Jump to content

Moretti's Christmas Break Mock


Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, mikemike778 said:

 

Come on dude. 

I thought you would have learnt your lesson after the last off-season. Be respectful towards other people's opinions. There is every chance they are right and you are wrong. If you use words like This is just ****ty roster building people are going to keep reminding you of how badly you can get stuff wrong.

I personally wouldn't sign Fuller either by the way.  Our receivers are probably fine for next season but I would still prioritise in the draft. It can take a couple of seasons for receivers to get up to speed so its a position you want to draft a year early.  I don't trust Adams health is going to last. 

But Adams could be injured next season,  MVS get found out and Lazard not be able to step up i which case signing Fuller may be the right move.

 

We don't even know if I was wrong about anything last season other than Rodgers balling out in the regular season (and we've still got the playoffs to go), and I suppose I owe Billy Turner an apology. 

 

This is ****ty roster roster building. Regardless of what else you think about this offseason or lasts, there is no universe where you look at this roster as currently constructed and conclude that what it's missing is a #2 receiver at something insane like 4/52 at the expense of blowing a massive hole in your CB rotation and making no efforts to address the DL. 

 

Great, WRs take some time to develop (we've got a boat load of evidence that this is exclusively a GB problem, but that's not really the point right now). If that's the belief, then you draft a few in the middle rounds and let them develop. You don't blow your load on the only shiny toy you're familiar with. 

 

You don't trust Adams health, but you do trust Fuller????? Fuller has missed 21 games the last 4 years. Adams has missed 11.

As far as MVS and Lazard all of a sudden being an awful rotation for some reason, all the evidence in the world suggests that this offense absolutely does not seize up at the loss of Davante:

2020 with Davante (Week 2 not included): 29.6 ppg

2020 without Davante (Week 2 included): 36.3 ppg

+++

2019 with Davante: 20.5

2019 without Davante: 32.5 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

We don't even know if I was wrong about anything last season other than Rodgers balling out in the regular season (and we've still got the playoffs to go), and I suppose I owe Billy Turner an apology. 

 

This is ****ty roster roster building. Regardless of what else you think about this offseason or lasts, there is no universe where you look at this roster as currently constructed and conclude that what it's missing is a #2 receiver at something insane like 4/52 at the expense of blowing a massive hole in your CB rotation and making no efforts to address the DL. 

 

Great, WRs take some time to develop (we've got a boat load of evidence that this is exclusively a GB problem, but that's not really the point right now). If that's the belief, then you draft a few in the middle rounds and let them develop. You don't blow your load on the only shiny toy you're familiar with. 

 

You don't trust Adams health, but you do trust Fuller????? Fuller has missed 21 games the last 4 years. Adams has missed 11.

As far as MVS and Lazard all of a sudden being an awful rotation for some reason, all the evidence in the world suggests that this offense absolutely does not seize up at the loss of Davante:

2020 with Davante (Week 2 not included): 29.6 ppg

2020 without Davante (Week 2 included): 36.3 ppg

+++

2019 with Davante: 20.5

2019 without Davante: 32.5 

 

Not going to look back at 2019 but maybe  the teams played then makes a difference with and without Davante than anything?   Packers don't need Fuller, much bigger fish to fry than a #2 receiver.  That being said, if they can sign King at a reasonable price; fine.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, coachbuns said:

Not going to look back at 2019 but maybe  the teams played then makes a difference with and without Davante than anything?   Packers don't need Fuller, much bigger fish to fry than a #2 receiver.  That being said, if they can sign King at a reasonable price; fine.    

We played the Lions, Saints, and Falcons without Davante in 2020. Average of 18th in points allowed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

We played the Lions, Saints, and Falcons without Davante in 2020. Average of 18th in points allowed. 

If I were to post the exact draft we just had with Love and Dillon you would have cussed me out as well. I enjoy the mocks for different perspectives and gives me the ability to research different players. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, moretti19 said:

If I were to post the exact draft we just had with Love and Dillon you would have cussed me out as well. I enjoy the mocks for different perspectives and gives me the ability to research different players. 

Definitely would have cussed you out. Still not sure I'm wrong. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

I haven't been too involved in college scouting yet, but big fan of the positions you picked up and the rounds they went in.

There's no way Fuller is going for less than 15 on the open market, with the cuts and lack of re-signings you have here, I think we can fit that. How's the best WR going to feel though coming into camp with 1 year on his deal with our #2 paid more then him??

Be much better off spending that on Sheldon Rankins/Dalvin Tomlinson and actually building a team rather than an even better offense with a defense you still can't trust.

I have to cosign on this one and side with @AlexGreen#20 about Fuller and I lean towards his opinion on roster building(despite the fact that the 2nd pick in this mock is an IDL). Fuller's been oft-injured, someone will overpay for him, and now his non-potable water testing has proven to be problematic. One thing we collectively fail to understand on this forum is that we essentially run to set up the pass. Most of our play design focuses on 5-7 yard plays, we see lots of pre-snap movement to disrupt the defensive alignment and coverage, and most importantly we tend to run to set up the pass. This is why Aaron Jones is a key part of our offense because at 5-9, he hides behind our 6-4 and 6-5 OL, our H-Backs, and occasionally our taller WR's and frequently uses his short-area burst to gain an extra 3-4 yards which extends plays from his particular POV. Recently, we debated whether or not we really need a true WR2 given that Davante is the clear WR1 and each other WR in this offense serves a particular purpose; additionally, the expansion of the Ervin/Austin role eliminates the need for the Julian Edelman/Wes Welker type of slot WR. Ergo, no reason to even think about Will Fuller.

With all that in mind, the one area I really have to scratch my head on is why you would keep an older, and now oft-injured Lane Taylor given that Runyan has stepped up, Turner has slowly improved over the year, Simon Stepaniak is back in the fold, Jenkins will eventually move back to LG either once Linsley is back or Hanson is ready to start at C, and Ben Bredeson is now on the PS. You did this on the previous mock too and I questioned it then and in this one, you backed it up with drafting Creed Humphrey who won't be there in the 5th - though I like the prospect.

I don't see how we cut both Lowry and Kirksey because that's just not how we do business. Kirksey only has one more year and cutting Lowry would be adding $3 mil. in dead money to the cap. The other players leaving make sense except for Jones and King. I think Austin winds up being Ervin's replacement TBH which makes your final pick of this draft not only viable for the final 53, but one of the best picks you have here overall IMHO. 

 

As for the mock, I have a love/hate relationship with it. I love the Mayfield pick, but the Nixon pick is an incredible reach. I think you could trade back out of the first and still get Mayfield and then trade up for Jay Tufele. Your third pick hasn't declared for the draft, but Fields(though he's a reach where you have him) could be a solid rotational ILB that could bump Summers off the 53 due to his potential ST contributions. Kylen Hill has some Trent Richardson-esque issues finding open lanes and is a very similar back to Jamaal Williams, but then you draft Shelvin who would have an immediate impact, but will be off the board by that pick. Black is a value pick at that part of the draft for the reasons you want to pick him, but Johnson isn't in this draft. You follow that up with Creed Humphrey who, again, will be well off the board by that time and then draft a TE that can't block inline, but as stated before the last choice is probably someone who should be chosen much sooner given his production and ability in space.

 

This mock is a work-in-progress, but there are a lot of positives. I'm sure you could come up with something a little better by moving certain players(Humphrey, Shelvin, Hawkins). Other than that, there's really no one player I see here that's definitely a no-go due to a glaring weakness.

Link to post
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...