With their 1st Pick in the 2018 NFL Draft the Packers select...

[AmishMafia]

BPAAPON

Best player available at a position(s) of need. Teams will almost always draft a player at a position of need, but they typically have more than one position of need. Also just depends on what that position looks like later in the draft, according to their rankings, and next year.

For example, at the top, the edge position this year is just average. Some quality depth, Chubb, and some decent starters. Next years draft, as of now, looks to be really good at the edge. I can't say for certain, but I would think that plays a role in some teams mindset.

Simply put, if you draft inferior players you have an inferior team. If you continually draft a player even 0.1 less than available, over the course of a few years your overall team quality will be 6.2 instead of 6.3. If that doesn't seem like much it, it is. The league is so competitive, a 1.7% talent deficit is the difference between 8-8 and 10-6 and in the playoffs.

Fans and some GMs on the hot seat only think about the next season and not the entire length of a draft picks career. Needs come and go due to injuries, retirements, etc. BPAAPON, AKA drafting for need, doesn't work.

 

[GleefulGary]

Simply put, if you draft inferior players you have an inferior team. If you continually draft a player even 0.1 less than available, over the course of a few years your overall team quality will be 6.2 instead of 6.3. If that doesn't seem like much it, it is. The league is so competitive, a 1.7% talent deficit is the difference between 8-8 and 10-6 and in the playoffs.

Fans and some GMs on the hot seat only think about the next season and not the entire length of a draft picks career. Needs come and go due to injuries, retirements, etc. BPAAPON, AKA drafting for need, doesn't work.

I don't agree.

If the best player available is, for example, a QB...and I have Carson Wentz on a rookie deal on my team, I ain't drafting that QB. Or lets say I have Aaron Rodgers who wants to play for many more years, I ain't drafting that QB.

Now maybe the next best players are a CB, a WR, and an OL. I have good starters there, not great, but good, and they have contracts that run out in two years. I'm awful at RB, but the best RB on my board shouldn't be drafted until the 3rd. So if I have the CB, the WR, the OL all rated the same on my grading scale, I'm going to take the one that is the greatest positional need on my team. That's what I'm talking about here.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't agree.

If the best player available is, for example, a QB...and I have Carson Wentz on a rookie deal on my team, I ain't drafting that QB. Or lets say I have Aaron Rodgers who wants to play for many more years, I ain't drafting that QB.

Now maybe the next best players are a CB, a WR, and an OL. I have good starters there, not great, but good, and they have contracts that run out in two years. I'm awful at RB, but the best RB on my board shouldn't be drafted until the 3rd. So if I have the CB, the WR, the OL all rated the same on my grading scale, I'm going to take the one that is the greatest positional need on my team. That's what I'm talking about here.

Or attempt to trade back with a team that really wants that QB that is high on their board, but not a need of yours.

 

[AmishMafia]

I don't agree.

If the best player available is, for example, a QB...and I have Carson Wentz on a rookie deal on my team, I ain't drafting that QB. Or lets say I have Aaron Rodgers who wants to play for many more years, I ain't drafting that QB.

Now maybe the next best players are a CB, a WR, and an OL. I have good starters there, not great, but good, and they have contracts that run out in two years. I'm awful at RB, but the best RB on my board shouldn't be drafted until the 3rd. So if I have the CB, the WR, the OL all rated the same on my grading scale, I'm going to take the one that is the greatest positional need on my team. That's what I'm talking about here.

The nature of the NFL is that teams with poor QB play don't do well and typically draft in the top 10. QBs get overdrafted because of their importance. This year, I expect 4 QBs to go top 10ish. They are all 1st round talent, but not all top 10. Rarely is the highest rated player on your board a QB. The Packers took Rodgers when he clearly should have been top 5 was a shockingly fortunate abnormality.

If I was a GM in the situation you propose and Rosen drops to us? I am fielding calls from teams needing a QB. The pick would have a much higher value than the trade value chart would lead you to believe. If no trades work out, hell yeah I take him. Maybe I develop him and trade him in 2 years. It would be nice to have a very competent backup in the meantime. If he pulls a Wentz, I would even try trading Rodgers.

Any position can go from a strength to a weakness in just a few plays. Don' worry about the depth chart when you are drafting. But yeah, if we are looking at 2 QBs and a CB all rated the same at #14, you go with the CB.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

What they do is score each player individually. Area scouts start the score and then it gets adjusted by coaches, medical, Sr. Bowl, interviews, research, and the combine.

Check this out:

Www.powerhousegm.com/blog/nfl-draft-prospect-grading-systems


Not sure why I'm under this impression, but I believe the Packers use an 8.0 scale, closer to the first one discussed in the link. At least they did under wolf. This one is a little more detailed than I believe the Packers had.

Thanks for bringing this up. NFL.com uses this same scale if you goto the Draft post combine. It' also an 8.0 scale. The only thing that it doesn't account for I believe is injury and character issues, because that can be so subjective among teams. I'll need to remind myself to use this on my big board this year more than I have in the past.

 

[OldSchool101]

If I was a GM in the situation you propose and Rosen drops to us? I am fielding calls from teams needing a QB. The pick would have a much higher value than the trade value chart would lead you to believe. If no trades work out, hell yeah I take him.

To add to that thought process. Early in 2017 the several experts projected that the 2018 draft QB class measured elite status. some said the best since Dan Marino entered the draft. That’s a pretty bold assertion and shouldn’t be taken lightly.
The QB play in 2017 didn’t live up to the initial hype of being of such phenomenal stature, but we can reasonably infer from previous ratings that this class is nevertheless special, particularly at the top end
IMO I’m guessing the 2018 QB class floor rating is easily the best in the last several years and possibly the best this decade.

That being said, if we were then able have one of the top QBs in this year’s draft fall to #14 we would be wise to consider the future impact it could have on our teams direction. If we landed someone who performs in the manner of an Alex Smith, Andrew Luck or even Aaron Rodgers type level comparison it would be like hitting the NFL jackpot. That’s if a team didn’t mortgage their future getting him in a trade deal. Like you said the value of him is exponential.
We just saw recently that a starting playoff caliber QB is already worth towards 30M annually to a team that already possesses that contract. Just having the ability to offer that contract and also having a 5th year option at minimal cost is a whole other story.

Many fans in general would be upset if we picked Rosen at #14. Some of us, including myself, would be celebrating

 

[Mondio]

I have no QB's targeted. I have no anybody else targeted either I assume, simply because it usually seems that way that most of the "can't miss" Qb's are gone early, before we'll be picking. At least historically the very coveted don't last very long and then you start getting into JP Loseman type picks. Of course some later turn out to be great, but lots of misses more than hits after that. So, I don't think one will still be there, but if one is and they think he's going to be comparable to what we have now, you'd be stupid to leave him on the board for someone else to take.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

What do we do with this QB picked with the #14 pick for the next 5-7 years while one of the best QB's to ever play the game finishes out his career in Green Bay? When does this new QB get playing time to hone his skills? What year is he actually ready to be a solid backup QB and not just the 3rd QB taking up a roster spot? What do you pay this guy on his second contract to keep him in Green Bay? Meanwhile, you have just passed on a picking a player at #14 that could actually contribute during the time that this QB is carrying a clipboard on the sidelines. I am also guessing that the odds of whiffing on a QB picked at #14 are as high, if not higher than any other position.

Yes, eventually, you find the heir apparent to #12, but this year is not the year, IMO.....unless the Packer organization has pretty good information that #12 won't still be playing for the Packers in 5 years.

 

[AmishMafia]

What do we do with this QB picked with the #14 pick for the next 5-7 years while one of the best QB's to ever play the game finishes out his career in Green Bay? When does this new QB get playing time to hone his skills? What year is he actually ready to be a solid backup QB and not just the 3rd QB taking up a roster spot? What do you pay this guy on his second contract to keep him in Green Bay? Meanwhile, you have just passed on a picking a player at #14 that could actually contribute during the time that this QB is carrying a clipboard on the sidelines. I am also guessing that the odds of whiffing on a QB picked at #14 are as high, if not higher than any other position.

Yes, eventually, you find the heir apparent to #12, but this year is not the year, IMO.....unless the Packer organization has pretty good information that #12 won't still be playing for the Packers in 5 years.

And if TT felt the same way during the Favre years and not drafted AR, our starting QB right now could be Brett Hundley.

I get it, and a part of me would be a bit dissappointed if we took at QB. But we as fans only look at the next season and not 3-5 years down the road. It seems to me that knee jerk reacting GMs tend to get hurt more in free agency and draft for need and basicalky see a declining level of team talent.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

And if TT felt the same way during the Favre years and not drafted AR, our starting QB right now could be Brett Hundley.

I get it, and a part of me would be a bit dissappointed if we took at QB. But we as fans only look at the next season and not 3-5 years down the road. It seems to me that knee jerk reacting GMs tend to get hurt more in free agency and draft for need and basicalky see a declining level of team talent.

I've stated this a few times, I don't think this is the same situation as the Packers were in with Favre in 2005. After what unfolded in Green Bay and the Favre Soap Opera, it was pretty obvious that while AR was considered too good of a bargain to pass up at #24, the Packer Organization was growing tired of #4 and knew they needed to find his replacement sooner than later. Now if the FO currently has the same feelings about Rodgers, drafting a QB with our #1 pick makes sense to me.

 

[Mondio]

I don't think it's the same situation either, and it's a big IF, but IF they feel they have another HOF QB in front of them you don't leave him for someone else. Favre may have been wavering on coming back or retiring, but he never missed a game either. Rodgers has broken a foot and 2 collar bones and had ankle/calf/knee issues that have limited him in the playoffs a couple times. I don't think he's "injury prone" or anything like that, but you just never know. Nothing is guaranteed. But I don't care who may QB is, if i'm seeing what I think will be Rodgers in the future, I take him. It's the most important position on the field.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't think it's the same situation either, and it's a big IF, but IF they feel they have another HOF QB in front of them you don't leave him for someone else. Favre may have been wavering on coming back or retiring, but he never missed a game either. Rodgers has broken a foot and 2 collar bones and had ankle/calf/knee issues that have limited him in the playoffs a couple times. I don't think he's "injury prone" or anything like that, but you just never know. Nothing is guaranteed. But I don't care who may QB is, if i'm seeing what I think will be Rodgers in the future, I take him. It's the most important position on the field.

I get that, but do you roll the dice on thinking you have found a FHOF QB at #14 over taking a player that may have an immediate impact on the team. A few teams might have that luxury, I just don't think the Packers are currently one of them. Now if they shore up their positions of need in Free Agency, maybe come draft day, using the #14 pick on a player that may never see the field in a real game might make sense.

When I look at the NFL draft history of QB's taken at pick 14 or later, there are only a few names that jump out at me. Could the Packers get lucky and find a FHOF QB at #14, sure but I think the odds are against them, especially considering the time table of when that player would be elevated to a starter. People that assume that it will turn out just like the Aaron Rodgers pick, aren't looking at it realistically IMO.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?type=position

 

[Mondio]

I get that, but do you roll the dice on thinking you have found a FHOF QB at #14 over taking a player that may have an immediate impact on the team. A few teams might have that luxury, I just don't think the Packers are currently one of them. Now if they shore up their positions of need in Free Agency, maybe come draft day, using the #14 pick on a player that may never see the field in a real game might make sense.

When I look at the NFL draft history of QB's taken at pick 14 or later, there are only a few names that jump out at me. Could the Packers get lucky and find a FHOF QB at #14, sure but I think the odds are against them, especially considering the time table of when that player would be elevated to a starter. People that assume that it will turn out just like the Aaron Rodgers pick, aren't looking at it realistically IMO.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?type=position

that's what all my big IF's were for I don't think it's likely either, not likely at all. I admit on a pretty far reaching hypothetical, but i still think it holds true. IF you think he's going to be a HOF QB, take him. But I have to believe most of those guys were people feel confident of what they will be, will be gone in the top 7. The rest are maybe guys that might with the right development and you're hoping. Like I said earlier, JP Loseman catagory of talent. Noway i'm picking up on that at 14 unless i absolutely was in need of a QB then you pick and hope. There will be a lot better players all over the field at #14 than what the QB's left will be.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Sadly, at some point in the next X many years, the Packers are going to lose their second consecutive HOF QB, 2 QB's that played in Green Bay over what could end up being close to a 30 year span. We have all gotten a bit spoiled and possibly a bit presumptuous that it's just that easy to find the next Brett Favre or Aaron Rodgers. But unless the Packers front office knows something we don't about AR's time frame of playing in GB, I don't think it is time to hit the panic button just yet to begin that search for our 3rd consecutive HOF QB. Just envisioning that next starting QB and what most likely could be.... mehhhhhh, just ruined my day.

 

[OldSchool101]

When I look at the NFL draft history of QB's taken at pick 14 or later, there are only a few names that jump out at me. Could the Packers get lucky and find a FHOF QB at #14, sure but I think the odds are against them, especially considering the time table of when that player would be elevated to a starter. People that assume that it will turn out just like the Aaron Rodgers pick, aren't looking at it realistically IMO.

I think that's the whole point though isn't it? One example used above is Rosen and let's face it he won't be there at #14 because he's valued much higher than that. btw that list you gave, if we picked the highest QB in each year (which he is basically equivalent to the top player in the link you provided). We would be passing on Matt Ryan, Matt Stafford, Sam Bradford, Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, EJ Manuel, Blake Bortles, Jameis Winston, Jared Goff and Mitchell Trubisky. While there are a couple in that list I wouldn't prefer to have at #14 I would be happy to put those names in a basket and draw one blindfolded at #14 over a guy like Harold Landry (and he's a fine player)

Either way it's just a hypothetical conversation to pass the time and 98% chance we all know it won't happen because he won't be there for us to make the decision. If he was I believe at least 2-3 teams behind us would be very eager to trade multiple picks to get to #14 and I believe we would accommodate them within reason

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

We would be passing on Matt Ryan, Matt Stafford, Sam Bradford, Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, EJ Manuel, Blake Bortles, Jameis Winston, Jared Goff and Mitchell Trubisky.

You are actually helping to prove my point further.

We have the #14 pick. The list you just provided were picks at #3, #1, #1, #1, #1, #16 (Manuel), #3, #1, #1 and #2.

This is also part of my whole point, we aren't picking #1, we are picking #14, which out of your list would have allowed us to only pick EJ Manuel. I'm sticking to my original thought, I really think it would be a mistake for the Packers to use the 14th pick on the 3rd, 4th or 5th "best" QB in the draft, when the need for a QB isn't even there and the needs for better players at other positions is obvious. When the time actually comes, that Rodgers is 2 or 3 years away from being gone, then you start gambling your high picks on a QB and what seems to be a crap shoot as to what you will actually end up with.

 

[AmishMafia]

You are actually helping to prove my point further.

We have the #14 pick. The list you just provided were picks at #3, #1, #1, #1, #1, #16 (Manuel), #3, #1, #1 and #2.

This is also part of my whole point, we aren't picking #1, we are picking #14, which out of your list would have allowed us to only pick EJ Manuel. I'm sticking to my original thought, I really think it would be a mistake for the Packers to use the 14th pick on the 3rd, 4th or 5th "best" QB in the draft, when the need for a QB isn't even there and the needs for better players at other positions is obvious. When the time actually comes, that Rodgers is 2 or 3 years away from being gone, then you start gambling your high picks on a QB and what seems to be a crap shoot as to what you will actually end up with.

As someone pointed out, this was expected to be the year of the QB. I was told that the #5 guy this year would have a higher grade than Trubisky. Now, I don't think it worked out that way. But it could have.

This is another example of why teams do ratings vrs rankings for their big board. Anyway, you can't compare this year to other years because it is different every year. If there are 5 QBs this year that are worthy of a top 5 pick in most years, they won't all go there because there are other talented players at other positions. QB needy teams will pick em up but one may slip. Think about Marino. He was top 5 talent but fell because there were other highly rated QBs who went before him (QBs without pot use rumors).

Personally, I haven't bothered to look at the QBs and don't recall much from the college season. I doubt we take one but would not be upset if we did.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

As someone pointed out, this was expected to be the year of the QB. I was told that the #5 guy this year would have a higher grade than Trubisky. Now, I don't think it worked out that way. But it could have.

This is another example of why teams do ratings vrs rankings for their big board. Anyway, you can't compare this year to other years because it is different every year. If there are 5 QBs this year that are worthy of a top 5 pick in most years, they won't all go there because there are other talented players at other positions. QB needy teams will pick em up but one may slip. Think about Marino. He was top 5 talent but fell because there were other highly rated QBs who went before him (QBs without pot use rumors).

Personally, I haven't bothered to look at the QBs and don't recall much from the college season. I doubt we take one but would not be upset if we did.

Even if one of the "top 4 QB's" is sitting there when the Packers are on the clock, I would much rather find a trade partner that really wants him, trade back and cash in the extra picks on players who may improve the team in the next 1-4 years. I just don't see even a good QB doing anything to improve the Packers while Rodgers is still around, so not giving up an opportunity of improving another position would trump a QB pick for me this year.

 

[Passepartout]

Well need to not have on that of a QB. As Aaron still playing despite his injury up to great levels. Need to get a RB.

 

[Joseph Willcome]

I’d love to see them trade to move up in the draft

 

[GleefulGary]

Well need to not have on that of a QB. As Aaron still playing despite his injury up to great levels. Need to get a RB.

At 14? Heck no.

Later rounds, sure. But we're not bad at RB.

 

[thequick12]

At 14? Heck no.

Later rounds, sure. But we're not bad at RB.

Only running back you take at 14 is Barkley if by some miracle he were to be available

 

[OldSchool101]

Even if one of the "top 4 QB's" is sitting there when the Packers are on the clock, I would much rather find a trade partner that really wants him, trade back and cash in the extra picks on players who may improve the team in the next 1-4 years. I just don't see even a good QB doing anything to improve the Packers while Rodgers is still around, so not giving up an opportunity of improving another position would trump a QB pick for me this year.

We actually all agree on the trade It sounds like I was responding to Amish about specifically Rosen, so I don’t think our positions are using the same criteria and that changes every thing. I said I agreed I wouldn’t pass on Rosen at #14 somehow that got turned into just anyone at pick #14. Rosen is one of the top QBs in many boards. Some have him #1 overall which is why I picked on your example QBs picked at #1 etc..
He’s eventually going to get traded if I pick him that’s the whole idea. I’m not scared of not trading him 1st day draft. I’m negotiating and getting a top 20 pick AND another top pick to boot.
Then again? Similarly thinking I probably wouldn’t pass on Saquon Barkley either and we don’t even necessarily need a RB if that makes any sense.

 

[AmishMafia]

My list of picks for #14, in order of being picked:

1. Barkley
2. Chubb
3. Fitzpatrick
4. Nelson
5. Edmunds
6. Rosen
7. McGlinchy
8. D James
9. Josh Jackson
10. Ridley
11.Davenport

As soon as see James as my best available, I'm looking to trade back 6-12 and picking up at least a 2nd or I'm staying put.

Then I'm adding to my list:

R Smith
Ward
Sutton
O'neil
Key
Bryan

 

[OldSchool101]

My list of picks for #14, in order of being picked:

1. Barkley
2. Chubb
3. Fitzpatrick
4. Nelson
5. Edmunds
6. Rosen
7. McGlinchy
8. D James
9. Josh Jackson
10. Ridley
11.Davenport

As soon as see James as my best available, I'm looking to trade back 6-12 and picking up at least a 2nd or I'm staying put.

Then I'm adding to my list:

R Smith
Ward
Sutton
O'neil
Key
Bryan

I’m still salivating on your thought of trading our #14 with the Bills for both of their picks +- a mid rounder. Partly because between #14 and #20 there conceivable could be 2 QBs picked which means we’re only going backwards roughly 5 picks total (depending on someone moving up or not) That’s a brilliant plan.. Not sure it will happen..but it’s brilliant nevertheless. Can you imagine having Harold Landry and Sutton Holding GB Jerseys by pick #22! If that happens you get a virtual free steak dinner on me.