Green Bay's Valuations of Draft Picks and Christian Watson

[VicPez]

So -- Green Bay gave up two late seconds to move up to the beginning of the second round to grab a wide receiver.  Based on the Jimmy Johnson chart, the Packers actually gave up more value than the 28th overall pick, which they spent on Devonte Wyatt.  On some level, that's understandable -- you pay a premium to move up with a division rival.

I know the Jimmy Johnson chart isn't the be-all, end-all of draft trade evaluation.  For example, I stumbled upon this valuation:

https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart-Rich-Hill.asp

Using the values in this chart, Green Bay gave up slightly less than the value of Pick 28, but still paid a premium to move up to Pick 34.

I also remember reading something about a decade ago about some mathematicians putting together some different trade value charts.  I can't find them at the moment, however.
My question is whether this decision to give up two late seconds to move up tot he beginning of the second helps us pinpoint either the valuation that Green Bay places on individual draft picks (and hints at which variation of the draft trade chart Green Bay uses to calculate trade outcomes) or whether it helps us pinpoint their valuation of Christian Watson.  After all, if Green Bay was willing to give up more than the value of Pick 28 to move up to grab Christian Watson, we can assume that they would have been happy to take Watson at Pick 28.  Their decision on which player between the two to take there would probably be determined by other factors -- which one they thought they'd have the best chance to grab later on, for example.

We know that there are rumors that Green Bay was speaking with Minnesota about moving up to Pick 32, probably to grab Watson.  The explanation I've heard is that Minnesota was hesitant to make the trade at 32 but was willing to do it at 34, to deny Green Bay the chance at a 5th year option.  I've seen some people deride this idea as too clever, but it actually makes a lot of sense to me.  If Minnesota assumes their player of interest would be on the board at 32 and 34 (not necessarily assured!), and Green Bay's would also be on the board at 32 and 34, and that Green Bay was willing to give the same package for picks 32 and 34, then obviously they'd favor the scenario that gave them their guy with a fifth year option and gave Green Bay Watson without a fifth year option.  When we add in the "premium" for Minnesota of knowing that the player they wanted would definitely be there at 32, rather than the uncertainty of waiting for 34, Minnesota seems to have maximized the value of their draft pick and the trade with Green Bay, even if it's in a very small way.

On the other hand, it's pretty telling that the above rumor (which I'm treating as credible for the sake of this post) indicates that Green Bay was willing to offer the same package to the Vikings for both Pick 32 and Pick 34.  This hints that Green Bay's willingness to trade up with the capital they used was based on their valuation of Watson himself, rather than the draft pick connected with picking him. 

The final hint at Green Bay's valuation of Christian Watson is Aaron Rodgers's interview on the Pat McAfee show, which aired at the same time as Green Bay grabbed Devonte Wyatt.  He indicated that Green Bay had first round grades on six receivers, and that all of them were gone by the time Green Bay picked at 22.  This tidbit confuses me -- if what Rodgers is saying is accurate, why was Green Bay willing to offer more (or slightly less) draft capital than Pick 28 to move back up to the end of the first or beginning of the second?  It could be as simple as Watson being the first and highest second round receiver on Green Bay's board, and them deciding to reach for a position of need.  Or, Green Bay could have valued Wyatt substantially higher than the 28th pick and been ecstatic that he fell to them there -- if that's the case, there's no contradiction in Green Bay being willing to give up roughly equivalent value for a guy they would've taken there had Wyatt not fallen.

Ultimately, this post was a bit more rambly than I'd like, but I wanted to focus in on this trade and the players selected by Green Bay because this situation may offer more insight than we usually get into the way Green Bay places value on picks and prospects -- in this case, Watson specifically.

[AlexGreen#20]

I think you're overthinking this one a bit mate. 

Packers really wanted a receiver and had to pay a premium to lock one down. 

[skibrett15]

It was the worst trade from a trade value perspective.  

If you are drafting humbly, you should never make this trade.  But when you need a WR, and your window is now, that may lead you to make some decisions of the moment and of necessity.

 

This is one of those.

[VicPez]

I could totally see a situation where Green Bay was willing to give up a monster haul (to the Vikings...) because they really needed a receiver.

I guess what trips me up is that they could've taken Watson at 28.  It would've been a reach, but what they did was approximately the same amount of reach -- and they let the Vikings come away with value.

[skibrett15]

2 minutes ago, VicPez said:

I could totally see a situation where Green Bay was willing to give up a monster haul (to the Vikings...) because they really needed a receiver.

I guess what trips me up is that they could've taken Watson at 28.  It would've been a reach, but what they did was approximately the same amount of reach -- and they let the Vikings come away with value.

Then they would trade up for Wyatt?

[squire12]

If each draft had the same rating for players 1-256 in a neat linear manner, the charts work great.

Realistically,  each draft has peaks and valleys for Player ratings.

Maybe GB saw a drop off in ratings on players after 40 and felt their picks at 53 and 59 were equivalent to pick 70 and 75 in " normal years" ratings.

 

[incognito_man]

4 minutes ago, squire12 said:

If each draft had the same rating for players 1-256 in a neat linear manner, the charts work great.

Realistically,  each draft has peaks and valleys for Player ratings.

Maybe GB saw a drop off in ratings on players after 40 and felt their picks at 53 and 59 were equivalent to pick 70 and 75 in " normal years" ratings.

 

This.

OP mentioned in the passing the key but:

GB values players at certain levels, not the actual draft slot. Which is why they were fine trading the same package for pick 32, or 34 or likely any slot between 29 and wherever they could to land their guy.

As @squire12 pointed out. Trade value charts are created by people who review past trades and thus dynamic in nature for multiple reasons. 

One could certainly find SOME historic NFL trades, extrapolate the data, develop a new chart, and discover we underpaid. I deeply suspect the standard deviation on trade value is pretty high. 

[gopackgo972]

There’s no point in getting upset about this trade. Did they get the kid they wanted? Yep. Nothing else matters in the grand scheme of things. 

[Chili]

The Packers have their own draft philosophies, methods and processes and almost religiously stick to them.

The complaint in the past was that the Packers never veer away from it whenever special circumstances calls for it.

I'm glad for once, with the special circumstances of Rodgers having 2-3 years left tops and having no WRs went ahead and broke their own rules to go up and nab a WR in a position of need instead of letting the board fall to them and take whoever the BPA is.

It only needs to be done every once in a blue moon and quickly revert back to normal drafting patterns.

The best drafters tend to be flexible ones.

As for choosing Watson over the likes of Pickens, Pierce and Thornton. i don't think it mattered, they're all good fits for us. Gute choose who he felt was by far the best one and made sure to get him. That's absolutely fine.

Watson is going to make our offence even more dynamic.

Edited April 30, 2022 by Chili

[15412]

The Packers didn’t trade up and overpay to draft a WR, they traded up and overpaid to draft this WR.  They could have stayed put and drafted Pierce among others.  In the next few years I will be keying on Watson, Pierce, and Pickens.  Let’s see if they were right

[incognito_man]

The reality is that no one would have batted an eye if we took him at 29 with the same trade package. 

It's the player, not the slot.

[Mazrimiv]

From the moment the trade was executed, it seemed clear that Gute had Watson in a tier of players which was nearly depleted, and considered the drop-off between Watson and the next tier of players to be significant.  Unless both of those things are true, the trade makes no sense.  I think the "GB was desperate for a WR" narrative was blown up when GB selected Wyatt over Watson a few picks earlier.  Gute prioritized Wyatt over Watson, but had both rated well above the next tier.  That being the case, Wyatt was selected at #28, and an aggressive trade was made to select Watson a few picks later.  It's the only scenario that makes any sense to me.

Agreeing with Gute's evaluation is a completely separate question.  I don't think the way the draft played out proved Gute to be obviously wrong, but I won't argue with anyone who thinks something like WR Pierce at #53 and EDGE Jackson at #59 would have been a better result.

Edited April 30, 2022 by Mazrimiv

[Mr Anonymous]

No use in dissecting this via any value charts. The Packers must have clearly wanted this player if they were going to hand two 2nds to a division rival. And the Packers had to (and always will have to) overpay to pry a near first round pick away from a division rival. Throw the pick value charts out the window on this one. 

Edited April 30, 2022 by Mr Anonymous

[Leader]

8 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

No use in dissecting this via any value charts. The Packers must have clearly wanted this player if they were going to hand two 2nds to a division rival. And the Packers had to (and always will have to) overpay to pry a near first round pick away from a division rival. Throw the pick value charts out the window on this one. 

This ^

[craig]

I think it speaks to the valuation the Packers had for Watson the player.  They valued him as good value for the first round, so were fine to pay price typical for an end-of-1st-round pick.  Whether it was 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, or 34 that was willing, they valued that player higher than the two picks; so it wasn't until #34 that a team was willing and they got the player.

It's Gute's value ranking, so he went with the logic of his evaluation.  Time will tell whether his valuation was wise or not, who knows now?  

I do think it perhaps also speaks to his relative value on Watson versus the other remaining WR?  *IF* he had negligible value separation from the other six WR taken in round 2, and viewed them as variably interchangeable, the logic may change.  The move suggests to me that Gute's rating had Watson at a different plateau from Pickens, Pierce, Moore, Metchie, Thornton, etc..   

We often discuss "need" vs "BPA".  I think this is a typical example  where a team trades such that perceived-BPA marries need.  The two don't need to contradict.  

Obviously GM is always drafting according to their perceptions.  At the moment, Gute perceived Watson as being BPA and being on a different plateau from Pickens/Pierce/Metchie.  Obviously retrospect in years ahead may prove that perception and scouting evaluation to have been faulty.