Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

582 Pro Bowl


Recent Profile Visitors

834 profile views
  1. Lieker Mock 1.0 2020

    Clarke, Hasty, Gage and Cervenka, were four of my later round likes that I see you drafted. I'd probably have taken the slightly undersized RB Reggie Corbin (5'10, 200) over Hasty (5'8", 203), but I like them both. I also liked that you put in RAS scores where you could, we know that Gute loves high RAS.
  2. Round by Round Mock (you make the pick RD 3 page 5)

    I would suggest to @squire12 that you put in the position played for each draft pick. It's not so important in round one, we all know the names there, but do you know the positions of all the players that might be available in round five ? I certainly don't. Sure some positions might be flexible for some players and some listed as a (for example) OT may project to guard in the NFL, but on balance, put in the position played/projected. Of the players listed as available, I choose DL Blacklock in round one.
  3. Random Packer News & Notes

    Does anyone pay any attention to Mel Kiper anymore ?
  4. This Aint Packers Talk v69

    Is there no close season for freshwater fish in America ? In England you cannot fish rivers/streams etc from 15 March to 15 June (to give fish time to breed without pressure).
  5. 1st round mock draft

    Four OTs in the first 11 picks (and a 5th at #18). That's horrible, and would require the Packers to make a small reach (according to TDN ranking) for OT Cleveland or Niang (though Davidson is ranked lower than either). I do like the idea of a DL at #30, though I would have expected it to be Blacklock or Gallimore. At least it's a change from the endless sea of WR at #30 mocks.
  6. 2020 NFL Draft Discussion

    Typical thinking of many draft 'experts' that assume we MUST get a WR in round one. In reality, I don't think we go ILB or WR in round one. I'd plump for drafting the lines, O line/D line, at least one of them and quite possibly both in rounds 1/2.
  7. It isn't a 50/50 split though. The Packers have been poster boys in the past for fielding one of the youngest teams in the league. The real problem I touched on my original post. Experience losses are definite (you already know how good the player was), while improvements due to added experience are uncertain. Bottom line is success comes down to drafting, FA losses and gains, quality of the coaches ..........and most of all, quality of the players.
  8. Get out your crystal balls. this is an opinion or gut-feeling type of question since we don't know exactly who will be on the roster come training camp. We DO have some ideas due to the losses and gains made already...... and even though we don't know the exact players picked in the draft, you could expect additions (or further additions) at OT, ILB, WR, DL, RB, IOL, probablyTE, and possibly QB CB and/or safety, which basically means everywhere. It's the order in which those positions are filled that is likely to make the crystal ball just a little less cloudy. There isn't much doubt (at least not in my mind) that the Packers are worse off at this time when you add up the gains and losses. However, the players lost have given the Pack cap room going forward. In the longer term I think we will be about the same next year as last year. Packers will probably be better against the SanFran outside run game because they have been clearly shown they must get better against it. Rodgers is in his second year with La Fleur which is good (better knowledge of the system) and worse (he is a year older). There are likely to be more guys getting better on the team because they are young and improving, than there are getting worse. Several young guys on the receiver corps, Savage, Jenkins, Alexander, King, Gary, Hollman, Sullivan, Sternberger, Keke are just some of the guys I want to see getting better, while those slipping are Graham, T.Williams, maybe Bulaga. Good players leaving generally count more than the young improving guys, due to the fact that you can already see the history of descending good players (it's written in stone, being in the past). Future development, by comparison, is just guesswork - some will rise, some will not. I think (and so do several other posters) that we could win 1-3 games less in 2020 (than in 2019) but still be a slightly better team overall.
  9. BK's Quarantine Mock v2.0 (updated)

    I like the draft, particularly the OL/DL start. Somewhere around the 5th/and first 6th pick I'd probably have gone for a developmental TE and a slightly better QB. My late-pick developmental OL guy is Gage Cervenka. On the whole, good picks with plenty of needs filled.
  10. 2020 Off-season Discussion Thread

    Better than Mr. Ohm and Mr. Ampere combined.
  11. 2020 NFL Draft Discussion

    It doesn't. Jerry Jeudy, CeeDee Lamb, Henry Ruggs III, Justin Jefferson, Denzel Mims, Laviska Shenault, Jalen Reagor, Brandon Aiyuk, and Tee Higgins are all comfortably top 64 players. And there's probably a WR or two that probably could jump in there. There's a ton of WR value in this draft. And that's not getting into the tier of nice, but flawed WR prospects. How many of the guys you mentioned do you think will be available at the Packers 2nd round pick (#62) ? I'd say none, and I think that was the point @KManX89 was trying to make. If the Packers move up (in round 2) it's a different story of course. I don't expect them to do that...........but they might.
  12. NFL News & Notes

    Most teams have between six and nine players earning significantly more than $5m pa. If you have a Mahomes on the team (ie a first contract QB) you can afford more than a team with $30m+ pa sunk into their QB (which was what @Outpost31 has harped on about for ages). The Packers have spent the big bucks at premium positions (QB, pass rushers, offensive tackles no.1 WR and (soon) NT. While there are certain higher paid positions on the Packers that are not premium spots (like Linsley and Turner) that look like good targets to find cheaper options (meaning probably in the draft), there is still very little room for tying up $14m at the RB position unless you want to let go a future second contract on (for example) Alexander, Savage, Jenkins, King. I'd say a good RB is easier to find than at most other positions. It all means that many fans get conflicted. Most, if not all of us love what Jones has done - it makes it very tough to see a good player let go, whatever the justification.
  13. NFL News & Notes

    I understand it's what you want to happen. What I was pointing out is that it isn't what the Packers org wants. @Golfman understood the Packers wouldn't do this, even though he liked the idea of 'all-in'. I have heard and read of pleas for the Packers to go all-in (ie boom/bust) every single year since the start of the 90s (and it probably happened before that). It hasn't happened to date, it almost certainly won't happen, so your wish, while you cherish it, is effectively dead in the water.
  14. NFL News & Notes

    The Packers have never been an outright boom and bust team, it just isn't in their DNA (or not for more than 30 years anyway). Their way is to take a sustainable path across future years, that's just who they are, and on the whole it has served them well. If you want someone more boom and bust, maybe the Falcons, or perhaps the Raiders, are better bets.
  15. Random Packer News & Notes

    Remember when I recommended a two-year plan of boom year, lean year. Year 1 - spend generously on veteran FAs. Year 2 - no comp picks (due to vets acquired last year). Get rid of guys who you think get big contracts elsewhere (Martinez/Bulaga/Graham etc). Be stingy on vets acquired. year 3 - reap the comp picks generated in year 2. This is the year to get expensive FA's. future years - alternate as per year 2 and 3. What the Packers are doing looks very like this, with year 1 being 2019, year 2, 2020.