Jump to content
jleisher

2019 Draft Discussion

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Leader said:

We could have Eric Reid now with a phone call.

Provided we make him the highest paid Safety in the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

No.  You made the comment that the Packers should trade the pick for a veteran EDGE, and I asked which one was.  If the option is available, I'd love to know which one is which is what I'm getting at.  Would I love to get a veteran EDGE?  Absolutely, but I'm not going to discuss a hypothetical that isn't realistic.

Okay fair enough, I apologize. I was getting at the fact that ideally, for me, some picks would be invested in Mack or by some miracle another edge rusher Pulls a Vontae Davis or Leveon Bell. Will leave out these scenarios in the future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

The Packers only save ~$5M by releasing Graham after this season, so he's essentially guaranteed to be back next year.  You're not looking to replace him after 2018, so you're drafting for 2020 so you can take a flier on an athlete there instead.  You're probably looking at most a 2nd rounder, but somewhere in that 2nd-4th round range.  In an ideal world, you're going EDGE and OT in the 1st, S in the second, and then TE in the 3rd.

No, that's not my take. You're right about the likelihood of Graham staying two years (or possibly three). The Packers have used a number of picks on fast TE's a few years back (I'm talking 4.5 and 4.6, 40 guys). Not one of them panned out. The highest pick for ages was Finley (a third, I think) who had equal parts of tease and production. If the Packers spend a second rounder on TE, there is a good chance of a starter-level guy. The best developmental TE I liked recently, was Kittle (taken with the second pick in round five in 2017), but that was a generational haul of TEs that year and the Packers missed that boat..

I don't hate the idea of going S, then TE, but I DO hate how many high picks have been spent on DBs in the last five years (seven out of 10 top two round picks). Also, even a good TE needs to learn all the OL stuff AND the receiver stuff - it's a tough position to learn, so a year behind Graham would be a valuable lesson going forward, it gives him invaluable time, time to learn, time in the weight room, time to see what is needed to play at the NFL level.

Edited by OneTwoSixFive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, squire12 said:

I would rather go the FA route with a TE.  Someone that is young and in need of opportunities.  Maxx Williams, Nick Boyle both from BAL, Jesse James PIT, Tyler Kroft CIN

Since TE take longer to develop, would rather use those higher picks on players that could be contributors sooner and go FA TE and hope the development is done via another team.

That would be fine if we could get another Cook. Not easy to do, but fine if you can - even better if he is less than 29 years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

No, that's not my take. You're right about the likelihood of Graham staying two years (or possibly three). The Packers have used a number of picks on fast TE's a few years back (I'm talking 4.5 and 4.6, 40 guys). Not one of them panned out. The highest pick for ages was Finley (a third, I think) who had equal parts of tease and production. If the Packers spend a second rounder on TE, there is a good chance of a starter-level guy. The best developmental TE I liked recently, was Kittle (taken with the second pick in round five in 2017), but that was a generational haul of TEs that year and the Packers missed that boat..

I don't hate the idea of going S, then TE, but I DO hate how many high picks have been spent on DBs in the last five years (seven out of 10 top two round picks). Also, even a good TE needs to learn all the OL stuff AND the receiver stuff - it's a tough position to learn, so a year behind Graham would be a valuable lesson going forward, it gives him invaluable time, time to learn, time in the weight room, time to see what is needed to play at the NFL level.

I wasn't trying to imply that was your take.  I was merely saying we don't have to limit ourselves to the high-floor TEs that we've seem to have preferred in the past.  We can afford to take one of those raw, toolsy types instead.  We haven't drafted a TON of TEs by any means, but they usually fall into one of two types.  We've either drafted the H-Back mold (i.e. D.J. Williams or Kennard Backman) or they draft "clunkier" TEs like Clark Harris or Richard Rodgers.  I'm talking about guys like Tyler Higbee (character issues not withstanding) or Jace Amaro.  Guys who are athletic, but a bit raw in terms of technique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I wouldn't hold my breath on a trade-up.  We've never done it under TT, so you'd have to imagine it's a philosophy that's going to be carried over from TT.  I suppose there's a scenario where they trade up with their higher first round pick along with their natural 2nd round selection, and then move down from their second first round pick to recoup some value.  But overall, I'd be incredibly skeptical if they traded up in the first round.

The Packers have never invested more than a mid-round pick into the interior OL.  That screams philosophical to me.  They've had opportunities to draft IOL earlier, and they've passed on it.  Same thing with ILB.  I think they might give some thought to adding more CB depth, but that likely comes in the mid-to-late round range.  Think someone whose got ST values there.

Ya I'm not holding my breath at all. It will be the most intriguing aspect of the draft for me - what happens with these two picks? I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that they do trade up if the picks are in the 20's and one of their guys is there in the 10-15 area. TT's most aggressive move in the draft was trading back up into the first for Clay Matthews, if they are high on somebody and the draft doesn't turn out to be so deep there, I could see Gute breaking the tendency. Of course, if it is a deep draft, there's probably not a chance they trade up. 

I agree with the rest of your assessment as well - a guard will definitely be a mid round pick. Pretty much a lock at this point an IOL will be taken in the mid rounds. Just trying to fill in some of our needs behind what you listed. Corner certainly has a mid-late round grade as well as of now but do you think the availability if K. King, combined with Tramon hypothetically retiring and House perhaps not being brought back, that the need for a corner might be pushed up?

I think another scenario to keep an eye on is with M. Wilkerson. The Packers have shown they want to dominate the LOS with these big guy and have invested a 1st in Clark, 4th in Daniels, 3rd in Adams, and brought Wilkerson in. If he isn't a difference maker and Adams doesn't make a jump, I could see their replacement being drafted anywhere from the first - fourth round. You can't have too many of these guys so if the value is there it's certainly possible. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@CWood21 Yeah, Williams, Backman, Perillo, Bostick, there were a bunch of them ( I struggle to remember them now). I remember looking up many 40 times for back of the roster Packers TE's a few years back, and plenty  of the guys they picked up had fast times either at the combine or their pro-day (but obviously not guys like R.Rogers). It just seemed that they couldn't develop any of them. Maybe Angelicho can sprinkle fairy dust on a mid-to-late pick, that would be ideal, but the Packers history says it's unlikely. I guess to be fair to you, most of the failures were rookie FAs, so a 3rd or fourth round pick has a rather higher chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@sgtcheezwiz  Do you think a high pick will help the Packers more than the two picks that combine to give the high pick ? I'll give a specific trade. Assume the Packers get the 18th pick (from the Saints) and the 28th pick (the Packers own pick). They are worth 900 and 660 pointson the adjusted trade value chart. Add those picks together and they are enough to get you up to pick 7. So the question now becomes whether pick 7 is worth more or less than both pick 18 and pick 28 ?

I'd go for two picks myself, two shots in round one, instead of one higher pick. The Packers always need more starter-level guys than they have picks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

Do you think a high pick will help the Packers more than the two picks that combine to give the high pick ? I'll give a specific trade. Assume the Packers get the 18th pick (from the Saints) and the 28th pick (the Packers own pick).

I'm sorry 1265.....but am I to take that you dont think GB will be winning the SB?
It would appear so........

Edited by Leader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Right now, EDGE, S, and RT are probably are three biggest "needs".

I'm actually wondering what the thoughts internally are on Linsley. Obviously it will come down to numbers, but Linsley hasn't proven to be a guy who elevates the guys on either side of him. He's as good as McCray/Taylor on a given day. Most Centers are the same way, but I'm wondering what the feeling is on that guy. 

Can he be resigned reasonably?

Is there an internal replacement ready?

How much draft capital are you willing to spend on that spot?

I just can't see this organization willing to pay Linsley what he might he able to get elsewhere. It looks like this front office is dedicated to keeping that interior inexpensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@OneTwoSixFive in that scenario I agree with you, keep the picks. I don't see Green Bay trading both first rounders, but I would think moving one of them plus later or future picks to move up to the 10-15 range could be a possibility. 

 

Hmm now that I think back on the trade with the Saints, I don't think it is very likely even at those picks. 

Edited by sgtcheezwiz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

@CWood21 Yeah, Williams, Backman, Perillo, Bostick, there were a bunch of them ( I struggle to remember them now). I remember looking up many 40 times for back of the roster Packers TE's a few years back, and plenty  of the guys they picked up had fast times either at the combine or their pro-day (but obviously not guys like R.Rogers). It just seemed that they couldn't develop any of them. Maybe Angelicho can sprinkle fairy dust on a mid-to-late pick, that would be ideal, but the Packers history says it's unlikely. I guess to be fair to you, most of the failures were rookie FAs, so a 3rd or fourth round pick has a rather higher chance.

I think Bostick & Perillo were undrafted 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AlexGreen#20 said:

I'm actually wondering what the thoughts internally are on Linsley. Obviously it will come down to numbers, but Linsley hasn't proven to be a guy who elevates the guys on either side of him. He's as good as McCray/Taylor on a given day. Most Centers are the same way, but I'm wondering what the feeling is on that guy. 

Can he be resigned reasonably?

Is there an internal replacement ready?

How much draft capital are you willing to spend on that spot?

I just can't see this organization willing to pay Linsley what he might he able to get elsewhere. It looks like this front office is dedicated to keeping that interior inexpensive.

He just signed a 3 year deal at a reasonable rate.  I feel pretty darn comfortable that assuming he stays healthy, he's our starting C.  Maybe they start looking for a replacement after next season, but there's really no reason to actively search for a replacement.  If one falls in the draft, sure.  But they're probably more in the depth department for the IOL right now.  That might change with McCray, but I'm pretty confident that Lane Taylor and Corey Linsley are going to be our starting LG and C as long as they are under contract and are healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×