Jump to content
jleisher

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

Recommended Posts

Think is the same quality player will be available at 20-30 as 12, maybe the combine changes that some, but after the Bosa Allen and the 2 Bama big boys, it’s a big crap shoot, maybe if Ferrell is your guy he’s worth 12,  but Burns, Polite, Sweat , Ferguson, they could all go as early as 4 and as late as 50

Edited by fattlipp

Share this post


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

Think is the same quality player will be available at 20-30 as 12, maybe the combine changes that some, but after the Bosa Allen and the 2 Bama big boys, it’s a big crap shoot, maybe if Ferrell is your guy he’s worth 12,  but Burns, Polite, Sweat , Ferguson, they could all go as early as 4 and as late as 50

Not contesting your comment, but if this is true, well then all this draft prognostication is a waste of time IMO.

If a guy's got the goods to go at 4 - there must be some compelling reason (other than talent) that dictates he go at 50.

Share this post


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

Think is the same quality player will be available at 20-30 as 12, maybe the combine changes that some, but after the Bosa Allen and the 2 Bama big boys, it’s a big crap shoot, maybe if Ferrell is your guy he’s worth 12,  but Burns, Polite, Sweat , Ferguson, they could all go as early as 4 and as late as 50

I guess I would respectfully disagree with taking that chance, then. I could easily see those 4 players going between pick 13-20something. And then with that logic, you'd have to like all of them similarly. Could be Ferguson or Sweat, just as a random uneducated example, may not be on GB's board at all. 

I just shudder at the thought of leaving the first round without the best edge rusher or interior pass rusher we could reasonably acquire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Isherwood said:

 

I just shudder at the thought of leaving the first round without the best edge rusher or interior pass rusher we could reasonably acquire. 

And I think the interior pass rusher, especially when teamed with Clark, really lets others be disruptive and dangerous from multiple positions. I’m kind of hoping for the board to fall that way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2019 at 7:10 PM, CWood21 said:

Let's look at the top 10 TEs this past season in terms of YPT (Yards Per Target).  Mind you this is all TEs with at least 40 receptions, so we're eliminating all the guys with small sample sizes.

George Kittle (146th overall)
Rob Gronkowski (42nd overall)
Travis Kelce (63rd overall)
Jared Cook (89th overall)
Vance McDonald (55th overall)
Kyle Rudolph (43rd overall)
Austin Hooper (81st overall)
Trey Burton (UDFA)
Zach Ertz (35th overall)
David Njoku (29th overall)

That's on average the 65th pick, or the equivalent of the first pick of the 3rd round.  And you're advocating using the HIGHEST pick we've had since we took B.J. Raji 9th overall?  That's not idiotic.  That's downright stupid.  That's borderline Lions' FO logic right there.  Ask the Lions how drafting Eric Ebron 10th overall went for them?  Ask Niners' fans how much Vernon Davis helped them after being drafted 6th overall?  How about Kellen Winslow and the Browns?  Or go back and remember how much of an impact Bubba Franks didn't have on the Packers.  Taking a TE in the top 12 is BEYOND stupid.  There's not a SINGLE logical explanation to take a TE at 12.  None.  They aren't BPA, they aren't getting positional value nod, and they're certainly not making an impact at a high enough level to justify taking one that early either.

You talk about DTs not playing at an elite level until Y3 or Y4, which is inherently false.  Kenny Clark has been nothing short of amazing last year.  Aaron Donald had 11 sacks in his second season.  Geno Atkins had 7 sacks in his sophomore year.  Mike Daniels in his 2nd year had 6.5 sacks.  The reality is that interior pass rusher significantly impacts the game more than a TE ever will.

Outliers.  If that's how you want to form an argument, then this is a complete waste of time.  

It is widely known and accepted that defensive tackles take years of development.  Most elite DT's manhandle college opposition only to find out that you can't just win with brute strength in the NFL.  This is true of every goddamn position outside of running back.  

Kenny Clark turned the corner at the end of his 2nd year.  He was a ******* force in his third year.  That used to be the talk around Packernation.  Who was going to make the 2nd year jump?  MM talked about it constantly.  But here you and Outpost have put this dimwitted idea out there that every other position can make this massive impact in year 1 except TE?  False.  

Very few rookies play at elite levels in year 1.  And besides the RB position it completely depends on the player coming out of college.  Some DT's can come in and make an impact.  So can a QB, TE, WR, and OT.  But most take a year or two to play at at an elite level.  

If Hock is the best player available at 12, you take him.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

You think Hock is the only tight end ever drafted who could block? I'd challenge you to look up the history of first year tight ends, but I know you won't, so I'll just tell you it's not only about blocking for first year tight ends.  They don't have impacts in their first year.

If you use this logic, you end up not drafting a decent TE.  By not drafting a decent TE you're forced to use free agency.  We've seen the Packers whiff on 4 of 5 attempts in the last 3 years.  And now we're back in the same lame *** position of not having an impact TE on the roster.

Share this post


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

Outliers.  If that's how you want to form an argument, then this is a complete waste of time.  

It is widely known and accepted that defensive tackles take years of development.  Most elite DT's manhandle college opposition only to find out that you can't just win with brute strength in the NFL.  This is true of every goddamn position outside of running back. 

Outliers?  No.  I think you should probably figure what an outlier is before you claim this is an outlier, since statistically speaking you're talking about sample sizes affecting it which isn't really the case.  Historically speaking, a TE picked early isn't going to significantly impact a franchise more than most positions.  In fact, it's closer to WR in terms of positional value.   Looking back at the TEs, let's look at who the team could have had (picked within the next 5 picks).  The Packers took Bubba Franks 14th in 2000.  Instead, they could have had Deltha O'Neal, Julian Peterson, and Shaun Alexander.  Any of those would have been better picks than Franks.  In 2002 when the Giants took Jeremy Shockey, the only player you'd argue was probably better value was Albert Haynesworth until he got paid but that speaks to that draft class more than anything.  In 2004, the Browns took Kellen Winslow when they could have had Roy Williams, DeAngelo Hall, or Big Ben.  In 2006, the Niners took Vernon Davis and could have had Jay Cutler (Haloti Ngata barely missed the cutoff).  Pretty bad 7-11 picks though.  In 2014, the Lions took Eric Ebron and could have had Taylor Lewan, OBJ, Aaron Donald, Kyle Fuller, or Ryan Shazier.  So tell me again how a TE really changed the impact for those teams?

Nobody is arguing that there isn't a transition period for most college players.  RBs and off-ball LB are probably the only non-ST positions where they're plug 'n play.  But you're still going to impact the position regardless of whether or not you're an impact player.  The reality is that DL impact the game significantly more than say TEs.  CBs impact the game more than a safety.  But you're talking about a position that isn't reliant on another player (the QB) to get him the ball to be successful.  How productive do you think Rob Gronkowski is going to be with Blaine Gabbert throwing him the ball?  He's not nearly as productive with a mediocre QB as he is with Tom Brady.  An OT doesn't have the same requirements that a TE does, which is why we're devaluing offensive skill positions.

26 minutes ago, Cheech said:

Kenny Clark turned the corner at the end of his 2nd year.  He was a ******* force in his third year.  That used to be the talk around Packernation.  Who was going to make the 2nd year jump?  MM talked about it constantly.  But here you and Outpost have put this dimwitted idea out there that every other position can make this massive impact in year 1 except TE?  False.  

Very few rookies play at elite levels in year 1.  And besides the RB position it completely depends on the player coming out of college.  Some DT's can come in and make an impact.  So can a QB, TE, WR, and OT.  But most take a year or two to play at at an elite level.  

No.  My (and I would assume Outpost's argument) is two-fold.  One, in terms of positional value WR and TE are closer to ST than they are the premier position.  So if they're not premier positions, they need to be Day 1 impact players.  They usually aren't.  So you're taking a position that isn't overly valuable AND you're taking a guy who Y1 probably isn't going to make an impact over a player who plays a more premium position and probably long-term has more value and producing at a similar level at a different position.  That's just plain bad asset management.

27 minutes ago, Cheech said:

If Hock is the best player available at 12, you take him.  

I'm going to go ahead and cut to the chase, he isn't.  You don't think the Lions thought Eric Ebron was BPA?  You don't think the Packers thought Bubba Franks was?  You can talk yourself in circle that drafting a TE that high makes sense, but historically speaking it doesn't.  And I tend to use history as the best predictor of the future, which is why I'm beyond irritated if we took a TE at 12 when we're likely looking at some pretty damn good defensive players on the board.  And probably some appealing trade back options.

Share this post


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

If you use this logic, you end up not drafting a decent TE.  By not drafting a decent TE you're forced to use free agency.  We've seen the Packers whiff on 4 of 5 attempts in the last 3 years.  And now we're back in the same lame *** position of not having an impact TE on the roster.

So we should just ignore the position all together?  That's right up there with the we should stop drafting DBs in the first logic that I heard a while back.  No.  You have 30 and 44 in what is a relatively strong TE draft.  If you're that insistent on taking a TE, take one there.  Not at 12.  I'd rather go with Polite/Irv Smith than Hock/OX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Outliers?  No.  I think you should probably figure what an outlier is before you claim this is an outlier, since statistically speaking you're talking about sample sizes affecting it which isn't really the case.  Historically speaking, a TE picked early isn't going to significantly impact a franchise more than most positions.  In fact, it's closer to WR in terms of positional value.   Looking back at the TEs, let's look at who the team could have had (picked within the next 5 picks).  The Packers took Bubba Franks 14th in 2000.  Instead, they could have had Deltha O'Neal, Julian Peterson, and Shaun Alexander.  Any of those would have been better picks than Franks.  In 2002 when the Giants took Jeremy Shockey, the only player you'd argue was probably better value was Albert Haynesworth until he got paid but that speaks to that draft class more than anything.  In 2004, the Browns took Kellen Winslow when they could have had Roy Williams, DeAngelo Hall, or Big Ben.  In 2006, the Niners took Vernon Davis and could have had Jay Cutler (Haloti Ngata barely missed the cutoff).  Pretty bad 7-11 picks though.  In 2014, the Lions took Eric Ebron and could have had Taylor Lewan, OBJ, Aaron Donald, Kyle Fuller, or Ryan Shazier.  So tell me again how a TE really changed the impact for those teams?

Nobody is arguing that there isn't a transition period for most college players.  RBs and off-ball LB are probably the only non-ST positions where they're plug 'n play.  But you're still going to impact the position regardless of whether or not you're an impact player.  The reality is that DL impact the game significantly more than say TEs.  CBs impact the game more than a safety.  But you're talking about a position that isn't reliant on another player (the QB) to get him the ball to be successful.  How productive do you think Rob Gronkowski is going to be with Blaine Gabbert throwing him the ball?  He's not nearly as productive with a mediocre QB as he is with Tom Brady.  An OT doesn't have the same requirements that a TE does, which is why we're devaluing offensive skill positions.

No.  My (and I would assume Outpost's argument) is two-fold.  One, in terms of positional value WR and TE are closer to ST than they are the premier position.  So if they're not premier positions, they need to be Day 1 impact players.  They usually aren't.  So you're taking a position that isn't overly valuable AND you're taking a guy who Y1 probably isn't going to make an impact over a player who plays a more premium position and probably long-term has more value and producing at a similar level at a different position.  That's just plain bad asset management.

I'm going to go ahead and cut to the chase, he isn't.  You don't think the Lions thought Eric Ebron was BPA?  You don't think the Packers thought Bubba Franks was?  You can talk yourself in circle that drafting a TE that high makes sense, but historically speaking it doesn't.  And I tend to use history as the best predictor of the future, which is why I'm beyond irritated if we took a TE at 12 when we're likely looking at some pretty damn good defensive players on the board.  And probably some appealing trade back options.

You can find plenty of examples of a first round TE that was the best player in the board  when that team took him in round 1. Vernon Davis is one that comes to mind and obviously Tony Gonzalez. 

Really tough to paint any situation with a broad stoke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Golfman said:

You can find plenty of examples of a first round TE that was the best player in the board  when that team took him in round 1. Vernon Davis is one that comes to mind and obviously Tony Gonzalez. 

Really tough to paint any situation with a broad stoke. 

Yes, you could make an argument that a TE was considered "BPA" at the time.  But we're not talking about that.  We're talking about their impacts.  Who impacts a game more, Haloti Ngata or Vernon Davis?  Ngata is pretty clearly the answer.  His whole concept is based around this idea that Hock is a stud and whoever we draft other than Hock will be a bust.  That's the issue with his logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Yes, you could make an argument that a TE was considered "BPA" at the time.  But we're not talking about that.  We're talking about their impacts.  Who impacts a game more, Haloti Ngata or Vernon Davis?  Ngata is pretty clearly the answer.  His whole concept is based around this idea that Hock is a stud and whoever we draft other than Hock will be a bust.  That's the issue with his logic.

First of all, we don't know that either will or will not be a stud or a bust. The point being to say basically, a TE can't actually be the best player on the board in round 1 is foolish. 

I don't think anyone said that Hock will be a stud and whoever we draft will be a bust. I think the quote was if he's the best player on your board at 12 and he's there you take him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Yes, you could make an argument that a TE was considered "BPA" at the time.  But we're not talking about that.  We're talking about their impacts.  Who impacts a game more, Haloti Ngata or Vernon Davis?  Ngata is pretty clearly the answer.  His whole concept is based around this idea that Hock is a stud and whoever we draft other than Hock will be a bust.  That's the issue with his logic.

Nice use of hindsight to support the argument.  Of course looking back 12+ years later, Ngata is the more impactful player.  BUt at the time, you don't have that information of how their career plays out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, let me say I'm a huge proponent of having multiple tight ends that can enhance a team's offense.  That being said, with all the needs on the Packers defense and even offensive line,  if we take a TE with the #12 pick I'll be shocked.  History shows how good or bad a player was/is; what else can be a used?   The thought process that a team should always draft the "BPA" no matter what the teams needs are is nice but not feasible.  You fill a hole with the "BPA" that helps fill a hole on your team and I just can't fathom a TE being that highly rated in doing so.  

Share this post


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

Yes, you could make an argument that a TE was considered "BPA" at the time.  But we're not talking about that.  We're talking about their impacts.  Who impacts a game more, Haloti Ngata or Vernon Davis?  Ngata is pretty clearly the answer.  His whole concept is based around this idea that Hock is a stud and whoever we draft other than Hock will be a bust.  That's the issue with his logic.

Outliers.  (Maybe I should go back to grad school for my 2nd masters??  I better pull my thesis off the shelf, too.)

You bring up the worst two examples you can find and create your own rule that this is the norm.  

I could do the same with every other position on an NFL roster if I felt like being disingenuous.  Can't take a QB that high.  Look at Jamarcus Russell and Jonny Manziel. Can't take a DB that high.  Look at Dee Milliner and Justin Gilbert.  Cant take a EDGE that high.  Look at Vernon Gholston and Dion Jordan.  Can't take a DT that high.  Look at Amobi Akoye and Johnathan Sullivan.  

 

I'll state it again.  There aren't impact positions.  Only impact players.  

IF Hock is BPA, you take him.  I don't know who is going to be available at 12.  I never even came close to insinuating that anyone else there would be a bust.  

In my opinion, Hock has one of the highest ceilings and highest floor of many in the top 25.  

While other players in the 10 - 25 range have some major question marks associated with their game, Hock has few, if any.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metcalf at 12 and Harmon at 30. Let's give Rodgers similar weapons he had back in the glory days. MGBGA. 

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



×