Jump to content

2019 Draft Discussion


jleisher

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Lol.  Alone?  Have you not seen the massive amounts of arguments in which I've said this?  I've literally been saying this since the day we signed him.  Whatever you think of tight ends and Rodgers, you have to admit it takes him time to trust them.

No. Of course some have hope for Jimmy, but he's widely regarded as a bad signing so far by most fans/pundits.

36 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

If the Packers trade back into the 15-20 range, I think Hock at least becomes part of the discussion (assuming someone hasn't overvalued him and taken him already). I'm really not interested in Fant unless he's there at 30. 

After those 2, there's probably not another TE in this class I would draft before the 4th round except Sternberger (that includes Irv). 

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ChaRisMa said:

This is your page 324 warning: Guys we didn't expect to be there at 12 will be. Guys we did expect to be there won't. It's a crap shoot.

And there we have it. True yesterday.....true today....and it will be true on draft day.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cannondale said:

And if we can get him at pick #42 where Gronk went I'd be all for it. 

I mean, Gronk fell because of his mega injury concerns. Hock is just a really damn solid player, which makes it really hard to figure out where he will go. If he can step in and be a positive starter tear 1 as a TE, that's huge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

I mean, Gronk fell because of his mega injury concerns. Hock is just a really damn solid player, which makes it really hard to figure out where he will go. If he can step in and be a positive starter tear 1 as a TE, that's huge. 

Too many ifs in that statement for #12

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rcon14 said:

I'm out on Isaac Nauta. 4.91 40 is unacceptable at TE. Combine that with a 7.45 3C and 4.43 shuttle, AND he's small. He's off the board.

I agree. At best he's an UDFA. 

Edited by deathstar
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (imo) somewhat OTT love for TE Hockenson reminds me of the 2012 draft when (on another forum) the favourite flavour of most Packer fans was DE Shea McClelin. 

That player ended up being taken by the Chicago Bears. He never did anything at DE, was converted (without much success) to LB, but was gone (from the Bears) in 2015. I'm not saying Hockenson will end up the same way,  just saying that fan favourites are as likely to fail as any other pick.

I actually rather like Hockenson, though I don't think he rates the 12th pick, if he was there at #30 (I don't think he will be), I could get on board with that. He falls into that awkward category of not good enough for #12 and too good to last until #30, though in the countless Fanspeak drafts I have done, across a dozen or so big boards, Hockenson is rated higher than 30th pick, but, he lasts until #30 there because other teams have more important needs.

Edited by OneTwoSixFive
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

The (imo) somewhat OTT love for TE Hockenson reminds me of the 2012 draft when (on another forum) the favourite flavour of most Packer fans was DE Shea McClelin. 

That player ended up being taken by the Chicago Bears. He never did anything at DE, was converted to LB, but was gone (from the Bears) in 2015. I'm not saying Hockenson will end up the same way,  just saying that fan favourites are as likely to fail as any other pick.

I actually rather like Hockenson, though I don't think he rates the 12th pick, if he was there at #30 (I don't think he will be), I could get on board with that.

Do you like him enough to move up into the 20's to snag him (?) or not so much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At about #25, I would be fine with moving up (assuming a reasonable deal could be worked out). However, sitting on your hands just might get him at #30.

I'm not saying it would be my most favourite possibility (which is getting Simmons at #30, if available), but it seems a reasonable move.

Edited by OneTwoSixFive
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cannondale said:
1 hour ago, JBURGE said:

I mean, Gronk fell because of his mega injury concerns. Hock is just a really damn solid player, which makes it really hard to figure out where he will go. If he can step in and be a positive starter tear 1 as a TE, that's huge. 

Too many ifs in that statement for #12

I said 1 if, which was if he can step in as a plus day 1 starter. Personally I believe he can and will. He will at the very least step in as a well above average blocker, and an average starting receiver in year 1. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, packfanfb said:

If the Packers trade back into the 15-20 range, I think Hock at least becomes part of the discussion (assuming someone hasn't overvalued him and taken him already). I'm really not interested in Fant unless he's there at 30. 

After those 2, there's probably not another TE in this class I would draft before the 4th round except Sternberger (that includes Irv). 

We aren't trading back a significant amount.  Look at our past trade backs.  In 2008, the Packers dealt their FRP (#30) to the Jets for their SRP (#36) and a 4th round pick (#113).  In 2017, the Packers traded down from their FRP (#29) to the Browns for a SRP (#33) and a 4th round pick (#108).  We had the swap from last year, which was essentially a FRP (#14), a 3rd round pick (#76), and a 6th round pick (#186) for a FRP (#17), a 5th round pick (#147), and a future FRP.  That was moving down 6 and 4 spots respectively in a significantly less top-heavy portion of the draft.  I can't see any situation we trade down much further past 15-18.  That would require the Packers to give up on a significantly different tier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CWood21 said:

We aren't trading back a significant amount.  Look at our past trade backs.  In 2008, the Packers dealt their FRP (#30) to the Jets for their SRP (#36) and a 4th round pick (#113).  In 2017, the Packers traded down from their FRP (#29) to the Browns for a SRP (#33) and a 4th round pick (#108).  We had the swap from last year, which was essentially a FRP (#14), a 3rd round pick (#76), and a 6th round pick (#186) for a FRP (#17), a 5th round pick (#147), and a future FRP.  That was moving down 6 and 4 spots respectively in a significantly less top-heavy portion of the draft.  I can't see any situation we trade down much further past 15-18.  That would require the Packers to give up on a significantly different tier.

You keep using this history to say why the team won't, but what about taking Gute's moves into account? He was active last year in FA, active and actually finished a handful of deals this year, has 3 trades with his first 3 picks last year in the draft... I would say that he is much more aggressive and I don't think it's out of the question to think he might be changing the way the Packers operate significantly 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like the furthest they would conceivably trade back is 17.  12 might be the catbird seat for "come get the quarterback."  Probably the most likely scenario has 1-3 QBs going in the top 11 so 12 might be the spot for either "the next QB" or "the last QB".  Miami (13), Washington (15), or the Giants (17) assuming they pass on QB at 6 would probably be the teams willing to give up the most to move up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mock draft forum is doing its best to prepare me mentally for the actual draft. After watching so many crappy mocks with us getting WRs/TEs/OGs at 12-30 and then ILBs or more offensive players in the second, it's practically impossible that I will be disappointed come April.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...