Leader Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 58 minutes ago, NFLGURU said: 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. His highlights (like most highlights.....) dont disappoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted April 24 Author Share Posted April 24 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: They tried to trade for a 1st round pick to take Watson. That's been reported countless times. They will take a WR in the 1st within the next 5-8 years. ILB though? They'd never take one of those....oh wait. The AJ Hawk draft was the first draft I started talking about football online. I wanted AJ Hawk. I was super excited when we drafted AJ Hawk. With this fact in mind, I implore you to find a single time I've stated the Packers would never draft an ILB in round one. I think ILB is overvalued. I personally argue against the Packers drafting an ILB in round one. I've never suggested the Packers wouldn't do it. The Packers have drafted 5 receivers in the first round. Period. Try to tell me it's not an organizational, "You better be sure." Further, reported and true are not the same thing in football. Edited April 24 by MacReady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReasonablySober Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 6 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: They tried to trade for a 1st round pick to take Watson. That's been reported countless times. They will take a WR in the 1st within the next 5-8 years. ILB though? They'd never take one of those....oh wait. Nah man I'm sure they waited two picks into the second because they only wanted Watson for four years and not five. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 2 hours ago, VonKarman said: The question is weather Colson is available at 41. I'm not sure there's any reason to believe he'll likely be gone at that point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 1 hour ago, JBURGE said: I will disappear once the draft is over lol this forum is far too argumentative for me. I'm too old Just go back to playing Pokemon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted April 24 Author Share Posted April 24 4 minutes ago, ReasonablySober said: Nah man I'm sure they waited two picks into the second because they only wanted Watson for four years and not five. Five receivers drafted in the first round since 1936 (the history of the Packers) and you're hopping onto a high horse of acting as if historical data is on your side. You're also acting as if the Packers actually did draft Watson in the first round instead of drafting a defensive tackle. Do you understand that the facts are not on your side in this debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFLGURU Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 4 minutes ago, Leader said: His highlights (like most highlights.....) dont disappoint. Yeah, the planets have to align for him to make it to 25, and then Gute has to select him. I'm not counting on either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HokieHigh Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 1 hour ago, JBURGE said: Watson's ceiling is high if he can stay on the field, I said it's early but at this point I would say he isnt getting there. As for Reed, I like him but do you really see that ceiling for him? Yes definitely could be a 1200+ yd 10td guy for a couple of years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 1 hour 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. For the umpteenth time, correlation doesn't equal causation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReasonablySober Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 1 minute ago, MacReady said: Five receivers drafted in the first round since 1936 (the history of the Packers) and you're hopping onto a high horse of acting as if historical data is on your side. You're also acting as if the Packers actually did draft Watson in the first round instead of drafting a defensive tackle. Do you understand that the facts are not on your side in this debate? I put absolutely zero stock into the entire history of the Packers drafting. What possible relevance does the Ron Wolf era have when he was building teams around running the ball with two WR sets? Find me something that matters less than that. Gute liked a WR enough to trade the equivalent of a first round pick for him. He absolutely would have taken Watson in the first round if he had found a taker. The only way you can possibly disagree with that is if you think 4 > 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted April 24 Author Share Posted April 24 4 minutes ago, CWood21 said: For the umpteenth time, correlation doesn't equal causation. Mhmm. And you think that's coincidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Lofton Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 People say we don't have any real holes to fill, I feel the opposite. We need at least two offensive linemen (swing backup tackle and starting guard), a safety or two, a linebacker or two and probably another corner. Plus we could use another RB, run stopper, kicker, not to mention Gute wants to draft a backup QB. It's a long list. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted April 24 Author Share Posted April 24 3 minutes ago, ReasonablySober said: I put absolutely zero stock into the entire history of the Packers drafting. What possible relevance does the Ron Wolf era have when he was building teams around running the ball with two WR sets? Find me something that matters less than that. Gute liked a WR enough to trade the equivalent of a first round pick for him. He absolutely would have taken Watson in the first round if he had found a taker. The only way you can possibly disagree with that is if you think 4 > 5. The Packers absolutely have their own metrics for positional value and adhere to principles that have been adopted and have worked for several decades. To suggest they wouldn't stray from that for the right player is faulty. To suggest it doesn't exist is more faulty. I have no doubt the Packers would draft a WR in the first round if they believed he was an exceptional player. That possibility gets less and less the lower (first overall, second overall, etc) the pick is. If you don't think the Packers weigh positional value the higher they are with their picks, there really is no point carrying on this conversation so it's best you just cease and desist, which is what I plan on doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Lofton Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 (edited) whoops, double posted Edited April 24 by James Lofton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 Just now, James Lofton said: People say we don't have any real holes to fill, I feel the opposite. We need at least two offensive linemen (swing backup tackle and starting guard), a safety or two, a linebacker or two and probably another corner. Plus we could use another RB, run stopper, kicker, not to mention Gute wants to draft a backup QB. It's a long list. agree. GB has a good number of depth pieces to add QB -- day 3 developmental/camp arm RB -- Day 3 3rd option and 2025 replacement for Dillon TE/FB -- new kickoff rules make this body type a good addition OL -- 3 for depth and competition + Myers pending FA in 2025 DL -- 1 for depth and pending FA of Clark and Slaton in 2025 EDGE -- 1 depth with Enagbare coming off injury and Preston being old LB -- 1-2 for starter competition/ depth and new kickoff rules CB -- 1 as Stokes is not able to be counted on S -- 1-2, need a starter next to McKinney and depth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts