2019 NFL Draft Discussion

[Jaegybomb]

We hit on offense too hard a while ago and it's more cost effective at this point to try to get the defense to catch up. As far as the vets go we are still spending 100 mil on offensive players and only 70 on defense.

[mikemike778]

10 hours ago, Jaegybomb said:

We hit on offense too hard a while ago and it's more cost effective at this point to try to get the defense to catch up. As far as the vets go we are still spending 100 mil on offensive players and only 70 on defense.

When did we hit offense too hard ? 

A draft lasts 4 years after that, players are free agents and veterans. Over the last 4 years, we have used 2/12 picks on offense. One of these looks like a bust in Spriggs and the other (Monty) doesn't have an obvious role and is struggling with injuries.

The result is pretty much our entire offense is made up of ageing veterans and late round picks/UDFAs that we could get lucky with.

The Receivers are entirely dependent on Adams who had two concussions last year. After that, its pretty much cross your fingers and hope that one of the receivers we drafted after a punter comes good. Tight Ends, we have Graham who could look a very bad contract next year and pretty much nothing. On the O Line, the best we can probably hope for is that we might be able to get by if we don't have too many injuries. 

Don't get me wrong - I get why we have drafted like we have and it makes sense when you get a  new DC, to get him the players we want. But the offense looks in danger of falling off a cliff. You tend to get the benefit of a draft a few years down the line so in a few years the impact of drafting exclusively defence for years combined with Rodgers being a few years older could be a serious problem.

 

[Leader]

I reject the notion that there's talent to be mined for the defense at the top of the draft - but a similar payoff doesnt exist for offensive players.

We've been pulling down defensive talent with top draft picks as a consequence of injury, FA departures, poor talent evaluation (or player not performing yet) - and alike.

I'm not against addressing/filling needs - thats a necessity and obvious - but I'd prefer the potholes on the defensive side start getting filled up - eventually - at some point - so we can select SOMEBODY for the offense with a top draft pick or two - and in theory, enjoy their talents - at a low, affordable cost for the next 4-5 years.

It would be nice. Someday.

[moretti19]

I'd take Bosa all day before I took Oliver. No attack to Oliver at all, but Bosa is if not as good as his brother better. 

[pacman5252]

38 minutes ago, Leader said:

I reject the notion that there's talent to be mined for the defense at the top of the draft - but a similar payoff doesnt exist for offensive players.

We've been pulling down defensive talent with top draft picks as a consequence of injury, FA departures, poor talent evaluation (or player not performing yet) - and alike.

I'm not against addressing/filling needs - thats a necessity and obvious - but I'd prefer the potholes on the defensive side start getting filled up - eventually - at some point - so we can select SOMEBODY for the offense with a top draft pick or two - and in theory, enjoy their talents - at a low, affordable cost for the next 4-5 years.

It would be nice. Someday.

I think our defense high trend is more to do with positional value than anything. If you consider positional value on O , the only positions really worth plus picks are QB, OT which we’ve been fortunate at. We’ve always seem to get production from interior OL from rounds 3-5, wrs (with the benefit of having AR) rounds 2-5, and rbs from rounds. The only players offensive player drafted by GB top 50 since 2003 that weren’t QBs/Ots we’re Jordy Nelson (36) and Daryn College (47).

[Uffdaswede]

Looking at the structural nature of offense vs defense, the offense has a better opportunity to exploit ANY weakness on the defense at any of the 11 positions while protecting or minimizing its own problem areas. You’d better draft to make certain you don’t have any clear liabilities starting on the defense; injuries, blown picks, and cap-casualty lossrs have exacerbated our need to hit defense over and over. 

Having QB and LT locked up has pushed offensive needs to later rounds for us. I wouldn’t be surprised if our defense improved to top third in the league and we still went defense with the first two picks. 

[MacReady]

Just now, blueswedeshoes said:

Having QB and LT locked up has pushed offensive needs to later rounds for us. I wouldn’t be surprised if our defense improved to top third in the league and we still went defense with the first two picks. 

We really have to once we give Rodgers that mega contract.  We won't be fixing our defense with re-signing our own and signing others, so we will continue to have to draft them.  If Rodgers wants new receivers or tight ends, he's going to have to take less money. 

[Uffdaswede]

22 minutes ago, pacman5252 said:

I think our defense high trend is more to do with positional value than anything. If you consider positional value on O , the only positions really worth plus picks are QB, OT which we’ve been fortunate at. We’ve always seem to get production from interior OL from rounds 3-5, wrs (with the benefit of having AR) rounds 2-5, and rbs from rounds. The only players offensive player drafted by GB top 50 since 2003 that weren’t QBs/Ots we’re Jordy Nelson (36) and Daryn College (47).

You posted while I was typing, and we’re thinking in a similar way. To strengthen your last point, Daryn was drafted to be a tackle, was tried at tackle, but found a home at guard IIRC. 

[Uffdaswede]

3 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

We really have to once we give Rodgers that mega contract.  We won't be fixing our defense with re-signing our own and signing others, so we will continue to have to draft them.  If Rodgers wants new receivers or tight ends, he's going to have to take less money. 

The barrage of late round running back picks seemed to have worked last year. This year was CBs and WRs. If the Packers are developing a draft strategy of positional barrages, maybe next year is Two edges and three...OL? TE?

[Packerraymond]

1 hour ago, moretti19 said:

I'd take Bosa all day before I took Oliver. No attack to Oliver at all, but Bosa is if not as good as his brother better. 

So are you taking Joey Bosa over Aaron Donald? Because that's who Oliver compares to. Guy has 40 TFL before his junior season compared to 23 for Bosa. He also is the 100% recognized defensive talent on that line in Houston. Bosa had Holmes, Lewis and Hubbard as well as DreMont Jones who's in 1st round pick territory this year. 

It's Oliver for me and it isn't even close. Bosa is better than Chubb and deserves to be a top 5 pick. Oliver is a damn freak with Aaron Donald like ability, and the league won't make a mistake passing on a guy like that again.

[MacReady]

Interior pass rush is actually better than an edge pass rush in today's NFL just because so many teams are neglecting their interior pass protection.  If in the unlikely event we have a choice between both of them, I'd take the better overall player.  Even though I like edge rushers more.  And be careful saying no team will pass on an Aaron Donald talent again.  You have to remember that teams who typically pick first overall are picking first overall because they don't make the best decisions.  The Browns just took Mayfield and Ward 1st/4th overall. 

[Packerraymond]

36 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Interior pass rush is actually better than an edge pass rush in today's NFL just because so many teams are neglecting their interior pass protection.  If in the unlikely event we have a choice between both of them, I'd take the better overall player.  Even though I like edge rushers more.  And be careful saying no team will pass on an Aaron Donald talent again.  You have to remember that teams who typically pick first overall are picking first overall because they don't make the best decisions.  The Browns just took Mayfield and Ward 1st/4th overall. 

I just meant he won't fall to what 11? I think that's where Donald went. QBs will always dominate the top 2-3 if there's good enough prospects but Oliver should be the first non QB if ye continues down the path he's been on.

[CWood21]

20 hours ago, mikemike778 said:

I don't have any issues with  drafting Defense in the first majority.

The problem for me is that in the last 4 years which is the general lifetime of a draft class 10/12 draft picks in the first two days have been defense. Its not just the first round, virtually all of our decent picks have been on defense. 

The result is that the offense is ageing and low on talent. Running Back is the only position that looks relatively healthy because we connected on a few late round picks.

I'm a bit worried that there's an assumption that if Rodgers plays, he can do it all by himself and we will automatically have a top offense. But he will turn 35 next season, has started to pick up injuries and his numbers have regressed. 

I used to be a bit critical of his whining, but Rodgers has got a pretty good case for ask for anything contract wise when our GMs have pumped virtually all draft resource into the defense and left it up to Rodgers to hold the offense together.

I mean, what exactly have the Patriots invested in their offense with their early picks?  They've got pretty damn good production with Rob Gronkowski and a bunch of guys who are #3/#4 WRs on other teams.  Between Rodgers and the offensive scheme, I have little doubts the Packers are going to be productive offensively.  Our offensive line is still a strong part of this group, and between our RBs I feel pretty confident that our running game will be good enough.  As for our receivers, we have Davante Adams and Randall Cobb as our top two WRs, and given the fact that the Packers threw 3 picks at WRs I feel pretty confident at least one of them will turn out to be a starting-caliber WR.  Maybe not an elite WR, but one that can play that James Jones-kind of role.  And we just gave Jimmy Graham big money, so TE probably isn't a need until 2 years from now.

[CWood21]

15 hours ago, Jaegybomb said:

We hit on offense too hard a while ago and it's more cost effective at this point to try to get the defense to catch up. As far as the vets go we are still spending 100 mil on offensive players and only 70 on defense.

Spending is tied to draft success.  Our draft success on defense hasn't been up to par, which means we're not paying them on their second contract.

[CWood21]

4 hours ago, mikemike778 said:

When did we hit offense too hard ? 

A draft lasts 4 years after that, players are free agents and veterans. Over the last 4 years, we have used 2/12 picks on offense. One of these looks like a bust in Spriggs and the other (Monty) doesn't have an obvious role and is struggling with injuries.

The result is pretty much our entire offense is made up of ageing veterans and late round picks/UDFAs that we could get lucky with.

The Receivers are entirely dependent on Adams who had two concussions last year. After that, its pretty much cross your fingers and hope that one of the receivers we drafted after a punter comes good. Tight Ends, we have Graham who could look a very bad contract next year and pretty much nothing. On the O Line, the best we can probably hope for is that we might be able to get by if we don't have too many injuries. 

Don't get me wrong - I get why we have drafted like we have and it makes sense when you get a  new DC, to get him the players we want. But the offense looks in danger of falling off a cliff. You tend to get the benefit of a draft a few years down the line so in a few years the impact of drafting exclusively defence for years combined with Rodgers being a few years older could be a serious problem.

This is very much a glass half-empty take.  I mean, I've got no issues with being down on our offense, but that's a LOT to go wrong.  First off, we have Aaron Rodgers back as our starting QB.  They're consistently in the upper third of offenses in terms of PPG as long as Aaron Rodgers has been our starting QB.  In terms of RBs, our running game seems most promising since Ryan Grant was our starting RB.  Our WR group is led by Davante Adams and Randall Cobb.  The problem is there's not a whole lot of depth at the position that's proven.  Jimmy Graham has been a high quality TE, so unless he completely flops which at this point there's no reason to expect he's probably going to be productive.  Our OL was 13th according to PFF last year, despite rotating players into the RT position.  I'd make the argument that teh Packers OL is a top 10 unit.