Packers Big Board #15

[Gopher Trace]

2 hours ago, squire12 said:

Never felt the actual goal of the process was laid out well.  Putting Barkley at #2 is good for an overall big board, but for a GB Packer specific board makes no sense.  Jones and Williams are both on their rookie deals and showed well in 2017 with below average QB play.  Sure Barkley would be an upgrade over them, but not so much that it would negate the much bigger needs at more premium positions elsewhere.

What further explanation is needed than "Packers Big Board?" Just rank the prospects in order of your preference for this team's selections. Preference is subjective; we all have different philosophies for how to put this together. That's what the discussion is there for.

Arguably, the most questionable picks on this board have been at need positions, like ranking a cupcake 'rusher 8th and a CB who cannot cover man at 13.

If anything, Barkley should be #1 overall IMO, but that discussion was not had in earnest because someone (wrongly) presumed Chubb would be the consensus #1. I'd take about three people ahead of Chubb (Ward, James, and yes, Barkley).

[vegas492]

13 minutes ago, Gopher Trace said:

If anything, Barkley should be #1 overall IMO, but that discussion was not had in earnest because someone (wrongly) presumed Chubb would be the consensus #1. I'd take about three people ahead of Chubb (Ward, James, and yes, Barkley).

I'm interested in this...I've long thought Barkley was the best player available in this draft...but that he wouldn't go #1 overall.

Who would be your #1 on the Packer Big Board?

Even though I love me some Barkley, I'd go Chubb all day long.  There is just such a drop off from him to the next tier of edge talent that it would be unwise to pass on him.

[Gopher Trace]

11 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

I'm interested in this...I've long thought Barkley was the best player available in this draft...but that he wouldn't go #1 overall.

Who would be your #1 on the Packer Big Board?

Even though I love me some Barkley, I'd go Chubb all day long.  There is just such a drop off from him to the next tier of edge talent that it would be unwise to pass on him.

 

It'd be Barkley. He's the kind of RB that carries teams, the way Adrian Peterson carried a Joe Webb-led Vikings. Or like Fournette carries a Bortles-led Jags.

Or like rookie Eddy Lacy carried a Wallace/Tolzien/Flynn-led Packers offense to a few victories. Yes, we have big needs on D, but scoring is still what wins games, and Rodgers with Barkley in the backfield would terrorize the league. We can use our other picks on D needs.

Chubb would be like #4 for me. I'd sooner take Ward and James. EDGE is not a premium position anymore, not when QBs are getting the ball out of their hands so quickly now (too quickly for an EDGE to get home). It's much more important now to stack the backfield so the QB has no one open to dump the ball off to so that you might actually get those sacks (and then get in his head enough to start making risky passes/throwing picks).

[Kepler]

11 minutes ago, Gopher Trace said:

It'd be Barkley. He's the kind of RB that carries teams, the way Adrian Peterson carried a Joe Webb-led Vikings. Or like Fournette carries a Bortles-led Jags.

Or like rookie Eddy Lacy carried a Wallace/Tolzien/Flynn-led Packers offense to a few victories. Yes, we have big needs on D, but scoring is still what wins games, and Rodgers with Barkley in the backfield would terrorize the league. We can use our other picks on D needs.

Chubb would be like #4 for me. I'd sooner take Ward and James. EDGE is not a premium position anymore, not when QBs are getting the ball out of their hands so quickly now (too quickly for an EDGE to get home). It's much more important now to stack the backfield so the QB has no one open to dump the ball off to so that you might actually get those sacks (and then get in his head enough to start making risky passes/throwing picks).

That's an opinion that can be argued, and I agree to a certain extent that Barkley is the type of talent to supersede our defensive interests. Where it falls apart for me is Nelson. No one can argue to my satisfaction that a guard, of any talent level, ranks higher on team needs than a large amount of the defensive players who would arguably be available at that point. 

[Gopackgonerd]

I think it's cool everyone has different opinions on how the board should look like, that's the beauty of it. Doesn't have to be perfect. Reaches on some peoples boards can be high on other peoples boards. Honestly after the top 15 the board is gonna be more scattered like it's starting to.

[squire12]

1 hour ago, Gopher Trace said:

What further explanation is needed than "Packers Big Board?" Just rank the prospects in order of your preference for this team's selections. Preference is subjective; we all have different philosophies for how to put this together. That's what the discussion is there for.

Arguably, the most questionable picks on this board have been at need positions, like ranking a cupcake 'rusher 8th and a CB who cannot cover man at 13.

If anything, Barkley should be #1 overall IMO, but that discussion was not had in earnest because someone (wrongly) presumed Chubb would be the consensus #1. I'd take about three people ahead of Chubb (Ward, James, and yes, Barkley).

Since the first few titles were different

 

and there was never really any further indication that it was GB Packer specific or a general Big Board.

[Gopackgonerd]

Ridley wins.

[Gopher Trace]

2 hours ago, Kepler said:

That's an opinion that can be argued, and I agree to a certain extent that Barkley is the type of talent to supersede our defensive interests. Where it falls apart for me is Nelson. No one can argue to my satisfaction that a guard, of any talent level, ranks higher on team needs than a large amount of the defensive players who would arguably be available at that point. 

 

Well, sorry, then. I think everyone has a disagreement or two with what's on the board, though. It is what it is.

1 hour ago, squire12 said:

Since the first few titles were different

 

and there was never really any further indication that it was GB Packer specific or a general Big Board.

 

Oh, I see. 'Didn't catch that.

[Kepler]

23 minutes ago, Gopher Trace said:

Well, sorry, then. I think everyone has a disagreement or two with what's on the board, though. It is what it is.

No need to be sorry. Just my opinion in a sea of everyone else's. 

[Packerraymond]

Calvin Ridley? Icky.