Le Saint Bernard ^_^
ConnexionConnexion
Se connecter pour lire ses MPSe connecter pour lire ses MP

Poster un nouveau sujet  Répondre au sujet  
 
 Thread 
Message elaine95 le Mer Juil 31, 2019 4:22   Remonter
Répondre en citant  

Tight end may not be considered a premium position Womens Justin Vogel Jersey , but in Matt LaFleur’s offense it just might be. For a Packers team looking for a complement to Davante Adams, they might find it in a player like T.J. Hockenson."Brian Gutekunst’s aggressive approach to free agency hurt the mock draft industrial complex. Before the Green Bay Packers signed Za’Darius and Preston Smith, putting together the likely targets for Green Bay at 12th overall was easy: grab the best pass rusher on the board. Montez Sweat before he habachi’d the combine. Jachai Polite before he lit his own draft stock on fire. Brian Burns hadn’t quite moved up the boards that far, but he’d been a name to watch. The Packers can still go that route. Behind the Acme Sackers, there aren’t great options and a team can never have too much pass rush. Kyler Fackrell will almost certainly regress with his sack totals and someone like Burns could come in and give them rotational outside linebacker snaps. But the question becomes, for a team that now lacks short-term holes, where are the positions that could offer the most long-term impact? Green Bay has questions at safety, offensive tackle, and tight end beyond this season, as well as some depth concerns at linebacker, receiver, and defensive line. After working to round this roster out, the Packers could conclude that a blue chip tight end like T.J. Hockenson or Noah Fant gives them the best chance at long-term impact of their options at 12. Let’s say they draft Burns. If Mr. and Mr. Smith stay healthy, how many snaps can Burns reasonably snag? If we assume similar player quality in terms of the prospects available at 12 (something that isn’t practical without perfect information, but is necessary for the sake of argument), Burns probably wouldn’t play more than 35-40% of snaps on his rookie contract. If he’s good, but not great (again, assumed for the sake of argument), that’s a useful player, but not likely to be as impactful as a player of similar quality at another position where he can start. Jonah Williams and Jawaan Taylor don’t fit Green Bay’s traditional athletic profile, a mold from which they’re unlikely to depart with such a high selection. The only top lineman matching what the front office traditionally looks for is Andre Dillard, the best pass-blocking tackle in the draft and an outstanding athlete. If he’s starting at right tackle by Year 2—and let’s be honest, he’s going to have to play in 2019 with Bryan Bulaga’s injury history—if he’s the same quality player as Burns, he’s more impactful to this team, probably by a lot. But reasonable people disagree about whether or not he’s deserving of the 12th pick. If the Packers feel that way, they could be in a position where both Devin linebackers are off the board (Devin White to Tampa is the worst kept secret in the draft, and the Bengals have been linked to Devin Bush), Ed Oliver is gone, and they’re left looking at guys like Hock and Burns, or reaching for a safety if they don’t like the offensive tackle options. Given Ted Thompson’s history and Brian Gutekunst’s adherence to much of that vision, guard likely won’t be on the table either. Hockenson, or even Fant, become intriguing options. Forget, for a moment, the issues teams have had drafting tight ends in the first round. It is the case they’ve been much more successful plucking guys later in the draft, but that’s also not proof Hock or Fant are bad prospects Blake Martinez Jersey , or likely to be sub-par players. It’s merely evidence teams have been ineffective at correctly identifying talent at the position. The wisdom has long been, if you can get a tight end later, why use a high pick now? That’s a fair point to make. On the other hand, it’s not a case against Hockenson or Fant specifically. In fact, most first-round draft picks are bad, with more than half failing to earn a second contract. If we are assuming Hockenson and Fant’s quality as prospects are the same as players also available, we have to assume they’re good. This is a leap actual teams can’t make, relying instead on their own evaluations. The argument against a tight end can’t be that it’s not a premiere position, because in this offense it is. Kyle Shanahan rode George Kittle to record-breaking receiving numbers last year with sub-NFL quarterback play. Matt LaFleur has Aaron Rodgers. Imagine what he could do with a guy 90% as talented as Kittle. Tight ends take time to develop, but no matter, Green Bay has Jimmy Graham and Marcedes Lewis in the stable for 2019. Someone like Hockenson could take over in 2020 and be playing starting snaps, getting 100 targets a year every season for the rest of his rookie contract. In this offense, that could be WR2 numbers, particularly with no obvious No. 2 option in the passing game already evident on the team. Graham saw 89 targets last season in an offense that isn’t conducive to tight end success. Kittle got 136 last season from Nick Mullens and his traveling band. Before Delanie Walker got hurt last season in Week 1, he already had seven targets for LaFleur in Tennessee. Even if all a player like Hockenson can be is a souped up version of Heath Miller, a tight end who can block and be ultra-reliable for you in the middle of the field, in this offense that’s a highly impactful player. Given that his upside appears to be well beyond that (names like Kittle, Rob Gronkowski and Jason Witten have been thrown out there), there’s certainly a chance he could make that 12th pick well worth it. Ed Oliver, if he’s there, represents value too good to pass up. After that, if we are assuming similar quality prospects, a guy like Dillard who can be a future right tackle, represents the best value. But if Oliver is gone and Dillard isn’t coveted by the Packers, a tight end has as good a case as any to be the most impactful player on the board, even ahead of another pass rusher or an inside linebacker. The quality of these players should ultimately decide the pick. If the Packers love Devin Bush and he’s there, they should take him. If they think Brian Burns is Von Miller 2.0, by all means, draft him. But if they see similar talents available and can’t find a trade partner to move down to 13, 15, or 17, there are two tight ends who could be big-time players for Matt LaFleur in this offense with Aaron Rodgers. Tight end is a premium position in this offense, and will be a need long-term for the team. Believing one of those guys has the best chance to maximally improve this roster is no longer a pipe dream. Brian Gutekunst’s spending spree saw to that. Now, the Packers can focus on getting the best player for their team, even—and perhaps especially—if it’s a tight end. Two APC writers take on the question that has arisen after recent reported pre-draft visits."WhiteFanposts Fanshots Sections The APC PodcastPackers Film RoomFantasy Football AdviceCDTShareTweetShareShareShould the Packers consider a quarterback early in the 2019 NFL Draft?Kim Klement-USA TODAY SportsOn Monday, news broke that the Green Bay Packers have shown interest in a few quarterback prospects in the 2019 NFL Draft class. The Packers have had an official visit with Missouri’s Drew Lock Womens Mason Crosby Jersey , and they tried but were unable to schedule a visit for Duke’s Daniel Jones.Both quarterbacks are likely to be first-round draft picks, and this raises a question of whether this research is a sign of serious interest in the position or if it is a pre-draft smokescreen. The Packers, of course, have one of the NFL’s very best quarterbacks locked down for several more years, and although they do have a pair of first-round draft picks at #12 and #30 overall, that would still be a significant investment if they were to select a signal-caller.Here at Acme Packing Company, there are varying opinions on the value of drafting a backup for Aaron Rodgers. Two APC writers, Paul Noonan and Peter Bukowski, are here to weigh in on both sides of the issue. Review both arguments and decide for yourself.Paul Noonan: Backup insurance for Rodgers and potential future value should make it an optionMy issue with the idea that you shouldn’t take a quarterback is the same issue I would have with anyone who would “draft for need” rather than taking the best player available. While I suspect that Peter and I would reach similar ends in this draft, as the QB class is purportedly weak after Kyler Murray, our reasoning couldn’t be more different. Let’s start by putting forth some incontrovertible facts: Due to his contract, Rodgers is the starter for at least three seasons.The Packers have roster holes that need filling. This makes it very simple to not pick a quarterback, but front offices have to be more nuanced than this. The fact of the matter is that the two worst things that can happen to an NFL franchise are, in order, having a bad quarterback and having an average quarterback on a Matthew Stafford-sized deal. If you’re not making quarterback plans, you’re doing a bad job because even if Aaron Rodgers is never bad, he could easily turn into a player who puts the team underwater on his value.While a player like Stafford is a huge albatross, a player like Stafford getting paid rookie money is a huge asset. “But, what if he never plays for the team” you say? Well, by virtue of being super valuable, quarterbacks are also very fungible assets. Consider Brett Hundley for a second, who was taken as a 5th round project, showed no growth and played terribly, and still brought back a 6th rounder in a trade a few years later. Jimmy Garoppolo was picked in the 2nd round (62nd pick) and was traded away when he was no longer even on a cheap contract, returning the 43rd overall pick. Both Hundley and Garp are examples of “worst case” scenarios, serving as backups and never really playing much, but the costs to both teams were minor, and had Tom Brady gotten injured, the returns could have been huge.The main reason to draft a QB highly, above all else, is that hitting on one sets you up for sustained success for a decade. Going into the 2017 draft, which was well-regarded in terms of QB talent, the Carolina Panthers had the inconsistent-but-pretty-good Cam Newton signed through 2020. The earliest they could move on without salary cap ramifications was after 2018. They had the 8th pick, and selected Christian McCaffrey. Taking a running back in the first is next level bad, but when you consider that DeShaun Watson and Patrick Mahomes went a few picks later, that selection seems devastating. It is FAR better to have Watson/Mahomes on your bench than McCaffrey in your lineup.Finally Justin McCray Jersey White , Aaron Rodgers is old, and plays a style that results in him taking a ton of hits. He is more likely than most to miss time. A highly talented rookie is likely to serve both as better insurance against injury than a veteran retread, and will likely also have the ability to increase his trade value by playing. Spending cap space on a backup quarterback is one of the worst uses for cap space there is, but spending high draft capital on a backup for an aging quarterback is exactly the opposite. Quarterbacks are almost unique in sports for how valuable they are compared to their teammates. While this draft is fairly awful by popular consensus, if Kyler Murray were to suffer an Aaron Rodgers-style fall, taking him should be an option. The upside of doing so is ten years of franchise stability, and the downside is likely recouping the value of that pick a few years later via trade. Peter Bukowski: Why draft a player who, if all goes well, won’t even play?The Packers wouldn’t have Aaron Rodgers if Ted Thompson hadn’t ignored fan desires to improve a playoff team in the waning years of Brett Favre’s career. That becomes the go-to example any time there’s some discussion about Green Bay finding a replacement for Rodgers, now 35 years old and coming off yet another serious injury. Setting aside, for now, some other obvious differences in those scenarios, the most important one is financial: the Packers are paying Aaron Rodgers to be their quarterback for at least three more years. His dead cap isn’t zero until after the fourth year on his deal, and the team could keep him another season beyond that. In short, Rodgers is the quarterback of this team for at least three years, probably four. He’s said he wants to play until he’s 40 (and his contract expires after his age-39 season). Taking a quarterback with a high draft pick means hoping that player doesn’t play at all on his rookie deal, or at the very least not until a decision has to be made on his expensive fifth-year option. Then there’s the question of the value of having a backup, one we can’t even be sure will be ready with extremely limited backup reps under the CBA should he need to play in Rodgers’ stead. DeShone Kizer would almost certainly be more ready to step in for the 2019 season, so the team would already be down a year of value on that rookie contract. Few things are as valuable in the NFL as a good player on a rookie contract. The balancing of this question seems fairly obvious: a backup player’s value on his rookie contract vs. another top-50 player who can actually help the team win. What is more likely to benefit this team over the course of his rookie contract: a player who starts or at least regularly contributes at a position of need, or a backup quarterback? Taking Drew Lock at 12 instead of a potential starting offensive tackle or tight end or pass rusher makes no sense given the constraints of the salary cap. Even though Lock would be relatively cheap for four years, he’d only be giving the Packers minimal value. Meanwhile, a starting offensive tackle like Andre Dillard could be a long-term solution at right tackle, prolonging the career of Aaron Rodgers.And this is the rub for Green Bay. Taking a quarterback now doesn’t get the Packers any closer to winning a Super Bowl with Aaron Rodgers. Brian Gutekunst just made Rodgers the highest paid quarterback ever. They’re confident he’s the guy for the next three years at least, most likely four. The Packers aren’t likely to pick in the top-15 again, which means maximizing this opportunity to get a blue chip talent must be maximized. That makes this calculation fundamentally different. Using the 12th pick on a quarterback in a bad quarterback draft is orders worse than allowing arguably the No. 1 QB fall into the mid-20’s when your current quarterback mulls retirement any time he’s front of microphone. Favre was a flight risk at any moment. The value at 24 was simply too good to pass up. The opportunity cost in that moment was importantly different than it would be for the Packers. The Packers have three or four years to find the right guy. There’s genuinely no rush. This isn’t Tom Brady at 41 or Drew Brees at 39. Rodgers has a contract and intends to play it out. We know what the time frame looks like.Everyone wants to believe the train can just keep going, but the mechanisms for team building just aren’t the same as they were under the old CBA. Draft-and-develop with quarterbacks isn’t a model that can work the same way. If they wait until 2020 or 2021, there could be players worth taking, and if there aren’t, wait again. Bottom out of you have to and try to find someone at the top of the draft.From a timing and financial standpoint, the marginal utility in having a backup insurance policy can’t be justified compared to a possible starting caliber player, even if that quarterback has the potential to become a starter down the road. Pick a quarterback, that’s fine. Just not at 12, or 30, or even 44. After that, go nuts. Ron Wolf proved why that strategy made sense. Spending a high draft pick on a quarterback given the timeline with Rodgers simply doesn’t make sense given the opportunity cost of not getting someone who can help the team win games over that same time period.
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Montrer les messages depuis:

Poster un nouveau sujet Répondre au sujet