2019 Draft Discussion

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

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? 

Allison is not a game-changer.

MVS and ESB might be.

But a 1st round rookie this year, we have an additional 2 years under contract (than DA, MVS and ESB). Also, in 2021 Adams is a $13mil cap hit savings if cut, and a 2019 1st round rookie would have 3 more years under a rookie deal at that point. Adams won't be here forever either. Rodgers will still have 2 years on his deal at that point as well.

Does a 1st round WR help us a lot in 2019? Maybe.

In 2020-2023? very likely.

Especially if he's a bonafide #1 like a Hakeem Butler.

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

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.

That surprises me, and thank you for the line of thought concerning your response.

Me?  I'd do it.  Oliver, I feel, will play at a high level right away.  I think Burns is a project (and I do like him) and Sweat, well, I don't really know how to view him due to tape not matching combine.

I get the two versus one argument, very much, but I also think that GB could trade down from #30 and accumulate picks to navigate through rounds 3 and 4 really, really well.  

At least that is where I'm at today.  Could change if I spend an evening at a Holiday Inn Express.

[rcon14]

Something worth noting to the "Chase Winovich will be a liability against the run" folks on this here website:

"Winovich’s run-stop percentage of 11.8% (34 run stops on 288 run-defense snaps) ranked second at the FBS level among defensive ends behind only Mississippi State’s Montez Sweat."

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

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. 

Oliver checks all the boxes for me.  Premium position, excellent athlete, can play right away...etc.  Yah, I'd trade up for him or Allen if they made it to #6.

I can get pretty excited about a bunch of other guys at #12, but none of them checks all the boxes like Oliver.  But...I'd be excited for Burns and his potential.  And I'd not let Year One get me down, cuz he is a project with insane upside.  I can get excited about both White and Bush because we'd be adding a star in the making in the middle of the defense, but...just not a premium position.  I can get excited about Wilkens and Ferrell, too.  Offensive linemen there wouldn't excite me, but I'd be okay with it.  

I'd not get excited for Hock.  And he'd prove me wrong.  

[packfanfb]

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

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? 

This is a good argument for why you don't draft another Day 3 WR. Hard for another Day 3 guy to crack this roster. However, if you draft Metcalf, Butler, Harry or Brown, they are probably, overnight, your No. 2 WR target on this team. It would be idiotic to pass on any of those guys simply based on who currently sits in the WR room. If you pass on them for a higher rated player on the board, fine. 

A player like Metcalf or Butler would arguably change the way defenses had to defend us moving forward. Either of them on the outside would free up Adams to be used in the slot or generally be moved around, where he excels. MVS and ESB don't offer that. 

[Leader]

4 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

At least that is where I'm at today.  Could change if I spend an evening at a Holiday Inn Express.

I recommend scheduling some time at the local Holiday Inn Express.....and you'd better get to it cause time's running out

(I'm with CW on this....)

[PossibleCabbage]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

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

It's interesting how perception of this varies.  I was listening to a mock draft podcast last night and one of the hosts was killing Green Bay for selecting Montez Sweat at 12 instead of an "offensive playmaker", saying that the offense has "Davante Adams and no one else."

So I imagine if the draft goes edge, defensive tackle, and safety in the top 50 in whatever order people in the media are going to get mad.

[Lodestar]

2 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Oliver checks all the boxes for me.  Premium position, excellent athlete, can play right away...etc.  Yah, I'd trade up for him or Allen if they made it to #6.

I can get pretty excited about a bunch of other guys at #12, but none of them checks all the boxes like Oliver.  But...I'd be excited for Burns and his potential.  And I'd not let Year One get me down, cuz he is a project with insane upside.  I can get excited about both White and Bush because we'd be adding a star in the making in the middle of the defense, but...just not a premium position.  I can get excited about Wilkens and Ferrell, too.  Offensive linemen there wouldn't excite me, but I'd be okay with it.  

I'd not get excited for Hock.  And he'd prove me wrong.  

Hockenson is a funny one for me and a guy I keep coming back to. There are plenty of options I prefer at #12 (Oliver, Burns, OL, trade down) but Hock is such an ideal fit in MLF's offense that I think he could have a big impact from day one, probably more so than any wide receiver. I wouldn't be surprised if he's the pick, nor would I be disappointed.

[packfanfb]

Just now, PossibleCabbage said:

It's interesting how perception of this varies.  I was listening to a mock draft podcast last night and one of the hosts was killing Green Bay for selecting Montez Sweat at 12 instead of an "offensive playmaker", saying that the offense has "Davante Adams and no one else."

So I imagine if the draft goes edge, defensive tackle, and safety in the top 50 in whatever order people in the media are going to get mad.

That's because outside of 1265 Lombardi Ave. and GB fans, no one really cares about MVS and ESB nor sees them as a viable No. 2 option. 

[vegas492]

4 minutes ago, Leader said:

I recommend scheduling some time at the local Holiday Inn Express.....and you'd better get to it cause time's running out

(I'm with CW on this....)

All I gotta do is make one comment at home and she'll pack my bag for me! 

[Leader]

5 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Oliver checks all the boxes for me.  Premium position, excellent athlete, can play right away...etc.  Yah, I'd trade up for him or Allen if they made it to #6.

I can get pretty excited about a bunch of other guys at #12, but none of them checks all the boxes like Oliver.  But...I'd be excited for Burns and his potential.  And I'd not let Year One get me down, cuz he is a project with insane upside.  I can get excited about both White and Bush because we'd be adding a star in the making in the middle of the defense, but...just not a premium position.  I can get excited about Wilkens and Ferrell, too.  Offensive linemen there wouldn't excite me, but I'd be okay with it.  

I'd not get excited for Hock.  And he'd prove me wrong.  

Burns would get plenty of field time year one.

Or let me put it this way.......
Down and distance calls for a hearty pass rush. You slide Z inside.
Who you rather on the field.....Burns or Fackrell and/or Gilbert? 

[Leader]

1 minute ago, vegas492 said:

All I gotta do is make one comment at home and she'll pack my bag for me! 

No Dude...........
The game plan is you make the comment at home....she packs the bag.....then goes with you

[vegas492]

Just now, Lodestar said:

Hockenson is a funny one for me and a guy I keep coming back to. There are plenty of options I prefer at #12 (Oliver, Burns, OL, trade down) but Hock is such an ideal fit in MLF's offense that I think he could have a big impact from day one, probably more so than any wide receiver. I wouldn't be surprised if he's the pick, nor would I be disappointed.

I agree, 100% that he best fits what MLF appears to want to do on offense.  Your word "ideal" really fits.

And I"d be disappointed if we used our highest draft pick in what seems like forever on a blocking tight end because he fits what we do.  You can get that later.  I'd understand the pick and I'd be critical of it.  And with every third down catch that results in a first, he will be putting the dagger right into me.  And he's gonna do that.  

[MacReady]

Just now, packfanfb said:

It would be idiotic to pass on any of those guys simply based on who currently sits in the WR room.

Lol.  This is wrong in so many ways.  Having a stacked WR corps does not win Super Bowls. 

If you've got one star WR on your roster with two star potential receivers on your roster plus three capable starter potential receivers on your roster, it's not idiotic to pass on another receiver.  Quite the contrary. 

[PossibleCabbage]

3 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

That's because outside of 1265 Lombardi Ave. and GB fans, no one really cares about MVS and ESB nor sees them as a viable No. 2 option. 

At the same time, fans of a team often overrate the players on that team.  Of course, sometimes they just correctly rate a player who the rest of the world is ignoring (c.f. David Bakhtiari, 3 time All-Pro, 1 time pro-bowl alternate).