Noooo. .... Anyone but him

[cannondale]

FWIW

SF plays the Bears, Lions, Jaguars, Texans, Eagles, Falcons, Vikings, Titans, Bengals. So you better find a way to stop their offense. My preference would be something other than rolling with what we had and calling it good to go.

Edited April 28, 2021 by cannondale

[packfanfb]

Has our track record been any better at OT in the first round? The four I'm aware of since 1989 are Mandarich (enough said), John Michels (sucked), Bulaga (stud) and Derek Sherrod (injury/bust). 

So that's 4 in over 30 years with 1 hit. Before Mandarich there was Reuttgers in '85 who was solid. 

[cannondale]

9 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Has our track record been any better at OT in the first round? The four I'm aware of since 1989 are Mandarich (enough said), John Michels (sucked), Bulaga (stud) and Derek Sherrod (injury/bust). 

So that's 4 in over 30 years with 1 hit. Before Mandarich there was Reuttgers in '85 who was solid. 

OT is a premium position. It's a must have.

Another thing I've done. Go look at the Super Bowl winners and see what they had at WR. Take a peek at their RB's as well

Edited April 28, 2021 by cannondale

[HyponGrey]

3 hours ago, gizmo2012 said:

So you want the best OT left on the board at 29. Makes sense. Me I want the best playmaker on the board at 29. Draft OT and CB in rounds 2 and 3. 

I'm still strictly against offense in the 1st round unless it's OT. (QB if we actually had a need there)

[craig]

2 hours ago, R T said:

Don't agree that they need an OT to start right away and don't think the Packers think that way either. Gutes had zero urgency that he has to shore up any position in his press conference. This got to have a OT/CB/WR or any other position is not living in Gutes head, only in the head of some fans.    

Agree.  The OL that they draft will be a long-term investment, but is unlikely to be an intended starter in September.  I totally value adding an excellent lineman, inside or outside, and will be thrilled if they think they grab a quality guy who's going to be a many-years starter for the future.  But I'll be really bummed if they have so many camp injuries that they need to be starting a rookie on opening day.  

If they snag an OL that they think is worth their first pick, hallelujah.  But if they find a DL or OLB or CB or WR that they think is worth their first pick, and get an OL later, I'm totally good with that, too.  Let the draft and the board flow.  

What I don't want is for them to force an OL, and get somebody who ends up kinda stiff, or kinda robotic, or who lacks the fire to stack 70 good snaps week after week.  

[cannondale]

If Rondale Moore can help prevent SF from dropping 40 without breaking a sweat, I'm all in.

Edited April 28, 2021 by cannondale

[wgbeethree]

1 hour ago, vegas492 said:

Walker....Sharpe.....Lofton?

Yes. I'm a big fan of manipulating stats to make points and pointing out how you can manipulate stats to say whatever you want. 

Numbers never lie but you can make numbers say whatever you want. It's fun. 

[OneTwoSixFive]

Making what turns out to be a GOOD pick is more important, so very much more important, than which position it is. Few people expected the Packers to draft a Center in round 2 in 2019..................................but how valuable does that pick seem now. 

Also, getting a good overall team is never one draft in isolation, it is many drafts over a number of years. If you did not get the premium guy at one position this year, you should (if you drafted well) have got one at another position instead. Over time you'd hope that all positions are addressed, but the nature of the league is that all teams tend to have gaps somewhere, which shows that some team upgrades just have to wait.

Edited April 28, 2021 by OneTwoSixFive

[craig]

2 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

I don't know how anyone can look at how we lose year after year in the playoffs and want a 1st round WR. Or take Bakh out of our starting OL for a couple of weeks and still want a 1st round WR. Or see the surplus of Pro Bowlers we've drafted in rounds 2-3 and still want a 1st round receiver.

I'm totally not targeting a WR, and will be super-shocked if they selected one with first pick.  

But just to play devil's advocate for the sake of argument.  "look at how we lose year after year in the playoffs".  I looked, and I saw an offense that couldn't do a lot very consistently versus Tampa.  Our defense didn't get skunked; our offense did.  San Fran was a horror both ways; the offense was perhaps overwhelmed as badly as was the defense.  Offense was helpless. Some years past, too, the offense struggled (Kaepernick era loss, Giants, the Janis game, the Seattle loss....). 

The defense wouldn't need to be overwhelming if the offense scored more, punted less, and turned it over less.  I'm OK with BPA, even if that guy ends up being on offense.  I'd rather get a really good guy on offense than end up with a Datone or a Randall.  

[cannondale]

27 minutes ago, craig said:

I'm totally not targeting a WR, and will be super-shocked if they selected one with first pick.  

But just to play devil's advocate for the sake of argument.  "look at how we lose year after year in the playoffs".  I looked, and I saw an offense that couldn't do a lot very consistently versus Tampa.  Our defense didn't get skunked; our offense did.  San Fran was a horror both ways; the offense was perhaps overwhelmed as badly as was the defense.  Offense was helpless. Some years past, too, the offense struggled (Kaepernick era loss, Giants, the Janis game, the Seattle loss....). 

The defense wouldn't need to be overwhelming if the offense scored more, punted less, and turned it over less.  I'm OK with BPA, even if that guy ends up being on offense.  I'd rather get a really good guy on offense than end up with a Datone or a Randall.  

In the playoffs you will always run into a good defense, and a good defense travels and always has the ability to slow down a good offense. A bad defense stop no one. At home, cold weather, Brady throws 3 picks, and still put up 30 ?? Not good enough. And don't look now, but SF is back. 2011 was the best offense I've ever seen - same deal. 2010 was the last legit defense GB has had. Trophy. If holding teams under 30 is too lofty a goal .....

Edited April 28, 2021 by cannondale

[Norm]

8 hours ago, Joe said:

If Aaron Hernandez were alive he would resent that...

They lost a game just to throw a guy's shoe. I've never be so pissed off at sports in my life. 

[ThatJerkDave]

5 hours ago, incognito_man said:

i'm only interested in those numbers on a per season basis for a 1st round WR

Yeah, we haven't had a guy make 5 pro bowls in one season since Sterling Sharpe.  And I for one am about tired of that!

[Joe]

7 hours ago, packfanfb said:

Get Brady Christensen in the 2nd round and he's going to be as good (or better) year 1 than a lot of the guys at the bottom of round 1. I know he's 24 but he's the definition of "plug-n-play" 

I'd rather have Walker Little TBH. I've bashed his run-blocking skills but his pass-pro skills are ELITE. Christensen could be had in the 3rd as well btw. I don't buy him and despite his RAS, I doubt Gutey buys into him as well.

 

7 hours ago, R T said:

Don't agree that they need an OT to start right away and don't think the Packers think that way either. Gutes had zero urgency that he has to shore up any position in his press conference. This got to have a OT/CB/WR or any other position is not living in Gutes head, only in the head of some fans.    

Then you're clearly not following the team. What part of "we have nobody behind an injured Bakh and Billy Turner" do you not understand? Seriously, I'm not trying to belittle you. We're not going into the season with a patchwork OL and the fact that Gutey resigned Kevin King and backed that up with "oh yeah I like our CB room" only to meet with multiple CB's shows you that Gutey has one of the best poker faces in the league.

In all seriousness, you're telling me Bakh is A-ok to come back from an ACL in Week 1 when we've heard next to nothing about his recovery and, again, have literally nobody behind him at OT other than Billy Turner who was EXPOSED against TB. 

Oh, but Jenkins can play OT you say. Yes he can and I'd love to see him as either of our OT's, especially LT if Bakh isn't ready. Problem: who's playing Center? who's playing LG? who's our RT if it isn't Turner?

 

FWIW, this is why I think we trade up for Teven Jenkins if he's available and we might even mortgage something if we have to trade into the teens to get him...

[pacman5252]

9 hours ago, cannondale said:

If Rondale Moore can help prevent SF from dropping 40 without breaking a sweat, I'm all in.

Scoring more than 3 in the first half would also help.

 

Sometimes the best D is being unstoppable on O and controlling game flow

[pacman5252]

9 hours ago, cannondale said:

OT is a premium position. It's a must have.

Another thing I've done. Go look at the Super Bowl winners and see what they had at WR. Take a peek at their RB's as well

Although I’m all for positional value, at 29 you kind of get what you get as the board thins out. The type of prospect you’re getting at high value positions is usually a flawed developmental which you could get and coach up in r3-5.

 

You can find many examples in which we would have been better off with a G, RB, S or LB over highly flawed CBs we’ve taken (15/17 in particular).