Nice breakdown, thanks

Deleted

I think that the grades are fair and representative of the rookies performances. Although judging strictly vs. other NFL rookies - I would have given Stokes and A+ and Newman a B - particularly as a 5th rounder who was thrust prematurely into action but got progressively better.

Otherwise, I think that Meyers will be a fine center but Creed Humphrey may be better - with all-pro potential. And Gutekunst could have taken Humphrey instead of Meyers.

Biggest disappointment - Amari Rodgers - as a 3rd rounder. There is little that he showed from this year that he'll be much better next year. Oh well.

So far, Gute seems to have done a better job than both the Vikings and Bears GM's who were terminated by their teams this year. In the longer term, Gute's legacy may ride on the play of Love when and if he takes the field for the Packers. He did trade up in the first round to draft him, so there is a lot riding on the outcome. This year, I thought we got some decent production out the draft class and that was done drafting near the bottom as we have done often in recent years and that is not a bad thing. I hope it all turns out well for Gute and the Packers.

I’d give Stokes an A+ for a rookie. Healthy, not a liability and effective and athleticism obviously apparent. He should only get better. Looks like we got great future value for his pick, we certainly did this year. Made the team better as a rookie.

Myers I’d grade at C at best, given availability, where he was picked and performance. He shouldn’t have played on his return in retrospect. That’s not to say I don’t like his potential, but he never really got settled. Humphrey comparisons are premature at this point, although Humphrey wins on availability.

Newman is tough. He’s got all the physical tools and can really run block as well as protect against vanilla, hence his all pre-season ratings. Unfortunately he was bamboozled too easily by NFL coordinators. He did get better. By the end, he’d improved considerably. I think we would have been better with Patrick at C and him at RG against the 49ers. As a rookie guard, he’s probably a physically better player than expected and he did seem to learn as time passed. He was a third day pick. I think he exceeded expectations for one as a rookie and shows plenty of upside. B.

I would grade Slaton a little higher, for a 5th round pick I think he’s ahead of the curve and shows a lot of potential upside. B-.

Hill I will grade lower. He took himself out on a knucklehead decision and thus availability counts against him, but I think former UDFA Taylor is ahead of him starting next year. C- A little less than expected, despite being a 7th.

SJC was awful except on STs where he was OK. McDuffie did so little it’s possibly incomplete. However, we picked SJC up for potential not readiness, so it’s hard to say he disappointed. At this point neither challenge for anything other than STs. Based on playing time, C- and D respectively. I’d hoped McDuffie would make at least some impact on STs. He couldn’t even get activated mostly in a year where help was needed.

Van Lanen gets an incomplete. He did about as much (or little) as I expected. He needs development and that was known. If he can take strides in the weight room and preseason then he might prove valuable depth in a year where Turner and Kelly likely leave. It’s up to him, but nothing to go on yet.

Rodgers was completely unprepared for what we threw at him and looked overwhelmed. Trying to convert him from a player schemed open in space to a full route tree receiver was an enormous ask. I expected him to be used as an option type this year, akin to Ervin. We never saw him handed off to and, when we did play him didn’t play to his strengths. He looked to be unsure and overthinking and nothing like the athlete one sees on film. D- because of where we picked him, but I really think the coaching staff get an F for how they handled him. Next year will tell whether he can come through this and start to show if he is an ugly duckling or not.

They played well. Gutey wants the Fit. So forget the BPA. I understand the grades. But don't like the better player being passed over.

I've been as critical of Royce Newman as anyone, but for a 4th round guy to come in, lock down a starting job from day 1, and play reasonably well, that is a quite a feat. He got better as the season went on, and not everyone does. If Hill gets a C+ for spot duty and injury, and Jean-Charles gets a C- for playing special teams, then Royce Newman is an A- for starting on offense the whole year.

Interesting decisions to not play Nijman and Newman in the playoff game against the 49ers.
A related matter is whether Myers was adequately ready to go for the playoff game as far as his both injury and time to get back in form.
Then there's the matter of Bakh coming back for the last game of the regular season, but not being able to be on the field for the playoffs. What happened with that?
Have we received answers from LaFleur about these decisions?
This may be a good subject matter for CHTV to probe for an article.
One point for discussion is whether continuity from a makeshift line that seemed to be effective and performing increasingly well as a unit would have been better in the playoffs than trying to plug in guys returning from injury who may not have been adequately healed or sufficiently rounded into form.
Then there's the matter of moving Turner from right tackle to left tackle, while inserting Kelly at right tackle seemingly from out of nowhere.
It seems a curious handling of our blockers, and it would be good to explore what happened to the good and the bad.

It's always interesting to see how players did, especially if you have a viewpoint on the drafted players before they have had a season with the team.

I was fine with Stokes (when drafted), mainly because he has that crazy speed - I didn't love him, but was fine with him. He turned out better than I hoped.

I was OK with Myers (the only o lineman pick I somewhat liked). I think he'll be fine, but he will forever be compared to Creed Humphrey, a perfect 10 RAS score center who has played very well and went with the next pick. Myers may prove more heady in the long run, we'll see.

As for the other O linemen, I didn't think much of Newman or Van Lanen. Newman has not looked that good through a large part of the season, but he was rounding into shape recently and playing better - I think I'm going to be wrong about him. Next year will be the key.

My second favourite pick WR Amari Rodgers ha been a disappointment. However, WRs take time to learn to play at the NFL level, so it is still much too early to dismiss him. As of now though, he isn't showing anything.

My most favourite pick RB Kylin Hill looked good while he was healthy, but got injured........still an incomplete grade on him. I still think he was a steal, but you need to see it on the field.

Of Slaton, Jean-Charles and McDuffie, I liked Slaton the most and McDuffie the least. Going to need another year for all of them to see if they have anything, but Slaton's play has been encouraging.

Overall, not a great year of predicting for me, but hey, you think what you think, sometimes you are right and sometimes you are wrong - you just have to acknowledge when you DO get it wrong, otherwise you are just fooling yourself.

I could go into more detail on the players I did like........but that would take ages. Suffice to say the Lions got many of the 50+ players I liked, while the Packers only took one (RB Hill in round 7).

My overall grade for the 2021 draft after a year - solid - not great but solid.

A-: Stokes. 1st rounder starts and plays as pretty good starter.
C: Myers. 2nd round centers should be able to start.
D-: Rodgers. Can't run routes, can't return. Hope for better.
C+ Newman. 4th Rd OG started. Got BETTER as year went on.
C+ Slaton. 5th RD DL provided fairly decent snaps.

INC: all the rest.

This doesn't have anything to do with my prognosis for these players. Stokes' grade would be higher as he looks like a late 1st round quality starting CB. Myers looked best early. Not sure if his initial injury hampered him and then the finger and knee. Jury is mostly out for me. I don't see the upside in Rodgers, but maybe there is more speed and burst than was apparent. Newman looked very promising. Looks like physically he can play in the NFL. Love that he improved over the course of the season. If opponents studied tape, they didn't find physical things to exploit and one can hope experience will teach Newman to pick up stunts. Slaton was not as stout as I expected but much quicker. Good stuff there to build upon.

Myers and Newman were starters on an o-line that produced a 13-4 season. Stokes held up against some of the top receivers in the NFL. Slaton saw considerable playing time on a much improved defense.
Rodgers was the only disappointment. When the team was short receivers at one point of the season he wasn't on the field and that told me much. I think he has the potential to improve, but we'll wait and see.

This draft appears to have provided some solid players for the future. Contrast it to the prior year where Love remains an unknown, Dillon and Runyan are future potential stars, Deguara and Scott could be ok players and the rest are out or on the margin.

The prior year produced three starters: Gary, Savage and Jenkins. What you're seeing is about a 50 percent 'hit' rate, about average for the league. This year's rookies could well produce more long term players than previous years, so as of now, the most recent draft is a good one.

I'd want to give Amari Rodgers more playing time at WR before I give him any kind of grade. As a returner, he left a lot to be desired, on the field. Most of that was due to Kylin Hill being a knucklehead, running the ball out of the end zone, only to get injured and to miss the rest of the season. Give Amari some reps at WR and see how he plays there. He was a good player at Clemson and he deserves a shot at playing his natural position.