MacReady Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 (edited) ^That might be my favorite post of mine this decade. Edited March 28, 2020 by Outpost31 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 (edited) Just now, Outpost31 said: Just now, British said: Where does Keke fit into this equation do you think? Alphabetically right between Janis and Lyerla. Edited March 28, 2020 by Outpost31 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 3 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said: You need 4, Lancaster as your 4 is fine. Lowry as your 3 is fine. Clark as your 1 is fine. We need a second guy 1. Alex, how are you factoring in draft pick for this? Second guy, PLUS a Day 1/2 draft pick? Or just need a second guy, whether from outside, from draft, or from inside? 2. I guess I'm wondering whether they are just hoping that between spending a Day 1/2 pick, and with perhaps hoping that Keke develops, that maybe they'll be OK? Not great but hopefully at least variably anti-awful, as is? Just looking at the 90-man, they only list five DL, so it's not like there is a crowd of PS guys potentially rising. Lowry lists at 297; Keke at only 288. Is Keke a guy who'll be on a massive mass/strength buildup, with or without PEDs, and will try to reshape himself into a capable run-stop guy? Otherwise I'm not sure I really see him as a guy who scouts as a a good run-stop guy. Maybe OK and anti-awful; but *IF* he's to actually emerge into a good DL, I kinda imagine him being more of a quickness/penetration guy than a power run-stopper. I'm no scout; am I maybe wrong on this? So *IF* a lot of posters are primarily concerned about run defense up front, I'm not sure that Keke is a great prospect to pin our hopes on? 3. The Packers, of course, make the decisions, not board posters. It's well possible that the Packers are NOT primarily concerned about run defense? They went 13-3 with whatever run vulnerability they had; perhaps they figure that really isn't such a priority? And that between some scheme modifications to avoid being outnumbered in the box, as Alex has discussed; AND some internal improvements, perhaps Keke included; AND adding a Day 1/2 draft pick to the mix, that fattening up the D-line isn't really a big priority? That they've got more problems on offense and ILB to prioritize with very limited resources? 4. Would BOTH using a Day 1/2 pick AND signing Wolfe or some external guy fit? In other words, do they really want to dedicate 7 roster spots to DL, would that be fine? Or is 7 actually too many, given the limited number of snaps in which 3 linemen play? So that *IF* you added both a FA AND added a high-round pick, you'd be up to 7 and you'd need to cut somebody anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JQ1 Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 (edited) I was playing around with this Draft Tek trade value chart, and thought it’s a fun tool with which to play around: A Trade Value Chart I was tinkering with a trade with the Bengals for the Packers to trade their 1st, 4th, and one 7th; for Cincy’s 2nd and 4th. According to the chart, GB gets a value 660 and Cincy a 659. I think Gutekunst could get creative with two 2nd rounders, and GB only drops three places in the draft. The Packers would net the first picks in day 2 and day 3 of the draft, plus still have pick 62 in the 2nd round. Edited March 28, 2020 by JQ1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 Because Keke turning into anything is as big a pipe dream as Janis and Lyerla were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBURGE Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 no one say anything 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 9 minutes ago, JBURGE said: no one say anything This is my favorite post of yours this decade. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted March 28, 2020 Author Share Posted March 28, 2020 4 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: This is my favorite post of yours this decade. Your favorite of mine this decade 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 (edited) Edited March 28, 2020 by Outpost31 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 14 minutes ago, craig said: 1. Alex, how are you factoring in draft pick for this? Second guy, PLUS a Day 1/2 draft pick? Or just need a second guy, whether from outside, from draft, or from inside? 2. I guess I'm wondering whether they are just hoping that between spending a Day 1/2 pick, and with perhaps hoping that Keke develops, that maybe they'll be OK? Not great but hopefully at least variably anti-awful, as is? Just looking at the 90-man, they only list five DL, so it's not like there is a crowd of PS guys potentially rising. Lowry lists at 297; Keke at only 288. Is Keke a guy who'll be on a massive mass/strength buildup, with or without PEDs, and will try to reshape himself into a capable run-stop guy? I'm going to be incredibly rude and jump into this one because AG20 and I seem to see eye-to-eye on this one, though I am not speaking for them. We need both a second and a third guy. Lowry had an off year last year and if he doesn't improve this year, we should be done with him regardless of how friendly his contract may be. There were several times, in particular in the Chargers game, where he couldn't beat a double team because opposing OL were able to stop his arms and easily drive him out of the play. SF did this frequently as well; mainly in the first loss. I think we draft multiple guys TBH though it'll most certainly be one guy in the first 3 rounds with Blacklock, Davis, and Madubuike being viable targets regardless of our own analysis of the players. That said, here's Keke's write-up from the combine. Note the very first item in the "strengths" category. Think that may answer your question. https://www.nfl.com/prospects/kingsley-keke?id=32194b45-4b60-0025-6f69-065bb81d9a1c Personally, I actually really liked the pick and feel he can develop into that 3rd guy with more reps, but I'd personally like to see more investment there as we need as much competition as possible. Lancaster's not a long-term solution, Lowry's extension(so far at least) was a mistake, we all know Adams may be a camp cut, we moved Looney over to TE, and if we can't re-sign or extend Kenny long-term we're most certainly going to have to reinvent that DL, which nobody wants to see happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 1 hour ago, craig said: 1. Alex, how are you factoring in draft pick for this? Second guy, PLUS a Day 1/2 draft pick? Or just need a second guy, whether from outside, from draft, or from inside? 2. I guess I'm wondering whether they are just hoping that between spending a Day 1/2 pick, and with perhaps hoping that Keke develops, that maybe they'll be OK? Not great but hopefully at least variably anti-awful, as is? Just looking at the 90-man, they only list five DL, so it's not like there is a crowd of PS guys potentially rising. Lowry lists at 297; Keke at only 288. Is Keke a guy who'll be on a massive mass/strength buildup, with or without PEDs, and will try to reshape himself into a capable run-stop guy? Otherwise I'm not sure I really see him as a guy who scouts as a a good run-stop guy. Maybe OK and anti-awful; but *IF* he's to actually emerge into a good DL, I kinda imagine him being more of a quickness/penetration guy than a power run-stopper. I'm no scout; am I maybe wrong on this? So *IF* a lot of posters are primarily concerned about run defense up front, I'm not sure that Keke is a great prospect to pin our hopes on? 3. The Packers, of course, make the decisions, not board posters. It's well possible that the Packers are NOT primarily concerned about run defense? They went 13-3 with whatever run vulnerability they had; perhaps they figure that really isn't such a priority? And that between some scheme modifications to avoid being outnumbered in the box, as Alex has discussed; AND some internal improvements, perhaps Keke included; AND adding a Day 1/2 draft pick to the mix, that fattening up the D-line isn't really a big priority? That they've got more problems on offense and ILB to prioritize with very limited resources? 4. Would BOTH using a Day 1/2 pick AND signing Wolfe or some external guy fit? In other words, do they really want to dedicate 7 roster spots to DL, would that be fine? Or is 7 actually too many, given the limited number of snaps in which 3 linemen play? So that *IF* you added both a FA AND added a high-round pick, you'd be up to 7 and you'd need to cut somebody anyway? I'll start out by saying that I think Packer fans are way more down on the defensive line than the organization is. I think the fans are of the opinion that Lowry is terrible, Lancaster is worse, Adams is a complete bust, Keke is nothing, and that we got killed on the ground against the 49ers because the defensive line played terribly, because they suck. I think the organization believes that Lowry is a solid player, Lancaster is a good role player, Adams had a good chance of putting it together this offseason and being Lowry+, Keke might turn into something, and we lost against the 49ers because of coaching strategy. So I'm not sure the organization feels they need to do anything other than add a warm body to the room. For as much as we play 3 DL. We almost never play more than that, and definitely don't play more than 4 in a game. I can't imagine that the organization cares at all about the 5th and 6th spots except for developmental guys. Personally on the drafted guys, Unless the guy is a first rounder, I probably don't count him as anything other than a #4 right now. That's just a very difficult position to have any success at immediately outside of being a pure run plug, and we already have that in Lancaster. I think Packer fans are going to need to buy into the idea that run stopping isn't necessarily about having a 315lb guy in there. Length can make up for a "lack" of weight in this scheme in a way that wasn't really true in Capers scheme. I'd rather have a guy at 6'5 295 playing Defensive End here than a 6'2 315 guy. As far as the roster spaces issue, I think that would be a matter of who you drafted or brought in as a free agent. If you bring in Harrison on a 2 year deal, Lancaster becomes kinda redundant and you then have a 3 way fight for two roster spots between Lancaster, Adams, and Keke. If you bring in Wolfe, Lancaster probably stays and you have Adams and Keke fighting for one spot. All of this obviously dependent on final roster composition. Maybe you make the room to keep them all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KManX89 Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 (edited) Vikes signing Sharpe makes me feel a little better about Jefferson falling to us. We still have a glaring hole at DE, though. We could use 2 DL, but need at least one plug-and-play for sure. Here's hoping we sign Derek Wolfe at a respectable deal. Hopefully his price tag has been lowered enough for us to nab him. Edited March 28, 2020 by KManX89 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
festiveonion Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 1 hour ago, JQ1 said: I was playing around with this Draft Tek trade value chart, and thought it’s a fun tool with which to play around: A Trade Value Chart I was tinkering with a trade with the Bengals for the Packers to trade their 1st, 4th, and one 7th; for Cincy’s 2nd and 4th. According to the chart, GB gets a value 660 and Cincy a 659. I think Gutekunst could get creative with two 2nd rounders, and GB only drops three places in the draft. The Packers would net the first picks in day 2 and day 3 of the draft, plus still have pick 62 in the 2nd round. If we’re giving up a 5th year option I hope we get a better return than that 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JQ1 Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, festiveonion said: If we’re giving up a 5th year option I hope we get a better return than that I stated in another post; we don’t know the value Gute places on that 5th year option. I’m neither agreeing or disagreeing with the trade-down option-simply pointing out the trade value that move would have according to the source cited. Having written that, I wonder if the creators of these “trade-value” apps weight the 5th year option. Edited March 28, 2020 by JQ1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 1 hour ago, festiveonion said: If we’re giving up a 5th year option I hope we get a better return than that Thanks for sharing that very important point. I much wish we had that extra year of control for King. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.