Draft Grades- 2014

[Arthur Squires]

Dix-B
Adams-B
Thornton-F
Rodgers-C+
Bradford-D
Linsley-A+
Abby-D
Goodson-F
Janis-C-

 

[El Guapo]

One aspect of "post evaluation" of a player that the Packers draft, that I sometimes disagree with, is when a player leaves GB and either finds success or continued failure elsewhere and how that is viewed as a success or failure for the Packers.

On my drafting spreadsheet, I cut slack to players who succeed elsewhere because what I am assessing is drafting success. If the player moves on that is a personnel decision separate from the drafting decision. A good example is Matt Hasselbeck in the 1998 draft. Ron Wolf selected him in the 6th round. He spent his years in Green Bay backing up Favre before being traded to Seattle in 2001. There he was a bonafide starter for many years. In my estimation, that was a good draft pick. It showed solid talent evaluation. Mike Sherman then traded him, improving his first round pick from 17th to 10th and also picking up an extra 3rd round pick. That was a good move for the Packers. Of course, he then wasted those picks on Jamal Reynolds and Torrance Marshall....but Sherman's ineptitude is another discussion. Matt Hasselbeck was a successful selection even though he didn't contribute much to the Packers' success - unless you count his pick six to Al Harris in the playoffs.

Injuries are another factor. That makes it much tougher to tell usually. Certainly how a GM manages the draft, player acquisition, and contracts are all intertwined. However, when evaluating draft picks one needs to first decide whether you are evaluating the successful selection of a talented player or evaluating the success one brings to the team. I think that they aren't mutually exclusive and should be judged separately.

 

[Dantés]

If the articles I found are correct, I believe the Packers kept five backs in both 2015 and 2012. So if all three rookies play well, it's not outlandish to think they're all kept.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

On my drafting spreadsheet, I cut slack to players who succeed elsewhere because what I am assessing is drafting success. If the player moves on that is a personnel decision separate from the drafting decision. A good example is Matt Hasselbeck in the 1998 draft. Ron Wolf selected him in the 6th round. He spent his years in Green Bay backing up Favre before being traded to Seattle in 2001. There he was a bonafide starter for many years. In my estimation, that was a good draft pick. It showed solid talent evaluation. Mike Sherman then traded him, improving his first round pick from 17th to 10th and also picking up an extra 3rd round pick. That was a good move for the Packers. Of course, he then wasted those picks on Jamal Reynolds and Torrance Marshall....but Sherman's ineptitude is another discussion. Matt Hasselbeck was a successful selection even though he didn't contribute much to the Packers' success - unless you count his pick six to Al Harris in the playoffs.

Injuries are another factor. That makes it much tougher to tell usually. Certainly how a GM manages the draft, player acquisition, and contracts are all intertwined. However, when evaluating draft picks one needs to first decide whether you are evaluating the successful selection of a talented player or evaluating the success one brings to the team. I think that they aren't mutually exclusive and should be judged separately.

I would agree with the injury part effecting the ultimate valuation, but in regards to Hasselbeck, that is kind of a "special case" that stretches an evaluation of a drafted player after he has left Green Bay to fit your point. Yes, he was a good draft pick for the Packers, but really only based on what they ended up getting for him in the trade on his departure. Had he been outright released, I would say he provided the Packers value, but only that of being a "capable backup" that never saw the field. Again, I think Hasselbeck is an exception to the rule, due to being a QB that never got on the field, as well as having value in a trade. Kyrhi Thornton on the other hand deserves an F, he provided nothing while a Packer and was released. I don't care if he all of a sudden is a Pro Bowl player for the Lions, he stays a "Draft F" for me, based on what the Packers got from him from start to finish.

Having a guy you draft that has little success for you, but success elsewhere, I liken to running a business. You go out spend money recruiting, hiring and training an employee, but because he way under performs (for whatever reasons), you eventually fire him. Well if that guy lands on his feet and is productive for your competitor, you kind of lost twice on him. I'm not going back to my recruiters and say "well look at Joe over at Acme, he is doing great, we really were smart for hiring him and spending our resources to make him what he is today."

 

[El Guapo]

If your recruiters were right in selecting "Joe" because he had skills but you mismanaged him, I hang that on you as the manager and not the recruiters.

I get your point about producing for the team. It's fun to argue about though!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Sure they will if you count IR as making the team. This is Green Bay you're talking about. One of the 4 (include Monty) will be IR'd before opening day.

I truly hope you're wrong about it but unfortunately it's possible one of them is lost for the season before the end of training camp.

If the articles I found are correct, I believe the Packers kept five backs in both 2015 and 2012. So if all three rookies play well, it's not outlandish to think they're all kept.

You're right about that as Lacy, Starks, Kuhn, Ripkowski and Harris made the final roster in 2015. The team kept Benson, Green, Kuhn, Saine and Starks on the 53 in 2012.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If your recruiters were right in selecting "Joe" because he had skills but you mismanaged him, I hang that on you as the manager and not the recruiters.

I get your point about producing for the team. It's fun to argue about though!

LOL...who's arguing, we are merely discussing. The big picture for me is the guy failed your business/team and that could be the fault of the employee/player or the company/team management itself. However, in the end, the results are the same, a wasted hire/pick. How to correct that, to try and minimize the chance of it happening again, is something completely different.

 

[C-Lee]

Goodson is horrible and I doubt he'll ever play for the Packers again.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Goodson is horrible and I doubt he'll ever play for the Packers again.

It's possible Goodson makes the final roster based on his special teams performance. I hope the team doesn't have to line him up at cornerback anymore though.

 

[PikeBadger]

On my drafting spreadsheet, I cut slack to players who succeed elsewhere because what I am assessing is drafting success. If the player moves on that is a personnel decision separate from the drafting decision. A good example is Matt Hasselbeck in the 1998 draft. Ron Wolf selected him in the 6th round. He spent his years in Green Bay backing up Favre before being traded to Seattle in 2001. There he was a bonafide starter for many years. In my estimation, that was a good draft pick. It showed solid talent evaluation. Mike Sherman then traded him, improving his first round pick from 17th to 10th and also picking up an extra 3rd round pick. That was a good move for the Packers. Of course, he then wasted those picks on Jamal Reynolds and Torrance Marshall....but Sherman's ineptitude is another discussion. Matt Hasselbeck was a successful selection even though he didn't contribute much to the Packers' success - unless you count his pick six to Al Harris in the playoffs.

Injuries are another factor. That makes it much tougher to tell usually. Certainly how a GM manages the draft, player acquisition, and contracts are all intertwined. However, when evaluating draft picks one needs to first decide whether you are evaluating the successful selection of a talented player or evaluating the success one brings to the team. I think that they aren't mutually exclusive and should be judged separately.

I'm much the same as you Guapo when judging a draft.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So do you guys give a Draft Pick like Casey Hayward a C+ when he left the Packers, but a year later change it to a B+ because of how he played in San Diego and then if he bombs in 2017 switch it to a D? Again, to me there is a difference between grading the Packers Drafted players during their time in Green Bay and what could be a very different grade if you start altering that grade over the career of that player.

We went through this type of analysis of the 2013 draft class in another thread. I doubt many would give Datone Jones that high of a draft grade right now, but does that all somehow change if he plays really well in Minnesota?

In grading a draft class, I'm still sticking to "What did that Player do for the Packers".

 

[Sky King]

Hayward played well for the Packers when he was not hampered by injury. So have Adams, Matthews, Cobb, Perry and many others over the years. Hmmm. That always gets me to thinking about two (often) implied injury phenomena:

It is interesting to me that folks may sometimes seem to have the expectation that a player who earns more in salary should perhaps be more immune to (and also less-affected by) injury when compared to players making less salary. But who knows? Maybe there really is some powerful juju associated with injury vs. salary. This may also imply that more advanced medical treatment is being provided by one team vs. another, regardless of salary.

I have my doubts about the former and I'm not taking any chances on the latter. If you agree then repeat after me:

"Klaatu barada nikto"

 

[Poppa San]

"Klaatu barada nikto"

"May I mambo dogface on the banana patch?"

 

[Sky King]

"May I mambo dogface on the banana patch?"

It's a free country.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Dix-B
Adams-B
Thornton-F
Rodgers-C+
Bradford-D
Linsley-A+
Abby-D
Goodson-F
Janis-C-

Odd that Abby & Bradford rate a "D" while Goodson gets an "F", yet Goodson is still on the roster and the other two are not......

 

[Arthur Squires]

Your right, I meant for Bradford and Goodson to both have Fs and Abby D. My reasons being Abby was getting to be on Rodgers radar but injuries held him up. I give Abby a D due to the playoff game vs the Cardinals where he and Janis both stepped up and were helping us move the ball. I can't think of 1 play where either Goodson or Bradford helped our team. I actually think Goodson gets cut this year due to his ineffectiveness and bringing in House and King!