2019 Draft Discussion

[squire12]

24 minutes ago, gopackgo247 said:

what does this tell us? serious question.

 

21 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

That Gute isn't going to let comp picks get in the way of acquiring talent?

OR that GB had so few quality FA that outside teams did not value them highly either.

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, pacman5252 said:

Pointing out extreme scenario that  doesn't exist to prove a point... umm that sounds like what you are doing

I've never debated positional value isn't a thing. I've debated grabbing legit top end prospects (like Metcalf/Hock) are worth a pick over a 230 pound edge. 

TT also never had a chance to draft a guy like Metcalf (6'4'' 240) at WR. TT in hindsight, should have taken Vernon Davis over Hawk (who was a ILB  ). TT wiffed on DBs his last several seasons and took plenty of wrs in the high second.

It does though.  At what point do you consider a K/P in the first round?  How good of a kicker do you have to get in order to consider taking a kicker in the first round?  That's the argument I'm making.  At a certain point, the value has to be there.  You're literally proving the point on that one.  What exactly has Metcalf done to justify that he's a top end prospect?  His production is average and he's not an elite athlete.  But hey, he's got this amazing body building picture.  I mean, that's exactly what the Titans were thinking when they drafted Chris Henry.  Or when the Bengals took Margus Hunt.  You're getting way too enamored by physical attributes.

And no, the Packers shouldn't have taken Vernon Davis over AJ Hawk in hindsight.  That's just plain Hawk hate.  What the Packers should have done was traded down and select Haloti Ngata.  But between Davis and Hawk, you're splitting hairs at best.  But in a 43 defense, Hawk has more value than Vernon Davis did as a TE.  Vernon Davis never once had a 1000 yard receiving season.  In his 10 year career, he only had 3 seasons with 800+ receiving yards.  Hawk was the better pick.

[Dubz41]

ALERT! Metcalf has a huge bust potential.  You are being blinded by his physical numbers.  Never showed that much production. You're going to see people back off from him.  Over-muscled, tight will have trouble getting separation in the NFL.  He would definitely be an Al Davis type pick.

[pacman5252]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

LIS, you're being a bit too generous when you're throwing out blue chips IMO.  If you want to go off your definition of what a blue chip is, you're probably talking about another dozen or so prospects.  DK Metcalf is absolutely not an elite prospect, and I'm not even sure he's a blue chip by your definition.  Over the last 2 years, he has 65 receptions, 1215 receiving yards, and 12 TD in 19 games.   Mike Williams (Clemson WR) in his last season he had 98 receptions, 1361 receiving yards, and 11 TD receptions.  So if Metcalf doesn't have great production, he damn better well be an elite athlete.  He's been reported to run a 4.46 forty, which is probably a bit fast.  I'd venture to guess he's somewhere in that 4.5-4.6 range.  He's not an elite prospect.  People are looking at that stupid video and making all kinds of insane extrapolation.

As for Hockenson, how exactly is he anything better than OJ Howard?  We haven't really had a strong TE prospect come out since maybe Jermaine Gresham (had he stayed healthy his final year at Oklahoma).  Other than that, you probably had Vernon Davis as the last elite TE prospect.  That doesn't make him a great prospect.  Stop inflating a prospect simply because the position hasn't popped high quality ones.  How does Devin White compare to the elite LBs that have come out in recent years?  I'm not even sure he's top 3 amongst OBLB from last year's draft.

From Bucky Brooks, Former Packer... And yes there really are only 2-5 elite prospects and 10-15 blue chip prospects a draft

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/0ap3000000488272/article/2015-nfl-draft-tiers-elite-prospects-blue-chips-and-red-chips

Elite prospects

 

These players should earn Pro Bowl recognition early in their careers and rank among the top five players at their respective positions in two to three years.

Blue chips

These prospects are regarded as difference makers based solely on their talent. They should start as rookies and make immediate contributions to their respective teams.

Red chips

These guys should contribute as part-time players initially before finishing the season as starters for their respective teams. In addition, they should be key contributors on special teams units and provide timely playmaking in their designated roles.

 

[Arthur Penske]

4 minutes ago, pacman5252 said:

From Bucky Brooks, Former Packer... And yes there really are only 2-5 elite prospects and 10-15 blue chip prospects a draft

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/0ap3000000488272/article/2015-nfl-draft-tiers-elite-prospects-blue-chips-and-red-chips

Elite prospects

 

These players should earn Pro Bowl recognition early in their careers and rank among the top five players at their respective positions in two to three years.

Blue chips

These prospects are regarded as difference makers based solely on their talent. They should start as rookies and make immediate contributions to their respective teams.

Red chips

These guys should contribute as part-time players initially before finishing the season as starters for their respective teams. In addition, they should be key contributors on special teams units and provide timely playmaking in their designated roles.

 

Man that 2015 draft was not impressive.

[rcon14]

4 minutes ago, pacman5252 said:

From Bucky Brooks, Former Packer... And yes there really are only 2-5 elite prospects and 10-15 blue chip prospects a draft

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/0ap3000000488272/article/2015-nfl-draft-tiers-elite-prospects-blue-chips-and-red-chips

Elite prospects

 

These players should earn Pro Bowl recognition early in their careers and rank among the top five players at their respective positions in two to three years.

Blue chips

These prospects are regarded as difference makers based solely on their talent. They should start as rookies and make immediate contributions to their respective teams.

Red chips

These guys should contribute as part-time players initially before finishing the season as starters for their respective teams. In addition, they should be key contributors on special teams units and provide timely playmaking in their designated roles.

 

oof Bucky wearing the L real hard on Kevin White

[CWood21]

Just now, rcon14 said:

oof Bucky wearing the L real hard on Kevin White

I think a LOT of people whiffed on that one.  Injuries hit him hard.

[pacman5252]

4 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

It does though.  At what point do you consider a K/P in the first round?  How good of a kicker do you have to get in order to consider taking a kicker in the first round?  That's the argument I'm making.  At a certain point, the value has to be there.  You're literally proving the point on that one.  What exactly has Metcalf done to justify that he's a top end prospect?  His production is average and he's not an elite athlete.  But hey, he's got this amazing body building picture.  I mean, that's exactly what the Titans were thinking when they drafted Chris Henry.  Or when the Bengals took Margus Hunt.  You're getting way too enamored by physical attributes.

And no, the Packers shouldn't have taken Vernon Davis over AJ Hawk in hindsight.  That's just plain Hawk hate.  What the Packers should have done was traded down and select Haloti Ngata.  But between Davis and Hawk, you're splitting hairs at best.  But in a 43 defense, Hawk has more value than Vernon Davis did as a TE.  Vernon Davis never once had a 1000 yard receiving season.  In his 10 year career, he only had 3 seasons with 800+ receiving yards.  Hawk was the better pick.

Few comments-

He had a good season for a sophmore and was crushing this year until he got hurt. Watch the tape (was on pace for well over 1000 yards)

Few college players have more than 1 year of solid production before going into the draft. That is normal. For example stud edge prospects every one likes Burns had 4 sacks his sophmore year. Polite had 2. 
 

Hawk was meh. VD was the athletic freak we should have taken. We could have also wiffed taking Michael Huff, a "valuable" corner.

[rcon14]

2 minutes ago, pacman5252 said:

Few comments-

He had a good season for a sophmore and was crushing this year until he got hurt. Watch the tape (was on pace for well over 1000 yards)

Few college players have more than 1 year of solid production before going into the draft. That is normal. For example stud edge prospects every one likes Burns had 4 sacks his sophmore year. Polite had 2. 
 

Hawk was meh. VD was the athletic freak we should have taken. We could have also wiffed taking Michael Huff, a "valuable" corner.

The fact you just ignored CWood's comments on this very statement says a lot.

[pacman5252]

5 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said:

Man that 2015 draft was not impressive.

It was pretty trash. Especially after pick 18.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_NFL_Draft

Which is also a reason why we should consider trading up. We have the extra 1/4. Drafts usually have about 15-20 real blue chip prospects.

[pacman5252]

2 minutes ago, rcon14 said:

The fact you just ignored CWood's comments on this very statement says a lot.

He's been ignoring mine....We should have taken VD. Ngata too would have been nice too. Hawk wasn't bad, just wasn't great. He wasn't a very fluid athlete but filled a need which TT liked doing with his ones.

[Packerraymond]

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

I'm sure when he literally stated Jordy was who he wanted all along and we had a need for a receiver it's because he wanted Jordy Nelson and he didn't want to use a first round pick on him.  Because he literally said Jordy was who he wanted all along.  

But I don't expect you to see the glaring evidence of us putting an emphasis on positional value.  

And if he missed Jordy because of that trade down how dumb would he look? If Jordy truly was the only guy he got lucky.

[Packerraymond]

Given the chance to redo the 2005 draft, I'd take Davis. He'd have put up freaky numbers with Favre and Rodgers. Hawk wasn't a bad pick by any means though. 

[Arthur Penske]

32 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

It does though.  At what point do you consider a K/P in the first round?  How good of a kicker do you have to get in order to consider taking a kicker in the first round?  That's the argument I'm making.  At a certain point, the value has to be there.  You're literally proving the point on that one.  What exactly has Metcalf done to justify that he's a top end prospect?  His production is average and he's not an elite athlete.  But hey, he's got this amazing body building picture.  I mean, that's exactly what the Titans were thinking when they drafted Chris Henry.  Or when the Bengals took Margus Hunt.  You're getting way too enamored by physical attributes.

And no, the Packers shouldn't have taken Vernon Davis over AJ Hawk in hindsight.  That's just plain Hawk hate.  What the Packers should have done was traded down and select Haloti Ngata.  But between Davis and Hawk, you're splitting hairs at best.  But in a 43 defense, Hawk has more value than Vernon Davis did as a TE.  Vernon Davis never once had a 1000 yard receiving season.  In his 10 year career, he only had 3 seasons with 800+ receiving yards.  Hawk was the better pick.

Was that a documented option?

[MacReady]

3 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Given the chance to redo the 2005 draft, I'd take Davis. He'd have put up freaky numbers with Favre and Rodgers. Hawk wasn't a bad pick by any means though. 

That draft was the first draft I paid attention to as far as prospects.  The first draft I watched was Ahmad Carrol, but the Hawk draft was the first one I looked forward to and paid attention to as far as prospects.

I desperately wanted AJ Hawk.  I was terrified we would draft Reggie Bush, and I would have been fine with Mario Williams.  I really didn't consider any other option (at least I don't remember).

Drafting Hawk fifth overall even 14 years ago makes a hell of a lot more sense then than it does now, and Hawk still probably wasn't the best choice if you look at the whole draft.  And he had a good career.