Compensatory Picks Announced

Sanguine camper

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 14, 2014
Messages
1,891
Reaction score
558
All
Compensatory picks are important and the Packers have done reasonably well with them. I don't know how other teams have fared, but I would guess we are near the top of the list in terms of success:

2006: T Tony Moll (fifth round, 165th overall), DE Dave Tollefson (seventh, 253)
2007: TE Clark Harris (seventh, 243)
2008: G Josh Sitton (fourth, 135)
2009: None
2010: OL Marshall Newhouse (fifth, 169)
2011: CB Davon House (fourth, 131)
2012: DT Mike Daniels (fourth, 132), S Jerron McMillian (fourth, 133), OL Andrew Datko (seventh, 241), QB B.J. Coleman (seventh, 243)
2013: DL Josh Boyd (fifth, 167)
2014: TE Richard Rodgers (third, 98), WR Jared Abbrederis (fifth, 176)

That's five solid players (Sitton, House, Daniels, Boyd, & Rodgers) or six if you make an assumption that Abbrederis will pan out. That's 5 comp picks out of 13 or 38% in mostly low rounds. Pretty good.

Other comp picks pre-Thompson include: Scott Wells, David Martin, Josh Bidwell, Matt Hasselbeck, Tyrone Williams, Marco Rivera, and Keith McKenzie.[/QUOTE All of the good players on the comp pick list are from the 3-5 rounds. In all practIcality the chances of hitting a good player at the bottom of the 6th round is similar to finding a good player as an UFA.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
I would speculate many posters here would comment not having Hawk or Jones anywhere near the defense has already improved it.
I would question that assumption.

Hawk played almost exclusively in base D after the bye with Matthews moving over in nickel. We should be expecting more or less of the same from Matthews.

Assuming any of the ILBs currently on the roster would be better than Hawk in base D is just that...an assumption.

If anyone believes that anybody would be better than Hawk in base D they have not watched enough football, and certainly have not taken note of Palmer when he's been on the field or Lattimore when he's tried to cover anybody.

Jones is an irrelevancy. He was a spot player buried in the depth chart and on special teams after the bye. His departure merits no consideration. If he happened to screw up every time he took the field, that's on the coaches. There were other options on the roster, the same options on the roster today, that they chose not to use. I do not consider it an improvement when the coaches are deprived of a bad player thereby forcing them to play an equally or less bad player in his place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
I don't believe anybody would be better than Hawk in the base D, but I think it's very likely somebody wearing Green & Gold this season will be. But it's not a certainty.

On the subject of draft picks, they may have to be adjusted again. The NFL is about to announce the punishment for both the Browns and Falcons. Apparently a source told Schefter it’ll be "severe". Allegedly the Browns GM texted during games to an assistant coach, among others, which is against league policy. And the Falcons owner admitted the team broke league rules by piping in crowd noise into the Georgia Dome over the past two seasons. The teams could be fined, the GM could be suspended, the owner's hand could be slapped severely, or the proper penalty could be assessed: The teams may lose draft picks. Here's hoping. :D
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
I don't believe anybody would be better than Hawk in the base D, but I think it's very likely somebody wearing Green & Gold this season will be. But it's not a certainty.

On the subject of draft picks, they may have to be adjusted again. The NFL is about to announce the punishment for both the Browns and Falcons. Apparently a source told Schefter it’ll be "severe". Allegedly the Browns GM texted during games to an assistant coach, among others, which is against league policy. And the Falcons owner admitted the team bProke league rules by piping in crowd noise into the Georgia Dome over the past two seasons. The teams could be fined, the GM could be suspended, the owner's hand could be slapped severely, or the proper penalty could be assessed: The teams may lose draft picks. Here's hoping. :D
"Very likely" is more an expression of optimism than an outcome supported by the evidence.

As we move along in this process, it's becoming increasingly apparent that "who replaces Hawk?" may be the wrong question. We've been proceeding on the basis that the football operation has some kind of priority in getting Mathews back on the outside as soon as possible.

The evidence indicates that's not the case.

McCarthy has commented so often this off season that he intends to use Matthews in the middle that by now it should be gospel. Most recently, he commented that the surrounding players expressed appreciation for the move in exit interviews, that he makes everybody around him better.

On the other hand, Perry has not developed into a productive edge rusher. Is there any evidence he's an upgrade from Walden/Zombo or Walden alone? It would be hard to make that argument. He's in his contract year. He's precisely the kind of player one of the other 31 teams will pay an amount Thompson won't want to match, a decision I would endorse. Walden got 4 years / $16 mil from Indy which should provide some indication.

At the same time, Peppers is year-to-year in terms of when the drop off occurs. Further, he'll be a $10.5 mil cap hit in 2016 with $2.5 mil in dead cap; releasing him after this season will yield $10 mil in cap savings.

Taking a 2 year view, with the entire starting offense signed through 2016, followed by a pile of expiring contracts, there are a couple of dualing considerations:

1. A first round pick could be allocated to an ILB (the fan preference) that will likely be a rotational player with Matthews in 2015. He needs to be a guy who can be productive right away in 1-or-2-down play. Given the cost, he'd have to have the potential to progress to 3-down play in 2016 getting Mathews back on the edge. That would still leave a big question mark, once again, regarding the "bookend" in 2016.

2. An OLB with edge rush credentials in the first round would serve as a spot player in 2015, taking Perry's spot in obvious passing situations and/or spelling Peppers from time-to-time. Peppers took about 75% of the snaps last year, a number that should not be repeated for a playoff run. Peppers might also be the best 3-tech pass rusher we have; another edge rusher could get him more snaps inside at nickel. A player with that draft status, as with the ILB option, should have 3-down potential in 2016 as the bookend. In the interim, the possibilities are attractive. Peppers and an upgrade at the other side, with Matthews blitzing from the middle, or Matthews in the middle, Peppers inside, and the new guy and Perry/Neal off the edge would present an attractive set of match up possibilities.

Matthews flexibility provides an unusual opportunity. Assuming the NT situation is resolved in the interim, Thompson could easily take the "best available player" among the ILB / OLB choices. If NT is not resolved by the draft, that's 3 positions from which to choose the "best" player.

If anything, the OLB option is more attractive from the standpoint that finding one for 3-4 in a lower round, or in the free market if push comes to shove, sometime in the 2 year window, is a much more difficult and expensive proposition. A 2-down ILB is always an easier get.

Given the "casting call" going on at ILB as Thompson accumulates a collection of lightly used and un-played players at the position, I would not be surprised if he goes for more bodies in the lower rounds, looking for one to emerge for 2-down play. "Likely"? Not really based on the guys on the roster. More like a calculated risk. The picture could improve markedly with a pick below the first round for a guy with 2-down credentials, with a 1 or 2 year horizon for Matthews playing the middle.

I won't be surprised if ILB doesn't hit until the 3rd. round or even lower with the expressed intent that Matthews will make a return performance at ILB and the other needs are addressed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
While interesting, most of your post didn't deal with Hawk's replacement in the base. Yes, Matthews will continue to play inside, probably close to the percentage he did after the bye week, so I don't see a rush to change that so Matthews can play OLB full time. But Matthews part time stint at ILB still left Hawk with Barrington playing in the base. You have a higher opinion of Hawk's play than I do. I no doubt agree more with McGinn's analysis in his year-end report card column than you do. Here's what he had to say about Hawk: "It was sad, really. Hawk, a durable, contributing part of this defense for eight years, hit the wall. Hawk had been slipping but it was never this bad. Despite playing 71.6% of the downs, he didn't have a single tackle for loss after averaging 3.44 from 2006-'13. Largely because he couldn't run anymore, he allowed a LB-high 4½ passes of 20 yards or more. One reason he missed just four tackles was the fact he couldn't get to plays. He had just five pressures in 77 blitzes. When he did make it to the right gap, blockers and backs frequently surged right over the top of him. Even Hawk's ability to think on his feet deserted him on Seattle's fake FG-TD pass when he didn't stay as deep as the deepest receiver. ... Grade: F." So I see the bar of "playing better than Hawk" as a very low one, thus IMO it's very likely one of the many players who will compete for those snaps will.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...eport-card-defense-b99431313z1-289706171.html
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
While interesting, most of your post didn't deal with Hawk's replacement in the base. Yes, Matthews will continue to play inside, probably close to the percentage he did after the bye week, so I don't see a rush to change that so Matthews can play OLB full time. But Matthews part time stint at ILB still left Hawk with Barrington playing in the base. You have a higher opinion of Hawk's play than I do. I no doubt agree more with McGinn's analysis in his year-end report card column than you do. Here's what he had to say about Hawk: "It was sad, really. Hawk, a durable, contributing part of this defense for eight years, hit the wall. Hawk had been slipping but it was never this bad. Despite playing 71.6% of the downs, he didn't have a single tackle for loss after averaging 3.44 from 2006-'13. Largely because he couldn't run anymore, he allowed a LB-high 4½ passes of 20 yards or more. One reason he missed just four tackles was the fact he couldn't get to plays. He had just five pressures in 77 blitzes. When he did make it to the right gap, blockers and backs frequently surged right over the top of him. Even Hawk's ability to think on his feet deserted him on Seattle's fake FG-TD pass when he didn't stay as deep as the deepest receiver. ... Grade: F." So I see the bar of "playing better than Hawk" as a very low one, thus IMO it's very likely one of the many players who will compete for those snaps will.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...eport-card-defense-b99431313z1-289706171.html
Clearly, I did address Hawk's replacement in base...a pick below the 1st. round under an OLB preference scenario.

As for the rest, there's no question Hawk's play was not pretty.

It's not like I have a Hawk jersey hanging the closet. I was in the very small minority after 2011 saying that he went in the deep tank of business decision making after getting that excessive Super Bowl reward contract. I was as fit to be tied after his play in 2011 as with Raji's in 2013, and thought the Packers should be making plans then. McGuin's statement that he was a "durable contributing part of the defense for 8 years", while intending to be a point of contrast to 2014, is actually damning with faint praise. But as a fan you come to understand the implications of dead cap as in Hawk's contract (and Jones' for that matter), accept the deficiencies, and turn attention to other matters, just as the coaches must do.

If you closely parse McGuin's critique, the main criticisms are that he couldn't cover, he couldn't blitz and he was slow in pursuit. Guilty as charged. That's a lot. Then there's the "when he did make it to the right gap" comment. Well, Barrington hit the wrong gap with more frequency thereby depriving the opponent of the opportunity to try to bowl him over, and somehow in all this the Packers run D sharply improved after the bye with Hawk in base.

By McGuin's account you'd think we were giving up 6 yards per carry after the bye because Hawk's deficiencies were so overwhelming. Well, for all his faults, Hawk did know where the ball was going and got there if the play was in the box, regardless of what you think of what happened afterward.

Can you say the same of the unknown, unplayed players on the bench, all with undistinguished resumes, some having never played the position? Those are the kinds of guys most likely to use their better speed going in the wrong direction.

So, yeah, it could be worse; "highly likely" to be better is just an assumption at this point given who is on the roster. I'd give Hawk a C- in run defense and F in all other aspects of play. There may not be a D run defender in this current bunch. It takes more than loading up with bodies and seeing what falls out. I believe it was last season, or maybe the year before, where the Packers had 12 WRs in camp. What did that yield besides Adams, a high pick?

Thompson is a risk averse guy who covers his bases unless dead cap or high contract demands get in the way. Loading up with bodies and seeing what falls out is fine at WR when you're looking for a #4 or #5 or #6.

None of those considerations apply in this case. Look for a draft pick to quickly pass up the guys currently on the roster. Those guys are far from a "highly likely" improvement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Here's an interesting follow-up to the topic of Hawk's tackling incompetency:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/03/27/introducing-tackles-per-opportunity/

Note that among the "off line of scrimage" LBs with 500+ snaps, 57 in all, Hawk was not in the bottom 10, or the bottom 18%, in tackles per opportunity (snaps minus incompletions). Where he actually ranks I could not say, but he's above the "F" group. Further, most of Hawk's snaps were in nickel before the bye where there is no argument he was thoroughly inadequate.

Again, I've never argued that Hawk should have been retained other than as a vet backup and for insurance. Quite the contrary...I would have liked to see his snap count going down (and out) since 2011.

However, given the list of current candidates for the job on the roster...none of whom have taken an NFL snap at the position...the leader among that group would hardly be exempt from PFFs 2016 bottom 10 list.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Here's an interesting follow-up to the topic of Hawk's tackling incompetency:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/03/27/introducing-tackles-per-opportunity/

Note that among the "off line of scrimage" LBs with 500+ snaps, 57 in all, Hawk was not in the bottom 10, or the bottom 18%, in tackles per opportunity (snaps minus incompletions). Where he actually ranks I could not say, but he's above the "F" group. Further, most of Hawk's snaps were in nickel before the bye where there is no argument he was thoroughly inadequate.

Again, I've never argued that Hawk should have been retained other than as a vet backup and for insurance. Quite the contrary...I would have liked to see his snap count going down (and out) since 2011.

However, given the list of current candidates for the job on the roster...none of whom have taken an NFL snap at the position...the leader among that group would hardly be exempt from PFFs 2016 bottom 10 list.

Hawk ranked 57th out of 59 ILBs in stops in the running game as well 54th in tackles per snaps. While I agree with you being worried about the lack of experience at the position it should be possible to replace Hawk's production.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Hawk ranked 57th out of 59 ILBs in stops in the running game as well 54th in tackles per snaps. While I agree with you being worried about the lack of experience at the position it should be possible to replace Hawk's production.
The PPF numbers exclude incompletions. They should have also excluded interceptions (a minor consideration), but you can't think of everything. ;) That's a better number than tackles per snap. Hawk was not a good run defender. But he was not as bad as McGuin or most posters on this board want to portray him.

The point of this argument, which I'm sure you understand but others may not, is properly assessing Hawk's play sets the bar for what constitutes improvement in a 2-down ILB. That bar is higher than most think.

Of course, Spikes would blow through that threshold as would several ILB prospects in the first 2 rounds.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
The PPF numbers exclude incompletions. They should have also excluded interceptions (a minor consideration), but you can't think of everything. ;) That's a better number than tackles per snap. Hawk was not a good run defender. But he was not as bad as McGuin or most posters on this board want to portray him.

The rankings I posted above only take running plays into consideration.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
The rankings I posted above only take running plays into consideration.
Well, isn't that curious. He couldn't run anybody down in coverage and he didn't make any tackles in the run game, but somehow he did not rank in the bottom 18% among 500+ snap LBs in tackles per snaps minus incompletions. McGuin attributed Hawk's scant 4 missed tackles to never getting to the ball and getting run over (as though getting run over is never a missed missed tackle). I'd be curious to know where Hawk actually stood in that PFF ranking of tackles/(snaps-incompletions).

Hawk must have had some mild secret sauce we're overlooking. ;)

I think if we were having this discussion immediately after the season, the assessment would be that the next guy on the depth chart, Lattimore, couldn't be any worse. Where is he now?

Again, the point being, "some guy" currently on the roster being at least as good as Hawk is a suspect proposition. Beyond that, "just as good" is not close to sufficient, particularly given the current state of the D-Line. I know we're in agreement on this last point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
HRE, I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong but haven’t you frequently disagreed with PFF on the subjective elements of their ratings? ;)

We seem to be disagreeing the extent to which Hawk was a bad ILB. Was he very, very bad as McGinn describes him, or just very bad? I don’t think it matters – he is a vet with a lot of mileage on a sharp decline. I do look for a draftee to pass up the guys currently on the roster and the current guys will suffice as depth at the position. IMO it is very likely no poster here and no other serious Packers fans will be lamenting the loss of AJ Hawk. If that happens I’ll admit I was wrong (as long as it’s not just you posting it).
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Well, isn't that curious. He couldn't run anybody down in coverage and he didn't make any tackles in the run game, but somehow he did not rank in the bottom 18% among 500+ snap LBs in tackles per snaps minus incompletions. McGuin attributed Hawk's scant 4 missed tackles to never getting to the ball and getting run over (as though getting run over is never a missed missed tackle). I'd be curious to know where Hawk actually stood in that PFF ranking of tackles/(snaps-incompletions).

Hawk must have had some mild secret sauce we're overlooking. ;)

I think if we were having this discussion immediately after the season, the assessment would be that the next guy on the depth chart, Lattimore, couldn't be any worse. Where is he now?

Again, the point being, "some guy" currently on the roster being at least as good as Hawk is a suspect proposition. Beyond that, "just as good" is not close to sufficient, particularly given the current state of the D-Line. I know we're in agreement on this last point.

Surprisingly Hawk wasn't that bad in coverage compared to a lot of other ILBs. He ranked 25th out of 57 linebackers in coverage snaps per receptions (tied with Bobby Wagner) and 28th in receiving yards allowed per cover snap (one spot ahead of Luke Kuechly).
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
HRE, I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong but haven’t you frequently disagreed with PFF on the subjective elements of their ratings? ;)

We seem to be disagreeing the extent to which Hawk was a bad ILB. Was he very, very bad as McGinn describes him, or just very bad? I don’t think it matters – he is a vet with a lot of mileage on a sharp decline. I do look for a draftee to pass up the guys currently on the roster and the current guys will suffice as depth at the position. IMO it is very likely no poster here and no other serious Packers fans will be lamenting the loss of AJ Hawk. If that happens I’ll admit I was wrong (as long as it’s not just you posting it).
Yes, PFF's or anybody else's subjective ratings are subject to any other eye test. I'm particularly skeptical of the weight put on "pressures", for example. Tackles are somewhat more concrete. PFF's numbers are likely better than a homer official scorer paid by the team making the home game counts, for whatever that's worth.

Yes, we are disagreeing about how bad Hawk is. I'd say better than very bad in base D. Just bad or bad+.

The point is about the guys on the roster in comparison. Palmer and Lattimore (likely gone), guys who we've actually seen, have serious holes in their games. Then there are the other guys who have never taken a snap.

I am certain you're correct that no serious Packer fan, including myself, is lamenting Hawk's departure. But if you want to contend that one of the guys on the roster would be his equal, we all might be lamenting that later in the absence of an alternative.

Certainly everybody expects a draftee to pass up the guys on the roster. We await the draft to see if Thompson agrees.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
The point is about the guys on the roster in comparison. Palmer and Lattimore (likely gone), guys who we've actually seen, have serious holes in their games. Then there are the other guys who have never taken a snap.

Palmer played exclusively at OLB during his rookie season and didn't move inside until the final preseason game in 2014.

While I know that success in the preseason doesn't mean a whole lot but he did a good job vs. the Chirfs before he got injured.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Surprisingly Hawk wasn't that bad in coverage compared to a lot of other ILBs. He ranked 25th out of 57 linebackers in coverage snaps per receptions (tied with Bobby Wagner) and 28th in receiving yards allowed per cover snap (one spot ahead of Luke Kuechly).
There you go. A surprising secret sauce...a C grade player in coverage. Who would of thunk it.

He couldn't run with guys in man coverage. I guess we overlooked the fact he might have applied some savvy in zone coverage with the play in front of him, perhaps the match of Bobby Wagner is that role. Shocking. Maybe Kuechly overplayed the run with his downhill mentality while Hawk underplayed it to compensate for his speed loss in coverage. The measure of the player is balancing the good (or average) against the bad and see what you get.

I think we're pretty close to the threshold for "improvement over Hawk" at this point. It's higher than "somebody on the current roster would likely be better". That's M.D. Jennings thinking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
I think we're pretty close to the threshold for "improvement over Hawk" at this point. It's higher than "anybody on the current roster would likely be better".
You wouldn't be attempting to change what I posted, would you? I never posted "anybody on the current roster would likely be better" than Hawk. I posted:
I don't believe anybody would be better than Hawk in the base D, but I think it's very likely somebody wearing Green & Gold this season will be.
That includes draftees, UDFAs, UFAs, FAs, and players acquired by trade.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
You wouldn't be attempting to change what I posted, would you? I never posted "anybody on the current roster would likely be better" than Hawk. I posted: That includes draftees, UDFAs, UFAs, FAs, and players acquired by trade.
I corrected "anybody" to the word "somebody", just for the record.
 

Sanguine camper

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 14, 2014
Messages
1,891
Reaction score
558
Getting back to the comp picks the good players acquired via comp picks came in the 3-5 rounds. The 6th and 7th rounds have been wash outs. In all practicality the two 6th round comp
Picks at the end of the round are probably similar in UFA in the chances that the player will make a positive impact. Once you get that low in the draft the differences between UFA's and low draft picks may be quite small
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
You wouldn't be attempting to change what I posted, would you? I never posted "anybody on the current roster would likely be better" than Hawk. I posted: That includes draftees, UDFAs, UFAs, FAs, and players acquired by trade.
I corrected it now. ;)
 

fanindaup

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
188
Reaction score
17
Location
Calumet, Michigan
I would question that assumption.

Hawk played almost exclusively in base D after the bye with Matthews moving over in nickel. We should be expecting more or less of the same from Matthews.

Assuming any of the ILBs currently on the roster would be better than Hawk in base D is just that...an assumption.

If anyone believes that anybody would be better than Hawk in base D they have not watched enough football, and certainly have not taken note of Palmer when he's been on the field or Lattimore when he's tried to cover anybody.

Jones is an irrelevancy. He was a spot player buried in the depth chart and on special teams after the bye. His departure merits no consideration. If he happened to screw up every time he took the field, that's on the coaches. There were other options on the roster, the same options on the roster today, that they chose not to use. I do not consider it an improvement when the coaches are deprived of a bad player thereby forcing them to play an equally or less bad player in his place.
Sorry. I realize you don't know me well enough to know my dry sense of humor. That being said, for the last few years some people here have ragged vehemently about how Hawk was slow and needed replacing. I more often than not defended him as at the least steady, capable, dependable and knowledgable. I do believe the coaching staff believes there are now better options on the roster or in the draft. Hawk and jones were hardly cap victims. They could have both been kept if it was about the money. It's obviously a performance issue.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Sorry. I realize you don't know me well enough to know my dry sense of humor. That being said, for the last few years some people here have ragged vehemently about how Hawk was slow and needed replacing. I more often than not defended him as at the least steady, capable, dependable and knowledgable. I do believe the coaching staff believes there are now better options on the roster or in the draft. Hawk and jones were hardly cap victims. They could have both been kept if it was about the money. It's obviously a performance issue.

There's no guarantee though that any of the ILBs fitting the Packers needs will be available at the time Thompson picks. While Hawk and Jones were primarily released based on performance the $7.25 million in cap savings factored into it as well.
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
6,428
Reaction score
1,499
Good morning, CaptainWIMM. I was beginning to think the site was down with the lack of activity.
Not to beat a dead horse, but you point out the crux of the matter to me. There is no way of knowing how the draft will fall, will any ILB's be available, and so on. It's why you need to be aggressive through the other means available to flesh out your roster so that you're not caught in the impossible situation of 'fixing everything in the draft'.
Ain't gonna happen.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Good morning, CaptainWIMM. I was beginning to think the site was down with the lack of activity.
Not to beat a dead horse, but you point out the crux of the matter to me. There is no way of knowing how the draft will fall, will any ILB's be available, and so on. It's why you need to be aggressive through the other means available to flesh out your roster so that you're not caught in the impossible situation of 'fixing everything in the draft'.
Ain't gonna happen.

Good morning, PackersDNA (although it's already 5:30 PM here). The forum
is really quite on Sundays in the dog days of the offseason.

The Packers should really bring in a veteran ILB and either re-sign Raji and/or Guion or a free agent at NT so Thompson doesn't have to reach for need in the draft.
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
6,428
Reaction score
1,499
Ahh, then your day is pretty much done. I'm in Houston, so plus 7 hours I would guess puts you somewhere in the UK ?
Unless someone beats me to it, I was thinking of looking over every team's roster to see who may have a glut at NT or ILB, and might be interested in a trade. Not that I think it'll happen, just out of curiosity.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top