Prisco's final grades came in with 5 A's and 2 D's. All other teams graded B or C.
A's: Green Bay, Arizona, Cincinnati, San Fran, and Cleveland.
D's: Chicago and Detroit
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/pr...short-with-ds/
Printable View
Prisco's final grades came in with 5 A's and 2 D's. All other teams graded B or C.
A's: Green Bay, Arizona, Cincinnati, San Fran, and Cleveland.
D's: Chicago and Detroit
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/pr...short-with-ds/
don't remember who did it but i read a guy a yesterday gave them a B+.
here's link that gives grades from several sources...http://www.sbnation.com/nfl-mock-dra...sults-analysis
Quote:
Like Baltimore, Green Bay is a team with a veteran general manager in Ted Thompson who got high marks for picking needs on defense. The team got potential starters Kevin King and Josh Jones with its first two picks. The key to this draft could be Vince Biegel, who could be the team’s future as an edge rusher.
SB Nation grade: B+
CBS Sports: A
USA Today: A-
Sports Illustrated: B+
Washington Post: B
Prisco likes Adams a lot more than some people. He also sees Williams as a legit starting running back. If he's right, it could be a heck of a draft.
Washington Post = Fake News
Another to add to the list.
MSN.com
Quote:
Green Bay Packers
Grade: A+ Yes to everything on this board. They added two of the best secondary players in this draft in the second round, a perfect fit for them in the middle of their line in Montravious Adams in the third round, a high-floor outside linebacker in Vince Biegel and three really good running backs — Aaron Jones could be a stud. Don't sleep on Malachi Dupre, pick No. 247, either.
Walter Football
Quote:
Green Bay Packers: A Grade
Goals Entering the 2017 NFL Draft: The Packers were completely incapable of containing the Falcons in the NFC Championship. Adding a pass-rusher, an inside linebacker and a couple of defensive backs is imperative. The offense, meanwhile, is mostly set, though a running back and a guard are needed.
2017 NFL Draft Accomplishments: A team puts together a truly great draft class when it trades down and still obtains talented prospects throughout the weekend. That's exactly what Ted Thompson was able to do in the 2017 NFL Draft.
The Packers moved out of the first round when the Browns wanted to move up for David Njoku. This gave them more ammunition, and Thompson took advantage of it. He began by selecting two talented defensive backs in the second round, Kevin King and Josh Jones. Both players could've gone earlier than they did, as they provided great value at Nos. 33 and 61, respectively.
Thompson turned to his front seven next, selecting Montravius Adams and Vince Biegel. These picks weren't as great as the first two, but they still earned a "B" and a B+, respectively. Adams will bolster the interior pass rush, while Biegel could earn playing time at inside linebacker in the near future.
Of the Packers' first seven picks, they scored three "A" grades, and they didn't get anything below a B-. There were some sketchy selections late in the draft, but even then, Green Bay obtained a tremendous value in Malachi Dupre.
This was an awesome draft for Green Bay.
Chad Reuter, NFL.com
Quote:
Green Bay Packers
Draft picks: Kevin King (No. 33 overall), Josh Jones (No. 61 overall), Montravius Adams (No. 93 overall), Vince Biegel (No. 108 overall), Jamaal Williams (No. 134 overall), DeAngelo Yancey (No. 175 overall), Aaron Jones (No. 182 overall), Kofi Amichia (No. 212 overall), Devante Mays (No. 238 overall), Malachi Dupre (No. 247 overall)
Day 1 grade: A
Day 2 grade: A
Day 3 grade: C
Overall grade: B+
The skinny: The Browns presented Green Bay excellent value in a trade out of the first round, so the Packers took it. Instead of trading down for more picks, Ted Thompson stayed put and got the difference-making cornerback he needed in Kevin King. Then they selected safety Josh Jones, who will play in the Micah Hyde role for the Packers despite being a solid 220 pounds. Bulking up the defensive line with Montravius Adams is a big help, as he can play nose tackle or five-technique. He's an excellent value at No. 93.
On Day 3, Green Bay continued to improve the defense. Vince Biegel is a solid inside/outside linebacker, which they needed. They also found an excellent replacement for power back Eddie Lacy in Jamaal Williams, and then hit the position twice more with UTEP's Aaron Jones and Devante Mays. That's probably overkill for a position where there will be plenty of undrafted free agents available. Receiver DeAngelo Yancey was one of the hottest names among prospects who weren't invited to the combine this year.
Grading a Draft Class before they have even stepped, officially, upon an NFL field is like trying to appraise a house without actually visiting the property, it is just not done .
As much as I like the positions of the players selected in this years draft, that does not translate directly into players that will be able to elevate their game as we would like to see happen. Some may have maxed out their level's of play already at their College's. Others still , may have levels they have yet to achieve. One position, IMO , that was not addressed in this year's draft was an Edge Rusher. An OLB or DE that could back-up Matthews and Perry, but that may be addressed in the UDFA pool .
Pre-draft player grades and post-draft team grades are a complete joke to me. I guess they're fun to discuss and add to the conversation but in the greater scheme they don't mean a damn thing. Every single year you see plenty of, "cant miss" graded players who end up being complete busts and numerous players nobody has ever heard of end up having long productive pro careers.
They're a natural extension of the huge attraction of the draft itself, which is based entirely on projections and forecasts of college players. Of course they don't "mean anything" at this point. To say that we don't know how they actually turn out until we can see how they actually turn out is self-definingly obvious. But it's "done" every year and obviously generates a lot of interest among fans and analysts who like to speculate about college talent and project the overall direction teams might be headed in the future.
I hate winning the offseason.
I have a feeling Ted was getting these high marks because he addressed a lot of our needs in this draft. Getting 10 picks in 7 rounds isn't too shabby. He also filled some holes in FA for a change so we might look back at this spring fondly later on.
King obviously has star potential. The S/LB too. I think the RB Williams and Adams both have high end starter potential. Montravius is a wild card. Big guy. Never know. Biegel looks like the type to contribute. The OL guy is a high upside project. Both receivers and the last back could be alright too......
We have a chance to have one of those really impactful drafts. Would love to get a star and 3 or 4 starters. I really hope so!!! We need a SB soon or our Rodgers window will start to close.
What radagast said above makes the most sense. It's all speculation at this point. Check again in 3 or 5 or 10 years.
Just the same, this draft SEEMS at first glance to be Ted's best in my memory. And I do NOT just mean that in terms of filling needs; I mean it in terms of at least perceived quality.
The following players visited the GB Packers prior to the draft and were then drafted by the Packers.
They are :
DeAngelo Yancey / WR / Purdue
Kofi Amichia / OL / South Florida
Devante Mays / RB / Utah State
:pack:
Well, we of course don't know jack about how who will pan out and who won't, not for any of these teams. But da Bears sure did give up the farm to move up - I love this - one spot! After giving a young guy a big contract to play the same position.
Minnesota looks like they may be back to their bad old ways - drafting Cook in the second round. Lions, too, drafting Teez Tabor in the second, then a bunch of third wide receivers and special teamers, it appears.
But who knows. The fun is in finding out.
In a way I think it makes more sense to rank a draft now for purposes of GM accountability. Or in a few months maybe. For purposes of coach accountability 4 years should do.
I think its a bad assumption that some players are destined for greatness independent of the circumstances of the team that drafts them. In an alternate reality Rodgers may have been a 49er and never developed into the MVP-level talent he is now. There are probably players that never hit with the Packers who could have been pro bowlers elsewhere. And I'm not just talking about schematic fit but the whole infinite collection of variances that are set in motion once drafted by a team in the NFL. So I see the temptation of thinking "what if we took Ngata over Hawk?" but there is no guarantee that Ngata the prospect would have been Ngata the star without Ray Lewis barking orders behind him. It could well have taken his coaches, trainers, friendships, teammates, family, fans, and a million other things in that exact situation to make him. Maybe he comes to GB and our trainers destroy his back in the weight room and he becomes nothing but a curse word Bretsky uses in traffic.
For this reason the Brian Brohms and Khyri Thorntons are the worst draft picks to hang on Ted. They were piles of shit so immediately that its hard to imagine what it would take to cultivate whatever talent they had.
Thornton is actually still in the league - playing for the Lions, I believe. Those big bodies tend to get more chances though.
Brohm...that was a bad one. I always though TT might've been at odds with a previously very highly rated player (and a QB!) being on the board 2/3 of the way through the second and panicked a little.
The same people calling the draft grades worthless would be frothing at the mouth if the Packers had received poor draft grades for this year. Too many armchair GM's.
Killer post 31. Though I think it's fair to hold the GM responsible for drafting/adding players that can/will thrive within the circumstances of the team as constructed.
As you say it's more complex than simply assessing talent in a vacuum. I think your post says a lot about Ted's approach to player acquisition beyond the draft as well.
Totally excluding picks that had their careers derailed by injury early on, it amazes me when the team drafts a guy in the first three or four rounds and they come in and look like they can't play. Likewise, we all love it when a player is found where least expected. I wasn't crazy about picking DeAngelo Yancey where he was chosen, however, if he catches on and turns out to be a decent pro, then my concerns were unfounded.
I must be in the minority because I don't care when a guy is taken. If he ends up that he can play and really contribute isn't that all that matters in the end?
you can always grade drafts on how well they addressed their needs
in that case, i think we would get about a B, we still might have the Ilb or OLB depth problem, depending on where beigel plays. and we still have barclay as our #1 backup at guard
No I wouldn't. I don't and never have cared about post-draft grades. Wait and see how these guys perform for a few years and then re-visit the draft success. It's simply something for people to write and talk about. It's fine with me if people want to act as though they carry any weight. IMO they don't. It has nothing to do with being an, "armchair GM". I'm not saying it's a good or a bad draft in any way yet. Of course there are players I'm glad to see us pick and some that leave me scratching my head. For example, I really wanted to see us grab Perine from Oklahoma with the first pick in the 4th Rd. but I'm not going to blow a gasket or lose any sleep over the fact that we didn't.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...m_campaign=nfl
At Long Last, the Packers Seem to Understand That It's Evolve or Die in the NFL
MIKE FREEMAN ... MAY 1, 2017
" Thompson's embrace of a more modern, or at least, current way of doing things in the NFL has all but stunned his counterparts across the league. Six different team officials told me they were flabbergasted by the change in someone they believed had become too dogmatic and stubborn in his approach to a rapidly changing NFL world."
Comment woodbuck27:
A fine compliment to Ted Thompson from a respected writer...Mike Freeman.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...m_campaign=nfl
Another site gives the Packers a B- Grade:
" Green Bay Packers B- Kevin King and Montravius Adams were nice values. The Packers addressed running back by selecting three players at the position. "
Those who were paying attention saw this offseason as shaping up very differently for Thompson. Ted managed it better than most by doing some of the heavy lifting last year getting rid of Sitton a year earlier than expected. Still there were a number of important pieces coming due who were at different turning points in their careers as Packers to varying degrees and for various reasons - Lacy, Lang, Peppers, Tretter, Shields, Cook, Perry, Hyde, Starks, Jones, etc. That's a ton of production to lose and/or have to pay up for all in one year.
Big changes were almost inevitable and I believe Ted stayed true to his way this year rather than "evolving."
Extra picks help Ted Thompson retool Packers roster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverstein
This idea that Thompson has somehow "evolved" and risen from the depths of yesterday's game are a gross oversimplification and a misunderstanding of what's happened this year. While he necessarily signed more FA's this offseason, those moves were necessitated by the state of the roster not by some new approach. He was still characteristically judicious about not overspending or over-reaching.Quote:
Across the NFL, many of the front-office executives who help shape their teams' drafts have always viewed Ted Thompson as almost a God-like figure. He is, by some, literally worshipped.
They see the Packers' general manager as an OG, a genius, a model for how to run a team. They look at Thompson the way Starfleet captains look at James Kirk. Thompson's intelligence, his draft picks, his common-sense approach and the way he refuses to publicly pat himself on the back for some of the best picks of all time—like Aaron Rodgers—are just some of the reasons why he's so cherished.
Ted Thompson has always assessed the state of the roster and acted in ways he feels appropriate for maintaining balance between short-term needs and long-term health of the roster. That balance is different this year, which has driven the moves he's made but his strategic approach to building a team to win now and in the future remains the same as it's always been.
Agree. Jones fills both an immediate and potential long-term need.
If anything appears different this year it's been the transparency of moves that so clearly address "need." I think it's clear that's always been a big part of the value equation but with the important losses of this year's departures in specific areas and how close the team continues to be year after year, the "needs" jump out a lot more than in the past when there's been less "starting role veteran" roster turnover.
exactly. he had to involved in free agency because of the high number of people he let go. he's the same ted. watching the $. i thought he did a good job in the draft addressing needs even though he passed over watt and foster. the cb position was just too needy to ignore.