Cwood is a nerd and so are all the Packer Favorite Prospects: 2023 Draft Discussion Thread

[HokieHigh]

8 hours ago, Sandy said:

A minimum of 6 has happened in a third of the last nine drafts though. On average every three years. 

Ya i added 2013 and 2014 data after the initial statement and they happened on the high side.

 

I now have gone back and added 2010-2012 (5, 3, 3) .. so the set is the TE selected in first three rounds since change of fa. 

 

4.417+-1.56. Estimate is that 70% of years you will see less than 6 tight ends drafted. 

 

No precedent for 8. 

[NFLGURU]

I think we are undervaluing Musgrave.  Coming off the injury won't help but he's got the athleticism to be a beast at the next level.  He'll probably be there in the second round.  

The Packers second round pick (Watson) last year didn't have a lot of college production either.  Musgrave is worth a look in the 40s if he makes it that far.  

Hes a little stiff and clunky after the catch, but the guy really catches everything near him.

Edited April 14, 2023 by NFLGURU

[craig]

Thanks for interesting TE discussion, guys.  Very informative.  As RT notes, this would seem to be the best TE class in 15 years.  Packers have  strong need for TE.  Seems like a perfect match for a BPA-meets-need chance for Gute to grab a very good one.

I don't think the question of whether a good TE will last till Day 3 should be the pressing question for Gute?  BK noted that LaPorta is ranked in the 38-79 by most media sites, and even so some sites rank him as only 6th among the TE's.  

Strategically, I see 3 scenarios:

1. 3rd Day:  With ≥6 being valued so highly and possibly taken days 1-2, you can probably get somebody among your top-10 TE's on Day 3, and that guy might perhaps still be a solid NFL player.  Wait till Day 3, get a C+ TE, and hope he becomes solid.  Some guys who aren't in the media big-6 might still become very good. 
2. 3rd Round:  With so many good ones, wait till round 3 and hope one of the A/B guys is still there.  Reasonable chance LaPorta or one of the top 6 will be there, that you can get a really good value there; your 3rd-round guy might be as good or better than the higher picks; you might have the best TE talent since Finley; and you might break your 3rd-rounders-disappoint run.  
3. 2nd Round:  With two picks in the 40's, there will for sure be several of the media-big-6 TE's board.  It may not be Gute's #1/#2 guy, but you might still get a VERY good BPA-meets-need value.  Best Packer TE since Finley, and maybe better.  

I'm thinking the 2nd-round strategy appeals best to me? The 3rd-round approach might be great; but it may also be that the top guys might all be gone by then?  And even if the media-6 aren't exhausted, Gute might not scout all of them as highly.

Obviously the TE candidates are all unique, with variant strengths and limitations.  May be that MLF's offense might not love them all.  But my feeling is that each of the highly-ranked TE's are ranked there for good reason, and have good potential.  Even if Gute's favorites are gone at 42-45, I still think whichever remain would still provide good-value BPA-meets-need.  Once you get him, use him appropriately for his strengths; don't try to make Kincaid play like Mercedes Lewis, or expect Musgrave to function quite like Travis Kelsey or Kittle.  

Obviously Packers often have very deviant valuations, and MLF's priorities often differ from much of the league.  So Gute may well analyze very differently from us, from the media, or from my strategy.  

[incognito_man]

Gonna be interested to see how the TEs end up. There's a dearth of quality TEs in the league currently. Almost every team is going to want to add to that room with this class. But we see at least a couple "runs"

[packfanfb]

Free Packers-related draft guide for anyone interested. 

[craig]

Also obvious that we'll only have three top-45 picks.  So we're not going to  hit Edge, TE, WR, S, CB, DT, and OT with only 3 picks.  

So pretty good possibility that there will be some great BPA-meets-need picks at lots of those positions in the top-50, and that TE will get deferred to Round 3 or Day 3.   

Gute may well feel that the way MLF uses TE, that getting a good pass-catcher isn't that valued anyway, and that maybe LaPorta or one of the big-6 will last to round 3 and be an even better-value pick there?  Or just roll with whoever is left Day 4.  

Gute may also have some mobility within round 3.  I assume the trade will have a 2nd and 4th this year, with the 4th being the option for 15>13.  *IF* Gute doesn't use 42-45 on TE, but sees the pool dwindling, I'd think with two forths he'd have enough flexible-value to move up in round 3, if he liked one of the surviving TE's enough.  (Same obviously applies to S-WR-CB-DT-OT.). 

[ThatJerkDave]

14 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Gonna be interested to see how the TEs end up. There's a dearth of quality TEs in the league currently. Almost every team is going to want to add to that room with this class. But we see at least a couple "runs"

Wasn't the class with Noah Fant, and Albert O, and that Ohio State guy from the Jets, also supposed to be a great TE class?  

I think it is more about the specific offenses more so than the talent of the players.

[Old Guy]

9 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

Wasn't the class with Noah Fant, and Albert O, and that Ohio State guy from the Jets, also supposed to be a great TE class?  

I think it is more about the specific offenses more so than the talent of the players.

Hockenson was in that draft class as well. Also, Jace Sternberger so there is that. 

[Leader]

11 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Hockenson was in that draft class as well. Also, Jace Sternberger so there is that. 

That was the last year I got seriously involved in draft stuff.
Had 3 positions targeted: EDGE, TE, S and three players selected for each.
Burns led my EDGE group....cant remember who else was in there....but Gary wasnt.
Savage was in my S group - with CJG (or whatever his name is) and Adderly (the Delaware kid).
Hockensen, Fant & Sternberger were my TE group.

[NFLGURU]

37 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Hockenson was in that draft class as well. Also, Jace Sternberger so there is that. 

Sternberger was pick 75 (third round), and the following pick was Terry McLaurin. 

We can see the misses after the fact in nearly every draft, but that one stood out.

[Old Guy]

Just now, NFLGURU said:

Sternberger was pick 75 (third round), and the following pick was Terry McLaurin. 

We can see the misses after the fact in nearly every draft, but that one stood out.

It stood out if you were one of the folks who wanted him on the Packers. He turned out to be a good player, no doubt. 

[HokieHigh]

4 hours ago, incognito_man said:

Gonna be interested to see how the TEs end up. There's a dearth of quality TEs in the league currently. Almost every team is going to want to add to that room with this class. But we see at least a couple "runs"

Indeed. 

 

Having such a talented class is a catch 22. They are better players relative to previous years and other positions, but the supply is higher so the urgency is less. Until the runs start.

 

As positional groups go, what is the weakest group this year? Seems like wr, dt dont have much depth. safety lacks top tier talent but i like some of the 3rd/4th round guys. 

[HokieHigh]

historical datasets inform us about position premiums.  i happen to have a dataset with every draft pick since 2010, and in round 1, the number of selections per position:

 

10 centers

10 tight ends

16 offensive guards

19 running backs

24 safeties,

36 DT/NTs

40 quarterbacks

51 wide receiver

53 cornerbacks

55 OTs

59 DE

 

-compared to looking at salaries alone; it has a similar component of production dependence but is probably more sensitive to career longevity per position and number of those players on the field at a time. 

Edited April 14, 2023 by HokieHigh

[R T]

8 minutes ago, HokieHigh said:

historical datasets inform us about position premiums.  i happen to have a dataset with every draft pick since 2010, and in round 1, the number of selections per position:

 

10 centers

10 tight ends

16 offensive guards

19 running backs

24 safeties,

36 DT/NTs

40 quarterbacks

51 wide receiver

53 cornerbacks

55 OTs

59 DE

 

-compared to looking at salaries alone; it has a similar component of production dependence but is probably more sensitive to career longevity per position and number of those players on the field at a time. 

Interesting that no LB's were selected during that time period. 

[HokieHigh]

4 minutes ago, R T said:

Interesting that no LB's were selected during that time period. 

the dataset does not distinguish well between OLB/ILB/LB, so I left this out for now.