What to do with pick 25

[Brit Pack]

This year pick 25 seems very awkward!!!

While we hear the mantra for BPA, most selections, especially early ones are BPA mixed in with NEED. Looking at the roster and where we have holes I’m trying to guess where we would go with pick 25.

Positions I would see off the table at 25 (unless someone really fell into our lap):
QB, RB, WR, K, P

Possibles:

OT – in terms of BPA, OT might be the position available – one of: Fashanu, Fautanu, Fuaga, Mims, Guyton or Barton will be most likely available.
The issue I have with taking one is their role as OT would be a back up to either Walker or Tom. I don’t see the point of moving off from either, considering they are ascending and are so cheap as well. The other option is draft one of these guys to move inside to challenge Rhyan. But if we wanted a Guard, is getting one at 25 an over kill?

The Oline we could go later in the draft for depth. I do think we’ll re-sign Myers, as Centres are cheap to sign and he won’t be commanding top dollar, plus he has familiarity with Love and the system, I see him coming back after 2024. The oline just needs back ups really and someone to challenge Rhyan.

CB – in terms of BPA this might be the sweet spot as well  – one of the following should be available: Wiggins, Kool-Aid
From what little I know, I’m not a fan of either. Also would a CB get much playing time? Jaire is locked on one side (when healthy), assuming Valentine or Stokes is on the other, then we have Nixon for the slot, for how much we are paying him, I don’t see his role up for grabs. Then we have Ballentine as a back up. I could only see a draft pick being a back up role player here and does pick 25 warrant that?

DL – again another sweet spot for BPA – one of the following should be around: Murphy, Jenkins, Newton. I don’t see Chop, Verse or Latu as fits, they all seem too light to me but I could be wrong. The question of need comes up here. I think we are quite set on the dline with our quartet of 1^st rounders: LVN, Wyatt, Kenny, Gary. With Smith, Brooks, Slayton and Wooden as back ups. I don’t see the need again for going pick 25 for DL unless this is Clark’s last year here...

LB – here need is strong. We really only have Quay and McDuff, this is last year of McDuff contract as well. Need options, someone to play in base as well, whatever percentage of time that is. Trouble is no one is worth the 25^th pick. Could easily see a guy picked in the 2^nd though.

S - here the need and BPA meet. The only option though is DeJean. Is Nubin worth the 25^th pick? Again a lot of good picks in the 2^nd round to be had here.

It sucks being at pick 25 this year, unless DeJean is available, which it seems like he won’t be. I probably say this every year but a trade down really, really, really seems favourable.

[Mr. Fussnputz]

I'm a big Barton fan. He would be the immediate starter at right G. And as you point out, he would be our #1 backup at either T. Long term he could play C, if needed there. I don't see a downside to drafting him at 25.

[ThatJerkDave]

Selecting a tackle provides both a back-up and a little bit of future proofing for the position.  While it is a great problem to have, if our last two draft classes are as good as we think they are, we are going to run into some cap barriers in a few years.  We can't pay everyone, so we will have to replace at least some of them.  We may run into a crunch with both Tom and Walker as FAs at the same time.

 

I would argue that the only reason that RB isn't an option with this class is that there simply isn't the first round RB available.  Dillon is on a one year contract, and Jacobs has effectively a year by year contract.  While it isn't impossible that an unknown breaks out at RB, the odds are still against them, and that is all the rest of the players we have on the team right now.  

[spilltray]

I think it's a better year to trade up to get whoever the guy of your choices is rather than whoever falls to you at say OT for example. They have extra picks and not all that many holes.

[sgtcheezwiz]

40 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

I'm a big Barton fan. He would be the immediate starter at right G. And as you point out, he would be our #1 backup at either T. Long term he could play C, if needed there. I don't see a downside to drafting him at 25.

Ya I like him and JPJ at 25. Both take over RG right away, Barton could play LT if needed, and both could cover for Jenkins if he had to rotate to LT. 

[sgtcheezwiz]

2 minutes ago, spilltray said:

I think it's a better year to trade up to get whoever the guy of your choices is rather than whoever falls to you at say OT for example. They have extra picks and not all that many holes.

Might be able to hose somebody else who is looking to do that, either at 25 or 41. 

[spilltray]

The only way I trade back from 25 is if some team is dumb enough to offer next year's first, or the OT board is picked clean. I just don't think this is a year to amass a ton of picks.

[Sandy]

Well let's start by handicapping who might be there. Every time anyone has a good workout they're suddenly "gonna be gone", but no matter what I see talent falling to 25. 

24 picks ahead of us. 4-6 of them will be QBs. Let's estimate on the low end and say 20 non-QBs get taken before 25.

Also virtual locks to be gone (at least for predictive purposes) include 4 WRs (Harrison, Odunze, Nabers, Thomas), 1 TE (Bowers), 5 tackles (Alt, Fuaga, Fautanu, Fashanu, Latham), 3 edge (Turner, Verse, Latu), 2 CB (Arnold and Mitchell) and one DL (Murphy).

Which leaves us with exactly four other players who could be off the board for our pick.

 

The two questions are: how many players are in that next tier, and how many are of interest to us?

Edited April 10 by Sandy

[R T]

The secret to future SB success is drafting a long snapper at #25.

As a younger man I did a little long snapping. When I got married my wife was a long napper, but over time she had stolen my S. Now I'm just a long napper and she has become the long snapper. 

[MacReady]

25th overall is a luxury pick.

Penalty for doing well, prize for doing well.

Just have to get production out of it.

No projects. We have to learn from our happy accident with the Love/Dillon draft.

We pushed things down the line that year when a contributor might have been the difference. We can’t do the same right before we pay Love.

We have to be all in.

So position doesn’t matter AT ALL 25th overall. Best player doesn’t even matter. Needs to be the most potential production versus our current needs.

WR/TE/EDGE/QB/EB we need to assume we’re fine at.

 

 

[OneTwoSixFive]

@Brit Pack  To me pick 25 is relatively easy, getting DeJean, an OT an IOL, a DL, whatever is the one that falls and the Packers like.

I have far more difficulty with pick 41. If you don't take Edgerrin Cooper here (possibly Wilson if you can pass off on the injury history), I am not seeing great value allied with what the Packers need. Probably Guyton, Mims, Fautanu, JPJ, Barton are all gone. I am much less excited by Morgan, Patrick Paul or Rosengarten.

Also, I can get my S, ILB and RB, just a little later (at 58, 88, 91).

Although its a smaller move back, I could entertain a smaller trade down, like with Baltimore. Packers give up 25, 88, 202, for Ravens 30, 62 (less than 4 points in the Packers favour on JJ chart).

That gives the Packers picks 30, 41, 58, 62, 91, 126. Essentially moving up from 88 to 62, but moving down from 25 to 30.

Could the Packers still get a guy at 30 with similar talent to one at 25 ? Maybe, but it might be risky depending on who is there at 25 and who they like.

(Ravens would then be drafting at  25, 88, 93, 130 in the first 4 rounds (+ 6th round pick 202). Packers could always sweeten things a little to switch 91 and 93.

The chances of this exact trade happening are minute, but it is fun to speculate on what-ifs, before the draft.

One strange thing about this draft is that in almost every past draft, numerous guys I love are grouped around the top of round two. That is not really the case this year.........unusual.....

Edited April 10 by OneTwoSixFive

[Brit Pack]

I prefer to pick a Guard to play Gaurd rather than picking and projecting an OT to play Guard, especially at 25. However, it seems like BPA will be an OT

[vegas492]

1 minute ago, Brit Pack said:

I prefer to pick a Guard to play Gaurd rather than picking and projecting an OT to play Guard, especially at 25. However, it seems like BPA will be an OT

There is a very long and very good history concerning taking college tackles and making them guards.  Zero issue in doing that so long as the frame and footwork are there.

[Brit Pack]

6 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

There is a very long and very good history concerning taking college tackles and making them guards.  Zero issue in doing that so long as the frame and footwork are there.

I just don't see the value in doing that in the 1st round. If I pick a Tackle I would prefer him to play Tackle. Now if he was a 3rd/4th rounder, I'm less bothered.

 

[Mazrimiv]

I think it's a given that any OL taken by GB in RD1 would be given an opportunity to compete at T.  If it doesn't work out, they'd move inside.  I don't imagine Gute would take an OL in RD1 if he doesn't believe they can play T.