Bob's PreDraft Article and Mock

[pbmax]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/will-ted-thompson-move-down-in-draft-to-find-next-starter-b99490463z1-301784061.html

Lot's of info and speculation
1. He predicts a trade down

2. Thinks Kevin Johnson might be available and that he, Oregon's DE Arik Armstead, DT Malcom Brown of Texas might tempt the Packers to use the selection if they fall to the Packers.

3. Trae Waynes most likely gone, but Marcus Peters, Jalen Collins, Byron Jones and P.J. Williams probably will be there. He trusts his scouts that none of them (not even Waynes for this scout) are true 1st round picks.

3a. Necessary reminder he made the same claim about both safeties last year.

4. Sources close to Matthews indicate he wants to go back to OLB, no details on sources except the use of plural.

5. Teams is high on Bradford's chances inside (no source indicated).

6. his scouts on the ILBs: A Journal Sentinel poll of 21 scouts
--Benardrick McKinney led with 76 points
--Clemson's Stephone Anthony (65)
--UCLA's Eric Kendricks (58)
--Miami's Denzel Perryman (57)
--Texas Christian's Paul Dawson (46)

7. The most passive aggressive explanation of a first round draft selection I have ever read:


Last year, the Packers were set to take either of two inside linebackers, Alabama's D.J. Mosley or Ohio State's Ryan Shazier, but they were picked four and six slots ahead of Green Bay's 21st choice that wound up being used for safety Ha Ha Clinton-Dix.
Read another way: like all drafts, not every player the Packers liked at their pick fell to them, but they did get a safety, proving that not reaching can still fill a team need.

8. Scouts liked Shazier and Mosley more than any linebacker this year.

9. Scout thinks Dawson, Kendricks and Anthony an be 3 down LBs. But Perryman and McKinney are more run stuffers. If you believe this, then Perryman or McKinney would require the Packers to find the 3rd down backer (and dime backer) from elsewhere as he feels neither Barrington nor Bradford are speedy enough to fill the role.

[pbmax]

Bob's Mock: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/bob-mcginns-first-round-nfl-mock-draft-b99490465z1-301778881.html

If at #30, the Packers do as Bob suggests and trade down to 58 with the Ravens and pick up next year's #1 pick, I will eat my coffee cup.

1. TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS: Jameis Winston, QB, Florida State
2. TENNESSEE TITANS: Marcus Mariota, QB, Oregon
3. JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS: Leonard Williams, DE, Southern California
4. OAKLAND RAIDERS: Amari Cooper, WR, Alabama
5. WASHINGTON REDSKINS: Dante Fowler, OLB, Florida
6. NEW YORK JETS: Vic Beasley, OLB, Clemson
7. CHICAGO BEARS: Kevin White, WR, West Virginia
8. ATLANTA FALCONS: Bud Dupree, OLB, Kentucky
9. NEW YORK GIANTS: Brandon Scherff, G-T, Iowa
10. ST. LOUIS RAMS: Andrus Peat, T, Stanford
11. MINNESOTA VIKINGS: Trae Waynes, CB, Michigan State
12. CLEVELAND BROWNS: Randy Gregory, OLB, Nebraska
13. NEW ORLEANS SAINTS: Danny Shelton, NT, Washington
14. MIAMI DOLPHINS: Todd Gurley, RB, Georgia
15. SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: Arik Armstead, DE, Oregon
16. HOUSTON TEXANS: DeVante Parker, WR, Louisville
17. SAN DIEGO CHARGERS: Ereck Flowers, T, Miami
18. KANSAS CITY CHIEFS: Cedric Ogbuehi, T, Texas A&M
19. CLEVELAND BROWNS-a: Nelson Agholor, WR, Southern California
20. PHILADELPHIA EAGLES: Damarious Randall, S, Arizona State
21. CINCINNATI BENGALS: Dorial Green-Beckham, WR, Oklahoma
22. PITTSBURGH STEELERS: Landon Collins, S, Alabama
23. DETROIT LIONS: Malcom Brown, DT, Texas
24. ARIZONA CARDINALS: Melvin Gordon, RB, Wisconsin
25. CAROLINA PANTHERS: D.J. Humphries, T, Florida
26. BALTIMORE RAVENS: Marcus Peters, CB, Washington
27. DALLAS COWBOYS: Kevin Johnson, CB, Wake Forest
28. DENVER BRONCOS: Shane Ray, OLB, Missouri
29. INDIANAPOLIS COLTS: Cameron Erving, C, Florida State
30. BALTIMORE RAVENS-b: Breshad Perriman, WR, Central Florida
31. NEW ORLEANS SAINTS-c: Bryce Petty, QB, Baylor
32. NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS: Jaelen Strong, WR, Arizona State

[Maxie the Taxi]

I'm beginning to think the opinions of "scouts" are worthless. And Bob's opinion is even less so. Reminds me of the "scouts" in "Money Ball." The only opinion that really counts is Ted's...and maybe Stubby's and Dom's. And they are clamming up.

Get this draft started already!

[pbmax]

I am pretty sure M3 mentioned Clay would be moving all around again. I am not sure he won't be at ILB for a good chunk of time. But resistance would be natural, it will affect his next contract.

[mraynrand]

I'm beginning to think the opinions of "scouts" are worthless. And Bob's opinion is even less so. Reminds me of the "scouts" in "Money Ball." The only opinion that really counts is Ted's...and maybe Stubby's and Dom's. And they are clamming up.

Get this draft started already!

I think the Packers trust their area scouts

[mraynrand]

I am pretty sure M3 mentioned Clay would be moving all around again. I am not sure he won't be at ILB for a good chunk of time. But resistance would be natural, it will affect his next contract.

This is still weird to me, since he played much better after they moved him. After they got Peppers. Perhaps there just are teams stupid enough to pay more for a guy because he has OUTSIDE listed before Linebacker, but the truths about Clay are:

1) He is not that effective going against LTs all the time
2) He is a good run stopper, but he wears down and can be had by tackles with size and feet.
3) He is much better coming from different positions where he can more easily generate a mismatch
4) He can't do it alone without another pass rushing threat
5) All the above, when addressed, as it was with his move and Peppers, made him a more dangerous and effective player
6) If his value is less at contract time, it could be the loss of his 'O' face, but real personnel guys will know the truth

[Fritz]

This is still weird to me, since he played much better after they moved him. After they got Peppers. Perhaps there just are teams stupid enough to pay more for a guy because he has OUTSIDE listed before Linebacker, but the truths about Clay are:

1) He is not that effective going against LTs all the time
2) He is a good run stopper, but he wears down and can be had by tackles with size and feet.
3) He is much better coming from different positions where he can more easily generate a mismatch
4) He can't do it alone without another pass rushing threat
5) All the above, when addressed, as it was with his move and Peppers, made him a more dangerous and effective player
6) If his value is less at contract time, it could be the loss of his 'O' face, but real personnel guys will know the truth

What he says. Absolutely. I'd rep this one if I knew what the hell that meant exactly and knew how to do it.

[Fritz]

Y'know, PB, that article is such a scattershot of "mebbe this guy, or mebbe that guy" that it's the classic example of how writers can claim prescience. If TT picks any one of the dozen names mentioned, McGinn can crow that he was right.

[pbmax]

Y'know, PB, that article is such a scattershot of "mebbe this guy, or mebbe that guy" that it's the classic example of how writers can claim prescience. If TT picks any one of the dozen names mentioned, McGinn can crow that he was right.

Yes. Its a tough job when the home team is always picking in the late 20s.

It will be most interesting because Bob's scouts disagree with a lot of other rankings at ILB and CB. Will be interesting to see who has it right.

[mraynrand]

What he says. Absolutely. I'd rep this one if I knew what the hell that meant exactly and knew how to do it.

Partial has a mobile App to make this happen. Software is eating the world, in case you missed it.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I think the Packers trust their area scouts

Probably more on UDFA's and later round picks. Ted, Stubby and company have the whole off season to watch film themselves on the top guys. Ted and staff have all year. Ted probably knows what brand of toothpaste the top guys use.

[MadScientist]

I still don't get why there is all this talk about the Packers trading down. They were 1 fuck-up (take your pick of several) away from the SB last year. They don't needs a lot of players for depth, they need upgrades more than worrying about some mythical value of a pick at 30 vs 40. Get the best guy to help you win, the best CB, OLB, or ILB they can get their hands on before someone else grabs them.

[mraynrand]

Are you Mockin' me with that article?

http://www.troll.me/images2/judge-my-cousin-vinny/are-you-mocking-me-boy.jpg

[Maxie the Taxi]

I still don't get why there is all this talk about the Packers trading down. They were 1 fuck-up (take your pick of several) away from the SB last year. They don't needs a lot of players for depth, they need upgrades more than worrying about some mythical value of a pick at 30 vs 40. Get the best guy to help you win, the best CB, OLB, or ILB they can get their hands on before someone else grabs them.

The voice of reason.

[pbmax]

The voice of reason.

If you take the "best" ILB at 30 and the rest with the same grade are available in the middle 30s, you have done yourself a disservice. There will be injuries, contract negotiations gone awry, marijuana use, a poor decision to stop at GNC to shop and the annual 2nd year UDFA failure to develop.

It might not be possible this year, but Ted went backwards 6 spots and grabbed Nelson plus an extra pick. This would be the year to do that again it seems. Unless the Packers really do think there is a first round ILB in the group.

[Maxie the Taxi]

If you take the "best" ILB at 30 and the rest with the same grade are available in the middle 30s, you have done yourself a disservice. There will be injuries, contract negotiations gone awry, marijuana use, a poor decision to stop at GNC to shop and the annual 2nd year UDFA failure to develop.

It might not be possible this year, but Ted went backwards 6 spots and grabbed Nelson plus an extra pick. This would be the year to do that again it seems. Unless the Packers really do think there is a first round ILB in the group.

"Grade" is a relative term. I don't think the issue is "a first round ILB." I think the issue is "the best fit at this place and time for our system." If the man you need is there, take him. If you trade down, someone else might select the man you want. IMO, talent is not fungible.

[pbmax]

"Grade" is a relative term. I don't think the issue is "a first round ILB." I think the issue is "the best fit at this place and time for our system." If the man you need is there, take him. If you trade down, someone else might select the man you want. IMO, talent is not fungible.

Grade is a relative term, but no more imprecise that selecting in the first round generally. If team's could actually predict who will be successful, then the first round wouldn't be a 50/50 crap shoot. Teams can generally project how well a player may do. If you have the same grade on 6 players and 2 of them will be available 8 picks later, trading down makes sense.

I would say especially true if those grades you have them on are for the second round.

There are constraints. Everyone loves to say there are only 18-20 first round players this year. Well, trading down or not, 32 will get selected. So if there are only 20 second round grades, you better not trade down into the late second round.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Grade is a relative term, but no more imprecise that selecting in the first round generally. If team's could actually predict who will be successful, then the first round wouldn't be a 50/50 crap shoot. Teams can generally project how well a player may do. If you have the same grade on 6 players and 2 of them will be available 8 picks later, trading down makes sense.

I would say especially true if those grades you have them on are for the second round.

There are constraints. Everyone loves to say there are only 18-20 first round players this year. Well, trading down or not, 32 will get selected. So if there are only 20 second round grades, you better not trade down into the late second round.

I still don't get it. I compare it to hiring a key employee. A head hunter can bring you six candidates with the same "grade." However, the six are not interchangeable. Each has unique talents and character traits. You hire the one that fits your needs best, even if it means paying a larger salary or accommodating her future plans to start a family.

[pbmax]

I still don't get it. I compare it to hiring a key employee. A head hunter can bring you six candidates with the same "grade." However, the six are not interchangeable. Each has unique talents and character traits. You hire the one that fits your needs best, even if it means paying a larger salary or accommodating her future plans to start a family.

Does your hypothetical company have as much turnover as an NFL roster? Do employees get injured at the same rate, unable to perform for most of the year, or perhaps, ending their career prematurely?

And does the hiring of that single employee directly and immediately affect your ability to train and develop internal candidates for the position? Are you allowed to hire from this pool of candidates only once a year?

Is the prospective employee 1/53 of your workforce? If the single employee's position historically had a 50% turnover rate, doesn't it make sense to audition two players for just about the price of one?

[King Friday]

I would be SHOCKED if a ton of CBs are available at #30...I guess Bob McGinn's boys have ignored the rise of the passing game int he NFL over the last 3 decades. It doesn't matter if they aren't 1st round grades...TEAMS NEED CBs and they'll take the best one available.

[Maxie the Taxi]

pb, I guess by that reasoning it makes sense to trade down for Cody Fajardo and Brett Hundley if you have the 1st pick in the draft and need a QB. Winston might get hurt or turn out to be a bust. Everybody approaches deal-making differently. I see "value" as very subjective. It depends on specific team needs and wants. That's all I'm saying. You have a specific need to fill, the guy who can best fill it is available, take him.

[pbmax]

pb, I guess by that reasoning it makes sense to trade down for Cody Fajardo and Brett Hundley if you have the 1st pick in the draft and need a QB. Winston might get hurt or turn out to be a bust. Everybody approaches deal-making differently. I see "value" as very subjective. It depends on specific team needs and wants. That's all I'm saying. You have a specific need to fill, the guy who can best fill it is available, take him.

There are constraints though. I doubt any team has either of those prospects rated with Winston and Mariota. There are also reasons to trade up.

This season is a great test of this. Everyone went into the offseason thinking ILBs. But now, you hear a lot more talk about CB and OLB, even D Line. A lot depends on the weakest link in the chain. If you actually believe Bradford can play and help get Matthews back outside (or even just be a reliable backup or 3rd down guy) then that might increases the chance you take the CB and then try to finagle your way to an ILB in the second.

If Matthews is privately raising hell about being inside and Bradford is a complete unknown, then ILB becomes the focus and they might go back a few spots and take the best ILB in the top 1/3 of the second round as their first pick.

The biggest constraint here is getting a trade to a spot you want, for a reasonable price. And that really depends on two things you can't control (other teams and your player grades).

There is also the unknown. Did Thompson have a first round grade on Dix? Many thought both safeties were marginal first rounders. Perhaps each year Ted went with need was a spot where there we either couldn't trade back to a reasonable number or he had run out of players with appropriate grades for that round.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Can't argue with any of that: Value is in the eye of the beholder. That's why the Dutch and the Indians could make a mutually agreeable trade for the Island of Manhattan.

[pbmax]

There is only so much we know. Lots of picks bust out. In a way, the draft is a testament that teams KNOW who will make good pros, but really what they know is who are the 20 or so that fall into similar projections.

But faced with a situation where having a higher pick is no guarantee, and that you will always need more than one player from a draft to contribute, the number of draft picks you have is as important and how high they are.

That doesn't mean all the 7th round picks are better bet than a #10 pick in Round 1 and a #9 pick in the second. But it does mean that you don't want to trade the rest of your draft to get there.

[red]

Can't argue with any of that: Value is in the eye of the beholder. That's why the Dutch and the Indians could make a mutually agreeable trade for the Island of Manhattan.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ882QYzr-M

[Maxie the Taxi]

There is only so much we know. Lots of picks bust out. In a way, the draft is a testament that teams KNOW who will make good pros, but really what they know is who are the 20 or so that fall into similar projections.

But faced with a situation where having a higher pick is no guarantee, and that you will always need more than one player from a draft to contribute, the number of draft picks you have is as important and how high they are.

That doesn't mean all the 7th round picks are better bet than a #10 pick in Round 1 and a #9 pick in the second. But it does mean that you don't want to trade the rest of your draft to get there.

Except if you're the Eagles.:glug:

[Maxie the Taxi]

red, LOL.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Bob had Randall going at pick #20.