Prospects You Love

[GleefulGary]

Just to comment on my "pass" on Alexander with one of the Packers first 2 picks. One, I really don't want to see the Packers go CB once again with a high pick. If the current guys are deemed to not be quality starters, then go after a CB in Free Agency. I don't think another 1st or 2nd rounder is going to instantly make our defense much better. Second, I admittedly did not read a lot about the guy, but the few scouting reports I did read, just didn't make him sound like someone I would use a #14 pick on and questionable (for me) to even use the 45th pick on him.

I don't mind if we go after a CB. I'd have to disagree on the 1st/2nd rounder making our defense better. Look at what the Saints did last year. Between Lattimore (1st) and Marcus Williams (2nd), they significantly improved their defense. Those guys weren't the only reasons, but they played a really, really big role in it.

I don't think the draft is strong on Edge, a position we sorely need help in, especially where we are drafting. The draft is strong on CB's, and WR's. Also iOL, RB's, and iDL. So fortunately, we do need help at a few of those.

Ideally, a guy like Tremaine Edmunds drops to us. I think it's highly unlikely, but I can dream.

Right now we have Kevin King, Damarious Randall, Quinton Rollins, Lenzy Pipkins, Herb Waters, Donatello Brown, Demitri Goodson, and Josh Hawkins under contract. Realistically, only two of those guys are currently close to starter quality. I would like to sign somebody in FA, but even if we do, it still wouldn't stop me from drafting a CB at #14. I understand that we have added a lot of draft stock into the position the last few years, but it hasn't worked...that doesn't mean we should stop, it just means we have to do a better job of it (and retaining the talent we do draft). Unless Calvin Ridley drops to #14, I don't see a WR that I would take there, and even if he does, I'm not sure I take him depending on who else is available. There are a lot of good 2nd and 3rd round WR's.

So I see guys like Denzel Ward, Jaire Alexander, Mike Hughes, and they seem to really fit what Pettine typically runs. Josh Jackson is a very good talent, but I'm not sure if he's scheme wise the best fit...I think he could still work though. Lot of top talent there. So I don't see the point in ignoring defense the first couple rounds because it won't instantly make our defense better. Draft the right players, scheme to the what the players can do well. Don't tell me what players can't do, tell me what they can do and have them do that.

 

[GleefulGary]

Even though I wouldn't want him at 14th, Anthony Miller is a stud, think of Steve Smith. If he dropped to us at a second round I'd love that. I'm thinking Marcus Davenport, or a top tier CB at 14.

DJ Moore is much more reminiscent of Steve Smith than Anthony Miller is. Miller is nice, but he's a 3rd round pick imo.

 

[GleefulGary]

Two WR's, DJ Chark and Equanimous St. Brown both played with awful QB's. They are talented WR's that will hopefully fall because of that...keep an eye on them. DJ Moore also never played with anybody that was very good at QB, similar to what Stefon Diggs went through when he was at Maryland. I like those kinds of players. Undervalued due to teammates.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I have never said that a rookie can't make an impact and a rookie taken at #14 may have a higher probability of doing so than one taken at #33, 27, 30.... However, I don't think you should rely on that rookie coming right in and being an effective starter. If you have an obvious weakness, fill it in Free Agency if you can.

If people start looking at what the Saints did with Lattimore (#11) and Williams (#42) as the standard of drafting, they are going to be sorely disappointed in the results.

 

[GleefulGary]

I have never said that a rookie can't make an impact and a rookie taken at #14 may have a higher probability of doing so than one taken at #33, 27, 30.... However, I don't think you should rely on that rookie coming right in and being an effective starter. If you have an obvious weakness, fill it in Free Agency if you can.

If people start looking at what the Saints did with Lattimore (#11) and Williams (#42) as the standard of drafting, they are going to be sorely disappointed in the results.

You said that you don't think a rookie in either round 1 or 2 will make instantly make a defense much better. I disagree, depending on who is drafted.

EVEN if you fill that position in FA, it's still ok to draft that position early in the draft. Rookie contracts are valuable. I never said that what the Saints did last year was the standard, I'm just using it as an example that it is possible.

My point is this. We have two guys who can start at CB on our team. Even if we sign another that can start, that gives us 3. 3 is the bare minimum needed anymore. I have absolutely zero issue drafting another CB early, even if we sign a CB in FA. But this is just theory, it all depends on who is on the board. If there's a LB, or a WR, or an OL that is ranked better than a CB on our board that we pass on because we view CB as the higher need, that I have a problem with.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You said that you don't think a rookie in either round 1 or 2 will make instantly make a defense much better. I disagree, depending on who is drafted.

Actually, if you read what I wrote:

I have never said that a rookie can't make an impact and a rookie taken at #14 may have a higher probability of doing so than one taken at #33, 27, 30.... However, I don't think you should rely on that rookie coming right in and being an effective starter. If you have an obvious weakness, fill it in Free Agency if you can.

Your last few words are the important part ones here, "depending on who is drafted". Every year in the NFL, you see rookies make an immediate impact for their team, rookies drafted from #1 all the way up to UDFA's. However, more frequently, you don't see rookies make an immediate impact. So all I am saying and we have already seen this for the Packers over the last how many years at CB, don't count on fixing a position with a rookie in his first year.

 

[GleefulGary]

Just to comment on my "pass" on Alexander with one of the Packers first 2 picks. One, I really don't want to see the Packers go CB once again with a high pick. If the current guys are deemed to not be quality starters, then go after a CB in Free Agency. I don't think another 1st or 2nd rounder is going to instantly make our defense much better. Second, I admittedly did not read a lot about the guy, but the few scouting reports I did read, just didn't make him sound like someone I would use a #14 pick on and questionable (for me) to even use the 45th pick on him.

Pretty sure I pretty much quoted you word for word, but ok.

We're essentially saying the same thing.

Attempt to fill needs through FA, then finish it up with the draft.

I'm just saying we need at least 4 good CB's, so I have no issue drafting one early.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Pretty sure I pretty much quoted you word for word, but ok.

We're essentially saying the same thing.

Attempt to fill needs through FA, then finish it up with the draft.

I'm just saying we need at least 4 good CB's, so I have no issue drafting one early.

Based on our recent draft history with CB's as well as looking around the NFL and the impact that rookies have made for other teams throughout history, I will stick to that conclusion But sure, could you get lucky and have a CB taken at #14 make an instant impact? Sure. I just wouldn't want to see the season lost because you relied on it.

4 solid CB's would be nice, but we have needs elsewhere too. The Packers needs and the ability for people to try and predict what they will do in the draft, will become a lot clearer after the initial Free Agency signing period is over.

 

[GleefulGary]

Based on our recent draft history with CB's as well as looking around the NFL and the impact that rookies have made for other teams throughout history, I will stick to that conclusion But sure, could you get lucky and have a CB taken at #14 make an instant impact? Sure. I just wouldn't want to see the season lost because you relied on it.

4 solid CB's would be nice, but we have needs elsewhere too. The Packers needs and the ability for people to try and predict what they will do in the draft, will become a lot clearer after the initial Free Agency signing period is over.

Has our recent history been bad?

In the past decade we've missed on Rollins and Pat Lee. Randall is good, King showed a lot of promise, Hayward is excellent, Hyde was a good pick, even House was good value for the 4th round. Sam Shields and Tramon Williams as UDFA. I'd say our CB record compared to most is pretty dang good.

I wouldn't say that 4 good CB's is nice...I'd say it's closer to a necessity.

I just see value in CB at #14. I don't at Edge. I don't at WR. We could take an OT. Maybe we trade back. But if there's a good CB, why wouldn't we take him?

 

[GleefulGary]

I don't know a lot about this player, but Tony Pauline is saying we're looking hard at Jesse Bates, S from Wake Forest.

6'2 195 lb RS-SO

Sounds like he has good coverage skills, can even play a little slot. Needs to gain some weight to be a more effective player. Day 2, maybe early day 3 guy from what little I've read. Just a guy to watch.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Has our recent history been bad?

In the past decade we've missed on Rollins and Pat Lee. Randall is good, King showed a lot of promise, Hayward is excellent, Hyde was a good pick, even House was good value for the 4th round. Sam Shields and Tramon Williams as UDFA. I'd say our CB record compared to most is pretty dang good.

I wouldn't say that 4 good CB's is nice...I'd say it's closer to a necessity.

I just see value in CB at #14. I don't at Edge. I don't at WR. We could take an OT. Maybe we trade back. But if there's a good CB, why wouldn't we take him?

I guess your list of our success is debatable, especially if you want to think drafting another one at #14 will provide the Packer with a solid future CB. Can't say anything about King yet, he didn't do squat his first year and frankly from what I read about his shoulder, I'm nervous about the guys future. Randall as a #1 pick hasn't been a success in my opinion. Dix the same. Hayward, Hyde and House....could have turned into great pics if they played as well as they did once they left GB. Shields and Williams weren't draft picks and if anything, they support the "not drafting a CB high" argument.

You also conveniently left out Goodson (6th round), McMillan (4th), Underwood (6th), Rouse (3rd), Blackmon (4th) and Culver (6th). But I will add back some credit for S Morgan Burnett

So as far as our history of drafting CB's, I would still say it hasn't been good enough and that is pretty well supported by the crappy play we have seen from the position over the last how many years?

 

[Dantés]

I've said this before, so ignore me if it's repetitive, but this class really doesn't lend itself, in my opinion, to eschewing certain positions at #14 outside of QB, P, or K.

It seems to me that the Packers are going to be making a selection right around a drop-off point in terms of talent. You often hear that, going into the draft, teams only have 20-25 1st round grades in the entire class. It would not surprise me if that number is lower this year. It just doesn't seem to me that there is an abundance of premier talent at the top of this class. There are some great prospects, no doubt, but just not all that many of them (I don't think).

What that means to me is (if I'm right) that the Packers will need to be less choosy about positional needs when making their choice. If the blue chipper or 1st round graded player or two or three that make it to #14 are at positions that aren't perceived to be high need (e.g. DL or CB even after signing a veteran or RB), the temptation will be to reach down the board but the best approach would be to draft the blue chipper. Drafting an impact player at a position of lesser need will end up helping the Packers more than reaching for a lesser talent to fill a greater perceived need.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I've said this before, so ignore me if it's repetitive, but this class really doesn't lend itself, in my opinion, to eschewing certain positions at #14 outside of QB, P, or K.

It seems to me that the Packers are going to be making a selection right around a drop-off point in terms of talent. You often hear that, going into the draft, teams only have 20-25 1st round grades in the entire class. It would not surprise me if that number is lower this year. It just doesn't seem to me that there is an abundance of premier talent at the top of this class. There are some great prospects, no doubt, but just not all that many of them (I don't think).

What that means to me is (if I'm right) that the Packers will need to be less choosy about positional needs when making their choice. If the blue chipper or 1st round graded player or two or three that make it to #14 are at positions that aren't perceived to be high need (e.g. DL or CB even after signing a veteran or RB), the temptation will be to reach down the board but the best approach would be to draft the blue chipper. Drafting an impact player at a position of lesser need will end up helping the Packers more than reaching for a lesser talent to fill a greater perceived need.

While I will agree with that, because it seems to be what happens with most drafts, what the Packers will also be looking at is how deep a certain position may be and if they can go after that particular position in Round 2 or 3, without much of a perceived drop off. If they don't resign Burnett and the top S is still on the board at #14, that may be the direction they go.

 

[GleefulGary]

I guess your list of our success is debatable, especially if you want to think drafting another one at #14 will provide the Packer with a solid future CB. Can't say anything about King yet, he didn't do squat his first year and frankly from what I read about his shoulder, I'm nervous about the guys future. Randall as a #1 pick hasn't been a success in my opinion. Dix the same. Hayward, Hyde and House....could have turned into great pics if they played as well as they did once they left GB. Shields and Williams weren't draft picks and if anything, they support the "not drafting a CB high" argument.

You also conveniently left out Goodson (6th round), McMillan (4th), Underwood (6th), Rouse (3rd), Blackmon (4th) and Culver (6th). But I will add back some credit for S Morgan Burnett

So as far as our history of drafting CB's, I would still say it hasn't been good enough and that is pretty well supported by the crappy play we have seen from the position over the last how many years?

You realize I said past decade...right? You did say recent history, so I even went long and considered a decade to be "recent". I did leave out Goodson, my apologies, but I mean, he's a 6th rounder...what do you expect? Now...I know this can be hard, but we're talking about CB's. There is absolutely no reason to include Dix, or McMillan, or Underwood, or Rouse, or Burnett. Randall, as a late 1st round pick, has been a success. He had a good rookie year, an awful 2nd year, and for 2/3 of this year he was straight up excellent. He shut down everybody he was in man-to-man with towards the end of the year. What do you consider to be a successful pick at the end of the 1st? Hayward was a 3rd rounder who is now a top CB in the league. I don't care if he didn't play as well here, that is excellent talent evaluation. The coaching scheme, not so much. Micah Hyde, 5th round pick, GREAT pick. House, 4th round pick...I mean, the guy was a solid contributor as a 4th round pick. That's good. So yeah, recent history, the Packers have done well drafting CB's...unless you consider safeties and CB's to be the same, which apparently you do.

 

[Dantés]

While I will agree with that, because it seems to be what happens with most drafts, what the Packers will also be looking at is how deep a certain position may be and if they can go after that particular position in Round 2 or 3, without much of a perceived drop off. If they don't resign Burnett and the top S is still on the board at #14, that may be the direction they go.

I think that’s a fine standard to use as a tie breaker between similarly graded players, but if a team just imposes their perceived priorities on the draft regardless, it never ends well.

I guess I’m saving that while edge rusher would be ideal (and may work anyhow) I’d rather take the top 10 caliber CB over the top 40 caliber EDGE.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think that’s a fine standard to use as a tie breaker between similarly graded players, but if a team just imposes their perceived priorities on the draft regardless, it never ends well.

I guess I’m saving that while edge rusher would be ideal (and may work anyhow) I’d rather take the top 10 caliber CB over the top 40 caliber EDGE.

Given the need at both positions, probably yes. What do you do if the best TE in the draft is available at #14, but there are a group of 5 or 6 really not that far behind TE's sitting there and 1 or more will most likely still be available in the 2nd round? Do you take the CB or OLB that you may have graded as a 20-32 pick, but are clearly better than what you think will still be there when you pick in Rd. 2?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You realize I said past decade...right? You did say recent history, so I even went long and considered a decade to be "recent". I did leave out Goodson, my apologies, but I mean, he's a 6th rounder...what do you expect? Now...I know this can be hard, but we're talking about CB's. There is absolutely no reason to include Dix, or McMillan, or Underwood, or Rouse, or Burnett. Randall, as a late 1st round pick, has been a success. He had a good rookie year, an awful 2nd year, and for 2/3 of this year he was straight up excellent. He shut down everybody he was in man-to-man with towards the end of the year. What do you consider to be a successful pick at the end of the 1st? Hayward was a 3rd rounder who is now a top CB in the league. I don't care if he didn't play as well here, that is excellent talent evaluation. The coaching scheme, not so much. Micah Hyde, 5th round pick, GREAT pick. House, 4th round pick...I mean, the guy was a solid contributor as a 4th round pick. That's good. So yeah, recent history, the Packers have done well drafting CB's...unless you consider safeties and CB's to be the same, which apparently you do.

You left out Blackmon as well.

You seemed to be ok mixing Hyde into the group, who is a safety, so I thought evaluation of all DB's was fair game. Surprised you didn't say Rollins shouldn't be included. If you are ready to call Randall a successful first round pick, I can't change your opinion. If you also want to hang your hat on House, Heyward and Hyde as being successful picks for the Packers, I guess you are basing your opinion on how well they did for other teams, I don't really consider that a success for the Packers, nor what they did while in Green Bay successful enough for the Packers to warrant keeping them.

 

[Dantés]

Given the need at both positions, probably yes. What do you do if the best TE in the draft is available at #14, but there are a group of 5 or 6 really not that far behind TE's sitting there and 1 or more will most likely still be available in the 2nd round? Do you take the CB or OLB that you may have graded as a 20-32 pick, but are clearly better than what you think will still be there when you pick in Rd. 2?

If the top TE is a blue chipper, then yeah— I take that guy in this case. However, this hypothetical describes a situation where there are like 7 borderline blue chip tight ends, which seems unlikely.

To put it in terms of this draft class, I guess I’m saying that I’d rather take Vita Vea than any of the tight ends even though DL is not nearly as pressing as TE.

 

[Dantés]

You left out Blackmon as well.

You seemed to be ok mixing Hyde into the group, who is a safety, so I thought evaluation of all DB's was fair game. Surprised you didn't say Rollins shouldn't be included. If you are ready to call Randall a successful first round pick, I can't change your opinion. If you also want to hang your hat on House, Heyward and Hyde as being successful picks for the Packers, I guess you are basing your opinion on how well they did for other teams, I don't really consider that a success for the Packers, nor what they did while in Green Bay successful enough for the Packers to warrant keeping them.

Wait a minute... Hyde, Hayward, and House were totally successful picks even if you only consider how they played for the Packers.

Keeping them is a separate decision. They made good on the draft investment.

 

[GleefulGary]

You left out Blackmon as well.

You seemed to be ok mixing Hyde into the group, who is a safety, so I thought evaluation of all DB's was fair game. Surprised you didn't say Rollins shouldn't be included. If you are ready to call Randall a successful first round pick, I can't change your opinion. If you also want to hang your hat on House, Heyward and Hyde as being successful picks for the Packers, I guess you are basing your opinion on how well they did for other teams, I don't really consider that a success for the Packers, nor what they did while in Green Bay successful enough for the Packers to warrant keeping them.

Will Blackmon was drafted in 2006. Are you unaware that decade means 10? As in 10 years? He does not fit the parameters specified. Or what is it that you consider to be recent history? Honestly, even 10 years ago isn't recent, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

Hyde played CB and S for us, actually played more CB if I remember right. He was typically a slot CB, sometimes lined up outside. So yes, I am counting him in with the CB's. Does that make sense to you? I would hear an argument if you don't agree.

Hayward, was a successful CB here. Hyde, was a successful CB here. House, was a successful CB here, although not as good as Hayward and Hyde. There's a reason he got a good contract in FA. I'm not sure how you could say they weren't, but I'm willing to listen. Anyways, they all played better outside of GB, and we are talking about talent acquisition here, not talent usage. Key difference there.

And yes, Randall has been a good player. He had an awful 2nd year (due to injury), an awful start to this last year, and an excellent end to this year. Had a solid rookie year. He's not elite, he's not a star, but he is good. Again, I'd love to hear why he isn't a successful late 1st round pick.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Wait a minute... Hyde, Hayward, and House were totally successful picks even if you only consider how they played for the Packers.

Keeping them is a separate decision. They made good on the draft investment.

Out of the 3 listed, I might agree with Hyde and possibly Hayward's rookie season, but beyond that, I think peoples views are being clouded by what they did after they left Green Bay. When you compare what Hayward provided the Packers, with other successful 2nd round picks (Collins, Jennings, Nelson, Cobb, Adams), I don't consider him a successful investment. Do you consider Eddie Lacy a successful pick?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Will Blackmon was drafted in 2006. Are you unaware that decade means 10? As in 10 years? He does not fit the parameters specified. Or what is it that you consider to be recent history? Honestly, even 10 years ago isn't recent, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

Hyde played CB and S for us, actually played more CB if I remember right. He was typically a slot CB, sometimes lined up outside. So yes, I am counting him in with the CB's. Does that make sense to you? I would hear an argument if you don't agree.

Hayward, was a successful CB here. Hyde, was a successful CB here. House, was a successful CB here, although not as good as Hayward and Hyde. There's a reason he got a good contract in FA. I'm not sure how you could say they weren't, but I'm willing to listen. Anyways, they all played better outside of GB, and we are talking about talent acquisition here, not talent usage. Key difference there.

And yes, Randall has been a good player. He had an awful 2nd year (due to injury), an awful start to this last year, and an excellent end to this year. Had a solid rookie year. He's not elite, he's not a star, but he is good. Again, I'd love to hear why he isn't a successful late 1st round pick.

LOL....besides wanting to eliminate a guy that was drafted by TT a year outside of "your parameters" you haven't said anything that changes my mind. Had the Packers been proficient at drafting CB's in the last 10 years, I don't think we would have been spending the last 3-4 years talking about how bad the position is, nor would the Packers have had to invest all the draft stock that they have had to in the position, to still have people talking about how badly it needs improvement. But keep trying to convince me how great the Packers have been at drafting CB's in the last .....10 years.

 

[Dantés]

Out of the 3 listed, I might agree with Hyde and possibly Hayward's rookie season, but beyond that, I think peoples views are being clouded by what they did after they left Green Bay. When you compare what Hayward provided the Packers, with other successful 2nd round picks (Collins, Jennings, Nelson, Cobb, Adams), I don't consider him a successful investment. Do you consider Eddie Lacy a successful pick?

I think when you compare all three to the majority of players picked around the same range as them, it becomes apparent pretty quickly that they were successful selections.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think when you compare all three to the majority of players picked around the same range as them, it becomes apparent pretty quickly that they were successful selections.

Successful selections for who's benefit?

I mean I get it, the Packers drafted all 3 guys and all 3 guys have had some successful seasons either with the Packers or for other teams. So for that the Packers (TT) should get the credit for seeing the talent right? But what did all 3 guys end up contributing to the Packers for the draft investment? Would all 3 have been successful had they remained in Green Bay? I think everyone wants to think they would have, but are you sure? House wasn't that impressive on his second stint in Green Bay.

I don't view getting 4 up and down years from a high draft pick as being a successful investment in a draft pick. I also don't see how what that player does after he leaves Green Bay changes that one bit. Hyde is about the only guy out of the 3 that I think we got what we invested...a 5th round pick and 4 good years. But if you are happy with what we got out of Hayward with a 2nd round investment, I think your judgement is being clouded by what he did after he left Green Bay.

I also don't think you are going to build a very solid team if all you expect is 1-2 decent years out of high round draft picks. I asked you if you felt Lacy was a successful 2nd round pick. Afterall, he did provide the Packers with some solid play for a few years, but after that, not a whole lot for the Packers or Seahawks. So would your opinion of Lacy change had he been a Pro Bowler for Seattle? Does your opinion on Hayward change had he stunk in San Diego?

 

[Mondio]

Being a successful investment and being a good pick are 2 totally different things to me. Lacy was a good pick. He proved he can play, he made pro bowls and i think was an all pro is rookie or 2nd year. He ran hard, he had all the skills. I don't think he was a very successful investment though as he was fairly injured, missing time in every season and never took care of himself. The investment never paid off, but the talent and reasons for picking him were all there and we could see it.

Hayward was the same. He showed he could play, then was injured a lot and we never saw him. He came back and showed he could still play. I'm sure if we didn't have the play from Randall and Rollins their rookie seasons, there would have been much more of an effort to retain him. But circumstances as they were, it looked like we had his replacements on the roster already and an all pro in Shields. Boy did that one work out So I think he was a good pick, talent evaluation was there, his level of play was pretty good when he actually played, just so happened he was due a big raise and we had 2 guys that appeared poised to match exceed his level of play on rookie contracts for at least 3 more seasons. The investment wasn't great, as we only got maybe 2 seasons worth of play out of him, but he showed he had talent, and he's still showing it. I think his level of play even here was fine for a 2nd rounder. He's still not that fast though and if Randall keeps his head on straight he'll be better than Hayward is.

Hyde was a great investment. Low round pick where most guys don't even make it and provided a number of years of quality football play. You have guys like Hyde (relative to the position) on the field and put a playmaker or 2 around him and those teams are going to be very hard to beat. He wasn't an athletic freak, he just did everything well. He was limited physically, but he was smart, worked hard. If we could have retained him for rotational play, he was a no brainer. Turns out someone wanted him as their starting safety and were willing to pay him like one. I think he's been underrated for us and Dix has been pretty overrated, though both are solid players. I haven't watched the Bills a ton, but when I did, Hyde looked about like the same player with more opportunity.