2018 Draft - 3 Year Eval

I give your grades an A+.

Always baffling as to how to predict who is going to make it. Jackson, Moore, and Burks all seemed like they were going to be much better than they turned out.

Pretty generous grade for Scott.

@FLPACKER posted:

Always baffling as to how to predict who is going to make it. Jackson, Moore, and Burks all seemed like they were going to be much better than they turned out.

I wanted Jackson in the 1st round.   Whoops.

I thought he'd be better too.  Must have been his games against WI clouding my vision. 

But as BD said, he may be better suited for safety ...Micah Hyde?

Something happened with him.   His rookie year, he played really well in preseason.   If I recall correctly, he played well to start the season and then started to fade.   Since then, just a straight decline to healthy scratch on game day.

How guys react to not being the best, learning a new system, and what is going on in their personal lives is critical. I see it all the time at a much lower level of college basketball. Every year I have a couple of players who based on what I saw of them in high school / AAU, turn out much better or much worse that I thought they'd be.

Good discussion.

I'd actually give Jackson an F and move Burks to a D-. The rationale being that while Jackson is inactive on game day at least Burks has contributed on special teams. The special teams have obviously not been stellar but I think Burks has been OK individually in that role.

While Scott and Bradley would be D grades for me in terms of their individual play, I'd give the draft picks an F grade (Especially Scott. At least Bradley was at the back half of the 7th round). You can find a dozen guys just like them as UDFAs. I'd rather use picks like those to see if you could find another diamond in the rough like Aaron Jones (182nd pick overall) or even MVS. Scott was the 172nd pick overall.

Alexander might be the best cover corner they've had since the the arrival of Ron Wolf. Woodson was a better overall player in terms of playmaking, but just in terms of shutting a guy down Alexander is approaching peak-Revis territory.

I still can't believe we drafter a long snapper.  F on principals.   Yes he is on the roster, but I think there are plenty of car salesmen out there that could have performed just as well as he has.

Have you sent your resume to 1265 Lombardi Ave.? 

(The thought of any of us here trying to long-snap in training camp is at least amusing.)

@Fedya posted:

I still can't believe we drafter a long snapper.  F on principals.   Yes he is on the roster, but I think there are plenty of car salesmen out there that could have performed just as well as he has.

Have you sent your resume to 1265 Lombardi Ave.? 

(The thought of any of us here trying to long-snap in training camp is at least amusing.)

I think there are probably a lot of people out there who could learn to longsnap on FGs and XPs. The way the rules are you can't get hit and no one can line up in front of you. I'd imagine it's a huge change from decades ago when these guys were snapping the ball knowing they were likely to get lit up from the guy lining up right in front of them as soon as they were finishing snapping the ball.

The punting is a little different because you have to become a defender at some point. You already have the punter that gives you almost nothing on defense (especially JK "El Matador" Scott), so I think your longsnapper has to at least provide something there.

I've never thought about it, but I wonder what ST coaches instruct their long-snappers to do. Do they run down and try to aggressively make a tackle knowing that if they ding up their hands it could cause problems the rest of the game? Or do they tell them to hang back as a last line of defense and only try to tackle someone if necessary?

I'm not a car salesmen nor did I long snap in D1 program.   Never claimed to do either so not sure why you need my resume.   That said, there are a lot of former D1 long snappers selling cars while waiting for a shot in the NFL.   I'm confident that many of them could have performed as well as Bradley did the past 3 years.

I remember their was an 'Alexander vs. Jackson' debate.  Alexander was the talent with all the measurable traits, and Jackson was the guy with the college production.  Just want to point out that drafting based on measurables and traits with a lack of production can work, while drafting based on production and instincts can bust.  That always seems to come up in draft discussions.....

I agree with the grades.  2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks being complete busts is nothing short of a disaster.  If Alexander was just a good CB, this draft is a D.  But him being a top 3 cover corner makes it a C+, maybe a B-. 

F' im, he's not worth the roster.

Just goes to show what a bunch of bullshit PFF is.  

That being said, I was totally wrong on Josh Jackson.  Loved the pick.  He just can’t play man coverage and has average speed and athleticism at best

Alexander - A - I generally don't like mouthy hobbits at corner (starting with The Innoculator), but he's been the exception and held up tremendously.

Jackson - F - Wasn't thrilled with another slow Iowa zone D-back, would rather have had Carlton Davis (size) or Isaac Yiadom if going to be a corner, but it was supposed to be a value pick. Hasn't even made a mark on Special Teams.

Burks - C - Great kid, good wheels, very good special teamer. May end up just being Jarret Bush, but that's a contributor.

Moore - F - College dunderhead with bad hands. Never understood the pick.

Madison - INC - Liked the pick, but  just a messed up situation all around.

JK Scott - C - He wasn't a good value, nor has he been above-average, but he's contributing.

MVS - B+ - Good flyer pick on traits. Inconsistent as heck, but has made some very big plays.

ESB - D - Another receiver with questionable hands even in college. He's also missed a lot of time, but got some playing time. Roster chum.

Looney - F - Never really contributed anything.

Bradley - B - Yeah, he's a long snapper, but he's the only seventh from the group who has contributed and continues to do so. 

Donnerson - F - Another stiff who contributed nothing.

Is there a better grade than A+?

@CUPackFan posted:

I remember their was an 'Alexander vs. Jackson' debate.  Alexander was the talent with all the measurable traits, and Jackson was the guy with the college production.  Just want to point out that drafting based on measurables and traits with a lack of production can work, while drafting based on production and instincts can bust.  That always seems to come up in draft discussions.....

I agree with the grades.  2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks being complete busts is nothing short of a disaster.  If Alexander was just a good CB, this draft is a D.  But him being a top 3 cover corner makes it a C+, maybe a B-.

Almost all of Jackson's college production was in back to back games. In the first, he had three picks when Iowa upset Ohio State in a blowout.  The folowing week he had two pick 6s in one game against Wisconsin. That was 5 of his 8 career interceptions in three seasons at Iowa.

Sincere question: how many hits does everyone think we should get from a draft. Even 1 all pro CB doesn't seem like enough, but you can't expect to hit on all 11. To me, from a big class like this, I think you need to get starters from rounds 1-3, and then maybe hit on 1 or 2 mid/late round contributors. MVS is a good pick for where we got him, but if we had taken him on Day 1 or 2 he would certainly be a disappointment. Jackson to Scott is a disappointing stretch that should have yielded a starting CB, ILB, a good punter, and a WR and OG that should at least be contributing heavily. From MVS back it's kind of like any production makes it a worthwhile pick to me. I think it's a C- draft that is only saved by the maneuvering around R1 that yielded a R1 pick in 2019 that became Savage, Jaire being not just a good starter, but arguably a top 3 CB in the league and MVS being a legit deep threat.

Difficult question. I just went back and scrolled through the 2017 & 2018 drafts. The thing that really hit me was after you get past player 100 there are very few names that I recognize. Really speaks to what you are saying. Imperative that you hit on round 1-3 picks, especially when you are picking near the end of the round as we typically do. Guys like Burks, Jackson, Josh Jones, King,  can haunt those positions for years.

@Grave Digger posted:

Sincere question: how many hits does everyone think we should get from a draft.

Great question.  IMHO you of course want all of the picks to pan out but that is just not possible.  To me if you have about 10 picks in a draft I think you should expect to hit on 2-3 of them and consider it a success.

Where I think you make your money is rounds 2-4.  Everyone tends to focus on the first round but I think it is during those rounds you really find out how good your GM and scouting department is.     

@FLPACKER posted:

Difficult question. I just went back and scrolled through the 2017 & 2018 drafts. The thing that really hit me was after you get past player 100 there are very few names that I recognize. Really speaks to what you are saying. Imperative that you hit on round 1-3 picks, especially when you are picking near the end of the round as we typically do. Guys like Burks, Jackson, Josh Jones, King,  can haunt those positions for years.

Yes! Where we picked, in those drafts, made a huge impact on the team. Picking near the bottom of every round, because we were a good team the season before, makes it difficult to find a player who will pan out. I think if there is a player Gute, or whomever, wants, the only way to obtain that player, is to move up the board and get him. There may be a gem sitting there at #29-#31, that the Packers could after, but  the real "cream of the crop" is, somewhere, in picks #1-#20. Other draft picks would have to be traded away to get that one guy, if our assigned pick is at the bottom of that round. The draft is always a crap shoot and no Packers' fans will be happy with our picks, as they see someone else we could have, or should have picked, at that point.

I think an average draft is two starters and three rotational guys with starter potential down the road.

I seem to recall Ron Wolf stating that if you hit on 1 of every 3 picks you were doing a good job as a personnel decision maker.  Probably the reason why Wolf used to accumulate picks.  It’s not an exact science, and some players simply don’t work out either due to injury or motivation.  

I’ve heard several people speak very highly of Ted Thompson’s abilities - in fact Andrew Brandt said he’s the best talent scout evaluator he’s ever worked with.  I have to believe that his deteriorating health condition may have explained the last couple of his drafts in particular.

I am always amused with those who proclaim it doesn't matter where you draft and point to Tom Brady or undrafted players who have excelled. I always go back to this fact. There are more First Round draft choices in the HOF than all the other rounds + undrafted players combined....and most of those were in the top 16 of the First Round.

@Tschmack posted:

I seem to recall Ron Wolf stating that if you hit on 1 of every 3 picks you were doing a good job as a personnel decision maker.  Probably the reason why Wolf used to accumulate picks.  It’s not an exact science, and some players simply don’t work out either due to injury or motivation.  

I’ve heard several people speak very highly of Ted Thompson’s abilities - in fact Andrew Brandt said he’s the best talent scout evaluator he’s ever worked with.  I have to believe that his deteriorating health condition may have explained the last couple of his drafts in particular.

I would imagine yeah it probably played a big factor simply because he wasn’t able to go and see all these players in person like he used to. I always remember seeing draft folks list who they saw at all star games, workouts, combine, etc. and Ted was always everywhere. I would guess he probably wasn’t traveling as much or grinding as hard and relied more on his personnel guys. Having so much turnover and losing guys like Schneider, McKenzie, Dorsey, etc. all within a couple years likely made a difference as well.

@Henry posted:

I think an average draft is two starters and three rotational guys with starter potential down the road.

On 7 picks, or the more typical for GB 10/11 picks?

How often do teams get more than 3 picks in the 1st 100?  You can find starters after 100/UDFA, but those are usually development guys.

IMO...

Typically you want your Rd1 guy to start year 1.

Rd2 guys need to contribute yr 1, but don't need to be starters/pro bowlers.

Rd3 and beyond should be guys building depth, but there may be the odd starter/solid contributor that shows during TC and PS.

When drafting, never flinch, trust your board.

@FLPACKER posted:

Difficult question. I just went back and scrolled through the 2017 & 2018 drafts. The thing that really hit me was after you get past player 100 there are very few names that I recognize. Really speaks to what you are saying. Imperative that you hit on round 1-3 picks, especially when you are picking near the end of the round as we typically do. Guys like Burks, Jackson, Josh Jones, King,  can haunt those positions for years.

Yes. You get your stars overwhelming in the first round and beyond that, it's fairly uncommon to get a future Pro Bowler beyond the 3rd round (outside of specialty positions like KR, FB, or K/P).

I sorted the guys who had been voted to at least one Pro Bowl for the 2014 and 2015 drafts. These guys are old enough to know for sure whether they are good or not, but still young enough to be in their primes. Interesting the Packers have drafted more future Pro Bowlers outside the first round in those two draft classes than anyone (Bakh, Adams, Lacy, and Hyde).

@H5 posted:

On 7 picks, or the more typical for GB 10/11 picks?

How often do teams get more than 3 picks in the 1st 100?  You can find starters after 100/UDFA, but those are usually development guys.

IMO...

Typically you want your Rd1 guy to start year 1.

Rd2 guys need to contribute yr 1, but don't need to be starters/pro bowlers.

Rd3 and beyond should be guys building depth, but there may be the odd starter/solid contributor that shows during TC and PS.

When drafting, never flinch, trust your board.

On 10/11.  It's a sliding scale in regards to availability.  I'm talking starters from anywhere in the draft even though I don't put much stock after round 5.  For every Driver and Tauscher there are 9 million turdwhistles.

It's all great and fine there are "starters" in UDFA but the quality of those starters is a different matter and often flashes for a year only to go in the shitter.  I should probably change "average" to "good".  If you can polish a UDFA turd for the long haul, that's gravy.  Too many, OH MY GOD WHAT A FIND in year one or two only to take a dump as soon as they have tape.

I view UDFAs as potentially being the successful unknown quantity when the team needs it.  Zombo for example.  It's a shell game.  If you get that guy who is OH CHEEZY JESUS HE'S THE NEXT INCARNATION OF STERLING SHARPE firing at the right time it's enough to get you over the hump.  The reality of finding a long term, capable starter is something else.

I'm over the Sam Shields delusion, especially with Gunt.

@Henry posted:

9 million turdwhistles.

https://vimeo.com/133177352

@Henry posted:

I'm over the Sam Shields delusion, especially with Gunt.

The only reason Shields was probably an UDFA was he got falsely accused of a marijuana possession charge the month before the draft. Guys that run sub 4.3 40s that were starters on in Power 5 conferences are usually gone early.

The Packers probably realized the potential he had after the first training camp practice.

From Wikipedia:

On March 18, 2010, Shields was arrested in Sarasota, Florida for misdemeanor possession of marijuana. The Sarasota police conducted a search of Shields' grandmother's house after it was suspected drugs were being sold from the residence. He was arrested, booked into Sarasota County Jail, and was released on his own recognizance the next day.^[12] Shield's stated he had recently arrived there to pick up his daughter and was falsely arrested.^[13] On April 14, 2010, Shield's charge of possession of marijuana was dropped.^[14] Shields was projected to be a seventh round pick by the majority of NFL draft experts and scouts. He was ranked as the 28th best cornerback prospect in the draft by DraftScout.com.^[15]

I'd say quality of the starter plus position matters.  If TT drafted Rodgers and then 6 guys who were out of the league in 1 year, I'd still give that draft an A+.  Similar, the 2018 draft netted a top 3 cover CB which I believe to be the 3rd or 4th most important and difficult position to fill.  Due to that, the draft is going to be heavily weighted on that despite misses in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. 

And I almost forgot - Gute got a 2019 1st rounder from the Saints in this draft.  Factoring that in, I'd bump this grade up to a A-/B+. 

Analytics say that CB is second most important position.

I contest your analytics and believe LT is the second most important position.

I contest your contest and believe long snapper is the second most important position.

I'd stay with CB because if you acquire a #1 CB, it not only makes that position better, it could then make your #2 & #3 positions better also. Of course we saw both LT & CB be critical in loss to TB since Turner & King both stunk.

How often do teams get more than 3 picks in the 1st 100?

Every year.  Since there are only 32 teams and 32*3=96, there are four more picks in the top 100 to dole out. In theory, on average at least four teams should have more than three Top 100 picks, but it's always possible one team stockpiles them.

Although, with some teams trading picks away like there's no tomorrow, I would guess on average five or six teams have more than three Top 100 picks.

[looks up 2020 NFL draft]

Baltimore had 5
Cleveland had 4
Denver had 5
Detroit had 4
Jacksonville had 4
Las Vegas had 5
Miami had 6 (Miami's fourth pick was #39)
Minnesota had 4
New England had 4
New York Jets had 4

That's 10.  More than I guessed.

If I counted correctly, in 2019 13 teams had exactly four top 100 picks; none had five.

The 2015 draft is A+ regardless of any other player picked that year.  You get a HOF QB to play for 15+ years at a high level you can’t give a higher grade than that.   By the way, Nick Collins was also taken that year.  He was on his way to becoming arguably the best DB in the league before getting hurt.

As for the 2018 draft, yes Jaire Alexander is a stud but the Josh Jackson and Oren Burks and JMon Moore picks were atrocious.  MVS is solid but that was a C draft at best even with Alexander and MVS as they had 11 picks that year.  

The 2015-2017 drafts left a lot to be desired.  Kenny Clark and Aaron Jones were the only two guys really worth a damn that became impact players.  2015 in particular might be in the running for single worst draft year in team history.  You know TT wasn’t right with some of those choices.