Overall Graft Grades, PF "experts"

[Half Empty]

Agree. Was just responding to:

For all you hating on this draft, I'll check back in on this thread in 3 years and have a good laugh, like I did the 2005 draft thread a while ago.

 

[OldSchool101]

I get the draft capital argument. but using our situation is also all the ammo you need to argue that it doesn't matter a whole lot. All these 1st round picks on defense vs offense and what has it done for our defense? This idea that spending those picks on offense would mean Rodgers had more to work with is everything but a guarantee as we've found out with the defense.

The argument you’re making for proposing we would’ve failed to give Rodgers better personnel on O had we spent another roughly 5,400 points of draft resources on Offense during the last 12 years doesn’t hold true to statistics. It’s pure speculation going heavily against the odds of NFL success rates. The higher the draft pick, the higher the success rates for players as long as the sample size is large enough. Over 100+ draftees across all 7 rounds in consecutive drafts is an adequate sample size IMO.

Those resources were compared also across all 7 rounds, so using an argument that the FO wouldn’t have been successful drafting 1st day picks is only 1 part of the equation. Not to mention, making an assumption that the GM had to spend all 5,400 lost draft collateral points specifically in round 1 in a “do-over” is purely speculation and obviously we know is not consistent with where we’d want to pick at Offense based on history.

Losing 5400 points cost Rodgers dearly IMO.
-taking away roughly 16-17 players picked at 2.25 (roughly where we picked on average) in just twelve drafts
Or..
-Negating over 30 Offensive players picked at 3.25 over twelve seasons
Or..
-We deleted picking from 114 Offensive players at 4.25 in a twelve year span.

These are areas this team in particular had a history of moderate to good luck in finding successful players. Any combination of the above would’ve most certainly had to improve the Offense under Rodgers tenure so I respectfully and wholly disagree with your “doesnt matter a whole lot” argument.

 

[Mondio]

Oh, so stats stats say our defense should have been good enough to win more games then in that time too? High picks and stats and all.

The facts are, wherever they were picked, plenty of later offensive guys performed far better than their draft slot says they should. The argument does hold water, as it’s already happened.

The speculation comes in thinking just switching higher defensive picked with offense would have had different results. Spriggs was a 2nd rounder, he’s no 4th round Bakhtiari.

 

[AmishMafia]

The argument you’re making for proposing we would’ve failed to give Rodgers better personnel on O had we spent another roughly 5,400 points of draft resources on Offense during the last 12 years doesn’t hold true to statistics. It’s pure speculation going heavily against the odds of NFL success rates. The higher the draft pick, the higher the success rates for players as long as the sample size is large enough. Over 100+ draftees across all 7 rounds in consecutive drafts is an adequate sample size IMO.

Those resources were compared also across all 7 rounds, so using an argument that the FO wouldn’t have been successful drafting 1st day picks is only 1 part of the equation. Not to mention, making an assumption that the GM had to spend all 5,400 lost draft collateral points specifically in round 1 in a “do-over” is purely speculation and obviously we know is not consistent with where we’d want to pick at Offense based on history.

Losing 5400 points cost Rodgers dearly IMO.
-taking away roughly 16-17 players picked at 2.25 (roughly where we picked on average) in just twelve drafts
Or..
-Negating over 30 Offensive players picked at 3.25 over twelve seasons
Or..
-We deleted picking from 114 Offensive players at 4.25 in a twelve year span.

These are areas this team in particular had a history of moderate to good luck in finding successful players. Any combination of the above would’ve most certainly had to improve the Offense under Rodgers tenure so I respectfully and wholly disagree with your “doesnt matter a whole lot” argument.

didnt I see an article about a year or two ago about TTs trade value? And that the balance of all his trades netted us a first round pick. Also, the lack of signing FAs netted us more compensatory picks. I wonder if that makes up the difference and TT spent as much on defense as the average team.

 

[Mondio]

someone else can go add them up if they like, but I think the entire first round seems to have been favoring defense almost every year since Wolf was the GM. that's a long time. I don't think the defense/offense is really very unique to GB. Recent history with DB's maybe, but then I remember Wolf took like 3 one year with his first 3 picks and only one really turned out for us and that was the 3rd rounder. and Wolf took almost 2 to 1 defense to offense in the first 3 rounds.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

someone else can go add them up if they like, but I think the entire first round seems to have been favoring defense almost every year since Wolf was the GM. that's a long time. I don't think the defense/offense is really very unique to GB. Recent history with DB's maybe, but then I remember Wolf took like 3 one year with his first 3 picks and only one really turned out for us and that was the 3rd rounder. and Wolf took almost 2 to 1 defense to offense in the first 3 rounds.

Guessing somewhere there is a statistical table that shows a weighted value on how much every team has spent on each side of the ball in regards to free agents and draft picks. If I had to lay a bet down, I would bet the Packers are in the top 5 in what they have spent on the defense. Of course, you would have to some how factor in draft position, since a team like Cleveland has had a lot more draft capital over those years.

 

[rmontro]

TT has a trade value? I will take a 7th rounder for him today!

I think it would be more appropriate that TT would have the trade value of an UDFA.

 

[Mondio]

I think you'd be surprised. Going back to Ted's first draft class, I only used rounds 1-3 as I think most would agree those are the highest picks and not that 4th and later are worthless, but if someone claimed a 4th rounder was a high offensive pick i'm certain more than a few people would disagree. One thing I noticed while doing this, the Patriots seemed to get a lot of picks in higher rounds. They had 5-6 players multiple times in the first 3 rounds, doubling up a lot of teams on top of the draft talent.

anyway, for comparison I just chose the Patriots who made 22 Offensive selections and 29 defensive. They chose offense 43% of the time

The Packers made 19 offensive selections and 26 defensive. They chose offense 42% of the time.

and I would definitely check my math.

 

[OldSchool101]

The speculation comes in thinking just switching higher defensive picked with offense would have had different results. Spriggs was a 2nd rounder, he’s no 4th round Bakhtiari.

That is one single example of success but hardly enough to convince a jury that NFL players drafted as 4th rounders are better than 2nd rounders because of an exception.

 

[rmontro]

That is one single example of success but hardly enough to convince a jury that NFL players drafted as 4th rounders are better than 2nd rounders because of an exception.

But they are cheaper!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

someone else can go add them up if they like, but I think the entire first round seems to have been favoring defense almost every year since Wolf was the GM. that's a long time. I don't think the defense/offense is really very unique to GB.

Here's what I found out. Since Thompson became the Packers general manager in 2005 a total of 711 picks (47.8%) have been spent on offense in the first three rounds of the draft while 774 defensive players (52.0%) have been selected. In addition two kickers and two punters have been drafted as well.

Interestingly there have been eleven teams over that period which have picked fewer players on offense than the Packers. Five of those have featured a top 10 scoring offense over the past 14 seasons just like the Packers as well.

 

[rmontro]

Here's what I found out. Since Thompson became the Packers general manager in 2005 a total of 711 picks (47.8%) have been spent on offense in the first three rounds of the draft while 774 defensive players (52.0%) have been selected. In addition two kickers and two punters have been drafted as well.

I'd be more interested in knowing the number of offensive vs defensive players picked since, say 2011 (which is when the defense went haywire). And maybe a breakdown by first round, first and second round, and first three rounds also.

 

[Mondio]

That is one single example of success but hardly enough to convince a jury that NFL players drafted as 4th rounders are better than 2nd rounders because of an exception.

It's the only example I cared to actually go look at again as I've made the point numerous times in other threads. Nobody seems to care. So go look yourself. Defense seems to be drafted higher across the league for ALL teams going back 20 years or more. Go Look at all of Wolf's drafts too, almost 2 to 1 in favor of defense.

and 4th rounders being better than 2nd wasn't my point. My point is, once they're drafted, it doesn't matter where they were picked anymore. I don't care that Spriggs was a 2nd rounder and DB a 4th. I don't care they didn't use a 2nd rounder for Bakh. It doesn't matter.

I don't care they found Lang late, Linsley, Tretter. I don't care that every great WR we've had for the past 15 years has been 2nd round or later and we didn't spend the first pick on them.

The point is, the offense has had a lot to work with over the years regardless of draft slots alloted to them. outside of last year, you'd have a tough time convincing a jury that GB didn't have enough quality players to be a good offense going back to the 1990's and we've been drafting more defense than offense since AT LEAST then.

 

[Mondio]

I'd be more interested in knowing the number of offensive vs defensive players picked since, say 2011 (which is when the defense went haywire). And maybe a breakdown by first round, first and second round, and first three rounds also.

Then you can break down injury history, fashion in which we've lost games, FA additions or losses, retirements and career ending injuries to offensive and defensive stars.

OR people could just see that defense seems to be favored higher in drafts and it's been that way for everyone for a long time. Or keep thinking GB is super unique in that regard. I'm sure since 2011 not everything has gone according to their plan.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'd be more interested in knowing the number of offensive vs defensive players picked since, say 2011 (which is when the defense went haywire). And maybe a breakdown by first round, first and second round, and first three rounds also.

Feel free to figure it out on your own by using this awesome tool.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/draft-finder.cgi

 

[Sunshinepacker]

When looking at defensive players vs offensive players drafted, it's pretty important to remember that, generally speaking, more defensive players are needed during a game than offensive players. E.g., teams generally rotate dlinemen during a game but they don't rotate offensive players. Additionally, a great QB allows a team to make do with lesser talent on offense as compared to defense. So it makes sense that a team with Aaron Rodgers would spend more draft picks on defense (especially when the defensive picks haven't been stellar for a number of years).

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So it makes sense that a team with Aaron Rodgers would spend more draft picks on defense (especially when the defensive picks haven't been stellar for a number of years).

Most important part of your post in bold. Had TT and the Packers hit on a number of high picks on defense, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[XPack]

Our lack of participation in FA was as damaging as bad draft picks. Once we realized that draft picks were a bust, we should sent a pick or two and traded for a more proven player in D and started beefing up the offence with other picks.

The whole transfer policy was a fiasco under TT.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Our lack of participation in FA was as damaging as bad draft picks. Once we realized that draft picks were a bust, we should sent a pick or two and traded for a more proven player in D and started beefing up the offence with other picks.

The whole transfer policy was a fiasco under TT.

Thompson having a ton of success drafting for the majority of his tenure allowed him to not participate in free agency but still maintain an elite roster. Once the Packers struggled to acquire talented players in the draft his strategy backfired though. There's no reason to consider any part of his approach a fiasco in general though.

 

[rmontro]

OR people could just see that defense seems to be favored higher in drafts and it's been that way for everyone for a long time. Or keep thinking GB is super unique in that regard..

I don't know if Green Bay is "super unique", but I have little doubt that the Packers have spent more high draft capital on defense than most teams in the last 6-8 years. So far they don't haven't had much to show for it.

 

[XPack]

Thompson having a ton of success drafting for the majority of his tenure allowed him to not participate in free agency but still maintain an elite roster. Once the Packers struggled to acquire talented players in the draft his strategy backfired though. There's no reason to consider any part of his approach a fiasco in general though.

"It worked 5 years ago" is not really a excuse for the fiasco that came later in his career, not does it justify his inaction. GM should be able to adapt and recover from draft failures. TTs inability to adapt from repeat draft fails by moving in FA is why we are here now. His tenure after 2014 is a fiasco, I still think.

 

[rmontro]

Feel free to figure it out on your own by using this awesome tool.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/draft-finder.cgi

That's a handy tool there. So what I found out was that from the years 2012-2019 (I changed 2011 to 2012 because the 2012 draft would have followed the 2011 season), Green Bay picked:

8 defensive players in the first round,
18 defensive players in the first three rounds,
and 6 offensive players in the first three rounds (no #1s).

I wanted to compare this to other teams, but I'm too lazy to run every team, so I just ran the other teams in our division:

Chicago
4 defensive players in the first round,
10 defensive players in the first three rounds,
and 10 offensive players in the first three rounds

Detroit
2 defensive players in the first round,
11 defensive players in the first three rounds,
and 13 offensive players in the first three rounds

Minnesota
6 defensive players in the first round,
11 defensive players in the first three rounds,
and 10 offensive players in the first three rounds.

As expected, that showed that Green Bay spent quite a bit more draft capital on defensive players than at least the other teams in the NFC North.

 

[Mondio]

As expected, that showed that Green Bay spent quite a bit more draft capital on defensive players than at least the other teams in the NFC North.

That's what happens when you restrict the criteria to get what you expected

I also expect a team like the Bears that have sucked on offense for a long time to invest in it, when they have a good defense.

Of course a team that has no DB's and failing pass rush and for most of those years outside of a season where Rodgers went down, had an offense top 10 or better should just keep feeding it right?

Why do people act like there weren't damn good reasons to go defense? anybody?

 

[rmontro]

That's what happens when you restrict the criteria to get what you expected

I also expect a team like the Bears that have sucked on offense for a long time to invest in it, when they have a good defense.

Of course a team that has no DB's and failing pass rush and for most of those years outside of a season where Rodgers went down, had an offense top 10 or better should just keep feeding it right?

Why do people act like there weren't damn good reasons to go defense? anybody?

Whoa, what criteria was I restricting? Were you wanting me to post up the results for all 32 teams? I don't have all day for this, you know, I have messages to post after all.

And I never said there weren't good reasons to go heavy on defense, I'm saying that for all we've invested in it, the defense should have been better than it has been. That's the point.

 

[Mondio]

Whoa, what criteria was I restricting? Were you wanting me to post up the results for all 32 teams? I don't have all day for this, you know, I have messages to post after all.

And I never said there weren't good reasons to go heavy on defense, I'm saying that for all we've invested in it, the defense should have been better than it has been. That's the point.

Nobody is saying the defense shouldn't have been better. It's obvious that the picks made, didn't end up with the results we/they expected.