rcon14 Mock 5.0

[gizmo2012]

Your first round picks seem reasonable but I am doubting Hochensen will be there at 17. Pickign a TE as the 1st doubtful leads to a WR pick next pick. The need is just not that huge. I see safety or OL or even DL more than WR.  Thornhill at 37 seems way way too high and Winovich will likely be gone at 44. The rest of your draft seems reasonable where you have them slotted. 

[AlexGreen#20]

15 minutes ago, SSG said:

A better question is what games did you watch?  Hock was clearly the better player last year.  He was more impressive in the games and in the combine position workouts.  Funny that you are all about Fant now after completely trashing him a month ago.  Makes me wonder if like him more for his combine workout than his play on the field.  There is absolutely no debating that Hock is the crisper route runner with better hands.  

Wisconsin, Mississippi State, Iowa State, and Penn State

Hock was the better player last year. If this was college 2.0, Hock would definitely be the guy. This is not college 2.0. 

He was not more impressive in the combine workouts. Either positionally or the straight athletic tests from what I was able to watch.

1. I'm not all about Fant. Never have been. If the board is destroyed at 12, I would attempt to trade back to 20 where I might consider Fant along with a handful of other guys.

2. I have never completely trashed Fant. I have no idea where you're pulling this from.

I knocked Hock for his combine, bumped Fant for his. That's what happens when one has average speed and one is a blazer at the same size.

There absolutely is room to debate the quality of Hock's route running. That's why I'm asking the question, which game is either of these Iowa TEs running anything complex? Fant isn't doing much of it either but he's at least used in the iso situations that good pro TEs get used and I know he can win vertical.

 

 

 

 

[deathstar]

53 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

 

1. I'm not all about Fant. Never have been. If the board is destroyed at 12, I would attempt to trade back to 20 where I might consider Fant along with a handful of other guys.

 

 

How do you feel about Fant's hands?

[AlexGreen#20]

5 minutes ago, deathstar said:

How do you feel about Fant's hands? 

Adequate, I think people love Hock a little too much and are now doing the thing where they're putting down the other guy.

[cannondale]

Reality MAY be settling in a bit. Some scouts interviewed have Hock and Fant as late First early Second rounders. So don't be surprised if they fall to there. You never really know for sure

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, cannondale said:

Reality MAY be settling in a bit. Some scouts interviewed have Hock and Fant as late First early Second rounders. So don't be surprised if they fall to there. You never really know for sure

Maybe they are scouts of teams picking around 15

[JaireAlex]

I don't like Thornhill or Winovich and really want another DL at the top. Like the other picks, esp that last pic. Hock and Butler would be really interesting  and scary (though I prefer round three and later TEs).  Campbell is my top WR for GB fit and improvement. Butler is like fun candy, but he  or Harry, beginning in the slot would be the plan I'd think.

This DL class is really the gold of the draft imo and Hill is very nice with better guys earlier --- could set up the defense big time for years.

[JaireAlex]

On 4/19/2019 at 5:30 AM, cannondale said:

So - in a nutshell - you guys would rather have Hockenson / Hill over Oliver / Knox ??

Oliver is a four-three and will be gone. I don't want him at all just cuz he belongs in a 4-3. I prefer Simmons (or Lawrence/Tillery)/Hill and Moreau day three. DL is the best value in the draft at every pick day one and two imo.

 

And I've kind of settled my mind on TWO DL rounds 1-4. One or two edge 30-118. One OL. One WR at 30-118.

[Packer_ESP]

25 minutes ago, JaireAlex said:

Oliver is a four-three and will be gone. I don't want him at all just cuz he belongs in a 4-3. I prefer Simmons (or Lawrence/Tillery)

Oliver, Simmons and Tillery are 3 tech guys. If I'm not mistaken, our most played alignment (nickel) features a 1-tech (Clark) and a 3-tech (Daniels). What makes Oliver unsuitable to play 3 tech for us and why is it different with Simmons or Tillery?

[JaireAlex]

2 minutes ago, Packer_ESP said:

Oliver, Simmons and Tillery are 3 tech guys. If I'm not mistaken, our most played alignment (nickel) features a 1-tech (Clark) and a 3-tech (Daniels). What makes Oliver unsuitable to play 3 tech for us and why is it different with Simmons or Tillery?

Every one I have read (outside this forum) has Oliver as a 4-3. He's not big enough for a three tech in a 3-4. Oliver's play weight is going to be 280ish.  He's a two down player in our defense, but a three down in a four three. He simply fits there.

 

I liked Simms break down because he shows some of the problems with Simmons and with Wilkins. Lawrence I bump up. Calling him a stuffer is just plain wrong. He was as underused as Oliver and is much more a fit for GB. He's an upgrade over Clark. But I grade him based on being a three down player. He didn't need to come off at Clemson. That downgrade I think is just mistaken. He's a rare prospect, much better than Raji. DT is the top position on defense for me still, and Pettine can generate pass rush everywhere. I think he can play anywhere on the line in our defense on any down. That gives him big value in Pettine's system. Wilkins, Simmons, and Tillery all can move around too. For Oliver to fit, he probably plays some OLB in order to be multiple. I guess that would work. Just trying to see what spots (more than one) he can play. But bottom line is Oliver will be gone before the Bills and I doubt they pass on him if he somehow slips.

Simmons and Tillery are just a lot bigger guys and both can probably be grabbed at 20 as opposed to top ten, to answer your question. They are very comparable athletically -- and I'll take bigger. If we had a four three that would be different.  Don't see Pettine wanting such a small guy. But my final board for GB is probably Q Williams (only guy I move up for), Lawrence, Simmons, Tillery, Bosa, Wilkins. my top six. I love the DL. Oliver is right there if they have a plan for him but his character docks him as well. I don't want to even deal with Oliver. That plays big in GB, esp this year.

[rcon14]

1 hour ago, JaireAlex said:

Every one I have read (outside this forum) has Oliver as a 4-3. He's not big enough for a three tech in a 3-4. Oliver's play weight is going to be 280ish.  He's a two down player in our defense, but a three down in a four three. He simply fits there.

What are you talking about... In a standard 3-4 alignment, there is no 3-tech, there is a 0 and two 5s. In a 3-4 under, you've got a 1, 5, and 3. That's really the only 3-4 set that uses a 3-tech, and even then it can be a 4i if you want, there's some flexibility there.

In a 4-3 front, nearly all of them utilize a 3-tech. The standard 4-3 alignment is 1/3/7/7, the under and over fronts both use 3-techs. If playing 3-tech in base was a problem, he'd be a BETTER fit for a 3-4 where he could at least play 5 or 4i.

Then, not to mention the lack of snaps required for a "base front." According to Sharp Football Stats, the entire league used personnel groupings associated with base defense (i.e. 2 for fewer receivers) on just 30% of plays. Compare that to just 11 personnel by itself, which was 66% of plays. The only team that used a non-11 personnel grouping more than 11-personnel was the Niners.

So then let's factor in the fact that GB likes "Big Nickel" (3 safeties, 2 CBs, 4 linemen, 2 backers). This formation is predominantly used against 12 personnel (1 RB, 2 TE). So that's 16% lopped off that 30%. So now we're talking about between 14-20% of plays in which you are in traditional "base." Base is dead, everyone's base is nickel, which all has the same alignment (1/3/7/7). Any discussion about 3-4/4-3 is archaic and needs to die in 2005 where it belongs.

[JaireAlex]

6 minutes ago, rcon14 said:

What are you talking about... In a standard 3-4 alignment, there is no 3-tech, there is a 0 and two 5s. In a 3-4 under, you've got a 1, 5, and 3. That's really the only 3-4 set that uses a 3-tech, and even then it can be a 4i if you want, there's some flexibility there.

In a 4-3 front, nearly all of them utilize a 3-tech. The standard 4-3 alignment is 1/3/7/7, the under and over fronts both use 3-techs. If playing 3-tech in base was a problem, he'd be a BETTER fit for a 3-4 where he could at least play 5 or 4i.

Then, not to mention the lack of snaps required for a "base front." According to Sharp Football Stats, the entire league used personnel groupings associated with base defense (i.e. 2 for fewer receivers) on just 30% of plays. Compare that to just 11 personnel by itself, which was 66% of plays. The only team that used a non-11 personnel grouping more than 11-personnel was the Niners.

So then let's factor in the fact that GB likes "Big Nickel" (3 safeties, 2 CBs, 4 linemen, 2 backers). This formation is predominantly used against 12 personnel (1 RB, 2 TE). So that's 16% lopped off that 30%. So now we're talking about between 14-20% of plays in which you are in traditional "base." Base is dead, everyone's base is nickel, which all has the same alignment (1/3/7/7). Any discussion about 3-4/4-3 is archaic and needs to die in 2005 where it belongs.

Oliver can get pushed around in the run, just like happens with his comp with the Rams. His fit is a four three where he'll play every down. You still don't have him playing every down in GB. He won't get drafted in round one unless he can. period. end of story. Pettine doesn't play Capers system.

 

Now, if you think he can play some olb and ilb, then he has three down value. GB won't spend a top twenty on a two down player.

"What are you talking about": just what every one else outside here is talking about. I get what our base is. I still can't see that Oliver is higher than a Lawrence , Simmons, Tillery, or Wilkins (maybe) on the GB board. Just a different opinion than yours. It's you that doesn't seem to "get it." Not everyone thinks like you. A 340 penetrating freight train like Lawrence is waaaaay more appealing to me than Oliver. Lawrence was not asked to rush last year and still got pressure. He was asked to rush as a freshman and was almost unstoppable.

[rcon14]

8 minutes ago, JaireAlex said:

Oliver can get pushed around in the run, just like happens with his comp with the Rams. His fit is a four three where he'll play every down. You still don't have him playing every down in GB. He won't get drafted in round one unless he can. period. end of story. Pettine doesn't play Capers system.

 

Now, if you think he can play some olb and ilb, then he has three down value. GB won't spend a top twenty on a two down player.

"What are you talking about": just what every one else outside here is talking about. I get what our base is. I still can't see that Oliver is higher than a Lawrence , Simmons, Tillery, or Wilkins (maybe) on the GB board. Just a different opinion than yours. It's you that doesn't seem to "get it." Not everyone thinks like you. A 340 penetrating freight train like Lawrence is waaaaay more appealing to me than Oliver. Lawrence was not asked to rush last year and still got pressure. He was asked to rush as a freshman and was almost unstoppable.

You didn't explain anything to defend your position. You just ignored the fact that I picked your argument about him as a 3-tech apart. You said he can't play 3T, 4-3 REQUIRES A 3T ON VIRTUALLY EVERY PLAY.

You can like Dexter Lawrence, that's totally fine. You can even have questions about Ed Oliver, sure. Don't come in here talking about what base he can play in without understanding what you're saying.

It ain't me, bud, it's you.

[AlexGreen#20]

8 hours ago, JaireAlex said:

Oliver can get pushed around in the run, just like happens with his comp with the Rams. His fit is a four three where he'll play every down. You still don't have him playing every down in GB. He won't get drafted in round one unless he can. period. end of story. Pettine doesn't play Capers system.

 

Now, if you think he can play some olb and ilb, then he has three down value. GB won't spend a top twenty on a two down player.

"What are you talking about": just what every one else outside here is talking about. I get what our base is. I still can't see that Oliver is higher than a Lawrence , Simmons, Tillery, or Wilkins (maybe) on the GB board. Just a different opinion than yours. It's you that doesn't seem to "get it." Not everyone thinks like you. A 340 penetrating freight train like Lawrence is waaaaay more appealing to me than Oliver. Lawrence was not asked to rush last year and still got pressure. He was asked to rush as a freshman and was almost unstoppable.

What is our base?

[incognito_man]

9 hours ago, rcon14 said:

What are you talking about... In a standard 3-4 alignment, there is no 3-tech, there is a 0 and two 5s. In a 3-4 under, you've got a 1, 5, and 3. That's really the only 3-4 set that uses a 3-tech, and even then it can be a 4i if you want, there's some flexibility there.

In a 4-3 front, nearly all of them utilize a 3-tech. The standard 4-3 alignment is 1/3/7/7, the under and over fronts both use 3-techs. If playing 3-tech in base was a problem, he'd be a BETTER fit for a 3-4 where he could at least play 5 or 4i.

Then, not to mention the lack of snaps required for a "base front." According to Sharp Football Stats, the entire league used personnel groupings associated with base defense (i.e. 2 for fewer receivers) on just 30% of plays. Compare that to just 11 personnel by itself, which was 66% of plays. The only team that used a non-11 personnel grouping more than 11-personnel was the Niners.

So then let's factor in the fact that GB likes "Big Nickel" (3 safeties, 2 CBs, 4 linemen, 2 backers). This formation is predominantly used against 12 personnel (1 RB, 2 TE). So that's 16% lopped off that 30%. So now we're talking about between 14-20% of plays in which you are in traditional "base." Base is dead, everyone's base is nickel, which all has the same alignment (1/3/7/7). Any discussion about 3-4/4-3 is archaic and needs to die in 2005 where it belongs.

What 1/3/7/7 do you prefer:

Clark/Oliver/Smith/Smith

Lawrence/Clark/Smith/Smith

Just curious what people think of Clark as 3T (or 5T even).