sgtcheezwiz Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 2 minutes ago, beekay414 said: Where the hell is this Rosengarten nonsense coming from? That would be me lol. If we are talking about taking athletically freakish project tackles, I think he’s in that conversation and would cost less than it would take to get Guyton. He also shot up some boards because of his combine - Mel Kiper has him going in the first. So there’s an outside chance he’s in the convo in the second round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 2 minutes ago, sgtcheezwiz said: That would be me lol. If we are talking about taking athletically freakish project tackles, I think he’s in that conversation and would cost less than it would take to get Guyton. He also shot up some boards because of his combine - Mel Kiper has him going in the first. So there’s an outside chance he’s in the convo in the second round. Woo boy. Yeah, he's a developmental tackle. We're talking a day 3 pick that may bleed into late day 2 because of a run on the position. Mel's suffering from CTE if he thinks he's going in the first. That pick would get a GM fired because he's not going to be around to see the fruits of his labor. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtcheezwiz Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 4 minutes ago, beekay414 said: Woo boy. Yeah, he's a developmental tackle. We're talking a day 3 pick that may bleed into late day 2 because of a run on the position. Mel's suffering from CTE if he thinks he's going in the first. That pick would get a GM fired because he's not going to be around to see the fruits of his labor. Not disagreeing with any of that (not pounding my fists on the table for the guy) - but in relation to the guyton discussion I guess my point is that I’m not upset at all if they forgo Guyton for one of these other project tackles who they can get later. And I won’t be surprised if that’s what happens. Also not gunna be upset with Guyton either though lol, just think it’s unlikely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 2 minutes ago, sgtcheezwiz said: Not disagreeing with any of that (not pounding my fists on the table for the guy) - but in relation to the guyton discussion I guess my point is that I’m not upset at all if they forgo Guyton for one of these other project tackles who they can get later. And I won’t be surprised if that’s what happens. Also not gunna be upset with Guyton either though lol, just think it’s unlikely. Guyton I can live with because the toolbox is significantly better than RR's. You can see why you'd need to take a developmental tackle like Guyton high, unlike someone like Rosengarten. I do not disagree with the take that you wait and pull a Rasheed Walker out of your *** if you can. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 47 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Carlies is the way better player. You sure about that? I think Carlies is the more impressive physical specimen. I also don't think Hopper is the fit the Packers need at LB, since he is an inferior version of what we already have with Quay. Carlies is in that Aaron Rouse, Sean Richardson mold that I love and am consciously trying to stop loving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 4 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said: You sure about that? I think Carlies is the more impressive physical specimen. I also don't think Hopper is the fit the Packers need at LB, since he is an inferior version of what we already have with Quay. Carlies is in that Aaron Rouse, Sean Richardson mold that I love and am consciously trying to stop loving. I think Carlies is a 4-3 WLB at the next level, not S. The problem with Rouse and Richardson is they came into a league where you couldn't be a 225 pound LB, now you have Bell in Dallas playing in the box all the time at 205. Just think both Hopper and Carlies are looking at the same role going forward in the pros, and Carlies is better in space, why they had him at S even though they're similarly sized players. Not that I give one ounce of care that we're using a top 30 on Hopper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: I think Carlies is a 4-3 WLB at the next level, not S. The problem with Rouse and Richardson is they came into a league where you couldn't be a 225 pound LB, now you have Bell in Dallas playing in the box all the time at 205. I think Gute expressly wants to avoid becoming like Dallas though. At his league meetings presser he mentioned not wanting to get small on defense and you could almost see into his mind that he was talking about Dallas as an example (probably because of what we did to them on the ground in the playoffs). It's a reason he doesn't like small EDGE guys. Now McDuffie isn't a big guy either, but I'd be pretty surprised if the Packers look too hard at any sub-230 lb backers. Edited April 4 by packfanfb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 3 minutes ago, packfanfb said: I think Gute expressly wants to avoid becoming like Dallas though. At his league meetings presser he mentioned not wanting to get small on defense and you could almost see into his mind that he was talking about Dallas as an example (probably because of what we did to them on the ground in the playoffs). It's a reason he doesn't like small EDGE guys. Now McDuffie isn't a big guy either, but I'd be pretty surprised if the Packers look too hard at any sub-230 lb backers. That's what Hopper is and he's a top 30. You have to build this way with the new KO. You're going to need a bunch of 220-240 pound guys that can go 0-60 real fast. Same with defense, you need to defend the alleys or you'll get strung out all game long. Obviously Gute wants bigger and faster, but faster is more important than bigger if you can't have both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 1 minute ago, Packerraymond said: That's what Hopper is and he's a top 30. You have to build this way with the new KO. You're going to need a bunch of 220-240 pound guys that can go 0-60 real fast. Same with defense, you need to defend the alleys or you'll get strung out all game long. Obviously Gute wants bigger and faster, but faster is more important than bigger if you can't have both. If we are just talking about ST here, that's fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 3 minutes ago, packfanfb said: If we are just talking about ST here, that's fine. No we're talking defense too. Big and fast is not something readily available. Why do you think Quay Walker jumped into round 1?? By the time you get to round 3, big and fast is gone, and you can have one or the other for your depth picks. Gute will chose fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R T Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 He is too big, probably not on the Packers board. Am I doing that right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 5 hours ago, Packerraymond said: I think Carlies is a 4-3 WLB at the next level, not S. The problem with Rouse and Richardson is they came into a league where you couldn't be a 225 pound LB, now you have Bell in Dallas playing in the box all the time at 205. Just think both Hopper and Carlies are looking at the same role going forward in the pros, and Carlies is better in space, why they had him at S even though they're similarly sized players. Not that I give one ounce of care that we're using a top 30 on Hopper. I see Carlies as a faster version of this guy and Hopper as a more aggressive one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampfgeist Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 49 minutes ago, R T said: He is too big, probably not on the Packers board. Am I doing that right. Well it's a change for you, normally you are castigating posters because they like smaller players, like receivers, and they just don't fit the Packers thresholds. Now you've shifted to castigating them for questioning bigger offensive linemen that historically haven't met the Packers thresholds. But if consistency in being a ***** is what you are going for. Yes, doing that right 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R T Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 24 minutes ago, Kampfgeist said: Well it's a change for you, normally you are castigating posters because they like smaller players, like receivers, and they just don't fit the Packers thresholds. Now you've shifted to castigating them for questioning bigger offensive linemen that historically haven't met the Packers thresholds. But if consistency in being a ***** is what you are going for. Yes, doing that right Tough crowd here, just some lighthearted ribbing was all and wasn't meant to be taken the way you took it. But one thing you can always count on, if you bust my tail about anything squire12 will be right there to give you a like for it. So, you will always have that going for you. 😉 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 1 hour ago, R T said: He is too big, probably not on the Packers board. Am I doing that right. Let's hope. Mims might be one of the only picks I would be disappointed with in the 1st. Just my opinion. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.