2024 NFL Draft Discussion

[Old Guy]

24 minutes ago, HokieHigh said:

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 

You and me both.......... again! 

I've done several of those simulators (not that they are accurate) and I get Chop Robinson over 50% of the time. I know he doesn't fit our size requirements, but a guy can dream. I really want a speed rusher. 

[Mazrimiv]

On 3/23/2024 at 3:18 AM, 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.

Ignoring the "tale of the tape" is precisely what Gute can (and will) do.  If a trade involving GB's RD3 pick(s) makes sense to Gute, then of course he should make the trade.  That's much different than looking to trade out of RD3 because past picks didn't pan out. That would be dumb, and won't be part of Gute's thought process.

[ThatJerkDave]

10 hours ago, Rosser80 said:

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.

I tried to dig into that before.  Why exactly were we seemingly missing more in the third round than the fourth, when the very nature of the draft should usually have earlier picks being better, especially when averaged over a long enough time period.  I never was really satisfied with any result, for every pattern found, there was a big exception that kind of blows it up.  Some had lower RAS than our typical picks, but were good college players, but Oren Burks blows both of those criteria out by himself.  I think Khyri Thronton was projected to be good, but was hurt, a lot.  It could be that around pick 80 or so, you get less of a bottleneck of players.  So while the difference between pick 1 and pick 20 is pretty great, the difference between pick 80 and pick 140 isn't that drastic.  The Packers just happened to select the wrong ones.  For example, 2014 third rounder, Richard Rodgers was pick 98, while 2013 fourth rounder, David Bakhtiari was pick 109.  That is only 11 picks difference, but quite the difference in ROI.

 

It may also be that we haven't historically been that bad at drafting 3rd rounders anyway.  We just had a string of:  Monty Adams, Oren Burks, Jace Sternberger, Josiah Deguara, Amari Rodgers, and Sean Rhyan's disastrous rookie season in consecutive seasons.  Previous (rather recent) third round contributors were Morgan Burnett, James Jones, Richard Rodgers, Kyler Fackrell.  Not a list of dominant players for sure, but decent enough returns.  

[ThatJerkDave]

https://www.rockmnation.com/2024/3/22/24108940/how-did-the-missouri-tigers-perform-at-their-pro-day

Seems Rakestraw really wasn't fully healthy at the combine.  He probably shouldn't have participated other than interviews and weigh-ins.  I still think he is too slight for the Packers' preferences, unless he is still available in the second.  But he is fast enough.

Still like Robinson, just probably not for the Packers.

And I was right, TO and DK were in attendance, I will get myself a cookie  

[minnypackerfan]

4 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I tried to dig into that before.  Why exactly were we seemingly missing more in the third round than the fourth, when the very nature of the draft should usually have earlier picks being better, especially when averaged over a long enough time period.  I never was really satisfied with any result, for every pattern found, there was a big exception that kind of blows it up.  Some had lower RAS than our typical picks, but were good college players, but Oren Burks blows both of those criteria out by himself.  I think Khyri Thronton was projected to be good, but was hurt, a lot.  It could be that around pick 80 or so, you get less of a bottleneck of players.  So while the difference between pick 1 and pick 20 is pretty great, the difference between pick 80 and pick 140 isn't that drastic.  The Packers just happened to select the wrong ones.  For example, 2014 third rounder, Richard Rodgers was pick 98, while 2013 fourth rounder, David Bakhtiari was pick 109.  That is only 11 picks difference, but quite the difference in ROI.

 

It may also be that we haven't historically been that bad at drafting 3rd rounders anyway.  We just had a string of:  Monty Adams, Oren Burks, Jace Sternberger, Josiah Deguara, Amari Rodgers, and Sean Rhyan's disastrous rookie season in consecutive seasons.  Previous (rather recent) third round contributors were Morgan Burnett, James Jones, Richard Rodgers, Kyler Fackrell.  Not a list of dominant players for sure, but decent enough returns.  

Just asking:  Has anybody looked how our third round picks have stacked up compared to other teams third round picks over the past ten years in terms of outcome? Maybe we are not as bad as we think we are. 

[turf toe]

6 hours ago, Chili said:

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.

Barton seems like your guy, 22yrs old, 6'5 314 lbs and can play all 5 positions, we value versatility and while some think his best position could be center, he's played plenty at Guard and tackle, at slot 25 he seems a solid choice.

[ThatJerkDave]

3 minutes ago, minnypackerfan said:

Just asking:  Has anybody looked how our third round picks have stacked up compared to other teams third round picks over the past ten years in terms of outcome? Maybe we are not as bad as we think we are. 

Specifically, I don't think so.  I'll thumb through a couple to see.  But it will all be subjective.  Some people might think Richard Rodgers sucked, while I think he was average to good-enough.  We could look at PFR's wAV metric, but that isn't a perfect gauge, for example, Royce Newman is a 14 while TJ Slaton is a 10; which one would you rather have?  Plus you have to decide how much to weigh certain individual picks.  Are the Patriots really better at drafting 6th round talent, or did they get Tom Brady once?

[incognito_man]

51 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

https://www.rockmnation.com/2024/3/22/24108940/how-did-the-missouri-tigers-perform-at-their-pro-day

Seems Rakestraw really wasn't fully healthy at the combine.  He probably shouldn't have participated other than interviews and weigh-ins.  I still think he is too slight for the Packers' preferences, unless he is still available in the second.  But he is fast enough.

Still like Robinson, just probably not for the Packers.

And I was right, TO and DK were in attendance, I will get myself a cookie  

Robinson has (in Waldo's words) elite bones. 

He's a planet theory guy and is going to go higher than expected I bet. If he's there at our pick, he'd be a hard name to not run up to the podium IMO. Even with our roster depth at DL.

can never have too many of those guys IMO. Let that guy watch Preston for a year.

[Sandy]

58 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

https://www.rockmnation.com/2024/3/22/24108940/how-did-the-missouri-tigers-perform-at-their-pro-day

Seems Rakestraw really wasn't fully healthy at the combine.  He probably shouldn't have participated other than interviews and weigh-ins.  I still think he is too slight for the Packers' preferences, unless he is still available in the second.  But he is fast enough.

Still like Robinson, just probably not for the Packers.

And I was right, TO and DK were in attendance, I will get myself a cookie  

Ennis Rakestraw has re-entered the chat.

I think he's on the very low end of the size they'd be looking for, but his instincts jump out on his highlights, indicating an incredibly high ceiling.

I had him off my board between the low ras and the size, but now that his RAS should be well over 8 I'd have him in discussion at 41.

[ThatJerkDave]

OK, I am looking specifically at the other NFCN teams, and the Baltimore Ravens, because they are seen as "good" drafters, and have been mostly good for the last 10 years.  I will look at the 2010-2020 drafts, to not crown any one year wonders or rookie struggles from (most) first contract players.  I am counting players as out of the league if they didn't play in 2023.

Packers:  10 picks.  Out of league: 6  Best pick:  Morgan Burnett (2010)  Worst pick:  Jace Sternberger (2019)

Bears:  7 picks.  Out of league: 3  Best pick:  David Montgomery (2019)  Worst pick:  Brandon Hardin (2012)

Lions:  11 picks.  Out of league: 6  Best pick:  Larry Warford (2013)  Worst pick:  Alex Carter (2015)

Vikings:  7 picks.  Out of league: 4* Best pick: Danielle Hunter (2015)  Worst pick:  Scott Crichton (2014)

Ravens:  18 picks.  Out of league: 9  Best pick:  Orlando Brown Jr (2018)  Worst pick:  Bronson Kafusi (2016)

 

In this small sample size, it seems that everyone is batting about .500, as far as players still in the league.  Most of the older drafts don't have a lot of players still in the league 14 years later.  And the Ravens did have 4 third round picks in 2020.  All of the teams have some complete whiffs.  I do think that the Lions and Vikings do very well with third rounders, while the Packers do lag behind on total career AV of their third round picks compared to the division and the Ravens. 

I would actually conclude that the Packers are worse in the 3rd round.  When we get guys like Richard Rodgers, who is fine, the Lions and Vikings have found some real impact players.  Now, what they don't do as well as the Packers is retain these very good players.  Larry Warford was a 3 time Pro-Bowler for the Saints, David Montgomery now plays for the Lions.  Every Vikings 3rd rounder that has a AV over 15, is still in the league, and playing for a different team.  

 

*I have no idea if Pat Elflein is in the league or not.  

[ThatJerkDave]

7 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I would actually conclude that the Packers are worse in the 3rd round. 

And I am still without a really satisfactory reason as to why this is.  We seem to do well in rounds 1 and 2.  And have found some real gems in 4 and 5.  

[coachbuns]

17 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

And I am still without a really satisfactory reason as to why this is.  We seem to do well in rounds 1 and 2.  And have found some real gems in 4 and 5.  

Think they call it the law of averages.  You hit on some .. you miss on some.  It would be great if they could turn around the 3rd round curse for sure.  

[wgbeethree]

6 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

And I am still without a really satisfactory reason as to why this is.  We seem to do well in rounds 1 and 2.  And have found some real gems in 4 and 5.  

Just a quick glance at our thirds over the last decade.

We didn't draft very many premium positions. Four TEs, two DTs, G, WR, ILB, EDGE, and RB. EDGE and WR are really the only positions where a JAG can make enough of a splash to move the needle at all or get you excited. Just a lot of "boring" position guys were unless you're REALLY good you're kinda meh at best. 

[CWood21]

58 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Robinson has (in Waldo's words) elite bones. 

He's a planet theory guy and is going to go higher than expected I bet. If he's there at our pick, he'd be a hard name to not run up to the podium IMO. Even with our roster depth at DL.

can never have too many of those guys IMO. Let that guy watch Preston for a year.

Body wise, he reminds me of Arik Armstead.  Armstead was a couple inches taller, while Robinson is a tad longer but similar Combine numbers supports that.  I just don't see a twitchy EDGE.  IF the Packers still ran a 3-4 or we didn't have enough 3T, I'd like him a LOT more.  Definitely wouldn't hate the pick by any means.

[Packerraymond]

1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

Robinson has (in Waldo's words) elite bones. 

He's a planet theory guy and is going to go higher than expected I bet. If he's there at our pick, he'd be a hard name to not run up to the podium IMO. Even with our roster depth at DL.

can never have too many of those guys IMO. Let that guy watch Preston for a year.

When you look at the SF defenses of the past that Hafley has been apart of, it's hard for me to not see Robinson as a poor man's DeForest Buckner or Arik Armstead.