Packers 2022 NFL Draft Discussion

[NBBrewFan]

I don't really care what the "grades" are for the Packers draft as for most "reviewers" it's just a rehash of why or why not a team followed their prospect board, but this one really makes me smile:

Conor Orr, Sports Illustrated: A grade

I’ll use this space to continue my rant from Thursday. It befuddles me that we depict Aaron Rodgers as this Wizard of Oz-ian character sitting behind the curtain bellowing about the team’s lack of wide receiver talent. Rodgers has been incredibly blessed throughout his career to work with a bevy of talented wideouts supplied to him by the Packers’ front office. Their process has expertly identified high-upside players in the second round and beyond. So when Green Bay took their Davante Adams haul and used it toward patching up the defense, why would he be upset? Wyatt is going to add a fascinating upfield interior pressure component to the Packers defense. A true run disruptor, he’ll help Green Bay become less reliant on their exceptional linebacker play. And, lo and behold, they still end up with Watson, who, in the FCS, looked a little like the 6’ 5” kid on the 9-year-old AAU team, completely dominant in an effortless sort of way. The Packers have succeeded with this big-bodied receiver profile before.

[patrickgpe]

I enjoyed reading the far range of opinions on the packers draft, mostly based on not following the bloggers draft board or not filling perceived needs. I think they did OK and they addressed areas that needed to be addressed. Do i wish they would have taken a CB and a TE, yes. You only get so many picks though. 

 

[reillymcshane]

Regarding grades, an exec responded to some praise his team got in the draft. He just shrugged it off - saying something like, "You still have to make them play" or something like that. And then he noted how back in 2012 - when he was with Seattle - they got a 'D' grade by one prominent publication. That was the draft that netted them Bruce Irvin, Russell Wilson and Bobby Wagner. 

Don't get me wrong - I want to feel like we've done well. I want to feel like our execs know what they are doing. But in the end, we gotta get these guys to play - and no draft grade is going to change that.

I also don't think it's a ridiculous thing to do. A team should always be assessing their situation. But you just have to understand where you are in the process. 

[homer]

Bear down!

 

[NBBrewFan]

26 minutes ago, homer said:

Bear down!

 

He corrected it to FOURTH-worst.  So Bear nation is now celebrating!

FWIW, they need to keep Justin Fields off his behind and every one of their 2 OL picks were ranked worse than every one of the Packers 3 OL picks. So I guess they drafted to lose 30-10 instead of 37-10. Three more drafts and they might be able to get to a 0.500 record then start again with a new QB.  D'Oh Bears.

[nate82]

34 minutes ago, homer said:

Bear down!

 

That is his fantasy football rankings. 

15 minutes ago, NBBrewFan said:

He corrected it to FOURTH-worst.  So Bear nation is now celebrating!

FWIW, they need to keep Justin Fields off his behind and every one of their 2 OL picks were ranked worse than every one of the Packers 3 OL picks. So I guess they drafted to lose 30-10 instead of 37-10. Three more drafts and they might be able to get to a 0.500 record then start again with a new QB.  D'Oh Bears.

The guys that the Bears drafted fit with their scheme for OL.  I don't believe any of the players the Packers picked would have been a fit for the Bears in their scheme.  Again this is where draft grades are not really all that relevant.  Teams are going to pick players based on how they fit and not based on a grade or ranking from random people.  

[NBBrewFan]

22 minutes ago, nate82 said:

That is his fantasy football rankings. 

You mean for scoring categories like TD, REC and YARDS? 

22 minutes ago, nate82 said:

The guys that the Bears drafted fit with their scheme for OL.  I don't believe any of the players the Packers picked would have been a fit for the Bears in their scheme.  Again this is where draft grades are not really all that relevant.  Teams are going to pick players based on how they fit and not based on a grade or ranking from random people.  

Are you a random person?  Are you basing your evaluation on a fit to a "scheme", which in many ways is much more arbitrary than a consensus player ranking (not just some random 1 person).  I may be more negative about "scheme" as I immediately get the vision of Mike Pettine and his inability to adjust his scheme to the players he's got or the situation he's in. The only scheme Pettine has is the one where he gets teams to think he's a defensive coordinator. Back to random opinions, sure rankings have their inherent issues, but they are at least a starting point and the bottom line is that we won't know for a few years whether the Cubs, eh Bears, picked the right guys.  I believe both of those players are developmental and Fields might be in a body cast before they can prevent him from getting crushed. I'm also a firm believer in building your DL and OL lines then work out from their and throwing your 2 top picks at DBs while ignoring the talent at DL and OL well that's not going to grade well from this random person.

[nate82]

37 minutes ago, NBBrewFan said:

You mean for scoring categories like TD, REC and YARDS? 

Are you a random person?  Are you basing your evaluation on a fit to a "scheme", which in many ways is much more arbitrary than a consensus player ranking (not just some random 1 person).  I may be more negative about "scheme" as I immediately get the vision of Mike Pettine and his inability to adjust his scheme to the players he's got or the situation he's in. The only scheme Pettine has is the one where he gets teams to think he's a defensive coordinator. Back to random opinions, sure rankings have their inherent issues, but they are at least a starting point and the bottom line is that we won't know for a few years whether the Cubs, eh Bears, picked the right guys.  I believe both of those players are developmental and Fields might be in a body cast before they can prevent him from getting crushed. I'm also a firm believer in building your DL and OL lines then work out from their and throwing your 2 top picks at DBs while ignoring the talent at DL and OL well that's not going to grade well from this random person.

Majority of rookies don't really impact fantasy football all that much unless you have a really deep league.  

The Bears did address the DL with Dominique Robinson who according to some was a 3rd round pick value (picked in the 5th round).

The Bears also needed to fix their secondary as they really don't have anyone to play CB in the slot and they needed another safety.  Both of the picks the Bears took in the 2nd round should be starting on defense.  I think they did good there value wise and the Bears had both of those players higher on their board than the players who were available to be picked.  

The 3rd round selection is a head scratcher there I will give you that.  Though he does provide a lot of speed but route running is not the greatest from this player.  I would have went with Tolbert at that pick but the Bears had Jones valued higher.  Jones I am actually excited to see but he probably won't start in his first or second season.  Thomas on the other hand should start in his rookie season.  He is a completely scheme pick in the 6th round.  He is a good run blocker but needs to work on his pass blocking but he fits in perfectly in the zone-blocking scheme the Bears use.  

The only pick I really question is the 3rd round pick and the Trestan Ebner pick in the 6th round.  I am assuming they are trying to replace Cohen with that pick there.  I think they could have gotten better value by picking another DL or WR with that pick.  

[NBBrewFan]

5 hours ago, nate82 said:

Majority of rookies don't really impact fantasy football all that much unless you have a really deep league.  

The Bears did address the DL with Dominique Robinson who according to some was a 3rd round pick value (picked in the 5th round).

The Bears also needed to fix their secondary as they really don't have anyone to play CB in the slot and they needed another safety.  Both of the picks the Bears took in the 2nd round should be starting on defense.  I think they did good there value wise and the Bears had both of those players higher on their board than the players who were available to be picked.  

The 3rd round selection is a head scratcher there I will give you that.  Though he does provide a lot of speed but route running is not the greatest from this player.  I would have went with Tolbert at that pick but the Bears had Jones valued higher.  Jones I am actually excited to see but he probably won't start in his first or second season.  Thomas on the other hand should start in his rookie season.  He is a completely scheme pick in the 6th round.  He is a good run blocker but needs to work on his pass blocking but he fits in perfectly in the zone-blocking scheme the Bears use.  

The only pick I really question is the 3rd round pick and the Trestan Ebner pick in the 6th round.  I am assuming they are trying to replace Cohen with that pick there.  I think they could have gotten better value by picking another DL or WR with that pick.  

Good points Nate.  While I don't really dislike the Bears draft (like the Patriots or Commanders), I do think the Bears had the worst draft of the other 3 NFC North teams (I can't be impartial on the Packers). The Vikings could very well be the worst if either Williams or Watson become studs, but we have at least a year or 2 to get a sense if that's the case. And not having Matt Nagy as the coach could be worth a win or two.

[nate82]

There is an Athletic article that disagrees with this and puts the Bears draft at 24th and the Packers at 27th (worst in the NFC North).

 

https://theathletic.com/3288166/2022/05/02/nfl-draft-rankings-classes-all-32/?source=user_shared_article

[LouisEly]

On 5/1/2022 at 9:10 PM, reillymcshane said:

Regarding grades, an exec responded to some praise his team got in the draft. He just shrugged it off - saying something like, "You still have to make them play" or something like that. And then he noted how back in 2012 - when he was with Seattle - they got a 'D' grade by one prominent publication. That was the draft that netted them Bruce Irvin, Russell Wilson and Bobby Wagner. 

Don't get me wrong - I want to feel like we've done well. I want to feel like our execs know what they are doing. But in the end, we gotta get these guys to play - and no draft grade is going to change that.

That's exactly it - you can't predict injuries, and you (for the most part) can't predict what guys are going to do when they get a little money in their pocket.  However, I think the tea leaves were starting to read what George Pickens is going to do with a little bit of money in his pocket and thus one reason why the Packers moved up to get Watson.

(They also spent a 7th round pick that year on a DT they converted to a 104-game starter at offensive guard who has a higher career wAV than Irvin.)

[nate82]

35 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

That's exactly it - you can't predict injuries, and you (for the most part) can't predict what guys are going to do when they get a little money in their pocket.  However, I think the tea leaves were starting to read what George Pickens is going to do with a little bit of money in his pocket and thus one reason why the Packers moved up to get Watson.

(They also spent a 7th round pick that year on a DT they converted to a 104-game starter at offensive guard who has a higher career wAV than Irvin.)

Also drafting a player who doesn't fit into a 3-4 defense or your blocking scheme is just a recipe for disaster.  The players you draft have to fit into what you are trying to do as a team.  If they don't fit then it is just a wasted pick.  There maybe players who are available at the same time you are drafting someone who is better than you are drafting but they don't fit into the team.  There are some players that it just doesn't matter and their athletic ability can overcome the scheme the team is using but those players are normally 1st round selections not 3rd, 4th or 5th round selections.

Take Tarik Cohen for example a perfect fit for an offense like Andy Reed's.  He is a RB who can run a little bit but is better out of the backfield catching.  If you have a run first offense a talent like that would be wasted on that team especially if you are not throwing to your RB's and you want them to block.  The offensive threat of the RB is now just there as a PR or KR and the occasional breakout run plays.  

Players have to fit into the system or scheme that the team is running.  If they don't then that is a wasted pick especially late in the rounds where you are picking players specifically to fit into your teams system or scheme.  Any player after the 3rd round are basically system or scheme players unless someone drops that would have been available in the 2nd or 3rd round.

[homer]

Packers cumulative draft GPA was 3.02

 

 

[CheezWizHed]

So, it seems that we drafted Zach Tom to replace Lucas Patrick.  As if having two first names were necessary. 

The last time we drafted a DL and LB in the first round, it worked out pretty well for us.  Matthews and Raji were pretty helpful in winning the SB. 

[NBBrewFan]

10 hours ago, homer said:

Packers cumulative draft GPA was 3.02

 

 

Thanks, I saw that last night and was going to post it.  So the Packers are pretty much right in the middle of the "pack" (above average).  What's that team sitting at 29th out of 32? Still a summary of opinion, but where there's smoke there's fire.

[NBBrewFan]

13 hours ago, nate82 said:

There is an Athletic article that disagrees with this and puts the Bears draft at 24th and the Packers at 27th (worst in the NFC North).

 

https://theathletic.com/3288166/2022/05/02/nfl-draft-rankings-classes-all-32/?source=user_shared_article

I like Dan Brugler's draft manual ("The Beast") and like his analysis.  What this tells you is how much emotion plays into these grades, because by his own rankings the Packers drafted 5 of the top 100.  That's 5% compared to an expected of about 3%.  Looking at it another way, as they had 5 picks in the top 100 and they picked 5 players in the top 100 then they got exactly what they should have.  So how does that get you a 27th out of 32 ranking? On top of that they often drafted players later than Brugler predicted.  The very fact they picked Rasheed Walker in the 7th with a Brugler 3rd/4th round projection and Enagbare in the 5th with a 2nd/3rd projection (using his own draft info) were fantastic value. Brugler's writeup of both is very positive. It doesn't compute by the numbers and he is clearly downgrading the draft because he didn't like the trade, but you can still not like the trade and realize the Packers got exactly what they should have or better.  The average of 18 writers puts the Packers at 15 out of 32.  I think that's about right for a media that consistently hates the Packers drafts yet somehow the team keeps adding talent (all-Pro in several instances) year after year.

[madbad2000]

27 minutes ago, NBBrewFan said:

Thanks, I saw that last night and was going to post it.  So the Packers are pretty much right in the middle of the "pack" (above average).  What's that team sitting at 29th out of 32? Still a summary of opinion, but where there's smoke there's fire.

Not really, because these national writers don't take into account scheme fit in their own evaluations as we talked about before.  What drives a good post draft grade?  In general having high picks and multiple picks gets you good ratings and less picks get you a lower one.  I honestly don't care one bit about what a writer thinks about a teams draft.  It is not really indicative of anything of merit.  Scheme fit is one of the most important aspects of a players success.  Very few players are so talented that they can rise above a bad fit.  I like what a lot of these teams did in the draft and you can't argue any team got worse, which should be obvious.  The Bears did a lot to improve their team with scheme fits.  So did the Lions, Vikings, Rams, Patriots, etc.  It's one step in the process and now we get into actual scheme, coaching, training, and playing of games to determine how "well" a team did.

[NBBrewFan]

8 minutes ago, madbad2000 said:

The Bears did a lot to improve their team with scheme fits.  So did the Lions, Vikings, Rams, Patriots, etc.  It's one step in the process and now we get into actual scheme, coaching, training, and playing of games to determine how "well" a team did.

So if I give you a shopping cart and 30 seconds to fill it with anything in a grocery store and you can take it home for free are you going to run to the bottled water section and fill it with the 2 gallon jugs they run through a RO/deionizer or are you going to run to the meat department and fill it with steaks or seafood? Sure, every team got better from the draft because they added something for free, but there are plenty of ways to evaluate how a team did with the capital they had. 

[madbad2000]

40 minutes ago, NBBrewFan said:

So if I give you a shopping cart and 30 seconds to fill it with anything in a grocery store and you can take it home for free are you going to run to the bottled water section and fill it with the 2 gallon jugs they run through a RO/deionizer or are you going to run to the meat department and fill it with steaks or seafood? Sure, every team got better from the draft because they added something for free, but there are plenty of ways to evaluate how a team did with the capital they had. 

It depends on what I need.  You can run to the meat section, load up on prime rib and end up with a lot of "value."  But if you don't know how to cook or have some type of way to cook it then is it really value?  The only ones who can judge need is that organization.  And if a national writer has no idea of what I have in my kitchen/pantry and what I can do in the kitchen does it matter what they rate my cart load?  It is even more fruitless when you have a new GM, HC and offensive/defensive scheme and you have no idea who is on that roster, what that scheme is going to be (zero tape) and how these players fit with those schemes.

The whole point is that the evaluation by writers is irrelevant.  It is literally a clickbait/viewership tool to stay relevant during non-activities of the offseason.  If you want to put stock in the Beast or what the Sporting News says about the Packers, Cardinals, Jags...have fun with that and live your best life.

[areacodes]

2 hours ago, madbad2000 said:

It depends on what I need.  You can run to the meat section, load up on prime rib and end up with a lot of "value."  But if you don't know how to cook or have some type of way to cook it then is it really value?  The only ones who can judge need is that organization.  And if a national writer has no idea of what I have in my kitchen/pantry and what I can do in the kitchen does it matter what they rate my cart load?  It is even more fruitless when you have a new GM, HC and offensive/defensive scheme and you have no idea who is on that roster, what that scheme is going to be (zero tape) and how these players fit with those schemes.

The whole point is that the evaluation by writers is irrelevant.  It is literally a clickbait/viewership tool to stay relevant during non-activities of the offseason.  If you want to put stock in the Beast or what the Sporting News says about the Packers, Cardinals, Jags...have fun with that and live your best life.

So, how do you know the Bears (or Vikings, etc) had a good draft when it comes to players that will fit their scheme?

[madbad2000]

6 hours ago, areacodes said:

So, how do you know the Bears (or Vikings, etc) had a good draft when it comes to players that will fit their scheme?

I don't, which is why I haven't put out a deceptive draft grade clickbait article I wrote in 5 minutes with generic buzzwords and maybe a hot take or two.  Now I can believe they did because that is what the actual GM, coaches and scouts are saying.  At the end of the day, every team added talented players to their mix of personnel that will shake out once the pads come on in camp and games. Why do you care if any team has a good or bad draft grade?

[areacodes]

54 minutes ago, madbad2000 said:

I don't, which is why I haven't put out a deceptive draft grade clickbait article I wrote in 5 minutes with generic buzzwords and maybe a hot take or two.  Now I can believe they did because that is what the actual GM, coaches and scouts are saying.  At the end of the day, every team added talented players to their mix of personnel that will shake out once the pads come on in camp and games. Why do you care if any team has a good or bad draft grade?

I don’t care if teams have good or bad draft grades.  I’ll read some of them to get additional opinions of the draft but I’m happy with who the Packers picked and feel like they got some good players at positions of need - won’t know if it was a good draft for a few years. 

I hope the Vikings, Bears, Lions and every other team in the NFL all have terrible drafts as I want the Packers to be better but I’m not going to pretend to know much about how those players will fit in schematically for other teams.

My question to you came about because of your statement “The Bears did a lot to improve their team with scheme fits.  So did the Lions, Vikings, Rams, Patriots, etc.” that was then followed up with this statement “It is even more fruitless when you have a new GM, HC and offensive/defensive scheme and you have no idea who is on that roster, what that scheme is going to be (zero tape) and how these players fit with those schemes.”

[CheeseheadInQC]

12 hours ago, madbad2000 said:

It depends on what I need.  You can run to the meat section, load up on prime rib and end up with a lot of "value."  But if you don't know how to cook or have some type of way to cook it then is it really value?  The only ones who can judge need is that organization.  And if a national writer has no idea of what I have in my kitchen/pantry and what I can do in the kitchen does it matter what they rate my cart load?  It is even more fruitless when you have a new GM, HC and offensive/defensive scheme and you have no idea who is on that roster, what that scheme is going to be (zero tape) and how these players fit with those schemes.

The whole point is that the evaluation by writers is irrelevant.  It is literally a clickbait/viewership tool to stay relevant during non-activities of the offseason.  If you want to put stock in the Beast or what the Sporting News says about the Packers, Cardinals, Jags...have fun with that and live your best life.

I guess you could refer to it as clickbait, but in most cases it is the most benign form. Most aren't stirring up controversy for the sake of page views, it is simply a method of immediately analyzing the draft from their point of view in a form that people seem to like to read and spurs discussion. You get a few who are over the top or who seem to believe their views are infallible, but for the most part, these are people paid to analyze and write about the NFL analyzing and writing about the NFL, albeit in a contrived package, but no moreso than the predraft mocks that everyone does.

Of course they shouldn't be treated as gospel, and how a team did in the draft won't be known for years. Outside of those who slap on a grade with an unfunny bit of sarcasm attached and nothing else, however, they provide another perspective that, if it is done well, can at least be an interesting read.

[madbad2000]

6 hours ago, areacodes said:

I don’t care if teams have good or bad draft grades.  I’ll read some of them to get additional opinions of the draft but I’m happy with who the Packers picked and feel like they got some good players at positions of need - won’t know if it was a good draft for a few years. 

I hope the Vikings, Bears, Lions and every other team in the NFL all have terrible drafts as I want the Packers to be better but I’m not going to pretend to know much about how those players will fit in schematically for other teams.

My question to you came about because of your statement “The Bears did a lot to improve their team with scheme fits.  So did the Lions, Vikings, Rams, Patriots, etc.” that was then followed up with this statement “It is even more fruitless when you have a new GM, HC and offensive/defensive scheme and you have no idea who is on that roster, what that scheme is going to be (zero tape) and how these players fit with those schemes.”

I made the statement because I'm a Bears fan and follow their draft more closely than others.  Ryan Poles and Matt Eberflus have already provided comments on how these players fit their scheme.  Which came after many pundits already graded their picks.  I also read other NFC North comments more closely because Im interested.  Reading mock drafts and draft grades from national level writers does not mesh with what the GM and HC said they are looking for.  It is nearly impossible for all of these writers to be in tune with the scheme and fit of every team, so how can you honestly do a ranking?  One thing is for certain, every team has their own big board with rankings that are not inline with analysts.  That is the most common tool used by these post draft report cards.  Multiple picks in the first few rounds, usually good grade.  Low number of picks, usually lower, any pick that doesn't match up to your value, lower grade.  Boom, article done, publish, never held accountable in later years when actual performance can be reevaluated to how well the team and analysts did. 

[madbad2000]

5 hours ago, CheeseheadInQC said:

I guess you could refer to it as clickbait, but in most cases it is the most benign form. Most aren't stirring up controversy for the sake of page views, it is simply a method of immediately analyzing the draft from their point of view in a form that people seem to like to read and spurs discussion. You get a few who are over the top or who seem to believe their views are infallible, but for the most part, these are people paid to analyze and write about the NFL analyzing and writing about the NFL, albeit in a contrived package, but no moreso than the predraft mocks that everyone does.

Of course they shouldn't be treated as gospel, and how a team did in the draft won't be known for years. Outside of those who slap on a grade with an unfunny bit of sarcasm attached and nothing else, however, they provide another perspective that, if it is done well, can at least be an interesting read.

Clickbait doesn't have to be sensational and most are benign even if it haves some crazy headline.  "You won't believe what Packers GM Brian Gutekunst said in his post draft interview! Everyone does the same, bland article post draft because they know it will get views which generates revenue and potentially improves their personal brand.  It is exactly like mock drafts, but should be taken with the same low level of accuracy.  I'm fine with generating discussion, but I agree completely with you that it shouldn't be taken as gospel or even any real authority.  Anything that starts with so and so had a good/bad draft because their grade on ABCDEFG.com said should elicit some eyerolls. I will acknowledge that some analysts are much better than others at evaluating player talent, but scheme fit and opportunity will play a big role in the future success of the player and teams.  How can you rate someone going to a team with a new offensive, defensive or general management system?