DWhitehurst Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 1 hour ago, {Family Ghost} said: Bukowski was looking at the potential for a big trade up for Joe Alt. Alt is going to be a stud .. I'd think about it long and hard. Maybe we target the Tennessee Titans at pick #7. Packer would have to part with #25, #41 & #58 more than likely. Tennessee would probably have to give us their 4th to make the points work out right. They do not have a 3rd round pick, so adding two 2nd's from us might be appealing to them. I could see them saying .. no, we want Alt, but they seem to have their share of needs. Titan's trade pick #7 & 4th round pick #106. 458 points in Rich Hill trade chart Packers trade pick #25, #41 & #58. 469 points in Rich Hill trade chart Packers select Joe Alt at #7, and would have picks 88 and 91 to work with in round 3, and 106 and 126 to work with in round 4. Having no 2nd's sucks, but we'd have the draft ammo to trade up if needed. I have a hard time seeing the Packers spending 11 draft picks anyway, and the chance to add a blue chip LT might be appealing. Though way ahead of schedule given how surprisingly much and how quickly Love has panned out along with alot if these 1st year draftees, I still think the Packers need a bit more rebuild. While they are contenders now, I think their peak in this current contention window may be 2025. Hence, I'm more inclined towards hoping Gute does another quantity approach to the draft than quality. Sure, if he wants to make a modest trade-up in the 1st to secure a certain DB he likes, then great. But I do think we still need a bunch of picks to maintain let alone improve the roster. Perhaps next draft I might advocate the opposite approach, but I don't think they're quite there yet. But hey, hope I'm wrong and they win the SB already this coming year! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoremore Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 1 hour ago, Lodestar said: Yeah, you have to go back to 2017 to find a draft where an IOL wasn't selected in the first round (Forrest Lamp went #38 that year). Over the last five drafts, an average of 2.4 IOL have gone in the first round. Combine that with Barton's versatility and the fact that he is a very good prospect in his own right, and I have a hard time imagining him being available at #41. He might not even be there at #25. Versatility is something the Packers value more than other teams do. Consensus on Barton is somewhere between 45-50 range. Historically deep OT class as well as IOL leads me to believe he'll likely fall. CBS #51 NFL Drafttek # 47. There are a ton of IOL in this draft if we miss at #41 plenty of other opportunities to IOL. JMO draft is a crapshoot see how things shape up as we get closer. Think we'll be surprised at the quality of OL that will be available at #41. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 Dilemma I'm having with this LB class, we've obviously poured a lot of resources into Quay and it sounds like we want to slot him as the WLB. McDuffie seems like a good green dot guy to have in the middle, so it's really the SAM we're looking at. Every LB in this class is like 6'1 225-230, they're all WLB prospects, who plays the strong side? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampfgeist Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 3 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Dilemma I'm having with this LB class, we've obviously poured a lot of resources into Quay and it sounds like we want to slot him as the WLB. McDuffie seems like a good green dot guy to have in the middle, so it's really the SAM we're looking at. Every LB in this class is like 6'1 225-230, they're all WLB prospects, who plays the strong side? Courtesy of craig in the Packers news thread. One of craig's notes on Gute's presser today was an answer to your question: Was asked a couple of times about 4-3, strongside ILB. He said they don't scout that way. Don't look for different traits for different ILB slots. Given injuries guys all need to be able to handle any of the spots, play run, and defend the pass. Also noted that 3-ILB sets will only be 10-15% of the sets anyway. Likes McDuffie. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 3 minutes ago, Kampfgeist said: Courtesy of craig in the Packers news thread. One of craig's notes on Gute's presser today was an answer to your question: Was asked a couple of times about 4-3, strongside ILB. He said they don't scout that way. Don't look for different traits for different ILB slots. Given injuries guys all need to be able to handle any of the spots, play run, and defend the pass. Also noted that 3-ILB sets will only be 10-15% of the sets anyway. Likes McDuffie. I get it, but Gute still knows in that set someone's going to have a TE on that side, which means there's a TE/OL accounting for that backer. I'm not saying it's a huge deal, but you'd like a bigger body like Quay there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 22 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Dilemma I'm having with this LB class, we've obviously poured a lot of resources into Quay and it sounds like we want to slot him as the WLB. McDuffie seems like a good green dot guy to have in the middle, so it's really the SAM we're looking at. Every LB in this class is like 6'1 225-230, they're all WLB prospects, who plays the strong side? That's why I've picked Colson over and again. He has the size for it (assuming we want to go by traditional requirements). But hard to project him right now due to not testing at all. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 16 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: I get it, but Gute still knows in that set someone's going to have a TE on that side, which means there's a TE/OL accounting for that backer. I'm not saying it's a huge deal, but you'd like a bigger body like Quay there. Yes. He also said he doesn't want to get to small on defense. So I'd look at guys above 5.0 in RAS at size on defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgbeethree Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 35 minutes ago, packfanfb said: That's why I've picked Colson over and again. He has the size for it (assuming we want to go by traditional requirements). But hard to project him right now due to not testing at all. I like Colson a lot. High floor guy for sure in my eyes. I think him being the clear cut best defender on the clear cut best defense alleviates the lack of testing. Obviously I can't speak for how Gute feels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossibleCabbage Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 Is there some reason you wouldn't want to have Preston Smith as your SAM backer assuming you do have to play base for some reason? Like I know he's not going to be on this team forever, but he might be better there than as an edge-setting DE. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 31 minutes ago, PossibleCabbage said: Is there some reason you wouldn't want to have Preston Smith as your SAM backer assuming you do have to play base for some reason? Like I know he's not going to be on this team forever, but he might be better there than as an edge-setting DE. For one, Preston is actually a damn good edge setter in the run game (better than Gary). Two, I don't see the movement skills there. One of the best things about switching to the 4-3 was no more Preston in coverage... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 1 hour ago, PossibleCabbage said: Is there some reason you wouldn't want to have Preston Smith as your SAM backer assuming you do have to play base for some reason? Like I know he's not going to be on this team forever, but he might be better there than as an edge-setting DE. With the current roster, probably. He is mostly going to be a DE. He can probably play 5 or so LB snaps if needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossibleCabbage Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 I guess the question is- how many snaps of "base" do you actually expect them to play? Teams have been playing dime more often than base since 2020. How high do you value those ~4-8 snaps of base defense a game in the draft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 1 minute ago, PossibleCabbage said: I guess the question is- how many snaps of "base" do you actually expect them to play? Teams have been playing dime more often than base since 2020. How high do you value those ~4-8 snaps of base defense a game in the draft? If they truly believe that McDuffie is a full-time starter at MLB, I wouldn't value it too highly. Especially when that third LB is likely the first guy off the field in sub packages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R T Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 2 hours ago, packfanfb said: For one, Preston is actually a damn good edge setter in the run game (better than Gary). Two, I don't see the movement skills there. One of the best things about switching to the 4-3 was no more Preston in coverage... Preston is much better in coverage than many Packer fans want to admit. Will not be surprised if he is the 3rd LB when they use one on 5-10 plays a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refugee Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 1 hour ago, R T said: Preston is much better in coverage than many Packer fans want to admit. Will not be surprised if he is the 3rd LB when they use one on 5-10 plays a game. Never question the legend of Preston Island. Man erases WR1 as long as he has a DC like Barry who believes in him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts