vegas492 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 All I know is that we better get Love weaponz this year. The days of getting by with lesser talent taken outside of round one should be over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 https://theathletic.com/5270481/2024/02/13/nfl-draft-2024-prospect-rankings-top-100/?source=pulsenewsletter&campaign=8996238&userId=212065 RB: Brugler has highest RB at #70, but has 7 RB within 70-100. Potentially nice fit for one of our 88/91 picks. S: 5 within 41-72 range. Seems good fit for one of our 41/58 picks. The volume of CB's also seems like a great fit for our top-100 picks. Seems a pretty good stock of various o-linemen, too. Seems like draft may match up reasonably well with Packer needs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R T Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 6 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said: Maybe the casual twitter/FB fan. Most everyone around here is well versed in GB's draft tendencies by now. Yet most all the conversation and mock drafts here is about what people believe is their needs. They hear it, but not sure they understand or believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 8 minutes ago, R T said: Yet most all the conversation and mock drafts here is about what people believe is their needs. They hear it, but not sure they understand or believe it. We've dialed in GB's draft tendencies pretty well, we're smarter than you think we are. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R T Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 24 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: We've dialed in GB's draft tendencies pretty well, we're smarter than you think we are. Some very much are dialed in, many not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampfgeist Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 14 hours ago, ThatJerkDave said: Rakestraw will mix it up. I think that his highlight reel looks a lot like Jaire's. Just have to wonder if he can handle 17 games against the top competition at that weight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hucr65iaOcU&ab_channel=PrinceHighlights Abrams-Draine is probably even better in coverage. But even in the highlights he is pretty slight. Not afraid of contact, and some of these guys are also mentioned in this very thread. But man, is he small. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmum2mHOeqQ&ab_channel=KaliforniaHighlights Interested to see Rakestraw's official weight at the Combine too. I've seen some sites list him around 178 but vast majority have him 188ish. Sauce Gardner was 6'3" 190 at the Combine so if Rakestraw is 6'0" 188 it wouldn't give me any pause at all. Come in under 185 and I agree with you - I'd be worried and would take him off the board. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilltray Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 52 minutes ago, R T said: Yet most all the conversation and mock drafts here is about what people believe is their needs. They hear it, but not sure they understand or believe it. It's not like there is a 1-2-3-ect sequential list. There are many players with similar grades in tiers. At any given pick, there are usually multiple players who could be considered "BPA" and you take the one that makes the most sense and fits the best on your roster. It's not a black and white thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 49 minutes ago, Kampfgeist said: Interested to see Rakestraw's official weight at the Combine too. I've seen some sites list him around 178 but vast majority have him 188ish. Sauce Gardner was 6'3" 190 at the Combine so if Rakestraw is 6'0" 188 it wouldn't give me any pause at all. Come in under 185 and I agree with you - I'd be worried and would take him off the board. Yeah this is why Rakestraw is still on "my" Packers board, but Wiggins and Lassiter are off. Combine weight will matter for all three, but I could see Rakestraw being on our board still if it's 188. He doesn't look thin like Wiggins does on tape either. And he plays very physical without getting to handsy, which is the problem that left Kool-Aid off my board. So after reviewing the consensus top 7, here's my board at CB: 1. Terrion Arnold - man coverage skills really impressed me. Great ball skills too. Doubt he makes it anywhere near us. 2. Cooper DeJean - I gotta say I did not expect him to look so explosive and natural on tape. Instincts are insane. Could be our starting slot corner, could be our starting SS. 3. Ennis Rakestraw - his man skills rival Arnold, gets right on guys but keeps his hands off so cleanly that he won't see much laundry on Sundays. 4. Quinyon Mitchell - looks like he played a lot more zone than the other three based on the footage I've seen so far. May have been asked to lineup away from the receiver a lot. But his athletic abilities are the best in this class and it pops on tape. I'm calling a 9.5 RAS. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgbeethree Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 Combine invites are out. https://www.nfl.com/news/full-list-of-prospects-invited-to-2024-nfl-scouting-combine 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantyWrestler Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 4 hours ago, Kampfgeist said: Interested to see Rakestraw's official weight at the Combine too. I've seen some sites list him around 178 but vast majority have him 188ish. Sauce Gardner was 6'3" 190 at the Combine so if Rakestraw is 6'0" 188 it wouldn't give me any pause at all. Come in under 185 and I agree with you - I'd be worried and would take him off the board. I certainly wouldn't take him off the board but may drop him down a bit, knowing he will need to add some weight to hold up. But a pro S&C room should do the trick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 4 hours ago, R T said: Yet most all the conversation and mock drafts here is about what people believe is their needs. They hear it, but not sure they understand or believe it. "Need" is such a fuzzy word anyway. What position group doesn't have a present or impending "need"? QB, maybe WR for the moment, TE. In retrospect, almost any selection can be retrospectively viewed as a "need" pick. Van Ness? Not a critical need at the time, being #4 on the OLB depth chart once Gary returned. But Preston is aging, Gary had the surgery and was expiring. In hindsight, we can say "edge was need, and who can't use a dynamic edge"? TE certainly seemed a need. Reed at WR, too. Two drafts ago, Watson sure seemed to fit a need. Not sure everybody saw Quay as a "need" pick, but looking back now the ILB room was pretty needy. Wyatt, d-line seemed need. Jaire, CB was huge need. Same with the Randall draft. TT during his early prime had built up so much D+D talent that he was routinely drafting a year ahead in terms of need. I think Gute is kinda approaching that situation? Draft Van Ness so you don't need to be starting him right away. But for this round, safety, corner, ILB, D-line, edge, every one of those groups could be seen as "need" groups on defense. And if they actually draft guys in those groups, we'll look back and say "Oh, yeah, for Hafley's system he needed XYZ". Stupid ramble. But pretty much *any* good player that Gute drafts at any position group other than QB and TE, there is opportunity for a good player to play and help significantly by his 2nd year if not his first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Penske Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 5 hours ago, Packerraymond said: We've dialed in GB's draft tendencies pretty well, we're smarter than you think we are. Yep. And access to historical data and trends from Ron, Ted, and now gutey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 8 hours ago, R T said: Yet most all the conversation and mock drafts here is about what people believe is their needs. They hear it, but not sure they understand or believe it. Outside of QB, is there a position on the team that wouldn't qualify as a "need" anyways? Maybe TE and WR? Packers could draft an RB, IOL, OT, DT, DE, ILB, S or CB in the 1st round and it would probably hit the "BPA" or "BVA" box, and still qualify as a "need" to some degree. Typically you can rule out a few of those positions via looking at positional value relative to the 1st round, but even Gute has strayed from that a bit (e.g. Walker). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 8 hours ago, Packerraymond said: We've dialed in GB's draft tendencies pretty well, we're smarter than you think we are. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brat&Beer Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 Packers 1st round picks by position since 1992. DL (6) 2022: Wyatt/2016: Clark/2013: Jones/2009: Raji/2007: Harrell/1998: Holliday CB (6) 2021: Stokes/2018: Alexander/2004: Carroll/1999: Edwards/1995: Newsome/1992: Buckley EDGE: (4) 2023: Van Ness/2019: Gary/2012: Perry/2001: Reynolds LB (4) 2022: Walker/2006: Hawk/2003: Barnett/1993: Simmons OT: (4) 2011: Sherrod/2010: Bulaga/1997: Verba/1996: Michels S (3) 2019: Savage/2015: Randall/2014: Clinton-Dix QB (2) 2020: Love/2005: Rodgers WR (1) 2002: Walker TE (1) 2000: Franks G (1) 1994 Taylor 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts