Dillon.......keeping defenses honest.

[Sunshinepacker]

I'm taking this data from PFF, btw.

Some fun stats on Dillon.

For his career, he had 636 attempts against a stacked box. He ran for 3197 yards on those carries, 2154 of those yards coming after contact. He lost two fumbles on those carries. 133 missed tackles forced.

So what can we learn from this?

- 67% of his yards gained came after contact. This means he was getting hit early (after 2 yards) and still gaining another 3 after that. Impressive.

- He played with an OL, and a scheme, that was not advantageous for him. In fact, he had more carries against a stacked box than anybody else in college football. For reference, Jonathan Taylor ran for 5.5 yards against a stacked box with a far superior OL.

- It shows us that Dillon is not very elusive. He's not going to try to make people miss.

- It shows evidence of good ball security. It somewhat shows Dillon had natural hands, which should lend to a good pass catching back.

- I think it shows that he's a very good back that was used fairly poorly. To our benefit.

I've never said he was not a good RB. He just needs to be an elite NFL RB (like, top-5 in the NFL) in order to justify using a second round pick on him considering he's not going to appreciably improve the Packers in his rookie season.

 

[tynimiller]

I've never said he was not a good RB. He just needs to be an elite NFL RB (like, top-5 in the NFL) in order to justify using a second round pick on him considering he's not going to appreciably improve the Packers in his rookie season.

I don't think anyone can make a definitive claim of this either way until his rookie campaign is done. He INSTANTLY is our best late game running back with a lead, 3rd and shorts and to spell Jones. Now to what degree that plays out no one knows.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I don't think anyone can make a definitive claim of this either way until his rookie campaign is done. He INSTANTLY is our best late game running back with a lead, 3rd and shorts and to spell Jones. Now to what degree that plays out no one knows.

No, he's not best at salting away a lead, Aaron Jones is still the best at this. Why do people think the Packers need to suddenly turtle-up in the 4th quarter to try and keep a victory? The Packers don't feature some elite defense that can prevent above-average offenses from scoring while they try and hide their defense by pounding a huge guy into the line.

Packers, last year, gave up 34 points to the Eagles (and lost because Adams got hurt), 24 to the Cowboys, Raiders, and Chiefs, 26 to the Chargers, and 37 (twice) to the 49ers. Yes, you can certainly hope the defense improves (because you can't rely on playing the Bears, Vikings, Panthers, and Giants in the playoffs) but that's not a certainty.

AJ Dillon is probably the best short-yardage and goalline back on the team right now. Otherwise, it's still most likely that he is worse than Aaron Jones at running between the 5s, pass blocking, and catching. He'll be very nice to have in years 2-4 of his contract, I just don't think the team needed to draft a RB that high. I would also point out that the Packer's oline is much better at pass blocking than run blocking, so that needs to be considered as well when discussing the RB.

 

[tynimiller]

If we have a two score plus lead and 5 minutes are on the clock, I do not want our arguably greatest offensive weapon not named Adams or Rodgers getting the rock. In the continued growth of our run game attempts, we cannot just keep upping Jones' carry totals. I would never say Dillon is a better back than Jones, but I also will not support a mindset of use Jones to run the clock out...way too valuable.

 

[swhitset]

A lot of people have heard the analytics crowds repeat over and over again that the RB position doesn't matter and you can find them anywhere that they've actually believed it, despite the reality happening on the field every year.

Agreed...If anything I would say that drafting them high is preferable to a projection in later rounds specifically because they are considered “low value”. The biggest reason that is true is their relatively short window of effectiveness. Paying even a great running back second contract money is a big risk because of how sharply they seem to drop off with age and mileage. Drafting them higher and using them while they are cheap seems like a better strategy.

 

[Fat Dogs]

No, he's not best at salting away a lead, Aaron Jones is still the best at this. Why do people think the Packers need to suddenly turtle-up in the 4th quarter to try and keep a victory? The Packers don't feature some elite defense that can prevent above-average offenses from scoring while they try and hide their defense by pounding a huge guy into the line.

Packers, last year, gave up 34 points to the Eagles (and lost because Adams got hurt), 24 to the Cowboys, Raiders, and Chiefs, 26 to the Chargers, and 37 (twice) to the 49ers. Yes, you can certainly hope the defense improves (because you can't rely on playing the Bears, Vikings, Panthers, and Giants in the playoffs) but that's not a certainty.

AJ

Ok, now go through all the other positions and then tell me which ones are easier to find production for in day 3. Or, just pretend that RBs have to be taken in in day 1 or 2. My argument was NEVER that round 1 or 2 RBs were BAD, it was that you can find really good RBs late in the draft. You also conveniently left out how many of those RBs were drafted by teams with bad QBs early in the draft. You go ahead and stick with Eddie Lacy in the 2nd. I'll go for Aaron Jones in the fifth.

I choose Jones in the 5th. I also choose Tom Brady in the 6th, Antonio Brown in the 6th, and an undrafted Antonio Gates please. There are exceptions to the rules for every position. That’s not the point. Five other teams drafted RB’s before we did So that tells me that not every team devalues the position like us.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I choose Jones in the 5th. I also choose Tom Brady in the 6th, Antonio Brown in the 6th, and an undrafted Antonio Gates please. There are exceptions to the rules for every position. That’s not the point. Five other teams drafted RB’s before we did So that tells me that not every team devalues the position like us.

Yes, but there are MORE exceptions at running back later in the draft than there are at WR or QB. That's the point.

 

[Dantés]

1. Ok, now go through all the other positions and then tell me which ones are easier to find production for in day 3. 2. Or, just pretend that RBs have to be taken in in day 1 or 2. 3. My argument was NEVER that round 1 or 2 RBs were BAD, it was that you can find really good RBs late in the draft. 4. You also conveniently left out how many of those RBs were drafted by teams with bad QBs early in the draft. You go ahead and stick with Eddie Lacy in the 2nd. I'll go for Aaron Jones in the fifth.

1. I've said explicitly that the position value for RB is low in comparison to other positions. That's also irrelevant to what you said in the first place.

2. No one is pretending anything. My point is that if you need a running back (as opposed to just building depth or taking shots on guys to fill out the roster), then day 2 is the sweet spot because round 4 and later the odds of finding a good one are super low.

3. Everyone knows that good running backs can be found later in the draft. The point is that if you need someone to be your lead back or be an important part of a committee backfield, your odds of successfully finding that player later in the draft are terrible. You literally said that teams that take running backs in the 2nd are stupid and that they can just go find 90-95% of the player later in the draft. With what, a crystal ball?

4. Are you insinuating that I analyzed draft years to try and find one where the 15-20 running backs that typically go on day 3 happened to go to bad situations? Are you insane?

 

[Fat Dogs]

Yes, but there are MORE exceptions at running back later in the draft than there are at WR or QB. That's the point.[/

what are we debating? I’m saying that you have a better chance of hitting on a stud RB if you draft him in the first 2 rounds (9 out of 10 best rushers In 2019.)

1. I've said explicitly that the position value for RB is low in comparison to other positions. That's also irrelevant to what you said in the first place.

2. No one is pretending anything. My point is that if you need a running back (as opposed to just building depth or taking shots on guys to fill out the roster), then day 2 is the sweet spot because round 4 and later the odds of finding a good one are super low.

3. Everyone knows that good running backs can be found later in the draft. The point is that if you need someone to be your lead back or be an important part of a committee backfield, your odds of successfully finding that player later in the draft are terrible. You literally said that teams that take running backs in the 2nd are stupid and that they can just go find 90-95% of the player later in the draft. With what, a crystal ball?

4. Are you insinuating that I analyzed draft years to try and find one where the 15-20 running backs that typically go on day 3 happened to go to bad situations? Are you insane?

exactly. There’s no doubt that you can find RB’s later in a draft but that’s not the point. Knowing that 9 Of the top 10 rushers last year were drafted in the first or second Tells me all that I need to know. I’m going to put my money on drafting one early Rather than throw hundreds of darts On day 3 and pray that my team finds that needle in the haystack. In conclusion, a second round pick for a RB is not dumb

 

[Sunshinepacker]

1. I've said explicitly that the position value for RB is low in comparison to other positions. That's also irrelevant to what you said in the first place.

2. No one is pretending anything. My point is that if you need a running back (as opposed to just building depth or taking shots on guys to fill out the roster), then day 2 is the sweet spot because round 4 and later the odds of finding a good one are super low.

3. Everyone knows that good running backs can be found later in the draft. The point is that if you need someone to be your lead back or be an important part of a committee backfield, your odds of successfully finding that player later in the draft are terrible. You literally said that teams that take running backs in the 2nd are stupid and that they can just go find 90-95% of the player later in the draft. With what, a crystal ball?

4. Are you insinuating that I analyzed draft years to try and find one where the 15-20 running backs that typically go on day 3 happened to go to bad situations? Are you insane?

I'm insinuating that drafting a running back in the second round is a bad idea. That's what I said. Your first point above agrees with that.

Points 2 and 3 only matter if your GM does a bad job and then drafts for need over value, something that tends to hurt teams.

Not sure about point 4, this honestly isn't worth this much effort. Drafting a RB in the second round, value-wise, is worse than drafting a pass-rusher/WR/CB because those three positions are much harder to fill and much more valuable to the team (plus, if you find a good one you'll actually keep them for more than 4 years). Dillon will probably be good, he just won't be good enough to overcome weaknesses the Packers might have at pass rusher/receiver/corner in the 4 years he's here.

 

[Dantés]

I'm insinuating that drafting a running back in the second round is a bad idea. That's what I said. Your first point above agrees with that.

Points 2 and 3 only matter if your GM does a bad job and then drafts for need over value, something that tends to hurt teams.

Not sure about point 4, this honestly isn't worth this much effort. Drafting a RB in the second round, value-wise, is worse than drafting a pass-rusher/WR/CB because those three positions are much harder to fill and much more valuable to the team (plus, if you find a good one you'll actually keep them for more than 4 years). Dillon will probably be good, he just won't be good enough to overcome weaknesses the Packers might have at pass rusher/receiver/corner in the 4 years he's here.

No... it doesn't agree with that. Guards also have a low positional value. I'm in love with the Elgton Jenkins pick. Just because positional value is low does not mean that those are day 3 only positions. Other than specialists, there's not such thing in the NFL as a position you should only draft on day 3.

Every team in the NFL factors need into their draft decision. Every single one. You can't be so naive as to believe that all these teams picking players where they clearly have openings on the roster is mere coincidence. It's actually a stunner and quite frustrating to fans and the media when teams take value on players despite not needing them.

At some point in their cycle, every team is going to need every position. All 32 teams, at one point or another, need a running back. There is not and never will be a team that just keeps a steady stream of starters going by investing day three picks over and over. And when that team needs a running back, they are far more likely to find one on day 2.

I mean honestly-- you are essentially saying that you have figured this out and that all 32 NFL teams don't get what you've discovered. They're just stupid, right? It's hard to fathom how much arrogance and ignorance is wrapped up together here.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

No... it doesn't agree with that. Guards also have a low positional value. I'm in love with the Elgton Jenkins pick. Just because positional value is low does not mean that those are day 3 only positions. Other than specialists, there's not such thing in the NFL as a position you should only draft on day 3.

Every team in the NFL factors need into their draft decision. Every single one. You can't be so naive as to believe that all these teams picking players where they clearly have openings on the roster is mere coincidence. It's actually a stunner and quite frustrating to fans and the media when teams take value on players despite not needing them.

At some point in their cycle, every team is going to need every position. All 32 teams, at one point or another, need a running back. There is not and never will be a team that just keeps a steady stream of starters going by investing day three picks over and over. And when that team needs a running back, they are far more likely to find one on day 2.

I mean honestly-- you are essentially saying that you have figured this out and that all 32 NFL teams don't get what you've discovered. They're just stupid, right? It's hard to fathom how much arrogance and ignorance is wrapped up together here.

Nobody wants to sign Aaron Jones to another contract. The Packers will be lucky if Dillon is as good as Jones. Therefore, nobody should want to sign Dillon to a second contract. Drafting a player in the second round that the team won't think worth a second contract is a bad idea. I don't know how else to explain this. Running backs are MUCH easier to find later in the draft. That's factual. I have figured out how to see which positions tend to require high draft picks if you want a superstar and which don't. It's just history.

 

[Dantés]

Nobody wants to sign Aaron Jones to another contract. The Packers will be lucky if Dillon is as good as Jones. Therefore, nobody should want to sign Dillon to a second contract. Drafting a player in the second round that the team won't think worth a second contract is a bad idea. I don't know how else to explain this. Running backs are MUCH easier to find later in the draft. That's factual. I have figured out how to see which positions tend to require high draft picks if you want a superstar and which don't. It's just history.

Once again, no you haven't.

Saying that it's easiER to find good running backs late does not make it easy, as I illustrated for you at the beginning of this back and forth.

If a team needs a running back, and says "I'm going to find him on day 3 because I have an 18% chance of success vs a 12% chance at WR," that is what would be the bad idea. If a team needs a running back, and says "I'm going to find him on day three because 18% of the most productive backs in the league were found that way," that is what would be a bad idea.

You're ignoring the reality of actual success finding running backs on day 3 while conflating two separate discussions: the positional value of running backs vs. the feasibility of actually finding good ones after the 3rd round.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Once again, no you haven't.

Saying that it's easiER to find good running backs late does not make it easy, as I illustrated for you at the beginning of this back and forth.

If a team needs a running back, and says "I'm going to find him on day 3 because I have an 18% chance of success vs a 12% chance at WR," that is what would be the bad idea. If a team needs a running back, and says "I'm going to find him on day three because 18% of the most productive backs in the league were found that way," that is what would be a bad idea.

You're ignoring the reality of actual success finding running backs on day 3 while conflating two separate discussions: the positional value of running backs vs. the feasibility of actually finding good ones after the 3rd round.

RBs are not as valuable in today's NFL as CB, pass rusher, or OT. Agree or disagree? The Packers are currently weaker at 2 of those positions than they are at RB, agree or disagree? Do you think the team will re-sign Dillon to a second contract when most agree that second contracts are bad ideas for RBs? If you don't think they will sign him to a second deal, then is drafting a guy who will play for 3 years worth a second round pick?

You obviously believe RBs are far more important and valuable than I do.

 

[Dantés]

1. RBs are not as valuable in today's NFL as CB, pass rusher, or OT. Agree or disagree? 2. The Packers are currently weaker at 2 of those positions than they are at RB, agree or disagree? 3. Do you think the team will re-sign Dillon to a second contract when most agree that second contracts are bad ideas for RBs? 4. If you don't think they will sign him to a second deal, then 5. is drafting a guy who will play for 3 years worth a second round pick?

6. You obviously believe RBs are far more important and valuable than I do.

1. Of course... I've said as much from the start.

2. I'd say that RB and CB about a wash, but OT yes.

3. I don't know.

4. Dillon will play immediately. Health permitting, it would be 4 years minimum.

5. If a RB plays really well for you for four seasons and then walks, then the ROI at #62 is fine.

6. Maybe I do and maybe I don't. I don't know that we've disagreed so much about RB value. I just have a realistic perspective on where you typically find good running backs. You think it's far easier to find them later than it actually is.

Last thing I would add-- if the Packers had an OT on the board at #62 that they valued comparably to Dillon, then they should have taken that player. We can't know that. Positional value is a factor, but if you simply force an edge, OT, or CB into every top selection, you're going to end up selecting a lot more busts.

 

[HardRightEdge]

4. Dillon will play immediately.

It's his job to lose, to be sure, in taking Williams' 35% snap count and 8 carries per game, give or take. You'd reckon they'd look to trade Williams and use Irvin as the emergency #3. Of course after this cockeyed draft, maybe it's trade Jones, use Williams blocking and receiving as the 3rd. down back, and Ervin for some change of pace.

In the whole "lets do what SF does" suspect argument, it's interesting to note the Packers were the better 1st. down team last season.

Here's the Packers distances on 2nd. down courtesy of pro-football-reference's play finder tool:

2nd. Down Yards to Go / Number of Plays / % of 2nd. down plays

0-3 / 67 / 18.7%
4-6 / 87 /24.3%
7-10 / 153 / 42.7%
11+ / 51 / 14.2%

• Average YTG on 2nd. down = 7.55 yards
• 7+ YTG on 56.9% of 2nd. down plays
• Aaron Jones averaged 4.9 YPC and Jamaal Williams averaged 3.8 YPC on 1st. down. The net deficit relative to those rushing stats is a function of incompletions, sacks and penaties.

Here's the same data for SF:

0-3 / 50 / 14.7%
4-6 / 73 / 21.5%
7-10 / 150 / 44.1%
11+ / 67 / 19.7%

• Average YTG on 2nd. down = 8.10 yards
• 7+ YTG on 63.8% of 2nd. down plays

That takes us to SF's 2nd. down performance which was superior, jumping to better yards to go positions on 3rd. down.

Here's the Packer distances to go on 3rd. down:

0-3 / 37 /18.2%
4-6 / 57 / 28.1%
7-10 / 69 / 34.0%
11+ / 40 / 19.7%

• Avergage YTG on 3rd. down = 7.89 yards [Note: On average, the Packers lost yards on 2nd. down.]
• 7+ YTG on 53.7% of plays, a slight 3.2% improvement over 2nd. down
• Aaron Jones averaged 4.4 YPC and Jamaal Williams averaged 5.0 YPC on 2st. down

Here's the 49er distances to go on 3rd. down:

0-3 / 48 / 23.4%
4-6 / 64 / 31.2%
7-10 / 50 / 24.4%
11+ / 43 / 21.0%

• Average YTG on 3rd. down = 7.35 yards, a modest improvement
• 7+ YTG on 45.4% or 3rd. downs, a signifcant 18.4% reduction over their 2nd. down

So, if one wanted to be more like SF, it might be best to run a little more on 2nd. down with the horses already on board. Of course it would help to have SFs defense. Success running the ball goes hand in hand with stout defense in controlling the clock. I don't think a heavy run game works otherwise unless your QB runs on option plays and scrambles for 1,200 yards while putting up a 113 passer rating when he gets around to throwing it. Oh, right, that's the future for Jordan Love.

 

[Heyjoe4]

If we have a two score plus lead and 5 minutes are on the clock, I do not want our arguably greatest offensive weapon not named Adams or Rodgers getting the rock. In the continued growth of our run game attempts, we cannot just keep upping Jones' carry totals. I would never say Dillon is a better back than Jones, but I also will not support a mindset of use Jones to run the clock out...way too valuable.

You describe aptly the “play not to lose” approach of MM. This doesn’t work. We should not be afraid to pile on points in Q4, and that means letting Rodgers and Adams go for the jugular until the final whistle. Full stop.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

RBs are not as valuable in today's NFL as CB, pass rusher, or OT. Agree or disagree? The Packers are currently weaker at 2 of those positions than they are at RB, agree or disagree? Do you think the team will re-sign Dillon to a second contract when most agree that second contracts are bad ideas for RBs? If you don't think they will sign him to a second deal, then is drafting a guy who will play for 3 years worth a second round pick?

You obviously believe RBs are far more important and valuable than I do.

Dillon will be a good player, I absolutely believe. But a RB with little use in the passing game is a luxury pick in the second. Given that we had no 1st or 4th round pick to contribute this year, we weren't really in position to make a luxury pick there.

Same with Degaura. I have no doubt that he'll be the glue guy that LaFluer wants. But it's also a bit of a luxury to take a HB/TE hybrid type of player whose ceiling and projection for production just isn't very high. You can find starters in rounds 2-3 at positions which become much more difficult later, while 2 down RBs and H backs can be had at much better values. For a team which claims that it values building for the future, it's shocking that they'd deny talent at key positions for the sake of luxury picks

 

[HardRightEdge]

Dillon will be a good player, I absolutely believe. But a RB with little use in the passing game is a luxury pick in the second.

For all the criticism I've leveled at this pick and this draft, I have a positive counterpoint to that statement. If you look at the available highlight tapes on youtube, Dillon is a pretty natural catcher of the football. Go see for yourself.

If BC didn't throw him the ball much it would have been either schematic preference or simply keeping his high touch count on the ground. There's only so many times per game you want to give a player the ball, and that was 27.6 times for Dillion last season, more than enough and probably too much.

 

[Heyjoe4]

RBs are not as valuable in today's NFL as CB, pass rusher, or OT. Agree or disagree? The Packers are currently weaker at 2 of those positions than they are at RB, agree or disagree? Do you think the team will re-sign Dillon to a second contract when most agree that second contracts are bad ideas for RBs? If you don't think they will sign him to a second deal, then is drafting a guy who will play for 3 years worth a second round pick?

You obviously believe RBs are far more important and valuable than I do.

That’s ok Sunshine. We all have different opinions and I respect yours.

That said, a top-shelf running game, as unglamorous as it may seem, is key to winning in this NFL. They help to control the clock, legitimize the RPO/jet sweep, and set up their teams for an impactful 60 minutes of play.

IMO, no one is going to take the reins from Rodgers. With his experience and intellect, I trust him to audible for a running play, just not as frequently in the pass. He needs to increase his discipline a bit and not always be looking for the home run.

No matter how we get there, we have to keep the foot on the gas in Q4. No lead is too much in this league, ask the Patriots. I have confidence in Rogers and Adams, and think one, maybe two WRs will take a jump. So we do like the Patriots - keep piling on points, regardless of the lead.

My biggest beef with MM is his tendency to play not to lose once he had a lead. All we need to look at is the 2014 NFCCG against the Hags. He sat down Burnett in an INT that should have been a dagger. Then he reverted to his running game, which gave us 3 and outs.

 

[Heyjoe4]

For all the criticism I've leveled at this pick and this draft, I have a positive counterpoint to that statement. If you look at the available highlight tapes on youtube, Dillon is a pretty natural catcher of the football. Go see for yourself.

If BC didn't throw him the ball much it would have been either schematic preference or simply keeping his high touch count on the ground. There's only so many times per game you want to give a player the ball, and that was 27.6 times for Dillion last season, more than enough and probably too much.

27.6 carries a game is WAY too much unless it’s equally divided. These RBs play hard, and wear down in Q4. Now if between Jones, Williams and Dillon we get 25 to 30 carries, and keep the backs fresh, I’m ok with that. Dillon is the unknown.

Finally, I think Dillon can be a receiving threat. Maybe not as good as Jones, but Jones was a freak last year.

 

[tynimiller]

You describe aptly the “play not to lose” approach of MM. This doesn’t work. We should not be afraid to pile on points in Q4, and that means letting Rodgers and Adams go for the jugular until the final whistle. Full stop.

If you think handing the ball to a 240lb back that runs faster than most LBs not still trying to move the ball and imposing your will I really don't know what would be.

 

[gopkrs]

I agree we should not just predictably run the clock out. Nice to be able to run but imho if you want to win the game; you have to sprinkle the passes in. Mac did not do much sprinkling imo. run run run and at times run run pass are predictable.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

If you think handing the ball to a 240lb back that runs faster than most LBs not still trying to move the ball and imposing your will I really don't know what would be.

I've seen Fournette and Henry...both those guys aren't helping their teams keep up with explosive offenses. And, importantly, the idea of handing the ball off to run out the clock also requires a very good defense; the Packers have a pretty good pass defense (if they bring Tramon back) but that run defense appears to need major work.

 

[Heyjoe4]

If you think handing the ball to a 240lb back that runs faster than most LBs not still trying to move the ball and imposing your will I really don't know what would be.

No Ty, sorry for the confusion. In a (my) perfect world, GB comes close to perfecting the RB, RPO/jet seep options. Let Rodgers find receivers open in the flats underneath when ILBs move up on RPO. Keep the chains moving and eat clock, wear down Ds.

Limit the number of home run attempts by Rodgers, establish a ball/clock control game, and keep some key players fresh for Q4. Rodgers can still play a HUGE role in this scheme, and his overall numbers should improve (although it’s hard to improve on his INT percentage).

I admit, a lot depends on a) Dillon’s progression, b) Rodgers buy in, and c) executing these plays flawlessly, and that means an effective O line. The loss of Bulaga doesn’t help.

It’s really the old West Coast offense under a different name. As for Rodgers, winning eliminates a lot of hard feelings.