1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up/a> or Log In

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member! Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!

Mock drafts

Discussion in 'Draft Talk' started by ivo610, Jan 28, 2014.

  1. D3uc3
    Offline

    D3uc3 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    60
    Location:
    San Diego, California
    Ratings:
    +13 / 4 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1986
  2. FrankRizzo
    Offline

    FrankRizzo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,771
    Location:
    Dallas
    Ratings:
    +1,608 / 59 / -33
    Packer Fan Since:
    1969
  3. Dylan Hoppe
    Offline

    Dylan Hoppe Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2013
    Messages:
    454
    Ratings:
    +70 / 5 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1994
    1. CJ Mosley ILB
    2. Terrence brooks S
    3. Justin Ellis DT
    3. Fiedo TE
    4. Adrian Hubbard OLB
    5. Terrence Mitchell CB
    5. Taylor hart DE
    6. Jalen Saunders WR/KR
    7. L'Damian Washington WR

    Posted this mock before, never got a reply. Changed up my 5th round comp pick. I am so up in the air about our first round selection this year. I don't even want Clinton Dix. IMO he's not interchangeable enough for our defense. Pryor, I like but I don't see him falling or TT trading up. I think Mosley is the safest pick here if he's available. Shazier might be worth taking a risk on based on pure athletic ability (see combine results)
    Borland would be a reach which TT doesn't do.
    Maybe TT throws a big surprise at us and takes somebody like Kyle Fuller in the 1st and dumps Tramon before training camp.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    • Like Like x 1
  4. captainWIMM
    Offline

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,387
    Ratings:
    +747 / 31 / -7
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    It´s beyond my understanding why some people think it is a good idea to have interchangeable safeties. There was noone else playing free safety at the time we had Nick Collins and the Seahawks don´t move Thomas and Chancellor around either.
  5. Dylan Hoppe
    Offline

    Dylan Hoppe Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2013
    Messages:
    454
    Ratings:
    +70 / 5 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1994

    Don't necessarily think it's a good idea, it's just how capers works and McCarthy made it clear that he wants Capers to stick around so why not do things to utilize the style of defense he can run? I like Pryor, Ward, and Brooks. I think Dix will be good wherever he goes, Green Bay just isn't the best fit necessarily. Look at what Hyde's role is going to change into this year... We need players that can sub in multiple spots.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    • Like Like x 1
  6. captainWIMM
    Offline

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,387
    Ratings:
    +747 / 31 / -7
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    I don't think Capers wants to have interchangeable safeties, it just a matter of fact that they haven't had a stud FS since Collins went down.

    I agree that we need players that can play in multiple spots at the DL and to some degree at OLB, not at safety though.
  7. paulcambull
    Offline

    paulcambull Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2014
    Messages:
    9
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1978
    Is everyone of the consensus that its either LB or S?

    What if a player like Zach Martin falls, do you take him?
  8. ivo610
    Offline

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    15,045
    Location:
    Madison
    Ratings:
    +3,519 / 86 / -26
    I don't think we have consensus at all. Even wr and QB have been suggested by some on here.
  9. paulcambull
    Offline

    paulcambull Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2014
    Messages:
    9
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1978
    QB and WR? Huh, I would of thought that would be something of little concern.

    What the hell would be the reasoning for taking a QB in the first?
  10. captainWIMM
    Offline

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,387
    Ratings:
    +747 / 31 / -7
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    TT doesn't draft college guards.

    Some suggested to draft a QB if one of the top 3 drops to #21 to maybe get a better pick in return in some years, I don't get it either.

    WR could be a position of interest though.
  11. paulcambull
    Offline

    paulcambull Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2014
    Messages:
    9
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1978
    I would assume that WR is a position of interest if a player falls?

    Or perhaps some like the sound of Cooks on the roster?
  12. captainWIMM
    Offline

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,387
    Ratings:
    +747 / 31 / -7
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    I don't see any value in drafting Cooks except if the Packers plan to let Cobb walk away after next season.
  13. ivo610
    Offline

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    15,045
    Location:
    Madison
    Ratings:
    +3,519 / 86 / -26
    I was looking at other mocks and saw those two matched up and thought it was weird
  14. ivo610
    Offline

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    15,045
    Location:
    Madison
    Ratings:
    +3,519 / 86 / -26
    Some on here want to draft a 1st round pick to sit on the bench.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. ivo610
    Offline

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    15,045
    Location:
    Madison
    Ratings:
    +3,519 / 86 / -26
    You disagree that this forum would lose it's mind if we passed on haha?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. D3uc3
    Offline

    D3uc3 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    60
    Location:
    San Diego, California
    Ratings:
    +13 / 4 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1986
    He won't even be available at 21 and round 1 I doubt we go safety I would hope we did but hey who knows TT frame of mind?
  17. ivo610
    Offline

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    15,045
    Location:
    Madison
    Ratings:
    +3,519 / 86 / -26
    that wasnt what I asked but ok
  18. D3uc3
    Offline

    D3uc3 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    60
    Location:
    San Diego, California
    Ratings:
    +13 / 4 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1986
    I was Dix biggest fan when the season ended until I real
    Dix is one player we have no shot at unless we traded up and his is not worth trading up for so your question is illrellevant.
  19. ivo610
    Offline

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    15,045
    Location:
    Madison
    Ratings:
    +3,519 / 86 / -26
  20. ThxJackVainisi
    Offline

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    2,727
    Ratings:
    +1,879 / 48 / -33
    I don’t know what Capers really wants but he’s been talking the talk of interchangeable safeties for a long time. Having truly interchangeable safeties enables the DC to better disguise the scheme but it reminds me of the saying, “jack of all trades, master of none”. I’d rather have a true FS and true SS and let the backups be interchangeable.

    Here’s a quote from Capers shortly after Collins got injured: “Our safeties are basically interchangeable,” defensive coordinator Dom Capers said. “So Morgan’s done all the things Nick did, and Nick’s done all the things Morgan did”.
    http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com...-meet-specialists-next-week-about-neck-injury
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. FrankRizzo
    Offline

    FrankRizzo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,771
    Location:
    Dallas
    Ratings:
    +1,608 / 59 / -33
    Packer Fan Since:
    1969
  22. captainWIMM
    Offline

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,387
    Ratings:
    +747 / 31 / -7
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    Absolutely agree with wanting to have a true FS and SS. I'm well aware that Capers has been talking about the safeties being interchangeable, I just have a hard time believing him.

    Burnett played a total of five career games before Collins went down in 2011 so Capers' quote at that time was ridiculous. On the other side what else was he supposed to say.
    • Like Like x 1
  23. ThxJackVainisi
    Offline

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    2,727
    Ratings:
    +1,879 / 48 / -33
    I don't expect Capers or any coach to say anything controversial about a young player but I don't understand the value of the 'interchangeable safety' talk. It's not like he doesn't line up the FS deep and the SS nearer the LOS most of the time, like other DCs. But as I've posted before I care ahellofalot more about what they do vs. what they say.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. Dylan Hoppe
    Offline

    Dylan Hoppe Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2013
    Messages:
    454
    Ratings:
    +70 / 5 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1994
    I guess I don't understand how having interchangeable safeties could ever be a bad thing? Isn't it just a plus that they could play in multiple places? How could anyone make the argument that versatility is a downfall? That's just crazy.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  25. captainWIMM
    Offline

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,387
    Ratings:
    +747 / 31 / -7
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    In a perfect world teams have a FS that is able to cover the entire field and allows the team to play with a single high safety (Collins was capable of doing that as well as Byrd and Thomas right now). This allows the SS to play close to the LOS and mostly support the run defense or cover RBs or TEs. Normally a safety is best suited to play one of the positions.

    If teams don´t have a FS capable of covering the entire field that´s when they become interchangeable as the defense has to line up in a lot of Cover 2 schemes in which both of the safeties line up in deep coverage, normally not playing to the strength of one of their safeties.

    So, while versatility is great at some other positions, safety isn´t one of them as teams prefer to have a great FS who lines up there all the time.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page