Packers 1st round selection, #12 overall: Rashan Gary, DE

[Sunshinepacker]

To make my point:


The Packers do not select best value, which means to draft for need, but BPA.

If they had Dillon rated higher than any other player, they absolutely should have picked him.

Nope. If Dillon was an 83 and a CB was an 82, go for the CB; the position is far more valuable than RB in the NFL and the team has much more of a need.

 

[AmishMafia]

That's a pretty tortured perspective on the meaning of "value". But let's set that aside.

There's a perspective that Gary was a luxury pick after signing the Smiths, not an area of need, and therefore he must have been perceived as the best player avilable by the people who drafted him, irrespective of the other needs.

Not so fast, in light of the following:

1) The Smiths took too many snaps last season, both at 84%. 75% is a better number to keep from getting gassed and faking injuries to get a time out which we definitely saw on a couple of occasions.

2) Even with those high snap counts from the Smiths, Facrkrell and Gary still combined for 64% snaps.

3) The snap counts for all 4 players totaled about 230%. That means on average three of them were on the field for 30% of the snaps, a Pettine preference, stated a couple of times. It would have been more than 30% if Gary had played more like a #12 pick, but that's besides the point in assessing need.

4) When you look at who's on the roster other than Clark and Z. Smith who can bring pressure from 3-tech in nickel/dime being run 75-80% of the time, you're left saying, "uh, uh, uh...." I would not have surprised me if Z. Smith took as many snaps at DT as OLB, whether standing up or hand in the dirt, if Gary was up to the task on the edge. Pettine also discussed Gary playing that DT position eventually where you would see him and Z. bouncing in and out of that spot.

5) And yet, even with only a 30% snap count with the hoped for three-headed monster going forward as the core and defining character of this defense, that's a 75% snap count for each of the Smiths and Gary with a little chip in from the #4. More than 30% with all three on the field? Then more chip in from the #4. Fackrell was supposed to be that #4, not the other way around.

Drafting Gary was not about having a rotational guy, injury backup, or simply "the best player available"--the Smiths and Gary were all intended to be in essence starters at those 75% snap counts, give or take. That's a bit of a high count to expect from a rookie edge. Many first rounders at the position are not 3-down players as rookies. But you would have expected at the time of the pick that you'd get that in year 2. Whether Pettine expects that now is TBD.

These three guys, together with Clark, were intended to be the engine of this defense, playing aggressivley up front. Yeah, from Pettine's perspective, the need quotient was pretty high with this pick. It was intended to buy, in essence, a nickel/dime pass rushing DT with Z. Smith or Gary, not some backup.

Couple of things:

I think any OLB, DL, WR, RB, or DB is going to get a bunch of playing time, if drafted in the top 20. There is almost always a "need" at those positions for nearly every team and don't see snap counts as evidence of a need pick.

They may very well expected Gary or one of the other OLBs to be there or they would have kept Matthews or signed another FA.

As far as BPA or Need, these are the only 2 drafting options available. You either take one of the players graded the highest or you don't. If you take a player with a lower grade because your team has a greater need, that is drafting for need. That is, in my opinion, how those terms are defined by most.

 

[HardRightEdge]

But...he was 2nd team all big team two years hand running... Freaking 2nd teamer at 12? Ugh....

Actually, Gary was first team All Big 10 in in both 2017 and 2018 according to the conference's web site. Other polls may have been different.

https://bigten.org/news/2018/11/27/...ecial-teams-and-select-individual-honors.aspx

https://bigten.org/documents/2018/6/7/20547__m_footbl_2017_18_misc_non_event__17fbawards.pdf

Another poll had Gary ahead of Nick Bosa in 2017, so think about that:

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/big-ten-football-2017-all-conference-team

It's not how good a college player a guy happened to be as how you can project him in the pros. Here's the most extreme case I can think of: Pat Fitzgerald, currently the Northwestern coach, a guy we may recall was in the discussion as a possible McCarthy successor.

In the mid-1990's Fitzgerald was a two-time Big Ten Defensive Player of the Year; a two-time concensus All-American; and a two-time winner of both the Bronco Nagurski Award and the Chuck Bednarik awards, different polls naming the best defensive player in college football. Of course, he's in the College Football Hall of Fame. Fitzgerald wasn't even drafted. He signed as a UDFA with the Cowboys, was cut after two preseason games, and that was the end of his pro career. He wan't injured nor was there any other factor than he was simply too slow.

Sure, that's exteme, but it just goes to show that these polls can be way off, or even a little off, when projecting to the pros.

 

[AmishMafia]

Nope. If Dillon was an 83 and a CB was an 82, go for the CB; the position is far more valuable than RB in the NFL and the team has much more of a need.

Not to get to deep into it, each position has a formula. The formula weighs the importance of the position to the system. There could be the world's greatest longsnapper who is a phenom. He can never rate more than a 5.0. An average NFL CB maybe a 6.0.

I agree a CB is more important than a RB. So if a RB is rated higher than a CB, he is a much better player.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Couple of things:

I think any OLB, DL, WR, RB, or DB is going to get a bunch of playing time, if drafted in the top 20.

Not if you keep stacking "best player available" on top of "best player available" in one position group which your theory of drafting would certainly allow. The Gary pick was not that for the reasons stated.

Perimeter corners and WRs in particular can get to 100% snap counts. RBs, DLs and OLBs 75%, or more if you push it. If you already have a couple of good ones at one position or another, that new guy is not going to get many snaps. I'd also be skeptical of getting your money's worth out of a RB at #62 who under optimal circumstances will be limited to a 30% snap count. Maybe he doesn't pick up the routes and pass blocking as fast as you'd like and he gets 0% snaps. The best we can say about that is it's a 2021 pick in light of free agency.

 

[HardRightEdge]

They may very well expected Gary or one of the other OLBs to be there or they would have kept Matthews or signed another FA.

If that ain't drafting for a particular position, a perceived need, I don't know what you'd call it.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Not to get to deep into it, each position has a formula. The formula weighs the importance of the position to the system. There could be the world's greatest longsnapper who is a phenom. He can never rate more than a 5.0. An average NFL CB maybe a 6.0.

I agree a CB is more important than a RB. So if a RB is rated higher than a CB, he is a much better player.

I disagree that Dillon was a far better player at RB than any other players were at positions of need on this team. Only time will tell.

 

[AmishMafia]

If that ain't drafting for a particular position, a perceived need, I don't know what you'd call it.

Neither of us know what their board looked like. They could have had Burns as a value pick at 12.

 

[AmishMafia]

I disagree that Dillon was a far better player at RB than any other players were at positions of need on this team. Only time will tell.

According to my board, we should have drafted WRs with the first 3 picks. But then I was so sure we were going WR, I spent 1/2 my time looking at them. Hardly a fair analysis that certainly skewed to the receivers.

Dillon is a pretty incredible athlete. Let's hope it translates to the field (and I am pretty sure it will) better than Gary.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Neither of us know what their board looked like. They could have had Burns as a value pick at 12.

Who was Gutekunst's "best player available" at the original pick, #30? In the 4th. round? We'll never know and we shouldn't care because Gutekunst sure didn't. Who was the best player available at #35 in a trade down if NE had traded up to #25 and taken Love? Forget Dillon at #62 as the "best player available"; what about in the high 40's / low 50's packaging #62 with the extra pick from the trade down from #30 along with the 4th. rounder spent on Love?

For a guy we are led to believe is the QB of the future, why trade up to #26 and not #25 or #24 or higher? Not the BPA at #25 or #24, but the QB of the future at #26? That does not sound plausible. The asking price of a 4th. rounder to move where he did was cheap; the asking price to to get to #25 or #24 may have been a little too expensive. Now you're talking about risking losing the "best player available" and the "QB of the future" for somewhat better compensation? Gutekunst knew he was reaching for Love. I seriously doubt that player was the "best available" at that spot but he reckoned he reached high enough where nobody else would go. It's "lucky" he was right that Belichick was not as "smart" as him. Or how about SF taking him as a backup at #25? If history is any indication the 49er's could go 4-12 or worse with Beathard at QB if Garoppolo blows a knee in camp. SF was dumb enough to roll the dice on a healthy QB and add a receiving weapon while de-rostering the RB group. Good thing they're "stoopid", but I digress.

This BPA nonsense could get more traction under Thompson because he rarely messed with trading picks. If he was picking at #30, that's where he picked and he waited for the board to fall out. Once you see a GM moving around the board the BPA argument seriously erodes.

The fact of the matter is unless you see some generational player, which Love and Dillon certainly are not, needs factor heavily into the equation, plain and simple. Need, projection and cost go into the pot, get stirred around, and out comes a pick, or a trade. And since only fans and media don't look past this season's horizon, while GMs look further out as the Love pick attests, the need associated with Dillon is clear: he's the guy that's supposed to prevent having to pay Jones big money. Of course, it might not turn out that way but that's the deal.

 

[AmishMafia]

. . . . Once you see a GM moving around the board the BPA argument seriously erodes.

I don't know how you can make that statement.

If you trade up, obviously you don't believe he is going to be there at your pick. Therefore, it is very likely he had a higher grade than the other players that were left.

GMs have a variety of grades, especially QBs. Recall Wolf had Favre the #1 prospect in t he draft and were waiting for him to drop. He got picked one spot before his 1st selection, a early 2nd rounder.

Who knows? Gute could have had a top 10 grade on him. That doesn't mean it is worth it to trade up. There is so much going on with player grades, it is a very complex process. Fans try to simplify it sometimes, but if you really sit down and think through the processes that must occur, the draft is quite complex.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I don't know how you can make that statement.

If you trade up, obviously you don't believe he is going to be there at your pick. Therefore, it is very likely he had a higher grade than the other players that were left.

GMs have a variety of grades, especially QBs. Recall Wolf had Favre the #1 prospect in t he draft and were waiting for him to drop. He got picked one spot before his 1st selection, a early 2nd rounder.

Who knows? Gute could have had a top 10 grade on him. That doesn't mean it is worth it to trade up. There is so much going on with player grades, it is a very complex process. Fans try to simplify it sometimes, but if you really sit down and think through the processes that must occur, the draft is quite complex.

I attempted to explain that, but lets consider another angle on the trade up. Even if Love is perceived as the best player available at that spot you're not done. You traded a 4th. round pick. You have to consider the aggreagate value of the two picks vs. the one player. As for the Favre story, if Wolf valued Favre that highly what was he doing waiting for him to drop? Was he assuming the other 31 GMs were stoopid, all with much lower assessments? That story has little credibility given trade up options. It would be equivalent to saying that Gutekunst thought Love was the #1 prospect in this draft, a ludicrous proposition but an equivalent one nonetheless, and then refusing to trade up for him.

The BPA argument becomes more problematic in a trade down. By definition, you've passed on the best player available. Gutekunst has not done that at the top of the draft. I can't recall ,

You're not picking players here. You're building a roster with the inherent trade-offs. Again, the complexity is not simply in the grading of players and the building of the board. It's a function of talents, needs and costs in the context of trade-offs.

And why would free agency be any different? Was Za'Darius Smith the "best player available" in free agency? That's not even a relevant question. Was he the best player available at 4 years / $66 mil? You're getting warmer but not there. Was Za'Darius Smith the best 4 year / $66 mil player for this roster, this team? Bingo. That's a function of need and the perceived value proposition in the context of what you are trying to accomplish as a team, and not from the perspective of just one season.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

To make my point:


The Packers do not select best value, which means to draft for need, but BPA.

If they had Dillon rated higher than any other player, they absolutely should have picked him.

The 2020 Packers draft should definitely not be used as an example for a smart approach to it.

I think Dillon is a unique case. Gluten was likely looking ahead to FA in 2021 and seeing Jones walk (Prioritizing Bakh and Clark). So he’s further solidified The run game for 2020, and bought some insurance for 2021. Assuming Dillon is gone by the time GB picks in round 3, grabbing Dillon at #62 was the right move. It is a bit of a reach, but not much.

I would have understood the reasoning behind selecting a running back on day three of this year's draft with Jones and Williams headed towards free agency.

There was no reason to reach for one in the second round though.

you either take one of the players graded the highest or you don't. If you take a player with a lower grade because your team has a greater need, that is drafting for need.

Teams assign prospects in different tiers not ranking them by any numerical grades though. Within a tier position of need definitely factors into a selection.

 

[AmishMafia]

The BPA argument becomes more problematic in a trade down. By definition, you've passed on the best player available. Gutekunst has not done that at the top of the draft. I can't recall ,

No. Not really. BPA only means that when you select a player, you take the highest grade.

Gute traded back in 2018 with Saints and then back up.

However, even trading back doesnt necessarily mean you missed BPA at your pick. Suppose the Pack is on the clock at 14 and their board looks like this (with player grade):


Derwin James. 6.5
Tremain Edmunds 6.5
Jaire Alexander. 6.5
Marcus Davenport 6.5
LVE 6.5

Kolton Miller 6.4

Smith 6.3
Jones 6.3
Johnson 6.3
Biddle 6.3
(8 others)


So at their pick their are 5 players representing BPA at their pick. Gute knows if the Pack is effectively trading back 5 picks they are still getting the BPA.

 

[HardRightEdge]

No. Not really. BPA only means that when you select a player, you take the highest grade.

Gute traded back in 2018 with Saints and then back up.

However, even trading back doesnt necessarily mean you missed BPA at your pick. Suppose the Pack is on the clock at 14 and their board looks like this:

Derwin James. 6.5
Tremain Edmunds 6.5
Jaire Alexander. 6.5
Marcus Davenport 6.5
LVE 6.5

Despite all the evidence, year after year, that it doesn't work this way, I'll take one more short. Let's say the board looks like this...

Derwin James. 6.6
Tremain Edmunds 6.5
Jaire Alexander. 6.5
Marcus Davenport 6.5
LVE 6.5
Jaire Alexander. 6.4

...with Alexander the guy you see as the best CB on the board and CB the most acute need. Two decimal places is within the margin for error. You pick Alexander. We've seen this happen over and over, from the top on down the board. More often day 3 picks are made on raw potential, but in this draft we see the OLs on day 3 as a group from which that game day 8th. OL is supposed to emerge not to mention an injury replacement. There may be a dream that one of these guys can replace Bakhtiari next season, Runyan being the most likely candidate, and that's probably the biggest need of all.

Your adamant refusal to acknowlege need in the equation is inexplicable other than you have taken GM statements at face value when evidence says they are frequently a deflection. The best talent available happening to match up with the most acute need is an uncommon happy circumstance.

 

[AmishMafia]

Teams assign prospects in different tiers not ranking them by any numerical grades though. Within a tier position of need definitely factors into a selection.

Thats ridiculous and explains a lot of your opinions.

Grades establish "tiers" in that sometimes you have a drop off in the grades.

Landry explains it here:

“This is why draft rankings and draft boards like you read by analysts are not the same as how NFL teams set up their draft boards,” said Landry of LandryFootball.com. Landry, the former director of the Scouting Combine, currently serves as a consultant for NFL and college teams.

“Rankings are not the issue; rather, proper grading leads to the correct ranking on a real draft board. You have to grade to a standard and not grade players based on need,” he said.


Full article:

https://fanspeak.com/nfldraftnews/2...-grading-scales-to-set-up-their-draft-boards/


I've posted other articles before that explains BPA and player grades as explained by a former GM.

 

[AmishMafia]

Despite all the evidence, year after year, that it doesn't work this way, I'll take one more short. Let's say the board looks like this...

Derwin James. 6.6
Tremain Edmunds 6.5
Jaire Alexander. 6.5
Marcus Davenport 6.5
LVE 6.5
Jaire Alexander. 6.4

...with Alexander the guy you see as the best CB on the board and CB the most acute need. Two decimal places is within the margin for error. You pick Alexander. We've seen this happen over and over, from the top on down the board. More often day 3 picks are made on raw potential, but in this draft we see the OLs on day 3 as a group from which that game day 8th. OL is supposed to emerge not to mention an injury replacement. There may be a dream that one of these guys can replace Bakhtiari next season, Runyan being the most likely candidate, and that's probably the biggest need of all.

Your adamant refusal to acknowlege need in the equation is inexplicable other than you have taken GM statements at face value when evidence says it is a deflection.

My apologies. I had no idea you had access to all the Packer player grade info. Please post all the packer grades from the past few years. I'm sure we are all curious.


At least tell us who was rated higher than Jaire when they picked.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Please post all the packer grades from the past few years. I'm curious.

You first. You brought it up. The point being you don't know. You assume something based on deflective comments from GMs. It's not like we haven't caught them selling a bill of goods from time to time. When Thompson was asked why he went defense with his first 6 picks in 2012 his response was he just went crazy. Do you want to believe that? I suppose it might not be that far from the truth if the grades went out the window and instincts took over. Either way, it doesn't say much for parsing decimal points in grades.

Gutekunst told us predraft he intended to be active in trading, moving to clusters of value. Then on the morning of the draft he was calling around for a trade up. If you think he wasn't targetting Love and instead some "cluster" I think you'd be fooling yourself. This was year two of high value QB on-site interviews plus at least one guy who declined, maybe more. Gutekunst has been trying to scratch that QB itch for quite some time.

I look at the evidence. Switching to a 3-4? Draft Ragi and Matthews. Desperately need a LT? Draft Sherrod who's bona fides were primarily as a run blocker in a run-first offense, a reach for need. Need a Matthews book end? Draft Perry. Need a CB desperately? Reach for the best free safety in the draft in Randall and convert him. Clark--look at that D-Line at the time. Alexander--desperate need. King--ditto. Savage--ditto. Down the board there's Burks as a recent example--ditto and a second attempt after Josh Jones crapped out. Spriggs--Bulaga and his serial injuries. Those are off the top of my head before even reviewing the draft history. And of course Rodgers--Favre could quit at any time if that's another guy you want to believe in what he says.

Draft after draft we see strong need components all over the place.

So, how does Love fit in if he wasn't exactly the best player available on the board while it being implausible we'll see him for two years barring a Rodgers injury? As the Kizers and Beathards and Hundley's of this world amply illustrate, bad quarterbacking loses a lot of football games all by itself, it that's any revelation. No stockpile of RBs is going to change that. It's no revelation to say that it is the one positional liability you have no chance of covering up without a truly dominant defense which might get you to the playoffs but never the prize you seek. And this defense ain't that.

Why so soon with Love? Why not next year? Because Love is that exceptional of a prospect? Doubt it. Clearly they think he's a very good prospect, but you might want to consider whether he's just Plan A in this thinking. By this time next year they may be looking for Plan B. It would be naive to think there was not an element of risk aversion in this pick, leaving open time for that Plan B, just as Rodgers was a Plan A not inspriring enough confidence to prevent Brohm as Plan B. If Love is not working out after a year, a football mind equivalent to a box of rocks as is so often the case even with first round QBs, there's time for that second shot.

Since everybody wants as many reasons as they can think of to make a major decision, you can throw in the Rodgers injury factor. You want to lose as few games as possible. Boyle does not inspire confidence any more than the sting of backups before him. Think B.J. Coleman. These guys are a wish and a prayer.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Thats ridiculous and explains a lot of your opinions.

Grades establish "tiers" in that sometimes you have a drop off in the grades.

Landry explains it here:

“This is why draft rankings and draft boards like you read by analysts are not the same as how NFL teams set up their draft boards,” said Landry of LandryFootball.com. Landry, the former director of the Scouting Combine, currently serves as a consultant for NFL and college teams.

“Rankings are not the issue; rather, proper grading leads to the correct ranking on a real draft board. You have to grade to a standard and not grade players based on need,” he said.


Full article:

https://fanspeak.com/nfldraftnews/2...-grading-scales-to-set-up-their-draft-boards/


I've posted other articles before that explains BPA and player grades as explained by a former GM.

Of course you grade players to a standard, not based on need. But that doesn't mean you pick solely on that standard independent of need.

 

[HardRightEdge]

My apologies. I had no idea you had access to all the Packer player grade info. Please post all the packer grades from the past few years. I'm sure we are all curious.


At least tell us who was rated higher than Jaire when they picked.

To repeat, that's your theory in question, your posting of hypothetical grades, your assumptions about how it is done. If you want to claim that drafting is done on the basis of "best player available" and you want to illustate how that worked historically with grades, it is you to tell me what those actual grades happened to be. Your entire theory is predicated on what GMs tell you. That is highly unreliable. Thompson had the good sense to speak infrequently and when he did say as little as possible specifically to avoid scrutiny of motivation. Gutekunst is pretty clever, but a lot more chatty and has given himself away on a couple of occasions. It is clearly not "always win now in Green Bay, Wisconsin". That was a narrative that fit the FA signings in 2019. That sure isn't a line he's repeating now. The narrative now is, "I'm channeling Ron Wolf." That is supposed to give you a warm and fuzzy.

None of this narration and deflection is intended as a criticism of Gutekunst. He can tell all the stories he likes for all I care. To whatever extent pre-draft comments about trading into clusters gave him a competitive advantage all power to him. The proof is in the putting (or pudding if you prefer). I can't say I like the flavor of this draft regardless of what story you choose to spin around it.

It doesn't matter if Alexander was the highest graded player on the board or not. The disparity from one possibility to the next is not going to be great and Alexander goes to the top based on need. Even he was a reach given the lack of optimal height at the perimenter position. It is working out though. We do see the height issue exposed from time to time, but there are other compensations to consider him as a top 10. Pudding...proof.

We're not talking about the difference between generational players vs. typical first round prospects. Show me Lawrence Taylor dropping to #26 on a trade up and I say grab him even if OLB is the last thing you need. Or if Joe Burrow inexplicably fell to #26, maybe getting in hot over over taking cash from the idiot OBJ in the locker room, you still must take him. The gap between these prospects and the others is simply to great to pass up. What you are talking about is splitting hairs while ignoring needs.

In the end, the only plausible example of a massive fall and a significant disparity in grade that you can't pass up, is Rodgers. Even then, you couldn't be fully confident Favre would show up to camp in 2005. In that respect, Rodgers was a bigger need pick than even Love who surely did not deserve a similar grade.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Thats ridiculous and explains a lot of your opinions.

Grades establish "tiers" in that sometimes you have a drop off in the grades.

Landry explains it here:

“This is why draft rankings and draft boards like you read by analysts are not the same as how NFL teams set up their draft boards,” said Landry of LandryFootball.com. Landry, the former director of the Scouting Combine, currently serves as a consultant for NFL and college teams.

“Rankings are not the issue; rather, proper grading leads to the correct ranking on a real draft board. You have to grade to a standard and not grade players based on need,” he said.


Full article:

https://fanspeak.com/nfldraftnews/2...-grading-scales-to-set-up-their-draft-boards/


I've posted other articles before that explains BPA and player grades as explained by a former GM.

For the umpteenth time here's a link to an article in which Andrew Brandt (who was in the Packers war room at the time!!!) is talking about the Packers selecting Rodgers in 2005 and explaining the way a draft board is set up.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/7840048/nfl-draft-war-room

As I've mentioned repeatedly it's naive at best to believe position of need doesn't factor into a selection.

 

[HardRightEdge]

As I've mentioned repeatedly it's naive at best to believe position of need doesn't factor into a selection.

Of course. We can take it step further--the value-need assessment is not done in the bubble of a single pick relative to highest need. It's in the context of the overall board and the range of needs.

I was watching the war room a few years back as Thompson was on the clock on an early pick. Everybody sat quietly as Thompson was intently focused on his laptop clicking away as the next pick approached.

After tens of thousands of man hours having gone into scouting, grading and building the board what could he be possibly hunting for at the final moment? I've got an pretty good idea.

He's got Player A in mind at Position X, lets say graded 6.6, and also sees Player B at position Y, lets say graded 6.4, as another attractive possibility at a position of need. What I think he's doing is looking down the board for a cluster of value at those positions.

What would you prefer? Position X player with a 6.6 grade and Position Y players clustered around a 5.5 grade at the next pick or Position Y player with a 6.4 grade and Position X players clustered around 6.0 at the next pick in a strong draft at the that position?

You're not picking players in isolation. You're building a roster.

 

[AmishMafia]

For the umpteenth time here's a link to an article in which Andrew Brandt (who was in the Packers war room at the time!!!) is talking about the Packers selecting Rodgers in 2005 and explaining the way a draft board is set up.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/7840048/nfl-draft-war-room

As I've mentioned repeatedly it's naive at best to believe position of need doesn't factor into a selection.

Brandt says twice that you have to trust your board. What do you think that means? It means when you make a pick you take the highest rated player on your board. That is the definition of BPA.

Every draft varies in talent. The year we got Rodgers was lacking in talent. Just saying AR was the last guy they felt was worthy of their first round pick proves I am correct. If they just ranked players in tiers by round, they would have 32 players on that tier.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Brandt says twice that you have to trust your board. What do you think that means? It means when you make a pick you take the highest rated player on your board. That is the definition of BPA.

Every draft varies in talent. The year we got Rodgers was lacking in talent. Just saying AR was the last guy they felt was worthy of their first round pick proves I am correct. If they just ranked players in tiers by round, they would have 32 players on that tier.

I'm sorry but that's not a reasonable conclusion after reading the article I linked to.

Brandt clearly explains that prospects are arranged in different tiers and it's a rare exception there's only a single player left in the top one (Rodgers being an example).

Most of the time there are several players still on the board but not ranked from top to bottom within a tier. That's when position of need definitely factors into a selection.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

What it all comes down to; don't draft a project in the top-15 who has shown no first-round quality skills at the college level outside of elite athleticism. I mean, it's REALLY simple!