Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
TT Drafting For Need: Good Thing?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DevilDon" data-source="post: 444835" data-attributes="member: 2057"><p>As for boards, Bob McGinn of the Journal Sentinel has won the top 100 board two years in a row. Here's his list, not in specific order 1 to 100 but you can see prospects ranked within their position groups. Simple to see how highly valued our first three picks are ranked:</p><p><a href="http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/148822425.html" target="_blank">http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/148822425.html</a></p><p>As for Nick Perry having the lateral ability to cover, I refer you to the PC's the Packers brass had after the draft. They mentioned how the "game is changing" and how the Satins game of last year the Packers were never in base defense. They drafted another CB. Is it impossible to see that they acknowledge Perry's last of coverage ability by drafting another CB? Is is possible Capers sees a scenario where Perry rushes and he has another CB in coverage to make up for Perry's perceived shortcomings?</p><p>Can we agree that Perry might not be perfect but still be better in coverage than Walden/Zombo/Jones? There is no question his potential to generate rushing the QB is far and away higher than these three? The perceived problem of last year's defense was lack of ability to generate a rush. As far as my view goes, they've vastly improved that position.</p><p>DE was an obvious weakness last year, the Packers grabbed their favorite 5 tech at a great value. I would be surprised if any of us would have questioned Worthy had the Packers grabbed him at 28. Finally, they drafted a CB that several analysts suggested had the 2nd best ball skills in the draft and a CB who "fit" GBs style of play.</p><p>I've always hoped one day the Packers could load up the back end of the draft by selecting "high risk/high reward" players and injury picks as the Packers would be solid enough to allow the coachable to develop and the injured time to heal. We don't need them to contribute right now. I'm delighted to see that the day has arrived for the Packers and they were able to draft some possible "home run" picks late.</p><p>Looking around at the rest of the NFC North, or the rest of the NFL for that matter, the Packers did not lose ground to other teams, they either tread water or surpassed them in young talent once again.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DevilDon, post: 444835, member: 2057"] As for boards, Bob McGinn of the Journal Sentinel has won the top 100 board two years in a row. Here's his list, not in specific order 1 to 100 but you can see prospects ranked within their position groups. Simple to see how highly valued our first three picks are ranked: [url]http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/148822425.html[/url] As for Nick Perry having the lateral ability to cover, I refer you to the PC's the Packers brass had after the draft. They mentioned how the "game is changing" and how the Satins game of last year the Packers were never in base defense. They drafted another CB. Is it impossible to see that they acknowledge Perry's last of coverage ability by drafting another CB? Is is possible Capers sees a scenario where Perry rushes and he has another CB in coverage to make up for Perry's perceived shortcomings? Can we agree that Perry might not be perfect but still be better in coverage than Walden/Zombo/Jones? There is no question his potential to generate rushing the QB is far and away higher than these three? The perceived problem of last year's defense was lack of ability to generate a rush. As far as my view goes, they've vastly improved that position. DE was an obvious weakness last year, the Packers grabbed their favorite 5 tech at a great value. I would be surprised if any of us would have questioned Worthy had the Packers grabbed him at 28. Finally, they drafted a CB that several analysts suggested had the 2nd best ball skills in the draft and a CB who "fit" GBs style of play. I've always hoped one day the Packers could load up the back end of the draft by selecting "high risk/high reward" players and injury picks as the Packers would be solid enough to allow the coachable to develop and the injured time to heal. We don't need them to contribute right now. I'm delighted to see that the day has arrived for the Packers and they were able to draft some possible "home run" picks late. Looking around at the rest of the NFC North, or the rest of the NFL for that matter, the Packers did not lose ground to other teams, they either tread water or surpassed them in young talent once again. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Cornelius Weems
Latest posts
R
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: rmontro
24 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 8:08 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: Heyjoe4
Today at 7:59 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Crew - 2026
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 7:44 AM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 7:40 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
TT Drafting For Need: Good Thing?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
