Packers Final Draft Grades

Fortunately for Gutekunst, draft grades are perhaps the most irrelevant piece of journalism on the face of the Earth.
Author:
Publish date:

GREEN BAY, Wis. – If NFL Draft grades were a real thing, Green Bay Packers general manager Brian Gutekunst might be afraid to take his report card home to show his parents.

Fortunately for Gutekunst, draft grades are perhaps the most irrelevant piece of journalism outside of the Onion and National Enquirer. Really, they are click bait. And so is this roundup of draft grades from across the spectrum.

Starting with the home team, Sports Illustrated’s Andy Benoit is in the minority in that he actually liked the draft. Benoit gave the Packers a B-minus. Here’s a small chunk of Benoit’s analysis: “The trend right now is to not pay a running back for a second contract unless he is truly special. Aaron Jones could be deemed worthy when his rookie deal expires after this season, but it’s unlikely his sidekick, Jamaal Williams, will also be. Hence the addition of A.J. Dillon. Packer fans may not love this draft, but given its long-term investment slant, only time will tell how it went.”

ESPN.com’s Mel Kiper: C. In part of his analysis, Kiper said: “What I do have a problem with is Green Bay not getting a wide receiver on Day 2. In an extremely deep receiver class, how can you not take one? Rodgers has a reason to be upset about that.”

Pro Football Focus: D. As part of its analysis: “For Love, it’s perhaps the perfect landing spot because he will get multiple seasons to work on his game with zero threat of having to start and lead a team while he does it. For Rodgers and a team that went to a conference championship game mere months ago, it’s a total waste of impact in 2020.”

Sporting News’ Vinnie Iyer: D. Iyer gave the Packers his worst grade. “Last and least, where to begin with this whiff of a class for Brian Gutekunst? After working so hard to build a 13-3 Super Bowl contender with Aaron Rodgers and Matt LaFleur last year, Green Bay drafted too much for future years. Love, Dillon, Deguara all won’t help them win more games in 2020.”

CBSSports.com’s Chris Trapasso graded each of the picks, starting with a “D” for Love.

USA Today’s Draft Wire’s Luke Easterling: D. Easterling didn’t like the Love pick. “It got worse in the second round, when the Packers reached for an old-school bruiser of a running back in Boston College’s A.J. Dillon, who should have still been on the board for Day 3.

USA Today’s Touchdown Wire’s Doug Farrar: D-minus. At the conclusion of his summation, Farrar wrote: “Not only did the Packers not do anything to help him, they seemed to go out of their way to antagonize their best player. It’s difficult to understand the logic here.”

Rotoworld’s Hayden Winks: F. Winks is one hell of a writer, because not only does he know what Rodgers is thinking but he also said the Packers could have drafted Dillon in the third round. Maybe he’s right, but that’s a lot of assuming. “Rodgers is rightfully pissed off, and to make matters even worse, Love isn’t even a good prospect! By the time Love sees the field as a starter, he’ll be halfway done with his rookie contract and will still need time to shake his poor decision making.”

Walter Football: F. As part of its analysis: Drafting Love “was an irresponsible decision that in no way mirrored Green Bay's pick of Rodgers in 2005. Back then, Brett Favre was flip-flopping back and forth about his retirement decision, and Rodgers was a prospect who was considered to be in play for the No. 1 overall pick. Rodgers has said nothing of retirement, so using a first-round pick on a raw quarterback was irresponsible. If the Packers wanted a worse version of Jameis Winston, they should have just signed Jameis Winston.”

The Washington Post’s Mark Maske: D. As part of Maske’s analysis: “Rodgers remains highly productive and has four years left on his contract. The Packers reached last season’s NFC championship game. Perhaps they would be ready to take the next step if the first-round choice had been devoted to a top wide receiver.”

NFL.com’s Chad Reuter: C-plus. Noting the anger over Love and the lack of a receiver, Reuter noted: “The three players they selected are intriguing talents, though; they will get their shot to show the skeptics their value (some sooner than others).”

Establish the Run’s Evan Silva: F. At the end of Silva’s summation, he wrote: “Even if Love develops into a franchise quarterback, the process behind his selection and most of the rest of this draft was dubious at best and downright irresponsible at worst.”

New York Post’s Ryan Dunleavy: C. He called it a “strange philosophy.”

Putting all the ingredients into the stew, you get this: