Your 'initial' assessment of the Draft

[Joe]

Just now, squire12 said:

unfortunately the sarcasm went right over your head

actually, I was trying to make legit point about how Rodgers actually put in the work rather than being the diva so many on this board think he is now...

[packfanfb]

3 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Considering is very very different than "targeting". GB "considers" every prospect. That they haven't drafted a WR in 1st round more than once in 30 years is telling.

I trust the evidence. Gute happily and readily trades up for players he wants. So, no. There's zero reason to believe he was "targeting" a first round WR. We know this because he didn't take one when he's shown he's not shy about moving up for someone he actually IS targeting.

Then we can throw out the word "targeting" because it sounds like you're interpreting that I'm using that word to say "we want this guy and we will do whatever it takes to go up and get him." Whereas, what I actually mean by targeting is, had Bateman (and maybe even Toney but that one I agree is less likely) been there at 29 along with Stokes, I believe there was a very good chance Bateman is the pick, just like Aiyuk at 26 in 2019. So I guess my use of "targeting" means, "higher on the board when the pick arrives." 

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, packfanfb said:

Then we can throw out the word "targeting" because it sounds like you're interpreting that I'm using that word to say "we want this guy and we will do whatever it takes to go up and get him." Whereas, what I actually mean by targeting is, had Bateman (and maybe even Toney but that one I agree is less likely) been there at 29 along with Stokes, I believe there was a very good chance Bateman is the pick, just like Aiyuk at 26 in 2019. So I guess my use of "targeting" means, "higher on the board when the pick arrives." 

You're free to believe whatever you want I suppose. I prefer evidence-based conclusions myself

[packfanfb]

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

You're free to believe whatever you want I suppose. I prefer evidence-based conclusions myself

An an attorney, my life is about evidence-based conclusions. I think we are just interpreting the available evidence in different ways. I'd argue that when every single person outside of 1265 Lombardi Ave. with possible knowledge and sources regarding the situation is saying the same thing (i.e. that GB "targeted" or would have liked to pick a certain WR), that's "evidence," however circumstantial it may be. The only people left who can truly attest as to their true actions are the people inside the organization, and again, you can't expect to get a truthful response there because any GM is going to say "we got our guy" if that's the guy who was ultimately picked. Conversley, I'd say, you're strongest point is that GB historically does not draft WRs in the first round so you're applying that to the last 2 years as well. Valid point. If only there were a judge or jury who could weigh the collective evidence and decide this matter for us...

[incognito_man]

7 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

An an attorney, my life is about evidence-based conclusions. I think we are just interpreting the available evidence in different ways. I'd argue that when every single person outside of 1265 Lombardi Ave. with possible knowledge and sources regarding the situation is saying the same thing (i.e. that GB "targeted" or would have liked to pick a certain WR), that's "evidence," however circumstantial it may be. The only people left who can truly attest as to their true actions are the people inside the organization, and again, you can't expect to get a truthful response there because any GM is going to say "we got our guy" if that's the guy who was ultimately picked. Conversley, I'd say, you're strongest point is that GB historically does not draft WRs in the first round so you're applying that to the last 2 years as well. Valid point. If only there were a judge or jury who could weigh the collective evidence and decide this matter for us...

Yes. The best evidence (really the ONLY evidence that isn't probable misinformation) leads us to the obvious conclusion that GB doesn't target 1st round WRs.

[R T]

11 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

An an attorney, my life is about evidence-based conclusions. I think we are just interpreting the available evidence in different ways. I'd argue that when every single person outside of 1265 Lombardi Ave. with possible knowledge and sources regarding the situation is saying the same thing (i.e. that GB "targeted" or would have liked to pick a certain WR), that's "evidence," however circumstantial it may be. The only people left who can truly attest as to their true actions are the people inside the organization, and again, you can't expect to get a truthful response there because any GM is going to say "we got our guy" if that's the guy who was ultimately picked. Conversley, I'd say, you're strongest point is that GB historically does not draft WRs in the first round so you're applying that to the last 2 years as well. Valid point. If only there were a judge or jury who could weigh the collective evidence and decide this matter for us...

We the jury has reached the verdict. 

The Packers had no plan to draft a WR in the 1st round the past two drafts or the past decade before that. 

[packfanfb]

11 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Yes. The best evidence (really the ONLY evidence that isn't probable misinformation) leads us to the obvious conclusion that GB doesn't target 1st round WRs.

Therein lies your problem Incog...see before our trial, when we're going through pretrial motion practice, I'll file a motion in limine to keep that evidence out because your argument raises a propensity inference that Gute is acting in conformity with his predecessors, namely Ted, and therefore, you're make an inadmissible character assessment per Fed.R.Evid. 404. However, you could counter with Rule 406 and argue that you're not raising a character inference, but rather, that Gute (and the organization as a whole) is acting out of "habit" to not draft a first round WR. Such evidence could be admissible and ultimately be considered by the judge/jury. 😉 

[packfanfb]

11 minutes ago, R T said:

We the jury has reached the verdict. 

The Packers had no plan to draft a WR in the 1st round the past two drafts or the past decade before that. 

[incognito_man]

47 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Therein lies your problem Incog...see before our trial, when we're going through pretrial motion practice, I'll file a motion in limine to keep that evidence out because your argument raises a propensity inference that Gute is acting in conformity with his predecessors, namely Ted, and therefore, you're make an inadmissible character assessment per Fed.R.Evid. 404. However, you could counter with Rule 406 and argue that you're not raising a character inference, but rather, that Gute (and the organization as a whole) is acting out of "habit" to not draft a first round WR. Such evidence could be admissible and ultimately be considered by the judge/jury. 😉 

this sounds like a kangaroo court

[Leader]

2 hours ago, packfanfb said:

Therein lies your problem Incog...see before our trial, when we're going through pretrial motion practice, I'll file a motion in limine to keep that evidence out because your argument raises a propensity inference that Gute is acting in conformity with his predecessors, namely Ted, and therefore, you're make an inadmissible character assessment per Fed.R.Evid. 404. However, you could counter with Rule 406 and argue that you're not raising a character inference, but rather, that Gute (and the organization as a whole) is acting out of "habit" to not draft a first round WR. Such evidence could be admissible and ultimately be considered by the judge/jury. 😉 

Motion denied.

Grounds: Gute's predecessor (namely Ted) is no longer walking amongst the living - therefore, he's unable to be present and offer testimony regards his practices and procedures - therefore, references to same would be hearsay and conjecture - making it inadmissable in my court.

Final ruling: Take that weak **** outside

 

[ThatJerkDave]

19 hours ago, incognito_man said:

this sounds like a kangaroo court

[gopackgo972]

20 hours ago, packfanfb said:

Therein lies your problem Incog...see before our trial, when we're going through pretrial motion practice, I'll file a motion in limine to keep that evidence out because your argument raises a propensity inference that Gute is acting in conformity with his predecessors, namely Ted, and therefore, you're make an inadmissible character assessment per Fed.R.Evid. 404. However, you could counter with Rule 406 and argue that you're not raising a character inference, but rather, that Gute (and the organization as a whole) is acting out of "habit" to not draft a first round WR. Such evidence could be admissible and ultimately be considered by the judge/jury. 😉 

 

 

[craig]

packers.com had interview recordings with the three top picks after yesterday's practice.  

All three came across well and seemed really likeable.  All seemed like bright-eyed, positive, energetic, confident young men.  Myers seemed calm, enthusiastic, positive, thoughtful, nice.  Consistent with the draft reports of a mature, smart, leader-type guy.  Amari seemed very quick, talked and thought fast and confidently.  No indication of being nervous or uncomfortable being on stage or at the mike.  Only a rookie, but tossed out football cliches like a veteran coach!  Seemed very poised.  

I was less sure what to expect for Stokes.  Don't think I'd heard or remembered anything from a draft interview.  He was really cheerful/boyish/youthful, kind of a charming innocence, my daughters will think he's really cute.  Stokes is a bit older than Amari, 22 to 21; I'd have never guessed it.  Amari came across older with the poise of a veteran, Stokes with the boyish innocence of a 9th grade JV-teamer.  He seemed really nice and fun.  I liked his expressed emphasis on technique, so that he'll be a winner apart from his speed.  Seemed to express a lot of competitiveness/ambition/want-to in terms of achieving excellence.  

I can easily understand how Gute's scouts all liked the three guys and the way these three must have interviewed.  Hopefully the on-field play will be as good as the personalities and interviews. 

Edited May 15, 2021 by craig

[incognito_man]

16 minutes ago, craig said:

packers.com had interview recordings with the three top picks after yesterday's practice.  

All three came across well and seemed really likeable.  All seemed like bright-eyed, positive, energetic, confident young men.  Myers seemed calm, enthusiastic, positive, thoughtful, nice.  Consistent with the draft reports of a mature, smart, leader-type guy.  Amari seemed very quick, talked and thought fast and confidently.  No indication of being nervous or uncomfortable being on stage or at the mike.  Only a rookie, but tossed out football cliches like a veteran coach!  Seemed very poised.  

I was less sure what to expect for Stokes.  Don't think I'd heard or remembered anything from a draft interview.  He was really cheerful/boyish/youthful, kind of a charming innocence, my daughters will think he's really cute.  Stokes is a bit older than Amari, 22 to 21; I'd have never guessed it.  Amari came across older with the poise of a veteran, Stokes with the boyish innocence of a 9th grade JV-teamer.  He seemed really nice and fun.  I liked his expressed emphasis on technique, so that he'll be a winner apart from his speed.  Seemed to express a lot of competitiveness/ambition/want-to in terms of achieving excellence.  

I can easily understand how Gute's scouts all liked the three guys and the way these three must have interviewed.  Hopefully the on-field play will be as good as the personalities and interviews. 

awww this wholesome 🥰

[Chili]

Just watching the videos, Really like how Stokes, Myers, Rodgers comes across. With our first 3 picks that's good news, you want to feel like the players we drafted will fit in and I get those vibes with these three.

Slaton looks like the fun sort but does come across a tad immature. I like Van Lanen but if he could pack on a little muscle, grow out his hair and beard then he would begin to look like a Packers OL.

Not a fan of Newman - his personality and redneck look is extremely offputting. Hill looks bored - don't blame him tbh, media interviews aren't for everyone. Jean-Charles doesn't have much of a personality. McDuffie looks he's been let out of an mental institution and that's not a compliment.