Jump to content
jleisher

Would you consider these two at #12 and #30?

Recommended Posts

On 2/16/2019 at 5:18 PM, AlexGreen#20 said:

Talent Level/Position Value/Positional Need/Scheme Fit

I've been thinking about this for a bit.  I don't mind the premise, but I can't get over the fact that you've placed position value + need as twice as important as actual talent.  

I'd imagine the actual process starts simply with talent.  Factors such as potential upside or athletic limitations would absolutely be part of that grade.  Locker room considerations, character, etc. are part of the grade as well. Once graded, players with red flags such as health or character concerns are taken off or dropped down.  

Scheme fit is a huge factor.   It comes way before position value.  Throw in positional flexibility and special teams value as well.

Only after all of those factors are considered and weighed would I break a literal tie with positional need.  And I honestly doubt very much that after all of those factors are thrown in would there actually be a tie when it comes time to make a pick.  I'm sure GM's also consider previous high draft picks at a position as well.  A team might pass on a good CB if they spent a 1 and 2 the previous year.

I think Ted has done a decent job of trading back or up when he has a pick coming and he has 7 or 8 guys with similar grades.  But even then, you risk losing out on a better player i.e. Watt vs  King.  I'd rather only trade back when the value doesn't match the pick.  

 

With all of that being said, I'd really pump the breaks on the weight of positional value, previous high picks, need, and athletic projections vs. poor college film.  Too many mistakes are made when those factors play too large a role in the final decision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cheech said:

I've been thinking about this for a bit.  I don't mind the premise, but I can't get over the fact that you've placed position value + need as twice as important as actual talent.  

I'd imagine the actual process starts simply with talent.  Factors such as potential upside or athletic limitations would absolutely be part of that grade.  Locker room considerations, character, etc. are part of the grade as well. Once graded, players with red flags such as health or character concerns are taken off or dropped down.  

Scheme fit is a huge factor.   It comes way before position value.  Throw in positional flexibility and special teams value as well.

Only after all of those factors are considered and weighed would I break a literal tie with positional need.  And I honestly doubt very much that after all of those factors are thrown in would there actually be a tie when it comes time to make a pick.  I'm sure GM's also consider previous high draft picks at a position as well.  A team might pass on a good CB if they spent a 1 and 2 the previous year.

I think Ted has done a decent job of trading back or up when he has a pick coming and he has 7 or 8 guys with similar grades.  But even then, you risk losing out on a better player i.e. Watt vs  King.  I'd rather only trade back when the value doesn't match the pick.  

 

With all of that being said, I'd really pump the breaks on the weight of positional value, previous high picks, need, and athletic projections vs. poor college film.  Too many mistakes are made when those factors play too large a role in the final decision. 

It's not ranked in order of importance. It's listed that way to give an idea of how I had each player graded. Correspond the numbers below with that list and you'll have how I feel about a guy in that particular category. 

A guy who also doesn't have talent is also going to get dinged heavily on scheme fit. If he's not talented enough to hold his edge, he's not going to get a high score in a scheme where the ability to hold the edge is vital. 

I'm not in the interviews, I don't have the investigative information and I don't have the doctor reports. I can only ding those guys as they come up. There's no point in me throwing in a health multiplier or whatever to correspond those values. 

+++

If you don't take the positional value into consideration, you're going to end up with a team full of Guards, NTs, ILBs, and RBs. Acting like an ILB and an Edge have the same impact on a defense is moronic. 

You can make an ILB look good with the DL in front of him. It doesn't work the opposite way. 

Edited by AlexGreen#20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

It's not ranked in order of importance. It's listed that way to give an idea of how I had each player graded. Correspond the numbers below with that list and you'll have how I feel about a guy in that particular category. 

A guy who also doesn't have talent is also going to get dinged heavily on scheme fit. If he's not talented enough to hold his edge, he's not going to get a high score in a scheme where the ability to hold the edge is vital. 

I'm not in the interviews, I don't have the investigative information and I don't have the doctor reports. I can only ding those guys as they come up. There's no point in me throwing in a health multiplier or whatever to correspond those values. 

+++

If you don't take the positional value into consideration, you're going to end up with a team full of Guards, NTs, ILBs, and RBs. Acting like an ILB and an Edge have the same impact on a defense is moronic. 

You can make an ILB look good with the DL in front of him. It doesn't work the opposite way. 

You gave each category an equal 10 points.  Max of 20 points for positional value+need with a max of 10 for talent.  

Talent has nothing to do with scheme fit.  See Ebron, Eric and Van Noy, Kyle.  Anthony Nelson doesn't belong on GB's board.  Bit he could be a decent mid-round pick for a team that can play him as a strong side DE in a 4-3.

Bull **** you're going to end up with guards, tackles and running backs.  What you're not going to end up with is Brad Jones and a whole bunch of other ****-ups at ILB behind what was a pretty damn good DL.  You're also not going to end up with Datone Jones, Nick Perry, and the host of other first round disappointments that we've seen in the last 10 years.  

Edited by Cheech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Cheech said:

You gave each category an equal 10 points.  Max of 20 points for positional value+need with a max of 10 for talent.  

Talent has nothing to do with scheme fit.  See Ebron, Eric and Van Noy, Kyle.  Anthony Nelson doesn't belong on GB's board.  Bit he could be a decent mid-round pick for a team that can play him as a strong side DE in a 4-3.

Bull **** you're going to end up with guards, tackles and running backs.  What you're not going to end up with is Brad Jones and a whole bunch of other ****-ups at ILB behind what was a pretty damn good DL.  You're also not going to end up with Datone Jones, Nick Perry, and the host of other first round disappointments that we've seen in the last 10 years.  

Talent has everything to do with scheme fit. If you don't have talent, you can't fit into a scheme because you don't have the physical ability to perform the tasks that the scheme is asking you to. There are very few players who have the talent to shine across every scheme. If a guy doesn't have a great anchor (you know, because he lacks talent) he's also going to get dinged on the back end when you evaluate him for how he fits into the scheme (because he can't anchor, he's not a good fit). 

I have no idea where you're going with the Eric Ebron and Kyle Van Noy comparisons. 

Anthony Nelson absolutely belongs on GBs board, He's a long physical end who you'll see how he works out as an inside/outside interior rusher in the pressure packages. He's also got some value as a run end in goal line sets. He's not a high value prospect, but to act like he's entirely useless because he's probably not going to find a home as a starting player doesn't make sense. He'll probably be higher on someone else's board where he'll fit into a more traditional starting role, but to say he shouldn't be on the board doesn't make any sense. Realistically, a more talented version of that game, could easily find a starting spot in a Pettine defense. 

You can deal with mediocre talent at ILB. In the season that Brad Jones started the most games, we had the 11th ranked defense. 

Datone Jones was a failure because of positional fit and character. Mike Daniels locked down the 3-tech spot in Jones' rookie year out of nowhere. That left him to sub a player playing 70% of snaps and get his reps in the pressure packages. From there he pouted and tried to turn himself into an edge rusher (where he didn't belong) against coach's orders because he wanted to see the field. He screwed up his own development because he was drafted into a position where there was no need.

Perry has been fine. He's just been hurt constantly. He's a good player when healthy with no real history of medical problems coming into the league. How the hell were you supposed to know his hands and feet were going to turn into glass the second he joined the team?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, CWood21 said:

So because he's not playing at an elite level as a rookie CB, it somehow makes it less impressive?  Talk about moving goalposts.    And I'd definitely not say that Denzel Ward was on a different level from Jaire by any means.  He's been more than on par, unless your opinion of what Jaire did last year is super low.  You're sitting here and making excuses for why Davenport's production was lackluster, but you're not applying that same logic to Jaire.  Did Jaire stay completely healthy?  No, but you're not applying that logic to Jaire.  Why?  This is why your entire argument falls apart.  Davenport was good, don't get me wrong but the notion that he was as good as Jaire was probably isn't the case.  And even if you want to argue that Davenport was as or more productive than Jaire, that doesn't change the difference between the FRP we're receiving from the Saints and the likely production from our third round pick we gave up last year.

I didn't say his season was less impressive, I said it wasn't anymore impressive than Davenport who was being trashed and run through the mud by some Packer fans.  

Again, we'll have to agreee to disagree.  There is never a situation where you aren't going to view a Packer's season as infinitely more impressive than a non Packers' (ie, attempting to  make JA's season out to be better than Ward's who some had rated as a top 5 CB in the NFL last year is a perfect example).  I'm not taking anything from Alexander's season.  He played well and looked like a quility starting CB for most of the season.

No where have I tried to compare Alexander's stats or snap count to past rookie CBs who played a full season.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Talent has everything to do with scheme fit. If you don't have talent, you can't fit into a scheme because you don't have the physical ability to perform the tasks that the scheme is asking you to. There are very few players who have the talent to shine across every scheme. If a guy doesn't have a great anchor (you know, because he lacks talent) he's also going to get dinged on the back end when you evaluate him for how he fits into the scheme (because he can't anchor, he's not a good fit). 

I have no idea where you're going with the Eric Ebron and Kyle Van Noy comparisons. 

Anthony Nelson absolutely belongs on GBs board, He's a long physical end who you'll see how he works out as an inside/outside interior rusher in the pressure packages. He's also got some value as a run end in goal line sets. He's not a high value prospect, but to act like he's entirely useless because he's probably not going to find a home as a starting player doesn't make sense. He'll probably be higher on someone else's board where he'll fit into a more traditional starting role, but to say he shouldn't be on the board doesn't make any sense. Realistically, a more talented version of that game, could easily find a starting spot in a Pettine defense. 

You can deal with mediocre talent at ILB. In the season that Brad Jones started the most games, we had the 11th ranked defense. 

Datone Jones was a failure because of positional fit and character. Mike Daniels locked down the 3-tech spot in Jones' rookie year out of nowhere. That left him to sub a player playing 70% of snaps and get his reps in the pressure packages. From there he pouted and tried to turn himself into an edge rusher (where he didn't belong) against coach's orders because he wanted to see the field. He screwed up his own development because he was drafted into a position where there was no need.

Perry has been fine. He's just been hurt constantly. He's a good player when healthy with no real history of medical problems coming into the league. How the hell were you supposed to know his hands and feet were going to turn into glass the second he joined the team?

 

Think you have your years mixed up.  The season you are refering to is 2012.  Desmond Bishop was lost in the preseason and DJ Smith was the back up.  Brad Jones hadn't played one single snap with the defense up until week 6 after the injury to Smith.  Our run defense went from allowing 110 yards per game with Smith to more than 140 yards per game with Jones.  That offseason, we made the ridiculous mistake of ignoring that and gave Jones an extension making him our starting ILB. 

The following year was the season where Jones had his career high in starts (12 due to 4 missed games because of injury).  That season we had the 24th ranked defense in points allowed and 25 in yards allowed.  Jones started off the season seeing 95-100% of the snaps before he got injured in week 4 and seen his snaps drastically fall once he returned in week 8.  He got hurt in week one of 2014 and never got his job back.

Even if we were to look at the 2012 defensive ranking as evidence that talent at ILB doesn't matter, that wasn't a championship caliber defense. Whether it was Adrian Peterson winning the rushing title & MVP on the back or our defense down the stretch or the humiliating fashion our defense ended the season in San Fran (allwoing 320+ yards rushing) it showed badly.

Edited by SSG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SSG said:

Think you have your years mixed up.  The season you are refering to is 2012.  Desmond Bishop was lost in the preseason and DJ Smith was the back up.  Brad Jones hadn't played one single snap with the defense up until week 6 after the injury to Smith.  Our run defense went from allowing 110 yards per game with Smith to more than 140 yards per game with Jones.  That offseason, we made the ridiculous mistake of ignoring that and gave Jones an extension making him our starting ILB. 

The following year was the season where Jones had his career high in starts (12 due to 4 missed games because of injury).  That season we had the 24th ranked defense in points allowed and 25 in yards allowed.  Jones started off the season seeing 95-100% of the snaps before he got injured in week 4 and seen his snaps drastically fall once he returned in week 8.  He got hurt in week one of 2014 and never got his job back.

Even if we were to look at the 2012 defensive ranking as evidence that talent at ILB doesn't matter, that wasn't a championship caliber defense. Whether it was Adrian Peterson winning the rushing title & MVP on the back or our defense down the stretch or the humiliating fashion our defense ended the season in San Fran (allwoing 320+ yards rushing) it showed badly.

You're correct on your years, I typo'd my numbers.

I disagree strongly on your conclusion. 

Erik Walden (84%), MD Jennings (83%), CJ Wilson (46%), Jerron McMillan (38%), Dezmon Moses (22%) Frank Zombo (1%).

On any particular snap in that game we had 2.74 players on the field who weren't  really NFL caliber players. That's before you even include Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

You're correct on your years, I typo'd my numbers.

I disagree strongly on your conclusion. 

Erik Walden (84%), MD Jennings (83%), CJ Wilson (46%), Jerron McMillan (38%), Dezmon Moses (22%) Frank Zombo (1%).

On any particular snap in that game we had 2.74 players on the field who weren't  really NFL caliber players. That's before you even include Jones.

Come on, that's a stretch.  There were very few personnel differances between the guys who started in that Divisional round game in 2012 and the guys who started for us in the Super Bowl.  We basically had 9 of the same starters if you swap Zombo and Walden.  Zombo started in the Super Bowl and Walden started for the entire 2010-11 playoff run before getting injured prior to the Super Bowl.  Basically the differance was Morgan Burnett instead of Nick Collins (which is obviously a huge step down)and Brad Jones instead of Desmond Bishop (another huge downgrade).  Obviously Chuck wasn't the same player and we also had Howard Green, who played some big snaps in that playoff run.

CJ Wilson and Frank Zombo were rookies that were good enough to start in a Super Bowl and contribute mutiple starts during that season but they "weren't NFL caliber players" after the San Fran game?  Erik Walden had 27 sacks after his 5 seasons with Green Bay (11 in 2016).  While not a star, he was a better football player than Brad Jones ever was.  

McMillan only played 3 snaps.  While you don't love the fact that Moses and Jennings played a combined 49 snaps, I think they were trying to stop the bleeding with Moses and Jennings isn't all tha big of a downgrade from Charlie Peprah who started a bunch of games for us in that 2010 season.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Talent has everything to do with scheme fit. If you don't have talent, you can't fit into a scheme because you don't have the physical ability to perform the tasks that the scheme is asking you to. There are very few players who have the talent to shine across every scheme. If a guy doesn't have a great anchor (you know, because he lacks talent) he's also going to get dinged on the back end when you evaluate him for how he fits into the scheme (because he can't anchor, he's not a good fit). 

How many 6'7" outside linebackers are there in the league?  Anthony Nelson absolutely has talent.  But he has no logical fit in MP's defense.  He's not playing OLB.  MP asks his edge players to drop way too often.  I would never criticize a true defensive end for not being able to drop into coverage.  That's not an indictment of his talent, either.  Nelson doesn't possess the anchor to hold up at the 5T either.  Most 4-3 ends don't.  We don't criticize Khalil Mack for not being able to play 5T, do we? 

I have no idea where you're going with the Eric Ebron and Kyle Van Noy comparisons. 

Eric Ebron was a colossal bust until he wasn't.  He found the right scheme fit, the right offense, and he went from being cut by the Lions to a 750 yard 13 TD TE in his first year with the Colts.  Did he develop some sort of talent overnight or did he simply find the right scheme?  Kyle Van Noy - same story.  Draft bust, until he wasn't.  His own words: 

"I'm going to repeat what my friend said so I don't get in trouble," Van Noy said. "He's like, ‘You went from the toilet bowl to the Super Bowl.'"

Van Noy later added: "When I got there, it was like, they had a plan for me it seemed like. That plan got bigger with how I played. With that being said, I didn't know that to begin with because I'd been in Detroit, where I was kind of told ‘We don't know where to put you.' And I'm like, ‘Well, why did you draft me?' You know what I mean? I had my own coach telling me ‘I don't know where to put you.' That's kinda crazy."

https://sports.yahoo.com/kyle-van-noy-gives-hilarious-144949881.html 

Anthony Nelson absolutely belongs on GBs board, He's a long physical end who you'll see how he works out as an inside/outside interior rusher in the pressure packages. He's also got some value as a run end in goal line sets. He's not a high value prospect, but to act like he's entirely useless because he's probably not going to find a home as a starting player doesn't make sense. He'll probably be higher on someone else's board where he'll fit into a more traditional starting role, but to say he shouldn't be on the board doesn't make any sense. Realistically, a more talented version of that game, could easily find a starting spot in a Pettine defense. 

Again - Nelson absolutely has talent.  But how many 6'7" interior rushers are there in the league?  Clearly you haven't watched enough Anthony Nelson film.  His role in GB would be extremely limited, therefore he drops off of the board or he's a late-round flier.  Teams that run a 4-3 will have gladly taken him before it would be worth it for GB.  Because he fits their scheme better.  

You can deal with mediocre talent at ILB. In the season that Brad Jones started the most games, we had the 11th ranked defense. 

Yeah - ILB was the weakness, and many times downfall of our defense.  Nate Palmer, Terrell Manning, Jamari Lattimore, Rob Francois, Sam Barrington, Carl Bradford.  The only time our defense was formidable since 2010 happened to coincide with Clay Matthews moving to ILB in the 2nd half of 2014.    

Datone Jones was a failure because of positional fit and character. Mike Daniels locked down the 3-tech spot in Jones' rookie year out of nowhere. That left him to sub a player playing 70% of snaps and get his reps in the pressure packages. From there he pouted and tried to turn himself into an edge rusher (where he didn't belong) against coach's orders because he wanted to see the field. He screwed up his own development because he was drafted into a position where there was no need.

Datone Jones was a bust because he wasn't the best player available.  6 of the 10 picks after Jones have been pro bowl players. 

Perry has been fine. He's just been hurt constantly. He's a good player when healthy with no real history of medical problems coming into the league. How the hell were you supposed to know his hands and feet were going to turn into glass the second he joined the team?

Perry was never a dynamic rusher.  He was good at holding the edge and collapsing the pocket.  He had one really good season.  Could have had Harrison Smith or Bobby Wagner, but, of course, they don't play "premium positions."  I'll say it again - there are only impact players, not impact positions.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×