Round 7 Pick 249; Rasheed Walker, OT Penn State

[Sandy]

My two cents, I say pay quality tackles whenever you get them. We could afford Cliff and Tauch under prior caps at the same time, Bakh and Bulaga as well. We can afford to pay tackles and let IOL walk and field a quality unit each year. 

[vegas492]

1 minute ago, Sandy said:

My two cents, I say pay quality tackles whenever you get them. We could afford Cliff and Tauch under prior caps at the same time, Bakh and Bulaga as well. We can afford to pay tackles and let IOL walk and field a quality unit each year. 

As fans of football, we should never get mad when investing in the OL, either via contracts or draft picks.

[Old Guy]

2 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

It seems part of the sub-text of your posts is that we should get another OT in this draft. No disagreements there from me, in principle, though we might argue where to take one.

The other part of your argument talks about the importance of depth and having a decent backup plan if your starter goes down, but that seems at odds with your desire to strongly consider moving on from Walker, who looks like a player most are comfortable with as our LT. Losing him negatively affects the LT depth in a significant way, which you felt important. Is there a price too high for Walker - of course there is. Everyone has an upper value that you would be unwise to exceed, even a Jordan Love.

I get you don't like Walker, I get it. Most fans have both their favourites and those they don't like. Rationality doesn't need to be a part of that, it can be a belief, a guess, even a random impulse. It might even be a dispassionate evaluation based on what has been seen so far (Scouts often can and do violently disagree on the same prospect). However, given how difficult it can be to get a good LT, I'd work hard to keep what has already been at least partially proven, rather than start again from scratch and hope.

a) You want a good player at LT, OK, of course you do, we all do.
b) You don't want to pay Walker big money if he plays big. You stated you don't want to pay two tackles high-end money, even though (for example) the Packers kept Bulaga and Bakhtiari together in the past, not to mention Clifton and Tauscher.

Can you not see these two statements are somewhat contradictory ?  The only way you square the circle is to draft again to give you a chance at an equally gifted player on the (relatively) cheap, which probably means round 1 or 2.  Even then, you may get another Derek Sherrod (1st round pick) to name but one early OT pick who disappointed some team. You will get your OT relatively cheap for a few years IF they turn out to be gems, but the risk is considerable. A compromise (which I endorse) is to get a guy who is talented with the athletic traits you need, but maybe a little raw.

That was why I mentioned Amegadjie, who can get time to learn and then compete for starter at LT or RT, if he can play better at either spot than the starters (or as well, but cheaper). Since a part of the conversation when drafting any player is where they slot in on your board, my inexpert opinion (mostly gained from others big boards) is that he is a 3rd round pick - not terribly expensive and with a high upside.

Three questions for you! 

Is our ability to have quality depth affected greater by having more or less guys with a large cap number? Are we better off with young, talented, first contract guys or guys on big second contracts? Do you have a better chance with building qualify depth with more or less draft picks?

I'm not married to any certain round getting an OT. I trust the Packer process of drafting really good offensive linemen in the middle to late rounds. Not opposed to the right guy in round 2.

I'm settling in on Chop Robinson as a guy I want at 25. He might not be there and he's likely not the body type the Packers like in their DEs. A guy can wish though. I'm also not opposed to trading down if our targets are off the board, which could be entirely likely. 

[hitnhope]

Don't understand the push for Chop.   Seems an undersized pass rush specialist who doesn't play the run well, and only had 10 sacks over 3 years of play.    Gamble on the measurables in round 2 maybe, but not what I'd think the Packers want or need out of the 1st round.

Also don't want anything to do with Mim's, Latham or even Guyton out of a 1st round OL.  Too many projections and lack of fit to what we know works on the GB OL.

[Old Guy]

3 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

I think you do not get it.  And that is fine.

We do not have knee jerk reactions in the draft.  I've illustrated that with Bakh, then you cite an UDFA project that we had behind him.  Again, no need for the knee jerk when you have a project you feel fine with.  Even our 7'th round project has been just fine.  And yes, you bring in stop gaps as needed.  That's life in the NFL.

EDS to Linsley.  Linsley to Myers.  No knee jerk needed.  EDS had an 83.5 score his last year in GB playing center.  He was far from terrible that year.

I could go on and on.  We discussed WR's at nauseum.  No knee jerk reaction.  Even last year with JSS staring at us in the first round.

Course, it is wonderful when the draft lines up perfectly and you can end up with a great scenario of having a second year player ready to go when a new contract comes up for the starter in front of him.

So again, fans like to look at roster building over time.  The club?  They are not going to let expiring contracts run their draft and they simply are not worrying about re-signing guys 2 years out from the ends of their deals.

That is a minimum of 14 picks away and two free agency periods.  Not to mention 34 games where injuries are a real thing that do affect value.

Talking about contracts for guys in year 3 is just plain silly.  So many picks will be made.  So many games will be played that trying to extrapolate a contract or value right now is just an exhibition in mental gymnastics.

Please point out where I said anything about 'knee jerk,' reactions in the draft? I'm talking about drafting, where value meets opportunity, so we don't have to dole out a big, second year contracts to guys who are not at the top of their craft. 

I believe Zach Tom is going to get a very lucrative second contract deal and we should pay it. If what we've seen so far continues.  My ceiling for Walker is on the edge of one of those contracts that a team, probably shouldn't pull the trigger on. 

The Packers have been very opportunistic with finding quality offensive linemen in the middle rounds and a few later. Tauscher and Walker come to mind as guys we got in the 7th round. 

This draft seems like it is going to have some guys with potential available again in those middle rounds we feast on. 

The original suggestion, which started this whole thing, was signing Doubs after this year to a big deal. I expounded upon the notion of not doing that with Doubs and got into our situation at T. 

You are jumping in at the end of the conversation and jumping to false conclusions. It's all good, it's the internet, there are no rules. 

[vegas492]

2 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Three questions for you! 

Is our ability to have quality depth affected greater by having more or less guys with a large cap number? Are we better off with young, talented, first contract guys or guys on big second contracts? Do you have a better chance with building qualify depth with more or less draft picks?

I'm not married to any certain round getting an OT. I trust the Packer process of drafting really good offensive linemen in the middle to late rounds. Not opposed to the right guy in round 2.

I'm settling in on Chop Robinson as a guy I want at 25. He might not be there and he's likely not the body type the Packers like in their DEs. A guy can wish though. I'm also not opposed to trading down if our targets are off the board, which could be entirely likely. 

Top of my head...

Clifton.  Bulaga.  Bakh.  Sitton.  Lang.  Linsley.  All o-linemen we've paid higher end dollars to while paying Aaron Rodgers.  (It was similar when we have Favre.  Cliffy, Tausch, Wahle, Rivera, Flanagan....etc.)

Drafted.  College.  Jenkins.  Played, but weren't paid huge dollars while Rodgers was around.

Worst line we had was probably like 2016 when we had to start Bakh, Taylor, Linsley, Evans and McCray.  

It's not difficult paying the OL and paying a QB.  And this is the NFL, if you can have one or two proven backups on the OL while having rookies developing, you are in a fine spot.

And Lord knows, we've been outstanding as of late of developing guys.  For all we know, Jones and Tenatu are ready to be tackles in the league.

[OneTwoSixFive]

15 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Three questions for you! 

Is our ability to have quality depth affected greater by having more or less guys with a large cap number? Are we better off with young, talented, first contract guys or guys on big second contracts? Do you have a better chance with building qualify depth with more or less draft picks?

I'm not married to any certain round getting an OT. I trust the Packer process of drafting really good offensive linemen in the middle to late rounds. Not opposed to the right guy in round 2.

I'm settling in on Chop Robinson as a guy I want at 25. He might not be there and he's likely not the body type the Packers like in their DEs. A guy can wish though. I'm also not opposed to trading down if our targets are off the board, which could be entirely likely. 

A) Like the three bears and the porridge, you want just the right amount (and ideally at the most critical positions). The answer isn't a binary this or that, it's fluid and a continual judgement call. The best recipe for success is having the maximum number of guys outplaying their contract and THAT is a very fluid situation as they will probably manoeuvre to earn more ASAP.

B) As I already stated I liked Barton early (25 or 41) or Amegadjie a little later. there are almost certainly good OT picks to be had later, but I'm not any expert to be able to differentiate between a Bakhtiari and your average 4th round OT, or a Walker and your average 7th rounder.

C) I like DL Byron Murphy if there, or CB/S DeJean, or C/G Powers-Johnson. C/G/T Barton, may be my default there, just as ILB Junior Colson is my default at 41 if there is no-one I like more (he might just last to 58 but is gone in most mocks I do). There are others I like less, but wouldn't throw the toys out of my pram over. I'd also be ok with the Packers trading back to the first few picks at the top of round two or the back end of the first.

Edited March 25 by OneTwoSixFive

[vegas492]

7 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Please point out where I said anything about 'knee jerk,' reactions in the draft? I'm talking about drafting, where value meets opportunity, so we don't have to dole out a big, second year contracts to guys who are not at the top of their craft. 

I believe Zach Tom is going to get a very lucrative second contract deal and we should pay it. If what we've seen so far continues.  My ceiling for Walker is on the edge of one of those contracts that a team, probably shouldn't pull the trigger on. 

The Packers have been very opportunistic with finding quality offensive linemen in the middle rounds and a few later. Tauscher and Walker come to mind as guys we got in the 7th round. 

This draft seems like it is going to have some guys with potential available again in those middle rounds we feast on. 

The original suggestion, which started this whole thing, was signing Doubs after this year to a big deal. I expounded upon the notion of not doing that with Doubs and got into our situation at T. 

You are jumping in at the end of the conversation and jumping to false conclusions. It's all good, it's the internet, there are no rules. 

And again, you are at a single year of starting and trying to project it out another 34+ games.  Even for Tom.

That is serious mental gymnastics that ignore the minimum of 14 incoming draft picks and yet another free agency period, not to mention simple regression or injury.

Saying you should or should not re-sign someone that far out is none other than doing mental gymnastics.

I get why you are doing it, you are a fan.  But I can tell you, the club is not.  Not yet.  Too many variables that can affect that outcome.

I'll bet we do hope we get to a situation where we need to look at signing him, and Walker and some WR's at that point in time.  But that time is simply not now.  Again, too many variables left within the timeframe.

Edited March 25 by vegas492

[craig]

I think all of the points made are fair. 

• This draft is huge, because it may be the last one we're likely to see with extra high-round picks for a while.  3 straight years of surplus high-round picks thanks to adams and Rodgers, super huge.  Stock up more good players. 
• Draft good players, and plan ahead, those are interlocked.  If you're successfully drafting good players, all of your rooms get deeper, and you stockpile talent to replace players future who walk.  
• Certainly if you draft lots of good players, especially in back-to-back-to-back drafts with extra high picks, you can't extend them all at top dollar.  You've got to be able to let some go, and have replacements (or upgrades) ready on rookie contract.  
• I think Gute does look ahead, just like TT did.  All else equal, areas of impending need may win the ties.  But that never helps if you don't end up drafting good players.  
• I agree that I want OT depth for if/when Walker/Tom either leave or get injured.  Whether that next-man-up is Jones, Tenuta, a 2nd-day pick, or a 3rd day pick, I have no idea.  
• I also agree with Sandy that if you have two contract worthy OT's, investing second-contract money on both is very reasonable.  But oldguy is obviously correct, unless our young guys fail, we're not going to be able to second-contract everybody.  Some may go, and perhaps one might be walker.  Who knows?  But yeah, I'd have more confidence in replacing a WR like Doubs than I would in replacing an OT like Walker.  Hopefully our D+D is going so great that we've got high-class replacements for anybody and everybody.  

 

[packfanfb]

48 minutes ago, hitnhope said:

Don't understand the push for Chop.   Seems an undersized pass rush specialist who doesn't play the run well, and only had 10 sacks over 3 years of play.    Gamble on the measurables in round 2 maybe, but not what I'd think the Packers want or need out of the 1st round.

Also don't want anything to do with Mim's, Latham or even Guyton out of a 1st round OL.  Too many projections and lack of fit to what we know works on the GB OL.

This isn't Brian Gutekunst. His draft tendencies suggest he believes in the opposite. He gambles on measurables (and frankly puts very little stock in college production) for his 1st rounders. This is especially true for pass rushers (Gary and Van Ness).

On day 2, he shifts a bit and focuses more on hitting needs and even lightens up on his athletic requirements (e.g. Reed selection last year). 

Now, you are correct that Chop is a bit undersized and there's a chance Gute/Hafley aren't interested in that type of player given the past sentiment to go with bigger EDGE guys. However, if Hafley feels differently and wants more of a wide-9 twitchy rusher like Chop for his scheme (Dallas uses similar looks with Parsons and the Niners just signed Leonard Floyd for the same role and he's a 245-pound player), I have no doubt Gute can be sold on it given Chop's athletic profile. 

[Old Guy]

1 minute ago, vegas492 said:

And again, you are a year of starting and trying to project it out another 34+ games.  Even for Tom.

That is serious mental gymnastics that ignore the minimum of 14 incoming draft picks and yet another free agency period, not to mention simple regression or injury.

Saying you should or should not re-sign someone that far out is none other than doing mental gymnastics.

I get why you are doing it, you are a fan.  But I can tell you, the club is not.  Not yet.  Too many variables that can affect that outcome.

I'll bet we do hope we get to a situation where we need to look at signing him, and Walker and some WR's at that point in time.  But that time is simply not now.  Again, too many variables left within the timeframe.

No, I'm not. If Tom plays like he did this year again next year, he's getting extended next off season. Walker will want the same if he ups his game. There is no 5th year option with these guys and no way an agent allows either to step on the field without a new deal. That is the curse that goes with the blessing of finding really good players after the 1st round.

You have to pay them 2 years earlier. 

You can bet your arse the Packers are planning for those possibilities next year. 

[Lodestar]

50 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

No, I'm not. If Tom plays like he did this year again next year, he's getting extended next off season. Walker will want the same if he ups his game. There is no 5th year option with these guys and no way an agent allows either to step on the field without a new deal. That is the curse that goes with the blessing of finding really good players after the 1st round.

You have to pay them 2 years earlier. 

You can bet your arse the Packers are planning for those possibilities next year. 

I like Walker and I really like Tom, but they would have to be Pro Bowlers in 2024 for either of them to threaten a holdout let alone actually go through with it.

[Old Guy]

1 hour ago, Lodestar said:

I like Walker and I really like Tom, but they would have to be Pro Bowlers in 2024 for either of them to threaten a holdout let alone actually go through with it.

Not really, they just have to be really good. 

[squire12]

3 hours ago, Old Guy said:

Not really, they just have to be really good. 

That issue is alleviated by selecting OL in 2024 draft.   Harder to sit/ holdout if a replacement is ready to step in

[hitnhope]

7 hours ago, packfanfb said:

This isn't Brian Gutekunst. His draft tendencies suggest he believes in the opposite. He gambles on measurables (and frankly puts very little stock in college production) for his 1st rounders. This is especially true for pass rushers (Gary and Van Ness).

On day 2, he shifts a bit and focuses more on hitting needs and even lightens up on his athletic requirements (e.g. Reed selection last year). 

Now, you are correct that Chop is a bit undersized and there's a chance Gute/Hafley aren't interested in that type of player given the past sentiment to go with bigger EDGE guys. However, if Hafley feels differently and wants more of a wide-9 twitchy rusher like Chop for his scheme (Dallas uses similar looks with Parsons and the Niners just signed Leonard Floyd for the same role and he's a 245-pound player), I have no doubt Gute can be sold on it given Chop's athletic profile. 

So we sit 2 of LVN, Gary,Preston so we can get this years 1st round rush specialist on the field?  Doesn't seem like a good use of resources.I'm