3.91 - Ty'Ron Hopper [LB ; Mizzou]

[ReasonablySober]

11 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

so if we had taken Hopper in the 2nd, you wouldn't have liked us taking Cooper at Hopper's pick either?

Correct. 

[thrILL!]

5 hours ago, R T said:

One of the main reasons the Packers may have doubled down on day 2 is that they don't fully trust Cooper. If Cooper would have checked all the off the field boxes, he probably finds himself in the 1st round, but he doesn't and he didn't. Most are going to be all over the Cooper pick, but it is probably around 50/50 on which LB might get a second contract in 4 years.     

If they didn’t fully trust Cooper and if Hopper is viewed more as a special teams ace, wouldn’t we have doubled down and drafted a 2nd LB who would be viewed as contributing more on defense (like Cooper) than special teams (like Hopper)?  Maybe that’s Wilson or someone else in this scenario.

And if Cooper is the guy on D and Hopper on ST, then speculating on splits for second contracts when their roles are different isn’t really that different than viewing other positions on this team where one plays D and the other mostly ST. 

[R T]

22 minutes ago, thrILL! said:

If they didn’t fully trust Cooper and if Hopper is viewed more as a special teams ace, wouldn’t we have doubled down and drafted a 2nd LB who would be viewed as contributing more on defense (like Cooper) than special teams (like Hopper)?  Maybe that’s Wilson or someone else in this scenario.

And if Cooper is the guy on D and Hopper on ST, then speculating on splits for second contracts when their roles are different isn’t really that different than viewing other positions on this team where one plays D and the other mostly ST. 

The only ones claiming Hopper is a ST player only are the ones who are butt hurt about the pick, the Packers aren't looking at those two as being much different in the long run.   

[incognito_man]

I'm 100% in the camp that agrees this FO views the number of swings as importantly as who the swings are. Taking two good shots at 1.5+ starting positions on this defense going forward is pretty obvious (to me) great value. There aren't THAT many starter snaps available for the next 2-3 seasons that would have benefit from talent influx at those draft slots more than ILB for this roster.

I'm probably bigger on "positional value" than just about anyone, but at those spots getting 2 ILBs is perhaps more valuable for this roster than anything else.

[HokieHigh]

1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

I'm 100% in the camp that agrees this FO views the number of swings as importantly as who the swings are. Taking two good shots at 1.5+ starting positions on this defense going forward is pretty obvious (to me) great value. There aren't THAT many starter snaps available for the next 2-3 seasons that would have benefit from talent influx at those draft slots more than ILB for this roster.

I'm probably bigger on "positional value" than just about anyone, but at those spots getting 2 ILBs is perhaps more valuable for this roster than anything else.

We would have really had a problem if cooper didnt fall IMO. So ballsy to trade down from 41. Great execution by gute

[ReasonablySober]

7 minutes ago, HokieHigh said:

We would have really had a problem if cooper didnt fall IMO. So ballsy to trade down from 41. Great execution by gute

Would we? Apparently we took a starter in Hopper. 

[spilltray]

12 hours ago, ReasonablySober said:

Would we? Apparently we took a starter in Hopper. 

Don't be intentionally dense.

[ReasonablySober]

2 hours ago, spilltray said:

Don't be intentionally dense.

From three posts above: 

Quote

The only ones claiming Hopper is a ST player only are the ones who are butt hurt about the pick, the Packers aren't looking at those two as being much different in the long run.   

 

 

[Mazrimiv]

2 hours ago, spilltray said:

Don't be intentionally dense.

What makes you think it's intentional? 

The argument here is that taking Hopper at #58 was "lousy asset management" because GB had already filled the ILB2 spot with Cooper, and there were players at "premium" positions still available.   Meanwhile, this same guy was arguing for taking TE Bowers at #5 overall back when GB's 2023 season was looking bleak, and still wanted to trade up from 25 to 12 to take Bowers in the lead up to the draft.

[ReasonablySober]

9 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

What makes you think it's intentional? 

The argument here is that taking Hopper at #58 was "lousy asset management" because GB had already filled the ILB2 spot with Cooper, and there were players at "premium" positions still available.   Meanwhile, this same guy was arguing for taking TE Bowers at #5 overall back when GB's 2023 season was looking bleak, and still wanted to trade up from 25 to 12 to take Bowers in the lead up to the draft.

Let's ignore that it would give the Packers a tight end a five year contract when their current TEs have three years left on their deals. 

I would have traded up for Bowers because he's a special player. Same way I would have moved up for Harrison Jr. if he fell, or Mitchell when he did fall. 

I don't view Hopper as a special player. I didn't think that would need clarifying. 

[spilltray]

1 hour ago, ReasonablySober said:

From three posts above: 

 

 

There is a load of difference between "ST only" and "starter" 3rd LB in a 4-3 look has significant value even if it's only 20-30% the defensive snaps.

[Packerraymond]

On 5/7/2024 at 9:11 PM, incognito_man said:

This is missed every year even by us. We should focus on that next draft. I agree this is something our FO has done.

 

On 5/7/2024 at 7:38 PM, PossibleCabbage said:

-Many people don't understand that the Packers are always looking for a value in a guy who played worse last year than the previous year if they can explain what was going on there, because the draft media is always just looking at the last year.

I think you're focusing too much on the specific scenario and not enough on why it occurs. I highly doubt the Packers are excited when a guy doesn't play well one year because they can get value. The Packers are one of the strongest traits based drafting teams in the NFL, and when you're drafting traits the general line of thought is, if a guy shows me he can do it 5,10,15 times, we can get him to do it all the time. They aren't going to dock a player as hard for a drop in his production when they know he has traits they covet. I think our FO is looking for traits they covet, and are willing to overlook some faults (short arm length, poor senior production, not starting any games in college, etc...) to get said player on the team.

[ThatJerkDave]

1 hour ago, Packerraymond said:

 

I think you're focusing too much on the specific scenario and not enough on why it occurs. I highly doubt the Packers are excited when a guy doesn't play well one year because they can get value. The Packers are one of the strongest traits based drafting teams in the NFL, and when you're drafting traits the general line of thought is, if a guy shows me he can do it 5,10,15 times, we can get him to do it all the time. They aren't going to dock a player as hard for a drop in his production when they know he has traits they covet. I think our FO is looking for traits they covet, and are willing to overlook some faults (short arm length, poor senior production, not starting any games in college, etc...) to get said player on the team.

That, and you get a team captain from a team that was predicted to win 5 or 6 games and won 11.

[Refugee]

I’m just hoping we can get to  more pages on our late 3rd rounder than our other guys by the time we get to camp. Without him playing a single down, of course.  Pretty sure this is subterfuge by Gute.  He’s drafted talented guys with some major skeletons in their closet so reached hard in the draft for a lighting rod to keep the offseason chatter focused elsewhere. 

[HokieHigh]

11 hours ago, ReasonablySober said:

Let's ignore that it would give the Packers a tight end a five year contract when their current TEs have three years left on their deals. 

I would have traded up for Bowers because he's a special player. Same way I would have moved up for Harrison Jr. if he fell, or Mitchell when he did fall. 

I don't view Hopper as a special player. I didn't think that would need clarifying. 

I would have taken harrison jr or mitchell over hopper too but that is mute

Edited May 10 by HokieHigh