2018 NFL Draft Discussion

[Packerraymond]

1 minute ago, HorizontoZenith said:

I have yet to hear a single argument for how they're a more important position or as important as safety, CB, pass rusher, DL, OL, QB, or RB in today's NFL. 

I'm not against having good receivers, I'm against using the most important draft pick there is in order to get one.  That's literally all I'm against.  People want that generational talent at WR because they think it will make us impossible to stop with Rodgers, but that's simply not true.  Teams will still be able to shut us down.  It happened in 2011 when we had prime Nelson, Jones, Jennings, Driver and Finley.  Unstoppable offenses are easily stoppable in the playoffs when the quality of defense doubles and you can't have one bad week. 

I continue to argue against a first round receiver because we've gotten Murphy, Jennings, Jones, Adams, Nelson, Cobb, Montgomery (check out his game against the Seahawks in his rookie year at WR) all in the second and third rounds. 

 

There are non important positions, K/P/RB/ILB/LS/C/OG and the rest are important. Yes there are some that are more important than others.

If I have a WR I have rated in the middle of my 2nd tier on the board and the next best player is an EDGE I have rated in my 3rd tier, Im not going to take that EDGE player simply because the position is "more" important. If I have them rated one after the next, now we're in a place where I take the EDGE.

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

If I have a WR I have rated in the middle of my 2nd tier on the board and the next best player is an EDGE I have rated in my 3rd tier, Im not going to take that EDGE player simply because the position is "more" important. If I have them rated one after the next, now we're in a place where I take the EDGE.

After the first round that's fine.  After the first 20 picks that's fine.  But... If you're a top 20 team, it means you're a bottom 20 team, and good luck having a receiver help turn your franchise around.  You'll need a lot of it considering Bechkam couldn't turn the Giants around.  2014 was the best draft class since 2011 for receivers, and not one of those  receivers will/has/can turn around their franchises the way Mack, Donald or Lewan could. 

Two of them, and two good ones, have been traded.  One of them is leading the league in boneheaded penalties and diva behavior.  But add it to the list of things that go neglected here.  Because a generational defensive tackle and a generational pass rusher are just, like, you know, that's just a coincidence.  Just like it was a coincidence that the best defensive lineman of all time was taken 11th overall in a draft that saw two receivers go in the top 7.  Because 28/29 times in the past ten years, a clear, no objections, better option was taken in the top 16, but that's just, like, 28/29 coincidences. 

[CWood21]

13 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

True, but there were 3 WRs in the top 9 this year, so the positional value of that spot is far higher than you make it seem league wide.

I'm not sure that's necessarily the case.  Cincinnati who drafted John Ross 9th overall has a history of drafting skill position (RB/WR/TE/CB) early in the draft.  Since 2009, they've drafted ONE non-skill position player in the first round, and that was in Cedric Ogbuehi.  That's 7 of the last 8 drafts that they've taken a skill position in the first round.  As for Tennessee, they've exclusively drafted offensive players since 2011.  You have to go back to 2010 since they last took a defensive player in the first round.  And honestly, I think the Chargers select Mike Williams and Titans selecting Corey Davis had more to do about getting a legitimate weapon for Philip Rivers and Marcus Mariota.  But I think the more telling thing is, look at the average draft spot since 2010.

Tennessee: 10th
Los Angeles: 14th
Cincinnati: 18th

That's the average draft spot for each team since 2010.

[CWood21]

2 hours ago, spilltray said:

The problem with teams drafting WRs high isn't inherent to the position. The problem is a little like QB. Teams think they really need that WR and draft guys like Troy Williamson, Percy Harcvin,  Laquon Treadwell, and Cordarlle Patterson, just using the Vikings as an example. They draft guys with the height/weight/speed that COULD pan out, but obvious red flags like poor hands, sloppy routes, off the field questions, or the ability to digest and function in an NFL offense. I think part of why it looks so bad is that these teams are bad at evaluation in the first place and just see impressive athletic test numbers and want to believe they can make it work.

 

If an actual GOOD WR prospect is there, and the Packers picked him, I'd be willing to trust they are better at their job than most of those picks you are referencing. When Thompson has picked WRs high he's hit, even if they have been 2s and 3s.

But you're making a HUGE assumption that not only will there be an elite-caliber WR available, but that they'd also be a clear grade lean over a player at a more impactful position.  I'd ask you to find one outside of maybe 2015.  You'll be hard pressed to do so.

[MacReady]

All people ever argue when I start arguing against receivers in round one is theory.  I've never seen numbers to suggest it's a good idea to take a receiver in round one.  Ever. 

[CWood21]

21 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

I'm not against having good receivers, I'm against using the most important draft pick there is in order to get one.  That's literally all I'm against.  People want that generational talent at WR because they think it will make us impossible to stop with Rodgers, but that's simply not true.  Teams will still be able to shut us down.  It happened in 2011 when we had prime Nelson, Jones, Jennings, Driver and Finley.  Unstoppable offenses are easily stoppable in the playoffs when the quality of defense doubles and you can't have one bad week. 

I mean, we keep hearing how Aaron Rodgers can make a good receiver look great, but then those same people want to utilize a high draft pick on a less than impact position.  If we're drafting in the first round, WR is pretty far down the board for me.  We've got plenty of production out of 2nd and 3rd round picks.  I'd rather use that first round pick on the defense.

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, HorizontoZenith said:

All people ever argue when I start arguing against receivers in round one is theory.  I've never seen numbers to suggest it's a good idea to take a receiver in round one.  Ever. 

LIS, if there's a clear tier grade lean than maybe you'd go that way.  But we're talking about a perfect storm situation here, and that's not really likely to happen.

[MacReady]

I started going through draft classes a while back to see what teams missed in yardage and touchdowns by waiting for the second or third round.  Probably won't go back to it, but I might since this is looking like a down season.  Basically, I took all the receivers, added up all their career yards/touchdowns, then divided by the number of years they played. 

2010
First round (Bryant, Thomas): Average of 1,023 yards, 8.5 touchdowns per season.
Second round (2 receivers): Average of 915 yards per season, 3.5 touchdowns per season. 

In 2010, taking a receiver in the first round gave you 108 extra yards and 5 extra touchdowns a season compared to the second round.  And that was two receivers taken after the 20th pick. 

2011
First round (Green, Jones, Baldwin): Average of 852 yards per season, 5.1 touchdowns per season. 
Second round (4 receivers) 743 yards per season, 3.42 touchdowns per season.

In 2011, taking a first round receiver gave you an extra 109 yards and 1.68 touchdowns a season. 

I'm not cherry picking the stats, either.  I thought when I started compiling those numbers that 2010 and 2011 would be the best years to compare to go AGAINST my belief considering Bryant and Thomas were both post-20 picks (good value), and Green/Jones were two of the best in a long time. 

I'd go back and do the rest of the seasons in the NFL, but I'd get some more, "Yeah, but just because that happened doens't mean it's a bad idea, correlation does not equal causation, I want my first round receiver so we can be unstoppable on offense." 

[CWood21]

3 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

I'd go back and do the rest of the seasons in the NFL, but I'd get some more, "Yeah, but just because that happened doens't mean it's a bad idea, correlation does not equal causation, I want my first round receiver so we can be unstoppable on offense." 

We keep hearing about how the defense is our Achilles' heel, and yet people still want to use a first round pick on a WR.

[MacReady]

Just now, CWood21 said:

We keep hearing about how the defense is our Achilles' heel, and yet people still want to use a first round pick on a WR.

That's what's so damn frustrating to me about it!  I would literally pull my hair out if I had any.  And then when I say maybe we shouldn't re-sign Adams, they're talking about how potentially great he is, and it's like... Okay, if he's great, let's re-sign him and not get a receiver.  Then they're like, well, Cobb and Nelson are old, so then it should be Matthews is old and on and on and on and it just doesn't make any sense.

I'm just thankful that a receiver in round one is not happening for us because, regardless of what people here want to believe, our team knows positional value, and when you're picking top 16, there's not going to be a receiver that much better than any other position. 

[CWood21]

Just now, HorizontoZenith said:

I'm just thankful that a receiver in round one is not happening for us because, regardless of what people here want to believe, our team knows positional value, and when you're picking top 16, there's not going to be a receiver that much better than any other position.

Fortunately, I'm a believer that Ted won't take an offensive player in the 1st round unless we're talking about a QB or an OT.  I'd be beyond surprised if we drafted an offensive player in the first round.

[Packerraymond]

29 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

All people ever argue when I start arguing against receivers in round one is theory.  I've never seen numbers to suggest it's a good idea to take a receiver in round one.  Ever. 

Don't think anyone's ever said it's a "good idea" that's just you going overboard.

There is no correlation between drafting a WR in the 1st and having a bad team and or bad defense. Your argument is very clearly that no team should ever take a WR in the 1st. Everyone else's argument is that there are times where it would be OK. No one's argument is that for the Packers to win a SB, they must take a 1st round WR, which is how you make it sound.

[CWood21]

7 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Don't think anyone's ever said it's a "good idea" that's just you going overboard.

There is no correlation between drafting a WR in the 1st and having a bad team and or bad defense. Your argument is very clearly that no team should ever take a WR in the 1st. Everyone else's argument is that there are times where it would be OK. No one's argument is that for the Packers to win a SB, they must take a 1st round WR, which is how you make it sound.

I'm not sure that's what he was getting at.  Look at it from this perspective, what position on WR has less of an impact on a game than a WR?  The closer you are to the ball, the bigger the impact you're going to have on the game generally speaking, and WRs are usually the furthest away from the ball.  At this point, we're talking about the luxury of drafting a WR in the first round.  And given our inconsistencies on defense, wouldn't it be more wise to take an EDGE or CB rather than a WR?  Hell, I think I'd probably take another DL over a WR.

[Packerraymond]

20 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

I started going through draft classes a while back to see what teams missed in yardage and touchdowns by waiting for the second or third round.  Probably won't go back to it, but I might since this is looking like a down season.  Basically, I took all the receivers, added up all their career yards/touchdowns, then divided by the number of years they played. 

2010
First round (Bryant, Thomas): Average of 1,023 yards, 8.5 touchdowns per season.
Second round (2 receivers): Average of 915 yards per season, 3.5 touchdowns per season. 

In 2010, taking a receiver in the first round gave you 108 extra yards and 5 extra touchdowns a season compared to the second round.  And that was two receivers taken after the 20th pick. 

2011
First round (Green, Jones, Baldwin): Average of 852 yards per season, 5.1 touchdowns per season. 
Second round (4 receivers) 743 yards per season, 3.42 touchdowns per season.

In 2011, taking a first round receiver gave you an extra 109 yards and 1.68 touchdowns a season. 

I'm not cherry picking the stats, either.  I thought when I started compiling those numbers that 2010 and 2011 would be the best years to compare to go AGAINST my belief considering Bryant and Thomas were both post-20 picks (good value), and Green/Jones were two of the best in a long time. 

I'd go back and do the rest of the seasons in the NFL, but I'd get some more, "Yeah, but just because that happened doens't mean it's a bad idea, correlation does not equal causation, I want my first round receiver so we can be unstoppable on offense." 

They're pretty cherry picked, first off in 2010 the 2nd round receivers were Arrelius Benn, Dexter McCluster and Golden Tate. Im pretty confident two busts and Tate don't average to those numbers.

2011, you luckily got the gift of mega bust Jonathan Baldwin to skew the numbers otherwise it wouldn't be close.

2010+11 1st round I see 4 star WRs, guys that are all top 15 in the league without question and 1 bust.

2nd round, I see 4 busts, 2 good players in Cobb and Tate and a fringe guy in Torrey Smith.

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

There is no correlation between drafting a WR in the 1st and having a bad team and or bad defense. Your argument is very clearly that no team should ever take a WR in the 1st. Everyone else's argument is that there are times where it would be OK. No one's argument is that for the Packers to win a SB, they must take a 1st round WR, which is how you make it sound.

There's so much wrong with this, but I'm not surprised.  One, I NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER said that there's a correlation between taking a WR in one and having a bad defense, so you should probably just delete that.  Two, I have frequently acknowledged that it's SOMETIMES not TERRIBLE to take a receiver after the top 20, and that I personally wouldn't take one unless I was picking 28th or later.  My point has ALWAYS been that there is almost never a situation where your team is going to get good value for a top 20 receiver because receiver is literally the least important position on offense or defense.