2019 Draft Discussion

[Chili]

ok...this is interesting. I theorised yesterday that the Packers would not be incorporating the FB in our offence. This tweet suggests differently.

Gute did imply that Graham will be back next season so in order to incorporate him into the offence LaFleur will basically have to copy the 49ers offence. Graham ain't gonna block! Hence the likely use of the full back.

Juszczyk is used quite often as a receiver and that dovetails with Gute's comment that the position will be used a little bit differently. Its looking like we all should be studying the 49ers offence as inspiration to see how our offence will be built. Vitale will definitely be the guy to watch in training camp. I think he fits that particular style of offence perfectly. Are there any receiving FB types in the draft?

However that does mean two WR sets instead of the three. Adams will certainly be the no.1 but looking at the Rams and 49ers they both have speedy receivers. I believe this implies that speed is an important part of the offence, history suggests this is the case - Sentana Moss at Redskins (Shanahan) Julio Jones at Falcons, Goodwin at 49ers, Watkins/Cooks at Rams, DeSean Jackson at Redskins (McVay).

That's bad news for Geronimo. Since Adams is not a speed guy Geronimo is a bad compliment. I don't think we are completely settled on our no.2 WR - I fully expect to see some activity there either in the draft or in FA but I don't think we will devote a high draft pick or go big in free agency. I think the addition will be much more subtle to encourage competition among our large group of receivers and see what shakes out. When doing our draft research we should very much be focusing on receivers with sub 4.4 speed.

Update. LaFleur confirms he wants to stretch the field vertically.

 

[PossibleCabbage]

3 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

I bet the draft is going to turn out wildly different from everyone's expectations.  I bet it will be a really weird draft that sees us taking a S at like 20th overall, then an OL at 30, then the best remaining pass rusher at 32 and then we have to wait for our third pick while also ending up with a first round pick next draft. 

Wildly different from current expectations?  I would bet on it.  Don't forget that  both the combine and free agency are independently liable to upset everybody's expectations in the draft.  I mean, the Packers are not historically big players in free agency but there are plausible scenarios where the Packers have a huge amount of money to spend and they can't spend it all on extending Kenny Clark.

I still think the most likely outcome is "Edge and S or LB in round 1 and 30, OL and Pass Catcher on day 2."   But we know they're at least going to bargain shop in FA, so some needs will seem less pressing come April.

[Chili]

LaFleur confirms what we're all thinking about OL. Athletic & Movement.

I think Lane Taylor may find himself falling out of favour in this scheme as he isn't particularly athletic. In fact he is one of the worst athletically compared to all the other OL we drafted in the past. We could be looking for TWO new guards.

I hope Linsley will adapt to this scheme. His game is more about power rather than movement. I hope he will be athletic enough to make the adjustment. Tretter would've been a far better fit in this offence.

Spriggs on paper looks to be an excellent fit in this scheme. Maybe the change of scheme will finally turn Spriggs career around.

I think Bakhtiari and Bulaga will fit well in this scheme.

Again another point from LaFleur about the running game. The priority is the OL and RB that much is clear. Get those right and then everything opens up for Rodgers.

[SSG]

53 minutes ago, Chili said:

ok...this is interesting. I theorised yesterday that the Packers would not be incorporating the FB in our offence. This tweet suggests differently.

Gute did imply that Graham will be back next season so in order to incorporate him into the offence LaFleur will basically have to copy the 49ers offence. Graham ain't gonna block! Hence the likely use of the full back.

Juszczyk is used quite often as a receiver and that dovetails with Gute's comment that the position will be used a little bit differently. Its looking like we all should be studying the 49ers offence as inspiration to see how our offence will be built. Vitale will definitely be the guy to watch in training camp. I think he fits that particular style of offence perfectly. Are there any receiving FB types in the draft?

However that does mean two WR sets instead of the three. Adams will certainly be the no.1 but looking at the Rams and 49ers they both have speedy receivers. I believe this implies that speed is an important part of the offence, history suggests this is the case - Sentana Moss at Redskins (Shanahan) Julio Jones at Falcons, Goodwin at 49ers, Watkins/Cooks at Rams, DeSean Jackson at Redskins (McVay).

That's bad news for Geronimo. Since Adams is not a speed guy Geronimo is a bad compliment. I don't think we are completely settled on our no.2 WR - I fully expect to see some activity there either in the draft or in FA but I don't think we will devote a high draft pick or go big in free agency. I think the addition will be much more subtle to encourage competition among our large group of receivers and see what shakes out. When doing our draft research we should very much be focusing on receivers with sub 4.4 speed.

Update. LaFleur confirms he wants to stretch the field vertically.

 

I wouldn't overthink it.  One of the first things Kyle Shanahan did when he got to San Fran was make a major investment into a 31 year old Pierre Garcon (they paid him more than twice as much as they paid Goodwin) who's by no means a burner anymore.  They also used a second round pick on Dante Pettis last year.  He's more of a precision route runner than a field stretcher IMO.  

McVay did similar when he arrived in STL/ LA.  While they did trade for Sammy Watkins, they signed Robert Woods as a free agent and drafted Cooper Kupp.  Both are more precision route runners than field stretchers.  

It will be interesting to see what Green Bay does or doesn't do at WR this year.  It's pretty clear to me that a lack of WR talent last year was one of this offense's biggest issues last year.  It's pretty risky to go into next year with a less talent in the group expecting something different.  The fact that Allison is an UFA next season also should be taken into account as well unless they view him as the long term, pro bowl caliber solution on the outside.  

I expect either a WR or high end TE to be taken in the first 3 or 4 picks (maybe both).  I don't think that the front office is going to go out and hire a guy specifically for his offense prowess and not provide him with the tools he needs to build his version of an offense.  If this team misses the playoffs next year because of the offense then LAF should have major concerns about his job security IMO.  

[vegas492]

If LaFleur really wants an athletic interior lineman, this guy is pretty amazing.  Elgton Jenkins.  C/G.  In the little I've seen of him he possesses Pouncey type movement skills as a center.  And a great anchor, elite size.  

[Arthur Penske]

Few things stuck out from Gutey’s interview

- Gutey and MLF have a budding bromance. That's good.

- jimmy G is back and he was more injured than we were let on last year.

- he was excited about the defensive front players.

-he liked Adams and Lancaster in the Dline

[Chili]

1 hour ago, SSG said:

I wouldn't overthink it.  One of the first things Kyle Shanahan did when he got to San Fran was make a major investment into a 31 year old Pierre Garcon (they paid him more than twice as much as they paid Goodwin) who's by no means a burner anymore.  They also used a second round pick on Dante Pettis last year.  He's more of a precision route runner than a field stretcher IMO. 

Garcon was far more proven at the time so naturally he cost more than Goodwin. By the way Goodwin is still a burner- i'm not sure where you got that idea from. Just three years ago he was running track and doing long jumps at athletic meets. He burned our CBs last season when we faced them.

What you said proved my point. One burner and one precision route runner. Adams is the precision guy so naturally that leads me to believe that LaFleur will want a burner to compliment him.

McVay did similar when he arrived in STL/ LA.  While they did trade for Sammy Watkins, they signed Robert Woods as a free agent and drafted Cooper Kupp.  Both are more precision route runners than field stretchers.  

McVay runs 3 WR sets not 2 WR like Shanahan. Shanahan uses the TE as his 3rd receiver. McVay instead uses a WR as his 3rd receiver. Again he has a burner and a precision route runner. Instead of a TE McVay replaced him with another WR precision route runner. Having a burner was so important that he traded for Watkins and Cook in back to back years.

It seems clear to me that those offensive systems requires field stretchers and you can bet that LaFleur will be looking for that guy to pair with Adams.

 

[rcon14]

2 hours ago, Chili said:

LaFleur confirms what we're all thinking about OL. Athletic & Movement.

I think Lane Taylor may find himself falling out of favour in this scheme as he isn't particularly athletic. In fact he is one of the worst athletically compared to all the other OL we drafted in the past. We could be looking for TWO new guards.

I hope Linsley will adapt to this scheme. His game is more about power rather than movement. I hope he will be athletic enough to make the adjustment. Tretter would've been a far better fit in this offence.

Spriggs on paper looks to be an excellent fit in this scheme. Maybe the change of scheme will finally turn Spriggs career around.

I think Bakhtiari and Bulaga will fit well in this scheme.

Again another point from LaFleur about the running game. The priority is the OL and RB that much is clear. Get those right and then everything opens up for Rodgers.

Is there really a change of scheme? I mean, GB predominantly was using inside/outside zone for most of their runs under MM and that's the vast majority of the Shanahan offense.

[SSG]

1 hour ago, Chili said:

Garcon was far more proven at the time so naturally he cost more than Goodwin. By the way Goodwin is still a burner- i'm not sure where you got that idea from. Just three years ago he was running track and doing long jumps at athletic meets. He burned our CBs last season when we faced them.

What you said proved my point. One burner and one precision route runner. Adams is the precision guy so naturally that leads me to believe that LaFleur will want a burner to compliment him.

 

McVay runs 3 WR sets not 2 WR like Shanahan. Shanahan uses the TE as his 3rd receiver. McVay instead uses a WR as his 3rd receiver. Again he has a burner and a precision route runner. Instead of a TE McVay replaced him with another WR precision route runner. Having a burner was so important that he traded for Watkins and Cook in back to back years.

It seems clear to me that those offensive systems requires field stretchers and you can bet that LaFleur will be looking for that guy to pair with Adams.

I  was referring to Gascon not being a burner who San Francisco paid big money to be their #1 WR when Shanahan arrived.  

I don't think I proved anything for you.  Goodwin wasn't signed to be their #1.  He signed a tiny 2 year contract after little to no production over his previous 4 years (49 catches in 39 games).  If the answer is JUST SPEED, we've got that in MVS who as a rookie was a much better WR than Goodwin ever was prior to his arrival in San Fran.  If anything Shanahan showed that he can turn a bottom of the roster WR like Goodwin (I  reiterate, 49 catches in 39 games is horrid production over 4 years) into a serviceable player.  

If Watkins is considered a burner then we had a roster full of them.  Adams, Cobb, Moore and ESB all had comparable speed.  MVS was substantially faster than Watkins.  

If SPEED is the ONLY thing LAF's looking for that WR opposite Adams then we've got it in MVS. 

 

Time will tell.  I see route running being a much bigger issue than speed.  Of our top 5 WRs, only Allison has what we'd consider bad speed.  

[PACKRULE]

3 hours ago, Chili said:

LaFleur confirms what we're all thinking about OL. Athletic & Movement.

I think Lane Taylor may find himself falling out of favour in this scheme as he isn't particularly athletic. In fact he is one of the worst athletically compared to all the other OL we drafted in the past. We could be looking for TWO new guards.

I hope Linsley will adapt to this scheme. His game is more about power rather than movement. I hope he will be athletic enough to make the adjustment. Tretter would've been a far better fit in this offence.

Spriggs on paper looks to be an excellent fit in this scheme. Maybe the change of scheme will finally turn Spriggs career around.

I think Bakhtiari and Bulaga will fit well in this scheme.

Again another point from LaFleur about the running game. The priority is the OL and RB that much is clear. Get those right and then everything opens up for Rodgers.

Could it be we maybe have some good pieces and heck we just run it a bit more and a bit more creatively. running from 3 WR sets and such or in pass formations. Lets all face it MM didnt' run the ball and when he did he often lined up in 3 or 3 TE sets to show run. He was too stubborn and seemed to always just want to be about beating the team across from you. How cared if you showed your hand. Earlier in his career that worked as we had a very good D that got the ball and an O that scored first and often. MM was more balanced then. So my thoughts are MLF is maybe just going to run the ball a bit more and focus on getting the chains moved, knowing full well that will open it up downfield.

[PACKRULE]

29 minutes ago, SSG said:

I  was referring to Gascon not being a burner who San Francisco paid big money to be their #1 WR when Shanahan arrived.  

I don't think I proved anything for you.  Goodwin wasn't signed to be their #1.  He signed a tiny 2 year contract after little to no production over his previous 4 years (49 catches in 39 games).  If the answer is JUST SPEED, we've got that in MVS who as a rookie was a much better WR than Goodwin ever was prior to his arrival in San Fran.  If anything Shanahan showed that he can turn a bottom of the roster WR like Goodwin (I  reiterate, 49 catches in 39 games is horrid production over 4 years) into a serviceable player.  

If Watkins is considered a burner then we had a roster full of them.  Adams, Cobb, Moore and ESB all had comparable speed.  MVS was substantially faster than Watkins.  

If SPEED is the ONLY thing LAF's looking for that WR opposite Adams then we've got it in MVS. 

 

Time will tell.  I see route running being a much bigger issue than speed.  Of our top 5 WRs, only Allison has what we'd consider bad speed.  

This is mostly true and Gmo just seems to get open all the time. He's big and has great hands. He'll be a big piece to have back next year to keep some pressure off the younger guys. I really can't see us drafting a WR before the 4th or 5th with what we've got invested and in house. Maybe a low tier FA for camp or a true slot guy. I wouldn't rule out Cobb being back on a cheap deal for slot either as he's still quite young.

 

[Leader]

3 hours ago, Chili said:

Derrick Henry will be a UFA in 2020

[SSG]

1 hour ago, PACKRULE said:

This is mostly true and Gmo just seems to get open all the time. He's big and has great hands. He'll be a big piece to have back next year to keep some pressure off the younger guys. I really can't see us drafting a WR before the 4th or 5th with what we've got invested and in house. Maybe a low tier FA for camp or a true slot guy. I wouldn't rule out Cobb being back on a cheap deal for slot either as he's still quite young.

 

Not sure I agree. He's probably serviceable in spot starts but our offense has yet to show anything all that positive with him being an every week starter.  Last year even when Allison was healthy there was nothing impressive about our offense. They humiliated itself in the first half against Chicago and then got bailed out by Crosby in week 2 because of an inability to get into the end zone against Minnesota.  In week 3 the offense got outclassed by a 7 win Washington team.  Hard to find anything all that impressive about the Buffalo game given how disgusting the offense looked in the second half (2 Crosby FGs).  The 27 points the offense scored against LA was the only quality showing by the offense in the games GA played in.   I    feel like his inability to get open requires god like throws from AR12 most of the time.  While he might be ok as a #3 (I'd argue that that is questionable based on last year), I don't think we'll ever have a playoff caliber offense with him as the #2.  

We've got very little invested into our WR core right now.  Adams is the only non rookie contract and very little draft assets have been used.  It's Adams and a bunch of low end draft picks or underfed Free agents.  While we've used more than a half dozen low draft picks on WRs over the last 3 or 4 years we haven't made a sizable investment into the position since probably 2015 when we drafted Monty.  

Cobb is done and he continues to show it every year.  He had 1 game last year with more than 50 yards receiving.  Needing to rely on Randall Cobb last year is a reason why our offense was terrible.  

[Lodestar]

 

If Haskins and Murray (or Quinnen Williams) were to go #1 and #2, what would you be willing to give up for the #3 pick? According to the draft chart I'm looking at, our #12, #30 and #44 picks would be enough to get to #3 with probably a 4th or 5th coming back our way. That's a lot to give for one player. Would you do it?

[Golfman]

1 hour ago, Lodestar said:

 

If Haskins and Murray (or Quinnen Williams) were to go #1 and #2, what would you be willing to give up for the #3 pick? According to the draft chart I'm looking at, our #12, #30 and #44 picks would be enough to get to #3 with probably a 4th or 5th coming back our way. That's a lot to give for one player. Would you do it?

I don't think I could give up that much because we have more than one position that needs to be addressed. I don't think we are going to be able to address those positions completely in free agency.