2023 Draft Talk

[ThePerfectBeard]

That is Kylin Hill you are thinking of.

You're absolutely right!

 

[Krabs]

I find this article interesting.

How did Packers do in draft value relative to 2023 consensus board?

Using the wisdom of the crowd, we assess how the Packers did in the 2023 draft relative to the consensus big board.

packerswire.usatoday.com

It breaks down the draft by score. Take Clifford out and the Packers score 49.

 

[Krabs]

I find this article interesting.

How did Packers do in draft value relative to 2023 consensus board?

Using the wisdom of the crowd, we assess how the Packers did in the 2023 draft relative to the consensus big board.

packerswire.usatoday.com

It breaks down the draft by score. Take Clifford out and the Packers score 49.

I should add, Reed, Clifford and Carlson were all our biggest reaches. Well, according to this PFN analysis.

 

[tynimiller]

I should add, Reed, Clifford and Carlson were all our biggest reaches. Well, according to this PFN analysis.

yup and then other professional scouting groups like PFF or Draft Network or ESPN will report a different thing. All depends on their metric of reporting. All of them I always find interesting. Hadn't seen this one appreciate it.

 

[OldSchool101]

Lew Nichols III - RB - Taylor replacement or we carrying 4 RB's?

I still think we keep 3, I doubt there’s a huge threat for a team to activate our Rookie off our PS onto an active Roster (like they did to us with Taysom Hill)
That would shock me

When watching Nichols film, he reminds me of early Eddie Lacy some (slightly smaller build but similar density) Different style but really good at breaking tackles and not afraid of running someone over. He’s got an effective use of his stiff arm and Nichols is also very hard to bring down in close Quarters (low Center) He’s also got a great Overdrive Gear in open space. Only the low 4.4 DB’s will catch him once he gets a yard or two on ya

 

[tynimiller]

I still think we keep 3, I doubt there’s a huge threat for a team to activate our Rookie off our PS onto an active Roster.
That would shock me

When watching Nichols film, he reminds me of early Eddie Lacy some (slightly smaller build but similar density) Different style but really good at breaking tackles and not afraid of running someone over. He’s got an effective use of his stiff arm and Nichols is also very hard to bring down in close Quarters (low Center) He’s also got a great Overdrive Gear in open space. Only the low 4.4 DB’s will catch him

You can protect PS guys if that rule is still in place...think it is one or two guys and there may be a limit of how many weeks you can. @captainWIMM might be best source for confirmation on that rule.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You can protect PS guys if that rule is still in place...think it is one or two guys and there may be a limit of how many weeks you can. @captainWIMM might be best source for confirmation on that rule.

Teams were allowed to protect up to four players on their practice squad each week last season. The rules for this year haven't been determined up until now though.

 

[tynimiller]

Teams were allowed to protect up to four players on their practice squad each week last season. The rules for this year haven't been determined up until now though.

Oh interesting - wonder if they'll step that back now that we've removed ourselves from Covid more when that got implemented.

 

[Poppa San]

Oh interesting - wonder if they'll step that back now that we've removed ourselves from Covid more when that got implemented.

I think teams and the players union both liked the enlarged rosters. I'm thinking it won't be changed anytime soon.

 

[AmishMafia]

I find this article interesting.

How did Packers do in draft value relative to 2023 consensus board?

Using the wisdom of the crowd, we assess how the Packers did in the 2023 draft relative to the consensus big board.

packerswire.usatoday.com

It breaks down the draft by score. Take Clifford out and the Packers score 49.

The biggest issue I have with this is it just looks at their board relative to where the player is drafted. So Clifford was not in their top 300 and was picked at 149 and was a -110 point value. I know that doesn't add up - but it is what is in the article. Had we pick Colby Wooden, consensus #123, at 13th overall it would have been the same -110 pts.

Taking Wooden 13th overall is far less value than Clifford at 149th.

 

[Krabs]

The biggest issue I have with this is it just looks at their board relative to where the player is drafted. So Clifford was not in their top 300 and was picked at 149 and was a -110 point value. I know that doesn't add up - but it is what is in the article. Had we pick Colby Wooden, consensus #123, at 13th overall it would have been the same -110 pts.

Taking Wooden 13th overall is far less value than Clifford at 149th.

I don't disagree with any of your thoughts here. It also doesn't consider team needs or best available. There was a run on QBs in the 4th round and Clifford was the last QB on the Packers board. They wanted him and had to reach to get him. I just thought it was an interesting break down.

 

[PikeBadger]

I don't disagree with any of your thoughts here. It also doesn't consider team needs or best available. There was a run on QBs in the 4th round and Clifford was the last QB on the Packers board. They wanted him and had to reach to get him. I just thought it was an interesting break down.

Woah there. Have you seen the Packers draft board? If not, what makes you think the Packers didn't have him on the board as a 5th round target?

 

[Krabs]

Woah there. Have you seen the Packers draft board? If not, what makes you think the Packers didn't have him on the board as a 5th round target?

That I don't know. What I do know is that the consensus had him 110 picks lower. I actually had him in the 7th round. Packers could have had him going in the 5th, but I think it was more of a reach to make sure they got a QB that was on their board. Gutey said he was the last QB left on their board and they wanted him. That's all I'm going with.

Adding this: “You have to listen to your board,” Gutekunst said. “With Sean Clifford today, there was a quarterback run, and a lot of quarterbacks underneath him went, so as we looked at it, we had a number choices up there that were all kind of the same, but there weren’t any quarterbacks after him that we felt strongly about like we did him. That made it easy.”

 

[Dantés]

That I don't know. What I do know is that the consensus had him 110 picks lower. I actually had him in the 7th round. Packers could have had him going in the 5th, but I think it was more of a reach to make sure they got a QB that was on their board. Gutey said he was the last QB left on their board and they wanted him. That's all I'm going with.

Adding this: “You have to listen to your board,” Gutekunst said. “With Sean Clifford today, there was a quarterback run, and a lot of quarterbacks underneath him went, so as we looked at it, we had a number choices up there that were all kind of the same, but there weren’t any quarterbacks after him that we felt strongly about like we did him. That made it easy.”

I obviously don't know either whether the Packers had targeted Clifford in the 5th round or lower, but my guess is that they figured originally on getting him later and took him in the 5th because of the QB run.

One thing that I think people may be overlooking, however, is that the Packers weren't necessarily prioritizing on-field ability in the QB prospect they were targeting as much as capability in the QB room.

What was reported after the draft is that they liked Clifford because he's really smart and experienced and they believed he would be a great guy to help Love prepare.

 

[OldSchool101]

Woah there. Have you seen the Packers draft board? If not, what makes you think the Packers didn't have him on the board as a 5th round target?

Brian said he had a 6th Round grade on him (saw it in an interview with him post draft; Packers App?) but admittedly he had to get a little aggressive there due to a 5 QB run preceding our #149 selection. (#127,128, 135,139,140,149)

Here’s a case where a GM fully admitted he went after need. I’m neither condemning it or condoning it just stating what he said for clarification is all.