Report: Rodgers wants new contract (Update: May not want to return in 2021)

[PeaveyFury]

 

I get not liking a pick or a philosophy, but when they've gone off the path with their selections, they've been right the vast majority of the time. In short, Gute is making a legitimate case that HE IS one of the smartest guys in the room.

 

I'll say sometimes. But it's also the nature of the NFL that a lot of guys flunk out, so there's that too.

 

I specifically meant the picks that were viewed as 'reaches'- Alexander, Jenkins, Gary, Savage were all there, and now all of them are all-pro caliber.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I don't recall Alexander being a reach. Could be wrong on that. Also, didn't we get an extra pick for that?

[xisxisxis]

Eric Stokes is a perfect example of why MOST, (sorry Homer, not some) of the mock draft/player rankings are just crap. He was a 3 star coming out of HS while his teammate (don't know the name) was a 5 star. Stokes ended up blowing by his teammate in performance, learning and improvement (based on GA fans and comments from coaches). Comments from his coaches like "you tell him once and he gets IT" - i.e. very coachable/smart. So of course he'll be ranked above his teammate! Nope. Almost every mock/player ranking had his teammate ranked higher. Did they talk to his coaches? Did they look at the results? Or did they look at the HS rankings and assume that the teammate was the better CB? The Packers looked at Stokes. Gute visited GA and talked to the coaches and looked at the stats and film. Why didn't he take the teammate (was available when they picked Stokes)? A professional football scouting department and player evaluation group with logs more of resources to evaluate college players went with the guy ranked lower by the amateur/couch GMs and draft experts. Imagine that...

[SeaBass]

Context for Deguara. He was taken with the 94th pick of the 3rd round. There were two remaining 3rd round picks after theirs before the ten 3rd round comp picks were selected.

 

The Packers did not have another draft selection until pick 175, the 5th to last pick in the 5th round, two of the four following picks were comp picks.

 

Is it not reasonable that they just didn't think he'd be there by pick 175? Since it's clear they wanted to select him would it have been better to try to put together a trade to move up or just take him where they did? I'm sure they had to be thinking how soon would they need to make such a trade and what would that cost be to ensure they get him, leading them to decide to just make the sure move with pick 94.

 

So again, there's a lot of context behind their "reach". Maybe some would just say you can't always get what you want but they decided to stick with their plan to draft him rather than try to finagle a trade that wasn't guaranteed to get their guy.

[reillymcshane]

It's tough to articulate (as others have pointed out) so many different viewpoints on this, but I'm going to try

 

1) Rodgers 2018/2019 definitely were not up to his standards. I think that some/ a lot of it was McCarthy's stale offense, and 2019 was adjusting to new guy's offense. I also absolutely agree that some of it was age related regression. which ties into ....

 

2) The Packers had every reason to at least think about a succession, and plan on a long term contingency *if* Rodgers decline was age related, and certainly at his age, it wouldn't be shocking

 

3) The Packers had just come off a 13-3 season where they made it to (but got stomped in) the NFC title game. I'm not going to put a percentage on it, but a lot of people said "we're not on the niners level". Gonna get revisionist here, but the niners didn't even make the playoffs in 2020.

 

4) You've got Aaron Rodgers, and you're coming off an NFC title game appearance. Decide if you're all in, or building for the future. Using your first round pick to get a guy who *probably* won't play for 3-4 years is an absolute future move. If you want to play for the Super BOwl in 2020, use that first round pick on something that helps you right now. It doesn't HAVE to be a WR, or even an offensive player, but something that helps you now.

 

Like I said, I don't care if Aaron Rodgers wins another Super Bowl, but I DO care if the Packers do. Using a first round pick on a backup QB who probably won't play, and who isn't going to win games if he does play, when you've got Aaron Rodgers is poor asset allocation. There's people trying to justify the pick who were lambasting it the night it happened. We're all homers to a degree, but this is what I mean when I say we're being revisionist. We are Packer fans, so we wanna take the Packers side. Root for the uniform. The pick sucked. (IMO). If you're gonna roll with Rodgers, go all in, and use your picks to load up. In one way, Gute reminds me of Ted Thompson, in that he (Seems Like) (IMO) he tries to be the Smartest Guy In The Room, reaching for picks and grabbing guys projected way later than when he picks them, trying to show everyone that he knows something that they don't.

 

I love that the Packers have been a perennial contender and almost never have to suffer through the 4-12 or 6-10 seasons, but once in a while I'd like to see them take a deep dive and go ALL IN and say "hell yeah, this is the year" and get the pieces they need instead of spending 6 million dollars on Kevin King.

 

Getting the Smith Bro's was cool! Then spending draft picks on a qb that is training to play in 2024 and a 5th round H-back that we don't need probably wasn't cool.

 

I'm not taking Aaron Rodgers side, I'm taking the side of "lets win a freaking super bowl while the all time great QB is still a Packer".

Nailed it.

 

Picking Love - a guy who wasn't going to play that year - meant using very valuable assets to do so. And it's not like he fell into our lap - like what happened with Rodgers so many years ago. We traded up for the guy. And in doing so, it started the countdown on Rodgers time in GB (not to mention annoy him to no end). If the front office didn't think that would be the case - well they were pretty dumb. You don't pick guys in the 1st round to sit on the bench. And they know what Rodgers is like. But then, maybe they didn't care about any of those things. Maybe they were so convinced Rodgers was in a steep decline they needed to make the move. If so, great. But in doing so, we have a couple of less players on the roster that could really have helped us last year - and in the next few years. Personally, I would rather have added the more immediate asset, and addressed QB down the road.

 

As for Gute, I think he often focuses on specific players instead of best available - and thus has tended to reach for some guys. Not every pick. But some. I think Deguara was a reach. I say, let other teams reach - and we scoop up the value that fall to us. Trouble is, you have to be willing to lose players you really like. That's discipline.

 

Yeah, I get it. A lot of mock drafts are worthless and compiled by a bunch of idiots or wannabes - but some of them are not.

 

In the end, the front office has done pretty well with their selections. Like with all teams, there are some hits and misses.

 

The biggest thing is that the picks have happened. Can't take them back. We can look at them as time goes and assign a different grade to the picks. That's whey we'll be able to make better judgements.

[PeaveyFury]

That's discipline.

 

Again I'll ask, as I have yet to receive a response on this- how has their philosophy proven unsuccessful to this point?

 

It seems that the vast majority of complaints are because people personally disagree with the strategy, mainly because they take guys that the fans don't have on their own radars, despite the fact that it has worked thus far. The players they've targeted have become exceptional players.

 

You may call it lack of discipline, I call it proper identification of talented players.

 

After all, if you weren't targeting a specific player, why would anyone trade up in the draft?

[Fear The Chorizo]

I say, let other teams reach - and we scoop up the value that fall to us.

 

I say, once you get into round 3 there's no such thing as a reach in the NFL draft unless teams are picking players who were projected UDFAs in round 3-4. Round 3 is typically the point where teams' draft boards are all widely different because of both who's already been picked and what positional needs each team values the most in terms of filling remaining roster holes. So to look at where collective predraft mocks had players positioned in the mid-late rounds of where they are going in reality just doesn't carry much value, IMO. That's more using hypothetical mock draft ratings as ammo to either state a GM is smarter than everyone or terrible at ID-ing personnel depending on individual opinions of them, when the reality is whether most of those mid-round picks become good NFL players or flame out of the league before they get started depends entirely on those players individually and luck with injuries/system fits through any coaching changes early in their careers.

 

Pointed out a bit earlier, but after the Packers' round 3 pick in 2020 they had to wait 81 more choices until their next draft pick - if they valued Deguara but also didn't want to blow through more draft capital by trying to work a trade back into round 4 to try and grab him, why not just use that round 3 pick as they did and then see how round 4 unfolds to sort out if there are other players they covet falling to a point where they could jump in via trade and take them?

[SeaBass]

Yeah, I get it. A lot of mock drafts are worthless and compiled by a bunch of idiots or wannabes - but some of them are not.

Respectfully, because this is more about how people perceive what a reach is rather than about your personal opinion on how the Packers conducted their draft which I don't think anyone is actually arguing against you or anyone being entitled to.

 

In general, referencing consensus mock drafts seems flawed without a success rate attached to it. Someone mentioned a crowd consensus as being a better gauge and on its own there's logic to that statement, but what if out of 100 sources for mock drafts 25 are from respected and reputable sources that have a history of a certain percentage of accuracy. The other 75 have lesser and varied levels of accuracy. Are the consensus mocks using only the 25 quality sources or are the other 75 mixed in as well? Are there a certain percentage of lesser mocks that just read the top 25 and plagiarize them changing just enough to claim originality to generate clicks and ad revenue?

 

There are just so many variables involved that it almost feels like folly to actually hold mock drafts up to such a standard that they are believed over the scouting capabilities of actual NFL franchises with a staff of professional scouts. Even with the most accurate independent mocks I just can't imagine they have some extraordinary high rate of accuracy in the later rounds that they should be taken as gospel over the opinions of the team's own scouts.

 

I think most people just say, "the mocks say this is where this player should be drafted so it must be true", that just doesn't feel reasonable to me without citing which mock you're using to form your opinion and their accuracy rate for that draft.

[homer]

Eric Stokes is a perfect example of why MOST, (sorry Homer, not some) of the mock draft/player rankings are just crap. He was a 3 star coming out of HS while his teammate (don't know the name) was a 5 star. Stokes ended up blowing by his teammate in performance, learning and improvement (based on GA fans and comments from coaches). Comments from his coaches like "you tell him once and he gets IT" - i.e. very coachable/smart. So of course he'll be ranked above his teammate! Nope. Almost every mock/player ranking had his teammate ranked higher. Did they talk to his coaches? Did they look at the results? Or did they look at the HS rankings and assume that the teammate was the better CB? The Packers looked at Stokes. Gute visited GA and talked to the coaches and looked at the stats and film. Why didn't he take the teammate (was available when they picked Stokes)? A professional football scouting department and player evaluation group with logs more of resources to evaluate college players went with the guy ranked lower by the amateur/couch GMs and draft experts. Imagine that...

 

They were pretty close in the aggregate. Stokes had an ADP of 47 and Campbell was 40. So there were for sure a lot of people in the 600+ mocks that had Stokes rated higher.

[reillymcshane]

That's discipline.

 

Again I'll ask, as I have yet to receive a response on this- how has their philosophy proven unsuccessful to this point?

 

It seems that the vast majority of complaints are because people personally disagree with the strategy, mainly because they take guys that the fans don't have on their own radars, despite the fact that it has worked thus far. The players they've targeted have become exceptional players.

 

You may call it lack of discipline, I call it proper identification of talented players.

 

After all, if you weren't targeting a specific player, why would anyone trade up in the draft?

 

Identifying the players your want - and then paying a premium to get them - can be - but not always is - a reach. Picking a guy in the 2nd (Dillon) you very well could have gotten in the 3rd, or picking a guy in the 3rd (Deguara) that you very well could have gotten in the 4th (assuming we actually had a 4th) - are examples of what I felt were reaches.

 

Both guys may be great - but the point is the team likely overpaid for them at the time. Yes, you like the guy. Yes, you want them. But there's a good chance you spent extra capital to get them.

 

Let's say we never had to move up to acquire Love - and thus saved our 4th round pick. What if we had done this:

 

1st - Love or whomever

2nd - ?

3rd - Dillon

4th - Deguara

 

We just added a 2nd round pick by not reaching. Of course, maybe someone picks those guys ahead of us. So be it. Then you get other players. By not fixating on a specific player, you gain and additional, quality asset.

 

I have to stress, however, that making 'reach' picks isn't the worst thing in the world. I'm not saying this happens with every player and the team is failing because of it. And there are often good reasons. It's just an observation that some people have made.

 

And let's remember, this is in context of the time of the draft. The criteria for rating a draft the day it's done, and then again in five years, is very different. For a draft, I look at the value assigned to a player, and compare it to what we actually spent to get the guy. And you have to add in factors such as need, injury history of a player, fit with system, scarcity of a position, and other factors. And we should note that making trades to deal up or down isn't as easy as it seems. It takes two to tango.

 

And super important: as people point out - we don't know the boards of the Packers or any team. Maybe we had Deguara ranked as the 70th best player in the draft. And other teams did as well. If that's the case, so be it. Make your pick. It's why I try not to dwell on the picks. There are so many variables out there - I have my feelings about them, but then just have to shrug and move on. They are our guys - let's hope they are all great. That's what I want.

 

Also, Gute has had only four drafts thus far - and how good those drafts all end up being is still up in the air. Obviously, we can't say anything about this year's draft. There have been some great picks, and some bad ones, and some still to be decided. That's the nature of the draft, however.

 

I really want to stress that there are different philosophies regarding drafting. It makes us all approach things a little differently. It's not right or wrong - just different. I simply have felt we have spent more capital - at times - than needed to get the guys we want. But again, that's based on the information I have.

[CheezWizHed]

1st - Love or whomever

2nd - ?

3rd - Dillon

4th - Deguara

 

[sarcasm]But what if we simply drafted all three of those guys with our 5th, 6th, and 7th round picks? Then we gained additional 1st-4th round picks![/sarcasm]

 

No one knows how it would roll out if we didn't trade up. Certainly not us arm-chair GMs (as fun as it is). Saying someone is a reach is a complete guess because there are only 32 people actually picking (for real)... and even they will miss at times. Remember that Tony Mandarich wasn't a reach...

 

Best we can do is see how the players picked play out and see if they did it right a few years down the road.

[PeaveyFury]

Picking a guy in the 2nd (Dillon) you very well could have gotten in the 3rd, or picking a guy in the 3rd (Deguara) that you very well could have gotten in the 4th (assuming we actually had a 4th) - are examples of what I felt were reaches.

 

As you do acknowledge later in your post, this does require the believe that us as fans, know other teams' boards well enough (and by extension, better than the Packers) to know that they would indeed be there in the round you as a fan thought they should go in. That's extraordinarily challenging to accept.

 

By not fixating on a specific player, you gain and additional, quality asset.

 

Again, you are basically making the argument that no team should trade up for a specific player.

[reillymcshane]

By not fixating on a specific player, you gain and additional, quality asset.

 

Again, you are basically making the argument that no team should trade up for a specific player.

No I'm not. I've NEVER said that. NEVER.

 

If the player you want has value at a spot then make the move. Up or down.

 

Again, if the player has value at that slot - whatever it is - then you do it. Especially as you factor in positional need, system fit, that sort of thing.

[reillymcshane]

As you do acknowledge later in your post, this does require the believe that us as fans, know other teams' boards well enough (and by extension, better than the Packers) to know that they would indeed be there in the round you as a fan thought they should go in. That's extraordinarily challenging to accept.

What?I I'm not trying to say anything like this. That's impossible for us (probably anyone) - so why would I be so stupid as to assume it.

 

The acknowledgement is that we go on the information we have available. That's all. Some people are comfortable with that to make an assessment, some aren't. Acknowledging the caveats of the situation just seems like an honest thing to do.

[PeaveyFury]

If the player you want has value at a spot then make the move. Up or down.

 

Again, if the player has value at that slot - whatever it is - then you do it. Especially as you factor in positional need, system fit, that sort of thing.

 

But again, who is determining that value? The Packers felt that those players had value at those slots. It's fans using online mock drafts that feel they didn't.

[reillymcshane]

1st - Love or whomever

2nd - ?

3rd - Dillon

4th - Deguara

 

[sarcasm]But what if we simply drafted all three of those guys with our 5th, 6th, and 7th round picks? Then we gained additional 1st-4th round picks![/sarcasm]

 

No one knows how it would roll out if we didn't trade up. Certainly not us arm-chair GMs (as fun as it is). Saying someone is a reach is a complete guess because there are only 32 people actually picking (for real)... and even they will miss at times. Remember that Tony Mandarich wasn't a reach...

 

Best we can do is see how the players picked play out and see if they did it right a few years down the road.

 

As I said, saying someone is a reach or not is not a complete guess. It's an educated guess based on information available. Again, the context of reach as I'm talking about is the spot they were taken as of draft day - not down the road. I say that pretty clearly.

 

If Dillon goes on to be an all pro, yet it is demonstrated that no one would have picked him before us in the 3rd round (not that we can ever prove or disprove that) - it still means it was a reach - even if he's great. And that's because we could have used our draft capital more wisely. It's not about whether he was a 'good' or 'bad' pick.

 

And yes, I remember Tony Mandarich.

[PeaveyFury]

As you do acknowledge later in your post, this does require the believe that us as fans, know other teams' boards well enough (and by extension, better than the Packers) to know that they would indeed be there in the round you as a fan thought they should go in. That's extraordinarily challenging to accept.

What?I I'm not trying to say anything like this. That's impossible for us (probably anyone) - so why would I be so stupid as to assume it.

 

Then what is the premise of your last few posts? If it's impossible for us to know what a players' perceived value is both with the Packers and the league, how is it fair to claim that they didn't get good value for the players they took when they took them?

[reillymcshane]

As you do acknowledge later in your post, this does require the believe that us as fans, know other teams' boards well enough (and by extension, better than the Packers) to know that they would indeed be there in the round you as a fan thought they should go in. That's extraordinarily challenging to accept.

What?I I'm not trying to say anything like this. That's impossible for us (probably anyone) - so why would I be so stupid as to assume it.

 

Then what is the premise of your last few posts? If it's impossible for us to know what a players' perceived value is both with the Packers and the league, how is it fair to claim that they didn't get good value for the players they took when they took them?

As I said, it's based upon the information available. It's not perfect. I have said that. It's an educated guess on my part.

[homer]

There's the Jimmy Johnson trade value chart. So someone is calculating value.

[PeaveyFury]

There's the Jimmy Johnson trade value chart. So someone is calculating value.

 

Yes, for trade values, but not for drafted players by draft position.

 

I don’t recall situations where the Packers traded picks and the return was light based on the value charts.

[brewcrewdue80]

Anyone who doesnt believe Deguara was a reach can just stop commenting on the draft selections. In what world are we in where GB needed a HB/FB/TE hybrid at the moment of the 3rd round pick? They drafted Jace Sternburger the season before in 3rd round who yes is a TE but fit this mold with Deguara. On top of they just drafted Dillon a RB in 2nd rd? Can anyone here name a similar player type that Deguara is supposedly filling who's an NFL All-Pro/HoF?

 

We picked Martin in the 5th rd where it looks a run of some good quality LBs were taken immediately following Deguara. As well as a couple good producing Offensive Tackles. Deguara is just a system player for MLF's offensive scheme. He's 6'2" small stature for a TE that make a big impact in the NFL. Huge Reach when you at that moment had 3TEs and 3RBs to select somebody who likely doesn't catch more than 40 passes ever in a season. He likely doesnt even take 70pct or higher snaps in games without RBs being injured. A good selected LB or O-Line will out-produce what at best you get from Deguara's position with it not even being their best.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Anyone who doesnt believe Deguara was a reach can just stop commenting on the draft selections. .

 

Don't argue your point like this.

[SeaBass]

Anyone who doesnt believe Deguara was a reach can just stop commenting on the draft selections. In what world are we in where GB needed a HB/FB/TE hybrid at the moment of the 3rd round pick? They drafted Jace Sternburger the season before in 3rd round who yes is a TE but fit this mold with Deguara. On top of they just drafted Dillon a RB in 2nd rd? Can anyone here name a similar player type that Deguara is supposedly filling who's an NFL All-Pro/HoF?

I think what you're actually saying is that picking Deguara was redundant and unnecessary because none of the rest of what you said backed up your opening statement that it was a reach.

[PeaveyFury]

Anyone who doesnt believe Deguara was a reach can just stop commenting on the draft selections.

 

......

 

I'm getting a feeling like with Pitts., Denver's pick was the Packers to be pick and we panicked and picked the next guy while not finding a trade to move down. Which would explain the aggressive move up in the 1st because the frustration of losing their guy.

 

Considering this was written about Elgton Jenkins, perhaps no one's draft evaluation skills as a fan are perfect.

[CheezWizHed]

I'm getting a feeling like with Pitts., Denver's pick was the Packers to be pick and we panicked and picked the next guy while not finding a trade to move down. Which would explain the aggressive move up in the 1st because the frustration of losing their guy.

 

Considering this was written about Elgton Jenkins, perhaps no one's draft evaluation skills as a fan are perfect.

 

[sarcasm]But, but, but... what if we could've dropped down 3 spots and still gotten Jenkins? We reached![/sarcasm]

 

Sorry, but this whole discussion on reaching has gotten a bit silly. We are trying to judge GM's drafting by internet mock drafts by people that couldn't get hired to actually draft players. Even if someone is "one round too early" if that person is the best player drafted until our next pick, we made the right pick.

 

People complain about the Packers trading down and not picking TJ Watt then complain about the Packers picking the player they want too soon. If they are good at drafting players... it means they are drafting them at the right spots. If they are missing on players, then that is when we should be complaining about their drafting.

 

[sarcasm]Of course, I just watched the first show of Loki, so maybe they can help us fix the sacred timeline and go back and draft Degura a round lower.[/sarcasm]