2019 Draft Discussion

[snackattack]

On 2/6/2019 at 11:08 AM, rcon14 said:

Having a RB at 6 is just puke-worthy.

i thought their grades don't take positional value into consideration.  i would agree having jacobs being drafted at 6 would be puke-worthy, but not sure i would fault DJ for grading the player this high.

[rcon14]

Just now, snackattack said:

i thought their grades don't take positional value into consideration.  i would agree having jacobs being drafted at 6 would be puke-worthy, but not sure i would fault DJ for grading the player this high.

I don't see the purpose of a big board if you don't take positional value into consideration.

[Isherwood]

1 hour ago, Arthur Penske said:

How would you guys feel about Jerry Tillery at 30?

It would feel like nobody more exciting must have slipped to 30, but it would be a good solid pick. 

[Cheech]

15 minutes ago, Isherwood said:

It would feel like nobody more exciting must have slipped to 30, but it would be a good solid pick. 

 

I'm hoping for a Tillery/Mack Wilson type value at 44.  

[Arthur Penske]

On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 10:08 AM, rcon14 said:

Having a RB at 6 is just puke-worthy. I also don't understand why anyone thinks Daniel Jones is good.

I certainly wouldn't take Jacobs at 12, much less 6, but I don't think you can say having a RB at 6 is puke worthy as there are exceptions.

There are a few ( very few) RBs that have generational talent that should be considered that high. I'd certainly take AP, LT, B Sanders, Marshall Faulk, Emmitt Smith, and maybe even Saquan in the top 10.

Or maybe you'd prefer Tony Mandarich over Barry Sanders?

[snackattack]

1 minute ago, rcon14 said:

I don't see the purpose of a big board if you don't take positional value into consideration.

i would contend that value is a relative term, while grade is not.  so the purpose of a big board for an individual team might take positional value into consideration, but a DJ big board wouldn't have any reason to.  for example, i doubt that mitch trubisky was the highest (or second highest) graded player for the bears two years ago but they obviously had him that high on their board.  i'm actually thinking that "value" probably isn't the most descriptive term for the issue you are taking with a RB at 6 (i know i'm the one that used the word value first).   the positional value is really about the something like the MLB wins-above-replacement stat.  a RB doesn't have that positional value because he is less likely to impact his team's chance to win compared to replacement player.

i think the point i'm trying to make is that DJ's big board definitely doesn't factor this in and therefore shouldn't be puke-worthy.  if it did, i don't think he would have a NT, two TEs, and two ILBs in his top 25.  i think he is just ranking players in terms of overall grade.

i really have no idea though.

[rcon14]

1 minute ago, Arthur Penske said:

I certainly wouldn't take Jacobs at 12, much less 6, but I don't think you can say having a RB at 6 is puke worthy as there are exceptions.

There are a few ( very few) RBs that have generational talent that should be considered that high. I'd certainly take AP, LT, B Sanders, Marshall Faulk, Emmitt Smith, and maybe even Saquan in the top 10.

Or maybe you'd prefer Tony Mandarich over Barry Sanders?

In the post-2003 NFL (year when DPI was expanded), RBs don't matter. That doesn't mean take bad OL over good RB. It means take other good player over good RB. What you've constructed is a strawman. 

[Arthur Penske]

6 minutes ago, rcon14 said:

In the post-2003 NFL (year when DPI was expanded), RBs don't matter. That doesn't mean take bad OL over good RB. It means take other good player over good RB. What you've constructed is a strawman. 

So you wouldn't have drafted Adrian Peterson if you were the vikes?

[rcon14]

Just now, Arthur Penske said:

So you wouldn't have drafted Adrian Peterson if you were the vikes?

nope

If we're doing strictly revisionist (which is all that's happening here), I would have taken Darrelle Revis.

[Kepler]

11 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said:

I certainly wouldn't take Jacobs at 12, much less 6, but I don't think you can say having a RB at 6 is puke worthy as there are exceptions.

There are a few ( very few) RBs that have generational talent that should be considered that high. I'd certainly take AP, LT, B Sanders, Marshall Faulk, Emmitt Smith, and maybe even Saquan in the top 10.

Or maybe you'd prefer Tony Mandarich over Barry Sanders?

Don't trigger my PTSD over Mandarich lol. I started watching a YouTube video yesterday of GB's first game in '89. Turned it off when Mandarich started talking to the reporter about his possible fight with Mike Tyson. God he was such a **** show lol.

[snackattack]

1 minute ago, Arthur Penske said:

So you wouldn't have drafted Adrian Peterson if you were the vikes?

its all about the tiers.  if you have a similar grades on AP, calvin johnson, joe thomas, and darrelle revis, then you should take all of those other guys before AP.  if AP is graded high enough over all of the other available players then you take him.  "high enough" being the tricky part of the equation which is linked to the WAR thing i mentioned in my last post.

[rcon14]

2 minutes ago, snackattack said:

its all about the tiers.  if you have a similar grades on AP, calvin johnson, joe thomas, and darrelle revis, then you should take all of those other guys before AP.  if AP is graded high enough over all of the other available players then you take him.  "high enough" being the tricky part of the equation which is linked to the WAR thing i mentioned in my last post.

And it's also an expected value thing. The expected value of AP when he was drafted was not the outcome. We should be evaluating the process of the decision. It is so hard to provide positive value to winning as a RB because running the football hasn't done much in the past 15 years. That's not to say you should never run the football, but in my opinion, we should start attributing good running games to good OLs, not good RBs. If you want to have a good running game, get good OL, because then you also get the benefit of having good pass protection.

[Arthur Penske]

7 minutes ago, rcon14 said:

nope

If we're doing strictly revisionist (which is all that's happening here), I would have taken Darrelle Revis.

It's not revisionist because its what the Vikings did.

[Arthur Penske]

5 minutes ago, snackattack said:

its all about the tiers.  if you have a similar grades on AP, calvin johnson, joe thomas, and darrelle revis, then you should take all of those other guys before AP.  if AP is graded high enough over all of the other available players then you take him.  "high enough" being the tricky part of the equation which is linked to the WAR thing i mentioned in my last post.

Calvin Johnson and Joe Thomas did go before AP...

[OneTwoSixFive]

I've been having a bit of a think about who to draft at #12 (assuming we do draft there). For months I have been rather locked in to getting a pass rusher like Sweat, Polite, or even Ferrell if he slipped. i am beginning to think in a different direction.

If you had asked me a while back about getting a DL early, I would have laughed. Sure it's a great year for them, but with as many needs as the Packers have, you can make do with Clark, and Daniels as the studs, Lancaster and M.Adams as improving big bodies (possibly making Muhammed Wilkerson expendable) and Lowry as a good-enough -to-get-by-on guy. However, if it is true that Pettine likes his pressure to come from inside the line at least as much as from the outside, I'm re-thinking that no DL at #12 stance.

Here is a for-example scenario. The Packers get Ed Oliver or Rashan Gary or Christian Wilkins at #12. At #30 they get the best OT they can find, as by pick 44 the best are gone. At #44 they get a later-tier edge guy, one of Zach Allen, Jaylon Ferguson, Oshane Ximines, Brian Burns (lots of variation on where he goes), or my favourite, Charles Omenihu.

A front with (for example) Wilkins, Clark, Daniels, with Omenihu and probably still Nick Perry, is on paper a pretty good group to shove that pocket right back into the QBs face, or just burst through it. If you throw in occasional shifty blitzers like Josh Jones or Oren Burks, the Packers could give another team fits. Given how much pressure Pettine generated with not much to work with, this could transform the Packers in terms of pressure applied and significantly help the defensive backfield in coverage.

There is always a downside whoever you pick, in this case it is waiting until after pick 44 for a free safety, and the Packers need one badly. I'm a fan of Chauncey Gardner-Johnson (Florida) or Mike Bell (Fresno St.). if either is there in round three (currently pick 75).