Total Take

[squire12]

4 minutes ago, Golfman said:

I don't believe they've had enough of a sample size to determine the percentage of people who have had it. You are correct on widespread testing. I don't see anther lock down coming. The economy will not handle it and again, the deaths from other things will be a lot higher than COVID-19 if we lock people down again and they lose everything. 

there does not need to be a lock down, but not allowing gatherings of 100 or more could very well be in play.   No fans, is a certain possibility.  How many players/coaches/staff are on a NFL sideline in any given game?  53 players, 15-20 coaches, equipment, training and medical staff, league staff from officials, chain crew, etc.   

[Cakeshoppe]

9 minutes ago, Golfman said:

I don't believe they've had enough of a sample size to determine the percentage of people who have had it. You are correct on widespread testing. I don't see anther lock down coming. The economy will not handle it and again, the deaths from other things will be a lot higher than COVID-19 if we lock people down again and they lose everything. 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/great-depression-had-little-effect-on-death-rates-46713514/  I'm not so sure that economic depression will actually translate into the mortality people are talking about in this regard. I'm also not sure that a running economy will do much better than a stagnant one in the face of thousands of deaths weekly.

The goal would be waves of shorter, smaller-scope measures, in order to avoid the widespread lockdowns we have now. But I doubt we'll be getting through the fall without some kind of social distancing measures in place.

2 minutes ago, squire12 said:

there does not need to be a lock down, but not allowing gatherings of 100 or more could very well be in play.   No fans, is a certain possibility.  How many players/coaches/staff are on a NFL sideline in any given game?  53 players, 15-20 coaches, equipment, training and medical staff, league staff from officials, chain crew, etc.   

Yep. If you want to run the league prior to a vaccine being available, you may looking at basically sequestering operation personnel and players for the duration of the season. Can it be done? Yeah, probably. Are the players and personnel willing to go through with that?

[Nick_gb]

1 hour ago, Jaire_Island said:

So who teams are going to draft?. 
Some randomized players off the street.?

Because college season ain’t going to happen too.

Good thing there's 2019 tape out there and not just 2020 tape eh?

[Nick_gb]

1 hour ago, HyponGrey said:

Is that assuming there's a 2020 College season, and a 2021 draft?

Why does the 2020 College season have anything to do with the 2021 draft? Correct, if there's no football this year then evaluating these players will mean you'll have to weigh heavily on the 2019 tape and potential -- there will be a lot more risk with the players and it's a trust your scouting department more than ever situation. However, no college football in 2020 doesn't mean the NFL draft will not happen in 2021. The two aren't related. 

[Striker]

I, for one, want the season to be canceled, the Packers luck into the #1 pick, and then draft Trevor Lawrence. And then your QB room is Rodgers, Lawrence, Love.

CONTROVERSY!

[PossibleCabbage]

49 minutes ago, Nick_gb said:

Good thing there's 2019 tape out there and not just 2020 tape eh?

I mean the CBA says that you need to be 3 years out of high school to declare for the NFL draft.  It doesn't mean "3 seasons of college football"- you could spend 3 years studying at the Shaolin temple for all the CBA cares.  Lot of people playing CFB last year would have liked to get paid for their efforts but were unable to because they were only 1-2 years out of HS.  So while Dabo might be able to sell Lawrence on "come back and win a championship" there's a lot of players who could pull down an NFL paycheck who aren't on teams that will sniff the CFB playoff.

[incognito_man]

I wonder if this won't go down, not only as the best Packer draft class ever, but the best draft class in NFL history.

[Gypsy1027]

Incog might be right about this year's draft...but there plenty of folks in Packer Nation wondering if this won't go down as not only the worst Packer draft class ever, but the best draft class in NFL history. A backup QB to hold a clipboard for several years, a pounder RB, a bunch of medium-sized blockers, no WR, no good-sized OT, and no DT? Hmmmm.

[beekay414]

Total take? They have a plan of what they want to do. That's really all you can take from this draft. I'll let their on field play dictate my assessment of the class. Until then, speculate away. 

[Nick_gb]

My take: It would have been better to take Hurts in the third-round as opposed to an H-back, because then Packer fans could at least get the take away that Love Hurts.

Sorry not sorry!

[Gypsy1027]

LMAO! That's pretty funny, Nick-gb!

[PossibleCabbage]

28 minutes ago, Gypsy1027 said:

worst Packer draft class ever

2004 is going to be really hard to beat.

And actually 1981 has it beat, with a cumulative career AV of 43.  Scott Wells alone beats that.

 

Edited April 26, 2020 by PossibleCabbage

[Gypsy1027]

And I forgot to mention no CB this year either. (Scott is a safety.)

[Jaire_Island]

Can’t say anything now.

What if we have drafted Partick Mahomes,  Adrian Peterson and Kyle Zingchak in 1st 3 rounds.

In gutey we trust...

[PossibleCabbage]

I mean, the secret of the draft is not to get "good value" when we just define value as "where a player is ranked on the board I place the most stock in."  The secret of the draft is to be right.  50% of first round picks on average don't amount to much, so getting them later than [insert draftnik here] has them ranked is not really important.