Based upon the knowledge currently at our disposal, this was a GREAT draft. Our GM did a GREAT job in the present moment, not only netting js a stable of good young players, but an extra first rounder next year. BOOM.
To me, it is a fallacy to judge a draft three hears later. Hindsight is 20/20. You never know what is goin to happen to a team or a plauer, particularly on a franchise like ours that can never keep guys healthy.
I don’t want a GM that can name great drafts in the past that have already happened. I want a guy who can get down in the trenches WIH THE KNOWLEDGE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE, and give me the best chance at winning, going forward.
Originally Posted by: nerdmann
That is the key phrase right there. The information we will have in 3 years will be different and so the draft grades will change but you certainly can grade a draft based on what is known now.
I also think draft should be graded a bit differently now as opposed to three years from now. In three years you look at how the players chosen are performing and base the grades on production. Right now we have no clue as to how they will perform but so many want to grade on how the THINK a player will perform and I think that is wrong. You have to look at team needs and how they were addressed by position more so than by players. You also have to make an assumption that the players chosen will at least not completely suck. That's why when you see a team that drafted 3 WRs late get headlines like "More weapons added" and you know its likely they will fail you have to assume that maybe they won't. I think that's why you see so many A and B grades now, the Graders are giving the players the benefit of the doubt as they should. Those throwing out grades of d and f are projecting their personal biases on the players that realistically shouldn't be done for a couple of years at least
If the Packers would have chosen someone like Guice in the first round the grades would have all been a lot lower and deservedly so since RB was not a perceived high need and Guice was not generally perceived as worthy of that high of a pick. In three years if he has three league rushing titles and 2 SB rings its going to make the draft look a lot better.
The Packers had a strong need at CB and they got two of the best in the draft. They had a need at WR (although some will say they didn't) and they addressed it and they got one guy that many thought would have been long gone by the time they grabbed him. I think that's a huge win.
The only thing that would keep me from giving the Packers an A or an A+ is the failure to address the need for a pass rush. On the other hand the way the first two rounds panned out (losing the third rounder to move up to get Alexander and Jackson still being available) probably changed that. If Jackson was gone Gute may have taken an edge rusher or maybe he would have taken Miller or Chark and not taken so many WRs later on leaving more picks to address the pass rush. That is being flexible and you can't fault a GM for that.
I like the players the Packers got and for that I would give them an A but for not getting the pass rush I knock it down to an A- or or even a B+ even though I understand why it may have happened.