2018 NFL Draft Discussion

[MantyWrestler]

24 minutes ago, Nick_gb said:

Has anyone started scouting the DB's in this draft class? I'd be interested to hear some thoughts on Kameron Kelly out of San Diego State from others if you've turned the tape on. I'm quite intrigued by him.

Also, really hate that latest NFL Mock, I don't have a Day 1 Grade on Hughes, he's a Day 2 prospect imo.

I actually love Hughes. Think he could Vera well, tough as heck, good tackler and a great return man. What tape did you not like?

[Arthur Penske]

14 hours ago, CWood21 said:

I'd be rather upset if the Packers took Nelson at 14.  

 I don't know. I really don't want a non premium position like guard at 14 and I typically find early round OL boring but that guy seems like an amazing player with the potential to be perennial all-pro. I don't know if that can be said about other defensive players that may be available.

I know I'd rather have a TJ Lang or Sitton than Datone Jones, Hawk,  ect. I know those are extreme examples but if I somehow knew Nelson is going to be the player many think he will be for 8-10 years, I'd be all for it.

Depending on what Gutey does in Free Agency, I would be really excited to watch that guy block for Rodgers and the RBs. 

Then again, maybe Gutey can keep up Ted's success of finding pro bowlers in the 4th for Campen.

[CWood21]

5 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

No, with Bosa it was more, "He's really good," and nobody really questioned it.  There was no, "He's going to redefine the position, he can literally pick up and throw tackles into the end zone."  Any time I read about how a player can redefine the position or play anywhere or do anything, I get skeptical of that player.  Hasaan Reddick was another one like that.  It's the same on offense.  McCaffrey and Bush both shot up the hype trains.  McCaffrey wasn't bad, but I think we just saw his ceiling.  Then  you had Lattimore, who wasn't really hyped all that much, it was just another case of, "This guy is the best corner in the draft."  Nobody disputed it. 

I'm not going to lie and say I wouldn't be extremely excited if we drafted James.  I wouldn't be remotely upset.  At all. 

I think you're still referring to his pre-2017 season hype.  He's not being talked in that same way.

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, ArthurPensky said:

 I don't know. I really don't want a non premium position like guard at 14 and I typically find early round OL boring but that guy seems like an amazing player with the potential to be perennial all-pro. I don't know if that can be said about other defensive players that may be available.

I know I'd rather have a TJ Lang or Sitton than Datone Jones, Hawk,  ect. I know those are extreme examples but if I somehow knew Nelson is going to be the player many think he will be for 8-10 years, I'd be all for it.

Depending on what Gutey does in Free Agency, I would be really excited to watch that guy block for Rodgers and the RBs. 

Then again, maybe Gutey can keep up Ted's success of finding pro bowlers in the 4th for Campen.

Like you mentioned, you made an extreme to make a point.  I saw a comparison for Davenport as Danielle Hunter, so let's use that.  Whose more valuable, Danielle Hunter or T.J. Lang/Josh Sitton?  For me, the answer will almost always be Danielle Hunter.  And it's not just about drafting the "best player available", it's about getting the best overall draft.  IF you take an OG in the 1st round, are you willing to run the risk that there won't be a good EDGE available in the 2nd or 3rd round?  That needs to be weighed into your decision.

[Arthur Penske]

4 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Like you mentioned, you made an extreme to make a point.  I saw a comparison for Davenport as Danielle Hunter, so let's use that.  Whose more valuable, Danielle Hunter or T.J. Lang/Josh Sitton?  For me, the answer will almost always be Danielle Hunter.  And it's not just about drafting the "best player available", it's about getting the best overall draft.  IF you take an OG in the 1st round, are you willing to run the risk that there won't be a good EDGE available in the 2nd or 3rd round?  That needs to be weighed into your decision.

Which is why I had the caveat of how Gutey approaches free agency. However, I don't consider Danielle Hunter anymore valuable to the team than Lang or Sitton were in their prime. Hunter was also drafted 88th overall. His position is more valuable, yes, but Hunter as a player. Not to me. I don't think he's exceptional.

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, ArthurPensky said:

Which is why I had the caveat of how Gutey approaches free agency. However, I don't consider Danielle Hunter anymore valuable to the team than Lang or Sitton were in their prime. Hunter was also drafted 88th overall. His position is more valuable, yes, but Hunter as a player. Not to me. I don't think he's exceptional.

I mean, that goes without saying.  But we're making the decision based on all things being equal.  To me, a high quality pass rusher is exponentially more valuable than a guard, especially when we've been very successful drafting a guard in the middle rounds.

Either way, the whole crux of this argument is flawed because it's based on Nelson being drafted and turning out to be the best player possible.  What happens if he flops?  We just used our highest draft pick on a non-premium position.

[Arthur Penske]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

I mean, that goes without saying.  But we're making the decision based on all things being equal.  To me, a high quality pass rusher is exponentially more valuable than a guard, especially when we've been very successful drafting a guard in the middle rounds.

Either way, the whole crux of this argument is flawed because it's based on Nelson being drafted and turning out to be the best player possible.  What happens if he flops?  We just used our highest draft pick on a non-premium position.

Honestly, with Gutey being an unknown I don't think it goes without saying. With TT I think it did. 

And what if Davenport flops? That's my point. I think most people agree there is a higher chance someone like that flops than Nelson.

Again, I'd prefer a defensive stud at 14. I'm just saying with how Free agency turns out and with how the board falls I'd consider Nelson if he were there. There cold be worse things happen than watching Rodgers and co. play behind a stacked offensive line.

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, ArthurPensky said:

Honestly, with Gutey being an unknown I don't think it goes without saying. With TT I think it did. 

And what if Davenport flops? That's my point. I think most people agree there is a higher chance someone like that flops than Nelson.

Again, I'd prefer a defensive stud at 14. I'm just saying with how Free agency turns out and with how the board falls I'd consider Nelson if he were there. There cold be worse things happen than watching Rodgers and co. play behind a stacked offensive line.

Does anyone truly believe that Gute is going to go off the reservation with his decision making?  He's been learning under Ted Thompson, and to a lesser extent Ron Wolf.  We're not going to magically see them going after midget corners.

And if Davenport flops?  He flops.  That's part of the process, but you have to trust your evaluations.  If you think Davenport is going to be a stud pass rusher, you take him and don't think twice about it.  If he flops, he flops.  I'm willing to live with that if he flops.  You're comfortable with your evaluation and coaching staff.

Either way, it'd have to be a near ideal scenario for the Packers to take Nelson.  We need at least one more EDGE, and another CB at a bare minimum.

[Arthur Penske]

3 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Does anyone truly believe that Gute is going to go off the reservation with his decision making?  He's been learning under Ted Thompson, and to a lesser extent Ron Wolf.  We're not going to magically see them going after midget corners.

And if Davenport flops?  He flops.  That's part of the process, but you have to trust your evaluations.  If you think Davenport is going to be a stud pass rusher, you take him and don't think twice about it.  If he flops, he flops.  I'm willing to live with that if he flops.  You're comfortable with your evaluation and coaching staff.

Either way, it'd have to be a near ideal scenario for the Packers to take Nelson.  We need at least one more EDGE, and another CB at a bare minimum.

First of all, i didn't insinuate Gutey was going to go nuts with changes in decision making. I stated he was an unknown, which is fact. Secondly, I'm as big of a TT guy as you will find but signing Bennett was going of the crazy by the past 5 years standard. So if Gutey signs a FA or two of that level it will be going pretty significant.

[CWood21]

4 minutes ago, ArthurPensky said:

First of all, i didn't insinuate Gutey was going to go nuts with changes in decision making. I stated he was an unknown, which is fact. Secondly, I'm as big of a TT guy as you will find but signing Bennett was going of the crazy by the past 5 years standard. So if Gutey signs a FA or two of that level it will be going pretty significant.

I think that goes without saying.  But I also think there's a reasonable level of projection we can make with him.  And based on what he said in the interview, we can make certain assumptions with a reasonable amount of confidence.  Could he do the exact opposite?  Sure, but I tend to give the benefit of the doubt in the unknown.  That being said, I think the Bennett signing last season was a start of the whole transition process.  I think there was a "power struggle" for a lack of a better term last offseason.  And I think the changing of the GM position this offseason verified it for me.

[Arthur Penske]

11 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I think that goes without saying.  But I also think there's a reasonable level of projection we can make with him.  And based on what he said in the interview, we can make certain assumptions with a reasonable amount of confidence.  Could he do the exact opposite?  Sure, but I tend to give the benefit of the doubt in the unknown.  That being said, I think the Bennett signing last season was a start of the whole transition process.  I think there was a "power struggle" for a lack of a better term last offseason.  And I think the changing of the GM position this offseason verified it for me.

The only thing we could assume ( perhaps unwisely) from the what Gutey has said is that he will be more active in free agency/trades.

[{Family Ghost}]

It's funny .. going in I was all about OLB's at #14, but as I learn a little more about the players I don't see that great fit at #14 when it comes to pass rushers.  Chubb will be long gone.  As of right now I don't see Harold Landry as being worth the pick.  I don't care for Arden Key .. looks choppy in his movements, plus he's a goof.  Davenport could probably be the pick, but there's a lot of question marks for sure.  If Gute stays put at #14 I think he will go defense, and opt for a guy that falls thru the cracks .. Tremaine Edmunds, Roquan Smith, Derwin James, or Denzel Ward seem likely to me.  Edmunds is probably my favorite guy in the draft .. Derwin James isn't too far off.

[ThatJerkDave]

1 hour ago, ArthurPensky said:

Which is why I had the caveat of how Gutey approaches free agency. However, I don't consider Danielle Hunter anymore valuable to the team than Lang or Sitton were in their prime. Hunter was also drafted 88th overall. His position is more valuable, yes, but Hunter as a player. Not to me. I don't think he's exceptional.

Lang was 109 and Sitton was 135 overall.  All three were good picks, probably picked later than they should have.  But even with these examples of guys that fell through the cracks, the draft as a whole values the pass rusher higher than the guards.

The Packers didn't lose games because of guard play.  Lack of pass rush certainly played a part though.  Even if we draft a future HOF guard, the Packers are not that much improved.  The offensive line is good.  Adding even a middling pass rusher improves at least on the contribution we got from Biegel, and Fackrell last season.  IMO better pass rush covers some of the warts of the defense. 

[Mr. Fussnputz]

Sorry to have left the conversation so long. Work commitments. My assumption was that the board would be obliterated. Maybe I'm wrong and I'll stand corrected by others on this forum who follow the draft more closely, but there seems to be less than 14 tier one players this year. But sometimes, sometimes, someone slips. What I'm wondering is, if one of the top tier players slips to 14, should the Packers draft him regardless of position? I originally suggested Nelson, because I thought a G might be most likely to slip. Some of you don't believe he's top tier anyway; others wouldn't take a G at 14, even if he's the highest rated player. James name has come up. Intriguing. He could take Morgan Burnett's spot with Josh Jones moving to ILB. But that still leaves me grasping at straws for an Edge. Some have suggested just take Davenport. It's the age old question, draft for need, or draft the BPA (with some consideration for position value). I don't like drafting for need, because needs can change big time with one injury. 

Which leads me back to my original question. Draft the BPA (James?) and then try to trade back into round one to get an Edge. CWood didn't like that option because it would leave the remaining draft choices too depleted. But that strategy worked with Raji and Matthews. And what about FA? Couldn't a CB and/or a WR be picked up in FA? 

If the Packers came out of this off season with James, a decent young Edge (Davenport?), a decent FA CB, backup QB, and WR, and maybe a developmental TE drafted in the mid to low rounds, wouldn't that be enough?

[Dubz41]

We just need to target the guy we want (Chubb?).  Get a picture of him with the Larry Tunsil gas mask on and   Wa La! he's ours at #14.