Packers draft grade

[57packer]

Agree with Mark in the sense that you have no idea right now whether the picks are "yay" or "meh" picks in terms of how they will play and help the team.

I kind of grade the picks in my mind as to whether the pick seemed to be good value based on what you see as sort of the consensus draft projections. Also, do they fit what the team does and do they fill a need. So from that perspective:
- King gets an A (value seems about right, fits the press-man style they like, fills a need)
- JJones gets a B (maybe drafted a little high, fits the in-the-box safety/hybrid LB spot they use, kinda fills a need)
- Adams gets a A/B (value seems about right, fits the 5-technique DE spot, and fills a possible need depending on Guion)
- Biegel gets a B (maybe a little high, fits the OLB/Edge Rusher role while maybe versatile enough for ILB, fills a need)
- Williams gets an A (value seems about right, fits the big-back type they like, and fills a big need)
- Yancy gets a C/D (seems to have been taken too high, not a great route runner, no real need)
- AJones gets a B (maybe a little early, doesn't fit as MM doesn't use these guys right, does fit a need though IMO)
- Amichia gets a C (maybe a little early, fits the OT to OG conversions that MM/TT like, fits a need but not this season)
- Mays gets a C/D (probably an UDFA option, fits big-back mold for MM, but didn't need 3rd RB who likely gets cut)
- Dupre gets a B/C (value is fine, nice size speed guy but not refined, WR not a need so possibly a cut in TC)

 

[Cheesedog]

Ya you can't grade yet. But the big question is did this team get better in the all important trenches. And that's a big no. Don't care how fast your safety is or how tall your CB is if the DL/LB can't pressure the QB consistently it won't matter. And the DL has been a big issue for a couple sessons. We are still also now dependent on OL we prayed wouldn't see the field last year.

In that respect I can't say this draft did what it needed to.

 

[rpiotr01]

Ya you can't grade yet. But the big question is did this team get better in the all important trenches. And that's a big no. Don't care how fast your safety is or how tall your CB is if the DL/LB can't pressure the QB consistently it won't matter. And the DL has been a big issue for a couple sessons. We are still also now dependent on OL we prayed wouldn't see the field last year.

In that respect I can't say this draft did what it needed to.

We won't know if the DL is improved until Clark and Lowry show up for camp. That's not green and gold glasses, it's just the truth. They were rookies last year who did some good work and if either or both takes a jump it'll help. Francois will be good for the rotation. If the new guy shows up and does anything it's gravy.

 

[realitybytes]

I never grade a draft right after... to be 100% honest you should grade them 3 yrs after the fact. Just me

it's not just you. i think most rational people would agree that you can't accurately grade a draft until 2-3 years after it takes place.

but i liken it to a university professor handing out grades to the final exam before the students even sit down to take the test. i mean, sure the professor has seen the students throughout the semester. the professor has noticed how often the students show up for class and whether they pay attention during the classes. the professor has seen the results on other, less important tests taken by the students throughout the semester. and i'd bet that for the most part the professor could give a fairly accurate prediction of how each student would perform on the final exam. but until they actually take the test, you don't know for sure.

 

[eyecatcher]

Ya you can't grade yet. But the big question is did this team get better in the all important trenches. And that's a big no. Don't care how fast your safety is or how tall your CB is if the DL/LB can't pressure the QB consistently it won't matter. And the DL has been a big issue for a couple sessons. We are still also now dependent on OL we prayed wouldn't see the field last year.

In that respect I can't say this draft did what it needed to.

The DL wasn't the issue last year. The team was ranked 8th against the run and 6th in sacks. They were tied for 12th in rushing yards per attempt. They were tied for 12th in QB Hurries. The obvious weakness was the secondary and that is where they improved through the draft.

 

[Half Empty]

I never grade a draft right after... to be 100% honest you should grade them 3 yrs after the fact. Just me

In case you don't look at the other boards, it's not just you. Every time I see one of these threads anywhere, I was to post that we all know that what you say is true, but what else is there to talk about right now? By the thread title, it's clear what you're going to see, so if you don't want to play, go to another thread. I know this is one of those posts that going to come across as snarky just because the written word doesn't have the nuances, so I want to be sure you understand I'm not attacking your stance, just the fact that some of us find it enjoyable to throw out opinions, no matter how premature.

 

[eyecatcher]

I posted this thread because there was discussion on chat regarding grades and the perception of the draft. I thought it would be good to compile all of the pundits grades in one thread. I had three or four different writers grades copied in to my post when I found the article that did just what I was trying to do. Obviously there is no way to know for sure how the draft class will do yet but it is still fun evaluating it. Just like the guys that like to put mock drafts together. There is zero chance anyone can mock what s really going to happen in the 29th spot but to some it is a fun little exercise.

 

[rpiotr01]

The DL wasn't the issue last year. The team was ranked 8th against the run and 6th in sacks. They were tied for 12th in rushing yards per attempt. They were tied for 12th in QB Hurries. The obvious weakness was the secondary and that is where they improved through the draft.

Not sure how much those numbers mean out of context, ec. When teams wanted to run on us they were generally able to with success. To your point they were able to throw on us with even greater ease, but that explains to me why the numbers against the run were pretty good. Not because of high performance, but because teams didn't really need to run if they could throw it.

 

[realitybytes]

lol - i agreed with both eyecatcher and rpiotr01. the problem wasn't the dl. yes it was. i'm so conflicted.

 

[eyecatcher]

Not sure how much those numbers mean out of context, ec. When teams wanted to run on us they were generally able to with success. To your point they were able to throw on us with even greater ease, but that explains to me why the numbers against the run were pretty good. Not because of high performance, but because teams didn't really need to run if they could throw it.

That is partially true. That is why I put the yards per carry ranking in there. It is more indicative of what the run game did than actual total yards. The Packers were 11th in sack percentage at 5.99% so that indicates the DL was doing a nice job of getting pressure. They were near the top in rushing attempts per game so teams didn't run on us much probably because they didn't have to. The rushing yards allowed last year were only 25% of the total yards the Packers gave up. Early on teams couldn't run on the Packers and later on they didn't need to. All that said I still contend the DL isn't the issue. Like you said we need to see what Clark and Lowry look like when they get back at it.