Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Magooch" data-source="post: 1096921" data-attributes="member: 17987"><p>Regarding drafting older vs younger I strongly feel it should not be a particularly "set" philosophy one way or another but rather something that you adjust based on your team's current context. If you are in a "win now window" then it makes a lot less sense to draft in a way that favors "long term potential," while if you are a team in the midst of a rebuild it doesn't make as much sense to favor "ready-made" prospects who are probably close to their ceilings.</p><p></p><p>I take the Rams this year for example. Now to be fair you can say that QB is perhaps an exception to the rule and if you have a chance to get your guy - even if it's a long term play, you make the move. BUT, set that aside...the Rams are a team who were very, very good last season. They head into the draft in a position where they might reasonably feel they just need one or two pieces to push them over the top. In those situations it makes a lot more sense to favor those "finished product" type of guys who can step in and contribute immediately. When you have a QB who is 38 and (while still playing at a high level) likely nearing the tail-end of his career, it doesn't make a lot of sense to be looking to add guys who are going to take 3, 4 years to reach their potential. Your window with your current team will have likely "closed" by then.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand let's look at maybe the Cardinals. Now I am not necessarily saying Jeremiyah Love is already at his ceiling, but he's the type of guy who is ready to hit the ground running. But they don't have a QB and have holes all over the roster. They are looking at a multi year rebuild probably. They can afford to get those guys who are higher potential but take longer to get to it - that's often the bigger value play. </p><p></p><p>Neither approach is right or wrong or "better" than the other. It's very situational.</p><p></p><p>NOW in our case I do kind of feel like we have a strong tendency to lean hard towards favoring youth and potential vs experience, production, and immediate contributors. I know I've said it before but if we had the chance to draft a 5/10 college player with 10/10 "traits" or "potential" (but who might never become more than a 5-6/10) or a 8/10 college player who will only ever be a 8, 9/10, we would almost always draft the 5/10 guy and bank on them blossoming into a great player. In other words we would almost always prefer "low floor, high ceiling" to "High floor, low ceiling". </p><p></p><p>There's certainly a time where that makes sense but it's not all the time. We had a number of years - especially towards the end of the Rodgers era - where it felt like we were considerably more concerned with the transition and future-planning than we were with getting players who could contribute right there in the here and now. And while this "worked" to some degree, you could also argue that we opted to pass on the chance to be *great* for a year or two and instead opted to just be consistently really, really good, if that makes sense. </p><p></p><p>Now obviously it's not always that simple. I mean every team wants to draft guys who are both high ceiling AND high floor, guys who can contribute day one AND continue growing as they go. But those players are rare, and in a lot of instances where we've been drafting - later in the round - there's often a lot more value in the "low floor high ceiling" guys, the ones with traits and potential but less by way of production. Most teams aren't getting a ton of day one contributors towards the bottom of the first (as you may have heard, every year there's probably only 15-20 "true first round prospects" or whatnot)</p><p></p><p>Anywho I'm rambling. I guess my point is...both approaches have merit, BUT in our particular situation(s) I think there are times where we could've stood to have been a bit more aggressive, and playing the "long play" has at times (NOT always) got us stuck in a "good but not great" type limbo here and there.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Magooch, post: 1096921, member: 17987"] Regarding drafting older vs younger I strongly feel it should not be a particularly "set" philosophy one way or another but rather something that you adjust based on your team's current context. If you are in a "win now window" then it makes a lot less sense to draft in a way that favors "long term potential," while if you are a team in the midst of a rebuild it doesn't make as much sense to favor "ready-made" prospects who are probably close to their ceilings. I take the Rams this year for example. Now to be fair you can say that QB is perhaps an exception to the rule and if you have a chance to get your guy - even if it's a long term play, you make the move. BUT, set that aside...the Rams are a team who were very, very good last season. They head into the draft in a position where they might reasonably feel they just need one or two pieces to push them over the top. In those situations it makes a lot more sense to favor those "finished product" type of guys who can step in and contribute immediately. When you have a QB who is 38 and (while still playing at a high level) likely nearing the tail-end of his career, it doesn't make a lot of sense to be looking to add guys who are going to take 3, 4 years to reach their potential. Your window with your current team will have likely "closed" by then. On the other hand let's look at maybe the Cardinals. Now I am not necessarily saying Jeremiyah Love is already at his ceiling, but he's the type of guy who is ready to hit the ground running. But they don't have a QB and have holes all over the roster. They are looking at a multi year rebuild probably. They can afford to get those guys who are higher potential but take longer to get to it - that's often the bigger value play. Neither approach is right or wrong or "better" than the other. It's very situational. NOW in our case I do kind of feel like we have a strong tendency to lean hard towards favoring youth and potential vs experience, production, and immediate contributors. I know I've said it before but if we had the chance to draft a 5/10 college player with 10/10 "traits" or "potential" (but who might never become more than a 5-6/10) or a 8/10 college player who will only ever be a 8, 9/10, we would almost always draft the 5/10 guy and bank on them blossoming into a great player. In other words we would almost always prefer "low floor, high ceiling" to "High floor, low ceiling". There's certainly a time where that makes sense but it's not all the time. We had a number of years - especially towards the end of the Rodgers era - where it felt like we were considerably more concerned with the transition and future-planning than we were with getting players who could contribute right there in the here and now. And while this "worked" to some degree, you could also argue that we opted to pass on the chance to be *great* for a year or two and instead opted to just be consistently really, really good, if that makes sense. Now obviously it's not always that simple. I mean every team wants to draft guys who are both high ceiling AND high floor, guys who can contribute day one AND continue growing as they go. But those players are rare, and in a lot of instances where we've been drafting - later in the round - there's often a lot more value in the "low floor high ceiling" guys, the ones with traits and potential but less by way of production. Most teams aren't getting a ton of day one contributors towards the bottom of the first (as you may have heard, every year there's probably only 15-20 "true first round prospects" or whatnot) Anywho I'm rambling. I guess my point is...both approaches have merit, BUT in our particular situation(s) I think there are times where we could've stood to have been a bit more aggressive, and playing the "long play" has at times (NOT always) got us stuck in a "good but not great" type limbo here and there. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: milani
Today at 5:13 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: OldSchool101
Today at 12:42 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: OldSchool101
Today at 11:14 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 10:32 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Off Season News
Latest: milani
Yesterday at 2:18 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
