2024 NFL Draft Discussion

[squire12]

Looking at the rostered players and which are likely to make the 53 man roster....barring something changing it a significant way.  Some like Dillon, Newman, Ford, Cox, Stokes, Rochell may be in better/ worse standing than we think.   Enagbare is a potential PUP candidate to start the year.  Leaving out the 3 specialists as GB is nearly a lock to have 3.

To me, i see 2 RB, 3 OL, 1 DL, 1 EDGE, 1-2 ILB, 1 CB, 2 Safety as "open" spots.

QB:  Love / Clifford  (McGough)

RB:  Jacobs / Dillon  ( Merriweather)

TE/ FB:  Musgrave / Kraft / Sims / Davis

WR:  Watson / Reed / Doubs / Wicks / Melton ( Heath / Dubose / Toure / Pitts)

OL:  Walker / Jenkins / Myers / Rhyan / Tom (Newman / Jones /  Telfort / Tenuta)

DL:  Clark / Wyatt / Slaton / Brooks / Wooden ( Ford / Alexandre / Johnson / Odumegwu)

Edge: Gary / Smith / Van Ness / Enagbare ( Cox)

ILB:  Walker / McDuffie / Wilson (Mosby / Welch / Banks)

CB:  Alexander/ Nixon / Valentine/ Ballentine / Stokes (Rochell / Johnson )

S:  McKinney / Johnson Jr / (Anderson / Gilbert / Sapp / Coyle / Young)

[OneTwoSixFive]

Packers draft spots. Currently the Packers have 11 picks at:   25, 41, 58, 88, 91, 126, 169, 202, 219, 245, 255.

Do you foresee any of these scenarios ? If so, which one(s).

1) Pay to move up in round one, from 25 to 20-24
2) Move down from 25 to 28-36
3) Give up both round three picks for a late 2nd
4) Give up pick 88 and 126 to move up in the 3rd round (somewhere in the 79-80 range)
5) Give up either 88 or 91 and pick 58, to move up to the mid-to-late 40's.
6) Any other roughly equal move (name your draft table, if appropriate) that involves moving any of the picks in rounds 1-3.

Obviously we cannot know what exact players will be available anywhere. I'm just thinking about the most likely moves for the Packers to position themselves to where they want to be.

Edited April 1 by OneTwoSixFive

[coachbuns]

11 hours ago, R T said:

Well, let's see. The sharing of opinions, good and bad. Posts of humor, good and bad. And occasionally some sarcasm, which appears you are yet to understand.    

Which again points to sarcasm being used to express one's point not being a very good way to express yourself .. just say what you're thing!  Sarcasm in writing sucks.

[coachbuns]

8 hours ago, Dubz41 said:

Moving up but mostly down with trades.  This is from Draft Buzz.  I'd love this if it happened.

 

Draft Selections

 

PICK: 40 RND: 2 (GB)

Graham Barton

OT Duke

PICK: 44 RND: 2 (GB)

Javon Bullard

S Georgia

PICK: 58 RND: 2 (GB)

Edgerrin Cooper

LB Texas A&M

PICK: 67 RND: 3 (GB)

Kiran Amegadjie

OT Yale

PICK: 88 RND: 3 (GB)

Renardo Green

CB Florida State

PICK: 91 RND: 3 (GB)

Dadrion Taylor-Demerson

S Texas Tech

PICK: 100 RND: 3 (GB)

Cedric Gray

LB North Carolina

PICK: 112 RND: 4 (GB)

Roger Rosengarten

OT Washington

PICK: 126 RND: 4 (GB)

Isaac Guerendo

RB Louisville

PICK: 169 RND: 5 (GB)

Tanor Bortolini

C Wisconsin

 

 

 

Nice players ..10 in 1st 5 rounds .. this team is young now let alone have 15 or drafted players.

[vegas492]

On 3/29/2024 at 6:40 PM, hitnhope said:

As I said and agree the last 2 drafts have been far above average.  They were excellent.  That doesn't change the fact that his earlier drafts weren't above average.

2018 - Brought in Jaire and MVS.   1 plus player and a Meh starter.

2019 - Better- Gary, Jenkins and Savage.  2 plus players and a meh starter.

2020 - Love, Runyan, Dillon.  1 plus/plus player. 1 average starter, backup running back

2021 - Myers, Slaton, Stokes.  Starting center(not a plus starter), decent run plug Dl, backup CB who can't stay on the field.

Those 4 drafts are not how championship teams are built.  It is not unkind to call them average at best.  

The last 2 drafts were so good we are now set up well for the future.  Nothing I typed was a negative toward Gute or the Packers outlook for the future. 

Those drafts are far from average.

Just finding a franchise QB while not having to trade multiple firsts is a huge accomplishment.

And that pick led to 2 more MVP years from Rodgers.  

But, that is just my line of thought.  When you build a roster and go pretty seamlessly from a future HOF QB to a young kid who leads you to more wins in his first season....that is the mark of a great GM.

Everything else is nice and functional around that choice of Love, but that was THE big one.  And he flat out nailed it.

[ThatJerkDave]

On 3/31/2024 at 8:11 AM, Mazrimiv said:

The opposite side of this is that there are going to be some good WR prospects available at pick 68 (3.04) so why would another team even want to trade for Doubs when they can simply take their top rated WR at 68 and keep the 4 years of control? It's not like Doubs has lit up the league. 

I wouldn't be critical of Gute at all if he traded Doubs for 68 and went WR with the pick.

I agree with half of this.  If there is a good WR available, why would a team (NE in this example) trade for a WR with only two years of control, especially when that team is working on a rebuild? In this case, NE should just draft the WR at 68.

Why would the Packers do this though? You trade a player like Doubs because he has value, but gets lost in the shuffle.  He hasn't gotten lost in the shuffle.  He is a valuable asset to a young playoff team.  You don't trade that for a draft pick at the same position.  

[NFLGURU]

11 hours ago, persiandud said:

I'm loving the spot and I don't think we're going to trade up or down from 25. 

DL - Newton, Murphy

Edge - Chop Robinson

DB - Cooper DeJean

OL - Fautanu, Guyton, Mims, Barton

all these guys have been mocked in this range

I'm still holding out a sliver of hope we take Brian Thomas Jr.    You go 4 wide with Thomas and Watson outside and Wicks and Reed/Doubs inside.  Welcome to the Jordan Love shooting gallery.   Josh Jacobs behind him in the running game, good luck defending that offense and we haven't gotten to the TE options you could put in.  

You still got 10 picks to address the OL and defense.  

Thomas probably doesn't get to 25 and it would be going against the grain for Gute to take him but WOW.

I'm sure Gute and Co have other plans but it would be fun to see.

Edited April 1 by NFLGURU

[Old Guy]

6 hours ago, squire12 said:

Looking at the rostered players and which are likely to make the 53 man roster....barring something changing it a significant way.  Some like Dillon, Newman, Ford, Cox, Stokes, Rochell may be in better/ worse standing than we think.   Enagbare is a potential PUP candidate to start the year.  Leaving out the 3 specialists as GB is nearly a lock to have 3.

To me, i see 2 RB, 3 OL, 1 DL, 1 EDGE, 1-2 ILB, 1 CB, 2 Safety as "open" spots.

QB:  Love / Clifford  (McGough)

RB:  Jacobs / Dillon  ( Merriweather)

TE/ FB:  Musgrave / Kraft / Sims / Davis

WR:  Watson / Reed / Doubs / Wicks / Melton ( Heath / Dubose / Toure / Pitts)

OL:  Walker / Jenkins / Myers / Rhyan / Tom (Newman / Jones /  Telfort / Tenuta)

DL:  Clark / Wyatt / Slaton / Brooks / Wooden ( Ford / Alexandre / Johnson / Odumegwu)

Edge: Gary / Smith / Van Ness / Enagbare ( Cox)

ILB:  Walker / McDuffie / Wilson (Mosby / Welch / Banks)

CB:  Alexander/ Nixon / Valentine/ Ballentine / Stokes (Rochell / Johnson )

S:  McKinney / Johnson Jr / (Anderson / Gilbert / Sapp / Coyle / Young)

Isn't Wilson ahead of Merriweather? Enagbare is a certainty to start on PUP. Which makes EDGE a bigger need than most here probably think. Also, have to assume it's Preston's last year. 

Safety, ILB and O-line is really hurting for depth. No surprise to anyone. 

[ThatJerkDave]

2 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

Packers draft spots. Currently the Packers have 11 picks at:   25, 41, 58, 88, 91, 126, 169, 202, 219, 245, 255.

Do you foresee any of these scenarios ? If so, which one(s).

1) Pay to move up in round one, from 25 to 20-24
2) Move down from 25 to 28-36
3) Give up both round three picks for a late 2nd
4) Give up pick 88 and 126 to move up in the 3rd round (somewhere in the 79-80 range)
5) Give up either 88 or 91 and pick 58, to move up to the mid-to-late 40's.
6) Any other roughly equal move (name your draft table, if appropriate) that involves moving any of the picks in rounds 1-3.

Obviously we cannot know what exact players will be available anywhere. I'm just thinking about the most likely moves for the Packers to position themselves to where they want to be.

Looking at this, and @squire12's above post, I would have a hard time believing that we make 11 selections.  The Packers have also fostered a bit of a reputation for giving UDFAs a fair chance to make the roster, and if you completely cover all anticipated roster openings with draft picks, that could deter some players/agents both now and in the future.

Without seeing what is actually available at any specific pick it is hard to see what we would be moving around to target.  In a vacuum, I think I like trade scenarios 2,3, and 5 the best.  We could even use some of them in tandem.  Trade down to 30 with Baltimore (25 + 126 for 30 + 93) and then move back up to a late second or a mid second from pick 58. 

It is possible that the Packers could turn 5 top 100 picks into 3 or 4 top 60-70 picks.  My biggest concern there would be that there would be a gap of about 100 picks before the next selection.  If the draft were perfect, that wouldn't be an issue, but in practice some later picks turn out better than some early picks.  

[HighCalebR]

25 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Isn't Wilson ahead of Merriweather? Enagbare is a certainty to start on PUP. Which makes EDGE a bigger need than most here probably think. Also, have to assume it's Preston's last year. 

Safety, ILB and O-line is really hurting for depth. No surprise to anyone. 

You've still got 5 guys who can start at Edge until Enagbare comes back. Gary Preston LVN Wooden and Brooks.

Wouldn't hurt to add talent to the room, never does, but we're set if they decide to ignore it.

[ThatJerkDave]

8 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Isn't Wilson ahead of Merriweather? Enagbare is a certainty to start on PUP. Which makes EDGE a bigger need than most here probably think. Also, have to assume it's Preston's last year. 

Safety, ILB and O-line is really hurting for depth. No surprise to anyone. 

Wilson has not signed his ERFA tender and is technically not on the team right now.  I believe we also don't have a punter.

I am not sure what to think of the edge group at the moment.  I think it hinges on a few different factors.  I think you need three, and prefer four.  I believe that Gary, LVN, and Preston hold down the top three spots pretty easily.  You also have Brooks and Wooden who will probably play some DE as well as DT.  There are also a gang of ~250 pound LBs we currently have on roster.  Can any of them handle the spare snaps until Enagbare is back? Your mileage may vary on any of these options (including Enagbare).  While you and I may prefer to add a speed rusher to diversify the group, so far it doesn't appear that the Packers think the same.  

[Old Guy]

10 minutes ago, HighCalebR said:

You've still got 5 guys who can start at Edge until Enagbare comes back. Gary Preston LVN Wooden and Brooks.

Wouldn't hurt to add talent to the room, never does, but we're set if they decide to ignore it.

 

4 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

Wilson has not signed his ERFA tender and is technically not on the team right now.  I believe we also don't have a punter.

I am not sure what to think of the edge group at the moment.  I think it hinges on a few different factors.  I think you need three, and prefer four.  I believe that Gary, LVN, and Preston hold down the top three spots pretty easily.  You also have Brooks and Wooden who will probably play some DE as well as DT.  There are also a gang of ~250 pound LBs we currently have on roster.  Can any of them handle the spare snaps until Enagbare is back? Your mileage may vary on any of these options (including Enagbare).  While you and I may prefer to add a speed rusher to diversify the group, so far it doesn't appear that the Packers think the same.  

I want nothing to do with Wooden and Brooks playing EDGE. In Brooks, we finally have a guy who is legitimately capable of double-digit sacks inside. Rushing from the EDGE, I'd bet he's barely a JAG.  Wooden, has shown me nothing to get excited about. 

I'm just going to agree to disagree on the 'were set if we choose to ignore EDGE.' There will not be a draft we go into where I won't want to add pass rushers though. 

Edited April 1 by Old Guy

[HighCalebR]

Just now, Old Guy said:

 

I want nothing to do with Wooden and Brooks playing EDGE. In Brooks, we finally have a guy who is legitimately capable of double-digit sacks inside. Rushing from the EDGE, I'd bet he's barely a JAG.  Wooden, has shown me nothing to get excited about. 

Wooden for sure is built for edge much more than DT and Brooks played there in college. It'd be a fine way to get him snaps, especially on 1st/2nd down while kenny and wyatt are chewing up a ton inside and then getting Slaton in on early downs. It's not like he has to ONLY take snaps from the edge if you played him there once. Lol.

[Old Guy]

Just now, HighCalebR said:

Wooden for sure is built for edge much more than DT and Brooks played there in college. It'd be a fine way to get him snaps, especially on 1st/2nd down while kenny and wyatt are chewing up a ton inside and then getting Slaton in on early downs. It's not like he has to ONLY take snaps from the edge if you played him there once. Lol.

Playing the EDGE occasionally against MAC competition, is hardly the same as the NFL. Let the guy work at his craft/talent, which is interior pass rush. Those guys are a lot harder to find than EDGE rushers. Don't **** with the kid, let him eat where he excels and master that craft.

Wooden is a JAG wherever you play him. Cox will be a better option as EDGE 4 than Wooden. 

There is nothing wrong with having a solid 4 DT rotation with Kenny, Wyatt, Slaton and Brooks. In fact, it's a real good thing. Draft a Slaton replacement if we don't want to extend him and put Wooden firmly on the bubble. 

[vegas492]

5 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

 

I want nothing to do with Wooden and Brooks playing EDGE. In Brooks, we finally have a guy who is legitimately capable of double-digit sacks inside. Rushing from the EDGE, I'd bet he's barely a JAG.  Wooden, has shown me nothing to get excited about. 

I'm just going to agree to disagree on the 'were set if we choose to ignore EDGE.' There will not be a draft we go into where I won't want to add pass rushers though. 

Gute threw some praise Cox's way the other day.  Said he didn't get many snaps this year because the guys in front of him were quite healthy.  But he seemed pretty happy with how Cox developed last year.

Wooden, has shown me nothing as well.  I've got zero issue trying him at EDGE.  It can't hurt.

I know that Brooks can play EDGE because he played there in college.  But I'd much rather keep him inside.

I'm 50/50 whether or not we draft an EDGE, or if we just grab a UDFA while drafting two ILB's.

For sure EDGE is not a position that I'm very worried about.  But I can say that about a lot of positions.