2024 Packers Draft Immediate Thoughts

[OneTwoSixFive]

1 hour ago, skibrett15 said:

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.

The consensus board is relatively meaningless. I'm betting a 'consensus' board of all 32 teams big boards would show a big variance. Also you cannot know how the Packers board is stacked. The picks they actually make tell only a part of the story. Part of the evaluation of a player depends on where and how a team wants to use them. You couldn't even say for certain that the Packers take the top guy on their board at each pick.

You only have to listen to two scouts wildly disagreeing on a prospect to realise that this is not clear waters you can see deep into, but a very muddy pool. The idea that it is coaches that get the 3rd round picks, is also based on very thin evidence.

Edited April 29 by OneTwoSixFive

[R T]

2 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

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. 

He can't be any good if he was low on the consensus board, haven't you read, the consensus board is the Holy Grail. The Packers don't know what they are doing when they trade up a guy like this.

[skibrett15]

1 minute ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

The consensus board is relatively meaningless. I'm betting a 'consensus' board of all 32 teams big boards would show a big variance. Also you cannot know how the Packers board is stacked. The picks they actually make tell only a part of the story. Part of the evaluation of a player depends on where and how a team wants to use them. You couldn't even say for certain that the Packers take the top guy on their board at each pick.

You only have to listen to two scouts wildly disagreeing on a prospect to realise that this is not clear waters you can see deep into, but a very muddy pool.

for clarity, the consensus board I'm referring to is Arif Hasan's consensus big board which is compiled from media members.

[ThatJerkDave]

1 hour ago, Old Guy said:

He's going to make 3.2 million a year. We save 3.1 if we cut him.

His special team's reps are not valuable at all. Anybody can play the line on FGs and XPs. Punt block as well. 

What you fail to mention is that when he did play, he was a turnstile. I'll take my chance on a rookie for under a million and save the 2.2 million. You can do a lot better than Newman for 3.2 million. There are a lot of serviceable vets who we can get for that after June 1st cuts are final. 

I think you are letting your distaste for Newman overshadow your roster building process.  He has been mostly below average.  And he could have been even worse, we have seen worse.  His cap hit is a bit high, but it isn't breaking the team, they are well under the cap.  Keep him around, and if someone shows to be better, THEN cut him.  

[skibrett15]

2 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I think you are letting your distaste for Newman overshadow your roster building process.  He has been mostly below average.  And he could have been even worse, we have seen worse.  His cap hit is a bit high, but it isn't breaking the team, they are well under the cap.  Keep him around, and if someone shows to be better, THEN cut him.  

Let's not spend money just because we can though...

Saving 3-4 newmans means you can totally sign another Mckinney.  Saving the money this year means it rolls into next year.

I think they let him battle in camp and if he isn't a clear starter they will move on via trade/release

[Mr. Fussnputz]

Just now, skibrett15 said:

Let's not spend money just because we can though...

Saving 3-4 newmans means you can totally sign another Mckinney.  Saving the money this year means it rolls into next year.

I think they let him battle in camp and if he isn't a clear starter they will move on via trade/release

I have great hope that Donovan Jennings shows enough to take Newman's spot.

[spilltray]

This is just so ridiculous. If a team has a good front office they are better off ignoring any media boards, even a consensus average. 

 

The teams have better information than the media. Their opinion is more informed.

[Old Guy]

4 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I think you are letting your distaste for Newman overshadow your roster building process.  He has been mostly below average.  And he could have been even worse, we have seen worse.  His cap hit is a bit high, but it isn't breaking the team, they are well under the cap.  Keep him around, and if someone shows to be better, THEN cut him.  

If we did this sort of thing over a 10-year period, one player a year, it's over 20 million wasted on garbage. You don't make 2-million-dollar mistakes. They add up. When you look at other players making similar to Newman it's the old Sesame Street song, "one of these things is not like the others!" 

It really should not be a tough decision. If he was making a million dollars, it's a debate. At 3 million, no brainer. 

[thrILL!]

2 hours ago, packfanfb said:

I'm not saying Williams is the next McKinney, but as a safety (much like the OBLB spot), instincts and play speed are so critical. I don't know if Williams will ever be a star in this league, but I think his mind alone will get/keep him on the field. 

Every time I watched Oregon, Williams was always in the mix defensively.  Looking fwd to seeing him play in the preseason. 

[skibrett15]

21 minutes ago, spilltray said:

This is just so ridiculous. If a team has a good front office they are better off ignoring any media boards, even a consensus average. 

 

The teams have better information than the media. Their opinion is more informed.

it's so weird that they aren't better at drafting than the consensus board then.

[skibrett15]

Every time a player who is "drafted early" is discussed by the GM/team and fanbase the refrain is "he was higher on our board, the media has this guy ranked way too low, etc."

Except that's not what the data shows.  Not at all. 

More often than not, and to a greater extent than expected, these overdrafted players are, indeed, actually overdrafted.  Something like 60/40.  Which means there's still a 40% chance it's a good pick for the slot.  Of course there are "reaches" that are not reaches at all.  Jayden Reed is a perfect example.

[Kampfgeist]

41 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I think you are letting your distaste for Newman overshadow your roster building process.  He has been mostly below average.  And he could have been even worse, we have seen worse.  His cap hit is a bit high, but it isn't breaking the team, they are well under the cap.  Keep him around, and if someone shows to be better, THEN cut him.  

I'm down on Newman as much as anyone but not sure what point it would serve to cut him now, prior to training camp and final roster cuts?  Is anyone really suggesting that?

I think Newman does need to noticeably outperform a cheaper rookie to keep his spot at that point and nothing he's done so far makes me believe that won't be the final outcome.   Very least he should get to come to camp and prove he is still on track for an XFL roster spot

[Uffdaswede]

Talking about a draft “consensus” is a fun exercise right up until the draft begins. After that it’s stupid. 
 

A baseball card is worth $10,000 only if a bunch of buyers are lining up. Then it’s obviously worth more! And if no one shows up to buy it it’s worth less. How much less we won’t know until someone eventually buys it—IF someone wants to buy it at all.

A thing is worth what someone will pay you for it. A player’s draft value is determined during the draft by one team and not before the draft by those who aren’t drafting.

Arguing that a player is taken too early is  like Grandpa Simpson yelling at the cloud. It’s newsworthy only because it made the news. 
 

 

[spilltray]

23 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

it's so weird that they aren't better at drafting than the consensus board then.

I'd say Gute has made a clear case he might be. Until Thompson was fading at the end he probably was too.

Teams with bad evaluators are skewing your perceptions. Teams with owners that want the GM to move in a certain direction like the ridiculous stories around the browns and Manzeil, scouts and coaching staffs that don't communicate well and are t looking for the same things, especially because fit matters more than almost anything else...  All these things can't be lumped together with competent front offices and organizations.

[skibrett15]

8 minutes ago, spilltray said:

I'd say Gute has made a clear case he might be. Until Thompson was fading at the end he probably was too.

Teams with bad evaluators are skewing your perceptions. Teams with owners that want the GM to move in a certain direction like the ridiculous stories around the browns and Manzeil, scouts and coaching staffs that don't communicate well and are t looking for the same things, especially because fit matters more than almost anything else...  All these things can't be lumped together with competent front offices and organizations.

yeah I would definitely say gute and co are outperforming the consensus board

But the point I'm trying to make is that they shouldn't be reaching that much above the consensus board because there's a good enough chance that player will be there in the next round.  If they pull that off it's like a free trade up by a full round.

Maybe in the orphan scenario where the player they are "overdrafting" is the last player they have in a specific tier it makes sense.  But I would rather see them take the 2nd guy on their board in the Hopper scenario and see if he isn't there in the next round.