Overall Graft Grades, PF "experts"

[OldSchool101]

Nobody is saying the defense shouldn't have been better. It's obvious that the picks made, didn't end up with the results we/they expected.

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is my concern. I give Gute and Co a pass because he’s trying to build a team and salvage the Defensive mess that was left by the former GM team. That takes a couple of years at best to fix. There’s some momentum that needs to take place and it’s a multi year project. So he gets a pass. The TT and Capers Duo was largely a mess after spending notable draft capital on Defense. Hence the drastic changes on Lombardi Ave.

The strategy of allocating 2:1 resources towards Defense didn’t work for us. All I am pointing out is we need to be mindful of over allocating draft resources overwhelmingly in one area and do a better job of having better balance. That simple. Awareness is the key.

My belief system stems from countless hours of researching O vs D rankings of winning SB teams, not conjecture about later round draft picks finding success or how “everyone else is drafting such and such” like I’ve seen others say. Like the old saying “if everyone is jumping off a bridge does that mean you should?”

The most successful NFL teams are the most balanced teams by and large going back decades with few statistical anomalies. I did notice in my past research that there was a very slight success variance leaning Defense as far as statistical info. But that is “very slight” Certainly not enough to merit spending 2:1 resources favoring the Defense or anywhere close to that. If the draft was in alignment with SB success rates the ratio would be more like 8:7 ratio leaning D. There are other acquisitions that offset this but it takes beaucoup FA resources to offset the logistics of 12 years of drafting 2:1 Defense, which I 100% now know they did.

 

[Mondio]

Wolf drafted defense 2-1 too. Anyway. You think we had a defense good enough to win anything? We had a record setting offense and didn’t make it past the first round. The 4 most important positions in the NFL, QB, Tackles, Pass rushers and DBs.

Ladarius Gunter wasn’t taking us anywhere even with 4 Jordy Nelson’s at WR.

 

[rmontro]

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is my concern. I give Gute and Co a pass because he’s trying to build a team and salvage the Defensive mess that was left by the former GM team.

The picks could have been bad, or perhaps the coaching staff didn't develop or use them properly. Either way, we have a new GM, and a new defensive coordinator, so I don't expect the same results. I'm not sure how many, if any, other defensive coaches from Capers' day are still around.

 

[Dantés]

@OldSchool101 Here's a question I'm curious about. We don't know if trading down was an option. So if we hypothetically say they were stuck at #12, what offensive player would you have taken there?

 

[rmontro]

For what it's worth, the NFL as a whole took defensive players 54% of the time in the first three rounds from 2012-2019. Which is the same time period I noted above. The Packers took defensive players 75% of the time.

And before someone jumps down my throat:
I'm not saying it was a mistake, I'm just putting the facts out there.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

"It worked 5 years ago" is not really a excuse for the fiasco that came later in his career, not does it justify his inaction. GM should be able to adapt and recover from draft failures. TTs inability to adapt from repeat draft fails by moving in FA is why we are here now. His tenure after 2014 is a fiasco, I still think.

I'm not denying that Thompson's draft and develop strategy didn't work late during his stint with the Packers anymore. Fans should appreciate what he did for the franchise for most of his tenure though.

The strategy of allocating 2:1 resources towards Defense didn’t work for us. All I am pointing out is we need to be mindful of over allocating draft resources overwhelmingly in one area and do a better job of having better balance. That simple. Awareness is the key.

My belief system stems from countless hours of researching O vs D rankings of winning SB teams, not conjecture about later round draft picks finding success or how “everyone else is drafting such and such” like I’ve seen others say. Like the old saying “if everyone is jumping off a bridge does that mean you should?”

The most successful NFL teams are the most balanced teams by and large going back decades with few statistical anomalies. I did notice in my past research that there was a very slight success variance leaning Defense as far as statistical info. But that is “very slight” Certainly not enough to merit spending 2:1 resources favoring the Defense or anywhere close to that. If the draft was in alignment with SB success rates the ratio would be more like 8:7 ratio leaning D. There are other acquisitions that offset this but it takes beaucoup FA resources to offset the logistics of 12 years of drafting 2:1 Defense, which I 100% now know they did.

The Patriots have drafted 17 defensive players compared to only 10 on offense during the first three rounds since 2012. It seems to work pretty well for them.

I'm not sure how many, if any, other defensive coaches from Capers' day are still around.

Defensive line coach Jerry Montgomery and defensive backs coach Jason Simmons worked with Capers as well.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

That's a handy tool there. So what I found out was that from the years 2012-2019 (I changed 2011 to 2012 because the 2012 draft would have followed the 2011 season), Green Bay picked:

8 defensive players in the first round,
18 defensive players in the first three rounds,
and 6 offensive players in the first three rounds (no #1s).

I wanted to compare this to other teams, but I'm too lazy to run every team, so I just ran the other teams in our division:

Chicago
4 defensive players in the first round,
10 defensive players in the first three rounds,
and 10 offensive players in the first three rounds

Detroit
2 defensive players in the first round,
11 defensive players in the first three rounds,
and 13 offensive players in the first three rounds

Minnesota
6 defensive players in the first round,
11 defensive players in the first three rounds,
and 10 offensive players in the first three rounds.

As expected, that showed that Green Bay spent quite a bit more draft capital on defensive players than at least the other teams in the NFC North.

What did you expect? The Packers offense has been elite for the majority of that time while those teams have not been elite (to put it nicely). The Packers defense, on the other hand, has been full of draft misses. Why would the Packers draft players into an offense where they wouldn't add much to the overall team when they needed players on defense so badly?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Whoa, what criteria was I restricting? Were you wanting me to post up the results for all 32 teams? I don't have all day for this, you know, I have messages to post after all.

And I never said there weren't good reasons to go heavy on defense, I'm saying that for all we've invested in it, the defense should have been better than it has been. That's the point.

You're correct, for all the players drafted on defense, it SHOULD have been better. That's why TT is no longer the GM.

 

[OldSchool101]

@OldSchool101 Here's a question I'm curious about. We don't know if trading down was an option. So if we hypothetically say they were stuck at #12, what offensive player would you have taken there?

I never said pick at Offense in 2019. I’ve repeatedly and overwhelmingly said “go Defense” in 2019. I need not try to argue against my own convictions.

As merely an approach of entertaining your question, I have a question that’s I believe is extremely relevant to its point. Don’t you think that at an average draft position of say.. #26ish there were solid Offensive prospects in the last 11 drafts? Let’s not condition your question when considering the entire 12 year long Offensive draft in question (Rodgers starting tenure) to one pick.

How many times in the last 11 drafts (pre 2019) did GB pick at #12 or earlier going back before the 2019 draft? How many out of 11?

Your honor, distinguished members of the jury..
I rest my case on his answer, I’m hungry I’m going to lunch

 

[Heyjoe4]

That's what happens when you restrict the criteria to get what you expected

I also expect a team like the Bears that have sucked on offense for a long time to invest in it, when they have a good defense.

Of course a team that has no DB's and failing pass rush and for most of those years outside of a season where Rodgers went down, had an offense top 10 or better should just keep feeding it right?

Why do people act like there weren't damn good reasons to go defense? anybody?

Until the D actually improves, the draft picks make sense. I just hope Gluten has better luck with his defensive prospects than TT.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Until the D actually improves, the draft picks make sense. I just hope Gluten has better luck with his defensive prospects than TT.

A very valid point, given the last 5 or so years. Now the thing that Gute did more of this year, than TT ever did, was he not just drafted defense, he signed 3 top FA's on defense. I think Smith, Smith and Amos will have more of an immediate impact on improving the defense this year, than anything Gute has done thus far in his 2 drafts. That isn't to say that Alexander, Jackson, Burks, Gary, Savage and Keke won't eventually add to that vast improvement.

 

[rmontro]

What did you expect? The Packers offense has been elite for the majority of that time while those teams have not been elite (to put it nicely)

I expected pretty much exactly what I found. A few posters had basically inferred that all NFL teams put as much draft resources into the defense as the Packers have in recent years. That didn't sound right to me, which is why I checked. Debunked!

 

[Mondio]

I expected pretty much exactly what I found. A few posters had basically inferred that all NFL teams put as much draft resources into the defense as the Packers have in recent years. That didn't sound right to me, which is why I checked. Debunked!

That is NOT what was inferred. At all. Defense is favored, going back 2-3 decades. Year after year with few exceptions. Using higher picks on defense is not outside of the norm. What was? Having top 2 DBs not workout, needing to replace a young should have been cornerstone on the dline because he decided to pack it in in his prime and losing your all pro DB to a career ended, coupled with a defense that couldn’t stop a nosebleed required more work to be done.

 

[Mondio]

A very valid point, given the last 5 or so years. Now the thing that Gute did more of this year, than TT ever did, was he not just drafted defense, he signed 3 top FA's on defense. I think Smith, Smith and Amos will have more of an immediate impact on improving the defense this year, than anything Gute has done thus far in his 2 drafts. That isn't to say that Alexander, Jackson, Burks, Gary, Savage and Keke won't eventually add to that vast improvement.

He also didn’t have any FAs that he needed to keep. It matters

 

[Heyjoe4]

A very valid point, given the last 5 or so years. Now the thing that Gute did more of this year, than TT ever did, was he not just drafted defense, he signed 3 top FA's on defense. I think Smith, Smith and Amos will have more of an immediate impact on improving the defense this year, than anything Gute has done thus far in his 2 drafts. That isn't to say that Alexander, Jackson, Burks, Gary, Savage and Keke won't eventually add to that vast improvement.

This is one big and welcome change in the Gluten era - smart participation in FA. I was ecstatic with the 4 players he signed. Will they all be game changers? Probably not, but they’ll have a much shorter learning curve. Did he overpay? Not if he wanted them. And hopefully this allows future drafts to be more broadly focused on areas of need. I’m excited by all the off season moves. Now it’s on to success! (And fingers crossed that Graham pans out.)

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If I am an Arizona Cardinals fan, I am thinking we have spent way too much draft resources on QB's and still don't have anything to show for it. Since the Packers drafted AR in 2005:

• 2006: Matt Leinart (#10 pick in draft)
• 2010: John Skelton(#155)
• 2012: Ryan Lindley(#185)
• 2014: Logan Thomas (#120)
• 2018: Josh Rosen (#10)
• 2019: Kyler Murray (#1)

Not sure what I am trying to say from this, "Thank you Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers for allowing us to use so many picks on our defense?"

I didn't need to see numbers, its pretty obvious that the Packers have spent a boat load of draft capital on the defense. Blame TT, the coaching staff and the Scouts for not having a higher success rate on many of those picks over the last 6 or so years. But thank them for hitting on the offensive picks earlier in TT's regime, to make it less painful or needed.

But had the Packers hit on more of their defensive picks, just like had the Cardinals hit on Leinart in 2006, they could have diverted some of those picks to the offensive side of the ball and who knows how much that would have improved an already pretty decent offense, nor would the Packers probably be coming off of a 6-9-1 season.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

He also didn’t have any FAs that he needed to keep. It matters

Nope, out with the old and in with the new. Let's just say that Gute is on a mission to clean out Teddy's old basement.

The other thing that I failed to mention, besides maybe Savage, none of the guys drafted this year are absolutely needed to perform at a high level their rookie season for the Packers to succeed. Will it help? Sure. But I love going into a draft without absolutely needing to find rookies to immediately jump into a starting role.

 

[rmontro]

That is NOT what was inferred. At all. Defense is favored, going back 2-3 decades. Year after year with few exceptions. Using higher picks on defense is not outside of the norm.

I have no problem believing that most teams spend most of their draft capital on defense. Sounds right to me.

But I don't believe that most teams have drafted defense as heavily as the Packers have recently. Somebody was saying that (not saying it was you, or even that it was in this thread), because that's the reason I looked it up.

 

[TXPackerfan]

Idk if anyone likes PFF here but they consider GB the most improved team in the division based on this draft (starts at 1:03)

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

As merely an approach of entertaining your question, I have a question that’s I believe is extremely relevant to its point. Don’t you think that at an average draft position of say.. #26ish there were solid Offensive prospects in the last 11 drafts? Let’s not condition your question when considering the entire 12 year long Offensive draft in question (Rodgers starting tenure) to one pick.

How many times in the last 11 drafts (pre 2019) did GB pick at #12 or earlier going back before the 2019 draft? How many out of 11?

There's no doubt there were talented offensive players available with the Packers on the clock in the first round of the past 11 drafts. But the Packers mostly selecting defensive players should work as evidence that position of need definitely factors into deciding which prospects to select.

The other thing that I failed to mention, besides maybe Savage, none of the guys drafted this year are absolutely needed to perform at a high level their rookie season for the Packers to succeed. Will it help? Sure. But I love going into a draft without absolutely needing to find rookies to immediately jump into a starting role.

Mostly agree, although there might have been other positions not addressed in the draft that were in need of a starter.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Mostly agree, although there might have been other positions not addressed in the draft that were in need of a starter.

Mostly agree with that, however if you are referring to ILB there wasn't a ready made starter available for the Packers to draft at #12 and beyond. I'm still scratching my head a bit about ILB. Either they think Burks is going to improve or Pettine is going to use the Smiths and Gary in such a way that there isn't a pressing need.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Mostly agree with that, however if you are referring to ILB there wasn't a ready made starter available for the Packers to draft at #12 and beyond. I'm still scratching my head a bit about ILB. Either they think Burks is going to improve or Pettine is going to use the Smiths and Gary in such a way that there isn't a pressing need.

I definitely agree there wasn't an inside linebacker available to be drafted at #12 but would have liked Gutekunst to address the position early than the seventh round. In addition it might have been smart to add a slot receiver as well, once again not talking about the first round though.

 

[Mondio]

There are always other players and positions they could have picked, but looking at this draft, I think they got good prospects and value relative to their draft slot. Can't really ask for much more than that. I know they aren't all going to work and maybe MALF doesn't really want a "cobb" like slot receiver? Kupp isn't exactly small and shifty and he's exactly what they want on the Rams. Or maybe they just didn't value any that were available to them at the pick they had? I don't know, but I think there is enough talent on offense for it to be top 10 and I think they really solidified that OLine and depth. McCray will be the last guy off the bench rather than a starter, like it should be.

Outside of 1-2 ILB's taken early, none really got the juices flowing so to speak. They could have picked one earlier, but it's not like I dislike the potential they did pick at other positions, positions that also needed attention I might add.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

There are always other players and positions they could have picked, but looking at this draft, I think they got good prospects and value relative to their draft slot. Can't really ask for much more than that. I know they aren't all going to work and maybe MALF doesn't really want a "cobb" like slot receiver? Kupp isn't exactly small and shifty and he's exactly what they want on the Rams. Or maybe they just didn't value any that were available to them at the pick they had? I don't know, but I think there is enough talent on offense for it to be top 10 and I think they really solidified that OLine and depth. McCray will be the last guy off the bench rather than a starter, like it should be.

Outside of 1-2 ILB's taken early, none really got the juices flowing so to speak. They could have picked one earlier, but it's not like I dislike the potential they did pick at other positions, positions that also needed attention I might add.

Don't get me wrong, overall I liked the Packers draft as well as I've stated before. I was surprised they didn't select a slot receiver but it's entirely possible that you're right about LaFleur not putting any value in having a player similar to Cobb lining up there. At this point inside linebacker remains a huge question mark entering this season though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I definitely agree there wasn't an inside linebacker available to be drafted at #12 but would have liked Gutekunst to address the position early than the seventh round. In addition it might have been smart to add a slot receiver as well, once again not talking about the first round though.

I think Gute feels he addressed WR in last years draft and I hope he is right. I too would have liked to see him do the same at ILB for 2020, by using a pick or 2 mid round, but maybe there weren't guys there that the Packers felt were worth it. They also may very well be comfortable with their current personnel. If ILB continues to be an issue, it might become top priority in Free Agency next year. My hope is with the addition of the Smiths and Gary, Martinez and whoever is playing the other ILB will have a bigger impact.