incog's 2019 GB Draft Tiers

[JaireAlex]

20 minutes ago, PossibleCabbage said:

I would have to think long and hard about Jacobs at 44, and would probably pass.  I'd probably take him at 75 pending how the board looks; only RB I would consider before round 4.

I'm with @incognito_man here. And I'm also taking what THIS draft offers at spots that THIS draft has at BVA for the Packers. WIth him I want a front four early (that's a big for me early  and an edge or two later) AND I want an elite upside toy for Arod. I only see a few. GB is looking at Isabella, who might be "that" guy. I only have Parris, Isabella, Jacobs that are clear GB picks (while I don't know their grades except Isabella). The thing about Jacobs that is flying under the radar are his hands, his downfield tracking, his elite side-step and stop and go (better than Lacy imo), elite initial burst, and dude is a locker room double plus. It took me a while to warm up to Jacobs, but I'm happy with him at the end of round one.And no other RB cracks higher than the bottom of round three as a Green Bay asset. AGAIN, I'm just combing for elite weapons.

And I do have an eye on Incognito's WRs too, both Harry and Butler have some special special traits. Harry imo absolutely has the drive to be great. Butler may have it; it's really my main question with him. Butler is NOT as fast as Megatron was coming out. Anyways, I would be disappointed if we don't take a stabs at elite potential weapons. But a few gems may be hidden and cheap in day three. It's just that deep.

And FYI, I see Jacobs come in play seriously at 24. Parris might fall to top of round two. Isabella probably goes end of round two. No idea where Butler or Harry go tbh. They could get grabbed anywhere. And there's a slew of TEs at end of two through three. I don't think the Iowa TEs last to where we value them and neither is an instant improvement over Graham and Lewis. We'll aim at developmental guys.

[AlexGreen#20]

All three guys running behind the same line against the same competition:

Rushes/Yards/Yards per Attempt/TDs

Player A: 150/876/5.84/9

Player B: 120/640/5.33/11

Player C: 117/783/6.69/4

Without looking, tell me which of these cats are being looked at as a first round guy

[JaireAlex]

14 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

All three guys running behind the same line against the same competition:

Rushes/Yards/Yards per Attempt/TDs

Player A: 150/876/5.84/9

Player B: 120/640/5.33/11

Player C: 117/783/6.69/4

Without looking, tell me which of these cats are being looked at as a first round guy

I like Damien Harris at the bottom of round three a lot. But it's all about pass pro and receiving threat in my opinion. And I prefer an elite receiver to an elite RB. I know who B is and those touch downs kind of stand out. But my heart is not set on him. I'd just be ok with him is all.

With all the talk about Hock and Fant early, I'd take an RB before either, and an WR before RB.

[Leader]

19 minutes ago, JaireAlex said:

With all the talk about Hock and Fant early, I'd take an RB before either, and an WR before RB.

From what I'm hearing, this is a somewhat pedestrian RB class.....and you'd take a RB over Fant (first) or Hock (?) - both of whom are guaranteed to contribute? I wouldnt mind either TE - but would hope we nab Fant over Hock - but EITHER over any of the RBs coming out in this draft. 

[vegas492]

37 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

All three guys running behind the same line against the same competition:

Rushes/Yards/Yards per Attempt/TDs

Player A: 150/876/5.84/9

Player B: 120/640/5.33/11

Player C: 117/783/6.69/4

Without looking, tell me which of these cats are being looked at as a first round guy

I"m not looking at any RB in this class as a first round guy.  Or a second round guy.  I like the Penn State kid in round 3 (Sanders), I feel he still has upside after sitting behind Barkley.  Montgomery, maybe round 3, prefer round 4.

I don't know enough about either 'Bama back to really know what they can do.  

I have no "love" for this years RB class.  Only a "like" for Sanders.  Though I do like the potential of Weber later in the draft.

[JaireAlex]

1 minute ago, Leader said:

From what I'm hearing, this is a somewhat pedestrian RB class.....and you'd take a RB over Fant (first) or Hock (?) - both of whom are guaranteed to contribute? I wouldnt mind either TE - but would hope we nab Fant over Hock - but EITHER over any of the RBs coming out in this draft. 

Only top RB is Jacobs. You can disagree there. But I see all three about equal in skill at position. I take Jacobs over TE. And assuming that there's a comparable WR, I take him over either. I have Campbell, Jacobs, and Hock/Fant pretty close in grade. Campbell and Fant have elite athleticism. The weirdness is most have them going in opposite order : Hock, then Fant, then Jacobs, then Campbell. I'd take Campbell at 39 above the others, and before the others if they are all sitting at that spot.. And that's probably a fair spot for Campbell, however you grade him. I'm also assuming he can play outside and inside.

Hope that helps. At least for GB I don't have any RBs til end of three.

[Leader]

40 minutes ago, JaireAlex said:

Only top RB is Jacobs. You can disagree there. But I see all three about equal in skill at position. I take Jacobs over TE. And assuming that there's a comparable WR, I take him over either. I have Campbell, Jacobs, and Hock/Fant pretty close in grade. Campbell and Fant have elite athleticism. The weirdness is most have them going in opposite order : Hock, then Fant, then Jacobs, then Campbell. I'd take Campbell at 39 above the others, and before the others if they are all sitting at that spot.. And that's probably a fair spot for Campbell, however you grade him. I'm also assuming he can play outside and inside.

Hope that helps. At least for GB I don't have any RBs til end of three.

Just differing perspectives. I'd take Fant over Hock but would also probably take Hock over any RB from this draft class.

[deathstar]

36 minutes ago, Leader said:

Just differing perspectives. I'd take Fant over Hock but would also probably take Hock over any RB from this draft class.

Why?

[Sasquatch]

On 4/9/2019 at 7:52 PM, Fox_NFLs_GG said:

So what if the Packers Draft Harry and Bush in the first?  Do you think it will take care of needs? To be honest, I am not a fan of Harry in the first round. But I do like Bush a little and it would take care of a need.  Basically they already have several guys like Harry and I don't think it makes sense unless he turns out to be Randy Moss (which I doubt).

We’d never hear the end of it if we drafted Harry Bush in the first.  

[Gopher Trace]

6 hours ago, JaireAlex said:

They got paid like it......because they do make plays. That's the Ravens' type. Less splash, more substance.

I WANT A STUD ON DL for our first pick. Not a bench warmer. It's ten times the need of edge.

Moreover, a slot WR will get reps day one. Literally noone rounds 1-3 that I list is a bench warmer. 

But this forum is OBSESSED with Uber athletic edge, which neither Pettine nor the Ravens draft......because they spend a third their time on the bench with injuries even when they don't bust  ----like CMIII and Perry.

Your draft strategy is overwhelmingly obvious. We grabbed two high end starting edge at a very high price in FA because we HAVE to target edge at 12. We still haven't resigned Mo because no way we possibly could consider DL with our one.

3

3

3

Years of watching Rodgers take lots of sacks -- because Mike McDumDum kept his OTs on an island even if they're clearly outmatched third-stringers pressed into the lineup due to injury was coupled with Rodgers's habit of holding the ball too long while looking for the long bomb --, especially at the hands of divisional rivals like Jared Allen, have basically broken Packer fans' brains.

If our EDGEs don't look like Khalil Mack in the first half of Week 1 last year, all season, then EDGE is a need.

"Can't have too many good pass-rushers, derp!"
 

[JaireAlex]

6 minutes ago, Gopher Trace said:

Years of watching Rodgers take lots of sacks -- because Mike McDumDum keeps his OTs on an island even if they're clearly outmatched third-stringers pressed into the lineup due to injury and Rodgers's habit of holding --, especially at the hands of divisional rivals like Jared Allen, have basically broken Packer fans' brains.

If our EDGEs don't look like Khalil Mack in the first half of Week 1 last year, then EDGE is a need.

"Can't have too many good pass-rushers, derp!"

Nailed it.

That infuriates me. I don't think that's LaFleur's game at all. Look forward to OL help for Spriggs in the form of a sixth round TE like Sweeney to help out Spriggs struggling there while he gets his feet wet esp against Mack.

 

Edit: we have Lewis already of course.

[HighCalebR]

Since when dont the Ravens like twitchy EDGE guys? They draft a good variety of edge but they definitely take their fair share of swings at athletic twitch players. 

There's as many snaps to be had from a rookie edge player as there is with a rookie slot guy. Our options are wide open, as they should be with the draft. As the board falls we'll be able to play it the way we need to. 

[Lieker]

5 hours ago, JaireAlex said:

Only top RB is Jacobs. You can disagree there. But I see all three about equal in skill at position. I take Jacobs over TE. And assuming that there's a comparable WR, I take him over either. I have Campbell, Jacobs, and Hock/Fant pretty close in grade. Campbell and Fant have elite athleticism. The weirdness is most have them going in opposite order : Hock, then Fant, then Jacobs, then Campbell. I'd take Campbell at 39 above the others, and before the others if they are all sitting at that spot.. And that's probably a fair spot for Campbell, however you grade him. I'm also assuming he can play outside and inside.

Hope that helps. At least for GB I don't have any RBs til end of three.

What do you like about Campbell? He times well as an athlete, but from a route running perspective is raw. Slot only type that isn’t developed in his routes and isn’t a deep threat doesn’t seem like a high priority to me. 

[Cadmus]

@Lieker

Please spare yourself. 

You have virtually a zero percent chance of receiving a coherent answer. 

[Packerraymond]

15 hours ago, JaireAlex said:

Interesting comment by Adams...... could  be more of EQ outside too.........it means only one thing. Obvious!! Hock with the twelve and move up for Jacobs at 21

Even better. Trade ahead of Detroit , giving up a future one to steal Hock  /irony

Good idea, but let's not suggest we draft an uber athletic EDGE to play the most important position on a 2019 defense because that would be a bad idea.