Jump to content

Packers Big Board #9

Packerraymond

By Packerraymond
in Green Bay Packers

Who is #9 on the Packers Big Board?  

55 members have voted

  1. 1. Who is #9 on the Packers Big Board?

    • Vita Vea
      3
    • Leighton Vander Esch
      12
    • Quenton Nelson
      19
    • Mike Hughes
      5
    • Calvin Ridley
      1
    • Roquan Smith
      10
    • Jaire Alexander
      6
    • Taven Bryan
      0
    • Mike McGlinchey
      0
    • Connor Williams
      0

Recommended Posts

MacReady

MacReady

Posted
Posted
Just now, vegas492 said:

You could, but I don't care.  But if it helps you sleep some at night have it.  

Do you concede the point?  59% of guards don't receive second contracts from the team that drafted them.  That's a 17% higher rate than any other position I've done so far, and I just finished DT and DE.  You have to see the disparity there and admit I have a point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leader

Leader

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Jaegybomb said:

What's more impressive a 4 ft guy jumping 3 ft or an 8 ft guy jumping 4?

The 8 foot guy is more impressive. Hands down. I dont care how high he jumps.

A). I dont think there are a whole bunch of 8 foot guys around - but

B). If there were and he jumped up 4 feet - he'd immediately be a whole bunch shorter cause his spindly / thin legs would snap in half.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vegas492

vegas492

Posted
Posted

Crap...sorry this took so long to post...mean it for you, HZ...

I've already told you two points that I freely concede to you, and frankly, always have.

Here are my concessions to you...

Taking a guard in the top 15 of a draft is usually a bad idea.

Paying a guard left tackle money is a tough pill to swallow and that 5'th year option is why you don't want to take a guard in round one.

Concede me the fact that Green Bay has a history, and some of it is recent, in paying guards good money.  Top money.  Did any team spend more on the guard position than GB when they were paying both Sitton and Lang?  Regardless of how sweet a deal Lang was..it was still a lot of money for a guard, especially when they were already paying Sitton top dollar.

Concede to me that guards who play well do get paid on second contracts, regardless of where they are drafted.  Getting paid a second contract has little to do with where you were drafted and more to do with your performance.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Packerraymond

Packerraymond

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, vegas492 said:

You miss some important things...I've already told you two points that I freely concede to you, and frankly, always have.

Concede me the fact that Green Bay has a history, and some of it is recent, in paying guards good money.  Top money.  Did any team spend more on the guard position than GB when they were paying both Sitton and Lang?  Regardless of how sweet a deal Lang was..it was still a lot of money for a guard, when they were already paying Sitton top dollar.

You look at %....the entire bust rate for first round picks are high.  When you have a smaller sample size, like guards, yah, it is going to look worse.  When you run the numbers, tell me how many guards were drafted in the first round as opposed to the other positions.  I think you will find, and probably already have, that excluding kickers and fullbacks, guards aren't drafted in round one too often.  Probably right down there with tight ends.  So yah, bad value.  And when they bust, it looks that much worse because of the smaller sample size.

It isn't about re-sign rate to me (no offense HtZ I think that's a lame argument.) Good players get re-signed, doesn't matter the position.

It's about the opportunity cost of drafting a non-premium with a top 15 pick in a year when your biggest holes are at premium positions. Sitton, Lang, Yanda, Norwell, Zietler, Bitonio, Osemele, Brooks, I could go on and on, they weren't 1st round picks.

DeCastro and Martin are your only two cases and they were late 1st rounders. Whoever takes Martin has a sucker for GM because they wasted a top 15 pick.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vegas492

vegas492

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

It isn't about re-sign rate to me (no offense HtZ I think that's a lame argument.) Good players get re-signed, doesn't matter the position.

It's about the opportunity cost of drafting a non-premium with a top 15 pick in a year when your biggest holes are at premium positions. Sitton, Lang, Yanda, Norwell, Zietler, Bitonio, Osemele, Brooks, I could go on and on, they weren't 1st round picks.

DeCastro and Martin are your only two cases and they were late 1st rounders. Whoever takes Martin has a sucker for GM because they wasted a top 15 pick.

 

I can get behind this.  I'd rather go premium position too, I just didn't see a premium position and an elite player available.  I did see an elite player at an area of need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MacReady

MacReady

Posted
Posted
Just now, Packerraymond said:

(no offense HtZ I think that's a lame argument.)

 

You aren't willing to admit that a 17% disparity is a little striking?  That's all positions, and you don't think 17% is striking?  The disparity between the lowest re-sign rate and the second lowest is 17%.  The disparity between the second lowest and highest is 20% and you don't think that's even remotely interesting?

Don't argue for the sake of arguing, just real talk here.  You don't think that's the slightest bit revealing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaegybomb

Jaegybomb

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Leader said:

The 8 foot guy is more impressive. Hands down. I dont care how high he jumps.

A). I dont think there are a whole bunch of 8 foot guys around - but

B). If there were and he jumped up 4 feet - he'd immediately be a whole bunch shorter cause his spindly / thin legs would snap in half.

:)

Why does the taller guy have to be thin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MacReady

MacReady

Posted
Posted
Just now, vegas492 said:

Concede me the fact that Green Bay has a history, and some of it is recent, in paying guards good money.  Top money. 

 

Green Bay?  Yes.  Granted.  Now grant me the fact that the GM at the time was a crap GM, thus it was a mistake, and that Lang's contract AT LEAST was VERY team-friendly, and that College did NOT re-sign with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...