2019 Green Bay Packers Draft Picks and Discussion

[SeaBass]

I don't mind Gary or Savage the players. I wish them lives of peace and fulfillment.

 

My opinion is that GB could have had each of them (or players of similar value) and kept the two fourth-round picks and potentially garnered additional picks. Obviously, I don't know that for certain because I'm not in the war room.

 

This is how I feel about the draft. I'm not angry as someone mentioned, just upset how it transpired. The first 5 picks look like they'll contribute this season. The RB maybe as well. The CB/LB picks I'll just assume as Special Teams help at best. I just said the value side in the draft wasn't there. If you take the trade value points it'd go something like this:

Gary 1200-Even to -200

Savage 924- Even to -124

Jenkins 460- Even to -60

Sternberger 215- +50 to Even

Kiki 31 +35 to Even

 

-88 for 4th round loss. Riley Ridley went to the Bears after what would have been the Packers selection. He was a 3rd round type projection.

 

All told thats -3 to -384 The equivalent of a late 2nd round pick to late 3rd round pick. Which is probably what the value you would have been looking at on trading down from 12 a few spots. Draft Grade C-

I'm curious which teams were chomping at the bit to trade up a few spots to 12 or around 12. Because after Pittsburgh traded up to 10 nobody else traded up until... your Green Bay Packers traded up to 21.

 

Logically, if the sweet spot in the draft fell around picks 15 through 18, and many posters here including myself were saying they wanted the Packers to trade back in real time when their 12 pick went on the clock, why under the sun would any team spend extra draft capital to trade up out of those spots?

[HiAndTight]

I don't mind Gary or Savage the players. I wish them lives of peace and fulfillment.

 

My opinion is that GB could have had each of them (or players of similar value) and kept the two fourth-round picks and potentially garnered additional picks. Obviously, I don't know that for certain because I'm not in the war room.

 

This is how I feel about the draft. I'm not angry as someone mentioned, just upset how it transpired. The first 5 picks look like they'll contribute this season. The RB maybe as well. The CB/LB picks I'll just assume as Special Teams help at best. I just said the value side in the draft wasn't there. If you take the trade value points it'd go something like this:

Gary 1200-Even to -200

Savage 924- Even to -124

Jenkins 460- Even to -60

Sternberger 215- +50 to Even

Kiki 31 +35 to Even

 

-88 for 4th round loss. Riley Ridley went to the Bears after what would have been the Packers selection. He was a 3rd round type projection.

 

All told thats -3 to -384 The equivalent of a late 2nd round pick to late 3rd round pick. Which is probably what the value you would have been looking at on trading down from 12 a few spots. Draft Grade C-

 

How exactly are you coming up with these numbers? -200 for Gary? -124 for Savage?

 

Are these just mock drafts you've chosen to use or what? Please explain. Because I'd be curious how many points the team that picked Polite, a guy who was a top 10 pick in some mocks got for going in the 3rd round? Or Deionte Thompson, the S from Alabama who was also a top 15 prospect in a lot of mocks in the 5th round?

 

And be honest, would you really even know of Riley Ridley if he wasn't Calvin Ridley's little brother?

 

You talk about Rashan Gary, but Ridley tested in the bottom 15 pct among WR'ers(equal to or worse than the 6'4, 280 LB Gary who played inside in college, NOT WR'er). He also struggled with drop balls and never caught 6 passes or had 90 yards in a game, despite playing with great QBs at Georgia.

 

Now when I saw he was available late in the 4th round, I was all on board with the Packers taking him. Because I'd seen lazy mock drafts that had him listed higher for some reason. Looking back, it clearly wasn't because of his actual production or because of his great athletic ability.

 

Also, can we PLEASE acknowledge that there are about 100 players who are mentioned in somebody's mock draft as being a 1st round pick, and it just gets worse from there. Take all the mocks and there are about 3X as many players mocked to each round as there are picks. So I don't care what mocks had Ridley in them as a 2nd rounder. I didn't see any after his poor combine showing and I do believe if his name wasn't Ridley, nobody would even give him a seconds thought.

 

But the biggest takeaway from this is you're again, stating something as fact, attributing negative "value points" to the selections of Gary and Savage(when we know now Savage would not have been available) and you're doing so using a 30 some year old OUTLINE for valuing draft picks used by Jimmy Johnson and you're trying to somehow make this a mathematical equation.

 

You cannot possibly try to quantify Gary's "value" relative to Jimmy Johnson's system, and you especially can't do it if you're going to go with the lowest you saw the Packers players picked and then contrast that with the HIGHEST you saw a player we could have had if we'd kept our 4th round picks.

 

I wonder if Mack Wilson would have been taken in the 4th round if you'd be using him as an example as he was rated much higher. Or Greedy Williams, another player who was once considered a top 10 pick and on eplayer unlikely to be available at the Packers pick.

[HiAndTight]

Here's a link to a report about Ridley and why he was likely to fall down draft boards...along with some others who were "mocked" far higher than they were picked.

[HiAndTight]

I don't mind Gary or Savage the players. I wish them lives of peace and fulfillment.

 

My opinion is that GB could have had each of them (or players of similar value) and kept the two fourth-round picks and potentially garnered additional picks. Obviously, I don't know that for certain because I'm not in the war room.

 

This is how I feel about the draft. I'm not angry as someone mentioned, just upset how it transpired. The first 5 picks look like they'll contribute this season. The RB maybe as well. The CB/LB picks I'll just assume as Special Teams help at best. I just said the value side in the draft wasn't there. If you take the trade value points it'd go something like this:

Gary 1200-Even to -200

Savage 924- Even to -124

Jenkins 460- Even to -60

Sternberger 215- +50 to Even

Kiki 31 +35 to Even

 

-88 for 4th round loss. Riley Ridley went to the Bears after what would have been the Packers selection. He was a 3rd round type projection.

 

All told thats -3 to -384 The equivalent of a late 2nd round pick to late 3rd round pick. Which is probably what the value you would have been looking at on trading down from 12 a few spots. Draft Grade C-

I'm curious which teams were chomping at the bit to trade up a few spots to 12 or around 12. Because after Pittsburgh traded up to 10 nobody else traded up until... your Green Bay Packers traded up to 21.

 

Logically, if the sweet spot in the draft fell around picks 15 through 18, and many posters here including myself were saying they wanted the Packers to trade back in real time when their 12 pick went on the clock, why under the sun would any team spend extra draft capital to trade up out of those spots?

 

 

I won't state this as fact, because I can't find the actual link right now, but I thought Gute was asked about offers he had to trade down and he said he didn't get any calls.

 

Now given the fact that he traded back last year, got the guy he wanted and added the additional 1st rounder many are complaining we used to trade back up and give up two 4th for a guy who's closest physical and pre-draft comp is Earl Thomas, don't you think that if these teams were clamoring to move up to grab Haskins or whomever, he'd have done it?

 

 

So my conclusion, given that he'd traded back just last year in nearly the same situation, it's pretty easy to conclude that he either made any offers OR...he just really liked the guy that was available. The 2nd prospect is just as likely since he passed up on going to Clemson's pro-day in order to attend Michigan's in the first place.

 

Finally, Brewcrewdude, were you the one who said you'd be livid if the Packers took a lineman with their 1st round pick and then also said you "weren't all that enamored with Aaron Donald?"

 

Edit-Sorry, went back and looked. It wasn't you who made that comment, it was another poster. You seem to have been hoping for a trade back the entire time predicting that the Giants may trade back up to get Haskins(which is hardly a far fetched idea). But you had Burns as the guy you liked, a LB'er who doesn't really fit the Packers scheme...unless they want him to play inside. He's too soft and I don't believe he can set the edge. Which is probably why Carolina picked him. To use him in a Barr type role. An occasional pass rusher, but more of an off-ball LB'er.

 

I suppose if you went into this with the idea that you wanted them to trade back and add more guys, it makes sense you don't like the draft. I personally thought they'd added enough players to this team(except at CB) that it was most important to get an impact edge early on.

 

It remains to be seen if Gary will be that, but I have no reason to believe he won't be at this point in time. And Savage, well, I have no idea about him other than Combine numbers and a paragraph written on him that, as I said, reads very similar to Earl Thomas.

 

One thing to keep in mind, we had Haha as our FS, roaming and covering the backend when we played single high. He was a 4.58 40 guy....so the same as Rashan Gary. Savage is a 4.36 guy. So hopefully he'll be able to cover more ground out there.

[PeaveyFury]

 

I won't state this as fact, because I can't find the actual link right now, but I thought Gute was asked about offers he had to trade down and he said he didn't get any calls.

 

I think the Giants taking Jones screwed up a lot of the value of #12 for the Packers. If they had gone Allen like they probably should have, you'd have had the Giants at a minimum trying to trade up to 12 to get ahead of Miami and Washington to get 'their guy'. As it was, Washington correctly bet that they could stay put and get Haskins, and that was probably the major hope for Gute at that point if they wanted to trade out.

[OldHeidelberg]

I saw that the Giants were trying to trade to the number 10 spot to grab Gary per Peter King of SI.

 

I read something predraft in the new York media about the shoulder injury and they indicated that he was someone the giants may pick at 6 or 17. I don't think a guy as talented as him was going to last much longer. I don't mind the Packers rolling the dice there at all, the chance to score a blue chip defensive player for the remaining Rodgers years was too good to pass up, especially with the extra 1st.

 

Gutes first draft has been acclaimed after last year and not just by the Wisconsin media. With that start I think he gets the benefit of the doubt.

[HiAndTight]

 

I won't state this as fact, because I can't find the actual link right now, but I thought Gute was asked about offers he had to trade down and he said he didn't get any calls.

 

I think the Giants taking Jones screwed up a lot of the value of #12 for the Packers. If they had gone Allen like they probably should have, you'd have had the Giants at a minimum trying to trade up to 12 to get ahead of Miami and Washington to get 'their guy'. As it was, Washington correctly bet that they could stay put and get Haskins, and that was probably the major hope for Gute at that point if they wanted to trade out.

 

 

This year was just a weird one for teams that needed QB's. If I was running the Redskins or the Dolphins or one of the teams that could have taken a QB, I'd MUCH-MUCH rather just be in all-out tank mode for the next year(actually, probably a 2-year tank and try to get Trevor Lawrence).

 

The #2 QB in this class surprised people by going back to school in Herbert from Oregon(although, who knows, by now he could have been a 5th rounder the way these guys move up and down boards). But the next two years there appear to be franchise changing QB's in Tua and then Lawrence.

 

This year you had Murray....who I wouldn't be real excited about, Lock who I would have loved in the middle to the late 2nd round and then a pretty good, safe bet in Haskins, but he's also not a guy that many believe has a huge ceiling.

 

 

Honestly, the only problem I have with this draft at the moment...they gave Rashan Gary #52. C'mon....as Clay tweeted, the body isn't even cold yet!!! Clay wasn't Reggie, but he was a Packer great. It's stupid, but I just wish that you weren't giving that number to the 1st guy after him. I also bet it actually does bother Clay. I get it's a business, but that dude played his heart out in GB and despite the fact that his numbers dipped, he gave up a TON to move inside and help out the team, thereby hurting his sacks...[sarcasm]which as we've seen, no matter how good you are vs the run..even if you're an OLB'er that the team has playing inside and you have a 1st round grade as a run stuffer, but you only have 3.5 sacks, that's all anyone cares about![/sarcasm]

[HiAndTight]

I saw that the Giants were trying to trade to the number 10 spot to grab Gary per Peter King of SI.

 

I read something predraft in the new York media about the shoulder injury and they indicated that he was someone the giants may pick at 6 or 17. I don't think a guy as talented as him was going to last much longer. I don't mind the Packers rolling the dice there at all, the chance to score a blue chip defensive player for the remaining Rodgers years was too good to pass up, especially with the extra 1st.

 

Gutes first draft has been acclaimed after last year and not just by the Wisconsin media. With that start I think he gets the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

 

Ehh....that right there sours me on Gary a bit. The team that drafted Daniel-inster Stephen A Smith's voice here whilst saying the name-Jones #6 overall, wanted to trade up and get Gary? The team that effectively traded OBJ, Landon Collins and Snacks Harrison AND Oliver Vernon to get back Daniel Jones, Kevin Zietler(who I love as I knew him and the family a bit when he was at Wisco), Jabril Peppers, and Dexter Lawrence.

 

Now I'm the first to say we on this board who don't work for a scouting department are ignorant. But not THAT ignorant. Daniel Jones? I feel like saying Gary would have been available later is pure conjecture and likely not true, but the ONE guy I think everyone can agree was a massive, massive reach was Daniel Jones.

 

 

So I now have TWO things I dislike about Rashan Gary. The Giants tried to trade up to 10 to take him, and he'll be wearing #52 so soon after Clay's gone. I'm obviously joking about these being serious....but also like 5 pct not joking. All Gettleman had to do was not do anything colossally stupid this off-season and he was firmly behind at least Gruden and Colbert who called the rest of the Steelers kids while praising Big Ben. He had a TON of ground to make up....and boy, like Usain Bolt coming down the stretch, he picked up steam and ran right by everyone. All starting with the mysterious decision to NOT franchise Collins and at least recoup something like the Hawks did with Clark or the Chiefs with Ford.

[HiAndTight]

I saw that the Giants were trying to trade to the number 10 spot to grab Gary per Peter King of SI.

 

I read something predraft in the new York media about the shoulder injury and they indicated that he was someone the giants may pick at 6 or 17. I don't think a guy as talented as him was going to last much longer. I don't mind the Packers rolling the dice there at all, the chance to score a blue chip defensive player for the remaining Rodgers years was too good to pass up, especially with the extra 1st.

 

Gutes first draft has been acclaimed after last year and not just by the Wisconsin media. With that start I think he gets the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

Going back to this, you nailed it. And more importantly, these are kids basically, who are now Green Bay Packers. So even if this was a TT draft, I'd still be optimistic and hopeful.

 

You're a FAN. You can be critical if a player is bad, but not before you have any clue. I mean...I guess you can be, it just seems nonsensical to me.

[Noche]

I saw that the Giants were trying to trade to the number 10 spot to grab Gary per Peter King of SI.

 

I read something predraft in the new York media about the shoulder injury and they indicated that he was someone the giants may pick at 6 or 17. I don't think a guy as talented as him was going to last much longer. I don't mind the Packers rolling the dice there at all, the chance to score a blue chip defensive player for the remaining Rodgers years was too good to pass up, especially with the extra 1st.

 

Gutes first draft has been acclaimed after last year and not just by the Wisconsin media. With that start I think he gets the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

 

Ehh....that right there sours me on Gary a bit. The team that drafted Daniel-inster Stephen A Smith's voice here whilst saying the name-Jones #6 overall, wanted to trade up and get Gary? The team that effectively traded OBJ, Landon Collins and Snacks Harrison AND Oliver Vernon to get back Daniel Jones, Kevin Zietler(who I love as I knew him and the family a bit when he was at Wisco), Jabril Peppers, and Dexter Lawrence.

 

Now I'm the first to say we on this board who don't work for a scouting department are ignorant. But not THAT ignorant. Daniel Jones? I feel like saying Gary would have been available later is pure conjecture and likely not true, but the ONE guy I think everyone can agree was a massive, massive reach was Daniel Jones.

 

 

So I now have TWO things I dislike about Rashan Gary. The Giants tried to trade up to 10 to take him, and he'll be wearing #52 so soon after Clay's gone. I'm obviously joking about these being serious....but also like 5 pct not joking. All Gettleman had to do was not do anything colossally stupid this off-season and he was firmly behind at least Gruden and Colbert who called the rest of the Steelers kids while praising Big Ben. He had a TON of ground to make up....and boy, like Usain Bolt coming down the stretch, he picked up steam and ran right by everyone. All starting with the mysterious decision to NOT franchise Collins and at least recoup something like the Hawks did with Clark or the Chiefs with Ford.

 

I can sense you are having some fun but also half serious and I do get it. But Gettleman says Jones wasn’t making it to 17. They ended up with him but apparently Giants were not only ones high up on him. Idk if it’s smoke but why can it not be true? I figure it’s the Dolphins who then opted for a similar dude in Rosen or possible a trade up from the Broncos. In any case, time will tell. I admire any team for getting their guy, within reason of course.

[brewcrewdue80]

I don't mind Gary or Savage the players. I wish them lives of peace and fulfillment.

 

My opinion is that GB could have had each of them (or players of similar value) and kept the two fourth-round picks and potentially garnered additional picks. Obviously, I don't know that for certain because I'm not in the war room.

 

This is how I feel about the draft. I'm not angry as someone mentioned, just upset how it transpired. The first 5 picks look like they'll contribute this season. The RB maybe as well. The CB/LB picks I'll just assume as Special Teams help at best. I just said the value side in the draft wasn't there. If you take the trade value points it'd go something like this:

Gary 1200-Even to -200

Savage 924- Even to -124

Jenkins 460- Even to -60

Sternberger 215- +50 to Even

Kiki 31 +35 to Even

 

-88 for 4th round loss. Riley Ridley went to the Bears after what would have been the Packers selection. He was a 3rd round type projection.

 

All told thats -3 to -384 The equivalent of a late 2nd round pick to late 3rd round pick. Which is probably what the value you would have been looking at on trading down from 12 a few spots. Draft Grade C-

 

How exactly are you coming up with these numbers? -200 for Gary? -124 for Savage?

 

Are these just mock drafts you've chosen to use or what? Please explain. Because I'd be curious how many points the team that picked Polite, a guy who was a top 10 pick in some mocks got for going in the 3rd round? Or Deionte Thompson, the S from Alabama who was also a top 15 prospect in a lot of mocks in the 5th round?

 

And be honest, would you really even know of Riley Ridley if he wasn't Calvin Ridley's little brother?

 

You talk about Rashan Gary, but Ridley tested in the bottom 15 pct among WR'ers(equal to or worse than the 6'4, 280 LB Gary who played inside in college, NOT WR'er). He also struggled with drop balls and never caught 6 passes or had 90 yards in a game, despite playing with great QBs at Georgia.

 

Now when I saw he was available late in the 4th round, I was all on board with the Packers taking him. Because I'd seen lazy mock drafts that had him listed higher for some reason. Looking back, it clearly wasn't because of his actual production or because of his great athletic ability.

 

Also, can we PLEASE acknowledge that there are about 100 players who are mentioned in somebody's mock draft as being a 1st round pick, and it just gets worse from there. Take all the mocks and there are about 3X as many players mocked to each round as there are picks. So I don't care what mocks had Ridley in them as a 2nd rounder. I didn't see any after his poor combine showing and I do believe if his name wasn't Ridley, nobody would even give him a seconds thought.

 

But the biggest takeaway from this is you're again, stating something as fact, attributing negative "value points" to the selections of Gary and Savage(when we know now Savage would not have been available) and you're doing so using a 30 some year old OUTLINE for valuing draft picks used by Jimmy Johnson and you're trying to somehow make this a mathematical equation.

 

You cannot possibly try to quantify Gary's "value" relative to Jimmy Johnson's system, and you especially can't do it if you're going to go with the lowest you saw the Packers players picked and then contrast that with the HIGHEST you saw a player we could have had if we'd kept our 4th round picks.

 

I wonder if Mack Wilson would have been taken in the 4th round if you'd be using him as an example as he was rated much higher. Or Greedy Williams, another player who was once considered a top 10 pick and on eplayer unlikely to be available at the Packers pick.

 

I come up with those numbers based off the Trade Value of the picks and from the gist and projections on the picks. On Savage the number -124 is based on the value of the picks we gave up to move to 21. Savage as a projection was late 1st early 2nd. It honestly should be worse in that regard. Gary -200 is on the premise we traded down 1-4 spots while still getting him/equal quality of player. Jenkins went in the 2nd where projected. Sternberger in the 3rd where projected. Ridley had a late 2nd early 3rd projection and then went to the Bears at 126. Just sorta put a number together where he was projected less the Packers 118th pick. Todd McShay calls the Bears selection of Ridley their most value pick in this draft.

I've got no problem with the flak I'm getting with the statements I've made. It's just my opinion, and I was trying to show a value take on why to go along with the question, What pick did GB get value with? I did my own search and proved it was none or negative. I could have gone more in to another 4th rd lost selection but I cancelled that out since I was looking for a pick from trading down and then still considered the trade up for Savage. Taking a value of 0 being a C grade and then seeing negative, I give the draft a C- grade.

[Jenkins5]

I don’t think I fully understand whole value thing. I understand pick value for trades but once you try to fill in player values with it.... that’s where it gets fuzzy. To me values only matter if you are grading trades. Did we over pay or not? You simply can’t give players value. I saw mocks with Beau From Wisconsin going round 2. He went undrafted.... guys free fall for a reason that mockers simply don’t have info for. Polite falling to 5th after being mocked 12-32 by most. Does Polite really get first round grade? If every team said nope to him for over 5 rounds....he probably isn’t as good as mockers felt.

 

I’d say 75% or greater of mockers simply don’t have a real clue. They watch some film, they read a lot, but just don’t have much information to work with. They ride up & down the hype train. Take smokescreens as reality. They try to match needs. Overall over years I just think they are fun. I never look at anything past a 1st round mocks...they are straight 99.9% bs’ing it’s a complete crap shot at that time.

 

I follow them, do the homework I can but at end of day accept Packers know about 99.9 percent more than me. I have watched film for over a decade, studied schemes & players.... but high school coordinator doesn’t qualify me for crap at NFL level where my opinions are based on YouTube clips & meaningless mocks & rankings by people who know not even that much more than I do. World would be better if all fans understood that as fans.... we are Chad, Africa level educated while pro teams are Finland. 100% literacy & top rank vs 24% literacy & not even ranked. Luckily here, vast major get that.

[stalton]

This makes me want to go back 4 to 6 years back, see what were the grades back then and then seeing how they've changed. I'd bet dollars to donuts that most grades are either not close or close for the wrong reasons.

[CheeseheadInQC]

A little late to the party here, but the more I read on Gary, the more I'm OK with the pick after being a bit tepid to start with on it simply because I don't know that his floor is necessarily as low as it is talked about. When you hear low floor, you think out of the NFL in a couple of years, but there is no reason, given his strength, size and athleticism why the positives in his game won't translate to the NFL. At minimum, he seems like an edge-setter and pocket collapser who could be much more. You can maybe argue about the likelihood of him reaching his ceiling, but I think his floor has been undersold a bit. Barring injury, I doubt he is a washout.

 

As for not getting a wide receiver, I didn't read up on the draft as much this year as in past seasons, but outside of possibly Brown in round two, I'm not sure there is a guy I could make a good case for taking over who the Packers drafted, at least in the first five rounds. And after that, you might as well give last year's trio a chance to grow because I'm not sure you're getting more upside.

[OnTheBlack]

I can sense you are having some fun but also half serious and I do get it. But Gettleman says Jones wasn’t making it to 17. They ended up with him but apparently Giants were not only ones high up on him. Idk if it’s smoke but why can it not be true? I figure it’s the Dolphins who then opted for a similar dude in Rosen or possible a trade up from the Broncos. In any case, time will tell. I admire any team for getting their guy, within reason of course.

 

 

 

I'm not really being serious at all. I have absolutely zero reservations about Gary because a stupid team wanted him. Lots of smart teams wanted him as well. I would doubt that the Dolphins would take a QB 1st with the owner being so intent on trying to tank for Tua next year and I think the Rosen pick was designed to try and just acquire assets, almost like an NBA team.

 

Someone could have had Jones, I don't believe him that two teams have said they would have taken him, but again, that's a moot point as I was kidding anyway. Kinda mocking the "find a reason to not like" Gary line of thinking!

[OnTheBlack]

A little late to the party here, but the more I read on Gary, the more I'm OK with the pick after being a bit tepid to start with on it simply because I don't know that his floor is necessarily as low as it is talked about. When you hear low floor, you think out of the NFL in a couple of years, but there is no reason, given his strength, size and athleticism why the positives in his game won't translate to the NFL. At minimum, he seems like an edge-setter and pocket collapser who could be much more. You can maybe argue about the likelihood of him reaching his ceiling, but I think his floor has been undersold a bit. Barring injury, I doubt he is a washout.

 

As for not getting a wide receiver, I didn't read up on the draft as much this year as in past seasons, but outside of possibly Brown in round two, I'm not sure there is a guy I could make a good case for taking over who the Packers drafted, at least in the first five rounds. And after that, you might as well give last year's trio a chance to grow because I'm not sure you're getting more upside.

 

 

I think the biggest reason why Gary won't wash out is that he plays hard. Big men who play hard usually stick. Big men who play hard and run 4.58...well, they just don't exist in nature. Not usually anyway. Not without being bitten by some type of experimental insect. Maybe a radioactive one?

 

 

By the way, one of the top FA's we signed is a 6'3 260 pound edge from Baylor who had a 1.68 10 yard split in the 40. That's incredible.

 

As for WR'er, some wanted Hunter Renfroe, but I think that's name rec. I don't think he's a guy who makes a real dent in our WR'er room. We likely needed one early, or it was gonna be tough to find one who'd beat out all the other young guys we have.

[OnTheBlack]

 

I come up with those numbers based off the Trade Value of the picks and from the gist and projections on the picks. On Savage the number -124 is based on the value of the picks we gave up to move to 21. Savage as a projection was late 1st early 2nd. It honestly should be worse in that regard. Gary -200 is on the premise we traded down 1-4 spots while still getting him/equal quality of player. Jenkins went in the 2nd where projected. Sternberger in the 3rd where projected. Ridley had a late 2nd early 3rd projection and then went to the Bears at 126. Just sorta put a number together where he was projected less the Packers 118th pick. Todd McShay calls the Bears selection of Ridley their most value pick in this draft.

I've got no problem with the flak I'm getting with the statements I've made. It's just my opinion, and I was trying to show a value take on why to go along with the question, What pick did GB get value with? I did my own search and proved it was none or negative. I could have gone more in to another 4th rd lost selection but I cancelled that out since I was looking for a pick from trading down and then still considered the trade up for Savage. Taking a value of 0 being a C grade and then seeing negative, I give the draft a C- grade.

 

 

So...just out of nowhere then?

 

 

And stop with Ridley. You're just saying he was mocked here or there. Look at what was being said about him leading up to the draft. He was not a highly regarded prospect. And by the way, DJ Metcalf was projected to us at 12. You'd probably be thrilled with us had we picked him at 12. Yet he was the last pick in the 2nd round.

 

Finally...I'm getting the same sensation of anger I get when I'm gone and I come home and my dog made a mess again. You-did-not-prove-ANYTHING.

 

You made up a system in which you put values on players and then said we got negative value based on what you made up. You claim we lost value on the Savage pick because??? I mean honestly...why? Because Mel Kiper said he was supposed to go 10 spots later?

 

Someone else said it, go back and look at what your opinion was on past drafts(not you, everyone). We never have a clue, and with so many guys being busts, if you think one player is a stud and the other is not, even if ESPNhas them graded closely, their values are not equal. This is getting kinda silly.

[brewcrewdue80]

Over your head^^

[xisxisxis]

So...just out of nowhere then?...................................You made up a system in which you put values on players and then said we got negative value based on what you made up. You claim we lost value on the Savage pick because??? I mean honestly...why? Because Mel Kiper said he was supposed to go 10 spots later?

 

No they aren't made up. It took about a second to recognize those values were taken from the Jimmy Johnson valuation model that many (like teams, and media outlets, and professional writers use to judge the value of a specific pick). If you have never seen it just google "2019 NFL Draft Trade Value Chart" and click on the drafttek.com link - they have an interactive tool for highlighting teams that's nice). Where there is vagueness to the approach is where a player is generally thought to be valued/drafted. That information should come from a combination of sources as most of these "draft gurus" miss a ton. While I would love 538 or another respected statistical group evaluate how well each of these do and come up with weighting's for each mock, there is no systematic approach to evaluating the evaluators. Mel Kiper has been doing this since many here were infants, but I haven't seen one piece of data that supports he gets it right more than any joe who is a draft "nerd".

 

 

This is getting kinda silly.

 

Well we finally have something to agree upon.

[areacodes]

So...just out of nowhere then?...................................You made up a system in which you put values on players and then said we got negative value based on what you made up. You claim we lost value on the Savage pick because??? I mean honestly...why? Because Mel Kiper said he was supposed to go 10 spots later?

 

No they aren't made up. It took about a second to recognize those values were taken from the Jimmy Johnson valuation model that many (like teams, and media outlets, and professional writers use to judge the value of a specific pick). If you have never seen it just google "2019 NFL Draft Trade Value Chart" and click on the drafttek.com link - they have an interactive tool for highlighting teams that's nice). Where there is vagueness to the approach is where a player is generally thought to be valued/drafted. That information should come from a combination of sources as most of these "draft gurus" miss a ton. While I would love 538 or another respected statistical group evaluate how well each of these do and come up with weighting's for each mock, there is no systematic approach to evaluating the evaluators. Mel Kiper has been doing this since many here were infants, but I haven't seen one piece of data that supports he gets it right more than any joe who is a draft "nerd".

 

 

This is getting kinda silly.

 

Well we finally have something to agree upon.

 

The draft pick slot value wasn’t what OnTheBlack was saying came out of no where... the value that brewcrewdue80 placed on the players the Packers selected to come up with his negative value of the draft was... and he was absolutely correct with that.

 

To say with certainty, as brewcrewdue80 did, that the Packers lost the equivalent of a 2nd to 3rd round pick with where they drafted players AND they should have got that for trading down from 12 AND they could have then got the same players (or players of equivalently value) is what seems made up and pretty far fetched to me.

[Jenkins5]

Only thing Jimmy Johnson chart tells us is Packers made nice trade value wise

 

Packers give up

620

66

58

 

Packers Get

800

 

 

So 800 to 744 totals.... Packers added 56 points of value

 

That’s the FACT in value.... Then there is a made up personal value system that was used based on mock drafts to say Packers lost value in the draft. That is not fact & is over no ones head.

 

If I was to use this system:

We Got

1500 & 740= 2240

 

Our picks Value

1200 & 800 =2000

 

1st round we are over value 240. You can add the 56 for added value from trade to give us 296. I had Gray going between 6-8. Thought Jags & Lions were real possibilities for Gary. Rumors about Giants if they didn’t go QB. Savage was going to be gone by Raiders so 24th pick seems about right.

 

Essential according my non factual, personal opinion on where guys should have been valued.... Packers added about the 50th to 51st overall pick in positive value. Not bad. Because any mock or ranking past 1st round is such bs, I won’t even bother trying to decide that their values are for whole draft.

 

Looking again, I like the way values turned out! Think I’ll just say based on my biased values it is a fact Gute exceeded his picks value in 1st round! Great job Gutey!!!

[stalton]

Are Jimmy Johnson's trade values considered gospel? I know it's a great tool but is actually considered as concrete value? Serious question.

[Jenkins5]

Are Jimmy Johnson's trade values considered gospel? I know it's a great tool but is actually considered as concrete value? Serious question.

 

I think they are, believe teams use it to judge what is fair for each pick.

 

Packers gave up 744 to get 800 by trading 30 & 2 4s. If they didn’t trade the two 4s... they would have found way to give up 124- 180 in another way.

 

2nd round value was 460

3rd round value was 215

4th round value was 66

4th round value was 58

5th round value was 31

6th round value was 17

6th round value was 14

7th round value was 2

 

We could have overpaid by a lot for those 9 spots by trading #30 & our 3rd pick 620+ 215 = 835 vs 800

 

Could have went #30, 1st 4th, 5th, and 2nd 6th

620+66+31+14= 731 vs 800 where we still win trade. Don’t thinks an end all be all but helps guide decisions of what each pick is worth.

 

Keep #30 & Trade 2nd, 3rd, 2nd 4th round

675+58= 738

 

Overall our 3rd round pick held much more value than both our 4ths. 215 to 124

[LouisEly]

There are three or four draft value charts floating around out there.

 

But it's just a starting point. Then you factor in the value of the players who are still on the board and where the dropoffs in talent are. For example, if you think there is a big dropoff in talent at the beginning of the fourth round, then those 4th round picks have to be discounted because the value isn't there. If you are moving up to get a guy, chances are you have a higher grade on him than that pick and you already have excess value and can give up a little more in pick value. Chances are the draft talent isn't linear in value like the draft value charts are, thus you adjust what the pick values are.

 

Then you factor in who you are moving ahead of, particularly if there is a division rival or another team you think will pick the guy.

[HiAndTight]

Are Jimmy Johnson's trade values considered gospel? I know it's a great tool but is actually considered as concrete value? Serious question.

 

 

No, of COURSE not! That's just one of the things that's so annoying about this. It's a GUIDE. And it's from 1990-something...

 

It's basically just his informed OPINION. It does NOT take into account how much you and your front office values a player.

 

Gute said he wasn't happy about having to give up 2 1st round picks. Guess what? I bet TT didn't like giving up the picks he did to get Clay Matthews. But he and his front office made an EVALUATION based on thousands of hours, maybe tens of thousands cumulatively(actually, cumulatively, it was definitely tens of thousands of hours) and they were just a LITTLE it more informed!

 

 

Do you think...just for a hypothetical, that if the Chiefs lost Patrick Mahomes for a season, Ty Hill was booted off the team, they ended up going the way of the Colts when Manning went down, or the Spurs when David Robinson was out for a year and there was this transcendent superstar available, a player like Trevor Lawrence, someone who's already being talked about along the likes of John Elway and Peyton Manning as having the highest grade since they started grading prospects....do you think a team like the Dolphins, a team that craves celebrity, and also likes winning is going to sit there and say, "no, we're not going to give up multiple 1st round picks for a once in a generational talent.

 

We'll give you our 1st, 2nd, next years 1st, but we're not giving you another 3rd to move up 5 spots because Jimmy Johnson's chart says we'd be losing 10 points!

 

It's just so laughable(not your question, the asinine assigning of points to a player and then just arbitrarily adding or subtracting based on where you thought they should go without actually knowing.