2018 NFL Draft Discussion

[cannondale]

15 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

That's kinda my issue.  At what point do you throw Randall and King to the wolves, and see what they have?  I'm not sure anyone is advocating not investing behind those two but that investment comes in the form of a draft pick.  Not a veteran FA.  No veteran FA is going to come to Green Bay knowing they're going to be the 4th CB.  And the Packers aren't going to intentionally bury a former 1st round pick whose played reasonably well.  It's just not viable.  We know all about Damarious Randall, and the season he had.  Overall, I'd call it a positive one and definitely positive momentum moving forward.  King was a rookie corner, and that needs to be taken into context.  Rookie corners usually struggle in their adjustment to the NFL.  We've been spoiled in recent years with rookies like Jalen Ramsey and Marshon Lattimore make smooth transitions to the NFL.  Those are the exceptions, not the rule.

The problem for me is both of them are unproven and play at a make or break position. I have no problem starting them, but if it blows up and we can't have safeguards in place, we can start talking draft early again next year. Thats my main selfish fear.  It's unfortunate how things went down and we need to find 2, possibly 3 guys.  That's why I said there is a ton of work to do. Both by the coaches and the personnel dept. I keep saying I don't want to bet the season on them because it could be the season IF they fail. Not many positions you can say that about

[GWH87]

All these thoughts on Fum & all I keep hearing is he's better than anything we have.

So why wouldn't we draft him? Even if we snag a TE in FA. We don't want a guy that can produce for 8-10yrs?

I think we will be surprised with his combine results in a good way.

[JBURGE]

Just now, GWH87 said:

All these thoughts on Fum & all I keep hearing is he's better than anything we have.

So why wouldn't we draft him? Even if we snag a TE in FA. We don't want a guy that can produce for 8-10yrs?

I think we will be surprised with his combine results in a good way.

Our offense is clearly at its best when we have someone at tight end who can stretch the field vertically. I don't have a problem drafting Fum as long as that means Dickrod is gone and we have addressed the field stretching TE in free agency. 

[CWood21]

3 minutes ago, cannondale said:

The problem for me is both of them are unproven and play at a make or break position. I have no problem starting them, but if it blows up and we can't have safeguards in place, we can start talking draft early again next year. Thats my main selfish fear.  It's unfortunate how things went down and we need to find 2, possibly 3 guys.  That's why I said there is a ton of work to do. Both by the coaches and the personnel dept. I keep saying I don't want to bet the season on them because it could be the season IF they fail. Not many positions you can say that about

LIS, I don't mind the hesitation to trust Randall and King.  But it doesn't get solved by burying them on the depth chart, and they're not going to be buried on the depth chart based on their play thus far.  You may not feel confident in them, but they'll be your #2 and #3 CBs next year I can pretty much guarantee it.  But they're not going to stop there, or at least they shouldn't.  They need to sign a veteran CB, whether that be Davon House, Trumaine Johnson, or someone else.  And then they'll draft someone in that mid-round range (2nd-4th round) to be the safety net.  That makes your 5th and 6th consists of CBs like Rollins, Pipkins, Waters, etc.

BTW, thanks for expanding on your thoughts.  I've got a MUCH better idea of what you're arguing.

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, GWH87 said:

All these thoughts on Fum & all I keep hearing is he's better than anything we have.

So why wouldn't we draft him? Even if we snag a TE in FA. We don't want a guy that can produce for 8-10yrs?

I think we will be surprised with his combine results in a good way.

That's not really saying much by saying he's better than what we were currently have.  The problem is he really anything different than what Andrew Quarless was for the Packers?  For me, not really.

[MNPackfan32]

42 minutes ago, cannondale said:

Let me guess. You want 32 year old Jimmy Graham at 40 million

At $40,000,000 per year? Seems a bit high.

 

No I'm not wild about Jimmy Graham. If he is super cheap that's one thing, but I'd rather take a 1 year gamble on a guy like Tyler Eifert on a cheap deal and draft a TE this year.

[Leader]

2 hours ago, Hands said:

The big question is Davenport another Khalil Mack or Bud Dupree? He played well against Texas A&M, but still looks like he has stiffness in his game. Let the experts look at his measureables and see where they fall. Remember....Green Bay loves LBs that have 3-cone times under 7.0 seconds.

I dont know much about any/many college players - so I'm just riding shotgun on all this chatter and hoping out talent evaluators are sharp and make good, smart and aggressive moves to upgrade the roster. Like many others, I'm of the thought that a QB eating monster should be first (if such a beast exists) - a TE - a WR - and any and all other DYNAMIC playmakers available. I dont ask for much do I? 

[cannondale]

22 minutes ago, MNPackfan32 said:

At $40,000,000 per year? Seems a bit high.

 

No I'm not wild about Jimmy Graham. If he is super cheap that's one thing, but I'd rather take a 1 year gamble on a guy like Tyler Eifert on a cheap deal and draft a TE this year.

That's for 8 games. Plus he wants a statue next to Vince

[CWood21]

42 minutes ago, MNPackfan32 said:

At $40,000,000 per year? Seems a bit high.

 

No I'm not wild about Jimmy Graham. If he is super cheap that's one thing, but I'd rather take a 1 year gamble on a guy like Tyler Eifert on a cheap deal and draft a TE this year.

Not sure he'll get a 4 year deal.  I think he's going to get at least 3 years.

[Kenrik]

43 minutes ago, cannondale said:

The problem for me is both of them are unproven and play at a make or break position. I have no problem starting them, but if it blows up and we can't have safeguards in place, we can start talking draft early again next year. Thats my main selfish fear.  It's unfortunate how things went down and we need to find 2, possibly 3 guys.  That's why I said there is a ton of work to do. Both by the coaches and the personnel dept. I keep saying I don't want to bet the season on them because it could be the season IF they fail. Not many positions you can say that about

 

37 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

LIS, I don't mind the hesitation to trust Randall and King.  But it doesn't get solved by burying them on the depth chart, and they're not going to be buried on the depth chart based on their play thus far.  You may not feel confident in them, but they'll be your #2 and #3 CBs next year I can pretty much guarantee it.  But they're not going to stop there, or at least they shouldn't.  They need to sign a veteran CB, whether that be Davon House, Trumaine Johnson, or someone else.  And then they'll draft someone in that mid-round range (2nd-4th round) to be the safety net.  That makes your 5th and 6th consists of CBs like Rollins, Pipkins, Waters, etc.

BTW, thanks for expanding on your thoughts.  I've got a MUCH better idea of what you're arguing.

I agree with all of this. Too much of a risk to roll with King, Randall, and even House if re-signed. I also don't want to add another early CB to an already young group. It would be nice to bring in a proven vet that can come in right away and be that #1. We need more experience at the CB position and more youth at the pass rush. 

 

[squire12]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

LIS, I understood where you were trying to go with the comparison but the NBA is just so talent deprived that it's really, really hard to make that comparison.  The difference between the 1st pick and 3rd picks in the NBA draft is magnitudes larger than the difference between the same picks in the NFL draft.  It's hard to make that comparison.

As for your comment about the 33rd pick being more valuable, that would be true if you're looking purely at CBs.  That part of the reason why I thought the Packers probably should have grabbed a 2nd corner.  I'm not saying grab one early, but somewhere in that 4th-6th round range to develop.  They took Kevin King at the top of the 2nd round, but more depth would help.  But you can't really justify that using hindsight.  But back to your point, obviously this year's pick is more valuable than the 33rd pick last year right now.  At the time, the 33rd pick is more valuable than the future pick (read future value of money).

I think you would agree that every NFL draft class has strengths and weaknesses at varying positions from 1 year to the next and overall, there is a difference on the number of top tier/elite players are in each draft.  

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, squire12 said:

I think you would agree that every NFL draft class has strengths and weaknesses at varying positions from 1 year to the next and overall, there is a difference on the number of top tier/elite players are in each draft.  

No doubt.  Every class has it's strengths and weaknesses.  Some are going to deep, while others are relatively thin.  You just have to evaluate the class as they are.

[GWH87]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

That's not really saying much by saying he's better than what we were currently have.  The problem is he really anything different than what Andrew Quarless was for the Packers?  For me, not really.

Didn't Quarless help the Packers get a ring?

[rcon14]

2 hours ago, GWH87 said:

All these thoughts on Fum & all I keep hearing is he's better than anything we have.

So why wouldn't we draft him? Even if we snag a TE in FA. We don't want a guy that can produce for 8-10yrs?

I think we will be surprised with his combine results in a good way.

He's probably not going to test super athletic. He's a quality blocker, good possession receiver (particularly impressive for a guy with nine fingers). I'd probably rather look at a FA like Trey Burton who brings some more athleticism to the table. It is also pretty rare for rookie TEs to make big impacts.

[packfanfb]

3 hours ago, CWood21 said:

That's kinda my issue.  At what point do you throw Randall and King to the wolves, and see what they have?  I'm not sure anyone is advocating not investing behind those two but that investment comes in the form of a draft pick.  Not a veteran FA.  No veteran FA is going to come to Green Bay knowing they're going to be the 4th CB.  And the Packers aren't going to intentionally bury a former 1st round pick whose played reasonably well.  It's just not viable.  We know all about Damarious Randall, and the season he had.  Overall, I'd call it a positive one and definitely positive momentum moving forward.  King was a rookie corner, and that needs to be taken into context.  Rookie corners usually struggle in their adjustment to the NFL.  We've been spoiled in recent years with rookies like Jalen Ramsey and Marshon Lattimore make smooth transitions to the NFL.  Those are the exceptions, not the rule.

When Aaron Rodgers has moved on, not before. Only then does the mentality become play the young unproven guys and see if they can float and accwpt the consequences if they dont. We've been crossing our fingers hoping young guys pan out for years and our roster talent has deteriorated under TT because of it. Now is not the time to gamble. Furthermore, King and Randall wont be impacted one iota if GB signs a Fuller because you need 3-4 good CBs these days. All that signing a starter like Fuller for example will do is improve our chances to win the SB in 2018 and provide some depth so if he or King misses some games, the other guy is there as opposed to Rollins or Hawkins first off the bench.