Tyni 4.5 Mock

GleefulGary

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2017
Messages
4,921
Reaction score
438
You are taking what I said vastly too far. Shoring up positions of depth at positions of need isn't erasing any thing draft wise, it merely helps avoid pinning you into corners of desperation.

I don’t really agree.

The need at those positions is exactly the same as it was prior to the signings. King might have a slight impact, but he still needs to be replaced after this year, so there’s obviously a need there. Lancaster and Redmond obviously have no impact in regards to the draft.
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
1,545
Reaction score
200
Location
Northern IL
I don’t really agree.

The need at those positions is exactly the same as it was prior to the signings. King might have a slight impact, but he still needs to be replaced after this year, so there’s obviously a need there. Lancaster and Redmond obviously have no impact in regards to the draft.
I disagree...unless a draftee or UDFA is BETTER than Lancaster or Redmond the roster spot belongs to the vet. There are a limited number of spots that Gute needs to fill with serviceable/good players. Rookies need to excel in order to make those guys expendable & there are (currently) only 5 picks in the top 142.

Unless Nijman & Runyan are ready to start the O-line needs addressing before the secondary, imho.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
5,595
Reaction score
598
I don’t really agree.

The need at those positions is exactly the same as it was prior to the signings. King might have a slight impact, but he still needs to be replaced after this year, so there’s obviously a need there. Lancaster and Redmond obviously have no impact in regards to the draft.

And again nothing I stated disagrees and would whole heartedly agree with what you said essentially.

I don't change the need pecking order IMO based on any signing. King's is the only one that caused me to consider switching things...if anything the resigning of both him and Sully I do feel is Gute's way of hedging his bets incase he cannot get hands on what he considers an elite draft prospect at CB
 

GleefulGary

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2017
Messages
4,921
Reaction score
438
I disagree...unless a draftee or UDFA is BETTER than Lancaster or Redmond the roster spot belongs to the vet. There are a limited number of spots that Gute needs to fill with serviceable/good players. Rookies need to excel in order to make those guys expendable & there are (currently) only 5 picks in the top 142.

Unless Nijman & Runyan are ready to start the O-line needs addressing before the secondary, imho.

I’ll put it this way.

If they think there’s a capable iDL that can start, they aren’t going to pass on him because Lancaster is on the roster. They might pass on him because there are other positions of need or just players they like better, but Lancaster is not the reason they pass. Same goes for Redmond.

Whoever they draft in rounds 6-7 (I would argue you could include 5), are just fliers and ST players. I don’t think Lancaster or Redmond impact that much either in that situation.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
25,776
Reaction score
1,365
I disagree...unless a draftee or UDFA is BETTER than Lancaster or Redmond the roster spot belongs to the vet.

While that might be true the Packers need to make sure they will draft someone better than Lancaster to take that spot. Most likely that means they have to use an early rounder on a defensive lineman.
 
Top