2021 NFL Draft Thread

[Packerraymond]

7 minutes ago, R T said:

I'll need to re-watch the QB on that play, to focused on the blocking. What is your opinion on best scheme fit for Jenkins? 

Either. It's rate to me you'll find a top 100 graded OL that's specific to a blocking scheme. When you go that high it's because you're plug and play just about anywhere. He's got some meanness to his game that I think we lack on the OL, would be very happy with him at 29.

[R T]

3 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Either. It's rate to me you'll find a top 100 graded OL that's specific to a blocking scheme. When you go that high it's because you're plug and play just about anywhere. He's got some meanness to his game that I think we lack on the OL, would be very happy with him at 29.

He is a tone setter is the run game without a doubt.  

Edited April 23, 2021 by R T

[MaximusGluteus]

15 hours ago, R T said:

That was Ossai who also blew by him from a wide set for the sack to end the game. 

I just spent the last 2 hours watching everything I could on Teven Jenkins and I know this will get a lot of pushback here with the love fest going on for him, but I'm not sure he is a great fit for the Packers scheme. As a Guard he is probably an All Pro, but as a Tackle lined up against a wide 9 set I think he gets badly exposed. Power scheme teams will have a much higher grade on him than zone scheme teams. He will probably go in the top 24 picks, but I'm shedding no tears if the Packers do not get a shot at him. Just think there are much better scheme fit Tackles available for the Packers. IMO 

There's no love fest or push back from me because I haven't watched enough of him to make a decision one way or the other.  Was only commenting on that particular play, didn't watch the rest because I've had enough of trying to deep dive into prospects and make wild guesses at who will be picked where and who might be available at 29.  I personally don't care if he's there or not, and even if he is I won't care if GB passes on him.

[packfanfb]

Not if this guy has anything to say about it...

 

[NFLGURU]

25 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Not if this guy has anything to say about it...

 

Fauci will be in New York looking at replays of hugs and making rulings as the draft progresses.  "Roger, that was a little long, wash your hands, and wear the mask for the next 3 picks"

Edited April 23, 2021 by NFLGURU

[deathstar]

Don’t really come here to read this stuff. Take it to TAPT.

[SSG]

15 hours ago, Redt said:

If you look at positional value why wouldn't draft a QB every year no matter how good your current starter is? No position matters more than QB, so why not create constant competition and not let any QB on the roster feel like he doesn't have to perform at his highest level each year. Did drafting Jordan Love piss Roger's  off enough to motivate him or did it tap into his competitive spirit?

By drafting a QB every year that you think has the potential to be special regardless of round has inherent value and would give you the chance of quality QB play every year or instill the same level of competitiveness that exist at other positions. In this new era of the NFL where having productive players in the first 4 years is paramount why not focus on churning QB's the inarguable most valued position on every team?

Because it doesn't really immediately improve your team and rosters aren't big enough.  If you spend a meaningful pick on a QB every year you are almost obligated to carry them on the roster for 3 or 4 years.  NFL rosters aren't big enough to carry 4 or 5 QBs.  Unless that back up QB is a do-everything like Taysom Hill, the back up QB is probably the least impactful back up on the roster given that only 1 QB plays unless there is an injury and they aren't used on ST.

Cleveland had a 13 year stretch where they spent a top half of the draft selection on a QB 9 times in different drafts.  The result was them still being the worst team in the league.  Of those 9 players only 1 can be considered better than serviceable.  

 

[cannondale]

Last year my bloodlines guy was Runyan. This year it's Drew Dalman. Stanford Center. 4th Round please. Might be more of a project than Runyan though.

Edited April 23, 2021 by cannondale

[NFLGURU]

I'm hoping Jenkins is there at 29, and then Gute trades up in the second for Samuel/Molden.

[cannondale]

wrong thread

Edited April 23, 2021 by cannondale

[packfanfb]

55 minutes ago, NFLGURU said:

I'm hoping Jenkins is there at 29, and then Gute trades up in the second for Samuel/Molden.

A Jenkins/Samuel combo would be a coup. 

Edited April 23, 2021 by packfanfb

[Joe]

2 hours ago, cannondale said:

Last year my bloodlines guy was Runyan. This year it's Drew Dalman. Stanford Center. 4th Round please. Might be more of a project than Runyan though.

Right there with you on Runyan and I was REALLY happy when we drafted him because I thought he was ridiculously underrated. I'm wondering if Dalman might get moved to RG. He's borderline undraftable and needs to put on a good 10-15 lb.s of muscle and size. Is he worth stashing on the PS? 

 

4 hours ago, deathstar said:

Don’t really come here to read this stuff. Take it to TAPT.

I hate politics with a burning passion. Divide, distract, deceive...

 

3 hours ago, SSG said:

Because it doesn't really immediately improve your team and rosters aren't big enough.  If you spend a meaningful pick on a QB every year you are almost obligated to carry them on the roster for 3 or 4 years.  NFL rosters aren't big enough to carry 4 or 5 QBs.  Unless that back up QB is a do-everything like Taysom Hill, the back up QB is probably the least impactful back up on the roster given that only 1 QB plays unless there is an injury and they aren't used on ST.

Cleveland had a 13 year stretch where they spent a top half of the draft selection on a QB 9 times in different drafts.  The result was them still being the worst team in the league.  Of those 9 players only 1 can be considered better than serviceable.  

 

Or you're a team like Philly and your QB can't stay healthy or consistent. I'm sure some of us remember Favre in the early 2000's when he would throw bad interceptions and a family member would yell "put in Hasselbeck!!" or "retire!"

[cannondale]

16 minutes ago, Joe said:

Right there with you on Runyan and I was REALLY happy when we drafted him because I thought he was ridiculously underrated. I'm wondering if Dalman might get moved to RG. He's borderline undraftable and needs to put on a good 10-15 lb.s of muscle and size. Is he worth stashing on the PS? 

I guess it depends where you look. McGinn is dropping his draft stuff (free) and whatever fans may think of him, I like that he gets quotes from scouts. I'll just drop his write up here. Same size as Linsley FWIW. Same arm length. Not sure 32" is short for a Center, so not understanding that quote. Sounds like it will depend on team's preferences.

 Drew Dalman, Stanford (6-foot-3½, 299, 5.05, Round 3 or 4): The fourth-year junior from Salinas, Calif., made 22 starts from 2018 through 2020, including 20 at center and two at right guard.

“He’s a better player than Nick Harris when he came out of Washington last year,” one scout said. “Really good hands. Really good at the second level. His bugaboo will be short arms. He’ll wind up being a starter.”

Arms measured in at 32 inches. His hands (10½), however, were the largest among centers. At pro day, his shuttle runs and bench-press numbers were outstanding.

“He’s a Nick Hardwick-type player,” a second scout said. “Undersized, but really athletic.”

Father, Chris, started 64 games at center and guard for the San Francisco 49ers from 1994 to 1999.

“Small and quick, but not Jason Kelce-quick,” a third scout said. “He’s a good athlete. Great athlete? Nah. I think he’s going to have some problems. Good luck playing (against) Baltimore. Those 3-4 teams will put a heavy nose over him."

Edited April 23, 2021 by cannondale

[Joe]

“He’s a Nick Hardwick-type player,” a second scout said. “Undersized, but really athletic.”

That's the problem. Nothing was said about Linsley being undersized coming out. Dalman might have the height and weight, but he has a narrow base, which is part of the problem. I'm not against drafting him, but I really have to question McGinn here based on what I've seen of Dalman on tape and the historical trend of Stanford OL coming out. Yes, still disappointed Murphy didn't work out as he had a higher grade and looked great as a run-blocker in particular on tape. Again, not opposed to drafting him as a developmental player, but very leery nonetheless.

[cannondale]

 

7 minutes ago, Joe said:

“He’s a Nick Hardwick-type player,” a second scout said. “Undersized, but really athletic.”

That's the problem. Nothing was said about Linsley being undersized coming out. Dalman might have the height and weight, but he has a narrow base, which is part of the problem. I'm not against drafting him, but I really have to question McGinn here based on what I've seen of Dalman on tape and the historical trend of Stanford OL coming out. Yes, still disappointed Murphy didn't work out as he had a higher grade and looked great as a run-blocker in particular on tape. Again, not opposed to drafting him as a developmental player, but very leery nonetheless.

Not gonna argue too much. I don't know how their anchors (azzes) compare. Murphy just seemed like the ultimate plodder.