Hugh_Mann Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 on PFF's mock sim, DeJean's info card has snaps by alignment 2023 2022 2021 Dline: 28 30 0 Slot: 23 140 0 Corner: 630 553 9 Box: 23 91 2 Deep: 1 0 0 if correct, he's got a bit of experience at strong safety and only 1 snap at free/deep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtcheezwiz Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 3 hours ago, MaximusGluteus said: Can you send it to me? It sounds almost identical to the one I've been making for the past few years but with maybe a little more functionality. Might help me improve mine. I can message you with my email if you'd like. Otherwise, mine is in Google Sheets which makes sharing super easy since it's completely online. I've never imported an Excel file into Sheets but here's a how to if it's something you want to try: https://www.howtogeek.com/832921/how-to-convert-an-excel-sheet-to-google-sheets/ I uploaded it to google drive, here is the link for whoever wants it: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T9lIWwgPtQp6c9-hYdqP9c2ct8X_PcqO/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=104521411052791604138&rtpof=true&sd=true So used to just sharing through Teams for work it's been a while since I've had to share a file this way lmao. There are some hidden sheets that I merged together or split out of to create the current sheets, just an FYI. Any formulas are in those hidden sheets so no worries about breaking the sheet. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 Thanks for that spreadsheet, I love it! Very cool, thanks for sharing it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pick6byWoodson Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 On 3/20/2024 at 5:26 PM, incognito_man said: Define "this" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtcheezwiz Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 45 minutes ago, craig said: Thanks for that spreadsheet, I love it! Very cool, thanks for sharing it. No problem! Glad you enjoy it. If you have any suggestions, let me know! Eventually, I want to add in players going back to 2015 or something but that's a ways away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFLGURU Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 2 hours ago, Hugh_Mann said: on PFF's mock sim, DeJean's info card has snaps by alignment 2023 2022 2021 Dline: 28 30 0 Slot: 23 140 0 Corner: 630 553 9 Box: 23 91 2 Deep: 1 0 0 if correct, he's got a bit of experience at strong safety and only 1 snap at free/deep He was recruited as a safety and switched to corner. Pretty versatile player. Smart, has the football IQ to play any DB position, could also play in a hybrid role. I think he's worth a slight trade up. Kids a playmaker. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaximusGluteus Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 5 hours ago, sgtcheezwiz said: I uploaded it to google drive, here is the link for whoever wants it: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T9lIWwgPtQp6c9-hYdqP9c2ct8X_PcqO/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=104521411052791604138&rtpof=true&sd=true So used to just sharing through Teams for work it's been a while since I've had to share a file this way lmao. There are some hidden sheets that I merged together or split out of to create the current sheets, just an FYI. Any formulas are in those hidden sheets so no worries about breaking the sheet. Awesome! Thanks man! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampfgeist Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 16 hours ago, Rosser80 said: The track record is a strong argument against that. I get it, the third round is a higher round, but you can't ignore the tale of the tape on this one. Besides, you get a team with very few holes looking for that one guy they think is slipping down their board and you could get a lot of picks for either 88 or 91. I'd love to keep one and trade the other or trade one or both to move up sooner. I can and will ignore it. It's like flipping a coin and landing on tails 4 straight times and believing the next time just has to be heads. Previous 3rd rnd picks have -0- bearing on future 3rd rnd picks. Regardless of the past, the odds are still the odds, and having more picks in the 3rd rnd is still better than a similar number of picks in the 4th or beyond 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosser80 Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 3 hours ago, Kampfgeist said: I can and will ignore it. It's like flipping a coin and landing on tails 4 straight times and believing the next time just has to be heads. Previous 3rd rnd picks have -0- bearing on future 3rd rnd picks. Regardless of the past, the odds are still the odds, and having more picks in the 3rd rnd is still better than a similar number of picks in the 4th or beyond try 10... I'm not arguing against the point so much as I am stating our futility in that round vs. the significant success we've had in the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chili Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 I've just started looking at OL for the draft but before I watch videos I needed to narrow down the list of prospects that fitted the Packers thresholds. Obviously I don't have the time to watch them all hence the need to narrow the list down. The good news is the draft seems deep at OT with a large number of guys who fits the our basic parameters. Guard and Centre not as many but the Packers do like to convert college tackles to the interior anyway. Gute is known for triple dipping in the draft and I have a strong gut feeling we will triple dip at OL this year. Don't ask me why I just do. I have noticed there are many 6th year seniors (generally in the 23-24 age bracket). If we're going to draft an OT early (or any position for that matter) they need to be in the 20-22 age bracket so guys like Alt, Fashanu, Mims, Fuaga, JC Latham, Suamatala, Amegadjie would be our likely targets. I will focus on watching these guys and see if any jumps out. The first two rounds generally require four ingredients, Young, Character, High Production and RAS of 8.0 or greater. It's after that we start giving more leeway with our parameters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 (edited) I have a feeling (I can't be more specific) that the Packers don't love the really big O line guys, early on. I have no proof of this, but if it is true, then guys like Alt, Latham, Mims, Guyton, Patrick Paul, might be lower on their board than on others or even missing. Perhaps its just my personal take in not liking guys bigger than 6'6" or 6'7 at most, with a weight more than the high 320's. This is demonstrably not true in the later rounds, where they WILL take a chance on the really tall/heavy guys later in the draft (see guys like Luke Tenuta and Caleb Jones already on the roster). Certainly metrics like RAS score bigger guys higher, but I'd not rate someone of 6'8" or 6'9" as being better than 6'6" and I'd not rate someone at 340lbs as higher than someone at, say, 325. Edited March 24 by OneTwoSixFive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chili Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 (edited) 1 hour ago, OneTwoSixFive said: I have a feeling (I can't be more specific) that the Packers don't love the really big O line guys, early on. I have no proof of this, but if it is true, then guys like Alt, Latham, Mims, Guyton, might be lower on their board than on others or even missing. Perhaps its just my personal take in not liking guys bigger than 6'6" or 6'7 at most, with a weight more than the high 320's. This is demonstrably not true in the later rounds, where they WILL take a chance on the really tall/heavy guys later in the draft (see guys like Luke Tenuta and Caleb Jones already on the roster). Certainly metrics like RAS score bigger guys higher, but I'd not rate someone of 6'8" or 6'9" as being better than 6'6" and I'd not rate someone at 340lbs as higher than someone at, say, 325. I agree with everything you said except the "Packers don't love the really big O line guys, early on". The last time the Packers drafted an OT in the first round was Sherrod and Bulaga and they were both 6'5". So I think there is precedent for drafting big OL in the first round even if it was almost 15 years ago. It is just something we never needed to do often because we keep hitting on those mid rounders like Bahktiari. We got used to seeing OL around 6'4" and 315lbs in the Rodgers/McCarthy era. It is something we still do with drafting the likes of Jenkins and Tom who fits within those parameters but what different now is that the Packers under LaFleur is taking a deliberate strategy of really zeroing in on taller and heavier prospects especially in the late rounds/UDFA. If you struggle to find athleticism then just go big. I guess there are two reasons for this. 1. If the player is a hit you suddenly got yourself a massive solid OL. eg. Walker 2. Makes special teams better at blocking field goals. This seems a good draft to get a big first round OL prospect. The timing seems right with Bakhtiari gone and Love being the guy. Solidifying the OL honestly should be our No.1 priority. We need to protect Love and ensure we can rush the ball. Also there's no way of knowing if Walker takes a step back or if Tom/Jenkins gets injured. We will want to get a good one early for sure. Edited March 24 by Chili 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 If we feel pretty good about our top 5 offensive linemen: Walker, Jenkins, Meyer, Rhyan and Tom do we stick to what we normally do and grab guys in the middle rounds? I'm not at all sold on the idea those five can be or should be the starters. Feel very good about three of them, OK about the fourth but the 5th is a mystery. Even though I was touting him (Rhyan) all last year. Just thinking out loud but we've had a lot of success so why change. Jenkins and Myers are 2nd round pick so maybe we grab one in round 2 and a guy in round 4 and 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HokieHigh Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 23 minutes ago, Old Guy said: If we feel pretty good about our top 5 offensive linemen: Walker, Jenkins, Meyer, Rhyan and Tom do we stick to what we normally do and grab guys in the middle rounds? I'm not at all sold on the idea those five can be or should be the starters. Feel very good about three of them, OK about the fourth but the 5th is a mystery. Even though I was touting him (Rhyan) all last year. Just thinking out loud but we've had a lot of success so why change. Jenkins and Myers are 2nd round pick so maybe we grab one in round 2 and a guy in round 4 and 5. Maybe jackson powers in 1, or haynes in 2.2. There are some decent r3 r4 prospects, i would probably just wait. I find myself wanting defensive players with our first 4 picks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 (edited) 2 hours ago, Chili said: I agree with everything you said except the "Packers don't love the really big O line guys, early on". The last time the Packers drafted an OT in the first round was Sherrod and Bulaga and they were both 6'5". So I think there is precedent for drafting big OL in the first round even if it was almost 15 years ago. It is just something we never needed to do often because we keep hitting on those mid rounders like Bahktiari. He said bigger than 6'6". Both players you listed were shorter than that mark, so in his view not big. Edited March 24 by squire12 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts