CWood21 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 4 minutes ago, Scoremore said: Still don't understand it. We saw how good Tom was at RT. Why on earth would they mess with it? A lot easier to find a C than OT. Tom just shut guys down. When the wheel isn't broke don't fix it. Pretty sure we'll still grab an IOL today. One that can compete at C and RG. Just wondering about letting Meyers compete at RG. He's an average C which is pretty dissappointing given his draft status. Maybe he could be a stud G. I mean, if you can have 2 All Pro OTs is that a bad thing? We're assuming that Morgan isn't going to be good and/or Tom won't be as good as C as he is at RT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilltray Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 8 minutes ago, spilltray said: I definitely like Josh Myers more than most of you guys, and probably Rhyan too. Depth is another question but Walker was my most "replaceable" starter on the line and LT Morgan, LG Jenkins, C Myers, RG Rhyan, RT Tom sounds like a really nice line to roll out there. I'm a DeJean guy but that goes more because S/LB (off ball)/CB are my favorite positions to watch. That said I philosophically love building the lines, I just have a hard time evaluating them past the basics. I hadn't watched much Morgan because everyone listed him as G and in this range, I'm looking for LT prospects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chili Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 (edited) Not sure about Myers moving to guard. His wingspan is only 77 3/8". Wow! that's crazy small and we drafted him in round 2. Gute must've made a big exception to draft him so early when you consider his preferences for versatility and size metrics. Looking at other prospects, that size is normal for centres. Definitely not normal for guard and tackles. If we let Myers hit free agency then yes I can see Tom switching to centre and we simply draft another versatile tackle. Edited April 26 by Chili Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 6 minutes ago, Chili said: Wingspans: Morgan - 81 3/8" Tom - 80 3/8" Rhyan - 79 1/4" (80 1/8" if you use his pro day measurements) Walker - 80 1/2" My eyes are now open. The Packers are actually OK drafting guys with wingspans as low as 80". It's all about the footwork on tape imo - essentially how well they move which will help overcome their "shortcomings". In comparison the top OT prospects in the draft are all well over 82" with Mims at the extreme end with 86" wingspan. All our guys also have massive hands. Hands: Morgan - 10 7/8" (11" if you use his pro day measurement) Tom - 10 3/8" Rhyan - 11 1/8" Walker - 10 5/8 Those sizes are normal for tackles but they are on the larger side generally speaking for interior OL. Their versatility and having big hands if they move inside is a plus in the Packers eyes. Another thing.....they were ALL left tackles in college. The Packers clearly value that and which is why someone like Guyton was unlikely to be on our radar. However the Packers do make exceptions from time to time as I believe Mims who only played RT in college could've been high on their draft board. Gute would not resist a freaky guy. I think you're trying to make the numbers fit a pattern that is coincidental. Start with what we know: The Packets don't seem to care about pure drive skills at Tackle. So long as the guy has the anchor to fend off the bullrush, we're fine. The Packers aren't asking their Tackles to punch. The technique seems to be to invite the rusher into your chest, lock your hands to the outside to prevent them from spinning off, and then anchoring down to kill the momentum. Since they're not punching, you don't need the extra long arms. Those two things in combination means there probably isn't a vast difference in grades between somebody like Morgan and Latham. Factor in the football IQ grade and you can see how Gute is quite happy with where he is. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Vince Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 Hope he pans out for us. Guess I would've had more enthusiasm if Andy Herman didn't rip the pick after the selection. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 3 minutes ago, St Vince said: Hope he pans out for us. Guess I would've had more enthusiasm if Andy Herman didn't rip the pick after the selection. In one of his mocks he traded down to pick Morgan. I hope it pans out for the Pack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Penske Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 8 hours ago, mikebpackfan said: He always says that. Then hopefully This pick works out like some of the others she’s said about. Especially in the past two years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fussnputz Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 34 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said: I'm thrilled that GB added to the OL early, just surprised by the name. It's funny how different the tone in this forum would have been over the past 10 hours if the card had said Barton rather than Morgan. I'm as guilty as anyone, but I'm already coming around on Morgan. It's clear that GB had Morgan rated well above the rest of the available names at 25, so at this point it's about trusting GB's board. I think if they were looking for a plug-and-play G, Gute would have taken Barton. Morgen will get a shot at LT first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 1 hour ago, Packerraymond said: Man last years class kind of stunk wild how much Gute crushed it isn't it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted April 26 Author Share Posted April 26 5 minutes ago, incognito_man said: wild how much Gute crushed it isn't it. It was a good EDGE and TE class, 3 of our first 4 picks were EDGE or TE. It's a great OL class this year....Next year right now is shaping up as a great RB, DL class to me. Wouldn't be surprised if we don't take those spots this year for that reason. It's just smart roster construction, even in the weakest classes, there will still be stronger than usual position groups, plan to address those positions in that draft. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 Let's talk about this "He's a Guard Prospect" thing. 1. The vast majority of Tackles can play Guard. NFL Guards are mostly College Tackles that have been moved inside for the pros. Morgan can absolutely play Guard if necessary. You would work on his body a bit to optimize the fit if you had a plan for it, but you could play him there. But why would you start there? 2. Prospects that can't make it at Tackle but can make it at Guard tend to lack 1 of 2 traits, the first is foot speed to get depth in their drop. The second is balance, if they can get deep enough in their drop, they're not stable and are susceptible to getting beaten off of that, either by a bullrush that sends them staggering or some kind of counter move. If you move them to Guard, all of a sudden they're not in a foot race, they're in a boxing match in a phone booth. 3. There are a lot of idiots doing amateur scouting for big websites. I know because I used to be one. One of the things they love to do is utilize cliches. Maybe the biggest one of all is "Not sure he's a Tackle in the pros, will probably have to move inside to Guard." Do they know what means? Barely. Do they understand why? Not at all. When they started doing this, they saw it being attached to all the second tier Tackle prospects and now every second tier Tackle prospects gets it added to their report, whether it makes sense or not. 4. Please look at Jordan Morgan for a moment. Look at the foot speed, look at his knee and back bend. Do you see any deficiencies with either? If you do, please let me know where, because as far as I can tell, those are his two best traits. If Morgan is going to fail, it's going to be because of functional strength or some other intricacy of the pro game that we're just not seeing. Deficiencies that are likely to be every bit as debilitating at Guard as they are at Tackle. Is it possible that he can't hack it at Tackle and he ends up inside at Guard due to some weird quirk in his game? I guess. But that's not the player that the physical traits point to, nor does it seem where the Packers want to guide him. Morgan is not a guard prospect. He's honestly closer to a Center prospect, but they're going to give him every single opportunity to play outside before exploring other options. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 2 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: 3. There are a lot of idiots doing amateur scouting for big websites. I know because I used to be one. An idiot or an amateur scout on a big website? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 48 minutes ago, CWood21 said: As @packfanfb said, this seems to prove that there was actually fire to the "Tom to C" talk. It might not happen this year, but I'd bet good money he's our starting C in 2026. I'd bet good money when Tom becomes a pro-bowl RT they wouldn't consider moving him. If I'm Tom, I'd ask to be traded rather than move inside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 3 minutes ago, packfanfb said: An idiot or an amateur scout on a big website? Both 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.