Nonstopdrivel
5 years ago

sschind scolded:

Originally Posted by: KRK 


Rourke chortled at this.
UserPostedImage
beast
5 years ago

I noticed none of my questions were answer in opposition to my post. The 'injury game' generally can't be played will in teams without depth in certain areas.

Originally Posted by: KRK 

Seriously? Those questions seemed to be there to focused at a larger point and I directly talked about what I thought to be your larger point... instead of playing the game... now you're complaining I didn't play your raindeer games?

And of course the injury game can be played with all teams as their isn't enough talented depth to go around... you're complaining about not having a clear good back-up when some teams don't even have a clear good starter.

The truth is our depth on the offensive line isn't very good and "running the ball' as the sole answer simply obfuscates the issue. Sorry for beating a 'dead horse', but the carcass is still in the room.

Originally Posted by: KRK 


The truth is that's YOUR OPINION... and NOT A FACT! ... as we have already hammered out, the stats go more against your opinion then with it, as the OL was quite effective in giving Rodgers the 4th longest average throwing time, despite teams knowing it was going to pass it, and one of the top 2 average rushing yardage.... but you keep ignoring everything that disagrees with your blind opinion that the OL is main problem while you seem to completely and totally ignore all other factors... unwilling to factor in the other 6 guys on offense.

And no one ever said running the ball as the sole answer... you're using false narratives to push your agenda. But the Packers do have OGs (Taylor, McCray, Patrick, etc) that would be able to hold up better with a higher dose of running play calls so the defenders and play callers don't have their ears pinned back ready to pass rush on every single play (because that's what they do when you call pass plays 70% of the time, which very few short ones).

I couldn't agree more....and you posted this BEFORE the Packers' free agency signing. Now after other gaping needs were addressed in free-agency, you don't address the O Line in you mock draft, until pick #150 and #185.

Originally Posted by: KRK 

That's because you're wrongly assuming those are the same, when those are two completely different things... one is ideally, what would be nice to happen, and the other is how the simulated draft fell...

I'm taking what I see as the best value, almost no matter the position, if I see OL as the best value, I'm taking the OL.... if I don't see the OL as the best value, then I'm not taking the OL.... I'm drafting my thought on their value, not just drafting a position.... I was shocked those FS fell that far... and felt like they were the best value (and an important need as well).


I am simply stating that in my opinion that posters tend to underrate our need for quality and depth at these vital positions

Originally Posted by: KRK 

No, because I could agree with that... what you're doing is blindly blaming the OL and ignoring all fact that don't agree with your predetermined opinion... that the OL is the problem.

You put your players in a better position to success, just as the Patriots, Rams and Bears have done and you get a lot better results.... Mike McCarthy scheme with 70% passing calls and QB/WRs that are CLEARLY on different mental pages and QB that doesn't trust said WRs because of it... and you have put your OL in a HORRIBLE spot... because now defenses can tee off on your OL all game long and create schemes to avoid one of the OTs (usually by fake pass rushing an edge and getting the OGs in one on one match-ups time after time after time, and effectively forcing them to play like OTs (when they're not at that level of pass protection).

sschind scolded:
Your rationale and perspective are spot on. Perhaps I slightly overstated the case.

Originally Posted by: KRK 



Which is what I was saying... 3 of the top 6 is too much! Maybe 3 in an entire draft... MAYBE!
UserPostedImage
KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member
5 years ago
Beast berated:

I'm taking what I see as the best value, almost no matter the position

Perhaps this is the essence of the disagreement....I am not taking the best player available, I am drafting for need subject to value. It seems a meaningless exercise to fill out these draft boards if you are not going to take team need into meaningful consideration.

Furthermore, IMO drafting the best player available is something teams with depth at most positions can do....and we don't have relative depth at almost any position, except corner. Second, to be frank, I think the statement many GMs say after the draft, such as "XXXX was the top rated guy on the board and we really wanted him" is largely BS in most cases.

Additionally, IMO the offensive line needs to be looked at as five positions, not one. I am not terribly interested in Composite Line Rankings. As previously stated, on the O line, you as strong as your weakest link. We have great starters at 2 positions, a pretty good one when healthy at another, and now a free agent plug in at another. I am greatly concerned about depth, and somewhat concerned about LG. Stated differently, if one of our top corners goes down, I think we would be OK, if one of our OL goes down, especially a tackle, we have major problems....and those need to be addressed in the draft.

Also, we are all surmising that our guys are going to work well/better with new blocking schemes. I am not yet convinced. Like most posters, I believe that a greater mix of runs, more creativity in play design, and quicker hitting pass plays will benefit the entire team (including 12.)

Therefore my opinion, for which I have now provided more that adequate rationale, is that posters are not taking OL need into consideration.
In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
beast
5 years ago

Beast berated: Perhaps this is the essence of the disagreement....I am not taking the best player available, I am drafting for need subject to value. It seems a meaningless exercise to fill out these draft boards if you are not going to take team need into meaningful consideration.

Originally Posted by: KRK 


1) If it seems meaningless to you, then stop doing it and stop wasting your time watching others do it... because you're then just being a buzz kill for yourself and others.

2) I believe I clearly took meaningful consideration into my mock and you're still complaining about it, because it doesn't fit your personal want list...

But if we're talking about team needs, the team needs TEs, FS, DL, OL, ILB, back-up CBs for when (not if, but when King and/or Alexander go down with an injury), maybe even two.

3) So OL CLEARLY isn't the only need... yet it's the only one you seem to care about which is a huge difference between actual needs and needs you care about.

Furthermore, IMO drafting the best player available is something teams with depth at most positions can do....and we don't have relative depth at almost any position, except corner.

Originally Posted by: KRK 

I feel like that's backwards... the more holes you got the more you can simply grab the best player available because that's a need position.

Second, to be frank, I think the statement many GMs say after the draft, such as "XXXX was the top rated guy on the board and we really wanted him" is largely BS in most cases.

Originally Posted by: KRK 

Yeah I agree with this, I think post draft is a lot of fluff BS.

Additionally, IMO the offensive line needs to be looked at as five positions, not one. I am not terribly interested in Composite Line Rankings. As previously stated, on the O line, you as strong as your weakest link.

Originally Posted by: KRK 

If you're saying you're only strong as your weakest link then you are looking at then as one... which is exactly what you yourself are saying you shouldn't do.


All teams have problems where if certain guys go down, they're completely screwed, other than maybe the Patriots because their strength is amazing coaching. But some teams have sucky OTs like Spriggs starting because there isn't enough talent to go around. If anything I'd try to sign the veteran OT Donald Penn, who the Raiders just released, and is said to workout at the same place as Rodgers and Baktari (spelling) and I think others (Matthews maybe it was?)... I'm sure he want to start at LT, but maybe get him on a two year deal as backup insurance for Bulaga and try to draft a future guy.



Therefore my opinion, for which I have now provided more that adequate rationale, is that posters are not taking OL need into consideration.

Originally Posted by: KRK 


That's an interesting opinion, and for some I'm sure you are correct.... but some are taking it AND other positions into consideration, which you are not seeming to do, as you solely only focus on one need when there are many.

UserPostedImage
KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member
5 years ago
Beast opined:

If you're saying you're only strong as your weakest link then you are looking at then as one... which is exactly what you yourself are saying you shouldn't do.]

😕 Actually, it makes the point that as a unit, you have to look at each link to determine the units effectiveness...ergo, looking at each individual position is necessary.

Beast continued

If it seems meaningless to you, then stop doing it and stop wasting your time watching others do it... because you're then just being a buzz kill for yourself and others.

Good idea. I think I will only view posters who aren't just taking the best player available. I hope we get the very best player on the OL who fills what I perceive to be a need there. If we can get value by trading down and picking up and additional pick, I am all for it.

Beast further stated:

I feel like that's backwards... the more holes you got the more you can simply grab the best player available because that's a need position.

That is a very good point. IMO, after free agency, I see more relative weakness on the Oline than others. We still need other things, another RB, a TE, another safety, but on a relative basis, not at badly as an immediate starting caliber O lineman.

To be nice, and not a buzz kill, you seem to have actually thought about whether the player will be a good fit in our (new offensive) systems. To that end, if we take a TE at 12, I hope it is Hockenson who seems by all accounts to me more of an effective blocker at TE than Fant.
In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
Zero2Cool
5 years ago
A TE at 12 is stupid.
UserPostedImage
KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member
5 years ago
Wait, so you draft for need?
In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
Zero2Cool
5 years ago

Wait, so you draft for need?

Originally Posted by: KRK 



I'm not an NFL GM (I'd have a short-ass career if I did), so I don't draft, period.

Drafting for need over best available player is how you set yourself up for failure. Always take the best available player. If you have two players that are rated equal, you then take the one of more need.

UserPostedImage
KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member
5 years ago
Invariably, one has to use a scale of some sort to compare players of different positions and by the time one fine tunes this scale, anyone can get the results they want regarding BPA.

Overriding all this stuff are immeasurables, heart, brains, guts, and determination.

Drafting is not an easy job.
In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
sschind
5 years ago

sschind scolded:
Your rationale and perspective are spot on. Perhaps I slightly overstated the case.

Originally Posted by: KRK 



Maybe not so much. You did say 3 of the first 6 but you didn't say which three and I said 1 with the first 4 and double dip in the 4th round that is 3 out of the first 6. I just don't want to see 2 first round OL. Not that we can't use them but I think I'd rather have the top pick used on someone else. Obviously that depends on who falls. It wouldn't kill me if we went 2 OL in the first if it were the right guys.

OL is easy to overlook if you have a good one but you need 5 starters and then you need backups. If you you only have 3 good starters that means your backups probably are not really very good and when those injuries hit it can be devastating.

Its also tough to consider drafting for depth when there are other needs as well.
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    dfosterf (5h) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
    Zero2Cool (12h) : Haha
    Mucky Tundra (13h) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
    beast (14h) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
    dfosterf (17h) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
    Zero2Cool (19h) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
    Zero2Cool (19h) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
    Zero2Cool (19h) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
    dfosterf (19h) : Against tbd
    dfosterf (19h) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
    dfosterf (19h) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
    Zero2Cool (19h) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
    Zero2Cool (19h) : Ugh... kids these days!
    dfosterf (19h) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
    Zero2Cool (20h) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
    dfosterf (20h) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
    dfosterf (20h) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
    dfosterf (20h) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
    buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
    buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
    Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
    Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
    beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
    beast (25-Mar) : Simply fined in the week to follow
    beast (25-Mar) : I agree with one NFL official, it'll probably be like some of the helmets hits, not really called by the refs on the field but simply fined
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Hip drop is not. Super confusing. Referees job is harder
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Swivel hip drop is banned
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : The hip drop enforcement will be in the form of fines, etc. Not flags
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : A major foul will be enforced on the offense if there are offsetting penalties in a change of possession situation
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Teams will receive a 3rd challenge if 1 was successful. Previously, it took 2
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2023 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
    Bears
    Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Falcons
    Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
    SAINTS
    Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
    LIONS
    Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
    Raiders
    Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
    RAMS
    Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
    CHARGERS
    Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
    CHIEFS
    Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
    BUCCANEERS
    Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
    Panthers
    Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
    Vikings
    Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
    Cowboys
    Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
    49ers
    Recent Topics
    5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    17h / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    24-Mar / Around The NFL / dhazer

    24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.