Trusting in the Present Leadership

[tynimiller]

This logic is exactly why I like Gutekunst's approach in the middle and later rounds. But in the top 100, I think he virtually always has options that are highly skilled AND have athletic ability.

I would push back on this some, not entirely however who out of his first round picks weren't considered consensus-ly highly skilled, athletic and prolific producers in college? Savage and Stokes are the only two of all his first rounders outside the consensus top 40 (Savage and Stokes were both 44th their years).

Shoot the one that to me sticks out like a sore thumb is LVN but even he is still too early to know but even he was consensus top 20 prospect who produced at a very high rate in college and was oober athletic.

 

[Dantés]

I would push back on this some, not entirely however who out of his first round picks weren't considered consensus-ly highly skilled, athletic and prolific producers in college? Savage and Stokes are the only two of all his first rounders outside the consensus top 40 (Savage and Stokes were both 44th their years).

Shoot the one that to me sticks out like a sore thumb is LVN but even he is still too early to know but even he was consensus top 20 prospect who produced at a very high rate in college and was oober athletic.

These are Gutekunst's top 100 selections so far who I would consider to be lopsided in the direction of athletic upside over immediately translatable skill.

-Josh Jackson (Rd 2, 2018): 9.27 RAS but coming out of a very narrow defensive scheme in college.
-Oren Burks (Rd 3, 2018): 9.73 RAS but a position convert and total ball of clay.
-Rashan Gary (Rd 1, 2019): 9.95 RAS with almost no discernible pass rush plan and minimal production.
-Jordan Love (Rd 1, 2020): 8.45 RAS (not as applicable at QB-- Love was/is very toolsy) who needed any overhaul to get ready for the NFL.
-Eric Stokes (Rd 1, 2021): 9.37 RAS with elite speed but commonly viewed as CB2/3 prospect due to technical flaws.
-Quay Walker (Rd 1, 2022): 9.61 RAS who virtually all media scouts identified as more athlete than linebacker.
-Christian Watson (Rd 2, 2022): 9.96 RAS coming from the FCS who was a manufactured touch player for the bulk of seasons 1 and 2.
-Lukas Van Ness (Rd 1, 2023): 9.75 RAS with no pass rush plan and limited college experience.

I am not saying that these were all reaches down the draft board or that it is always wrong to draft on athletic upside. My point is that in the past, Gutekunst has leaned too heavily in that direction and it hasn't produced the returns that you would want to see-- especially during the most valuable portion of a player's career, their rookie contract.

Full disclosure-- I was fond of many of these selections. But I am coming around to the perspective that the Packers overrated athletic profiles.

 

[tynimiller]

These are Gutekunst's top 100 selections so far who I would consider to be lopsided in the direction of athletic upside over immediately translatable skill.

-Josh Jackson (Rd 2, 2018): 9.27 RAS but coming out of a very narrow defensive scheme in college.
-Oren Burks (Rd 3, 2018): 9.73 RAS but a position convert and total ball of clay.
-Rashan Gary (Rd 1, 2019): 9.95 RAS with almost no discernible pass rush plan and minimal production.
-Jordan Love (Rd 1, 2020): 8.45 RAS (not as applicable at QB-- Love was/is very toolsy) who needed any overhaul to get ready for the NFL.
-Eric Stokes (Rd 1, 2021): 9.37 RAS with elite speed but commonly viewed as CB2/3 prospect due to technical flaws.
-Quay Walker (Rd 1, 2022): 9.61 RAS who virtually all media scouts identified as more athlete than linebacker.
-Christian Watson (Rd 2, 2022): 9.96 RAS coming from the FCS who was a manufactured touch player for the bulk of seasons 1 and 2.
-Lukas Van Ness (Rd 1, 2023): 9.75 RAS with no pass rush plan and limited college experience.

I am not saying that these were all reaches down the draft board or that it is always wrong to draft on athletic upside. My point is that in the past, Gutekunst has leaned too heavily in that direction and it hasn't produced the returns that you would want to see-- especially during the most valuable portion of a player's career, their rookie contract.

Full disclosure-- I was fond of many of these selections. But I am coming around to the perspective that the Packers overrated athletic profiles.

Apologies as I was focusing solely on first round.

I see Gary vastly different, he was very productive at a power 5 college, LVN was crazy productive when you analyze his insane pressure numbers vs his snap counts...my issue with him was he never given Iowa's structure of how they do things tasked with being the starter despite being their clear top dog.

I concur with JJ, Burks, Stokes, Quay and Watson however if we expand it to Top 100.

 

[rmontro]

Rodgers took us to five NFCCGs, and lost four of them. That was frustrating and dissatisfying in its own way, and a lot of people wanted to move on from him, even if wasn't aging past his prime. Now we're in the Love era, and so far we've fallen short of what we accomplished with Rodgers. It's a small sample size though. I can't remember the last time we were 1-5 in the division though, that seems like the worst indicator of where we are.

 

[tynimiller]

Rodgers took us to five NFCCGs, and lost four of them. That was frustrating and dissatisfying in its own way, and a lot of people wanted to move on from him, even if wasn't aging past his prime. Now we're in the Love era, and so far we've fallen short of what we accomplished with Rodgers. It's a small sample size though. I can't remember the last time we were 1-5 in the division though, that seems like the worst indicator of where we are.

Hang on.....

Rodgers first year team went 6-10 (in games active) and his QB Rate was 93.8 and QBR 62.9 did not make playoffs
Love's first year team went 9-8 (iga)and his QB Rate was 96.1 and QBR 62.1 Made playoffs and won a game.

Rodgers second year team went 11-5 (iga) and his rate was 103.2 and QBR 69.1 made playoffs and lost
Love's second year team went 9-6 (iga) and his rate was 96.7 and QBR 69.2 made playoffs and lost

Love has done arguably VERY VERY similar to what Rodgers did.

 

[Magooch]

I am not saying that these were all reaches down the draft board or that it is always wrong to draft on athletic upside. My point is that in the past, Gutekunst has leaned too heavily in that direction and it hasn't produced the returns that you would want to see-- especially during the most valuable portion of a player's career, their rookie contract.

Full disclosure-- I was fond of many of these selections. But I am coming around to the perspective that the Packers overrated athletic profiles.

Broadly speaking - it's not anything particularly conclusive (and maybe indicative of confirmation bias, to be fair), but it seems like in large part if you start reading the pre-draft scouting profiles of a lot of our guys they follow a somewhat similar script.

"Freak athlete, lack of production at times"
"Stats don't support his physical skills"
"Outstanding speed and quickness, lacking consistency"
"Great size, length, and motor - limited experience, not an every-down player"
"Elite athletic prospect who performed at the highest level, but only one year of top-level play"
"Not as threatening as his explosiveness suggests he should be"
"Excellent blend of speed and size but very raw and inexperienced/underdeveloped"

And like I said, it's not like that tells us much conclusive. Maybe it is the cold-reading phenomenon where it's kind of vague and applicable in a number of situations. But it at least *feels* largely accurate to me, for whatever that's worth.

I've said it before (multiple times) but it's often felt to me like we would much rather draft a "high potential" guy with room to grow ahead of a more polished "finished product" who might be either a.) more expensive or b.) slightly lower absolute max ceiling

 

[rmontro]

Rodgers first year team went 6-10 (in games active) and his QB Rate was 93.8 and QBR 62.9 did not make playoffs
Love's first year team went 9-8 (iga)and his QB Rate was 96.1 and QBR 62.1 Made playoffs and won a game.

Rodgers second year team went 11-5 (iga) and his rate was 103.2 and QBR 69.1 made playoffs and lost
Love's second year team went 9-6 (iga) and his rate was 96.7 and QBR 69.2 made playoffs and lost

Love has done arguably VERY VERY similar to what Rodgers did.

And the next year the Packers won the Super Bowl. But no pressure.

 

[Dantés]

Apologies as I was focusing solely on first round.

I see Gary vastly different, he was very productive at a power 5 college, LVN was crazy productive when you analyze his insane pressure numbers vs his snap counts...my issue with him was he never given Iowa's structure of how they do things tasked with being the starter despite being their clear top dog.

I concur with JJ, Burks, Stokes, Quay and Watson however if we expand it to Top 100.

I don't think Gary was very productive relative to other defensive ends who tend to get drafted in that range. "Production failed to match talent" was the common theme in his scouting reports. He had 25 TFL, 10.5 being sacks in 3 years with Michigan. For comparison, Brian Burns was taken shortly after him and he had 41 TFL, 24 being sacks in 3 years with FSU.

But the real point with both Gary and Van Ness is that they came out of college with zero pass rush plan. They were both long-arm bull rushers with no counters or discernible moves. The hope would be that they would develop more of an approach, but to this point neither of them really have.

 

[tynimiller]

And the next year the Packers won the Super Bowl. But no pressure.

lol right!

Teams were far from equal but id say depending on off season moves and some guys grow this team is easily a justifiable contender.

 

[XPack]

Gute and current leadership seem to favor stability and being good rather than take chances to being great.

I believe there's a compromise where we can be a bit more adventurous without affecting the bottom line, but the leadership isn't taking it.

The moves on JJ and X seemed to me we had taken the turn (which didn't work, but that's fair do to them for trying), but the extension of Rich is just nonsense. It's them not committing to do the same at every level rather than occasional free agent picks. We have hit our ceiling (as I note in my other thread) and really need management to make some changes in thought process and philosophy rather than restraining themselves to personnel changes.

 

[Dantés]

Gute and current leadership seem to favor stability and being good rather than take chances to being great.

I believe there's a compromise where we can be a bit more adventurous without affecting the bottom line, but the leadership isn't taking it.

The moves on JJ and X seemed to me we had taken the turn (which didn't work, but that's fair do to them for trying), but the extension of Rich is just nonsense. It's them not committing to do the same at every level rather than occasional free agent picks. We have hit our ceiling (as I note in my other thread) and really need management to make some changes in thought process and philosophy rather than restraining themselves to personnel changes.

Again, I cannot even begin to image how one arrives at the conclusion that the youngest team in the NFL has hit its ceiling.

 

[gopkrs]

Gute and current leadership seem to favor stability and being good rather than take chances to being great.

I believe there's a compromise where we can be a bit more adventurous without affecting the bottom line, but the leadership isn't taking it.

The moves on JJ and X seemed to me we had taken the turn (which didn't work, but that's fair do to them for trying), but the extension of Rich is just nonsense. It's them not committing to do the same at every level rather than occasional free agent picks. We have hit our ceiling (as I note in my other thread) and really need management to make some changes in thought process and philosophy rather than restraining themselves to personnel changes.

They seem to take chances on the early picks that too many don't really work out great.

 

[XPack]

Again, I cannot even begin to image how one arrives at the conclusion that the youngest team in the NFL has hit its ceiling.

Not sure what being young has to do with success.

Maybe stretch it a bit more here and there, but we are already seeing the best (or close to it) of Doubs, Heath, Valentine, Reed, Wicks, Melton, Wilson, Bullard etc. I don't think anyone would become a superstar in next few years.

We do have some youngsters (Love, Lukas, Kraft, Gary etc) that we can develop, not sure if the rest will even be with us 2-3 years down!

 

[tynimiller]

Not sure what being young has to do with success.

But that to be fair isn't what he's countering. You've said multiple occasions this team is at its ceiling. Being as young as we are, all he is saying is that is an illogical stance to hold given the structure of the roster. Has nothing to do with success.

 

[XPack]

But that to be fair isn't what he's countering. You've said multiple occasions this team is at its ceiling. Being as young as we are, all he is saying is that is an illogical stance to hold given the structure of the roster. Has nothing to do with success.

I did explain with the rest of my post. Many of our players may be young, but this is their peak or close to it. For all the players I've listed above (Doubs and Co), my guess is we'll see close to what their current stats are in coming years. There is no big step up expected from them.

 

[tynimiller]

I did explain with the rest of my post. Many of our players may be young, but this is their peak or close to it. For all the players I've listed above (Doubs and Co), my guess is we'll see close to what their current stats are in coming years. There is no big step up expected from them.

Man it's crazy to think that Lloyd is nothing more than he was last year...Morgan same....Reed is done....Kraft is done....Bull, Evan and Edgerrin as well....freaking sad day for me as I guess I'm just now coming to accept what you're stating is true after in some cases just one year of playing in the NFL...

The fact you say Lukas as possible growth but not some of the others truly does baffle me...