Your 'initial' assessment of the Draft

[deathstar]

9 hours ago, Nick_gb said:

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. 

Doing the exercise is fine. It’s the idea that “only time will tell if my selections were worse or better”. I don’t care if he does the exercise but at least acknowledge that in no realm are your selections as good as the Packers given how each were made.

[OneTwoSixFive]

13 hours ago, deathstar said:

Doing the exercise is fine. It’s the idea that “only time will tell if my selections were worse or better”. I don’t care if he does the exercise but at least acknowledge that in no realm are your selections as good as the Packers given how each were made.

That remains to be seen. My selections shouldn't be as good as the Packers given that this is a major part of their job and they get paid handsomely to do it (as least Gute does), but many GMs have had bad drafts during their tenure, so you have to let some time pass before you judge. It is certainly possible my selections were better than the Packers, even if I made mine with less information than they had (which is true of all mocks, of course).

Did the Packers pick T.J.Watt over Kevin King in 2017 ? what would you say if I told you I'd chosen Watt that year............which I didn't, but the POINT is that the Packers picks are not automatically better than mine.

[deathstar]

2 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

That remains to be seen. My selections shouldn't be as good as the Packers given that this is a major part of their job and they get paid handsomely to do it (as least Gute does), but many GMs have had bad drafts during their tenure, so you have to let some time pass before you judge. It is certainly possible my selections were better than the Packers, even if I made mine with less information than they had (which is true of all mocks, of course).

Did the Packers pick T.J.Watt over Kevin King in 2017 ? what would you say if I told you I'd chosen Watt that year............which I didn't, but the POINT is that the Packers picks are not automatically better than mine.

They 100% were. You’re operating from a place of imperfect information and fantasizing that a player succeeding somewhere means they succeed in GB. It’s automatically worse than what the Packers did. It’s ok - it can still be a fun game. But there is no chance - even if you pick someone who has success where the Packers didn’t - that your selection was better.

[OneTwoSixFive]

7 hours ago, deathstar said:

They 100% were. You’re operating from a place of imperfect information and fantasizing that a player succeeding somewhere means they succeed in GB. It’s automatically worse than what the Packers did. It’s ok - it can still be a fun game. But there is no chance - even if you pick someone who has success where the Packers didn’t - that your selection was better.

Huh ??    That is a logic so weird, I won't even argue it.

[mikemike778]

10 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

That remains to be seen. My selections shouldn't be as good as the Packers given that this is a major part of their job and they get paid handsomely to do it (as least Gute does), but many GMs have had bad drafts during their tenure, so you have to let some time pass before you judge. It is certainly possible my selections were better than the Packers, even if I made mine with less information than they had (which is true of all mocks, of course).

Did the Packers pick T.J.Watt over Kevin King in 2017 ? what would you say if I told you I'd chosen Watt that year............which I didn't, but the POINT is that the Packers picks are not automatically better than mine.

 

Its not as straight forward as that.  You don't know the reasons why the picks were made. You can't always judge a selection on the results.

Lets say Player A has a 60% chance of being a star and Player B has a 40% chance. You should pick Player A obviously.  But it could easily turn out Player B ends up being the star. That doesn't mean the pick was the wrong one. 

You don't know why Watt wasn't picked and unless you do know you can't evaluate whether it was right to pass on him. 

 

[deathstar]

5 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

Huh ??    That is a logic so weird, I won't even argue it.

That tracks based on this conversation.

[craig]

1265, I'm kinda on your side.  It isn't that hard to list some preferred picks you would have made, and then see how they turn out compared to picks actually made.  In retrospect it's not that hard to look back and say Rollins, Josh Jones, Brohm, Josh Jackson, that maybe these weren't such good picks, and different guys you'd have taken instead would have worked out better.  

I get that "fit" and stuff is a factor, but football is football, and Packers coaches can find use for good players.  So *if* somebody ends up being good for somebody else, versus a non-injury bust for us, it's not that hard to conclude that a different guy would have been better.  (Particularly the way you're doing it, where you' are selecting that "other guy" after the draft but before his career begins.).  

Obviously injury, that's a different story.  If your guys proves better than a Packer selection who got ruined by injury, that's nobody's fault.  

As Mikemike notes, your pick working out way better doesn't necessarily mean the Packers were illogical to make the pick they did make, even apart from the injury factor.  I think the "risk-reward" thing is especially true for QB.  The impact of a good QB is so massive that risk/reward justifies more risk.  

[OneTwoSixFive]

@craig I have never implied the Packer picks were illogical and I am rather unlikely to do so.

At last years draft where there were some real surprises with the earlier picks, QB (which I was surprised at, but rather liked the gamble there) the RB in round 2 (another surprise) and the TE/HB in the 3rd (surprise again) it is clear the Packers needs never aligned very closely to what all the media draftniks expected, although a part of that might be due to who was available where, in that draft. So, most of us have been shown to be out of touch with current Packers thinking. 

It just  surprised me that such an innocent (I thought) exercise, done mostly for personal fun (like almost any mock is) and posted to share that thinking before (as you said) the players have done anything with their team, generated such criticism. I think I'll have to keep this years selection (my one) for 2 years and see how my choices stack up. If others want to claim there is no correlation, that is their right, but I will feel a degree of satisfaction if my picks work out better whatever others say.................and the other side of that is disappointment for the Packers choices, if they turn out  poorly, because I am a Packer fan at heart as we all are, aren't we ?

[deathstar]

The exercise is fine. Who cares? It’s a game. The issue is the suggestion that the selections made are qualitatively better. They aren’t, and that’s ok. My goodness. 

[craig]

1265, I think it's a great exercise.  And I'd love to have the Packers picks turn out great, AND have your picks turn out great too!  Win-win!  

[Joe]

18 hours ago, mikemike778 said:

You don't know why Watt wasn't picked and unless you do know you can't evaluate whether it was right to pass on him. 

Pretty sure the consensus was that he was a bit undersized as a pass rusher and his strength was questioned; nevermind that CB was perceived to be a greater need at the time given the output Perry and CMIII had at EDGE. The reason Watt was such a hot name was not just because he went to Wisconsin, but because we were deeply, and rightfully, concerned about the EDGE position given Perry's injury history and that CMIII began to wane as a player. Their back-ups were JAG's at best as this was post-Julius Peppers IIRC...

That said, the 2017 draft was an absolute wash when it came to CB's. You got Lattimore and Humphrey at the top followed by busts in Adoree Jackson and Garreon Conley, and then Tre'Davious White. Then after King, you have the likes of Teez Tabor, Sidney Jones, Quincy Wilson, and Chidobe Awuzie(who has been rather pedestrian since his rookie year) amongst others you probably have forgotten. It's not like we were going to reach on Shaquill Griffin, Cordrea Tankersley, or Cameron Sutton at that point in the draft. We should've drafted Budda Baker IMHO.

Edited May 29, 2021 by Joe

[JaireAlex]

I was really down on this draft initially.  Stokes seemed a reach with a lot of better players I thought could help the team more.

 

But. I didn't believe the 4.2 40 time. Stokes' speed is legit. This was a Ron Wolfe (Al Davis protege) pick. Sam Shields is his floor. GB thought they got a steal and they are close to getting back to that 2010 secondary they dream about. Given his floor (& he never allowed a play ovwr 20 yards in the SEC) and his upside, Stokes seems the best pick.

 

I also didn't like the Myers value, but in truth there wasn't much else I would take before him at the spot and Oline was definitely the biggest hole.

 

The rest the draft I liked.

 

This team has basically a double draft with all the rooks that hardly play last year. Plus I am excited about Funchess as well as the jumps I expect from Savage & Gary. This team has top five talent on both sides of the ball.

 

If only TB weren't the best team to come out of the NFC since the Legion of Doom, we'd be talling repeat this 2021.

 

Rodgers will be back. He's pissed because he won't be able to lead the best roster he's ever had for the next 4 years. Can't blame him after all the years he carried the team.