2024 Packers Draft Immediate Thoughts

[coachbuns]

2 hours ago, HyponGrey said:

I'm 34 and old as hell

Add 38 more to catch me and then you are REALLY old.  Loving every minute of it.

[CWood21]

On 5/4/2024 at 3:34 PM, Packerraymond said:

I still find our board strange that we didn't have Mitchell or Arnold in a spot where a trade up was desired. Sounds like Gute stopped trying to trade up somewhere in the teens. Feel pretty confident had Mitchell and/or Arnold made it to 25, we are still picking Morgan. I always try to view it through their eyes, but I just can't see it in this instance. 

The fact that we didn't take a CB until what the 3rd to last pick of the draft tells me that Gute really didn't think CB was a need at all.  I'm not sure I shared that same optimism regarding the CB room, but I think Gute just never thought the need warranted moving up for a CB.  Now, if one of them fell to 25 would he have taken either one of them had they been available?  Possibly, but I think you'd need to have a HEAVY grade lean on Arnold/Mitchell to justify trading up for them if you don't think they're going to play much as a rookie.  Imagine giving up a pick and having them primarily handle ST duties as a rookie.

Also, what interview was the Gute talking about trading up from?

[Scoremore]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

The fact that we didn't take a CB until what the 3rd to last pick of the draft tells me that Gute really didn't think CB was a need at all.  I'm not sure I shared that same optimism regarding the CB room, but I think Gute just never thought the need warranted moving up for a CB.  Now, if one of them fell to 25 would he have taken either one of them had they been available?  Possibly, but I think you'd need to have a HEAVY grade lean on Arnold/Mitchell to justify trading up for them if you don't think they're going to play much as a rookie.  Imagine giving up a pick and having them primarily handle ST duties as a rookie.

Also, what interview was the Gute talking about trading up from?

Yah kinda surprising.  You would have to think they would have taking Arnold if the Lions hadn't traded up.  He got nickel covered but it's the boundary guys.  Must be pretty high on Valentine and thinking Stokes will make it through this season.  It's a bit of a gamble.  He's really gone with needs based drafts lately.  

I mean he targeted all our needs early and often last two drafts.  This one in particular OL, LB and S.  Saw the interview think it was the post draft one should be able to find it on Packers.com.  Basically all he said was there were some players he tried to trade up for but the cost was prohibitive.  Once his guys went off the board it was not longer a consideration. Thinking it was Fashanu or perhaps Fuatanu.  He wasn't going to trade up for a CB.  

Next year will be DT, OL again, CB, and WR.  Gotta say not a lot of holes left on this roster.  Guess it depends on how some of these OL work out.  Particularly Monk.  Don't feel he did the best job of addressing IOL.  Not sure if we will give Clark a new contract.  If not this will be our #1 need.  WR's Watson and Doubs final year of their contracts.  We'll probably sign one of them.  CB will depend a lot on Stokes.  If he has a good season maybe we extend him but from what I've seen think it's a long shot. 

[Packerraymond]

2 hours ago, CWood21 said:

The fact that we didn't take a CB until what the 3rd to last pick of the draft tells me that Gute really didn't think CB was a need at all.  I'm not sure I shared that same optimism regarding the CB room, but I think Gute just never thought the need warranted moving up for a CB.  Now, if one of them fell to 25 would he have taken either one of them had they been available?  Possibly, but I think you'd need to have a HEAVY grade lean on Arnold/Mitchell to justify trading up for them if you don't think they're going to play much as a rookie.  Imagine giving up a pick and having them primarily handle ST duties as a rookie.

Also, what interview was the Gute talking about trading up from?

The one from day 1. Never said they were trying to trade up, said something like "we stopped with that train of thought in the teens." Which tells me they had decided if Fashanu/Fuaga fell they would go up, but they went where they were supposed to. 

[craig]

After either day 2 or 3, in reference to the Cooper trade-down, Gute said he'd hoped to gain some extra picks on Day 1 but that hadn't happened.  I infer that they liked Morgan significantly ahead of Barton, Guyton, Wiggins, DeJean, etc..  

They seem quite high on Valentine.  Couple of references to him looking great and looking physically much stronger.  In the context of how in draft year, guys are so constantly bopping around interviewing and doing visits, that they don't spend as much time on body optimization.  So, I think they believe that Valentine is going to be in better shape physically and strength-wise to play NFL corner.  I think they see him as a legit starter.    

Also comments on Stokes looking "great".  Some comment to the effect that he looks totally different and better than he ever did last year.  So yeah, maybe they really do think he's 100% and that he's ready to contribute.  

Certainly risky, though.  Lots of hopes and "looks great" perspective now.  But maybe 3 weeks into camp when Jaire and Stokes maybe get some injuries, we might have a season of saying, "Man, what was Gute thinking, we all knew these guys are fragile and we needed help.  How could he ignore that position group?" 

I do wonder if there is a more separated view on slot versus boundary?  In past, they talked "flexibility", and hesitated to label a guy as one or the other.  The theory was like with o-line, you want guys who can play any role, so they thought guys like Josh Jackson or Rasul could play slot.  But this round seems more reference to Bullard and Williams playing slot.  So while they didn't take a boundary corner till King, at least they maybe feel like they doubly-addressed slot depth?  

 

[CWood21]

2 hours ago, Scoremore said:

Yah kinda surprising.  You would have to think they would have taking Arnold if the Lions hadn't traded up.  He got nickel covered but it's the boundary guys.  Must be pretty high on Valentine and thinking Stokes will make it through this season.  It's a bit of a gamble.  He's really gone with needs based drafts lately.  

If we're being honest, I think that Gutekunst probably would have still taken Morgan over Arnold all things being considered.  You would have to assume that Mitchell probably was higher on their board, and he might have been someone they would have taken Morgan.

2 hours ago, Scoremore said:

I mean he targeted all our needs early and often last two drafts.  This one in particular OL, LB and S.  Saw the interview think it was the post draft one should be able to find it on Packers.com.  Basically all he said was there were some players he tried to trade up for but the cost was prohibitive.  Once his guys went off the board it was not longer a consideration. Thinking it was Fashanu or perhaps Fuatanu.  He wasn't going to trade up for a CB. 

None of Gute's picks in the first two rounds were really much of reaches.  I mean, Jordan Morgan seemed to be graded in the early-to-mid 30s, but aside from that it seemed like most of his picks ended up being roughly value especially since there probably is a bit more variation after a certain point in the draft.

[packfanfb]

 

[CWood21]

Big guys with foot injuries tend to not pay out very well.

[AlexGreen#20]

8 hours ago, packfanfb said:

 

"I'm shocked the 300lber who had a Jones fracture continues to have foot problems" - Not a single Orthopod, ever.

[Old Guy]

17 hours ago, packfanfb said:

 

Bad organizations doing bad organization things. 

[AlexGreen#20]

23 hours ago, craig said:

After either day 2 or 3, in reference to the Cooper trade-down, Gute said he'd hoped to gain some extra picks on Day 1 but that hadn't happened.  I infer that they liked Morgan significantly ahead of Barton, Guyton, Wiggins, DeJean, etc..  

They seem quite high on Valentine.  Couple of references to him looking great and looking physically much stronger.  In the context of how in draft year, guys are so constantly bopping around interviewing and doing visits, that they don't spend as much time on body optimization.  So, I think they believe that Valentine is going to be in better shape physically and strength-wise to play NFL corner.  I think they see him as a legit starter.    

Also comments on Stokes looking "great".  Some comment to the effect that he looks totally different and better than he ever did last year.  So yeah, maybe they really do think he's 100% and that he's ready to contribute.  

Certainly risky, though.  Lots of hopes and "looks great" perspective now.  But maybe 3 weeks into camp when Jaire and Stokes maybe get some injuries, we might have a season of saying, "Man, what was Gute thinking, we all knew these guys are fragile and we needed help.  How could he ignore that position group?" 

I do wonder if there is a more separated view on slot versus boundary?  In past, they talked "flexibility", and hesitated to label a guy as one or the other.  The theory was like with o-line, you want guys who can play any role, so they thought guys like Josh Jackson or Rasul could play slot.  But this round seems more reference to Bullard and Williams playing slot.  So while they didn't take a boundary corner till King, at least they maybe feel like they doubly-addressed slot depth?  

 

Pertaining to your last paragraph, let's start with terminology. 

Slot generally refers to a position on the field, filled by a person. It means the inside most pass catching target not connected to or behind the line of scrimmage. In Twins, it's the #2 receiver (starting from the outside). In Trips, it's the #3 receiver. TEs also frequently line up in this slot alignment. 

Historically, the slot receiver was a physical receiver who could go over the middle and hold on to the ball through contact.

That was phased out quickly in the late 90s and early 2000s, where WR protection rules turned the ideal slot player into a jack rabbit quick guy who also has a toughness and a willingness to stick his nose in the run game to help perimeter blocking (Wes Walker/Randall Cobb). 

Defense quickly countered by going into nickel more frequently. The nickel CB they were putting on the field to counter the Slot WR, usually physically matched. Often shorter, but quicker and willing to hit. 

Because the nickel CB was spending so much time in the slot, they began being referred to as Slot CB, or just Slot. 

So now we have confusion. 

When somebody asks "Can Bullard play the Slot?" are you asking "Is Bullard going to play Nickel CB, with some of the man coverage responsibilities that can entail?" or are you asking "Can Bullard play the Low Safety role, if he's lined up over the #2 (location wise) WR, where he's going to be dropping into zones and banging with TEs?"

To answer your question when it comes to CBs though, you have to view the slot and the perimeter (boundary/field) positions differently. **

From a run standpoint, your slot guy has an outside contain role way more often. Somebody might argue that with as much bubble screen **** as teams are running now, your perimeter CBs can't get blown off the ball by blockers either, but slot involves a lot more physicality. 

From a pass standpoint, look at the zones in a Cover-3 or Cover-4. Your perimeter guys are playing vertically in deep zones. Meanwhile your slot guy is playing a second level zone, usually on the perimeter. 

+++

That's a kind way of saying that a DC might be willing to give up a bit in pass defense to add some run stopping by running a nickel with 3 Safeties rather than a traditional "Slot CB" but, I don't know how anybody looks at our current Safety group and concludes that a nickel of:

Alexander-Nixon-Stokes-X-Bullard

isn't WAY better than a group of:

Alexander-Stokes-Bullard-X-Williams/AJJ.

Especially early in the season.

** Some will make the counter argument that in 2024, it's not unheard of to have a game where a QB doesn't complete a pass 10 yards past the line of scrimmage. So your perimeter Corners ABSOLUTELY need to be good tacklers.

If those guys can tackle, they can play in the slot, but a lot of teams will choose elite coverage skills over tackling ability every day.

Edited May 12 by AlexGreen#20

[Rosser80]

On 5/11/2024 at 8:22 AM, CWood21 said:

The fact that we didn't take a CB until what the 3rd to last pick of the draft tells me that Gute really didn't think CB was a need at all.  I'm not sure I shared that same optimism regarding the CB room, but I think Gute just never thought the need warranted moving up for a CB.

On 5/11/2024 at 11:05 AM, craig said:

They seem quite high on Valentine.  Couple of references to him looking great and looking physically much stronger.  In the context of how in draft year, guys are so constantly bopping around interviewing and doing visits, that they don't spend as much time on body optimization.  So, I think they believe that Valentine is going to be in better shape physically and strength-wise to play NFL corner.  I think they see him as a legit starter.  

 

CB is a wait-n-see position right now. Stokes is coming off of injury and had a good rookie season, Valentine AND Ballentine showed signs of greatness last year as well and Nixon put in a lot of good reps of course. Personally, I think it's a situation where we know who our CB1 is with a bunch of rotational pieces. Ergo, it becomes a position that they would like to address, but it's not as urgent as Safety was and with Kalen King essentially falling to us(according to Sauce at least), we have yet another candidate that could rise to CB2 so that the position will not need to be addressed where we can continue to build EDGE, LB, and DT if need be. 

 

On 5/11/2024 at 11:05 AM, craig said:

I do wonder if there is a more separated view on slot versus boundary?  In past, they talked "flexibility", and hesitated to label a guy as one or the other.  The theory was like with o-line, you want guys who can play any role, so they thought guys like Josh Jackson or Rasul could play slot.  But this round seems more reference to Bullard and Williams playing slot.  So while they didn't take a boundary corner till King, at least they maybe feel like they doubly-addressed slot depth?  

 

This contributes to my point as well and also to why I kept 6 Safeties in the 53-man thread. 3 of our current safeties could step up to slot if need be and Anthony Johnson Jr. was a CB at ISU who was moved to Safety as a pro IIRC. Sure, you want your CB only guys, but you can get really creative with diversity in the Safety room - diversity we now have going into TC TBH....come to think of it, that should excite everyone.

 

4 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

That's a kind way of saying that a DC might be willing to give up a bit in pass defense to add some run stopping by running a nickel with 3 Safeties rather than a traditional "Slot CB" but, I don't know how anybody looks at our current Safety group and concludes that a nickel of:

Alexander-Nixon-Stokes-X-Bullard

isn't WAY better than a group of:

Alexander-Stokes-Bullard-X-Williams/AJJ.

The more I look at our draft, the more I understand the Hopper pick. Hopper's a former safety that was moved to LB due to his size/agility; with him as a dimebacker who could flex to DB in certain packages, it gives us another wrinkle within the scheme.

The proposed nickel group of Alexander - Nixon - Stokes - Valentine/McKinney - Bullard makes a ton of sense, but there are other options that may not look as savory, but will get the job done in a different fashion.

[craig]

12 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

...+++

That's a kind way of saying that a DC might be willing to give up a bit in pass defense to add some run stopping by running a nickel with 3 Safeties rather than a traditional "Slot CB" but, I don't know how anybody looks at our current Safety group and concludes that a nickel of:

Alexander-Nixon-Stokes-X-Bullard

isn't WAY better than a group of:

Alexander-Stokes-Bullard-X-Williams/AJJ.

Especially early in the season.

** Some will make the counter argument that in 2024, it's not unheard of to have a game where a QB doesn't complete a pass 10 yards past the line of scrimmage. So your perimeter Corners ABSOLUTELY need to be good tacklers.

If those guys can tackle, they can play in the slot, but a lot of teams will choose elite coverage skills over tackling ability every day.

I think this captures it very well.  Yes, perhaps at times tackling and defending bubble screens would prioritize tackling.  But yes, Nixon-X-Bullard seems to be the obvious preferred 3-some for the three slot-safety spots for the majority of packages and matchups.  But it's the National Injury League. 

Like "Best-5" for o-line, I think it's now "best-3" for the S-S-Slot spots.  Nixon-X-Bullard are the preferred 3.  But If Nixon gets injured or needs a breather, the Packers seem to view Bullard and Williams as providing slot depth, rather than pulling in an outside CB to help at slot.  Nixon-X-Bullard are the S-S-Slot starters, Williams/AJJ/Kitan provide the depth. 

"Best 2" for outside CB.  Stokes competes with Valentine to start, the loser is next-man-up.  Ballentine/King compete for 4/5 standing as outside CB.  

"Best 2" for outside CB, 

 

[HyponGrey]

On 5/11/2024 at 2:02 PM, CWood21 said:

Big guys with foot injuries tend to not pay out very well.

I remember insisting that Newton wasn't going in the first, and people on a different platform flaming me. 

This is one of the biggest reasons why.

[Refugee]

On 5/12/2024 at 8:37 PM, craig said:

I think this captures it very well.  Yes, perhaps at times tackling and defending bubble screens would prioritize tackling.  But yes, Nixon-X-Bullard seems to be the obvious preferred 3-some for the three slot-safety spots for the majority of packages and matchups.  But it's the National Injury League. 

Like "Best-5" for o-line, I think it's now "best-3" for the S-S-Slot spots.  Nixon-X-Bullard are the preferred 3.  But If Nixon gets injured or needs a breather, the Packers seem to view Bullard and Williams as providing slot depth, rather than pulling in an outside CB to help at slot.  Nixon-X-Bullard are the S-S-Slot starters, Williams/AJJ/Kitan provide the depth. 

"Best 2" for outside CB.  Stokes competes with Valentine to start, the loser is next-man-up.  Ballentine/King compete for 4/5 standing as outside CB.  

"Best 2" for outside CB, 

 

Definitely some flexibility within the safety/CB group. I think King is looked at as a project but will get a lot of slot opportunities in camp. There is also potential for Oladapo to have some ILB duties and Hopper and possibly Cooper to cover some safety responsibilities. Of course you want guys to be very good at one thing rather than ok at a few things but if they can be smart enough and athletically versatile enough to be flexible, it makes them more valuable. Hoping the coaches have a clear vision and understand early what guys can and cannot do and help them grow into the system. 

Edited May 14 by Refugee