Random Packer News & Notes

[AlexGreen#20]

48 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I think that's a bit of a fallacy there.  Just because their respective teams don't spend big on WRs doesn't mean that other franchises don't put premium on WRs.

"The good teams don't put a premium on WRs but the bad teams do" (2/3) isn't the argument I would be going with here.

[AlexGreen#20]

41 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

That seems like an arbitrary cutoff to me, although I'd love to hear your reasoning behind it.  The only positions that have seen multiple picks taken inside the top 3 since 2015 are QB (13), DL (2), and EDGE (5).  Are you going to argue that RB is a more valuable position then WR simply because Saquon Barkley went #2 overall in 2018?

That's a fairly compelling argument

[CWood21]

4 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

"The good teams don't put a premium on WRs but the bad teams do" (2/3) isn't the argument I would be going with here.

Bad teams pick early.  Good teams pick late.  You chose to use the argument that WRs aren't taken in the top 3.  I didn't.  If you want to re-evaluate the picks in the latter third of the draft, what percentage of those picks were used on WRs?

[Shanedorf]

2 hours ago, vegas492 said:

It's kind of looking that way for WR's right now.  Some times will value them for their own reasons, other teams take the best years at decent contract numbers, then move on.  

In many ways, this is what happened with the Packers/Raiders. The Raiders outsourced procurement & development of WR1 to the Packers and then paid a 1st and 2nd for that developed asset.
( ironically enough the 2nd is the exact pick GB used on Davante)

The Raiders had to go this outsourced route because they used pick # 12 on H.Ruggs and Ruggs didn't work out.
Interestingly enough -  the trade package from the Raiders ( 22 + 53 = approx. pick # 12)

Packers used to draft/develop/trade QBs in the Wolf years and no reason GB can't be a WR factory with Rodgers/MLF/Gute running the show.

Positional value is REAL, but things might be changing on the economics side as far as trades.

The premise behind positional value is that with limited resources, you have to prioritize some positions over others.
But right now, the owners are drunk and flush with future gambling/streaming billions and some of them aren't operating as if cash is a limited resource. That was the main thing holding teams back from trading picks for high end players- that you'd give up draft capital AND still have to pay them- which negates the inherent value of draft picks ( cheap labor)

We'll see what happens going forward->
Rams GM walking around in a T-shirt that says " Eff them picks" and everybody laughs and nods in agreement
But what he actually is saying is " Eff them uncertain, unproven rookies"   He still needs picks to trade

IF the money rolling into the league is huge enough, then the calculus around trading picks for proven guys might look different for awhile. Cheap labor might become a little less valuable IF the cap growth is as huge as predicted.

As far as WRs go - the supply is immense and growing and there's no need to spend a top 15 pick on one.
The Planet Theory is still in play, regardless of any economic shifts

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

That's a fairly compelling argument

Is anyone arguing that WRS is as valuable as QBs?  I don't even think Skypilot would argue that.  Hell, I don't even think anyone would argue that WRs are as valuable as EDGE?  But I think there are teams out there that see WR on that Tier 3 (Safety, DL, etc.) of needs.  While I think there are other franchises that view it as a Tier 4 need (IOL, off-ball LB, etc.).  I think it largely depends on the coaching scheme and the FO.  I'd say the Cowboys probably put a bigger premium on WR then Green Bay does.  Are they right?  That's up for you to decide.

[AlexGreen#20]

Just now, CWood21 said:

Bad teams pick early.  Good teams pick late.  You chose to use the argument that WRs aren't taken in the top 3.  I didn't.  If you want to re-evaluate the picks in the latter third of the draft, what percentage of those picks were used on WRs?

I have no idea, but even if there were a bunch of picks used on WRs in 12-32, I would argue that's the result of elite prospects at non premium positions.

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I have no idea, but even if there were a bunch of picks used on WRs in 12-32, I would argue that's the result of elite prospects at non premium positions.

And that's probably the case.  But I'd argue that's probably the same with every non-QB, OT, or EDGE position.  And I'd probably lump IDL into that same territory, although there are very few elite IDL prospects come out.  I think for teams, you could easily argue that WR is in that next tier.

[mikemike778]

14 hours ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I think my posts seem to lean toward "don't worry" but I am mostly commenting about taking a WR in the first round.  It very well could be true that the best player is a WR.  I absolutely agree with the bolded.  I am just saying that don't panic if "pick your flavor WR" is available at 22 and we pass, and said player goes before 28.  The draft isn't over on day 1.  We have 5 top 100 picks, and 11 picks overall.   

 

We have done very well with receivers in the 2nd round - if the guys Gutey wants are second rounders that's good with me - in fact if all falls into place, the ideal scenario for me would be to double dip on receivers with our two second rounders and grab a couple of 'premiums' in the first. 

I would be very worried if we don't have at least one receiver drafted by the end of the second though.

Its not a year where we should try and get away with throwing three late round picks on project receivers. Its the raw projects that don't work well with Rodgers who isn't going to trust them.

 

[Toddfather]

2 hours ago, vegas492 said:

Not disputing your take.

Am asking this....if Carr wasn't the QB for Raiders, do they trade for 'Vante?  

Anyone thinking Hill make Miami a contender? 

This has been a very curious off-season.

@Outpost31 has opined a few times that teams should draft a QB high, get the most out of him on that contract, then trade the QB before paying franchise money.  Get the picks, start over.

It's kind of looking that way for WR's right now.  Some times will value them for their own reasons, other teams take the best years at decent contract numbers, then move on.  

I feel that the NFL would love the WR to go the way of the RB.. Only issue I can see is the development factor of a lot of them. Still I think you're right. Get maybe two contracts and let them walk. Always keep the room filled with young guys to develop.

[Leader]

8 minutes ago, Toddfather said:

Always keep the room filled with young guys to develop.

This ^

The Packers cant let the position die on the vine the way they did. If not every year - every other year - they need to prime the pump with new talent (and I dont mean bottom dwelling talent / draft picks) - so - when/if WR1 hits the stratospheric levels contracts-wise, they have the option to do the tag/trade procedure and not miss a beat (so to speak....) production-wise.

Having more than one really good WR on the team at a time can be a good thing.

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, Sandy said:

That's a good point, or at least a really interesting rabbit hole to dive into. It's not surprising that teams with elite WRs on rookie contracts have found playoff success recently, highlighted by Kupp and Chase but also Godwin, Hill, and Deebo just off the top of my head.

Perhaps it might not be so much QB or WR as it is all premium positions. If a SB team needs a top QB, WR1, LT, Edge1, NT and CB1 (all the premium positions by my opinion), then I'd imagine some of them have to be on rookie deals in order to have the rest of the roster be good enough to actually contend.

The WR position and this off-season is very interesting.

And unique.  I wouldn't call it a change of philosophy just yet.  

Both Hill and Adams were great values on their contracts, and they were coming to an end.  With the guys nearing 30.  Both wanted top market values, and why shouldn't they.  They both are established at top tier at their position.

GB obviously tried to give Adams the contract he wanted, he just wanted out and to play with his best friend.  That is not going to happen many times over.

Hill?  I think KC is now in the position where Mahomes costs real money.  So it's time for him to "make" a receiver great.

Can't blame either team for what happened.  

But I think the next year or two will tell us a lot about how the other front offices view WR's.  You've got what, Metcalf and McLaurin coming off of rookie deals with a lot of other good ones (AJ Brown) set to see what the market holds for them too.

It's just interesting to watch.  A

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

WRs are dependent on their QB.  QBs aren't dependent on their WRs.  You pay QBs.

I know what you are driving at.

But...Tua?  Hill?  They absolutely are hoping that the WR can make that QB, not vice versa.

Some front offices are going to operate, uh, differently, and I'd argue, maybe not for the better.

[vegas492]

41 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

 

As far as WRs go - the supply is immense and growing and there's no need to spend a top 15 pick on one.
The Planet Theory is still in play, regardless of any economic shifts

First off, great total post.  Thank you.

Second.  The above statement is truly how I feel.  Planet Theory is still in full effect.

[CWood21]

5 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

I know what you are driving at.

But...Tua?  Hill?  They absolutely are hoping that the WR can make that QB, not vice versa.

Some front offices are going to operate, uh, differently, and I'd argue, maybe not for the better.

Do they make that trade if Ryan Fitzpatrick is their QB, yes or no?  They're grabbing Hill to make sure Tua succeeds.

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

Do they make that trade if Ryan Fitzpatrick is their QB, yes or no?  They're grabbing Hill to make sure Tua succeeds.

To answer your question, I don't know.  Tua is their QB.  Not Fitz.  Guess I feel like they make that trade if Fitz is there to more or less put their passing game over the top.  

And with Tua?  Sounds like you feel like I do.  They are grabbing Hill to try to make sure that Tua succeeds.