Jump to content

2022 NFL Draft Thread

Nick_gb

By Nick_gb
in Green Bay Packers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Sandy

Sandy

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

I think you are comparing Amari Rodgers to guys who were 6'3 and taller is apples and oranges. The athletic traits of guys in the slot vs. outside are different. 

As others have noted we have Cobb and Rodgers to play the slot, so we are more than likely looking for boundary guys in this draft. Even though my draft crush is Skyy Moore and would love him in the second. He does seem to be moving up and might be gone before our 1st pick in the second round. 

I think there are a lot of guys he is probably looking at for the outside WR. Pierce (3rd round), Watson, London, Pickett and Williams are likely targets IMO. I'm not sure Burks has the straight-line speed he'd be looking for but I'm on expert. 

That's really not at all what I'm saying.  Just saying I don't think that elite athleticism at WR in the modern NFL is a necessity and I'm pretty sure Gute figured it out considering he was willing to take a guy with a RAS under 6 in a fairly premium pick.

I was looking through RAS scores of this seasons highest graded WRs.  It's all over the map. Adams - 6.53.  Kupp - 4.59. DeAndre Hopkins - 4.94. High RAS doesn't preclude success (Chris Godwin and Tyreek Hill are over 9 for example) but I think that this proves that route running, hands, ability to track the ball, etc, these are much bigger indicators of success than overall athleticism.

For the record, those are the only 5 I looked up just now, but I had looked up a bunch a couple weeks back when I discovered this and the trend is across the board 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
{Family Ghost}

{Family Ghost}

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Sandy said:

That's really not at all what I'm saying.  Just saying I don't think that elite athleticism at WR in the modern NFL is a necessity and I'm pretty sure Gute figured it out considering he was willing to take a guy with a RAS under 6 in a fairly premium pick.

I was looking through RAS scores of this seasons highest graded WRs.  It's all over the map. Adams - 6.53.  Kupp - 4.59. DeAndre Hopkins - 4.94. High RAS doesn't preclude success (Chris Godwin and Tyreek Hill are over 9 for example) but I think that this proves that route running, hands, ability to track the ball, etc, these are much bigger indicators of success than overall athleticism.

For the record, those are the only 5 I looked up just now, but I had looked up a bunch a couple weeks back when I discovered this and the trend is across the board 

 

RAS is stupid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Green19

Green19

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said:

RAS is stupid.

Might be but GB clearly has a similar system of judging athleticism because like 80% of the time they draft high RAS score (this is defined by the article as 7.86 or better).

https://247sports.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/Article/2022-Packers-RAS-Shortlist-Green-Bay-Packers-Football-Draft-185405379/Amp/

So it isn’t the gossip to them , that must be followed 100% of the time. But if we are all betting men and women… this helps our odds in figuring out who will likely get drafted.

Edited by Green19
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Old Guy

Old Guy

Posted
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Sandy said:

That's really not at all what I'm saying.  Just saying I don't think that elite athleticism at WR in the modern NFL is a necessity and I'm pretty sure Gute figured it out considering he was willing to take a guy with a RAS under 6 in a fairly premium pick.

I was looking through RAS scores of this seasons highest graded WRs.  It's all over the map. Adams - 6.53.  Kupp - 4.59. DeAndre Hopkins - 4.94. High RAS doesn't preclude success (Chris Godwin and Tyreek Hill are over 9 for example) but I think that this proves that route running, hands, ability to track the ball, etc, these are much bigger indicators of success than overall athleticism.

For the record, those are the only 5 I looked up just now, but I had looked up a bunch a couple weeks back when I discovered this and the trend is across the board 

 

I agree with the bolded part. The point I was making is Rodgers is going to be a slot guy. It's more about short area quickness than straight line speed and most of the other measurables that makes up RAS. You could put Adams and Kupp in the same sort of category. Although both are elite route runners and could get open in a phone booth. 

I think RAS is more important if you are looking at guys outside. It's not the end all be all but it is important. 

A guy I still like this draft who doesn't have the athletic traits is David Bell from Purdue. I don't think he's drafted in round 1 or 2 and not sure he's there when we draft in 3. 

Edited by Old Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
R T

R T

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Sandy said:

It will be interesting to see how Gute actually values his WRs. Sure, right now it's easy to SAY that we have no idea if he values Pierce or Watson above Olave and London, but we could use deductive reasoning to determine if it's realistic or not. 

We don't have enough recent evidence to really confirm what Gute is looking for at WR, but the little recent evidence we do have shows that Amari Rodgers has an average RAS score and was taken with a fairly premium pick. We could look at the MVS/Moore/EQ draft and say that our evidence is there, but that's long enough ago that we can't really use it as an indicator for what we might do in 2022.

Based on my research, RAS scores have little impact on the ultimate success of WRs as long as it's over 5. Maybe Gute is doing similar research and coming to the same conclusion. Maybe he's in love with the guys who move best in shorts. Time will tell.

This is a thing, but it really isn't a thing. Most really good football players are athletic, athletic football players will score high on R.A.S., but scoring high on R.A.S. doesn't make you a good football player. Being good at football makes you a good football player. Davante Adams is a good football player and his score was 6.54, Randall Cobb is a good football player and his score is 3.65, David Bakhtairi is a good football player and his score is 6.72.

It's a tool, it's not a bible. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Old Guy

Old Guy

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Chili said:

 

Top 10 please! Get them off the board. Love to see London and Burks go early as well. Hoping for an EDGE rusher and either a DT or OT in round 1 to fall to our picks. We'll get a good WR in round 2. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vegas492

vegas492

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, R T said:

This is a thing, but it really isn't a thing. Most really good football players are athletic, athletic football players will score high on R.A.S., but scoring high on R.A.S. doesn't make you a good football player. Being good at football makes you a good football player. Davante Adams is a good football player and his score was 6.54, Randall Cobb is a good football player and his score is 3.65, David Bakhtairi is a good football player and his score is 6.72.

It's a tool, it's not a bible. 

Jaire Alexander, 9.54 RAS.

Josh Jackson, 9.27 RAS.

Rashan Gary, 9.95 RAS.

Darnell Savage, 8.35 RAS.

Jordan Love, 8.45 RAS.

AJ Dillon, 9.16 RAS.

Eric Stokes, 9.37 RAS.

Josh Myers, not enough results to score.

I'm not arguing that RAS IS a "bible".  Am saying that our GM and front office does tend to like those high RAS guys with their first two picks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Packer_ESP

Packer_ESP

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Jaire Alexander, 9.54 RAS.

Josh Jackson, 9.27 RAS.

Rashan Gary, 9.95 RAS.

Darnell Savage, 8.35 RAS.

Jordan Love, 8.45 RAS.

AJ Dillon, 9.16 RAS.

Eric Stokes, 9.37 RAS.

Josh Myers, not enough results to score.

I'm not arguing that RAS IS a "bible".  Am saying that our GM and front office does tend to like those high RAS guys with their first two picks.

 

https://ras.football/

First round of 2021:

  • 13 players with 9.50+ RAS
  • 5 players with 9.00 to 9.49
  • 2 players with 8.50 to 8.99
  • 1 player with 8.00 to 8.49
  • 2 players below 8.00
  • 9 unranked players

Doesn't really seem out of the ordinary to get athletic guys in the first round.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NFLGURU

NFLGURU

Posted
Posted (edited)

You also have to consider work ethic and character in these players.  That Packer WR room lost a lot with the departure of DA and MVS.  It's nearly empty.  You don't want to fill it with diva's and problem children.   I have no idea how some of these WRs are in the locker room, but its pretty important in Green Bay to find guys who fit and are committed to improving their craft.  There's off field stuff we as fans don't have access to that may be important to an evaluation.

Edited by NFLGURU
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scoremore

Scoremore

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

Value is value, eh. Well, that is an absolute statement and must be wrong,

Why ? Because different teams run different schemes and want different things from their receivers.

Sure, they all want the tall, very smart, super-fast, hands like glue, clean ball-plucker who runs routes like a god, gets tons of YAC, is always healthy and has a sturdy build that lets them block well and is blessed with a wonderful character. BUT, every receiver is a combination of these things, with some traits better than others. Which traits does each team value most......and least.

First off, there is 'the eye of the beholder (no, not the D&D monster). If you follow the draft at all you must have seen some very different opinions on the same guy, not everyone sees the same things. Secondly, different teams put different relative values on the various traits. Since they don't rank all these things exactly the same, they have different preferences as to how they rank the available guys. Without knowing the thinking in each war room, you cannot be sure of the order in which guys are ranked. For example, there is a heap of difference between bigger guys like London and Burks, and slimmer guys like Williams/Wilson/Olave. Equally, some teams take more chances on injury history (the Packers have tended towards the more cautious view on this).

It is certainly possible that Gutekunst considers guys like Dotson and Wilson too skinny for their team and doesn't even have them in a tier that sits in the first round.

Therefore, we must accept that there is no sure-fire way to rank receivers (or any position for that matter), it's all relative to what a specific team wants, and there is no way of knowing how a team stacks its board (unless you are the Cowboys), or even who is, and is not, on it.

I haven't even touched on how a team stacks its needs at all the other positions and how that impacts at what point they take a receiver, because although that does not affect how they rank receivers, it certainly affects their choices on where they might look to draft one.

 

Look I get all that.  Just saying you don't draft a 2-3 rd prospect in the first round.  They may have guys they target to fit their scheme.  Doesn't mean that they are going to value a guy like Watson as their #1 WR.  Part of the game when drafting is extracting maximum value out of each pick.  You don't burn a #22 pick on a guy that you can draft at #53.  We get surprises every year but in general the draft boards are pretty accurate.  Especially with the top 20 players.  The Packers may have WR's ranked differently to fit there scheme.  Get that but they have to marry that with the actual draft grade of the said WR.  Hence value.  Neither Olave or Wilson will be there at #22 won't have to worry about it.  Packers may not even catch a whiff of any of the tier 1 WR's.  If none of them fall they will go BPA at #22 probably trade back at #28 into the second round to target one of the second tier guys that fits there scheme.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...