Your 'initial' assessment of the Draft

[Gopackgonerd]

10 hours ago, incognito_man said:

filed under: Things Said Before June 1st

We'll be trading King for Surtain? Hells ya!

[gizmo2012]

17 hours ago, Kampfgeist said:

Amari Rodgers won't be a starter this year unless you care to call your punt returner a "starter."   I'll set my sights on "reasonable contributor" and hope for more.

Packers play too much 12 personnel and Adams, Lazard, MVS are rarely ceding spots to Rodgers when the play calls for 3 WR's.    I think Rodgers gives the team a few more options than Ervin did in the greater scheme so a few more opportunities but Ervin started 0 of 12 games with the Pack.

Stokes will be a big contributor throughout and has the potential to unseat King later in the season or grab starts while King is out with his inevitable injury break.    Early in the season I would think the team will ride with King - a player they know and trust (NFCCG jokes aside) and Stokes will log time in dime unless he can unseat Sullivan.

Agree Myers seems the best bet for heavy early minutes and the only true "starter" from the class yr 1

I don't see much comparison between Amari Rodgers and Tyler Ervin other than both were or will be key on gadget plays. Ervin was a decent punt returner and maybe average RB. Amari Rodgers is also a punt returner but is a talented slot receiver plan to be a significant starter in time. I agree Amari will get worked into his role slowly but his talent will get him good playing time sooner than later. Great pick

[CWood21]

17 hours ago, Kampfgeist said:

Amari Rodgers won't be a starter this year unless you care to call your punt returner a "starter."   I'll set my sights on "reasonable contributor" and hope for more.

He might not be a starter in designation, but he will play a significant amount of snaps this year.  He's the only one with that body type.

[Kampfgeist]

7 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

He might not be a starter in designation, but he will play a significant amount of snaps this year.  He's the only one with that body type.

Saw a stat after my last post that Ervin was playing about 20 snaps a game early in the 2020 season.   If we all seem to be in agreement Rodgers brings more to the table than Ervin, maybe 25-30 is a baseline for Rodgers' involvement? - or do people think it would be even higher - given there are maybe 60-65 offensive snaps/gm?  50% usage rate seems really high to me if it comes at the expense of Lazard's blocking or MVS's big-play ability.     I would think he'd get a lot more play in the redzone over MVS

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, Kampfgeist said:

Saw a stat after my last post that Ervin was playing about 20 snaps a game early in the 2020 season.   If we all seem to be in agreement Rodgers brings more to the table than Ervin, maybe 25-30 is a baseline for Rodgers' involvement? - or do people think it would be even higher - given there are maybe 60-65 offensive snaps/gm?  50% usage rate seems really high to me if it comes at the expense of Lazard's blocking or MVS's big-play ability.     I would think he'd get a lot more play in the redzone over MVS

At his peak, Ervin was playing roughly a third of their snaps.  That'd be my anticipated number of snaps.

[Kampfgeist]

3rd seems fair.   Will be interesting to track

[craig]

https://theathletic.com/2566732/2021/05/05/packers-draft-class-might-not-help-much-in-2021-but-has-plenty-of-future-upside/?source=dailyemail

For pay article. Composite with comments and some evaluations from a bunch of McGinn's scouts.  Some interesting stuff.  None rated Stokes as 1st round, but the biggest downgrade was his bad hands.  One of the evaluators said that Stokes had the worst hands he'd seen all spring.  Personally, I've got mixed feelings on that; interceptions change games, but they are very rare and good pass defense causes punts.  Very appreciative of his speed and length with long arms.  The scouts were divided on whether they thought Stokes or King were better prospects at time of drafts.  

Evaluators were pretty positive on Myers.  Initial quickness, footwork, the way he plays, some nasty, intangible, smart, tough, committed.  One noted that he likes Linsley better, stronger lower body, stronger hands.  Wish Myers had better lower-body flexibility.  Some split on whether Myers is a better fit for gap than the Packers' wide-zone running scheme.  

Rodgers, not as explosive or quickness or instant acceleration as rookie Cobb or the 6 slots taken ahead of him (all with 4.3's times).  But crafty, spatially aware, and just knows how to slip free.  Hands viewed as good not great.  

The evals were pretty unenthused on Newman and VanLanen, both viewed as being too weak or small.  Said Newman got knocked around, and lacked the leg strength to sustain and drive on contact.  But looked promising in Senior Bowl work at center, so viewed as having a chance to have a career as a 5-position versatility guy, more than as a potential starter.  

Slaton, usual boom-or-bust comments.  Good size/athleticism, but hasn't made plays or been consistent.  But could have the size if the coaches can work with him and he stays committed to be a viable run guy.

Fairly supportive comments for Shemar, smart, aware, quick to the ball, great intangibles.  But small and not real fast.  Viewed strictly as a slot guy.  

Pretty positive comments on McDuffie, could surprise, plays hard and aggressive.  Small and short arms, and one scouts thought his instincts were only OK.  

Hill, one scout thought he was 4th round based on ability, but makeup concerns, and doesn't stand out in any particular area.  

[vegas492]

I was fishing during the draft, so I don't really know who "should" have been picked.

But, regarding the draft...needed a corner, got a corner.  A very fast corner.

Needed a center, got a center.  

Needed a tackle, got two of them.  

Needed a WR, traded up for one we wanted.

Needed a big DL, got him.

So yah, all signs point to this being a typical Packer draft.   Filled some needs for now and the future.  Now we see if they pan out.

[packfanfb]

Makes sense.

[{Family Ghost}]

8 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Makes sense.

I've heard that Kadarius Toney was going to be their pick at #29 if he was on the board.  He went #20 I think?

[MrBobGray]

Think people here are selling Amari pretty short.  If he only plays the Ervin role this year it'll be a disappointment in my eyes.  Looks more like an instant contributor in the passing game, especially given how good the rest of the receiver group is at blocking.  Hit him behind Lazard in the flats, then when people start biting on that hit em on a wheel route behind the coverage.  Guy might look like a RB but he's a natural hands catcher and his routes are very clean.  In this offense he's gonna get lost a lot in coverage and he's got the rest of the game to make em pay.

[incognito_man]

4 hours ago, packfanfb said:

Makes sense.

1 WR in 30 years in the first round

Any reports that suggest GB was targeting one make zero sense to me.

I swear this happens ever hear lol

You'd think if it were EVER true we'd have drafted one by now.

[packfanfb]

4 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

1 WR in 30 years in the first round

Any reports that suggest GB was targeting one make zero sense to me.

I swear this happens ever hear lol

You'd think if it were EVER true we'd have drafted one by now.

I mean we haven't had good luck in the last few years with guys we were reported in on. Jefferson, Aiyuk and Bateman all went right before we picked. 

[incognito_man]

7 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

I mean we haven't had good luck in the last few years with guys we were reported in on. Jefferson, Aiyuk and Bateman all went right before we picked. 

And all would have been there after we picked had they had been picked before us.

[packfanfb]

8 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

And all would have been there after we picked had they had been picked before us.

I really hope you're wrong that the Packers would have passed on Justin Jefferson because if that's the case, my respect level for Gute, out of 10, would go from its current 4 rating to -1.