Packer's Pre-Draft Visits Tracker

Favre>Rodgers259

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
2,243
Reaction score
130
I'd go with both. I mean they are allotted 30 players right? Is it far-fetched to think that every year there aren't 30 players they truly want to look at? I mean who knows what could happen, but yes I agree a lot of smoke and mirrors are definitely in play 2 weeks before the Draft.
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
3,860
Reaction score
1,769
Location
Northern IL
I'm guessing Drew Lock is a smokescreen trying to increase trade-back possibilities. Andre Dillard may be in play for #12, though... don't think he'll make it to #30.
 
OP
OP
Pokerbrat2000

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,623
Reaction score
8,199
Location
Madison, WI
Packers also attempted to get Duke QB Daniel Jones for a visit, but timing didn’t work out.
 

Favre>Rodgers259

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
2,243
Reaction score
130
Packers also attempted to get Duke QB Daniel Jones for a visit, but timing didn’t work out.

Now THAT sounds more believable. I can't see Lock going outside the Top 10, but Jones definitely is up for grabs 11th-25th. Once Murray, Haskins, and Lock are gone it's definitely a race to Jones. What's even more crazy is if Murray doesn't go 1st Overall, because now you're talking about him going 4th or 6th and teams will immediately bum rush for Lock and Haskins. I like this playbook by Gute.

Honestly, Murray going to the Giants would be the best thing for us because then Gute could probably trade back with the Redskins and who knows, end up with yet another 1st Round pick in 2020.
 
OP
OP
Pokerbrat2000

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,623
Reaction score
8,199
Location
Madison, WI
Now THAT sounds more believable. I can't see Lock going outside the Top 10, but Jones definitely is up for grabs 11th-25th. Once Murray, Haskins, and Lock are gone it's definitely a race to Jones. What's even more crazy is if Murray doesn't go 1st Overall, because now you're talking about him going 4th or 6th and teams will immediately bum rush for Lock and Haskins. I like this playbook by Gute.

Honestly, Murray going to the Giants would be the best thing for us because then Gute could probably trade back with the Redskins and who knows, end up with yet another 1st Round pick in 2020.

For trading back purposes, yes, the more QB's on the board when the Packers are on the clock the better.

However, I would prefer Murray, Haskins and Lock to all be taken before the Packers pick, it would mean that a few top 10 players may have slid for the Packers to choose from. I would be a bit shocked if a team wanted to move all the way up to #12 for Jones, but more surprising things have happened before.
 

Favre>Rodgers259

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
2,243
Reaction score
130
I thought the Chiefs were CRAZY for trading up for Mahomes 2 years ago....

Granted I don't think Jones is ANYWHERE near that good, but the closer it gets to the 2nd Round, moves will be made. I could even see somebody like Elway trying to trade back in to the 1st at 30th by giving up his 2nd, 4th, & 5th.
 
OP
OP
Pokerbrat2000

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,623
Reaction score
8,199
Location
Madison, WI
I thought the Chiefs were CRAZY for trading up for Mahomes 2 years ago....

Granted I don't think Jones is ANYWHERE near that good, but the closer it gets to the 2nd Round, moves will be made. I could even see somebody like Elway trying to trade back in to the 1st at 30th by giving up his 2nd, 4th, & 5th.

Agreed. I think any interest the Packers have in Jones is in relation to the 30th pick. Whether its actually picking him, which I doubt or wanting to look as though they might, so like you said, a team like Denver is willing to give up a lot to trade with the Packers.
 

Favre>Rodgers259

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
2,243
Reaction score
130
It would strike me as odd to take anybody not in the Top 3 this year. I think 2020 and 2021 if Gute keeps this trend of success I believe we could have the luxury of a nice QB then, which is around the time Trevor Lawrence comes up for grabs. I would even be okay with a stopgap veteran option if the offense has a lot of playmakers ready for a poststeason push post-Rodgers. But the only person who comes to mind right now is Teddy Bridgewater.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
QB Drew Lock is visiting the Packers tomorrow.

Seriously doubt they would use the #12 pick on him, but perhaps the #30 if he somehow sticks around?

Interesting. Are the Packers actually interested in him or is this a smoke screen to make teams think they are interested in him, so the Packers are in a better position for a potential draft trade?
I believe the idea that teams create smoke screens, with interviews, leaks of interest, or by some other means, is grossly exagerated. As a practical matter, how and when is that supposed to work? The object would be to get somebody to trade up above you to take a player you don't want freeing up one other player as a possible pick. While you might paint such a scenario at the very top of the board, expecting any advantage at #12, let alone #30, is a big stretch given the interving uncertainties.

Taking the time to bring in a valued player for one of these on-site visits as a feint requires spending time preparing an acting job by decision makers to get it to stick, running a guy like Lock through the greaseboard exercise. That's a big stretch.

When looking at on-site visits from players like Lock and Sweat it's best to assume there is legitimate interest. The questions then become why and where on the board are they trying to peg them.

Sweat is easier to suss out. Doing their own medical exams to get to a propriety risk assessment makes sense, along with taking the measure of the man in terms of intangibles through an extended interview process, then ******* that risk level to a propriety spot on the board. As for need, with Z. Smith a possibility for high snap counts inside in nickel/dime, the possible need question is answered.

Lock is a little more difficult to understand given where he's expected to go off the board. I suppose fear of another Rodgers injury and what would transpire following another losing season can be quite concerning. Kizer and Boyle do not inspire confidence. From an heir apparent standpoint, a drafted QB now will be under the 4th. and last year of his rookie deal in 2022 when Rodgers dead cap drops to $11.5 mil and and the cap savings rises to $25.5 mil. While I think 3 seasons is too long to have a guy sit on the bench going stale, it's fair to say Garoppolo put the lie to that. He did have his prove-up stint during the Deflategate suspension, but it was brief, then coming out big in year 4 before the injury.

I see no reason to believe the Packers don't have interest in these two guys. Maybe after the interviews they come away unexcited and push them down the board. Or maybe the opposite. Whichever, I don't see these invites as smoke screens.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
I thought the Chiefs were CRAZY for trading up for Mahomes 2 years ago....
Not me. After seeing Chuckie take him through the grease board exercise I had him as the best QB in that draft. The Bears screwed up.

Why? You know how Mahomes talks really fast? If you saw him at the grease board you'd have seen he processes just as fast. And accurately. The evidence was there that he was up to the speed of the NFL game and then some. And that's on top of the big gun.

QBs are not just about measurables and arm strength. Above the minimum physical requirements that recommend them for the game, the difference maker is mental.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
I'm guessing Drew Lock is a smokescreen trying to increase trade-back possibilities.
I don't see the logic in that. How would that work exactly? If the Packers are faking interest in Lock then as soon as they offered to trade down out of the pick, be it #12 or #30, then it becomes immediately apparent they are not interested in him.
 
OP
OP
Pokerbrat2000

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,623
Reaction score
8,199
Location
Madison, WI
I don't see the logic in that. How would that work exactly? If the Packers are faking interest in Lock then as soon as they offered to trade down out of the pick, be it #12 or #30, then it becomes immediately apparent they are not interested in him.

I think your assumption has the Packers being the instigator of trading back?

However, you have 3 teams (Miami, Washington and NYG) who might be looking at Lock (or even Haskins or Murray if they slide), sitting behind the Packers, currently at #13, 15 and 17. If Lock is the target of any of those 3 teams, the Packers are probably one of the teams they initiate contact with to try and move up to get him. If Gute says "well, we had Lock in for a visit and like him, so if you want him, it might be kind of expensive", mission accomplished with bringing Lock in for a visit. If all 3 of those teams want him, even better, let the bidding begin.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Packers also attempted to get Duke QB Daniel Jones for a visit, but timing didn’t work out.
That's even less plausible than Lock being a smoke screen. How can timing possibly be an issue if both parties have a serious interest? Who can't fit whom into their schedule? That would tell you who isn't all that interested.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
I think your assumption has the Packers being the instigator of trading back?

However, you have 3 teams (Miami, Washington and NYG) who might be looking at Lock (or even Haskins or Murray if they slide), sitting behind the Packers, currently at #13, 15 and 17. If Lock is the target of any of those 3 teams, the Packers are probably one of the teams they initiate contact with to try and move up to get him. If Gute says "well, we had Lock in for a visit and like him, so if you want him, it might be kind of expensive", mission accomplished with bringing Lock in for a visit. If all 3 of those teams want him, even better, let the bidding begin.
Again, how are you going to convince somebody to pay up to have you swap out of your impending #12 Lock pick when you're willing to trade him away? It becomes more implausible that your #12 Lock pick is legitimate given he'd be a backup far into the foreseeable future. That might have been plausible if the Packers had not signed Rodgers to that contract. Not anymore.

If there's any smoke screen at all it's to get somebody to trade up above #12, making the Packers pick effectively the #11, and that's assuming somebody buys into the implausibility. That's a lot of time and trouble for what is not likely to be very convincing while the advantage may be none at all.

The most plausible reason to interview Lock is they have an interest at #30 or maybe #44 if there is an unexpected drop.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP
Pokerbrat2000

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,623
Reaction score
8,199
Location
Madison, WI
That's even less plausible than Lock being a smoke screen. How can timing possibly be an issue if both parties have a serious interest? Who can't fit whom into their schedule? That would tell you who isn't all that interested.

Could just be a sudden change in Gute's approach, that made him want to bring both Lock and Jones in. The deadline for teams being able to bring players in for visits is Wednesday, and with Lock visiting on Tuesday and Jones likely elsewhere for visits, the Packers will have to miss out on seeing him.

Again, we don't know if Gute is seriously thinking about drafting one of these guys, or just trying to load up with information/disinformation that can be beneficial during the draft. Could be as simple as "hey we have 5 of our 30 visits unaccounted for, who should we bring in to better our draft strategy?"

I know you aren't convinced that the Packers showing interest in Lock or Jones, isn't about other teams, but personally, I find it more plausible than the Packers actually drafting one of them.

Whatever the case may be, I am sure the media will run with it and start talking about how this relates to Rodgers. Which is possibly exactly what Gute's intentions were, not to **** off Rodgers, but to advertise the Packers might be interested in drafting one of them.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,496
Reaction score
5,832
Lots of variables means lots of possibilities. Maybe it’s about securing a backup role at QB. QBs are the only player position to get you a lease...yet likely to get you near a 100%+ residual value after putting miles on them.

With a slight bit of good fortune, GB could trade back and then package up and have a guy like Ed Oliver and Drew Lock gift wrapped before #30. There’s something to be said for having one of the better backups and coming out of GB QB school helps too.

We keep him for a year or two and work a trade. That’s what happened with Hundley (albeit on a lower level deal) but it’s not out of realm of realistic possibilities.
What’s a guy like Lock worth in trade? That variation of value is likely to increase or decrease with what he does in limited fashion at the NFL level unless he’s traded immediately.. so it’s largely unknown.
In the meantime it’d be more reassuring to have a quality backup. If we think our D plays top #12, the only thing holding us back may be an injury to Aaron. If we had a QB who can come in and play solid >.500 ball as a backup? that buys us time and gives us a shot in the playoffs. We learned that again recently in the playoffs. Backups are important
As someone else said. I’m not impressed with Kiser or Boyle being that guy as of right now, so is he worth a #30 +#76 (acquired in trade back) if he’s still there past #20 overall? Absolutely, it’s always nice having a solid #2 QB.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Pokerbrat2000

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,623
Reaction score
8,199
Location
Madison, WI
I’m not impressed with Kiser or Boyle being that guy as of right now, so is he worth a #30 +#76 (acquired in trade back) if he’s still there past #20 overall? Absolutely, it’s always nice having a solid #2 QB.

My issue with spending that kind of draft resources on a Lock or even a Jones is that I highly doubt that either would be a quality backup their first year or even their 2nd. Even the great Aaron Rodgers took some game experience to become seasoned, if Rodgers goes down with an injury in 2019 and as hard as it is for me to say, I would have more confidence in Kizer than Lock/Jones. I guess that could change with the preseason, but essentially, you are using high draft capital on a backup, that if Rodgers plays until he is 40, may never see quality playing time as a Packer. If a backup doesn't get that time, is he going to garner you much in an eventual trade?
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Whatever the case may be, I am sure the media will run with it and start talking about how this relates to Rodgers. Which is possibly exactly what Gute's intentions were, not to **** off Rodgers, but to advertise the Packers might be interested in drafting one of them.
First, Rodgers dead cap makes him uncuttable and untradeable for at least the next 3 years. Second, Gutekunst would have to actually draft one of these guys to send a message and the affect of that message is so far in the future to be a shrug.

The Packers do not have a suitable backup to Rodgers. Considering drafting a day 1 or day 2 QB relates to the proposition that Murphy has 3-4 years to turn things around. I would submit he's safe for one more losing season, if it comes to that, not two, now that he's taken high level football operations decisions into his own hands.

Could Kizer or Boyle save a season in the event of another Rodgers injury? No. Could a new guy with some kind of resume do so in his year 2? Possibly, saving somebody(s) their job. That's what this is about, a backup who can hold down the fort. Just not at pick #12. And as things shake out maybe not at all if the right name at the right spot is not there.

You're right about one thing. I find this QB interest, especially given there are two names involved, to be about acquiring an insurance policy if the price is right and not smoke blowing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,496
Reaction score
5,832
My issue with spending that kind of draft resources on a Lock or even a Jones is that I highly doubt that either would be a quality backup their first year or even their 2nd
Well it’s true you could say many QBs will take time to mature. But we know theres a decent # of QBs that come in competing for a starting role year 1 also, particularly 1st round grades. While that is unlikely in our case he competed for a primary role, we know that more reps you get a guy the faster he matures in a program. It’s a decision the FO would have to feel comfortable with as far as how he’s maturing.
The only thing I’d note is I’m not advocating him unless he’s a late 1st round pick and we’ve got the resources with a trade back. Using #44 and an acquired #76 is that example if he slides. In this example we’d still have pick #15 and pick #30, then resuming at pick #75.

That’s basically using #44 for him mixed with a little craftiness. I’d be ok getting him in that scenario or something similar. It would give him that year to mature where the better echelon college QBs seem to flourish.

The other angle to consider is to pick a QB sleeper day 3 to compete for a backup role.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
QB Drew Lock is visiting the Packers tomorrow.

Seriously doubt they would use the #12 pick on him, but perhaps the #30 if he somehow sticks around?

Interesting. Are the Packers actually interested in him or is this a smoke screen to make teams think they are interested in him, so the Packers are in a better position for a potential draft trade?

I highly doubt the Packers are interested in drafting a quarterback in the first round or able to convince other teams that they're planning on doing so.

Honestly, Murray going to the Giants would be the best thing for us because then Gute could probably trade back with the Redskins and who knows, end up with yet another 1st Round pick in 2020.

Gutekunst should prefer to improve the team during this year's draft as much as he can. The moves in free agency indicate the Packers are in a win now mode, therefore acquiring picks in next year's draft most likely won't be part of the plan.

Lock is a little more difficult to understand given where he's expected to go off the board. I suppose fear of another Rodgers injury and what would transpire following another losing season can be quite concerning. Kizer and Boyle do not inspire confidence. From an heir apparent standpoint, a drafted QB now will be under the 4th. and last year of his rookie deal in 2022 when Rodgers dead cap drops to $11.5 mil and and the cap savings rises to $25.5 mil. While I think 3 seasons is too long to have a guy sit on the bench going stale, it's fair to say Garoppolo put the lie to that. He did have his prove-up stint during the Deflategate suspension, but it was brief, then coming out big in year 4 before the injury.

Rodgers sat on the bench behind Favre for three years as well. Nevertheless I don't believe the Packers have a legitimate interest in a first round quarterback as he would most likely not play any meaningful snaps with the team before hitting free agency.

There’s something to be said for having one of the better backups and coming out of GB QB school helps too.

We keep him for a year or two and work a trade. That’s what happened with Hundley (albeit on a lower level deal) but it’s not out of realm of realistic possibilities.
What’s a guy like Lock worth in trade? That variation of value is likely to increase or decrease with what he does in limited fashion at the NFL level unless he’s traded immediately.. so it’s largely unknown.
In the meantime it’d be more reassuring to have a quality backup. If we think our D plays top #12, the only thing holding us back may be an injury to Aaron. If we had a QB who can come in and play solid >.500 ball as a backup? that buys us time and gives us a shot in the playoffs. We learned that again recently in the playoffs. Backups are important.

Unfortunately the Packers QB school hasn't been effective since the new CBA was established in 2011.

In addition the team has more pressing needs than quarterback to address in the first round, especially considering that most likely neither Lock or Jones would be able to win enough games during their rookie season to keep the playoff hopes alive if Rodgers goes down for an extended period of time.

Even the great Aaron Rodgers took some game experience to become seasoned, if Rodgers goes down with an injury in 2019 and as hard as it is for me to say, I would have more confidence in Kizer than Lock/Jones.

While I agree about the rookies I don't have confidence in Kizer or Boyle either.
 
OP
OP
Pokerbrat2000

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,623
Reaction score
8,199
Location
Madison, WI
While I agree about the rookies I don't have confidence in Kizer or Boyle either.

That was kind of my point ;) Why spend a high pick on QB, when He, Kizer or Boyle probably wouldn't be enough to make a difference if Rodgers goes down. I still contend that the best backup QB is one with a quite a bit of "real NFL game" experience and in this case, that would be Kizer.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
That was kind of my point ;) Why spend a high pick on QB, when He, Kizer or Boyle probably wouldn't be enough to make a difference if Rodgers goes down. I still contend that the best backup QB is one with a quite a bit of "real NFL game" experience and in this case, that would be Kizer.

Agreed. With Rodgers getting up there in age there's definitely no need for the Packers to use a first round pick on a backup quarterback, especially considering the team has more pressing needs.
 
OP
OP
Pokerbrat2000

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,623
Reaction score
8,199
Location
Madison, WI
Last edited:

GleefulGary

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2017
Messages
5,014
Reaction score
507

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top