Green Bay's Valuations of Draft Picks and Christian Watson

[St Vince]

They didn't give up a "haul" lol. They gave up pick 59 and swapped 53 with 34. You weren't getting a potential #1 WR at the end of the 2nd round.

Edited May 2, 2022 by St Vince

[craig]

47 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

....Trading 2x 50+ for 34 is probably a bad deal in almost every draft... unless it works out.

Yeah, I just want to hope that this one works out.  I recall Clay Matthews being the most surprising trade-up of TT's career, and having it faulted as an overpay.  But that one did work out, and enabled a super bowl.  Hopefully this one will be similar.  

I agree, trading 2 x 50+ for 34 is probably a bad idea, most of the time.  The impression I inferred from Gute's comments on Friday was that he'd been offering the same 2 x 50+ to try to get Watson from pick 29 on; and it took till pick-34 to get a taker.  I imagine had he traded 2 x 50+ for 29 and drafted Watson there, some of the discussion would be the same (giving up two picks was too much; it was a desperation-forced, need-based move...), but the trade-value-inequality discussion might look modestly different.  

To me the move speaks to how differently Gute scouted Watson from the other 6 WR taken in the round.  However desperate he was, 6 more WR came off in the next 20 picks, including Pickens and Pierce who were much appreciated by some posters.  He apparently ranked Watson well ahead of the other options.  His scouting may prove dopey, but he evidently perceived some non-trivial space between Watson and the others.  Hopefully he'll be vindicated, but only time will tell.  

[skibrett15]

43 minutes ago, squire12 said:

Hypothetically, is it better to try to get a player rated in your 2nd tier of players vs staying and drafting 2 players in your 4th tier of players?

practically, your tiers are wrong, they've been wrong every year, so why expect them to be right this year?

[mikemike778]

On 4/30/2022 at 2:24 PM, 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.

The reality is that receiver was a critical priority for Packers - we likely had a list of receivers that we wanted and drafting one of that list was considered to be a key objective of the draft. Its likely that Watson was the last one on the list so we had to make a move.

The question is always what is more important, drafting the player you specifically want or winning on the spreadsheets. 

Its all very well getting the calculator out and saying we lost on the trade value chart but if you don't make the trade and lose the player because the sums don't work out then you have messed up badly. You have to back your judgement here.

I would ignore what Rodgers said - almost certainly just a smoke screen. Gutey said after day one, he was under no pressure to take a receiver in the second which was clearly not true. Rodgers almost certainly knew we were trading up for Watson hence why he was happy enough after day one so was going to play along.

 

 

[OneTwoSixFive]

Wyatt was the highest valued DL on PFF with an 84 grade as a pass rusher (he ranked 17th overall on their big board). Davis was ranked below him as mostly an elite run-stopper (ranked 20th overall), then Travis Jones (27), Logan Hall (72), Perrion Winfrey (84). If Wyatt was ranked as high on the Packers board, it isn't surprising they felt they couldn't pass on him for a receiver - the value was too great.

Years ago, Ted gave up more than the chart trade value to move up into round one for Clay Matthews - and the reason (he said) he was happy to pay as much as he did, was because on his board the value of CM3 was many picks earlier than where they actually traded to get him, so the price was still worth paying.

This could easily be a similar scenario. Wyatt had a high enough value that the Packers couldn't pass on him. They may well have had Watson as a possible pick at 28, but Wyatt was a rare find this late and the quality at DL tailed off more quickly than at WR. Both positions needed attention, so there was at least some level of need being addressed at 28, just not need at WR.

So, the amount that the Packers were willingto pay to get Watson, may have been because they felt they had a steal with Wyatt and so were happy to overpay for pick 34 to make sure they got the receiver they had liked at 28. They may also have calculated that Wyatt was more likely gone in the next 4-6 picks after pick 28, than Watson (which proved to be the case, at least with Watson). So if the Packers valued Watson as worth the 28th pick, he was worth what they paid to get him at 34. BTW, Watson had an 89.5 receiving grade from PFF.

Trade value does matter, but it's hard to say a team has overpaid if a) you haven't seen their board, and b) taken into account the unique circumstances surrounding that specific trade.

PFF ranked Watson at pick 75, after WRs Pickens (28),  Burks (46), Tolbert (54), Dotson (56) and Metchie (74). Skyy Moore was ranked at 22.  I'd guess that most of us on this forum thought Watson would go quite a bit earlier than pick 75 and above several of PFFs picks ranked ahead of him - and that proved to be the case.

On draft day, of those WRs I mentioned above (ones that PFF had listed ahead of Watson), only Burks and Dotson actually went earlier than him (Dotson at 16, Burks at 18) and two of the first three receivers taken straight AFTER Watson were actually ranked below him, Wan'Dale Robinson and Tyquan Thornton (PFF ranked them low, at 125 and 192), the other was Metchie who ranked just one spot above Watson. Of the others that PFF ranked above Watson, Pickens went at 52, Moore at 54 and Tolbert at 88. Pierce (who went at 53) was actually ranked at 98. Does this mean the Packers overpaid for Watson ? Unknowable, since you cant read Gute's mind and you don't know their board

PS Just for reference, the six receivers that went early (between picks 8-18), were London, Wilson, Olave, Williams, Dotson and Burks.

Edited May 2, 2022 by OneTwoSixFive

[Pugger]

1 hour ago, mikemike778 said:

 

This.

The reality is that receiver was a critical priority for Packers - we likely had a list of receivers that we wanted and drafting one of that list was considered to be a key objective of the draft. Its likely that Watson was the last one on the list so we had to make a move.

The question is always what is more important, drafting the player you specifically want or winning on the spreadsheets. 

Its all very well getting the calculator out and saying we lost on the trade value chart but if you don't make the trade and lose the player because the sums don't work out then you have messed up badly. You have to back your judgement here.

I would ignore what Rodgers said - almost certainly just a smoke screen. Gutey said after day one, he was under no pressure to take a receiver in the second which was clearly not true. Rodgers almost certainly knew we were trading up for Watson hence why he was happy enough after day one so was going to play along.

 

 

Plus Rodgers was the first new teammate to send Watson a text welcoming him to the fold.

[Mr. Fussnputz]

1 hour ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

Wyatt was the highest valued DL on PFF with an 84 grade as a pass rusher (he ranked 17th overall on their big board). Davis was below him as mostly an elite run-stopper (ranked at 20th), then Travis Jones (27), Logan Hall (72), Perrion Winfrey (84). If Wyatt was ranked similarly on the Packers board, it isn't surprising they felt they couldn't pass on him for a receiver - the value was too great.

Years ago, Ted gave up more than the chart trade value to move up into round one for Clay Matthews - and the reason (he said) he was happy to pay as much as he did, was because on his board the value of CM3 was many picks earlier than where they actually traded to get him, so the price was still worth paying.

This could easily be a similar scenario. Wyatt had a high enough value that the Packers couldn't pass on him. They may well have had Watson as a possible pick at 28, but Wyatt was a rare find this late and the quality at DL tailed off more quickly than at WR. Both positions needed attention, so there was at least some level of need being addressed at 28, just not need at WR.

So, the amount that the Packers paid to get Watson may have been because they felt they had a steal with Wyatt and so were happy to overpay for pick 34 to make sure they got the receiver they had liked at 28. They may also have calculated that Wyatt was more likely gone in the next 4-6 picks after pick 28, than Watson (which proved to be the case, at least with Watson). So if the Packers valued Watson as worth the 28th pick, he was worth what they paid to get him at 34. BTW, Watson had an 89.5 receiving grade from PFF.

Trade value does matter, but it's hard to say a team has overpaid if a) you haven't seen their board, and b) taken into account the unique circumstances surrounding that specific trade.

PFF ranked Watson at pick 75, after WRs Pickens (28),  Burks (46), Tolbert (54), Dotson (56) and Metchie (74). Skyy Moore was ranked at 22.  I'd guess that most of us on this forum thought Watson would go quite a bit earlier than pick 75 and above several of PFFs picks ranked ahead of him - and that proved to be the case.

On draft day, of those WRs I mentioned above that PFF had listed ahead of Watson, only Burks and Dotson actually went earlier than him (Dotson at 16, Burks at 18) and two of the first three receivers taken straight AFTER Watson were actually ranked below him, Wan'Dale Robinson and Tyquan Thornton (PFF ranked them low, at 125 and 192), the other was Metchie who ranked just one spot above Watson. Of the others PFF ranked above Watson, Pickens went at 52, Pierce at 53, Moore at 54 and Tolbert at 88. Pierce was actually ranked at 98. Does this mean the Packers overpaid for Watson ? Unknowable, since you cant read Gute's mind and you don't know their board

PS The six receivers that went early (between picks 8-18) were London, Wilson, Olave, Williams, Dotson and Burks.

But then why didn't they just take Wyatt and Watson in the first round and wait for Walker in the second round?

[Uffdaswede]

Are we still on about this? It is absurd to obsess about losing a few draft chart points. GMs only care about the chart as a general guide. Certain fans and sports media are the only ones imbuing it with Holy Relic status.

I really like the take I saw from Chili. This whole controversy about losing pick 59 is spawned by Quay Walker. The draft could have gone 1a Wyatt; 1b Watson; 2a WR/def; 2b def/WR.

What the next months and years have to prove is that Quay Walker was worth spending 22 for an ILB at the risk of losing Wyatt or Watson. 

[OneTwoSixFive]

@Mr. Fussnputz You know the Packers board ? You know where they ranked Quay Walker ?

Edited May 2, 2022 by OneTwoSixFive

[Leader]

9 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

But then why didn't they just take Wyatt and Watson in the first round and wait for Walker in the second round?

No, no. If they took a WR in the first round...that would have been Pickens 

[Uffdaswede]

3 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

@Mr. Fussnputz You know the Packers board ? You know where they ranked Quay Walker ?

I know you aimed this at someone else, but this is what is true in the matter. Somehow Gute and the scouts and the coaching staff created a board in which Walker WAS the pick at 22, and they were willing to risk Wyatt to get HIM. The hypothetical Wyatt/Watson draft absolutely loses Walker for us—I’m sure of that— but gives us two different players in round two. Probably another WR and another ILB/safety/edge

Edited May 2, 2022 by Uffdaswede

[Old Guy]

What is going to be funny is when Watson turns into a complete stud the Vikings are going to have to live with the thought, they allowed it to happen. 

[OneTwoSixFive]

I certainly noticed (buried in a gazillion other pre-draft tidbits) that Quay Walker was a riser in the last few days before the draft. I'm guessing someone in a scouting department let something slip about him being valued higher than mid-2nd.

[squire12]

8 hours ago, skibrett15 said:

practically, your tiers are wrong, they've been wrong every year, so why expect them to be right this year?

How are the tiers wrong?

Have you seen draft boards for this or other years?

15 tier 1

20 tier 2

15 tier 3

20 tier 4

Why not try to get one player from tier 2 vs 2 from tier 4?

[Old Guy]

41 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

I certainly noticed (buried in a gazillion other pre-draft tidbits) that Quay Walker was a riser in the last few days before the draft. I'm guessing someone in a scouting department let something slip about him being valued higher than mid-2nd.

They leaked it to the guy on the NFL network, Daniel Jeremiah, who had him going to the Packers at pick 28 in his final mock draft. I think he had us taking Wyatt at pick 22 as well. 

Edited May 2, 2022 by Old Guy