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

[Dantés]

Trading up for a nickel corner would be such a bonehead move that I would question the people making the calls.

Please!

No one suggested trading up for a nickel corner.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

My issue with taking any RB in the top 10 (I would even go so far as to argue first round in some occasions) is the cost associated. Taking a guy like Barkley in the top 10 means that by his 5th year, if he's actually good, he's going to be costing you $10-12 million per year...which is an exorbitant amount to pay a RB.

RB's are value wise, really, really cheap. Why? They're easily replaceable, they get injured far more frequently than any other position, and they're just not that important.

You simply do not need an elite RB to win football games. Sure, it helps, but the cost associated isn't worth it. Zeke Elliot is a great RB, but Dallas would've been far better off taking Jaley Ramsay. Is Barkley really that much better than Guice, Michel? I don't think so...not at the opportunity cost. Leonard Fournette, is currently the 5th highest average salary for a RB and he's on his rookie contract. He most likely will be bumped down by Barkley, but it just depends on where Barkley goes. That's a crazy amount of money to pay for a position that just isn't worth it.

Really, when it comes to money, your three weakest positions are RB, ILB, and S. The draft should reflect that as well. You don't want to overdraft those positions, but especially with RB. Don't waste money on RB's.

Solid logic.....but I will respectfully disagree.
The exception to the rule are those rare rbs that can put a team on their shoulders, and win. Barry Sanders, Adrian Peterson, ladanian Tomlinson, Steven Jackson..... and the tier right below them that slice and dice you just the same in less dramatic fashion, like Lavean bell, beast mode, priest Holmes/Larry Johnson/ Jamal Charles all had their moments in time. Among many others... but only a hand full in the league at a time, have a rb who forces teams to commit to stopping him...

And that's the point. We already have #12... they can't commit chiz to stopping chiz with #12 spreading the ball around. You give GB a running back who can capitalize on that fact, and this offense will literally be unstoppable...

I like our rb trio... don't get me wrong.
But I heard Barkley compared to ladanian Tomlinson... now just think for a second, how good would #12 be with L.T. in the back field? Visa versa...

I'm not sure how a player who touches the ball 10-15-20-25+ times a game. Lost value in this league? But I'd be going against the grain on that trend, for sure.

 

[Dantés]

Solid logic.....but I will respectfully disagree.
The exception to the rule are those rare rbs that can put a team on their shoulders, and win. Barry Sanders, Adrian Peterson, ladanian Tomlinson, Steven Jackson..... and the tier right below them that slice and dice you just the same in less dramatic fashion, like Lavean bell, beast mode, priest Holmes/Larry Johnson/ Jamal Charles all had their moments in time. Among many others... but only a hand full in the league at a time, have a rb who forces teams to commit to stopping him...

And that's the point. We already have #12... they can't commit chiz to stopping chiz with #12 spreading the ball around. You give GB a running back who can capitalize on that fact, and this offense will literally be unstoppable...

I like our rb trio... don't get me wrong.
But I heard Barkley compared to ladanian Tomlinson... now just think for a second, how good would #12 be with L.T. in the back field? Visa versa...

I'm not sure how a player who touches the ball 10-15-20-25+ times a game. Lost value in this league? But I'd be going against the grain on that trend, for sure.

Those running backs were amazing players, but none of those teams built around them did anything.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Ward’s weight is on the lower end, but it’s still within the range of a normal NFL corner prospect. He’s actually a lot tougher and more physical than the bigger Josh Jackson.

I read ward was 5'10" 187. I immediately though Terrell Buckley, and ahmad carroll.

But he is 5'10 7/8... so 5'11...

I'm not a fan of drafting CBs under 6'. And I want them to run a 4.4 or better... ward ran 4.32, and blew up the long jump. 39" vert. Will surely be mid 190s before too long. So Yea. He isn't too small. But he is smallish....

I'd get him at #14 if he slips. But no way do I trade up and gamble that kind of draft capital on him over coming his smallish build.

King. 6'3 1/4" 200 pounds. Ran 4.43. 39.5 vert.

If I need a guy to cover Julio Jones in the NFC championship game (again). I don't want a 5" height disadvantage. I want the king!

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Those running backs were amazing players, but none of those teams built around them did anything.

Yea because they didn't have a qb and were one dimensional. Philip rivers and LT are a great duo. But how good is rivers? Hardly a playoff appearance since LT left SD...?

Anyways. I'm not saying we should trade up. But if we did, he is the only one I wouldn't be bummed about.

 

[Dantés]

I read ward was 5'10" 187. I immediately though Terrell Buckley, and ahmad carroll.

But he is 5'10 7/8... so 5'11...

I'm not a fan of drafting CBs under 6'. And I want them to run a 4.4 or better... ward ran 4.32, and blew up the long jump. 39" vert. Will surely be mid 190s before too long. So Yea. He isn't too small. But he is smallish....

I'd get him at #14 if he slips. But no way do I trade up and gamble that kind of draft capital on him over coming his smallish build.

King. 6'3 1/4" 200 pounds. Ran 4.43. 39.5 vert.

If I need a guy to cover Julio Jones in the NFC championship game (again). I don't want a 5" height disadvantage. I want the king!

What if you need to cover Doug Baldwin in the NFC championship game?

 

[brandon2348]

What if you need to cover Doug Baldwin in the NFC championship game?

Point is its too much of a gamble to trade up inside the top 10 for a guy that might not even be able to hold up outside. If he cant hold up outside then you basically blew your whole *** on a nickle corner. Thats not smart business.

Bottom line is Ward is a nice prospect but not worth trading up for as he lacks elite size for his position.

 

[Dantés]

Point is its too much of a gamble to trade up inside the top 10 for a guy that might not even be able to hold up outside. If he cant hold up outside then you basically blew your whole *** on a nickle corner. Thats not smart business.

Bottom line is Ward is a nice prospect but not worth trading up for as he lacks elite size for his position.

I can see why someone wouldn't want to trade up for him, but I have no idea why we would assume that a 5'11" is going to be relegated to the slot. Just look around the league-- or at his OSU tape for that matter.

 

[elcid]

The only player I'd see the Pack actually trade up for is if by some inexplicable phenomenon Chubb drops to about the #7 pick.

In the NFL's Live Mock Draft Fitzpatrick, Davenport, Landry and Jackson were still among those on the board, and Charles Davis went with Davenport. If he is the pick I'd be displeased, especially if Minkah would still be on the board. Thoughts?

EDIT: FWIW, throughout these weeks I have not been overly sold on taking Landry and Jackson at 14. Now, in this NFL Live Mock Draft, Both Landry and Jackson are not taken in the entire first round (EDITCEPTION: nvm, Jackson gets taken by PHI at 32#). I do not see that happening, but I am confident that they both would last pretty deep into the second half of the round. Makes me advocate trading down a few spots even more if none of the "elite" prospects drop to us.

 

[ExpatPacker]

The only player I'd see the Pack actually trade up for is if by some inexplicable phenomenon Chubb drops to about the #7 pick.

In the NFL Live Mock Draft Fitzpatrick, Davenport, Landry and Jackson were still among those on the board, and Charles Davis went with Davenport. If he is the pick I'd be displeased, especially if Minkah would still be on the board. Thoughts?

If Fitzpatrick were still there I would want to Packers to grab him without a second thought. Most here prefer Landry to Davenport. Most Draft Rankings have Davenport ahead of Landry. Tough call that one.

 

[thequick12]

I read ward was 5'10" 187. I immediately though Terrell Buckley, and ahmad carroll.

But he is 5'10 7/8... so 5'11...

I'm not a fan of drafting CBs under 6'. And I want them to run a 4.4 or better... ward ran 4.32, and blew up the long jump. 39" vert. Will surely be mid 190s before too long. So Yea. He isn't too small. But he is smallish....

I'd get him at #14 if he slips. But no way do I trade up and gamble that kind of draft capital on him over coming his smallish build.

King. 6'3 1/4" 200 pounds. Ran 4.43. 39.5 vert.

If I need a guy to cover Julio Jones in the NFC championship game (again). I don't want a 5" height disadvantage. I want the king!

Ok so 1 inch makes that big a difference? You said you thought he was 5' 10" but he's actually 5'11" so he's ok now. I think what actually matters is whether the dude can play and ward can. However I don't want the Packers to draft him at 14 because he hasn't shown himself to be a play maker having only 2 career ints doesn't do it for me that high in the draft. Now he could certainly become a playmaker in the NFL I'm just not counting on it so I'd pass on him

 

[PackerDNA]

The same thing that intrigues me about Fitzpatrick is the same thing that intrigues me about James; their versatility.

 

[thequick12]

The same thing that intrigues me about Fitzpatrick is the same thing that intrigues me about James; their versatility.

Big difference because Fitzpatrick is a play maker 9 career ints 4 returned for tds. If Packers get the chance to draft him it's a no brainer

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Ok so 1 inch makes that big a difference? You said you thought he was 5' 10" but he's actually 5'11" so he's ok now. I think what actually matters is whether the dude can play and ward can. However I don't want the Packers to draft him at 14 because he hasn't shown himself to be a play maker having only 2 career ints doesn't do it for me that high in the draft. Now he could certainly become a playmaker in the NFL I'm just not counting on it so I'd pass on him

Like I said. I want 6'+ to cover the 6'3+ wrs out there. That's the line I draw. The 4.32, long jump and vert give reason to let that 1 1/8" slide. But to me, that's a nickel cb. To cover those Doug Baldwin types...

Julio ran like a 4.32 40 too. At nearly 220 and 6'3"+......

I don't care if other teams get by with 5'11" CBs. Not many of them are under 190 I bet..... and I wouldn't expect any of them to be able to cover Julio 1 on 1. Or any of the other super sized freak athlete receivers out there...

That's just me.

But maybe 10 years of Thompson drafting 5'11" CBs (and none stuck) was a fluke? Maybe us finally drafting king, Jones, fa house, and the new bigger stronger, more physical CBs, shows the new leadership agreed with me.

 

[GleefulGary]

1) A slot CB is still an NFL starter. This isn't the 90's.

2) You can be 5'10 and play outside.

3) Ward can only play slot just like Anthony Miller can't play outside. Don't scout only by size.

4) EVEN IF Ward doesn't work outside and has to move inside, that's not that big of a deal. Can a guy like Josh Jackson with his tackling abilities move to SAF if he doesn't work at CB? I think that's skeptical.

5) Slot CB is a really important position.

 

[GleefulGary]

Like I said. I want 6'+ to cover the 6'3+ wrs out there. That's the line I draw. The 4.32, long jump and vert give reason to let that 1 1/8" slide. But to me, that's a nickel cb. To cover those Doug Baldwin types...

Julio ran like a 4.32 40 too. At nearly 220 and 6'3"+......

I don't care if other teams get by with 5'11" CBs. Not many of them are under 190 I bet..... and I wouldn't expect any of them to be able to cover Julio 1 on 1. Or any of the other super sized freak athlete receivers out there...

That's just me.

But maybe 10 years of Thompson drafting 5'11" CBs (and none stuck) was a fluke? Maybe us finally drafting king, Jones, fa house, and the new bigger stronger, more physical CBs, shows the new leadership agreed with me.

Juilio is a freak. Remember when we drafted guys to cover Moss? That worked out well.

Packers have a hard rule of 5'10.5"

 

[AmishMafia]

Like I said. I want 6'+ to cover the 6'3+ wrs out there. That's the line I draw. The 4.32, long jump and vert give reason to let that 1 1/8" slide. But to me, that's a nickel cb. To cover those Doug Baldwin types...

Julio ran like a 4.32 40 too. At nearly 220 and 6'3"+......

I don't care if other teams get by with 5'11" CBs. Not many of them are under 190 I bet..... and I wouldn't expect any of them to be able to cover Julio 1 on 1. Or any of the other super sized freak athlete receivers out there...

That's just me.

But maybe 10 years of Thompson drafting 5'11" CBs (and none stuck) was a fluke? Maybe us finally drafting king, Jones, fa house, and the new bigger stronger, more physical CBs, shows the new leadership agreed with me.

I can tell you read the book: "All you need to know is the CBs height - How to be a successful NFL GM" by Matt Millen.

With all your tall CBs how are you going to cover all the new breed of short quick WRs like Brown, Beckham, Hilton, cooks, and Landry? That's why they are so successful because these tall CBs don't have the cutting change of direction to match up.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I can tell you read the book: "All you need to know is the CBs height - How to be a successful NFL GM" by Matt Millen.

I missed that book, is that on the shelf next to "How to Butcher a Lion"?

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I can tell you read the book: "All you need to know is the CBs height - How to be a successful NFL GM" by Matt Millen.

With all your tall CBs how are you going to cover all the new breed of short quick WRs like Brown, Beckham, Hilton, cooks, and Landry? That's why they are so successful because these tall CBs don't have the cutting change of direction to match up.

No.....
I just want my CBs to be somewhat comparable in stature to those super sized freak athletes they need to cover... why would we enter a plan knowing we enter with a legitimate disadvantage? At least try to find the good CBs out of the larger faster guys out there...

This is how I would approach drafting CBs.

6'+ in one pile. 5'11" in a small pile on the side, as due diligence requires. Rest in the garbage. Then look for talent in those two piles...

If Thompson had been doing that the last 10 years, I would bet we would have found that they too would have developed into good CBs in time. And brought the size, speed, strength with them...

I have always believed in a bigger picture def scheme that starts with a world class NT. Giving the defense a +1 man advantage. And where defenses usually lose that +1,is covering the #1 wr, who can't be covered 1 on 1... the only way to keep the +1, and allow the defense to stay aggressive in the blitz, is to have a shut down cb who can cover their #1, 1 on 1.....

And now days you need two CBs of that caliber...

So I would be drafting Kevin kings, and Josh jonses, from round 1 through udfa, when they shown themselves available. Until my cb group is able to do their job for the scheme... it's that important to me.

 

[GleefulGary]

Josh Jones is a box safety. I don't think he applies.

I like Kevin King, but there are plenty of guys a few inches shorter who are better CB's.

 

[ThePerfectBeard]

I think people forget how good Chris Harris (5'10") and Jason Verrett (5'10"maybe) are and if you open the height restraint to 5'11", there's a ton of corner back talent. Realistically, Ward has to be considered 5'11".

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I like Kevin King, but there are plenty of guys a few inches shorter who are better CB's.

and without long term shoulder issues. I really hope King works out, but given that his shoulder has been an issue for him for quite awhile, I am still a bit miffed at the pick last year.

 

[Dantés]

If Fitzpatrick were still there I would want to Packers to grab him without a second thought. Most here prefer Landry to Davenport. Most Draft Rankings have Davenport ahead of Landry. Tough call that one.

This made me curious, so I looked into it.

• Jeremiah: Davenport
• Zierlein: Landry
• Brugler: Davenport
• Rang: Davenport
• Optimum Scouting: Landry
• Norris: Landry
• Mayock: Davenport
• PFF: Landry
• CBS: Davenport
• NDT Scouting: Landry

Am I missing anyone reputable? I exclude the espn guys because they're buffoons who don't watch football.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This made me curious, so I looked into it.

• Jeremiah: Davenport
• Zierlein: Landry
• Brugler: Davenport
• Rang: Davenport
• Optimum Scouting: Landry
• Norris: Landry
• Mayock: Davenport
• PFF: Landry
• CBS: Davenport
• NDT Scouting: Landry

Am I missing anyone reputable? I exclude the espn guys because they're buffoons who don't watch football.

I still see Josh Jackson's name thrown around alot with the Packers pick. But yes, Davenport and Landry seem to be the common names associated with the Packers right now. I have had both players as well as Jackson as my Amish Draft picks for awhile now. I have to keep reminding myself, it isn't who I want, it is how I think the draft will fall and who I think the Packers will pick.

 

[Dantés]

I still see Josh Jackson's name thrown around alot with the Packers pick. But yes, Davenport and Landry seem to be the common names associated with the Packers right now. I have had both players as well as Jackson as my Amish Draft picks for awhile now. I have to keep reminding myself, it isn't who I want, it is how I think the draft will fall and who I think the Packers will pick.

JanisJubilee turned me on to @eric_crocker (former NFL player). He has a long thread on Josh Jackson. In games he watched, 0 INT's from man coverage-- all of it came in zone. So if they're going to draft him, it would seem they should be prepared to play a lot of zone.

He also has a great break down on Isaac Yiadom in there, who is my favorite target if they don't take a corner in the first 2 rounds.