2024 Packers Draft Immediate Thoughts

[Billy86]

1 hour ago, spilltray said:

The problem with this is it can't account for fit. That is a bigger deal than most people account for. 

This is a big factor in this craft and how we approached it IMO. I think people were occasionally too harsh on Joe Barry (though was happy to see him replaced), but one of the most accurate criticisms I read of him was that he seemed to essentially be calling a series of plays with some players on the field, rather than having a concerted gameplan and sense of identity which would allow him to plan a few plays or even drives ahead, essentially to impose his will on the opposition rather than simply trying to stop them from resetting the chains in the immediate future. 

I don't get to see much college football at all, but from what I have read and heard fi Hadley, he is the polar opposite (much like MLF and the Shanahan tree in general are on offense). He apparently knows exactly who he wants doing what, when and where. It was very clear we went for hair-on-fire levels of aggression with almost every defensive pick and want to build a proper identity to this defense rather than just field a unit that allows less points than NFL, Love and Co put up on the other side of the ball. 

Some will fail, some will hopefully succeed, but with such a big change over in system it was really important to get guys that fit it and not have (m)any square pegs in round holes. I'm confident we managed that. 

On the other side of the ball, it's GB... we don't always hit, but much like Baltimore with LBs, we just churn them out. Tonnes of Morgans stuff - good and bad - is screaming "2013 Bakhtiari" to me, while Monk just smells like a classic Packers mid/late round pick (and that deep down the draft, if he even jus replicates Runyans or Nijmans runs here that's still great value). Glover is a slightly stranger one, but it's GB so i like his chances here as much as anyone's taken in the several picks before (or any of the picks after) him at the teams that drafted them. 

The other two picks were maybe the best RB in the draft and a possible late day 2 QB in the 6th in Pratt. Nothing needs to be said there. 

[R T]

1 hour 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

The whole exercise is flawed from step 1. 

[Old Guy]

1 hour 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

It's good to have so many GM's who don't know what they are doing. 

[Uffdaswede]

1 hour ago, Mazrimiv said:

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

I think the answer is either DVOA or math, I forget which one. 
 

If we stipulate that there is such a thing as a reliable meta-analysis of player rankings referred to as a “consensus board” we can only know that a player picked X number of places before their consensus ranking had at least one team with an outlier evaluation or preference. Without actual inside information we cannot know how many teams also over-ranked the consensus #. We hear whispers that Jordan Morgan  was coveted by some of the remaining teams in this year’s first round, though, as I understand it, the “consensus” had him as a 2nd Round talent. Maybe those whispers I made up in my head to assure myself that the Packers did not reach when they selected a left tackle of his size, experience and statistical success—the kind of left tackle that usually goes in the first round. Consensus got left tackle fatigued. I am sure that is why they consensed him to the second round.

[Old Guy]

My other thought after the draft is I can't believe Kenny Clarke wasn't trade for at least 2 FRP's. He was in a mock draft every week getting traded. 

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, R T said:

The whole exercise is flawed from step 1. 

I agree that the consensus board has not accurately predicted every pick since its inception. There are flaws.

[R T]

18 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I agree that the consensus board has not accurately predicted every pick since its inception. There are flaws.

Not my point.

If picks are going to be labeled reaches or steals the true value of the player needs to be determined, that value shouldn't come from a group that includes people just bumping around in the dark. I could give many examples but let's use Payton Wilson as exhibit A. From their viewpoint Wilson is a steal because he ended up 45th on the consensus and was drafted 98th. I think it is safe to say that not a single team had Wilson as high as 45th on their board yet that is the data that will be used to determine him being a steal. Even if he only has one ACL.  

[incognito_man]

25 minutes ago, R T said:

Not my point.

If picks are going to be labeled reaches or steals the true value of the player needs to be determined, that value shouldn't come from a group that includes people just bumping around in the dark. I could give many examples but let's use Payton Wilson as exhibit A. From their viewpoint Wilson is a steal because he ended up 45th on the consensus and was drafted 98th. I think it is safe to say that not a single team had Wilson as high as 45th on their board yet that is the data that will be used to determine him being a steal. Even if he only has one ACL.  

It sounds like you didn't even read the linked article from @skibrett15?

I think the general consensus agrees that "steals" aren't steals for exactly these reasons. 

[MantyWrestler]

10 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

It sounds like you didn't even read the linked article from @skibrett15?

I think the general consensus agrees that "steals" aren't steals for exactly these reasons. 

The real issue is that the “consensus board” is an illusion. The board we use or see from the talking heads is irrelevant. The true consensus board is that of the 32 GM’s. Show me their boards and then we’ll talk.

If Peyton Wilson wasn’t higher than 98 on any teams draft boards, the 45th pick means nothing. 

Edited April 30 by MantyWrestler

[incognito_man]

Just now, MantyWrestler said:

The real issue is that the “consensus board” is an illusion. The board we use or see crime the talking heads is irrelevant. The true consensus board is that of the 32 GM’s. Show me their boards and then we’ll talk.

If Peyton Wilson wasn’t higher than 98 on any teams draft boards, the 45th pick means nothing. 

The "consensus" board is known to be the media consensus. It's not an issue. It just is what it is. 

And the media consensus board has proven recently to be an average NFL GM.

That's the interesting point here. Why is a media consensus big board just as good as more than 50% of NFL GMs?

[spilltray]

4 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

The "consensus" board is known to be the media consensus. It's not an issue. It just is what it is. 

And the media consensus board has proven recently to be an average NFL GM.

That's the interesting point here. Why is a media consensus big board just as good as more than 50% of NFL GMs?

An average NFL GM though is going to keep you in purgatory where stars would have to align and the seas part to have a hope of a championship, but you aren't bad enough to get any top picks either, so a good GM would have to trust his own board more than the consensus and take those shots.

[incognito_man]

3 minutes ago, spilltray said:

An average NFL GM though is going to keep you in purgatory where stars would have to align and the seas part to have a hope of a championship, but you aren't bad enough to get any top picks either, so a good GM would have to trust his own board more than the consensus and take those shots.

Plus the draft is one part of being a GM. An important one, of course. I'm not trying to argue being a GM is "easy". There are a lot of factors that go into that job. 

BUT I do think that crowd-sourcing a draft would probably result in an NFL average haul. And if there is a focus on maximizing draft capital irrespective of any particular prospect available, I suspect crowd-sourcing sequential drafts would probably result in an above-average roster.

[Packerraymond]

7 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

The "consensus" board is known to be the media consensus. It's not an issue. It just is what it is. 

And the media consensus board has proven recently to be an average NFL GM.

That's the interesting point here. Why is a media consensus big board just as good as more than 50% of NFL GMs?

Maybe, just maybe, someone who dedicates large portions of their free time to a job/hobby to evaluate football players for content can identify traits that make good football players on tape. You know what separates 1997 Brian Gutekunst from a lot of the media/content creators out there scouting for the draft? It was 1997, and no one gave a **** about the draft, so when he expressed interest in an internship, there was less competition. He was a mediocre HS player, turned college athlete at a D3 state school, injured, turned college coach & recruiter, turned NFL intern. John Schneider ? Same exact route in 1992. You know how many thousands of college athletes try to follow that route today in football, basketball, baseball, hockey, etc... Most spots now in FO's are taken by former NFL players, so that 90s route is all but closed, difference now being, there's a whole world of digital content you can create and use to take a different route to your dream career. 

I thought the article was a fantastic read, really solidifies what I've pounded the table for here, draft media is better now than it ever has been. We don't have access to interviews and medicals, but there's no more "Ernest Shazor" situations anymore either. AD Mitchell falls last weekend? Well the interview was reportedly bad, I would imagine he's off teams boards. Payton Wilson? Bet most teams flunked his medical. In 2009 every post would be OMG WE TOOK "X" OVER PAYTON WILSON." Doesn't happen anymore, he gets picked late whenever and most people say "I was high on the tape, but I can understand he probably flunked a lot of medical checks." 

The consensus board is totally a valuable tool, and while it doesn't directly affect any player we took, it shows us that there's an "X" % chance guys like Hopper, Williams and Monk end up as flops and there's an "X" % chance they buck the trend and go the other way. Just like Jayden Reed is bucking the reach box while Zach Tom and Carrington Valentine look to be actual steals. 

[incognito_man]

6 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Maybe, just maybe, someone who dedicates large portions of their free time to a job/hobby to evaluate football players for content can identify traits that make good football players on tape. You know what separates 1997 Brian Gutekunst from a lot of the media/content creators out there scouting for the draft? It was 1997, and no one gave a **** about the draft, so when he expressed interest in an internship, there was less competition. He was a mediocre HS player, turned college athlete at a D3 state school, injured, turned college coach & recruiter, turned NFL intern. John Schneider ? Same exact route in 1992. You know how many thousands of college athletes try to follow that route today in football, basketball, baseball, hockey, etc... Most spots now in FO's are taken by former NFL players, so that 90s route is all but closed, difference now being, there's a whole world of digital content you can create and use to take a different route to your dream career. 

I thought the article was a fantastic read, really solidifies what I've pounded the table for here, draft media is better now than it ever has been. We don't have access to interviews and medicals, but there's no more "Ernest Shazor" situations anymore either. AD Mitchell falls last weekend? Well the interview was reportedly bad, I would imagine he's off teams boards. Payton Wilson? Bet most teams flunked his medical. In 2009 every post would be OMG WE TOOK "X" OVER PAYTON WILSON." Doesn't happen anymore, he gets picked late whenever and most people say "I was high on the tape, but I can understand he probably flunked a lot of medical checks." 

The consensus board is totally a valuable tool, and while it doesn't directly affect any player we took, it shows us that there's an "X" % chance guys like Hopper, Williams and Monk end up as flops and there's an "X" % chance they buck the trend and go the other way. Just like Jayden Reed is bucking the reach box while Zach Tom and Carrington Valentine look to be actual steals. 

It was interesting to me how much Gute focused on the "getting to know the person" part of the process in his post draft presser. Specifically how it's harder now due to transfer portal because prospects don't get to be as well known in one place. You really need to get every edge you can in the process as an org now. And a lot of the football skills and athleticsm is now public knowledge, so you have to employ resources in edge-finding however you can. And that's the "character" part of it to narrow your risk/reward calculations.

[Scoremore]

7 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Plus the draft is one part of being a GM. An important one, of course. I'm not trying to argue being a GM is "easy". There are a lot of factors that go into that job. 

BUT I do think that crowd-sourcing a draft would probably result in an NFL average haul. And if there is a focus on maximizing draft capital irrespective of any particular prospect available, I suspect crowd-sourcing sequential drafts would probably result in an above-average roster.

Interesting debate.  I always felt the more people working on a problem the more likely they will get it right.  NFL draft tho has a lot of varibles such as finding the right players to match scheme, team needs, locker room fit etc.  Don't think you can one size fits all players when it comes to the draft.  That being said massive deviations from consensus usually don't result in positive outcomes. 

Now the whole there isn't such a thing as a steal I don't buy either.  Get the theory but to throw some cold water on it.  Would you call Tom Brady a steal?  Stephon Diggs?  Aaron Jones?  Hell for that matter Brock Purdy?  I guess at the time they were drafted you could say no but with the benefit of hinesight they clearly were.  

I think the consensus board is useful.  However after watching the Packers draft players for years got to respect their scouting staff and the process.  Unearthing guys like Bak, Linsley, Taucher, Driver etc that's not by chance.  This year it's Monk.  We'll see how he does but judging by the consensus board he was a massive massive reach.  The guy becomes our starting Center and a good one well that's good scouting.  We'll look back and say man that Monk was a steal in the 5th.  

In fact Hopper, Williams, and Monk all can be considered "reaches" at the moment.  We'll have to revisit this in a few years to determine whether they are "reaches" or "steals"