Packers waive TE Jace Sternberger

[OneTwoSixFive]

5 hours ago, Joe said:

Throw out this coming year due to the Rodgers situation and what may occur, but in any other year, I say do it at this point and you trade up into picks 35-55 where you find your Bobby Wagners, Joe Mixons, and your Elgton Jenkins's provided you're picking after pick 57. Lots of solid players can be found after pick 57, but usually not after pick 80. It's that 80 on until the end of the 3rd that's become an incredible crap-chute and you're better off going for value early Day 3. IMO Gutey would be wise to trade down out of the 3rd if we're picking in our usual 88-96 slot post-Rodgers as we try to rebuild that front-7 as we will definitely need to do soon. Personally, if I'm picking at pick 59 I target someone with an early Day 3 pick that's picking somewhere around pick 40 and add a 5th or 6th if need be. Fortunately Clark and Gary are locked up for awhile, but we need to put talent around them that currently isn't present, obviously.

Yep. There does seem to be a fairly steep drop-off through round three and it seems to be true for most, if not all years..................and the Packers almost always get the late picks in any round. If you follow the draft over many years you get a feel for it over time. Another thing that often seemed to be true is that there always seemed to be guys I liked at the top of round 2, don't know why that is, probably just my own perception bias, it being unlikely we get a pick there unless we trade down from round 1.

Edited September 22, 2021 by OneTwoSixFive

[CWood21]

11 hours ago, Joe said:

Throw out this coming year due to the Rodgers situation and what may occur, but in any other year, I say do it at this point and you trade up into picks 35-55 where you find your Bobby Wagners, Joe Mixons, and your Elgton Jenkins's provided you're picking after pick 57. Lots of solid players can be found after pick 57, but usually not after pick 80. It's that 80 on until the end of the 3rd that's become an incredible crap-chute and you're better off going for value early Day 3. IMO Gutey would be wise to trade down out of the 3rd if we're picking in our usual 88-96 slot post-Rodgers as we try to rebuild that front-7 as we will definitely need to do soon. Personally, if I'm picking at pick 59 I target someone with an early Day 3 pick that's picking somewhere around pick 40 and add a 5th or 6th if need be. Fortunately Clark and Gary are locked up for awhile, but we need to put talent around them that currently isn't present, obviously.

I think that goes without saying, but that's also a LOT easier said then done.  Going off of our pick's last year, the Packers could have moved up from 62 using the 92nd pick would have gotten us up to ~50th pick.  In fact, the only time since 2015 that I've seen a team trade from the backend (52-64) of the second round into the frontend (33-42) was 2018 when Tennessee traded up for Harold Landry (57/89 for 41) and when the Panthers traded up for Devin Funchess (57/89/201 for 41),

[CWood21]

8 hours ago, Beast said:

Or not, considering every single Packers WR is a FA after this season, except Rodgers and Cobb, and I'm not sure we can afford to pay Cobb his $8 million for the last year of that contract, might have to release or redo that contract.

As soon as Rodgers is dealt, he's going to be released.

[ThatJerkDave]

14 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

Yep. There does seem to be a fairly steep drop-off through round three and it seems to be true for most, if not all years..................and the Packers almost always get the late picks in any round. If you follow the draft over many years you get a feel for it over time. Another thing that often seemed to be true is that there always seemed to be guys I liked at the top of round 2, don't know why that is, probably just my own perception bias, it being unlikely we get a pick there unless we trade down from round 1.

I think that is in part that we haven't had a lot of really good first round picks in a very long time.  There always seems to be the "reach" picks from every tier.  We are seeing the back end of the first and there are a lot of guys that you just don't think are worth the #28 pick, but would love at like 35.  You get your Kevin Kings and Jordy Nelsons from trading down just a little bit and feel like you hit the jackpot.  

[vegas492]

20 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I think that is in part that we haven't had a lot of really good first round picks in a very long time.  There always seems to be the "reach" picks from every tier.  We are seeing the back end of the first and there are a lot of guys that you just don't think are worth the #28 pick, but would love at like 35.  You get your Kevin Kings and Jordy Nelsons from trading down just a little bit and feel like you hit the jackpot.  

FIFY

[Mr Bad Example]

1 hour ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I think that is in part that we haven't had a lot of really good first round picks in a very long time.  There always seems to be the "reach" picks from every tier.  We are seeing the back end of the first and there are a lot of guys that you just don't think are worth the #28 pick, but would love at like 35.  You get your Kevin Kings and Jordy Nelsons from trading down just a little bit and feel like you hit the jackpot.  

When you read the draft recaps, for a while it's been Green Bay's MO to sort of reach a round/half a round for their players. I feel like it's the same thing as in a fantasy draft - "I really like this guy, if I don't grab him a little earlier than I'd prefer he won't make it back around to me" 

[St Vince]

So he's a sea chicken now. I wish they had given him more time to develop, he was still raw because of limited reps, you need reps the hone your craft, he didn't get that chance here. Now watch Wilson turn him into a good TE.

[ThatJerkDave]

57 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

FIFY

I don't think there was a person here that didn't think we got a great value when we drafted King.  Some people wanted Watt because of the Wisconsin connection.  Don't let hindsight cloud what the general mood was at the time.  

[Leader]

11 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I don't think there was a person here that didn't think we got a great value when we drafted King.  Some people wanted Watt because of the Wisconsin connection.  Don't let hindsight cloud what the general mood was at the time.  

There were positives about the player coming out of college - but perhaps more important - it was a HUGE position of need.

[incognito_man]

43 minutes ago, St Vince said:

So he's a sea chicken now. I wish they had given him more time to develop, he was still raw because of limited reps, you need reps the hone your craft, he didn't get that chance here. Now watch Wilson turn him into a good TE.

oh c'mon. He had every chance imaginable here to grab a spot...he just thwarted his chances and at some point you reward the men who do not thwart their opportunities over those who do.

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I don't think there was a person here that didn't think we got a great value when we drafted King.  Some people wanted Watt because of the Wisconsin connection.  Don't let hindsight cloud what the general mood was at the time.  

The "mood" doesn't change the fact that King has been underwhelming and Jordy Nelson was a huge success.

[Joe]

11 hours ago, CWood21 said:

I think that goes without saying, but that's also a LOT easier said then done.  Going off of our pick's last year, the Packers could have moved up from 62 using the 92nd pick would have gotten us up to ~50th pick.  In fact, the only time since 2015 that I've seen a team trade from the backend (52-64) of the second round into the frontend (33-42) was 2018 when Tennessee traded up for Harold Landry (57/89 for 41) and when the Panthers traded up for Devin Funchess (57/89/201 for 41),

That may be true, but every year someone throws up a pick value chart whenever we're discussing draft day trades and it gets destroyed. I would've been perfectly happy to trade up to 50 from 62 in any draft, even if it looks like we're giving up a lot by giving up a 3rd. Also, bear in mind we can always see if we can snag a decent Day 3 pick in the process; doesn't hurt to ask.

 

After I last posted, someone else mentioned the idea of trading our 3rd for an actual veteran player; a move that I would completely support provided we're getting a proven player with a relatively clean injury history and reasonable contract.

[Mr Bad Example]

2 hours ago, St Vince said:

So he's a sea chicken now. I wish they had given him more time to develop, he was still raw because of limited reps, you need reps the hone your craft, he didn't get that chance here. Now watch Wilson turn him into a good TE.

He'd be the first. 

[{Family Ghost}]

2 hours ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I don't think there was a person here that didn't think we got a great value when we drafted King.  Some people wanted Watt because of the Wisconsin connection.  Don't let hindsight cloud what the general mood was at the time.  

Several of my draft guides had King as a 3rd round talent.  He kind of jumped up the charts after his combine workout. 

[Gopher Trace]

3 hours ago, St Vince said:

So he's a sea chicken now. I wish they had given him more time to develop, he was still raw because of limited reps, you need reps the hone your craft, he didn't get that chance here. Now watch Wilson turn him into a good TE.

Normally that would be the correct position, but we are stacked at the position such that he had no path to the field *and* we are in a championship push -- there's no place for a fifth-string TE on a team making said push, we need that roster spot for guys who will contribute.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Gopher Trace