Jordan Love

[MaximusGluteus]

8 hours ago, Pugger said:

irregardless

STAHP

[Pugger]

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Look at draft history. 

10 of the first 15 picks last year were either QB, OT, DT, or Edge Rusher.

10 of the first 15 picks two years ago were either QB, OT, DT, or Edge Rusher. 

2017 was a goofy *** year. Only 6 of the first 15 picks were either QB, OT DT, or Edge Rusher

9 of the first 15 picks in 2016 were either QB, OT DT, or Edge Rusher.

9 of the first 15 picks in 2015 were either QB, OT DT, or Edge Rusher.

 

44/75 of the last 5 years of top 15 picks have played QB, OT, DT, or Edge Rusher.

Those positions make up 7/22 starting spots on an NFL team. 

When a set of positions makes up 30% of available spots and makes up 59% of the selected draft picks, teams are heavily favoring those spots. 

 

Pick any team and track their draft picks through the years and pick the ones not taking positions of need. Just look at last year:

Just looking at the last 6 picks of last year's draft. Every single one was a pick for need.

Oakland: Erik Harris/Curtis Riley was slated to be a battle for starting SS before they drafted Abraham

Chargers: Justin Jones and Brandon Mebane was the starting DT duo. Enter Jerry Tillery

Seattle: Cassius Marsh as an every down edge rusher? No think you. Enter L.J. Collier

Giants: How do you feel about both Grant Haley and Antonio Hamilton being your starting CBs? Enter DeAndre Baker

Atlanta: The winner of the Ty Sambrailo/Matt Gono rock fight was going to be the starting RT before they drafted McGary

New England: Badly needed WRs this year and jumped on N'Keal Harry

 

Just looking through it very broadly, who weren't need picks last year? Rashan Gary, Nick Bosa (if the team believes in Solomon Thomas) and . . . one might argue Josh Allen, but I wouldn't even agree with that. The only picks selected that aren't a straight need are pass rushers, and everybody knows you need more than two of those anyway, so I might not even say those aren't need picks. 

 

 

 

 

I appreciate this post.   A post like this is a lot better than your original response.

[CWood21]

2 hours ago, Golfman said:

Daniel Jeremiah has us taking Love in his latest mock draft. He spoke last nigh on NFL network about us possibly trading up in the mid-20's to get him. I'm not sure it plays out that way, but he seems to be pretty connected. Maybe there is some interest on Green Bays part, maybe not. 

Trading up?  Nah, not a chance.

[CWood21]

9 hours ago, Pugger said:

Nobody?   How do you know it is a myth?  When was the last time you were in a team's war room?  You do know a lot about football but sometimes you can come across as condescending towards others like you know so much more than the rest of us when you are just another fan on a message board.  It really isn't a good look.

So..you're telling me if that if you had a young Aaron Rodgers as your starting QB and you just drafted Kyler Murray last year, would you take Joe Burrow this year if you had him graded out as your top QB?  We've heard from NUMEROUS former GMs that players aren't graded in numerical rankings.  They're graded out in tiers, and you're looking at guys who are in similar tiers and how do you differentiate between those tiers?  You're weighing team needs, depth at the position in the class, etc.

https://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2016/7/18/12208248/all-seven-rounds-of-dallas-cowboys-2016-draft-board-possibly-revealed

That was the Cowboys' board that leaked a few years ago.  Ezekiel Elliott and Jaylon Smith were both top-5 graded players for the Cowboys, and were their top two picks.  Unless you have a clear tier grade lean, you have to weigh need and positional depth in the draft.  Jaylon Smith was a top-5 prospect for the Cowboys when they took him in the second round.  But when you get into Maliek Collins, the Cowboys "reportedly" had Kendall Fuller and Connor Cook graded out higher than him.  So if they had a CB and QB who was graded out a full tier ahead of him, why did they opt for the DT?

[vegas492]

42 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

So..you're telling me if that if you had a young Aaron Rodgers as your starting QB and you just drafted Kyler Murray last year, would you take Joe Burrow this year if you had him graded out as your top QB?  

Not bagging on your post, like at all, I agree with it.  So don't read too much into my post.

But I find it ironic that we had a young Aaron Rodgers, and spent a premium pick on Brian Brohm and a later pick on Matt Flynn.  

I just find that interesting.

Kind of like having a young Rosen and taking Kyler Murray the next year.  Obviously coaching change led to that and it worked out well, but still those are some interesting situations.

[CWood21]

5 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Not bagging on your post, like at all, I agree with it.  So don't read too much into my post.

But I find it ironic that we had a young Aaron Rodgers, and spent a premium pick on Brian Brohm and a later pick on Matt Flynn.  

I just find that interesting.

Kind of like having a young Rosen and taking Kyler Murray the next year.  Obviously coaching change led to that and it worked out well, but still those are some interesting situations.

Honestly, I think TT spent more time on QBs than he did any other position.  Just my opinion.  The rumors were that the Packers LOVED DeShone Kizer and were considering taking him at 33 when they chose Kevin King instead.

EDIT: And I believe it was Ted Thompson who said he wanted to take a QB every year.

[vegas492]

4 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Honestly, I think TT spent more time on QBs than he did any other position.  Just my opinion.  The rumors were that the Packers LOVED DeShone Kizer and were considering taking him at 33 when they chose Kevin King instead.

EDIT: And I believe it was Ted Thompson who said he wanted to take a QB every year.

I want to say that Wolf said that as well.

And true dat about Kizer.  Hated hearing it then, still hate seeing it on the screen.  lol.

[CWood21]

Just now, vegas492 said:

I want to say that Wolf said that as well.

And true dat about Kizer.  Hated hearing it then, still hate seeing it on the screen.  lol.

I mean, I got the appeal of Kizer.  Tooled up prospect that had a terrible developmental curve under Brian Kelly.  People were slobbering over Patrick Mahomes' tools, but Kizer was pretty damn talented too.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

14 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Nobody takes BPA. Every team factors in positional value and need. 

"Pure BPA" is a dumb myth.

Lumping "positional value" with "need" makes no sense regarding your argument.

Positional value is a factor in best player available, and need is not.  

Edited April 8, 2020 by Ragnar Danneskjold

[HighCalebR]

23 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

Lumping "positional value" with "need" makes no sense regarding your argument.

Positional value is a factor in best player available, and need is not.  

If you really need a ILB and youre pretty set at OT you'll wind up taking the ILB with equally rated players. But if you also need a Corner you'll probably end up with the corner with equally rated players. 

Need factors into value. You would hope youre disciplined enough not to reach down a tier to try to fill that need.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Just now, HighCalebR said:

If you really need a ILB and youre pretty set at OT you'll wind up taking the ILB with equally rated players. But if you also need a Corner you'll probably end up with the corner with equally rated players. 

Need factors into value. You would hope youre disciplined enough not to reach down a tier to try to fill that need.

However, the argument in Packer circles since Thompson took over as GM was BPA vs need, as Thompson always claimed that he drafted BPA in the early days.  Of course, it has been argued that he didn't, but that is for a different thread.

No one has ever held the argument of BPA vs positional value.  That is why punters aren't drafted in the first round by sane GM's.  They may rate very high as punters, but even then they are not the best player available.

[HighCalebR]

7 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

However, the argument in Packer circles since Thompson took over as GM was BPA vs need, as Thompson always claimed that he drafted BPA in the early days.  Of course, it has been argued that he didn't, but that is for a different thread.

No one has ever held the argument of BPA vs positional value.  That is why punters aren't drafted in the first round by sane GM's.  They may rate very high as punters, but even then they are not the best player available.

Right, if you're sitting there with the last guy in the tier at a position you don't necessarily need, see if you can get some value on trade out or take that player there. If you have 7 similarly rated players at different positions how do you take the BEST one when theyre all rated the same? Well, you take the guy at the position you NEED the most. If you have multiple needs in that group of players sitting there you're going to take the position you value the highest.

Edited April 8, 2020 by HighCalebR

[Pugger]

3 hours ago, CWood21 said:

So..you're telling me if that if you had a young Aaron Rodgers as your starting QB and you just drafted Kyler Murray last year, would you take Joe Burrow this year if you had him graded out as your top QB?  We've heard from NUMEROUS former GMs that players aren't graded in numerical rankings.  They're graded out in tiers, and you're looking at guys who are in similar tiers and how do you differentiate between those tiers?  You're weighing team needs, depth at the position in the class, etc.

https://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2016/7/18/12208248/all-seven-rounds-of-dallas-cowboys-2016-draft-board-possibly-revealed

That was the Cowboys' board that leaked a few years ago.  Ezekiel Elliott and Jaylon Smith were both top-5 graded players for the Cowboys, and were their top two picks.  Unless you have a clear tier grade lean, you have to weigh need and positional depth in the draft.  Jaylon Smith was a top-5 prospect for the Cowboys when they took him in the second round.  But when you get into Maliek Collins, the Cowboys "reportedly" had Kendall Fuller and Connor Cook graded out higher than him.  So if they had a CB and QB who was graded out a full tier ahead of him, why did they opt for the DT?

I wasn't just talking about QBs.  And I don't know what kind of ratings/grades GMs use.   I'm not in those war rooms and neither are any of us.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Just now, HighCalebR said:

Right, if you're sitting there with the last guy in the tier, see if you can get some value on trade out or take that player there. If you have 7 similarly rated players at the position how do you take the BEST one when theyre all rated the same? Well, you take the guy at the position you NEED the most. If you have multiple needs in that group of players sitting there you're going to take the position you value the highest.

I get that, but that is no where near my point.  

A classic example was the fan unrest when Jordy Nelson was drafted.  Bob Harlan went on the radio to defend the pick by pointing out that you may feel you are set at one position- at the time wide receiver, but injuries occur and you may end up needing the player who is graded higher than one in the position that you perceive of as a need.  

That is what people referring to a BPA approach to drafting are referring to-- drafting the highly rated player left on the board even though you may perceive that you are reasonably set at that position, and have a "need" elsewhere.

I would also argue that the proponents of the BPA approach look at positional value in the determination of BPA.  Thompson in his early days with the Packers claimed he liked to draft the bigs early- in his mind he felt that talented bigs were rare, and they impacted the game more, so they became the best available when they were there.  

The proponents of the BPA approach feel that drafting for need gets teams in trouble by passing on players that will be of more value down the road than the need players will be.

Need speaks to deficiencies on your roster.  Positional value speaks to the value of the potential draftee in general.

 

[HighCalebR]

Just now, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

I get that, but that is no where near my point.  

A classic example was the fan unrest when Jordy Nelson was drafted.  Bob Harlan went on the radio to defend the pick by pointing out that you may feel you are set at one position- at the time wide receiver, but injuries occur and you may end up needing the player who is graded higher than one in the position that you perceive of as a need.  

That is what people referring to a BPA approach to drafting are referring to-- drafting the highly rated player left on the board even though you may perceive that you are reasonably set at that position, and have a "need" elsewhere.

I would also argue that the proponents of the BPA approach look at positional value in the determination of BPA.  Thompson in his early days with the Packers claimed he liked to draft the bigs early- in his mind he felt that talented bigs were rare, and they impacted the game more, so they became the best available when they were there.  

The proponents of the BPA approach feel that drafting for need gets teams in trouble by passing on players that will be of more value down the road than the need players will be.

Need speaks to deficiencies on your roster.  Positional value speaks to the value of the potential draftee in general.

 

I don't know how you can argue the positional value vs need with Jordy. Donald was 33, you obviously need to find a replacement for that man and WR isn't a high value spot.