2018 NFL Draft Discussion

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

QBs aren't playing until 50.

People said the same thing about quarterbacks playing well at 40.  Now we're going to have two of them next year.  Get back to me thirty years from now.

[MacReady]

Just now, jleisher said:

What's idiotic to some is not to others.  You have no guaranties that Rodgers is going to play 2, 3, 4 or 6 years.  You have no guaranties on any players career.  What's idiotic is how you seem to think you have all the correct answers for everything.  Unless you have some magical powers to see into the future I take your input with a grain of salt.

You have a guarantee that your best shot at winning a Super Bowl next year is adding a player that's not Mayfield at 14.  Saying there are no guarantees is a pretty silly way to run an NFL franchise.  Eagles should probably draft him, right?  No guarantee Wentz plays another year.  Same thing for literally every team.  Since GMs in this league are paid to try to win Super Bowls, you don't see teams with comparatively young elite quarterbacks go out and draft quarterbacks 14th overall when their elite, all-time great QB is 34 years old.

The Packers drafted Rodgers because Rodgers was supposed to be the first overall or second overall QB at worst.  He fell to 24th.  Mayfield isn't even considered the clear cut third best QB in this draft. 

The Packers drafted Rodgers after Favre had been toying around with the idea of retiring for years.  Rodgers has recently stated that he has recommitted himself to football and wants to play for 8 more years. 

The value of a 2nd overall QB at 24th overall is significantly better than the 14th overall pick on a QB that's slotted in the 10-20 range.

It doesn't take magical powers to see that taking Mayfield 14th overall is a bad idea, and I take your input with a salt shaker. 

[Packerraymond]

16 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

People said the same thing about quarterbacks playing well at 40.  Now we're going to have two of them next year.  Get back to me thirty years from now.

I'm marking this in my calendar. I'll be gloating 30 years from now. You don't see any other athlete be it hockey, baseball, skating, basketball, lacrosse, etc playing until they're 50. It's not golf or curling here. Unless we start putting players on IR in their 30s to have bionic limbs put on them athletes will break down in their late 30s/early 40s.

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Unless we start putting players on IR in their 30s to have bionic limbs put on them athletes will break down in their late 30s/early 40s.

Betting on bionics. 

[ThatJerkDave]

1 hour ago, jleisher said:

Why would they have drafted Rodgers when they had Favre?   He was the best player at that spot.   And the answer to your other question is YES!  I would anyone that makes the team better, whether it's Daniels, Adams, Martinez or Rodgers replacement.  Mayfield I think would offer more then Hundley has or will.  

I could see Mayfield, but only if the decision makers feel he is their #1 player, like Aaron was.  They even entertained some offers when they took Aaron.  A QB probably doesn't help the 2018 Packers at all.

[Mr. Fussnputz]

2 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Blanda played at 48 in the year 1976.  If Blanda could do it in 1976 when players literally pile drove quarterbacks into the ground, a player isn't far off from playing at 50 when forgetting to tell a QB God bless you after they sneeze draws a 47 yard penalty these days. 

I'm sure you're in great shape, but  assume you didn't have millions of dollars and NFL teams invested in your future.  Aaron Rodgers could literally afford trained spider monkey massages. 

It's a moot point anyway because as Ray said, we have Rodgers signed for 2 more years, he's good for at least 4 more years, and Mayfield wouldn't get on the field.  Why use a draft pick on a player that won't get onto the field unless you're literally in the worst case scenario? 

At that point in his career, Blanda was just a kicker. I know 'cause I remember watching games he played in. I'm that old! Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for a QB at 14. My question was who of the top tier guys might slide to 14. Mayfield was suggested. So was James. Who do you think might slide down to 14?

[incognito_man]

3 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

You have a guarantee that your best shot at winning a Super Bowl next year is adding a player that's not Mayfield at 14.  Saying there are no guarantees is a pretty silly way to run an NFL franchise.  Eagles should probably draft him, right?  No guarantee Wentz plays another year.  Same thing for literally every team.  Since GMs in this league are paid to try to win Super Bowls, you don't see teams with comparatively young elite quarterbacks go out and draft quarterbacks 14th overall when their elite, all-time great QB is 34 years old.

The Packers drafted Rodgers because Rodgers was supposed to be the first overall or second overall QB at worst.  He fell to 24th.  Mayfield isn't even considered the clear cut third best QB in this draft. 

The Packers drafted Rodgers after Favre had been toying around with the idea of retiring for years.  Rodgers has recently stated that he has recommitted himself to football and wants to play for 8 more years. 

The value of a 2nd overall QB at 24th overall is significantly better than the 14th overall pick on a QB that's slotted in the 10-20 range.

It doesn't take magical powers to see that taking Mayfield 14th overall is a bad idea, and I take your input with a salt shaker. 

i'd maybe consider mayfield with a 7th round pick

[incognito_man]

4 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

trained spider monkey massages

good name for a band

[cannondale]

I know it's the slow part of the off-season...but wow

[OneTwoSixFive]

12 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Aaron Rodgers is not done in 4 years.  He's 34 in the year 2018, not 1990.  The NFL evolves.  Thirty years from now, quarterbacks will be playing until they're 50.  Rodgers is good for 5 years minimum.  Drafting Mayfield is an idiotic move unless you plan on trading Rodgers. 

Rodgers could still be looking good playing in 4years, but projecting further,  the odds of playing good football in your 40's are very low. The best period for very old QBs still in the league is about 1995 - 2005 (Steve DeBerg, Moon, Testaverde were all 44, Flutie 43)

Some of the more notable 40 year old QBs, like Moon, Testaverde, Brunell and Flutie were not seen as starters in the last 3-5 years of their careers. Flutie didn't play so much his last 4 years. Testaverde had one of the longest effective careers, but only played 6,3, and 7 games his last three seasons (for the Jets, Pats, Panthers). Moon did play 10 games in 1998, only his last two years at KC were duds (1 and 2 games played). However, for every QB that plays even fairly well over 40, there are hundreds that don't reach that milestone.  There are just 8 QBs aged 41 or older that were on NFL rosters. 

While things like good nutrition improve (and maybe rules help QBs more), the defense facing those old QBs have also been getting faster and stronger all the time, and can lay devastating hits on guys that are both slowing and more brittle. Even a good O line cannot always protect a QB. Some of the most painful hits don't always come from the big guys either, some think that a hit from a safety hurts more, due to how fast they arrive.

Consequently, I would like to see the Packers start positioning themselves in 2020 for a starter quality QB, in 2021 (assuming there is anyone they like in that draft).

[spilltray]

While I see the idea of a QB if one falls, just no.

First, when Rodgers was drafted, Favre was already saying he was getting ready to hang em up and couldn't say beyond this season. Big difference there.

 

Then there is the fact I hate Mayfield as a NFL QB. He doesn't have the accuracy or pocket presence to play that kind of game. The consistently elite QBs are the type who can.

[MacReady]

Just now, OneTwoSixFive said:

Consequently, I would like to see the Packers start positioning themselves in 2020 for a starter quality QB, in 2021 (assuming there is anyone they like in that draft).

I want them prepared for Aaron's retirement, too.  I just don't want them to be prepared for it for 5 years before he retires at the expense of giving Rodgers a better shot at actually winning while he's playing. 

[JBURGE]

On 2/14/2018 at 6:54 PM, CWood21 said:

On 2/14/2018 at 12:34 PM, JBURGE25 said:

Isiah Wynn to start I think

Going to be off the board before the Packers' comfort range.  Probably goes in that 2nd round range.

This was exactly what I was thinking, if he made it to our 2nd he is on the table. Would certainly be earlier than we usually look at interior ol guys, but if he fits the profile and is considered value by the scouts, I can see it 

[CWood21]

20 hours ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

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?

Let me simplify this.  Right now, I've got four positions (WR, TE, EDGE, and CB) that I'd consider premium positions for upgrade/improvement.  Of those four, I have the least amount of faith that we're going to add a quality EDGE or WR via FA.  If you select Derwin James at 14 (not opposed), come back up into the end of the 1st round for one of the remaining pass rushers, how do you fix CB long-term, find a replacement for Nelson/Cobb at WR, and fix the TE position?  That's why the concept of trading up to me is almost too much.  I'm not opposed to making a small move up the board, but the kind of move up the board pretty much depletes our draft stock.

You point to the Raji/Matthews draft, but would you still think the same if Matthews hadn't turned out to be a stud?  Back in 2013, the Vikings traded a 2nd round pick (52nd), 3rd round pick (83rd), 4th (102nd), and a 6th round pick to move back up in the 1st round for Cordarelle Patterson.  I'm not opposed to it if you've got a guy with a high enough grade lean.  I'm just not optimistic that will happen.

[CWood21]

19 hours ago, jleisher said:

So, you think they will just reach for the top Edge Rusher on the board, no matter how much of a reach?  It's so hard to tell who will be there at #14, I guess that's what makes this fun.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head on that one.  We have no idea who will be available, and who won't.  We will get a better idea of who will be available closer to the draft, but right now it's a crap shoot at best.  Right now, my current projection has 3 QBs going in the top 6, and 4 inside the top 12.  That means that the Packers could be a near ideal trade-down candidate if a team wants to jump Arizona to grab the last remaining top QB (i.e. Lamar Jackson).  I think the Chargers, Bills, and Saints could all be in the market for a trade-up.  Bradley Chubb's floor is probably Tampa Bay at 7.  Saquon Barkley likely goes in the top 4, but San Francisco at 9 seems like his absolute floor.  Minkah Fitzpatrick probably doesn't get past Cincinnati at 12, although Chicago at 8 could take him.  Or they could opt to take Calvin Ridley instead.

Regardless, I don't think there's going to be this huge grade discrepancy between players at 14.  I think we're going to see a board that's relatively similar to the other players, which to me would indicate that the Packers would like a small trade-down.  I think a flop with the Chargers if they're looking to come up for Lamar Jackson would make a ton of sense for both sides.