Jump to content

2018 NFL Draft Discussion


squire12

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, packfanfb said:

Do we know this or maybe we poorly evaluated Biegel as the better prospect given both had medical issues. It's funny that we would have taken Lawson off the board and not Biegel and then Lawson turned out to be fine basically all season and Biegel was an injury disaster in year 1. 

Anyone with a OUIJA board would know this already.  My wiccan advisory board told me this as soon as we drafted Biegel.O.o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been going through some of the top WRs today and so far i'm completely underwhelmed.

I was just looking for someone to stand out and make me go mmm hmm...

Cortland Sutton is an interesting candidate. He has legit tools and can pluck the ball out of the air. His speed won't scare defences though. If we wanted to add speed to our offence then he's probably not the answer. Also Rodgers has never needed those big type of receivers. He much more used to receivers who can gain separation and generate YAC and that leads me to....

....Anthony Miller. Straight away he struck me as a Donald Driver/Gregg Jennings type of receiver. You can bet the Packers will be looking at him.

Of course, that is if Gute continues with the Packers WR scouting methods. We've always been very good in that area and I see no reason to suddenly change our methodology. Rodgers often scrambles out of the pocket and it makes sense that he needs his WRs to suddenly change direction to find some space before Rodgers unleashes the ball. Having a big WR to chuck it up to goes against Rodgers style of limiting his interceptions. That's why I strongly believe we will continue looking for a Adams, Driver, Jennings, Jones types.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Chili said:

I've been going through some of the top WRs today and so far i'm completely underwhelmed.

I was just looking for someone to stand out and make me go mmm hmm...

Cortland Sutton is an interesting candidate. He has legit tools and can pluck the ball out of the air. His speed won't scare defences though. If we wanted to add speed to our offence then he's probably not the answer. Also Rodgers has never needed those big type of receivers. He much more used to receivers who can gain separation and generate YAC and that leads me to....

....Anthony Miller. Straight away he struck me as a Donald Driver/Gregg Jennings type of receiver. You can bet the Packers will be looking at him.

Of course, that is if Gute continues with the Packers WR scouting methods. We've always been very good in that area and I see no reason to suddenly change our methodology. Rodgers often scrambles out of the pocket and it makes sense that he needs his WRs to suddenly change direction to find some space before Rodgers unleashes the ball. Having a big WR to chuck it up to goes against Rodgers style of limiting his interceptions. That's why I strongly believe we will continue looking for a Adams, Driver, Jennings, Jones types.

The only WR that jumped out for me is the Florida guy, Antonio Callaway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

The only WR that jumped out for me is the Florida guy, Antonio Callaway.

His draftbreakdown tapes aren't very impressive I have to admit.

Sometimes instead of just simply running north/south he tries to be shifty for the sake of being shifty but he isn't very good at it. He isn't fooling anyone and gets tackled anyway. His body control is actually quite poor.

When you watch a player sometimes you can tell who has credibility and who is flakey. Callaway falls in the latter category for me. He has this whole "hey look at me i'm a playmaking extraordinaire" playing style when really if you look closely he actually doesn't do much. In those highlight videos he was making easy drops, when he does catch the ball he isn't doing much with it. Twice against Iowa he turned his back to the play when he was about to be tackled, one of them resulted in a fumble.

Clearly i'm not a fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Those are Aaron Donald numbers.

Got me thinking...why is Albert Haynesworth's name never mentioned as an athletic specimen? 6-6 317 lbs, ran a 4.82 40, 39 inch vertical, 39 reps at 225. Just pure insanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gopackgo27 said:

Got me thinking...why is Albert Haynesworth's name never mentioned as an athletic specimen? 6-6 317 lbs, ran a 4.82 40, 39 inch vertical, 39 reps at 225. Just pure insanity.

One of the best to ever play the game.  True planet theory come to life... and then he phoned it in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gopackgo27 said:

Got me thinking...why is Albert Haynesworth's name never mentioned as an athletic specimen? 6-6 317 lbs, ran a 4.82 40, 39 inch vertical, 39 reps at 225. Just pure insanity.

Because he spent so much of his career out of shape.

But for the two seasons he was both in shape and motivated he was one of the best players I've ever seen. Even when he was just in shape or motivated he was damn good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...