Joe Posted April 29, 2018 Share Posted April 29, 2018 6 hours ago, CWood21 said: This was a MISERABLE EDGE class. But given how strong last year's was, it's not really surprising that this year's EDGE class was bad. You had three guys who were a tier above the rest, and one of them had injury concerns (Landry) and the other had LoC cocnerns (Davenport). Beyond those two and Chubb, they all had major question marks. Sweat had MAJOR medical concerns, Key had the rehab/motivation questions, etc. You could group the rest of the EDGE into two tiers. The try-hards (i.e. Jeff Holland, Duke Ejiofor, etc.) and the ones who had the tools, but never put production consistently (Lorenzo Carter, Arden Key, etc.). There were no real EDGE of value that'd make a difference. So what was wrong with Marquis Haynes? Any EDGE that we would've drafted beyond Chubb was going to be a project player. I just think we could've taken someone earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 Two questions I have for GB that we will never know: 1. In 2nd round, Titans moved up to 41 to snag Landry. Would GB have taken him at 45 over Jackson? 2. In 3rd round, Raiders took Key at 87, one spot ahead of us. Would GB have taken him over Burks? From my memory, we had already traded up to 88 before Raiders made the pick... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chillparsi1 Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 2 hours ago, packfanfb said: Two questions I have for GB that we will never know: 1. In 2nd round, Titans moved up to 41 to snag Landry. Would GB have taken him at 45 over Jackson? 2. In 3rd round, Raiders took Key at 87, one spot ahead of us. Would GB have taken him over Burks? From my memory, we had already traded up to 88 before Raiders made the pick... I'm fairly certain #2 isn't true. While the schedule of announcements on TV can make it look like that, I'm rather certain the moves happen much faster - I can't imagine we'd actually make the trade until the team we were trading with was on the clock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopackgonerd Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 2 hours ago, packfanfb said: Two questions I have for GB that we will never know: 1. In 2nd round, Titans moved up to 41 to snag Landry. Would GB have taken him at 45 over Jackson? 2. In 3rd round, Raiders took Key at 87, one spot ahead of us. Would GB have taken him over Burks? From my memory, we had already traded up to 88 before Raiders made the pick... 1 I think we would have. 2 maybe, leaning towards no because we usually don't go after guys with that many issues. Also I think we did trade up with the plan to draft Burks since we liked him so much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HyponGrey Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 Was a little sad we didn't grab Sean Chandler, but that's because my hometown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 Packers take long-term approach with draft picks Looking ahead, however, Gutekunst will be flush with cap space next season. Among those coming off the books are linebacker Clay Matthews, receiver Randall Cobb, safety Ha Ha Clinton-Dix, linebacker Jake Ryan and tight end Lance Kendricks. A cursory glance at the 2019 cap shows the Packers could have more than $50 million in cap space to sign their own and other teams’ free agents. Add in the two first-round draft choices and whatever advancement the 2018 class shows and the Packers could be a very good place next year. As for the present, they’ve still got Aaron Rodgers and the hope that previous draft choices will blossom this year, but no one should come away with the feeling that the 2018 draft was anything more than an exercise in long-term franchise building. The fans’ rallying cry should probably be, “2019 or bust." https://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2018/04/29/silverstein-packers-take-long-term-approach-draft-picks/563028002/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HyponGrey Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 Re-sign HaHa, extend Rodgers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Vince Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 8 hours ago, packfanfb said: Two questions I have for GB that we will never know: 1. In 2nd round, Titans moved up to 41 to snag Landry. Would GB have taken him at 45 over Jackson? 2. In 3rd round, Raiders took Key at 87, one spot ahead of us. Would GB have taken him over Burks? From my memory, we had already traded up to 88 before Raiders made the pick... From what I've been hearing they knew that the Rams loved Burks so I'm guessing they wanted to at least get one at 88. I think both were in play but I think Burks was their guy because of his speed and cover skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chili Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 If we didn't trade down in the first round we could've had Edmunds with the #14 pick and then draft Jackson with the #45 pick. Alternatively we could do the same thing again by trading down and then up to select Alexander and then draft Turay with the #45 pick. Maybe that would've resulted in a more balanced draft. Since we did not take that route it would've been nice to have taken a few shots at some late rounders such as Okoronkwo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 https://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/packers-draft-review-seeing-the-draft-through-the-coaches-and-scouts-eyes-713 Some interesting nuggets in this draft review over at CHTV. Lots more in the link *Going into the draft, what was the biggest priority on defense? Help for the nickel package. With three-receiver sets now the norm in the NFL, defenses tend to play more nickel than base. The Packers were disastrous in nickel the past several years, unable to stop opponents from converting third downs regardless of yardage. New defensive coordinator Mike Pettine wasn’t going to put up with that problem. The Packers’ first three picks were defenders who will always be on the field in nickel, and they didn’t take another defensive player until seventh-rounder James Looney—who doesn’t fit Pettine’s base scheme, and can only play in nickel packages. *Why did they trade up for Oren Burks? Because Blake Martinez might be excellent in run-down defense, but he was toasted in coverage as the Packers’ nickel linebacker last year. Pettine’s scheming doesn’t work if there’s a weak link in coverage. Burks was the third-best nickel linebacker in the whole draft, and by far the best available after Darius Leonard was selected at pick 36. Burks is perfect for nickel packages, where he can cover or use his speed to blitz the quarterback through open gaps. The Packers couldn’t take the chance that he wouldn’t last until their next pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaegybomb Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 Would be curious to know if they do things differently in the first if they know Jackson is there at 45. You obviously can't risk not getting a CB this draft though and hoping he falls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 15 minutes ago, Jaegybomb said: Would be curious to know if they do things differently in the first if they know Jackson is there at 45. You obviously can't risk not getting a CB this draft though and hoping he falls. I'm guessing no because Jackson isnt a slot guy. GB needed a slot guy badly bc no one currently on the roster could play that position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 Could have got Parry Nickerson for nickel CB instead of Alexander, with a comp 5th (instead of punter Scott). Not quite Alexander, though. Who could the Packers have had, instead of Alexander ? Maybe Vander Esch, who could have made the Oren Burks pick redundant, which then makes the Carolina trade redundant, which means the Packers could take Indiana TE Ian Thomas with the first pick in round 4. Many alternative scenarios, and some holes that were not filled, but looking at the whole draft, it looks ok to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HyponGrey Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 2 hours ago, packfanfb said: I'm guessing no because Jackson isnt a slot guy. GB needed a slot guy badly bc no one currently on the roster could play that position. Tramon has experience there, but that's generally not where you probably want him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantyWrestler Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 35 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said: Could have got Parry Nickerson for nickel CB instead of Alexander, with a comp 5th (instead of punter Scott). Not quite Alexander, though. Who could the Packers have had, instead of Alexander ? Maybe Vander Esch, who could have made the Oren Burks pick redundant, which then makes the Carolina trade redundant, which means the Packers could take Indiana TE Ian Thomas with the first pick in round 4. Many alternative scenarios, and some holes that were not filled, but looking at the whole draft, it looks ok to me. The draft is a lot easier to maneuver after the fact. However, changing our first round pick creates or could create a butterfly effect where the guys you mentioned later in on the draft are no longer there. Besides, Vander Esch was a reach where he went anyway imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.