Nonstopdrivel
6 years ago

sschind scolded:

Originally Posted by: KRK 


Rourke chortled at this.
UserPostedImage
beast
6 years ago

I noticed none of my questions were answer in opposition to my post. The 'injury game' generally can't be played will in teams without depth in certain areas.

Originally Posted by: KRK 

Seriously? Those questions seemed to be there to focused at a larger point and I directly talked about what I thought to be your larger point... instead of playing the game... now you're complaining I didn't play your raindeer games?

And of course the injury game can be played with all teams as their isn't enough talented depth to go around... you're complaining about not having a clear good back-up when some teams don't even have a clear good starter.

The truth is our depth on the offensive line isn't very good and "running the ball' as the sole answer simply obfuscates the issue. Sorry for beating a 'dead horse', but the carcass is still in the room.

Originally Posted by: KRK 


The truth is that's YOUR OPINION... and NOT A FACT! ... as we have already hammered out, the stats go more against your opinion then with it, as the OL was quite effective in giving Rodgers the 4th longest average throwing time, despite teams knowing it was going to pass it, and one of the top 2 average rushing yardage.... but you keep ignoring everything that disagrees with your blind opinion that the OL is main problem while you seem to completely and totally ignore all other factors... unwilling to factor in the other 6 guys on offense.

And no one ever said running the ball as the sole answer... you're using false narratives to push your agenda. But the Packers do have OGs (Taylor, McCray, Patrick, etc) that would be able to hold up better with a higher dose of running play calls so the defenders and play callers don't have their ears pinned back ready to pass rush on every single play (because that's what they do when you call pass plays 70% of the time, which very few short ones).

I couldn't agree more....and you posted this BEFORE the Packers' free agency signing. Now after other gaping needs were addressed in free-agency, you don't address the O Line in you mock draft, until pick #150 and #185.

Originally Posted by: KRK 

That's because you're wrongly assuming those are the same, when those are two completely different things... one is ideally, what would be nice to happen, and the other is how the simulated draft fell...

I'm taking what I see as the best value, almost no matter the position, if I see OL as the best value, I'm taking the OL.... if I don't see the OL as the best value, then I'm not taking the OL.... I'm drafting my thought on their value, not just drafting a position.... I was shocked those FS fell that far... and felt like they were the best value (and an important need as well).


I am simply stating that in my opinion that posters tend to underrate our need for quality and depth at these vital positions

Originally Posted by: KRK 

No, because I could agree with that... what you're doing is blindly blaming the OL and ignoring all fact that don't agree with your predetermined opinion... that the OL is the problem.

You put your players in a better position to success, just as the Patriots, Rams and Bears have done and you get a lot better results.... MM scheme with 70% passing calls and QB/WRs that are CLEARLY on different mental pages and QB that doesn't trust said WRs because of it... and you have put your OL in a HORRIBLE spot... because now defenses can tee off on your OL all game long and create schemes to avoid one of the OTs (usually by fake pass rushing an edge and getting the OGs in one on one match-ups time after time after time, and effectively forcing them to play like OTs (when they're not at that level of pass protection).

sschind scolded:
Your rationale and perspective are spot on. Perhaps I slightly overstated the case.

Originally Posted by: KRK 



Which is what I was saying... 3 of the top 6 is too much! Maybe 3 in an entire draft... MAYBE!
UserPostedImage
KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member
6 years ago
Beast berated:

I'm taking what I see as the best value, almost no matter the position

Perhaps this is the essence of the disagreement....I am not taking the best player available, I am drafting for need subject to value. It seems a meaningless exercise to fill out these draft boards if you are not going to take team need into meaningful consideration.

Furthermore, IMO drafting the best player available is something teams with depth at most positions can do....and we don't have relative depth at almost any position, except corner. Second, to be frank, I think the statement many GMs say after the draft, such as "XXXX was the top rated guy on the board and we really wanted him" is largely BS in most cases.

Additionally, IMO the offensive line needs to be looked at as five positions, not one. I am not terribly interested in Composite Line Rankings. As previously stated, on the O line, you as strong as your weakest link. We have great starters at 2 positions, a pretty good one when healthy at another, and now a free agent plug in at another. I am greatly concerned about depth, and somewhat concerned about LG. Stated differently, if one of our top corners goes down, I think we would be OK, if one of our OL goes down, especially a tackle, we have major problems....and those need to be addressed in the draft.

Also, we are all surmising that our guys are going to work well/better with new blocking schemes. I am not yet convinced. Like most posters, I believe that a greater mix of runs, more creativity in play design, and quicker hitting pass plays will benefit the entire team (including 12.)

Therefore my opinion, for which I have now provided more that adequate rationale, is that posters are not taking OL need into consideration.
In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
beast
6 years ago

Beast berated: Perhaps this is the essence of the disagreement....I am not taking the best player available, I am drafting for need subject to value. It seems a meaningless exercise to fill out these draft boards if you are not going to take team need into meaningful consideration.

Originally Posted by: KRK 


1) If it seems meaningless to you, then stop doing it and stop wasting your time watching others do it... because you're then just being a buzz kill for yourself and others.

2) I believe I clearly took meaningful consideration into my mock and you're still complaining about it, because it doesn't fit your personal want list...

But if we're talking about team needs, the team needs TEs, FS, DL, OL, ILB, back-up CBs for when (not if, but when King and/or Alexander go down with an injury), maybe even two.

3) So OL CLEARLY isn't the only need... yet it's the only one you seem to care about which is a huge difference between actual needs and needs you care about.

Furthermore, IMO drafting the best player available is something teams with depth at most positions can do....and we don't have relative depth at almost any position, except corner.

Originally Posted by: KRK 

I feel like that's backwards... the more holes you got the more you can simply grab the best player available because that's a need position.

Second, to be frank, I think the statement many GMs say after the draft, such as "XXXX was the top rated guy on the board and we really wanted him" is largely BS in most cases.

Originally Posted by: KRK 

Yeah I agree with this, I think post draft is a lot of fluff BS.

Additionally, IMO the offensive line needs to be looked at as five positions, not one. I am not terribly interested in Composite Line Rankings. As previously stated, on the O line, you as strong as your weakest link.

Originally Posted by: KRK 

If you're saying you're only strong as your weakest link then you are looking at then as one... which is exactly what you yourself are saying you shouldn't do.


All teams have problems where if certain guys go down, they're completely screwed, other than maybe the Patriots because their strength is amazing coaching. But some teams have sucky OTs like Spriggs starting because there isn't enough talent to go around. If anything I'd try to sign the veteran OT Donald Penn, who the Raiders just released, and is said to workout at the same place as Rodgers and Baktari (spelling) and I think others (Matthews maybe it was?)... I'm sure he want to start at LT, but maybe get him on a two year deal as backup insurance for Bulaga and try to draft a future guy.



Therefore my opinion, for which I have now provided more that adequate rationale, is that posters are not taking OL need into consideration.

Originally Posted by: KRK 


That's an interesting opinion, and for some I'm sure you are correct.... but some are taking it AND other positions into consideration, which you are not seeming to do, as you solely only focus on one need when there are many.

UserPostedImage
KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member
6 years ago
Beast opined:

If you're saying you're only strong as your weakest link then you are looking at then as one... which is exactly what you yourself are saying you shouldn't do.]

😕 Actually, it makes the point that as a unit, you have to look at each link to determine the units effectiveness...ergo, looking at each individual position is necessary.

Beast continued

If it seems meaningless to you, then stop doing it and stop wasting your time watching others do it... because you're then just being a buzz kill for yourself and others.

Good idea. I think I will only view posters who aren't just taking the best player available. I hope we get the very best player on the OL who fills what I perceive to be a need there. If we can get value by trading down and picking up and additional pick, I am all for it.

Beast further stated:

I feel like that's backwards... the more holes you got the more you can simply grab the best player available because that's a need position.

That is a very good point. IMO, after free agency, I see more relative weakness on the Oline than others. We still need other things, another RB, a TE, another safety, but on a relative basis, not at badly as an immediate starting caliber O lineman.

To be nice, and not a buzz kill, you seem to have actually thought about whether the player will be a good fit in our (new offensive) systems. To that end, if we take a TE at 12, I hope it is Hockenson who seems by all accounts to me more of an effective blocker at TE than Fant.
In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
Zero2Cool
6 years ago
A TE at 12 is stupid.
UserPostedImage
KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member
6 years ago
Wait, so you draft for need?
In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
Zero2Cool
6 years ago

Wait, so you draft for need?

Originally Posted by: KRK 



I'm not an NFL GM (I'd have a short-ass career if I did), so I don't draft, period.

Drafting for need over best available player is how you set yourself up for failure. Always take the best available player. If you have two players that are rated equal, you then take the one of more need.

UserPostedImage
KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member
6 years ago
Invariably, one has to use a scale of some sort to compare players of different positions and by the time one fine tunes this scale, anyone can get the results they want regarding BPA.

Overriding all this stuff are immeasurables, heart, brains, guts, and determination.

Drafting is not an easy job.
In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
sschind
6 years ago

sschind scolded:
Your rationale and perspective are spot on. Perhaps I slightly overstated the case.

Originally Posted by: KRK 



Maybe not so much. You did say 3 of the first 6 but you didn't say which three and I said 1 with the first 4 and double dip in the 4th round that is 3 out of the first 6. I just don't want to see 2 first round OL. Not that we can't use them but I think I'd rather have the top pick used on someone else. Obviously that depends on who falls. It wouldn't kill me if we went 2 OL in the first if it were the right guys.

OL is easy to overlook if you have a good one but you need 5 starters and then you need backups. If you you only have 3 good starters that means your backups probably are not really very good and when those injuries hit it can be devastating.

Its also tough to consider drafting for depth when there are other needs as well.
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    packerfanoutwest (6h) : Packers General Manager Brian Gutekunst says Green Bay’s roster can win, even without adding anyone in the draft.
    Zero2Cool (6h) : It's a poor design. New site has SignalR like our gameday chat
    wpr (7h) : Ah today's Shout was very quick to post.
    wpr (7h) : now 3
    Zero2Cool (8h) : Who? What?
    beast (16h) : What is he supposed to say? He doesn't want players currently on the team?
    Martha Careful (21h) : meh
    Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026
    Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : It's so awesome.
    Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : new site fan shout post fast
    wpr (21-Apr) : Slow posting in Fan shout.
    wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4
    wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4
    Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!
    dfosterf (21-Apr) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am
    wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days
    beast (18-Apr) : 6 days
    wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?
    Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent
    Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?
    Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024
    Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.
    dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move
    dfosterf (15-Apr) : My wife just told the ancient Japanese sushi dude not enough rice under his fish
    Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I think a dozen is what I need
    dfosterf (14-Apr) : Go fund me for this purpose just might work. A dozen nurses show up at 1265 to provide mental health assistance.
    dfosterf (14-Apr) : Maybe send a crew of Angels to the Packers draft room on draft day.
    Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I am the Angel that gets visited.
    dfosterf (14-Apr) : Visiting Angels has a pretty good reputation
    Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : what
    Martha Careful (14-Apr) : WINNING IT, not someone else losing it. The best victory though was re-uniting with his wife
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2024 Packers Schedule
    Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
    Eagles
    Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
    COLTS
    Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
    Titans
    Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
    Rams
    Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
    CARDINALS
    Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
    TEXANS
    Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Jaguars
    Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Bears
    Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
    49ERS
    Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
    DOLPHINS
    Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
    Seahawks
    Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
    SAINTS
    Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
    Vikings
    Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    Recent Topics
    1h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    17-Apr / Random Babble / wpr

    16-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    13-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    12-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

    11-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

    2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    30-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.