By One Metric, Packers’ Draft Wasn’t So Bad

Sports Info Solutions used SIS’s Total Points metric to weigh all 32 teams’ draft classes.

GREEN BAY, Wis. – Contrary to the premature grades rolled out by the pundits, a formula used by Sports Info Solutions shows the Green Bay Packers actually had a quality draft.

Alex Vigderman of Sports Info Solutions used SIS’s Total Points metric to weigh all 32 teams’ draft classes. (You can read about Total Points here.) The chart is below:

The Packers fell in the middle of the pack with respect to filling needs,” Vigderman wrote via e-mail. “While plenty of attention went to their not filling in behind Davante Adams at wide receiver, they did pick a player at each of their three neediest positions, according to Total Points. Their biggest hole from a Total Points production perspective was at linebacker, and they didn’t address the position on either of the first two days of the draft.”

Much of the criticism surrounding Green Bay’s draft was based on the selection of quarterback Jordan Love as a potential successor to Aaron Rodgers rather than the pick being used on an instant-impact performer to improve a roster that was good enough to go 13-3 and reach the NFC Championship Game last season. Needs such as receiver, offensive tackle and linebacker were either partially or fully ignored.

The analytics don’t care about all of that, though.

“This method is agnostic to the politics surrounding a pick, so when the Packers took Jordan Love in the first round, they got credit for taking a quarterback, which is obviously the most valuable position you could draft,” Vigderman wrote. “Taking Love makes their Total Points value higher than will actually manifest itself on their roster, assuming Rodgers is healthy in 2020. They also get credit for solid value from seventh-round edge Jonathan Garvin and fifth-round LB Kamal Martin, who are rated by Total Points as their highest-producing players behind Love and second-round pick AJ Dillon.”

Video: Draft pick jersey numbers