Joe Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 4 hours ago, {Family Ghost} said: Young stud OLB pass rusher is #1 .. now that our roster is so stout that draft picks are getting cut and we are embracing free agency it might be time to make a bold move up in the draft to land a true standout. OL can be had in the middle rounds. I don't see TE and ILB as pressing needs any longer. RB would be my #2 or #3 need. I want to see how Monty handled the #1 role .. if he can't get it done over the long haul I'd sure like a see us land a true #1 back. I don't see Kendricks and Bennett as long-term solutions there. I'm all for trading up to get a premier pass-rusher if one were to exist next year, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packer_ESP Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 6 hours ago, Joe said: I don't see Kendricks and Bennett as long-term solutions there. I'm all for trading up to get a premier pass-rusher if one were to exist next year, however. Of course this is all pending how they actually do this year, but I'd think at least one of the two will be resigned next year. However, TEs take particularly long to develop so I'd love to get a guy for the future if possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 6 hours ago, Joe said: I don't see Kendricks and Bennett as long-term solutions there. I'm all for trading up to get a premier pass-rusher if one were to exist next year, however. Bennett is signed for 3 years, and Kendricks is signed for 2 years. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it), TEs rarely make big impacts as rookies. It's usually that second year they take that jump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packer_ESP Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 1 hour ago, CWood21 said: Bennett is signed for 3 years, and Kendricks is signed for 2 years. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it), TEs rarely make big impacts as rookies. It's usually that second year they take that jump. For some reason I had assumed they were 1 year deals like Cook, my bad. I still think we should draft a TE to develop next year, if they value is right of course. EDIT: changed a word that was banned for some reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
{Family Ghost} Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 I would think Bennett will be fine for all three years of that deal .. physically at least. He has a bit of a history of rubbing teammates and coaches the wrong way after a season or two. Usually the first season or two he comes off as a witty and eccentrically fun guy .. then he wears out his welcome. Winning might cure some of that though. Lets hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted September 5, 2017 Author Share Posted September 5, 2017 7 hours ago, CWood21 said: Bennett is signed for 3 years, and Kendricks is signed for 2 years. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it), TEs rarely make big impacts as rookies. It's usually that second year they take that jump. That is why it would be good to get a TE in the next draft to develop. for 2018, Rodgers is likely gone, then its Bennett with 2 years and Kendricks with 1 year remaining. Having 1 in the develpment process means that in 2019, they are ready to take some meaningful snaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilltray Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 With both Nelson and Cobb FA after next season, it's probably time to keep an eye out for more WRs as well. It works best when you don't pigeonhole yourself too much into looking for specific positions and needs RIGHT NOW and look more at the value of the individual players and how they fit on your team more fluidly. Pass Rusher, WR, TE, OL, DL, CB, any of these could be good value early if its the right guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 48 minutes ago, spilltray said: It works best when you don't pigeonhole yourself too much into looking for specific positions and needs RIGHT NOW and look more at the value of the individual players and how they fit on your team more fluidly. I'd argue we've been drafting for need for the past while now. King, Clark (with Raji retiring), Randall (with us letting Tramon go), and Clinton-Dix could all be considered top 1/2 needs, and in all scenarios there were probably better or equal players at other positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 2 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said: I'd argue we've been drafting for need for the past while now. King, Clark (with Raji retiring), Randall (with us letting Tramon go), and Clinton-Dix could all be considered top 1/2 needs, and in all scenarios there were probably better or equal players at other positions. I find this whole discussion relative. With the exception of Damarious Randall, it's not like he went off the reservation and took someone nobody thought was worth their pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilltray Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 I think King, Clark, and Clinton-Dix were all pretty clearly the best picks on the board at the time. Randall seemed a bit of a surprise because everyone had him as S and if the Packers thought he's a CB that changes the value. Best player is always a little relative because there are probably multiple guys with similar grades at any given spot. They don't panic and reach for a need. They don't outright ignore where they need help but they don't do stupid things to try and fill a checklist either. I strongly disagree with the "probably better or equal players" quip. I just don't see them passing on better players for these guys. In Clinton-Dix case, sure S was a need, but it had been for a while and they went with guys like McMillain because they couldn't get value until Clinton-Dix fell their way. Sure maybe they skip on Clark if Raji hadn't retired but it's not like he was even under contract. That really could have gone either way. This year, I'd have taken King straight up in the first and am thrilled they picked up Beigel and still got him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 1 hour ago, spilltray said: I think King, Clark, and Clinton-Dix were all pretty clearly the best picks on the board at the time. Randall seemed a bit of a surprise because everyone had him as S and if the Packers thought he's a CB that changes the value. Best player is always a little relative because there are probably multiple guys with similar grades at any given spot. They don't panic and reach for a need. They don't outright ignore where they need help but they don't do stupid things to try and fill a checklist either. Definitely agree with this. None of those players with the exception of Damarious Randall were considered reaches. This is one of those situations where need met value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted September 20, 2017 Share Posted September 20, 2017 https://overthecap.com/2018-compensatory-picks-projection-update-9192017 Another running back that is getting little playtime is Eddie Lacy. He was a healthy scratch for the Seahawks last week, and it appears that Thomas Rawls and Chris Carson are definitely the primary rushing options in Seattle now. Unlike the Vikings, the Seahawks have no comp pick reason to cut Lacy as they are not projected to get any comp picks even if they did cut him. Furthermore, Seattle has no reason to cut him when the only money they could save is on per game active roster bonuses. They could save that money just the same by continuing to make him inactive. But if Seattle were to cut him before Week 10, the Packers would lose a 6th round comp pick for Julius Peppers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted September 20, 2017 Author Share Posted September 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, Shanedorf said: https://overthecap.com/2018-compensatory-picks-projection-update-9192017 Another running back that is getting little playtime is Eddie Lacy. He was a healthy scratch for the Seahawks last week, and it appears that Thomas Rawls and Chris Carson are definitely the primary rushing options in Seattle now. Unlike the Vikings, the Seahawks have no comp pick reason to cut Lacy as they are not projected to get any comp picks even if they did cut him. Furthermore, Seattle has no reason to cut him when the only money they could save is on per game active roster bonuses. They could save that money just the same by continuing to make him inactive. But if Seattle were to cut him before Week 10, the Packers would lose a 6th round comp pick for Julius Peppers. Seems about right for Seattle to cut Lacy around week 9-10. Does GB have another possible option of a FA that was lost that could turn into another comp pick? Seems like they lost enough players to get another comp pick should Lacy be cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TransientTexan Posted September 20, 2017 Share Posted September 20, 2017 On 9/5/2017 at 11:27 AM, HorizontoZenith said: I'd argue we've been drafting for need for the past while now. King, Clark (with Raji retiring), Randall (with us letting Tramon go), and Clinton-Dix could all be considered top 1/2 needs, and in all scenarios there were probably better or equal players at other positions. I see nothing to indicate this. The team often has multiple needs every off-season, so it's not crazy for a pick to coincide with need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PackyAttacky Posted September 20, 2017 Share Posted September 20, 2017 So corner is a big need or is it still too early to give up on Randall and Rollins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.