I like this philosophy A LOT. Get your guys. Players shift all over as the draft progresses, and in the end, the only thing that matters is how many dominant playmakers you’ve been able to land.

Some players have attributes that mesh perfectly for what your team wants to do, and the best ones may be in short supply. Others may be there in abundance. Get your guys.

The idea is to win Super Bowls, not drafts.

Cory, nice reflection. The only real problem issue about "value" that you don't mention, is whether you could get the same guy in a later round, and get another "valuable" asset in that spot, so that you get better catchment of players at the end of the draft. That is what really is at the heart of the value question, so that you can plan and predict the whole catch, not just that one player.

"Draft value" is a nice signifier for fans of how well the GM did in the draft....three years down the road.

Myself, I pay zero attention to the mock draft sensory overload each year. Like fantasy football, I guess it provides entertainment for many fans otherwise it wouldn't be so popular. As my son enjoys telling me (quoting Butthead to Mr. Anderson): "You're old."

Rarely beyond the first handful of picks do the so-called experts get it right anyway and the draft lasts three days and hundreds of picks. The front office has definitely shifted towards players who they think fill specific roles within the scheme, instead of purely "best player available" seemingly favored by Ted Thompson so they are seldom going to be in synch with the endless number of sports bloviator's selections anyway. And when Thompson drafted for position need, such as at cornerback, he seldom got it right, so for him "BPA" was obviously the better approach.

And there is no universe in which anyone could tell me the Jordan Love pick didn't possess significant draft value since magically by coincidence Rodgers had his best season in several years, although he claimed to be unaffected one way or other by the pick. Right, and I have a bridge for sale over the mighty Root River just in case anyone wants to buy a bridge. However, at the end of the day if Love never starts a game here or doesn't measure up he will be widely considered a bust by everyone, including me. Go figure. Lol

Well said Cory, even I have fallen into the same trap from time to time. The DIC or draft industrial complex has each player labeled, boxed, wrapped and tied with a bow and we as fans gobble it all up. There are mock drafts, pundits, magazines, web sites, draft simulators all leading up to the big weekend and most of us draft geeks are armed with our pre-determined value on many players.

What many do not take into account are the teams front office, coaches and full time scouting department that have their own philosophy on how to work a draft board and how they actually value these prospects.

It is all good fun for us as fans but for the GM and scouting department there livelihood and reputation around league circles is on the line. Blow too many drafts and you may be unemployed sooner than later.

The Packers have 10 draft choices this year and I expect Brian G. to maneuver around the board and most likely end up with seven drafted players that he and his scouting department feel really good about.

I will be looking forward to draft weekend and will keep your advice in mind when they ultimately don't take my guys and I scratch my bald head in puzzlement.

The question really becomes, "who is the arbiter of draft value?" Mostly, complaints about draft value come from those who have a monetary stake in their opinion on the draft...those who run draft sites or services, and need to have their opinions validated in order to keep the $$ flowing.

I think your article is pointing to the fact that BG really hasn't paid a lot of attention to those folks and their opinions in the past, but especially in the 2020 draft where they selected guys like Deguara and Dillon. In review, many pundits said those guys were overdrafted...apparently BG disagrees.

What it ultimately comes down to is that there's a significant draft-based machine out there, and there's a hungry audience for that information--especially once the regular season ends and large portions of the NFL crowd has nothing to satiate them. The machine needs the money...and they need you to think that their evaluations are worth the money. But the opinions that really matter are the opinions of GMs: they're making the picks and they're the ones dictating value. It's just that those outside the circle need to protect their industry.

Value. If you pass on your guy and two picks later someone else picks him. What have you got? Nothing. Just because you were afraid someone would accuse you of taking him too early. How many teams thought that AR was a second round pick?

I think your wrong. The Top 50 is about BPA. After that I agree. (Get your likes.) But- you never leave the better player for the enemy. You want a loser team. Take your Love. You want a All-pro. Take the BPA. The top 50 isn't about value or Need. It's about greatness. Hawk was never great. He was a starter. Nothing more. I can't go against the experts. You are. If Gute had his shot at a top 10 player. He'd take him. TT did with Rodgers. But if your going to play the guy routine. Don't dump Rodgers. You'll only get people that hold the clip board and end up with an AVERAGE TEAM.

When teams do their draft prep and player ranking, they take into consideration their needs. We all assume that OT and CBs are the Packs weakness. Yet they may look at their roster and say...King is really good when healthy or their young tackles are ready for the next step. We have no idea, and can only guess. So if the first pick is between a ILB and a CB the LB is rated a first rounder, the CB is a 2nd round player. They pick the LB when everyone screams they should have gotten the CB.
Using the scenario above the team trades down to pick the CB. Well that actually happened and GB took King over Watt. There are always misses, but the board has the team’s need baked into the rankings.

Draft value is all in the eye of the beholder. Something like that.

Its all about how you rate a player. If you consider a player a 2nd round player and you get him in the 4th round. That is value. If you rate a player as a 3rd round player and you take him in the 2nd. Thats not much value.

The basic point is, stick to your board, trust your board. They spend months building the board, they need to trust it.

Not everyone will rate a player the same. Some people see different things. It doesn't make one team better at it then others. But trust the board.

Value is in the eye of the beholder, which is driven by the perceived career curve and the margin of improvement that a given player is believed to represent to the team. If that calculation is accurate then the pick is a good one.

Of course when that value kicks in is also a factor. GMs typically aren’t always focused on this year and later in the draft there may not be a ready option and the need may be for future years (pipeline restocking). So the risk of the player ascending includes non physical assessments and factors we may not see.

It all boils down to team valuation of a player in the context of who is available. Nothing new. Highly subjective despite all the scouting and analysis and based in part on things that are not always visible on tape or revealed by the team.

BPA is largely a myth. It is not an empirical measure, it is someone else’s assessment of relative merit made without reference to the circumstances of a particular team.

There is truth in all sides of this debate. It just depends on whether you take an argument to its logical extreme end point. Randy Moss was such an obvious talent, but many teams passed on him because of "character" issues. Should someone have "gone and got him" because they knew how good he was going to be? Do you trade into the top-10 to make sure you get him? Everyone knew he was a top-5 talent (the other two from that first round who actually panned out - Manning and Woodson, both went in the top 5). Or do you wait for him to fall to you at #21? The Packers went after their guy that year - they traded up to make sure that they got Vonnie Holliday at #19 - they gave up a first and a second to get him. So the Packers "went and got their guy" and got a serviceable starter. The Vikings waited for Moss to fall to them (even though they already had two quality starting wideouts) and got a Hall of Famer. Give me any draft philosophy and someone on this site can come up with a real world example that makes it look silly. This isn't a science any more than betting on horses is a science.

What also is interesting about value is looking at Mock drafts done in January, those projections were mainly completed by players performance on the field. Than in April,, except for the top 10 or so you see a lot of movement due to the combine or pro days results in addition to hyped players on another mock draft which influences others. First rounders become third and third rounders become first. What is their tru value? Only time will tell.

Does Gutey put too much emphasis towards the RAS system? Hard to know, but what I think is a bigger reasons for success, is what the individual possesses inside, meaning their heart, soul and mind. How they play on the field and their desire to play the game. How quickly they process information. Will they out work others. Do they care about their teammates or in it for themselves.

Of course, you must be athletic, but I’ll take a mid to high range athletic player with the above attributes over an Uber athletic player without those attributes.

Basically I agree with Cory and what many have said, with one major difference: Cory says, "Find the guy you want and go get him." I say, "Know who you want and take him."
"Go get" implies trade up, and I HATE when GMs trade up. Now it's POSSIBLE that they have very good intel that another team is almost certainly going to take the desired player before their turn, but that is a huge gamble, as misinformation is surely a big part of the draft.
There have been many times when my most desired pick went just a couple slots before our selection, and that stings, but I've also seen us trade up, lose a 4th round pick, and have great options at our original spot plus great options when that 4th rounder rolled around. That stings MORE.

I thought the Packers already proved that by taking the TE, and RB last year. Neither were to be drafted that high

Value is all about what you pay vs. what you get. When you draft a player in a spot there is an opportunity cost, but you don’t really spend cash. Draft position turns into cash when the contracts are handed out. With the CBA, this kind of aligns with draft position. The way you win is to have a majority of your people outplay their contracts. Rookie contracts are the easiest to out-perform in general (baked in to the CBA). It is also why GB doesn’t love 3rd contracts. By then you know what you have and you pay market value. The chances of someone out-performing their 3rd contract is less likely. (But it does happen...see AR)

This is a good discussion but ultimately proves that there is no reason to pay attention to the alleged pundits, pre-draft hype and mock drafts.

Just use the CHTV draft guide and wake me when it's over. Thanks, Since '61

Draft value is fiction, until sometime later when you actually find out what the guy is capable of and what he does on the field! Mandarich is all you need to know and remember!

Hawk was the highest player Ted drafted and was solid his first few years...but he was not among the best players Ted drafted that kept the Packers playoff bound:

Rodgers, CMIII, Nelson, Bakhtiari, Collins, Adams, Jennings, TJ Lang, Sitton, Finley, Crosby, Clark, A Jones, Hayward, Cobb, J Jones, Linsley, Burnett, Daniels...and Rodgers, CMIII and Clark were late first rounders.

Ted could find talent, including his personnel team. His scouts were pretty good. Many are in the front offices around the NFL. Even Ted was a road warrior constantly watching players practice, on game days and talking with college coaches to ensure players good on, and off the field.

I expect Gutey has adopted Ted's insistence on scouting excellence and trust what they say, not draft gurus pigeon holing players' "value" based on expected draft slot.

The last point I'll add here is "Get your guy," doesn't necessarily mean "trade up to get your guy." There has to be acknowledgements as a GM that YOU WILL MISS OUT on players you want and possibly need. Trading an R1, an R2 plus an R4 means you are potentially missing out on 3 or more of your guys to take one player higher than your assigned slot.

In terms of value? THIS YEAR? The Packers are NOT one or two players away. I'd sit tight, keep my powder dry, and take my best shots with 10 picks in a very talented field of players - all the way through 7 rounds.

"Get your guy," can mean take the player you want, need, or feel will give you the greatest positive impact on your team, even if he is graded 20, 30 or more slots behind your pick. Another team is quite possibly looking to do the same, because they have a similar system, similar hole in their roster, or the player is that freaking good to warrant being aggressive in addressing the position.

This is one of best articles I've read all year about the draft. Short, concise and well thought out. If I could, I would stick Cory's article next to every draft nick article and post for the next two weeks. Just so we could have some sanity from all the BS and hype that coming. Thanks, Cory.

The value should be based on how quickly that player will contribute starting with Day One. The longer it takes the larger and quicker the loss of its value placed. The Packers have lost a lot of value with too many of their 1st and 2nd selections, and more so with those selected to be 2nd stringers with possible starter ability. This puts an even bigger burden on them to use FA, which is already a huge burden they cannot manipulate.

Spot on Cory!

What concerns me most these days is how our cap is more & more concentrated in fewer and fewer players. We now spend about 80% of the cap on 15% of our players (8). That seems way too top heavy to me.

It would make for an interesting study to compare this figure across teams as well as over time for each team. I would think the concentration should be correlated with the team's win percentage and as it gets high, the win percentage better remain high as well or it is time to jettison the high priced (over priced?) players and start over. This may be why we drafted Love. The day of reckoning could be near. One 8-8 season and Gutey will be forced to blow it up.

According to sports Daily. Larry McCarron posted that Gute will trade up in 1. His 4th straight time. So now Gute won't be judged on that traded pick. Such a waste. The Rams are favored to beat the Bucs. Not the Packers. Wonder why? Just look at the DL.

Cory, I agree with you completely.

The proof how those "draft gurus" are good (or even excellent) you can find on Packers (and many other teams rosters) roster: David Bakhtiari, Corey Linsley, Aaron Jones just to named some. Should we say Tom Brady (6th rounder - oh my, oh my!). Every draft contains many players under drafted because some "guru" said they have no value. As I said, different position is when you lives from evaluating players or when you make salary from reading many opinions and creating yours based on what you read. This is mock drafts. Sorry - no value. And this draft dear Trevor Lawrence was awful in his last loss. That awful playing came at colleague level, so I doubt he is so big talent as many predicts.

But, I'm even larger (by far) amateur that many. So, what I know? Nothing, as many mock drafters. The only good advice is: Draft the player your board says he is your top choice when you come to the clock. I believe Packers personnel department doing just that!

A few thoughts:

1. Probably a majority of GMs think longer term, but quite a few don't have that luxury. Fans in GB have had two entrenched GMs in Wolf and TT who really could think long term.

2. Positional value is still a thing in the NFL.

3. Each team's board is different. Part of that is just different opinions about the prospects, and a lot of it is whether that player can do what GB will ask versus what some other team will ask them to do on the field. The 3-4 DE vs. 4-3 DE, the zone versus man corner, the zone blocking versus power blocking OL.

4. The NFL pretty much is a results driven business. GMs probably should take the guy they like: it is their job and reputation on the line. That doesn't mean they should make a habit of trading up for said player or players, nor should they fall in love with players too often.

Gute is doing very well in rounds one and two (where trading up might give one more bang for the buck), but isn't doing nearly as well in rounds 3-7. That's to be expected, and later rounds often need a year or two to develop so it is also too early to reach any conclusions. Still, GMs should remember that the draft is a bit of a crap shoot.

I knw this isn't popular but if the Packers drafted Bateman I'd be one HAPPY camper. CB Newsome is probably the smarter choice and I wouldn't be mad at that either, but Bateman IS a Allen/Adams clone.

The Packers NEED a CB, (probably 2), a RT, and IMO a WR. Those who don't think they do go look at OTC or Sportac and let me know how many WR the Packers have under contract in 2022 and THEN tell me they don't need one. When you consider the Packers cap issues coming up next year WR may not be a bad pick at all.

I want Gute to draft players he actually needs NOW, not in 2-3 years. DL, CB, #2 WR, OT, ILB, ST returner and Punter who plays like he's not in H.S. anymore.

I learned so much from PFF on Value. It gets a bit complicated. I
It starts with positional value. There's no doubt that each position has a different impact. The best LG will not impact a game nearly as much as an Avg QB. General Position Value rankings
QB
OT
Edge
CB
WR
DL
TE
RB
Guard
Safety
ILB
C

Then Position Scarcity - How difficult is it to find avg/good/Great players at the position
Finding a QB or OT outside the first round or two is much more difficult than finding a running back (all of similar rating at their position) or G in the later rounds.

Scheme plays into it as well - How a specific team values something due to the scheme they use may be different than another team using a different scheme.

There's more but the last one that I just heard of and bought into: $ and how it translates into Cap Space management
Eg - Value is derived from having a position on a rookie contract vs having to sign one vi FA.
WR from the draft will run you 1-5 mil depending on draft position 20M over 4 years - WR from Fa (Good to great) will run you 12 to 24M. So 20M vs 100M over 4 years. thats huge.

Corey L was the best center in the game and signed for around 11M. DAK the 8th or so QB signed for 40M.

Hence Centers, Safeties, Guards, ILB aren't valued high in the draft. Now when you can get a guy at ILB that is "generational" or "scarce" like D White in TB its certainly something to consider as his scarcity could outweigh the positional value.

positional Value is critical and the packers have been onto it for years.

Like all stats it comes down to using the right ones, the right way, at the right times to get the most out of them. Same goes for stats in drafting, the #'s are pretty clear and established, there isn't much of an argument that can be made. Stats are just a tool, not the end all, plenty of other variables go into it beyond stats, the key is knowing when to "Go Against the Odds" but remember, there's a reason the House always wins in the end.

AJ Hawk is actually a great example of a plus player taken at a minus positional Value.

As good as AJ Hawk at was ILB, there's only so much the ILB can impact a game vs a QB/Pass Rusher/OT. So though he played well fans intuitively knew that he wasn't a good value for a #5 overall pick. Now if he was taken in the 2nd rd or later like he would be in today's game he would be considered a good value.

Other than Qb in football just think of LH Pitchers. The just avg ones can still stick in the League for years and get paid. Why because of positional Value - pitcher in Baseball and Scarcity - Amt of Good LH Pitchers.

I think value is the reason you draft - get as much talent on your team as possible.

Using your AJ Hawk example: people don't dislike the pick because he was a good player who went high, they dislike the pick because there were over a dozen other players taken after him in the 1st round that made a Pro Bowl (something Hawk never did). Hawk was the first linebacker selected, but 3 other linebackers from that draft became Pro Bowlers.

There were 36 players drafted after Hawk that made the Pro Bowl, not including 6 undrafted players who made the Pro Bowl.

The Packers passed on a lot of talent to take him.

That's why value is important in the draft.