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

[rcon14]

Positional value arguments are going to eat the Packers fanbase alive this off-season.

[CWood21]

13 hours ago, Golfman said:

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. 

It really isn't.  Players aren't graded in a numerical rankings.  They're graded off in a tier-based where there are numerous players on the same tier.  The closest I recall seeing that happening was when the 49ers took Vernon Davis.  Davis was the last of the "blue chip" prospects that year.  And I'd make the argument that if they had any halfway decent trade offers, they would have been better off trading down and selecting Haloti Ngata.  Do you truly believe there is a legitimate situation where Hock is the only player left on the board at 12 in his tier?  Because I certainly don't.  Assuming we see at least one of Kyler Murray or Dwayne Haskins (and more likely both), we need at least 11 players to be on that tier or above.  Just going off the top of my head (in no particular order) you have Nick Bosa, Josh Allen, Ed Oliver, Quinnen Williams, Clelin Ferrell, Jonah Williams, and Jeffrey Simmons who I'd at this point have clearly graded ahead of Hock.  That's 8 guys right there.  And I'd venture to say there's more than 4 guys who grade out as well as Hock who play more valuable positions.

[CWood21]

12 hours ago, squire12 said:

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.

How else do we compare whether or not a pick was worth it other than judging based on their careers?  My argument is that I'm not using a top 15 pick on a TE when there are other positions with bigger impacts.

[Shanedorf]

11 minutes ago, rcon14 said:

Positional value arguments are going to eat the Packers fanbase alive this off-season.

Can I add one more ? 

Much of the focus has been on adding EDGE rushers, but I am wondering if there isn't a bit more value in adding another DT with pass rush capabilities next to Clark. Several posters have talked about Daniels age/fit/physique for this defense -  and with teams playing nickel 70 % of the time - it seems like there would be a huge value in adding a Jeffery Simmons-type DL to the rotation.
Its the shortest distance to the QB, gets into the QBs field of vision and puts your DL vs the "least" athletic component of the opposing OL instead of the high-end OTs.  We also have seen Pettine use 3 DL more than others and there's always the Planet Theory to consider

EDGE is surely a dire need, but other than Clark, it seems like there's also a Mike Pettine -specific need on the DL too.
How does Positional Value shake out at pass rushing DL vs EDGE ?

[rcon14]

Just now, Shanedorf said:

Can I add one more ? 

Much of the focus has been on adding EDGE rushers, but I am wondering if there isn't a bit more value in adding another DT with pass rush capabilities next to Clark. Several posters have talked about Daniels age/fit/physique for this defense -  and with teams playing nickel 70 % of the time - it seems like there would be a huge value in adding a Jeffery Simmons-type DL to the rotation.
Its the shortest distance to the QB, gets into the QBs field of vision and puts your DL vs the "least" athletic component of the opposing OL instead of the high-end OTs.  We also have seen Pettine use 3 DL more than others and there's always the Planet Theory to consider

EDGE is surely a dire need, but other than Clark, it seems like there's also a Mike Pettine -specific need on the DL too.
How does Positional Value shake out at pass rushing DL vs EDGE ?

So with positional value, there are a few ways you can look at it. The way I think is probably the most effective is looking at who actually gets paid in FA (essentially how teams prioritize positions). EDGE is more valuable than IDL in this case, so if you have guys in the same tier, I'd lean slightly to EDGE, but the IDL position is of much higher value than lower-value positions that are being pushed by some to GB at 12 (TE, ILB).

[OneTwoSixFive]

@Shanedorf

From draft discussions (posted Saturday) Click on the link next to my avatar picture to read.

 

[CWood21]

3 hours ago, Cheech said:

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.   

I'll reword this hopefully this one makes you sense.  You have two equally talented players, one is a DT and one is a TE.  Which impacts the game more?  The DL is going to make a bigger impact on the game, because he's closer to the ball.  Your TE is only as productive as the guy getting him the ball.  Same logic applies to WRs.  If you've got Blaine Gabbert as your starting QB, your TE isn't going to be productive.  If you've got Blaine Gabbert, how exactly does that affect your DT?  It doesn't.  At the end of the day, the "worst" impact that a DL is going to have by his teammates is that they're going to play away from your stud DL, which is usually going away from what the offense is trying to do.  That's an impact that your DL is making.

No.  You're looking at this completely the wrong way.  Teams usually don't take TEs early.  And when they do, they're usually worse off because of it.  How much worse were the Lions off with Ndamukong Suh?  How much worse off are the Cardinals with Patrick Peterson at CB?  How much worse are the Browns with Myles Garrett at DE?  That's the argument I'm making.  When teams have taken a TE early, they'd have been better off taking someone else.  Add on the fact that TEs rarely get drafted high, and when they are it usually doesn't work out well for them.  I'm not sure what's so crazy about this concept.

It's becoming increasingly clear that you and I are on different places with regards to our Hock evaluation.  You think he's another Rob Gronkowski, and probably pretty soon.  I think he can be good, but he's not going to break a dozen years of history and become a Day 1 producer at TE.  So if he's not producing Day 1 at a high level, he needs to be a game changer at TE.  I don't think he's a game changing prospect.

[CWood21]

5 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Can I add one more ? 

Much of the focus has been on adding EDGE rushers, but I am wondering if there isn't a bit more value in adding another DT with pass rush capabilities next to Clark. Several posters have talked about Daniels age/fit/physique for this defense -  and with teams playing nickel 70 % of the time - it seems like there would be a huge value in adding a Jeffery Simmons-type DL to the rotation.
Its the shortest distance to the QB, gets into the QBs field of vision and puts your DL vs the "least" athletic component of the opposing OL instead of the high-end OTs.  We also have seen Pettine use 3 DL more than others and there's always the Planet Theory to consider

EDGE is surely a dire need, but other than Clark, it seems like there's also a Mike Pettine -specific need on the DL too.
How does Positional Value shake out at pass rushing DL vs EDGE ?

I think that goes back to a philosophical argument.  And I think it's largely dependent on scheme.  Based on Pettine's scheme, it seems he prefers bigger EDGE which puts a bigger premium on interior pass rusher.  Then again, the "best" pure pass rusher he had was Jerry Hughes.  Give him a guy like Myles Garrett, you'd have to think he'd know how to make it work.

[vegas492]

2 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Can I add one more ? 

Much of the focus has been on adding EDGE rushers, but I am wondering if there isn't a bit more value in adding another DT with pass rush capabilities next to Clark. Several posters have talked about Daniels age/fit/physique for this defense -  and with teams playing nickel 70 % of the time - it seems like there would be a huge value in adding a Jeffery Simmons-type DL to the rotation.
Its the shortest distance to the QB, gets into the QBs field of vision and puts your DL vs the "least" athletic component of the opposing OL instead of the high-end OTs.  We also have seen Pettine use 3 DL more than others and there's always the Planet Theory to consider

EDGE is surely a dire need, but other than Clark, it seems like there's also a Mike Pettine -specific need on the DL too.
How does Positional Value shake out at pass rushing DL vs EDGE ?

You have a great question there.  DL vs. EDGE.  Especially if we are looking at a Tier 2 EDGE vs. Tier 2 DL.

I really want to see the combine for these players.  Just due to my "eye" test and YouTube....I think really highly of Wilkens.  I love watching Ferrell tape and Wilkens pops on that tape as well.  Moreso than Simmons or Oliver.  Wilkens seems to never really get engaged by an OL.  He's slippery, plays with great leverage and is pretty darned fast when he gets an opening.  I like him at #12 over every edge not named Bosa, Allen or Ferrell.

I'd love to see your topic get it's own thread.  And updated after the combine.  #12 is ripe for DL/EDGE.

In a not-so-perfect world, I'd take Wilkens at #12 and then find a way to get Ferguson at #30.  I think Ferguson is going to be a good one on the EDGE. 

[vegas492]

Concerning Hock and where he should be drafted...I can't help but think it is kind of the conversation we had regarding Nelson last year.  I"m not sure if there is a "right" or "wrong" answer, but there is certainly the "premium position" stance that can be made.

The best tight end of recent memory to me was OJ Howard.  He went #19 in the 2017 draft.  I think Kittle went in the 5'th that year.  Tight end is one of those positions where I'd guestimate that for every one taken in the top 25 there's a kid taken in the 3rd or later who ended up being just as good, if not better.  Without looking it up, I don't think that can be said of the DL.

Not knocking the player, just the positional value.

That being said, I was for Nelson with the GB pick last year.  To me, he was just that good.

I haven't watched enough Hock to see if he is that caliber of tight end as Q was at guard.

What I do know is that this is a very good draft for EDGE and DL.  I think GB can grab a very good TE later and cash in on a premium position at #12...while still landing a good talent at tight end later.

[MacReady]

I don't care how good the prospect is, unless you've just won a Super Bowl and you somehow have the 12th overall pick, I'm not taking a WR, TE or IOL in the top 15.  

[vegas492]

16 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

I don't care how good the prospect is, unless you've just won a Super Bowl and you somehow have the 12th overall pick, I'm not taking a WR, TE or IOL in the top 15.  

It is really, and I mean REALLY, hard to argue against that.  About all you have is the "generational talent" argument.  Even then...I'm not sure it works.

I viewed Q as a "generational talent", and I know we can disagree on that, no worries.  

I do not see a generational talent at WR, IOL or WR in this draft class.

[squire12]

59 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

How else do we compare whether or not a pick was worth it other than judging based on their careers?  My argument is that I'm not using a top 15 pick on a TE when there are other positions with bigger impacts.

So in using hindsight, teams should have taken Ngata instead of Cutler, Leinart, Vince Young.  

[Kenrik]

1 hour ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

@Shanedorf

From draft discussions (posted Saturday) Click on the link next to my avatar picture to read.

 

Agree. The only pass rushers that play linebacker that I want at 12 are Bosa and Ferrell. Both will be every down players vs Polite and Burns.

[Packerraymond]

IMO your positional grades should have a multiplier in it based on position. Take the grade you gave the player and multiply by 1.2 for QB, 1.1 for pass rushers, LT, CB, 1.0 for WR, OGs, run plugs, ILBs and FS, .9 for RB, TE, OC, SS.

You shouldn't be grading a TE as a top 10 player in a draft.