Jump to content

Recommended Posts

29. Christian Barmore DT Alabama

62. Asante Samuel CB Florida State 

92. Nico Collins WR Michigan

135. Jackson Carman OT Clemson

173. Camryn Bynum CB California 

178. Damar Hamlin FS Pittsburgh 

214. Rhamondre Stevenson RB Oklahoma

220. KJ Britt LB Auburn 

256 Naquan Jones DT Michigan St.

 

UDFA

1. Dion Novil DT North Texas 

2. Tyarise Stevenson DT Tulsa

3. Romeo McKnight DE/OLD Charlotte

4. Ben Mason RB/FB Michigan

5. Dylan Soehner TE Iowa State

6. Otis Anderson RB/WR Central Florida

 Tell me what you think. Love the feed back.

I understand the first 3 or 4 picks might be a little high, but if it takes a 4th or 5th to do so i say go for it.

Might do a few more mocks with no trades. I really hope The Packers trade down if Barmore or someone of his caliber isnt available. Will post a few trade down mocks before the draft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the first three picks, but am not a fan of Carman. First, I dont think he will be there at that point; second, I dont like the style/fit here. The last half of the draft is not bad and think hits on a lot of the depth positions we need and there are some guys there with some developmental prospect. I think those first 3 will be solid picks though and if they all hit and become solid contributors then its a plus draft. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rbens06 said:

I like the first three picks, but am not a fan of Carman. First, I dont think he will be there at that point; second, I dont like the style/fit here. The last half of the draft is not bad and think hits on a lot of the depth positions we need and there are some guys there with some developmental prospect. I think those first 3 will be solid picks though and if they all hit and become solid contributors then its a plus draft. 

Agreed. Carman will be gone by the end of Day 3 and his body type doesn't fit what we do much like what was discussed in the Ben Cleveland discussion we had yesterday in another thread. Also, you're missing a pick(142).

I'd also go back and retool the entire mock from the 4th on. Literally everyone after Carman and except for Stevenson is undraftable; Bynum and Hamlin are two of the worst prospects at their respective positions and will be in camp for maybe 2 weeks before they're cut and that's if Bynum even makes a camp. I know we've looked at a few of these other guys like Britt but they too are camp bodies and PS bodies. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Joe said:

Agreed. Carman will be gone by the end of Day 3 and his body type doesn't fit what we do much like what was discussed in the Ben Cleveland discussion we had yesterday in another thread. Also, you're missing a pick(142).

I'd also go back and retool the entire mock from the 4th on. Literally everyone after Carman and except for Stevenson is undraftable; Bynum and Hamlin are two of the worst prospects at their respective positions and will be in camp for maybe 2 weeks before they're cut and that's if Bynum even makes a camp. I know we've looked at a few of these other guys like Britt but they too are camp bodies and PS bodies. 

Agree. I also HATE the idea of a WR early. We don’t need a WR from this draft to be a contributor next year. If anyone thinks we really need one there are still FA’s and cuts yet to come. 
 

Agree on the OT as well, take one in place of Samuel and draft a couple corners after that if you can get Barmore. To me having Barmore available there is both a blessing and curse. I wouldn’t be able to pass but it complicates the ability to get an OT and CB who can plug and play. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MantyWrestler said:


 

Agree on the OT as well, take one in place of Samuel and draft a couple corners after that if you can get Barmore. To me having Barmore available there is both a blessing and curse. I wouldn’t be able to pass but it complicates the ability to get an OT and CB who can plug and play. 

Barmore would be a blessing, for sure.

GB could still get a corner and OT that can play.  Draft is deep at those positions.  The key, though, will be our fourth round picks.  We could easily use one to move up and grab a target in round 2 or round 3.

Barmore would be a very tough one for me to pass on if he's there.

The WR's, though....that's the blessing and curse.  If you take one of them in the first (and I do love me some Bateman and Marshall), then you are really scrambling to find OT, CB and DL.

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

Agree. I also HATE the idea of a WR early. We don’t need a WR from this draft to be a contributor next year. If anyone thinks we really need one there are still FA’s and cuts yet to come. 
 

Agree on the OT as well, take one in place of Samuel and draft a couple corners after that if you can get Barmore. To me having Barmore available there is both a blessing and curse. I wouldn’t be able to pass but it complicates the ability to get an OT and CB who can plug and play. 

This...

If we were to draft Barmore and then go Samuel, we'd have to be sure that a plug-n-play OT or an OT that could come in and not be a liability would be available in the 3rd which is no guarantee. On the other hand, the team would surely make the selection of value at pick 62 meaning if Samuel was the better value at 62 than an OT, he would be selected. 

Admittedly, I think Barmore is there at 29 and we pass on him for Teven Jenkins if Jenkins is there OR we pull the trigger on Samuel.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Christian Barmore - 6' 04.1" - 310, 40/4.98, 10 yard split 1.76, 4.75 short shuttle, 7.81 3-cone, RAS 8.22

Montravius Adams - 6' 03.5" - 304, 40/4.87, 10 yard split 1.71, 4.89 short shuttle, 7.62 3-cone, RAS 7.89 

I would think most of the fanbase would be happy with Barmore in the 1st round and personally will be surprised if he was there at 29 for the Packers. Now this is where I will need to take shelter, I would not be surprised to find out that Barmore is not the #1 DT on the Packers board. He might be, but his profile isn't a strong match to the Packers historical drafting of DL players. Adams was an outlier for the Packers who didn't workout very well and Barmore has a very similar profile. If Barmore is on the board when the Packers select, that will be very interesting to me.     

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

....If you take one of them in the first ..., then you are really scrambling to find OT, CB and DL.

Most likely not all three of those position groups will come in our first three picks.  It will be fascinating to see which one (or two) get skipped, and then to see how the Packers end up addressing those position groups.  

With the 4th round picks there is some capacity to maneuver a bit in round 3 or perhaps even in round 2 to ensure that perceived BPA matches perceived need.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, R T said:

..his profile isn't a strong match to the Packers historical drafting of DL players...    

RT, what does the Packers historical profile differ, would you say?  I'm not arguing or contesting, just curious?  I'm not sure I have a real feel for what they've tended to target in the past?  Or what body-type/profile they might prefer?  

I'm also struggling a little bit to try to remember who they've taken historically, or maybe who they've taken who has actually worked out well?  Obviously Thornton/Worthy/Adams/Harrell haven't worked out super great.  Or even a lifetime ago with Donnell Washington and James Lee, or Steve Warren, their hit rate hasn't necessarily been above average with some of the 2nd/3rd round investments.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vegas492 said:

scrambling to find OT, CB and DL.

That's squarely on Gute. No excuses to allow that to happen. His Veldheer and Wagner idea was great. Love those types of guys, and maybe there is another placeholder out there that will be signed at OT or even CB, DL. Not gonna hold my breath though. Going back to the TT years, I never understood why you couldn't sign one FA per year to fill a hole. Doesn't even have to be a high end guy. Could even be a part time player. Xavier Rhodes was a perfect example. Cheap vet and the Colts struck gold. Gute has been playing with fire ignoring OT and DL and it's catching up to him. But hey, we have 14 TE's !!

Edited by cannondale
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, craig said:

RT, what does the Packers historical profile differ, would you say?  I'm not arguing or contesting, just curious?  I'm not sure I have a real feel for what they've tended to target in the past?  Or what body-type/profile they might prefer?  

I'm also struggling a little bit to try to remember who they've taken historically, or maybe who they've taken who has actually worked out well?  Obviously Thornton/Worthy/Adams/Harrell haven't worked out super great.  Or even a lifetime ago with Donnell Washington and James Lee, or Steve Warren, their hit rate hasn't necessarily been above average with some of the 2nd/3rd round investments.  

Quick answer about the "profile".  We do not know.  We haven't taken many DL at all, let alone high.  The exception being Clark.

I like Barmore because of how he would fit next to Clark.  Combined they could wreck some stuff.  

Barmore to me, is a puppy.  He needs to be trained.  Kind of like Gary.  I think the upside is there, for sure.  But it isn't going to be there right away.  

I certainly wouldn't pass on him for ASj (thats for you @Leader).  Unsure about what I'd do if Jenkins (OT) AND Barmore are both there.  Right now, I lean towards the OT.  Probably because I think Keke is going to be a good player in that spot this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cannondale said:

That's squarely on Gute. No excuses to allow that to happen. His Veldheer and Wagner idea was great. Love those types of guys, and maybe there is another placeholder out there that will be signed at OT or even CB, DL. Not gonna hold my breath though. Going back to the TT years, I never understood why you couldn't sign one FA per year to fill a hole. Doesn't even have to be a high end guy. Could even be a part time player. Xavier Rhodes was a perfect example. Cheap vet and the Colts struck gold. Gute has been playing with fire ignoring OT and DL and it's catching up to him

But he didn't play with fire concerning the OL.  Last year he got Wagner late in free agency.  It wouldn't shock me to learn we have a handshake deal in place for him this year.  Same with Harrison on the DL.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

But he didn't play with fire concerning the OL.  Last year he got Wagner late in free agency.  It wouldn't shock me to learn we have a handshake deal in place for him this year.  Same with Harrison on the DL.  

"Wagner also informed the team that he is strongly considering retirement, sources said."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, craig said:

RT, what does the Packers historical profile differ, would you say?  I'm not arguing or contesting, just curious?  I'm not sure I have a real feel for what they've tended to target in the past?  Or what body-type/profile they might prefer?  

I'm also struggling a little bit to try to remember who they've taken historically, or maybe who they've taken who has actually worked out well?  Obviously Thornton/Worthy/Adams/Harrell haven't worked out super great.  Or even a lifetime ago with Donnell Washington and James Lee, or Steve Warren, their hit rate hasn't necessarily been above average with some of the 2nd/3rd round investments.  

First thing, I'm not advocating against Barmore in any way. Would be happy if that was the pick, just bringing up the point that he may not be at the top of their list is all.

The Packers success strike rate with DL has not been as good as other positions, but it is not just the Packers that have struggled to locate good DL help. It is a difficult position to find success with when not picking in the top half of the 1st round. 

Clark/Daniels/Raji/Jolly/Corey Williams all would be viewed as successful picks I would think, even Guy and Neal ground out fairly good careers. So not all is lost. 

Explosion numbers seem to be something that is important to the Packers with DL and high percentile numbers there are fairly consistent with the players they draft at the position. 

 

    

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...