Jump to content

Packers Big Board #16


Packerraymond

Who is #16 on the Packers Big Board?  

48 members have voted

  1. 1. Who is #16 on the Packers Big Board?

    • Isaiah Oliver
    • Vita Vea
    • Rashaan Evans
    • Taven Bryan
    • Da'Ron Payne
    • Carlton Davis
    • Connor Williams
    • Mike McGlinchey
    • Will Hernandez
    • DJ Moore
      0
    • Derrius Guice
      0
    • Sam Darnold


Recommended Posts

Calvin Ridley was unfortunately #15. This will be a battle between Oliver and Vea if last poll was any indication. Adding our first QB, think we're getting to the point now where they will value.

#1 - Bradley Chubb [DE; NC State]

#2 - Saquon Barkley [RB; Penn State]

#3 - Denzel Ward [CB; Ohio State]

#4 - Derwin James [S; Florida State]

#5 - Tremaine Edmunds [LB; Virginia Tech]

#6 - Minkah Fitzpatrick [DB; Alabama]

#7 - Marcus Davenport [EDGE; UTSA]

#8 - Harold Landry [EDGE; Boston College]

#9 - Quenton Nelson [OG; Notre Dame]

#10 - Roquan Smith [ILB; Georgia]

#11 - Leighton Vander Esch [LB; Boise State]

#12 - Jaire Alexander [CB; Louisville]

#13 - Josh Jackson [CB; Iowa]

#14 -  Mike Hughes [CB; UCF]

#15 - Calvin Ridley [WR; Alabama]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I don't get it. After all the kvetching about Nelson -- an elite prospect that fills a need -- how do people believe drafting a DL this high is good value?

Not only is DL not a need, but investing in one high in the draft basically creates a logjam at the position. It's worse than a waste, it's self-sabotage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Gopher Trace said:

 I don't get it. After all the kvetching about Nelson -- an elite prospect that fills a need -- how do people believe drafting a DL this high is good value?

Not only is DL not a need, but investing in one high in the draft basically creates a logjam at the position. It's worse than a waste, it's self-sabotage.

Are we choosing for need or BPA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gopher Trace said:

 I don't get it. After all the kvetching about Nelson -- an elite prospect that fills a need -- how do people believe drafting a DL this high is good value?

Not only is DL not a need, but investing in one high in the draft basically creates a logjam at the position. It's worse than a waste, it's self-sabotage.

I guess I'll take the bait, because that's what this is, but Nelson is in no way a need pick. Could be an upgrade, but not a need. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pugger said:

Are we choosing for need or BPA?

I think that is left to voters what their philosophy is. I, personally, do not think straight-up need or BPA drafting is very wise, though. Vea strikes me as a straight-up BPA choice but ignores that it would work to the detriment of our roster by overcrowding the DL.

4 hours ago, Kepler said:

I guess I'll take the bait, because that's what this is, but Nelson is in no way a need pick. Could be an upgrade, but not a need. 

I didn't say Nelson is a need. I said he fills a need -- at Guard. G is not a pressing need or big hole like CB, but it's a need nonetheless.

Passing on blues to reach for need is a bad form. In Vea/Payne's case, it's done because we just cannot fit a high draft-pick onto the roster at their general position.

That's not remotely the case with Nelson, though. Our RG position is wide-open; Evans has not re-signed and is old anyway while McCray and Patrick are JAGs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gopher Trace said:

I think that is left to voters what their philosophy is. I, personally, do not think straight-up need or BPA drafting is very wise, though. Vea strikes me as a straight-up BPA choice but ignores that it would work to the detriment of our roster by overcrowding the DL.

I didn't say Nelson is a need. I said he fills a need -- at Guard. G is not a pressing need or big hole like CB, but it's a need nonetheless.

Passing on blues to reach for need is a bad form. In Vea/Payne's case, it's done because we just cannot fit a high draft-pick onto the roster at their general position.

That's not remotely the case with Nelson, though. Our RG position is wide-open; Evans has not re-signed and is old anyway while McCray and Patrick are JAGs.

Both guard spots will be fine with what GB already has on the roster. I don't feel that McCray is JAG either. I'd be willing to bet GB is more than happy to roll into 2018 with McCray at right guard. In his first action last year he performed okay and will get better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Gopher Trace said:

 I don't get it. After all the kvetching about Nelson -- an elite prospect that fills a need -- how do people believe drafting a DL this high is good value?

Not only is DL not a need, but investing in one high in the draft basically creates a logjam at the position. It's worse than a waste, it's self-sabotage.

Not really.  IMO, Vita would offer pass rush and run stopping abilities to add with Clark.  This would give us a good young core on the DL.  Daniels is good and Wilkerson was, and still might be good, but they are both older.  If Wilkerson doesn't work out, or someone gets hurt, Vita could step in.  I wouldn't be upset with this pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jleisher said:

Not really.  IMO, Vita would offer pass rush and run stopping abilities to add with Clark.  This would give us a good young core on the DL.  Daniels is good and Wilkerson was, and still might be good, but they are both older.  If Wilkerson doesn't work out, or someone gets hurt, Vita could step in.  I wouldn't be upset with this pick.

Now see, there's an answer. Thank you.

I just feel like the point of free-agent signing like Wilkerson is to allow you to focus on bigger need positions during the draft, even if he does not fully pan out for us, and another high draft-pick investment means we likely lose one of Clark or (more likely) Lowry when their contracts are up. I can't touch any DT earlier than Day 3, personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Gopher Trace said:

Now see, there's an answer. Thank you.

I just feel like the point of free-agent signing like Wilkerson is to allow you to focus on bigger need positions during the draft, even if he does not fully pan out for us, and another high draft-pick investment means we likely lose one of Clark or (more likely) Lowry when their contracts are up. I can't touch any DT earlier than Day 3, personally.

I respect your thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...