Prospects You Love

[Pokerbrat2000]

We went through this same dance with everyone last year when discussing "How successful was a certain years draft". I guess if you are going to strictly rate a draft pick solely on a player's success in the NFL over the course of his career, then Hayward, was definitely a solid second round pick. However, I am still in the camp that says when you decide where a guy ranks as a draft pick, you have to take into consideration the value you got out of that player for the the value you put into him (draft pick). If you want to say the value we got out of Hayward was equal or greater than the value TT got out of second round investments like Collins, Jennings, Nelson, Cobb or Adams, than so be it.

Had Tony Mandarich turned into a Pro Bowler somewhere else in the NFL, would he have been considered a great pick instead of the biggest draft bust ever for the Packers?

 

[Mondio]

I didn't say we got the same value as a Collins, Jennings or Nelson or cobb though. there was a difference between being a good pick and getting our money's worth on an investment were different in my eyes. I think Hyde eta: ( not hyde) Hayward too many h names for me )very clearly has the qualities of a 2nd round pick. Heck he even showed that for us when he actually got on the field and if 2 rookies and shields hadn't looked so good together coming up in his contract year, I'm sure we would have worked harder to retain him. we got nowhere near the production from him as we did those other guys, not even close. But it's also apparent he had the skills here and another place that warranted a 2nd round pick

 

[Dantés]

Successful selections for who's benefit?

I mean I get it, the Packers drafted all 3 guys and all 3 guys have had some successful seasons either with the Packers or for other teams. So for that the Packers (TT) should get the credit for seeing the talent right? But what did all 3 guys end up contributing to the Packers for the draft investment? Would all 3 have been successful had they remained in Green Bay? I think everyone wants to think they would have, but are you sure? House wasn't that impressive on his second stint in Green Bay.

I don't view getting 4 up and down years from a high draft pick as being a successful investment in a draft pick. I also don't see how what that player does after he leaves Green Bay changes that one bit. Hyde is about the only guy out of the 3 that I think we got what we invested...a 5th round pick and 4 good years. But if you are happy with what we got out of Hayward with a 2nd round investment, I think your judgement is being clouded by what he did after he left Green Bay.

I also don't think you are going to build a very solid team if all you expect is 1-2 decent years out of high round draft picks. I asked you if you felt Lacy was a successful 2nd round pick. Afterall, he did provide the Packers with some solid play for a few years, but after that, not a whole lot for the Packers or Seahawks. So would your opinion of Lacy change had he been a Pro Bowler for Seattle? Does your opinion on Hayward change had he stunk in San Diego?

A few thoughts here.

There's no denying that Hayward and Hyde played their best ball after they left Green Bay. However, both were easily successful picks, even if you only based their valuation on their level of play with the Packers.

If you find an above average starting corner in the back of the 2nd, it was a good pick-- and that's what Hayward was for 3 years in Green Bay (injured for the 4th). Yes, he has gone on to become elite outside of Capers' defense, but he was still a *good* Packer. If you find an above average corner/safety in the 5th, it was a great pick. House was a reasonable backup and solid contributor as a guy taken at the tail end of the 4th round. If you look at these picks in context, understanding what's reasonable to expect in those areas of the draft, they're clearly not bad picks.

The decision to let them walk was entirely separate from the evaluation that went into drafting them. If we are trying to measure how well the Packers evaluate corner prospects, why would it be relevant to talk about what happened when those players' contracts expired? That's more of a indictment of Capers and those that wouldn't fire him than of the FO and their ability to identify good corner prospects.

If you want my opinion on Lacy-- it depends on your perspective. From a pure talent evaluation standpoint, Lacy was a great pick. He was a really excellent running back when he wanted to be. From a football character evaluation standpoint, he was a big swing and miss. He doesn't care enough about football to make good on his talent. That pick simultaneously shows good evaluation of what's happening on the field and bad evaluation of what's happening off of it. Randall is a very similar case thus far.

However-- this is all off track. The contention, if I understand it, is whether or not Green Bay has demonstrated an ability to identify viable talent in the draft at the cornerback position. They have. Mismanagement after the point of acquisition does not revise what's already happened.

 

[Dantés]

We went through this same dance with everyone last year when discussing "How successful was a certain years draft". I guess if you are going to strictly rate a draft pick solely on a player's success in the NFL over the course of his career, then Hayward, was definitely a solid second round pick. However, I am still in the camp that says when you decide where a guy ranks as a draft pick, you have to take into consideration the value you got out of that player for the the value you put into him (draft pick). If you want to say the value we got out of Hayward was equal or greater than the value TT got out of second round investments like Collins, Jennings, Nelson, Cobb or Adams, than so be it.

Had Tony Mandarich turned into a Pro Bowler somewhere else in the NFL, would he have been considered a great pick instead of the biggest draft bust ever for the Packers?

You have to approach it differently based on what you're trying to measure.

If you want to talk about a teams entire holistic ability to identify, acquire, deploy, and sustain talent, then the way you're assessing things is spot on.

If you want to talk about a FO's ability to identify viable talent in the draft, then the way you're assessing things is misleading.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Hyde was good value for 4 years for a 5th round pick. He played well in the secondary and was a dependable guy to return punts. I don't have any issues with calling him a pretty decent 5th round pick. Had we invested a 2nd rounder in Hyde, not so sure I would feel as strong about the full value of the return on our investment.

This discussion started with me saying that I would be leary of investing another high pick in a CB as opposed to trying to fix the current issues with the new DC, the players we have, as well as a FA or 2. I stated that past drafts of CB's still hasn't fixed the problems in the secondary and relying on more high picks to do so, may yield the same results. I never said you couldn't find a great CB at #14 or in the second round to fix things, but I wouldn't rely on it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You have to approach it differently based on what you're trying to measure.

If you want to talk about a teams entire holistic ability to identify, acquire, deploy, and sustain talent, then the way you're assessing things is spot on.

If you want to talk about a FO's ability to identify viable talent in the draft, then the way you're assessing things is misleading.

I'm a big picture guy. Start to finish. If you draft a guy and you can't fully use him to the best of his abilities, you have wasted something haven't you? If you run a big business, go out and hire what appears to be a top gun salesman and he is just average for your company and you part ways with him. Are you sitting at the next BOD meeting and saying "Remember Joe, top salesman in the country for our competition, man do I know talent or what?"

Randall may end up being a GREAT pic, but we don't know yet, because his time in Green Bay is not over. But if he has a so so 2018 and ends up being a Pro Bowler for the Vikings in 2019, I am still going to call him a bad pick, based on what the Packers got out of a 1st round pick.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Was Favre a great pick for the Falcons? He ended up being a slightly good investment for them in that they turned a 2nd Rd pick into a 1st Rd. pick. However, I highly doubt he is remembered in Atlanta for being a great draft pick. Hell, I am not so sure that if that trade never happened, Favre would be in HOF today. He may have never seen much more than mop-up duty his entire career.

 

[GleefulGary]

Was Favre a great pick for the Falcons? He ended up being a slightly good investment for them in that they turned a 2nd Rd pick into a 1st Rd. pick. However, I highly doubt he is remembered in Atlanta for being a great draft pick. Hell, I am not so sure that if that trade never happened, Favre would be in HOF today. He may have never seen much more than mop-up duty his entire career.

It showed good evaluation, which is what we are discussing.

Can we find talent at that position? That was the question you seemed to bring up. The answer, is unequivocally yes. Did we always use it well? No, but that's not part of what we're discussing. Can we find talent? Yes.

But look. You're saying Hyde was a "decent" 5th round pick. Hyde, who just in GB started 49 games, had 8 interceptions, filled multiple roles doing whatever we needed...and he was a decent 5th round pick. I can't imagine what a good 5th round pick would have to be. I'd say a Pro-Bowler, but he was one of those too. There's not much point in continuing this. I'm not going to repeat myself on a dumb subject for the next few days.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It showed good evaluation, which is what we are discussing.

Can we find talent at that position? That was the question you seemed to bring up. The answer, is unequivocally yes. Did we always use it well? No, but that's not part of what we're discussing. Can we find talent? Yes.

But look. You're saying Hyde was a "decent" 5th round pick. Hyde, who just in GB started 49 games, had 8 interceptions, filled multiple roles doing whatever we needed...and he was a decent 5th round pick. I can't imagine what a good 5th round pick would have to be. I'd say a Pro-Bowler, but he was one of those too. There's not much point in continuing this. I'm not going to repeat myself on a dumb subject for the next few days.

Actually, you have "simplified" the discussion to "good evaluation", probably because it best fits your argument better? As I said above, I am a big picture guy. I don't think a team that is built on draft and develop is only concerned about "good evaluation".

 

[Dantés]

I'm a big picture guy. Start to finish. If you draft a guy and you can't fully use him to the best of his abilities, you have wasted something haven't you? If you run a big business, go out and hire what appears to be a top gun salesman and he is just average for your company and you part ways with him. Are you sitting at the next BOD meeting and saying "Remember Joe, top salesman in the country for our competition, man do I know talent or what?"

Randall may end up being a GREAT pic, but we don't know yet, because his time in Green Bay is not over. But if he has a so so 2018 and ends up being a Pro Bowler for the Vikings in 2019, I am still going to call him a bad pick, based on what the Packers got out of a 1st round pick.

I think it's a fallacy to say that some are "big picture" guys and some aren't. It just depends on what you're trying to assess. The big picture will reveal that there's a problem, but won't be that helpful in determining the source of the problem. I think Mondio explained it well.

 

[AmishMafia]

Was Favre a great pick for the Falcons? He ended up being a slightly good investment for them in that they turned a 2nd Rd pick into a 1st Rd. pick. However, I highly doubt he is remembered in Atlanta for being a great draft pick. Hell, I am not so sure that if that trade never happened, Favre would be in HOF today. He may have never seen much more than mop-up duty his entire career.

I agree, if Favre stayed in ATL he would have been out of the league in a few years. It is very complicated and fans think it's all about the player evaluations. A big part of the equation is coaching and situation for player development. Every player has a floor and a ceiling and odds on the player achieving that level of play. Lombardi's greatest asset was his ability to adapt to each player and get the most out of them. When he took over the roster was full of amazing talent yet the Packers finished last in the league. It's more difficult these days because of the huge life-changing money these kids get right out of college.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Part of the "big picture" is also how you use past information in making future decisions. I can't help but look at the issues we have had with the secondary, look at the draft capital invested in it and come to the conclusion that there has to be a better way to fix the issues than just keep tossing high picks at it. Now maybe it turns out the guys we currently have back there are actually pretty good and Capers just didn't know how to coach them or TT served up some lemons. Personally, I would love to see the first part of that be true and be able to say "man TT had an eye for talent at CB and now that we have the right DC, it's paying off. However, just like with Randall, I will defer my complete judgment until this all plays out.

 

[AmishMafia]

Part of the "big picture" is also how you use past information in making future decisions. I can't help but look at the issues we have had with the secondary, look at the draft capital invested in it and come to the conclusion that there has to be a better way to fix the issues than just keep tossing high picks at it. Now maybe it turns out the guys we currently have back there are actually pretty good and Capers just didn't know how to coach them or TT served up some lemons. Personally, I would love to see the first part of that be true and be able to say "man TT had an eye for talent at CB and now that we have the right DC, it's paying off. However, just like with Randall, I will defer my complete judgment until this all plays out.

I see a pattern with Haha, Hayward, Hyde, Rollins, and Randall. They all started out looking like very good players only to start struggling in later seasons. It can' be a coincidence. Then when both Hyde and Hayward flourish on other teams leads me to believe coaching is a major reason our secondary sucks.

 

[Dantés]

Part of the "big picture" is also how you use past information in making future decisions. I can't help but look at the issues we have had with the secondary, look at the draft capital invested in it and come to the conclusion that there has to be a better way to fix the issues than just keep tossing high picks at it. Now maybe it turns out the guys we currently have back there are actually pretty good and Capers just didn't know how to coach them or TT served up some lemons. Personally, I would love to see the first part of that be true and be able to say "man TT had an eye for talent at CB and now that we have the right DC, it's paying off. However, just like with Randall, I will defer my complete judgment until this all plays out.

Yes, that would be great. However, the problem is that even if they play better without Capers (and I expect they will), you're still dealing with a personnel shortage. Your 4th corner is your first backup. You really need 6-- 5 if you have a safety or two who can fill corner roles.

So right now the Packers have Josh Hawkins, Lenzy Pipkins, Quinten Rollins, and Donatello Brown as corner 3-6. It would be fine to keep a couple of those guys on the very tail end of the depth chart, and maybe they surprise, but GB needs multiple corners good enough to push them down. Additionally, Randall is a FA after this season and is maybe not a guy you want to invest in long term.

Now I am actually (ironically) in lock step with you in terms of what the ideal scenario would be. Given the youth and lack of cap space in the corner position, a veteran seems like an absolute must to me. However, even if they sign a starter, I would not rule the position out at #14. If the last best player there is, say, Denzel Ward, I won't bat an eye at them drafting him. They need more. Now ideally I would love if the better option was an edge player, and would be fine taking a corner later, but I'm open to either option. And I certainly would not avoid a corner at 14 because of the fact that Capers was inept.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Hopefully, we have a couple of Casey Haywards waiting in the wings But yes, it will be interesting to see what Pettine can do with the guys he was left to work with. I think his evaluation of King, Randall and the other 3-6 is going to determine a lot of what the Packers do with House, Free Agency and the draft at the position. I am also thinking if Pettine can make the front 7 better, that is going to reflect on what the other 4 guys are doing.

I'm never opposed to finding great players in the draft but I also think in the case of CB, the time is now to find them and if they aren't currently on the team, your best chance at doing so is probably through Free Agency.

 

[Mondio]

DL, DB, OLB, any guy you think is going to be a difference maker, you take him. i don't care how many you have already. If you have 6 dominant defensive linemen that can play run while they rush the passer and kick the **** out of the guy in front of him play after play, you rotate those guys and attack all game long. I don't care who's on the backside. Average is going to win. By the same token, if you have 3 shut down corners, get that 4th, why not, history has shown you'll likely need him even if everyone stays healthy. When you can shut the backside down with just DB's one on one, you bring safeties and LB'ers in on the rush and run support and you're still very good, even with an average line. A relentless OLB putting pressure on every play means your guys on the backside can play with help and don't have to cover as long.

So many ways to play defense, and this team needs difference makers. I don't care which of those positions its at, just get me one more at least

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

DL, DB, OLB, any guy you think is going to be a difference maker, you take him. i don't care how many you have already. If you have 6 dominant defensive linemen that can play run while they rush the passer and kick the **** out of the guy in front of him play after play, you rotate those guys and attack all game long. I don't care who's on the backside. Average is going to win. By the same token, if you have 3 shut down corners, get that 4th, why not, history has shown you'll likely need him even if everyone stays healthy. When you can shut the backside down with just DB's one on one, you bring safeties and LB'ers in on the rush and run support and you're still very good, even with an average line. A relentless OLB putting pressure on every play means your guys on the backside can play with help and don't have to cover as long.

So many ways to play defense, and this team needs difference makers. I don't care which of those positions its at, just get me one more at least

The more games I watched this year, of other teams, the more I am leaning towards the first half of your comment. Our front 7 needs to get dominant before this defense can get any better. They need to bet stronger and faster. I watched Brady and Foles pick apart what were considered decent defenses, with quality CB's during the playoffs but when they did feel the pressure of the front 7, especially Brady and Keenum (against Philly), they were all unable to do much. You could have 2 Pro Bowl shut down CB's on your team, but if you give the opposing QB too much time, he is going to find someone open. Improve our front 7 and our secondary gets better.

 

[Dantés]

I was listening to Daniel Jeremiah talking about doing some self scouting. He noted that wide receiver is a position where he misses more often. In assessing why that is, he thinks it's because it puts too much emphasis on traits and not enough on skills. He noted Kevin White and Corey Coleman as explosive athletes that he was really excited about, but didn't really know how to play the position professionally. They've essentially busted, while a guy like Cooper Kupp comes in and produces right away. Take it for what it's worth. I do think that in this era of quick passing and precise offense, route running ability and separation prowess doesn't get the credit it ought to. I'm still big on athletic metrics, but I think we always have to be paying attention to what matters most at what position.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I was listening to Daniel Jeremiah talking about doing some self scouting. He noted that wide receiver is a position where he misses more often. In assessing why that is, he thinks it's because it puts too much emphasis on traits and not enough on skills. He noted Kevin White and Corey Coleman as explosive athletes that he was really excited about, but didn't really know how to play the position professionally. They've essentially busted, while a guy like Cooper Kupp comes in and produces right away. Take it for what it's worth. I do think that in this era of quick passing and precise offense, route running ability and separation prowess doesn't get the credit it ought to. I'm still big on athletic metrics, but I think we always have to be paying attention to what matters most at what position.

I loved Cooper Kupp coming out of college, even said last year that he reminded me of Jordy. I definitely think one measurable, but tricky to measure, that needs to be strongly considered at WR in the complex system of the NFL is the brain. Not calling the guys who don't make it "dumb", but pure physical ability gets you out on the field, learning routes, audibles, reading the defense, communicating with your QB, etc. can keep you out on that field.

 

[Dantés]

I loved Cooper Kupp coming out of college, even said last year that he reminded me of Jordy. I definitely think one measurable, but tricky to measure, that needs to be strongly considered at WR in the complex system of the NFL is the brain. Not calling the guys who don't make it "dumb", but pure physical ability gets you out on the field, learning routes, audibles, reading the defense, communicating with your QB, etc. can keep you out on that field.

Yes, and so much of good evaluation is knowing what matters where and in what system. I don't really care that much about the football acumen of a defensive tackle. Whoop the guy in front of you and mind your gap(s). Which is not at all to say that intelligence doesn't matter in DT's or that there aren't any smart guys playing that role, but it just isn't as important. A receiver needs to have that mind meld with his QB and be able to use all the nuances of the position to their advantage in getting open.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yes, and so much of good evaluation is knowing what matters where and in what system. I don't really care that much about the football acumen of a defensive tackle. Whoop the guy in front of you and mind your gap(s). Which is not at all to say that intelligence doesn't matter in DT's or that there aren't any smart guys playing that role, but it just isn't as important. A receiver needs to have that mind meld with his QB and be able to use all the nuances of the position to their advantage in getting open.

I don't doubt that "Football IQ" is considered by Scouts/GM's, but guessing that at times, physical attributes or what they did in college can trump a lower IQ and they may or may not work out and as you said, could depend on the position and what is actually required. I have no clue what some of the IQ's are of current or former Packer WR's, but there seems to be a lot made about "not being on the same page as #12" or "still need to learn this or that". Jordy came in having the Physical talent to be a great WR and I think its been his mental skills that have kept him as a productive WR, even though his physical skills have diminished. Blake Martinez is a guy that earned Pac-12 All-Academic honors while at Stanford, while he may not be the most physically gifted ILB in the NFL, his mental abilities definitely show up on the field.

 

[Dantés]

Of note on Warner, even though he attended BYU where the average age of student athlete is roughly 27, he's still two years younger than Calvin Ridley despite being a true SR whereas Ridley is a true JR.

I'm mainly just messing around in regards to Ridley. He is easily, imo, WR1 in this draft. It's not a star powered WR field though, tbh. I do think there is some question as to how much more developed is he, physically, mentally, etc than other WR's in the field due to his age. Take a guy like DJ Moore, he's still 21. I think a year and half separation between him and Ridley. That doesn't seem like a lot, but when it comes to future contracts, size, maturity, it definitely can matter.

I was just reading up on Warner. He seems like a great target if they decide that Josh Jones is more safety than linebacker. I'm kind of thinking they should leave him at SS and let him grow into the position. That 4.40 speed and the ball skills he showed in college (3 INT, 8 PBU) should make good in due time.

 

[OldSchool101]

I think Courtland Sutton would be pretty good on any team, I think if GB got him he has the potential to surpass Davante production in a year or two, partly because Aaron Rodgers would make him look better than he already is. That's not a slight on Davante or Sutton but Aaron has the ability to make a good receiver great. Just look at what #12 did with Greg Jennings, James Jones etc..

 

[Dantés]

I think Courtland Sutton would be pretty good on any team, I think if GB got him he has the potential to surpass Davante production in a year or two, partly because Aaron Rodgers would make him look better than he already is. That's not a slight on Davante or Sutton but Aaron has the ability to make a good receiver great. Just look at what #12 did with Greg Jennings, James Jones etc..

As of now, Sutton’s biggest weakness is that he lacks the burst, quickness, and route savvy to separate against quality man coverage. TCU and UCF had guys who could shadow him and he came away with 6 catches for 46 yards in those two games combined.

GB’s offense, more than most, puts a premium on that skill set. For that reason, I have a hard time seeing him as the guy you’re describing without a major shift in his play style or the Packers’ offense.

 

[brandon2348]

I think Courtland Sutton would be pretty good on any team, I think if GB got him he has the potential to surpass Davante production in a year or two, partly because Aaron Rodgers would make him look better than he already is. That's not a slight on Davante or Sutton but Aaron has the ability to make a good receiver great. Just look at what #12 did with Greg Jennings, James Jones etc..

Sutton and Devante outside would be sweet indeed. Sutton presents a huge mismatch for a lot of teams.