|
LabyaMynora posted:They needed a solid WR2, an ILB or two, someone to replace Belaga at OT, and some help on defense when it comes to stopping the run up the middle. You got me thinking. I've been banging the drum for awhile now that you can't rely on rookies to fill immediate needs since they take time to develop. Judging from Gutekunst's past three free agencies and drafts, I feel safe presuming that he agrees. Consider the following: quote:2018: Immediate holes at DE, TE, and CB, and a major upcoming hole at WR with Nelson's departure and the front office likely already knowing this would be Cobb's final season with the team. From Gutekunst's history, I think it's clear that he fills immediate holes through free agency, while using the draft to prepare for the future. It's obvious as day with Rashan Gary, but with Jaire Alexander and Darnell Savage they ended up being good enough to pretty much immediately start, but this seems to be the exception, not the rule. He also has a pattern of double-dipping, drafting the same positions he just spent money on in free agency, seemingly as insurance both against the free agent not working out and against the draft pick not working out: Alexander showing up so early on in his career seems to have been a major factor in the team not retaining Breeland. I think people who are upset with the Packers draft are really more upset with the perceived quality of Gute's free agency signings this year (Kirksey has a bad injury history, Wagner hasn't flashed anything beyond mediocrity, Funchess had the one good season and that's it). If, hypothetically, the Packers had somehow been able to trade for OBJ and sign, I don't know, Kyle Van Noy??? then I think people would've been much less consterned with Love and Dillon. You'll notice that in my frequent posts about this draft I haven't actually said whether or not it's a good draft -- just that it makes sense, it's in line with Gutekunst's history of decisions. I don't think we can evaluate whether or not it's a good draft for at least another couple seasons.
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
I mean obviously it takes 2-3 years to evaluate how a draft actually went, but generally speaking picks in the 1st 2 rounds can be expected to be immediate contributors to a team. There are plenty of players in every draft that play a significant number of snaps and do an above average job. They might not have hit their ceiling, but they can easily produce above replacement level
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:15
|
|
|
OxySnake posted:I mean obviously it takes 2-3 years to evaluate how a draft actually went, but generally speaking picks in the 1st 2 rounds can be expected to be immediate contributors to a team. At #14 and #46, sure. At #30 and #62? Picking at the end of the first, you're already pretty much looking at second round talent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:At #14 and #46, sure. At #30 and #62? Picking at the end of the first, you're already pretty much looking at second round talent. Patrick Queen who will probably play significant snaps and do well will probably disprove this. Just because your picking at the end of the first doesn't mean there arent good players who can contribute, especially in a draft that was considered as deep as this. You got players like Tee Higgins, Denzel Mims, Trevon Diggs, Willie Gay, Michael Pittman etc. They are players that will probably play and contribute and they were taken in the 2nd round. There are rookies that are raw and need time to work on their technique, knowledge etc. There are rookies that are pro ready now. You cant just write off that 2nd group especially just because it's the 2nd round.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
OxySnake posted:Patrick Queen who will probably play significant snaps and do well will probably disprove this. I would've been fine with Queen but we did have that discussion the previous week about how the Packers just simply don't value ILB whatsoever. I was hoping for Pittman as well but then the Love trade happened and the Colts took Pittman at the top of the first. I do think Dillon will be able to contribute this season, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:I would've been fine with Queen but we did have that discussion the previous week about how the Packers just simply don't value ILB whatsoever. I was hoping for Pittman as well but then the Love trade happened and the Colts took Pittman at the top of the first. You can say it makes sense that they didnt take Queen because they dont value ILB, which seems foolish when teams are able to run all over them. Like that can be their draft philosophy but if they are giving up almost 300 yards rushing in the NFCCG that seems like a bad philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:54
|
|
|
At the very least Dillon is most ready to contribute right away and we'll likely see him in 2 RB sets with Jones. RBs really don't need a lot of time at all to immediately start impacting the game, especially in comparison to most WRs who are rarely high impact players their first year or 2 unless they're a top first round talent pick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:54
|
|
|
OxySnake posted:You can say it makes sense that they didnt take Queen because they dont value ILB, which seems foolish when teams are able to run all over them. Every team has one thing they do that makes no sense, the goal is to be good enough to get over it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:55
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Every team has one thing they do that makes no sense, the goal is to be good enough to get over it. Seeing an obvious deficiency and throwing up your hands seems like a bad idea imo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:59
|
|
|
OxySnake posted:Seeing an obvious deficiency and throwing up your hands seems like a bad idea imo. Yep doesn’t really stop em historically
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 20:01
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Yep doesn’t really stop em historically https://www.espn.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=401131045  Also that would also make sense that you want to turn games into a race to 40 points so teams cant just run and have to pass, if you then drafted a WR. Ignoring the run, and then switching to a run heavy O seems to not make sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 20:01
|
|
|
OxySnake posted:Seeing an obvious deficiency and throwing up your hands seems like a bad idea imo. He didn't throw up his hands, though, he picked up Kirksey and Martin to cover that deficiency. Granted, I have very little faith that either of these two players are actually the answer, but the value spent ($6M/y, 5th round) is more or less in line with how much the franchise values that position. If anything that Kirksey contract is the biggest ILB contract I've seen from the Packers since... I don't know? Does Clay's contract count for when he was playing ILB these two seasons? AJ Hawk's rookie contract? edit: Kirksey is the 13th largest cap hit on the Packers for the 2020 season. Also it seems very likely Lane Taylor's gonna be a cap casualty, now that I'm looking at these numbers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 20:05
|
|
|
OxySnake posted:https://www.espn.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=401131045 I think your confused on what I mean by doesn’t stop them
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I think your confused on what I mean by doesn’t stop them Ah yes I was. SKULL.GIF posted:He didn't throw up his hands, though, he picked up Kirksey and Martin to cover that deficiency. Granted, I have very little faith that either of these two players are actually the answer, but the value spent ($6M/y, 5th round) is more or less in line with how much the franchise values that position. Signing a LB who has been on the IR the last two seasons and a 5th round pick is about to as close to throwing up your hands as you could get. Paint Crop Pro fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Apr 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
OxySnake posted:Seeing an obvious deficiency and throwing up your hands seems like a bad idea imo. If you are a true believer in the church of the forward pass, you probably figure that each run is 1-3 fewer yards per play than you could have gotten by passing. As a rough analogy, layups have long been a bad play for the offense in the NBA. Even dunks are getting to be just break-even, points-per-possession wise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
gaj70 posted:If you are a true believer in the church of the forward pass, you probably figure that each run is 1-3 fewer yards per play than you could have gotten by passing. Believing in the forward pass is heresy in TFF.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
OxySnake posted:Believing in the forward pass is heresy in TFF. None of this forward pass nonsense is establishing the run, so yes, heresy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
OxySnake posted:Ah yes I was. They use safety / ILB hybrid players at ILB a lot. Players already on the roster. A bigger problem than ILB has been anyone on the line outside of Kenny Clark, where they're banking on development from players like Adams, Keke, Gary, etc. I wouldn't get hung up on ILB at all, and it's not throwing up their hands. They do not care about traditional ILBs in the scheme that's being run. It's way more subpackage heavy and plays a ton of DBs. Pettine is more concerned about stopping the pass.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:10
|
|
|
i think it is the lack of an identifiable strategy that frustrates Packers fans like yeah it would make sense for the packers to just try and become a beefier, more physical team, given the nature of their most recent playoff loss but if they were doing that, you'd expect them to go OL earlier and probably pick up some beef (system fit aside) on defense with the 2nd day picks, a new offensive lineman would just be a more premium investment than an RB or an H-back even if that weren't already axiomatic in the current league, the 9ers would have proven it in that game, where they trampled the packers in historic fashion with a replacement-level RB whose salary was paid in peanut butter sandwiches
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:16
|
|
|
It confuses me why they emulate the team that lost the Super Bowl instead of the team that won it, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:31
|
|
|
Shmtur posted:It confuses me why they emulate the team that lost the Super Bowl instead of the team that won it, to be honest. We've been trying the Chiefs model:  It got us three heartbreaking NFCCG losses and now Rodgers is 36 years old with a lengthy injury history instead of a 25 year old supernatural phenom flitting around on the fly. Gotta change the plan. edit: Jesus Christ Mahomes isn't even 25, he's 24 until September. I'm glad the Chiefs are in the AFC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:39
|
|
|
Shmtur posted:It confuses me why they emulate the team that lost the Super Bowl instead of the team that won it, to be honest. Well Rodgers' contract is a lot closer to Garoppolo's than Mahomes', so I don't know how they could afford to emulate the Chiefs really
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:46
|
|
|
Maybe the Packers think Rodgers is their Alex Smith
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:52
|
|
|
Gonna be so weird to see Rodgers in a Broncos uniform.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 00:04
|
|
|
Styles Bitchley posted:Gonna be so weird to see Rodgers in a B
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 01:22
|
|
|
Shmtur posted:It confuses me why they emulate the team that lost the Super Bowl instead of the team that won it, to be honest. losing but playing the game "the right way" is possibly the most core belief in the foundation of football
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 02:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Jaxdadvol/status/1254938994309246977
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 03:15
|
|
|
 gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 03:19
|
|
|
The Broncos becoming the place where spurned sunsetting generational QBs go to ring chase before they go off into that sweet night would be kind of awesome, especially if it works for Manning and Rodgers but not Brady.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 03:51
|
|
|
rodgers on the broncos would be ideal, either he gets owned and it is funny or he wins a ring and packers fans melt down
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 03:54
|
|
|
I don't see how the ideal can be anything except Rodgers to the Bears.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 03:57
|
|
|
MJeff posted:I don't see how the ideal can be anything except Rodgers to the Bears. i have gamed out the scenarios and in all of them the world ends
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 04:00
|
|
|
LabyaMynora posted:
This is loving clickbait lmao.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 04:13
|
|
|
The problem with building the team out to beat the 49ers is the assumption that the 49ers are going to be the team to beat in the NFC this year. I know they're good, but it's gonna be someone else and it's gonna be completely stupid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 04:26
|
|
|
PneumonicBook posted:This is loving clickbait lmao. Nope, it's happening. Maybe next season though. I had a vision
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 04:30
|
|
|
Wasn't Drew Lock alright last year? or did i just imagine that
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 06:15
|
|
|
He started hot then fell off a cliff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 07:26
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:The problem with building the team out to beat the 49ers is the assumption that the 49ers are going to be the team to beat in the NFC this year. I know they're good, but it's gonna be someone else and it's gonna be completely stupid. This is where I'm at.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 13:58
|
|
|
LabyaMynora posted:
The article is literally we will trade for him if you want I’m sure they made the same deal to the Chiefs
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
GenericMartini posted:Wasn't Drew Lock alright last year? or did i just imagine that He was lacking weapons, and like all smart teams in a similar situation the Broncos prioritized WRs in the draft.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 15:24
|
|