Rate the 2008 draft

[Guiness]

I think we are in about the same place. I did say that extra credit this year could move it to a "B". If Nelson and Finley continue as hoped, Lee contributes, etc. I think it becomes a solid "B", but that isn't certain.

The make up of the NFL today is such that very seldom do the top four or 5 round picks not hang around for at least about 3 years. So this becomes a make-or-break year for guys like Lee and Swain. If both are released this year in favor of the new guys; Finley is in and out due to his knee, or is hurt again; and Flynn sticks around through the season, leaves as a FA and the Packers get a 5th or 6th round pick; is this draft anything more than a "C"?

When a team relies on the draft as much as the Packers, an average year has to bring in 2-3 who become starters. That makes it a "C" in my book. If the starters are better than average starters, and/or you have more than three who become starters, and/or you also have a a few key reserves or role-players from the draft, it becomes a "B". If it includes players who become pro-bowl players or are otherwise truly special players, it becomes an "A".

It becomes difficult, you almost have to 'freeze' a moment in time and decide on a grade at that point. It's hard to do that now, because there are unknowns coming out of the end of last season. But I still think right now it's at least a B. Finley and Sitton are both top 5 players at their position. Hard to complain about that.

Realistically, look at it at the end of TC. If (if, if, if!) Nelson is the #2 or #3, Finley looks as good as ever, and Lee is the KR/dime back (I'm assuming Sitton just keeps on keeping on!) it's a very good draft.

I don't think losing Flynn after next season (notice I didn't say next year...) for a 5th or 6th is horrible. We hope that TT can wangle more out of him that that, but if we can 'preserve' the 7th round pick for a few years, or even upgrade it a round or two, that's pretty good.

[mraynrand]

I don't know other teams rosters well enough to do that.

If you are content with just 1 or 2 starters from a draft, where are the other starters supposed to come from? You need 22 starters + 3 specialists, and some want to consider the the third WR and the third CB as well. That's fine. However, you have to turn your starting roster over in about 10 years. 27 players every 10 years, 2-3 per year would be what you have to do on average. Average = "C". (I grade tough, there aren't a lot of "A"s in my classes!)

As I said, if Finley actually plays to the level expected and Nelson stays, this gives them their 3 for a "C" which can get upped to a "B" for quality performances by Sitton and Finley. But as of right now? What has Finley actually accomplished? He has given us a taste of his potential, but that is about it.

I would agree with you if you only got players from the draft. Even the draft-heavy TT fields a lot of FAs, either as rookies or off the scrap heap - especially this past year - e.g. Shields, Walden, Green....

Even so, I see the 2008 draft as a B, B+ too, just because you don't yet know. Drafts are much easier to evaluate 10-15 years later. In any case, they can be hard to evaluate in isolation due to weird circumstances. Take the 1999 draft - what do you say about #2 Fred Vinson - he was injured and ended up sucking in the NFL, but the Packers traded him to get Ahman Green. Brooks did nothing for the Packers, but had a few good years as QB in the NFL. Plus the draft netted one of the all-time Packer enigmas, Ole' Cleedeeus. Just for entertainment value, that was a great pick, IMO. Even scientists I think would say not to get all scientific about this stuff. It's crazy and variable - a reflection of the personalities that inhabit the NFL....

[Patler]

Assuming that TJ Lang starts at LG this year and plays well, 2009 looks like an 'A'.

2000 was pretty good for the Packers, too; with Franks, Clifton, KGB, Diggs and Tauscher.

1995 brought Newsome, Henderson, Williams, Freeman, Timmerman, Jervey and Holland.

I think 2010 might turn out pretty good.

[mraynrand]

2000 was pretty good for the Packers, too; with Franks, Clifton, KGB, Diggs and Tauscher.

Those draft picks, plus the trade for Green, is what kept GB competitive for 5 more years. The Hass trade to get Reynolds the next year is what brought about the finish for the Pre-Stubby GB Packers.

[Patler]

I think most of the differences I have with those of you who want to give it an "A" or "B" revolves around Finley. Those of you who rate the draft the highest say Finley IS a star. I think he CAN BE a star, but so far isn't. He did little of nothing in 2008, had a coming out party in 2009, then essentially missed 2010. I can't rate the draft as if he played 2010 the way we think he might have if he hadn't been injured; nor can I assume the injury will have no residual impact on his play or that he will not continue to get injured.

I'll stick with my "C", with the possibility of a higher grade from "extra credit" in 2011 if Nelson continues ascending, Finley returns in top form and/or the light has gone on for Lee.

[Scott Campbell]

Are you guys stoned? This is an A draft EASY.

+1

[Patler]

I would agree with you if you only got players from the draft. Even the draft-heavy TT fields a lot of FAs, either as rookies or off the scrap heap - especially this past year - e.g. Shields, Walden, Green....

Even so, I see the 2008 draft as a B, B+ too, just because you don't yet know. Drafts are much easier to evaluate 10-15 years later. In any case, they can be hard to evaluate in isolation due to weird circumstances. Take the 1999 draft - what do you say about #2 Fred Vinson - he was injured and ended up sucking in the NFL, but the Packers traded him to get Ahman Green. Brooks did nothing for the Packers, but had a few good years as QB in the NFL. Plus the draft netted one of the all-time Packer enigmas, Ole' Cleedeeus. Just for entertainment value, that was a great pick, IMO. Even scientists I think would say not to get all scientific about this stuff. It's crazy and variable - a reflection of the personalities that inhabit the NFL....

Sometimes you "hit" with a FA because you failed with a draft pick. If Lee had played like a 2nd round corner is hoped, maybe they would not have been so hot after Shields. If Thompson and/or Jones were successful and not injured, Zombo might never have made the team. If Wynn, Harrell, Neal were better and/or healthy, Green would never have seen Green Bay.

If you look at total rookie acquisitions, 2010 might turn out to be really special.

[mraynrand]

All good points Patler, but the Packers aren't the only team that does this. Teams with poorer drafting have to bring in more guys. I've done this analysis before, that is, directly comparing two or three teams over a stretch of several years. Here's my basic point: no team builds exclusively through the draft, so that I simply dispute the exact number you use for how many draft picks have to pan out. If you reduce the starters required from 2-3 number to 1-2 or 1.5 to 2.5, the 2008 draft might all the sudden look a lot better - especially after 10-15 years, after which you can look at things like productivity, pro bowls, trades, etc.

The other thing you can't ignore is draft position. For example, 2006 was an especially rich year due to the poor 2005 showing, being at the top of the draft order each round - and of course an extra #2 from Walker. Things like that complicate the whole thing to the point of Baseball proportions.

[Bretsky]

Sitton- Stud
Finley- Stud
Nelson- Starter capable

I'd give TT on A on this one

[Patler]

All good points Patler, but the Packers aren't the only team that does this. Teams with poorer drafting have to bring in more guys. I've done this analysis before, that is, directly comparing two or three teams over a stretch of several years. Here's my basic point: no team builds exclusively through the draft, so that I simply dispute the exact number you use for how many draft picks have to pan out. If you reduce the starters required from 2-3 number to 1-2 or 1.5 to 2.5, the 2008 draft might all the sudden look a lot better - especially after 10-15 years, after which you can look at things like productivity, pro bowls, trades, etc.

The other thing you can't ignore is draft position. For example, 2006 was an especially rich year due to the poor 2005 showing, being at the top of the draft order each round - and of course an extra #2 from Walker. Things like that complicate the whole thing to the point of Baseball proportions.

But two each year only gives you 20 in a 10 year period. Plenty of space for the FA signings.

[Patler]

Sitton- Stud
Finley- Stud
Nelson- Starter capable

I'd give TT on A on this one

Than what do you give for a draft with 4 or 5 starters?
Finley is a stud or can be one, assuming he stays on the field?

[Bretsky]

I think the goal of each draft would be to get three starters and some depth; I'd probably give somebody categorized as a stud double value
Most drafts don't bring two stars at their position or five starters. If they do I'd give that an A also

One could easily argue I overvalue Finley and Jordan, which would probably bring it to the B range if you don't view Finley as a stud and Nelson as a starter

[Patler]

I think the goal of each draft would be to get three starters and some depth; I'd probably give somebody categorized as a stud double value
Most drafts don't bring two stars at their position or five starters. If they do I'd give that an A also

One could easily argue I overvalue Finley and Jordan, which would probably bring it to the B range if you don't view Finley as a stud and Nelson as a starter

We are not that far apart. I look at Sitton as the only proven commodity. Nelson has shown flashes. I truly do worry about Finley staying healthy. He tends to run relatively tall, and constantly takes shoulders into his lower legs. As I recall, that is how he got hurt in 2009. Now that he has a repaired knee..... I also wonder if he will be 100% in 2011.

[Kiwon]

Given that TT already has a Super Bowl victory under his belt his reputation as a superior Draft manager has an added glean to that luster. No matter how his career ends with the Packers he will have his choice of teams looking at him as someone who can rebuild them successfully from the ground up.

[bobblehead]

I think your criteria for a successful draft is much, much too low. At the rate of 1 starter, 3 contributors and 2 potential, you will never complete a starting roster, especially if you call Nelson a "starter". If the third WR is a starter, and the 3rd corner, you have to fill in 24 starting spots plus a kicker, punter and snapper. You need to find three of those each year just to keep it going. That would be a "C" in my grade book, an "average" year of filling spots.

I like what Finley might become very much. I'm just not certain he will get there, and if he does, it might not be as a Packer.

So you don't think TT is actually that good with the draft since most of his drafts have fallen short of this.