Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
4 Pages<1234>

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Nonstopdrivel  
#21 Posted : Sunday, March 17, 2019 3:50:40 PM(UTC)
KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
sschind scolded:

Rourke chortled at this.
beast  
#22 Posted : Sunday, March 17, 2019 7:13:13 PM(UTC)
KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
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.
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.

KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
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.

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).

KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
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.
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).


KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
I am simply stating that in my opinion that posters tend to underrate our need for quality and depth at these vital positions
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).

KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
sschind scolded:
Your rationale and perspective are spot on. Perhaps I slightly overstated the case.


Which is what I was saying... 3 of the top 6 is too much! Maybe 3 in an entire draft... MAYBE!
KRK  
#23 Posted : Monday, March 18, 2019 4:54:29 AM(UTC)
Beast berated:
Quote:
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.
beast  
#24 Posted : Monday, March 18, 2019 8:20:18 AM(UTC)
KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
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.

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.

KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
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.
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.

KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
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.
Yeah I agree with this, I think post draft is a lot of fluff BS.

KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
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.
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.



KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
Therefore my opinion, for which I have now provided more that adequate rationale, is that posters are not taking OL need into consideration.

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.
KRK  
#25 Posted : Monday, March 18, 2019 9:27:13 AM(UTC)
Beast opined:
Quote:
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.]
Confused 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
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
Zero2Cool  
#26 Posted : Monday, March 18, 2019 9:50:13 AM(UTC)
A TE at 12 is stupid.
KRK  
#27 Posted : Monday, March 18, 2019 10:52:38 AM(UTC)
Wait, so you draft for need?
Zero2Cool  
#28 Posted : Monday, March 18, 2019 11:00:50 AM(UTC)
KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
Wait, so you draft for need?


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.
KRK  
#29 Posted : Monday, March 18, 2019 11:15:01 AM(UTC)
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.
sschind  
#30 Posted : Monday, March 18, 2019 11:27:47 AM(UTC)
KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
sschind scolded:
Your rationale and perspective are spot on. Perhaps I slightly overstated the case.


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.
sschind  
#31 Posted : Monday, March 18, 2019 11:37:09 AM(UTC)
beast said: Go to Quoted Post

But getting those two FS that late, which made me fall in love with that draft... of course that's because I think it's unrealistic.



Why is Thompson dropping. A few months ago many considered him the #1 safety in the draft. Did he have a poor showing at the combine?

One thing about your draft is I agree with KRK that you waited too long to address the OL. I understand that when you have guys you like its hard to pass up, and I don't know which OL you may have passed on so that may have something too do with it.
Zero2Cool  
#32 Posted : Monday, March 18, 2019 11:42:53 AM(UTC)
sschind said: Go to Quoted Post
Why is Thompson dropping. A few months ago many considered him the #1 safety in the draft. Did he have a poor showing at the combine?

One thing about your draft is I agree with KRK that you waited too long to address the OL. I understand that when you have guys you like its hard to pass up, and I don't know which OL you may have passed on so that may have something too do with it.


I didn't draft to fill holes this season. I add free agents for this season. I draft the best available players to fill my roster in the future.
KRK  
#33 Posted : Monday, March 18, 2019 12:17:10 PM(UTC)
What if the best player available is a tight end?
Zero2Cool  
#34 Posted : Monday, March 18, 2019 12:45:58 PM(UTC)
KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
What if the best player available is a tight end?


Then we have the worst draft class in decades. I have only seen one ranking where a TE broke the top 15 in best players to be drafted.
beast  
#35 Posted : Monday, March 18, 2019 9:17:40 PM(UTC)
KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
Confused 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.
You just said it again, you are looking at them as a unit, and determining them as a unit, so you are doing the opposite of what you said.


KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
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.
Exactly, all this bullshit isn't about OL at all, it's all about you... you are demanding OL to be drafted high and often Dead Horse .... we get it!

How about you opinions on draft and ANY other position?

beast  
#36 Posted : Monday, March 18, 2019 9:46:13 PM(UTC)
sschind said: Go to Quoted Post
Why is Thompson dropping. A few months ago many considered him the #1 safety in the draft. Did he have a poor showing at the combine?

One thing about your draft is I agree with KRK that you waited too long to address the OL. I understand that when you have guys you like its hard to pass up, and I don't know which OL you may have passed on so that may have something too do with it.
It's not that he's dropping per say just different people have different opinions, and grade differently based on those opinion... and you ha e to project a player into certain roles.

As a deep zone FS scheme, Thompson could still potentially be the best Safety in this class.... but this website's three opinion writers didn't like his Discipline, tackling or one on one man coverage skills and they make some fair points... Nick Collins he is not. But it all depends on scheme and roles you are projecting them into.


I can't help that the other teams were over drafting OL, letting other talent to drop...

Just because someone else does something stupid, doesn't mean I'm gonna follow their bad example and over draft just to grab a position...

Maybe if there was actually proof they would pan out but the reality is most picks bust, and 4th round linemen have seemed to pan out about as well as linemen selected above...

Everyone has bitched about Colledge and Bulaga for years, not to mention Sherrod, while Bak, Sitting, Lang and Linsley have been heros...
Rockmolder  
#37 Posted : Tuesday, March 19, 2019 4:04:40 AM(UTC)
KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
Wait, so you draft for need?


Like you say in a later post, it's a lot more nuanced than just drafting for need and just drafting the best player available.

Positional value is a big decider. How your roster is build. How many players you see as aproxomately equally skilled. It's like Z2C said, if you reach for need, you're going to be at the bottom of the league real fast. Doesn't mean we're drafting seven running backs in one draft because they all fit the BPA at that point.

It's just that there's no way you can say that you're drafting 3 o-linemen beforehand. You don't know who's available. That doesn't mean people around here don't see the need. It's just that there's other needs and players that are likely to line up better at our current draft positions. I won't go any further into that, because both sides have given enough arguments.

Add to that that you're usually drafting for the future. We can draft 6 o-linemen on day one and two, but odds are pretty slim that they're all NFL-caliber players from day one, so you won't be plugging those holes you're seeing instantly.

Odds are pretty big, though, that you're creating big problems at other positions. We have two old tight ends and one that will never become a starter, most likely. We need to infuse some talent and youth in that position. ILB is looking pretty barren. Just shoving those needs aside and drafting for inmediate need makes it nearly certain that you'll have to dip into FA and give up top dollar to sign someone there. Something you'd rather not do.


Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
Then we have the worst draft class in decades. I have only seen one ranking where a TE broke the top 15 in best players to be drafted.



I agree with all your points, apart from this one. I think you actually might be ahead of the curve. Positional value for tight ends has been, in my opinion, undervalued for years. Just take a look at what difference a guy like Graham, Gronkowski or Gonzalez makes.

That said, there's no one I would pick at 12 this year, but I wouldn't mind picking a TE that high. Guard or ILB, those are positions I generally wouldn't spend a high pick on.
KRK  
#38 Posted : Tuesday, March 19, 2019 5:34:50 AM(UTC)
Beast beckoned:
Quote:
How about you opinions on draft and ANY other position?
OK.

RB - I love the two we have, but we really need a quality guy who can step in. Not necessarily a workhorse, especially not a tailback, but someone, from a college system who has experience in blitz pick-up and can carry the ball effectively and reliably. Jamaal Williams like...in fact a clone would be fine with me.

ILB - Not to beat a dead horse, as this has been discussed in the past but with Ryan departure, and the underwhelming first year performance of Burks we need someone. I hope Morrison was a stop-gap until Burks is ready (which I hope is now) but regardless, we need a guy there, and not just plug-in in a safety all the time.

Rockmolder accurately assessed:
Quote:
Positional value for tight ends has been, in my opinion, undervalued for years. Just take a look at what difference a guy like Graham, Gronkowski or Gonzalez makes.
I would not take one at 12 unless I thought he was an instant Pro-Bowl guy. 30 perhaps. In an ideal world, we could trade down from 12 and pick one up in the second round.

And finally, and for the last time, in regard to the OL chain metaphor I am/had been asserting that IF one is:
Quote:
looking at them as a unit, and determining them as a unit
one needs to look at the weakest link to determine the unit strength, NOT to average each of the the individual components' strength as the cited sources seem to do. We need help in the O line and I would not mind addressing it as the top priority, whether we trade down for multiple picks or that a guy a 12. With Turner in fold, if there is a stud G-C, I would take him.
Zero2Cool  
#39 Posted : Tuesday, March 19, 2019 10:26:13 AM(UTC)
KRK erroneously stated
Quote:
I would not take one at 12 unless I thought he was an instant Pro-Bowl guy.


This is why we can't trust you, lol. Pro Bowl? THE PRO BOWL? No, sir, we care ONLY about All-Pro's!

I'll build my team of All Pro's and we'll baby spank your Pro Bowl roster up and down the boulevard!

KRK  
#40 Posted : Tuesday, March 19, 2019 11:32:21 AM(UTC)
I will consider myself corrected, reprimanded, open to be spanked, provided you are arranging for Jessica Alba to do the spanking.
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
4 Pages<1234>
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Fan Shout
Nonstopdrivel (33m) : I'm enjoying such a delightful sense of schadenfreude after the walloping the Vikings put on the Eagles.
KRK (4h) : NYJ DAL flags on 7 consecutive plays....and hard to argue with any of them
TheKanataThrilla (9h) : Minshew sure does not look like a 6th round rookie
Zero2Cool (9h) : Cardinals are reportedly fielding trade calls from teams interested in star cornerback Patrick Peterson
TheKanataThrilla (9h) : Savage being out is really going to hurt
Zero2Cool (11h) : No Mike Daniels against the Packers Monday night.
gbguy20 (13h) : n doubtful
gbguy20 (13h) : Darnell savage and tonyan also out. tony brow
packerfanoutwest (13-Oct) : sux, but he's not needed against the Lions
Zero2Cool (12-Oct) : Zoroastrianism
Zero2Cool (12-Oct) : Davante Adams will not play Monday night, Matt LaFleur said.
Zero2Cool (11-Oct) : LaFleur liked Tra Carson's reliability Sunday, not just running ball but pass pro. Reason he was promoted over Dexter Williams.
gbguy20 (11-Oct) : he left because he missed smokey too much
Zero2Cool (10-Oct) : Packers list Aaron Rodgers as limited by knee injury
buckeyepackfan (10-Oct) : Williams and Lindsley practice!
buckeyepackfan (10-Oct) : Bad...Davante still out. Good.
buckeyepackfan (10-Oct) : Bad...Davante still out. Good
wpr (10-Oct) : Last visit here was 3 Sept .
Zero2Cool (10-Oct) : He's tweeting, so he is at least alive.
TheKanataThrilla (10-Oct) : Does anyone know why nerdmann stopped posting? A little worried about the guy. Don't know if anyone messages him.
gbguy20 (10-Oct) : weird the stat i saw said all other rookie coaches are 4-19-1
Zero2Cool (10-Oct) : Packers are 4-1 (.800), while the seven other first-year coaches are 6-26-1 (.197).
Zero2Cool (10-Oct) : Nice!
Cheesey (10-Oct) : Yup! That’s what I got!
Zero2Cool (10-Oct) : Sewn numbers and painted stripes = authentic.
Cheesey (10-Oct) : The REAL kind, sewn on name and numbers. What a deal!
Cheesey (10-Oct) : Went with my wife to St. Vinnies thrift store. Got an authentic Clay Matthews Jersey, perfect shape, $5.25!
gbguy20 (10-Oct) : think of it this way. give up a 50k job for the potential to earn 500k if they manage to last just a year on a roster. they come out ahead.
gbguy20 (10-Oct) : lots of things don't give up on their dream until forced to. the reward outweighs tge risk to a certain point in their ife
Nonstopdrivel (10-Oct) : I think for me it would depend on what kind of civilian job I'd managed to secure in the interim. No use screwing up a good thing for a pie-in-the-sky shot at a dream.
Nonstopdrivel (10-Oct) : If a team that had previously cut you brought you in for a workout, would you be open to signing with the practice squad?
KRK (9-Oct) : I would like to see either/or Pennel or Williams. Lancaster and Lowry have been disappointing IMO
Zero2Cool (9-Oct) : PFF has Chandon Sullivan and Will Redmond with highest defensive grades
Zero2Cool (9-Oct) : Something like that.
buckeyepackfan (9-Oct) : CM3 out till week 10 with broken jaw.
Zero2Cool (8-Oct) : Packers worked out Packers: Rico Gathers, Mike Pennel, Sly Williams
Zero2Cool (8-Oct) : A team, dunno. A room, very easily. They interviewed him. lol
beast (8-Oct) : But how well did the Packers know LaFleur's command of a team and room before hiring him? (We'll never know)
gbguy20 (8-Oct) : hhaha great stat
Mucky Tundra (8-Oct) : Christian McCaffrey has 866 yards from scrimmage. The New York Jets have 718
Zero2Cool (8-Oct) : @RobDemovsky Most think he was hired for his offensive philosophies and schemes, but perhaps Matt LaFleur’s command of a team and room went underrated.
gbguy20 (8-Oct) : seahawks +2 vs browns. Slam it while you can!
gbguy20 (8-Oct) : just a thought. he fumbled at the one yard line this weekend and now they traded for another wr. figure maybe they're switching him out.
Zero2Cool (8-Oct) : Really? Raiders gonna cut Davis??
gbguy20 (8-Oct) : turns out this guy is just a tool
gbguy20 (8-Oct) : apparently, baker mayfield refused to shake hands with the 49ers during the coin toss. they made him pay for it all night.
gbguy20 (8-Oct) : maybe the raiders are cutting tdavis after his fumble
KRK (8-Oct) : 49ers are frigging terrific. Both lines are awesome
Nonstopdrivel (8-Oct) : I hope it was one damn sexy pic.
Zero2Cool (8-Oct) : Bills ship WR Zay Jones to Raiders for pic
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2019 Packers Schedule
Thursday, Sep 5 @ 7:20 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
BRONCOS
Thursday, Sep 26 @ 7:20 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Cowboys
Monday, Oct 14 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
RAIDERS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 7:20 PM
Chiefs
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
Chargers
Sunday, Nov 10 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ers
Sunday, Dec 1 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 8 @ 12:00 PM
REDSKINS
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / KRK

13-Oct / Random Babble / KRK

11-Oct / Random Babble / Cheesey

10-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

10-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackerTraxx

10-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

10-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / go.pack.go.

10-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / go.pack.go.

9-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

9-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / go.pack.go.

9-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

9-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

9-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

8-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

Headlines