CWood21 Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 15 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said: I agree. If Hundley fails, a third round QB as the new backup sounds about right to me. First round has to be Edge rusher or CB. I would like to see 1st round Edge rusher, 2nd round CB, 3rd round-a WR, 3rd round-b (comp pick?) backup QB. Of course the board has to fall just right for that to happen and it rarely does! Even then, that's probably too early for the Packers to take a QB. Short of Rodgers deciding to end his career prematurely, we're probably 2-3 years away at best from looking for an heir replacement. He'll be 34 years old in a couple of months, figure two more years before we look at his future replacement and you're talking about looking for someone to groom when he's 36 year old. Add on the four years of a rookie contract, and you're probably replacing Aaron when he's 39 years old. Maybe 38 years old if the future draft pick develops quicker than anticipated. I can't see the Packers investing more than a 5th round pick, maybe a 4th round pick at most into a QB. Hundley would likely play out the 2018 season as the backup QB, and then signs elsewhere as a FA. The Packers invest a 5th round pick into someone (say Luke Falk), let him sit and learn as 3rd QB, and then in 2019 he's the backup QB to Rodgers. Right now, my thinking as far as what positions we draft are: 1st round we take the best available CB or EDGE, and in the 2nd round we go for that other position. 3rd round we're looking at WR, S, and/or EDGE again. 4th round we're looking at IOL, and 5th round you're looking at QB. We're likely armed with an extra 3rd round pick, so we have the flexibility to maneuver around as needed in order to get our guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBURGE Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 14 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said: But, like, correlation does not equal causation and an elite WR means as much to a team as an elite defensive lineman. It's why the Giants were undefeated when Bekcham was healthy. Because that's what I said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fussnputz Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 35 minutes ago, CWood21 said: Even then, that's probably too early for the Packers to take a QB. Short of Rodgers deciding to end his career prematurely, we're probably 2-3 years away at best from looking for an heir replacement. He'll be 34 years old in a couple of months, figure two more years before we look at his future replacement and you're talking about looking for someone to groom when he's 36 year old. Add on the four years of a rookie contract, and you're probably replacing Aaron when he's 39 years old. Maybe 38 years old if the future draft pick develops quicker than anticipated. I can't see the Packers investing more than a 5th round pick, maybe a 4th round pick at most into a QB. Hundley would likely play out the 2018 season as the backup QB, and then signs elsewhere as a FA. The Packers invest a 5th round pick into someone (say Luke Falk), let him sit and learn as 3rd QB, and then in 2019 he's the backup QB to Rodgers. Right now, my thinking as far as what positions we draft are: 1st round we take the best available CB or EDGE, and in the 2nd round we go for that other position. 3rd round we're looking at WR, S, and/or EDGE again. 4th round we're looking at IOL, and 5th round you're looking at QB. We're likely armed with an extra 3rd round pick, so we have the flexibility to maneuver around as needed in order to get our guy. I think we're pretty much in agreement. But if the Packers don't invest more than a 4th or 5th round pick into a backup QB (assuming Hundley fails) then will they get anyone better than Hundley? Do you think they would be better off signing a veteran, during the FA period, short term (why keep Hundley if can't win?) and waiting a few years to look for Rodgers' replacement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 Just now, JBURGE25 said: Because that's what I said I actually wasn't even referring to you and you need to stop being so insufferably sensitive. I was literally speaking in general terms and I wasn't referring to a single person. And really, just earlier you told people to lighten up when literally nobody was getting insulting or aggressive in a conversation. Maybe you're the one that needs to lighten up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fussnputz Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 1 minute ago, JBURGE25 said: Because that's what I said Correlation is not causation, true, but correlation implies there might be causation. In order to prove causation, one must find the causal mechanism. For instance there is a correlation between the time of year and the seasons. But that doesn't prove the time of the year causes the seasons. The causal mechanism is the tilt of the earth's axis. That ties the two things together. There are way too many confounding variables to say anything one way or the other about drafting WRs in the first round and overall team success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBURGE Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 2 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said: I actually wasn't even referring to you and you need to stop being so insufferably sensitive. I was literally speaking in general terms and I wasn't referring to a single person. And really, just earlier you told people to lighten up when literally nobody was getting insulting or aggressive in a conversation. Maybe you're the one that needs to lighten up. Hz told me to not be sensitive. Today was a good day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBURGE Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 2 hours ago, Mr. Fussnputz said: Correlation is not causation, true, but correlation implies there might be causation. In order to prove causation, one must find the causal mechanism. For instance there is a correlation between the time of year and the seasons. But that doesn't prove the time of the year causes the seasons. The causal mechanism is the tilt of the earth's axis. That ties the two things together. There are way too many confounding variables to say anything one way or the other about drafting WRs in the first round and overall team success. I don't think that one WR has nearly as big of an impact as one defender can. I'd rather have a deeper wr core than have a high pick. I just take issue with not accepting or acknowledging someone who doesn't agree with that point of view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 Just now, JBURGE25 said: Hz told me to not be sensitive. Today was a good day How many times did you edit what you said before you were satisfied with your comeback? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packer_ESP Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 4 hours ago, Mr. Fussnputz said: Thanks for the response ESP. Isn't Darnold just a sophomore? Would the Packers want to use their number 1 pick on a backup? Or are you thinking he would be Rodgers' eventual replacement? Why do you like Darnold better than other options? That was kinda tongue in cheek to be honest, I just mentioned Darnold because I've seen him hyped around a lot and I also peeked at CalhounLambeau's evaluations and he seemed pretty impressed by him too. AFAIK he hasn't decided yet whether he'll declare or not, but yeah, I wouldn't be too happy spending our first in a QB. Then again, I doubt many people were happy in 2005, so what do I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBURGE Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 16 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said: How many times did you edit what you said before you were satisfied with your comeback? I said today one too many times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 Drop it guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 3 hours ago, Mr. Fussnputz said: I think we're pretty much in agreement. But if the Packers don't invest more than a 4th or 5th round pick into a backup QB (assuming Hundley fails) then will they get anyone better than Hundley? Do you think they would be better off signing a veteran, during the FA period, short term (why keep Hundley if can't win?) and waiting a few years to look for Rodgers' replacement? Honestly, I don't really see any scenario in which the Packers are in the market for a veteran, unless they deal Brett Hundley this offseason. And I think even the odds of him going full Brohm are unlikely given the fact that McCarthy has been watching him for the last 2.5 years, and if he was Brohm he would have been released by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 58 minutes ago, Packer_ESP said: That was kinda tongue in cheek to be honest, I just mentioned Darnold because I've seen him hyped around a lot and I also peeked at CalhounLambeau's evaluations and he seemed pretty impressed by him too. AFAIK he hasn't decided yet whether he'll declare or not, but yeah, I wouldn't be too happy spending our first in a QB. Then again, I doubt many people were happy in 2005, so what do I know. Those that didn't like the Rodgers pick were the ones who hated change, even if they knew the writing was on the wall. And Favre wasn't playing at the same level that Rodgers is now, mainly in terms of taking care of the football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted October 28, 2017 Author Share Posted October 28, 2017 Lets remember, Rodgers did just have a surgical procedure on his throwing shoulder. There is no guarantee that he will retain his arm talent/strength. It is very likely he will, but not a guarantee. If Hundley does not show much as a backup, I really think GB will be looking to add another QB in the draft in 2018. Need to keep taking shots at a QB in the event that Rodgers performance starts to decline. Can't get caught in a situation without an option to replace him in the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 With the cavet that I'm too drunk to be here: Edge: Don't have **** for depth and the starters are brittle if talented. CB: Raise your hand if you're comfortable with Randall as your starter? TE: Bennett has really kinda sucked this year. S: Retain Burnett and this isn't a need. IOL: Evans isn't gonna be around much longer. RT: Bulaga is the oldest 28 year old in the history of the world WR: Need the game breakers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.