Dillon.......keeping defenses honest.

[tynimiller]

Problem here is, if in 2022 we have one injury to this group like we had last year w/Z, then you're looking at Jonathan Garvin, starting Edge....yeesh. Hoping for a serious win in the draft here, and that Reed makes big waves on the interior. Feels like a dicey position group (definitely not as dicey as WR!!)

Currently yes, but that is currently. Like at WR, we aren't done constructing that room.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Currently yes, but that is currently. Like at WR, we aren't done constructing that room.

I peaked in, you are correct.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I am expecting to be better at ST also. This current team has much less depth. Hopefully that is no longer true after the draft.

There are some fun names on this list to improve depth and ST. Guessing Tiny knows all of the names and their favorite color.

40 special teams standouts for Packers to consider in 2022 NFL draft

An in-depth breakdown of the top special teams standouts available to the Packers in the 2022 NFL draft.

packerswire.usatoday.com

 

[tynimiller]

There are some fun names on this list to improve depth and ST. Guessing Tiny knows all of the names and their favorite color.

40 special teams standouts for Packers to consider in 2022 NFL draft

An in-depth breakdown of the top special teams standouts available to the Packers in the 2022 NFL draft.

packerswire.usatoday.com

I was happy to see many of the guys I like, some of which are Day 2 selections but most are Day 3.

Marcus Jones out of Houston I've highlighted is my #1 return man personally (Velus Jones is my #2)...he is a SHORT slot corner that was used on the offensive side of the ball too...but look up his return stats and your eyes will pop.

I've profiled or discussed many of the others like Troy Anderson, Tycen Anderson, D'Marco Jackson is a guy I love in the 5th for us if we don't have a ILB take already, Baylon Spector many of you have heard me say is a must target late Day 3, Reed Blankenship is a Day 3 safety prospect that is almost like a big sub package LB, JoJo is a very underrated late Day 2 LB I believe @Dantés and I share a liking for, Malcolm Rodriguez out of OSU is another LB we both like as well....a lot of those guys I like at certain slots.

Tanner Connor out of Idaho State that made the list is a guy I just recently delved into. Talk about an intriguing prospect, dude averaged over the last three years 734 yards receiving, just shy of 41 receptions and 5 TDs along with. According to my spreadsheet his RAS is 8.84 thanks to his 4.5 forty (eh), 39 inch vert (elite) and 10'7' broad (elite)....and 19 bench reps (elite)....folks that is with a frame that is LB sized at 6'3' 226lbs. Talk about a VERY intriguing Day 3 prospect out of a small school with similar size to Christian Watson really (who is 6'4' 208). Connor without Trey Lance one year, has produced more yards, receptions and TDs against arguably the same level of opponents as Watson...and outside of speed is arguably as athletic as Watson. Folks circle this guy for Day 3 or PRIORITY UDFA.

 

[Dantés]

@tynimiller Jojo Domann will be 25 in July, just FYI.

 

[tynimiller]

@tynimiller Jojo Domann will be 25 in July, just FYI.

Yup, which is his only negative aspect...all the other boxes are checked. His age however says early Day 3, everything else says 3rd round. I suspect you are right on Packers would need him to fall to Day 3 before considering due to age.

 

[Dantés]

Yup, which is his only negative aspect...all the other boxes are checked. His age however says early Day 3, everything else says 3rd round. I suspect you are right on Packers would need him to fall to Day 3 before considering due to age.

Yeah, I'd be fine if they draft older prospects (this class is full of them), but preferably not anywhere in the top 100.

Velus Jones, who they just had in for a visit, will also be 25 by week 1.

 

[tynimiller]

Yeah, I'd be fine if they draft older prospects (this class is full of them), but preferably not anywhere in the top 100.

Velus Jones, who they just had in for a visit, will also be 25 by week 1.

Velus is a guy I want to not pick till the 4th but may not make it given his return ablilities.

What you think of Dane Belton S out of Iowa? Junior declaration, athletica and I find myself really liking as a mid round option

 

[kevans74]

Velus is a guy I want to not pick till the 4th but may not make it given his return ablilities.

What you think of Dane Belton S out of Iowa? Junior declaration, athletica and I find myself really liking as a mid round option

This is regarding Belton,

If he's not another Aaron Rouse.... could be great.

But it's really IMPOSSIBLE to tell really lol

He could also be the next Hyde....who knows?

 

[Dantés]

Velus is a guy I want to not pick till the 4th but may not make it given his return ablilities.

What you think of Dane Belton S out of Iowa? Junior declaration, athletica and I find myself really liking as a mid round option

And see, I wouldn’t take Jones until round 6/7 and might be looking for as a UDFA.

Have not seen Belton, but maybe I’ll get around to it!

 

[tynimiller]

And see, I wouldn’t take Jones until round 6/7 and might be looking for as a UDFA.

Have not seen Belton, but maybe I’ll get around to it!

Velus isn't there past 5th IMO, I'm fairly confident of that personally...but I also thought Donavon Peoples Jones was a Day 2 LOCk........

 

[Dantés]

Velus isn't there past 5th IMO, I'm fairly confident of that personally...but I also thought Donavon Peoples Jones was a Day 2 LOCk........

That’s fine if it ends up being true. I just wouldn’t take a guy that old that early myself.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

TE - Tonyan is healthy and back. That alone increases the room there and many Deguara, Dafney and Davis all showing progress enter another season here.

It might be smart to wait until Tonyan is actually able to do something on the field before declaring him healthy.

Davante is probably the Top WR in the NFL, and *MAY* be for another 1 to 2 years.... not a shot at Davante, but he is turning 30 soon and I don't see him as an athletic freak like Calvin Johnson, who may still be able to run a 4.4 40-yard dash today.

I believe Adams not being an athletic freak in the first place actually increases the chances of him continuing to be elite while getting up there in age.

It’s floor vs ceiling discussion. There is a real legit chance the floor of our WR room is higher, but our ceiling much lower.

That's impossible to evaluate before we know who will actually be on the roster entering week 1. There's a chance the floor could be much lower as well.

How do you know? Do you know who they plan to take at WR in Rounds 1 to 3?

I am pretty sure they will take AT LEAST 1 WR in those rounds, could be 2. What if 1(or both if they take 2) of those guys become the next Justin Jefferson, Chase, etc. Even the next Davante, Jordy, Jennings, Jones,etc.

How do you know what the ceiling is?

As mentioned above it's impossible to know. But while a rookie wide receiver could possibly have a significant impact from the get-go as Jefferson or Chase it's entirely possible a first rounder ends up putting up numbers like Reagor or Toney early in his career as well. That would result in the ceiling being much lower for the receiving corps compared to last season.

No doubt, there won't be a WR that will be better on the team than Adams, but since you don't just play 1 WR at a time (on most plays), you have to look at overall talent. So with our returning trio of Cobb, Lazard and Rodgers. I can see Cobb possibly being more comfortable in the offense and having a better year. Lazard, still room for development, I don't think we have seen his best yet. Rodgers, nothing but up. So just those 3 guys alone, might up the room a bit. Then you look at FA's and rookies. As a collective whole, if that is 3 players, I think you have a group of 6 WR's that potentially are better than the 6 that were on the roster to start 2021. Maybe not in game 1, but by game 4 or 5.

The big caveat and the one that won't make the above come true, is the chemistry between Rodgers and any new WR. If that doesn't develop quickly enough, it could be a long season.

The Packers could be in for a long season if the receivers they bring in don't perform up to expectations. I definitely want to see Gutekunst making some moves at the position before I feel optimistic about the group entering the season.

They will fortify the OLB with a rookie. I am less worried about that position than WR, RT, S, DL and CB. Gary and Smith were very capable last year and Gary is getting better every season. As far as depth, it is hard to pay for 3 top OLB's, so you hope your rookie, and 2nd or 3rd year guys step up.

Right tackle might be another position the Packers have to address although it's possible they feel comfortable about Nijman entering the season as the starter. In my opinion the defense has excellent starters all over the board but lacks quality depth at every position. That needs to be addressed as well.

 

[tynimiller]

That's impossible to evaluate before we know who will actually be on the roster entering week 1. There's a chance the floor could be much lower as well.

Hence why I said "there is a legit chance"

Chance
Noun
1. a possibility of something happening. 2. the occurrence and development of events in the absence of any obvious design.
the occurrence and development of events in the absence of any obvious design.
Verb
1. do something by accident or without design
2. do (something) despite its being dangerous or of uncertain outcome.

 

[kevans74]

It might be smart to wait until Tonyan is actually able to do something on the field before declaring him healthy.



I believe Adams not being an athletic freak in the first place actually increases the chances of him continuing to be elite while getting up there in age.



That's impossible to evaluate before we know who will actually be on the roster entering week 1. There's a chance the floor could be much lower as well.



As mentioned above it's impossible to know. But while a rookie wide receiver could possibly have a significant impact from the get-go as Jefferson or Chase it's entirely possible a first rounder ends up putting up numbers like Reagor or Toney early in his career as well. That would result in the ceiling being much lower for the receiving corps compared to last season.



The Packers could be in for a long season if the receivers they bring in don't perform up to expectations. I definitely want to see Gutekunst making some moves at the position before I feel optimistic about the group entering the season.



Right tackle might be another position the Packers have to address although it's possible they feel comfortable about Nijman entering the season as the starter. In my opinion the defense has excellent starters all over the board but lacks quality depth at every position. That needs to be addressed as well.

I believe you give Nijman a solid chance to earn it

We could have Kelly or Bulaga as rotational or back up FA guys if it doesn't work out or if there is an injury ...

 

[sschind]

Hence why I said "there is a legit chance"

Chance
Noun
1. a possibility of something happening. 2. the occurrence and development of events in the absence of any obvious design.
the occurrence and development of events in the absence of any obvious design.
Verb
1. do something by accident or without design
2. do (something) despite its being dangerous or of uncertain outcome.

This is an equal opportunity message board. You can not mention the chance of something happening without specifically mentioning the chance of the opposite happening even though the use of the word "chance" implies that very outcome.

For example you may not say there is a chance the Packers will win the Super Bowl in 2023 without specifically saying "of course there is a chance they won't" or words to that effect. Even though by saying there is a CHANCE they will win it implies that there is a chance they won't.

In other words, when stating the chance of a possible event occuring the opposite possible outcome needs to be stated with equal clarity. Not doing so runs the risk of your comments being misinterpreted as predictions or worse, guarantees.

Similarly, if you don't preface you opinions with "in my opinion" or some similar comment your statement will inevitably be taken as a statement of fact. For example, using the same scenario as above, you must say " In my opinion the Packers will win the Super Bowl in 2023". If you don't your comment will be misconstrued as a statement of fact. It is permissible, for brevity sake, to use IMO rather than the entire phrase.

This has been a public service announcement brought to you by the committee to ensure correct interpretation of comments on internet message boards or CECICIMB

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Hence why I said "there is a legit chance"

Chance
Noun
1. a possibility of something happening. 2. the occurrence and development of events in the absence of any obvious design.
the occurrence and development of events in the absence of any obvious design.
Verb
1. do something by accident or without design
2. do (something) despite its being dangerous or of uncertain outcome.

Legit
adjective

1. conforming to the rules; legal.
2. extremely good.
   

adverb

1. truly; genuinely.

I believe you give Nijman a solid chance to earn it

We could have Kelly or Bulaga as rotational or back up FA guys if it doesn't work out or if there is an injury ...

I agree that Nijman should get a chance to compete for the starting job at right tackle but the Packers need to add someone to compete with him for it. Bulaga might be available during the season to come in in case of an emergency but I highly doubt he's interested in being a backup.

 

[tynimiller]

This is an equal opportunity message board. You can not mention the chance of something happening without specifically mentioning the chance of the opposite happening even though the use of the word "chance" implies that very outcome.

For example you may not say there is a chance the Packers will win the Super Bowl in 2023 without specifically saying "of course there is a chance they won't" or words to that effect. Even though by saying there is a CHANCE they will win it implies that there is a chance they won't.

In other words, when stating the chance of a possible event occuring the opposite possible outcome needs to be stated with equal clarity. Not doing so runs the risk of your comments being misinterpreted as predictions or worse, guarantees.

Similarly, if you don't preface you opinions with "in my opinion" or some similar comment your statement will inevitably be taken as a statement of fact. For example, using the same scenario as above, you must say " In my opinion the Packers will win the Super Bowl in 2023". If you don't your comment will be misconstrued as a statement of fact. It is permissible, for brevity sake, to use IMO rather than the entire phrase.

This has been a public service announcement brought to you by the committee to ensure correct interpretation of comments on internet message boards or CECICIMB

This made my day!!

 

[PikeBadger]

This is an equal opportunity message board. You can not mention the chance of something happening without specifically mentioning the chance of the opposite happening even though the use of the word "chance" implies that very outcome.

For example you may not say there is a chance the Packers will win the Super Bowl in 2023 without specifically saying "of course there is a chance they won't" or words to that effect. Even though by saying there is a CHANCE they will win it implies that there is a chance they won't.

In other words, when stating the chance of a possible event occuring the opposite possible outcome needs to be stated with equal clarity. Not doing so runs the risk of your comments being misinterpreted as predictions or worse, guarantees.

Similarly, if you don't preface you opinions with "in my opinion" or some similar comment your statement will inevitably be taken as a statement of fact. For example, using the same scenario as above, you must say " In my opinion the Packers will win the Super Bowl in 2023". If you don't your comment will be misconstrued as a statement of fact. It is permissible, for brevity sake, to use IMO rather than the entire phrase.

This has been a public service announcement brought to you by the committee to ensure correct interpretation of comments on internet message boards or CECICIMB

Thanks, and it's unfortunate that some people can't/won't read correctly. Words have meaning.

 

[Voyageur]

Every post out here is based on pure conjecture from what I've seen, including this one.

People need to chill.

 

[kevans74]

R-E-L-A-X

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Every post out here is based on pure conjecture from what I've seen, including this one.

People need to chill.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[sschind]

Thanks, and it's unfortunate that some people can't/won't read correctly. Words have meaning.

I left this example out of the original post but please do not be offended if I use you as another example.

When you say something like "some people can't" you must always say of course some people can. Even though the word "some" by it very definition means not all.

This has been another public service announcement from the CECICIMB. you will now be returned to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

When you say something like "some people can't" you must always say of course some people can. Even though the word "some" by it very definition means not all.

We need a "school house rock" thread.

Not sure if or how often I say "some people can't", but if I used it or read it, I would interpret it as "fewer than half". I know that isn't the definition of some, but for me, it is what I would think. '

"nobody can't": zero
"few people can't" : small percentage
"some people can't": Not half, but more than a small number
"half the people can't": Pretty even split
"Most people can't": More than half and nearing 100%
"Everyone can't": 100%