Jump to content

Lieker Mock 1.0 2020


Lieker

Recommended Posts

1st (30th) WR Justin Jefferson LSU 

6’1 202 LB RAS: 9.69

 

+Smooth Athlete. 

+Route running should play Week 1

+Ability to play outside and from the slot.

+Drops shouldn’t be an issue

-Is he a deep threat?

-Product of the system/talent around him?

-Size. Not small, but is he big enough to fit Gute’s prototype?

-Thin frame. Blocking ability?

 

2nd (62nd) OT Prince Tega Wanogho

Auburn 6’5 308 LB RAS: NA

 

+Fluid mover

+Looks the part. Very little bad weight. Enough length.

+/-Still learning the position. New to the Sport. High Ceiling?

-Could add some bulk.

-Inconsistent Hands

-Raw in general. Can he play year 1?

 

 

3rd (94th) S/Slot Terrell Burgess Utah

5’11 202 LB RAS: 8.11

 

+Good all around athlete.

+Converted CB who can play Deep safety as well as slot.

+Fluid hips

+Man skills 

+Willing tackler with a hot motor.

-Lacking in size.

-Arm length

-Ball production doesn’t blow you away

 

4th (136th) ILB Logan Wilson Wyoming 

6’2 241 LB RAS: 8.85

 

+Processing in run game

+Strong athletic numbers

+Zone coverage is not a liability 

+Quick trigger without playing out of control

-Level of Competition isn’t great

-Not a guy you want in man coverage 

-Good not great athlete 

 

5th (175th) TE Dalton Keene Virginia Tech

6’4 253 LB RAS: 9.35

 

+Strong Hands

+Combine standout

+Has reps at a variety of positions (TE, H-Back, Fullback, ST)

+RAC ability

+/-Willing blocker. Needs work. Strength?

-Too similar to Sternberger?

-Limited routes he was asked to run

 

 

6th (192nd) EDGE Johnathan Garvin Miami 6’4 263 LB RAS: 8.96

 

+Pettine style frame

+Long arms utilized well in the run game

+Limited amount of pass rush moves but effective 

+Disciplined in playing the run

-Okay first step 

-Lacking bend?

-Inconsistency with Pad level

 

 

6th (208th) CB Nevelle Clarke UCF

6’1 190 LB RAS: 5.05*

 

+Length and frame reminds me of King

+Some success using length in Press

+Shows ball skills/instincts in zone

+Fluid hips

-Strength

-Footwork can be sloppy

-Won’t be confused for a safety when tackling

 

6th (209th) IDL Mike Panasiuk Michigan St 6’3 300 LB RAS: NA

 

+Stud run defender. Lancaster’s replacement?

+Shown ability to 1 or 2 gap in run game

+Strong NFL ready frame

+Rarely out of position

-Has shown little pass rush ability 

+/-Has physical tools to be effective pocket pusher

 

7th (236th) RB JaMycal Hasty Baylor

5’8 205 LB RAS: 6.90

 

+Dense frame

+Has hips and quick twitch to make guys miss in tight quarters 

+Former sprinter

+Solid contact balance

+Decisive runner

+Versatile. Effective catching out of backfield, played some slot, return ability, kickoff coverage team.

+/-Not a liability as a blocker. Willing but size hurts him at times.

-Small. Not your ideal short yardage back. 

*Aaron Jones-esque? Replacement?

 

7th (242nd) IOL Gage Cervenka Clemson

6’2 7/8 321 RAS: 5.00*

 

+Powerful build. Former IDL.

+Experience at Center and Guard

+Impressive anchor strength

-Raw. Lot of work to do with technique.

-Can he play year 1? PS?

-Can he make proper reads pre snap?

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Golfman said:

I like it! I think most would want us to address D-line earlier, but there aren't enough picks early to satisfy all of our needs. Also, a good chance the board may not fall in our favor regarding D-line. 

Agreed. I’d like to address defensive line as much as the next guy but the value never aligned with earlier picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, badgers0821 said:

Not terrible but we can’t wait until the 6th to address DL, outside of WR it’s our #1 need.

Understandable. But in this scenario the value was never there. If the board plays out like this in real life the Packers would either have to reach on an IDL or make a trade up/back to get value. I get the feeling the Packers aren't too worried about the position based off how they haven’t addressed it in a relatively deep IDL FA class. Pretty weak IDL draft class at the top (2 studs and then huge drop off) with okay depth later in the draft. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if the Packers are more likely to address EDGE earlier than IDL. 

Edited by Lieker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clarke, Hasty, Gage and Cervenka, were four of my later round likes that I see you drafted. I'd probably have taken the slightly undersized RB Reggie Corbin (5'10, 200) over Hasty (5'8", 203), but I like them both. I also liked that you put in RAS scores where you could, we know that Gute loves high RAS.

Edited by OneTwoSixFive
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

Clarke, Hasty, Gage and Cervenka, were four of my later round likes that I see you drafted. I'd probably have taken the slightly undersized RB Reggie Corbin (5'10, 200) over Hasty (5'8", 203), but I like them both. I also liked that you put in RAS scores where you could, we know that Gute loves high RAS.

I like Corbin too. I’ve seen his name in quite a few mocks so my goal was to put some new names in my mock that fit Packer needs as well as meet what we look for at each position under this regime.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lieker said:

Understandable. But in this scenario the value was never there. If the board plays out like this in real life the Packers would either have to reach on an IDL or make a trade up/back to get value. I get the feeling the Packers aren't too worried about the position based off how they haven’t addressed it in a relatively deep IDL FA class. Pretty weak IDL draft class at the top (2 studs and then huge drop off) with okay depth later in the draft. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if the Packers are more likely to address EDGE earlier than IDL. 

Value is relative and without an entire draft I have no way of knowing who was available at those spots. My guess is they didn’t address it in FA because they didn’t have the funds to do so.

What makes you think they would go EDGE? It’s hard to imagine they would invest too much more capital at that position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, badgers0821 said:

Value is relative and without an entire draft I have no way of knowing who was available at those spots. My guess is they didn’t address it in FA because they didn’t have the funds to do so.

What makes you think they would go EDGE? It’s hard to imagine they would invest too much more capital at that position. 

They’ve met with 5 different EDGE’s throughout the off-season circuit, some early round prospects. We also have lost Fackrell this offseason. It’s not a huge priority to me, but it might be to the Packers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...