Green Bay Packers Draft: ILB, CB or DL?· Page 3

nerdmann
Premier Member

9 years ago

The problem is the talent level from about 20 to 50 looks pretty solid so who needs to sacrifice a pick to trade with Ted? I see a lot of pretty good players to about #50 or 55. Also, if there is a run on CB's then Ted would either have to take like the #4 player there and I agree there probably won't be a player at DL, or ILB better than some guys at other positions.

We all want one of the 3 positions picked right away but Ted may be looking at a list that has a better player at some other position like WR or RB depending on how it falls. For example if Melvin Gordon is sitting there do you grab him or the 4th highest rated CB or maybe reach for an ILB? For the long run it's always best to take the best player. Good players always find the field whereas reaching for a player usually won't turn out well.

Get the best players you can. They will find their way on the field. Just because the roster looks good at several positions today doesn't mean you won't need that guy 10 games into the season. I hate to say this but this looks like another draft where the Packers probably won't get a true 1st round talent at #30. The last thing you want to do is compound that and not at least get a good player at some position.

Gordon does play a position of need, just not a position of significant need.

He'll probably be available later, but if ALL the other good players are gone and no one wants to trade? lol. Sure, I'd take him.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

Smokey
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#22

IMO, The Packers need to use the first 6 picks of the 2015 NFL Draft to acquire 3 CB's and 3 ILB's. This would increase the odds of getting NFL quality personal for these important defensive positions .

Many of you are bouncing off the walls :

Pick a Running Back ?
Pick a Wide Receiver ?
Pick a Quarterback ?
Pick a Place Kicker ?
Pick a Tight End ?

If you can't focus clearly, then why do you post ? If you drive that way , Police pull you over for being reckless.

:microwave

Wade
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#23

Over the years, I've come to agree with the idea of trading down if the people available at the point that the Packers pick aren't the quality associated with that point in that round. I generally first rounders and second rounders into early/middle/late, and 3rd and beyond into early and late. If no player of late first or better is available at #30, try to trade down.

Of course, as was pointed out above, there may be no trade partner and you're stuck. In that case, I take the BPA approach so long as it is not a player at a position of virtually no need. (For this year's Packers, the only position of no need is "starting quarterback". (I wouldn't pick Melvin Gordon at #30 if I could trade down under good terms; but if I can't trade down and there is no one on my board ranked higher or almost as high at positions of greater need, I would take him then.) I think it's better to take a player that is late first round/early second quality at a position of lower need (Gordon) than use that same #30 pick for a player that is mid-second or lower on my board (e.g., McKinney, Perryman).

I guess I see this draft working one of two ways: there is either a lot more mid-late 1st/2nd/early 3rd trading than normal this year or a lot less. And, to be honest, I have no idea which of the two is more likely.

But because of the way the talent seems split to me, I sorta am hoping that there's a trading free for all. (Dear Dallas/Washington/other crazy drafters --- please trade up for lots of players that you shouldn't trade up for. :))

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#24

Originally Posted by: Smokey

3 each? I could go for 2 each, 1 each early and 1 each about 5th or 6th round.

Regarding the bouncing off the walls thing: WR, QB, PK, even TE, you would be correct, picking anything early would be counter-productive. RB, however, is different, not only because Melvin Gordon is a future superstar for somebody, but also because a couple years down the road, a major decision must be made about Eddie Lacy - either sign him for way too much or let him go. I would MUCH rather have Melvin Gordon than Eddie Lacy. For the present, however, Lacy is signed for less than a million (seems like I heard $837, 000). Having him AND Gordon is entirely reasonable.

As for using the first round pick for Gordon, while I can see definite need at Corner and ILB, there is NOT urgency in the sense that the pick would need to be a starter. 2nd and 3rd round respectively would be fine.

This is probably all a moot discussion, though, as I'm pretty sure the Cowboys are gonna grab Gordon at #27.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

Poppa San
Member

9 years ago

#25

Originally Posted by: Smokey

I have yet to see a serious post about taking a placekicker. Or a QB early. Use hyperbole much?
I am not sold on Quarless ever being more than a roster spot. He does nothing special that I am aware of. #30 spent on a TE with a chance to be more? You betcha. Bubba Franks type would be a large step up. A Ted Guinn type WR/KR would be a waste of a draft pick b4 the 4th round but after that, I could see it. A 1st or 2nd rd RB would be against Ted's mo but depending on how the chips fall, it could be the best value at the spot. Can't trade out without a partner. This aint the 70's , you need a dance partner.

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

I awoke this morning with a headache. I still went to work. She went back to sleep.

Smokey
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#26

Originally Posted by: Poppa San

If being :crazy: and bouncing off the walls is going to become commonplace , I believe we should pad the walls. You don't see a Dr. if nothing is wrong. The Offense is not in need, the Defense is.

What you have proposed exposes the core of the pre-draft debate: Need vs Want .
I want to be rich. I want to live in a fine house. I want the best vehicle on the market.

Yet filling need first is a primary fundamental. You need to walk before you can run. You need a job before you can buy a vehicle. The Packers need CB's and ILB,s before thinking of luxury wants.

DarkaneRules
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#27

It is best to be frugal for sure. My concern is this deal Suh got in Miami will make it harder for teams to keep their best player if he is anyone other than a franchise QB.

Circular Arguments: They are a heck of an annoyance

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#28

It is best to be frugal for sure. My concern is this deal Suh got in Miami will make it harder for teams to keep their best player if he is anyone other than a franchise QB.

Originally Posted by: DarkaneRules

That's the beauty of having a salary cap. Teams being stupid like Miami will get their superstar, but they will take it in the ass when it comes to different positions - not like a generation or so ago when rich teams like the Yankees in baseball could buy their way to the top.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

Poppa San
Member

9 years ago

#29

Originally Posted by: Smokey

Was Aaron Rodgers an immediate need? How about Cobb? One is going down the path to Canton and the other needs more time to shine. How about Perry and Datone Jones? Both were need picks yet the only way they get into Canton is with a ticket. Reaching for need is not the way.
Last year safety was a need. Good thing Ted Thompson looked ahead and picked Linsley and Adams.

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

I awoke this morning with a headache. I still went to work. She went back to sleep.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

9 years ago

#30

Between ILB, CB and DL, it has to be DL. It's just that obvious. Do you start to build a tower with the top floor? No, you start at the foundation and that is precisely what the DL is for a defense. You have a menacing DL, suddenly your linebackers are more productive as is your secondary.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

beast (4h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (9h) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (11h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (21h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (21h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (21h) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS