Do we have to take a WR early in this draft? By early I mean rounds 1-3. Obviously this offense is about creating mismatches on the offense with great WRs. Jennings and driver are gone. Jones will be a FA next yr I believe. Is this a position of need in this draft?
Do we have to take a WR high in the draft?
- Thread starter ivo610
- Start date
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
1st. round would be a shock. 2nd. round would be a surprise. 3rd. round is in the range of reasonable expectations. 4th. round on down is the more likely scenario.
I think we'd be more likely to go high for a TE than a WR. If Finley sucks in 2013 we'll let him go. If he plays anywhere between decent and great he'll take the most $ the market will bear, and that will not likely be our offer.
Re-signing Jones should be manageable. His chances of scoring that frequently again are about nil. I don't think there's much he can do to change the view that he'd be just an OK #2 and a very good #3. That's not a bank breaker.
I think we'd be more likely to go high for a TE than a WR. If Finley sucks in 2013 we'll let him go. If he plays anywhere between decent and great he'll take the most $ the market will bear, and that will not likely be our offer.
Re-signing Jones should be manageable. His chances of scoring that frequently again are about nil. I don't think there's much he can do to change the view that he'd be just an OK #2 and a very good #3. That's not a bank breaker.
HyponGrey
Caseus Locutus Est
While I expect at least one of the first 3 picks to be used on offense, no, we do not.
Oshkoshpackfan
YUT !!!
4th or 5th round we will take a WR. We have to for insurance reasons, our guys have been dropping like flies with injury. Always a good idea to have freash targets for Arod.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
My favorite mock for the Packers comes from sbnation.com:
We trade our #26 to Buffalo (who will select E.J. Manuel). In exchange, we get Buffalo's 2nd. rounder (#41) and third rounder (#71).
It's a very long shot that any particular trade could take place, but this mock is indicative of a concept.
With 4 picks in rounds 2 and 3, I could see us going as high as our #55 for a WR, more likely a TE, depending on who's on the board. We could still shore up O-Line and D-Line in the process, though I still believe S is a weakness despite MM's rosy assessment of the position.
Otherwise, holding the #26, D-Line would be the odds-on pick in the 1st. round. It's a position of need and good value is likely to be present on the board. Barring trade, I don't see going higher than round 3 for either a WR or TE, and again, more likely a TE if the right guy is there.
We're 3.5 deep at WR, factoring in Finley, but the 2014 issues are relevant. I'd worry more about not re-signing Finley, with no pass catching threat behind him on the bench, than the possibility of not re-signing our #3 WR.
We trade our #26 to Buffalo (who will select E.J. Manuel). In exchange, we get Buffalo's 2nd. rounder (#41) and third rounder (#71).
It's a very long shot that any particular trade could take place, but this mock is indicative of a concept.
With 4 picks in rounds 2 and 3, I could see us going as high as our #55 for a WR, more likely a TE, depending on who's on the board. We could still shore up O-Line and D-Line in the process, though I still believe S is a weakness despite MM's rosy assessment of the position.
Otherwise, holding the #26, D-Line would be the odds-on pick in the 1st. round. It's a position of need and good value is likely to be present on the board. Barring trade, I don't see going higher than round 3 for either a WR or TE, and again, more likely a TE if the right guy is there.
We're 3.5 deep at WR, factoring in Finley, but the 2014 issues are relevant. I'd worry more about not re-signing Finley, with no pass catching threat behind him on the bench, than the possibility of not re-signing our #3 WR.
rodell330
Cheesehead
I actually say TT takes one in the 2nd round. If i'm not mistaking wasn't Jennings, Nelson, and Cobb all taken in the 2nd? the more weapons for Rodgers the better as i forsee us having to outscore people so why not???
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
No. WR we are still pretty strong. We don't have any 'glaring' needs. We have a few that could use an upgrade, or depth, and WR is not one of them. That being said, this will be known as the year of the WR. There will be solid pros being selected throughout the first 5 rounds. I would be shocked if TT did not grab one - they represent great value - at some point.
TJV
Lifelong Packers Fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 5,389
- Reaction score
- 954
Do we have to take a WR high in the draft? Not in my opinion unless the Packers' draft board "screams" that they do. IOW, only if a WR from an upper talent tier is available in the first three rounds.
Similar threads
Members online
No members online now.
