2021 NFL Draft Thread

[HighCalebR]

1 hour ago, R T said:

You mean like last year when they drafted a QB and RB in the first two rounds or the year before when they drafted an EDGE player 12th overall after investing over 100M in Edge players in FA. If an EDGE player is the highest rated player, they will draft the EDGE player. 

I'm not trying to get you or anyone else stirred up here and if it helps you sleep at night believe whatever you like, but don't be shocked if the position doesn't line up with your thinking come draft day. Because the Packers will draft the highest rated player on their board, period.    

Curious. Do you think they number them out 1-200?

[R T]

41 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

If an EDGE player is that high on GB's board, then the Packers believe he's the best value at the pick, which takes "need" into consideration. The need doesn't have to be immediate, which is why the Love and Dillon picks actually support what I'm saying. You think GB would have drafted Jordan Love in the first round of the 2011 draft after Rodgers won the SB in his 20s? Of course not, even if Love was their "highest rated player." 

The simple point here is that players are not drafted in a vacuum simply because they are good players. How the player fits into the team's plan, whether immediate or in the future obviously factors in, especially for 1st rounders. 

That is a lot of spin. The player that fits best in the Packers future plans is the highest rated player on their board, because you do not build the best team for the future by drafting the second, third, fourth best players on the board.   

[HighCalebR]

1 hour ago, packfanfb said:

I'd agree there is a slight chance they could go EDGE in Rd 1 if their plan is to frequently use Z and Gary in the 4i tech position in Barry's defense. 

I think you stick gary at Morgan fox's spot. I think hes almost a dream 9. Z you let take some of Donald's floaty reps and the 4i. Preston probably gets stuck with Floyds reps because he has to.

[R T]

7 minutes ago, HighCalebR said:

Curious. Do you think they number them out 1-200?

I would be surprised if their board ever had 200 players on it. 

Players are tiered, than vertically stacked in each tier.

[HighCalebR]

3 minutes ago, R T said:

I would be surprised if their board ever had 200 players on it. 

Players are tiered, than vertically stacked in each tier.

Yeah it was a rounded number. 

Naturally, so within that tier you dont think they put up positional favorability?

Or are you saying theres a real way to compare a RB to a corner in skillset in a tier set?

Edited April 11, 2021 by HighCalebR

[packfanfb]

46 minutes ago, HighCalebR said:

I think you stick gary at Morgan fox's spot. I think hes almost a dream 9. Z you let take some of Donald's floaty reps and the 4i. Preston probably gets stuck with Floyds reps because he has to.

I think the draft will tell us a lot about these plans. If the Packers don't really address the DL, it must mean Z and Gary are part of the plan at DL because our roster is pretty barren otherwise outside of Clark and Keke in terms of fits for Barry's scheme.

[DWhitehurst]

6 hours ago, packfanfb said:

None of these would upset me, although I think Nixon is a reach at 29. The rest of that list I would say are guys who are fairly in play at end of the 1st, although I think getting Jenkins, Newsome, and maybe even Barmore, would require a slight trade up. 

I could see them moving up a few spots for CB's Farley or Newsome, OT's Darrisaw or Jenkins, or if a top 10 player like LB Parsons slides. I wouldn't move up for DT Barmore or WR's Bateman or Marshall, Jr., but if one of those three is there at #29, I suppose Gute could surprise and take one of them instead of a CB or OT. (I actually like Marshall, Jr. a wee bit more than Bateman, though I may be in the minority there.) As far as draft depth, I think there are more decent RT prospects than there are Zone boundary CB's, whereas I think RT is now a more pressing need after the King signing. So based on draft depth relative to positions of greater or lesser need, a case could be made for going CB or DT with their first selection. Based on position of greatest need, then hard not to see them go OT (RT) with their first selection. Then again, Gute traded up for a QB last draft, so I guess we should be prepared for anything.

[R T]

1 hour ago, HighCalebR said:

Yeah it was a rounded number. 

Naturally, so within that tier you dont think they put up positional favorability?

Or are you saying theres a real way to compare a RB to a corner in skillset in a tier set?

Traditionally teams boards fall in the 130-150 range, but it has been reported in recent years that some teams boards are shrinking in number. A writer in Boston reported in the past few years that Belichick's board was only 50-80 players most years. None of us really know though do we. 

In positional favorability are you talking about the prime positions of QB,OT,CB and pass rushers or are you talking about based on the 'needs' belief of fans and media? If it is about needs, than no I don't think they do. Each player should have their own stand alone grade.   

[HighCalebR]

17 minutes ago, R T said:

Traditionally teams boards fall in the 130-150 range, but it has been reported in recent years that some teams boards are shrinking in number. A writer in Boston reported in the past few years that Belichick's board was only 50-80 players most years. None of us really know though do we. 

In positional favorability are you talking about the prime positions of QB,OT,CB and pass rushers or are you talking about based on the 'needs' belief of fans and media? If it is about needs, than no I don't think they do. Each player should have their own stand alone grade.   

I give zero ****s about the number. I dont think anybody does, outside a minor curiosity.

Yes, prime positions right, so you know about value. So they wouldnt take the best player regardless of position. How we percieve the team vs how Brian percieves the teams needs may be different but it doesnt mean he's going pure BPA. Do you think Gute picks Quenton Nelson over Jaire? Ive got serious doubts.

If you didnt believe in BVA vs BPA then there wouldnt be positional premiums.

[CWood21]

2 hours ago, R T said:

I would be surprised if their board ever had 200 players on it. 

Players are tiered, than vertically stacked in each tier.

This.

[CWood21]

19 minutes ago, HighCalebR said:

If you didnt believe in BVA vs BPA then there wouldnt be positional premiums.

Just because you subscribe to the BPA concept doesn't mean positional values aren't taken into account.  Let's say your draft board has a RB and an EDGE as your top two highest graded players.  How do you decide which position you take?  Based purely on positional value, you'd take the EDGE since it's a "more valuable" position.  But what happens if the RB class is really, really top heavy with no real depth to it, and the EDGE class is significantly deeper where you believe you can get a starting-caliber EDGE in Rounds 2 or 3?  Do you still take EDGE over a RB in R1, or do you take the RB instead?  Anyone who tries to wrap up these discussions in a nice, even bow is fooling themselves.  There's multiple variables involved.

[R T]

5 minutes ago, HighCalebR said:

I give zero ****s about the number. I dont think anybody does, outside a minor curiosity.

Yes, prime positions right, so you know about value. So they wouldnt take the best player regardless of position. How we percieve the team vs how Brian percieves the teams needs may be different but it doesnt mean he's going pure BPA. Do you think Gute picks Quenton Nelson over Jaire? Ive got serious doubts.

If you didnt believe in BVA vs BPA then there wouldnt be positional premiums.

Figured this was where you were attempting to lead this. I have no idea if they would select Nelson over Alexander, premium vs. non-premium aside. If a team selects a player like Nelson in the top of the draft they believed he is a generational talent and neither of us knows if Gutes felt that way. The best player available on their board IS the best value available. 

By the time the draft happens the Packers will not have a need on their roster which allows them to draft the BPA, period. I stated this last year and was met with much discontent about the WR and DL positions, yet the Packers drafted no WR's or DL's and added none in FA after the draft. Because fans and media dream up 'needs' doesn't mean the FO is a prisoner of the same thoughts.  

 

[R T]

11 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Just because you subscribe to the BPA concept doesn't mean positional values aren't taken into account.  Let's say your draft board has a RB and an EDGE as your top two highest graded players.  How do you decide which position you take?  Based purely on positional value, you'd take the EDGE since it's a "more valuable" position.  But what happens if the RB class is really, really top heavy with no real depth to it, and the EDGE class is significantly deeper where you believe you can get a starting-caliber EDGE in Rounds 2 or 3?  Do you still take EDGE over a RB in R1, or do you take the RB instead?  Anyone who tries to wrap up these discussions in a nice, even bow is fooling themselves.  There's multiple variables involved.

I get your point CWoods21, but that is all sorted out in the board setting process. If 2 such players are evenly graded, than that is all debated in the process and the decision is made as a whole. When that decision is made that player is know the BPA. That is the player selected regardless of position. 

Mike McCartney (not Mike McCarthy) who was a scout for the Giants in the 90's had a great story about setting their board in 1996 and how the pissing match went on for days about the positioning of one player on their board, that player was Cedric Jones from Oklahoma. He said he finally gave in to those wanting Jones because he was sure one of the other players on their board would available to the Giants. All were selected ahead of them and they took Jones much to his disliking.  

An unbelievable amount of man hours go's into setting a teams board, they are not going to waiver from taking the BPA on their board. 

[Mazrimiv]

On 4/9/2021 at 7:11 PM, mikemike778 said:

The problem with this is you get the most value out of your draft picks in their first four seasons. With the exception of maybe QB,  if your first rounder takes until his 4th season to be what you drafted him for then its probably a wasted pick or at least partly wasted.

That Kenny Clark pick was such a waste.  Stupid Packers.  Gary too.  They never learn.

[pacman5252]

Considering how in we were "supposedly" at WR last year, I think we're discounting it as a fan base. We wanted Aiyuk last year (the motion "weapon" player that could have added another element and fix our return game). I wouldn't be surprised or disappointed if it is Toney, Amari Rodgers, or R Moore at 29.