Jordan Love

[cannondale]

The rule of thumb to guess TT picks was to look one year ahead. Seems like Gute abandoned that last year. Daniels was on his last year so I was sure a DL would be the choice.

[CWood21]

8 hours ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

Second, I don't find the retrospective evaluation of Kizer all that compelling.  I still think that trade was about getting rid of Randall, and they hyped Kizer a bit at the time of the trade so that it didn't come off as the desperate fire sale that it was.  I don't buy that he was in a tier above King, and the rumor that they were shopping the pick makes me think that both he and King were not alone, nor were compelling favorites in the tier that they were in.

I think your timing is off.  After the Packers traded out of the first round, there were significant rumblings that the Packers were seriously considering taking Kizer at 33.  Obviously, they opted to select Kevin King instead, but the rumblings were consistent.  And then later on they deal Randall for Kizer.

[CWood21]

8 hours ago, craig said:

Both the Rodgers and the Jordy picks seem to be ones that were NOT so much driven by need.  Bulaga and Sherrod picks back-to-back perhaps reflected that Clifton and Tauscher were fossils and there was clearer need urgency.  Datone and Perry seemed to line up with clear. Randall seemed to line up with clear need.  There just seemed to be some situations where the need was obvious, and the pick taken lined up. 

But value and need can be the same, and I think that's why people tend to blur the lines between the two of them.  Was Darnell Savage the BPA on the board at 21 when the Packers picked?  Maybe, but if you were someone who wasn't as high on Savage as the Packers were then it'd be conceived that the Packers drafted him for need rather than value.

[Golfman]

6 hours ago, CWood21 said:

But value and need can be the same, and I think that's why people tend to blur the lines between the two of them.  Was Darnell Savage the BPA on the board at 21 when the Packers picked?  Maybe, but if you were someone who wasn't as high on Savage as the Packers were then it'd be conceived that the Packers drafted him for need rather than value.

He clearly was in the Packer draft room. They traded up to make sure they got him. 

[mikemike778]

6 hours ago, CWood21 said:

But value and need can be the same, and I think that's why people tend to blur the lines between the two of them.  Was Darnell Savage the BPA on the board at 21 when the Packers picked?  Maybe, but if you were someone who wasn't as high on Savage as the Packers were then it'd be conceived that the Packers drafted him for need rather than value.

In an ideal world, you trade your way up and down to the point that value meets need. If the clear best value player on the board is someone you don't want then you should trade down. 

Savage isn't a good example. Gute traded up so clearly he thought he would be taken earlier than where we were due to pick. What is a player worth in draft capital ?  If multiple teams (including Packers) want to draft him in the region of 21 then his value is around 21. This isn't a case of need overtaking value. Its a case of trading your way up to the point where needs meets value which in this case was (in Gute's opinion) up to 21.

If the front office thought teams would draft Savage at around 45 but he took him anyway much earlier then that is where you let need overtake value.

Ultimately people can talk about positional value, they can talk about mock drafts, they can talk about combine skills, reaches and all that nonsense but ultimately basic economics of demand and supply come into play. If multiple teams want to draft Savage in the 20s that is his value. 

 

[Donzo]

On 4/1/2020 at 8:54 AM, Golfman said:

Jordan Love is sitting there at 30 unexpectedly. What do you do? 

You completely ignore him... A poor man's Jamis Winston is a bad thing.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

7 hours ago, CWood21 said:

I think your timing is off.  After the Packers traded out of the first round, there were significant rumblings that the Packers were seriously considering taking Kizer at 33.  Obviously, they opted to select Kevin King instead, but the rumblings were consistent.  And then later on they deal Randall for Kizer.

I understand that, but it was my opinion at the time that the rumblings were never about actually picking Kizer and instead were about trying to force a QB hungry team to trade for the pick.  That's why I say that the Packers seemed to me to not be high on anybody in that tier because they were ( in my opinion) trying to trade back for a second time.

I didn't buy the hyperbole at the time of the draft, and I didn't buy it at the time of the trade.

[CWood21]

3 hours ago, mikemike778 said:

In an ideal world, you trade your way up and down to the point that value meets need. If the clear best value player on the board is someone you don't want then you should trade down. 

Savage isn't a good example. Gute traded up so clearly he thought he would be taken earlier than where we were due to pick. What is a player worth in draft capital ?  If multiple teams (including Packers) want to draft him in the region of 21 then his value is around 21. This isn't a case of need overtaking value. Its a case of trading your way up to the point where needs meets value which in this case was (in Gute's opinion) up to 21.

If the front office thought teams would draft Savage at around 45 but he took him anyway much earlier then that is where you let need overtake value.

Ultimately people can talk about positional value, they can talk about mock drafts, they can talk about combine skills, reaches and all that nonsense but ultimately basic economics of demand and supply come into play. If multiple teams want to draft Savage in the 20s that is his value. 

That's my point.  Obviously the Packers felt the value was there, because they wouldn't have traded up to get him.  But if you're a casual viewer, and you viewed Savage as a Day 2 prospect as a reach.  And probably very against the trade up.  I mean, if you back to the Savage thread from last year how many posters thought the Packers overpaid despite giving up less points per the TVC?

On the first page alone, JaireAlex, squire, and Cadmus were all against the trade up.  Why?  Because their perceived value of Savage wasn't as high as Gute.

[CWood21]

2 hours ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

I understand that, but it was my opinion at the time that the rumblings were never about actually picking Kizer and instead were about trying to force a QB hungry team to trade for the pick.  That's why I say that the Packers seemed to me to not be high on anybody in that tier because they were ( in my opinion) trying to trade back for a second time.

I didn't buy the hyperbole at the time of the draft, and I didn't buy it at the time of the trade.

And that may very well be the case.  But given that DeShone Kizer was the focal point of the Damarious Randall trade, I think it's safe to assume that the Packers did value Kizer highly.

[craig]

Absolutely.  It's all about talent evaluation.  The vast majority of picks address perceived need or incipient/anticipated need.  (We had Clifton and Tauscher and both started on opening day; but Bulaga was very much an incipient-need pick....). People who disagree with talent evaluation can always jab at picks as need-based.  

I think early on TT had assembled a good roster, had drafted really well, and had come up with some really effective UDFA and street successes, so that he was able to be drafting a year ahead.  That's a luxury few GM's can really enjoy, and that TT himself did not enjoy during his latter years.  

[craig]

3 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

And that may very well be the case.  But given that DeShone Kizer was the focal point of the Damarious Randall trade, I think it's safe to assume that the Packers did value Kizer highly.

I tend to see it more Dagmar's way, but who knows.  I don't believe they necessarily had Kizer in a class-above; but perhaps did have him in the same plateau as King and others.  Which may be another reminder that Gute's brilliance as an evaluator may not be that brilliant!  :):)

Hope this draft he and his team are actually brilliant, and lucky both.  

[CWood21]

Just now, craig said:

I tend to see it more Dagmar's way, but who knows.  I don't believe they necessarily had Kizer in a class-above; but perhaps did have him in the same plateau as King and others.  Which may be another reminder that Gute's brilliance as an evaluator may not be that brilliant!  :):)

Hope this draft he and his team are actually brilliant, and lucky both.  

LIS, it would make sense that they were trying to get a QB-needy team looking to move up, especially given that Rodgers was playing at a high level.  But the fact that he was centerpiece of the Randall trade indicates that the FO did actually view him in high regards.  This is one of those BPA vs. Need discussions we're having.  The Packers could have very well had DeShone Kizer graded out similar to Kevin King, but the need at CB as opposed to QB pushed the Packers to Kevin King instead.  We have to stop looking and thinking of rankings in a numerical sense.  Multiple former GMs have mentioned that teams grade players into tiers, not numerical rankings.  You could easily have a situation where King and Kizer were graded out in the same range, but the need pushed it to CB instead.

[Joe]

6 hours ago, Golfman said:

He clearly was in the Packer draft room. They traded up to make sure they got him. 

...and they did so because Baltimore would've picked him at 22 had we not selected him...

[{Family Ghost}]

20 minutes ago, Joe said:

...and they did so because Baltimore would've picked him at 22 had we not selected him...

I think this is more than likely true.  Baltimore traded out right after the packers picked Savage.  Milt Hendricks might have had some inside knowledge there .. Gute later said he knew for a fact that Savage would not be there had they not traded up.

[Golfman]

Bucky Brooks has us taking Jake Fromm in round 3. YUCK! You are drafting a career back up if you take him and not sure he's an upgrade with what we have.