CWood21 Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 30 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said: Two big dawgs? At 28 That's who I'm reminded of when I watched Woods. Lewis wishes he had that kind of athleticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWhitehurst Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 3 hours ago, Packerraymond said: Doubs is a vertical receiver, the comps for Allen's style in this class are David Bell and Justin Ross. Allen's a limited athlete, possession receiver with short area quickness over long speed. Doubs weakness is the short game, he's more like a slower MVS. Spot on with Bell and Ross. Just not vertical guys. For example, Justyn Ross ran a 4.64/40 at his recent Pro day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFLGURU Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 Im crystal balling Cincinnati WR Alec Pierce to the Packers. Not sure what pick. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 14 minutes ago, NFLGURU said: Im crystal balling Cincinnati WR Alec Pierce to the Packers. Not sure what pick. Thoughts? Thoughts are I hope you're right. Can contribute both on offense and special teams right away. Probably would be there for our first second rounder. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 2 hours ago, Arthur Penske said: Two big dawgs? At 28 No TE in round 1 or 2 please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Penske Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 8 minutes ago, Old Guy said: No TE in round 1 or 2 please. Someone with that size and skill isn't lasting too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 1 minute ago, Arthur Penske said: Someone with that size and skill isn't lasting too long. Wasn't thinking we could get him later. Just don't want a TE in round 1 or 2. I think that position group is better than most on the board though. I think Davis has a skill set similar to Tonyan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ifeelasleep Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 chances gute trades down from 28? like say seattle for their 40-41, Detroit 32-66, some other picks moved for equalizing "chart value" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopackgo972 Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 30 minutes ago, Old Guy said: No TE in round 1 or 2 please. More big dawg please 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgbeethree Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 12 minutes ago, ifeelasleep said: chances gute trades down from 28? like say seattle for their 40-41, Detroit 32-66, some other picks moved for equalizing "chart value" To state the obvious.... Think it going come down to where they have their tiers and how the draft falls. I've seen a lot of places are putting the "first round" tier cut off in the late teens and the "second round" tier cut off being around 50 and I tend to agree. If the FO sees it that way it'll come down to whether there is someone left from the tier ahead or if they're at the top of the tier with a lot of similar ranked players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smidgeon Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 I think it's going to be another year of "all the players I liked were gone by 22". For funsies, I've been running the draft simulator for the first time, over and over, and I really have to tweak settings to get players I want to be there at 22. The WRs are gone, the DL are gone, the EDGE are gone. We might end up in the valley of talent where the 2s are getting overdrafted. Hope I'm wrong and someone drops, but I expect to see London, Olave, Williams, JJ2, Karlaftis and Davis all be gone before 22. I'm not super great on prospects, but that's my 22 wish list. 28 can include some Burks, OT Smith, Pickens or Dotson, but Pickens or Dotson I think are early R2 players. And while I wouldn't be too squeamish about it, I suppose we could take another DB in the R1 range too. In all honesty though, my preference has nothing to do with any success at prognostication. I just fully expect everyone I want is gone before 22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted March 26, 2022 Share Posted March 26, 2022 10 hours ago, ifeelasleep said: chances gute trades down from 28? like say seattle for their 40-41, Detroit 32-66, some other picks moved for equalizing "chart value" I'm not going to say never, but it seems unlikely. Since Gutekunst was hired as GM, he's only traded down ONCE in the NFL Draft and that was in 2018. And I'd argue that had more to do with the fact that the Packers got the Saints' FRP in 2019 in return. In comparison, he's traded up five times in his four drafts. It's probably far more likely he moves up then he is to move down. With the exception of the Jaire trade, he's moved up using multiple fourth round picks. The Packers just so happen to have multiple fourths this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uffdaswede Posted March 26, 2022 Share Posted March 26, 2022 (edited) 10 hours ago, Smidgeon said: Hope I'm wrong and someone drops, but I expect to see London, Olave, Williams, JJ2, Karlaftis and Davis all be gone before 22. ANY team needing a WR knows they have to jump ahead of Green Bay. I hope for the offensive version of the Raji/Matthews draft but fully expect to cross the best last hope off my wish list at R1 #21 and the last gasp shred of maybe at R1 #27. All is lost. Seek whatever death you think best. Edited March 26, 2022 by Uffdaswede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted March 26, 2022 Share Posted March 26, 2022 (edited) 13 hours ago, wgbeethree said: To state the obvious.... Think it going come down to where they have their tiers and how the draft falls. I've seen a lot of places are putting the "first round" tier cut off in the late teens and the "second round" tier cut off being around 50 and I tend to agree. If the FO sees it that way it'll come down to whether there is someone left from the tier ahead or if they're at the top of the tier with a lot of similar ranked players. This kind of thinking is crazy to me. If (for any given talent evaluator) the 'first round tier' players don't average out at roughly 32 players per year over several years, this is pretty close to being meaningless and those evaluators either aren't calculating it right, or they are expressing themselves poorly. The problem is that these evaluators always seem to end up with a number of players less than 32 (sometimes WAY less). You might as well declare the first round picks stop at 10, or 5 or any other number at random. The reason I dislike these statements so much is due to them linking a talent level to a round and saying "beyond this point the picks are not first round quality". In the stated case of "the cut off is in the late teens" (let's call that 18, for the sake of argument), that is 14 picks in round one that are not 'first round quality' ??? If you are trying to set a notional level at which a player qualifies as a first round pick, why would you set the bar too high, every year ? If, on the other hand, you are more concerned about setting a top talent-level bar for (let's call them) elite players, why state that after this point first round picks aren't really first round tier......why link an arbitrary talent level to a round at all. I'm still waiting for the visionary soul who does link talent to a round and whose top tier does average about 32 picks a year, over several years. That would make more sense and the difference between a good and a bad year at the top of the draft would be clearer to us all. Example: over 35 players in the first round tier = good year, 32 = average year, under 29 = bad year, simple. Otherwise, you would need to go back for several years finding out the average number of a specific evaluator's supposed 'first round picks' and then compare that average to this year, to get any idea of whether he/she thinks this draft is above average, average, or below average. Edited March 26, 2022 by OneTwoSixFive 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted March 26, 2022 Share Posted March 26, 2022 4 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said: This kind of thinking is crazy to me. If (for any given talent evaluator) the 'first round tier' players don't average out at roughly 32 players per year over several years, this is pretty close to being meaningless and those evaluators either aren't calculating it right, or they are expressing themselves poorly. The problem is that these evaluators always seem to end up with a number of players less than 32 (sometimes WAY less). You might as well declare the first round picks stop at 10, or 5 or any other number at random. The reason I dislike these statements so much is due to them linking a talent level to a round and saying "beyond this point the picks are not first round quality". In the stated case of "the cut off is in the late teens" (let's call that 18, for the sake of argument), that is 14 picks in round one that are not 'first round quality' ??? If you are trying to set a notional level at which a player qualifies as a first round pick, why would you set the bar too high, every year ? If, on the other hand, you are more concerned about setting a top talent-level bar for (let's call them) elite players, why state that after this point first round picks aren't really first round tier......why link an arbitrary talent level to a round at all. I'm still waiting for the visionary soul who does link talent to a round and whose top tier does average about 32 picks a year, over several years. That would make more sense and the difference between a good and a bad year at the top of the draft would be clearer to us all. Example: over 35 players in the first round tier = good year, 32 = average year, under 29 = bad year, simple. Otherwise, you would need to go back for several years finding out the average number of a specific evaluator's supposed 'first round picks' and then compare that average to this year, to get any idea of whether he/she thinks this draft is above average, average, or below average. It's not about "rounds" it's about tiers. There isn't a single GM (and never has been) that has anything close to 32 payers in their top tier of talent, and probably not in their top 2 tiers combined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts