2024 Packers Draft Immediate Thoughts

[Smidgeon]

11 hours ago, squire12 said:

I think if you are using the consensus board, you need to follow it.  Once you add variations, then you are picking to fill needs and that leads to reaching.  In a technical sense, not taking the consensus highest ranked player is reaching 

1) Technically, any player ranked above the current spot selected is not a reach. It just isn't the *top* player left. 

2) The variation is really to avoid the nonsensical picks. For example, if GB never picked a safety in the entire draft because it was never the top position left on the consensus board, they'd have one FA and one fringe roster player before signing UDFAs. From a team's perspective, you have to manipulate the board to fill out the team.

That's why I'm suggesting a variation. 

[OneTwoSixFive]

2 hours ago, Rainmaker90 said:

I'm happy with Morgan. Experienced T with good movement and versatile. A dominant o-line will do wonders for Love, he gives us a better opportunity.

I made the mistake I so often make, looking at guys who have a good chance of being off the board and neglecting those a step further back. Consequently I knew much more about Barton, Fautanu and Fuaga, than Morgan. In hindsight the pick makes sense. Barton would have made sense too, but if the Packers wanted a tackle (and they did) who would they pick from pick 41 onwards ? I think it would have been a sizeable step down in talent there, whoever they took. 

They could have taken Barton at 25 and OT Amegadjie at 58 (one of my big draft crushes), with ILB Edgerrin Cooper in between..............but then you come to pick 88 with no Safety taken - and you need a starter-level guy. Equally, if they had taken S Bullard instead of Cooper, then who is your ILB ? Wilson (probably off their board  due to injuries), Gray, Trotter ?

Maybe its just as well the position they let slide (until Monk in the 5th) was IOL.

[incognito_man]

49 minutes ago, Smidgeon said:

1) Technically, any player ranked above the current spot selected is not a reach. It just isn't the *top* player left. 

2) The variation is really to avoid the nonsensical picks. For example, if GB never picked a safety in the entire draft because it was never the top position left on the consensus board, they'd have one FA and one fringe roster player before signing UDFAs. From a team's perspective, you have to manipulate the board to fill out the team.

That's why I'm suggesting a variation. 

roster building goes a lot deeper than a consensus big board, of course.

All of the data being used to verify "who was a good pick" is reliant on the players having opportunity - something that would disappear if, for example, 4-5 DBs were drafted in a single draft.

Every team should have a different big board based on their current roster. Caleb Williams is worth a LOT more to Chicago than he is to Green Bay. However, at positions where every team has multiple starters (or contributors) this delta shrinks - but it's still there.

Using a player's 2nd contract as the measuring stick is fine for determining "is this person a good NFL player - either for their original team or another team". But it doesn't necessarily capture their rookie contract value completely, either.

i.e. over the next 4 years, does EDGE4 or RB2 offer more value to GB? 

[Packerraymond]

1 hour ago, Smidgeon said:

1) Technically, any player ranked above the current spot selected is not a reach. It just isn't the *top* player left. 

2) The variation is really to avoid the nonsensical picks. For example, if GB never picked a safety in the entire draft because it was never the top position left on the consensus board, they'd have one FA and one fringe roster player before signing UDFAs. From a team's perspective, you have to manipulate the board to fill out the team.

That's why I'm suggesting a variation. 

Grading of the consensus board often utilizes +/-15% as its parameters for a reach or steal. I.E. Joe Burrow was player #2 on the board, they do not count it a reach he went #1. So player #70 on the board would need to go #59 or higher to be considered a reach and pick 81 or lower to be a steal. Not sure if they adjust that percentage for the 1st round, 20% is probably a better use for top 30 picks. This gives you a pool of players you can select at every pick that wouldn't be considered "reach" or "steal" based on consensus, and that number grows after every round as it should. By pick 150 you have 22 players you can pick from that would be considered sound value, 39 players by Mr Irrelevant. 

[skibrett15]

52 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Grading of the consensus board often utilizes +/-15% as its parameters for a reach or steal. I.E. Joe Burrow was player #2 on the board, they do not count it a reach he went #1. So player #70 on the board would need to go #59 or higher to be considered a reach and pick 81 or lower to be a steal. Not sure if they adjust that percentage for the 1st round, 20% is probably a better use for top 30 picks. This gives you a pool of players you can select at every pick that wouldn't be considered "reach" or "steal" based on consensus, and that number grows after every round as it should. By pick 150 you have 22 players you can pick from that would be considered sound value, 39 players by Mr Irrelevant. 

I think the method uses +/- 10 picks as "within range" for at least the first 2 rounds.  Agree that if it doesn't already, it needst to expand to a wider range later in the draft.

 

My question, and maybe it's too theoretical, is how often does a "reach" actually survive to the next round.  Say you are eyeing a player 32 spots higher than their consensus spot.  What are the odds the player survives another round?  how close is the media consensus board to the NFL consensus board. 

[Packerraymond]

3 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

I think the method uses +/- 10 picks as "within range" for at least the first 2 rounds.  Agree that if it doesn't already, it needst to expand to a wider range later in the draft.

 

My question, and maybe it's too theoretical, is how often does a "reach" actually survive to the next round.  Say you are eyeing a player 32 spots higher than their consensus spot.  What are the odds the player survives another round?  how close is the media consensus board to the NFL consensus board. 

The answer to that question is filed somewhere with how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie-pop unfortunately. 

[Spartacus]

I've always believed that the media or consensus big boards are a mix of a ton of cognitive bias slapped into one list. You first have an anchoring bias with a ton of plagiarism where all these draft analysts are going off of the first few prominent members boards. They do not want to be the weird list so they line up prospects based on the lists that came before them. Add that in with a whopping amount of availability heuristic and you have the media big boards. Although I do think there is some stock in them I don't believe there are 1000 media big boards where they all sat down and reviewed the tape on 300 players and each all came to almost the same exact realizations. There all just copying each other. 

[skibrett15]

is there a reason I can't like any posts?

[Mdpackfan22]

3 hours ago, packfanfb said:

They must have been reading our forum lol. Everyone is talking about the consensus board stuff and how it impacts how we look at draft classes. 

Is Howie a good drafter? Hurts has obviously been a home run, but let's take a look at his 1st round picks through the years.

2010: #13 Brandon Graham-Good pick. Was never an elite DE but has played 15 seasons for them

2011: #23 Danny Watkins-Bust

2012: #12 Fletcher Coxx-Great pick, on

2013: #4 Lane Johnson-Great Pick, one of the best RTs in the league

2014: #26 Marcus Smith-Bust

2016: #2 Carson Wentz-Bust, especially if you include what they had to give up in a trade. Them getting a 1st round pick back from indy helps alleviate this though

2017: #14 Derek Barnett: Bust

2019: #22 Andre Dillard: Bust

2020: #21 Jalen Raeger: Bust

2021: #10 DeVante Smith: good pick, would prefer to get more value using a top 10 pick on a WR that's an upper end #2

2022: #10 Jordan Davis: Jury is still out but looking like a bust considering he was a top 10 pick

2023: #9 Jaelen Carter: Looked dominant 1st half of the season, cooled off towards the end. Looks to be an elite DT if his conditioning stays in check 

2023: #30 Nolan Smith: Jury still out but doesn't look good so far 

 

In the prior 13 years, Howie has had 8 picks in the top 15, 5 picks in the top 10 and 1 pick in the top 5 and has produced

-2 elite players(Coxx and Lane Johnson)

-3 good players(Graham, D Smith, Carter)

-6 busts

-2 that the jury still out on but leaning towards bust(Davis and N Smith)

 

With the amount of draft capital Howie has had to work with, not impressed with his body of work in the 1st round. Give me Gute all day 

[ThatJerkDave]

9 minutes ago, Mdpackfan22 said:

2021: #10 DeVante Smith: good pick, would prefer to get more value using a top 10 pick on a WR that's an upper end #2

I did something like this a couple of months ago.  What is really important is to define a "good" pick before hand and stick to your definition.  I believe my definition was "signed a second contract in the NFL."  It just helps especially in instances like above, where you don't really like the value, but it is a good player and pick.  

[Mdpackfan22]

Just now, ThatJerkDave said:

I did something like this a couple of months ago.  What is really important is to define a "good" pick before hand and stick to your definition.  I believe my definition was "signed a second contract in the NFL."  It just helps especially in instances like above, where you don't really like the value, but it is a good player and pick.  

He's a good pick, not a great pick. I also don't believe in taking WRs in the 1st round, much less top 10. But with WR contracts going the way they are nowadays, my philosophy is shifting

[ThatJerkDave]

2 minutes ago, Mdpackfan22 said:

He's a good pick, not a great pick. I also don't believe in taking WRs in the 1st round, much less top 10. But with WR contracts going the way they are nowadays, my philosophy is shifting

Ok, let's take this to the extreme.  What kind of pick was Calvin Johnson? 

It isn't meant to criticize your assessment of Howie's picks What I was looking for was an objective criteria for "good, bad, bust" rankings.  That way we can compare Howie with GM X to see if he is better or worse using the same standard.

[vegas492]

56 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

The answer to that question is filed somewhere with how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie-pop unfortunately. 

WFT?  Everyone knows it's 3.  Duh.

[Mdpackfan22]

Just now, ThatJerkDave said:

Ok, let's take this to the extreme.  What kind of pick was Calvin Johnson? 

It isn't meant to criticize your assessment of Howie's picks What I was looking for was an objective criteria for "good, bad, bust" rankings.  That way we can compare Howie with GM X to see if he is better or worse using the same standard.

Calvin Johnson was a great pick considering he's a top 3 WR of all time. Devonta Smith was a good pick, not a great pick. Borderline top 20 WR using the 10th overall pick isn't great value, but it's not terrible value. 

[thrILL!]

4 hours ago, skibrett15 said:

is there a reason I can't like any posts?