Scenarios

[Brit Pack]

Just looking at scenarios and pools of players that potentially we could be picking from. First Round predictions before 12, question mark denotes might be picked before 12 or not, no question mark by name means most certainly picked before 12.

QB
(1)    Murray
(2)    Haskins
(3)    Lock (?)

RB
None

WR
(4)    Metcalf (?)

OL
(5)    Taylor
(6)    Williams (?)

TE
(7)    Hockenson (?)
(8)    Fant (?)

DL
(9)    Q Williams
(10) Ed Oliver (?)
(11) Gary (?)
(12) Wilkins (?)

Edge
(13) Bosa
(14) J. Allen
(15) Sweat (?)
(16) Burns (?)
(17) Ferrell (?)

ILB
(18) White
(19) Bush (?)

CB
None

S
None

Most likely gone before 12: Murray, Haskins, Q. Williams, Bosa, J. Allen, White. Those 6 are certain to go

So the pool we are picking out of at 12 is:
Lock, Metcalf, Taylor, J.Williams, Hockenson, Fant, Ed Oliver, Gary, Wilkins, Sweat, Burns, Ferrell, Bush. So there are 13 most likely names there. Out of these 13 five you want gone or are most likely gone before the 12^th pick: Lock, Metcalf, Taylor,  Sweat, Ed Oliver
Most likely pool of 8 our pick is from: J.Williams, Hockenson, Fant, Gary, Wilkins, Burns, Ferrell, Bush
Having said that these last two groups are interchangeable, names might switch between the two.

That means a scenario of a small trade down is on the cards and looks attractive with the following teams with the ability to still get a player from the pool above.
13^thMiami, 14^th Atlanta, 15^th Washington, 16^th Carolina, 17^th NYG, 18^th Minny, 19^th Tennessee

Using the draft chart these are potential deals:

Most likely trade partners:            1^st Carolina @ 17^th + 3^rd @ 77 our 1^st @12

                                                           1^st Washington @ 16^th + 3^rd @ 76 our 1^st @12

                                                            1^st Miami @ 13^th + 4^th @ 116 our 1^st @12

Why would Carolina trade? Need for WR Metcalf, or DL Wilkins or Gary. Why would Washington trade? Need for Lock, J.Williams or Metcalf. Why would Miami trade? Need for Lock, or Burns

Moving on to first round scenarios from 12 to 30. Again same thing, question mark denotes might be picked before 30 or not, no question mark by name means most certainly picked before 30.

QB
(1)    Lock
(2)    Jones (?)
(3)    Grier (?)

RB
(4)    Jacobs

WR
(5)    Metcalf
(6)    AJ Brown (?)
(7)    Butler (?)
(8)    Campbell (?)
(9)    Harry (?)

OL
(10) Williams
(11) Dillard
(12) Risner (?)
(13) Lindstrom (?)

TE
(14) Hockenson
(15) Fant

DL
(16) Gary
(17) Wilkins
(18) Lawrence (?)
(19) Tillery (?)
(20) Simmons (?)

Edge
(21) Burns
(22) Ferrell

ILB
(23) Bush

CB
(24) Williams (?)
(25) Baker (?)
(26) Murphy (?)

S
(27) Adderley (?)
(28) Abram (?)

There is a pool of 28 players that are likely to be picked from 12 to 30. Highly likely gone after 12 and won’t reach 30 are these 12:
Lock, Jacobs, Metcalf, J.Williams, Dillard, Hockenson, Fant, Gary, Wilkins, Burns, Ferrell, Bush

Another trade scenario here is a trade up from 30 plus our 4^th @ 114 to around 26 or 27 (Indy, Oakland) is an option if one of the above fell there.

Assuming the 12 above are gone, the pool you are realistically picking out of is these 16 players, with an additional six of these players gone before our pick at 30
Jones, Grier, AJ Brown, Butler, Campbell, Harry, Risner, Lindstrom, Lawrence, Tillery, Simmons, Williams, Baker, Murphy, Adderley, Abram

With such a large pool here another trade scenario of a trade back with teams at the top of the 2^nd round. Arizona, SF, Oakland, Tampa and Jacksonville We move back anywhere from 3 to 9 slots and pick up an extra 4^th rounder at the top of that round.

If we trade back from the 1^st to the top of the 2^nd potential positions out of this pool that we would want there are: WR, OL, DL, S, hence these 11 names. So a small trade down would still allow us to pick from the following: AJ Brown, Butler, Campbell, Harry, Risner, Lindstrom, Lawrence, Tillery, Simmons, Adderley, Abram

In conclusion, just in terms of trade scenarios. Trading back from 12^th to 15^th or 16^th gets you a 3^rd. Trading back from 30 to 33 or 39 gets you a high 4th rounder.

So in my mind the pools of players that we could pick from allows us to trade back both of our first round selections and we would go from having two 1^st rounders and get a 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd and a 4^th. Thereby giving Green Bay in total: 1^st, 2 x 2^nd, 2 x 3^rd, 3 x 4^th. 8 picks in the top 118 picks not bad for this draft. I feel for a draft where there is some real nice value as Chris Ballard said lot of equal talent from 15 through to the top of the third.

 

 

 

 

[Leader]

2 hours ago, Brit Pack said:

Just looking at scenarios and pools of players that potentially we could be picking from. First Round predictions before 12, question mark denotes might be picked before 12 or not, no question mark by name means most certainly picked before 12.

QB
(1)    Murray
(2)    Haskins
(3)    Lock (?)

RB
None

WR
(4)    Metcalf (?)

OL
(5)    Taylor
(6)    Williams (?)

TE
(7)    Hockenson (?)
(8)    Fant (?)

DL
(9)    Q Williams
(10) Ed Oliver (?)
(11) Gary (?)
(12) Wilkins (?)

Edge
(13) Bosa
(14) J. Allen
(15) Sweat (?)
(16) Burns (?)
(17) Ferrell (?)

ILB
(18) White
(19) Bush (?)

CB
None

S
None

Most likely gone before 12: Murray, Haskins, Q. Williams, Bosa, J. Allen, White. Those 6 are certain to go

So the pool we are picking out of at 12 is:
Lock, Metcalf, Taylor, J.Williams, Hockenson, Fant, Ed Oliver, Gary, Wilkins, Sweat, Burns, Ferrell, Bush. So there are 13 most likely names there. Out of these 13 five you want gone or are most likely gone before the 12^th pick: Lock, Metcalf, Taylor,  Sweat, Ed Oliver
Most likely pool of 8 our pick is from: J.Williams, Hockenson, Fant, Gary, Wilkins, Burns, Ferrell, Bush
Having said that these last two groups are interchangeable, names might switch between the two.

That means a scenario of a small trade down is on the cards and looks attractive with the following teams with the ability to still get a player from the pool above.
13^thMiami, 14^th Atlanta, 15^th Washington, 16^th Carolina, 17^th NYG, 18^th Minny, 19^th Tennessee

Using the draft chart these are potential deals:

Most likely trade partners:            1^st Carolina @ 17^th + 3^rd @ 77 our 1^st @12

                                                           1^st Washington @ 16^th + 3^rd @ 76 our 1^st @12

                                                            1^st Miami @ 13^th + 4^th @ 116 our 1^st @12

Why would Carolina trade? Need for WR Metcalf, or DL Wilkins or Gary. Why would Washington trade? Need for Lock, J.Williams or Metcalf. Why would Miami trade? Need for Lock, or Burns

In which case, Gute has these comments for Miami:

"Now listen you perennial losers. You AFC East pretenders. We're not doing this if you're thinking to put your hands on Burns. He's our Dude. Period. No if's, and's or but's. So...I'm willing to help you folks out. It probably wont do you any good....cause....well, you're beyond help to be honest....but I'm nothing if not charitable....but.....you cant be messing with our Dude.....you got that?"

[Brit Pack]

24 minutes ago, Leader said:

In which case, Gute has these comments for Miami:

"Now listen you perennial losers. You AFC East pretenders. We're not doing this if you're thinking to put your hands on Burns. He's our Dude. Period. No if's, and's or but's. So...I'm willing to help you folks out. It probably wont do you any good....cause....well, you're beyond help to be honest....but I'm nothing if not charitable....but.....you cant be messing with our Dude.....you got that?"

You meant to say Hockenson instead of Burns right...

[Leader]

18 minutes ago, Brit Pack said:

You meant to say Hockenson instead of Burns right...

I think Hockenson is gonna have an excellent NFL career....but when I consider the nuances of difference between him and Fant......I'd prefer Fant for our offense. Now - listened to a podcast yesterday and Ben Fennel made an interesting observation about Hockenson - and its potential connection to a MLF run offense:

Hockenson's superior inline skills allows the offense to better conceal its intentions. You move Fant out - you move him out - to take advantage of his superior receiving skills. He's not going to be supporting the run game a whole lot other than who can he drag away from the LOS for a potential runner. Hockenson doesnt "flag" the offense's intentions in so much as he could be blocking or releasing off the LOS......which (as was stated..) could dovetail better (or more) to a MLF offense - but - as @Packerraymond pointed out - you design your offense around AR - not the playbooks that got you here. 

If we chose either Fant or Hockenson I'd be pleased - but I lean more towards Fant.

As for Burns - I want that last "Wild Card" talent for our rush package - to be added NOW - to our current roster and FA talents to achieve a dominant pass rush. I've targeted Bush cause he seems to have the goods - and - he's always been been projected to be there at 12. I could care less if other ("superior") talents are going 1-10. Minus a trade up (which is unlikely from what I've heard.....) they're gonna be gone when our turn comes. I'll see them when we play them. Only question in my mind is the spread between Burns and Sweat. If both are there at 12 - which to choose. Sweats a stud football player. No questioning that - but - in considering nuances of talent I dont get into researching - Burns faster and has more flex to him - plus there's that heart thing with Sweat. Again - I'd probably be pleased with either talent cause both will be used in similar ways and hopefully produce similar results: opposing QBs getting hit, pressured, sacked more often ; rushing their passes more frequently ; giving our secondary better coverage loooks and missing in the passing game. 

[Golfman]

I think Dillard may be the top offensive lineman taken. Taylor is a RT only and Williams is going to wind up playing guard in the NFL. 

I'm not convinced of anything other than Bosa, Q. Williams and Allen are gone before we pick. Do the Cardinals actually pick Murray? No idea but one would think they are leaning that way which is either A. stupid or B. they know something about Josh Rosen the person they really do not like. He had a typical rookie year at QB, but he did show he could make all the throws and did show progress. 

If it plays out like this Oakland could be the one making the most noise to come and get Lock. 

 

[Hands]

Leader, some good thinking about the picks. If Gutsy had a guy in mind, I don't think he would risk a trade down and lose him. I'm obviously not sold on Burns, but whoever the Pack has targeted...they may trade down a few to a QB needed team but would plan to have the ability to grab their player or another guy on the same level.

[Golfman]

2 minutes ago, Hands said:

Leader, some good thinking about the picks. If Gutsy had a guy in mind, I don't think he would risk a trade down and lose him. I'm obviously not sold on Burns, but whoever the Pack has targeted...they may trade down a few to a QB needed team but would plan to have the ability to grab their player or another guy on the same level.

My understanding on the trade down is there is a gentlemen's agreement with the teams. You tell the team trading up who you want and do not deviate from that or the likelihood of finding future trading partners would be about gone. 

If, in Leaders scenario it was Miami, they would tell us who they are moving up to get and we'd still get our guy. I'd hold them hostage for a #2 pick though. It's a cat and mouse game and we need to be the cat. 

[Leader]

46 minutes ago, Hands said:

Leader, some good thinking about the picks. If Gutsy had a guy in mind, I don't think he would risk a trade down and lose him. I'm obviously not sold on Burns, but whoever the Pack has targeted...they may trade down a few to a QB needed team but would plan to have the ability to grab their player or another guy on the same level.

Another note about Sweat.......

The heart thing. I honestly dont know the specifics of it at all - only that something exists. Well - whatever it is better not be a potential issue down the line. If (potentially) so - you pass on the guy and snag a bona fide (read: clean bill of health) guy at 12.

Cant be having the best draft pick we've had in years getting way laid by a "pre-draft" health issue. That would be downright criminal. Mr. DK falls into this category as well IMO.

[Golfman]

3 minutes ago, Leader said:

Another note about Sweat.......

The heart thing. I honestly dont know the specifics of it at all - only that something exists. Well - whatever it is better not be a potential issue down the line. If (potentially) so - you pass on the guy and snag a bona fide (read: clean bill of health) guy at 12.

Cant be having the best draft pick we've had in years getting way laid by a "pre-draft" health issue. That would be downright criminal. Mr. DK falls into this category as well IMO.

What I read was most teams don't think it's a big deal. 

[Leader]

2 minutes ago, Golfman said:

What I read was most teams don't think it's a big deal. 

I'd really, really, really rather have Burns.....but if Sweat's what it takes to finish off that pass rush package....I'll consider it a goal achieved.

[MacReady]

I'm sick of scenarios.  Just give me the real thing. 

[{Family Ghost}]

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

I'm sick of scenarios.  Just give me the real thing. 

So true .. can't get here soon enough.  We've hashed and rehashed everything over and over.

[vegas492]

Just let it happen, man.  You can drive yourself nuts trying to look at all the scenarios that "could" happen.  GB has so much draft ammunition that they can do darned near anything.  Just a week and a half away.....  thankfully.

[JaireAlex]

Dillard is most likely the first OL gone.

 

95% sure Oliver is gone by eight. Detroit and Atlanta have a deal on the table that makes too much sense for both teams.

[Golfman]

2 hours ago, JaireAlex said:

Dillard is most likely the first OL gone.

 

95% sure Oliver is gone by eight. Detroit and Atlanta have a deal on the table that makes too much sense for both teams.

Says who besides you?