Round 7 Pick 249; Rasheed Walker, OT Penn State

[Rosser80]

The more I hear that people are souring on this Safety class and the more I hear about this being a deep OL class, the more I think our first five picks will have multiple OL, an EDGE depending on how the board looks, and at least one CB.

[OneTwoSixFive]

I actually like some of the safety choices, though it does depend on where in the draft they are taken.

Nubin at 58, any of Bullard, Bullock, Bishop, Hicks at 88 and 91, Taylor-Demerson as a slot guy in the 4th. Even Malik Mustapha or Tyler Owens in the 5th or 6th round - both have the athletic profile to shine (both run in the low 4.3's), but need to be better players.

Edited March 24 by OneTwoSixFive

[Sandy]

10 hours ago, Rosser80 said:

The more I hear that people are souring on this Safety class and the more I hear about this being a deep OL class, the more I think our first five picks will have multiple OL, an EDGE depending on how the board looks, and at least one CB.

I also see little chance of a safety in the first two days...just not many good prospects, and the only one I actually like that might go there is Bishop, but not until late round 3.

Multiple o-line makes sense, as does a CB. Edge is kind of thin if the top four guys are gone in the first so we might not see one. I wouldn't be shocked at a day 2 WR or DL instead, WR because of the depth of the class and DL because of the way the team has been acting. LB is thin but I'm sure they're interested.

Edited March 24 by Sandy

[Mazrimiv]

If not for GB's recent day 3 picks at WR looking so legit, going WR on day 2 next month would look like a no-brainer.  I still think Gute will have a tough time passing on the WR talent that will be available in RD2/RD3.

[HokieHigh]

1 hour ago, Mazrimiv said:

If not for GB's recent day 3 picks at WR looking so legit, going WR on day 2 next month would look like a no-brainer.  I still think Gute will have a tough time passing on the WR talent that will be available in RD2/RD3.

Agreed. May create good opportunities to trade the pick though which is nice. 

[wgbeethree]

1 hour ago, Mazrimiv said:

If not for GB's recent day 3 picks at WR looking so legit, going WR on day 2 next month would look like a no-brainer.  I still think Gute will have a tough time passing on the WR talent that will be available in RD2/RD3.

With the way WR contracts are going I think they are nearing, if not at, the point I feel the same way as I do about OL. You pretty much have to keep the room deep so you're not stuck overpaying "just good" players to prevent having a major hole in your line up. 

Basically I think you'd ideally like to always have at least one guy who you think could step up into a starters role at TE, RB, DL, EDGE, LB, and S. I think OL and now CB and WR you are looking for two. With the way things are going overall nickel CBs and third WRs are starters so you really have to be at least one deeper on your roster there than just 5 years ago.

[Rosser80]

4 hours ago, Sandy said:

I also see little chance of a safety in the first two days...just not many good prospects, and the only one I actually like that might go there is Bishop, but not until late round 3.

Multiple o-line makes sense, as does a CB. Edge is kind of thin if the top four guys are gone in the first so we might not see one. I wouldn't be shocked at a day 2 WR or DL instead, WR because of the depth of the class and DL because of the way the team has been acting. LB is thin but I'm sure they're interested.

Yeah, I saw that Kenny Clark (hit)piece from lombardiave.com being spread around Idiotbook earlier. I will say, however, if we're going to be moving away from a true NT(ie: the 6-3 to 6-6 335+ body type) you'd think we'd cut the couple guys that fit that profile, draft one of the two Texas DT's at 25, and then address ILB.

[HighCalebR]

4 hours ago, wgbeethree said:

With the way WR contracts are going I think they are nearing, if not at, the point I feel the same way as I do about OL. You pretty much have to keep the room deep so you're not stuck overpaying "just good" players to prevent having a major hole in your line up. 

Basically I think you'd ideally like to always have at least one guy who you think could step up into a starters role at TE, RB, DL, EDGE, LB, and S. I think OL and now CB and WR you are looking for two. With the way things are going overall nickel CBs and third WRs are starters so you really have to be at least one deeper on your roster there than just 5 years ago.

I just feel like the rules make it so easy for WRs it's not as important to draft high, just grab a certain skillset a little later and just keep throwing those picks late, guys who can bounce down to PS and be safe. I think that 4-pudfa is a great spot to keep adding guys, when you have an established room.

Edited March 24 by HighCalebR

[Sandy]

5 hours ago, Rosser80 said:

Yeah, I saw that Kenny Clark (hit)piece from lombardiave.com being spread around Idiotbook earlier. I will say, however, if we're going to be moving away from a true NT(ie: the 6-3 to 6-6 335+ body type) you'd think we'd cut the couple guys that fit that profile, draft one of the two Texas DT's at 25, and then address ILB.

I'm not sure what you're referencing, I was commenting on how their they've been connected to a lot of DL prospects. Deep class for UTs too.

[Mazrimiv]

5 hours ago, Rosser80 said:

Yeah, I saw that Kenny Clark (hit)piece from lombardiave.com being spread around Idiotbook earlier. I will say, however, if we're going to be moving away from a true NT(ie: the 6-3 to 6-6 335+ body type) you'd think we'd cut the couple guys that fit that profile, draft one of the two Texas DT's at 25, and then address ILB.

Murphy at #25 makes sense in this scenario, but why would GB be interested in Sweat if they are moving away from the big bodied NT types?

[Old Guy]

10 hours ago, wgbeethree said:

With the way WR contracts are going I think they are nearing, if not at, the point I feel the same way as I do about OL. You pretty much have to keep the room deep so you're not stuck overpaying "just good" players to prevent having a major hole in your line up. 

Basically I think you'd ideally like to always have at least one guy who you think could step up into a starters role at TE, RB, DL, EDGE, LB, and S. I think OL and now CB and WR you are looking for two. With the way things are going overall nickel CBs and third WRs are starters so you really have to be at least one deeper on your roster there than just 5 years ago.

This sums up why having additional draft capital is so important. The better the depth the easier it becomes to allow guys to walk in free agency and take the pick. Even better would be to trade a guy a year early. If you don't plan on giving a second contract. You likely would get a bigger return, in theory. 

For instance, we add a WR in the draft this year. That could make Doubs or Watson available via trade at the end of this year. Not saying that will happen or even should happen. Just using it as an example. 

The other situation is OT. Don't want to pay Walker and Tom after next years. If they are both really good, they are going to demand a new deal before stepping on the field in the last year of their deal. If get a tackle, preferably a LT in the draft this year, you sign Tom and trade Walker. O-line is dicey so you'd better be sure that guy can play because they are protecting the franchise. 

 

[Rosser80]

4 hours ago, Mazrimiv said:

Murphy at #25 makes sense in this scenario, but why would GB be interested in Sweat if they are moving away from the big bodied NT types?

I'm not saying they are moving away from that type for certain, it's just a hunch based on the traits Hafley is looking for. I think we may have scouted Sweat in the event Minnesota were to draft him; same reason we interviewed Bo Nix I suspect. Minny runs a 3-4 and does not have a true NT outside of Harrison Phillips at the moment and Phillips is only listed at 307. I suspect they'll want someone much larger to fill that role at some point in the near future.

Hafley has made it abundantly clear that he is looking for quick and explosive players; Sweat is obviously not that to say the least; he's a space-eater that slowly generates pressure simply due to his size.

 

3 hours ago, Old Guy said:

This sums up why having additional draft capital is so important. The better the depth the easier it becomes to allow guys to walk in free agency and take the pick. Even better would be to trade a guy a year early. If you don't plan on giving a second contract. You likely would get a bigger return, in theory. 

For instance, we add a WR in the draft this year. That could make Doubs or Watson available via trade at the end of this year. Not saying that will happen or even should happen. Just using it as an example. 

The other situation is OT. Don't want to pay Walker and Tom after next years. If they are both really good, they are going to demand a new deal before stepping on the field in the last year of their deal. If get a tackle, preferably a LT in the draft this year, you sign Tom and trade Walker. O-line is dicey so you'd better be sure that guy can play because they are protecting the franchise. 

 

That all sounds great, but I don't see us trading Walker at all; even if the theory or practice establishes possibility. In fact, he may be cheaper than we think for an extension simply because we don't know his ceiling as a player at the moment. 

You make an excellent point about depth. We have 11 picks and might actually trade DOWN from 91 simply to accumulate more picks Day 3 in order to facilitate quality depth; I'm also not buying Day 3 to be weaker than usual this year given the big boards I've seen. Personally, I think we're fine at the majority of the positions, but we all know that OLB, Safety, and IDL are concerns especially when we're debating Clark's future with only, Wyatt, Wooden, and Brooks as somewhat proven commodities behind them. 

[OneTwoSixFive]

8 hours ago, Old Guy said:

The other situation is OT. Don't want to pay Walker and Tom after next years. If they are both really good, they are going to demand a new deal before stepping on the field in the last year of their deal. If get a tackle, preferably a LT in the draft this year, you sign Tom and trade Walker. O-line is dicey so you'd better be sure that guy can play because they are protecting the franchise. 

 

So you take a late round flyer on an OT. Against all odds (being a 7th rounder), you hit big-time relatively early (judging by his play the second half of this season). Taking into account that more people want quality LTs than can ever get them, you have struck gold with your claim that cost almost nothing. Then you trade away Walker because he is too good and will cost you on a second contract.

To me this is the kind of thing bad franchises do. Green Bay draft and develop, that's their philosophy. If guys are good enough to be upper level players at premium positions (and LT certainly is one, so is RT nowadays), you pay them. You certainly don't let them go, and then try and roll double sixes again on the next roll of the dice - that's playing with fire and gambling heavily that a worse pick (who has to start as Walker is let go) doesn't get Love beaten up, injured and jumpy as he cannot trust the LT to keep his blindside secure.

If you need to save money, I'd rather do it on a WR or a CB, or a RB, than LT (though I'd rather not have to do that either). Quality WRs (for example) seem a much better bet to save money on, as most years seem to have a good crop to choose from. After Davante Adams left (at the time the best WR in the league), we accumulated a bunch of quality guys and good role-players, very quickly.

Your last sentence ("O line is dicey") seems to completely contradict your idea of letting Walker go.

Now I'm all for getting another tackle to develop, as there is a question mark behind the two starters, but I am not letting Walker go unless his play slips from what it was in the second half of 2023 and if that means a big salary, I find a way to afford it (and not by pushing larger and larger amounts of money into future debt). If that means I have to make do with a solid rather than stellar player at WR, TE, S, ILB, CB, then I do that.

Someone like Amengadjie in round three or Rosengarten in the 4th or Walter Rouse later, would be nice additions to the O line room. I particularly like Amengadjie.

Edited March 25 by OneTwoSixFive

[Old Guy]

27 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

So you take a late round flyer on an OT. Against all odds (being a 7th rounder), you hit big-time relatively early (judging by his play the second half of this season). Taking into account that more people want quality LTs than can ever get them, you have struck gold with your claim that cost almost nothing. Then you trade away Walker because he is too good and will cost you on a second contract.

 

Your last sentence ("O line is dicey") seems to completely contradict your idea of letting Walker go.

 

My last sentence doesn't contradict anything. There is clearly inherent risk with that philosophy. 

As for 'bad' franchises doing it, KC has had a revolving door at LT over the past five years. 

The bigger risk would be paying Walker a ton of money, hypothetically, with his ceiling being just outside of the top 10 LTs. 

[OneTwoSixFive]

27 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

My last sentence doesn't contradict anything. There is clearly inherent risk with that philosophy. 

As for 'bad' franchises doing it, KC has had a revolving door at LT over the past five years. 

The bigger risk would be paying Walker a ton of money, hypothetically, with his ceiling being just outside of the top 10 LTs. 

Rasheed'scontract runs through 2024 and 2025. I think that by the end of 2024 the Packers will know exactly what they have there and will set the maximum price they will pay accordingly. As for KC, it is (in my opinion) a bad franchise with respect to what they do with tackles.  Obviously they are a talented team or they wouldn't have won the SB, but in this respect I think they are poor. This is like the recent poll on how well regarded teams are. KC was the worst.........and they won the SB despite that.

As for the sentence that (according to you) didn't contradict anything, here it is in full.

"O-line is dicey so you'd better be sure that guy can play because they are protecting the franchise. "

After the 2024 season you think the Packers will not know what they have there (assuming Walker is relatively healthy and plays, which applies to everyone) ? 

I can't decide how you view Walker. If he is good you want to lose him rather than pay. If he is solid, not great you expect the Packers to overpay him. If his play slips and he is poor, they will move on anyway. It sounds to me like you just don't like him. The grass isn't always greener on the other side of the hill.

Edited March 25 by OneTwoSixFive