Brit Pack

The point though is how many misses do you have to get though to get those hits, how much wasted draft capital to get those few gooduns? Remember I'm not saying there is no draft success in later rounds just harder to get hold off,. As I have said before, you present one side of the argument when you say we would have missed out on Jordy etc but we can't say and we don't know what player we would have got instead. In the same way we don't lament the loss of three picks we had traded up for Clay Matthews. 2004: Joey Thomas 3rd, Donnell Washington, BJ Sander - the year we got Wells in the 7th 3 replaceables 2005 (The GOAT get year): Collins in the 2nd, Terrence Murphy (got injured) 2nd, Marvel Underwood and Brady Poppinga in the 4th 1 stud, 3 replaceables 2006: We got Jennings in the 2nd but also kind of whiffed on Daryn College in the 2nd, Abdul Hodge in the 3rd, Jason Spitz in the 3rd, Corey Rodgers in the 4th and Will Blackmon 1 great, 5 replaceables 2007 (the Harrell year): We whiffed the whole way through: Brandon Jackson in the 2nd, James Jones in the 3rd was decent, then we had Rouse and Barbre in the 4th 1 Good, 3 replacables 2008 (an outlier year): Jordy in the 2nd, Finley in the 3rd and Sitton in the 4th where great. Brohm bombed and Pat Lee (due to injury) both 2nd rounders, and Jeremy Thompson in the 4th 3 great, 3 duds 2009 (the year we did what I liked and gave up our mid round picks to get Clay): Lang in the 4th 1 great 2010: Mike Neal in the 2nd Burnett in the 3rd Okay players, in my mind replaceable 2011: Cobb in the 2nd, Alex Green in the 3rd and Davon House in the 4th 1 good, 2 replaceables So to get that great 2011 offence and the 8 players that I listed there it took 9 drafts. As you said 2 are 1st rounders, so not in my formula so to speak, that leaves 6 players drafted between 2nd and 4th rounds. One was drafted in the 7th. So it took over 9 drafts, 29 picks to get us those 5 studs!!! The question is if we had packaged up those 29 picks would we have got something better than just those 5 players? I believe so

Go with me on this, based on a true story. SO this evening I was playing chess with my son. It made me recall that American Football is often described as chess with athletes. As the game I played with my son unfolded I had the upper hand, I had taken all of his minor pieces and some of his major pieces too but he still had his queen. I made a silly mistake and lost mine. Suddenly the game turned and bit my bit my advantage was eroded till finally I was checked mated and lost. The moral of the story is pawns in the right position can be powerful but are largely replaceable and do not seriously affect the outcome of a game. The minor pieces, the bishops and knights are akin to good players and they can win you games. However, a queen is dominant and even if you face many good pieces a queen can take over a game. In this analogy a queen is a game changer player, you have to account for them at all times as an opponent. Having one or multiple ones on your team makes other pieces or players better. If you have to account for Devante Adams Lazzard is a little more open. When I look at the Packers we have 4 possibly 6 'queens' on our offence: Rodgers (an ageing queen..), Devante, Bakh, Aaron Jones, possibly Bulaga and Jenkins could grow into one. On defence we have Kenny, Z'Smith, P Smith, Jaire and if he takes it up a notch Amos. That is 8 in total with 3 a notch below,. These players have to be accounted for and can seriously affect the outcome of the game. What if we had 13 such players? That's what makes you a dominant team. When we had an electric offence in 2011 so many 'queens' Rodgers in his prime, Jordy, Jennings, Bulaga, Wells, Lang, Sitton and Finley These 8 guys were the queens. Driver, Cobb and James Jones were not queens but good pieces too. Then the defence you had Woodson, Tramon, Raji, Matthews and Sam Shields. That is 13 complete studs. If we can retain Bulaga and get a couple more piece we are very close to being dominant once again. Look at the Niners, how many 'queens' they got on defence Bosa, Armstead, Sherman, Buckner, Dee Ford, Jimmy Ward and Fred Warner. On offence they got Kittle, Debo is emerging as is Mostert, Juszczyk, an ageing Joe Staley, and debateably Jimmy G. Get the 'queens' and the rest of the team takes care of itself. Do whatever it takes to get them in and of course the whole point of this thread is player acquisition through free agency or the draft is an inaccurate science, so go and get the best you can in the draft by trading up as much as you can and go and bag a queen... With that I leave you.

I don't understand why the Packers front office wastes countless man hours, money and energy when they could just read this forum instead and get it right every time...I mean who would draft Gary??? Really!!!

Not ensures but the probabilities certainly increase without a doubt and the higher up you can get the higher those probabilities become. As you stated earlier the hardest part of this is finding someone willing to dance with you and the fact that you will have to pay over the odds i.e future picks to make it happen. I think my mind is of the opinion that rosters are comprised of a small number of well paid players (about 12) who are either marquee FAs or second and third contract players and they account for approximately 70% of the cap. The remainder of the players are rookies, UDFA's, street free agents etc. If you can push that number of ;top players' on your team to 15 or 16 it changes the complexion more dramatically than having more players average to good players filling out your roster. I'm willing to put more eggs in that basket to find those studs as I feel they will drastically change a team.

Improvement is a different argument than replacing for sure. The concept I'm prorogating is a roster is improved by having as many bluechip players as possible and the best chance of getting such a player is in the first round. A Z'Smith changed our defence, a Jaire changes our defence, a Kenny Clark changes our defence. Kevin King doesn't necessarily, Dean Lowry certainly doesn't, Tyler Lancaster doesn't either. That production is replaceable for me and I willing to scarafice what could be had in the middle rounds to go up and get a game changer ala what we did to get Clay

Like I said some of that production is replaceable by cheap vets. See previous posts. 3 of those guys listed are 5th rounders and I'm not into trading 5th round picks away. You are also taking only the good players over a number a 7 year period and also not showing what you could get in return but we could never show that because it is purely hypothetical. That's why the reverse of the argument and a real example is what I'm advocating for, 2009 we gave up three picks a 2nd round and two 3rd rounder or Clay Matthews. Would you want Clay Matthews or the potential of three additional picks and the production they would bring? Personally, I would like to see more of the same. Trade up always to try and get a blue chip player. This year I really like Jeudy, would I trade our 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th to move up in the draft and get him if he was still available at the 15th spot? Absolutely! With regards to drafting better, the Packers are above average when it comes to drafting. That is my main point the draft does not lend itself well to hitting on players the further back you go. So for me the logical thing is to get as high up as you can in the 1st and go for a stud. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders are not as valuable as we think they are.

Not quite true. On average 27 Pro Bowl players in any year. 45% will come from the 1st round of 32 players i.e 12.5 players (not quite sure about the half player) And there is 220 players selected between rounds 2 - 7 out of which 14.5 Pro Bowlers will emerge i.e a 6.6% chance of getting a Pro Bowl player. So the chances in round 1 are dramatically higher.

But the point is you don't give up draft capital to acquire them!!!

I don't disagree with you but these bottom of the roster players can be replaced with cheap vets. BJ Goodson cost $730k, Oren Burks $836k. I haven't looked, but how many more snaps did BJ have over Burks? Robert Tonyan $570k and we got 100 yards out of him, Jace (yes he was injured) but we only got three post season catches for 15 yards and he cost $966k on average per year. Tyler Ervin $720k while Dexter Williams marginally less average annual salary of $671k. Jason Spriggs $1.59m in 2019, Jared Veldheer $831k. I mean our cheap free agent trio of GMO, Jake Kumerow and Lazzard have outlasted our 4th round pick J'mon Moore.

Well if we look at those nine, five of them barely made any meaningful contribution and you could argue actually ate up cap space really, those being: Jace Sternberger, Oren Burks, Mo Adams, Josh Jackson, Jason Spriggs. Then we got Lowry who is not cheap at 3.6m cap hit last year with a pff of 63. Could easily be replaced by a Mike Pennel who played for $800k last season and had a 72.2pff. MLB an RBs are interchangeable anyway hence why we never put too much draft stock in to them. And Kyler Fackrell is Kyler Fackrell. All very replaceable with similar level FA contracts for bottom end roster guys which these guys are.

In response to some valid points around what would the roster look like without 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks and to give a larger sample size of what happens to our draft picks here is some data. The roster we had for the 2019 season was comprised of the following: 5 x 1st rounders 5 x 2nd rounders 4 x 3rd rounders 10 x 5th to 7th rounders 7 x UDFAs 22 x FAs (these being street free agents and big money ones too) So we are currently looking at 13 players who in my mind we would possibly be without if we played my game of trade up these picks. Those players are: Blake Martinez, Jamaal Williams, David Bakhitari, Dean Lowry, Jace Sternberger, Kyler Fackrell, Oren Burks, Mo Adams, Elgton Jenkins, Kevin King, Davante Adams, Josh Jackson, Jason Spriggs How many of those players would you say are quite replaceable??? I would say 9 of them are for me. As David Bakhitari is the oldest of that group and was drafted in 2013 let's look since then to now how many picks were made in that period on 2nd, 3rd and 4th round players by the Packers 2013 - 4 picks - 1 still on roster 2014 - 4 picks - 1 still on roster 2015 - 3 picks - 0 on roster 2016 - 4 picks - 1 re-signed, other three probably won't 2017 - 5 picks - 3 still on the roster 2018 - 3 picks - 2 still on the roster 2019 - 2 picks - 2 still on the roster That's a total of 25 picks. Out of those 25 picks 10 are still on the roster (assuming Martinez, Fackrell and Spriggs don't re-sign) Of those 10, 2 are Pro Bowlers. Which fits my initial stat that outside of the first round 10% of players selected will be Pro Bowlers. Point being if we traded up those picks into first rounders we could of potentially (IF we could of found trade partners and have the right ammo to move that far up) have had 7 first round picks and if half of those busted we would potentially have 3.5 Pro Bowl players vs the 2 we currently have. I know no GM would do this but I just find it interesting and looking at draft history more and more makes me realise how the odds of getting a blue chip player out of the 1st round are really small. Like I said before, if nothing else it makes me want to trade away our mid round picks for proven vets in trade deals e.g Emanuel Sanders etc...

That is exactly the point I'm trying to make it is not an issue with our front office but an issue with probabilities of hitting on good/great players outside of the first round. The nature of the beast is you will always miss more, to the tune of 89.7% of the time you will walk away with a JAG or a guy who doesn't see his second contract. At least the bust rate in the first round is much lower at 54%.

I'm typically looking to trade away 2nd rounders, 3rd rounders and fourth rounders, depending where you are picking that gives you enough ammo to trade up back into the first. I would even be willing to give up future 2nd, 3rd, or 4th rounders (not firsts) to move up for a player that I covert. Trading 5th round picks have too little value it is better to retain them and use them as the lottery ticket to pick up your Aaron Jones, Donald Drivers, Tauschers, Wells, Lindsleys etc.. Looking back also these are players in rounds two to 4 who didn't amount to much: Josh Jackson, Oren Burks, J'mon Moore, Josh Jones, Mo Adams, Vince Biegel, Jason Spriggs, Kyler Fackrell (JAG), Quintein Rollins, Ty Montgomery, Jake Ryan, Khyri Thornton, Richard Rodgers, Carl Bradford, JC Tretter, Jerel Worthy, Jerron McMillan.Alex Green, Davon House. If you look at the names you provided how many came in the later rounds. Guys like Morgan Burnett or Starks were easily replaceable. However, as you pointed out what is tempting is our track record with 2nd round receiver and I would keep on drafting Oline men in the 5th round and later as well as running backs. I'm not denying that there are players always to be found and you can trade up and get a bust as well, but just looking at the probabilities, being drafted in the first round has a much higher chance of success of being a stud than anywhere else in the draft. It is certainly scary to think your are giving up three picks or more for just one pick and the beauty of mid rounds picks that don't work out is they don't make a large stain on a GM but failed 1st rounders do, how TT was berated again and again for Justin Harrell. The other side of this is I would be more willing to give up mid rounds picks in trades for veteran players e.g. Emmauel Sanders, Marshawn Llynch etc..

I agree that is the hardest part of it. Easier getting into the bottom of the first then around pick 15 up. However, I would prefer to swap out my second round, third and fourth and possibly 5th to get into the bottom of the first rather than retaining those picks. Or even give up future pick like what Baltimore did to nab Lamar Jackson with the last pick of the first round.

I think the only argument I feel is relevant is that it is hard to find a trade partner. I get that rosters need to be filled out with cheap talent however my preference is pick up cheap vets rather than investing in unproven rookies that might not amount to much. A Mercedes Lewis or Goodson type player is good enough to round out rosters and provide depth. Would a Mile Pennell be better or kind of same as a Dean Lowry or Tyler Lancaster? These are all mid/bottom of the roster players that you can pick up easily. Give me a cheap Veldheer over an unproven and crap Jason Spriggs. However, get me the chance to land a stud in the draft by going all in and trading up and you have a better chance of getting a game changer. Same as FA, it was quite a risk what we paid to get Za'Darius Smith but it worked out and we got a stud which changes the complexion of our defence. Take the 2017 draft, Kevin King, Josh Jones, Mo Adams, Vince Biegel you telling me that you wouldn’t trade that draft capital up for one better player? By the draft value chart that gets you to 15 in Round 1 a much better chance to get a player that fundamentally affects our team. The amount of these players from later rounds that ‘fill out rosters’ who hardly start let alone contribute meaningful snaps. Look at 2018 draft, Josh Jackson, Oren Burks, J’mon Moore, Cole Madison rounds to 2 to 5, wouldn’t you have preferred to use that draft capital and go big and trade up? The draft value of those picks gets us back into the first round at pick 27, IF you find a trade partner of course. I used to always think that the draft was about more picks to have more chances of landing someone decent. However, seeing and looking at how many picks don't even take snaps or contribute in the slightest my feelings have changed. In 2009 we gave up our second and two thirds to get back into the 1st round and we got Clay Matthews, game changer! It is all a gamble but I would prefer to gamble at a table where the odds of getting a good/great player are higher.