So I think what you are saying Poker (don’t let me put words in your mouth) is that if we were on a general NFL forum his value would involve all teams he’s played for in universal fashion, rather if you are on a “Packer” forum then it’s an intrinsic evaluation for the current team by default.The difference between you and I, is that you are viewing it from a players point of view, I am viewing it from the Packers point of view. Again, I don't think him playing well elsewhere suddenly makes it a successful pick for the Packers. The moment he was cut by the Packers, he was a busted pick for the Packers. I understand why they drafted him, but just like many players before Sternberger, he contributed very little, especially considering he was the 75th player selected in the draft.
How was it a good pick for Packer scouts or Gute? Sternberger cost the Packers the 75th pick in the draft and contributed very little. Explain how him having success elsewhere somehow vindicates the Packers scouts.
Id also say that the position coaches and Coordinator played a huge role in misdiagnosing their strengths.Who failed in the cases of Hyde and Hayward? The scouts correctly identified them as having NFL calibre talent as shown by their success after they left Green Bay.
Disagree. It's not the scouts job imo to assess scheme fit as schemes can be tweaked and altered. The scouts job in my opinion is to assess talent level, strengths and weaknesses of individual players. The GM must make the decision as to whether a player can fit.Id also say that the position coaches and Coordinator played a huge role in misdiagnosing their strengths.
But as I was reading your question, I was thinking also that maybe their scheme fit was wrong. That puts at least some of the blame on the scouts. The casting directors failed to align the proper actor fit with their proper roles. I’m not sure Tom Cruise would play a good “Negan”
on “Walking Dead” series. Doesn’t mean he’s a bad actor, just not his ideal role. The double failure was Dom didn’t recognize it and modify to the players strengths.
For instance, I believe that the ascent of Hayward and Hyde elsewhere indicates there were deficiencies with the Joe Whitt/Dom Capers axis of coaching and development, which may be borne out by the fact that HHCD, Josh Jones, and Damarious Randall have all had DB careers after their departure from the Packers.
Josh Jones? When did he go on to have an NFL career worthy of a 2nd round pick? He didn't, but even if he did, he was an absolute bust as a second round pick for the Packers.I'll take this on, with the caveat that I agree w/tynimiller that either position is totally reasonable. The scouts' job is to identify and promote players that they believe can succeed in the NFL as a whole, and in the Packers' systems specifically. If those scouts do their job, players arrive who could grow and thrive on the Packers. If the development or use of those players is stunted by inadequate coaching or usage, then those players don't become who we want, and in some cases may develop or thrive elsewhere. For instance, I believe that the ascent of Hayward and Hyde elsewhere indicates there were deficiencies with the Joe Whitt/Dom Capers axis of coaching and development, which may be borne out by the fact that HHCD, Josh Jones, and Damarious Randall have all had DB careers after their departure from the Packers.
Not saying this is an absolute or a black-and-white answer in any case -- but hopefully it might illustrate how the acquisition of players in the draft could be considered successful, and the responsibility for them washing out in GB could lie instead at the feet of a coaching staff/coordinator.
All of the former Packers players you mentioned didn't have success after leaving Green Bay though. Actually they were out of the league only two years later, aside of Randall who ended up playing 35 snaps with the Seahawks in his third season after his stint with the Packers.
in that instance … I would say you answered the question in one of your previous posts. He had the talent the scouts and gm drafted him for …. but the coaches did a bad job utilizing it. …. I’m not saying that is the case… just answering the hypothethical.How was it a good pick for Packer scouts or Gute? Sternberger cost the Packers the 75th pick in the draft and contributed very little. Explain how him having success elsewhere somehow vindicates the Packers scouts.
I'd strongly argue that Hyde and Hayward, whom I mentioned, have had STELLAR careers beyond the Packers. I included the others and their brief careers to show there's been a bulk wash-through of our drafted DBs. Compare this to, for instance, our DL picks who moved through, almost none of whom played a single snap (much less a full season) with other teams. To me, guys like Thornton and Worthy are true busts -- failed w/the Packers and elsewhere. The DB draft picks who didn't pan out in GB range from mediocre to All-Pro, but that range is *really* different, and suggests to me a failure of development and implementation more than scouting.
Sure. The GM takes the blame because he’s the ultimate decision maker. That doesn’t preclude prospects from being flops based on misdiagnosed talent.Disagree. It's not the scouts job imo to assess scheme fit as schemes can be tweaked and altered. The scouts job in my opinion is to assess talent level, strengths and weaknesses of individual players. The GM must make the decision as to whether a player can fit.
in fact hhcd and jj have been absolute failures after leaving the packers. hhcd was cut by both teams that he went to in one season or less, and has been out of football ever since. jones sucked out loud for the cowturds in 2019, and was cut. in 2020 with the jags he was just a body to fill in as a starter for 13 games. he's not playing football now either.Clinton-Dix, Jones and Randall shouldn't be considered when talking about successful players after leaving the Packers just because they stuck around for some seasons while not having a positive impact at all.
Don't forget about Quinton Rollins. Whether it is scouting, coaching or a combination of the 2, the Packers really put the team behind the 8 ball with so many failed high picks on DB's. Over 5 drafts (2014-2018) they used 1st and 2nd round picks on 6 DB's and once King is gone, I would say that they all were big to marginal busts. Knowing that, it becomes obvious why we have struggled to improve elsewhere on the defense, as well as the offense.in fact hhcd and jj have been absolute failures after leaving the packers. hhcd was cut by both teams that he went to in one season or less, and has been out of football ever since. jones sucked out loud for the cowturds in 2019, and was cut. in 2020 with the jags he was just a body to fill in as a starter for 13 games. he's not playing football now either.
If Sternberger goes on to have a good career; then he was not a bad pick. And certainly not a bust. Just as an example. Sometimes players don't make the roster, another team picks them up, and they have a good career. Somebody mentioned the D lineman from the Patriots. Just means whoever let that player go made a mistake. This "he did not fit our type of player" idea is just argument for argument sake imo.Sure. That’s fair in generality or scraping the surface, the GM gets the ultimate blame because he makes the final call. However let’s peel the onion layer a bit.
These guys don’t sit on individual islands as 3rd party contractors, they are a combined scouting team working for the same employer. Sure, The GM is in charge of the scouting room and to imply there is zero communication back n forth as to their interest in specific positional traits would be illogical. Id argue that these guys operate with a group interest having meetings about players and specifically targeting prospects who fill specific needs. Exceptions are made for players when they have high athletic ceilings or are deemed high grade in intangibles. But make no mistake the scouting room is looking at the “Hback” or “Flex” role in a MLF Offense. Deguara or Sternberger were not an accidental draft selections. They fit specific traits that the personnel group was intentionally looking for. That’s why I said, it starts with the scouting room.
How was he not a bad pick? The Packers invested a 3rd round pick, money and coaching into him, what was their return? Stop, end of evaluating him as a pick for the Packers. Now if Sternberger ends up having an NFL career elsewhere, he only proves what talents and skills he had as an NFL player for that specific team(s).If Sternberger goes on to have a good career; then he was not a bad pick.
he actually had a fairly decent season with the ravens. i'm sure that's what led to the patriots taking him on. i was pretty excited when we drafted him in the 7th round, but he never played a single down for us.Lawrence Guy was a 7th round pick that didn't make it in Green Bay. Nor did he make it in Indy, Baltimore or San Diego. When he finally landed in New England, he proved his NFL talents were finally pretty good. Not that he was a great 7th round pick for the Packers 7 years earlier.
If Sternberger goes on to have a good career; then he was not a bad pick. And certainly not a bust.
Exactly! Say you raced horses and went to an auction where you could purchase race horses for $1K all the way up to $1M. You being the filthy billionaire that you are bought several horses (7 in all) that caught your eye and your trainers were really confident in. One of the horses, the 3rd highest investment at this particular auctions cost you $400K, just ends up being a dud. It seems to pull up lame, pulled from races and in a 3 year time period ends up a big waste of your race teams money, time and energy. You decide to let it go at the next auction for any price and someone scoops it up for a mere $1k. 2 years pass and you notice your broken down horse is on the circuit and actually winning some races. Now I ask you, was that horse a smart investment on your part and would you go back and rehire those trainers you fired because they told you just how good that horse was and 5 years later he did do some good things?Sternberger should definitely be considered a bust for the Packers. I don't care about him possibly having an impact with another team as it doesn't help the Packers one bit.
Keep in mind that some players take 5+ years to excel. That’s a problem for us when we’re in a contract year and they don’t appear to receive a big second contract.That's ridiculous imho
Agreed, but the important thing and I can't stress this enough, he was a bad pick/investment for the Packers...no matter what he does elsewhere.Keep in mind that some players take 5+ years to excel. That’s a problem for us when we’re in a contract year and they don’t appear to receive a big second contract.
There’s really 2 separate debates going on in here. You’re talking about career production which would be fine and I might even agree in a “general” NFL forum (I posted on NFL.com for several years before joining here, ironically it’s where I met other posters in here like Packerlover) However this is a Sternberger thread on a Packer forum (I’m not being smart, I’m just getting back the focus of the argument).
The argument then logically hinges and holds on “Packer value” by default.
The other point. As far as career NFL value? we couldn’t even have a thread yet in a player still in a rookie contract. The jury would be out it’s pure speculation. We could talk about Favre, Shields, Butler, Reggie or a host of Packer players that are retired.