2024 Packers Draft Immediate Thoughts

[R T]

8 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

This draft GB had some significant deviations from the "consensus board".  Some would call them reaches.

Historically in the aggregate this has shown to not be a good thing, but individual picks can always swing it in a different direction.

 

Hopper especially was a big reach for the round he was drafted.  Now that was also somewhat true of jayden reed, but that was only by about 1 round.  Hopper was about 2 rounds.  To me this was bad process by the packers - even if they had him high on the board, it's very unlikely that other teams ALL had him this high and there's a very good chance they could have gotten him a round later.

 

3rd round REALLY seems to be the time when coaches get to make their picks - and 3rd round is often our worst picks by far in the draft.  Organizationally we need to stop handing out these favors to coaches who are clearly flawed when it comes to player evaluation.

You assumed a lot of **** there. 

[Arthur Penske]

Immediate thoughts? I gotone word.

New Orleans, Louisiana, super bowl baby

[skibrett15]

1 minute ago, R T said:

You assumed a lot of **** there. 

with which parts do you disagree?  The coaches getting their say in the 3rd round?  That's based on a few draft picks like Deguara, Amari Rodgers

If you accept that the consensus board while of course imperfect, outperforms when stacked against all individual teams' draft board (it has), then you should be graded somewhat harshly for reaching on a player by a full 2 rounds vs the consensus board.  It's more likely (but not a certainty) that you are wrong for reaching than the "crowd" is for having them ranked low.  Even if there's another team that wants that guy and he doesn't fall another round, the guys who usually DO fall are the ones who rank low on the consensus board.

[incognito_man]

3 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

outperforms when stacked against all individual teams' draft board (it has)

citation?

[skibrett15]

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

citation?

https://overthecap.com/looking-at-past-results-of-the-consensus-draft-board

[incognito_man]

2 hours ago, MuFF said:

I seem to be about the lowest on this draft from what I've read. The positional value just wasn't there rounds 2-4, especially considering the number of picks made in those rounds. I'm sure most here are familiar with these positional value debates, so I'm not going to regurgitate that. However, I do want to remind and caution fans that this feels like we are re-making a lot of the same team building mistakes made in very recent years. 

 

The comments I see about Quay/Cooper being a game-changing duo, etc. are just way to similar to the expectation Gutekunst made when drafting Quay, that Campbell/Quay would be able to "fundamentally change the way we play defense". Similarly, our big FA safety (Amos) and highly drafted S (Savage) were supposed to solve our safety woes for years. A few years later we are still searching for any sort of productivity from those positions, and haven't been able to get out of the bottom 5-8 overall defensively. I am not suggesting neglecting these positions, but the league (and the Packers) not done a good job of identifying talent at these positions when drafting them early. 

 

With the RBs, I just don't understand the Packers desire to invest heavily in two RBs. If you're investing 12+ million in a RB, you shouldn't need to invest heavily in a RB2 in order to get productivity out of the position. You also limit your ability to find one of these hidden gem RBs that are out there. I'm old enough to remember the Packers thinking they had a great "two-headed monster" with Dilllon and Jones, and that these running backs (!) could carry their offense in 22. Dillon never proved to be more than an irrelevant player, and we hung on to him simply because of where he is drafted.

I'm hoping for the best for this class, and this class will definitely get a lot of rookie snaps, which is exciting. IMO this class will largely be make-or-break based on the success of Morgan. 

ILBs, S and RBs are certainly lower value positions. However, when you have long-term starters locked up at the valuable spots (QB, 1 OT, WR, EDGE, 1 CB) and use your most premium pick at OT, there is value in adding talent to the 'less valuable' positions.

This draft value happened to meet our needs - which are primarily at the lesser valued spots (because we've kinda crushed the premiums lately).

So what's more valuable? EDGE4 vs starting S or ILB or RB2? There are a LOT more snaps up for grabs at the positions we targeted early. Also RB2 is essentially a 2nd starter in a 20 game season. I don't understand why everyone wasn't collectively onboard upgrading that position. RB2 was one of our biggest needs heading into the draft. It was a no-brainer we were going to take one in the mids (where the value was in this class). We very well may have gotten our #1 RB (in addition to the #1 ILB and probably #1 safety on our board).

That's a pretty incredible haul IMO. 

[incognito_man]

5 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

https://overthecap.com/looking-at-past-results-of-the-consensus-draft-board

oh, but not broken down by team/GM

I think that's the important part

[skibrett15]

3 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

oh, but not broken down by team/GM

I think that's the important part

I guess.  it's still an early project but my reasoning is that all things being equal, any GM should be leery about deviating too much from the consensus board.  Not only because it hasn't worked out for the NFL on average, but also because the more you deviate the more likely it is that the player you were going to draft is going to be there at your next pick anyway.

[incognito_man]

Just now, skibrett15 said:

I guess.  it's still an early project but my reasoning is that all things being equal, any GM should be leery about deviating too much from the consensus board.  Not only because it hasn't worked out for the NFL on average, but also because the more you deviate the more likely it is that the player you were going to draft is going to be there at your next pick anyway.

not sure I agree w/ the latter. It just takes one (other) team and you could lose your guy. It doesn't require "all" or "most" or even "some". I typically am a fan of the group consensus type of analysis - but in this case the group that determines the 'consensus' is missing a LOT of important data. So it's mostly useless. That it most of the time is close on a lot of players is illustrative of only the prospects where public knowledge accounts for most knowledge. In the cases that that isn't true, it's worthless. And there are definitely enough of those.

It's not surprising at all to me that the results are 50/50 in that link. 50% of the slots (through pick 207), the actual player was 'better'. 50% they were 'worse'.

Which looks like "50% of the time, non-public information helped the team make a better decision and 50% of the time it did not"

[spilltray]

5 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

I guess.  it's still an early project but my reasoning is that all things being equal, any GM should be leery about deviating too much from the consensus board.  Not only because it hasn't worked out for the NFL on average, but also because the more you deviate the more likely it is that the player you were going to draft is going to be there at your next pick anyway.

That is so bass ackwards. The teams know more, especially when it comes to interviews and medicals, talking to their coaches, skeletons in the closets, ect than all of these guys doing "consensus" boards. Some are going to guess right, some are going to guess wrong. This lumps in the bad drafting teams who probably would be better off with letting random fans draft with the ones who actually know their job.

[vegas492]

Just now, incognito_man said:

not sure I agree w/ the latter. It just takes one (other) team and you could lose your guy. It doesn't require "all" or "most" or even "some". I typically am a fan of the group consensus type of analysis - but in this case the group that determines the 'consensus' is missing a LOT of important data. So it's mostly useless. That it most of the time is close on a lot of players is illustrative of only the prospects where public knowledge accounts for most knowledge. In the cases that that isn't true, it's worthless. And there are definitely enough of those.

It's not surprising at all to me that the results are 50/50 in that link. 50% of the slots (through pick 207), the actual player was 'better'. 50% they were 'worse'.

Which looks like "50% of the time, non-public information helped the team make a better decision and 50% of the time it did not"

Yeah, I'm with on that one (bolded).  If you like a kid but he's a reach at where you pick, but almost surely gone when you will pick next, just go take the kid that you really like.  Especially in those mid to end rounds.

[skibrett15]

10 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

not sure I agree w/ the latter. It just takes one (other) team and you could lose your guy. It doesn't require "all" or "most" or even "some". I typically am a fan of the group consensus type of analysis - but in this case the group that determines the 'consensus' is missing a LOT of important data. So it's mostly useless. That it most of the time is close on a lot of players is illustrative of only the prospects where public knowledge accounts for most knowledge. In the cases that that isn't true, it's worthless. And there are definitely enough of those.

It's not surprising at all to me that the results are 50/50 in that link. 50% of the slots (through pick 207), the actual player was 'better'. 50% they were 'worse'.

Which looks like "50% of the time, non-public information helped the team make a better decision and 50% of the time it did not"

even if you lose your guy it could be a blessing in disguise though.  either because the player you are "forced" to take is amazing, or the player you were gonna take too early actually was terrible.

 

I feel like on average drafting above the curve helps always.  And the packers (usually) outperform the other boards.

But that still doesn't mean they need to pull the trigger immediately when the guy at the top of their board deviates so substantially from the consensus board.

[HighCalebR]

My top 3 set for success:

Bullard-Morgan-Monk

Top 3 boom or bust:

Cooper-King-Lloyd

[Leader]

5 minutes ago, HighCalebR said:

My top 3 set for success:

Bullard-Morgan-Monk

Top 3 boom or bust:

Cooper-King-Lloyd

I've got a good feeling about King. Not that he's gonna turn out to be ProBowl material, but he apparently had a stellar 2022 and by all accounts (including his) sucked in 2023. Okay...fine. What with our new DC (his DB background), our new coaching staff...and the player's "I've got a lot to prove" attitude...I'm thinking he's gonna wind up contributing for us sooner rather than later. More likely based on elevation by injury...but I'm hopeful he's gonna hold his own.

[packfanfb]

14 minutes ago, HighCalebR said:

My top 3 set for success:

Bullard-Morgan-Monk

Top 3 boom or bust:

Cooper-King-Lloyd

Kind of struggling to understand how the consensus board was so low on Monk. I just see a very sound player there, especially in terms of football IQ and technique. I get that he's not 6'5" with a muscled-out frame but he's been holding it down for five years and just gets it done. Seems like one of the safest Day 3 picks in this draft.