Jump to content
jleisher

Would you consider these two at #12 and #30?

Recommended Posts

I don't understand how saying GB needs a RG and a long-term RT is a hot take or controversial in any way. The rest of the OL is fine. Lane Taylor isn't great, but he's competent. Bahk, Bulaga, and Linsley are very good to great. I don't think this is something that should be controversial at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rcon14 said:

I don't understand how saying GB needs a RG and a long-term RT is a hot take or controversial in any way. The rest of the OL is fine. Lane Taylor isn't great, but he's competent. Bahk, Bulaga, and Linsley are very good to great. I don't think this is something that should be controversial at all.

Right on.  It shouldn't even be a question ... we need help there whether it's through the draft and/or free agency.  Most of the yak about it is whether or not to use higher draft choices.  I think both draft and free agency should both be used. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is saying the OGs we're good, you keep hammering that point like someone is disagreeing when they're clearly not...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, rcon14 said:

I don't understand how saying GB needs a RG and a long-term RT is a hot take or controversial in any way. The rest of the OL is fine. Lane Taylor isn't great, but he's competent. Bahk, Bulaga, and Linsley are very good to great. I don't think this is something that should be controversial at all.

If I look at that line objectively....we had a minus at RG last year.  Neutral at LG.  Double plus at LT, plus at C, slight plus at RT.

We could use a RT for the future and a couple of guards to upgrade what we have there.

And at the end of the day?  Had the QB simply gotten rid of the ball on time to open guys, we'd be having no hand wringing about the line, except for needing more the future.

Much of what made the GB offense work in the past was due to Rodgers being Godgers.  He wasn't very good last year and it leads to where we are at now.  Him simply regaining form will make the G's look better.

And I still think it is time to draft/sign some guards.  Unsure if Spriggs is the RT is the future either, so I'd look there, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vegas492 said:

If I look at that line objectively....we had a minus at RG last year.  Neutral at LG.  Double plus at LT, plus at C, slight plus at RT.

We could use a RT for the future and a couple of guards to upgrade what we have there.

And at the end of the day?  Had the QB simply gotten rid of the ball on time to open guys, we'd be having no hand wringing about the line, except for needing more the future.

Much of what made the GB offense work in the past was due to Rodgers being Godgers.  He wasn't very good last year and it leads to where we are at now.  Him simply regaining form will make the G's look better.

And I still think it is time to draft/sign some guards.  Unsure if Spriggs is the RT is the future either, so I'd look there, too.

Rodgers did not play up to his considerable skill set for sure.   It will be up to him and the new coaching staff to turn that around.  If he and the staff can do this 2019 will be a hell of lot more fun that the past 2 seasons have been.   I'm hoping these changes will reinvigorate 12.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From AcmePacking:

“If he’s the best player, you take him.” It’s the common refrain surrounding the potential selection of Iowa tight end TJ Hockenson with the 12th pick by the Packers. The fit is logical: Green Bay needs a blocker next to Jimmy Graham, particularly in this offense, and Hock possesses more than enough pass-catching ability to be the future TE1 for this team as Jimmy Graham makes his inevitable (and relatively imminent) exit.

If we’re setting aside grade for now, what’s the tight end’s true positional value in the NFL? Having one makes the offense better, but the Rams are tight end by committee. So are the Saints. The Patriots rely on Rob Gronkowski mostly as a blocker at this point in his career. And nearly all of the best players at the position weren’t high picks.

If the Packers are taking a tight end at 12, who are they not taking? A blue-chip edge rusher or a starting offensive lineman. There could be an impact overhang defender or a big-play receiver. What is the value of upgrading a position where the team can find a suitable substitute which either much less draft capital or in free agency?

In making these calculations, the Packers must also decide what a player like Hockenson would give to the team relative to another player at a more premium position. The league has long prized OT, EDGE, CB, and WR above TE. Although the position has changed considerably over the years, the impact of pass rushers, cover guys, and protectors in particular remain as great as ever. Considering Green Bay’s roster, would a tight end — a player likely to take time to develop and only play 30% of snaps in Year 1 — truly be a more impactful player than someone like Jachai Polite or Montez Sweat who could come in and provide an immediate boost to a flailing outsider linebacker group?

This should be taken as nothing against Hockenson, who is a tremendous player with the talent to make the Packers better. If he somehow fell to 30, it would likely be a no-brainer for Brian Gutekunst and company. Combine everything from talent to opportunity cost, team makeup, and more; taking a tight end at 12, almost any tight end, doesn’t make sense.

Edited by Leader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty long winded way to say that TE isn't a premium position and that EDGE/OL is.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, deathstar said:

Wish we would've kept Campen.

me too, but I keep reminding myself:

“The most important thing is this:  To be ready at any moment to give up what you are for what you might become.”

I read a recent twitter post that noted Bakh reached out to 49ers OT Joe Staley to get his opinion on new OL coach Stenavich -  and he was given rave reviews and Staley was genuinely bummed to lose him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel back to back line picks are warranted in this draft, Gute will have to get creative but this should happen somewhere between round 2 and round 4 to land 2 guys that should contribute right away. If not starting, then good depth to push the starters to performing well with youth behind them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

me too, but I keep reminding myself:

“The most important thing is this:  To be ready at any moment to give up what you are for what you might become.”

I read a recent twitter post that noted Bakh reached out to 49ers OT Joe Staley to get his opinion on new OL coach Stenavich -  and he was given rave reviews and Staley was genuinely bummed to lose him.

Sorry I didn’t convey sarcasm very well. I posted that right after all of those gifs of Bell being terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leader said:

From AcmePacking:

“If he’s the best player, you take him.” It’s the common refrain surrounding the potential selection of Iowa tight end TJ Hockenson with the 12th pick by the Packers. The fit is logical: Green Bay needs a blocker next to Jimmy Graham, particularly in this offense, and Hock possesses more than enough pass-catching ability to be the future TE1 for this team as Jimmy Graham makes his inevitable (and relatively imminent) exit.

If we’re setting aside grade for now, what’s the tight end’s true positional value in the NFL? Having one makes the offense better, but the Rams are tight end by committee. So are the Saints. The Patriots rely on Rob Gronkowski mostly as a blocker at this point in his career. And nearly all of the best players at the position weren’t high picks.

If the Packers are taking a tight end at 12, who are they not taking? A blue-chip edge rusher or a starting offensive lineman. There could be an impact overhang defender or a big-play receiver. What is the value of upgrading a position where the team can find a suitable substitute which either much less draft capital or in free agency?

In making these calculations, the Packers must also decide what a player like Hockenson would give to the team relative to another player at a more premium position. The league has long prized OT, EDGE, CB, and WR above TE. Although the position has changed considerably over the years, the impact of pass rushers, cover guys, and protectors in particular remain as great as ever. Considering Green Bay’s roster, would a tight end — a player likely to take time to develop and only play 30% of snaps in Year 1 — truly be a more impactful player than someone like Jachai Polite or Montez Sweat who could come in and provide an immediate boost to a flailing outsider linebacker group?

This should be taken as nothing against Hockenson, who is a tremendous player with the talent to make the Packers better. If he somehow fell to 30, it would likely be a no-brainer for Brian Gutekunst and company. Combine everything from talent to opportunity cost, team makeup, and more; taking a tight end at 12, almost any tight end, doesn’t make sense.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rcon14 said:

Pretty much sums up my thoughts.

Do people truly believe Hock is a top 12 prospect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CWood21 said:

Do people truly believe Hock is a top 12 prospect?

There are people that do. I have seen them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GWH87 said:

I feel back to back line picks are warranted in this draft, Gute will have to get creative but this should happen somewhere between round 2 and round 4 to land 2 guys that should contribute right away. If not starting, then good depth to push the starters to performing well with youth behind them.

We've got two picks in the top 30.  If we don't get at least 2 immediate starters out of this year's draft, I'm going to be disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rcon14 said:

There are people that do. I have seen them.

Since 2010, we've seen 18 seasons from TEs who have gotten at least 1000 yards receiving.  Of those 18, the least amount of targets that a TE got was 105 from Rob Gronkowski in 2017.  As I've mentioned before, rookie TEs usually don't produce as a rookie.  If we take him at 12, I'm going to be irritated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×