2022 NFL Draft Thread

[pacman5252]

4 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

This kind of thinking is crazy to me. If (for any given talent evaluator) the 'first round tier' players don't average out at roughly 32 players per year over several years, this is pretty close to being meaningless and those evaluators either aren't calculating it right, or they are expressing themselves poorly.

The problem is that these evaluators always seem to end up with a number of players less than 32 (sometimes WAY less). You might as well declare the first round picks stop at 10, or 5 or any other number at random.

The reason I dislike these statements so much is due to them linking a talent level to a round and saying "beyond this point the picks are not first round quality". In the stated case of "the cut off is in the late teens" (let's call that 18, for the sake of argument), that is 14 picks in round one that are not 'first round quality' ???

If you are trying to set a notional level at which a player qualifies as a first round pick, why would you set the bar too high, every year ? 
If, on the other hand, you are more concerned about setting a top talent-level bar for (let's call them) elite players, why state that after this point first round picks aren't really first round tier......why link an arbitrary talent level to a round at all.

 I'm still waiting for the visionary soul who does link talent to a round and whose top tier does average about 32 picks a year, over several years. That would make more sense and the difference between a good and a bad year at the top of the draft would be clearer to us all. Example: over 35 players in the first round tier = good year, 32 = average year, under 29 = bad year, simple.

.

I think this is a good post. I'll give a few thoughts:

I think typically there is about 5-10 elite studs, 15 pretty good prospects (non scheme dependent players with limited medical red flags), and then you start getting into eye of the beholder with 26-70 with athletes who didn't produce or football players with athletic/medical flaws (and then so on and so on by round with pick 150 on essentially being a priority UDFA caliber draft).  Every year, especially at the back of the 1, there are a couple of guys who are graded as late second/third round picks by the draft community.

 

As far as first round players go, especially from a contractual standpoint, I think it is important to just get more "clean" guys. You get a relatively cheap 5th year. Why take an extra 20% chance a guy won't pan out due to injury?

[Mazrimiv]

3 minutes ago, pacman5252 said:

I think typically there is about 5-10 elite studs, 15 pretty good prospects (non scheme dependent players with limited medical red flags), and then you start getting into eye of the beholder with 26-70 with athletes who didn't produce or football players with athletic/medical flaws (and then so on and so on by round with pick 150 on essentially being a priority UDFA caliber draft).  Every year, especially at the back of the 1, there are a couple of guys who are graded as late second/third round picks by the draft community.

Using slightly different terminology, let's say Gute has

• 5 players in tier 1
• 7 players in tier 2
• 12 players in tier 3
• 25 players in tier 4

When pick 22 comes up, the number of players remaining from the first 3 tiers is likely to be so low that a trade down means he'll miss out on all three tiers.  It will take a lopsided trade offer in GB's favor to make Gute trade out of that pick.

Conversely, when pick 28 comes around, the top three tiers could be gone, with 20+ tier 4 players still available.  Gute would be much more willing to listen to trade down in that scenario.  If someone in tiers 1-3 to falls to pick 28, Gute is taking them.

The "round" of the pick has very little (if anything) to do with the decision.  It's about how many similarly graded players are remaining at the time of the potential trade down.

[packfanfb]

Depending how the team feels about Amari moving forward, Packers should take a hard look at Kyle Phillips from UCLA in the mid rounds. Identical skill set to Renfrow and is probably the best slot route runner in the draft. He's going to be good, wherever he ends up.

[CWood21]

5 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

This kind of thinking is crazy to me. If (for any given talent evaluator) the 'first round tier' players don't average out at roughly 32 players per year over several years, this is pretty close to being meaningless and those evaluators either aren't calculating it right, or they are expressing themselves poorly.

MULTIPLE former GMs have said this to be true.  You grade the players based on their tape, Combine, etc. and let the dominoes fall where they may.  Don't get wrapped up in the number of prospects in each tier.  Teams usually have ~150 or so prospects that are considered "draftable grades".  I believe The Hoodie said his board is less then 75 each year.  Usually when you get into Day 3, you're starting to draft your priority UDFA in the 5th round or so.

[Old Guy]

6 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

MULTIPLE former GMs have said this to be true.  You grade the players based on their tape, Combine, etc. and let the dominoes fall where they may.  Don't get wrapped up in the number of prospects in each tier.  Teams usually have ~150 or so prospects that are considered "draftable grades".  I believe The Hoodie said his board is less then 75 each year.  Usually when you get into Day 3, you're starting to draft your priority UDFA in the 5th round or so.

Round 5 on, I'm taking either high upside developmental guys who haven't figured it out yet or special team guys. 

[Refugee]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

MULTIPLE former GMs have said this to be true.  You grade the players based on their tape, Combine, etc. and let the dominoes fall where they may.  Don't get wrapped up in the number of prospects in each tier.  Teams usually have ~150 or so prospects that are considered "draftable grades".  I believe The Hoodie said his board is less then 75 each year.  Usually when you get into Day 3, you're starting to draft your priority UDFA in the 5th round or so.

I don’t claim to know the exact number the professionals have before they cut off their boards but one area I feel there is an exception with OLine.  It’s a position that requires tons of physical and systematic development to go from college to pro so there are very few “plug and play” guys even in the higher rounds. I think it’s generally accepted that you can find gems there rounds 3-5 but you will need to invest the time to get them ready. You are occasionally blessed with a Bak or Linsley but even those guys were forced into action and did enough to get by year one but didn’t truly excel for a few years. 

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Round 5 on, I'm taking either high upside developmental guys who haven't figured it out yet or special team guys. 

That's pretty much taking shots in the dark at that point.  You might be willing to gamble on guys with character concerns (like Kylin Hill), but you're most likely drafting ST and developmental types.  Since Gute took over, the only starter he's drafted in the 5th round or later is Jon Runyan and MVS which is pretty much par for the course. The rest have largely been backups throughout their careers.

[CWood21]

3 minutes ago, Refugee said:

I don’t claim to know the exact number the professionals have before they cut off their boards but one area I feel there is an exception with OLine.  It’s a position that requires tons of physical and systematic development to go from college to pro so there are very few “plug and play” guys even in the higher rounds. I think it’s generally accepted that you can find gems there rounds 3-5 but you will need to invest the time to get them ready. You are occasionally blessed with a Bak or Linsley but even those guys were forced into action and did enough to get by year one but didn’t truly excel for a few years. 

I'd argue that we as Packers fans have a skewed view of OL.  Green Bay has hit at a rate that would be envious by other GMs.

[Refugee]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

I'd argue that we as Packers fans have a skewed view of OL.  Green Bay has hit at a rate that would be envious by other GMs.

Definitely, but that has as much to do with the develop as it does the draft side of the equation, in my opinion. Of course you need the raw talent but the continuity we’ve had and strong coaching going back for decades makes it a great environment for new guys coming in. Last year was just crazy that we kept the ship not just above water, but sailing for as long as we did. 

[R T]

5 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

This kind of thinking is crazy to me. If (for any given talent evaluator) the 'first round tier' players don't average out at roughly 32 players per year over several years, this is pretty close to being meaningless and those evaluators either aren't calculating it right, or they are expressing themselves poorly.

The problem is that these evaluators always seem to end up with a number of players less than 32 (sometimes WAY less). You might as well declare the first round picks stop at 10, or 5 or any other number at random.

The reason I dislike these statements so much is due to them linking a talent level to a round and saying "beyond this point the picks are not first round quality". In the stated case of "the cut off is in the late teens" (let's call that 18, for the sake of argument), that is 14 picks in round one that are not 'first round quality' ???

If you are trying to set a notional level at which a player qualifies as a first round pick, why would you set the bar too high, every year ? 
If, on the other hand, you are more concerned about setting a top talent-level bar for (let's call them) elite players, why state that after this point first round picks aren't really first round tier......why link an arbitrary talent level to a round at all.

 I'm still waiting for the visionary soul who does link talent to a round and whose top tier does average about 32 picks a year, over several years. That would make more sense and the difference between a good and a bad year at the top of the draft would be clearer to us all. Example: over 35 players in the first round tier = good year, 32 = average year, under 29 = bad year, simple.

Otherwise, you would need to go back for several years finding out the average number of a specific evaluator's supposed 'first round picks' and then compare that average to this year, to get any idea of whether he/she thinks this draft is above average, average, or below average.

This is something you bring up every year going back to another site. I'm going to try to explain by using a school grading system. You have a set of classes and you had 320 total students in those classes. All 320 are given the same test and you grade them and your system of grading is 92% correct is an A (1st rounders), 18 total students score 92% or better. Another teacher does the same thing but says the top 10% (32) of grades will receive an A, only 18 students scored 92% or better and needs to lower it to 88% to include 32 students. Those 14 that scored 88-91% were only A because they benefited from a teacher grading on a curve. 

You want the NFL to change their system and grade on a curve, but that still won't make a second-round talent a first talent when they hit the football field. 

[Chili]

I really hope we will draft a TE and force Deguara back to the role he was always supposed to play, Fullback.

1st season got injured early and ruled out for the rest of the season.

2nd season Sternburger was cut and then an injury to Tonyan forced Deguara to play TE full time. You could tell he did not have many reps playing the position and was out of sync with Rodgers.

3rd season, hopefully he can fully focus at full back and allow our offence to be a bit more dynamic.

[Chili]

Is it true Olave only broke 10 tackles in his college career and none in his senior season?

[OneTwoSixFive]

1 hour ago, R T said:

This is something you bring up every year going back to another site.

You are quite correct, this subject always triggers me and @wgbeethree hit my big red button,.................(and RIP the old site, btw).

3 hours ago, Mazrimiv said:

It's not about "rounds" it's about tiers.

There isn't a single GM (and never has been) that has anything close to 32 payers in their top tier of talent, and probably not in their top 2 tiers combined.

A definite yes to the part of your post I bolded. What I object to is tying that to a round and claiming after a given point first round picks aren't really first rounders. If people were to talk only in tiers I'd have no objection to the idea at all, it makes perfect sense (although it is somewhat subjective), but they don't do that.

They talk about "only 20 first round prospects this year" or some similar statement. In doing so, they tie tiers to first round picks, when they should just stick to tier sizes irrespective of the rounds.

The key point that RT appeared to miss in my earlier explanation is that tiers should not be connected to the first round in the way it so often is. A tier is a tier is a tier, irrespective of the 32 top picks. In RTs example, if 18 students (lets call them players instead) scored 92% or more, and that was where you thought that tier ended, then that is a tier, nothing wrong with that. What is not true is that picks after this group are not first rounders - what they actually are is part of the next tier.

The idea of an evaluator averaging 32 picks for HIS top tier was simply a mechanism that would make it easier for those readers that put stock in such things to understand upper draft quality year on year, without the need for them to check an individuals past record of tier numbers over several years, to get a feel for whether (in that evaluators opinion) this would be a good, average or poor draft. If you don't like that idea fair enough - put the tiers wherever you like - but if you must tie tiers to a round, it should be stated something like this:

"This year my evaluation is that there are 5 tier 1 players, 12 tier 2 players, and 40 in tier 3".

It doesn't take a genius to work out that in round one, all the tier 1 and 2 players (total 17) fit in, plus 15 of the 40 players in tier 3. No nonsense about 'not being first rounders'.

TL-DR Tiers by themselves are just fine - tying tiers in together with the first round and claiming anything below a tier is not a first rounder, is not.

Edited March 26, 2022 by OneTwoSixFive

[Sandy]

2 hours ago, packfanfb said:

Depending how the team feels about Amari moving forward, Packers should take a hard look at Kyle Phillips from UCLA in the mid rounds. Identical skill set to Renfrow and is probably the best slot route runner in the draft. He's going to be good, wherever he ends up.

I've recently come around to this line of thinking too. I'd closed myself off to looking at slot receivers and I think it's because our WR room is so decimated that I was clinging to our only assets under contract. But if we start ignoring slot options because we have Cobb and Rodgers then we're doing it wrong lol.

Ill take a look at him, I haven't heard his name bandied about much.

[Sandy]

37 minutes ago, Chili said:

Is it true Olave only broke 10 tackles in his college career and none in his senior season?

They gotta catch him first before he can break a tackle.

But more seriously, I suppose this would be fairly concerning, but I wouldn't consider it make-or-break for a pick. I haven't analyzed it in detail, but I feel like most only break a few tackles a year (I looked through Corey Davis' numbers recently and noticed he has 4-5 a season and he's a big dude).