MantyWrestler Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 2 hours ago, Gopackgonerd said: Love the confidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golfman Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 2 hours ago, Gopackgonerd said: OK, there you have it no need to draft a WR this draft. Assuming MVS was talking about the group post Cobb too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Penske Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 33 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: This needs to stop. Nah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 27 minutes ago, MantyWrestler said: Love the confidence Yup, hopefully he's working his *** off in the weight room and film room right now. He's got a long way to go but has the tools you cant teach as a foundation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 26 minutes ago, Golfman said: OK, there you have it no need to draft a WR this draft. Assuming MVS was talking about the group post Cobb too? I don't really see the need to draft a guy, we have too many young WRs already. Add your mid-tier slot guy to replace Cobb and let's go. We don't need to add another young, raw, inexperienced guy, we need a smart, dependable vet who knows how to get open on 3rd and 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 6 minutes ago, packfanfb said: I don't really see the need to draft a guy, we have too many young WRs already. Add your mid-tier slot guy to replace Cobb and let's go. We don't need to add another young, raw, inexperienced guy, we need a smart, dependable vet who knows how to get open on 3rd and 6. That is kind of why I have been positing just re-sign Cobb. Cobb does give us a different kind of receiver, he is a savvy veteran, and he already has that important Aaron Rodgers approval. When Cobb is healthy, he produces pretty well. He was ridiculously overpaid after a stellar 2014. If we remove that season, he still manages 47.6 yards per game for his career. I think we should at least see what the price tag is for his services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golfman Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 4 hours ago, ThatJerkDave said: That is kind of why I have been positing just re-sign Cobb. Cobb does give us a different kind of receiver, he is a savvy veteran, and he already has that important Aaron Rodgers approval. When Cobb is healthy, he produces pretty well. He was ridiculously overpaid after a stellar 2014. If we remove that season, he still manages 47.6 yards per game for his career. I think we should at least see what the price tag is for his services. Please do NOT re-sign Cobb. That will stunt the development of the young guys because Rodgers will hang onto the ball forever to get it to him, Adams or Graham and freeze the young guys out. LET HIM WALK and say thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugger Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 4 hours ago, Outpost31 said: This Packer forum needs me to be me. But you can disagree without being disagreeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fussnputz Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 OP31 is not the problem here. IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinneasGage Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 5 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said: OP31 is not the problem here. IMHO. there seems to be a lot of bot accounts on here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golfman Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 1 hour ago, FinneasGage said: there seems to be a lot of bot accounts on here What the H is a 'bot' account? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 On 2/23/2019 at 8:00 AM, Lieker said: 1. You can’t draft purely for a player’s impact in year 1. Don’t the Packers have a history of drafting players to replace a perceived hole a year a head of time? Players like Rodgers, Nelson, Cobb, Adams, Bak, Spriggs, Josh Jones, Etc? There's a drastic difference between taking someone with a long-term look and taking someone whose going to produce very little to none in the first year. Nor am I suggesting that you're looking solely at a player whose going to produce at Day 1. But if you have two similar players, one is going to improve the roster in 2019 and one isn't, you're going to take the one that improves your 2019 roster. We have enough issues that if you're taking a TE, he needs to be clearly BPA. Is a TE clearly BPA at 12? I'd say with about 98% certainty that it won't. At 30? Possibly, but I wouldn't bet it. On 2/23/2019 at 8:00 AM, Lieker said: 2. TE’s might not have a history of producing in year 1, but in today’s NFL it seems it’s becoming easier for a WR/TE to produce in year 1. It really isn't. Go look at the history of TEs, and it's not anything special. Mark Andrews was the most productive rookie TE this year, and 9th in receptions amongst WRs and TE and 7th in receptions. Among TEs, Andrews ranked 19th in receptions and 16th in receiving yards. The most productive rookie TE this year was a middle-of-the-pack TE. On 2/23/2019 at 8:00 AM, Lieker said: 3. I think the impact a rookie TE might make early in the season would be minimal, but as the season progresses could grow and be completely different the 2nd half of the season into the playoffs. There’s a huge difference in the ability level of a rookie from the beginning to the end of the season. Their ability and impact doesn’t stay static throughout the season. So you're now suggesting the Packers should take someone with the hope that they're progressing? Why wouldn't that logic apply across the board. On 2/23/2019 at 8:00 AM, Lieker said: 4. It seems like LaFleur’s offense is more likely to use 2 TE sets than McCarthy’s. Graham and a Day 1/2 Rookie could work well together. Much like the Eagles drafting Goedert in the 2nd in 2018 to play alongside Ertz. 5. What’s our plan to replace Graham if we don’t take a TE in day 1/2? Relying on a day 3 rookie to develop? Or relying on a rookie from the 2020 draft to start his rookie year? I’m not advocating for picking a TE at #12, but if we don’t come out of this draft with a TE in the first 4 rounds I’ll be very disappointed. 44 is probably the earliest I'd take a TE. I have no interest in taking a TE at 12. At 30, the board would have to be obliterated. And at 44, unless Hock falls I'm not sure I'm taking a TE. I'd rather dig into that 3rd tier of TE prospects (Kaden Smith, Jace Sternberger, etc.) with our 3rd round pick than take a second tier (Noah Fant, Irv Smith, etc.) at 44. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 4 hours ago, Golfman said: Please do NOT re-sign Cobb. That will stunt the development of the young guys because Rodgers will hang onto the ball forever to get it to him, Adams or Graham and freeze the young guys out. LET HIM WALK and say thank you! I see you feel for Randall Cobb what I feel for Nick Perry. I am just looking for a type of WR that the team doesn't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaRisMa Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 What’s the one trait you’d like them all to be working on right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinneasGage Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Golfman said: What the H is a 'bot' account? when the internet produces accounts using an algorithm of "expected"/"normalized" responses all created from studying patterns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.