Is this the worst draft in this decade for the Packers?

[PackFan2]

Just gonna leave this here...

https://247sports.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/Article/Fans-mixed-on-Packers-draft-104192879/

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You make my point for me. Draft picks are hit or miss so you need as many as you can, especially the first five rounds.

Of course draft picks are hit or miss and that was part of my point. I am not going to collect the data for you, but look up the statistics comparing the round that a player was chosen in and his success in the NFL. I think that you will find round 1 picks have a higher rate of success than a round #4 pick. Also, you might find that the earlier a player is chosen in a round, especially in the early rounds, the probability of him making it are higher than the back half of that same round. Would you rather have 4 picks in the first 3 rounds or 8 picks in the last 2 rounds?

So yes picks are valuable, but so is positioning in the early rounds. I think if Gute had traded up and grabbed Patrick Queen instead of Love, people would be hailing this as a brilliant move. Those who don't like the pick are just throwing in "Gute should have never picked Love and he lost our 4th round pick in the process". Quite honestly, if you look at the draft value trade chart, it was a brilliant trade for the Packers just by the numbers alone. Throw in the fact that they got the exact guy that they wanted and merely gave up a pick near the end of the 4th round, solid move by Gute.

 

[adambr2]

One concept that I've seen making the rounds is "Oh good, if Rodgers goes down we finally have someone who gives us a chance!"

No. Just no. Honestly, if Rodgers goes down in 2020 I would guess that Tim Boyle gives us a better chance to win than Jordan Love. You can probably cut Boyle loose by 2021 but I'd be surprised if we don't carry 3 QBs in 2020 with our 1st round pick being our 3rd string QB.

Love is a developmental project and if you're taking him in the 1st right now you're all-in on his ceiling.

He should not see any kind of meaningful snaps in 2020 as he is simply not close to ready. Don't be surprised if he is a healthy inactive many times this season with nothing more than a few snaps all season in late blowout games. If this were college football you'd be redshirting him.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Aaron was a veteran by year 4 of his career whether he started or not.

Sitting on the bench and getting game reps are not the same thing.

Anyway, few would argue that hanging on to Rodgers and letting Brett walk was a bad move.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Just gonna leave this here...

https://247sports.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/Article/Fans-mixed-on-Packers-draft-104192879/

THAT....was a classic take on the drafting of Aaron Rodgers and Nick Collins!
Had Terrence Murphy not suffered a career ending neck injury 3 games into his rookie year, that draft class might have been one of TT's better ones. Was kind of odd that Collins eventually had his stellar career cut short by a neck injury as well.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[Patriotplayer90]

NE and NO, who have excellent management, understand QBs better than anyone, and have much more immediate openings for future franchise QBs, straight up passed on this guy. If that doesn't worry you that he's a bust as opposed to the next Patrick Mahomes, I don't know what will.

 

[Pugger]

A lot of folks are wondering why we gave Rodgers an extension in 2018 and then last weekend they moved up to draft his potential replacement. Back in 2005 nobody at 1265 dreamed Aaron would fall like he did. This year we ended up with the 30th pick. I strongly suspect Gute and MFL weren't targeting a QB this year either. As the draft unfolded and good WRs came off the board Gute and Matt couldn't help but notice they had a shot at a potential franchise QB that they really liked. Not often do teams drafting this late have a chance to nab a QB that has a high ceiling. They found a trading partner and pulled the trigger. If my suspicions are correct then Gute and MLF were not giving AR the finger, so to speak. They had the chance to possibly secure the most important position in football for many years to come just like TT did in 2005.

 

[Pugger]

NE and NO, who have excellent management, understand QBs better than anyone, and have much more immediate openings for future franchise QBs, straight up passed on this guy. If that doesn't worry you that he's a bust as opposed to the next Patrick Mahomes, I don't know what will.

The Saints just signed Jameis Winston. I think I'd rather have Love than him.

NE got lucky as hell with Brady all those years ago but now Tom left and Gronk wanted out too. NE is circling the drain.

 

[Packer Fan in SD]

NE and NO, who have excellent management, understand QBs better than anyone, and have much more immediate openings for future franchise QBs, straight up passed on this guy. If that doesn't worry you that he's a bust as opposed to the next Patrick Mahomes, I don't know what will.

So the team that let 198 other picks go by, including all their picks before, including one before Brady in the 6th round of theirs, and the team that signed Brees, but hasn’t drafted a QB in ages, are what to go by when it comes to this? And the Saints, who tendered Taysom, and drafted a replacement for Max Unger, that is the standard? Well there you go.

By the way, the Saints starter was Brooks, with 13 tds and 17 int’s. That passed on Rodgers. Clearly QBs gurus.

Next false argument...

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

NE and NO, who have excellent management, understand QBs better than anyone, and have much more immediate openings for future franchise QBs, straight up passed on this guy. If that doesn't worry you that he's a bust as opposed to the next Patrick Mahomes, I don't know what will.

You talking about the 2 teams that passed on Lamar Jackson, as well as the Saints also passing on DeShaun Watson.

Ok, tell me more about their excellent understanding of QB's, I am listening.

Come on man, I know you don't like the pick, but don't like it for legit reasons.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

So the team that let 198 other picks go by, including all their picks before, including one before Brady in the 6th round of theirs, and the team that signed Brees, but hasn’t drafted a QB in ages, are what to go by when it comes to this? And the Saints, who tendered Taysom, and drafted a replacement for Max Unger, that is the standard? Well there you go.

By the way, the Saints starter was Brooks, with 13 tds and 17 int’s. That passed on Rodgers. Clearly QBs gurus.

Next false argument...

Sean Payton wasn't even on the team that year. What does that have to do with anything? NE had a franchise QB, signed one in the 6th to sit behind him. Worked out pretty well. You don't have to ignore your current needs in order to set yourself up 3 years from now. Maybe, even he is even good.

The Saints just signed Jameis Winston. I think I'd rather have Love than him.[/B]

NE got lucky as hell with Brady all those years ago but now Tom left and Gronk wanted out too. NE is circling the drain.

A 1 year deal is totally comparable to spending a 1st and 4th on a QB....

They just got a nice comp pick based on how well a castaway QB looked in their offense. Why wouldn't they do it again?

 

[adambr2]

I'm more still pissed about Ted handing him the reins a full year before he was ready for it.

Look, Ted Thompson did a lot of good things for the Packers over the years, but his reign as GM, frankly, went on longer than it should have.

Gute has been a part of the scouting and directing business for 22 years. 1 more year was not going to make a difference for him. Either he's cut out to be an NFL GM or he's not. It's still too soon to know for sure.

 

[Spanky]

Of course draft picks are hit or miss and that was part of my point. I am not going to collect the data for you, but look up the statistics comparing the round that a player was chosen in and his success in the NFL. I think that you will find round 1 picks have a higher rate of success than a round #4 pick. Also, you might find that the earlier a player is chosen in a round, especially in the early rounds, the probability of him making it are higher than the back half of that same round. Would you rather have 4 picks in the first 3 rounds or 8 picks in the last 2 rounds?

So yes picks are valuable, but so is positioning in the early rounds. I think if Gute had traded up and grabbed Patrick Queen instead of Love, people would be hailing this as a brilliant move. Those who don't like the pick are just throwing in "Gute should have never picked Love and he lost our 4th round pick in the process". Quite honestly, if you look at the draft value trade chart, it was a brilliant trade for the Packers just by the numbers alone. Throw in the fact that they got the exact guy that they wanted and merely gave up a pick near the end of the 4th round, solid move by Gute.

Your argument does not make sense in rebuttal to mine. The Packers had a 1st without throwing away a 4th to move up 4 spots. And as I demonstrated earlier, the Packers have historically done a pretty good job of finding talent in the 4th round. Well, people not named Gutekunst anyway.

 

[adambr2]

A lot of folks are wondering why we gave Rodgers an extension in 2018 and then last weekend they moved up to draft his potential replacement. Back in 2005 nobody at 1265 dreamed Aaron would fall like he did. This year we ended up with the 30th pick. I strongly suspect Gute and MFL weren't targeting a QB this year either. As the draft unfolded and good WRs came off the board Gute and Matt couldn't help but notice they had a shot at a potential franchise QB that they really liked. Not often do teams drafting this late have a chance to nab a QB that has a high ceiling. They found a trading partner and pulled the trigger. If my suspicions are correct then Gute and MLF were not giving AR the finger, so to speak. They had the chance to possibly secure the most important position in football for many years to come just like TT did in 2005.

If people like the pick of Love than that is fine but why people continue to have the need to compare it to Rodgers to justify it I just do not understand. They are completely different situations.

Yes it's true we did not expect Rodgers to drop in 2005. It was an unprecedented situation.

Love was not the same at all. He was someone I'm sure we were well aware had a chance to be there at #26. I'm not sure they were targeting him specifically in the 1st but I'm sure he was well on our radar to move up for him there.

As an aside taking a shot on an upside QB in the late 1st who is not ready is not a particularly rare event. Both Drew Brees and Lamar Jackson were the last pick in the 1st round, as was Teddy Bridgewater with many other late 1st/early 2nd project QBs. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it does not.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Your argument does not make sense in rebuttal to mine. The Packers had a 1st without throwing away a 4th to move up 4 spots. And as I demonstrated earlier, the Packers have historically done a pretty good job of finding talent in the 4th round. Well, people not named Gutekunst anyway.

In evaluating a draft trade, I first look at the trade value before I look at the players selected, since the success of such is unknown at the time. The Packers had pick #30, they wanted pick #26 to assure themselves of getting Love, they used a late 4th round pick to accomplish that. If you look at a standard draft value trade chart the Packers used 658 trade value points and got 700 in return. On a pure point value, the difference of 42 points is equal to pick #130. Great trade for Gute.

But you want to call it a bad trade, because the Packers gave up a 4th round pick, so you gave me a list of successful 4th round picks by the Packers. First, you listing 4th rounders that were successful as a reason to call it a dumb move is no different than me listing 4th rounders that weren't successful. Except for one thing, to be more accurate and fair about your claim, we need to look at just how many on your list of "successes" were picked at #136 or later?

Let's look at your list:

David Bakhtiari: #109
Josh Sitton: #135
T.J. Lang: #109
J.C. Tretter: #122
Brady Poppinga: #125
Davon House: #131
Mike Daniels: #132
Blake Martinez: #131

Hmmmmm.....absolutely none of these guys were selected with a #136 pick or later. But I guess the Packers could have just traded up to get them? Oh wait.....

 

[Toad1924]

Great trade for Gute.

You calling this a great trade based off of a trade chart might be more ridicoulous than people already proclaiming it a bad trade.

I don't disagree with the overall premise of what you are getting at with all your posts (ie that the pick has been made, let's see if it pans out) but many of the points in which you make the argument are just as flimsy as the ones you are arguing against.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You calling this a great trade based off of a trade chart might be more ridicoulous than people already proclaiming it a bad trade.

I don't disagree with the overall premise of what you are getting at with all your posts (ie that the pick has been made, let's see if it pans out) but many of the points in which you make the argument are just as flimsy as the ones you are arguing against.

Read again what I wrote:

In evaluating a draft trade, I first look at the trade value before I look at the players selected, since the success of such is unknown at the time. The Packers had pick #30, they wanted pick #26 to assure themselves of getting Love, they used a late 4th round pick to accomplish that. If you look at a standard draft value trade chart the Packers used 658 trade value points and got 700 in return. On a pure point value, the difference of 42 points is equal to pick #130. Great trade for Gute.

In this statement, I clearly wasn't talking about the merits of the player selected or the potential player(s) lost. That is the other half of this and should be discussed in separate merits and no doubt will be evaluated and discussed in the coming years.

Talking about "Draft Trade Value" is strictly looking at the value of the picks exchanged using a commonly used NFL Trade Value Chart. In the case of this trade, the chart tells you that the Packers came out ahead by a good margin. If the draft value trade chart is something that you don't believe in, I understand, but tell me what criteria do you use to evaluate traded draft picks and what makes it a good or bad trade (players picked aside) for you? More specifically, talk about what makes this a bad draft pick trade for the Packers.

 

[Dayooper]

I understand the Love pick. we can't wait until AR retires. But. After last years game against the 49ers and our run defense I just don't understand. We pick an inside LB that is poor in coverage and bad on the outside runs. I know we were only one blow out away from a superbowl appearance. yup worst draft since Tony Mandwich

 

[garyhogeboomsghost]

Just gonna leave this here...

https://247sports.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/Article/Fans-mixed-on-Packers-draft-104192879/

it was def an interesting, surprising draft. no doubt about that.

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

Look, Ted Thompson did a lot of good things for the Packers over the years, but his reign as GM, frankly, went on longer than it should have.

Gute has been a part of the scouting and directing business for 22 years. 1 more year was not going to make a difference for him. Either he's cut out to be an NFL GM or he's not. It's still too soon to know for sure.

You realize I was talking about Rodgers right?

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

Sitting on the bench and getting game reps are not the same thing.

Anyway, few would argue that hanging on to Rodgers and letting Brett walk was a bad move.

You are right...from 2009 forward. In 2008 you are wrong.

 

[adambr2]

You realize I was talking about Rodgers right?

I would agree with that even less, honestly. He had a very good 2008 in his first year starting with over 4,000 yards and 28 TDs.

He had 3 full seasons sitting behind Favre. That's almost unprecedented for a 1st round potential franchise QB to get that much developmental time before becoming the starter. And you think he should have had a 4th year of sitting?

He was plenty ready to start by his 4th season, as he showed in '08. There was nothing wrong with their developmental plan for Aaron Rodgers, and to stick Rodgers on the bench yet again after Favre's retirement would have almost surely invited trade requests by that point.

Another point is that by 2009 you're running out of time to figure out whether this guy can be your franchise QB as you've learned absolutely nothing about that potential by having him sit for 4 years and now his rookie deal is coming to an end. Under the current CBA you'd literally have to commit to a 5th year option choice before your franchise QB has even had a chance to start. There's absolutely no logic to your assertion that the Packers went to Rodgers too early in 2008.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

You are right...from 2009 forward. In 2008 you are wrong.

I don't think so. It's a package deal.

 

[Spanky]

In evaluating a draft trade, I first look at the trade value before I look at the players selected, since the success of such is unknown at the time. The Packers had pick #30, they wanted pick #26 to assure themselves of getting Love, they used a late 4th round pick to accomplish that. If you look at a standard draft value trade chart the Packers used 658 trade value points and got 700 in return. On a pure point value, the difference of 42 points is equal to pick #130. Great trade for Gute.

But you want to call it a bad trade, because the Packers gave up a 4th round pick, so you gave me a list of successful 4th round picks by the Packers. First, you listing 4th rounders that were successful as a reason to call it a dumb move is no different than me listing 4th rounders that weren't successful. Except for one thing, to be more accurate and fair about your claim, we need to look at just how many on your list of "successes" were picked at #136 or later?

Let's look at your list:

David Bakhtiari: #109
Josh Sitton: #135
T.J. Lang: #109
J.C. Tretter: #122
Brady Poppinga: #125
Davon House: #131
Mike Daniels: #132
Blake Martinez: #131

Hmmmmm.....absolutely none of these guys were selected with a #136 pick or later. But I guess the Packers could have just traded up to get them? Oh wait.....

The "standard draft value trade chart" is a wild *** guess. To quote it as gospel is ridiculous. If you'd prefer to a have a 26 and no 136 as opposed to a 30 and a 136 that'd your business. I'd rather have the two picks.

We'll find out for certain in 4 years if the Love pick was worth it. But history says it won't be and so do I.

 

[felix145]

I understand the Love pick. we can't wait until AR retires. But. After last years game against the 49ers and our run defense I just don't understand. We pick an inside LB that is poor in coverage and bad on the outside runs. I know we were only one blow out away from a superbowl appearance. yup worst draft since Tony Mandwich

Agree. I'm fine with the Love pick, but not with the following picks.

AJ Dillon in the 2nd round is terrible, same for Josiah Deguara in the 3rd. I bet you get both players in later rounds. Dillon maybe at the end of the draft. Both are a massive reach and I don't think they'll help us right now. I don't think the offense was the problem last year. It was the run defense and the coverage in the middle of the field.

We were one win away from the Super Bowl, so i still don't understand why we don't address our biggest needs. Especially DL and ILB. Yeah, we picked an ILB, but he is poor in coverage. Something which has killed us very often in the past season.
It's also ridiculous to not draft a single WR in maybe the best and deepest WR class ever.

This isn't Aaron Rodgers team anymore, it's LaFleurs and he obviously doesn't care about draft value.