Dubz41 Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 20 minutes ago, CWood21 said: I'm just not sure what you're going to get out of a draft visit from Lock that you couldn't get at a Pro Day or Combine visit. IIRC, you get an unlimited number of Pro Day visits, but a limited number of pre-draft and Combine visits. The pre-draft visits are more extensive than the Combine visits, so you're going to use that on guy with medical or character concerns. Well, you draft him @30. Fix his foibles and in two years when Aaron goes down with another collarbone we're set for another 10 years of stellar QB play. I know that's not a popular opinion, but new GMs and Coaches like 'their' guy. TT was hired to get us through the end of Favre, Gute was hired to get us through the end of ARod. If Lock is the guy MLF likes? Then do it. Nothing wrong with lighting a fire under Rodgers ***, especially after the smear campaign. Bush at 12th? It might happen, hold on to your shorts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Penske Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 35 minutes ago, CWood21 said: I'm just not sure what you're going to get out of a draft visit from Lock that you couldn't get at a Pro Day or Combine visit. IIRC, you get an unlimited number of Pro Day visits, but a limited number of pre-draft and Combine visits. The pre-draft visits are more extensive than the Combine visits, so you're going to use that on guy with medical or character concerns. Extra media attention that other clubs (trade partners) are even more aware of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossibleCabbage Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 I mean fundamentally the reason you spend a top 30 visit on a guy who isn't a PFA type is that you have a question about that guy. Whether it's about his medical, his athleticism, or his personality you bring him in the building because there's something more that you want to know about the guy. It's entirely possible that in doing this, the answer to your question or questions is negative. So bringing in a guy for a visit means you aren't going to draft him (or at least not as high as someone else might.) After all all those guys you are convinced have left no questions unanswered, they are great, and you love them are the guys who you need not bring in for a visit. Can anyone remember the last time the Packers spent a top 30 visit on the guy they drafted in the first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 I buy in to @CWood21 theory that the Packers are trying to engender false interest (or concern) from other clubs that they may actually select Lock in order to drive up potential trading partners. Although.............ask me, there's a "I'm not buying it" aspect to it all. Any GM that thinks GB would actually take Lock at 12 - hence, they've got to trade up with us to nab him - has probably watched too many Kevin Costner movies and I'd think it probable Lock is gone before we "potentially" would take him at 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettFavre004 Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 I kind of look at it more as they will eventually have to get into the QB market in 2-3 years, and they haven't scouted any top QB's seriously since the late 1980's. Need to get back into the game a little and start preparing yourself for that eventuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 The Packers will not draft Lock. not at #12, not at #30, not at #44. Take that to the bank. I think the Packers might see a potential interest in him, in a few years and want to get a close read on him now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 1 minute ago, BrettFavre004 said: I kind of look at it more as they will eventually have to get into the QB market in 2-3 years, and they haven't scouted any top QB's seriously since the late 1980's. Need to get back into the game a little and start preparing yourself for that eventuality. If Aaron doesn't slip to our pick in 2005, do we trade up to get him though? I think we look to the 2020 draft for a QB if we go first round. 1 minute ago, OneTwoSixFive said: The Packers will not draft Lock. not at #12, not at #30, not at #44. Take that to the bank. I think the Packers might see a potential interest in him, in a few years and want to get a close read on him now. Yeah, that's definitely a "buy" for me. Does he develop or develop to a point where you want to take a risk on him in the event the team that drafts him is an unresolvable mess like Miami. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossibleCabbage Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 A thought occurs about this Drew Lock noise: What team was most linked to Lock throughout this process? Denver Which are the two teams in the top 11, other than Arizona and the Giants, most likely to take a QB high? Denver and Cincinnati. Which team picking after the Packers has been most rumored to be interested in moving up to get someone? Atlanta, who picks 14th. So it's entirely plausible that the Packers are signposting to the Bengals and Broncos "hey, don't get cute, if you want the QB just take him, there is no guarantee that he will be there later". Even if it makes no sense for Green Bay to take Drew Lock without an out in the Aaron Rodgers contract until 2022, you can still plant doubt in the minds of the two teams picking directly ahead of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettFavre004 Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 4 minutes ago, Joe said: If Aaron doesn't slip to our pick in 2005, do we trade up to get him though? I think we look to the 2020 draft for a QB if we go first round. I don't follow. Are you asking if Rodgers didn't slip to 24, would we have traded up for him? If so, no, I don't think we would have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Dubz41 said: Well, you draft him @30. Fix his foibles and in two years when Aaron goes down with another collarbone we're set for another 10 years of stellar QB play. I know that's not a popular opinion, but new GMs and Coaches like 'their' guy. TT was hired to get us through the end of Favre, Gute was hired to get us through the end of ARod. If Lock is the guy MLF likes? Then do it. Nothing wrong with lighting a fire under Rodgers ***, especially after the smear campaign. Bush at 12th? It might happen, hold on to your shorts! The problem is you don't go and jettison your franchise QB unless you're Josh McDaniels. Aaron Rodgers is Gute's guy for the foreseeable future. He's not going anywhere. Hell, we don't even save money for 2 more years. Realistically, we're not cutting him until after the 2021 season at the very earliest. That means you've used up 3 years of Lock's (or Daniel Jones) rookie contract, which means you have one year plus the 5th year option to decide whether or not he's your franchise QB. Seems like a big enough gamble that should prevent the Packers from selecting Lock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Leader said: I buy in to @CWood21 theory that the Packers are trying to engender false interest (or concern) from other clubs that they may actually select Lock in order to drive up potential trading partners. Although.............ask me, there's a "I'm not buying it" aspect to it all. Any GM that thinks GB would actually take Lock at 12 - hence, they've got to trade up with us to nab him - has probably watched too many Kevin Costner movies and I'd think it probable Lock is gone before we "potentially" would take him at 30. The weird thing is the Packers are kinda in that no man's land. It's not inconceivable they take a QB early given that Aaron Rodger is going to play his age 35 season and he's struggled with injuries the last 2 years. It's not out of the realm of possibilities that they could start planning for life after Aaron Rodgers. Not likely, but not impossible. On the other hand, the Packers wouldn't realistically let Lock see the field for 3 years. Are they really going to invest the 12th overall pick into a QB whose going to sit for at least 3 years? I don't think so. Honestly, this smells like the DeShone Kizer rumor that was floated before the start of Day 2 in 2017 before they took Kevin King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 42 minutes ago, Joe said: If Aaron doesn't slip to our pick in 2005, do we trade up to get him though? I think we look to the 2020 draft for a QB if we go first round. No. If there's any truth to Brandt's comments, the Packers were posturing to get someone to trade up to 24 to select Aaron Rodgers. They probably would have taken a defensive player there instead if Rodgers wouldn't have been picked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jleisher Posted April 16, 2019 Author Share Posted April 16, 2019 45 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said: The Packers will not draft Lock. not at #12, not at #30, not at #44. Take that to the bank. I think the Packers might see a potential interest in him, in a few years and want to get a close read on him now. I am confused, if they have potential interest in him in a few years, then why wouldn't they draft him now to get him into the system? Makes no sense to scout him, figure where he would fit in the new system, then let someone else take him and try to trade for him later. Take this to the bank, if they pass and try to trade for him in 2 years, they will give up a higher draft pick to trade for him, then to draft him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 1 minute ago, jleisher said: I am confused, if they have potential interest in him in a few years, then why wouldn't they draft him now to get him into the system? Makes no sense to scout him, figure where he would fit in the new system, then let someone else take him and try to trade for him later. Take this to the bank, if they pass and try to trade for him in 2 years, they will give up a higher draft pick to trade for him, then to draft him. The problem with trading him later on the down the road, they're usually damaged goods. When was the last time a QB got extensive burn with his original team, was eventually dealt, and managed to turn the page significantly? Really, the only QB that I think you could make an argument for is Drew Brees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jleisher Posted April 16, 2019 Author Share Posted April 16, 2019 4 minutes ago, CWood21 said: The problem with trading him later on the down the road, they're usually damaged goods. When was the last time a QB got extensive burn with his original team, was eventually dealt, and managed to turn the page significantly? Really, the only QB that I think you could make an argument for is Drew Brees. I guess my confusion was on the take it to the bank statement, then stating the Packers have interest in him in a few years. Makes no sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.