Pass Rushing Stats Need Context

[Fat Dogs]

Realize that chart isn't current. It doesn't have all the trades in it nor the comp picks so after round three the point values are even less. Top of round 4 is pick 101, not 97.

yea, I calculated that in. Makes sense why T.T's only early round trade up was Mathews.

 

[elcid]

Thanks for the chart. I had no idea that first round trade ups were so costly and that 6th and 7th rounders were worth so little. I still love the idea of an aggressive trade up approach in the 2nd or 3rd but elcid is right. Those late round gambles are more valuable to us than throwing them away for penuts.

To be fair, from the spot where we are usually picking in the first (32nd BABY WOOOOO) a trade up of 2 spots would cost substantially less. If we were to pick there I too might actually be an advocate of trading up IF a consensus top 10 prospect were to have fallen some. But considering this pick already is the most valuable we have had in a long time, plus considering that a QB run might have some of the top prospects pushed down to us anyway, and considering the cost of moving up may have been somewhat inflated due to recent trades, I'd really advocate trading down more then up given the chance. I completely agree with your statement of staying aggressive in the second or third round though. In order to facilitate that a trade down of a few spots from 14 might be useful too

Its all about finding the most value at the best place.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But considering this pick already is the most valuable we have had in a long time, plus considering that a QB run might have some of the top prospects pushed down to us anyway, and considering the cost of moving up may have been somewhat inflated due to recent trades, I'd really advocate trading down more then up given the chance.

I don't understand fans being in favor of the Packers trading down as you mentioned this is the most valuable pick the team has had in nine years. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for Gutekunst to move up but he should select the player presenting the best value at #14. Especially considering the Packers have the most selections in this year's draft with 12.

 

[elcid]

I don't understand fans being in favor of the Packers trading down as you mentioned this is the most valuable pick the team has had in nine years. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for Gutekunst to move up but he should select the player presenting the best value at #14. Especially considering the Packers have the most selections in this year's draft with 12.

It seems we are having the same discussion in two topics - to quickly summarize my reaction there, I am just not sure that the value will be there at 14#. If any of the blue chip prospects is available in James, Ward, Fitzpatrick, Chubb, Nelson or Barkley, great. If not, to me there is just not a guy that HAS to be taken at 14. Landry has been out of the game regularly for the past year. Jackson could be a one year wonder and had a sub par combine. Davenport and Edmunds are too much of a risk for me. Within the 10 picks after us, I can see some DL but mostly offensive players coming of the board in a few OT's a RB, and maybe even 2 WR's. Chances are pretty significant that Landry or the CB that the Pack FO is interested in is still on the board at #25.

Plus due to this QB frenzy we have in the draft this year there seem to be teams that are willing to overpay in order to move up.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It seems we are having the same discussion in two topics - to quickly summarize my reaction there, I am just not sure that the value will be there at 14#. If any of the blue chip prospects is available in James, Ward, Fitzpatrick, Chubb, Nelson or Barkley, great. If not, to me there is just not a guy that HAS to be taken at 14. Landry has been out of the game regularly for the past year. Jackson could be a one year wonder and had a sub par combine. Davenport and Edmunds are too much of a risk for me. Within the 10 picks after us, I can see some DL but mostly offensive players coming of the board in a few OT's a RB, and maybe even 2 WR's. Chances are pretty significant that Landry or the CB that the Pack FO is interested in is still on the board at #25.

Plus due to this QB frenzy we have in the draft this year there seem to be teams that are willing to overpay in order to move up.

I fully expect a player to be available at #14 presenting significantly more value than the extra picks acquired by moving back would result in.

FWIW I highly doubt Landry will be still on the board at #25.

 

[PackerDNA]

Talking about trading down for extra picks; we have 12 , most in the league. Isn't there a limit on how many picks you can have in one draft?

 

[swhitset]

Talking about trading down for extra picks; we have 12 , most in the league. Isn't there a limit on how many picks you can have in one draft?

There is definitely a limit to how many can be on the final roster lol. I'm sure many of those late round picks will not make it out of training camp.

 

[HardRightEdge]

New plan. We are staying put at #14 and getting the best damn player available!!!

Good idea. If anything, trading down a couple of slots depending on how the board shakes out and who is targetted would be the more likely plan. With so many QB reaches being lined up, there should be several quality defensive possibilities at positions of need down to 20. However, those types of deals have to be done in a very short time window while requiring there be another guy who sees his own advantage in the trade. That's more of long shot than a plan.

If there's a guy you love more than the others at 14, then you just take him. For me that would be Fitzpatrick if he's still on the board and the other 1-13 fall out along the lines of the congealing consensus.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Talking about trading down for extra picks; we have 12 , most in the league. Isn't there a limit on how many picks you can have in one draft?

I would expect if there is a trade down in the first round, they'd either be looking to move up in a subsequent round or get 2019 picks in exchange.

 

[OldSchool101]

I know this thread wasn't initially introduced to expound on Vince Beigel directly, but being that we've rode that pony in here, I thought this was an interesting article to give some insight into some of the struggles that he had to overcome early in his pro-career that were inspiring. I never realized that he was 2nd on ST in tackles? That's actually pretty impressive in itself and I believe GB has been looking for the Jeff Janis' replacement and may have found him.
I think at minimum, it's safe to expect Vince to be a special teams monster over the next couple of years. He has never been directly thought of as a lone sack artist, but he has good instincts but Zierlein talked about him being used in exotic blitz packages to get moderate success, I hope Pettine was listening because I think he's a 3rd round talent that will work to eventually give us 2nd round level results.

On a sidenote: I've noticed that he is very similar to what the Cowboys drafted in Anthony Hitchens in 2014, but IMO he is a "Hitchens Turbo" and is notably quicker and has better work ethic and I believe he will continue to improve year to year.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/sports/...cle_2da7a17b-8e08-5497-ab9c-32b1d4a3021d.html

 

[OldSchool101]

While I also think it's unlikely we trade back because so far the MO of Gutekunst has been to be aggressive, which would make one think he'll move up.

I can see one scenario where this could be a worthy gamble. If one of the top 3-4 QBs slip to #14 (or what they deem as such) Both the Chargers and Arizona have QB needs in their shirt pocket and the Chargers might be very interested in moving ahead of Arizona who's pick at #15 is scheduled to be a QB on many mocks. Especially if GB makes it very affordable to make this happen and we would be doing itself a favor to take away one of Arizona's top needs (our previous playoff nemesis).
We would only need to be concerned with 2 teams behind us if no one moves position beforehand, that's Arizona and the Ravens before our pick at #17. Many sites have the Ravens top 3 needs as WR, OT and RB, all of which can be bypassed by GB round one. So if GB has at least 2-3 players they deem pretty equal as far as value and need that are still available? The Ravens would likely only take 1 of them and there is a possibility our primary target never even comes off the board!
The Trade: Pick #14 for #17,#87 (Chargers 1st,3rd)

Then we leverage up and use #45 and #87 as a power move to get into the #31-#33 range (New England to Cleveland) I believe there will be some substantial talent that slides to the back of day 1 or opening bell of day 2. I'm sure you can already imagine a variety of options at #17 and say.. #31 overall.
The other plus is we'd still have those 10 picks to trade up substantially where it's not so costly. Then hit rounds 3-4 aggressively by trading a couple of comp picks to move up in a few rounds where we still have a solid chance of getting someone that can contribute their 1st year or at least quality depth players

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Talking about trading down for extra picks; we have 12 , most in the league. Isn't there a limit on how many picks you can have in one draft?

As far as I know there's no limit on how many picks a team can have in a single draft.

I would expect if there is a trade down in the first round, they'd either be looking to move up in a subsequent round or get 2019 picks in exchange.

That sounds like the approach of a team in rebuilding mode.

I know this thread wasn't initially introduced to expound on Vince Beigel directly, but being that we've rode that pony in here, I thought this was an interesting article to give some insight into some of the struggles that he had to overcome early in his pro-career that were inspiring. I never realized that he was 2nd on ST in tackles? That's actually pretty impressive in itself and I believe GB has been looking for the Jeff Janis' replacement and may have found him.

Biegel definitely won't replace Janis on special teams as he's not able to effectively line up as a gunner on punt coverage.

 

[HardRightEdge]

That sounds like the approach of a team in rebuilding mode.

Correct. They should have come into this offseason with a two year plan. They didn't. So, excuse my mistake in thinking Gutekunst would be looking for a 2019 bargain pick in a trade.

 

[OldSchool101]

Biegel definitely won't replace Janis on special teams as he's not able to effectively line up as a gunner on punt coverage.

I meant more from a production standpoint, not so much from a direct positional point of view.