After rookie minicamp, what’s the best way to kill time between minicamp, OTAs, and eventually training camp? I want football season here already.
You can watch baseball, or the NBA/NHL playoffs. Or read books. I run the gamut and appreciate the change of pace more each year.
The picks every year are ultimately owned by BG, but I like the way the Packers allow some of their other personnel people to discuss the picks with the media. With hundreds of college players becoming available every year, I assume BG leans very heavily on the personnel dept. I assume these people have some very strong opinions on some of the players they scout and recommend. How does this process work and how much leeway do some of the more experienced scouts with past success receive w/BG?
I can’t speak to the inner workings, but hearing from others in the personnel department is one of my favorite parts of the draft. Whether it was Jon-Eric Sullivan and Sam Seale in previous years, or Mike Owen, Milt Hendrickson and John Wojciechowski this year, I enjoy their perspectives.
Johnny from Fort Myers, FL
Mike, you mentioned, listening to the sound of the ball impacting the kicker’s foot. There is a certain sound to that, and it works the same way in baseball. Buck O’Neill told me that there were only three players that had “that sound” when the ball came off their bats for a home run. One was Babe Ruth, one was Mickey Mantle, and the last was Bo Jackson.
It’s hard to describe with kickers. I shouldn’t have said it’s entirely the sound, because how it looks coming off the foot matters too. But if it doesn’t have the sound, it won’t look good enough either.
Scott from Lincoln City, OR
Hey Mike, do you see the Rams’ drafting Ty Simpson as a similar situation to when the Packers drafted Jordan Love? Do you think Stafford is having the same type of thoughts/feelings Rodgers had?
The similarity is obvious, except Stafford is two years older now than Rodgers was then. I don’t know what Stafford is thinking and feeling, but how his contract situation shakes out for 2027 just got a lot more interesting.
Good morning Insiders! Up until last Thursday, I’d shake my head when a team moved up just one spot in the draft. Giving up draft picks to move up a singular spot seemed ridiculous! But after what went down between the Steelers and Eagles, I bet the Steelers wished they moved up just one spot.
Right, which is why such a move is not as head-scratching as many believe.
II, when building your draft board, obviously you take your team needs and player ratings into consideration. Do you also try to speculate what other teams needs/priorities are so you have some idea of available talent vs. pick position in case you want to move up?
That’s in the discussion, but things can get unpredictable (see above). So it really just comes down to trusting your board more than anything else.
Jennifer from Middleton, WI
Hi Spoff, lots of discussion on scouting/GM process and I think the seventh-round trade is an interesting case study to eventually look back on. John Schneider is well respected here and elsewhere. I know Seattle was short on picks this draft, but we were low also and Gute normally wants as many as he can get. Yet, whereas Gute didn’t see value in the guys left, Seattle saw enough value to give up a sixth to get two of them. That difference in their assessments is intriguing.
Maybe, but it also could be as simple as Schneider recognizing as defending Super Bowl champs with fewer roster spots available, Seattle wasn’t the most attractive destination for UDFAs, so he wanted to grab a few guys in the seventh and avoid battles he might lose. He turned four picks into eight and three of his eight were in the seventh round.
Attempting this without math in the Inbox … Assuming BG’s reason for trading up to get Trey Smack is the whole truth, that would mean the Packers had many fewer round 1-7 graded players than total picks in the draft (257). Any idea how common this is?
It’s not just common, it’s practically a given.
Guys, what is your perspective on how the college portal has changed scouting and drafting? Seems like better players will be poached by larger schools and conferences reducing the need to scout the smaller schools (at least to the same degree as the past).
Teams still want to identify those players early, though, and develop sources at their original schools as they follow their careers. Yes, it’s different, but they aren’t waiting for the James Madison player to transfer to Virginia Tech before he’s on the radar.
The draft is very exciting, no doubt. Has there ever been a player who showed up to rookie minicamp or OTAs (or whatever comes first) that made you think either of these: A. Wow! This guy is going to be great! Or B. Uh-oh, this guy was a mistake! No names, just curious about an instant reaction, positive or negative.
Knowing I’m not a scout and understand next to nothing about these players compared to those who made the decisions, the polar-opposite first impressions in the spring are usually either, “Well, he sure looks the part,” or, “I wonder if he needs the pads to go on.”
Ben from Cripple Creek, CO
I find the comment “too many developmental picks” weird and not real world. There is actually a real world where Brandon Cisse comes in and, halfway into the season, he’s our best corner. Expecting a superstar in the NFL after the first few picks (maybe even the first) is such an astronomical ask. The traits we took in each player had good value at where we picked them.
I look at every draft pick as developmental. The difference between the college and pro games is so much greater than most realize.
Bryan from Madison expressed surprise that there may be players who don’t realize how hard they actually have to work in the NFL. I remember watching an episode of “Hard Knocks” featuring a player who had a compelling story from “Last Chance U” (I may watch too much football). He got drafted and during camp really did not work hard or try to push himself. Maybe he thought his reputation was enough. Coaches spoke to him and nothing changed. He was cut pretty quick. The NFL is the real deal.
Players truly must love the game, and need the game, to put their bodies and minds through what it takes to be successful at this level. That’s the best way I can put it.
Much has been said about the willingness to work as rookies. The transition is physical and mental. Physically gifted players require less preparation, and college life is a distraction. They are still kids. They now have full-time jobs. And they are surrounded by experienced men. How do the Packers evaluate this aspect of the transition?
By watching how they go about the business of being a young pro. Coaches can tell by the questions rookies ask (or don’t ask) in meetings how much they’ve been studying the playbook on their own versus just while they’re at work.
This may be a stupid question or one that’s too early to determine but are there any trades the Packers could make now for a 2027 first-rounder? If so, what would make the most sense?
Assuming you’re talking trading draft picks (not players), it’s practically impossible to figure out a fair deal now without knowing where in each round Green Bay’s picks fall.
How much does not having two first-round contracts balance out the Micah Parsons contract over time? Are Gute and Ball both happy?
There’s no comparison. Parsons’ average cap hit over the next four years (before getting to the void years tacked onto the end) is $40.5M per year. Matthew Golden’s contract as a first-rounder last year has an average cap hit of $4.4M over four years. So, sorry for the math, the two missing first-rounders this year and next (TBD on the latter, by the way) don’t even account for one-fourth of Parsons’ average cap charge.
