Jump to content

2019 Draft Discussion


jleisher

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I laugh at people pointing to his recant as proof he cares about football.  He wouldn't have made that post if his original comment was a non-issue.

Of all the drafts, people should know better than to think someone bringing up money isn't a red flag.  

It's not a gigantic issue, but it is an issue that every single GM has in the back of their mind.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Burnett42 said:

I'm shocked by the number of people that are acting like LT is more important and takes longer to develope than RT.

Its 2019!!! They're not that different anymore. Some teams have their best pass rushers going against the RT. Both Tackles are premium postions and drafting a RT for next year early should be on the Packers radar.

While I still think LT is slightly more important due to blocking the blindside and teams put their better tackle there; I agree both positions need to be basically equally as good and both face very good pass rushers. 

With that being said, I am not sure if anyone has actually ran the numbers but, it seems to me rookie tackles get a lot more snaps at RT than they do at LT, hence being more plug and play than LT imo. It isn't necessarily which position takes longer to develop; it is more of the fact that teams will use their more experienced and initially better player at LT.

I would be completely fine if they took a tackle early, especially a guy like Risner at 30 or 44. I am a big fan of building the offensive line. I just don't think it is as desperate of need as some others do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...Here is my meaningless mock...first 4 rounds

12 - Bush - ILB (Mich)

30 - Smith Jr. - TE (Bama)

44 - Samuel - WR (SC)

76 - Sharping - OL (NIU)

108 - Hooker - DB (IOWA)

112 - Isabella - WR (UMASS)

140 - Khalen Saunders - DL (WEST. ILL)

172 - Jalen Jenks - OLB (ORE)

182 - Blake Cashman - ILB (MN)

204 - Karon Higdon - RB (MICH)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Every NFL team will be like the rest of the board, save you, and have moved on from that comment an hour ago. They can only dream he plays well enough to warrant paying 100 million dollars to.

Or I was right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

White's twitter post isn't recanting anything. When you watch the video, he was asked something along the lines of "Why should a team draft an ILB top-10 overall" (you can't hear the full question in the clip I saw, but it's easy to tell from context.) He goes on about his numbers and achievements and then at then end he jokes that teams should be willing to draft him now, because 5 years from now it'll cost them $100M. His tweet about it accurately describes comments that were taken out of context and plastered all over the sports gossip world. He's saying that to respond to fans who read a headline and made up their minds, not scouts who actually know what he said.

Would I have said it? No, that kind of braggadocio isn't my style. Have half the league made similar comments about their own worth as players? Yep. Non-issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Victor1124 said:

While I still think LT is slightly more important and teams put their better tackle there; I agree both positions need to be basically equally as good and both face very good pass rushers. 

With that being said, I am not sure if anyone has actually ran the numbers but, it seems to me rookie tackles get a lot more snaps at RT than they do at LT, hence being more plug and play than LT imo. It isn't necessarily which position takes longer to develop; it is more of the fact that teams will use their more experienced and initially better player at LT.

I think it has everything to do with the RT being in the QBs line of sight. He's able to see a defender coming and can minimize the damage. The LT requires the trust from the QB, as a blindside hit can end a season in a quick hurry. Only makes sense to allow a rookie to get his feet wet on the right side

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy Herman:

Here is how I would rank the Packers’ needs heading into the remainder of the offseason.

1. Offensive Line
2. Safety
3. Tight End
4. Linebacker
5. Cornerback
6. Edge Rusher
7. Wide Receiver
8. Defensive Line
9. Running Back
10. Quarterback
11. Kicker
12. Long Snapper
13. Punter
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Pilprin said:

Ok...Here is my meaningless mock...first 4 rounds

12 - Bush - ILB (Mich)

30 - Smith Jr. - TE (Bama)

44 - Samuel - WR (SC)

76 - Sharping - OL (NIU)

108 - Hooker - DB (IOWA)

112 - Isabella - WR (UMASS)

140 - Khalen Saunders - DL (WEST. ILL)

172 - Jalen Jenks - OLB (ORE)

182 - Blake Cashman - ILB (MN)

204 - Karon Higdon - RB (MICH)

I think we could see Bush drafted this high, I'm fine with that.

Smith is a day 3 player.

Samuel is awesome.

Hooker is awesome.

Isabella is an early round 2 player.

Saunders is a round 3 player.

Jenks is awesome.

Karon Higdon deserves a look as a fullback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit I really don't follow the college game that's why I love this site. A lot of you guy's are very informed about college prospects. You put out the names and I go watch their tape. There's a receiver Hollywood Brown I've been watching tape on. This team desperately needs a quick big play receiver and returner. Is there a possibility he'll be there at 44?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, St Vince said:

I admit I really don't follow the college game that's why I love this site. A lot of you guy's are very informed about college prospects. You put out the names and I go watch their tape. There's a receiver Hollywood Brown I've been watching tape on. This team desperately needs a quick big play receiver and returner. Is there a possibility he'll be there at 44?

IMO, highly possible. The foot injury, size concerns, and abundance of good late-1st/early-2nd receivers in this draft could easily push him down to #44.

That said, all it takes is one team looking for speed to draft him in the 1st round. Hard player to figure out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2019 at 12:22 PM, BrettFavre004 said:

Not that we need a LT so much, but I am really surprised Andre Dillard isn't getting more love on generic boards.


Killed the combine with a 4.4 flat shuttle, best of all OL, 7.44 3 cone was second best for all OL. At 6'5" 315 is a cookie cutter size for LT, every report I've ever read says he has great feet, arm length just fine at 33.5.  Haven't seen any red flags.

Wondering why he isn't a consensus top 10 LT prospect.

IMO he's going to go before we even pick. He'll be the first OT off the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...