Cwood is a nerd and so are all the Packer Favorite Prospects: 2023 Draft Discussion Thread

[incognito_man]

29 minutes ago, Kampfgeist said:

He's had his *** grabbed enough times by the fans during his Lambeau Leaps - he's good with the people

If the checks are fat enough he's not going to care about the big meanies at the beginning.

I spell mine a couple different ways, but each option is 4-letters long

[ThatJerkDave]

9 hours ago, Sandy said:

I see us drafting at least two WRs and wouldn't be mad with him in the 4th. His tape was very, very good.

I am going to see if I can find more full games like the OU-Texas game for Haselwood.  I am not seeing the negatives that are in the scouting reports.  I also like his work-ethic.  I read an interview with him, he said that he wasn't feeling well at the combine and shouldn't have run.  He was disappointed in his numbers and immediately got back to work, and the numbers improved at the pro day.  Are there probably 40 stories like that every year? Yeah, probably.  But he did get right back to work, and he did improve.  I like to see it.  

He is missing the true long speed.  But that is all I am seeing as a negative right now.  

[ThatJerkDave]

8 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I spell mine a couple different ways, but each option is 4-letters long

There is a four letter word for testicles? 

[OneTwoSixFive]

Some people have been speculating that the Giants may try to trade up into the teens for a top receiver (see Great Blue North, for example).

Interestingly their first and second round picks, 25 and 57, add up (on the JJ chart) to exactly the value of Packers pick 15 (value 1050).

Let us suppose the Jets give us pick 42 (there will probably be more to it but one of those round 2 picks is highly likely to be part of the package). Would you then agree to a deal with the Giants, lose pick 15, but gain 25 and 57 or stay where you are.

If the deal were done the Packers would have 25, 42, 45, 57 in the first two rounds. Is that better or worse than 15, 42, 45 ?

I'd be tempted by that deal, as more picks in rounds 1&2 increases the chances of hitting on a good NFL player. Question is, would the quality of the first pick be much worse at 25 than it would at 15 ?  Of course it depends on who is available at 15, but we have some idea of that, even without knowing the exact way the draft falls out.

Edited April 10, 2023 by OneTwoSixFive

[beekay414]

12 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

There is a four letter word for testicles? 

[Packerraymond]

5 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

Some people have been speculating that the Giants may try to trade up into the teens for a top receiver (see Great Blue North, for example).

Interestingly their first and second round picks, 25 and 57, add up (on the JJ chart) to exactly the value of Packers pick 15 (value 1050).

Let us suppose the Jets give us pick 42 (there will probably be more to it but one of those round 2 picks is highly likely to be part of the package). Would you then agree to a deal with the Giants, lose pick 15, but gain 25 and 57 or stay where you are.

If the deal were done the Packers would have 25, 42, 45, 57 in the first two rounds. Is that better or worse than 15, 42, 45 ?

I'd be tempted by that deal, as more picks in rounds 1&2 increases the chances of hitting on a good NFL player. Question is, would the quality of the first pick be much worse at 25 than it would at 15 ?  Of course it depends on who is available at 15, but we have some idea of that, even without knowing the exact way the draft falls out.

If you want a TE or WR, thats a fine trade.

If you want an EDGE or OT, you're missing out on the top tier players.

[hitnhope]

They don’t survive if they avoid tough decisions that don’t promote longer term growth.

You are talking like Harley Davidson.  They haven’t changed with the times instead focusing on their brand 

[beekay414]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

If you want an EDGE or OT, you're missing out on the top tier players.

That seems like a comfortable range for AA, Foskey or McDonald and might land you Harrison if you're looking OT.

[Packerraymond]

1 minute ago, beekay414 said:

That seems like a comfortable range for AA, Foskey or McDonald and might land you Harrison if you're looking OT.

As I said, missing the top tier of players ha.

[beekay414]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

As I said, missing the top tier of players ha.

Maybe, maybe not. Would, as always, depend on the board. 

[smetana34]

10 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

Some people have been speculating that the Giants may try to trade up into the teens for a top receiver (see Great Blue North, for example).

Interestingly their first and second round picks, 25 and 57, add up (on the JJ chart) to exactly the value of Packers pick 15 (value 1050).

Let us suppose the Jets give us pick 42 (there will probably be more to it but one of those round 2 picks is highly likely to be part of the package). Would you then agree to a deal with the Giants, lose pick 15, but gain 25 and 57 or stay where you are.

If the deal were done the Packers would have 25, 42, 45, 57 in the first two rounds. Is that better or worse than 15, 42, 45 ?

I'd be tempted by that deal, as more picks in rounds 1&2 increases the chances of hitting on a good NFL player. Question is, would the quality of the first pick be much worse at 25 than it would at 15 ?  Of course it depends on who is available at 15, but we have some idea of that, even without knowing the exact way the draft falls out.

Pass. We need a pass rusher or tackle and we're in a spot to grab one of the best options available. I'd rather have that than more swings at tier two and three players

[ThatJerkDave]

23 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

Some people have been speculating that the Giants may try to trade up into the teens for a top receiver (see Great Blue North, for example).

Interestingly their first and second round picks, 25 and 57, add up (on the JJ chart) to exactly the value of Packers pick 15 (value 1050).

Let us suppose the Jets give us pick 42 (there will probably be more to it but one of those round 2 picks is highly likely to be part of the package). Would you then agree to a deal with the Giants, lose pick 15, but gain 25 and 57 or stay where you are.

If the deal were done the Packers would have 25, 42, 45, 57 in the first two rounds. Is that better or worse than 15, 42, 45 ?

I'd be tempted by that deal, as more picks in rounds 1&2 increases the chances of hitting on a good NFL player. Question is, would the quality of the first pick be much worse at 25 than it would at 15 ?  Of course it depends on who is available at 15, but we have some idea of that, even without knowing the exact way the draft falls out.

I would really like to see the board when that trade is offered.  I like the idea, but there are real scenarios that I am very much wanting to pick at 15.  If 4 QBs, Bijan Robinson, and 2 WRs go, we are getting a pretty damn good player at 15, IMO.

[Sandy]

48 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

There is a four letter word for testicles? 

Nuts.

Edit: damn beaten to it

Edited April 10, 2023 by Sandy

[Sandy]

30 minutes ago, smetana34 said:

Pass. We need a pass rusher or tackle and we're in a spot to grab one of the best options available. I'd rather have that than more swings at tier two and three players

Those are more wants than needs imo. We really need pass catchers. We simply don't have enough bodies to fill the room as is at WR or TE.

I want to wait to see who makes it to round 2 at Edge, but wouldn't mind staying at 15 if one of the top three tackles makes it. I just don't think they do. It's very likely they go to the Bears, Titans and Jets.

[Kampfgeist]

 

1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

I spell mine a couple different ways, but each option is 4-letters long

I can't use those terms for the female anatomy