2024 Packers Draft Immediate Thoughts

[TransientTexan]

3 hours ago, skibrett15 said:

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.

What does this even mean though? All it takes is 1 other team to spoil that, even if 30 others would have waited. Teams make their boards for a reason. If you have him as a round 3 player & he’s your best-available when the time comes, you’re going to take him. 

[DenverPackFan]

The consensus draft board reminds me of the old saying:

"None of us is as stupid as all of us."

[skibrett15]

5 minutes ago, Uffdaswede said:

@skibrett15

That was a good read.

Interesting that it would only take one team to miss their assessment and select a player earlier than consensus advised. 

 

Yet multiple teams are signing off on a draft day drop. Aaron Rodgers says hi. 

Basically you have to throw QB out of these evaluations because no team is gonna pay that much money for a QB who "will never play"

Once Rodgers made it out of the top 10 there were very few teams in position to grab him, even with a trade-up because they had either already drafted a QB (9ers) or mistakenly thought that Rodgers wouldn't be a significant upgrade at the position.

Teams like KC really corrected this in future drafts by trading up into slots to grab falling QBs like Mahomes.

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, skibrett15 said:

@incognito_man

https://unexpectedpoints.substack.com/p/instant-draft-grades-are-mostly-bad?r=p4xk0&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

HOLY MOLY this is a great read.

 

Cliff's Notes:

 

 

Reading through this now and this paragraph stuck out me as a meaningful truth about all of this:

Beyond the empirical evidence, there’s logic to back the idea that steals aren’t a thing but reaches could be. In order to lose value reaching on a player, only one team has to have a bad assessment. The decision to reach and draft the player is entirely within one team’s control. For steals, it’s a combination of multiple team opinions

[Uffdaswede]

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Reading through this now and this paragraph stuck out me as a meaningful truth about all of this:

Beyond the empirical evidence, there’s logic to back the idea that steals aren’t a thing but reaches could be. In order to lose value reaching on a player, only one team has to have a bad assessment. The decision to reach and draft the player is entirely within one team’s control. For steals, it’s a combination of multiple team opinions

Yeah I thought I was on solid ground with the simplistic approach of players are worth what the draft says they’re worth. Then I read the idea that you just quoted and it made me re-consider the idea that calling a player a “reach” may in fact have some statistical merit.

Some, anyway. It’s not just a matter of yelling “reach” loudly. 

[Mazrimiv]

2 minutes ago, Uffdaswede said:

Yeah I thought I was on solid ground with the simplistic approach of players are worth what the draft says they’re worth. Then I read the idea that you just quoted and it made me re-consider the idea that calling a player a “reach” may in fact have some statistical merit.

Some, anyway. It’s not just a matter of yelling “reach” loudly. 

How do we determine that the team doing the "reaching" was an outlier in their evaluation among the other 31 teams?

[incognito_man]

35 minutes ago, DenverPackFan said:

The consensus draft board reminds me of the old saying:

"None of us is as stupid as all of us."

It's actually the opposite in reality though.

It's like the "guess the number of gumballs!" challenge where, if you take the average of everyone's guess, you're going to be damn close to the right answer. There's a LOT of merit behind a 'consensus' board for a number of reasons - many of them discussed adeptly by the author in the link @skibrett15 posted.

We shouldn't dismiss the data just because we think it shouldn't be right. Data pretty clearly shows the consensus big board is, at worst, an average NFL GM.

[spilltray]

My problem with consensus boards centers on the fact that yes everyone is guessing, but the consensus board is made by people who have less information than the teams have. Lumping I. Dysfunctional teams with GMs who are constantly on the hot seat with stable franchises who do a good job at evaluation is comparing apples to motor oil.

[incognito_man]

5 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

How do we determine that the team doing the "reaching" was an outlier in their evaluation among the other 31 teams?

this is the crux right here

but one key piece of logic I pulled from that article was the point that "unknown (to the public) data is most often negative". So the operating assumption is that the media consensus should match the league consensus except in the case of negative information creating a 'steal'.

and I'm open to that being a pretty accurate bit of logic

[Mazrimiv]

As for GB's draft, probably my only real complaint was sitting at 91 and taking Hopper.  After the RD2 trade down, I was expecting Gute to move up into the 75-80 range and maybe grab another OL.

[Mazrimiv]

Just now, incognito_man said:

this is the crux right here

but one key piece of logic I pulled from that article was the point that "unknown (to the public) data is most often negative". So the operating assumption is that the media consensus should match the league consensus except in the case of negative information creating a 'steal'.

and I'm open to that being a pretty accurate bit of logic

At the very least, the logic is certainly convenient. 

[Kampfgeist]

8 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

As for GB's draft, probably my only real complaint was sitting at 91 and taking Hopper.  After the RD2 trade down, I was expecting Gute to move up into the 75-80 range and maybe grab another OL.

This is the one guy I can't get behind right now.   I keep watching different videos and reading whatever I can, but just not excited.     Not really excited by Glover either but that was 6th rnd.   Top 91 for Hopper though....

I'll be patient with him, hope to see Gute's vision play out over the next couple seasons.     3 yrs from now though...he starts to get the Newman treatment

[Mazrimiv]

Need to start putting the highest remaining consensus pick by round into the "smarter than Gute" thread.  I'm actually interested in how that would play out.  I've heard many times that beating the consensus board is not an easy thing to do.  Generally speaking, I believe that it's probably true.

[skibrett15]

16 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

As for GB's draft, probably my only real complaint was sitting at 91 and taking Hopper.  After the RD2 trade down, I was expecting Gute to move up into the 75-80 range and maybe grab another OL.

same for me.  It's hard to quibble too much with 5th/6th/7th rounders or picks at positions of need.

In an ideal world you never draft a S and only spend FA money on a position that's relatively cheap.  But in the real world that's not gonna happen for a variety of reasons.  And the packers already did spend at the S position.

 

I also would have loved a luxury pick at WR in what seems like a historically strong WR class.  Something in the 3rd/4th round.

[Packerraymond]

1 hour ago, spilltray said:

But a player being a "hit" or "mis" has as much to do with how they fit in the scheme and on the roster they land in. A 5th round zone blocking OL who lands on a power run team with good depth is going to have a huge disadvantage vs if they had landed on a team that ran a zone scheme and needed players OL to step in and compete.

That's for the GM to decipher, the consensus board just ranks them as a player, regardless of scheme.