April 20, 2018, 03:59:42 AM

Author Topic: Big Boards  (Read 2081 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1740
Big Boards
« on: March 20, 2018, 03:54:42 AM »
As fans we comb through dozens of player profiles at every position each year, but in reality each team has narrowed down the number of draftable players at each position to not anymore than probably 10-15. Historically teams big boards contained 120-150 total players, but last year a GM commented in a post draft interview that teams are narrowing that down even more to put added focus on the players with the higher likelihood of being selected by them. It was reported that the Patriots only had 50-70 draftable players on their big board on draft day last year. This is a article on that,

http://www.nbcsports.com/boston/new-england-patriots/caserio-patriots-have-only-50-75-players-their-draft-board

The reason I point this out is that every year different fans will get themselves locked onto players that don't match the criteria of a player profile that would be a draftable player on their teams big board. If a player is not on their big board, it doesn't matter if they draft 25 players, they are never getting to that players.

A little research often can ferret out whether a player is or isn't a possiblity for any team based on their draft history, Packers included (notwithstanding results of medicals).

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1740
Re: Big Boards
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2018, 10:09:15 AM »
QB's possibly on the Packers board.

Josh Rosen, UCLA  may well be 1st on the Packers QB board. He checks all the boxes.
Josh Allen, Wyoming  comes in as the 2nd closes match.
Sam Darnold, USC has a very similar profile as Allen.
Lamar Jackson, Louisville  his profile also fits with the first 3.

Barring medicals, all 4 of these probably rate a 1st round grade with the Packers. Baker Mayfield checks all the boxes like Rosen, but he comes in shorter than the height minimum (6'2") that the Packers typicially used. Does his height drop him to a second round grade for the Packers? Possibly.

Their is only 2 others that look like good candidates to be drafted that meet the Packers requirements based an past data.

Kurt Benkert from Virginia and Kyle Lauletta from Richmond both seem to qualify, both seem to be projected to be drafted in the 5-7 round range by the sites I have used.

As for potential undrafted QB's that fit and could be on the Packers radar to sign after the draft, their are 3 I've found.

J.T. Barrett, Ohio State  he has a few holes in his resume' , but seems to be a person of interest for the Packers. They did use one of their interviews at the combine on him.
Logan Woodside from Toledo and Danny Etling from LSU are pretty close to complete matches. (Etling was 0.02 of a second short on one of shuttle test)


 

Offline ricky

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5094
Re: Big Boards
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2018, 11:58:45 AM »
Since the Packers just traded for a QB, it seems unlikely they'll draft another one early, or even at all. They still have Callahan on the roster, so do they really need another? Especially early on?
"My hopes are not always realized, but I always hope." Ovid

Offline The GM

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2186
Re: Big Boards
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2018, 12:59:37 PM »
Since the Packers just traded for a QB, it seems unlikely they'll draft another one early, or even at all. They still have Callahan on the roster, so do they really need another? Especially early on?

I dont know about early, but another QB wouldnt surpise me.  If the light didnt come on for Hundley, it probably wont.  I think Kizer is MMs new toy.  If they find a QB they like in the mid or late rounds, I wouldn't be surprised if they pulled the trigger.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2018, 01:19:48 PM by The GM »

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1740
Re: Big Boards
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2018, 01:27:12 PM »
Since the Packers just traded for a QB, it seems unlikely they'll draft another one early, or even at all. They still have Callahan on the roster, so do they really need another? Especially early on?

What does any of that have to do with a list of QB's that share measurables and testing results similar to players the Packers have drafted in the past. Nowhere do I even hint at the idea that the Packers are going to draft a QB early, late or at all. Because I don't know, but you believe you do. I'm simply sharing information is all.

 

Offline claymaker

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2923
Re: Big Boards
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2018, 01:40:45 PM »
Since the Packers just traded for a QB, it seems unlikely they'll draft another one early, or even at all. They still have Callahan on the roster, so do they really need another? Especially early on?

What does any of that have to do with a list of QB's that share measurables and testing results similar to players the Packers have drafted in the past. Nowhere do I even hint at the idea that the Packers are going to draft a QB early, late or at all. Because I don't know, but you believe you do. I'm simply sharing information is all.

 

Then why have QBs be the first position to specify? WR would be the more interesting route.

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1740
Re: Big Boards
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2018, 01:47:45 PM »
Since the Packers just traded for a QB, it seems unlikely they'll draft another one early, or even at all. They still have Callahan on the roster, so do they really need another? Especially early on?

What does any of that have to do with a list of QB's that share measurables and testing results similar to players the Packers have drafted in the past. Nowhere do I even hint at the idea that the Packers are going to draft a QB early, late or at all. Because I don't know, but you believe you do. I'm simply sharing information is all.

 

Then why have QBs be the first position to specify? WR would be the more interesting route.

As I get time I will try to do each position group. I did QB's first simply because they are the first position group listed on the sites (NFL.com, etc.) that I gather information from.

As for the WR group, there is already a thread started with that information. I added 2 WR's to it today.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2018, 02:11:31 PM by RT »

Offline claymaker

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2923
Re: Big Boards
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2018, 01:58:18 PM »
Since the Packers just traded for a QB, it seems unlikely they'll draft another one early, or even at all. They still have Callahan on the roster, so do they really need another? Especially early on?

What does any of that have to do with a list of QB's that share measurables and testing results similar to players the Packers have drafted in the past. Nowhere do I even hint at the idea that the Packers are going to draft a QB early, late or at all. Because I don't know, but you believe you do. I'm simply sharing information is all.

 

Then why have QBs be the first position to specify? WR would be the more interesting route.

As I get time I will try to do each position group. I did QB's first simply because they are the first position group listed on the sites (NFL.com, etc.) that I gather information from.

As for the WR group, their is already a tread started with that information. I added 2 WR's to it today.

THERE is already a THREAD started with that information.

Nothing against you, but that really bothers me.

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1740
Re: Big Boards
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2018, 02:10:22 PM »
Since the Packers just traded for a QB, it seems unlikely they'll draft another one early, or even at all. They still have Callahan on the roster, so do they really need another? Especially early on?

What does any of that have to do with a list of QB's that share measurables and testing results similar to players the Packers have drafted in the past. Nowhere do I even hint at the idea that the Packers are going to draft a QB early, late or at all. Because I don't know, but you believe you do. I'm simply sharing information is all.

 

Then why have QBs be the first position to specify? WR would be the more interesting route.

As I get time I will try to do each position group. I did QB's first simply because they are the first position group listed on the sites (NFL.com, etc.) that I gather information from.

As for the WR group, their is already a tread started with that information. I added 2 WR's to it today.

THERE is already a THREAD started with that information.

Nothing against you, but that really bothers me.

No offense taken. I should read what I type before hitting the post button.

Offline ricky

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5094
Re: Big Boards
« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2018, 04:36:42 PM »
[quote author=RT link=topic=7224.msg184489#msg184489 date=1521577632

What does any of that have to do with a list of QB's that share measurables and testing results similar to players the Packers have drafted in the past. Nowhere do I even hint at the idea that the Packers are going to draft a QB early, late or at all. Because I don't know, but you believe you do. I'm simply sharing information is all.

 
[/quote]

Well, sorry about that. You wrote "QBs possibly on the Packers board". This  included guys who would necessarily have to be drafted early (Rosen, Allen and Darnold, in particular). So, I guess "possibly on the Packers board" doesn't mean they might draft that guy. He's just the BPA? But not at a position of need? Just curious.
"My hopes are not always realized, but I always hope." Ovid

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1740
Re: Big Boards
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2018, 04:40:41 PM »
OLinemen possibly on the Packers board.

Quenton Nelson, Notre Dame  as expected is a 100% fit.
Kolton Miller, UCLA  This guy test off the charts, has 9.98 RAS.
Brian O'Neill, Pittsburgh  I didn't care for his play at the senior bowl, but testing and measurables wise he checks all the boxes.
Braden Smith, Auburn  He checks every box but one (missed the 20 yard shuttle by 0.02 of a second), but the Packers spent personal time with him at the Auburn pro-day. Their is interest there by the Packers.
Joseph Noteboom, TCU  A 100% fit.
Scott Quessenberry, UCLA  Late rounder is a complete match.
Brett Toth, Army  Real sleeper who is a 100% fit.
Nick Gates, Nebraska  Another late rounder who 100% match.


Two players who may well be qualifiers but their resumes are incomplete, those 2 are Mike McGlinchey from Notre Dame and Billy Price from Ohio State.

Each year it alway amazes me how few (8 out of 78 this year) OL fit the Packers criteria, but with the Packers history of success with OL it is hard disagree with their methods.

All 8 of these guys should be drafted, I did not find any UDFA types that measured up yet. Will continue to watch pro-day results and update as they come in. 



 

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1740
Re: Big Boards
« Reply #11 on: March 25, 2018, 02:22:32 PM »
CB's possibly on the Packers big board.

Josh Jackson, Iowa - I have now gone 360 degrees on this player, Loved him during the early process, but got off him after the combine and now am back on the bandwagon. Checks every box and probably has the best game tape of any CB in this years draft.

Nick Nelson, Wisconsin - Was a guy that at first I didn't give much look, but numbers wise he is everything that the Packers historically look for.  He has size (5'11" and 208) and his pro-day 3 cone was 6.69, would have been 4th best at the combine. His 20 yard shuttle of 3.88 would have been the best at the combine. Impressive for a CB of his size.

Quenton Meeks, Sanford - Early entry. Great size (6'2" and 205) and testing results. Is 100% match for the Packers.

J.C. Jackson, Maryland - Seems to be a little under the radar, but may be a very good fit in the Packers defense. Is a full match.

Holton Hill, Texas - Every year their are a few of these types that tempt us, but they seldom amount to anything. Hill has 1st round talent. Great size at 6'3" and 200, checks all the boxes testing wise. IF he can overcome his maturity issues he could be a great 3rd day value. Might be a big If for a player that has been treated as an entitled athlete as long as he can remember.

Tony Brown, Alabama - Really like this guy as a 3rd day pick-up. Size/ Speed is excellent (6'0" /198 and 4.35/40). Very physical play style, will be a beast on ST from day one. 100% Packers match.

Andre Chachere, San Jose State - Late rounder who checks all the boxes. Probably a outside corner only. Runs in the 4.4's at 6'0" and 200 pounds.

Dmontre Wade, Murray State - Another late rounder who could be a little bit of a project. Good size( 6'0" / 200) and somehow just slipped in under each of the testing benchmarks. Best in press coverage, may interest the Packers late or as a UDFA.


Their are a number of CB's that may match, but I am waiting on their pro-day results. Denzel Ward and Minkah Fitzpatrick are probably matches who will not be doing anymore testing that will be made public, but in all likelihood will be off the board when the Packers select.

Other possibles I am waiting on are Carlton Davis, Isaiah Oliver, Jaire Alexander and Isaac Yiadom.

The Packers have shown interest in a number of UDFA types, players from smaller colleges that don't check all the boxes, usually undersized. Villanova cornerback Trey Johnson is one and Portland State Chris Seisay, who is an Oregon transfer (6-1/197) 4.51/40, 6.63 in the three-cone.

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4354
Re: Big Boards
« Reply #12 on: March 25, 2018, 03:29:29 PM »
I'll add one more.

M.J. Stewart/CB/UNC: (late 2nd/early 3rd)

Physical CB who can play outside/inside and is good at both press-man and off-man. His physical style may appeal to Pettine.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2018/profiles/m.j.-stewart?id=2559997

Quote
Stewart is well-built and very physical in both his coverage and his run support. He's athletic enough to handle man coverage duties from a variety of techniques whether playing outside or inside and he has the instincts, ball skills and toughness to transition to safety if need be. Stewart can be deployed in a variety of positions in the secondary which should lend itself to early playing time for him with a starter's role in his future.
-Lance Zierlein

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1740
Re: Big Boards
« Reply #13 on: March 25, 2018, 04:32:38 PM »
I'll add one more.

M.J. Stewart/CB/UNC: (late 2nd/early 3rd)

Physical CB who can play outside/inside and is good at both press-man and off-man. His physical style may appeal to Pettine.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2018/profiles/m.j.-stewart?id=2559997

Quote
Stewart is well-built and very physical in both his coverage and his run support. He's athletic enough to handle man coverage duties from a variety of techniques whether playing outside or inside and he has the instincts, ball skills and toughness to transition to safety if need be. Stewart can be deployed in a variety of positions in the secondary which should lend itself to early playing time for him with a starter's role in his future.
-Lance Zierlein

I will start by saying that you may well be right on with Stewart. All I've done is taken the measurables and testing numbers on past Packer draft choices at each position and used them as benchmarks to sort players in this years draft. If Stewart is selected he would be an outlier in 3 spots from the Packers draft history of the position. Stewart came up short on both the 3 cone drill and the 20 yard shuttle of past Packers draft choices. The 3rd thing is his height, the benchmark seems to be 5'11" as the minimum and Stewart offically measured 5'10 7/8" at the combine. Would the Packers overlook an 1/8" if all the other boxes checked? Probably, but all the other boxes didn't check.

The last 2 CB's under the height benchmark drafted by the Packers,
Ahmad Carroll, 2004 by GM Mike Sherman
Terrell Buckley, 1992 by GM Ron Wolf who never did that again the rest of his career.

Again, I'm not claiming I know anything. Just crunching data. It may well be garbage in, garbage out.

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1740
Re: Big Boards
« Reply #14 on: March 25, 2018, 04:50:57 PM »
North Carolinas pro-day is April 3rd. It will be interesting to see if Stewart can improve on his short area numbers.