Grade the 2020 Packers Draft

[M-C-G]

You don't give up on winning just because you're a piece or two away, if you make the playoffs with a QB like Rodgers then you got a chance. I don't like or trust Gute, LaFleur, or Murphy at this point; their motivations do seem purely about winning.

We still have a playoff team, we still have Rodgers, so nothing has really changed as far as I can see. The difference is we added new pieces to tailor the offense to more running.

It's hard to make an argument we got worse. You could make the argument we could have gotten even better, sure, but I don't see us as any less than last year.

[jakecronus8]

I still want to hear genuine opinions on this. Flip Love to Bama and Tagovailoa to Utah St and where do each get drafted?

[M-C-G]

I still want to hear genuine opinions on this. Flip Love to Bama and Tagovailoa to Utah St and where do each get drafted?

2018 Jordan Love in 13 games put up 3,600 yards, 32 TD, 6 INT and I believe Darwin Thompson was the only player drafted from Utah State (6th round).

2018 Tua in 15 games put up 4,000 yards, 43 TD, 6 INT and I believe had two 1st round picks on offense Jonah Williams, Josh Jacobs, 2nd round Irv Smith, 3rd round Damien Harris, 5th round Pierschbacher G, and his top two WR that year were Jeudy and Ruggs

So, from that standpoint, it is a really fair question. Both guys had great seasons in 2018, one guy surrounded by premium NFL talent and one guy with hardly any. Now, obviously playing in the SEC is a lot different then the MWC, but it is a fair thing to ponder.

I'm excited to have him on the roster, not what I would have done for sure, but definitely will create another angle to watch, his development or lack there of...one thing is for certain, he will have MLF and Gute backing him every step of the way in his development, they are pinning their career on the guy.

[Ron Swanson]

He did put up better numbers in 2018 than Carson Wentz did in any season at North Dakota State, for comparison. But this is why I find it much harder to evaluate college QB's these days. Conference and level of competition seems almost irrelevant and these guys are being more and more tailor made to specific offensive systems. Hell, is Joe Burrow even a more talented QB prospect than Jared Goff was? Yet he put up such bonkers numbers in a Power-5 conference and in the course of one season became the no-brainer 1st overall pick. You just never know with any of these guys it seems.

[DrWood]

I wonder how people would have reacted if this team finished closer to 10-6 - their expected win-loss - over their 13-3 record. Hell, they got lucky with missing Mahomes and the Lions shanking away their game against us. They could have easily been a 9-7 or 8-8 team. Would they have been still clamoring for us to add that "piece or two?"

Truthfully, there is no obvious right answer to that question. It would have been really easy for Gute and LaFleur to try to ride the win-now train. I doubt they would have gotten much negativity at all with that strategy. But what they've done here is bold. It remains to be seen if it'll be considered stupid.

And they could just as easily have gone 15-1. They lost to the Eagles by one score, and laid an egg against a bad Chargers team.

Sure. But would that have been an actual reflection of their talent as a team? I don't think anyone would say so. And that's the point - that their record may not have been a fair reflection of the team on the field last year. So perhaps Gute thought that they were more than just a piece or two away.

you're asserting something as fact which is actually unmeasurable. They are elite at NOT making turnovers which means they stay in most games, and because of that, any marginal improvement can change the win-loss record.

[humanrefutation]

And they could just as easily have gone 15-1. They lost to the Eagles by one score, and laid an egg against a bad Chargers team.

Sure. But would that have been an actual reflection of their talent as a team? I don't think anyone would say so. And that's the point - that their record may not have been a fair reflection of the team on the field last year. So perhaps Gute thought that they were more than just a piece or two away.

you're asserting something as fact which is actually unmeasurable. They are elite at NOT making turnovers which means they stay in most games, and because of that, any marginal improvement can change the win-loss record.

The **** are you talking about? I'm not asserting anything as a fact. I'm trying to rationalize their decisionmaking in this draft based on a their possible assessment of the roster - one that has some basis in reality, even if it isn't dispositive on its own. You're offering a counterpoint. That's fine. But your assertions are not dispositive, either.

[Karmaloop]

Seriously ? Do some leg work. It was the year of the DL.

I did. And I very much disagree about it being the "year of the DL". You had three studs (Ed Oliver, Quinnen Williams, and Jeffery Simmons), a couple of high quality DL (Christian Wilkins, Jerry Tillery, and Dexter Lawrence), and then a whole lot of meh. Honestly, not too dissimilar from this year's class tbh. Derrick Brown and Javon Kinlaw are similar to that first tier. I like last year's second tier a bit better.

[stillgotgame]

You don't give up on winning just because you're a piece or two away, if you make the playoffs with a QB like Rodgers then you got a chance. I don't like or trust Gute, LaFleur, or Murphy at this point; their motivations do seem purely about winning.

We still have a playoff team, we still have Rodgers, so nothing has really changed as far as I can see. The difference is we added new pieces to tailor the offense to more running.

It's hard to make an argument we got worse. You could make the argument we could have gotten even better, sure, but I don't see us as any less than last year.

Better, really?
Please tell me how the D got better? Who in the draft is going to contribute, a 5th round LB?
Kirksey? A starting LB who has missed 23 games in the last 2 years. The previous 2 years he was on a 1-31 W-L defense? The 2 years before he played for Pettine, they were 30th and 32nd against the run?

Our D is gonna get run over. We were 24th against the run last year. Look for a big drop. Teams will play the San Fran tape and exploit us.

We’re trying to establish the run on offense - and made a colossal reach in the draft to push that narrative. It won’t work if we can’t stop the run ourselves.

[M-C-G]

You don't give up on winning just because you're a piece or two away, if you make the playoffs with a QB like Rodgers then you got a chance. I don't like or trust Gute, LaFleur, or Murphy at this point; their motivations do seem purely about winning.

We still have a playoff team, we still have Rodgers, so nothing has really changed as far as I can see. The difference is we added new pieces to tailor the offense to more running.

It's hard to make an argument we got worse. You could make the argument we could have gotten even better, sure, but I don't see us as any less than last year.

Better, really?
Please tell me how the D got better? Who in the draft is going to contribute, a 5th round LB?
Kirksey? A starting LB who has missed 23 games in the last 2 years. The previous 2 years he was on a 1-31 W-L defense? The 2 years before he played for Pettine, they were 30th and 32nd against the run?

Our D is gonna get run over. We were 24th against the run last year. Look for a big drop. Teams will play the San Fran tape and exploit us.

We’re trying to establish the run on offense - and made a colossal reach in the draft to push that narrative. It won’t work if we can’t stop the run ourselves.

Nah, poorly worded on my behalf. You could make the argument we SHOULD have used the draft to get even better in the now as opposed to the future.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ron Swanson]

Again, are we just kind of ignoring the projected development of the 2nd and 3rd year guys? San Fran went from being a sieve (28th ranked scoring defense) in 2018 to a Top-5 defense the very next year. You really think the difference was just adding one really damn good rookie (Nick Bosa) and starting LB (Kwon Alexander)? I have no clue if we got better in the long term but viewing the draft as some sort of annual, binary arms race kind of ignores how most teams actually have these perceived "quick" turnarounds.

[M-C-G]

Again, are we just kind of ignoring the projected development of the 2nd and 3rd year guys? San Fran went from being a sieve (28th ranked scoring defense) in 2018 to a Top-5 defense the very next year. You really think the difference was just adding one really damn good rookie (Nick Bosa) and starting LB (Kwon Alexander)? I have no clue if we got better in the long term but viewing the draft as some sort of annual, binary arms race kind of ignores how most teams actually have these perceived "quick" turnarounds.

On offense, I think Jace, ESQ, Lazard and MVS. Need at least two of the guys two step up into starter quality player. I would also mention some of the OL, but seems to me they have their plan based on the draft which is Bhak, Jenkins, Linsley, Turner, Wagner unless someone just emerges big time.

Defense is really where we have a chance to grow, like you mentioned with San Fran. Rashard Gary, Alexander, King, Savage, Keke, Montravious, Burks, Bolton, Sullivan....I mean there are a lot of young guys that could step up and move this from a middle tier defense to a top 10. I think two secondary guys step up and at least one DL and LB step up and we get a lot better.

[Dandridgefav]

Gute/Murphy can get f'ed right along with Jason Kidd. Absolute amateur hour. How do you go into the draft with WR and DT being your biggest needs, and come away with NONE??

They took the BPA.

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

I hate when a year or two after the fact people say they would’ve drafted this guy instead of this guy. It’s too easy. So I decided to pick along with GM Brian Gutekunst and make my selections right before he made his. These were my picks:

Round 1 (#26) – As expected, Gutekunst traded up. But who he traded up for wasn’t expected. With quality players still left at offensive tackle, defensive end, and inside linebacker – all positions of great need – Utah State’s Jordan Love was the choice. He’ll now try to make it three great quarterbacks in a row for the Green Bay Packers. Talk about pressure. I would’ve gone with the best player available, LSU’s dynamic Patrick Queen. He has a chance to be special, and he would’ve made a huge impact on a defense that hasn’t had a true three-down inside linebacker since Nick Barnett over a decade ago.

My pick: ILB PATRICK QUEEN

Round 2 (#62) – This was another big surprise, but it probably shouldn’t have been. AJ Dillon of Boston College ran 4.53 at 247 pounds at the NFL Combine, and nobody loves players running fast and jumping high more than Gutekunst. And while there was a definite need at the position, I thought it would be filled later in the draft. My choice would’ve been Houston offensive tackle Josh Jones. He didn’t deserve to go on Thursday night, but he’s a potential steal at the end of the second round. That said, I still would’ve tried like heck to trade up for Baylor’s Denzel Mims, the uber-talented wide receiver who, for some reason, was slipping.

My pick: OT JOSH JONES

Round 3 (#94) – If Love and Dillon were surprises, Cincinnati tight end/fullback Josiah Deguara was a complete shock. To be honest, I hadn’t heard the name once in preparation for the draft. It’s obvious coach Matt LaFleur wants his own Kyle Juszczyk, but the 49ers’ All-Pro was picked 36 spots later in 2013. I would’ve taken Appalachian State’s Akeem Davis-Gaither. It killed me not to grab a wide receiver here, but the pickings were slim by this point. Again, I would’ve tried like heck to move up for a receiver (Texas’ Devin Duvernay), but Davis-Gaither was the best player available. Putting him next to Queen would’ve been exciting.

My pick: ILB AKEEM DAVIS-GAITHER

Round 5 (#175) – Finally, a major need was addressed with Minnesota inside linebacker Kamal Martin. He reminds me a little too much of Oren Burks, but at least Gutekunst didn’t trade up to get him in the third round. I would’ve finally taken a wide receiver here. While SMU’s James Proche, who runs in the mid-4.5s, wouldn’t have added much-needed speed and explosiveness to the offense, he’s a terrific route runner with tremendous ball skills. And unlike many rookie receivers, he could’ve helped the Packers right away.

My pick: WR JAMES PROCHE

Round 6 (#192) – Gutekunst began his run on interior offensive linemen with Michigan’s Jon Runyan, who could wind up being one the better picks of this 9-man class. He lined up at both tackle positions in college, and while he might not have the athletic ability to play outside in the NFL, he’d almost certainly fare better than overmatched Alex Light did a year ago. So while I like Runyan, I still would’ve taken Dane Jackson. The Packers need a No. 3 cornerback and the former Pittsburgh star has the ability to fill that role.

My pick: CB DANE JACKSON

Round 6 (#208) – With Corey Linsley entering the final year of his contract, I like the idea of taking a possible replacement. Oregon’s Jake Hanson reminds me of a lot of recent Green Bay centers, including Linsley. That said, I just couldn’t pass up Ohio State wide receiver K.J. Hill, who simply knows how to win from the slot. Adding Hill along with Proche wouldn’t be a dynamic duo, but at the very least, they might’ve given the offense better options than players like Marquez Valdes-Scantling and Equanimeous St. Brown.

My pick: WR K.J. HILL

Round 6 (#209) – Another guard, Indiana’s Simon Stepaniak, was the pick here. He probably won’t play in 2020 due to ACL surgery in December, but he’s a nasty SOB who should compete to replace potential cap casualty Billy Turner in 2021. I would’ve also gone with an offensive lineman here, but my choice would’ve been Auburn tackle Prince Tega Wanogho. He’s just too talented not to roll the dice on at this point in the draft.

My pick: OT PRINCE TEGA WANOGHO

Round 7 (#236) – TCU safety Vernon Scott became only the second defensive player drafted by the Packers. He figures to compete with holdovers Raven Greene and Will Redmond for the No. 3 safety position. I would’ve taken Washburn offensive tackle Kyle Hinton, who projects inside at the next level. He’s a really good athlete (sub-4.9 at nearly 300 pounds) who dominated at the Division III level. And let’s be honest, isn’t the seventh round when you draft really good athletes who dominated at the Division III level?

My pick: OG KYLE HINTON

Round 7 (#242) – Gutekunst closed out the draft with Miami outside linebacker Jonathan Garvin. I’m fine with this pick, but at the time, my focus was on LSU tight end Thaddeus Moss. Randy’s kid was overhyped for months because of his name and the talent around him in college, but he’s a bargain in the seventh round. At worst, he’ll be a useful backup. At best, he’ll be a productive pass catcher in the right offense.

My pick: TE THADDEUS MOSS


OK, so there’s my draft. Other than not getting a wide receiver on day 1 or 2, I like this haul. Queen would start immediately, Jones would compete with Rick Wagner, and Davis-Gaither would add even more speed to the sub-packages. The day 3 picks would provide intriguing prospects at wide receiver, much-needed depth at corner, and some developmental athletes at tackle, guard and tight end. And the very best thing about this draft? It wouldn’t have pissed off the best player on the team and the face of the franchise.

[JayMKE]

Gute/Murphy can get f'ed right along with Jason Kidd. Absolute amateur hour. How do you go into the draft with WR and DT being your biggest needs, and come away with NONE??

They took the BPA.

That’s a stretch considering the reaches they made

[jakecronus8]

Read on Twitter

I hate when a year or two after the fact people say they would’ve drafted this guy instead of this guy. It’s too easy. So I decided to pick along with GM Brian Gutekunst and make my selections right before he made his. These were my picks:

Round 1 (#26) – As expected, Gutekunst traded up. But who he traded up for wasn’t expected. With quality players still left at offensive tackle, defensive end, and inside linebacker – all positions of great need – Utah State’s Jordan Love was the choice. He’ll now try to make it three great quarterbacks in a row for the Green Bay Packers. Talk about pressure. I would’ve gone with the best player available, LSU’s dynamic Patrick Queen. He has a chance to be special, and he would’ve made a huge impact on a defense that hasn’t had a true three-down inside linebacker since Nick Barnett over a decade ago.

My pick: ILB PATRICK QUEEN

Round 2 (#62) – This was another big surprise, but it probably shouldn’t have been. AJ Dillon of Boston College ran 4.53 at 247 pounds at the NFL Combine, and nobody loves players running fast and jumping high more than Gutekunst. And while there was a definite need at the position, I thought it would be filled later in the draft. My choice would’ve been Houston offensive tackle Josh Jones. He didn’t deserve to go on Thursday night, but he’s a potential steal at the end of the second round. That said, I still would’ve tried like heck to trade up for Baylor’s Denzel Mims, the uber-talented wide receiver who, for some reason, was slipping.

My pick: OT JOSH JONES

Round 3 (#94) – If Love and Dillon were surprises, Cincinnati tight end/fullback Josiah Deguara was a complete shock. To be honest, I hadn’t heard the name once in preparation for the draft. It’s obvious coach Matt LaFleur wants his own Kyle Juszczyk, but the 49ers’ All-Pro was picked 36 spots later in 2013. I would’ve taken Appalachian State’s Akeem Davis-Gaither. It killed me not to grab a wide receiver here, but the pickings were slim by this point. Again, I would’ve tried like heck to move up for a receiver (Texas’ Devin Duvernay), but Davis-Gaither was the best player available. Putting him next to Queen would’ve been exciting.

My pick: ILB AKEEM DAVIS-GAITHER

Round 5 (#175) – Finally, a major need was addressed with Minnesota inside linebacker Kamal Martin. He reminds me a little too much of Oren Burks, but at least Gutekunst didn’t trade up to get him in the third round. I would’ve finally taken a wide receiver here. While SMU’s James Proche, who runs in the mid-4.5s, wouldn’t have added much-needed speed and explosiveness to the offense, he’s a terrific route runner with tremendous ball skills. And unlike many rookie receivers, he could’ve helped the Packers right away.

My pick: WR JAMES PROCHE

Round 6 (#192) – Gutekunst began his run on interior offensive linemen with Michigan’s Jon Runyan, who could wind up being one the better picks of this 9-man class. He lined up at both tackle positions in college, and while he might not have the athletic ability to play outside in the NFL, he’d almost certainly fare better than overmatched Alex Light did a year ago. So while I like Runyan, I still would’ve taken Dane Jackson. The Packers need a No. 3 cornerback and the former Pittsburgh star has the ability to fill that role.

My pick: CB DANE JACKSON

Round 6 (#208) – With Corey Linsley entering the final year of his contract, I like the idea of taking a possible replacement. Oregon’s Jake Hanson reminds me of a lot of recent Green Bay centers, including Linsley. That said, I just couldn’t pass up Ohio State wide receiver K.J. Hill, who simply knows how to win from the slot. Adding Hill along with Proche wouldn’t be a dynamic duo, but at the very least, they might’ve given the offense better options than players like Marquez Valdes-Scantling and Equanimeous St. Brown.

My pick: WR K.J. HILL

Round 6 (#209) – Another guard, Indiana’s Simon Stepaniak, was the pick here. He probably won’t play in 2020 due to ACL surgery in December, but he’s a nasty SOB who should compete to replace potential cap casualty Billy Turner in 2021. I would’ve also gone with an offensive lineman here, but my choice would’ve been Auburn tackle Prince Tega Wanogho. He’s just too talented not to roll the dice on at this point in the draft.

My pick: OT PRINCE TEGA WANOGHO

Round 7 (#236) – TCU safety Vernon Scott became only the second defensive player drafted by the Packers. He figures to compete with holdovers Raven Greene and Will Redmond for the No. 3 safety position. I would’ve taken Washburn offensive tackle Kyle Hinton, who projects inside at the next level. He’s a really good athlete (sub-4.9 at nearly 300 pounds) who dominated at the Division III level. And let’s be honest, isn’t the seventh round when you draft really good athletes who dominated at the Division III level?

My pick: OG KYLE HINTON

Round 7 (#242) – Gutekunst closed out the draft with Miami outside linebacker Jonathan Garvin. I’m fine with this pick, but at the time, my focus was on LSU tight end Thaddeus Moss. Randy’s kid was overhyped for months because of his name and the talent around him in college, but he’s a bargain in the seventh round. At worst, he’ll be a useful backup. At best, he’ll be a productive pass catcher in the right offense.

My pick: TE THADDEUS MOSS


OK, so there’s my draft. Other than not getting a wide receiver on day 1 or 2, I like this haul. Queen would start immediately, Jones would compete with Rick Wagner, and Davis-Gaither would add even more speed to the sub-packages. The day 3 picks would provide intriguing prospects at wide receiver, much-needed depth at corner, and some developmental athletes at tackle, guard and tight end. And the very best thing about this draft? It wouldn’t have pissed off the best player on the team and the face of the franchise.

This is the absolute worst kind of masturbatory content.

[VooDoo7]

Gute/Murphy can get f'ed right along with Jason Kidd. Absolute amateur hour. How do you go into the draft with WR and DT being your biggest needs, and come away with NONE??

They took the BPA.

Even if he was the BPA on their big board, there comes a time when you stray from that. This was one of those times.

[DrWood]

Sure. But would that have been an actual reflection of their talent as a team? I don't think anyone would say so. And that's the point - that their record may not have been a fair reflection of the team on the field last year. So perhaps Gute thought that they were more than just a piece or two away.

you're asserting something as fact which is actually unmeasurable. They are elite at NOT making turnovers which means they stay in most games, and because of that, any marginal improvement can change the win-loss record.

The **** are you talking about? I'm not asserting anything as a fact. I'm trying to rationalize their decisionmaking in this draft based on a their possible assessment of the roster - one that has some basis in reality, even if it isn't dispositive on its own. You're offering a counterpoint. That's fine. But your assertions are not dispositive, either.

It's a fact that they only lost two games badly (SF and LAC) and lost one other game by one score. So they were competitive in 14 games and won 13 of those. that doesn't smack of being a team with little talent. At worst, it suggests any improvement could ensure they do as well or better. It's not like a 9-7 or 10-6 team that caught a few teams on a bad Sunday.

Now, you could posit that it just means that the teams they played were bad. But it's always about relative production. A team doesn't need to be the '85 bears to get into the Super Bowl.

[humanrefutation]

you're asserting something as fact which is actually unmeasurable. They are elite at NOT making turnovers which means they stay in most games, and because of that, any marginal improvement can change the win-loss record.

The **** are you talking about? I'm not asserting anything as a fact. I'm trying to rationalize their decisionmaking in this draft based on a their possible assessment of the roster - one that has some basis in reality, even if it isn't dispositive on its own. You're offering a counterpoint. That's fine. But your assertions are not dispositive, either.

It's a fact that they only lost two games badly (SF and LAC) and lost one other game by one score. So they were competitive in 14 games and won 13 of those. that doesn't smack of being a team with little talent. At worst, it suggests any improvement could ensure they do as well or better. It's not like a 9-7 or 10-6 team that caught a few teams on a bad Sunday.

Now, you could posit that it just means that the teams they played were bad. But it's always about relative production. A team doesn't need to be the '85 bears to get into the Super Bowl.

But, as Barnwell points out, the fact that they won so many close games suggests that the Packers were actually more lucky than good and are very likely going to regress this coming season:

I know it's tempting for Packers fans to look at what happened in 2019 and think they're a break or two away from a title. The Packers went 13-3 in coach Matt LaFleur's first season with the team and made it to the NFC Championship Game. They have every right to expect to be in the mix again this season, given that they'll return just about every key player from last year's team. We all know that Rodgers is capable of just about anything if the Packers get into the playoffs.

All of those facts about 2019 are true, but upon closer inspection, it's tough to expect Green Bay to win with the same formula in 2020. I write about this every year over the summer when I look at the teams that are most likely to improve or decline, and I'll get to that as we get closer to the NFL season, but this team is arguably the league's most likely to decline next season.

Start with that 13-3 record. The Packers outscored their opponents by a total of 63 points. We can use their Pythagorean expectation to estimate that a team with that sort of point differential typically wins about 9.7 games, and we can use history to find that the vast majority of teams with that sort of difference between their actual win total and expected win total almost always decline. By that measure alone, we would expect the Packers to drop off to about 10-6 in 2020.

By DVOA (defense-adjusted value over average), the Packers were the 10th-best team in football, alongside the Eagles and Rams and behind the Cowboys. They outperformed their point differential and DVOA because they went 6-1 in games decided by seven points or fewer and had two additional wins by eight points.

Rodgers was 34-34-1 in starts decided by seven points or fewer before the 2019 season began. Anything is possible, but the vast majority of teams that have such a lopsided record in one-score games don't keep that up the following season. Teams that won five more one-score games than they lost in a given year since 1989 were 92-114 the following season, including last season's Rams, who went from 6-1 in one-score games in 2018 to 3-3 last season.

The Packers also benefited from having a healthy Rodgers for all 16 games, and that can never be guaranteed. (Adding Love is quietly an advantage in the short term if Rodgers gets injured again, although they didn't need to use a first-round pick to find a viable backup quarterback.) Opposing offenses were able to start their Week 1 quarterbacks 11 times against Green Bay last season, with the Packers also facing a pair of rookies and three injury replacements. Most notably, they went up against Matt Moore as opposed to Patrick Mahomes in their 31-24 win over the Chiefs. Narrow victories over the Chiefs, Lions and Panthers might have gone differently if those teams had been able to use their typical starting quarterback.

Green Bay was also incredibly healthy on defense after being forced to play defensive backs off the street because of injuries in 2018. While possible starting linebacker Oren Burks tore a pectoral muscle in the preseason, its 11 starters on defense heading into the season missed a total of four games all campaign. Darnell Savage missed two games, Kevin King was out for one and B.J. Goodson missed one after stepping in for Burks.

The Packers dominated the NFC North in a way that's also unlikely to keep happening. They went 6-0 in the division for the first time since 2011. There have been 21 prior cases of a team going 6-0 inside its division since the league went to its current structure in 2002, and just one of those teams -- the 2013 Colts -- repeated the feat the following season. The other 21 teams won an average of 3.3 divisional games the following season.

When Caesars Sportsbook posted its over/under totals for the 2020 season before the draft, it seemed shocking to some that the Packers were posted at just 8.5 wins, 4.5 wins below their 2020 record. I suspect the factors above might have contributed to what seemed like a pessimistic expectation. Anything can happen, but the most realistic expectation for this team would be to take a step backward and finish somewhere in the 9-7 range.

Of course, if we're working off the idea that the 2020 Packers aren't likely to be as good as they were in 2019, you could make an even stronger argument that they needed to draft somebody who was more likely to impact the team in 2020 than a quarterback prospect.

[WeekapaugGroove]

Predicting anything for this coming season will be harder than usual. With likely less practice time you would assume that helps teams like the pack who didn't have a ton of roster turnover. Plus another wild card is what players actually stay in shape while away from team controlled workouts. Most guys are professional enough to be fine but we'll definitely have some who come into camp out of shape.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

[stillgotgame]

The **** are you talking about? I'm not asserting anything as a fact. I'm trying to rationalize their decisionmaking in this draft based on a their possible assessment of the roster - one that has some basis in reality, even if it isn't dispositive on its own. You're offering a counterpoint. That's fine. But your assertions are not dispositive, either.

It's a fact that they only lost two games badly (SF and LAC) and lost one other game by one score. So they were competitive in 14 games and won 13 of those. that doesn't smack of being a team with little talent. At worst, it suggests any improvement could ensure they do as well or better. It's not like a 9-7 or 10-6 team that caught a few teams on a bad Sunday.

Now, you could posit that it just means that the teams they played were bad. But it's always about relative production. A team doesn't need to be the '85 bears to get into the Super Bowl.

But, as Barnwell points out, the fact that they won so many close games suggests that the Packers were actually more lucky than good and are very likely going to regress this coming season:

I know it's tempting for Packers fans to look at what happened in 2019 and think they're a break or two away from a title. The Packers went 13-3 in coach Matt LaFleur's first season with the team and made it to the NFC Championship Game. They have every right to expect to be in the mix again this season, given that they'll return just about every key player from last year's team. We all know that Rodgers is capable of just about anything if the Packers get into the playoffs.

All of those facts about 2019 are true, but upon closer inspection, it's tough to expect Green Bay to win with the same formula in 2020. I write about this every year over the summer when I look at the teams that are most likely to improve or decline, and I'll get to that as we get closer to the NFL season, but this team is arguably the league's most likely to decline next season.

Start with that 13-3 record. The Packers outscored their opponents by a total of 63 points. We can use their Pythagorean expectation to estimate that a team with that sort of point differential typically wins about 9.7 games, and we can use history to find that the vast majority of teams with that sort of difference between their actual win total and expected win total almost always decline. By that measure alone, we would expect the Packers to drop off to about 10-6 in 2020.

By DVOA (defense-adjusted value over average), the Packers were the 10th-best team in football, alongside the Eagles and Rams and behind the Cowboys. They outperformed their point differential and DVOA because they went 6-1 in games decided by seven points or fewer and had two additional wins by eight points.

Rodgers was 34-34-1 in starts decided by seven points or fewer before the 2019 season began. Anything is possible, but the vast majority of teams that have such a lopsided record in one-score games don't keep that up the following season. Teams that won five more one-score games than they lost in a given year since 1989 were 92-114 the following season, including last season's Rams, who went from 6-1 in one-score games in 2018 to 3-3 last season.

The Packers also benefited from having a healthy Rodgers for all 16 games, and that can never be guaranteed. (Adding Love is quietly an advantage in the short term if Rodgers gets injured again, although they didn't need to use a first-round pick to find a viable backup quarterback.) Opposing offenses were able to start their Week 1 quarterbacks 11 times against Green Bay last season, with the Packers also facing a pair of rookies and three injury replacements. Most notably, they went up against Matt Moore as opposed to Patrick Mahomes in their 31-24 win over the Chiefs. Narrow victories over the Chiefs, Lions and Panthers might have gone differently if those teams had been able to use their typical starting quarterback.

Green Bay was also incredibly healthy on defense after being forced to play defensive backs off the street because of injuries in 2018. While possible starting linebacker Oren Burks tore a pectoral muscle in the preseason, its 11 starters on defense heading into the season missed a total of four games all campaign. Darnell Savage missed two games, Kevin King was out for one and B.J. Goodson missed one after stepping in for Burks.

The Packers dominated the NFC North in a way that's also unlikely to keep happening. They went 6-0 in the division for the first time since 2011. There have been 21 prior cases of a team going 6-0 inside its division since the league went to its current structure in 2002, and just one of those teams -- the 2013 Colts -- repeated the feat the following season. The other 21 teams won an average of 3.3 divisional games the following season.

When Caesars Sportsbook posted its over/under totals for the 2020 season before the draft, it seemed shocking to some that the Packers were posted at just 8.5 wins, 4.5 wins below their 2020 record. I suspect the factors above might have contributed to what seemed like a pessimistic expectation. Anything can happen, but the most realistic expectation for this team would be to take a step backward and finish somewhere in the 9-7 range.

Of course, if we're working off the idea that the 2020 Packers aren't likely to be as good as they were in 2019, you could make an even stronger argument that they needed to draft somebody who was more likely to impact the team in 2020 than a quarterback prospect.

We were incredibly lucky. Rodgers was also clutch at the end of a couple games - after he was complete crap the rest of the game. Don't see him improving this year given the uncomfortable situation.

I see us 7-9 this year. My reasoning:

We overachieved and are likely to return to the norm (Barnwell's point)
We were very healthy last year - unlikely to continue
When we drafted A Rod we dropped 6 games, from 10-6 to 4-12. History tends to repeat itself.
We are constantly in the media. Teams go out of there way to avoid this noise as this always leads to losing.
We did nothing to improve the D, and teams just need to look to the San Fran game as a blueprint for a game plan.