First Mock ever. Only mock

[JaireAlex]

4 minutes ago, ChaRisMa said:

I’d be fine with Dillard at 12 but only if the board falls that way, and that’s close to apocalypse in front of them.

How so?

 

White, Metcalf, the edge after Boss and Allen are not that high on our board. They will not gamble on 12 imo. Packer top prospects rarely fall. Clark fell to us. Bulaga. We jumped back to get Jaire. We gave up three picks to get Clay. The FO would be very happy to get Dillard I would think.

 

Most years though we miss on the guys we have at top because they are all gone by our pick.

[ChaRisMa]

51 minutes ago, JaireAlex said:

How so?

 

White, Metcalf, the edge after Boss and Allen are not that high on our board. They will not gamble on 12 imo. Packer top prospects rarely fall. Clark fell to us. Bulaga. We jumped back to get Jaire. We gave up three picks to get Clay. The FO would be very happy to get Dillard I would think.

 

Most years though we miss on the guys we have at top because they are all gone by our pick.

It’s a punt. No one wants to draft a guy to replace Bulaga this year. But if Dillard is the only guy with 12 or better value, we’re getting that position squared away so we don’t have to next year and we’ll take the year or development and depth in exchange for wasting a year of contract.

But there are probably a few defensive players it would be hard to pass up in the name of a future RT.

i completely agree 12 is “elite guy that fell” range. I just don’t know for sure collecting OL with draft picks prior to day 3 is something that can energize the offense.

[Pilprin]

I appreciate the effort of doing a mock draft. I am ok with taking an OT in round #1, but struggle with one at 12. plenty are available in day two and three as well. We need an OL...not sure we need two hight picks at OL

 

[JaireAlex]

Just now, ChaRisMa said:

It’s a punt. No one wants to draft a guy to replace Bulaga this year. But if Dillard is the only guy with 12 or better value, we’re getting that position squared away so we don’t have to next year and we’ll take the year or development and depth in exchange for wasting a year of contract.

But there are probably a few defensive players it would be hard to pass up in the name of a future RT.

But Dillard is more. He's present RT, future LT and can back up both. I don't expect Bulaga to make it through the season.

Spriggs could figure it out. I'd still be down with Dillard. LT= RT pretty much these days. 

And a year early is way better than a year late. Sherrod/New house did not work out.

[JaireAlex]

1 minute ago, Pilprin said:

I appreciate the effort of doing a mock draft. I am ok with taking an OT in round #1, but struggle with one at 12. plenty are available in day two and three as well. We need an OL...not sure we need two hight picks at OL

 

Big difference between franchise LT and passable.  two excellent tackles in Arods last years is the hardest thing to get in a draft for offense. I don't think I want anyone more in this draft outside Q Williams and Bosa.

 

All other offense pieces are day two and later. Bakh was a steal. One of the best finds of any draft. So were Clifton and Tauscher. Sherrod cost us a Superbowl maybe.

Dillard might be the only premier LT in the draft (for GB -- Taylor might  fit other teams).

So far I really like Dillard. Just don't know how the Packers view him. 

[ChaRisMa]

3 minutes ago, JaireAlex said:

But Dillard is more. He's present RT, future LT and can back up both. I don't expect Bulaga to make it through the season.

Spriggs could figure it out. I'd still be down with Dillard. LT= RT pretty much these days. 

And a year early is way better than a year late. Sherrod/New house did not work out.

I'm sure Bulaga beats out a rookie. I agree he'd be a tremendous depth piece immediately and the future at RT. And having awful Tackles is infuriating. But we have a LOT investing in the OL right now and it may be appropriate to wait another year, let some of the money owed to the starters long term go down a little more. We have the third largest cap hit for an OL in the NFL right now, and that's with only Jason Spriggs as a 6th OL and he's the only draft pick not starting on the team.

[jleisher]

I would love to see the Packers get both Risner and Lindstrom.  Dillard, would be ok with.  I agree, OL is a concern.

[JaireAlex]

6 minutes ago, ChaRisMa said:

I'm sure Bulaga beats out a rookie. I agree he'd be a tremendous depth piece immediately and the future at RT. And having awful Tackles is infuriating. But we have a LOT investing in the OL right now and it may be appropriate to wait another year, let some of the money owed to the starters long term go down a little more. We have the third largest cap hit for an OL in the NFL right now, and that's with only Jason Spriggs as a 6th OL and he's the only draft pick not starting on the team.

I see it different a bit.

 

We are forced to pay big because it's a wreck. 

 

By "now" I mean year two or whenever Bulaga goes down. Also I doubt we can afford Bakh's next contract if he stays healthy. Our line was very cheap when much better.

Draft poor= pay more. That needs fixing. The cost at position   always swings up and down. Next year our secondary might be the cheapest in the league. That will change 

[ChaRisMa]

1 hour ago, JaireAlex said:

I see it different a bit.

 

We are forced to pay big because it's a wreck. 

 

By "now" I mean year two or whenever Bulaga goes down. Also I doubt we can afford Bakh's next contract if he stays healthy. Our line was very cheap when much better.

Draft poor= pay more. That needs fixing. The cost at position   always swings up and down. Next year our secondary might be the cheapest in the league. That will change 

We're paying big because we Drafted/Developed 4 starting OL and they are all on second contracts and Gute decided throwing starting money to another Guard was a good idea. So we have 23% of our cap allocated there and zero depth. Thats a fine spot to be in if you have a pile of day 3 picks to use on depth that'll be as cheap as possible. 

But if Dillard is the best value at the 12th pick, he should be close enough in ability to cut Bulaga and save the cap space.

So you get your long term guy at RT, and 6.75 Mil in cap savings but gain no real depth; although Dillard should have better health over the next year than Bulaga and therefore the need for depth is less.

I'm not against taking Dillard, cutting Bulaga, and then adding another body or two on the third day of the draft. The cap savings there is attractive when you consider the odds Bulaga misses 4 games or more. He has played in 19 of the last 32 regular season games. But I can get a lot more impact out of a defensive player at 12. I'd be ecstatic if we got Ed Oliver, because he can contribute as a rookie along side Mike Daniels instead of making him expendable like Dillard would Bulaga.

[Leader]

1 hour ago, ChaRisMa said:

We're paying big because we Drafted/Developed 4 starting OL and they are all on second contracts and Gute decided throwing starting money to another Guard was a good idea. So we have 23% of our cap allocated there and zero depth. Thats a fine spot to be in if you have a pile of day 3 picks to use on depth that'll be as cheap as possible. 

But if Dillard is the best value at the 12th pick, he should be close enough in ability to cut Bulaga and save the cap space.

So you get your long term guy at RT, and 6.75 Mil in cap savings but gain no real depth; although Dillard should have better health over the next year than Bulaga and therefore the need for depth is less.

I'm not against taking Dillard, cutting Bulaga, and then adding another body or two on the third day of the draft. The cap savings there is attractive when you consider the odds Bulaga misses 4 games or more. He has played in 19 of the last 32 regular season games. But I can get a lot more impact out of a defensive player at 12. I'd be ecstatic if we got Ed Oliver, because he can contribute as a rookie along side Mike Daniels instead of making him expendable like Dillard would Bulaga.

Good post.

[JaireAlex]

1 hour ago, ChaRisMa said:

....

I'm not against taking Dillard, cutting Bulaga, and then adding another body or two on the third day of the draft. The cap savings there is attractive when you consider the odds Bulaga misses 4 games or more. He has played in 19 of the last 32 regular season games. But I can get a lot more impact out of a defensive player at 12. I'd be ecstatic if we got Ed Oliver, because he can contribute as a rookie along side Mike Daniels instead of making him expendable like Dillard would Bulaga.

That all depends on the grades on Dillard and Oliver. If they're even, that's a tough call.

I don't think cutting any one on this thin roster is good. And Dillard is not plug and play. Spriggs ain't ready, may never be. If you remember, Clifton and Tauscher played some spot duty at the end esp 2010. That's what I see in Bulaga.

Many come off the books next year -- where you save money. Turner was to help patch a hole. 

They have shortchanged the offense on draft day for years. 

Keeping Rodgers off IR tips the scales to Dillard for me, all else being even.

And as titled, it's a trenches draft. So DL is as good as OL for me. I think we double dip on both, given the depth in the draft. Some good developmental DL prospects bottom of 2 through 3. I wanted two in this mock and could easily substitute one for the a safety. Just don't like who's there at 44, but would do a move down to grab someone in three.

[MaximusGluteus]

In other threads you chastise GMs for reaching for picks, yet you keep pounding the table in favor of drafting based on need.  Do you not realize that drafting based on need is EXACTLY how you end up reaching?  It's exactly what you're doing here.

[deathstar]

10 hours ago, ChaRisMa said:

We're paying big because we Drafted/Developed 4 starting OL and they are all on second contracts and Gute decided throwing starting money to another Guard was a good idea. So we have 23% of our cap allocated there and zero depth. Thats a fine spot to be in if you have a pile of day 3 picks to use on depth that'll be as cheap as possible. 

But if Dillard is the best value at the 12th pick, he should be close enough in ability to cut Bulaga and save the cap space.

So you get your long term guy at RT, and 6.75 Mil in cap savings but gain no real depth; although Dillard should have better health over the next year than Bulaga and therefore the need for depth is less.

I'm not against taking Dillard, cutting Bulaga, and then adding another body or two on the third day of the draft. The cap savings there is attractive when you consider the odds Bulaga misses 4 games or more. He has played in 19 of the last 32 regular season games. But I can get a lot more impact out of a defensive player at 12. I'd be ecstatic if we got Ed Oliver, because he can contribute as a rookie along side Mike Daniels instead of making him expendable like Dillard would Bulaga.

Cutting a starting RT would be a bad move.

[VegasDan]

41 minutes ago, deathstar said:

Cutting a starting RT would be a bad move.

Relying on Bulaga to play more than 4 or 5 games this season would be equally bad. I think OT is the most likely pick at 12.

 

Does the new regime value gaurds enough to take one in the first? Maybe. Past history says no, but Gute went after an expensive OG in day 2 of FA. Taylor needs to be replaced, he was poor last season. 

 

 

Anyway, I like the mock and think it is plausible. Thanks for the effort. You may have changed my mind on Savage.

[tredpack]

Probably being to optimistic, but Spriggs still has talent. He hasn't gone into a off-season remotely healthy yet. Feel like thats really hurt his development. Maybe this new scheme works best with his skill set?  

Watch, he'll get traded for a 7th round pick in 2023 next week.