I'm trying to understand why we are still mocking edge rushers.

[cannondale]

5 minutes ago, Cadmus said:

What this guy fails to understand is how few snaps will be left over once you account Za'Darius, Clark, Daniels, Lowry and in all probability Wilkerson. 

They aren't giving up on Adams and Lancaster either. They're going to give Looney and probably Brown a fair shake as well I'd suspect. 

He lives in his own little world because that's where he's most comfortable. 

Best DL Class EVER though guys... Watch out. -Arrigo heard so from his sources-

You can speak to me - I won't be offended. The Arrigo comment is just stupid - you can do better than that

[JaireAlex]

4 minutes ago, cannondale said:

I only play the game how you play it. You list outliers to make a point. I did the same just to show how silly it is. Stop with the UDFA is fine at Safety for example. We've tried that for 20 years. It doesn't work. We need 2 3T's in for 2020. That's a fact. Fackrell is gone after this year. That's a fact. Do we need more than a journeyman to replace him since ZSmith will play some DL. Yes. That's a fact. Do I draft a WR in the First Round ? No. When do I draft one ? I don't know. It's like need #9 on the list. 

Dude, my top target at safety is Hooker. 

I mentioned Leonard not because Pettine prefers UDFA but to show his "type". They are less pricy 

 

And you are full of it. The Packers are looking at slot WR in two because it is actually the number two need this year. You're an idiot. Stop calling others that when you are utterly clueless and ignore the facts, like bringing in AJ Brown.

[Cadmus]

1 minute ago, cannondale said:

You can speak to me - I won't be offended. The Arrigo comment is just stupid - you can do better than that

I'm not talking to you or about you... so that would indeed be an odd way to get offended. 

[cannondale]

1 minute ago, Cadmus said:

I'm not talking to you or about you... so that would indeed be an odd way to get offended. 

It sure seemed as if you were. If not - no worries

[Cadmus]

Just now, cannondale said:

It sure seemed as if you were. If not - no worries

No, I was not. 

I honestly have not even read any of your posts from the previous few pages. 

It has nothing to do with you. 

[vegas492]

Fun couple of pages.

[pacman5252]

57 minutes ago, cannondale said:

I only play the game how you play it. You list outliers to make a point. I did the same just to show how silly it is. Stop with the UDFA is fine at Safety for example. We've tried that for 20 years. It doesn't work. We need 2 3T's in for 2020. That's a fact. Fackrell is gone after this year. That's a fact. Do we need more than a journeyman to replace him since ZSmith will play some DL. Yes. That's a fact. Do I draft a WR in the First Round ? No. When do I draft one ? I don't know. It's like need #9 on the list. 

It depends what we want to run. If we were still running MM's offense (big in winning with mismatches), I'd say WR (or just pass catching play maker) might be need #1. AR's passer rating dropped 30 points when not targeting Adams/Cobb. The grading sites graded all our non Adams WRs as like 3rd/4th wrs (EQ 64.4, Kumerow 58.9). Compared to what we had 7 years ago this group is pretty bad.

[JaireAlex]

8 hours ago, cannondale said:

Did the Patriots burn a First Rounder on a Hall of Fame QB ? Nope. 

We got Donald Driver in the 7th Round. Robert Brooks and Freeman in the 3rd. No need to waste pick #35 on one

You can find outlier excuses for everything. I'm more interested in the norm. Jim Leonhard is not the norm. If he was, we wouldn't be going on 20 years without a decent Safety and having to sign someone else's. Starting caliber 3T's don't grow on trees. Neither do ER's. The longer you wait in the draft to find those - the lesser chance of success. That's just a fact. And when you are a year away from HAVING to have them, I find it hard to worry about who our #4 WR is

Edit: I misread you. For the third time because you don't get it. , Leonhard is not the norm for any DC, and I NEVER said take safety in UDFA; rather take him after round two. Leonard's a Pettine type though. Pettine's CBs are top tier but his safeties need to know their spot and stick their nose in. He's not looking for the next Earl Thomas.

We just got Amos. And it's not exactly unknown that we'll be looking for a clone since that's what Pettine said he likes -- interchangeable clones. The closest reliable smart guy I got is Hooker who probably goes top of round three. That's just my best fit there. But if a better prospect checks the boxes for Pettine, fine. I assumed we grabbed Amos to take advantage of the depth in this draft.

As to starting caliber 3T's I have  a short list of first round guys I prefer to take. You seem to continually ignore my preference for using our first or second pick on DT in round one. We just signed two ER's so maybe just maybe we can draft one or two later (round 2-4) to develop, to take Fackrell's place and take over for Smiths down the road.

You are shadow boxing. Moreover, you are  EVADING my question about whether you will address offense in day one and two.We drafted Cobb with a second round pick with a FULL house at receiver, guys that just won a superbowl and Finley as well. We had considered Dez Bryant in 2010 in the first. We have nothing like that now. But you bring up strawmen to say we need NO OFFENSE til day three. Despite that we poured a record amount of money into three defensive FAs. You ignore reality and are utterly delusional. Anyone who disagrees with you, you mischaracterize and ridicule.

[PACKRULE]

3 hours ago, Cadmus said:

We had 3 EDGEs signed past 2019 this time last year and no one expected Fackrell to take that Year 3 Jump. 

How many did we select in the 2018 NFL Draft? 

Can't admit that though because --> 

--> That would absolutely torpedo your argument <--

Fackerell sucks sorry everyone knows it he's not even a good 3. He lucked into his sacks. If we want a good D draft it heavy and hard. D wins championships.

[Mr Bad Example]

On 4/10/2019 at 12:14 AM, Arthur Penske said:

Because the packers are one injury away from Fackrell starting at edge.

Fackrell is OK. He seems like one of those "why can't we find someone better than this guy?" players. 

[Lieker]

7 hours ago, JaireAlex said:

Every draft mock, I have us taking two DL. At the very latest, beginning in round two. And there is really no offensive guy I "have to have" or even really want in round one, Dillard included. The guys I like should go around 35ish, maybe Campbell excepted. Two should be there still, but maybe we need to cough up that 30. Preferably I use the first pick on DL, after a move down if possible.

Safeties will be addressed, but unless they love someone, Pettine clearly prefers reliability (1), versatility (2), and interchangability (3). His favorite was Leonard the UDFA. Tramon also said you need to be smart to play this D. It's simple, aggressive but more than any spot on the team, the safety needs to be smart. Amos fills the hole but I'm looking for safeties like Amos.

Christian Miller, Banogu, any number of day 2-3 guys work. The Ravens don't draft round one edge often at all. Look for more guys in that mold as that's where GB is heading. The Ravens buy cheap and sell high on olb. Just smart.

 I addressed your dire issues on D. Do we really need to wait to day three to address the neglected offense? Now my preference by far is to move down from the 12 and restock the cupboard that is bare (as Pettine has said) on both sides of the ball. But they well may have their target on a guy they love at 12.

You keep saying that people don't want to address Offense until Day 3. Has anyone actually said that? I think just about all of us are open to addressing offense relatively early, particularly on Day 2. Especially when looking at Tackle and TE. I think what most are gun shy about is addressing the skill positions like RB/WR , IOL, and to some extent TE in the 1st. Personally, I'm all for taking a Tackle in the 1st, TE at 30 if its Fant or Hock, and WR/RB/TE/OL in the 2nd and beyond. However, ideally we would address IDL or EDGE in the 1st over offense. Those positions go quick and are more difficult to find late. Same goes with Tackle. The whole concept of "planet theory" applies here. There are only so many players that are big enough and athletic enough to play those positions at a high level. WR/RB/TE/IOL are much easier to find later in the draft. Rounds 2+ have treated the Packers well at those positions. 

[Leader]

29 minutes ago, Lieker said:

You keep saying that people don't want to address Offense until Day 3. Has anyone actually said that? I think just about all of us are open to addressing offense relatively early, particularly on Day 2. Especially when looking at Tackle and TE. I think what most are gun shy about is addressing the skill positions like RB/WR , IOL, and to some extent TE in the 1st. Personally, I'm all for taking a Tackle in the 1st, TE at 30 if its Fant or Hock, and WR/RB/TE/OL in the 2nd and beyond. However, ideally we would address IDL or EDGE in the 1st over offense. Those positions go quick and are more difficult to find late. Same goes with Tackle. The whole concept of "planet theory" applies here. There are only so many players that are big enough and athletic enough to play those positions at a high level. WR/RB/TE/IOL are much easier to find later in the draft. Rounds 2+ have treated the Packers well at those positions. 

Schwartz invokes "Planet Theory"

Longtime Giants executive George Young had a famous “Planet Theory” to drafting that Jim Schwartz invoked recently.

“Big, giant men that run fast?  That are strong enough to play the run and athletic enough to play the
pass?” Schwartz told the Detroit Free Press.  “There’s not many people like that walking the planet.”

While the theory is tongue-in-cheek, there’s plenty of truth to it.

The athleticism Ndamakong Suh displays is special.  (To a lesser degree, the same can be said about Gerald McCoy.)  There are no offensive tackles in this class that stand out as elite.

We’ve never bought that the Lions were seriously considering an offensive tackle at No. 2 if only because it defies logic.  [Editor’s note:  Speak for yourself, Rosenthal.  It’s hard to get the most out of last year’s first overall pick if he’s constantly running for his young life.]  Jim Schwartz has made his name on defensive linemen.  Detroit’s new identity should be there. To pass up a chance to work with Suh or McCoy makes no sense.

At least that’s what the “Planet Theory” says.

[JaireAlex]

3 minutes ago, Lieker said:

You keep saying that people don't want to address Offense until Day 3. Has anyone actually said that? I think just about all of us are open to addressing offense relatively early, particularly on Day 2. Especially when looking at Tackle and TE. I think what most are gun shy about is addressing the skill positions like RB/WR , IOL, and to some extent TE in the 1st. Personally, I'm all for taking a Tackle in the 1st, TE at 30 if its Fant or Hock, and WR/RB/TE/OL in the 2nd and beyond. However, ideally we would address IDL or EDGE in the 1st over offense. Those positions go quick and are more difficult to find late. Same goes with Tackle. The whole concept of "planet theory" applies here. There are only so many players that are big enough and athletic enough to play those positions at a high level. WR/RB/TE/IOL are much easier to find later in the draft. Rounds 2+ have treated the Packers well at those positions. 

@canondale does not seem to want to use any day one or two picks on offense. I was addressing him.

Not only am I open to DL with pick number one. That's my preference. And a lot of this is me just sorting out my board which is I think is now set. Others have five DL above Lawrence who is about the same as Vita Vea last year. That's also five above Clark.

And we just got 2 edge in FA. So, just maybe, possibly  -- call it a "guess" -- Gute sees the same thing. And we are staring at three contracts on DL next year. It's deep at both edge and DL, but the DL is quite a bit better at the top. that's my pick. I like three (only) for GB between 12 and 30, with Oliver definitely gone at eight latest to Atlanta. Only Bosa and Sweat are at the same tier as these DL. And I like many edge better that are later.

 

It seems kind of crazy to me to take any TE over a round one RB, doubly so for WR. Triply so in a deep TE class when we have two starters next year.

 

But I want offense and so does Gute.The value at 30 is going to be DL, so I could see a move back really and a pick up of a three. There's very little to move up for.

Anyways, if we move down at thirty we could pick an edge, OL, WR, and TE/RB with the next four in no particular order. That would be a solid haul on offense and we'd get two premiums on D with a top tier DL in most drafts. Possibly a safety instead. No less than two picks on offense before 75.

[Cadmus]

3 hours ago, PACKRULE said:

Fackerell sucks sorry everyone knows it he's not even a good 3. He lucked into his sacks. If we want a good D draft it heavy and hard. D wins championships.

What are you talking about? 

That's not even close to relevant to what I was talking about. 

[cannondale]

15 minutes ago, JaireAlex said:

@canondale does not seem to want to use any day one or two picks on offense.

Never said that. My stance has been pretty damn clear since the draft talk started. 

For the health of the thread - I'll just leave it at that.