Jump to content

2021 NFL Draft Thread


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Norm said:

I might be off base but I don't think King and Randall have the same sort of attitude in regards what was brought up here.

My bad. I didn't mean to suggest that King was a thug. Just that I question his IQ. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, cannondale said:

Randall's IQ was thug. His RAS was fine

Just to clear this up, you’re under the impression that Randall is a professional violent criminal?

Edited by Fl0nkerton
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, vegas492 said:

Just cuz I don't know how....

Can anyone pull a RAS score from Damarius Randall and compare it to Holland?

I'm gonna admit to watching about 45 seconds of Holland tape.  Next to nothing.  But he sure looks a lot quicker and more physical than Randall.  Like Holland appears to be a great fit as a slot/hybrid player.  And if GB still loves them some Sullivan on the pure slot, Holland is oh so much 1000% better than Will Redmond in that 3rd safety role.

I'm starting to love on Holland, despite not seeing a lot of him.  Hoping his RAS is better.

Randall would have been a damn good hybrid S/slot CB player as well. The problem there was drafting a safety and instantly moving him to boundary CB, which was dumb. Randall actually made quite a few plays while being an inconsistent player at a position he should not have been playing. 

Drafting Holland and moving him to boundary CB would be stupid as well. Which is why we should draft him and play him as the 3rd safety/slot CB where he will excel. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Randall would have been a damn good hybrid S/slot CB player as well. The problem there was drafting a safety and instantly moving him to boundary CB, which was dumb. Randall actually made quite a few plays while being an inconsistent player at a position he should not have been playing. 

Drafting Holland and moving him to boundary CB would be stupid as well. Which is why we should draft him and play him as the 3rd safety/slot CB where he will excel. 

No outside CB is probably the best spot for Randall. It's why he's not in the league anymore. You can't play around the LOS or be the last line of defense and be as soft as Randall was.

Packers FO nailed the physical eval and football eval but whiffed hard on the mental eval.

Randall should still be playing in the NFL, he's certainly talented enough. Same with HHCD, certainly good enough. But the league is doing away with soft DBs and the two of them certainly fit that bill.

Like Savage and King may suck at tackling, but they throw their bodies around in an attempt to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brady Christensen tested so well I'd be nervous he doesn't make it to #62. Yes, we need Secondary help. But we also need an OT. If predictions are true, ideal fits like Jenkins and Darrisaw are off the board well before #29. Unless say a 1st tier CB like Farley is still on the board at #29, then  I do wonder if they might best trade a bit down from #29 and trade up a bit from #62, so as to secure a 2nd tier CB and OT. I'd be ok with that. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DWhitehurst said:

Brady Christensen tested so well I'd be nervous he doesn't make it to #62. Yes, we need Secondary help. But we also need an OT. If predictions are true, ideal fits like Jenkins and Darrisaw are off the board well before #29. Unless say a 1st tier CB like Farley is still on the board at #29, then  I do wonder if they might best trade a bit down from #29 and trade up a bit from #62, so as to secure a 2nd tier CB and OT. I'd be ok with that. 

OT certainly has to be the front-runner at 29 from a position standpoint. It's overwhelmingly the strongest/deepest position in terms of late 1st round talent. Add the fact that because the Packers resigned King and brought back Sullivan, the CB need isn't "immediate." Conversely, right now the Packers are slated to go into Week 1 without 4 guys from last year's squad who were in their top 6-7 OL: Bakh, Linsley, Taylor, Wagner. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

hard pass on Christiansen for reasons

Walker Little is extremely intriguing. Could be great value at 29. Would be pleased with that pick.

Got problems with Mormons huh....😂

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fl0nkerton said:

Pretend we traded up with ATL. Who are you taking at #4 

Bad spot to be in tbh. Only player I would really consider is Sewell, but then you're drafting a guy at No. 4 to play RT because you have Bakh long term...

Bad year to have No. 4 unless you need a QB because there are no premium pass rushers. Too high to take a WR even though Jamarr Chase would be cool. Probably too high for Surtain and Horn as well because they're good, but probably not top 5 good. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

OT certainly has to be the front-runner at 29 from a position standpoint. It's overwhelmingly the strongest/deepest position in terms of late 1st round talent. Add the fact that because the Packers resigned King and brought back Sullivan, the CB need isn't "immediate." Conversely, right now the Packers are slated to go into Week 1 without 4 guys from last year's squad who were in their top 6-7 OL: Bakh, Linsley, Taylor, Wagner. 

Agreed. I think OT has become #1 priority need. (And another C/OG isn't far down the list of needs either). Yet unless the Packers trade up from #29, then who is likely to be left? Seems possible you'd have a choice of Radunz, Mayfield, Christiansen, Little, etc. All 2nd or 3rd tier guys (depending upon how the Packers rate them, which we don't know). I'd rather they trade down a bit from #29 if they intend to target one of these OT with their first pick. I think it may be too much of a reach at #29. (Granted, I don't know Packers Big Board, so they may think differently). Or stay at #29 if a BPA at a lesser priority of need falls, say CB Farley, S/Slot CB Moehrig, and then pick whichever OT is left on the board at #62 if they think one of these guys will still be on the board. If not, the good thing is that Gute has enough chips to do a little bit of moving up from #62, provided there is a willing trade partner, especially if he could trade a little back from #29. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Fl0nkerton said:

Pretend we traded up with ATL. Who are you taking at #4 

I'm taking Lance and burning the whole place down!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...