2018 NFL Draft Discussion

[CWood21]

16 hours ago, 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.

It's not a guarantee, but it's about as close as you can come to making a guarantee.  The fact is that adding Baker Mayfield doesn't make the 2018 Green Bay Packers better.  Hell, it probably doesn't make the 2019 or 2020 Packers any better.  So you're probably looking at a pick 4 years down the road before he makes an impact.  How is that a wise use of resources?  We're still 2-3 years away before we start thinking about developing someone behind Aaron Rodgers.

[Mr. Fussnputz]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

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.

Good questions CWood. Let me take a stab at answering them!

1. Long term fix at CB. I'll define "long term" as an 8-10 year starter. OK? May not be able to do the this year in this draft, but a medium term fix (3 years) could be done via FA (Butler or Fuller or others) or trade. Then look for long term fix in 2019 or 2020 draft (first round premium target).

2. Replacement for Nelson/Cobb. Not sure Cobb needs to be replaced. Nelson (with a restricted contract) and Ty Montgomery are possible slot replacements already on the roster. As for outside help, I have been on record saying the Packers need more speed at WR. I like John Brown in FA. IMHO he would be a good, complementary addition to the receiving corps. Then look to the 2019/2020 drafts (second round premium target, so HZ doesn't have a myocardial infarction).

3. TE is real conundrum. The swing and miss on Bennett really hurt. We need a TE NOW and it takes them a couple of years to develop, so maybe another veteran could be added, or resign Rodgers and go into next year with Rodger, Kendricks, and a middle to late round developmental prospect from the draft. 

So, if they come away from this off season with James, one Edge (Landry/Key/Davenport), Fuller, Brown, and a developmental TE, I would be a happy Packer fan!

Cheers!

I realize that they would have to find the cap space to sign Brown and Fuller. I admit I am not a capologist, but hopefully Ball could make it happen.

[craig]

I have totally mixed feelings on BPA and impact position and take-a-risk picks, etc.  I totally get the valuation for "high impact" vs "low impact" positions.  And I get the value for reaching and taking-a-shot, because we might never get a sure-thing however bad the chances might be in round 1; because the chances will  only get worse later in draft; and the chances will only get worse next year assuming we draft in the 20's next year.  

Still, I think we do need to have eyes-wide-open in realizing that if you do take a shot at an edge at 14, an edge who isn't really that ideal of an edge prospect, there's a pretty good chance you're going to end up with nothing; that you're going to swing-and-miss, and end up with somebody about as impactful as Datone.  You can want it, but if the guys there really don't have what it takes, you might not get the impact.  

 

[MantyWrestler]

4 hours ago, CWood21 said:

It's not a guarantee, but it's about as close as you can come to making a guarantee.  The fact is that adding Baker Mayfield doesn't make the 2018 Green Bay Packers better.  Hell, it probably doesn't make the 2019 or 2020 Packers any better.  So you're probably looking at a pick 4 years down the road before he makes an impact.  How is that a wise use of resources?  We're still 2-3 years away before we start thinking about developing someone behind Aaron Rodgers.

It’s not like the Packers have never done that before. They did with Rogers and Favre. Personally I’d let AR play out his contract, Franchise him for 1 or 2 years and consider trading him if he decides he want a crazy contract way bigger than what is happening now. 

[chillparsi1]

22 hours ago, 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.

Let it go, laddie. Some posters think they know all, and live in a black and white world with no in-between. Not worth your time. 

[jleisher]

6 hours ago, CWood21 said:

It's not a guarantee, but it's about as close as you can come to making a guarantee.  The fact is that adding Baker Mayfield doesn't make the 2018 Green Bay Packers better.  Hell, it probably doesn't make the 2019 or 2020 Packers any better.  So you're probably looking at a pick 4 years down the road before he makes an impact.  How is that a wise use of resources?  We're still 2-3 years away before we start thinking about developing someone behind Aaron Rodgers.

Fair point.  They thinking was it would be almost like drafting Rodgers.  Mayfield would come in at #3 this year, then take over the #2 spot next year.  As for making the team better this year, he just might be able to.  He's better then Callahan, and might be better then Hundley if given the chance.  Just a thought.

[jleisher]

3 minutes ago, chillparsi1 said:

Let it go, laddie. Some posters think they know all, and live in a black and white world with no in-between. Not worth your time. 

It's all about respect, just simple respect.  Your right, but it's just not cool.  Laddie?  LOL!  At first I thought you called me a lady and spelled it wrong.  Thanks!

[jleisher]

22 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. 

Those are all fair points and well said without insults.  My thinking was that Mayfield is better then Callahan, fair?  Could Mayfield be better then Hundley?  Could be, might not be, so with that said, if Mayfield is better then Hundley, then he would make the team better.  I would be very surprised if anyone that they pick at #14, will make a impact on this years team.  Can it happen, sure can, I would love for it to happen, but we can't be sure on anything.  Can we agree, that you can't judge or rate a teams draft until 2-3 years after that draft to give players time to develop?  Year #2 is the true measuring point for a player, IMPO.  So, could Mayfield make this team better, yes, yes he could.  

[HighCalebR]

You're really advocating picking a 3rd string QB with the #14 pick? You don't think we have bigger fish to fry? It's a total misallocation. Even if you were 100% sure he's better than Hundley it's still not the right move. Look at how ****ty the situation is getting in new England after they had to deal Garrapollo.

Let's forget that I don't think Mayfield is any good, because that means nothing. The value of the backup QB is much lower than a rotational edge player or a starting CB. We've got an elite QB in tow and we're not going move on from him during the next 4 years. The Eagles just drafted Barnett this year, an edge player, he gave them a deep constantly churning rotation. They also had Foles, a backup QB, who was absolute gold. Who do you think has a better chance of being on the roster next year? Do you think the Eagles would try to replace Foles with a 1st Rd QB?

[jleisher]

1 hour ago, HighCalebR said:

You're really advocating picking a 3rd string QB with the #14 pick? You don't think we have bigger fish to fry? It's a total misallocation. Even if you were 100% sure he's better than Hundley it's still not the right move. Look at how ****ty the situation is getting in new England after they had to deal Garrapollo.

Let's forget that I don't think Mayfield is any good, because that means nothing. The value of the backup QB is much lower than a rotational edge player or a starting CB. We've got an elite QB in tow and we're not going move on from him during the next 4 years. The Eagles just drafted Barnett this year, an edge player, he gave them a deep constantly churning rotation. They also had Foles, a backup QB, who was absolute gold. Who do you think has a better chance of being on the roster next year? Do you think the Eagles would try to replace Foles with a 1st Rd QB?

You are correct, and don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say we should take Mayfield at #14.  This discussion was brought up about drafting the BPA at #14 and if Mayfield happened to be that guy on the Packers Big Board, then what do you do?

[pollino14]

Could we please move on. We’re not taking a QB in round 1 or 2. That’s that. 

[wgbeethree]

4 hours ago, jleisher said:

You are correct, and don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say we should take Mayfield at #14.  This discussion was brought up about drafting the BPA at #14 and if Mayfield happened to be that guy on the Packers Big Board, then what do you do?

What do I do if Mayfield is the highest rated player on my team's board at 14?

Simple. Fire my entire scouting staff and then commit harakiri. 

[moretti19]

Does anyone have any insight on Shaqeem Griffin? Yes he has one hand but I bet he runs a 4.4 or 4.5 at the combine due to his track numbers. I saw some quick film and he sets an edge, runs plays down, and is NEVER out of the play. If he had 2 hands I think we are looking at a high 1st round prospect.

[CWood21]

On 2/16/2018 at 12:02 PM, Mr. Fussnputz said:

1. Long term fix at CB. I'll define "long term" as an 8-10 year starter. OK? May not be able to do the this year in this draft, but a medium term fix (3 years) could be done via FA (Butler or Fuller or others) or trade. Then look for long term fix in 2019 or 2020 draft (first round premium target).

You speak of long-term as an 8-10 starter.  That almost certainly has to come through the draft.  That means you're developing someone whose that.  That's someone like Marshon Lattimore.  That's what your definition of long-term starter.  IF you get two contracts out of a draft pick, that's a huge success.  There's a few corners in this class I like, but it's not a real strong class at the top IMO.  That late 1st/early 2nd seems to be more value than taking one in the range of our natural pick.  Depending on how the board shapes up and what transpires in FA, I think a trade-up would be a very real possibility.

On 2/16/2018 at 12:02 PM, Mr. Fussnputz said:

2. Replacement for Nelson/Cobb. Not sure Cobb needs to be replaced. Nelson (with a restricted contract) and Ty Montgomery are possible slot replacements already on the roster. As for outside help, I have been on record saying the Packers need more speed at WR. I like John Brown in FA. IMHO he would be a good, complementary addition to the receiving corps. Then look to the 2019/2020 drafts (second round premium target, so HZ doesn't have a myocardial infarction).

I'd be very, very surprised if Cobb & Nelson are brought back at their current price tags.  That's $25M+ between the two of them.  That's not really a good business model.  And if they're moving on from one of them, I don't think they're going to turn around and spend that money on a FA WR.  I think it's far more likely they use their draft investment as that #3 WR.  Dante Pettis, Michael Gallup, and DaeSean Hamilton are three WRs that I think are going to be well on the Packers' radar.

On 2/16/2018 at 12:02 PM, Mr. Fussnputz said:

3. TE is real conundrum. The swing and miss on Bennett really hurt. We need a TE NOW and it takes them a couple of years to develop, so maybe another veteran could be added, or resign Rodgers and go into next year with Rodger, Kendricks, and a middle to late round developmental prospect from the draft. 

Absolutely.  The FA class as a whole is underwhelming outside of Jimmy Graham.  There isn't a TE whose a clear upgrade over what we have, and is a clear starter.  Every single one of them have issues.  I wouldn't be surprised if we re-signed Richard Rodgers to a 1 or 2 year deal, and then develop someone behind those two.  Obviously, it's not ideal but it's probably the most realistic scenario if they don't sign Jimmy Graham.

On 2/16/2018 at 12:02 PM, Mr. Fussnputz said:

So, if they come away from this off season with James, one Edge (Landry/Key/Davenport), Fuller, Brown, and a developmental TE, I would be a happy Packer fan!

And then my question to you is, how realistic do you think that is?  Fuller is getting $10M+ pretty easily, and I'd venture to guess Brown will get a few million as well.  Our future at WR isn't real ideal, and we're drafting a TE in the 4th round at the earliest in a most likely scenario.

[Mr. Fussnputz]

45 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

You speak of long-term as an 8-10 starter.  That almost certainly has to come through the draft.  That means you're developing someone whose that.  That's someone like Marshon Lattimore.  That's what your definition of long-term starter.  IF you get two contracts out of a draft pick, that's a huge success.  There's a few corners in this class I like, but it's not a real strong class at the top IMO.  That late 1st/early 2nd seems to be more value than taking one in the range of our natural pick.  Depending on how the board shapes up and what transpires in FA, I think a trade-up would be a very real possibility.

I'd be very, very surprised if Cobb & Nelson are brought back at their current price tags.  That's $25M+ between the two of them.  That's not really a good business model.  And if they're moving on from one of them, I don't think they're going to turn around and spend that money on a FA WR.  I think it's far more likely they use their draft investment as that #3 WR.  Dante Pettis, Michael Gallup, and DaeSean Hamilton are three WRs that I think are going to be well on the Packers' radar.

Absolutely.  The FA class as a whole is underwhelming outside of Jimmy Graham.  There isn't a TE whose a clear upgrade over what we have, and is a clear starter.  Every single one of them have issues.  I wouldn't be surprised if we re-signed Richard Rodgers to a 1 or 2 year deal, and then develop someone behind those two.  Obviously, it's not ideal but it's probably the most realistic scenario if they don't sign Jimmy Graham.

And then my question to you is, how realistic do you think that is?  Fuller is getting $10M+ pretty easily, and I'd venture to guess Brown will get a few million as well.  Our future at WR isn't real ideal, and we're drafting a TE in the 4th round at the earliest in a most likely scenario.

Honestly, I'm not sure what "long term" means either anymore. 

You're right. Something needs to happen at WR. The cap hit is too high. The only roster lock IMHO is Adams. Reportedly, Nelson is open to restructuring. That would help some. If he was restructured and moved to the slot with Ty, that would open the possibility of releasing Cobb. The question then becomes, is the saving from Nelson's restructuring and Cobb's release enough to sign a FA WR who is better than Cobb? I like Cobb. I think he is a tough, gritty player who has come through in the clutch. Would Brown or Moncrief help more? I don't know. 

I think Graham will be too expensive. For now resign Rodgers and stand pat.

I have no answer to your final question. I am still stumped about Edge. How that problem is solved might show the way to some of these other questions.

Thanks, CWood, and cheers!