NBBrewFan

Well if the QBs keep dropping the Packers might be able to find a willing trade down partner as they are placed well for teams wanting to get a rookie QB in the first.

Oh good, Michael Buble is coming up to discuss the draft.

I wonder if he's always walked like he was a 60 YO.

Ekwonu lasted until the 22nd pick in 1 of the sim drafts I had. Of course I picked him for the Pack.

Gee Chris Angel got the first three correct too? Or is Chis Angel, Tony Pauline's stage name?

It's idiotic to give the #1 team 10 minutes. They've had 4 months.

If only all the first round picks were so quick.

I wonder how many of the people with the knowledge of what's going to happen tonight have free time to "chat" with a news source to let them know anything. It's not like the biggest 3 nights/day of their year won't take up 100% of their time for weeks before, let alone within 24 hours of the draft they have time to get those reliable leaks out. As you say, if there's a leak, it's for a purpose and part of business.

There was a reason I wasn't high on Dotson so I went back and looked at his writeups and found why I had concerns about Olave. Both Dotson and Olave have huge drops in their Grades on PFF when in "Man Coverage". They both go from high 80s overall Grade to high 60s when vs "Man Coverage" and they are two of the top receivers with a huge drop (most don't have a big drop in "Man Coverage"). Maybe it's not that big of a deal, but it makes me wonder if they will struggle at times in the NFL.

I come from a career in the legal profession. The Plaintiff/prosecutor are required to prove their case or that the defendant is guilty. I approach this in the same way. You are making the assertion. Great, you are the Plaintiff. Can you prove it? Obviously you have a good knowledge in this area. How many of their picks were not brought in or virtually interviewed, how many were not interviewed and picked (sorry n=1 means nothing)? The harder questions is how many of their picks were taken before where the Packers ranked them (not likely to be known)? Does the Jordan Love data mean anything as they moved up to get him because he had fallen close enough to where they could move - was he even a target at all until he fell? I do recall Gute saying they didn't think he'd fall, but that could just be a cover for the negative reaction to the pick. Do they ever bring in consensus top 10-15 picks when they pick 10-15 spots after that point? You may very well be correct, but I've not seen any analysis that they do that as a strategy other than if they are trying to get more information. I do recall they definitely were inquiring and may have brought Stokes in before they drafted him last year. Maybe that came out after he was picked, but there wasn't any surprise about Stokes. Do they bring in players Gute hasn't had a chance to talk to at Pro-Day/Team-day/etc? All of these can look like a "smoke screen" strategy, but are because of very different reasons.

Association vs. Causation. All of the players he's picked in the first round are people of color. So should we conclude that Gute will only pick people of color in the first round? It would be interesting to see the justification for that conclusion.

Well the Packers bring in like 30 players each year and they have roughly 8-9 picks on the average year. Not sure how you would classify the non-drafted as a smoke screen vs. a numbers game. I don't know of any organization that would only invite the players they intend to draft when 31 other teams have a shot also (and with the packers success most of them have a shot before the Packers pick). If they brought in a guy with a RAS of 2 then I'd assume something was up, but most of these guys fit perfectly with the Packers history of desired traits.

He started 100% at LT in 2020 and 10% of his reps were at LT in 2021 (90% at LG). His PFF grade was the best in 2021, but he wasn't a liability at LT in 2020. The "LT/RT" need is mainly a result of injuries to Bakh and Jenkins. Most of what I have read is that Jenkins would likely move back inside when he's back with Nijman/Bakh at OT. Having Zion on the inside with Jenkins/Bakh/Nijman handing tackle would be a very impressive group. I would guess the assumption is that Zion would be depth/backup for Tackle until Jenkins is back, not a long-term plan for him as a Tackle.

He's my draft crush for 2022. If Olave is gone and Wyatt is available at #22, It would crush my soul and leave me a miserable old SOB for the rest of my days if the Packers didn't pick him. I have until the draft to rationalize back from the edge, I might not have enough time.

Sorry, it appears that I was vague with my previous post. I looked at ALL drafted players by EVERY team, not just the Packers. I was concluding that just based on a quick glance, the Packers don't seem to be different than the other teams and those trends for 21/22 YO is because that's what's being drafted by most teams in the early rounds. A statistical analysis might reveal something that my quick glance didn't.

I did a quick look at draft age for the last 4 drafts and a majority of the draftees up to the 4th round are 21 or 22 years of age (majority being >50%). The early rounds looked even higher (in the 85% range) for age 21/22. Just by a quick glance it doesn't appear to be a statistical anomaly. Has anyone done a statistical analysis to show their preference is statistically different from the general draft pool of 1st round picks?

Due80 brings up an interesting point about the 1st round and 5th year options. While it seems an excellent strategy regarding QB because they become extremely expensive if they are good (or Kirk Cousins), I wonder if some teams will see the current inflation of the #1 WR or perceived #1 WR market and are inclined to move into the late 1st round to draft that WR they might have waited on to fall into the early/mid 2nd? The real inefficiency in the NFL right now is WR with the large contracts/extensions being thrown around this offseason. There are always going to be teams like the Jaguars who will throw away money on a WR.

I think I've reordered my WR draft rankings 100 times as I've waded through all the data and I think my concerns about Olave have been erased. In fact, I read through the PFF draft guide today and one really cool dataset stood out for him that leads me to believe if they are targeting him then I would be OK moving up to make sure they get him. It is: I think that's the most impressive data for success at mid to deep balls I saw in the PFF wide receivers writeup. Even Wilson and Williams don't have as impressive results for deep balls. Another player with a similar Routes Ran chart is Jalen Tolbert out of Southern Alabama who has been my favorite for a second WR if they go for 2, but likely would need to be taken in the second or they would need to move into the early 3rd round to have a chance getting him. And if they did get Olave/Karlaftis at 21/22 then an OT/DT and second WR in Round 2 that would be a very nice draft.

As much as it would be really cool to be a fly on the wall in the draft room and through the process of evaluating the talent I don't think we'll ever know what is happening behind the scenes. I do think your point about re-grading drafts is important because many of the "experts" don't get it correct at any level that their real-time grades mean anything. Even the PFF mock simulator bases their "grade" on when you pick a player in relation to their own board. I have run that thing so many times I have to wait until my wife goes to bed so I don't get that look (why are you wasting your time on that!). If you don't pick Jelani Woods with a pick before #120 he is gone 99% of the time by the 132nd pick. If you pick him at #110 or #120 (through a trade) then you get a grade form C to F. Why? because his Average draft position is 132 and you picked him at #110? That's just stupid because the TE pickings are pretty slim after that. The point I'm slowly getting to is that ranking boards mean absolutely nothing because each team has their own and while teams claim to go for BPA, there's no point in drafting a OT with #132 if you pick someone like Penning or Raimann earlier and have other positional needs. The only thing I know for sure is that this is just a fun time of the year and the draft will be exciting even with the overdose of Goodell.

Since you were responding to a post of mine: 1) I never used the term "wasting". I typed "giving away". Those are different concepts. 2) I didn't listen to butterflies flying out of my behind when I made that comment. I saw an article (acme or Cheesehead TV) that had a statistical analysis using draft position values (99% sure they DIDN'T use the Jimmy Johnson values) to evaluate Gute's historical draft tendencies. The conclusion was that (with the current limited data) that Gute was more likely to give away draft capital to move up than to move down and acquire draft capital. One of the weaknesses of such an approach is (obviously) that there isn't a ton of data so those instances could be exceptions to his overall draft philosophy and just happened to occur early in his career. Also, it assumes every year is equivalent. They aren't. Look no further than this year where most observers/experts see this being a much deeper draft than we've seen for years. That makes some sense given there were many athletes that stayed in school because of the weird data from the 2020 pandemic year. So any value system for ranking picks really should account for the depth or lack of depth in a certain year. Historically you can use actual data to see how each draft class turned out and come up with a value for each position plus a variance or standard deviation where for good years you can use a value + var/stdev for valuations and for bad years value - var/stdev. Of course for any current year, good/bad are subjective and sometimes the experts think this is going to be good and when the fat lady is done, it really wasn't. A good example is the 2016 MLB draft where so few 1st round picks have/are likely to have MLB careers of any significance. I agree with the narrative that this is a deep draft, hence tossing a 3rd and 4th pick to move up from 28 doesn't compute in that scenario. We're in a topic to discuss the NFL draft where on every evaluation I have seen there is a strengths and weaknesses analysis for every prospect. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. As you have stated, he's hit some big shots in the first/second round. He's also found little in the later rounds. Those are strengths and weaknesses. I don't see why it can't be mentioned that he gives away draft capital. I didn't say he's a crap GM because he gives away draft capital. I actually like the job he is doing. I know this is a fan site and many people are fanatics, but I'm not as invested in a narrative that the sun is always shining. I still follow them even when they are the dumbest guys in the room (see mid 80's to mid 2000 Brewers). The teams I like will make mistakes (IMHO) and we could debate those mistakes, but to say just because they have X,Y and Z strenghts, it's unreasonable to mention A or B weaknesses doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Did we just lose a bunch of posts? I responded to PeaveyFury's reply to me and that is gone. Also we are on Page 5 for this topic and I swear we were on Page 7 before. Edit: The number of pages for the Packers discussion is now 18 when it was 24 before. I don't know if it is just a change in the number of posts per page, but my post went MIA too so not sure what happened.

Uggh. They give up their 3rd and a 4th for that. In an extremely deep draft just to box out others? That would be a Gute move to give away draft capital. I'm not an Olave hater, but of the many 1st round WR all have a higher ceiling. Sure Olave is likely to be the best for 2022 of the available late first round, but beyond that?

I thought the MLF offense relied on schemes to get separation (multiple routes from a single formation). If that's the case then you don't need elite WR#1s you need talented, but not special WR. I keep going back to their record without Adams (7-0 IIRC) and see that you don't need that. You might need a MVS speedster to open up the field, but you don't need a #1 WR#1. We've also seen that if QB#1 only targets WR#1 then defenses can double/triple team the WR#1 to shut down the offense.

While I agree with you in part, I disagree that they need 2 drafted in the first 4 picks. There may be an impact OT available at #22 or #28, but the quality drops off enough for Tackles that picking a second with #53 or #59 is wasting significant value. From most draft boards I have seen there are some very good options still available in the 100-140 range so either a second selection at #92 or waiting to #132 would still net a decent OT. I don't see impact/good players at WR past the 90's (those in the 90+ range are developmental and might not yield decent production for 2-3 years, if at all). There's a small chance an impact DL would be available at #53+, but there are developmental players for later rounds. Edge has some decent players past 80, but the best are likely not available at #92 (so you would need to allocate 1 of the first 4 picks there). We need probably 2 safeties (1 top 80ish and 1 developmental/later/5th round+) and the better ones will be most likely gone by #92. I think Jelani Woods (Julio's BFF Man Crush) would be an excellent addition at #92, but he's gone in every mock or simulation I see by #132 with little TE pickings at that spot. Ideally I would like to see 2 WR, 2 from EDGE/DL/S/OL and 1 TE in the first 5 picks. In most scenarios I have simulated/mocked the best option for the Packers is to Trade down from #22 or #28 into the early/mid second and pick up another 2/3 depending on chipping in other picks. My ideal strategy right now would be to hold until #22 and see what's available. If their top BPA is available they should grab him then trade down from #28 for an early/mid 2nd (35-45 range) another late 2 or early 3 then use the three 2's to pick WR/DL/EDGE/S/OL (depending on what was picked at #22) then use the 2 3rd round (or late 2/#92) to address needs based on EDGE/S/OL/TE if not picked up earlier. If the board doesn't fall out for a good #22 based on needs/rankings then drop down from #22 and use the #28 for BPA. Dropping from #22 will likely yield better 2nd round/additional picks anyways.

As Above