2024 NFL Draft Discussion

[Rosser80]

8 hours ago, DWhitehurst said:

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 to add a few more pieces and some depth. While they took a massive step forward towards becoming contenders now, I think their peak in this current contention window may be 2026. 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 EDGE he likes, then great. But I do think we still need a bunch of picks to cover a couple of needs and solidify depth on the roster. Perhaps next draft I might advocate the opposite approach, but that'll depend on how this draft shakes out. But hey, hope I'm wrong and they win the SB already this coming year!

Tweaked it a bit.

[Mazrimiv]

16 hours 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.

Not meant to be a shot at you, but Bukowski is clueless, and everything he says should probably be ignored. 

Hard pass on trading GB's first three picks for #7 overall.

[R T]

7 hours ago, Refugee said:

Never question the legend of Preston Island. Man erases WR1 as long as he has a DC like Barry who believes in him. 

Smith was targeted 4 times in coverage last season and allowed one completion for 15 yards, 25% completion rate allowed and a 42.7 passer rating against. Some people here want to act like he gave up a TD every time he was targeted. Not claiming Smith in coverage should be a staple to the defense in the future, but not as hopeless as some want to claim either. 

[Mr Bad Example]

On 3/22/2024 at 8:50 AM, vegas492 said:

Guy X didn't do Y, so saying he can is projection.

DeJean has the traits that you 100% COVET in the safety position.  And he has some great coverage skills.  He's a swiss army knife type of piece to have.  And you can play just oh so many games with him.  Is he a safety?  Is he a slot?  Where is he?  What is he?

Taking him and signing a tier 2 safety in FA would give us the flexibility of having 3 safeties on the field at the same time.  And at least two of them have man on man coverage ability.  

And when I look at this safety class...it is a very easy conclusion that DeJean has the best traits for that position.

Just in GB history, Leroy Butler was an All-American CB who had tow very promising years as an NFL CB under his belt before being moved to safety.

I don't know if Hafleys scheme allows it but Woodspn was also more than a CB when he was here (though when he was "officially" moved to S the results were, uh, not good)

[Isherwood]

1 hour ago, Mazrimiv said:

Not meant to be a shot at you, but Bukowski is clueless, and everything he says should probably be ignored. 

Hard pass on trading GB's first three picks for #7 overall.

Bingo. He does this every year too, because he tries to be the smartest guy in the room. And I mean, every single year, he tries to come up with a scenario where GB trades away massive capital for one guy. He’s a debate club nerd, so he likes to pretend that it’s a good idea so he can argue it. 
 

Do we think this team has so few holes that giving up our first 3 picks for Joe Alt is so much better than staying and taking the best OL at 25? Does ANY team have that few holes? It’s a horrendous idea. Absolutely horrendous. And Peter is not a serious person. He’s Colin Cowherd with a wife who pays all the bills. 

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, Isherwood said:

He’s Colin Cowherd with a wife who pays all the bills. 

So, he's winning the game of man life?  Sign me up for that, 100%!

[Mazrimiv]

1 hour ago, Isherwood said:

Do we think this team has so few holes that giving up our first 3 picks for Joe Alt is so much better than staying and taking the best OL at 25? Does ANY team have that few holes? It’s a horrendous idea. Absolutely horrendous. And Peter is not a serious person. He’s Colin Cowherd with a wife who pays all the bills. 

Yeah, this is the part that seems so ridiculous to me.  Would I rather have Alt than a Barton type OL?  Sure.  Would I rather have Alt than Barton + 41 + 58?  Not a chance.

[NFLGURU]

2 hours ago, Mr Bad Example said:

Just in GB history, Leroy Butler was an All-American CB who had tow very promising years as an NFL CB under his belt before being moved to safety.

I don't know if Hafleys scheme allows it but Woodspn was also more than a CB when he was here (though when he was "officially" moved to S the results were, uh, not good)

DeJean is movable to the outside, nickel or safety.  I think he'll find a home at safety.  He can handle the corner spots if needed but will have to refine his game.  He's kinda grabby and won't get away with that at the next level.  I think he and McKinney would be a money tandem back there at safety.  DeJean is a good football player.  He'll really help them if he's their choice.

Edited March 26 by NFLGURU

[Mazrimiv]

Just now, vegas492 said:

So, he's winning the game of man life?  Sign me up for that, 100%!

No kidding.  That sounds like a mighty fine life (and wife) to me.

[vegas492]

1 minute ago, Mazrimiv said:

Yeah, this is the part that seems so ridiculous to me.  Would I rather have Alt than a Barton type OL?  Sure.  Would I rather have Alt than Barton + 41 + 58?  Not a chance.

Like, don't get me wrong.  I'm with yah concerning that trade.

But...with our roster being just so young and with all the draft picks that we have, I do hope we move around and target guys.  Not saying round one necessarily.

But if that Penn State tackle gets within 8-10 draft slots of GB, I hope we explore moving up for him.

[coachbuns]

53 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Like, don't get me wrong.  I'm with yah concerning that trade.

But...with our roster being just so young and with all the draft picks that we have, I do hope we move around and target guys.  Not saying round one necessarily.

But if that Penn State tackle gets within 8-10 draft slots of GB, I hope we explore moving up for him.

I don't like the idea of giving up 2's and/or 3's to move up for 1 guy.  Stay at #25, take whoever and then in the 2nd round use those 4/5/6 rounders to move up for guys you like.  Target positions and the best guys there in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.    

[Mazrimiv]

Include 88 and/or 91 in a trade up?  Sure, but leave 41 and 58 alone.  I am not interested in parting with those RD2 picks this year.

[vegas492]

10 minutes ago, coachbuns said:

I don't like the idea of giving up 2's and/or 3's to move up for 1 guy.  Stay at #25, take whoever and then in the 2nd round use those 4/5/6 rounders to move up for guys you like.  Target positions and the best guys there in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.    

I don't like it either.  But I'm not opposed to it for the right player.  I'd easily give up a 2 in order to get that Penn State tackle.  

And I'll expand that to the Oregon State tackle, as well.  And the CB Mitchell.

But that is just me.  I really like those guys.

Also?  Not sure I'd give up more than a 4'th to secure DeJean.  But I'd also probably do a 4'th for Fautanu.

But again, that is just me and those are the guys that I really like who could get close enough to our pick to make me interested.

[vegas492]

12 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

Include 88 and/or 91 in a trade up?  Sure, but leave 41 and 58 alone.  I am not interested in parting with those RD2 picks this year.

To me, all picks are in play.  But if I'm using a second rounder, it needs to be for a special talent with no real red flags.  And if there is a special talent there, odds are the other teams covet the kid too and I'm not interested in overpaying.

[Arthur Penske]

2 hours ago, Isherwood said:

Bingo. He does this every year too, because he tries to be the smartest guy in the room. And I mean, every single year, he tries to come up with a scenario where GB trades away massive capital for one guy. He’s a debate club nerd, so he likes to pretend that it’s a good idea so he can argue it. 
 

Do we think this team has so few holes that giving up our first 3 picks for Joe Alt is so much better than staying and taking the best OL at 25? Does ANY team have that few holes? It’s a horrendous idea. Absolutely horrendous. And Peter is not a serious person. He’s Colin Cowherd with a wife who pays all the bills. 

I could be off on this and going off memory from while ago, but I believe Nagler spoke on this on CHTV. Not that Nagler is the end all be all, but he basically said that he knows (and I think said he "likes") Peter.

Basically Nagler said Peter is smarter than you may think and its somewhat an act or character to get engagement/clicks. Much like Cowherd, Steven A, Skip, etc. It may be annoying, but it works for engagement. 

So yes, he maybe is going for the Cowherd of the Packers market.