With their 1st Pick in the 2018 NFL Draft the Packers select...

brandon2348

GO PACK GO!
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
339
Davenport gonna be boom or bust. He plays extremely high at times and just seems like a huge project. Not sure I like the gamble at 14. I believe Landry is the safer pick. I would go Landry if it comes down to those two.
 

GleefulGary

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2017
Messages
5,012
Reaction score
505
Davenport gonna be boom or bust. He plays extremely high at times and just seems like a huge project. Not sure I like the gamble at 14. I believe Landry is the safer pick. I would go Landry if it comes down to those two.

Well I'll be...we actually agree on something.

Miracles can happen!
 

McKnowledge

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
1,300
Reaction score
265
Packages do not equal schemes. I can run a base cover 2 man scheme out of multiple packages. I can run a more complex read and react zone out of those same packages. The package itself is not complex, it's the scheme that is. They're two different things.

A package, is the select players you're using in a package. For example, a power package (bring an OT to play TE) or a Nitro package (slide a safety down to ILB).

So a 3-4 package, a 4-3 package, a dime package, a nickel package, a 4-2-5 package or maybe a 3-3-5 package. Typically different players lined up in different ways.

Then we have the scheme involved in those packages. Are they going cover 6? Cover 2? Cover 3? Safety slide over for shade coverage on the Z deep threat? Safety slide up to help on the TE? Tons and tons of options. You can have a simple scheme within a package. You can have a complex scheme within a package. The package is just what players you have and how you line them up. The scheme is what you're actually doing with the players.

Make sense?


You must be logged in to see this image or video!
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
I do believe I've seen about the 3 most accurate representations of how I see certain people reading posts that should mean something to them
 

Poppa San

* Team Owner *
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
12,821
Reaction score
2,736
Location
20 miles from Lambeau
[moderating]
OK peoples! enough with the snide comments, witticisms and snark! Back to the topic at hand.
[/moderating]
You must be logged in to see this image or video!
 

FL-PACKERfan

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
71
Reaction score
8
Starting to think that unless James/Smith/Edmunds drop to us at 14 we should trade back. Vander Esch/Hubbard/Landry/Key all options later in the first. Could also look CB if we move back.
 
OP
OP
elcid

elcid

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
794
Reaction score
119
Starting to think that unless James/Smith/Edmunds drop to us at 14 we should trade back. Vander Esch/Hubbard/Landry/Key all options later in the first. Could also look CB if we move back.
I'd agree, but trading down multiple picks will result in missing out on both Ward and Jackson. I think we need to stay in front of the Bills if we want to have a chance on Jackson.
 

GleefulGary

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2017
Messages
5,012
Reaction score
505
With his testing, tape, and the way he's going through drills, I'm becoming more and more convinced that Josh Jackson isn't a good fit here.

He's a very good CB, but I think he can only play off CB, and will thrive in a predominantly zone scheme. Not very scheme versatile. From what I've seen of Pettine, I don't think that will fit well. On our board, I'd have to put Denzel Ward and Jaire Alexander ahead of him.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,075
Reaction score
7,893
Location
Madison, WI
With his testing, tape, and the way he's going through drills, I'm becoming more and more convinced that Josh Jackson isn't a good fit here.

He's a very good CB, but I think he can only play off CB, and will thrive in a predominantly zone scheme. Not very scheme versatile. From what I've seen of Pettine, I don't think that will fit well. On our board, I'd have to put Denzel Ward and Jaire Alexander ahead of him.

I get nervous when I see Jackson's name mentioned as going to the Packers at #14. Maybe he will end up being a great CB, but I can't help but think he may just be another one-year wonder. He has just 14 career starts. Would prefer sticking with the CB's we have (plus a FA) and let them develop, instead of drafting another possible project.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
I think he'll be ok at DB, but I don't want him at 14. I think we can get a better player there
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Never say never. Besides there are many teams that utilize a linebacker/safety hybrid a la Kam Chancellor or Tony Jefferson, that can do it all. Titles/designations (positions) are constantly shifting in the NFL and traditional (conservative) thinking is gradually eroding.

It seems like you don't understand that a hybrid player partially lining up at inside linebacker and an edge rusher are two completely different positions on a defense.

Starting to think that unless James/Smith/Edmunds drop to us at 14 we should trade back. Vander Esch/Hubbard/Landry/Key all options later in the first. Could also look CB if we move back.

The Packers should be aggressive over the next few drafts and with 12 selections this year I would prefer Gutekunst to trade up than to accumulate even more picks.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,279
Reaction score
2,395
Location
PENDING
The Packers should be aggressive over the next few drafts and with 12 selections this year I would prefer Gutekunst to trade up than to accumulate even more picks.
I could see us trading back. I think from pick 20ish to pick 60ish there isn't too much drop off this year. There will be players going in the early 2nd round who can have an impact as rookies for the Packers. WR, TE, CB, OL are all possibilities, maybe even an OLB.
 

GleefulGary

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2017
Messages
5,012
Reaction score
505
I could see us trading back. I think from pick 20ish to pick 60ish there isn't too much drop off this year. There will be players going in the early 2nd round who can have an impact as rookies for the Packers. WR, TE, CB, OL are all possibilities, maybe even an OLB.

We have 12 picks. I hope we don't trade back unless it involves future picks.
 

thequick12

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
3,152
Reaction score
575
I could see us trading back. I think from pick 20ish to pick 60ish there isn't too much drop off this year. There will be players going in the early 2nd round who can have an impact as rookies for the Packers. WR, TE, CB, OL are all possibilities, maybe even an OLB.

The only team I'd really want to trade back with would be the bills. #14 (1100) for #21 (800) and #22 (780) a difference of 480 on the chart doesn't seem totally unrealistic if there's a potential franchise qb the bills covet available. I wouldn't give up 45,76, or 112. Because I think between those 3 picks and 21/22 you have a shot at getting 5 rookies who are day 1 impact players at positions of need, edge rusher cornerback safety wide receiver offensive line. I would however throw them Randall Cobb who would be really valuable to a rookie QB development. For example. Harold landry, jaire Alexander, Justin Reid, Christian Kirk, martainis Rankin.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,279
Reaction score
2,395
Location
PENDING
We have 12 picks. I hope we don't trade back unless it involves future picks.
I would want to trade up with the volume to promote 3rd and 4th into this range (20-50).

Currently CBS has these players ranked higher than 30.

Edmunds
Alexander
Ridley
McGlinchey
Wynn
Key
Andrews
Goedert
Vander Esch
TE Hurst
Landry

Several of those players could be our pick at 14. I don't think many will be there in the 2nd, but that means another player is dropping and will be.
 
Last edited:

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,279
Reaction score
2,395
Location
PENDING
Here is my decision matrix for our 1st pick:

1. Saquon Barkley
2. Bradely Chubb
3. Minkah Fitzpatrick
4. Tremain Edmunds
5. Derwin James
6. Quenton Nelson
7. Roquan Smith

Trade Back (if value)

8. Josh Jackson
9. Davenport
10. Vita Vea

Trade Back (more desperate)

11. Cortland Sutton
12. Landry

Just follow down the list. The highest player on the list, gets picked. Trade back is where I would seriously start exploring trades. If I don't get the right value, then go down the list.

At this point I am sure there will be at least 3 other players (QBs, OT, surprise!) gone, so someone on this list will be there.
 
Last edited:

GleefulGary

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2017
Messages
5,012
Reaction score
505
Here is my decision matrix for our 1st pick:

1. Saquon Barkley

2. Bradely Chubb

3. Minkah Fitzpatrick

4. Tremain Edmunds

5. Derwin James

6. Quenton Nelson

7. Roquan Smith

Trade Back (if value)

8. Josh Jackson

9. Davenport

10. Vita Vea

Trade Back (more desperate)

11. Cortland Sutton

12. Landry



Just follow down the list. The highest player on the list, gets picked. Trade back is where I would seriously start exploring trades. If I don't get the right value, then go down the list.


At this point I am sure there will be at least 3 other players (QBs, OT, surprise!) gone, so someone on this list will be there.

I gotcha.

I don't agree with a lot of the player values you have, but I agree with your concept.

Personally, I have Denzel Ward and Jaire Alexander significantly ahead of Josh Jackson, Landry higher than Davenport, and no WR's anywhere close to the top 20 on a big board. I think at least one of James, Ward, Alexander, or Landry should be there. So to me, trading back is a no...but for you, I get it.

Thanks for the reasoned analysis.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,279
Reaction score
2,395
Location
PENDING
I gotcha.

I don't agree with a lot of the player values you have, but I agree with your concept.

Personally, I have Denzel Ward and Jaire Alexander significantly ahead of Josh Jackson, Landry higher than Davenport, and no WR's anywhere close to the top 20 on a big board. I think at least one of James, Ward, Alexander, or Landry should be there. So to me, trading back is a no...but for you, I get it.

Thanks for the reasoned analysis.
Let me see your board for #14. I'm curious.
 

GleefulGary

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2017
Messages
5,012
Reaction score
505
Let me see your board for #14. I'm curious.

By the end of the day I'll post one.

I usually do it in tiers to separate players...not exactly 1-25 or whatever, because a lot is dependent on scheme. For example, Josh Jackson is going to be a lot better in a primarily zone scheme than man scheme, so team fit is important.

But my board will be based on the Packers, just so you know.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,949
Reaction score
2,899
This is my board for #14:
  1. T. Edmunds, LB/ED, VTU
  2. S. Barkley, RB, PSU
  3. Q. Nelson, OG, ND
  4. B. Chubb, ED, NCSU
  5. D. James, S, FSU
  6. M. Fitzpatrick, DB, UA
  7. D. Ward, CB, OSU
  8. R. Smith, LB, UGA
  9. H. Landry, ED, BC
  10. V. Vea, DL, UW
  11. L. Vander Esch, LB/ED, BSU
  12. J. Alexander, CB, LOU
  13. J. Jackson, CB, IOWA
  14. M. Davenport, ED, UTSA
When you consider that 3-5 other players are bound to go in the top 13 (3 or QB's; maybe an OT), I think we're definitely looking at having an option out of that top 10. Smith at #8 is the last guy that I consider an elite prospect. From him and up, those guys have the measurables, tape, production, and health that make you feel really good about a pick. The guys beneath them have some question marks. For example, Landry has his poor 2017 tape to contend with. I found out recently that Vea was only playing about 60% of the snaps for UW and still showing some signs of fatigue. A lot of Vander Esch's value for me would come in contributing as a pass rusher, which he didn't do a lot of in college. Alexander was hurt a lot last year. Jackson's long speed could be an issue. Davenport is raw.

So my ideal scenario would be landing any of the players, 1-8.
 

GleefulGary

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2017
Messages
5,012
Reaction score
505
This is my board for #14:
  1. T. Edmunds, LB/ED, VTU
  2. S. Barkley, RB, PSU
  3. Q. Nelson, OG, ND
  4. B. Chubb, ED, NCSU
  5. D. James, S, FSU
  6. M. Fitzpatrick, DB, UA
  7. D. Ward, CB, OSU
  8. R. Smith, LB, UGA
  9. H. Landry, ED, BC
  10. V. Vea, DL, UW
  11. L. Vander Esch, LB/ED, BSU
  12. J. Alexander, CB, LOU
  13. J. Jackson, CB, IOWA
  14. M. Davenport, ED, UTSA
When you consider that 3-5 other players are bound to go in the top 13 (3 or QB's; maybe an OT), I think we're definitely looking at having an option out of that top 10. Smith at #8 is the last guy that I consider an elite prospect. From him and up, those guys have the measurables, tape, production, and health that make you feel really good about a pick. The guys beneath them have some question marks. For example, Landry has his poor 2017 tape to contend with. I found out recently that Vea was only playing about 60% of the snaps for UW and still showing some signs of fatigue. A lot of Vander Esch's value for me would come in contributing as a pass rusher, which he didn't do a lot of in college. Alexander was hurt a lot last year. Jackson's long speed could be an issue. Davenport is raw.

So my ideal scenario would be landing any of the players, 1-8.

Nobody cares what you think.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top