if coleman or doctson slips to 27.

[Deleted member 6794]

I'd be fine if the Packers decided to draft Jackson in the first (assuming Hargreaves, ramsey and Alexander are all gone). Outside of QB and maybe the offensive tackles, there isn't a position on an NFL team that you can really "count" on as being all set. Just too many injuries. Worst case is that you prove you have too many and you trade one for a draft pick or another player. Generally speaking, take the better player regardless of position. Obviously if you two players rated similarly then you draft the player at the position of greater need but you certainly shouldn't be taking lesser players just because you think you have enough at a certain position.

Nobody thought the Packers would need a receiver last season but one play and suddenly a position of strength ends up dragging the team down all season. Same thing could happen at corner...Shields has missed time before (knock on wood) and one play could see the Packers starting Randall and Rollins with Gunter or Hyde playing significant time as the nickel back (not ideal since Hyde is more of a safety hybrid and Gunter is still kind of raw). I'm not saying the Packers are thin at WR or CB but that in the NFL there really isn't a position that's "set".

That's the reason Thompson should address obvious positions of need in free agency. The draft should be used to take the best player available regardless of position. But with having holes to fill that is a difficult thing to do.

I'd be for Coleman as he has things the Packers WRs lack- speed, explosiveness, ability to beat press coverage. Doctson seems to be too much of an uncertainty to me. Passing on Treadwell makes me think of 2013 when we had a chance at Hopkins, though. Didn't seem like a mistake at the time, but it sure would have been the right choice.

On the other hand Doctson has better hands, a tremendous leaping ability to catch a ton of balls on go routes as well as the physicality to shield the ball away from defenders.

 

[Vrill]

Doctson reminds me a little bit of Mike Evans.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Well, I look at it as learning from past mistakes. I'm sure if TT could have a do over, he'd pick Hopkins instead (ie if he knew what he does now back then)

That doesn't mean Thompson will select Coleman over Ragland or a stud defensive tackle though.

 

[PikeBadger]

I like the idea of trading back but what would the Rams offer us as in picks? 2025 1st rounder? Lol

I don't think that's allowed anymore. If I remember correctly, you can only send or receive draft picks one year out from current year.

 

[PikeBadger]

I would be fine with drafting Coleman or Doctson at #27 if Ragland is off the board. Both of these guys could end up as the Packers #1 receiver down the road.



Currently the Titans and the Patriots are the only teams with at least two second round picks. Tennessee won´t give up two of their selections (#33, #43, #45) to move up to #27. On the other hand the Packers shouldn´t be interested in acquiring New England´s two picks (#60, #61).

If the Packers decide to trade back into the early second round the most likely scenario would be to get a second and third rounder in return.

I could see a 27 for 43&45 trade if Ted's board doesn't look good at pick 27. We'll see if Ted's phone rings.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I could see a 27 for 43&45 trade if Ted's board doesn't look good at pick 27.

According to the still used draft trade chart there's no way the Packers will receive #43 and #45 (920 points combined) for the 27th pick (680).

 

[Patriotplayer90]

That doesn't mean Thompson will select Coleman over Ragland or a stud defensive tackle though.

As he shouldn't. Ragland seems to translate much better to the NFL game as a starter than Datone Jones, though.

If Ragland is hanging around at 20, then I hope Thompson makes a move to get him. It just seems like too much of a necessity to finally fill that void. I don't think we'll find a DT who is that much more of a game changer in the 1st than if we waited until the 2nd.

I don't think we should trade out of the pick, a couple of 2nds would be nice, but there's no way we'll get that.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

According to the still used draft trade chart there's no way the Packers will receive #43 and #45 (920 points combined) for the 27th pick (680).

For those who don't know where to find a "Trade Draft Chart"

http://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp?RequestTeam=GB

 

[Deleted member 6794]

As he shouldn't. Ragland seems to translate much better to the NFL game as a starter than Datone Jones, though.

If Ragland is hanging around at 20, then I hope Thompson makes a move to get him. It just seems like too much of a necessity to finally fill that void. I don't think we'll find a DT who is that much more of a game changer in the 1st than if we waited until the 2nd.

Datone Jones was projected to be an ideal fit to play defensive end in a 3-4 coming out of college.

If Ragland is there at #27 I would advocate for the Packers to draft him. There are some question marks about his ability to drop into coverage though. So with him not being a sure thing to address the team's most dire need at the position I don't want Thompson to give up multiple picks to select him.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I'd be for Coleman as he has things the Packers WRs lack- speed, explosiveness, ability to beat press coverage. Doctson seems to be too much of an uncertainty to me. Passing on Treadwell makes me think of 2013 when we had a chance at Hopkins, though. Didn't seem like a mistake at the time, but it sure would have been the right choice.

Not sure how you can use Coleman's speed as a deciding factor when Coleman ran the 40 in only 0.03 seconds faster (4.40 vs 4.43). Doctson is three inches taller and has much better hands. He might be more of a project when it comes to routes but Coleman, in college, had the same drop rate that Brandon Marshall has in the NFL and that's not great for a smaller receiver.

It might seem that just by reading the above I don't like Coleman but I actually do like him a lot. I just think Doctson has more upside (basically Cobb vs Nelson and we just re-signed Cobb). Just as long as the packers don't draft Treadwell in the first (for whatever reason people look at his size and assume he's great at going up for the ball).

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not sure how you can use Coleman's speed as a deciding factor when Coleman ran the 40 in only 0.03 seconds faster (4.40 vs 4.43). Doctson is three inches taller and has much better hands. He might be more of a project when it comes to routes but Coleman, in college, had the same drop rate that Brandon Marshall has in the NFL and that's not great for a smaller receiver.

I would be fine with drafting either Coleman or Doctson, who is a bit slower though having ran a 4.50 at the combine.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Datone Jones was projected to be an ideal fit to play defensive end in a 3-4 coming out of college.

If Ragland is there at #27 I would advocate for the Packers to draft him. There are some question marks about his ability to drop into coverage though. So with him not being a sure thing to address the team's most dire need at the position I don't want Thompson to give up multiple picks to select him.

Matthews was moved to the interior because of the poor run defense, not because of coverage problems. There are nickel packages in which a CB or safety would cover the TE, which is what we are much more likely to see. Ragland would still be fine against all but the most athletic TEs, and he makes for a good pass rusher.

Some projected Jones as a good fit, some projected him as a tweener. Guys his size could work out in that position, but not with his endurance and effort.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I would be fine with drafting either Coleman or Doctson, who is a bit slower though having ran a 4.50 at the combine.

Times I used were at their personal pro days. Doctson ran slower at the combine but so did Coleman. I think the difference at the combine was 0.03 also.

 

[bigbubbatd]

Don't know a ton about these guys. I do know this is considered by many to be a pretty poor wr class. Surprised so many here see these two as number 1s.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Don't know a ton about these guys. I do know this is considered by many to be a pretty poor wr class. Surprised so many here see these two as number 1s.

It's a pretty slow WR class, but it's not horrible. Both have elite explosion and leaping ability.

The 2017 draft class looks incredibly weak at WR. The entire draft class in general is looking weak at this point, with the exception of some special talent coming out of the SEC ( Myles Garrett, Leonard Fournette, Nick Chubb, O.J. Howard). Might as well build for the future now.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

It's a pretty slow WR class, but it's not horrible. Both have elite explosion and leaping ability.

The 2017 draft class looks incredibly weak at WR. The entire draft class in general is looking weak at this point, with the exception of some special talent coming out of the SEC ( Myles Garrett, Leonard Fournette, Nick Chubb, O.J. Howard). Might as well build for the future now.

1st round tends to be qb, wr, ots, cb, olb, dl. The top players at those positions are just worth more. And after being humbled by ted picking wrs many times... I will never be upset by a early picked wr again...
So if one gets picked. Im happy. It just shows ted must truely like this one....
But i want a defense that dominates personally. I also really like our wr group from top to bottom.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Matthews was moved to the interior because of the poor run defense, not because of coverage problems. There are nickel packages in which a CB or safety would cover the TE, which is what we are much more likely to see. Ragland would still be fine against all but the most athletic TEs, and he makes for a good pass rusher.

Some projected Jones as a good fit, some projected him as a tweener. Guys his size could work out in that position, but not with his endurance and effort.

It's true the Packers moved Matthews inside because of their terrible run defense midway through the 2014 season. There's no doubt that both Barrington and Ryan are better suited to stop the run and the team is in dire need of a coverage linebacker though.

While Datone hasn't performed up to expectations I don't have an issue with his effort.

Times I used were at their personal pro days. Doctson ran slower at the combine but so did Coleman. I think the difference at the combine was 0.03 also.

Doctson didn't run the 40 at TCU's pro day.

Don't know a ton about these guys. I do know this is considered by many to be a pretty poor wr class. Surprised so many here see these two as number 1s.

I agree this year's wide receiver class is nowhere near as talented as in the last teo drafts but there's absolutely no doubt both Coleman and Doctson are top 15 prospects.

 

[bigbubbatd]

I agree this year's wide receiver class is nowhere near as talented as in the last teo drafts but there's absolutely no doubt both Coleman and Doctson are top 15 prospects.

That is interesting because I havent seen a single mock draft with them inside the top 15 and most have them outside the top 20. It isnt like every team in the league is 2-3 deep at WR. What I have read is the Treadwell who is considered by many to be the top wr would be picked in the mid-20s on a given year.

I just browsed the top 3 rankings for the draft on google. They all have been updated in the last two days and were done just to look at who were the best prospects. NFL.com had Coleman was at 22 and Dotson was at 27. ESPN had Dotson at 23 and Coleman at 40. Draftek (no idea if they are good) had Coleman at 19 and Dotson at 24. So Dotson averages 24/25 and Coleman 27. That doesnt seem like absolutely no doubt they are top 15. Seem like guys that would be fine value at the Packers pick but not incredible and with WR not being the most pressing need (ILB and DL) the value doesnt seem to trump the need.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That is interesting because I havent seen a single mock draft with them inside the top 15 and most have them outside the top 20. It isnt like every team in the league is 2-3 deep at WR. What I have read is the Treadwell who is considered by many to be the top wr would be picked in the mid-20s on a given year.

I just browsed the top 3 rankings for the draft on google. They all have been updated in the last two days and were done just to look at who were the best prospects. NFL.com had Coleman was at 22 and Dotson was at 27. ESPN had Dotson at 23 and Coleman at 40. Draftek (no idea if they are good) had Coleman at 19 and Dotson at 24. So Dotson averages 24/25 and Coleman 27. That doesnt seem like absolutely no doubt they are top 15. Seem like guys that would be fine value at the Packers pick but not incredible and with WR not being the most pressing need (ILB and DL) the value doesnt seem to trump the need.

I should have stated that I don´t have any doubts Coleman and Doctson will end up being top 15 players out of this year´s draft. Pro Football Focus (which I put more value on than any other site because they have been grading every single snap of all prospects over the last two years) has Coleman being drafted by the Browns at #8 as well as Doctson at #17 to the Falcons in their latest mock. In addition they have them raked ninth and tenth on their big board.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

That is interesting because I havent seen a single mock draft with them inside the top 15 and most have them outside the top 20. It isnt like every team in the league is 2-3 deep at WR. What I have read is the Treadwell who is considered by many to be the top wr would be picked in the mid-20s on a given year.

I just browsed the top 3 rankings for the draft on google. They all have been updated in the last two days and were done just to look at who were the best prospects. NFL.com had Coleman was at 22 and Dotson was at 27. ESPN had Dotson at 23 and Coleman at 40. Draftek (no idea if they are good) had Coleman at 19 and Dotson at 24. So Dotson averages 24/25 and Coleman 27. That doesnt seem like absolutely no doubt they are top 15. Seem like guys that would be fine value at the Packers pick but not incredible and with WR not being the most pressing need (ILB and DL) the value doesnt seem to trump the need.

I'd say this is an accurate analysis. Any going within the top 15 would be a reach, but it would have to be a really deep draft for none to go in the 1st on any given year.

 

[bigbubbatd]

I should have stated that I don´t have any doubts Coleman and Doctson will end up being top 15 players out of this year´s draft. Pro Football Focus (which I put more value on than any other site because they have been grading every single snap of all prospects over the last two years) has Coleman being drafted by the Browns at #8 as well as Doctson at #17 to the Falcons in their latest mock. In addition they have them raked ninth and tenth on their big board.

Makes sense to me. They do seem to be the outlier as of now. We will see who ends up being right. Since I assume the Vikings will get one of them i am hoping PFF is wrong.

 

[bigbubbatd]

I'd say this is an accurate analysis. Any going within the top 15 would be a reach, but it would have to be a really deep draft for none to go in the 1st on any given year.

I would say a nice alternative is that one of the wrs is there when the packers pick and a couple teams want to trade up to get them. Giving the Packers the option of holding tight or trading back

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I would say a nice alternative is that one of the wrs is there when the packers pick and a couple teams want to trade up to get them. Giving the Packers the option of holding tight or trading back

Once again, if either Coleman or Doctson is available at #27 I don´t want the Packers to trade back but select one of them. The same is true if Thompson is able to draft an impact inside linebacker or defensive lineman at that spot.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Doctson didn't run the 40 at TCU's pro day.

Yeah, I see that now but it's strange that both nfldraftscout and CBS have 4.43 listed as workout times for his 40.

Either way, the difference in speed isn't that great and, stating again for the record that I would be ecstatic if Coleman fell to the Packers, I would prefer Doctson for two reasons: 1) He's much better at actually catching the ball and 2) putting Coleman on the team would basically give the Packers two Randall Cobbs and the current coaching staff doesn't believe in route concepts that work best with those kinds of receivers.

 

[bigbubbatd]

Once again, if either Coleman or Doctson is available at #27 I don´t want the Packers to trade back but select one of them. The same is true if Thompson is able to draft an impact inside linebacker or defensive lineman at that spot.

Yeah that is where I would disagree. I really don't want the Packers drafting a 1st round wr. I know they will bed to replace jordy in a couple years but I am pretty happy with nelson, Cobb and Montgomery at the top 3 for the next couple years. I might be in the minority. The more I read about Dotson and coleman the less inclined I am to want them. Maybe I need to look at pff. They seem like number 2s to me