Packers sign Devin Funchess

[Dantés]

Just to placate you, I know this isn't your opinion. You wanted the Packers to add a top FA TE and take advantage of a solid WR draft and use a top 3 pick on one.

This forum isn't the only place where I see opinions. So I am not going to go through every thread, every post, every article, every conversation with friends and post them here, just to prove my point to you. If you haven't seen that opinion, lucky you, but I don't think you have been looking very hard then.

My only mistake was using the word "here", because some people will take that literally and want to say "I haven't seen that mentioned in this thread".

I'm not asking you to comb the forum to back up your statement. Really, my point is simply that "we can just use the draft and it will 100% be fine" is probably a small minority opinion.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

With the lack of talent at wide receiver on the roster I would fully expect a rookie selected early to grab the second spot on the depth chart, otherwise Gutekunst might have chosen the wrong one.

I think this statement sums it up for me. Many like yourself are fully expecting a rookie to grab the second spot, based on how weak the current group is. So yes, I would agree, a top rookie WR's chances of being higher on the depth chart than Jordy, Cobb or Adams were in their rookie seasons is higher. However, I am not so sure that that will be a direct reflection of that Rookies abilities, more than just how weak our WR talent is. Given all that, I still would not conclude that just because a rookie WR is your #2 on this Packer team, he is going to have a really solid Rookie year. Again, I point out MVS and Allison, both guys who were viewed as our #2 and #3 guys for 2019. Their position on the depth chart did not automatically make them solid contributors.

Your last add-on there "otherwise Gutekunst might have chosen the wrong one" is kind of odd. Sounds like you are hedging a bit and not willing to see what that rookie WR does in his 2nd or 3rd seasons? He is a bad pick if he doesn't perform in year 1?

I am fine with agreeing to disagree, but it seems like you are equating the idea that simply by draft position and depth chart placement, a high round rookie will automatically be a #2 guy and thus will perform like one. I just can't get on board with relying on that for 2020. I just don't want to rely on a rookie getting on the same page with Rodgers, learning the playbook, getting acclimated to the NFL and all this while COVID-19 will probably eliminate much of the work a rookie normally gets after he is drafted.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm not asking you to comb the forum to back up your statement. Really, my point is simply that "we can just use the draft and it will 100% be fine" is probably a small minority opinion.

LOL...as I debate the very thing with Captain, in between our posts.

I agree that there is a wide range of thoughts on this and combinations of ways that the Packers should be addressing the passing game in the off season. However, is does appear to be quite a common notion by many, that because the rookie WR draft class is so talented, the Packers are going to get an instant starter and contributor out of it.

Free Agency is almost over. The Packers didn't get a talented TE out of it. They signed a vet WR in Funchess, which I think is a step in the right direction. I think most will agree that a WR will be one of the top 3 picks and maybe even top 2 picks in the first 6 picks. Will that and the addition of Funchess be enough? I guess we will see.

 

[Dantés]

LOL...as I debate the very thing with Captain, in between our posts.

I agree that there is a wide range of thoughts on this and combinations of ways that the Packers should be addressing the passing game in the off season. However, is does appear to be quite a common notion by many, that because the rookie WR draft class is so talented, the Packers are going to get an instant starter and contributor out of it.

Free Agency is almost over. The Packers didn't get a talented TE out of it. They signed a vet WR in Funchess, which I think is a step in the right direction. I think most will agree that a WR will be one of the top 3 picks and maybe even top 2 picks in the first 6 picks. Will that and the addition of Funchess be enough? I guess we will see.

Captain was totally in on signing Hooper.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Captain was totally in on signing Hooper.

I realize that, but the fact that we didn't sign Hooper or any TE, besides Lewis, doesn't seem to have changed his opinion on what a rookie WR should do for the Packers. I think many of us recognized the need to at least add a top TE and in my case a FA WR as well. Had the Packers done that, I think the odds go up a bit for a Rookie WR at having a decent rookie year, but still not a guarantee. What it definitely could have done though, is decrease your reliance on needing that Rookie to step right in and contribute.

Right now, the best case scenario for the Packers and I think what Gute feels will happen. Adams continues to be Adams. Lazzard continues to get better. Funchess is a solid #3 or #4, with an outside possibility of he actually blooms in Green Bay. Then either MVS, ESB or the rookie steps in and contributes. If that scenario plays out and in a relatively injury free season as well, my concerns were all for naught.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm not advocating for Gutekunst to spend a first round pick on the position no matter what but think he needs to select one with the team's second pick at the latest.

Here's the way I look at.

The WR's possibly or likely available at #30 or even in a modest trade up or down where the talent justifies the pick are concentrated in the big/tall perimeter receiver group. I've settled on Higgens for that spot. He's not the fastest and doesn't jump highest, but he has what Zierlein called "cheat-code body control and ball skills". Another way I would characterize that is from shortly before the ball arrives to shortly after he catches it, it's like he's operating at 30 frames per second with everybody else at 24. But I digress.

It would not surprise me if he or one of the other big/tall perimeter guys were drafted to up the competition.

On the other, there's a basic question to be posed: How many big body perimeter receivers can you possilbly have on this roster to throw into competition? We're chock-o-block with them, with a veteran added with some decent high points in his resume? The presumtive starting TE is basically an oversized WR who we would expect to run routes out of the slot and out wide. Sure, we'd like to see some more bulk and better technique for the run game, but that's what he is as a receiver.

The best slot route runner on this team by a wide margin, and who will still be the best by a wide margin were you to add one the the plausible big/tall perimeter prospects, is Davante Adams. There is something askew with that picture. He plays there in spots, but you're not going to turn him into a dedicated slot, that is for positive.

I would not rule out adding some diversity of skill set down the board. The names one could mention with slot skill sets do not have the potential upside of the others on paper, but then again you would free up high picks for that upside at other positions.

Here's my favorite hypothetical. It's a repeat of what I said in the Draft Forum, so bear with me if you read that. Van Jefferson may be the the best route technician in this draft outside of Jeudy. Besides the tape, the fact he drew 11 PI penalties over two years playing in the SEC tells you he gets SEC CBs leaning the wrong way. He ain't the biggest and he ain't the fastest, projected more at slot with perimeter flexibility. Route technique against man coverage is transferable across the field. In this draft, the size/speed quotient pushes him down the board to start with. Next, because of a toe/foot fracture that required surgery by Dr. Anderson generally requiring 6-8 week recovery, Anderson having a specialty in feet/ankles, V.J. did not perform at the Combine, had no Pro Day and now there are no private visits/workouts. Either because of the injury or complete lack of measurables beyond what you can glean from the tape, he'll be pushed down boards further or off altogether. I'm sure there's a GM or two out there fearing he might run a 4.6 even if healthy and where that's below his minimum threshold, regardless of other factors, other than a day 3 or UDFA consideration.

I don't know if Gutekunst and crew would view the situation that way. But if they liked the tape and were furnished with post-op medicals that look very good, there's a possible bargain to be had that adds some needed skill set diversity. As has been observed by others besides me, some of his short routes are Adams carbon copies. Being a good route technician would appeal to Rodgers and should accelerate chemistry development and reduce post-play stink eyes.

So, possible 3rd. round? Maybe some trade up in that round? Possible.

I'm not going to claim to have examined every player to know of other attractive possibilities in the 3rd. round. Gutekunst may have several on his board to add skill set diversity or septuple down on the perimenter if that's what he wants. Regardless, there should be some decent slots in that round to pick from and I see no reason to rule that.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Here's my favorite hypothetical. It's a repeat of what I said in the Draft Forum, so bear with me if you read that. Van Jefferson may be the the best route technician in this draft outside of Jeudy......So, possible 3rd. round? Maybe some trade up in that round? Possible.

Good analysis and you are right, potentially good fit for what the Packers need. However, here is my problem. If Jefferson is your target in the draft and you are going to use your first 2 pics at other positions and wait until the 3rd, what if someone selects him before you can? Do you have a plan B now for a position that is really in dire need of an injection of a young, talented player? Personally, I think the Packers have to go into the draft with 3 lists in regards to WR's and they absolutely need to come out of the 2nd round with a WR, unless the list of good ones is still long and they have moved up in the 3rd to get one.

The first list is a short one and consists of "if this guy falls to 30, do we take him?" The second list is a bit longer "These are the guys that we absolutely need to grab one of at #62, if we haven't already picked a WR." The 3rd list "WOW, if any of the guys on list 1, 2 and this list (Jefferson) are still there at #94, we might want to consider doubling up on WR."

 

[PikeBadger]

I base that on his entire career. He is very slow to develop trust, he is very slow to adapt in MANY ways imo. I just chalk it up to his basic personality. Nothing can be done about it I suspect. It’s just how I view the guy.

Can you give me examples? I'm just not sure that I buy this narrative.

It’s really more of a gut feel that I’ve developed since around 2015. To me it really became noticeable about the time the chatter from the talking heads got loud about his TD/Int ratio. It is my opinion that got into Rodgers psyche in a noticeable way. His game seemed to change around that time. Again, that’s my perception and opinion. I’m not about to spend time in deep data analysis or review his game tapes from that time period. We all view things differently and I respect your point of view. It just seemed to me at the time that the guy “changed”.

This stuff happens to most players I think.

Example: Hank Aaron, my boyhood hero, stated in his autobiography that his hitting “style” changed in 30 minutes after taking batting practice for the first time in Atlanta Stadium in the spring of 1966. He became a “home run hitter” immediately after seeing the way the ball carried in that park.
His teammates from the mid 50’s knew he was going to be special but thought he would be the next guy to hit .400 over a season. None dreamt he’d become the all time home run champ.

 

[Dantés]

I realize that, but the fact that we didn't sign Hooper or any TE, besides Lewis, doesn't seem to have changed his opinion on what a rookie WR should do for the Packers. I think many of us recognized the need to at least add a top TE and in my case a FA WR as well. Had the Packers done that, I think the odds go up a bit for a Rookie WR at having a decent rookie year, but still not a guarantee. What it definitely could have done though, is decrease your reliance on needing that Rookie to step right in and contribute.

Right now, the best case scenario for the Packers and I think what Gute feels will happen. Adams continues to be Adams. Lazzard continues to get better. Funchess is a solid #3 or #4, with an outside possibility of he actually blooms in Green Bay. Then either MVS, ESB or the rookie steps in and contributes. If that scenario plays out and in a relatively injury free season as well, my concerns were all for naught.

Why should it?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

According to Tom Pelissero it’s a one-year, $2.5 million deal for Devin Funchess with the Packers — $1M signing bonus, $1.2M base salary, $50K workout bonus and $15,625 for each game active. Another $3.75M available in incentives, so max is $6.25M.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Good analysis and you are right, potentially good fit for what the Packers need. However, here is my problem. If Jefferson is your target in the draft and you are going to use your first 2 pics at other positions and wait until the 3rd, what if someone selects him before you can? Do you have a plan B now for a position that is really in dire need of an injection of a young, talented player? Personally, I think the Packers have to go into the draft with 3 lists in regards to WR's and they absolutely need to come out of the 2nd round with a WR, unless the list of good ones is still long and they have moved up in the 3rd to get one.

That wasn't intended to be a mock draft pick, as in "the Packers will (or should) take Van Jefferson in the 3rd round on a possible trade up". If you think hard about it, mock drafts are pretty dumb when you get down to this level. Analyst hit rates might be pretty good in the top 10 or so, hit and miss toward the bottom of the 1st. round, but approaching a zero hit rate by the 3rd. round.

As I said, I have no idea if Gutekunst likes this guy. I'm sure given the depth of the draft down to the 3rd. round he has several possible names on the board at that spot, or maybe higher in the round for a trade up or down. Shenault's another guy who could drop for the same reasons as V.J. who would add a different kind of skill set diversity. I'm sure he's prepared for the eventuality that outstanding values at other positions of need present themselves in the 1st. and 2nd. rounds that exceed the value of his preferred WR at that spot, with a bunch of guys he likes in the 3rd round.

I do not believe in "best player available". I do believe in"best player available at a position of need", and there are some definite needs outside WR in the one year perspetive and a whole bunch more in a two year perspective.

There's a question not begged to this point. Does the WR draft depth provide any special value proposition at #30? Perhaps not. For illustration purposes only, consider the first e WR picks in last year's so-called weak draft:

• Brown at #25 with a 6.7 Zerlein grade
• Harry at #32 with a 6.3 Zerlein grade.
• Samuel at #36 with a 6.4 grade.

Dante made of a list of this year's WR prospects in order of Zerlein grades over in the Draft Forum/Receivers thread on Feb 8. Some grades may have gone up or down by now but these should do for illustration purposes.

For the sake of argument, lets say the first 5 of those guys go off the board before #30 as a kind of rough concensus at this point. Note the grades of the next few:

• C. Lamb, Oklahoma (6.86)
• J. Jeudy, Alabama (6.86)
• L. Shenault, Colorado (6.50)*
• H. Ruggs, Alabama (6.49)
• T. Higgins, Clemson (6.48)
• J. Jefferson, LSU (6.41)
• C. Claypool, Notre Dame (6.40)
• J. Reagor, TCU (6.39)
• M. Pittman, USC (6.38)
• K. Hamler, Penn State (6.37)
• B. Aiyuk, Arizona State (6.36)
• B. Edwards, South Carolina (6.29)
• A. Gandy-Golden, Liberty (6.27)
• V. Jefferson, Florida (6.27)
• D. Mims, Baylor (6.25)
• G. Davis, Central Florida (6.25)
• Q. Cephus, Minnesota (6.19)
• I. Hogkins, Oregon State, (6.17)
• K. Hill, Ohio State (6.17)
• T. Johnson, Minnesota (6.16)
• K. Lipscomb, Vanderbilt (6.13)

You don't see the grades in the 6-10 cluster much different than the 2 guys taken last year right below #30 pick.

This suggests there may be no exceptional WR value proposition at #30. Instead, what it does says is there are a quite a few fair value players with relatively close grades with varying skill sets to meet various preferences. The depth there just maximizes the chance of filling a need without having to reach, not necessarily an exceptional value.

But if you look further down the list, what might the thinking be if a 6.7 grade guy at a different position of need is still on the board at #30? Look further down the board to Davis in the 15th. WR slot and the grades are not much differnent for players likely to slip into the upper 3rd. round or even below than those likely to be available at #30. In other words, the value proposition in the depth of prospects at #30 is selection rather than exceptional value in around half a dozen names or more.

So, will the Packers choose a receiver in the 1st. round? I don't think that's all that solid an assumption. It depends who else is on the board at #30. There are a whole lot of other needs where Gutekunst may find a different special love. 2nd. round appears to be the sweet spot for value and selection, though it might require a trade up if there is one special love--hard to tell until you get there.

But to say 1st. or 2nd. round is a categorical imperative is what I dispute. As the picks come down and the board falls out, there remains a possibility of getting a good value with desired characteristics in a trade up or down into the middle or upper 3rd.

Heck, that Jefferson grade in the T13 slot is somewhere in the top half of the 3rd. round to begin with before applying the injury and non-workout discounts. As the board starts to play out, you cannot rule out waiting if a 3rd. round solid cluster starts to develop.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Funchess contract reported:

https://lombardiave.com/2020/03/28/packers-devin-funchess-contract-low-risk/

Assuming the incentives are "not likely to be earned", the cap cost is $2.5 mil.

The difference between the deal amount and the base salary sounds like some kind of bonus, either signing or "likely to be earned" such as game day roster bonuses. So, there could be some minor guarantee in the signing bonus or none whatsoever.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

But to say 1st. or 2nd. round is a categorical imperative is what I dispute. As the picks come down and the board falls out, there remains a possibility of getting a good value with desired characteristics in a trade up or down into the middle or upper 3rd.

I won't quote your whole post, because I think we fully agree on most of it. Especially the part about BPA VS BPA at a position of need.

While you could be right, the Packers might be able to land a decent WR in the 3rd round, I think given just how high the need appears to be, I wouldn't be comfortable thinking I am going to get that guy at #94, but if I have done some trading and now have an early 3rd round pick (65-75), while still having that #62, I am willing to play that scenario out if the supply of those I have in the top tier hasn't been really depleted.

I think many people have kicked around the idea of the Pack trading out of the 1st and accumulating as many picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds as they possibly can. I think doing that gives yourself a better shot at filling at least 2 or 3 of your immediate needs. Sticking at #30, #62 and #94, you probably fill 2 needs at best. But lets face it, besides the 5th year option, the #30 pick isn't going to buy you that much in the way of more picks, maybe you convert it to a 2nd and 4th rounder.

My ideal trade would be giving Indy our #30 and #62, for their #34 and #44. Only way that happens though, if there is a guy sitting there at #30 that they REALLY want.

 

[Dantés]

I won't quote your whole post, because I think we fully agree on most of it. Especially the part about BPA VS BPA at a position of need.

While you could be right, the Packers might be able to land a decent WR in the 3rd round, I think given just how high the need appears to be, I wouldn't be comfortable thinking I am going to get that guy at #94, but if I have done some trading and now have an early 3rd round pick (65-75), while still having that #62, I am willing to play that scenario out if the supply of those I have in the top tier hasn't been really depleted.

I think many people have kicked around the idea of the Pack trading out of the 1st and accumulating as many picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds as they possibly can. I think doing that gives yourself a better shot at filling at least 2 or 3 of your immediate needs. Sticking at #30, #62 and #94, you probably fill 2 needs at best. But lets face it, besides the 5th year option, the #30 pick isn't going to buy you that much in the way of more picks, maybe you convert it to a 2nd and 4th rounder.

My ideal trade would be giving Indy our #30 and #62, for their #34 and #44. Only way that happens though, if there is a guy sitting there at #30 that they REALLY want.

Like a QB of the future that they want a 5th year option on. Could happen if the right player drops.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Like a QB of the future that they want a 5th year option on. Could happen if the right player drops.

Yup and doesn't have to even be a QB, just someone that a team really likes and are willing to give up enough to make it worth the Packers losing out on a 5th year option. While I would have taken TJ Watt back in 2017, I totally understood why TT traded the 29th pick to Cleveland for the 1st pick of the 2nd round (#33) and the 1st pick of the 4th round (#108). I am guessing that both Watt, King and a few other players were all in TT's grouping of "value picks" right there, so he was willing to lose a few of them and the 5th year option, for that additional 4th round pick. As it turns out, Watt was the right pick and further, we would have been better off staying pat and just taking King with our 29th pick (giving us a 5th year option on him), but nobody knew that a 4th round pick would fizzle as bad as Biegel did. I would still do that same move if I was Gute in this draft. I also highly value the first pick in rounds 2 and 4, since you have quite a long period of time to study your move and all the players available, even explore or listen to trade options.

 

[BrokenArrow]

The real question is will Rodgers throw to him?

 

[GleefulGary]

The real question is will Rodgers throw to him?

Who hasn't he been willing to throw to?

He's been willing to throw to the likes of Jarrett Boykin, Geronimo Allison, Jake Kumerow, and Allen Lazard. Those guys aren't exactly exceptional talents.

 

[gopkrs]

It may be that Rodgers just does not like to throw it when the defender is too close. Which is one reason he has so few interceptions. Maybe what some perceive as Rodger's unwillingness to throw to a man is really that the guy is not sufficiently open in Rodger's mind. I don't think it would matter if the receiver was not in the exact position he is supposed to be in as long as he was sufficiently open (in Roger's mind). It is possible he does not include someone in his progression if he already believes he won't be open.

 

[Dantés]

Someone please show me evidence that Rodgers refuses to throw to good receivers.

 

[Dantés]

That wasn't intended to be a mock draft pick, as in "the Packers will (or should) take Van Jefferson in the 3rd round on a possible trade up". If you think hard about it, mock drafts are pretty dumb when you get down to this level. Analyst hit rates might be pretty good in the top 10 or so, hit and miss toward the bottom of the 1st. round, but approaching a zero hit rate by the 3rd. round.

As I said, I have no idea if Gutekunst likes this guy. I'm sure given the depth of the draft down to the 3rd. round he has several possible names on the board at that spot, or maybe higher in the round for a trade up or down. Shenault's another guy who could drop for the same reasons as V.J. who would add a different kind of skill set diversity. I'm sure he's prepared for the eventuality that outstanding values at other positions of need present themselves in the 1st. and 2nd. rounds that exceed the value of his preferred WR at that spot, with a bunch of guys he likes in the 3rd round.

I do not believe in "best player available". I do believe in"best player available at a position of need", and there are some definite needs outside WR in the one year perspetive and a whole bunch more in a two year perspective.

There's a question not begged to this point. Does the WR draft depth provide any special value proposition at #30? Perhaps not. For illustration purposes only, consider the first e WR picks in last year's so-called weak draft:

• Brown at #25 with a 6.7 Zerlein grade
• Harry at #32 with a 6.3 Zerlein grade.
• Samuel at #36 with a 6.4 grade.

Dante made of a list of this year's WR prospects in order of Zerlein grades over in the Draft Forum/Receivers thread on Feb 8. Some grades may have gone up or down by now but these should do for illustration purposes.

For the sake of argument, lets say the first 5 of those guys go off the board before #30 as a kind of rough concensus at this point. Note the grades of the next few:

• C. Lamb, Oklahoma (6.86)
• J. Jeudy, Alabama (6.86)
• L. Shenault, Colorado (6.50)*
• H. Ruggs, Alabama (6.49)
• T. Higgins, Clemson (6.48)
• J. Jefferson, LSU (6.41)
• C. Claypool, Notre Dame (6.40)
• J. Reagor, TCU (6.39)
• M. Pittman, USC (6.38)
• K. Hamler, Penn State (6.37)
• B. Aiyuk, Arizona State (6.36)
• B. Edwards, South Carolina (6.29)
• A. Gandy-Golden, Liberty (6.27)
• V. Jefferson, Florida (6.27)
• D. Mims, Baylor (6.25)
• G. Davis, Central Florida (6.25)
• Q. Cephus, Minnesota (6.19)
• I. Hogkins, Oregon State, (6.17)
• K. Hill, Ohio State (6.17)
• T. Johnson, Minnesota (6.16)
• K. Lipscomb, Vanderbilt (6.13)

You don't see the grades in the 6-10 cluster much different than the 2 guys taken last year right below #30 pick.

This suggests there may be no exceptional WR value proposition at #30. Instead, what it does says is there are a quite a few fair value players with relatively close grades with varying skill sets to meet various preferences. The depth there just maximizes the chance of filling a need without having to reach, not necessarily an exceptional value.

But if you look further down the list, what might the thinking be if a 6.7 grade guy at a different position of need is still on the board at #30? Look further down the board to Davis in the 15th. WR slot and the grades are not much differnent for players likely to slip into the upper 3rd. round or even below than those likely to be available at #30. In other words, the value proposition in the depth of prospects at #30 is selection rather than exceptional value in around half a dozen names or more.

So, will the Packers choose a receiver in the 1st. round? I don't think that's all that solid an assumption. It depends who else is on the board at #30. There are a whole lot of other needs where Gutekunst may find a different special love. 2nd. round appears to be the sweet spot for value and selection, though it might require a trade up if there is one special love--hard to tell until you get there.

But to say 1st. or 2nd. round is a categorical imperative is what I dispute. As the picks come down and the board falls out, there remains a possibility of getting a good value with desired characteristics in a trade up or down into the middle or upper 3rd.

Heck, that Jefferson grade in the T13 slot is somewhere in the top half of the 3rd. round to begin with before applying the injury and non-workout discounts. As the board starts to play out, you cannot rule out waiting if a 3rd. round solid cluster starts to develop.

Here are the grades updated post-combine. Similar, with a few differences:

1. C. Lamb, OK, 6.81
2. J. Jeudy, UA, 6.80
3. H. Ruggs, UA, 6.70
4. L. Shenault, COL, 6.50
5. T. Higgins, CLEM, 6.45
6. J. Jefferson, LSU, 6.43
7. K. Hamler, PSU, 6.40
8. J. Reagor, TCU, 6.39
9. B. Aiyuk, ASU, 6.38
10. M. Pittman, USC, 6.38
11. C. Claypool, ND, 6.35
12. D. Mims, BAY, 6.33
13. B. Edwards, SC, 6.29
14. V. Jefferson, FLA, 6.27
15. A. Gandy-Golden, LIB, 6.27
16. G. Davis, UCF, 6.25
17. L. Bowden, UK, 6.24
18. I. Hodgins, ORSU, 6.17
19. T. Johnson, MIN, 6.16
20. Q. Cephus, WIS, 6.16
21. K. Lipscomb, VAN, 6.10
22. A. Gibson, MEM, 6.00
23. D. Duvernay, TEX, 6.00
24. I. Coulter, RI, 6.00
25. T. Jackson, SYR, 6.00
26. K. Hill, OSU, 5.99
27. Q. Watkins, SM, 5.95
28. C. Johnson, TEX, 5.95
29. D. Peoples-Jones, UM, 5.94
30. J. Proche, SMU, 5.93
    

In addition to potentially waiting at WR because of depth, they might also take advantage by trading back for one. They may feel like the value isn't standing out at #30 but be concerned that it will be fairly gutted by #62.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Here are the grades updated post-combine. Similar, with a few differences:

1. C. Lamb, OK, 6.81
2. J. Jeudy, UA, 6.80
3. H. Ruggs, UA, 6.70
4. L. Shenault, COL, 6.50
5. T. Higgins, CLEM, 6.45
6. J. Jefferson, LSU, 6.43
7. K. Hamler, PSU, 6.40
8. J. Reagor, TCU, 6.39
9. B. Aiyuk, ASU, 6.38
10. M. Pittman, USC, 6.38
11. C. Claypool, ND, 6.35
12. D. Mims, BAY, 6.33
13. B. Edwards, SC, 6.29
14. V. Jefferson, FLA, 6.27
15. A. Gandy-Golden, LIB, 6.27
16. G. Davis, UCF, 6.25
17. L. Bowden, UK, 6.24
18. I. Hodgins, ORSU, 6.17
19. T. Johnson, MIN, 6.16
20. Q. Cephus, WIS, 6.16
21. K. Lipscomb, VAN, 6.10
22. A. Gibson, MEM, 6.00
23. D. Duvernay, TEX, 6.00
24. I. Coulter, RI, 6.00
25. T. Jackson, SYR, 6.00
26. K. Hill, OSU, 5.99
27. Q. Watkins, SM, 5.95
28. C. Johnson, TEX, 5.95
29. D. Peoples-Jones, UM, 5.94
30. J. Proche, SMU, 5.93

In addition to potentially waiting at WR because of depth, they might also take advantage by trading back for one. They may feel like the value isn't standing out at #30 but be concerned that it will be fairly gutted by #62.

Thanks for the upadate.

Elsewhere I mentioned Higgins in a trade down into the 2nd. round as a good value proposition in the likely scheme of things The board might roll out that way and if Gutekunst wants to add this one more big perimeter guy to the long list I wouldn't necessarily dis the pick. I might, though, if there's an exceptional value at another position of need being passed up.

I just don't see a categorical imperative that the first or second guy taken be a WR receiver. Those kind of imperatives lead to reaches. As for FOMO, that's faced at every pick all down board and if you succumb to that you likely to end up with a lot of reaches. The value clusters at expected points in the draft are where overall value can be accumulated.

Zerlein's ranking is just one guy's, a guy we happen to agree is pretty darn good at this. Each GM would have his own grading, the rankings all different. But the general idea of where the WR value is clustered still holds, with guys of widely varying skill sets to pick from. I doubt that perspective is much different in most GM's boards.

In the case of Zerlein, note that he's taken his grades out to two decimal positions. I think that's new. Every guy I've looked at from last year's draft has an x.x0 grade, indicating one decimal point grading. The grading guide is still stated in terms of one decimal point. There are a couple of questions begged here.

Anyway, if we take all those 2020 Zierline grades and round to one decimal position as appears to be the case from last year, you'd have J. Jefferson at #6 with a 6.4 and G. Davis at #16 with a 6.3. That's a wide swath of splitting hairs well into the 3rd. round.

I'm not arguing a 3rd. round WR is what should or will be done. Gutekunst hasn't shared his fave raves or his moneyball perspectives on value clusters, and until the board starts to fall out even he won't know what he'll do next with certainty. I'm illustrating somthing in the realm of plausibility.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

They may feel like the value isn't standing out at #30 but be concerned that it will be fairly gutted by #62.

Thanks for the list and I agree with you that waiting until #62 to try to fill what I think is one of the Packers most glaring needs, could be risky. Have you or has anyone seen anything concerning what the demand for WR is in regards to all 32 teams? Do 20 teams have it as high priority? 10 teams? I don't know, but its a number I would want to know if I am Gute. Seems like everyone is talking about how deep the WR pool is, but if a lot of teams really want to use this draft to grab what in other drafts might be a first round value @ WR, in the second round, it would not surprise me to see an unprecedented run on them in Round 2.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Like a QB of the future that they want a 5th year option on. Could happen if the right player drops.

That's always at least a non-zero probability, but I just don't see it happening at all.

Anyway, if that were to transpire I'd turn my framed Packers stock certificate facing the wall in a day of mourning.

McCarthy clucked that Kizer was a first round talent when he was acquired, which goes to show where you might end if you sacrifice a chance at a top prospect at a need position in a window of opportunity.

If Rodgers starts mumbling about retirement and doesn't show up to OTs or the opening of camp, then lets consider it next draft.

The Packers have not drafted a QB above the 5th. round since Brohm in the second round in 2008, who also didn't work out at all we might add. Consider the 4th. round a divergence and surprise which would be conform with Gutekunst's comments about being on the lookout.

 

[Dantés]

That's always at least a non-zero probability, but I just don't see it happening.

Anyway, if that were to transpire I'd turn my framed Packers stock certificate facing the wall in a day of mourning.

That post was about the Colts and their potential motivation to trade up.

 

[Dantés]

Thanks for the list and I agree with you that waiting until #62 to try to fill what I think is one of the Packers most glaring needs, could be risky. Have you or has anyone seen anything concerning what the demand for WR is in regards to all 32 teams? Do 20 teams have it as high priority? 10 teams? I don't know, but its a number I would want to know if I am Gute. Seems like everyone is talking about how deep the WR pool is, but if a lot of teams really want to use this draft to grab what in other drafts might be a first round value @ WR, in the second round, it would not surprise me to see an unprecedented run on them in Round 2.

I'm not an expert on all 32 teams, but I started mocking the first couple rounds, and it seemed pressing enough for enough teams that I have 8 going in the first 40 picks.