It's a reason to wonder, no question about that. I wonder the same thing too. I guess the scouts have to ask themselves how Fitzpatrick compares with the guys who have failed, and how he compares to Collins and Clinton-Dix.
Yeah, I do. Let's say all the defensive guys are gone -- Chubb, Smith, Edwards, Ward, James, Fitzpatrick, Vea -- then who's left? McGlinchey would have to be at least a possibility. He'd be the immediate starter at RT (unless he's a complete bust), and they could move Bulaga to RG whenever he's back from his ACL, though that might not be until November. Maybe they could move back a few spots and get him, too, though I've seen the occasional mock draft in the last couple days putting McGlinchey in the top 12 or so. I'm sure the Packers would be fine with that too, because it pushes a defensive guy down the board.
My wild guess is Mayfield.
I'd say two probably would help them a fair amount, and three would be a bonanza.
That's kind of my overall thinking, they rarely pick this high, so if I'm them, I'd much prefer to move up than move back. Their odds of finding a really good player go up with each spot or two they could move up. But nothing is even close to guaranteed, and moving up comes at a cost, so you have to feel good about what you're moving up for.
I was wondering about Fumagalli too. Look, I'm not a scout and have no expertise projecting college players to the NFL. But he strikes me was one of the TEs who just seems to get open and catch the ball. Something about him tells me they'd like him. So I do wonder if they'll take him at some point.
In a macro sense, the analytics say the more picks the better. An economics professor at U of Chicago (Thaler) did a study on this a few years ago. Jimmy Johnson built the Cowboys this way in the '90s. The thinking is, luck is a big factor in drafting, and there's not a lot of comparative advantage among teams when it comes to drafting -- similar resources, nobody is really that much better at evaluating than the rest -- so the more picks, the better the odds of finding good players. So as a general philosophy I'd never argue with you. But analytics also show that the higher the pick, the better the odds of finding a good player (though the odds are against finding a good player even in the first half of the first round). If you keep picking at the top of the draft, eventually you're going to hit on some picks -- think of the SL Rams of the late '90s, for instance. So in this instance, picking at 14, which is higher than the Packers usually pick, and with 12 picks (five extra), this is a year where I'd rather move up than back if I'm the Packers, unless there's a really good reason not to.
Ryan Wood broached that possibility with me yesterday, and I've seen similar national reports.
No, they haven't. I was talking with Ron Wolf a couple weeks ago about his first draft, and he said that what he didn't take into account with Buckley was that players who are small for their position have trouble playing in Green Bay in November, December and January. You're right that you can find guys who don't make the minimum standards and have great careers. No question. But the thinking is, for every one of those guys, there are many who appeared to be really talented who didn't meet the minimum physical standards, and they failed. So it's playing the odds. There's the old saying that the problem with violating your size-speed thresholds is that once you start making exceptions, you end up with a roster full of exceptions.
Yeah, sometimes it's hard to make sense of. A lot of it is just about perceived value. I had a scout tell me this week that a few years ago his team passed on a guy in the third round even though he was rated higher than the guy they took (and a couple other guys they also would have taken) because they knew they probably could get him in the fifth round. And they got him in the fifth round. It's also about traits. If a guy's got great size and speed, that potential makes him worth taking a chance on higher. But you're right, teams have to ask the same question themselves. I had several scouts say something to that effect in the last week or so when talking about whether this guy or that would be a good pick at 14. They'd say, if you like him and think he's good, take him, doesn't matter what anybody else thinks.
That's usually the case as far as I know. It does suggest they're at least considering moving on.
Never have, and they'd never let a reporter see it, I'm sure. So can't help you. But it would be fascinating to see, wouldn't it?
I don't think you can rule it out, especially if they trade back a few spots. I'd think Ridley would be a real possibility. Very much agreed they need a good receiver. Adams has had concussion issues, Cobb is in the last year of his contract, there's a big opening for the third WR in the three-receiver threats.
I do wonder about his upside. The scouts I talked to were split, a couple thought he was good but would never be great, a couple others liked him as a top-10 pick.
Rushers can do more for corners than vice versa.
There is, but I'd look at it more this way: More bites at the apple give you a better chance of finding a few good players, and if you don't like what you see at the end of training camp, you cut the guy. So what if you cut two or three or even four picks? Like an old baseball scout once told me, you have to kiss a lot of frogs to find Prince Charming.
If they picked him, it would strongly suggest that. Will depend in part on what their roster looks like after the draft, the signing of Wilkerson as a free agent suggested that as well.
Good memory, I think it was three rookie DBs, but the point is the same and worth remembering when people complain about playing young guys. It can be done. To be fair, that was in the late '70s, and passing games are more sophisticated today than they were then, so pass D is more complicated. Then again, college football is a passing game, so the DBs theoretically should be more advanced coming out too.
I'm guessing like everyone else, but I wonder if he'd trade up for Edmunds too.
He played at Buffalo, which is in the MAC, I think that's a little higher level than Texas-San Antonio in Conference USA. Also, if I remember right Buffalo played a big school, I think maybe Ohio State, in Mack's last season, and he played great against that really high level of competition.
From what scouts have told me over the years, most teams usually have somewhere from maybe 16 to 22 players with first-round grades for most drafts. Some of those players are different for different teams, so that's why at least theoretically every team could end up drafting a guy in the first round with a first-round grade.
A couple scouts I talked to wouldn't rule him out at 14 but thought it was a little high for him. But one guy I talked to thought he was at least as good as Roquan Smith -- actually, he thought Evans was better, but he wasn't as high on Smith as most everyone else seems to be. Sounds like he was a really good player at Alabama, explosive hitter. They'd have to think really highly of his coverage skills to make it worth taking him at 14, though.
I don't. I always liked that guide -- of course when Joel Buchsbaum was doing it, but also Nawrocki, he did a great job and had strong, educated opinions. Went to buy it this year and couldn't find it anywhere.