craig Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 On Guyton, having good athleticism is one thing. But I always think that pad-level for run-blocking is intrinsically more challenging at 6'7"-6'9". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 16 minutes ago, ReasonablySober said: The data isn't based on a large enough sample. Assumptions based on the data have already proven to be wrong. The only thing we can gather from the data is there's a 100% chance Gute will pick either an offensive or a defensive player, or trade that pick. I'm comfortable saying that. Choice of words is always interesting. Assumption or an educated guess based on a small sample ? 'Assumption' is a word with negative association, while 'educated guess' has a positive spin on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Packers may be getting back to classic TT era, where they were often drafting ahead in the first round, and weren't expecting rookies to play right away. Savage, Jaire, Quay, Myers in 2nd, those guys were expected to start right out of the box. But LVN, Wyatt, not so. More like the early prime TT days. I admit my financial perception is it would be nice to get ready-to-play 1st rounders. You only get them for 4 years before the price goes crazy. To use one of the 4 rookie-contract years as a redshirt seems non-ideal. A position other than OL, even non-starters can play lots of snaps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 2 minutes ago, craig said: On Guyton, having good athleticism is one thing. But I always think that pad-level for run-blocking is intrinsically more challenging at 6'7"-6'9". Yeah. I like shorter guys with proportionately long arms. Ideally, 6'4" with 35" arms, with good knee bend and a wrestling background, if you're putting someone together in a lab. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R T Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 If Guyton was in for a 30-visit you would think that would signal the Packers are open to drafting a 6'7"+ OT and kind of end the debate. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 5 minutes ago, R T said: If Guyton was in for a 30-visit you would think that would signal the Packers are open to drafting a 6'7"+ OT and kind of end the debate. Could be, but it's also smokescreen season. Packers are famous for drafting guys in the first round they barely even speak with during the pre-draft circuit. Alexander and Love come to mind IIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 13 minutes ago, R T said: If Guyton was in for a 30-visit you would think that would signal the Packers are open to drafting a 6'7"+ OT and kind of end the debate. We also had Keaton Mitchell in, and drafted Lew Nichols. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighCalebR Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 (edited) 35 minutes ago, craig said: On Guyton, having good athleticism is one thing. But I always think that pad-level for run-blocking is intrinsically more challenging at 6'7"-6'9". Guytons knees bend very well. That's the barometer. Spriggs was 6'6. He bent well. We're in on Guyton. 100% guaranteed. The conversation should be which pick they'd be comfortable with the player. Not if they're comfortable with the player. Edited April 2 by HighCalebR 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighCalebR Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 (edited) 17 minutes ago, packfanfb said: Could be, but it's also smokescreen season. Packers are famous for drafting guys in the first round they barely even speak with during the pre-draft circuit. Alexander and Love come to mind IIRC. Might be looking into him for pick 2. Not the 1st rounder. They're doing their work. And just because we don't draft him doesn't mean we didn't like him. People get so hung up on the athletic/size thresholds by round. Or short term precedent. Like "haven't drafted a tackle in the 1st round in 10 years"="won't draft a tackle in the first round" Edited April 2 by HighCalebR 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chili Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 (edited) 1 hour ago, packfanfb said: I keep thinking Morgan is the guy being overlooked here. If the Packers go OL at 25 and it's not Barton, I'd put Morgan at the No. 2 most likely. He screams Packer in just about every respect and the Packers might like him enough at 25. I like Morgan but not at #25. He has a bit of a Rhyan body type and play style. If the Packers liked that when they drafted him then they will like Morgan. I see him more of a guard at NFL level but cannot discount him as a tackle. Guyton, I like him and I don't like him. I love his thick thighs and big bum and moves well with it. I personally hate OL who has a thin man's face like Royce Newman. To me it suggests that the player has to artificially put on weight to get to that size and quite often will have trouble maintaining it. OL with round faces tend to be naturally big so they don't have to worry too much about their weight. You can see Guyton has a thin man's face so it's likely he has to work hard to keep that weight on. As for the tape he played exclusively at RT and I don't think he plays well enough to be confident of putting him at LT. He doesn't dominate, has poor hand usage and lets the rusher gets into his chest too often. I don't see him at guard either. It's not easy to project him at other positions and as the Packers value versatile OL it makes me feel he's unlikely to be someone they would target. Another thing I value in OL are their personalities. I watch their interviews to see how they carry themselves, are they switched on and well spoken. Do they come across as confident or reserved? are they cheerful or sombre (or just simply have a resting b*tch face?). I love Joe Alt, big size and a personality to match. Barton comes across as mature and no bullsh*t. Fautanu looks intense. I like all of that. However Guyton looks empty behind the eyes. He has that vacant look. Honestly that isn't a good thing, what you have between the ears can be the difference between washing out of the NFL in 3 years or becoming a bona-fide star. He has zero personality when he talks. Morgan does come across as a little aloof and somewhat immature but that isn't a deal breaker. He doesn't seem stupid but we may have to wait some time for him to mature. Just like we did with Rhyan. Amegadjie, for such a big, athletic guy he comes across as soft spoken and reserved. You need to have a strong personality to handle an NFL locker room and to take a roster spot and make it yours. I'm not sure he can do that. Suamataia has warts and inconsistencies in his play but he comes across as level headed and mature. He has the tools, the size and the attitude. There's definitely something to work with there. Edited April 2 by Chili Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 43 minutes ago, R T said: If Guyton was in for a 30-visit you would think that would signal the Packers are open to drafting a 6'7"+ OT and kind of end the debate. All it means is their scouting report is incomplete and they needed additional data. He's certainly on their board, just like I'm sure other tall OT's are, thus they are doing their due diligence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampfgeist Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 14 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: All it means is their scouting report is incomplete and they needed additional data. He's certainly on their board, just like I'm sure other tall OT's are, thus they are doing their due diligence. Agreed. Possible running him through a workout to see if he could handle a transition to LT. Possible they talked to him at Combine and testing his recall from that. To Chili's above point, could be to test his general demeanor. We have no idea his medical background -- teams' GM's do though. Lots of data points to fill in. My opinion is it's a reflection of general interest and not playing games and wasting time with smokescreens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 3 minutes ago, Kampfgeist said: Agreed. Possible running him through a workout to see if he could handle a transition to LT. Possible they talked to him at Combine and testing his recall from that. To Chili's above point, could be to test his general demeanor. We have no idea his medical background -- teams' GM's do though. Lots of data points to fill in. My opinion is it's a reflection of general interest and not playing games and wasting time with smokescreens There definitely could've been a medical flag at the Combine they wanted a 2nd look at. We took Wyatt (almost certainly a character check visit with Wyatt) other than that I don't recall a 1st round pick coming off our visit list. We had Pickens in during the 2022 visits and clearly weren't interested in him by the time the draft rolls around. Gute has said they use the visits for interest/recruiting on the day 3/UDFA crowd and for information gathering on the top 100 crowd. Something with Guyton required a 2nd look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 55 minutes ago, R T said: If Guyton was in for a 30-visit you would think that would signal the Packers are open to drafting a 6'7"+ OT and kind of end the debate. Exactly. They probably won't draft him, odds can't be that much higher than 1-in-30. But why need additional data if being 6'8" has already knocked him off their board? I don't see him at 25, myself. But they need to know if they should want him at 41 or 58, if he lasts. And as Chili wrote, part of the "additional data" is getting to know the personality, what's behind the eyes and between the ears. Seems to me that they've done pretty well in going after guys who love football and prioritize winning. I think a bunch of the guys from last draft, MLF commented often on how draftees loved to play football, and were smart about learning. I'll be surprised if they spend a top-60 pick on a personality that they aren't pretty confident about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Just now, craig said: Exactly. They probably won't draft him, odds can't be that much higher than 1-in-30. But why need additional data if being 6'8" has already knocked him off their board? I don't see him at 25, myself. But they need to know if they should want him at 41 or 58, if he lasts. And as Chili wrote, part of the "additional data" is getting to know the personality, what's behind the eyes and between the ears. Seems to me that they've done pretty well in going after guys who love football and prioritize winning. I think a bunch of the guys from last draft, MLF commented often on how draftees loved to play football, and were smart about learning. I'll be surprised if they spend a top-60 pick on a personality that they aren't pretty confident about. No one has ever said being 6'8 takes you off the Packers board, but if it moves you down the Packers board, it's essentially the same thing as someone will take you before GB, or GB will take someone of the same position ahead of you. 1 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.