2020 NFL Draft Discussion

[pacman5252]

9 hours ago, CWood21 said:

I wouldn't do that unless the value is there.  And that wouldn't be until R3 at the earliest.

I could see us taking Swift. The argument;

-He’s a really talented 3 down player

-We need a second back  (J Will is kind of a jag). With Swift we’d have an insurance policy that we could run our O with and a guy who would add value over a Williams 

-Swift would mean no Aaron Jones resigning which would save 8-10m in 2021. That is a starter somewhere.

 

I personally wouldn’t do it but I get the argument if we did. Crazier things have happened 

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, pacman5252 said:

I could see us taking Swift. The argument;

-He’s a really talented 3 down player

-We need a second back  (J Will is kind of a jag). With Swift we’d have an insurance policy that we could run our O with and a guy who would add value over a Williams 

-Swift would mean no Aaron Jones resigning which would save 8-10m in 2021. That is a starter somewhere.

 

I personally wouldn’t do it but I get the argument if we did. Crazier things have happened 

I can't think of a worse way to get value out of a pick than drafting a guy who played behind a dominant line in college. 

[Skippy]

On 4/6/2020 at 3:06 AM, Brit Pack said:

I don't get the drafting of RBs this year. They won't see the field we still have Jones and J.Williams. We re-signed Ervin and we have still have D.Williams. If we keep none of this lot for next year then that is the time to draft their replacements, as RBs are so plug and play, we don't need to sit them for a year. Drafting a RB this year will just eat up a draft pick and a roster space, just simply not worth it.

Even if we lose all our running backs next year, rb's are a dime a dozen and can be plug and plays more than any other position. With the exception of pass blocking for rb's. Yeah I wouldn't even draft a one this year. 

[Nick_gb]

37 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I can't think of a worse way to get value out of a pick than drafting a guy who played behind a dominant line in college. 

This -- give me Akers on Day 2 over Taylor or Swift on Day 1 if thats the route we're going.  That guy earned every inch he ran for last year and is being slept on almost criminally. 

Edited April 7, 2020 by Nick_gb

[Rainmaker90]

I want KJ Hamler at 30. Talk about a guy that demands attention. Every time he touches the ball he’s a misstep, bad angle, or a block away from taking it to the house. Hell, he’s a split second away from outrunning everyone.

 

[Golfman]

3 hours ago, pacman5252 said:

I could see us taking Swift. The argument;

-He’s a really talented 3 down player

-We need a second back  (J Will is kind of a jag). With Swift we’d have an insurance policy that we could run our O with and a guy who would add value over a Williams 

-Swift would mean no Aaron Jones resigning which would save 8-10m in 2021. That is a starter somewhere.

 

I personally wouldn’t do it but I get the argument if we did. Crazier things have happened 

So let's draft a guy to save 8-10 million we can use on a guy who can start for us next year when we lose Jones? I'm confused. Why don't we draft a guy who can play now and get Jones replacement in round 5-7 where you can find quality running backs every year. 

I write this as the guy who put the Jordan Love poll out. The difference is you pay quarterbacks a second contract. You don't pay running backs a second contract so you sure as hell don't draft one in round 1. 

[vegas492]

9 hours ago, Joe said:

He started as a power end with Cincy, but when he moved to SF, he was moved to the 3-tech in a 3-4 scheme. His sack numbers weren't as consistent, but you could argue he had a bigger impact on the game because his AV numbers practically doubled. 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SmitJu20.htm

They sure did.  He was just okay as a Bengal.  But as a 49er, he was a difference maker.  

And that's great.  I do see some of him in Espinosa.  What I do not see is that 3-tech in our standard GB scheme.  Maybe it is because we don't have a capable body like that.  But that's a hard sell to me concerning a first round pick.  Love the player, do not like the fit for us.  And if he fails there?  It's not like you can put him over a guard, and it's not like you can flip him farther outside to an EDGE.  

[pacman5252]

1 hour ago, Golfman said:

So let's draft a guy to save 8-10 million we can use on a guy who can start for us next year when we lose Jones? I'm confused. Why don't we draft a guy who can play now and get Jones replacement in round 5-7 where you can find quality running backs every year. 

I write this as the guy who put the Jordan Love poll out. The difference is you pay quarterbacks a second contract. You don't pay running backs a second contract so you sure as hell don't draft one in round 1. 

For starters, I'm not advocating for a RB r1, I'm more or less arguing for why it could make sense, something that has been completely dismissed by the fan base. MLF wanting to run the ball more, us having 1RB that has plus juice, and wanting to save money in 2021 are all reasons to go RB. If Jones went down, we'd be screwed.

As far as your points;

- You don't just find good running backs in the mid to late rounds every year. In my 20 years following the Packer drafts, we've taken a lot of RBs rounds 3-7 rounds. Aaron Jones is the only plus RB we've taken late. Starks/Willliams/Davenport were replacement level. Then there were a lot of out of the league in 2. year guys (Mays, Green, Franklin, Wynn). Green was from a trade and Lacy was R2 (so was Jackson)... you can find replacement level easily. Finding a plus RB late isn't as easy.

-Pick 30 is essentially a second round pick. I agree generally you don't take a RB high, but this isn't a massive investment. 

 

 

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, pacman5252 said:

For starters, I'm not advocating for a RB r1, I'm more or less arguing for why it could make sense, something that has been completely dismissed by the fan base. MLF wanting to run the ball more, us having 1RB that has plus juice, and wanting to save money in 2021 are all reasons to go RB. If Jones went down, we'd be screwed.

As far as your points;

- You don't just find good running backs in the mid to late rounds every year. In my 20 years following the Packer drafts, we've taken a lot of RBs rounds 3-7 rounds. Aaron Jones is the only plus RB we've taken late. Starks/Willliams/Davenport were replacement level. Then there were a lot of out of the league in 2. year guys (Mays, Green, Franklin, Wynn). Green was from a trade and Lacy was R2 (so was Jackson)... you can find replacement level easily. Finding a plus RB late isn't as easy.

-Pick 30 is essentially a second round pick. I agree generally you don't take a RB high, but this isn't a massive investment. 

 

 

And how has not having a plus RB impacted the offense? How has having a plus RB impacted the offense?

Obviously correlation doesn't equate to causation, but negative correlation most frequently points to minimal causation.

[Leader]

Daniel Jeremiah 2020 NFL mock draft

Green Bay - Pick 30

Jordan Love - QB - School: Utah State | Year: Junior (RS)

It's tough to find the right spot for Love. He could go in the top 10 or fall to this neighborhood of the draft. The Packers would be a great fit for him to sit, learn and develop

[{Family Ghost}]

5 hours ago, Rainmaker90 said:

I want KJ Hamler at 30. Talk about a guy that demands attention. Every time he touches the ball he’s a misstep, bad angle, or a block away from taking it to the house. Hell, he’s a split second away from outrunning everyone.

 

I love that guy, but I doubt the Packers do.

[craig]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

And how has not having a plus RB impacted the offense? How has having a plus RB impacted the offense?

Obviously correlation doesn't equate to causation, but negative correlation most frequently points to minimal causation.

As you allude to, causation is hard to identify, when there are so very many inputs that factor, plus a lot of random variables that play into wins, losses, and playoff success. So, it's hard to pull out the relative impact of particular factors.  But to me, it's seemed that there has been some impact and causation?   

1.  A plus RB helped a team with a crummy passing game to have an OK offense and to win 14 games this year?  

2.  Having bad RB's prevented some teams with really good passing games from having really great offenses; and prevented them from being super-bowl worthy back during some years when Rodgers was both really good and for a while had some excellent receivers besides?

3.  During Super Bowl season, having a bad RB (Jackson) for most of the season limited an offense that might have been really good; when Starks got healthy and emerged as an average RB rather than bad, that contributed to the team winning through the playoffs and winning the SB?  

This may be a tangent, to the question of "plus" RB.  But obviously there is a continuum of quality.  The "anti-awful" factor is often underestimated, I think.  For sure, it's great to have plus, asset players.  But sometimes the VORP when you replace an awful player with an average guy can be pretty influential.  

[Leader]

TDN MD:

30 - Laviska Shenault Jr., WR
62 - Raekwon Davis, IDL
94 - Brycen Hopkins, TE
136 - A.J. Dillon, RB

30 - Josh Jones, OT
62 - Kyle Dugger, S
94 - Akeem Davis-Gaither, LB
136 - Lynn Bowden, WR

Edited April 7, 2020 by Leader

[pacman5252]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

And how has not having a plus RB impacted the offense? How has having a plus RB impacted the offense?

Obviously correlation doesn't equate to causation, but negative correlation most frequently points to minimal causation.

It didn't matter as much between 10-17 as we were built differently. We had an all world QB in his prime, multiple pro bowl caliber wrs and a coach that wanted to run 3 wide isolation routes.  (I will say though the closest we have been to the Super Bowl, 2014, we had a counter punch with Lacy in his rookie year)

Now though, MLF wants to run more to set up the pass, AR is 85% of what he was, and we only have 1 quality RB, it matters more. We're not winning playing  10/11 Packer or 19 KC ball. We need to be more 2018 Rams/Pats (good D, shot plays)

 

Again, I want to emphasize, I personally don't want a RB. I'd completely understand the pick though and think it is a bigger need than most.

[incognito_man]

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

And how has not having a plus RB impacted the offense? How has having a plus RB impacted the offense?

Obviously correlation doesn't equate to causation, but negative correlation most frequently points to minimal causation.

Weren't we like a top 3 offense with Jones on the field and 29th without him last year? I remember seeing a split like that at one point.