2019 Draft Discussion

[CWood21]

Just now, packfanfb said:

Jonah makes me think of Bulaga as well, and I'd feel a lot better about Jonah at pick 23 versus 12. Think it would take a trade down for me to be okay for Jonah as our first pick. 

I think it'd be the "worst case" scenario at 12.  And I don't think it's going to happen, but it's not something I'm going to throw something at the TV about.  We're almost certainly going to be selecting at least one OL, if not two this draft.  If the choice was Risner at 30 or Jonah at 12, I'm definitely taking Risner.  But that's more about 12 than Jonah.  I don't see the Packers taking Lindstrom.  The earliest we've taken an IOL was Jason Spitz in 2006, but normally we're talking about an early Day 3 pick if we're looking at IOL.  The last time we took a pure OG was when we took Caleb Schlauder****t in 2011, and he was dealt a few months after that.  I really don't see the Packers taking Lindstrom at 30 or 44.  Let someone else take him.  There's going to be a run on OL in that 16-24 range IMO, but if Andre Dillard starts to slip I'd probably consider moving up to get him.  Getting something like Oliver/Dillard would be a dream Day 1.  Leaves EDGE an issue, but you could go safety at 44 and you're going to have a good draft right there.

[{Family Ghost}]

3 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Jonah makes me think of Bulaga as well, and I'd feel a lot better about Jonah at pick 23 versus 12. Think it would take a trade down for me to be okay for Jonah as our first pick. 

Yep, I think at 12 we need someone with a special trait/s.  Jonah Williams screams solid, but not spectacular.  

[packfanfb]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

I think it'd be the "worst case" scenario at 12.  And I don't think it's going to happen, but it's not something I'm going to throw something at the TV about.  We're almost certainly going to be selecting at least one OL, if not two this draft.  If the choice was Risner at 30 or Jonah at 12, I'm definitely taking Risner.  But that's more about 12 than Jonah.  I don't see the Packers taking Lindstrom.  The earliest we've taken an IOL was Jason Spitz in 2006, but normally we're talking about an early Day 3 pick if we're looking at IOL.  The last time we took a pure OG was when we took Caleb Schlauder****t in 2011, and he was dealt a few months after that.  I really don't see the Packers taking Lindstrom at 30 or 44.  Let someone else take him.  There's going to be a run on OL in that 16-24 range IMO, but if Andre Dillard starts to slip I'd probably consider moving up to get him.  Getting something like Oliver/Dillard would be a dream Day 1.  Leaves EDGE an issue, but you could go safety at 44 and you're going to have a good draft right there.

Oliver/Dillard/Savage/Banogu. 

Win Super Bowl. 

[CWood21]

6 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said:

Yep, I think at 12 we need someone with a special trait/s.  Jonah Williams screams solid, but not spectacular.  

I mean, are we going to get a special player at 12?  I have two blue chips (QW and Bosa), but beyond that they all have their fair share of issues.  We're going to have our options available, and some good ones that that.  But I don't see anyone I have to have.  The closest is probably Ed Oliver.

[Fl0nkerton]

Super cool ESPN.com mock with only trades (?)

Quote

Packers get: 1-15, 3-96, 2020 first-round pick
Washington gets: 1-12, 1-30, 5-150

I think I hate this a lot.
 

Quote

Giants get: 1-30, 2-44
Packers get: 1-17, 3-95

So, we'd have 5 picks in the first 4 rounds with a huge gap. 12 , 17 , 96, 115, 118

Meh.

Quote

Packers get: 2-38, 2020 second-round pick
Jaguars get: 1-30, 4-118

I could live with this I guess.

[Pilprin]

4 minutes ago, Fl0nkerton said:

Super cool ESPN.com mock with only trades (?)

I think I hate this a lot.
 

So, we'd have 5 picks in the first 4 rounds with a huge gap. 12 , 17 , 96, 115, 118

Meh.

I could live with this I guess.

I don't like any of them...I saw it last night and shook my head 

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

Just a gut feeling, but I think Ed Oliver is the guy that Gute wants at 12.

He's the one I want most.

Would you do this deal?  Trade #12 and #44 to the Giants for #6 and one of their 5'th round picks.  Select Oliver.  Still keep #30 and have a ton of options regarding their other picks.

[MacReady]

It's only one day until it's only a week away. 

[MacReady]

Just now, vegas492 said:

He's the one I want most.

Would you do this deal?  Trade #12 and #44 to the Giants for #6 and one of their 5'th round picks.  Select Oliver.  Still keep #30 and have a ton of options regarding their other picks.

Yeah, Oliver is literally the only player that might be available at 12 that I could get excited about. 

There are a lot I would be okay with at 12, but Oliver is the only one that would get me hyped. 

[CWood21]

13 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

He's the one I want most.

Would you do this deal?  Trade #12 and #44 to the Giants for #6 and one of their 5'th round picks.  Select Oliver.  Still keep #30 and have a ton of options regarding their other picks.

Probably not, no.  I don't think I'd give up 2 starters for one.  I'm usually pretty strongly against trading up in the first round unless we're talking about a modest trade up (say from 12 to 9).  But I don't see Ed Oliver being a significantly bigger impact player than say Brian Burns or Montez Sweat.  For me, if I have the choice between Oliver and say Burns/CGJ, I'm taking the latter.  Nothing against Oliver, but I'd rather have potentially two impact player than one.

[Victor1124]

2 hours ago, Fl0nkerton said:

If AJ Brown / Jeffrey Simmons / N'keal Harry are there at 30, which do you pull the trigger on? 

One of the WR that MIGHT help a little bit or a nice DL piece that has to be put on ice for the year?

Simmons would be tough to pass up on but i really want AJ Brown on the Packers. I really like his athletic ability, how well he is at contested catches and his run after the catch. I feel like he would be a great slot but can line up anywhere and be successful. We already have a talented group of receivers but Brown would take them to another level. 

Neither should drop that far but getting both Brown and Simmons at 30 and 44 would be pretty legit. 

 

[CWood21]

40 minutes ago, Fl0nkerton said:

I think I hate this a lot.

I'm having a hard time justifying that trade at first, but you're essentially breaking it down as 2 trades: 12 for 15/96, and 30 for '20 FRP.  The first trade actually seems rather fair, probably maybe even getting too much value.  Depending on how badly you think Washington is going to bottom out next year, that's probably a deal worth making even if it hurts today.  Washington is probably handing us a top 10 pick, which is why I don't think Washington does this.  They'd have to really, really love someone at 30.  Not a realistic trade by any means.

42 minutes ago, Fl0nkerton said:

So, we'd have 5 picks in the first 4 rounds with a huge gap. 12 , 17 , 96, 115, 118

Meh.

This is a non-starter for me.  Short of a situation where you take Oliver at 12, and someone like Burns being available there I wouldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole.  Last year, we traded a 3rd and 5th to move up from 27 to 18.  The difference between those two sets of picks and 30/17 isn't worth the swap of 2nd and 3rd round picks.  I'd give them 30, 75, and a 4th round pick at most, but you'd have to have someone we were taking at 12 there.

45 minutes ago, Fl0nkerton said:

I could live with this I guess.

That I'd do, but again don't see the Jaguars doing that.  The standard trade down from late FRP to early SRP has been a 4th round pick.  The Jags' SRP and 4th gets it relatively close to the Packers FRP via Saints.

[MacReady]

I still don't know why everybody's so hung up on receiver.  Gerronimo Allison had 5 catches for 15 yards .5 touchdowns per start before he got hurt last year. 

Davante Adams
Gerronimo Allison
MVS
ESB
Moore
Kumerow

We do not need a receiver. 

If you draft a receiver in one or even two, you're essentially giving up on both ESB and MVS developing into a starter when both have shown they have more than enough potential to not only be a starter, but even turn into star wideouts. 

Some positions you can never have too much of.

You can never have too many DL, EDGE or defensive backs.  You can never have too many healthy OL. 

With WR though?  Taking a WR in one or two guarantees three of seven high-potential receivers are not on the field. 

5 OL play every single play.
DL and EDGE rotate into the game more than any other position groups.

How often are four receivers on the field at a time? 

[Victor1124]

14 hours ago, Leader said:

Alright. I'm good.
You guys can figure out the rest and let me know okay? 

12 - Brian Burns, EDGE
30 - Noah Fant, TE
44 - Nasir Adderley, S
75 - Andy Isabella, WR

I would not be sad about this draft at all. Burns and Adderley are two of my favorite guys for us.  Fant would give us that Jared Cook type TE that I believe works best with Rodgers and Isabella gives us that true slot type player a lot of fans have been looking for, it doesn't hurt that he runs in the low 4.3s. 

In a lot of my mock drafts, I have Burns and Adderley in the same spots but I have AJ Brown was at 30 and Jace Stenbeger at 75. Would be happy with either. 

[CWood21]

5 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

We do not need a receiver

We may not need a WR, but it's also not a position that you're completely ignoring either.