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

[Dantés]

Hey now, stop doing this! Did you read my draft prediction? LOL You (and I) set it up to be about the worst case scenario for the Packers here! Really, this leaves you with Jackson or Vea, unless you like a top WR. I'm not a Jackson fan and I don't think Vea fits a current need. So at that point, I am hoping 2 teams want Mason Rudolph or Lamar Jackson really bad and are willing to trade up with us to get him ahead of Arizona. Then fall back and take Vander Esch, Sutton or Rashaan Evans. Packers might really like Sutton or even Ridley, so if grabbing the first WR off the board is the only option, it could be worse I guess.

I think I’d be inclined towards Jackson or Hurst in that spot.

If they feel they can teach Jackson to use his length effectively and be physical as a press corner, he’s Marcus Peters. That’s a significant “if” but it would be a big pay off. I personally really like Alexander, but the Packers don’t look at short corners so that’s kind of moot.

Hurst does not address a need, but I think I’d take his pass rushing ability over Vea’s. Daniels is entering his age 29 season and has two years left on his deal. His role as a 3T pass rusher is really important. They will likely be looking for a replacement in next year’s draft if Adams doesn’t show a lot this year. So having a really good heir apparent wouldn’t be totally useless.

But this is probably not realistic. I think it’s pretty likely that at least one more QB or OT or DT goes top 13 and pushes someone else down. Heck, Jackson or Hurst might be someone’s “guy” above us for all I know .

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think I’d be inclined towards Jackson or Hurst in that spot.

If they feel they can teach Jackson to use his length effectively and be physical as a press corner, he’s Marcus Peters. That’s a significant “if” but it would be a big pay off. I personally really like Alexander, but the Packers don’t look at short corners so that’s kind of moot.

Hurst does not address a need, but I think I’d take his pass rushing ability over Vea’s. Daniels is entering his age 29 season and has two years left on his deal. His role as a 3T pass rusher is really important. They will likely be looking for a replacement in next year’s draft if Adams doesn’t show a lot this year. So having a really good heir apparent wouldn’t be totally useless.

But this is probably not realistic. I think it’s pretty likely that at least one more QB or OT or DT goes top 13 and pushes someone else down. Heck, Jackson or Hurst might be someone’s “guy” above us for all I know .

Call it the "Randall/Rollins effect", but I'm looking at Jackson and wondering if we would just be repeating the same exercise of trying to find a CB high in the draft, that isn't quite NFL ready and whiffing. Heck, I'm not even sold on King yet, mainly due to his shoulder. Jackson could very well turn out to be a future Pro Bowler and I will leave that up to the guys evaluating him. I won't be too excited if he is our pick, but what do I know.

 

[Dantés]

Call it the "Randall/Rollins effect", but I'm looking at Jackson and wondering if we would just be repeating the same exercise of trying to find a CB high in the draft, that isn't quite NFL ready and whiffing. Heck, I'm not even sold on King yet, mainly due to his shoulder. Jackson could very well turn out to be a future Pro Bowler and I will leave that up to the guys evaluating him. I won't be too excited if he is our pick, but what do I know.

I wouldn't shy away from top corners because of one bad draft, but I know what you're saying. Here's why I comp him to Peters.

Height:
-Peters: 6'0"
-Jones: 6'0.38"

Weight:
-197 lbs
-196 lbs

Arm Length:
-31.5"
-31.13"

Hand Size:
-8.38"
-9.38"

Forty:
-4.53
-4.56

Vertical:
-37.5"
-38"

Broad:
-121"
-123"

Three Cone:
-7.08
-6.86

Short Shuttle:
-4.08
-4.03

Bench:
-17 reps
-18 reps

In terms of size and athleticism, these guys are darn near identical. The only significant difference is the 3C, where Jackson has a pretty big advantage.

In terms of their games, they have the same crazy ball skills. The big difference is that Peters the prospect absolutely crushed receivers at the LOS. He got hands on them and really got them off their game.

Jackson isn’t physical in press. He’s been effective in college in man coverage despite that , but I worry about a guy in the mid 4.5’s trying to hang with NFL receivers without putting hands on them.

So the above is basically why I would take him if the board broke poorly, and why I would prefer a different option ideally.

 

[GleefulGary]

Here's what I would consider to be a worst case scenario:

1. CLE: S. Darnold, QB, USC
2. NYG: J. Rosen, QB, UCLA
3. NYJ: J. Allen, QB, WYO
4. CLE: S. Barkley, RB, PSU
5. DEN: B. Mayfield, QB, OK
6. IND: B. Chubb, DE, NCSU
7. TB: Q. Nelson, G, ND
8. CHI: T. Edmunds, LB, VTU
9. SF: H. Landry, ED, BC
10. OAK: D. Ward, CB, OSU
11. MIA: M. Fitzpatrick, DB, UA
12. BUF: R. Smith, LB, UGA
13. WAS: D. James, S, FSU

So in this scenario, Jackson does not go top 13 and no OT's or DT's sneak up there. So all of the guys that I personally would consider "blue chip" prospects are gone. Say a trade down is not an option-- who you taking?

Jaire Alexander.

Josh Jackson.

Marcus Davenport.

Mike McGlinchley.

Connor Williams.

 

[OldSchool101]

There seems to be a near universal lock on the first 5-6 players on the mocks, at least in some mix of that top grouping.
As we know, the QB position dominates the day, with at least 6 teams ahead of us and 2 just behind us listing that as one of their top 2 concerns. That 6 teams ahead of us vying for what is realistically 4-5 Upper echelon QBs.

I’ve noticed that generally the next largest common denominator of need is at CB, with 5 teams in front of us listing CB as a significant need. One of those is Cleveland and we know they will go QB first with a high probability of Saquon next (that’s too much to pass on).
That leaves 4 remaining teams ahead of GB looking hard at CB as one of their top needs. Unfortunately, GB is on the outside looking in at CB day 1 unless we trade up drastically (and that’s very costly).
Next. Edge, OL and LB hold a tie with the next greatest need at 3 teams apiece. However those exact 3 teams are projected to pick at QB or RB in that initial grouping and they just happen to eliminate 1 of each position. That leaves 6 remaining teams all looking at Edge (2) OL (2) LB (2) intently just before us.
If my math is correct (and it might be off completely) the worst thing that can happen is you have that second OL position slip away out of focus (We can assume Q.Nelson is already gone)
Any mixture of several events would help us greatly:

1. We need a 5th QB to go before #14 (luckily there are 2 reserve teams ahead of us needing QBs that probably won’t get one so if a top team neglects a QB that’s insurance for us)
2. We need a 2nd OL to go early before us.
3. We need a surprise pick (Saquon/Nelson are the only relative guaranteed) at another Offense position like WR/TE/RB (very possible) I’ve seen several mocks that have either Ridley or Sutton go before #14.

Another issue that concerns me, for any of those 4 teams ahead of us that don’t get a CB day 1, they will be picking ahead of us in the “leftovers” scrap pile early day 2.

We should think hard about a trade deal with Cleveland early 2nd day, especially if we don’t value one of the remaining CBs worthy of #14. I’d rather stay pat at #14 and work on Edge, LB/S or WR during the 1st round and hit CB hard rounds 2-4 using draft capital to leverage up if necessary.

 

[PikeBadger]

Yeah. I'm reminded of the consensus voices in these pages calling for Davante Adams' head after 2015, some parroting McGuin's assessment.

Spriggs showed improvement over the last 1/3 of the season. When that stops I'll be willing to reassess. In the mean time, solidifying the RG position is the priority.

Lol, yes indeed. We have a significant number here that don’t believe in player development. They expect every player to be NFL ready on day 1 of their career. It’s the men’s league, it doesn’t work that way very often.

 

[AmishMafia]

Here's what I would consider to be a worst case scenario:

1. CLE: S. Darnold, QB, USC
2. NYG: J. Rosen, QB, UCLA
3. NYJ: J. Allen, QB, WYO
4. CLE: S. Barkley, RB, PSU
5. DEN: B. Mayfield, QB, OK
6. IND: B. Chubb, DE, NCSU
7. TB: Q. Nelson, G, ND
8. CHI: T. Edmunds, LB, VTU
9. SF: H. Landry, ED, BC
10. OAK: D. Ward, CB, OSU
11. MIA: M. Fitzpatrick, DB, UA
12. BUF: R. Smith, LB, UGA
13. WAS: D. James, S, FSU

So in this scenario, Jackson does not go top 13 and no OT's or DT's sneak up there. So all of the guys that I personally would consider "blue chip" prospects are gone. Say a trade down is not an option-- who you taking?

At the moment I would lean towards Jackson. We need his playmaking ability. Vea may be the better player and I waiver between the two.

We can expect the unexpected though and I think it likely there is a pitch from left field in the top 13. A 5th QB, guise, RB Jones, Vea, Wynn, ??? Who knows. James, Fitzpatrick, Edmunds or ward are all possibly available. All victims of over-analysis.

I am actually thinking Ward maybe available. A team picking before us will be considering that a starting CB will be available with their 2nd round pick. Therefore they will grab other positions of similar talent with their 1st.

If we go ward with the 1st, we aren't going to find a decent edge later unless Landry makes it that far which I doubt. We will probably be looking WR or TE then.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Lol, yes indeed. We have a significant number here that don’t believe in player development. They expect every player to be NFL ready on day 1 of their career. It’s the men’s league, it doesn’t work that way very often.

I don't think I have seen many people posting about being disappointed in a player that wasn't ready on day 1 of their career. Any average fan is well aware of the rookie learning curve and development, its the Packer way after all. However, peoples patience grow thin with a player over the course of time, just how thin depends on the person and their expectations. We could go through the last 20 years of the Packers draft and look at all the first and second round picks, which I believe are guys you expect to eventually start, the "development patience and results" would vary widely with most of those picks.

This conversation got started about Spriggs. Some of us didn't like the pick nor the cost of obtaining him from day one. Then when his early play confirmed that he was going to need a lot of work, those feelings were strengthened. Like I said a number of posts ago, I really hope Spriggs works out, but I don't see anything wrong with being one of those fans that is still nervously scratching his head over the pick 2 years later.

 

[Dantés]

At the moment I would lean towards Jackson. We need his playmaking ability. Vea may be the better player and I waiver between the two.

We can expect the unexpected though and I think it likely there is a pitch from left field in the top 13. A 5th QB, guise, RB Jones, Vea, Wynn, ??? Who knows. James, Fitzpatrick, Edmunds or ward are all possibly available. All victims of over-analysis.

I am actually thinking Ward maybe available. A team picking before us will be considering that a starting CB will be available with their 2nd round pick. Therefore they will grab other positions of similar talent with their 1st.

If we go ward with the 1st, we aren't going to find a decent edge later unless Landry makes it that far which I doubt. We will probably be looking WR or TE then.

I am wondering if Ward with be gone but Fitzpatrick will fall. But in general, I agree— I do believe that between 1-3 will be available from the back end of that Nelson, Barkley, Chubb, Edmunds, Ward, James, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Landry group.

 

[GleefulGary]

I think I’d be inclined towards Jackson or Hurst in that spot.

If they feel they can teach Jackson to use his length effectively and be physical as a press corner, he’s Marcus Peters. That’s a significant “if” but it would be a big pay off. I personally really like Alexander, but the Packers don’t look at short corners so that’s kind of moot.

Hurst does not address a need, but I think I’d take his pass rushing ability over Vea’s. Daniels is entering his age 29 season and has two years left on his deal. His role as a 3T pass rusher is really important. They will likely be looking for a replacement in next year’s draft if Adams doesn’t show a lot this year. So having a really good heir apparent wouldn’t be totally useless.

But this is probably not realistic. I think it’s pretty likely that at least one more QB or OT or DT goes top 13 and pushes someone else down. Heck, Jackson or Hurst might be someone’s “guy” above us for all I know .

Regarding Alexander's height, the Packers are bringing in Mike Hughes (UCF) for a visit and Hughes is 5'10 1/8. So maybe they'll be more flexible with their rules there.

Also, I always forget him, but Hurst >>> Vea. Vea can kind of penetrate, but is more of a gapper. Hurst penetrates, and that's more valuable.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I saw the Packers are talking to Hughes and I know they are just interviewing as many guys as they think might be an option. I wonder though, Hughes has moved up steadily in the mocks, are they considering him at 14 or if they trade back? I very much doubt he will be there when the Packers are scheduled to pick in the 2nd.

 

[Dantés]

Regarding Alexander's height, the Packers are bringing in Mike Hughes (UCF) for a visit and Hughes is 5'10 1/8. So maybe they'll be more flexible with their rules there.

Also, I always forget him, but Hurst >>> Vea. Vea can kind of penetrate, but is more of a gapper. Hurst penetrates, and that's more valuable.

Hurst is interesting. The outsiders are in love with him, and the more traditional NFL guys aren't super high. I tend to think he will be very successful. I read the scout quote on Zierlein's write up and it said something about 4-3 only... I just rolled my eyes. Daniels was also "4-3 only."

I really hope that the Packers drop that minimum height requirement. If they stop at 5'10", that's fine. But ruling guys like Alexander and Hughes is just stupid. I think there's a small chance that one of them makes it to #45, and that would just be peachy.

 

[GleefulGary]

I think there's a chance Hughes is there at #45. Hopefully somebody gets enamored by Carlton Davis's size and takes him over Hughes.

 

[GleefulGary]

Anyways, at #14 I'm really gonna be stumping for Landry.

 

[AmishMafia]

I am wondering if Ward with be gone but Fitzpatrick will fall. But in general, I agree— I do believe that between 1-3 will be available from the back end of that Nelson, Barkley, Chubb, Edmunds, Ward, James, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Landry group.

Don't get me wrong. Landry will be there at 14. He has a chance to make it to us in the 2nd. He is worth the risk in the 2nd, not the 1st.

As far as height requirement. I don't know that there ever was one. It's just that a CB has to make up for height in other ways and that is difficult. The trend these days are for quick shorter WRs. A shorter ward is fine now. We moved to all these tall CBs and the way to defeat them is shifty shorter wrs.

 

[Dantés]

Don't get me wrong. Landry will be there at 14. He has a chance to make it to us in the 2nd. He is worth the risk in the 2nd, not the 1st.

As far as height requirement. I don't know that there ever was one. It's just that a CB has to make up for height in other ways and that is difficult. The trend these days are for quick shorter WRs. A shorter ward is fine now. We moved to all these tall CBs and the way to defeat them is shifty shorter wrs.

I think the Packers draft history demonstrates a pretty clear height standard. That seems to be fairly common knowledge about the Wolf philosophy around the league.

My opinion on Landry— the analysts rating him anywhere close to a 2nd round prospect are too heavily weighting his injury plagued 2017. So long as he checked out fine at the combine, which he did by all accounts, he will go much higher than some expect. His 2016 was far and away the best pass rush production offered by anyone in this class. His size is not in any way disqualifying and his athletic profile is elite.

The only way he sniffs the 2nd is if his medicals revealed something chronic. Otherwise he’s a slam dunk option for the Pack at 14 and they should count their blessings because a healthy 2017 wouldn’t have landed up way up in the top 5-10 picks.

 

[AmishMafia]

I think the Packers draft history demonstrates a pretty clear height standard. That seems to be fairly common knowledge about the Wolf philosophy around the league.

CB Terrell Buckly was 5'10". He was Wolfs first pick and No. 5 overall. What fans and talking heads say is not always the way it is. Again, height is a tool, one of many a CB can use to prevent a completion.

I would draft a CB who is 5'2". As long as he runs a 4.1 40, a 65" vertical, and has 60" arms, he will shut anyone down. Looks goofy, I will give you that, but that mutant would be tough to complete a pass on.

As far as Landry goes, here is what I can tell you. Some amazing tape. And a lot of unimpressive tape. Seemed to play only for sacks and appeared uninterested in the run game. I think, he knows stats will help his draft stock. That leads me to think he is interested in fame and a big contract and less about winning and enjoying the game. Players like that usually bust. I could be wrong, I never spoke with the guy. But that is my impression.

 

[GleefulGary]

I'm sorry...Harold Landry is worth the risk in the 2nd?!

WHAT RISK?!

The risk of a day one pass rusher? How awful.

He should be a top 10 pick. Take him take him take him.

 

[GleefulGary]

CB Terrell Buckly was 5'10". He was Wolfs first pick and No. 5 overall. What fans and talking heads say is not always the way it is. Again, height is a tool, one of many a CB can use to prevent a completion.

I would draft a CB who is 5'2". As long as he runs a 4.1 40, a 65" vertical, and has 60" arms, he will shut anyone down. Looks goofy, I will give you that, but that mutant would be tough to complete a pass on.

As far as Landry goes, here is what I can tell you. Some amazing tape. And a lot of unimpressive tape. Seemed to play only for sacks and appeared uninterested in the run game. I think, he knows stats will help his draft stock. That leads me to think he is interested in fame and a big contract and less about winning and enjoying the game. Players like that usually bust. I could be wrong, I never spoke with the guy. But that is my impression.

You can extrapolate a lot of things, but that is out there man. That's a really hot take.

 

[Dantés]

CB Terrell Buckly was 5'10". He was Wolfs first pick and No. 5 overall. What fans and talking heads say is not always the way it is. Again, height is a tool, one of many a CB can use to prevent a completion.

I would draft a CB who is 5'2". As long as he runs a 4.1 40, a 65" vertical, and has 60" arms, he will shut anyone down. Looks goofy, I will give you that, but that mutant would be tough to complete a pass on.

As far as Landry goes, here is what I can tell you. Some amazing tape. And a lot of unimpressive tape. Seemed to play only for sacks and appeared uninterested in the run game. I think, he knows stats will help his draft stock. That leads me to think he is interested in fame and a big contract and less about winning and enjoying the game. Players like that usually bust. I could be wrong, I never spoke with the guy. But that is my impression.

Buckley also didn’t work out and the pattern was pretty clear from then on out. You are welcome to have your own take on the height thresholds of Wolf/Thompson, but they’re not just a media talking point... they’re backed up by the results of their drafts.

On Landry... I don’t want to start a feud with you over this guy but I do have to say that, in my opinion, that is one of the worst, most baseless draft takes I’ve seen this season. You’re going from the fact that he’s a pass rush first guy to “he’s only interested in fame and money and will probably bust”? You kidding me with that? Someone needs to go back in time and tell teams to steer clear of DeMarcus Ware, Von Miller, and Vic Beasley.

 

[AmishMafia]

Buckley also didn’t work out and the pattern was pretty clear from then on out. You are welcome to have your own take on the height thresholds of Wolf/Thompson, but they’re not just a media talking point... they’re backed up by the results of their drafts.

On Landry... I don’t want to start a feud with you over this guy but I do have to say that, in my opinion, that is one of the worst, most baseless draft takes I’ve seen this season. You’re going from the fact that he’s a pass rush first guy to “he’s only interested in fame and money and will probably bust”? You kidding me with that? Someone needs to go back in time and tell teams to steer clear of DeMarcus Ware, Von Miller, and Vic Beasley.

Ware, Miller and Beasley? Really? There is more to it than comparing numbers.

Come on man. You act like you are taking it personally. So I don't like the guy you want. Big deal. I think for you and Janis to act like there is no risk is absurd. I think he will go after pick 25. I think he will have less than 5 sacks as a rookie. I think he is a part time player.

 

[GleefulGary]

Ware, Miller and Beasley? Really? There is more to it than comparing numbers.

Come on man. You act like you are taking it personally. So I don't like the guy you want. Big deal. I think for you and Janis to act like there is no risk is absurd. I think he will go after pick 25. I think he will have less than 5 sacks as a rookie. I think he is a part time player.

1) What's wrong with a part time pass rusher as a rookie? You think he's gonna start over Matthews or Perry right away? That's not realistic.

2) Where/what is the risk? I want to know. Because he hurt his ankle his senior year? Is that the only risk?

3) If I have to choose between a guy who is good against the run, or good against the pass, I'm taking the pass rusher. It matters more. Pressure creates disruption, which creates good things.

Where's the risk? I'm not saying he's 100% going to be good. I can't say that for any player in this draft, or any draft tbh. But he's still a good player if you play him where he wins.

 

[OldSchool101]

From what I’ve seen, I think Landry is more a value at 21-30. Neither will likely go before #14 or after #45 IMO.
If Landry is who we want I’d consider trading back 3-4 spots (2-3 actually players) and using the draft capital to trade up rounds 2-4.
By going back just 4 spots (really 3 players) #19
We would acquire the draft capital to pick first in every round from 2nd through 6th without even talking about trading company picks yet. Im saying this to consider about how costly it can be to get too anxious for a player who might still be there at #25 or beyond.

If we play our cards right we could have both Harold Landry and Josh Jackson by close of day 1 without any current draft capital even changing.
Worse case a mixture of 2 of these 4:
Landry, Alexander, Jackson and L Vander-Esch.
Then we get busy trading up significantly round 3

 

[GleefulGary]

From what I’ve seen, I think Landry is more a value at 21-30. Neither will likely go before #14 or after #45 IMO.
If Landry is who we want I’d consider trading back 3-4 spots (2-3 actually players) and using the draft capital to trade up.
By going back just 4 spots (really 3 players) #19
We would acquire the draft capital to pick first in every round from 2nd through 6th without even talking about trading company picks yet. Im saying this to consider about how costly it can be to get too anxious for a player who might still be there at #25 or beyond.

Out of curiosity, who do you have ranked above Landry?

 

[GleefulGary]

Landry started, and was healthy for his sophomore and junior years.

Those two years, he accumulated 38 TFL, 20 sacks, 10 FF, and 5 pass breakups. His testing indicates very good athleticism. His tape confirms it.

I know he's flawed, I see that he can improve in a few areas...but he's still really good. If you flip his JR/SR year, you've got a guy coming out that had 22 TFL and 16.5 sacks. I think we'd be happy about that.

Draft Landry.