Trading #14 pick

[OldSchool101]

Now watch Buffalo trade back twice!

 

[OldSchool101]

While QB desperation may escalate every year among the have nots, the talent in this current crop , if one envisions running a pro style offense, is not impressive.

Most experts believe 5 QBs will be picked in (or very near) the 1st round. Some say 4 of those in the first half of the first round. IF that happens, That is an anomaly that happens very rarely and this could be the largest miscalculation of assets in the draft in over a decade.
What excites me is we don’t need a QB so ideally 4-5 go early and we get the equivalent of a top 10 pick in many years’ drafts. That’s more probable but it’s fun to imagine the crazy trades that will happen this year. The last draft that even came close was 2012 with Luck, RG3 and Tannehill all going top 10.
Let’s just hope a guy like a Luke Kuechly or Dontari Poe type from the 2012 draft slips to us.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Packers are not in a rebuilding mode and with the team most likely ending up with 12 selection in this year's draft I would definitely prefer Gutekunst to get aggressive and keep the 14th pick

In addition it might make sense to trade up at some point this time around to add some rookies possibly having an immediate impact.

I'll take Will Hernandez and Courtland Sutton. This shores up the Guard spot and gives us Jordy's heir.

I don't understand why a lot of Packers fans seem to be keen on using a first round pick on a guard.

 

[Dantés]

The Packers are not in a rebuilding mode and with the team most likely ending up with 12 selection in this year's draft I would definitely prefer Gutekunst to get aggressive and keep the 14th pick

In addition it might make sense to trade up at some point this time around to add some rookies possibly having an immediate impact.



I don't understand why a lot of Packers fans seem to be keen on using a first round pick on a guard.

Because by all accounts he's a generational talent at the position. That would be why.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

While I doubt it happens, if that trade scenario with Buffalo would pop up, I would totally be in favor of it....unless there is someone sitting there at #14 that the Packers absolutely covet and are pretty sure he still won't be around at #21. I see being able to grab 2 guys (#21 and #22) as having a potential bigger payoff then 2 guys at #14 and #76.

Conversely, if there is a player the Packer totally want and feel the need to trade up to #10 to get him, I would be fine with trading our first and 3rd for him.

With all the talk about 4-5 QB's potentially going before the Packers #14 pick, I think they are in an excellent position to take advantage of QB hungry teams, as well as a first round that might still have a lot of top players at other positions available because of it.

What might change all of this between now and draft day is what happens to the QB market with guys like Cousins, Foles and Keenum. Teams signing them will most likely drop out of the "QB draft derby" in the first round.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Because by all accounts he's a generational talent at the position. That would be why.

Can I assume we're talking about Quenton Nelson?

It may still be 1980 at Notre Dame but it's 2018 in the NFL, and certainly in Packerland.

There are two questions you must ask yourself: (1) why was't he playing LT in college and (2) why isn't he projected to play LT in the pros?

There's a simple answer to the first question. Notre Dame passed the ball 352 times vs. 560 runs. If he were a "generational talent" however, we should see him projected to at least RT in the pros. I'm not seeing that. Perhaps the Combine will alter that perception.

In a world of limited capital in terms of draft and cap, OGs should be found among the collection of college OTs that lack something in terms of range, quick feet, hand work, big hands and/or long arms to play the pass blocking money positions in the pros. That's how the Packers got Sitton and Lang on the cheap in the draft.

The capital expenditure of a first round pick on an OG, or a C for that matter, would be a better fit for teams that want to run the ball a lot and by that I mean teams that lack a franchise QB and opt for Plan B.

 

[Dantés]

Can I assume we're talking about Quenton Nelson?

It may still be 1980 at Notre Dame but it's 2018 in the NFL, and certainly in Packerland.

There are two questions you must ask yourself: (1) why was't he playing LT in college and (2) why isn't he projected to play LT in the pros?

There's a simple answer to the first question. Notre Dame passed the ball 352 times vs. 560 runs. If he were a "generational talent" however, we should see him projected to at least RT in the pros. I'm not seeing that. Perhaps the Combine will alter that perception.

In a world of limited capital in terms of draft and cap, OGs should be found among the collection of college OTs that lack something in terms of range, quick feet, hand work, big hands and/or long arms to play the pass blocking money positions in the pros. That's how the Packers got Sitton and Lang on the cheap in the draft.

The capital expenditure of a first round pick on an OG, or a C for that matter, would be a better fit for teams that want to run the ball a lot and by that I mean teams that lack a franchise QB and opt for Plan B.

He wasn't playing LT in college because when that line was set, they had tackles (Stanley, McGlinchey) and needed a guard. I assume he never moved out to tackle because he was so utterly dominant at guard.

Why can't he be considered an amazing talent at the position he already plays? Why must there be a projection of a position change for him to be considered a stellar guard prospect?

I understand the reasoning of those who argue that guard isn't valuable or necessary enough to invest in high in the draft. However, for me there comes a point at which the value of the individual player is just too good to pass on.

Would you also say that the Packers should pass on Saquon Barkley, Tremaine Edmunds, Roquan Smith, and Derwin James? Because the $ around the league would say that their positions (RB, Off-Ball Linebacker, Safety) are comparable or lesser in value compared to a guard.

 

[OldSchool101]

What might change all of this between now and draft day is what happens to the QB market with guys like Cousins, Foles and Keenum. Teams signing them will most likely drop out of the "QB draft derby" in the first round.

This is what makes this draft exciting. Likely we will either see multiple QBs picked before us (with a possible team or 2 trading up) combined with several others in the top 10. Being we don’t need a QB this high this should narrow the crop of remaining non QB positions picked before us. Then, with a smidgen of good fortune, a player projected top 5-10 slips outside the top 10 and we trade up a couple of spots to nail it.
As much as I’ve explored a trade back, it’s mainly my wish to consolidate and get the best value. That might be #21-#22 if the Bills get semi-aggressive with their QB at #14 Or just the opposite as you mentioned moving a couple spots up if a premo player is sitting a couple picks within our reach.
Much will come into focus after FA and then especially when we’re 7 or 8 picks into 1st day. Until then much will change and we remain tempered. There’s always curve ball followed by a wrench thrown in it.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Why can't he be considered an amazing talent at the position he already plays? Why must there be a projection of a position change for him to be considered a stellar guard prospect?

I would not debate that he's a stellar guard prospect. I was responding to him being characterized as a "generational talent." My point is that if he were such a talent he would not be projected as an OG.

In short, spending a first round pick on an OG or a C is not a smart allocation of capital let alone a #14 pick. I'd much rather see another Jahri Evans-type signing at a comparable price if the starting RG is not on the roster.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Would you also say that the Packers should pass on Saquon Barkley, Tremaine Edmunds, Roquan Smith, and Derwin James? Because the $ around the league would say that their positions (RB, Off-Ball Linebacker, Safety) are comparable or lesser in value compared to a guard.

I'm not wasting much time on college film this year so I won't comment on those individual prospects.

I will say this much. RBs are low on the pay scale because (1) it's probably the easiest position to plug-and-play out of college and (2) because there is little confidence they can survive through the second contract. There are just too many instances where they fall off by year 5 under NFL punishment. I'd be all about drafting a RB if the Packers actually needed a #1 RB, which they do not, but probably not at #14.

If by off-ball linebacker you mean a traditional head-knocking inside linebacker who runs a 4.75 then, yes, I would not spend a first round pick on him.

Spending a first round pick on a S is not out of line if that's what you need. But you're not going there unless CB and edge are already addressed.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I wasted a lot of time looking at tape leading up to past drafts. After due consideration, my choice with the #1 pick last year was Awuzie. Thompson wouldn't listen to me. Never has. I doubt Gutekunst will be any different.

Instead, I'll just wait for the picks and then look at the film and render judgement.

Anyway, here's what PFF had to say about Awuzie's rookie season:

"A nagging hamstring injury limited the second-round pick to just 309 snaps in his debut season, but when he was on the field, the former Colorado Buffalo certainly impressed with his stinginess in coverage. Playing a total of 192 coverage snaps, he allowed 133 yards on 19 receptions (29 targets), which averaged out at just 7.0 yards allowed per reception and just 0.69 yards per coverage snap – both the lowest marks ever recorded by a first-year corner, beating the previous bests posted by Cortland Finnegan (7.6 in 2006) and Brian Poole (0.80 in 2016), respectively."

 

[thequick12]

I'm not wasting much time on college film this year so I won't comment on those individual prospects.

I will say this much. RBs are low on the pay scale because (1) it's probably the easiest position to plug-and-play out of college and (2) because there is little confidence they can survive through the second contract. There are just too many instances where they fall off by year 5 under NFL punishment. I'd be all about drafting a RB if the Packers actually needed a #1 RB, which they do not, but probably not at #14.

If by off-ball linebacker you mean a traditional head-knocking inside linebacker who runs a 4.75 then, yes, I would not spend a first round pick on him.

Spending a first round pick on a S is not out of line if that's what you need. But you're not going there unless CB and edge are already addressed.

If nelson a guard is the best player available why would you hesitate to take him? If your scouts think he's gonna be a hall of famer why would you even hesitate to take him just because he's a guard and if he was really that good he'd be a tackle ? Or you think gute is gonna have a job long if saquon Barkley falls to #14 and he doesn't take him because the Packers don't need a hall of fame running back. If the Packers get the chance to draft Edmunds, Nelson, Chubb, or Barkley they better run to the podium if more than one of those guys ison the board then you have decisions to make reguarding position

 

[HardRightEdge]

If nelson a guard is the best player available why would you hesitate to take him?

For the same reason I would not take a QB in the first round even if he was the "best player available", whatever that means. It would be a poor allocation of capital.

 

[Dantés]

I'm not wasting much time on college film this year so I won't comment on those individual prospects.

I will say this much. RBs are low on the pay scale because (1) it's probably the easiest position to plug-and-play out of college and (2) because there is little confidence they can survive through the second contract. There are just too many instances where they fall off by year 5 under NFL punishment. I'd be all about drafting a RB if the Packers actually needed a #1 RB, which they do not, but probably not at #14.

If by off-ball linebacker you mean a traditional head-knocking inside linebacker who runs a 4.75 then, yes, I would not spend a first round pick on him.

Spending a first round pick on a S is not out of line if that's what you need. But you're not going there unless CB and edge are already addressed.

My point is that a lot of people dimiss the idea of drafting a guard because of positional value, but will then turn around and call for the Packers to draft a guy like Roquan Smith and Derwin James who play similarly “low value” positions. It seems inconsistent. So I wanted to see where you stand.

 

[jetfixer]

One reason of not taking a guard at 14 instead of let’s say 3rd round is the line coach seems to be able to produce good players. We haven’t been as successful in many other positions and need more proven guys in these positions of need. Maybe that’s dumb, but that’s my opinion.

 

[Dantés]

One reason of not taking a guard at 14 instead of let’s say 3rd round is the line coach seems to be able to produce good players. We haven’t been as successful in many other positions and need more proven guys in these positions of need. Maybe that’s dumb, but that’s my opinion.

I don’t think that’s dumb at all. It makes perfect sense. It’s just that, for me, there comes a tipping point where a prospect is too good to pass on. The value he adds as an elite prospect outweighs the reasons why you normally wouldn’t take a guard there.

 

[AmishMafia]

I think you are better off with a HOF talent at a non premium position than you are with an average player at a premium position. 20 years ago safeties were not thought of much and not considered a premium position. Then Troy Palomalu was the focal point of the Pittsburgh defense. He glamorized it and great athletes like Eric berry and earl Thomas wanted to be safeties. Now it seems a safety is going around top 10 every year.

My point is, NFL changes and adapts to itself all the time. Lombardi offense was effective because of the sweep which was only possible with very athletic and effective guards to pull. Having maybe the best guard to ever come out of college will create great opportunities we haven't thought of.

 

[Dantés]

It’s interesting... if you sort NFL salaries by positions and look at different numbers like average by year, it puts some positional value into perspective.

Just one example: There are currently 17 guards in the league whose deals average 7M or more per season. There are 15 off-ball linebackers and 12 safeties at that number or higher, only 3 of which are what you would consider strong/box safeties. At running back, there are only three guys. At TE there are 13.

The money shows you how the league values these positions. Guard, while not a premium position like QB, ED, CB, OT, or DL, is considered more important by the $ than several other positions. If you thought of the league’s positions as being in two categories: the premium (above) and the non-premium, there’s a case that guard is at the very top of that second tier, again if money is a good indicator (and I would argue that it’s the best indicator).

Why this is interesting is that a) I don’t think perception has caught up to reality and b) I don’t see people writing off the elite RB, LB, S, or TE prospects in drafts the way they do at guard with a guy like Nelson. It’s an odd inconsistency.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

I agree, you can't discount the OL. The days of TT drafting a 6th Rounder and just tossing him to the wolves by being inserted into the starting lineup due to injury should be over. It seems like we average 2 injuries on the OL that last for 25% or more of the season. In my opinion a 1st-3rd Round Pick should be invested in the OL every 4-6 years to keep the talent level high and maintain good depth. The OL is good, but far from elite, and by maintaining the status quo we further illustrate the fact of how bad this team is without Aaron Rodgers.

The more time we can give AR and the more lanes we can give our RBs is only going to make this team better, because until otherwise, we live and die with the offense.

 

[AmishMafia]

It’s interesting... if you sort NFL salaries by positions and look at different numbers like average by year, it puts some positional value into perspective.

Just one example: There are currently 17 guards in the league whose deals average 7M or more per season. There are 15 off-ball linebackers and 12 safeties at that number or higher, only 3 of which are what you would consider strong/box safeties. At running back, there are only three guys. At TE there are 13.

The money shows you how the league values these positions. Guard, while not a premium position like QB, ED, CB, OT, or DL, is considered more important by the $ than several other positions. If you thought of the league’s positions as being in two categories: the premium (above) and the non-premium, there’s a case that guard is at the very top of that second tier, again if money is a good indicator (and I would argue that it’s the best indicator).

Why this is interesting is that a) I don’t think perception has caught up to reality and b) I don’t see people writing off the elite RB, LB, S, or TE prospects in drafts the way they do at guard with a guy like Nelson. It’s an odd inconsistency.

Nice work and analysis. And no, this was not my perception. Makes me even more certain, Nelson will be gone well before we get a chance.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I agree, you can't discount the OL. The days of TT drafting a 6th Rounder and just tossing him to the wolves by being inserted into the starting lineup due to injury should be over. It seems like we average 2 injuries on the OL that last for 25% or more of the season. In my opinion a 1st-3rd Round Pick should be invested in the OL every 4-6 years to keep the talent level high and maintain good depth. The OL is good, but far from elite, and by maintaining the status quo we further illustrate the fact of how bad this team is without Aaron Rodgers.

The more time we can give AR and the more lanes we can give our RBs is only going to make this team better, because until otherwise, we live and die with the offense.

TT spent a 2nd, a 4th and a 7th round on Spriggs 2 years ago, I guess we will see how that pays off.

When you look at the current OL, with the exception of Bulaga and Spriggs, most were found later in the draft or undrafted.

• Bahk (4th)
• Evans (4th rd NO)
  
• Linsley (5th)
  
• Taylor (UDFA)
• McCray (UDFA)
• Patrick (UDFA)
• Pankey (UDFA)

Besides Bulaga, you have to go all the way back to 2000 when the Packers chose Chad Clifton in the 2nd Rd to actually see much reward on a high OL pick for the Packers.

 

[brandon2348]

I have no problem with how the Packers have gone about developing the OL. They have a nice formula of taking college Tackles that just don't have the "it factor" and turning them into very productive guards. Furthermore just because you spend major draft capital doesn't equate to a great OL and look no further then the Seattle Seahawks.

They have spent 6 first or second round picks since 2009 on OL and have one of worst OL's in the NFL. They have also spent countless mid round picks in that position group too. On top of that they have spent money bringing in free agent Tackles(Luke Joeckel) and traded future top draft capital for (Duane Brown) and there Offensive Line still sucks. Keep in mind these guys had Jahri Evans a couple years back and actually cut him.

The OL is the last spot where I would negatively critique the Packers draft and develop approach. Campen obviously deserves a lot of credit here but if it's not broken then don't fix it. With all the other holes there is no reason to take an OL early with all the other holes the Packers have and there ability to make mid-round picks very productive offensive lineman.

We don't need to draft a guard with a top pick and based on what the Packers have been able to do it would almost be foolish.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It’s interesting... if you sort NFL salaries by positions and look at different numbers like average by year, it puts some positional value into perspective.

Just one example: There are currently 17 guards in the league whose deals average 7M or more per season. There are 15 off-ball linebackers and 12 safeties at that number or higher, only 3 of which are what you would consider strong/box safeties. At running back, there are only three guys. At TE there are 13.

The money shows you how the league values these positions. Guard, while not a premium position like QB, ED, CB, OT, or DL, is considered more important by the $ than several other positions. If you thought of the league’s positions as being in two categories: the premium (above) and the non-premium, there’s a case that guard is at the very top of that second tier, again if money is a good indicator (and I would argue that it’s the best indicator).

Why this is interesting is that a) I don’t think perception has caught up to reality and b) I don’t see people writing off the elite RB, LB, S, or TE prospects in drafts the way they do at guard with a guy like Nelson. It’s an odd inconsistency.

Good stuff. Do you have any stats on correlation of where players (by position) are selected in the draft and how that correlates to the success they have in the NFL? This is just my own assumption, but I have a feeling that the Packers are a team that know they can build a decent OL without investing high picks. It doesn't mean those guys won't eventually be paid more, as your research found, but that doesn't come until their second contracts and they have proven themselves.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I have no problem with how the Packers have gone about developing the OL. They have a nice formula of taking college Tackles that just don't have the "it factor" and turning them into very productive guards. Furthermore just because you spend major draft capital doesn't equate to a great OL and look no further then the Seattle Seahawks.

They have spent 6 first or second round picks since 2009 on OL and have one of worst OL's in the NFL. They have also spent countless mid round picks in that position group too. On top of that they have spent money bringing in free agent Tackles(Luke Joeckel) and traded future top draft capital for (Duane Brown) and there Offensive Line still sucks. Keep in mind these guys had Jahri Evans a couple years back and actually cut him.

The OL is the last spot where I would negatively critique the Packers draft and develop approach. Campen obviously deserves a lot of credit here but if it's not broken then don't fix it. With all the other holes there is no reason to take an OL early with all the other holes the Packers have and there ability to make mid-round picks very productive offensive lineman.

We don't need to draft a guard with a top pick and based on what the Packers have been able to do it would almost be foolish.

get out of my head!

 

[AmishMafia]

I have no problem with how the Packers have gone about developing the OL. They have a nice formula of taking college Tackles that just don't have the "it factor" and turning them into very productive guards. Furthermore just because you spend major draft capital doesn't equate to a great OL and look no further then the

The Packer OL success is only the last 2 years. Prior to that, they mostly sucked. Pass blocking was mostly effective but run blocking really sucked. Last season there were plug and play situations with some raw players and they looked good. Not sure where to give the credit, but I tend to believe that Campen has improved as a coach.

But there is a new sheriff in town. All the stats of draft capital expenditures may now be obsolete.