Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

How many times is a double dip justified in this draft?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  

How many times should packers double dip in
one
40%
 40%  [ 6 ]
two
40%
 40%  [ 6 ]
three
20%
 20%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 15

Author Message
squire12


Joined: 15 Mar 2013
Posts: 6557
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cadmus wrote:
squire12 wrote:


Hard to say. THe UDFA would be PS eligible and Barclay would not.

Again, just about every team in the NFL can say the same thing about their OL. Not many teams will have 8 players as "locks" to make the 53-man roster.


Most teams have more draft capital invested in their OLs than we do right now.

Our 5 locks consist of a former UDFA and a 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th RD pick. Beyond that we have no other significant draft capital investments on the OL. The Packers don't have another 1st-4th RD pick at OL on the roster that comes with a significant leash. That's about as "open" as you can get in the NFL.

The Packers also have none of their IOL under contract past 2017.

You were correct about Green Bay's reputation being another huge pull. If I were an agent for a guy like Nick Callender, Thomas Evans, or Connor Bozick and they have an offer from Green Bay why wouldn't that be considered a Top 3-5 destination?


17 teams have 4 or fewer draft picks invested into their OL, 7 have 5 picks invested (same as GB)

In terms of "value of picks" invested, GB ranks 13th.
_________________
Salary Cap Fantasy Football League
2016 Salary Cap League Rosters
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boratt


Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 995
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think tt will take BPA and in the case that multiple guys are available in the same tier, I think tie breakers go to Edge, CB and RB as those are needs and the tie breaker among them goes to edge as those are rare. I think best odds go to edge as our first player, but if only one guy drops of clear higher value, I think tt will draft him even if it's a wr or te or OT.

Because the draft is so deep at our three biggest areas of need, I do think we'll double dip. I think edge is our most likely first round pick but cb is most likely to double dip as so many will be available late this year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cadmus


Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Posts: 2337
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

squire12 wrote:
Cadmus wrote:
squire12 wrote:


Hard to say. THe UDFA would be PS eligible and Barclay would not.

Again, just about every team in the NFL can say the same thing about their OL. Not many teams will have 8 players as "locks" to make the 53-man roster.


Most teams have more draft capital invested in their OLs than we do right now.

Our 5 locks consist of a former UDFA and a 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th RD pick. Beyond that we have no other significant draft capital investments on the OL. The Packers don't have another 1st-4th RD pick at OL on the roster that comes with a significant leash. That's about as "open" as you can get in the NFL.

The Packers also have none of their IOL under contract past 2017.

You were correct about Green Bay's reputation being another huge pull. If I were an agent for a guy like Nick Callender, Thomas Evans, or Connor Bozick and they have an offer from Green Bay why wouldn't that be considered a Top 3-5 destination?


17 teams have 4 or fewer draft picks invested into their OL, 7 have 5 picks invested (same as GB)

In terms of "value of picks" invested, GB ranks 13th.


Alright, but how many FAs does Green Bay have on the OL?

13/32 teams in the NFL currently have projected starters at Center that either started their career with another team or entered the NFL as an UDFA. Most of those players have solidified themselves as starters.

28/64 projected starters at OG.

25/64 projected starters at OT. Again, almost all of these players have solidified themselves as starters.

That's 41.25% of the starting jobs in the NFL. Let's say it's closer to 35% in reality.

Disclaimer: I didn't read each depth chart individually, I just went down the line at each position, but the numbers should be close.

I'm talking about the draft capital investment on each team beyond the projected starters. All we have is a single 2nd Rd Pick, and that's with a wide open spot to fill at RG. Everything else is fair game, and nothing is guaranteed to any of the IOL beyond 2017.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
squire12


Joined: 15 Mar 2013
Posts: 6557
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cadmus wrote:
squire12 wrote:
Cadmus wrote:
squire12 wrote:


Hard to say. THe UDFA would be PS eligible and Barclay would not.

Again, just about every team in the NFL can say the same thing about their OL. Not many teams will have 8 players as "locks" to make the 53-man roster.


Most teams have more draft capital invested in their OLs than we do right now.

Our 5 locks consist of a former UDFA and a 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th RD pick. Beyond that we have no other significant draft capital investments on the OL. The Packers don't have another 1st-4th RD pick at OL on the roster that comes with a significant leash. That's about as "open" as you can get in the NFL.

The Packers also have none of their IOL under contract past 2017.

You were correct about Green Bay's reputation being another huge pull. If I were an agent for a guy like Nick Callender, Thomas Evans, or Connor Bozick and they have an offer from Green Bay why wouldn't that be considered a Top 3-5 destination?


17 teams have 4 or fewer draft picks invested into their OL, 7 have 5 picks invested (same as GB)

In terms of "value of picks" invested, GB ranks 13th.


Alright, but how many FAs does Green Bay have on the OL?

13/32 teams in the NFL currently have projected starters at Center that either started their career with another team or entered the NFL as an UDFA. Most of those players have solidified themselves as starters.

28/64 projected starters at OG.

25/64 projected starters at OT. Again, almost all of these players have solidified themselves as starters.

That's 41.25% of the starting jobs in the NFL. Let's say it's closer to 35% in reality.

Disclaimer: I didn't read each depth chart individually, I just went down the line at each position, but the numbers should be close.

I'm talking about the draft capital investment on each team beyond the projected starters. All we have is a single 2nd Rd Pick, and that's with a wide open spot to fill at RG. Everything else is fair game, and nothing is guaranteed to any of the IOL beyond 2017.


Those numbers I post were the current players on the roster, not just starters.
_________________
Salary Cap Fantasy Football League
2016 Salary Cap League Rosters
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cadmus


Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Posts: 2337
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

squire12 wrote:


Those numbers I post were the current players on the roster, not just starters.


That is my point.

There are a bunch of former DPs that aren't starters, but have long leashes on a roster spot as they develop (on a cheap rookie contract). There are also a bunch of teams that have well-established veteran reserves. All of these reserves prevent UDFAs from having a legitimate (or high probability) shot at a roster spot. We don't have that here and that won't change unless we draft an OL before the end of Day 2.

I don't want to argue with you squire, I like you too much as a poster.

Can we agree on Green Bay as a Top 10 destination for UDFA IOL and be done?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
squire12


Joined: 15 Mar 2013
Posts: 6557
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cadmus wrote:
squire12 wrote:


Those numbers I post were the current players on the roster, not just starters.


That is my point.

There are a bunch of former DPs that aren't starters, but have long leashes on a roster spot as they develop (on a cheap rookie contract). There are also a bunch of teams that have well-established veteran reserves. All of these reserves prevent UDFAs from having legitimate (or high probability) shots at a roster spot. We don't have that here and that won't change unless we draft an OL before the end of Day 2.

I don't want to argue with you squire, I like you too much as a poster.

Can we agree on Green Bay as a Top 10 destination for UDFA IOL and be done?


Your statement of teams investing more draft capital invested into their OL vs GB is not the case. As I already pointed out, 17 teams have 4 or fewer draft picks on their roster currently, 5 have 5 draft picks (same as what GB has). Your idea that other teams having more draft capital invested into their OL position group is not the case.

As for the "value of the picks invested", Gb is 13 most....19 teams having invested less in terms of the value of the picks for their OL position group on the roster.

Nearly every team has their OL group with several street FA from the last few years....just like GB.
_________________
Salary Cap Fantasy Football League
2016 Salary Cap League Rosters
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cadmus


Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Posts: 2337
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

squire12 wrote:
Cadmus wrote:
squire12 wrote:


Those numbers I post were the current players on the roster, not just starters.


That is my point.

There are a bunch of former DPs that aren't starters, but have long leashes on a roster spot as they develop (on a cheap rookie contract). There are also a bunch of teams that have well-established veteran reserves. All of these reserves prevent UDFAs from having legitimate (or high probability) shots at a roster spot. We don't have that here and that won't change unless we draft an OL before the end of Day 2.

I don't want to argue with you squire, I like you too much as a poster.

Can we agree on Green Bay as a Top 10 destination for UDFA IOL and be done?


Your statement of teams investing more draft capital invested into their OL vs GB is not the case. As I already pointed out, 17 teams have 4 or fewer draft picks on their roster currently, 5 have 5 draft picks (same as what GB has). Your idea that other teams having more draft capital invested into their OL position group is not the case.

As for the "value of the picks invested", Gb is 13 most....19 teams having invested less in terms of the value of the picks for their OL position group on the roster.

Nearly every team has their OL group with several street FA from the last few years....just like GB.


Definitely should have said draft capital invested in reserve OL.... think that would have cleared everything up because what I said apparently didn't work.

This is primarily my fault because I didn't clearly convey what I was attempting to communicate. When I listed the draft positions of our starting OL in my initial comment it muddled everything up.

I literally don't care about any of the starters or their draft positions. Look at all of the reserves and how many teams do you see with multiple (obvious) opportunities at a roster spot especially at the IOL positions. The only point I was trying to make when listing the percentage of FA starters was how many former DPs must be reserves on each team, that's it.

Bengals, Colts, Vikings, Jaguars, Cardinals... That's about it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
squire12


Joined: 15 Mar 2013
Posts: 6557
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

6 teams have 0 draft picks at backups for the IOL

16 teams have 1 draft pick as a back up for the IOL. Of those, 2 teams have 7th round picks, 5 teams have 6th round picks.

Again, I think you are overstating the amount that other teams have invested draft picks into their OL (be it IOL or elsewhere) as starters or backups.
_________________
Salary Cap Fantasy Football League
2016 Salary Cap League Rosters
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DavidatMIZZOU


Joined: 09 Apr 2009
Posts: 15983
Location: The ZOU
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you double dip at the draft party, you will not be invited next time, you filthy animal! We don't want your germs!
_________________
GO PACK GO!

mistakebytehlak wrote:

My god it must be so terrible to have three teams that consistently make the playoffs

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cadmus


Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Posts: 2337
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

squire12 wrote:
6 teams have 0 draft picks at backups for the IOL

16 teams have 1 draft pick as a back up for the IOL. Of those, 2 teams have 7th round picks, 5 teams have 6th round picks.

Again, I think you are overstating the amount that other teams have invested draft picks into their OL (be it IOL or elsewhere) as starters or backups.


I just looked at all 32 depth charts. I don't know how you couldn't have us as at least a Top 10 destination for IOL UDFA. None of our IOL starters are under contract past 2017. If we only drafted a later round DP then there will be at least 2-3 potential spots open (in the eyes of an agent) on the roster for an UDFA.

Do I think 2-3 UDFAs are going to beat out Murphy, Barclay AND Patrick. No, but it certainly looks like an appealing situation to most UDFAs.

That's the only point I was trying to make from the beginning.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
squire12


Joined: 15 Mar 2013
Posts: 6557
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cadmus wrote:
squire12 wrote:
6 teams have 0 draft picks at backups for the IOL

16 teams have 1 draft pick as a back up for the IOL. Of those, 2 teams have 7th round picks, 5 teams have 6th round picks.

Again, I think you are overstating the amount that other teams have invested draft picks into their OL (be it IOL or elsewhere) as starters or backups.


I just looked at all 32 depth charts. I don't know how you couldn't have us as at least a Top 10 destination for IOL UDFA. None of our IOL starters are under contract past 2017. If we only drafted a later round DP then there will be at least 2-3 potential spots open (in the eyes of an agent) on the roster for an UDFA.

Do I think 2-3 UDFAs are going to beat out Murphy, Barclay AND Patrick. No, but it certainly looks like an appealing situation to most UDFAs.

That's the only point I was trying to make from the beginning.


I never said they would not be a good destination. Lots of teams will be able to sell the opportunity to compete for a roster spot. GB can also sell that they have a track record of UDFA's being able to win a spot on the 53-man roster.
_________________
Salary Cap Fantasy Football League
2016 Salary Cap League Rosters
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arodsmightybelt


Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 3923
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

id hope at least one of our rhetorical draftee/UDFA interior OLine guards is able to beat out Barclay for a roster spot. Not exactly a hell of a bar we are setting there. If we get two guys who can clear out both Barclay and Patrick, awesome.
_________________
Cutler Cutlering. Its so beautiful - Bears Are Legit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17890
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arodsmightybelt wrote:
id hope at least one of our rhetorical draftee/UDFA interior OLine guards is able to beat out Barclay for a roster spot. Not exactly a hell of a bar we are setting there. If we get two guys who can clear out both Barclay and Patrick, awesome.


Why is it needed for a rookie UDFA to knock Patrick off the roster?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 11746
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NormSizedMidget wrote:
Arodsmightybelt wrote:
id hope at least one of our rhetorical draftee/UDFA interior OLine guards is able to beat out Barclay for a roster spot. Not exactly a hell of a bar we are setting there. If we get two guys who can clear out both Barclay and Patrick, awesome.


Why is it needed for a rookie UDFA to knock Patrick off the roster?


I also feel like we love ripping on Don Barclay when there are 28 other teams with comparable or far worse 7th, 8th OL. Every offseason we hear it.
_________________
packerjmf wrote:
GWH87 wrote:
Somebody take the off season shovel out of Ted's hands & bury him in his own hole.

How can he dig a hole if he's too busy sitting on his hands?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PackyAttacky


Joined: 12 Mar 2017
Posts: 206
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

squire12 wrote:


17 teams have 4 or fewer draft picks invested into their OL, 7 have 5 picks invested (same as GB)

In terms of "value of picks" invested, GB ranks 13th.


man I did not know that. I would invest a lot more into the oline, probably why I am not a GM. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group