Mr. Fussnputz Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 59 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Think "best 5" could be: Morgan-Jenkins-Myers-Walker/Rhyan-Tom It would be great for Walker if he could play G, but have they ever tried him there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 It's going to be interesting to see the philosophy. There's an argument for putting Tom at LT and then building from there. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 13 hours ago, persiandud said: what do you guys think? I do think there is fire to that Packers report that they see Tom as a better C I don't think it's likely that GB will be running with Morgan and Walker as the starting OT's in week 1. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said: It's going to be interesting to see the philosophy. There's an argument for putting Tom at LT and then building from there. Yeah, if GB has plans to move Tom, I think it's more likely to be LT than C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HokieHigh Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chili Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 I've just noticed that in the NFL draft tracker Morgan is the only one in the OL category. Normally the OL players are split into three categories, OT, G and C. For Morgan to have his own category is interesting. Not sure if it means anything or just a an unintended quirk on nfl.com. Whether intended or not it really does show how much the Packers value versatile OL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chili Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StatKing Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 1 hour ago, Chili said: Good. Not sure why people thought we would move him to guard. 18 hours ago, HokieHigh said: Yea that doesn't look great. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chili Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 (edited) Using the additional data from this draft I was able to fine-tune the Packers OL thresholds. Between 6'3" and 6'6" (Standard) Between 6'4" and 6'9" (LaFleur) Weight: under 325lbs Arm Length: > 32" Wingspan (OT): > 80" (Tackles generally have wingspans over 82" but the Packers are willing to accept guys as low as 80") Wingspan (iOL): > 77" (Interior guys generally have wingspans below 80") Hands: > 10" Forty: < 5.25s Shuttle: < 4.85s 3cone: < 7.85s Vert: > 25" Bench: > 20 reps Broad: > 9ft Other Requirements: LT, Position versatility, Lots of college starts & eye test for fluid feet. Using these parameters (I used standard heights) the list of players it brought up were: TACKLES: Taliese Fuaga Kingsley Suamataia Jordan Morgan Blake Fisher Brandon Coleman Walter Rouse Trente Jones GUARDS/CENTRES: Mason McCormick Christian Mahogany Layden Robinson Trevor Keegan Jacob Monk Tanor Bortolini Nick Gargiulo The hand size eliminated alot of prospects including Barton and Fautanu. Of the list, two of them we drafted and one we picked up as an UDFA. I know we showed heavy interest in Bortolini. Had we not drafted Morgan then I think Suamataia & Coleman would've been our backup plan. If I included "Played LT" parameters to the tackle group then Fuaga, Fisher and Jones would've been eliminated. We always relax on those parameters a little later on in the draft which allowed us to find Travis Glover as well as Jennings as an UDFA. If I increase the tackle height we get Mims, Guyton and Crum. Theoretically Mims and Guyton would be eliminated for being RT only however I strongly feel Gute wouldn't have been able to resist Mims had he been available. Edited April 29 by Chili 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 I don't see any guard in how he plays. I do see a Bakh type LT. Feet, technique and brain. Better in pass pro than run. We got the best out of Walker with competition. Now he still has it. I'm never going to be upset over investing in the OL. Still...Barton was there. DeJean was the big name guy there who made the most sense, but we obviously really wanted to take a tackle with our first round pick. And given what we will soon pay Love, it was smart. That and this....I like Morgan better than the rest of the tier 2 and tier 3 LT's in this class. Like there was a pretty big drop off from him to whomever we could have gotten with our second, second round pick at LT. Unliked safety/slot. Getting Bullard is not much of a drop off from DeJean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 He's getting John Michels old number. 77. May he put it to better use. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 36 minutes ago, vegas492 said: He's getting John Michels old number. 77. May he put it to better use. It's not all bad news on Packers who wore #77, but it's also not a whose who of Packer great either. Kostelnik and Butler were probably the two best. Mandarich and Michaels surely sucked though. All Players To Wear Number 77 For Green Bay Packers | Pro-Football-Reference.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 2 hours ago, vegas492 said: Unliked safety/slot. Getting Bullard is not much of a drop off from DeJean. DeJean is moving to a new position. It very well could turn into a trade up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaximusGluteus Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 On 4/27/2024 at 3:16 PM, HokieHigh said: Yep. This type of stuff is why I didn't like him. Same thing happened in the 1-on-1s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 37 minutes ago, Old Guy said: DeJean is moving to a new position. It very well could turn into a trade up. Could be. I like both of them as cover or slot coverage safeties. I feel like DeJean is better there right now. Can't really tell how DeJean can cover space. But my point was kind of simple. Had we gone DeJean in the first, which is what I wanted us to do, the drop off from him to Bullard isn't all that steep, if at all at safety. The drop off from Morgan to whoever was there with our second, second round pick, would have been much greater. So while I was not a big fan of Morgan for where we picked, I get why we did it and in hindsight, it looks like the right move. I was playing checkers, Gute was clearly playing chess. 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.