Your 'initial' assessment of the Draft

[cannondale]

By all accounts Stokes, Myers, and Rodgers are all high character guys.

[Joe]

2 hours ago, cannondale said:

By all accounts Stokes, Myers, and Rodgers are all high character guys.

the rest aren't?

[Joe]

2 hours ago, Chili said:

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.

Ditto, it'll fly north and west of Green Bay...but...

Hill probably wishes he was somewhere else, but he'll regret that attitude once he out-flanks the rest of the candidates for RB3 IMHO.

 

I think Amari turns out to be the best pick of this draft whereas Stokes is an average starter, Myers underwhelms for his draft position and everyone else except for McDuffie and maybe Jean-Charles kinda falls into place.

[OneTwoSixFive]

I've said elsewhere my favourite picks are Hill and Rodgers. Then come picks I'm not excited about, but don't hate on, like Slaton, Stokes, Myers, Jean-Charles, followed by three picks I don't think will do anything (Numan, Van Lanen, McDuffie). I do hope ALL the picks pan out (I'm a GB fan, after all), but so few of the guys I liked were taken (unlike the Lions draft that was a who's who of my favourites). You would think that the Packers, knowing so much more about players than I do, would turn out in time to do a better job than I did. We'll see if that actually happens.

I did my usual post-draft mock and chose these players: You could criticise any of those picks, they all have faults if you look for that, but I like their chances.
1) DE Levi Onwuzurike
2) OT Brady Christensen
3) CB Ifeatu Melifonwu
4a) DT Daviyon Nixon
4b) WR Ihmir Smith-Marsette
5a) ILB Cameron McGrone
5b) WR Cornell Powell
6a) CB Tay Gowan
6b) S James Wiggins
7) RB Kylin Hill

[vegas492]

Meyers is gonna be rock solid as a center.  He's huge.  He was a team captain for 2 years.  Smart.  And he has great movement skills for a center.  From the little I saw, he will have versatility across the line due to his size and feet.

I get a feeling like Rogers is gonna do some really nice things for us in the future.  This year?  Maybe he will add a little something to the return game.  But we shall see.  It'll be fun to see what MLF does with him.

I'm excited to see Stokes learn and grow from Gray.  And he's gonna play this year because King will get dinged up.

Newman is the one that I look at and feel like I'll be surprised if he is anything more than average.

But all in all, I'm pretty excited about this draft class.

[cannondale]

16 hours ago, Joe said:

the rest aren't?

I just took note with the top 3 guys

[lrs3]

8 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

I've said elsewhere my favourite picks are Hill and Rodgers. Then come picks I'm not excited about, but don't hate on, like Slaton, Stokes, Myers, Jean-Charles, followed by three picks I don't think will do anything (Numan, Van Lanen, McDuffie). I do hope ALL the picks pan out (I'm a GB fan, after all), but so few of the guys I liked were taken (unlike the Lions draft that was a who's who of my favourites). You would think that the Packers, knowing so much more about players than I do, would turn out in time to do a better job than I did. We'll see if that actually happens.

I did my usual post-draft mock and chose these players: You could criticise any of those picks, they all have faults if you look for that, but I like their chances.
1) DE Levi Onwuzurike
2) OT Brady Christensen
3) CB Ifeatu Melifonwu
4a) DT Daviyon Nixon
4b) WR Ihmir Smith-Marsette
5a) ILB Cameron McGrone
5b) WR Cornell Powell
6a) CB Tay Gowan
6b) S James Wiggins
7) RB Kylin Hill

Did you make your picks in real time or after the draft was completed? 

[TheEagle]

9 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

I've said elsewhere my favourite picks are Hill and Rodgers. Then come picks I'm not excited about, but don't hate on, like Slaton, Stokes, Myers, Jean-Charles, followed by three picks I don't think will do anything (Numan, Van Lanen, McDuffie). I do hope ALL the picks pan out (I'm a GB fan, after all), but so few of the guys I liked were taken (unlike the Lions draft that was a who's who of my favourites). You would think that the Packers, knowing so much more about players than I do, would turn out in time to do a better job than I did. We'll see if that actually happens.

I did my usual post-draft mock and chose these players: You could criticise any of those picks, they all have faults if you look for that, but I like their chances.
1) DE Levi Onwuzurike
2) OT Brady Christensen
3) CB Ifeatu Melifonwu
4a) DT Daviyon Nixon
4b) WR Ihmir Smith-Marsette
5a) ILB Cameron McGrone
5b) WR Cornell Powell
6a) CB Tay Gowan
6b) S James Wiggins
7) RB Kylin Hill

Would you have taken Hill in the 7th or sooner, if you didn't know where he was eventually drafted? You said you really liked the Hill pick, so my guess is that you would have taken him about where he was projected to go.

[OneTwoSixFive]

If you do a post-draft mock, your pick choice is anyone who is still undrafted at that pick in the real draft. You have the advantage of knowing where each player goes.................but the Packers DID have the choice of taking the guy I chose, at that pick.

I did also allow the choice of NOT making a draft-day trade that they did, but no new trades are allowed. 

So to answer @TheEagle and @lrs3 yes you have an foreknowledge of where players go and that is a real advantage, but you also have to make choices based on much, much less information on each player, than the experts, who are paid to grade players. Post draft mocks are not a perfect mirror of the draft (I never claimed they were), but I find them an interesting exercise in making alternative choices to the ones the Packers made, given who is available at each pick.

It will take at least two years to find out if the Packers did better with their picks than I did, so only time will tell if my choices were better or worse.

To answer TheEagle, yes I would have taken Hill earlier if I was the GM for the Packers at the time of the draft, probably in round 5.

Edited May 26, 2021 by OneTwoSixFive

[R T]

2 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

If you do a post-draft mock, your pick choice is anyone who is still undrafted at that pick in the real draft. You have the advantage of knowing where each player goes.................but the Packers DID have the choice of taking the guy I chose, at that pick.

I did also allow the choice of NOT making a draft-day trade that they did, but no new trades are allowed. 

So to answer @TheEagle and @lrs3 yes you have an foreknowledge of where players go and that is a real advantage, but you also have to make choices based on much, much less information on each player, than the experts, who are paid to grade players. Post draft mocks are not a perfect mirror of the draft (I never claimed they were), but I find them an interesting exercise in making alternative choices to the ones the Packers made, given who is available at each pick.

It will take at least two years to find out if the Packers did better with their picks than I did, so only time will tell if my choices were better or worse.

To answer TheEagle, yes I would have taken Hill earlier if I was the GM for the Packers at the time of the draft, probably in round 5.

Then he should be represented in your mock as a 5th round pick, replacing McGrone or Powell. 

[OneTwoSixFive]

5 hours ago, R T said:

Then he should be represented in your mock as a 5th round pick, replacing McGrone or Powell. 

No, too much variation if you have to guess where you think each player will go and draft accordingly. The system I use has the minimum of variables (which is also the reason you cannot make new trades). While I enjoy doing post-draft mocks, if you don't like the idea as constituted, ignore it.

[deathstar]

10 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

If you do a post-draft mock, your pick choice is anyone who is still undrafted at that pick in the real draft. You have the advantage of knowing where each player goes.................but the Packers DID have the choice of taking the guy I chose, at that pick.

I did also allow the choice of NOT making a draft-day trade that they did, but no new trades are allowed. 

So to answer @TheEagle and @lrs3 yes you have an foreknowledge of where players go and that is a real advantage, but you also have to make choices based on much, much less information on each player, than the experts, who are paid to grade players. Post draft mocks are not a perfect mirror of the draft (I never claimed they were), but I find them an interesting exercise in making alternative choices to the ones the Packers made, given who is available at each pick.

It will take at least two years to find out if the Packers did better with their picks than I did, so only time will tell if my choices were better or worse.

To answer TheEagle, yes I would have taken Hill earlier if I was the GM for the Packers at the time of the draft, probably in round 5.

It’s weird that you’re trying to draw an equivalence between your exercise and the Packers selections. Like yes your picks are worse because you had basically no insight into the players you chose or how the coaches view their fits on the team.

[Nick_gb]

1 hour ago, deathstar said:

It’s weird that you’re trying to draw an equivalence between your exercise and the Packers selections. Like yes your picks are worse because you had basically no insight into the players you chose or how the coaches view their fits on the team.

Then everyone should just stop doing mock drafts all together, because this holds true regardless if it's pre or post draft. That's just not a valid point. All he is doing, is having some fun with the draft and seeing if the way he would have picked with the board the way fell, would matchup well versus the way the Packers picked with how the board fell. That's it, there's no harm in it. 

What's weird is that you think this isn't something that happens prior, during or even after the draft when everyone says "I would take so and so" versus "I would have taken so and so instead" -- there's no difference, his is just an organized version of this on a round by round basis. 

Edited May 26, 2021 by Nick_gb

[MrBobGray]

I still haven't really looked into all the picks yet, but who knows at this point when or if that'll even happen.  So this is just the most half-assed assessment of the draft possible, but I figure that's our mantra.

Overall Grade - 

Keep in mind this is just a grading of the overall haul of players as I expect them to perform in Green Bay.  I don't care about grading the draft moves and picks themselves.

The biggest issue I have is not being super excited about either Stokes or Myers.  I like them both; they seem like good fits in the locker room and they both have skill sets you can get excited about, but I have issues with both of them from my limited and useless eye test.  Stokes is just too reactive and grabby for me; even in his highlights he looks surprised at the route from the receiver.  That kind of play is tough to fix because it's instinctive; they have to basically grind him down and teach him to militantly ignore what his body wants to naturally do.  Long and absurdly fast is a good back-up plan to learning to play good coverage though, so I can't imagine he doesn't become at least a solid CB.

Myers just didn't bend super well in the barely anything I've seen of him.  Too much leaning and had issues getting good leverage as people moved.  Could have been an injury though, and honestly I'm not great at judging OL anyway.

I'm a huge fan of Rodgers.  Think he isn't getting enough love on here.  His height is leading people to pigeonhole him, but he can find the ball downfield and he can and will block.  He'll get reps all over the field.  Similarly in love with Slaton; can't believe they found a big man with that first step (who even uses his hands in the rush!) in the 5th.  Feel that was an absolute steal.  

I know nothing about Newman, Van Lanen or McDuffie but their names and a vague sense of their profile.  

Jean-Charles and Hill are both very intriguing.  Jean-Charles plays faster than his times, and I like his game.  Kind of a better Sullivan.  Hill looks like a very solid mid-round RB, not sure how they got him in the 7th.  Looks like he can produce in the run and the pass and I like him as a ball carrier.

[OneTwoSixFive]

Re: Slaton. I was on the cusp of putting him in with my two favourite picks (along with Hill and Rodgers). He wasn't a pre-draft favourite, mainly because of I have serious reservations about anyone over about 325lbs and he was originally listed at 360 (and even 370, the previous season). I think he's a lot less than that now, which is encouraging if he can keep his weight down (at camp he is said to be about 330). I would hope to see him improve with good coaching against double teams, and he already had nice speed for his size which will only get quicker as he has slimmed down............likewise his stamina will improve at a lighter weight.