2019 Green Bay Packers Draft Picks and Discussion

[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.

 

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

 

 

But you just said it. He asked if it was gospel and concrete value. You're right, it's a guide, it's a helpful guide to help GM's make quick decisions while in the war room and on the clock.

[HiAndTight]

Over your head^^

 

The only thing going over anyone's head is you just making these wild claims about players values.

 

You assign a negative value to the selection of Rashan Gary...and then when you're asked where on Earth you're getting these from, you come back with Jimmy Johnson's formula telling people how to google it. The problem there.....you're making everything else up.

 

Let me ask you this, how much value does Lukas Denis, S, Boston College* have?

 

He was mocked to go 14th overall, yet he fell out of the first round. Come to think of it...he fell out of the draft!

 

MY GOD, TAMPA BAY GOT +1100 POINTS!!! That's incredible.

 

If that doesn't impress you, how about the Kiper draft that had David Edwards and Ben Benzschawel going 19th and 20th?

 

 

 

Do you NOT see the utter futility in trying to assign a value on the actual PLAYERS...not the picks, the ACTUAL human beings associated with the picks because in your mind...and that's really all we have to go off of as you've done NOTHING to show us that Rashan Gary was projected to be there 5 picks after the Packers picked other than just say so while others have pointed out several that had him going in the top 10(in fact, I just saw one that had him going 3rd).

 

 

YOU-DON'T-KNOW-ANYTHING about these players, you don't know anything about the front office and more importantly, you don't have a clue as to what they were THINKING regarding these players. You're just guessing. And it's not even an educated guess. And I don't say that as an insult, I say that as someone who's self-aware enough to know what I don't know. And as I've said repeatedly, we have no idea where these guys are going to be picked, we don't know hardly anything about them other than what we see in the 5 minutes we've spent looking into them as opposed to the thousands and thousands of hours these scouting staffs spent meticulously putting together their board and the hundreds of hours after that they discussed the thousands of hours of tape and interviews and conversations they had.

 

But you think you can boil ALL that down to, "I saw mock drafts where Gary went 17th," and then claim the Packers essentially gave away certain draft picks because of mock drafts YOU'VE seen that don't match the ones that have actually been posted on here?

 

This is insane.

 

 

I just can't fathom why we're taking some guy at Bleacher reports mock draft that he probably threw together with little thought because...well, mock drafts get hits, as gospel and just ignoring the fact that the PROFESSIONALS who do this know more than you.

 

Also, when we get confirmation that teams wanted Gary and or Savage...like the Raiders who were going to take Savage, and then the speculation that the Giants were trying to trade UP from 17 to get Gary at 10, doesn't that right there nullify your entire argument?

 

It's all null and void now. You created this fictional narrative that these players would have been available AND not only would they have been available, but that there were teams who wanted to trade with us...and presumably give us exactly equal compensation for doing so on Jimmy Johnson's draft guide......but that's since been dispelled.

 

 

 

So the question now is, have you just dug your heels in too far, or are you still sticking with this concept that Rashan Gary's selecetion was worth -112 points(or however many you assigned to it?

[homer]

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.

.

 

No it's not. It was based on something one of the minority owners developed after a career in oil. I think he was a math and econ guy.

 

Now given salary changes one could argue it needs to be changed or at least revisited. I am hoping some advanced stat person takes that on at some point.

 

I don't think the Johnson scale takes into account future draft picks. Maybe it does though.

[bjkrautk]

 

No it's not. It was based on something one of the minority owners developed after a career in oil. I think he was a math and econ guy.

 

Now given salary changes one could argue it needs to be changed or at least revisited. I am hoping some advanced stat person takes that on at some point.

 

I don't think the Johnson scale takes into account future draft picks. Maybe it does though.

 

The aspect of the Johnson pick value chart which no one talks about is that it assigns an objective value to the pick, whereas teams using the chart do so for subjective reasons.

 

In other words, if your scouting department says there are 10 players who are "difference makers" in the first round, the value of the #11 pick is significantly lower than pick #10....unless some other team (we'll call them the "Iant-jays") picking 1-9 grabs a player who wasn't on your list. Value tiers should be dynamic, and can fluctuate based on the results not only of your scouting work, but on the way the draft plays out in real time.

 

I would be really curious to hear if teams approach the draft by merging the scouting with the (statictical) analytical methodology. Occasionally, you will hear a scouting director acknowledge that their team doesn't give first round grades to 32 players in a given year, but you don't see that same line of thinking addressed relative to the static values assigned to draft picks.

[BillScottCanRake]

I would be really curious to hear if teams approach the draft by merging the scouting with the (statistical) analytical methodology. Occasionally, you will hear a scouting director acknowledge that their team doesn't give first round grades to 32 players in a given year, but you don't see that same line of thinking addressed relative to the static values assigned to draft picks.

 

I suspect the draft value chart does take into account player grades; it almost has to, because you don't want trade up into a round and select a player which doesn't have a corresponding grade.

 

Andrew Brandt's re-telling of the 2005 draft in my mind hints that is the case. Brandt was interviewed by Gary V (you can find the video on Youtube; I'm not going to link directly to it because the language is a bit salty) and he talks about their 2005 draft board only having 20 first round grades, and how the only guy left when the Packers pick game up was Rodgers. He also speculates a bit about what it would have taken for another team to move back to 24 to pick Rodgers, but no one called to ask about the pick so the Packers picked Rodgers.

 

When you combined all these things together, I think it provides some evidence the draft value chart can be fluid and can to some degree be tied into the grades a team give players.

[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.

.

 

No it's not. It was based on something one of the minority owners developed after a career in oil. I think he was a math and econ guy.

 

Now given salary changes one could argue it needs to be changed or at least revisited. I am hoping some advanced stat person takes that on at some point.

 

I don't think the Johnson scale takes into account future draft picks. Maybe it does though.

 

 

Ok, I thought it was Johnson's, but that doesn't change the fundamental point here.

 

It does serve as a guide to tell you what those draft picks are worth in a vacuum. But that's not how the draft actually works.

 

When you're drafting, you're talking about real human beings....players you have strong opinions on. And if you believe a guy is a really good player, you're not going to decline to trade a couple picks because you come out 12 points behind in the trade.

 

And it most definitely was NEVER meant to be used to assign a value to the players after the picks were made.

[brewcrewdue80]

Over your head^^

 

The only thing going over anyone's head is you just making these wild claims about players values.

 

You assign a negative value to the selection of Rashan Gary...and then when you're asked where on Earth you're getting these from, you come back with Jimmy Johnson's formula telling people how to google it. The problem there.....you're making everything else up.

 

Let me ask you this, how much value does Lukas Denis, S, Boston College* have?

 

He was mocked to go 14th overall, yet he fell out of the first round. Come to think of it...he fell out of the draft!

 

MY GOD, TAMPA BAY GOT +1100 POINTS!!! That's incredible.

 

If that doesn't impress you, how about the Kiper draft that had David Edwards and Ben Benzschawel going 19th and 20th?

 

 

 

Do you NOT see the utter futility in trying to assign a value on the actual PLAYERS...not the picks, the ACTUAL human beings associated with the picks because in your mind...and that's really all we have to go off of as you've done NOTHING to show us that Rashan Gary was projected to be there 5 picks after the Packers picked other than just say so while others have pointed out several that had him going in the top 10(in fact, I just saw one that had him going 3rd).

 

 

YOU-DON'T-KNOW-ANYTHING about these players, you don't know anything about the front office and more importantly, you don't have a clue as to what they were THINKING regarding these players. You're just guessing. And it's not even an educated guess. And I don't say that as an insult, I say that as someone who's self-aware enough to know what I don't know. And as I've said repeatedly, we have no idea where these guys are going to be picked, we don't know hardly anything about them other than what we see in the 5 minutes we've spent looking into them as opposed to the thousands and thousands of hours these scouting staffs spent meticulously putting together their board and the hundreds of hours after that they discussed the thousands of hours of tape and interviews and conversations they had.

 

But you think you can boil ALL that down to, "I saw mock drafts where Gary went 17th," and then claim the Packers essentially gave away certain draft picks because of mock drafts YOU'VE seen that don't match the ones that have actually been posted on here?

 

This is insane.

 

 

I just can't fathom why we're taking some guy at Bleacher reports mock draft that he probably threw together with little thought because...well, mock drafts get hits, as gospel and just ignoring the fact that the PROFESSIONALS who do this know more than you.

 

Also, when we get confirmation that teams wanted Gary and or Savage...like the Raiders who were going to take Savage, and then the speculation that the Giants were trying to trade UP from 17 to get Gary at 10, doesn't that right there nullify your entire argument?

 

It's all null and void now. You created this fictional narrative that these players would have been available AND not only would they have been available, but that there were teams who wanted to trade with us...and presumably give us exactly equal compensation for doing so on Jimmy Johnson's draft guide......but that's since been dispelled.

 

 

 

So the question now is, have you just dug your heels in too far, or are you still sticking with this concept that Rashan Gary's selecetion was worth -112 points(or however many you assigned to it?

 

Whats insane is your clear angst towards somebody's thought process and grading their opinion to a team's draft. Holy high horse there man. Hows the view from way up there? Whats worse is your quoted reply wasnt addressed to your post. I didnt say it was over Your head but you certainly got big brother tough and decided you had to use fighting words. Ffs dude take a chill pill. You're argument is I dont know nothing what is going on as if your opinion on Gary comes from the fact you totally do.

[Jenkins5]

Whats insane is your clear angst towards somebody's thought process and grading their opinion to a team's draft. Holy high horse there man. Hows the view from way up there? Whats worse is your quoted reply wasnt addressed to your post. I didnt say it was over Your head but you certainly got big brother tough and decided you had to use fighting words. Ffs dude take a chill pill. You're argument is I dont know nothing what is going on as if your opinion on Gary comes from the fact you totally do.

 

Except you have made it clear that your “opinion” is fact. Your system based off bogus mocks are true value of players worth. Think those are main factors for his response. When you talk as though it is fact they reached on Gary & Savage due to mocks & your point value system, that naturally puts you in strong position for criticism. Then to claim a value system based on random mocks plus Jimmy Johnson value system is “over your head” that’s just gas on a fire. Everyone knows (or should know) mocks are not even close to true value. It’s like thinking brewerfan.net polls and who is listed has actual value in how front offices with 99% more information view prospects. Which you also have mentioned.

 

It’s fine to hate the pick or think we could have done better but using words like fact are never good ideas. High Heats “inside sources” are as trusting as mocks & polls to base any “facts” on.

[PeaveyFury]

Worth noting that the Packers have announced that Gary, Savage, Keke, Hollman, Williams, and Summers have all signed already.

[Jenkins5]

Worth noting that the Packers have announced that Gary, Savage, Keke, Hollman, Williams, and Summers have all signed already.

 

The new signing & slot system is so much better than the old days where rookies were holding out into camp.

[brewcrewdue80]

I didnt assign the players value as to where they were Mocked. I said I did it where they were projected to go. You can have top 10 pick, top 15, late 1st, early second. 2nd/3rd. Ect. Savage was a late 1st/2nd rd projection. I dont have a problem with his selection. Gary was a first rd projection not top 10. When #12 arrived i pointed out 3 other similar players were still on the board. It gave the opportunity to trading down and still get one of those types or your next BPA. When I made the values it is based on their projection. Again the PRO-JECT-ION. Not where I seen them mocked. And I asked to 0 reply where the Packers got Value from any of the picks? It was a lost opportunity when moving down from 12 didnt happen, while having full knowledge they were going to move up to take Savage costing the 2 4ths. Also disagreeing with my assessment on Gary and the saying look look at those COMBINE numbers! But then constant anyone but DK Metcalf because he was a combine results player. Or if Im remembering incorrectly another WR that had combine impressive helium but not what you wanted to draft at 12. You realize that is your hype right? Gary's combine results. The word that he was double or triple teamed for lack of numbers and production. Now he's going to be playing a different position it sounds. So he has to learn that position and yet scored a 9 on the wonderlic. A test making correct answers under timed pressure. What good is all that combine talent if he attacks the wrong gap? Falls hard for play action with the new Hockenson/Fant TEs to go against in the division? I made an opinion. The responses could have just disagreed as I am towards the positive opinions on the draft. But chose instead to attack, denounce, question my sanity in the opinion I made. Go back and find when I did any of that? Prior to the response on Hitights comment.

[Jenkins5]

As an educator who has taught both general & special education the test score does not bother me at all. It is a paper test. I can tell you for a fact (100% legitimate fact) dyslexia & timed test don’t go hand in hand. 50 questions in 12 minutes when it takes longer to read questions is no easy task. Skimming like a traditional test taker would use is not a real strong options. Students and people with dyslexia are not dumb, they just excel in other ways. Some can be brilliant minds, & strong hands on & visual learners. Kid never had less than 3.0 in high school or college & was academic all-American twice. He works hard at learning which is most important aspect for anyone with a learning disability. So unless Packers are giving him a textbook (not with visual plays but simply text explaining plays) & timed quizzes.... he should be fine. He doesn’t talk like some dummy who can’t read. He is pretty intellectual kid. Reading just takes more time & strategies to get through & excel at.

 

Gary was projected from start of season until March consensus top 10 pick & very high amount still had him a top 10 pick around draft time. Packers clearly liked him & Bush a lot when Gutey decided to go to Michigan pro day over absolutely loaded Clemson pro day.

 

I don’t think he was a reach at all at 12 or drafted over value. Will he be a star? I don’t know but at worse I see him as a solid player who helps this defense. Freak athletes with great work ethics tend to do well. If he was lazy, egotistical, and hot & cold motor I’d be more worried.

[areacodes]

I didnt assign the players value as to where they were Mocked. I said I did it where they were projected to go. You can have top 10 pick, top 15, late 1st, early second. 2nd/3rd. Ect. Savage was a late 1st/2nd rd projection. I dont have a problem with his selection. Gary was a first rd projection not top 10. When #12 arrived i pointed out 3 other similar players were still on the board. It gave the opportunity to trading down and still get one of those types or your next BPA. When I made the values it is based on their projection. Again the PRO-JECT-ION. Not where I seen them mocked. And I asked to 0 reply where the Packers got Value from any of the picks? It was a lost opportunity when moving down from 12 didnt happen, while having full knowledge they were going to move up to take Savage costing the 2 4ths. Also disagreeing with my assessment on Gary and the saying look look at those COMBINE numbers! But then constant anyone but DK Metcalf because he was a combine results player. Or if Im remembering incorrectly another WR that had combine impressive helium but not what you wanted to draft at 12. You realize that is your hype right? Gary's combine results. The word that he was double or triple teamed for lack of numbers and production. Now he's going to be playing a different position it sounds. So he has to learn that position and yet scored a 9 on the wonderlic. A test making correct answers under timed pressure. What good is all that combine talent if he attacks the wrong gap? Falls hard for play action with the new Hockenson/Fant TEs to go against in the division? I made an opinion. The responses could have just disagreed as I am towards the positive opinions on the draft. But chose instead to attack, denounce, question my sanity in the opinion I made. Go back and find when I did any of that? Prior to the response on Hitights comment.

 

Projections are biased just like mocks. You chose projections for Gary that fit your narrative so you could assign your points and declare the Packers didn’t get enough value in the draft to the point where you said it was equivalent to losing a 2nd or 3rd round pick. You also stated that they could have traded down (without knowing if this was even an option) AND picked the same player or get a player of equal value.

 

There is also no way the Packers had full knowledge they would be trading up to draft Savage when picking at 12. You wonder why people are disagreeing with you because you keep stating things as a fact when you don’t necessarily know anymore than anyone else here on the draft and definitely don’t have more knowledge/information than the Packers on it.

 

If the Packers had Gary as one of the top edge/DL guys and Savage as their top safety on their board, I’d argue they felt like they got great value with those picks. While we’ll never know for sure, there are reports that other teams were interested in both players and they could have been gone when the Packers would have had their next opportunity to get them.

[HiAndTight]

Whats insane is your clear angst towards somebody's thought process and grading their opinion to a team's draft. Holy high horse there man. Hows the view from way up there? Whats worse is your quoted reply wasnt addressed to your post. I didnt say it was over Your head but you certainly got big brother tough and decided you had to use fighting words. Ffs dude take a chill pill. You're argument is I dont know nothing what is going on as if your opinion on Gary comes from the fact you totally do.

 

Stop it. You have repeatedly stated your numbers as FACT and not opinion. You have gone out of your way to stress this while almost everyone else has gone out of THEIR way to stress they have an opinion and you can't know for a fact.

 

That's what makes your last sentence all the more annoying. My argument absolutely is you don't know what is going on...at ALL. None of us did. Only you pretended you did by claiming the selection of Gary at 12 was like losing a 2nd round draft pick because of the value we absolutely-factually gave up because we definitively could have traded down with any number of teams and taken him at that point. That's you guessing while everyone else has said, A-We have absolutely zero clues that is true and no indication it's true and B-The side that hasn't been complaining about the Packers losing this imaginary draft pick or all this imaginary value has been the one that's actually posted mock drafts in which he was mocked to be gone in the top 10. You consistently keep telling us how far he definitely would have fallen without presenting any evidence.

 

So please, look back and re-read if you need to. Only one person is stating what would have hypothetically happened as fact, almost everyone else is saying, "we have no clue what these teams would have done," BUT there is enough anecdotal evidence to dismiss your theory that he absolutely would have been available at 18 as you've suggested as being nothing more than just guessing.

[HiAndTight]

I didnt assign the players value as to where they were Mocked. I said I did it where they were projected to go. You can have top 10 pick, top 15, late 1st, early second. 2nd/3rd. Ect. Savage was a late 1st/2nd rd projection. I dont have a problem with his selection. Gary was a first rd projection not top 10. When #12 arrived i pointed out 3 other similar players were still on the board. It gave the opportunity to trading down and still get one of those types or your next BPA. When I made the values it is based on their projection. Again the PRO-JECT-ION. Not where I seen them mocked. And I asked to 0 reply where the Packers got Value from any of the picks? It was a lost opportunity when moving down from 12 didnt happen, while having full knowledge they were going to move up to take Savage costing the 2 4ths. Also disagreeing with my assessment on Gary and the saying look look at those COMBINE numbers! But then constant anyone but DK Metcalf because he was a combine results player. Or if Im remembering incorrectly another WR that had combine impressive helium but not what you wanted to draft at 12. You realize that is your hype right? Gary's combine results. The word that he was double or triple teamed for lack of numbers and production. Now he's going to be playing a different position it sounds. So he has to learn that position and yet scored a 9 on the wonderlic. A test making correct answers under timed pressure. What good is all that combine talent if he attacks the wrong gap? Falls hard for play action with the new Hockenson/Fant TEs to go against in the division? I made an opinion. The responses could have just disagreed as I am towards the positive opinions on the draft. But chose instead to attack, denounce, question my sanity in the opinion I made. Go back and find when I did any of that? Prior to the response on Hitights comment.

 

What on Earth are you talking about? First of all, what's the difference? Second, where are you getting these "projections" from if not mock drafts and finally, the part in bold, just an absolute lie. They have stated clearly they did not know they were going to do this. Yet you somehow are able to not only speak for them but contradict what they have said?

 

I really don't even understand your point anymore. Now it's not just that he was AS good as several other players, it's that he's too dumb to play OLB'er because of a Wonderlic test...which is just truly, truly ridiculous, or suggesting he'll attack the wrong gap. I find it laughable that you correlate a "test making correct answers under timed pressure" with biting on the play action. You realize he was an extremely productive player vs the run in the Big 10 as an Edge player who moved down inside to play? So what exactly is it that Hockenson and Fant are going to do if he "bites on the play action" that's going to hurt him?

 

Also, what exactly did you previously think a test was? A "test making correct answers under timed pressure." That's just a test and another definition of the worst test. Unless you know of tests that the goal is to "making" the wrong answers.

 

 

Finally, it doesn't matter if when the 12th pick came, YOU pointed out 3 other players with similar value. Again, this is again you conflating opinion with FACT. Just like you did when you stated as a FACT that Gary wasn't "projected" to go in the top 10. By who? He was projected by many as a top 10 pick. Not that it particularly matters as he we didn't have a top 10 pick. He was most certainly "PRO-JEC-TED," to be picked in the top half of the first round. Just because YOU BELIEVE those players had similar values does.....not......mean.....the......professional.....scouts....agreed. Equally important, let us assume what you're saying is in fact true. Why the heck would a team trade up 4 spots then if there were 4 players with equal value? You're arguing both sides of the argument, just without the facts. The only difference is, you're the only one pretending you have the facts while everyone else is fully acknowledging we don't know what would have happened, IF someone would have been willing to trade down(it doesn't sound like it, but the GM isn't going to come out and declare one way or the other right after the draft).

 

So stop complaining that someone attacked your "opinion." What I for one vehemently disagreed with was you presenting your opinion as fact as you did again in this very post.

[LouisEly]

Give it a rest, all of you.

[homer]

You guys take this draft thing seriously.

 

Agree with Lou Ely...knock it off.