did much to hamper rookies ability to get on the field and play in 2020. Most seemed to just have typical rookie years...full of ups and downs, per usual.

Justin Herbert was the ONLY QB in 2020 to start 12 or more games.

2019 saw 3.
2018 saw 3.
2017 saw 2.
2016 saw 2.
2015 saw 2.
2014 saw 3.
2013 saw 2.
2012 saw 5.
2011 saw 3.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 12:44

Justin Herbert was the ONLY QB in 2020 to start 12 or more games.

2019 saw 3.
2018 saw 3.
2017 saw 2.
2016 saw 2.
2015 saw 2.
2014 saw 3.
2013 saw 2.
2012 saw 5.
2011 saw 3.

yeah but Burrow would have been in that category easily without the injury, which would then put the number at 2. Which is right on par with every year but outlier year 2012.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 12:55

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 12:44

Justin Herbert was the ONLY QB in 2020 to start 12 or more games.

2019 saw 3.
2018 saw 3.
2017 saw 2.
2016 saw 2.
2015 saw 2.
2014 saw 3.
2013 saw 2.
2012 saw 5.
2011 saw 3.

yeah but Burrow would have been in that category easily without the injury, which would then put the number at 2. Which is right on par with every year but outlier year 2012.

That can not be an effective "yeah but" unless you go back and look at every year for the same reasonings.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 12:55

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 12:44

Justin Herbert was the ONLY QB in 2020 to start 12 or more games.

2019 saw 3.
2018 saw 3.
2017 saw 2.
2016 saw 2.
2015 saw 2.
2014 saw 3.
2013 saw 2.
2012 saw 5.
2011 saw 3.

yeah but Burrow would have been in that category easily without the injury, which would then put the number at 2. Which is right on par with every year but outlier year 2012.

Yeah but Justin Herbert wouldn't have been in that category if the doctor didn't screw up with the needle to the QB1's chest prior to the Chargers Chiefs game forcing Herbert to start.

I rest my case, thanks 23

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 13:45

I rest my case, thanks 23

Again I don't really know what you are mad about or what your case is about.

The NFL since 2018 has seen roughly 60% to 70% of 1st rounders start more than 8 games their first season.

The Packers since 2018 has had 4 1st round draft picks. (Gutey picks). The Packers had 2 of the 4 players start more than 8 games which is just slightly below the league average but more or less in line with the league average.

The Packers are doing what you basically want outside of you like to pick on the Gary pick and the Love pick which has inconsistencies. Especially because you hate a lot things. Like for instance, you state we shouldn't have taken Gary but instead Fant. Yet TE's rarely start either so you technically should have hated that. But then that Fant thing morphed to Simmons in 2020 because Tonyan was good and we have a hole behind Clark. Yet Simmons is a DT who you say the Packers should never draft Rd 1 because they are high bust rates.

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 13:45

I rest my case, thanks 23

What case are you resting? Do you even know?

go pak go wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 13:54

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 13:45

I rest my case, thanks 23

Again I don't really know what you are mad about.

The NFL since 2018 has seen roughly 60% to 70% of 1st rounders start more than 8 games their first season.

The Packers since 2018 has had 4 1st round draft picks. (Gutey picks). The Packers had 2 of the 4 players start more than 8 games which is just slightly below the league average but more or less in line with the league average.

The Packers are doing what you basically want outside of you like to pick on the Gary pick and the Love pick which has inconsistencies. Especially because you hate a lot things. Like for instance, you state we shouldn't have taken Gary but instead Fant. Yet TE's rarely start either so you technically should have hated that. But then that Fant thing morphed to Simmons in 2020 because Tonyan was good and have a hole behind Clark. Yet Simmons is a DT who you say the Packers should never draft Rd 1 because they are high bust rates.

I'am not mad, I was the one that said rookies start every season, it's you and Yoho that down played that fact, so I went and brought the 2020 draft class to show that lots of Rookies start every season in fact 59 started for half the snaps of the squad they played on.

Gary should have started all 16 games for us last year, and minus a Smith would have started for us as a rookie, Love was a wasted pick imo, there where a half doz players we could/should have taken that would have started for us.

I hate taking DT's at or near the end of the first or early 2nd round, Simmons though would have been a good choice but I actually wanted to trade back to late teens or early 20's.

Gary wasn't on my radar at all, but minus one of the Smiths and I would have been fine with Gary, and started him game 1, he may not have produced as well as Preston did, but I doubt the drop off would have been that much.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 14:01

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 13:45

I rest my case, thanks 23

What case are you resting? Do you even know?

ya I do know, but since you want to act like a smart ass, go figure it out.

I was on the record saying up to 40 rookies start per year.

Yoop proved I was wrong as 19 more started last year than my range.

Like I have always said, I would prefer we get instant impact from our rookies, but if we don't that doesn't worry me at all as long as we start to see some value from them by year 3. I will always stand by that.

Give me good players. Not instant hole fillers.

go pak go wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 14:15

I was on the record saying up to 40 rookies start per year.

Yoop proved I was wrong as 19 more started last year than my range.

Like I have always said, I would prefer we get instant impact from our rookies, but if we don't that doesn't worry me at all as long as we start to see some value from them by year 3. I will always stand by that.

Give me good players. Not instant hole fillers.

I thought you said 15 to 25, or was that Yoho, the point is I said Rookies have to start, mostly higher drafted ones.

and you can give mid to later round picks a couple years, but if there still not producing a lot as Rotators or teams players then ya have to cut them lose.

rarely ever will this team be able to afford the luxury of not drafting for need, and that goes for any team except bottom feeders who draft top 10 in every round year after year, we'll never be able to groom up high picks as we did Gary, cause by the time they start ya have to give them a 2nd contract, and if ya have a lot of high ceiling players also do money, you have to let some go, well get max production per dollar with guys like Jenkins, Alex, Savage ( can't believe you left him off your outstanding rookie player pool)

there are 22 positions to fill with starter talent, and a GM has to fill those holes, Wolf once said if ya get 3 starters a draft class he considers that a successful class, I doubt Ron considered that if it took 3 years it would be considered just as successful as if they started sometime in year one, nah, the sooner they start the more successful the draft.

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 14:39

I thought you said 15 to 25, or was that Yoho, the point is I said Rookies have to start, mostly higher drafted ones.

No you are referencing my post. You just didn't read my post properly.

Most rookies don't play right away and most rookies aren't very good. If I were to guess, you are probably looking at 25 to 40 rookies who see any significant role and probably 10 to 15 rookies who actually play well each season league wide.

So basically Yoop would take the lesser prospect that would start year 1 over a more talented but more raw prospect.

I'm completely opposite. I want the best talent, even if it takes some time to develop.

Main reason is that if you keep adding lesser, need-plugging talent several years in a row, you'll ultimately end up with a lesser roster. Others get the better prospects. And even if you build a roster with no holes, you can't turn injuries off in real life.

salmar80 wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2021 15:54

So basically Yoop would take the lesser prospect that would start year 1 over a more talented but more raw prospect.

I'm completely opposite. I want the best talent, even if it takes some time to develop.

Main reason is that if you keep adding lesser, need-plugging talent several years in a row, you'll ultimately end up with a lesser roster. Others get the better prospects. And even if you build a roster with no holes, you can't turn injuries off in real life.

why is taking a player rated high who is a plug and play rated player a worse pick then another player with the same rating but plays a position he wont start because we already have the position filled with a quality starter, that doesn't even make sense.

we took BJ Raji over I think his name was Crabtree, a receiver almost everyone rated higher then BJ because we needed a DT big enough to play NT in a 34 scheme, ya have to draft for need, and you trade up or down to line up pick value, my way of drafting almost always lined up with the players Thompson took.

never did I say that we should take players of lower ceilings, thats you twisting what I did say to suit your agenda, and your idea of drafting players that aren't ready to play high in the draft and grooming them for years while leaving DT weak has a lot to do with why we couldn't stop the run a couple years back against SF.

and it's very hard for any scout or coach to know the ceilings of College players, to many variables involved with the transition to the pro's.

everyone including me wants the best talent, where we differ is, I'am not about to draft a player to sit on a bench after just spending over a 100 Mil. on two UFA when I need DT's or some other position void of starter talent, the object of this game is winning, not developing players, the developing is but a process towards that goal.

look at your bottom feeder teams, they pick top 10 every year, there teams are loaded with players that should be plug and play, yet they don't win because I. they never fill every position with a starting caliber player, and 2. the development doesn't go as planned, rinse and repeat.

Miami Dolphins un defeated season, there defense was called "the NO name defense" because it didn't have a big name player on the whole squad, at least till that point, what it did have was quality starters and some backups at every position.

so I beg to differ, while having a few great players like Alexander and Savage etc. is certainly a plus, just give me a unit filled with good quality starting talent at every position, some good coaching, and you'll get a top 10 defense almost every season, maybe top 5, this grooming up players for years is insanity.

Yoop wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2021 08:48

why is taking a player rated high who is a plug and play rated player a worse pick then another player with the same rating but plays a position he wont start because we already have the position filled with a quality starter, that doesn't even make sense.

we took BJ Raji over I think his name was Crabtree, a receiver almost everyone rated higher then BJ because we needed a DT big enough to play NT in a 34 scheme, ya have to draft for need, and you trade up or down to line up pick value, my way of drafting almost always lined up with the players Thompson took.

never did I say that we should take players of lower ceilings, thats you twisting what I did say to suit your agenda, and your idea of drafting players that aren't ready to play high in the draft and grooming them for years while leaving DT weak has a lot to do with why we couldn't stop the run a couple years back against SF.

and it's very hard for any scout or coach to know the ceilings of College players, to many variables involved with the transition to the pro's.

everyone including me wants the best talent, where we differ is, I'am not about to draft a player to sit on a bench after just spending over a 100 Mil. on two UFA when I need DT's or some other position void of starter talent, the object of this game is winning, not developing players, the developing is but a process towards that goal.

look at your bottom feeder teams, they pick top 10 every year, there teams are loaded with players that should be plug and play, yet they don't win because I. they never fill every position with a starting caliber player, and 2. the development doesn't go as planned, rinse and repeat.

Miami Dolphins un defeated season, there defense was called "the NO name defense" because it didn't have a big name player on the whole squad, at least till that point, what it did have was quality starters and some backups at every position.

so I beg to differ, while having a few great players like Alexander and Savage etc. is certainly a plus, just give me a unit filled with good quality starting talent at every position, some good coaching, and you'll get a top 10 defense almost every season, maybe top 5, this grooming up players for years is insanity.

I agree that IF you end up in a spot where there are several prospects with the exact same rating, you pick the guy who plays a need position. In that case, BPA also fills a need.

The real dilemma, and actual test of whether you're a "needs" drafter or "BPA" drafter comes when the best available player does not fill an immediate need. If no good trades are available, do you pick the highest rated guy? Or do you pick a lesser prospect at a need position? You can't have both. What do you do?

You are super naive if you think you can ALWAYS trade up or down at will. I mean you CAN, but only by doing terrible value trades. I doubt you want GB to do that. Teams don't always accept fair value trades, because they have plans of their own.

salmar80 wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2021 09:40

Yoop wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2021 08:48

why is taking a player rated high who is a plug and play rated player a worse pick then another player with the same rating but plays a position he wont start because we already have the position filled with a quality starter, that doesn't even make sense.

we took BJ Raji over I think his name was Crabtree, a receiver almost everyone rated higher then BJ because we needed a DT big enough to play NT in a 34 scheme, ya have to draft for need, and you trade up or down to line up pick value, my way of drafting almost always lined up with the players Thompson took.

never did I say that we should take players of lower ceilings, thats you twisting what I did say to suit your agenda, and your idea of drafting players that aren't ready to play high in the draft and grooming them for years while leaving DT weak has a lot to do with why we couldn't stop the run a couple years back against SF.

and it's very hard for any scout or coach to know the ceilings of College players, to many variables involved with the transition to the pro's.

everyone including me wants the best talent, where we differ is, I'am not about to draft a player to sit on a bench after just spending over a 100 Mil. on two UFA when I need DT's or some other position void of starter talent, the object of this game is winning, not developing players, the developing is but a process towards that goal.

look at your bottom feeder teams, they pick top 10 every year, there teams are loaded with players that should be plug and play, yet they don't win because I. they never fill every position with a starting caliber player, and 2. the development doesn't go as planned, rinse and repeat.

Miami Dolphins un defeated season, there defense was called "the NO name defense" because it didn't have a big name player on the whole squad, at least till that point, what it did have was quality starters and some backups at every position.

so I beg to differ, while having a few great players like Alexander and Savage etc. is certainly a plus, just give me a unit filled with good quality starting talent at every position, some good coaching, and you'll get a top 10 defense almost every season, maybe top 5, this grooming up players for years is insanity.

I agree that IF you end up in a spot where there are several prospects with the exact same rating, you pick the guy who plays a need position. In that case, BPA also fills a need.

The real dilemma, and actual test of whether you're a "needs" drafter or "BPA" drafter comes when the best available player does not fill an immediate need. If no good trades are available, do you pick the highest rated guy? Or do you pick a lesser prospect at a need position? You can't have both. What do you do?

You are super naive if you think you can ALWAYS trade up or down at will. I mean you CAN, but only by doing terrible value trades. I doubt you want GB to do that. Teams don't always accept fair value trades, because they have plans of their own.

ya have to try and line up pick to value, but if your CB position is void of talent for instance then somehow you have to take the best available player at the position as Thompson did with Randal, not to is idiotic, same with edge rusher, or DT, Thompson missed on some of those guys but so does every GM, and a defense can't survive without them.

and BPA is in the eye of the scout and GM, not till years later can it be proven who was the BPA, and even that is often to close to call.

I think were both on the same page, and it's simply the wording of the conversation and your ability to verse it better thats the difference, never said a GM can always find a trade partner willing to trade equal value or close to it, but if it comes down to not filling a weak position or giving a little to much to trade to line up slot value or to get that player, then thats the price of football, GM's that refuse to do that as Ted did at times cause the team play minus competency as we did at ILB and safety for years.

great to have a few of the leagues best on a squad, but give me quality starters at every position and I'll whip you every day of the week.

Yoop wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2021 10:41

ya have to try and line up pick to value, but if your CB position is void of talent for instance then somehow you have to take the best available player at the position as Thompson did with Randal, not to is idiotic

In defending your "pick for needs" opinion you just illustrated exactly why you don't do that with your "Randal" example.