Thoughts on the Packers 2021 Draft Class

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
6,429
Reaction score
1,057
Stenavich has done a really good job since he's been with the Packers.

James Campen did a really nice job for a long time as well.

Our development of OL is a big advantage to the team. I also think that the scouting department is particularly good at recognizing the tools that will translate to the NFL at the position.

The staff from scouts to coaches truly seem to shine on the OL front for sure! Easily our best position we seem to be one of the best in the league at.
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
364
I would like to know who chose Stenavich. I am hoping it was LaFleur.
 

scotscheese

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 11, 2013
Messages
1,065
Reaction score
206
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
So I think some of the lack of addition along our big boys in the front of the defense is two main parts:

-Arguably our deadliest weapons outside of Clark along our front 7 are ZSmith, PSmith and Gary...getting those three on the field with Clark is something any DC will attempt to do.

-We don't run a lot of true 3-4 sets and typically only two "down" guys exist...

-The limited use of hands in the dirt bigguns in our system doesn't have a massive reliance on true DL guys. Slaton if he is even half of what his measurables illustrate and can keep his motor turned on will be an upgrade from what Lancaster and Rush both provide - with Keke and Lowry taking snaps depending on situations anyways well before any other reserves.


I had DL help coming earlier in the draft, BUT Bobby Brown and Slaton were two guys I had pegged if we waited till Day 3 in the 4th. We got one of those two in the 5th, excellent value. Kemp offers excellent versatility along the front 7 with his experience of being up or down.

I think part of my thinking is run D, we still suck the big hairy left one on that, unless one of the new guys proves a good fit there

On day 3, I just think for the most part you take whoever at whatever position that you think you can develop into a useful player. The odds are so low at that point in the draft to start with, and if you narrow yourself down to a targeted position on top of that, you're really knee capping your chances.

If we're being realistic about hit rates on day 3, then if just 2 of the 5 day three picks (Runyan, Stepaniak, Hanson, Newman, Van Lanen) turned into useful guys (say one solid starter and one good backup), you did really well with those picks.

agreed, if you get guys that can contribute from round 3 onward, I'd consider it fairly successful
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
364
Just confirming. 7 of the 8 picks are on the 53 and the other one is on the PS.
One thing about that though. It seems like sometimes they keep draft picks just to have a good track record.
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
364
it wouldn't shock me if that was at least partly true, but i think it is more a matter of cap economics.
I can understand cap economics. And it can be a difficult decision if one guy is a little better but the other guy costs less. But I would want that difficult decision to be thoroughly thought about and not just go for the guy you drafted.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
6,612
Reaction score
1,326
Just confirming. 7 of the 8 picks are on the 53 and the other one is on the PS.
This might be one of the best drafts since Gute jumped in the picture. Looking back, the biggest concern seemed to be the Royce Newman selection. So far it’s early, but it’s looking more and more like he’s actually in contention for our best value selection. It’s between Khylin and Royce anyways around the first turn (lots of track left to run).

After an initial review? We have likely grabbed 2021 starter types in Stokes, Meyers and Newman. We appear to have higher grade backups in Amari, McDuffie and Khylin and Slaton. We have somewhat positive vibes from Jean-Charles (too early to tell) and a PS project in Van Lanen. I’m feeling really good about this draft as a whole from a value standpoint.
 
Last edited:

realitybytez

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 19, 2021
Messages
457
Reaction score
193
Location
central coast california
After an initial review? We have likely grabbed 2021 starter types in Stokes, Meyers and Newman. We appear to have higher grade backups in Amari, McDuffie and Khylin and Slaton. We have somewhat positive vibes from Jean-Charles (too early to tell) and a PS project in Van Lanen. I’m feeling really good about this draft as a whole from a value standpoint.

i love your optimism, but not one of those guys have played a single regular season nfl game. i hope you're right.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
6,612
Reaction score
1,326
i love your optimism, but not one of those guys have played a single regular season nfl game. i hope you're right.
That’s true. But that’s about to Change this weekend. Several Rookie draft selections won starting roles.
let’s compare this years draft selections in early production (total Rookie starting snaps) after week 1 with a “snapshot” (pun intended):p from last season. I mean who did we get help from 2020 week 1? Here it is..

Love= No
Eric Stokes??
Dillon= no
Josh Meyers??
Deguara=31 snaps
Amari Rodgers??
Kamal= no
Royce Newman??
Runyon=22 snaps
Tedarrell Slayton??
Hanson=no
S. Jean-Charles??
Stepaniak=no
C. Van Lanen (PS)
Scott=9 snaps
Isaiah McDuffie??
Garvin= 8 snaps
Khylin Hill??

71 total snaps total on ST, O and D combined to start 2020. I’m gonna guess we blow that out of the water this weekend.
 
Last edited:

realitybytez

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 19, 2021
Messages
457
Reaction score
193
Location
central coast california
That’s true. But that’s about to Change this weekend. Several Rookie draft selections won starting roles.
let’s compare this years draft selections in early production (total Rookie starting snaps) after week 1 with a “snapshot” (pun intended):p from last season. I mean who did we get help from 2020 week 1? Here it is..

Love= No
Eric Stokes??
Dillon= no
Josh Meyers??
Deguara=31 snaps
Amari Rodgers??
Kamal= no
Royce Newman??
Runyon=22 snaps
Tedarrell Slayton??
Hanson=no
S. Jean-Charles??
Stepaniak=no
C. Van Lanen (PS)
Scott=9 snaps
Isaiah McDuffie??
Garvin= 8 snaps
Khylin Hill??

71 total snaps total on ST, O and D combined to start 2020. I’m gonna guess we blow that out of the water this weekend.

i have little doubt we will get more snaps from this year's draftees. hopefully they will be quality snaps and not just snaps out of necessity.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
6,612
Reaction score
1,326
i have little doubt we will get more snaps from this year's draftees. hopefully they will be quality snaps and not just snaps out of necessity.
I’m not sure what that means.
1. Can you define your idea of “Quality snaps”? as it pertains to this 2021 class (Meyers or Newman etc?). Or maybe I’m asking directly
2. when are snaps for a Rookie OL not quality?
 
Last edited:

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
364
I’m not sure what that means.
1. Can you define your idea of “Quality snaps”? as it pertains to this 2021 class (Meyers or Newman etc?). Or maybe I’m asking directly
2. when are snaps for a Rookie OL not quality?
I think I can answer that. A snap is not quality when the player does not play well. You will be able to say that our rookies played a lot of snaps, but if they don't play well; what have we really accomplished?
 

Poppa San

Levelheaded
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
10,780
Reaction score
1,272
Location
Brown County Wisconsin
I think I can answer that. A snap is not quality when the player does not play well. You will be able to say that our rookies played a lot of snaps, but if they don't play well; what have we really accomplished?
I was thinking mop up time snaps are not necessarily quality. 2-3 drives of the back-up QB handing off three times to the 4th string HB just to burn clock before you punt isn't quality.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
6,612
Reaction score
1,326
I think I can answer that. A snap is not quality when the player does not play well. You will be able to say that our rookies played a lot of snaps, but if they don't play well; what have we really accomplished?
Ok I understand that logic. But aren’t regular season snaps how players learn? See I’m more with Poppa there. Garbage time or maybe preseason snaps against poor competition is questionable as far as quality (although better than nothing). Live regular season Snaps against a top 10 Defense are learning opportunities at minimum and career propellers at best.

I’d even argue to that Rookie snaps in a regular season game are ultra important in their long term growth, even if you or myself don’t deem them quality it’s how they learn. Davante Adam’s could’ve been written off early on in his career.. were Adam’s first couple seasons where he struggled “not valuable” if he had more than usual drops? Of course not. But under that definition you provided his snaps were meaningless (or in your words “not accomplished”) I don’t necessarily agree with that it just sounds like you’re being critical at the short term and I’m considering long term potential. Two ways of looking at it I suppose.

that’s kinda what I meant by loving the fact we’ve got lots of Rookie snaps coming this weekend. Lots of chances to get a keeper and certainly much better than the 2020 Rookies. Ultimately I trust that if a player is getting the bulk of snaps that our coaching staff sees potential and vice versa if they aren’t out there at all.
 
Last edited:

realitybytez

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 19, 2021
Messages
457
Reaction score
193
Location
central coast california
Ok I understand that logic. But aren’t regular season snaps how players learn? See I’m more with Poppa there. Garbage time or maybe preseason snaps against poor competition is questionable as far as quality (although better than nothing). Live regular season Snaps against a top 10 Defense are learning opportunities at minimum and career propellers at best.

I’d even argue to that Rookie snaps in a regular season game are ultra important in their long term growth, even if you or myself don’t deem them quality it’s how they learn. Davante Adam’s could’ve been written off early on in his career.. were Adam’s first couple seasons where he struggled “not valuable” if he had more than usual drops? Of course not. But under that definition you provided his snaps were meaningless (or in your words “not accomplished”) I don’t necessarily agree with that it just sounds like you’re being critical at the short term and I’m considering long term potential. Two ways of looking at it I suppose.

that’s kinda what I meant by loving the fact we’ve got lots of Rookie snaps coming this weekend. Lots of chances to get a keeper and certainly much better than the 2020 Rookies. Ultimately I trust that if a player is getting the bulk of snaps that our coaching staff sees potential and vice versa if they aren’t out there at all.

let me give an extreme example of what i am talking about. this goes back a ways, but maybe you recall an offensive lineman by the name of will whitticker, who was drafted in 2005? as a rookie he started the final 14 games for the packers. after the season he was cut and he never played for another nfl team again. and it wasn't a case of an injury. that is a player who was put into a starting position out of necessity. and those were not quality snaps. he was not good.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
6,612
Reaction score
1,326
let me give an extreme example of what i am talking about. this goes back a ways, but maybe you recall an offensive lineman by the name of will whitticker, who was drafted in 2005? as a rookie he started the final 14 games for the packers. after the season he was cut and he never played for another nfl team again. and it wasn't a case of an injury. that is a player who was put into a starting position out of necessity. and those were not quality snaps. he was not good.
2005? Oh my. You HAVE been scarred. I’m so sorry. :laugh:
idk just these Rookies looked pretty good thus far. Maybe Im enthused we have this many Rookies who are getting playing time, it sure beats the alternative.

btw. If we do have a Whitaker etc.. that doesn’t pan out? then such is life.
I trust these coaches to weed ‘em out pretty quickly.
 
Last edited:

realitybytez

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 19, 2021
Messages
457
Reaction score
193
Location
central coast california
2005? Oh my. You HAVE been scarred. I’m so sorry. :laugh:
idk just these Rookies looked pretty good thus far. Maybe Im enthused we have this many Rookies who are getting playing time, it sure beats the alternative.

btw. If we do have a Whitaker etc.. that doesn’t pan out? then such is life.
I trust these coaches to weed ‘em out pretty quickly.
2005 is not the most recent example. it is the most extreme example. the packers started a rookie for 14 games - not because he was capable of playing at an nfl level (he wasn't) - but because they felt they had no other choice. but bak in 2005 the coaches were all singing his praises in the press, much like they are doing now. and they waited until the season was over before they "weeded him out" even though it was obvious to everyone that he did not belong in the nfl.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
6,612
Reaction score
1,326
2005 is not the most recent example. it is the most extreme example. the packers started a rookie for 14 games - not because he was capable of playing at an nfl level (he wasn't) - but because they felt they had no other choice. but bak in 2005 the coaches were all singing his praises in the press, much like they are doing now. and they waited until the season was over before they "weeded him out" even though it was obvious to everyone that he did not belong in the nfl.
I’m not going to lose any sleep over a 16 year old #256 selection that only played 14 contests (I’m surprised he played any)
I can give you 200 rookies who have been praised and failed or 200 rookies that have been doubted and were successful.
But in the end would you rather we sit all our rookies? Or would you rather we have a bunch of rookies win starting roles? Cause that’s all it comes down to.
So Take your pick
 
Last edited:

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
364
I’m not going to lose any sleep over a 16 year old #256 selection that only played 14 contests (I’m surprised he played any)
I can give you 200 rookies who have been praised and failed or 200 rookies that have been doubted and were successful.
But in the end would you rather we sit all our rookies? Or would you rather we have a bunch of rookies win starting roles? Cause that’s all it comes down to.
So Take your pick
I think the point it is that just because you have rookies taking snaps; it does not mean that we are strong in that position or that we might prefer someone else. Hopefully it does but some guys just stick around because a team has other positions they are concentrating on or they are putting the good old "hope" on a young guy.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
6,612
Reaction score
1,326
I think the point it is that just because you have rookies taking snaps; it does not mean that we are strong in that position or that we might prefer someone else. Hopefully it does but some guys just stick around because a team has other positions they are concentrating on or they are putting the good old "hope" on a young guy.
So let me get this clear. You think the Rookies who get playing time are snaps out of desperation? That’s what you said and I disagree with that. Not everyone is Will Whittaker

Which players specifically are the desperation/hope on a roster type Rookie starters? Let’s get more specific on your argument. Because otherwise a generalization as an argument is somewhat rhetorical in nature (saying “they might not be good one day” is a insufficient class of argument imo)
 
Last edited:

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
364
I am only saying that using number of snaps to try and determine the quality of this or that draft is not a good metric. That stat is dependent on too many other things. Just as how many players that you drafted end up playing in a pro bowl is not. Because a lot of good players never play in a pro bowl. Unless, of course, you had a bunch of them. Then you could say that was a great draft. A lot of it is subjective. imho
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
6,612
Reaction score
1,326
I am only saying that using number of snaps to try and determine the quality of this or that draft is not a good metric. That stat is dependent on too many other things. Just as how many players that you drafted end up playing in a pro bowl is not. Because a lot of good players never play in a pro bowl. Unless, of course, you had a bunch of them. Then you could say that was a great draft. A lot of it is subjective. imho
I see. But you didn’t answer the question. Saying you want players to be good is rhetorical. You responded to the potential for many Rookies to get substantial playing time. We don’t yet know how they will play we’re working without that information (until at least a few games/ adequate snaps).

In the meantime. At this point in time
Is it a positive that lots of members of the 2021 class won playing time? Or are you saying it’s negative. Take your pick before kickoff.

I’ll start. I Say it’s absolutely terrific for that group. I’m elated.
 
Last edited:
Top