Round 1 Pick 28; Devonte Wyatt, DL Georgia

[{Family Ghost}]

16 minutes ago, craig said:

I'm an eternal optimist.  But I admit I'm pretty optimistic about Slayton, too.  He showed some promise at times, and with full off-season training and 2nd-year camps, I'm kinda optimistic that he's going to be a viable NFL role player, and that he's now ready instead of being so raw.   

So I'm seeing three non-trivial upgrades to the group.  Could be a lot of fun!

• big-talent high-twitch Bryant
• Slayton
• Reed, who's nothing great but has been a viable not-that-far-below-average guy for a while.  

Got to get those names correct .. it's Slaton!  We've just added a guy at DT named Slayton.

[mikemike778]

22 hours ago, vegas492 said:

I was talking to Ray, he brought up pick #40.

I too think that if we had done that trade, maybe we do use it to package and go back up a little higher.

But we tried for 32.  Got 34.  Paid a premium for it and took Watson.

Everything else is conjecture right now.

But now is the season for conjecture and optimism.  I'm very happy we got Wyatt and Watson.  Giving up a little more than I would have personally liked for Watson is just water under the bridge.

And I always find it funny to read musings about Seattle's war room.  The same room that leaves me scratching my head and going "Huh?" after they pick in the first round.

I read a PFF piece rating the 2018 NFL draft.  They gave grades.  Seattle earned a "OOOF". as their grade.  

 

Yep, the article didn't say who was pushing the trade , if it was Seattle pushing the trade then it could well have been favourable to us in terms of the old draft chart thing and could have been part of a number of moves to get where we wanted to be.  

We called it off but we don't know why.  It might have been because Wyatt was there,  it might have been because we just had second thoughts. It might have been because other trade up talks using the Seattle picks stalled.

 

 

 

 

 

[R T]

These types of clips need to not be forgotten. 

 

[TheEagle]

That dude is the worst of the Packers “beat writers”.

[TheEagle]

I do like how at the end he said Gutey prioritizes freak athletes, and they’ve worked. He mentioned Gary and Stokes. (Gutey was slightly criticized for taking those guys as high as they went.) I’d throw Jaire in there. I’d say the jury is still out on Savage. It depends on this year and whether he gets that second contract from the Packers.

Maybe it isn’t age so much that Gutey values high, but athleticism. Walker, Wyatt, and Watson are all premium athletes. Wyatt is old. Watson is a little older.

[Sandy]

12 hours ago, TheEagle said:

I do like how at the end he said Gutey prioritizes freak athletes, and they’ve worked. He mentioned Gary and Stokes. (Gutey was slightly criticized for taking those guys as high as they went.) I’d throw Jaire in there. I’d say the jury is still out on Savage. It depends on this year and whether he gets that second contract from the Packers.

Maybe it isn’t age so much that Gutey values high, but athleticism. Walker, Wyatt, and Watson are all premium athletes. Wyatt is old. Watson is a little older.

Yeah each draft we get a little more insight as to what they're really looking for in players. It's fair to say that youth is not the high priority we thought it was... Still a consideration for sure, but the sample size grew enough to stop ruling out moderately older players. 

[Arthur Penske]

On 5/26/2022 at 11:35 PM, TheEagle said:

That dude is the worst of the Packers “beat writers”.

Ya he’s not really on the beat but he tries to force his opinion into things way too much. Maybe that’s what they’re told to do but it’s annoying.

[AlexGreen#20]

On 5/27/2022 at 12:52 PM, Sandy said:

Yeah each draft we get a little more insight as to what they're really looking for in players. It's fair to say that youth is not the high priority we thought it was... Still a consideration for sure, but the sample size grew enough to stop ruling out moderately older players. 

Or Wyatt was an outlier and shouldn't impact this.

The tape and roster composition still play a massive role in this thing. 

[Uffdaswede]

17 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Or Wyatt was an outlier and shouldn't impact this.

The tape and roster composition still play a massive role in this thing. 

If by “roster composition” you mean that the team was drafting, especially in the late Rodgers era, to create the best all 22 for THIS season I heartily agree. The first two players selected pop into place with a specific defensive impact in mind. Watson was a finesse move. I think they’ll use him to attack underneath coverage in the way Kamara does. He remains a long threat to draw coverage deeper, but his highlights will be short passes with mucho YAC.

It may all end in tears, but I can’t help but feel like Gutey got two players he wanted with Wyatt thrown in as a bonus. The chatter about the Seattle trade down makes me think he was going to flip 28 into Watson plus another player with a bit of additional maneuvering. 

[JordanLoveFTW]

How good can Davante Wyatt be on day 1?

 

I think he might pull and Elgton Jenkins… Older rookie big guy from the SEC, come in and play well from day 1. I could see it. 

[Norm]

8 hours ago, JordanLoveFTW said:

How good can Davante Wyatt be on day 1?

 

I think he might pull and Elgton Jenkins… Older rookie big guy from the SEC, come in and play well from day 1. I could see it. 

Nope

[craig]

On 6/2/2022 at 5:47 AM, AlexGreen#20 said:

Or Wyatt was an outlier and shouldn't impact this.

The tape and roster composition still play a massive role in this thing. 

Catching up on old discussion.  Not sure I'm always clear on pros-and-cons of youth/age thing, and how they apply at different areas of the draft (1st round versus subsequent rounds, etc.). Some inconsistent factors:

1. Rookie Contract:  Team gets a guy for only one of them, and that's where the value-per-dollar lies.  Don't waste many rookie-contract years on developmental red-shirt years.
2. 5-year-control for 1st-rounder:  Extra year of club control allows more development time for a 1st-rounder.  
3. Why not both young and ready?  Why not get a guy who is ready to be an asset player very quickly?  But is still young with untapped physical and experiential upside.  Stokes, Jaire, Clark, etc..  Often in the first round you can get the win-win.
4. Why wasn't older guy ready sooner?   *IF* a 1st-rounder takes 4-5 years to become ready, it may hypothetically reflect that he was not a quick study; or perhaps that he showed inconsistent effort.  First rounders should combine talent/motor/brains.  But *IF* a guy was slow to understand the college game, that hypothetically may not bode well for being quick-grasp of more complex pro game?  Likewise if a guy's commitment was inconsistent, will it be better as a famous multi-millionaire 1st-round pro? 
5. Round:  Beyond the 1st round, I don't expect perfect phenoms. Always compromising somewhat on something.  Maybe you compromise a bit on the ready-now, in exchange fo perceived long-term ceiling?  Or concede a little ceiling for safer floor?  

[TheEagle]

11 minutes ago, craig said:

Catching up on old discussion.  Not sure I'm always clear on pros-and-cons of youth/age thing, and how they apply at different areas of the draft (1st round versus subsequent rounds, etc.). Some inconsistent factors:

1. Rookie Contract:  Team gets a guy for only one of them, and that's where the value-per-dollar lies.  Don't waste many rookie-contract years on developmental red-shirt years.
2. 5-year-control for 1st-rounder:  Extra year of club control allows more development time for a 1st-rounder.  
3. Why not both young and ready?  Why not get a guy who is ready to be an asset player very quickly?  But is still young with untapped physical and experiential upside.  Stokes, Jaire, Clark, etc..  Often in the first round you can get the win-win.
4. Why wasn't older guy ready sooner?   *IF* a 1st-rounder takes 4-5 years to become ready, it may hypothetically reflect that he was not a quick study; or perhaps that he showed inconsistent effort.  First rounders should combine talent/motor/brains.  But *IF* a guy was slow to understand the college game, that hypothetically may not bode well for being quick-grasp of more complex pro game?  Likewise if a guy's commitment was inconsistent, will it be better as a famous multi-millionaire 1st-round pro? 
5. Round:  Beyond the 1st round, I don't expect perfect phenoms. Always compromising somewhat on something.  Maybe you compromise a bit on the ready-now, in exchange fo perceived long-term ceiling?  Or concede a little ceiling for safer floor?  

Good list, but I’d say for #4 it could also be that the guy was just blocked by talent on the roster. A place like Georgia has had a ton of defensive talent recently under Kirby. It could be that Wyatt could have played earlier elsewhere—although it sounds like he had some maturing (weight issues).

[craig]

3 hours ago, TheEagle said:

Good list, but I’d say for #4 it could also be that the guy was just blocked by talent on the roster. A place like Georgia has had a ton of defensive talent recently under Kirby. It could be that Wyatt could have played earlier elsewhere—although it sounds like he had some maturing (weight issues).

Agree.  Georgia had a relative extraordinary collection of talent, so some unusual context. 

I didn't mean to suggest with consideration #4 that either Georgia guys were unwise draft picks.  Just that I wouldn't grab a 4th/5th year guy without at least asking the #4 questions?  I have no doubt but that Gute did consider those issues, and came away relatively satisfied for Walker, Wyatt, and Watson. 

But yeah, *IF* Gute didn't at least process those questions, I think it would be a due-diligence failure.  

 

[vegas492]

15 hours ago, craig said:

Agree.  Georgia had a relative extraordinary collection of talent, so some unusual context. 

I didn't mean to suggest with consideration #4 that either Georgia guys were unwise draft picks.  Just that I wouldn't grab a 4th/5th year guy without at least asking the #4 questions?  I have no doubt but that Gute did consider those issues, and came away relatively satisfied for Walker, Wyatt, and Watson. 

But yeah, *IF* Gute didn't at least process those questions, I think it would be a due-diligence failure.  

 

I'm not speaking for anyone else, but given Gute's drafting record so far, I'll go out on a limb and say that that he most certainly does his due diligence, or at least his scouts do.  He's earned that respect in my book.