Packers and Kenny Clark agree to massive 4 year contract

[Sunshinepacker]

Disagree with this. While you can make predictions on what to expect; we will have to wait to see if Love pans out or not. If he does not play at all on his rookie contract because Rodgers plays so well; that is a good thing imho. We just don't know how long Rodgers can keep it up and we don't know if Love will end up being the next Packer's QB.

You can disagree with this but it's a massive risk to take a QB that won't be the starter until at least his third year. If the Packers fall apart next year and end up with a top-10 pick (going 6-10 would probably put them at 10th), how great is it going to look if the Packers are in position to trade up (or just stay still) and draft Trey Lance or Justin Fields? This Packers teams has too many holes to assume they're going to be picking in the mid-to-high 20s every season. Plus, by picking Love when they did, they basically gave up on 3/4 of his cheap years on a rookie deal, a pretty valuable part of having a rookie QB.

I have no problem saying that a GM shouldn't have reached for a player at a non-need position when that player was not unarguably better than other players at more needed positions, especially when that GM is drafting players for a team that just went 13-3.

 

[PikeBadger]

You can disagree with this but it's a massive risk to take a QB that won't be the starter until at least his third year. If the Packers fall apart next year and end up with a top-10 pick (going 6-10 would probably put them at 10th), how great is it going to look if the Packers are in position to trade up (or just stay still) and draft Trey Lance or Justin Fields? This Packers teams has too many holes to assume they're going to be picking in the mid-to-high 20s every season. Plus, by picking Love when they did, they basically gave up on 3/4 of his cheap years on a rookie deal, a pretty valuable part of having a rookie QB.

I have no problem saying that a GM shouldn't have reached for a player at a non-need position when that player was not unarguably better than other players at more needed positions, especially when that GM is drafting players for a team that just went 13-3.

None of us know and likely will ever know what the Packers draft board looked like. In the NFL, the amount of injuries that take place make just about every position a position of need.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

None of us know and likely will ever know what the Packers draft board looked like. In the NFL, the amount of injuries that take place make just about every position a position of need.

That's quite the cop-out. Sorta makes it impossible to actually evaluate anything except in hindsight, which isn't a great way to evaluate things.

 

[PikeBadger]

That's quite the cop-out. Sorta makes it impossible to actually evaluate anything except in hindsight, which isn't a great way to evaluate things.

Cop out? The only real time draft evaluations you and any fan or writer makes is a false evaluation. No one sees the team draft boards that are formulated by a team of professional scouts. Sorry, the rest of us are rank amateurs at this draft stuff.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Cop out? The only real time draft evaluations you and any fan or writer makes is a false evaluation. No one sees the team draft boards that are formulated by a team of professional scouts. Sorry, the rest of us are rank amateurs at this draft stuff.

The cop out was what I responded to, what you've said here is different.

 

[PikeBadger]

The cop out was what I responded to, what you've said here is different.

Guess I misunderstood what I was supposed to have been copping out to then. Let me try again.

Thompson used to say that team needs could change often during the season depending on where injuries occur. He drafted for the future years and it’s not surprising to see Gutekunst use the same draft philosophy as he was a Thompson underling.

In case I’ve missed again, evaluating draft success in hindsight of 3 or more years is the only true way to make a sound draft evaluation.

as far as not playing a QB until at least his 3rd year is exactly What happened with Rodgers and countless others before him. The teams playing rookie QB’s are teams that got caught without a good QB in the pipeline. Many times these are the franchises that are perennial failures.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Guess I misunderstood what I was supposed to have been copping out to then. Let me try again.

Thompson used to say that team needs could change often during the season depending on where injuries occur. He drafted for the future years and it’s not surprising to see Gutekunst use the same draft philosophy as he was a Thompson underling.

In case I’ve missed again, evaluating draft success in hindsight of 3 or more years is the only true way to make a sound draft evaluation.

as far as not playing a QB until at least his 3rd year is exactly What happened with Rodgers and countless others before him. The teams playing rookie QB’s are teams that got caught without a good QB in the pipeline. Many times these are the franchises that are perennial failures.

No, the best way to evaluate is to look at the process that is used to draft players. The process is the only consistent factor; injuries and other things can affect the outcome, things the GM shouldn't be held liable for. So, for this recent draft, the process used was trading up for a project QB who won't play for 75% of his cheap rookie deal, drafting a large, heavily used RB next, and then drafting a FB/TE hybrid. That's not a good process for improving a team in the near term. There is a high likelihood that 2 of those 3 won't be making even modest contributions in their first two seasons on the team.

You can say the only way to evaluate is how guys turn out, and that's fair if you ignore injuries and/or how other players affect the guy (e.g., not fair to evaluate a WR but ignore the quality of QB), but team building and cap construction are CERTAINLY things that don't need to be waited 2-3 years to evaluate.

 

[PikeBadger]

He The best game

No, the best way to evaluate is to look at the process that is used to draft players. The process is the only consistent factor; injuries and other things can affect the outcome, things the GM shouldn't be held liable for. So, for this recent draft, the process used was trading up for a project QB who won't play for 75% of his cheap rookie deal, drafting a large, heavily used RB next, and then drafting a FB/TE hybrid. That's not a good process for improving a team in the near term. There is a high likelihood that 2 of those 3 won't be making even modest contributions in their first two seasons on the team.

You can say the only way to evaluate is how guys turn out, and that's fair if you ignore injuries and/or how other players affect the guy (e.g., not fair to evaluate a WR but ignore the quality of QB), but team building and cap construction are CERTAINLY things that don't need to be waited 2-3 years to evaluate.

now that you bring it up, I agree that team building and cap construction are things that you don’t need to wait to evaluate. Those are ongoing activities. Picks 2 and 3 from the last draft tell me that running the football is going to be a major point of emphasis moving forward.

 

[sschind]

No, the best way to evaluate is to look at the process that is used to draft players. The process is the only consistent factor; injuries and other things can affect the outcome, things the GM shouldn't be held liable for. So, for this recent draft, the process used was trading up for a project QB who won't play for 75% of his cheap rookie deal, drafting a large, heavily used RB next, and then drafting a FB/TE hybrid. That's not a good process for improving a team in the near term. There is a high likelihood that 2 of those 3 won't be making even modest contributions in their first two seasons on the team.

You can say the only way to evaluate is how guys turn out, and that's fair if you ignore injuries and/or how other players affect the guy (e.g., not fair to evaluate a WR but ignore the quality of QB), but team building and cap construction are CERTAINLY things that don't need to be waited 2-3 years to evaluate.

So you are saying that had Gute taken every single player you wanted in the draft it would have been a successful draft without them even playing a single game? To me a successful draft is determined by how the players perform on the field and ideally after several seasons of playing at a relatively high contributive level.

As far as team building goes you also have to look into the future, although maybe not as far, to see how the picks contribute to the team as it unfolds. You have to look at how the picks fit to build the team the coaches and GM want to build and not how they fit teams of the past or even the team that you want to see.

I think it is clear that the bosses want to build a team that is focused more on power running and less on a wide open passing attack. To that end the type of players selected, if not the actual players themselves, seem to fit that goal. It may not seem so obvious with Love but I think a franchise QB is a different animal. Given the importance of a franchise QB, if that guy is available I think you can be forgiven if you look 2 or 3 years down the road. Gute thinks Love has a very good chance to become the Packers next franchise QB and if it takes him a few years to become one it certainly won't mean the pick was a failure just because he didn't contribute immediately.

I think the only way you can truly evaluate a draft before they even play a game is by looking at how the players selected fit the plan for the teams future and since that plan seems to be evolving rather quickly we really don't know how it will turn out.

 

[sschind]

as far as not playing a QB until at least his 3rd year is exactly What happened with Rodgers and countless others before him. The teams playing rookie QB’s are teams that got caught without a good QB in the pipeline. Many times these are the franchises that are perennial failures.

I never really thought about it until just now but I wonder how long Favre would have had to wait to get his chance had Majik not gotten hurt. I mean now it just seems that it was destiny but Majkowski wasn't terrible. Obviously Wolf thought enough of Favre to trade a first round pick but I'm sure he was not considered a finished product by any means. Would we have had to wait until 93 or even 94 or would he have even gotten a chance had Majik stayed healthy and been a success. Just think, if we would have made a couple of deep playoff runs with the Majik man Favre may have ended up being a vikings gunslinger 15 years sooner.

 

[gopkrs]

I think it is clear that the bosses want to build a team that is focused more on power running and less on a wide open passing attack.

May be the case but as many have pointed out, you need a good passing attack these days. There are always going to be 3rd and longs. Or 2nd and 20. They better not, and despite what many think solely because of a 1st round draft pick, I don't think they are putting the passing attack on hold. I believe Rodgers will have very good numbers through the air when all is said and done.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

So you are saying that had Gute taken every single player you wanted in the draft it would have been a successful draft without them even playing a single game? To me a successful draft is determined by how the players perform on the field and ideally after several seasons of playing at a relatively high contributive level.

As far as team building goes you also have to look into the future, although maybe not as far, to see how the picks contribute to the team as it unfolds. You have to look at how the picks fit to build the team the coaches and GM want to build and not how they fit teams of the past or even the team that you want to see.

As to your first point above, that's ridiculous and, as I'm sure you know, nothing even close to what I said. My issue was drafting a rookie QB who won't add much to the team for 75% of his rookie contract and then following that up with a one-dimensional power back who has a HUGE amount of usage on his feet already.

Team building involves understanding the cap; it's FAR cheaper to sign a free agent RB than it is to sign a free agent CB, WR, OLB, OT, DE, DT, etc. So why use a 2nd round pick on a cheap position when the team has holes at far more expensive positions? Anyone that says Dillon was by far the best player at that pick is just being silly. You can't just look at fit because you also have to look at the cost for that fit. Right now the Packers will probably have to rely on unproven corners next year, re-sign King to a big deal, or sign a free agent corner. Corners are much harder to find than running backs. Drafting a corner in the 2nd would have been a smarter move considering the value a good corner has in the NFL over the value a good RB has in the NFL. The same is true for the Packers at WR, OT, DE, and DT.