Your Draft grades

Thompson's best draft?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 25.6%
  • No

    Votes: 29 74.4%

  • Total voters
    39

brandon2348

GO PACK GO!
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
339
I feel the exactsame way only about Dupree not Jones.

Dupre is someone that could surprise a lot of people. He kind of got hung out to dry at LSU. I'm rooting for him.

That's why I like this draft so much is the overall volume of talent Thompson collected all the way to the 7th round.
 

Patriotplayer90

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
130
But also for that reason Jones could end up the better player. Packers desperatly need a real hitter in the defensive backfield a la Kam Chancellor.
If he's constantly hitting his own players or grasping at air, then it won't matter how hard he hits. It's not something that just happened a couple of times and is being blown out of proportion. I'd say 6 missed tackles is a conservative estimate over just the 3 games that I saw.

There was one really awful arm tackle that he threw at a smaller back when he was in position in the box to stop him, and that resulted in a long TD run. I really don't see the run stuffing box mentality of Chancellor, just more of a chaser who likes to lay the wood on a soft target.
 

easyk83

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
280
This is an extremely weak argument against PFF as no media outlet has access to that information. Yet several posters around here feel knowledgeable enough to make a credible evaluation about prospects based on highlight films.



Thompson trading back indicates that there were several prospects available the Packers liked but doesn't mean need didn't factor in any of the selections.

Is Wimm is synonym for conclusion? Please that PFF isn't beyond doubt is an opinion adopted by none other than Bill Belicheck. You use PFF as if it's a final arbiter, it's not and quite frankly the graders probably aren't much better than some of the fans on this forum. We're not talking about NFL luminaries here, we're talking about guys in their underwear eating cheetohs.

BTW pointing out the flaws of PFF is not the same as saying it should be disregarded.

As for Thompson selecting two corner backs high... did he draft a guard high? No, he didn't draft a guard center project till round 6? Wimm, this is a position adopted by numerous Sports writers. In particular the House Francois Evans and Kendricks/Bennett signings have been identified as reducing the needs which required attention on draft day.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Is Wimm is synonym for conclusion? Please that PFF isn't beyond doubt is an opinion adopted by none other than Bill Belicheck. You use PFF as if it's a final arbiter, it's not and quite frankly the graders probably aren't much better than some of the fans on this forum. We're not talking about NFL luminaries here, we're talking about guys in their underwear eating cheetohs.

I agree that PFF isn't beyond any doubt but they require their grading analysts to have worked at least two years for either an NFL or college football team. Therefore those guys have more knowledge than posters around here.

As for Thompson selecting two corner backs high... did he draft a guard high? No, he didn't draft a guard center project till round 6? Wimm, this is a position adopted by numerous Sports writers. In particular the House Francois Evans and Kendricks/Bennett signings have been identified as reducing the needs which required attention on draft day.

Thompson doesn't value guard a lot and addressed the position by signing Evans before the draft, therefore there was no need to draft one early. I have no idea what point you want to make by posting that free agents signed this offseason decreased the number of positions in need of an upgrade as that is self explaining.
 

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,478
Reaction score
604
Is Wimm is synonym for conclusion? Please that PFF isn't beyond doubt is an opinion adopted by none other than Bill Belicheck. You use PFF as if it's a final arbiter, it's not and quite frankly the graders probably aren't much better than some of the fans on this forum. We're not talking about NFL luminaries here, we're talking about guys in their underwear eating cheetohs.

Here, as on all sports boards, the question is who or what is an accepted source around with to debate an issue. Places like PFF, statistics, front office/coaches' quotes, et. al., are used to support a position, and the rebuttal is often/always to disallow the source. Perhaps someone could point out some objective way to evaluate schemes, teams, players, drafts, etc., so that we could all be on the same page.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,094
Reaction score
3,012
Here, as on all sports boards, the question is who or what is an accepted source around with to debate an issue. Places like PFF, statistics, front office/coaches' quotes, et. al., are used to support a position, and the rebuttal is often/always to disallow the source. Perhaps someone could point out some objective way to evaluate schemes, teams, players, drafts, etc., so that we could all be on the same page.

I think we just have to strike a balance between "Source X is necessarily the final word" and "I only like Source X when it agrees with me." That, and be OK if you and another poster don't like the same source.

For me, I like PFF. I think many of the arguments against it are flawed. For example, it's regularly leveled against them that they don't know play calls and assignments when grading tape. But people usually don't carry that out to realize that neither do NFL scouts when they scout college prospects or other teams' players. And what's more, it stands to reason that the instances where a player blows an assignment and actually receives a positive grade on the play are extremely rare.

But at the same time, I do see some flaws in their grades on occasion and (more frequently) I see their grades misused. I don't think anyone at PFF thinks their player grades should be conclusions in and of themselves to be considered without heavily factoring other considerations (e.g. scheme, talent, and other matters of context). But that's how many people on the web use them (not making this allegation of Captain, to be clear).

But the grades aside, their statistics are really useful and insightful. In the pantheon of publicly available sources, they're certainly in tier one for me. They're just not alone there.

And finally, while I am far less qualified than many sources on the web, I do look at things myself and form my own opinions. This is not to say that I hold myself as an authority over former scouts. But I don't really see the point in following all of this so closely and watching all these prospects if I'm simply going to decide that I'll agree with everything that a given web site says.
 

easyk83

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
280
Here, as on all sports boards, the question is who or what is an accepted source around with to debate an issue. Places like PFF, statistics, front office/coaches' quotes, et. al., are used to support a position, and the rebuttal is often/always to disallow the source. Perhaps someone could point out some objective way to evaluate schemes, teams, players, drafts, etc., so that we could all be on the same page.

Its fine to criticize the source where it might be warranted. I don't disagree with using PFF as support but rather I'm against arguments like PFF therefore x. In contrast PFF and a and b and c supports the following conclusion is perfectly fine.
 
Last edited:

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,478
Reaction score
604
Its fine to criticize the source where it might be warranted. I don't disagree with using PFF as support but rather I'm against arguments like PFF therefore x. In contrast PFF and a and b and c supports the following conclusion is perfectly fine.
Narrows it down a bit, but then we get into (a) how many additional sources do we need and (b) who determines which ones can be used? :)
 

easyk83

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
280
Narrows it down a bit, but then we get into (a) how many additional sources do we need and (b) who determines which ones can be used? :)

I'd accept PFF says x and I also personally see and believe y. I come to a forum to discuss football, if I just wanted to read PFF scores and nothing else I'd have a pff sub.
 
Last edited:

Patriotplayer90

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
130
Jamaal Williams I think was a steal, I think he could have easily went the first day. Sleeper Pick A++
The sway in opinion on Williams is odd. I couldn't find many scouts takes that were very positive pre draft, and one claimed that he was a ST guy. Now, they're all applauding the pick, and NFL.com listed him as a potential Offensive ROY candidate.
 

Arthur Squires

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
950
Reaction score
63
Location
Chico California
After watching tape on Josh Jones for the 1st time, 1 player came to mind after a few minutes. Mike Mitchell was that player. He makee some nice hits like Mitchell similar recognition skills but I think Mitchell is the more vicious hitter still. Hopefully Im wrong and Jones ends up loads better than Mitchell. First we have to see how much of the field he sees this season and how he performs!
 

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,478
Reaction score
604
I'd accept says x and I also personally see and believe y. I come to a forum to discuss football, if I just wanted to read PFF scores and nothing else I'd have a pff sub.

So, we don't like PFF as the prime/only source, but we don't know who else will fill the 'x' or 'y' spot?
 

easyk83

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
280
So, we don't like PFF as the prime/only source, but we don't know who else will fill the 'x' or 'y' spot?

No I meant that PFF + personal analysis, beyond simply saying PFF says this player sucks therefore you're wrong. Again PFF has it's foibles, my primary issue with it is that it does create the illusion of objective grading even though there is a lot of subjective bias involved. I have a lot of respect for FO largely because FO is exactly what it says it is.
 

easyk83

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
280
For me, I like PFF. I think many of the arguments against it are flawed. For example, it's regularly leveled against them that they don't know play calls and assignments when grading tape. But people usually don't carry that out to realize that neither do NFL scouts when they scout college prospects or other teams' players. And what's more, it stands to reason that the instances where a player blows an assignment and actually receives a positive grade on the play are extremely rare.

This is mostly an issue when you're comparing PFF to say Coaches grades, which seemed to be BB's criticism against it.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,468
Reaction score
1,803
Imo, PFF is just another tool.
All scouts are not created equal. Gurus that create draft boards are not equal as well, and none are equal to most NFL scouting staffs imo. Even the best scouts and GM's miss a fair percentage of the time. The whole thing is a very imperfect process. Maximize the hits and minimize the misses seems to be what to strive for.
 

Sky King

158.3
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
329
Location
Out of the clear blue western skies...
Imo, PFF is just another tool.
All scouts are not created equal. Gurus that create draft boards are not equal as well, and none are equal to most NFL scouting staffs imo. Even the best scouts and GM's miss a fair percentage of the time. The whole thing is a very imperfect process. Maximize the hits and minimize the misses seems to be what to strive for.

You're right, PikeBadger:

interval scale
n (Statistics) statistics a scale of measurement of data according to which the differences between values can be quantified in absolute but not relative terms and for which any zero is merely arbitrary: for instance, dates are measured on an interval scale since differences can be measured in years, but no sense can be given to a ratio of times.

ordinal scale
n (Statistics) statistics a scale on which data is shown simply in order of magnitude since there is no standard of measurement of differences: for instance, a squash ladder is an ordinal scale since one can say only that one person is better than another, but not by how much
.
 

Patriotplayer90

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
130
According to Chase Goodbread of College Football 24/7 the Packers added the third most talent on defense in this year's draft.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...-defense?campaign=tw-cf-sf76417949-sf76417949
I believe King is the most talented player we've acquired with our first pick in a while, especially in this area of a draft. He's solid with a lot of upside. Jones and Adams are also very talented. Jones needs a ton of work , but is in a position in the league which is lacking talent. Adams looked better on tape, but battling against NFL linemen is a different story.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,415
Reaction score
8,077
Location
Madison, WI
Not a believer in draft grades, but if the Packers got good value in who they picked and where they picked them.
https://thefantasygreek.com/packers...picks-kevin-king-josh-jones-montravius-adams/

Good stuff, thanks. I'm not a firm believer of using the various pre-draft projections/mocks of what round a player "should be" taken in to say that when they were actually selected was a good value or a reach. Seems like once you get out of the "consensus" top 20 or so, mock drafters are all over the board on what round a player will be selected. You yourself had WR Chad Williams mocked in the 7th round for the Packers, the Cardinals chose him in the 3rd round. A total reach by the Cardinals or you just valued him less? Ultimately, IMO, the success or failure of each player chosen can be more accurately graded out years down the road.
 

JLW_51

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 17, 2016
Messages
136
Reaction score
4
Location
MN
Good stuff, thanks. I'm not a firm believer of using the various pre-draft projections/mocks of what round a player "should be" taken in to say that when they were actually selected was a good value or a reach. Seems like once you get out of the "consensus" top 20 or so, mock drafters are all over the board on what round a player will be selected. You yourself had WR Chad Williams mocked in the 7th round for the Packers, the Cardinals chose him in the 3rd round. A total reach by the Cardinals or you just valued him less? Ultimately, IMO, the success or failure of each player chosen can be more accurately graded out years down the road.
He did go in the 3rd didn't? Wow, that is just stunning!
 

Arthur Squires

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
950
Reaction score
63
Location
Chico California
The 2 players that will contribute more than the others their rookie season is King and Biegel! King I believe will step in and give us probowl production say 6 picks and Biegel I predict has 5 sacks with his stripping ability at least 1 of those, and 35 tackles as a rotational guy behind Perry who I have logging 10 sacks also.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,094
Reaction score
3,012
King is uber talented, but there holes in his game that will take time to correct. There's a reason he made it to #33. I love the pick, but I wouldn't expect pro bowl play year 1.
 

Members online

Top