2019 Draft Discussion

[JBURGE]

2 minutes ago, rcon14 said:

1 hour ago, JBURGE said:

Would have been so cool if we had the 4th pick by losing to Atlanta and the Jets, but what are some people's thoughts on trading 12, 30 and a 2020 2nd to move up to 2 to draft either Quinnen or Bosa? Better yet, if someone moves up into the top 3 to get a QB, moving to 4 to get one of Quinnen, Bosa or Allen?

So we could get to 4 with 12 and our 2nd it looks like (according to trade value chart), which, if one of Quinnen, Bosa, or Allen is there, it's not a BAD idea. It's tough for me to say too much yet because the combine has yet to occur, but it's a scenario work having in the back of your mind right now.

I have hesitation for Josh Allen, but I would give 12 and 44 in a heartbeat for one of Quinnen or Bosa. Trade down from 30 to get another pick, I don't care.

[Nick_gb]

7 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

I have hesitation for Josh Allen, but I would give 12 and 44 in a heartbeat for one of Quinnen or Bosa. Trade down from 30 to get another pick, I don't care.

I don't know man, I have no reservations about Josh Allen. The guy just got better and better each year he played in college and has all the tools and production you look for in a draft pick. To me, he's a pretty safe pick. Although, Aaron Curry was considered the safest pick of his draft and well we know how that turned out lol.

[JBURGE]

2 minutes ago, Nick_gb said:

11 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

I have hesitation for Josh Allen, but I would give 12 and 44 in a heartbeat for one of Quinnen or Bosa. Trade down from 30 to get another pick, I don't care.

I don't know man, I have no reservations about Josh Allen. The guy just got better and better each year he played in college and has all the tools and production you look for in a draft pick. To me, he's a pretty safe pick. Although, Aaron Curry was considered the safest pick of his draft and well we know how that turned out lol.

I like Josh Allen a lot. But as of today I think Bosa and Quinnen are alone in their own tier based on the higher floor. 

[Nick_gb]

1 hour ago, Arthur Penske said:

Obviously this has little baring on how they will be as NFL WRs but damn they’re yoked

 

 

They skip leg day? 😂

[JBURGE]

9 minutes ago, Nick_gb said:

They skip leg day? 😂

i mean you can see Metcalf's quads, but his calves are big

[Nick_gb]

9 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

i mean you can see Metcalf's quads, but his calves are big

I was joking due to the angle of the picture thats all lol.

[SSG]

2 hours ago, Arthur Penske said:

Obviously this has little baring on how they will be as NFL WRs but damn they’re yoked

 

 

DK looks more like Vernon Davis than your ordinary WR.  Didn't realize Brown was that big.

[vegas492]

I don't believe that the trade proposed was #12 and a future second.  It was #12, #30 and a future second rounder.  Or am I mistaken?

[CWood21]

15 hours ago, Lodestar said:

I don't know if any of them are blue-chip or elite prospects, but they each have the potential to be elite players—probably a better chance than some of the guys who will go before them. If Metcalf turns into a Julio Jones or Josh Gordon type player, if Hockenson becomes the next Gronkowski, if White develops into an All-Pro linebacker, a lot of teams will regret passing on them. Obviously none of these scenarios is guaranteed or even likely, but these seem to be three very high-ceiling players. The Combine will tell us more.

I mean, we could throw that out for a TON of players.  That's not exclusive to those guys.  What happens if Ed Oliver turns into Aaron Donald?  What if Brian Burns turns into Von Miller?  We're going to sit in this hypothetical forever.

[CWood21]

10 hours ago, pacman5252 said:

You are purposely misrepresenting the argument (for taking a wr, te, ilb) being used by creating a position that isn’t really real (happened 1 time in 12 years). That is pretty fallacious.

No I'm not.  I put it in the most extreme point to paint a picture.   Positional value is absolutely a thing, and it's in other professional sports.  A SS who hits .300/.400/.500 is more valuable than a 1B who hits .300/.400/.500 because it's harder to find quality SS who can hit than it is to find quality 1B that can hit.  In NBA, wings are more valuable than centers. It's not some insanely crazy concept.  Arguing that positional value has no place in this argument is literally arguing against facts.  Every position has a value assigned to it by the franchise.  Some teams don't find the value between positions (sans QBs) to be drastic.  Others would say otherwise.  Let me ask you this, do you think it's any coincidence that the Packers have NEVER taken RB, WR, TE, or IOL in the first round under Ted Thompson?

[CWood21]

9 hours ago, pacman5252 said:

Using the definitions of;

Elite- could be a top 5 player at position in 2-3 years

Blue chip- immediate impact player, should start immediately with pb potential 

Red chip- should contribute right away, might start by end of year 1, and has high upside

Metcalf- pretty easy argument, if it wasn’t for the injury  he would have been a top 5 pick (elite prospect). Assuming he runs well (4.4s),  6’4” 240 with after catch ability puts legitimately puts him in the the legit most gifted physically wr in the league discussion... probably the best tools since Mike Evans.

Hockenson- ready to play TE with tools and is most complete te to enter the draft since maybe Shockey?  With teams running more 12 personnel TE is more valuable too 

White- This is the prospect who I don’t think is the best out of the 3, but he would be a starting 3 down lb from day 1. In a league where top end Ds are scheming up pressure (see NE, who’s most productive edge was less productive than Fackrell). He’d come in and be s productive piece, and add pass rush

The argument for not taking Polite/Burns- They are twitch rushers, but how close are they to playing? Burns and Polite played in the 230s last year. They probably aren’t day one starters which puts them as red chip prospects. We don’t know how they’ll play at 250/260, which adds projection fog (we’ve seen many undersized project edges who got drafted high and sucked)

I’d still personally rather have Polite/Burns over White and probably Hock, but I get the argument for passing. The default argument for saying they’d be bad picks since they aren’t valuable is a little off based.

LIS, you're being a bit too generous when you're throwing out blue chips IMO.  If you want to go off your definition of what a blue chip is, you're probably talking about another dozen or so prospects.  DK Metcalf is absolutely not an elite prospect, and I'm not even sure he's a blue chip by your definition.  Over the last 2 years, he has 65 receptions, 1215 receiving yards, and 12 TD in 19 games.   Mike Williams (Clemson WR) in his last season he had 98 receptions, 1361 receiving yards, and 11 TD receptions.  So if Metcalf doesn't have great production, he damn better well be an elite athlete.  He's been reported to run a 4.46 forty, which is probably a bit fast.  I'd venture to guess he's somewhere in that 4.5-4.6 range.  He's not an elite prospect.  People are looking at that stupid video and making all kinds of insane extrapolation.

As for Hockenson, how exactly is he anything better than OJ Howard?  We haven't really had a strong TE prospect come out since maybe Jermaine Gresham (had he stayed healthy his final year at Oklahoma).  Other than that, you probably had Vernon Davis as the last elite TE prospect.  That doesn't make him a great prospect.  Stop inflating a prospect simply because the position hasn't popped high quality ones.  How does Devin White compare to the elite LBs that have come out in recent years?  I'm not even sure he's top 3 amongst OBLB from last year's draft.

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, rcon14 said:

So we could get to 4 with 12 and our 2nd it looks like (according to trade value chart), which, if one of Quinnen, Bosa, or Allen is there, it's not a BAD idea. It's tough for me to say too much yet because the combine has yet to occur, but it's a scenario work having in the back of your mind right now.

Let me ask you this, if you were Oakland would you take that deal?  You're looking at a potential blue chip prospect on the board, and you're moving down for "fair" value.  I'd demand a king's ransom if I'm making this move.  And honestly, I wouldn't even blame Gruden for asking for that.

[MacReady]

Ted Thompson had stated that Jordy Nelson was who he wanted all along in that draft and he still traded down into the second.  

@CWood21.

Thank God we're not the Lions or Vikings or Bears or Bengals or Dolphins or another team thatconstantly drafts those positions in round one.

 

[rcon14]

31 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Let me ask you this, if you were Oakland would you take that deal?  You're looking at a potential blue chip prospect on the board, and you're moving down for "fair" value.  I'd demand a king's ransom if I'm making this move.  And honestly, I wouldn't even blame Gruden for asking for that.

Oh I wouldn't, that's just where the draft value chart numbers go. I fully acknowledge it would be a good deal for GB.

[SSG]

40 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

No I'm not.  I put it in the most extreme point to paint a picture.   Positional value is absolutely a thing, and it's in other professional sports.  A SS who hits .300/.400/.500 is more valuable than a 1B who hits .300/.400/.500 because it's harder to find quality SS who can hit than it is to find quality 1B that can hit.  In NBA, wings are more valuable than centers. It's not some insanely crazy concept.  Arguing that positional value has no place in this argument is literally arguing against facts.  Every position has a value assigned to it by the franchise.  Some teams don't find the value between positions (sans QBs) to be drastic.  Others would say otherwise.  Let me ask you this, do you think it's any coincidence that the Packers have NEVER taken RB, WR, TE, or IOL in the first round under Ted Thompson?

I do.  WR was the first position we selected in 2008 draft.  The fact that we traded back 6 picks from the late first into the early second to draft Jordy Nelson  despite having a loaded WR core doesn't mean Thompson valued the position any less.  Without looking, I'm not sure there is a position that Thompson drafted more in the second round than WR and he did so regardless of the WR talent he had on the team.  Outside of obviously QB, I don't believe there is a position on the offense that one could make the arguement that Thompson valued more than WR.  

I'd also point out that we're not under Ted Thompson.  We're not being coached by Mike McCarthy.  The idea that you think Green bay willl forever have exactly the same value for every position regardless of who's building or coaching the team is crazy.  Not sure how one could say Green Bay doesn't value TE.  We just made Jimmy Graham the highest paid player at his position in NFL history.  We did so one eyar removed from paying Marty Bennett a huge contract in which we were still on the hook for this year at the tune of 4 million.