Jump to content

Reviewing the 2018 NFL Draft of the Green Bay Packers

Bob Fox

By Bob Fox
in Green Bay Packers

Recommended Posts

Bob Fox

Bob Fox

Posted
Posted

The 2018 NFL draft for the Green Bay Packers is now over. How would I view the draft for the Pack overall? I have a number of thoughts. In conjunction with my opinion, I’m going to use the scouting insights of NFL scout Chris Landry.

Much like in the 2015 NFL draft which was run by then general manager Ted Thompson, the Packers focused on the cornerback position in the first two rounds. In that regard, I think new general manager Brian Gutekunst did quite well, especially based on the pre-draft scouting report by Landry.

Landry had both Jaire Alexander and Josh Jackson rated with a 6.4 grade, which classifies as an early second-round value. Both players were on his horizontal draft board (best players regardless of position). Alexander was ranked No. 37, while Jackson was ranked No. 30. Jackson was ranked third, while Alexander was ranked fourth on Landry’s cornerback draft board.

I had the Packers taking Jackson in the second round in my third mock draft.

Green Bay desperately needed to upgrade the talent and youth at the cornerback position in this draft and they did just that. New defensive coordinator Mike Pettine has to be happy with these selections.

Later in this article, you will see Landry’s breakdown on the selections of both Alexander and Jackson, as well as all the other selections that the Packers made in the draft.

I also saw that he Packers definitely got bigger and faster at the wide receiver position with the three players they selected. J’Mon Moore of Missouri is 6’3″, weighs 207 pounds and ran a 4.48 in the 40 at his pro day. Marquez Valdes-Scantling of USF is 6’4″, weighs 206 pounds and ran a 4.37 in the 40 at the NFL Scouting Combine. Equanimeous St. Brown is 6’5″, weighs 214 pounds and ran a 4.48 in the 40 at the combine.

Landry had both Moore and Brown ranked on his horizontal board, which ranks players from first to fourth-round value. Landry has Brown ranked No. 86 and has the former Fighting Irish star graded with a 5.9 mark, which means a third-round value. Landry had Moore ranked No. 129 and has the former Tiger star graded with a 5.5 mark, which means a fourth-round value.

I had the Packers taking Brown in my first mock draft.

Valdes-Scantling was not on Landry’s horizontal board and was graded with a 5.4 mark, which means fifth to sixth-round value.

The Packers had a lot of question marks at wide receiver prior to the draft. For one, the team released Jordy Nelson. Secondly, the best wide receiver on the team, Davante Adams, who the Packers signed to a four-year $58.75 extension in late December, is coming off a season with multiple concussions. Finally, Randall Cobb is is in the final year of his four-year $40 deal, one which he has not exactly lived up to.

Adding Moore, Valdes-Scantling and Brown gives the Packers a lot of options at the wide receiver position, as well as speed and size as I mentioned earlier.

I’m sure quarterback Aaron Rodgers wasn’t unhappy with the selections of these big and talented receivers. Nor was head coach Mike McCarthy.

In the third round the Packers picked linebacker Oren Burks. While I would have preferred adding an edge rusher at that point of the draft, the Packers have been trying to find a cover-linebacker for years now in the pass-happy league that they play in. It appears that Burks can fill that role.

Landry did not have Burks ranked in his horizontal draft board, but did have the former Vandy star graded with a 5.4 mark, which means a fifth to sixth-round value. Obviously the Packers graded Burks differently.

To see the rest of the story, please go to:

https://greenbaybobfox.wordpress.com/2018/04/29/reviewing-the-2018-nfl-draft-of-the-green-bay-packers/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leader

Leader

Posted
Posted

Hmmmmm......I gotta agree. This is something of a slap in the face no?

"It’s not a good omen for current Green Bay punter Justin Vogel that the Packers assigned Scott the same No. 8 that Vogel wears"

Either the competition is over - although I'd find that an odd decision for the team to make as Vogel didnt stink up the joint - or a mistake that will be rectified.

We shall see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TransientTexan

TransientTexan

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Leader said:

Hmmmmm......I gotta agree. This is something of a slap in the face no?

"It’s not a good omen for current Green Bay punter Justin Vogel that the Packers assigned Scott the same No. 8 that Vogel wears"

Either the competition is over - although I'd find that an odd decision for the team to make as Vogel didnt stink up the joint - or a mistake that will be rectified.

We shall see.

Well at this stage, we’re talking about a 90-man roster. It’s not unusual to have duplicate numbers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CWood21

CWood21

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Leader said:

Hmmmmm......I gotta agree. This is something of a slap in the face no?

"It’s not a good omen for current Green Bay punter Justin Vogel that the Packers assigned Scott the same No. 8 that Vogel wears"

Either the competition is over - although I'd find that an odd decision for the team to make as Vogel didnt stink up the joint - or a mistake that will be rectified.

We shall see.

They have since changed that on the website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Norm

Norm

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Leader said:

Hmmmmm......I gotta agree. This is something of a slap in the face no?

"It’s not a good omen for current Green Bay punter Justin Vogel that the Packers assigned Scott the same No. 8 that Vogel wears"

Either the competition is over - although I'd find that an odd decision for the team to make as Vogel didnt stink up the joint - or a mistake that will be rectified.

We shall see.

Wait, really? That's nuts. I've never heard of such a thing

Edit: never mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Golfman

Golfman

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

Well at this stage, we’re talking about a 90-man roster. It’s not unusual to have duplicate numbers. 

I don't believe you can't wear 1  I believe there are a few numbers we've retired, but not sure it is 8 more. If my math is correct, that would mean there is no reason to double up on the 90 man roster. Just sayin'! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Norm

Norm

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Golfman said:

I don't believe you can't wear 1  I believe there are a few numbers we've retired, but not sure it is 8 more. If my math is correct, that would mean there is no reason to double up on the 90 man roster. Just sayin'! 

Why can't you wear 1? Doesn't Cam wear it.

And the issue falls not on total numbers but too many guys at one position group that run out of numbers, since you can't wear whatever number you want. Then again maybe there's exceptions I'm not aware of something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pugger

Pugger

Posted
Posted
Just now, NormSizedMidget said:

Why can't you wear 1? Doesn't Cam wear it.

And the issue falls not on total numbers but too many guys at one position group that run out of numbers, since you can't wear whatever number you want. Then again maybe there's exceptions I'm not aware of something?

Even tho that number isn't officially retired I think Curly wore #1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Golfman

Golfman

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

Why can't you wear 1? Doesn't Cam wear it.

And the issue falls not on total numbers but too many guys at one position group that run out of numbers, since you can't wear whatever number you want. Then again maybe there's exceptions I'm not aware of something?

I stand corrected! I did not think that was allowed, but believe I'm wrong. News flash, this won't be the last time that happens! 

As far as the second part, I think the league corrected that when they started to allow positions to expand what numbers they could wear. I'm not sure how long ago that was but at one point I do think #1 was not allowed. WR's in the teens was one of those changes I believe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Norm

Norm

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Pugger said:

Even tho that number isn't officially retired I think Curly wore #1.

And it looks like nobody has ever been issued it since. So it seems like it's kind an unofficial retirement deal. Good call. Didn't know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
packfanfb

packfanfb

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

And it looks like nobody has ever been issued it since. So it seems like it's kind an unofficial retirement deal. Good call. Didn't know that.

That WR we had wore No. 1 all through camp last year...Pearson? White kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Norm

Norm

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

That WR we had wore No. 1 all through camp last year...Pearson? White kid.

I thought maybe there was another guy who wore one at camp too. Not that guy though. It was a while back

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greg C.

Greg C.

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, packfanfb said:

That WR we had wore No. 1 all through camp last year...Pearson? White kid.

Yes, it was Colby Pearson. [CORRECTION: It was Alex Gillett--see green machine's post below]

I think they had a duplicate number in camp last year, but it was players who did not play the same position. For both punters (or another other position) to have the same number would be confusing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...