Overall draft thoughts 2023

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,115
Reaction score
3,036
As I get a better feel for the class, here are my overall thoughts:

1.13: L. Van Ness, ED/DL, IA- The team has cast a vision of this guy in which he's Rashan Gary, athletically, but Za'Darius Smith in terms of role. The testing and the tape totally bears that out. He could end up taking a little time to come along, as Gary did, but it will help that he's versatile. The ability to align him in multiple spots on the LOS will help get him on the field earlier, making an impact.

2.42: L. Musgrave, TE, ORST- As I will reiterate below, I think the Packers found two tight ends that they can use interchangeably-- sort of the offensive version of a two high safety defense in which both DB's can be used in the same ways. However, Musgrave's particular niche will come as more of a downfield receiver, and I think he can end up replacing a lot of Lazard's snaps in the offense as a big slot.

2.50: J. Reed, WR, MSU- The Packers have stated that they had Reed at 4.37. Given that he's ~ 5'11", 190#, it makes sense that this would be their choice of the "small" wide receivers. Matt Harmon of Reception Perception is really high on this player, among with many other draftniks. Notable to me was that he said Reed's ability to beat press was the best in class by the percentages. My guess is that he will primarily be a slot receiver in 11P, but there is no reason he can't also get snaps outside.

3.78: T. Kraft, TE, SDSU- Though Kraft is probably a better blocker than Musgrave, I think they will be used in interchangeable ways in order to keep the defenses off-balance. Whereas Musgrave's unique niche will probably be vertical shots, I am guessing we will see a lot of Kraft in catch-and-go, YAC situations.

4.116: C. Wooden, DL, AUB- Wooden reportedly played in the 280's and is back to that size now. He slimmed to 273 to boost his forty time. He has the frame to carry a lot of good weight. I believe they see him as an heir to Lowry's role as the primary 5T/4i. He's developmental to a degree, but it seems that the Packers are intent on using this season, with all of its dead money, as a developmental season.

5.149: S. Clifford, QB, PSU- My guess is that the Packers reached down their board to make sure they got Clifford because they don't want to spend on a veteran QB2. From the sounds of things, they targeted him more for his smarts and ability to be a good presence in the QB room and on the sideline. In other words, they decided to take Clifford a round early rather than pay a few million to one of the few remaining veterans on the market. They were likely incentivized to reach by the run of 5 quarterbacks that went right before their selection.

5.159: D. Wicks, WR, UVA- This selection is a bet that Wicks is closer to the player that we saw in 2021 under OC Robert Anae than the one that came back in 2022 under Tony Elliott. He has similarities to both Davante Adams and J'mon Moore as a prospect, and I think both of those outcomes are in his range. On the high, high end he could maximize his movement skills and improve his hands and become a good starting WR. On the low, low end he could fail to overcome drop problems and wash out of the league quickly.

6.179: K. Brooks, DL, BG- Brooks is being hailed by many as a steal in large part because inflated MAC production and PFF overhyped him as a prospect. He's a strange player. He has a DT body, but played primarily on the edge. He racked up a ton of production, but in what is certainly the worst 1-A conference in the country. He has really short arms too. I don't mind the bet on his production this late. Maybe he moved inside full time and thrives. But I won't be shocked if he fails to make it out of cmap.

6.207: A. Carlson, K, AUB- Carlson initially felt like another reach to me just to try and fill a need with a rookie rather than a more expensive veteran. That may still be true, however I've learned a bit of context that helps explain the rationale here. In 2020, Carlson was one of the best kickers in CFB (20/22 on FG's; 24/25 on PAT's). Then in 2021, he was 14/21 with two kicks blocked, before tearing his ACL in his non-kicking leg against Miss. State on 11/13/21. He made it back for 2022, but was unable to regain the accuracy that he demonstrated in 2020. The injury doesn't explain everything (e.g. he still had 4 true misses in 2021, blocks aside). But my guess is that the team believes that with another year removed from injury, they could be getting a much better kicker than what he looked like in 2022. For what it's worth, his 2020 season was basically as good or better than anything Jake Moody or Chad Ryland ever did.

7.232: C. Valentine, CB, UK- The odds that 7th round picks will ever amount to anything are very small, but Valentine has a short given that he's young and has all of the physical tools. From that standpoint, it's a good pick.

7.235: L. Nichols, RB, CMU- This pick, much like the Wicks selection, is a bet on the 2021 version of the player. Nichols led 1-A football in rushing that season and added 40 receptions. However, he lost both tackles to the NFL (Bernard Raimann and Luke Goedeke) and that super heavy workload (381 touches in 13 games) caught up with him in terms of injury. If he's healthy, I think he's definitely a draftable player, though expectations should be tempered (again-- the MAC sucks). The high end outcome here is that he shows enough to replace A.J. Dillon as the interior grinder who can catch.

7.242: A. Johnson Jr., SAF, IAST- 2022 was Johnson's first season in a safety role for the Cyclones. So I am sure that the hope is that with more time, there will be untapped potential. He has enough athletic prowess for that to be realistic. Again, 7th rounders are rarely going to hit, but the Packers gave themselves better than normal chances because of the athletes they targeted.

7.256: G. Dubose, WR, CHAR- Dubose is a ball winner who is still learning to play the position. I think he's an obvious practice squad candidate. But again, he's a good athlete (8.79 RAS) and he's only 21. So the odds of success is low, but the potential is there because he has the tools to develop and the time to do so.

Overall: I like this draft a lot. I was hoping for offense, but the board didn't fall that way. The league was not as high on JSN/Kincaid as the public and the top two OT's were gone. I love how they attacked the pass catcher position on days 2/3 with a lot of quality options. I also think they gave themselves a chance to hit big in round 7 with 1-2 of those lottery tickets.
 

ThePerfectBeard

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Messages
1,338
Reaction score
253
Location
Connecticut
I should probably extrpolate on my original post. The BIGGEST most incompetent move was made in the 2nd round. Moving from 45 down to 50...foregoing a Safety which is a NEED position for this year and the future trading that 45th pick to an IN DIVISION opponent and allowing to draft said Safety who btw on most boards was a top 25 pick...then with that 50th pick getting a Wide Receiver most people outside of East Lansing don't know when a name WR with the same measureables got passed up. Plus that pick of the WR out of Virginia isn't much better if at all.
I'm going to have to disagree with this. Reed was really well-known in the draft community and his tape was really good. He played bigger than he was listed, did it with a terrible qb, and played well at the senior bowl. I was a Mims fan myself, but Reed wasn't an unknown.

There are definitely places to pick this draft apart but keep in mind this was a terrible safety class. It was a strong tight end class. Double dipping at the position was very smart. We got some serious beef on the defense at some really good value.

To me, I would have preferred a trade back in the first, grab Kincaid, and then grab Benton in the second, but I like who we ended up with for the most part.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
I'm going to have to disagree with this. Reed was really well-known in the draft community and his tape was really good. He played bigger than he was listed, did it with a terrible qb, and played well at the senior bowl. I was a Mims fan myself, but Reed wasn't an unknown.

There are definitely places to pick this draft apart but keep in mind this was a terrible safety class. It was a strong tight end class. Double dipping at the position was very smart. We got some serious beef on the defense at some really good value.

To me, I would have preferred a trade back in the first, grab Kincaid, and then grab Benton in the second, but I like who we ended up with for the most part.
I also wanted a Mini trade back into the teens. I felt like we could’ve picked up another Day2 selection moving back a few spots. Possibly could’ve still had Van Ness at #17 etc. Worst case it’s an area we can grab WR Ngigba and not feel like we’re reaching. 60% Van Ness is still there and we get an extra player. I believe the Jets targeted 1.Broderick Jones 2. Will McDonald and the Steelers obviously wanted to go OT. New England purposely screwed the Jets by letting Steelers move up with a #120 (cheap money) in that trade imo. Washington was eyeing a top DB all along

We went High Projection throughout this draft. Not high Production. Many players had minimal production in College compared to peers in the same draft area.
Van Ness, Musgrave, Reed and Kraft were picked for their Ceiling, not to necessarily be Superstars in 2023. If we get anywhere close to the ceiling of 2 of these 4 we’ll have had a very successful draft. Several of these guys could be Probowl level + when fully developed.

For myself. These earlier drafted players have 2024-2025 written all over them. Anything we get in the meantime is bonus production.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
This draft sets us up for next years draft. It’s a “To Be Continued…

Next year we will 75% go WR in Round1, depending on our draft placement. It’s a risky hypothesis but I’d bet $$ on it. It’s possible we go OL or DB on Day1 also. If we get these 6 WR’s (2022-2023 draft)up to speed by next season and add a Bonafide Star WE1 then we’ll have a lethal WR grouping as early as next season. Not to mention we now have likely have a legit TE for once.


In 2024 draft (Part II)

#10 (est) WR
#26 (Jets) Safety
#42 OL
#74 DL
4a RB
4b CB
5 LB
6a Edge
6b TE
7th OL
7th RB
7th ST
 
Last edited:

Sanguine camper

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 14, 2014
Messages
1,979
Reaction score
601
This draft sets us up for next years draft. It’s a “To Be Continued…

Next year we will 75% go WR in Round1, depending on our draft placement. It’s a risky hypothesis but I’d bet $$ on it. It’s possible we go OL or DB on Day1 also. If we get these 6 WR’s (2022-2023 draft)up to speed by next season and add a Bonafide Star WE1 then we’ll have a lethal WR grouping as early as next season. Not to mention we now have likely have a legit TE for once.


In 2024 draft:

WR #10 (estimate) overall
Safety #26 (est f/Jets)
OL #42 overall
CB #74 overall.
Assuming Love is the QB of the future, wouldn't drafting OT as a replacement for Bahktiari be ranked as the highest priority in 2024? We'll see if Josh continues to progress but its asking a lot for an UDFA to play LT in the NFL. Does Gute draft a DT to eventually replace Kenny Clark? Maybe 2024 is too soon but you can never have too many good big guys.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,256
Reaction score
5,078
I also wanted a Mini trade back into the teens. I felt like we could’ve picked up another Day2 selection moving back a few spots. Possibly could’ve still had Van Ness at #17 etc. Worst case it’s an area we can grab WR Ngigba and not feel like we’re reaching. 60% Van Ness is still there and we get an extra player. I believe the Jets targeted 1.Broderick Jones 2. Will McDonald and the Steelers obviously wanted to go OT. New England purposely screwed the Jets by letting Steelers move up with a #120 (cheap money) in that trade imo. Washington was eyeing a top DB all along

We went High Projection throughout this draft. Not high Production. Almost every player had minimal production in College compared to peers in the same draft area.
Van Ness, Musgrave, Reed and Kraft were picked for their Ceiling, not to necessarily be Superstars in 2023. If we get anywhere close to the ceiling of 2 of these 4 we’ll have had a very successful draft. Several of these guys could be Probowl level + when fully developed.

For myself. These earlier drafted players have 2024-2025 written all over them. Anything we get in the meantime is bonus production.

LVN was quite productive per snap actually.

Brooks was oober productive.

Lew Nichols was one of the most productive RBs in college.

Reed was hardly any less productive than Addison the last two seasons.

Dontayvion Wicks was insanely productive last season.

I agree that many of these guys being young for sure are not the Will McDonald or Michael Mayer type picks that are much closer to their ceilings, but many of these dudes are no stranger to producing.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
LVN was quite productive per snap actually.

Brooks was oober productive.

Lew Nichols was one of the most productive RBs in college.

Reed was hardly any less productive than Addison the last two seasons.

Dontayvion Wicks was insanely productive last season.

I agree that many of these guys being young for sure are not the Will McDonald or Michael Mayer type picks that are much closer to their ceilings, but many of these dudes are no stranger to producing.
Remember I’m a Packer not a Vikings fan! ;)
The point I was making there was not to poke at the sensitivities of draftees or diminish them in any way. Sorry if you took it that way. It was exactly the opposite point. If we thought they were valued at 13 or top 42 or top 50 or top 78 (the examples I used not yours) with relatively limited production, where would they be valued with a fuller array of complete seasons or usage? Lukas didn’t even start and he went at #13, where would he be as a 2-3 year starter and twice the looks?

Top 5? 10?

See how speaking to more limited usage was actually a compliment

 
Last edited:

Schultz

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
2,862
Reaction score
1,631
LVN was not a "starter" but he played as much on average as the starters and was productive when playing all of those snaps.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
LVN was not a "starter" but he played as much on average as the starters and was productive when playing all of those snaps.
Problem is that had zero to do with my post here it is below.


“Many players had minimal production in College compared to peers in the same draft area”


1. Will Anderson (#3)
41 games
204 Tackles
58.5 TFL
34.5 Sacks
2. Tyree Wilson (#7)
35 games
121 Tackles
32.0 TFL
17.0 Sacks
3. Lukas Van Ness (#13)
26 games
70 Tackles
19.0 TFL
13.0 Sacks
4. Myles Murphy (#28)
35 games
116 Tackles
36.0 Loss
18.5 Sacks
5. Nolan Smith (#31)
38 games
110 Tackles
20.00 TFL
12.5 Sacks

A professor asks you to turn in your test and choose the Least Producing player in Round 1. No other information or elaborate explanations will be accepted. Your 2 answers will count Double towards your final grade.

1. Which player has the least College production among their NFL draft peers.
Also
2. Which player in general played the least amount of ball among their NFL draft peers.

I love his selection. I think his potential is outstanding. Im glad we got him. It looks to me like in more limited tries (peer comparisons shown) he’s done a fantastic job.

That said he’s 100% more projection than any of his peers and that was exactly what I said above in bold.
The Packers didn’t need to go after purely Rookie production. They want the player with the best long term output and they could afford to wait a season or two to get that high production if needed. That’s what this draft was all about and it’s not an insult. It’s what many in the media are not grasping (somethings not clicking) about this draft, this is a Part 1 Part 2 To be Continued Draft
 
Last edited:

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,490
Reaction score
1,822
This draft sets us up for next years draft. It’s a “To Be Continued…

Next year we will 75% go WR in Round1, depending on our draft placement. It’s a risky hypothesis but I’d bet $$ on it. It’s possible we go OL or DB on Day1 also. If we get these 6 WR’s (2022-2023 draft)up to speed by next season and add a Bonafide Star WE1 then we’ll have a lethal WR grouping as early as next season. Not to mention we now have likely have a legit TE for once.


In 2024 draft (Part II)

#10 (est) WR
#26 (Jets) Safety
#42 OL
#74 DL
4a RB
4b CB
5 LB
6a Edge
6b TE
7th OL
7th RB
7th ST
I'll take that bet. Just let me know how much.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 19, 2020
Messages
161
Reaction score
46
My thoughts:

I like the Van Ness pick. I am higher on this pick than most. I think most are down on this pick because they are disappointed we didn't pick JSN or a top OT. Or they think we should have chosen Nolan Smith or Myles Murphy. My response would be that I think LVN is a good fit for us because he can help out with both the defensive line and the pass rush, while being a high ceiling developmental piece that can provide much needed depth until Preston Smith leaves (then take over Preston's role), yet still contribute right away. His player comp is Rashan Gary. There was also a run on edge-rushers, so I am glad we choose our edge-rusher in the first round.

The Luke Musgrave pick makes me a little nervous. The lack of production and injury concern me. I do value athleticism, speed, size, as well as player traits and skills over college production, but you still want to see some production. With that being said, it seems like the scouts and people in the know are really high on this pick and think he has enormous potential, so I think it was the right pick.

I really liked the Jayden Reed pick once I learned more about him. I think he fits our offense perfectly and is the right type of player for a young QB. I also think he could be one of the steals of the draft that is a much better player than where he was selected or ranked on the consensus boards.

I also like the Tucker Kraft pick. He is a very good all-around tight end and was one of my favorite tight end prospects in the draft class. I also like that we choose two of the top prospects in a great TE class.

I think the Wooden, Wicks, Brooks, Johnson, and Valentine picks were good ones. They were all either projected to be drafted much higher or right around the spot they were chosen, were highly productive in college, and have high RAS scores (except for Brooks) while filling important needs. At the very least, I think they will be rotational guys that contribute, and I think they have a good chance of becoming starters. It's also possible that one or two of them could break out and become very good players for us. I think they will help out the special teams a lot as well.

DuBose is a decent prospect considering where he was drafted, but you usually don't expect much from these types of picks.

Did not really care for the Clifford, Carlson, and Nichols picks. I am not necessarily down on Clifford as a player like many, I just think we could have used that draft pick on a much better prospect, many projected him to not be drafted. It's the same with the Nichols pick, especially since we already have a 3rd string back-up running back in Goodson. The kicker pick was really puzzling. Not only are most kickers signed as UDFA's, this was a bad one. I feel like we could have used these picks on either an additional WR, DL, (There were still a lot of good WR and DL prospects still available at this point) a third TE, (Whyle or Kuntz?) or a better RB prospect (Hull from Northwestern?)

Overall, time will tell, but I think it was a good draft. I was ok with not picking a safety until the 7th rd because it was not a good safety class (and we may have gotten a steal there anyway). I was also ok with not taking an OL because we have 13 on the roster currently and I think improvements to the OL this year can come from that group. We can find Bak's replacement next year.

One concern I do have is that a lot of these prospects have injury histories.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
A stat that I have personally been following on the Defensive front and that I believe is a key component in the player efficiency is Tackle for Loss:
Lukas VanNess 27.1% TFL
Karl Brooks 27.5% TFL
Colby Wooden 19.3% TFL
Will Anderson 28.7% TFL
Aaron Donald 36.5%!! TFL
Rashan Gary 19.3% TFL
Kenny Clark 12.6% TFL
Preston Smith 20.1% TFL
Nolan Smith 18.2% TFL
Myles Murphy 31.0% TFL
Tyree Wilson 26.4% TFL
BJ Ojulari 19.9% TFL
Devonte Wyatt 10.9% TFL
Clay Mathews 13.9% TFL
Za’Darius Smith 11.8% TFL
TJ Watt 24.3% TFL
JJ Watt 34.4%! TFL
Khalil Mack 22.8% TFL
Myles Garrett 33.3%! TFL
Nick Bosa 36.7%! TFL


These are good sample sizes also across their college career. It’s one thing to do that in a game, it’s another to do it in a season. It’s another matter altogether to do it across multiple seasons. Across many players I’ve studied my research shows a score of disruption as follows. There are obviously some schematic variables and variances, but for the most part TFL is one key component in play Disruption
10%+ Normal range
15%+ = above average
20%+ = very good
25%+ = ProBowl level
30%+ = All Pro level
35%+ = HOF level
 
Last edited:

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,247
Reaction score
1,532
It means you have to beat someone at the line of scrimmage.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,413
Reaction score
2,514
Location
PENDING
A stat that I have personally been following on the Defensive front and that I believe is a key component in the player efficiency is Tackle for Loss:
Lukas VanNess 27.1% TFL
Karl Brooks 27.5% TFL
Colby Wooden 19.3% TFL
Will Anderson 28.7% TFL
Aaron Donald 36.5%!! TFL
Rashan Gary 19.3% TFL
Kenny Clark 12.6% TFL
Preston Smith 20.1% TFL
Nolan Smith 18.2% TFL
Myles Murphy 31.0% TFL
Tyree Wilson 26.4% TFL
BJ Ojulari 19.9% TFL
Devonte Wyatt 10.9% TFL
Clay Mathews 13.9% TFL
Za’Darius Smith 11.8% TFL
TJ Watt 24.3% TFL
JJ Watt 34.4%! TFL
Khalil Mack 22.8% TFL
Myles Garrett 33.3%! TFL
Nick Bosa 36.7%! TFL


These are good sample sizes also across their college career. It’s one thing to do that in a game, it’s another to do it in a season. It’s another matter altogether to do it across multiple seasons. Across many players I’ve studied my research shows a score of disruption as follows. There are obviously some schematic variables and variances, but for the most part TFL is one key component in play Disruption
10%+ Normal range
15%+ = above average
20%+ = very good
25%+ = ProBowl level
30%+ = All Pro level
35%+ = HOF level
What do these numbers mean? Is this % of their tackles are TFL?
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
Just some updated thoughts after some early and limited looks in pads….

1.13: L. Van Ness
So far he’s exactly what I envisioned. A fantastic athlete that won in college primarily on athleticism. He was relatively inexperienced in overall playing time and he’ll need some time, but the upside is huge once he has a full arsenal of pass rush moves and has experience at the NFL pace. His ability to play across the Defensive front is critical to his learning curve. Several X-NFL guys who studied his film thought he was better served at playing off Guards. Looks like they’ll get their wish.

2.42: L. Musgrave
He’s basically a TE that simulates as a huge WR athletically. He’s already laid a few good blocks in PS and his stride once he has the ball is deceptive. He ran away from a LB who was running full tilt at him when he got that 1st down at the 2 yard line. That LB never would’ve caught him alone.

2.50: J. Reed
Prototypical Slot with return ability
He’s fast and furious and he’s shown to offer immediate contributions in our Receiving game. He’ll get plenty of looks early and often if he keeps coming up big.


3.78: T. Kraft
Looks like a TE who might need a little more time acclimating. He’s used his size to dominate in HS and FCS ball, but now the competition is much closer in size and much faster and he’s finding out it’ll take a full arsenal of learned skills to compliment that brute strength. He’ll need a year or 2 if he’s going to fully flourish in the NFL. Fortunately for Kraft, we are now down a veteran TE and he’s the next man up, the million dollar question is can he be relied upon to accelerate his learning curve.

4.116: C. Wooden
Comes “as advertised”. Good interior integrity

5.149: S. Clifford
That 5 years of college ball and leadership shows up on the field immediately. He’s a baller, he just needs some refinement.

5.159: D. Wicks
He’s what you’d expect from an earlier Day 3 player. Consistent and flashes of bigger play ability. He just needs to stay healthy and gain experience.

6.179: K. Brooks
This guy translates really Well for coming from a weaker College Conference. I have him equal to or possibly better than Wooden thus far.
3 QB hits
1 TFL
1 PD
He’s already gotten started
6.207: A. Carlson
Shaky start, but responds well to pressure. He has a huge leg that sends Kickoffs past the paint. If you can make a pair of FG that would be good from 60 yards, there’s no reason you can’t get more consistent from 32 yards. He should be fine like wine, given proper aging.

7.232: C. Valentine
Got us an absolute steal here. He reminds me of how Josh Jackson has a strong start to PS, but add plus Run stop ability. He just needs to be unlike Jackson and take that heat into regular season. This guy would go later day 2-early Day 3 in a draft redo (by us). Either he’s just wanting to feed his family or he totally flew under radar. Next time don’t drop that pick-6 and you just might be a starting NFL Corner one day.
7.235: L. Nichols
I’m not sure if he’s durable enough for this level of punishment. Early returns look speculative right now. It doesn’t help for him that we struck gold in a priority undrafted RB named Emmanuel (God Be with us) Wilson.

7.242: A. Johnson Jr.
He reminds me of someone we grabbed in that 5th round area. He’s around the ball a lot and has great hustle. I could see him as a starter in a year or two.

7.256: G. Dubose
Unfortunately he’s had a slow start due to minor injuries. In limited time he’s fine, but that limited time will relegate him to PS when you have other Wideouts catching these 50 yard bombs or going 5/5 for 75 yards etc. this room is stacked at WR5-6
 
Last edited:

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,247
Reaction score
1,532
Just some updated thoughts after some early and limited looks in pads….

1.13: L. Van Ness
So far he’s exactly what I envisioned. A fantastic athlete that won in college primarily on athleticism. He was relatively inexperienced in overall playing time and he’ll need some time, but the upside is huge once he has a full arsenal of pass rush moves and has experience at the NFL pace. His ability to play across the Defensive front is critical to his learning curve. Several X-NFL guys who studied his film thought he was better served at playing off Guards. Looks like they’ll get their wish.

2.42: L. Musgrave
He’s basically a TE that simulates as a huge WR athletically. He’s already laid a few good blocks in PS and his stride once he has the ball is deceptive. He ran away from a LB who was running full tilt at him when he got that 1st down at the 2 yard line. That LB never would’ve caught him alone.

2.50: J. Reed
Prototypical Slot with return ability
He’s fast and furious and he’s shown to offer immediate contributions in our Receiving game. He’ll get plenty of looks early and often if he keeps coming up big.


3.78: T. Kraft
Looks like a TE who might need a little more time acclimating. He’s used his size to dominate in HS and FCS ball, but now the competition is much closer in size and much faster and he’s finding out it’ll take a full arsenal of learned skills to compliment that brute strength. He’ll need a year or 2 if he’s going to fully flourish in the NFL. Fortunately for Kraft, we are now down a veteran TE and he’s the next man up, the million dollar question is can he be relied upon to accelerate his learning curve.

4.116: C. Wooden
Comes “as advertised”. Good interior integrity

5.149: S. Clifford
That 5 years of college ball and leadership shows up on the field immediately. He’s a baller, he just needs some refinement.

5.159: D. Wicks
He’s what you’d expect from an earlier Day 3 player. Consistent and flashes of bigger play ability. He just needs to stay healthy and gain experience.

6.179: K. Brooks
This guy translates really Well for coming from a weaker College Conference. I have him equal to or possibly better than Wooden thus far.
3 QB hits
1 TFL
1 PD
He’s already gotten started
6.207: A. Carlson
Shaky start, but responds well to pressure. He has a huge leg that sends Kickoffs past the paint. If you can make a pair of FG that would be good from 60 yards, there’s no reason you can’t get more consistent from 32 yards. He should be fine like wine, given proper aging.

7.232: C. Valentine
Got us an absolute steal here. He reminds me of how Josh Jackson has a strong start to PS, but add plus Run stop ability. He just needs to be unlike Jackson and take that heat into regular season. This guy would go later day 2-early Day 3 in a draft redo (by us). Either he’s just wanting to feed his family or he totally flew under radar. Next time don’t drop that pick-6 and you just might be a starting NFL Corner one day.
7.235: L. Nichols
I’m not sure if he’s durable enough for this level of punishment. Early returns look speculative right now. It doesn’t help for him that we struck gold in a priority undrafted RB named Emmanuel (God Be with us) Wilson.

7.242: A. Johnson Jr.
He reminds me of someone we grabbed in that 5th round area. He’s around the ball a lot and has great hustle. I could see him as a starter in a year or two.

7.256: G. Dubose
Unfortunately he’s had a slow start due to minor injuries. In limited time he’s fine, but that limited time will relegate him to PS when you have other Wideouts catching these 50 yard bombs or going 5/5 for 75 yards etc. this room is stacked at WR5-6
Several of these speed players on D will probably be used to spy Fields. It is a must. Fields could pull it down anytime and take off. He is coached that way which was similar to Michael Vick.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,797
if the front 7 play with discipline and don't try to "make a play" i think the need for a spy goes down dramatically. Prefer they play QB's like this with gap sureness and contain as a group. Push the pocket as a group, rush up field as a group and within your assignment. Meaning, if your Kenny Clark and you see an opening right to maybe be free of your blocker and get to the QB, that can't happen unless you close down the left with your blocker and maintain rush lane discipline. Edges? No wide arcs to the QB, rush with your lineman and squeeze. I think it's the most effective way to play those QB's.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,247
Reaction score
1,532
"Team had by far and away NFL’s best pass-blocking grade in preseason."
You must be logged in to see this image or video!
More than getting an OL we needed a run stopping DL. And we got help. Grade is a B.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
if the front 7 play with discipline and don't try to "make a play" i think the need for a spy goes down dramatically. Prefer they play QB's like this with gap sureness and contain as a group. Push the pocket as a group, rush up field as a group and within your assignment. Meaning, if your Kenny Clark and you see an opening right to maybe be free of your blocker and get to the QB, that can't happen unless you close down the left with your blocker and maintain rush lane discipline. Edges? No wide arcs to the QB, rush with your lineman and squeeze. I think it's the most effective way to play those QB's.
I’ve seen that exact thing alot. We get interior pressure but leave a wide open lane to around the edge.
Another common method is to keep a LB like Quay more stationary and he flows between the Fields and the Paint. That way there’s never a wide open running lane and he’s meeting a 250lb mean machine head on
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,247
Reaction score
1,532
I’ve seen that exact thing alot. We get interior pressure but leave a wide open lane to around the edge.
Another common method is to keep a LB like Quay more stationary and he flows between the Fields and the Paint. That way there’s never a wide open running lane and he’s meeting a 250lb mean machine head on
Yes, we definitely need to flow toward Fields at Soldier Field.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top