Air Your Grievances: Bob's Scout on the Packer Draft Needs

Here is an evaluation of the Packers roster from one of Bob's sources.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...301336091.html

I take exception to several of the position reviews, but especially this one:

Nose tackle: "They brought (B.J.) Raji back. They've got to upgrade. They're kind of so-so there. They got (Letroy) Guion but he got in trouble and has some issues. It's a glaring need."

For the purposes of this discussion I will stipulate to the fact that the position can definitely be upgraded. As red will be happy to tell us, Raji is 4 seasons from being close to dominant. Guion is high energy, but not quite as steadfast as you might like.

However, with Raji, Guion, Pennel and Boyd (who the Packers still talk about being able to be a nose) this position is ANYTHING but a glaring need. You would need a Rodgers quality drop of talent to take a NT early in this draft.

Anyone else?

I found it confusing, calling it "kind of so-so" and "a glaring need" at the same time. In my view, teams live with "so-so" all the time; but a "glaring need" must be addressed. So, is NT so-so or a glaring need? I think it is so-so.

they have a glaring need for something better than so-so. Seriously though, Guion and Raji could easily be total crap this year. NT is a weak position.

ABSO-FREAKING-LUTELY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mraynrand

they have a glaring need for something better than so-so. Seriously though, Guion and Raji could easily be total crap this year. NT is a weak position.

---

and it seems like there are quite a few legit big body options this year, not like in years past where there was just 1 or 2 NT's in the entire draft

I won't have a problem at all if they use a high pick for one; but, I think they an get by with what they have if a good one isn't available.

Not a glaring need. They could take one, but only as a value pick. Maybe a guy like Ellis McCarthy could be this year's Mike Penne type pickup (NT late or as a UDF).

He's a big body, but he can't move his feet. Will never be an every down player. Might be okay against the run.

Guion and Boyd were able to man the position effectively last year. Changing LBs had a much more salutary effect on run D than the D lineman shuffle.

Adding Raji and having Pennel around for an offseason is all the depth the position needs.

Its not a gaping hole in the roster. If a talent drops and gives them a huge talent/value add, I am sure they would take it. I could see them adding a young one mid to late to help insulate the possible loss of Raji or Guion next year. Something surprising would have to happen for this to be happen in the first two rounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pbmax

Guion and Boyd were able to man the position effectively last year. Changing LBs had a much more salutary effect on run D than the D lineman shuffle.

Adding Raji and having Pennel around for an offseason is all the depth the position needs.

Its not a gaping hole in the roster. If a talent drops and gives them a huge talent/value add, I am sure they would take it. I could see them adding a young one mid to late to help insulate the possible loss of Raji or Guion next year. Something surprising would have to happen for this to be happen in the first two rounds.

---

theres the problem. a good NT will make the LB's job that much easier, in our case we had clay moving to the ILB position that made the line better

the one thing we have not had since we moved to a 3-4 has been a dominate NT, and IMO, in the 3-4 that is one of if not THE most important part

what we need is a gilbert brown clone, or just gilbert

http://media.jrn.com/images/brown71712.jpg

THATS a fucking NT

Ryan Pickett fronted a terrible defense. The nose doesn't do it alone.

Not having Gilbert or Pickett, the D was able to put together a much improved run D last year. So not having either can't be the only definition of glaring need.

They can find another Mike Pennel...Terry Williams, ECU...Charles Tua'au, Texas A&M-Commerce...Marcus Cribbs, Ferris State Draft a later round guy, pick up a guy like this as a priority free agent, see if Raji or Giuon show anything this year, and go from there.

A good NT won't reach their peak during their first contract no matter how long it is. Really the only way to get an elite NT is to pay them market value, even if you draft them. With how good the Packers are right now, I just don't see the value in drafting the rights to develop a high-end NT. With the pick it would take to match the performance of Raji, Guion, or even Pennel this season with the potential to become a pro-bowler in their second contract, you could draft an ILB or CB who'd give you some of the best years of their career for peanuts. Compounded by the fact that these positions are on the field much more than NTs, improving the team there is much lower hanging fruit IMO.

There's always the outside chance that Raji has a comeback year. Arguably nobody stands to benefit more from those 1-gapping hybrid looks we moved to last season.

NT could possibly be a "glaring" position next offseason so it wouldn't surprise me to see TT go that direction. I'm with 3irty1 though, you don't expect a NT to come in and make a big impact. I'd rather roll with Raji/Guion/Pennel and pick an immediate impact player.

So is it good "value" to draft a nose tackle you have rated as a fourth round pick in the fifth round when you already have Raji, Guion, and young Pennel under contract?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritz

So is it good "value" to draft a nose tackle you have rated as a fourth round pick in the fifth round when you already have Raji, Guion, and young Pennel under contract?

---

Depends on what else is there. Getting a player a round late in the fifth isn't a huge distinction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritz

So is it good "value" to draft a nose tackle you have rated as a fourth round pick in the fifth round when you already have Raji, Guion, and young Pennel under contract?

---

If he can play and 2/3 of RGP crap out, yes, tremendous value!

So let me make sure I understand: If you have a guy rated as a fourth rounder and you get him in the fourth that's not a great "value" pick, but if you have a guy rated as a third rounder but you get him in the fourth that's a good pick?

And are guys who have great talent but off-field issues good "value" if you get, say, Becham, the receiver, at the top of the second?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritz

So let me make sure I understand: If you have a guy rated as a fourth rounder and you get him in the fourth that's not a great "value" pick, but if you have a guy rated as a third rounder but you get him in the fourth that's a good pick?

And are guys who have great talent but off-field issues good "value" if you get, say, Becham, the receiver, at the top of the second?

---

Generally, if the x round guy plays better than his draft round, yeah, it's good to great value (because you presumably got a better guy in the upper rounds). Look at the 2000 draft for example.

1 14 Bubba Franks TE Miami
2 44 Chad Clifton T Tennessee
3 74 Steve Warren NT Nebraska
4 98 Na'il Diggs OLB Ohio State
4 114 Anthony Lucas WR Arkansas
4 126 Gary Berry FS Ohio State
5 149 Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila DE San Diego State
5 151 Joey Jamison WR Texas Southern
7 224 Mark Tauscher T Wisconsin
7 229 Ron Moore DT N.W. Oklahoma
7 242 Charles Lee WR Central Florida
7 249 Eugene McCaslin LB Florida
7 252 Rondell Mealey RB Louisiana State

Diggs, KGB and Tauscher all played better than their draft round (expectation for 4th round is maybe place-holder or part time starter material, 5th and beyond - backup).

Perhaps we could have a thread that debates draft round and expectation. Everyone probably differs on that as well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritz

So let me make sure I understand: If you have a guy rated as a fourth rounder and you get him in the fourth that's not a great "value" pick, but if you have a guy rated as a third rounder but you get him in the fourth that's a good pick?

And are guys who have great talent but off-field issues good "value" if you get, say, Becham, the receiver, at the top of the second?

---

First example, yes its not great value. But say for instance he is the last 4th round graded player left on your board and you get him, then that value might be "good enough". And its easy to take this too far. You could keep trading down and make value picks consecutively at the end of whatever round is loaded on your board, but you have reduced the chances of you getting a top tier talent in the early rounds.

Value in terms of just the draft (not the longer term payoff as Rand discusses in answer to you) is more about the pick and what it represents than the player itself. Did you use your 3rd round pick in a panic on the last safety and take a talent you rated for the fourth round? Do that a lot and you literally reduce the talent on your team over time. You could trade down and get a second fourth or fifth round talent.

Second example is good value but also collect additional risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pbmax

Value in terms of just the draft (not the longer term payoff as Rand discusses in answer to you) is more about the pick and what it represents than the player itself. Did you use your 3rd round pick in a panic on the last safety and take a talent you rated for the fourth round? Do that a lot and you literally reduce the talent on your team over time. You could trade down and get a second fourth or fifth round talent.

---

Good explanation, but it all goes out the window if many guys from multiple rounds play well or, more likely, if can't play at all (see 2004 draft). Sometimes you don't have to wait 'over time' to see the talent of your team reduce!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mraynrand

Good explanation, but it all goes out the window if many guys from multiple rounds play well or, more likely, if can't play at all (see 2004 draft). Sometimes you don't have to wait 'over time' to see the talent of your team reduce!

---

It never hurts to get it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mraynrand

Generally, if the x round guy plays better than his draft round, yeah, it's good to great value (because you presumably got a better guy in the upper rounds). Look at the 2000 draft for example.

1 14 Bubba Franks TE Miami
2 44 Chad Clifton T Tennessee
3 74 Steve Warren NT Nebraska
4 98 Na'il Diggs OLB Ohio State
4 114 Anthony Lucas WR Arkansas
4 126 Gary Berry FS Ohio State
5 149 Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila DE San Diego State
5 151 Joey Jamison WR Texas Southern
7 224 Mark Tauscher T Wisconsin
7 229 Ron Moore DT N.W. Oklahoma
7 242 Charles Lee WR Central Florida
7 249 Eugene McCaslin LB Florida
7 252 Rondell Mealey RB Louisiana State

Diggs, KGB and Tauscher all played better than their draft round (expectation for 4th round is maybe place-holder or part time starter material, 5th and beyond - backup).

Perhaps we could have a thread that debates draft round and expectation. Everyone probably differs on that as well...

---

So in this example, Chad Clifton was a good pick but not a good value pick, correct?

This line from PB helps, too: "Value in terms of just the draft (not the longer term payoff as Rand discusses in answer to you) is more about the pick and what it represents than the player itself."

I kept wondering how the fugg you could determine "value" when you have little idea how a guy will end up performing. But now I think I understand better - "value" is not at all, really, about how good the player is - it's more about perceiving that you got a guy who's better than the place at which you drafted him.

I don't know what the term is, but the antithesis of this - I guess "anti-value" - would be Nick Collins. Most teams had him rated way, way down the board, but TT took him in the second round, shocking everyone and causing a lot of head-scratching (mine, too) - but in the end Ted nailed it, absolutely nailed it.

A lesser example might be Richard Rodgers. I think he was pegged as a fifth rounder or so, but TT took him in the third. So far, he seems to be worth that pick.

Kyri Thornton, not so much. But I am hoping that someone has lit a fire under his ass and he wakes up this year. But we'll see.

Yes to Clifton. And yes also to what PB is saying. There is a draft day value determination, and an "actual results in the field" evaluation. They are totally different.

"A lesser example might be Richard Rodgers. I think he was pegged as a fifth rounder or so, but TT took him in the third. So far, he seems to be worth that pick."

R. Rodgers was terrible value (draft day), but might end up being a reasonable third rounder by actual results.

Right. That's what I was thinking. So while he's an "antivalue" pick, he could end up surpassing expectations.

I'm not really talking about value in the draft so much as value to the team. I'm saying that for 2015 (and probably the duration of a rookie contract), its a lot more likely you can improve the team with help at ILB or CB than you could at NT because of the nature of the position and the composition of the roster at the moment.

Draft value is still draft value but its not nearly as simple as trade charts make it seem. The value of the opportunities to draft players follows normal distribution (chart points) more than the players themselves do. There will be players you'll like better than anyone else. Maybe you trust your specific staff to fix their specific issues, maybe they are an especially great fit in your scheme or locker room. A great GM should be able to find value everywhere in the draft because they get guys who would be drafted much higher if the market consisted of teams exactly like theirs. Furthermore the contract situation complicates value. If the Seahawks had a time machine I think they'd find a way to get Russel Wilson in the first, even with the knowledge that he'd be there in the 3rd. The extra years on his rookie deal are worth the opportunity cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3irty1

The value of the opportunities to draft players follows normal distribution (chart points) more than the players themselves do....

---

uh oh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mraynrand

uh oh

---

Down the rabbit hole we go ...

Football Perspective's Draft Pick Value Chart and Calculator: http://www.footballperspective.com/i...ue-calculator/

Football Perspective's Draft Pick Value Calculator: http://www.footballperspective.com/d...ue-calculator/

Jimmy's Johnson's Chart: http://www.footballperspective.com/draft-value-chart/

Jimmy Johnson Draft Pick Trade Value Calculator: http://www.footballperspective.com/j...ue-calculator/

If you have a guy rated as the 11th best player in the draft, and you are trying to trade up into the 20th slot to select him, what are you paying for? The 20th slot or the 11th best player?

The answer, as it often is, is this: It depends. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smuggler

If you have a guy rated as the 11th best player in the draft, and you are trying to trade up into the 20th slot to select him, what are you paying for? The 20th slot or the 11th best player?

The answer, as it often is, is this: It depends. :D

---

You want the player and he represents good value at 20. But how much does it cost to go get it?

Depends on if the team at 20 agrees. If so, it takes more to get the pick from them, or they might not be willing to talk deal in the first place. If they don't agree, it's more Packer-friendly. Not that those things are part of the negotiation, just that they have a bearing on the perception of value of that 20th pick.