April 26, 2018, 02:24:38 PM

Author Topic: Day 3 Mock  (Read 525 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1787
Day 3 Mock
« on: March 30, 2018, 08:55:16 AM »
Round 4, Pick 1 (101)  - Braden Smith OL - Auburn   I believe this is a pipedream to think that he fall this far, but Bucky Brooks just mocked him 99th overall to Denver, so why not dream 2 more spots to the Packers?

Round 4, Pick 33 (133)  - Brett Toth OL  - Army  Yes I'm double-dipping on OL here, between injuries and aging contracts this is a welcome and needed influx of talent.

Round 5, Pick 1 (138)  - Kylie Fitts  Edge  - Utah  Has had some injury history, but has been a very productive player when he has been on the field. Will make a great rotational edge player.

Round 5, Pick 35 (172)  -  Daurice Fountain WR  -  Northern Iowa  I highlighted this guy a day ago in the WR prospect thread, Wisconsin native comes home to play for the Packers.

Round 5, Pick 37 (174)  -  Troy Famagalli  TE  - Wisconsin  He is the one guy on this list that I'm not sure if his measurable lineup with what the Packers look for. Badgers TE's have been fairly successful in the NFL and need and value seem to marry up here.

Round 6, Pick 12 (186)  -  Andre Chachere  CB - San Jose State  Productive corner with good size to go along with testing that is in-line with what the Packers historically draft.

Round 6, Pick 33 (207)  - Tanner Carew  LS  -  Oregon  The Packers have shown interest and it may be time to put the revolving door at LS to rest.

Round 7, Pick 14 (232)  -  Garret Dooley  Edge  - Wisconsin  Regularly made plays last season, will have a good grasp of the new defense already and tested very well at the combine. Nice 7th round value.

Round 7, Pick 21 (239)  -  Andrew Vollert TE  - Weber State  Their is a lot a directions to go with this last pick, but the Packers are light at the position and this guy has NFL talent. Did not face the elite competition in college, but I believe he would make a good 3rd developmental type TE.   

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4382
Re: Day 3 Mock
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2018, 11:36:37 AM »
I like all those names, but you could probably get Toth about 70 picks farther back than you have him picked.

Would be sweet to get all those players on Day3!!!

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1787
Re: Day 3 Mock
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2018, 12:02:36 PM »
I like all those names, but you could probably get Toth about 70 picks farther back than you have him picked.

Would be sweet to get all those players on Day3!!!


You are correct on Toth danno. I was just reading where he said that he will not file for a waiver, if that is the case he will probably go undrafted. Here is his quote,

"If the Army and military believes I deserve it, they would provide it to me,” Toth said. “It’s not my position to lobby for something like that, because I went to West Point fully committed to doing the service time, and I believe I should stick to that commitment.”

That doesn't leave a warm and fuzzy feeling about using a draft pick on him.

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4382
Re: Day 3 Mock
« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2018, 12:34:29 PM »
I like all those names, but you could probably get Toth about 70 picks farther back than you have him picked.

Would be sweet to get all those players on Day3!!!


You are correct on Toth danno. I was just reading where he said that he will not file for a waiver, if that is the case he will probably go undrafted. Here is his quote,

"If the Army and military believes I deserve it, they would provide it to me,” Toth said. “It’s not my position to lobby for something like that, because I went to West Point fully committed to doing the service time, and I believe I should stick to that commitment.”

That doesn't leave a warm and fuzzy feeling about using a draft pick on him.

No......................but my admiration for that young man just went up 10 fold!

Offline ricky

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5106
Re: Day 3 Mock
« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2018, 03:06:35 PM »
So which would be preferable? Spending some picks to move back into the first round, or drafting more players in the later rounds?
"My hopes are not always realized, but I always hope." Ovid

Online OneTwoSixFive

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2065
Re: Day 3 Mock
« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2018, 04:08:18 PM »
So which would be preferable? Spending some picks to move back into the first round, or drafting more players in the later rounds?

Since the Packers really could do with starter-quality additions at OLB, CB, WR, TE, I'm guessing they move DOWN a few spots in round one  and still get either their OLB or CB. I think they then try to trade UP in round two, for one out of of the 5 quality corners, that might last until round 2 (or OLB if they went corner in the first). The third round should hold several good WRs as there are so many second round quality WRs (maybe 9, depending on who you count), some good ones will fall to the third. The fourth is your last chance for a reasonable TE (I'm hoping for Ian Thomas, though he could well be gone).

Sorry, I'm getting carried away here.  I want to see the Pack end up with two 2nds or two 3rds, even though that would probably mean a trade back in the first. To get what I would like, would require spending some of the Packers later picks, though it IS possible to package several later picks and still have one left in each later round.
(ricky) "Personally, I'm putting this in a box, driving a stake through its heart, firing a silver bullet into its (empty) head, nailing it shut, loading it into a rocket and firing it into the sun. "

(Pink Floyd) "Set the controls for the heart of the sun"

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1787
Re: Day 3 Mock
« Reply #6 on: March 30, 2018, 05:23:03 PM »
So which would be preferable? Spending some picks to move back into the first round, or drafting more players in the later rounds?

I believe that each case would be unique unto itself and none of us on here are equipped with the information needed to declare they should or shouldn't when the moment arises to pull the trigger or not on a deal. Philosophically I can say that I believe that more picks is a better appoach than bundling picks in hopes of improving the quality of the player being drafted. Basically it is just a numbers game and the more chances you get, the better chance at success. I have posted this chart before, but I will add it again here.

Historic Success Chart For The Past 15 Years
The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:

1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)

2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)

3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)

4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)

5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)

6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)

7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)

You never know if the 3rd, 4th or 5th rounder is going to be the gem of your draft. In 2013 they could have used their 4th rounder (109 overall) and moved up 8 spots in the 2nd round or stay put and keep the pick and take David Bakhtiari. Examples can be given both ways good and bad, but trading up does not guarantee an improved chance at success. Fact is it may lessen it.

Fans like to see their team trade up because it makes them feel like their team is trying harder, very similar to overpaying for a player in free agency, again the team is percieved to be trying harder.

Just a numbers game. The more picks you have, the more chance you have at success. It will also mean percentage wise you will have more failure (picks that don't make the team). Fans have the bad habit of obsessing about the misses, but the misses don't matter if you gain enough successes. More is better.     

Online OneTwoSixFive

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2065
Re: Day 3 Mock
« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2018, 04:30:40 AM »
Historic Success Chart For The Past 15 Years
The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:

1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)

2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)

3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)

4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)

5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)

6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)

7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)

You never know if the 3rd, 4th or 5th rounder is going to be the gem of your draft. In 2013 they could have used their 4th rounder (109 overall) and moved up 8 spots in the 2nd round or stay put and keep the pick and take David Bakhtiari. Examples can be given both ways good and bad, but trading up does not guarantee an improved chance at success. Fact is it may lessen it.

Fans like to see their team trade up because it makes them feel like their team is trying harder, very similar to overpaying for a player in free agency, again the team is percieved to be trying harder.

Just a numbers game. The more picks you have, the more chance you have at success. It will also mean percentage wise you will have more failure (picks that don't make the team). Fans have the bad habit of obsessing about the misses, but the misses don't matter if you gain enough successes. More is better.     

A few things about the historic success chart. Where it is strong is in giving an average success rate, an indicator of risk drafting one position group against another. Where it is weak is that it doesn't recognise  the strengths and weakness of a particular year.

For example, I think that this year, in the first, say, 10 picks of round 2, there will be several quality corners going. To be specific, I'm talking Josh Jackson, Carlton Davis, Isiah Oliver, Mike Hughes, Jaire Alexander  - five guys with solid starter level projection. Now one or even two of those five could sneak into round one, but there are still good options early in the second. That is why THIS YEAR I'd like to see a move up in round two for one of them.

Equally, there are 8-10 WRs that could be considered second round picks (as I mentioned in my earlier post). The concentration of that group, all in one round, means some will fall into the earlier part of round three. This is why I think that THIS YEAR, it would be good to move up in round three. Equally, unless a top player falls to the Pack in round one, they could get a similar player further back. OLBs Landry, Vander Esch, Davenport, Key, one of them should still be available at about pick 19 - and a trade back there is worth approx the 9th pick in round three.

Teams that work out those positional concentrations of talent, and apply it to how they move around in the draft are (imo) at a considerable advantage to those that don't. It works the same when there is a shortage of talent at a position group. When there is a big dropoff from the best player left at a position group and the next best, then that is another time that (if you need that position group) you should explore the idea of trading up for that specific guy.

Looking at the historic chart, it would suggest that waiting until round three for a WR should drop the chances of success from half the time to a quarter (49% down to 25% to be exact), but this year I think those odds are misleading. Also, the odds in round two at DB (46%) don't reflect the strength (of CBs) this year, at the top of round two. The top third of round two looks significantly better to me (at CB) than the lower two thirds.

The draft is a delicate dance, and each year is different, so while you can never be certain of the outcome of any pick, the 'more is better' mantra is only a part of the story - sometimes fewer higher quality picks IS the best policy, depending on how your board matches the positional clumps in the draft and where the various tiers of talent (all positions with similar grades) start and end. That last point is very important in deciding to move up (into a perceived higher tier) or moving back like the Packers did in round one last year, because they saw several players they liked about the same, and knew if they moved back they would still get an equal-value player.

Unfortunately, the historic chart doesn't address the success or failure of one organisation, in drafting specific positions. For example, look at Ted's success in drafting offensive linemen in rounds 4-5 (Bakhtiari, Lang, Sitton, Tretter, Linsley). The success rate there is 29% (round 4) and 16% (round 5). Ted surely beat the odds there, just as his success rate on D linemen has been, well, not so good. If Ted were going by the historic chart he wouldn't have drafted Montravius Adams last year in round three (27% success rate), he would have waited a round and got one in round four (37% success rate), that's two weird percentages, right there. I also marvel at the TE success rate, in round 6, TE has the highest success rate of any position group (26%), 10% better than the next most successful position. In round 7 it is the lowest of all groups (0%). These oddities suggest to me that a larger sample size is needed.

So, in conclusion, if you use the historic chart to track the success rate of position groups it can give you insights. For example, note the steep dropoff in success in drafting linebackers 70%, 55%. 34%, then it crashes to 16%, 4%, 5%, 2%. Unfortunately that position breakdown is not as useful as it could be, as it doesn't seperate ILBs from OLBs, which is pretty important in a 3-4 defense. You need OTs seperated from Guards and Centers since they are valued differently. You need safeties seperated from corners (very difficult to do). It would also be nice to see defensive ends split from defensive tackles (as difficult to do as seperating corners and safeties). Even the base defensive system of a team changes its perspective (though that is muddier now, with teams running various defensive fronts), OLBs tend to be the kingpins of a 3-4 system, while defensive ends are the glory boys in the 4-3. There are no guarantees in the draft, but I think there are ways to 'game it', that work better than just accumulating more picks.

If your biggest problem is depth, plenty of late picks should help fill backup spots, if your biggest problem is starter-quality guys, then more, higher picks look a good decision, even at the cost of some later picks.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2018, 04:58:51 AM by OneTwoSixFive »
(ricky) "Personally, I'm putting this in a box, driving a stake through its heart, firing a silver bullet into its (empty) head, nailing it shut, loading it into a rocket and firing it into the sun. "

(Pink Floyd) "Set the controls for the heart of the sun"

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1787
Re: Day 3 Mock
« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2018, 09:21:22 AM »
Preaching to the choir my friend. Every year strengths and weaknesses are present in each position group at different tiers in the draft and staying on top of positional runs is all part of it for a GM. But if you go back to the first sentence of my post that was not included in yours, I'm attempting to express the opinion that each situation is unique and their is no set answer to trade up, back or not at all.

My belief is that trading up does not insure that you are going to get a better player than if you stay put. The Packers gave up a 4th to move up to get Spriggs and at the time most loved the move (me included), but looking back now it is not hard to conclude that they probably should have kept the 4th rounder. As I stated in my earlier post, examples can be given both ways of success and failure. Moving up is an aggressive action and will always be viewed by fans as a team trying harder, but does not mean it is the correct course of action. 

Individual cases aside, I will always believe More is Better.