Pretty much the best draft ever.


https://thedraftnetwork.com/mockdraft/JFOWtDDMq7 



 20190315SharedScreenshot.jpg You have insufficient rights to see the content.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

My draft using the generator, I'd love if they came true!

My plan was to look for defense... but I couldn't help myself with some of the offensive guys.

Day 1
#12 WR D.K. Metcalf, Mississippi
#30 TE Noah Fant, Iowa

Metcalf has the physical potential to be the best WR in the NFL someday, if he's 100% healthy, then I struggled passing him up at #12... and Fant is said to be a young Jimmy Graham (whom I consider over sized WRs that they call TEs), but considering I think LaFleur is going to have 2 TEs sets with one being more of a receiver and one more of a blocker. The Packers basically get two large WR with great speed (for their size) on day 1.

Day 2
#44 S Nasir Adderley, Delaware
#75 S Deionte Thompson, Alabama

Adderley and Thompson both have GREAT athletically ability, I'd be shocked if they both fell this far, but FS might be the Packers biggest need right not considering Pettine would prefer to play man coverage and allow him to be more creative and free up front to set-up the defensive front. I'd gladly double dip for talented FS talent! (also I've been saying move Josh Jones to coverage ILB for two years now, but they need more talent at Safety to do so)


Day 3
#114 RB Damien Harris, Alabama
A power RB might be the most over looked Packers need right now, because the excitement of Aaron Jones, but the Packers reportedly had interested in power RB Mark Ingram in FA but he signed with the Ravens... but LaFleur usually has a power RB starter and a quickness/speed guy finisher! Preferably both can be used as a receiver.

Harris is a no-nonsense RB with patience but when it's time to hit and use power, he's very ready! Has good pass catching hands, but he's not the faster or most athletic and isn't gonna burn by guys.

#118 IDL Daylon Mack, Texas A&M
Mack is a short-wide NT, but what makes him different is that at times he has an explosive first burst which you really don't seem from a NT, or if you do, they're drafted very high (B.J. Raji), but Mack isn't gonna get drafted so high, because he's not consistent with it and only has one pass rush move (the bull rush), but he's pretty darn good at it, keeping his feet moving! But since the OL knows what's coming he'll be easier to stop... but a DL coach that forces him to learn more moves and a coordinator that can creative use him as a physical linemen like Pettine likes and using scheme, he potentially could be very effective... especially since he'd get one on ones with Clark in there.

#150 OL Tyler Roemer, San Diego State
#185 OL Max Scharping, Northern Illinois
Physical college LTs, that might need to move to RT or OG, but I think they could be good OL still! Roemer MIGHT be athletic enough to stay at LT especially if they run more, Scharping (who went to high school in Green Bay) is less athletic and probably shouldn't be at LT.

#194 RB Bryce Love, Stanford
#226 RB/WR/KR Tony Pollard, Memphis
Simply Love is a great speed RB, who has durability concerns and tore his ACL the last game in college and last I heard projected might not be ready for the training camp and maybe not the start of the season (so start off on PUP).

Pollard is a great kick returner (and I'm projecting Gute is gonna draft a return man after drafting two STers last year). On offense, Pollard was basically asked to do a little of everything for Memphis, from WR, RB, TE, FB to wildcat QB... one thing for sure is that he's not a blocker in the NFL... but RB seems to be where coaches mostly projecting him.

Originally Posted by: beast 

So what you are saying is we should trade all our day 1 and 2 picks for day three picks. Can you imagine the all pro team we could build.

For S&G I tried a first day draft with that strategy so check that out in that thread.

Originally Posted by: sschind 

Nice post, man. A lot of work went into that.

I like Metcalf as a prospect, although I'd be scared to pull the trigger at 12.

===================

I really like the Daylon Mack pick, as well. Pretty much the same story, though. Ridiculously explosive at 6'1 and nearly 330, but I've read in every scouting report that his work ethic and conditioning is very poor. Don't mind it as much with him, though, as we won't need him in year 1 as anything but a rotational player, with Clark on the roster.

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder 

OK, tell me:[list]

And please, spare me the draft them in the fourth round and develop them argument. We don't have the time. IMO half of our top 6 picks should be on the offensive line.

I just hope the Lombardi avenue brain trust agrees.

Originally Posted by: KRK 

In theory I got no problem with a drafting a new OT high in the draft (especially with Bulaga going into a contract year)... but the OTs talked about going in the 1st round this year have looked substandard to me compared to OTs in other 1st round years... and I'm thinking 2nd or 3rd round might be better.

I noticed none of my questions were answer in opposition to my post. The 'injury game' generally can't be played will in teams without depth in certain areas. The truth is our depth on the offensive line isn't very good and "running the ball' as the sole answer simply obfuscates the issue. Sorry for beating a 'dead horse', but the carcass is still in the room.

Beast said:
I couldn't agree more....and you posted this BEFORE the Packers' free agency signing. Now after other gaping needs were addressed in free-agency, you don't address the O Line in you mock draft, until pick #150 and #185. Other posts tend to do the same.

I am simply stating that in my opinion that posters tend to underrate our need for quality and depth at these vital positions

Originally Posted by: KRK 

I do agree that it is a bigger need than many people think but I do think that half of our top 6 picks might be a tad much unless its 2 4th rounders...,If we can get two starters out of the draft and and Turner we can slide Spriggs and Taylor back down to depth guys and we are looking much better. Still needs to be addressed as you said but not quite as forcefully.