2018 NFL Draft Discussion

[spilltray]

Versatility at DB, DL, LB, OL, plus even FBs like Kuhn and Rip that can play RB or TEs that can flex or move into the backfield, guys that can do more than one pure position are valuable at every position on the roster. Of course there is ALWAYS value in a guy who in a pinch can cover more than one role.

 

The important part is the role they actually end up filling on a daily basis.

[MacReady]

Just now, spilltray said:

Versatility at DB, DL, LB, OL, plus even FBs like Kuhn and Rip that can play RB or TEs that can flex or move into the backfield, guys that can do more than one pure position are valuable at every position on the roster. Of course there is ALWAYS value in a guy who in a pinch can cover more than one role.

Yes, but as I've proven through 13 years of repeated patterns and trends seen with this staff, we draft DB/DL, RB and even TE more frequently in the first three rounds than interior linemen. 

I will literally bet anyone that wants to bet on it.  We won't take a pure interior offensive linemen in the first three rounds of this draft.  Can anybody look at the history of our drafting and be as confident in that bet with any other positions other than kicker, punter or fullback? 

This whole argument started based on first three rounds, which I said in my first post on the subject.  So let's take a quick look:

42 picks (rounds 1-3):
WR - 7
DL - 7
S - 5
CB - 5
EDGE - 4
OT - 4
RB - 3
LB - 2
TE - 2
QB - 2
IOL - 1

I'm not counting Colledge because he started two games at tackle in his fourth year and probably more before that (all I could find for sure was that he definitely started at least two games at tackle in his fourth year for us). 

When you consider that all 7 of our receiver picks in the first three rounds have come in the 2nd or third round, that we've spent multiple firsts on DL, a first on S, a first on CB, two firsts on EDGE, two firsts on OT, a first on LB, a first on QB and only a third on IOL, I don't know how you can continue to deny that it's not a coincidence, and that we put positional value into consideration while drafting, and that we consider IOL to be not very valuable. 

[CWood21]

16 hours ago, spilltray said:

Daryn Colledge was a 2nd round pick and Jason Spitz was a 3rd. Spitz was a C/G prospect but they intended to play Colledge inside from day 1.

 

Just because they played OT in colledge doesn't mean they are OT prospects for the NFL. Sitton and Lang were both going to be G from day one also.

Daryn Colledge was drafted as a future LT, but need forced him inside to guard.  And he settled in there.

[CWood21]

14 hours ago, spilltray said:

They like versatile guys sure, but when you only keep 8-9 OL on the roster and less than that game day active, that's just always a major plus for NFL OL. I'm saying regardless of what their college position was, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Packers draft a guy to clearly be their G as high as the second.

8 is usually the magic number when it comes to OL, maybe 9 if you have someone you really like as a developmental type.  10 is unheard of, and as we saw with Don Barclay it was a matter of putting him on IR.

[CWood21]

13 hours ago, squire12 said:

what were the picks between Collins and HaHa?

THe likes of MD Jennings and McMillan were starting CB's for GB.   There was a time when the safety position had not been given much draft investment.  It has certainly changed in the last few years as the NFL game is evolving, from a decade ago.  

I think looking at the timeline is important distinction to make here.  Nick Collins hurt himself in September of 2011, and he was released in April before the 2012 draft.  I'm not sure if you remember much from that draft, but the 2012 draft was considered a very weak draft for safeties.  The Packers drafted Jerron McMillian in the 4th round, but the level of competition was too much to overcome.  And then in 2013, you had a LOT of safeties that went off the board shortly after the picks with significant coverage issues.  How many of them are making the Packers regret passing on them?

[spilltray]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

8 is usually the magic number when it comes to OL, maybe 9 if you have someone you really like as a developmental type.  10 is unheard of, and as we saw with Don Barclay it was a matter of putting him on IR.

Of course, it makes sense with the 53 man regular season roster and 45 man active gameday rosters, but those inherent limitations make flexibility a necessity, especially at OL.

[CWood21]

13 hours ago, squire12 said:

So is that where they were ranked on GB's draft board?  you have inside information that GB had them all in the same range. 

That's not even close to what he was implying, and I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

[PackyAttacky]

6 hours ago, CWood21 said:

8 is usually the magic number when it comes to OL, maybe 9 if you have someone you really like as a developmental type.  10 is unheard of, and as we saw with Don Barclay it was a matter of putting him on IR.

Most teams keep 9 right? I think next year we keep 9 again, because I view pretty much the same 3 starters resigning one year deals or something like that, and then we ddraft the back-ups, maybe keep Barclay as our future center until the draft happens.

[Packerraymond]

7 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Daryn Colledge was drafted as a future LT, but need forced him inside to guard.  And he settled in there.

Clifton was what 29 when Colledge was drafted? Pretty sure Colledge was a guard prospect from the start. They tried to make him a backup at LT for awhile and he wasnt very good there. 

When it comes to interior OL, I usually wouldn't be a fan of taking one high, but with the window we have, conventional roster building gets bumped a bit for young, affordable guys who can see the field ASAP.  EDGE is the only need I see as greater than interior OL on this roster.

[PackyAttacky]

I think based on how bad they wanted to keep Lang this off season and how thin we are at depth, AND all of the starters having contracts up, I think this year, despite what history says they take one interior guy in the early rounds. Heck we might need a brand new guy to start depending on what happens.

[MacReady]

26 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Clifton was what 29 when Colledge was drafted? Pretty sure Colledge was a guard prospect from the start. They tried to make him a backup at LT for awhile and he wasnt very good there.

Not actually true when you consider Clifton was heading into a season he was going to play at 30.  Yeah, Colledge was drafted when Clifton was 29, but he turned 30 about two months later.  Also, was drafting Colledge when Clifton/Tauscher were 28/29 (entering season at 29/30) any different at all from when we drafted Spriggs when we have Bulaga/Bakhtiari?  No.

And most importantly, Colledge wasn't a guard prospect from the start.  I don't care what anybody says on this matter because it's not true.  He openly stated that he wanted a clearer answer on his position on the offensive line when he was heading into his final season.  You don't do that if you were drafted as a guard prospect, you don't do that if you weren't drafted at LEAST for your maneuverability and versatility.  Otherwise, why did he make several starts for us at tackle? 

Saying Colledge was drafted to be a pure guard is like saying Jones was drafted to be a pure ILB or a pure Safety.  It's not true. 

[CWood21]

3 hours ago, PackyAttacky said:

Most teams keep 9 right? I think next year we keep 9 again, because I view pretty much the same 3 starters resigning one year deals or something like that, and then we ddraft the back-ups, maybe keep Barclay as our future center until the draft happens.

8/9 is usually the number most go with.  On any active gameday, you're probably suiting up 7 at most.  You've got your 5 starters, a swing tackle, and then an IOL.  That's where I'm confused.  You'd think that Kyle Murphy is one of the 46 best players, but neither him nor Spriggs have C experience from what I can recall.  So the Packers are either going to go into the game without a C on the bench, or they're going to have one of Spriggs or Murphy as a healthy scratch.  My guess is the latter.

[CWood21]

2 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

Clifton was what 29 when Colledge was drafted? Pretty sure Colledge was a guard prospect from the start. They tried to make him a backup at LT for awhile and he wasnt very good there. 

When it comes to interior OL, I usually wouldn't be a fan of taking one high, but with the window we have, conventional roster building gets bumped a bit for young, affordable guys who can see the field ASAP.  EDGE is the only need I see as greater than interior OL on this roster.

Even if you thought that Chad Clifton had several years of high play left, he was still drafted an OT at Boise State.  Need pushed him inside, but even if you want to credit him as an IOL that's two OL taken in the first three rounds since he's been here.  And both of those players were taken in the 2006 draft.  That's enough to give us a pretty good idea that it's not a huge positional value for Ted Thompson.

[Packerraymond]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

Even if you thought that Chad Clifton had several years of high play left, he was still drafted an OT at Boise State.  Need pushed him inside, but even if you want to credit him as an IOL that's two OL taken in the first three rounds since he's been here.  And both of those players were taken in the 2006 draft.  That's enough to give us a pretty good idea that it's not a huge positional value for Ted Thompson.

I think this offseason shows that our FO has acknowledged the window that exists. I'm not taking anything Ted did prior with as much certainty anymore. As Rodgers ages he'll be less mobile, and he'll be more fragile. I'm not saying he's taking a guard with our 1st pick, but him realizing the importance of keeping a top line as Aaron ages and taking one early would no longer surprise me. 

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I think this offseason shows that our FO has acknowledged the window that exists. I'm not taking anything Ted did prior with as much certainty anymore. As Rodgers ages he'll be less mobile, and he'll be more fragile. I'm not saying he's taking a guard with our 1st pick, but him realizing the importance of keeping a top line as Aaron ages and taking one early would no longer surprise me. 

I'd be leery about making that jump in conclusion.  I've stated multiple times that this offseason has been the perfect storm in terms of FA signings.  Look at the list of guys we've signed, the only ones who count towards the compensatory pick selections are Martellus Bennett and Jahri Evans.  And given the low AAV that Evans get, his cancellation doesn't affect the Packers outside of cancelling out Julius Peppers, whom the Packers weren't going to receive a compensatory pick for.  And then you look into the number of years the players got on their contract, again outside of Martellus Bennett and Lance Kendricks we're talking about 1 year deals.

If protecting Aaron Rodgers at all cost was that important, we would have seen more than 1 OL taken and probably before the 6th round in the last draft.  I don't know why there'd be some sort of philosophical change from the end of the draft and now.