Leader Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 3 minutes ago, NFLGURU said: We're drafting #25, we aren't getting a impact player like BTJ would bring at 25 Were getting Kevin King, Datone Jones, Vonnie Holiday, Demarius Randall, Sherrod, type talent. I'm all in on BTJ, but if Gute goes in another direction I'm good with that too. I'd like to see BTJ though. Give me an actual name for BTJ so I can look at some highlights...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 12 minutes ago, JBURGE said: This is kind of taking my argument off on a tangent. What I said was that I do not believe it is the best option to ignore WRs in the first round anymore, and I do not believe Gute is ignoring them anyone either. I used to agree with this, when WRs were not being paid like a premium position. Now that they are, it is now a position I am fine drafting in the first round. No, this is what you said Quote However, none of the WRs we have now are top 10 players not look like they have that ceiling, though it is early. That is what I responded to. I have no issue with the idea that drafting RD1 WR's is a reasonable strategy. As for what I did take issue with, let me put it a different way. If I understand you correctly, you do not expect any of GB's current WR's to ever be ranked among the top 10 WR's in fantasy drafts. Do I have that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted April 24 Author Share Posted April 24 52 minutes ago, JBURGE said: We all know your rules for the draft and fortunately they're just yours. Well considering the Packers have picked 2 receivers in the first round since 1979, it’s kinda the Packers rule, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBURGE Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 2 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said: No, this is what you said Quote However, none of the WRs we have now are top 10 players not look like they have that ceiling, though it is early. That is what I responded to. I have no issue with the idea that drafting RD1 WR's is a reasonable strategy. As for what I did take issue with, let me put it a different way. If I understand you correctly, you do not expect any of GB's current WR's to ever be ranked among the top 10 WR's in fantasy drafts. Do I have that correct? I said this in response to macready saying GB has been successful without drafting WRs in the 1st round. Would you pass on a player you think will be a bonafide WR1 X in the NFL just because you have a bunch of WR2/3s on your team? I think that is what GB has right now, and while it is working, I am not opposed to adding a WR1 to the group on a rookie deal. And no, it had nothing to do with fantasy, not sure where that came from 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBURGE Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 (edited) 1 minute ago, MacReady said: Well considering the Packers have picked 2 receivers in the first round since 1979, it’s kinda the Packers rule, too. Based on info we have gotten, Gute would have taken Watson at 28 if Wyatt wasnt there. They were very interested in taking Aiyuk 4 years ago. Rashod Bateman said the Packers were likely to take him had he not just gone to Balty. Times are changing. If the opportunity were there, I don't think they have that rule anymore Edited April 24 by JBURGE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFLGURU Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 7 minutes ago, Leader said: Give me an actual name for BTJ so I can look at some highlights...... Brian Thomas Jr, LSU, WR, but you have to understand what he would bring. I dont want just any WR, he brings a skillset that would impact how defenses play us with Watson on the other side. It takes the safeties out and opens the middle for Love to operate with Reed/Wicks/Doubs. Instant impact on defenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted April 24 Author Share Posted April 24 1 minute ago, JBURGE said: Based on info we have gotten, Gute would have taken Watson at 28 if Wyatt wasnt there. They were very interested in taking Aiyuk 4 years ago. Rashod Bateman said the Packers were likely to take him had he not just gone to Balty. Times are changing. If the opportunity were there, I don't think they have that rule anymore But did any of those things happen? Or… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBURGE Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 Just now, MacReady said: 3 minutes ago, JBURGE said: Based on info we have gotten, Gute would have taken Watson at 28 if Wyatt wasnt there. They were very interested in taking Aiyuk 4 years ago. Rashod Bateman said the Packers were likely to take him had he not just gone to Balty. Times are changing. If the opportunity were there, I don't think they have that rule anymore But did any of those things happen? Or… Reading comprehension is hard, I know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zycho32 Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 Calling it, we're taking a WR at 25. Don't particularly want that, and we're loaded to the point where people are stopping the incessant prattle about wideout as a need... and that's precisely WHY it'll happen. The ultimate 'Zag instead of Zig', the hidden line that Alanis Morissette discarded from the song, the means Gute will use to make us cry boiling tar from our eyeballs while he laughs with pleasure over his dark masterpiece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted April 24 Author Share Posted April 24 Also. lol. The Packers didn’t take Watson because Wyatt was there is literal proof the Packers put a higher emphasis on other positions. We’d just traded Adams and we used our first round pick to draft a DT rather than a WR. I love when people prove my point for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted April 24 Author Share Posted April 24 2 minutes ago, JBURGE said: Reading comprehension is hard, I know Apparently it is because you didn’t understand my point. Someone saying something doesn’t mean it’s true. Lies and GM speak as well as agents telling their players and teams telling their agents things they want others to believe is kinda *** for tat with any football talk at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBURGE Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 4 minutes ago, MacReady said: Also. lol. The Packers didn’t take Watson because Wyatt was there is literal proof the Packers put a higher emphasis on other positions. We’d just traded Adams and we used our first round pick to draft a DT rather than a WR. I love when people prove my point for me. Or it means they had a higher grade on Wyatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReasonablySober Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 9 minutes ago, JBURGE said: I said this in response to macready saying GB has been successful without drafting WRs in the 1st round. Would you pass on a player you think will be a bonafide WR1 X in the NFL just because you have a bunch of WR2/3s on your team? I think that is what GB has right now, and while it is working, I am not opposed to adding a WR1 to the group on a rookie deal. And no, it had nothing to do with fantasy, not sure where that came from They brought up fantasy numbers as a way to put someone like Adam Thielen or Michael Pittman Jr. on a list above Justin Jefferson or Jaylen Waddle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted April 24 Author Share Posted April 24 Just now, JBURGE said: Or it means they had a higher grade on Wyatt Or it means they had an extreme need at WR and still elected to risk not taking one with their first pick. It’s not a point for you like you think it is. And they probably wouldn’t have taken Watson even if Wyatt wasn’t available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 15 minutes ago, JBURGE said: I said this in response to macready saying GB has been successful without drafting WRs in the 1st round. Would you pass on a player you think will be a bonafide WR1 X in the NFL just because you have a bunch of WR2/3s on your team? I think that is what GB has right now, and while it is working, I am not opposed to adding a WR1 to the group on a rookie deal. And no, it had nothing to do with fantasy, not sure where that came from So you won't answer. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts