Announcement PH Beta → Check it out! Click Me! (you might be see "unsafe", but it is safe)
PackFanWithTwins
16 years ago
Just about every DE I see in this draft is on the small side. Most are 260 or less. There are only a couple 270 or above, at least that are currently shown in the top of the class. I am not sold on the small DE in the 4-3 the team plays. They are easily moved in the run game. That is why Jenkins was moved to DE in the first place.

Do we really want to draft a DE high in the draft that is going to get a big check and not be an every down player. I am thinking that if there is not a great Olineman at #9, a trade back in the 1st picking up a 2nd in the process and have the ability to pick up a 300 lb DT that has the ability to play DE run also. I am just picturing having two Jenkins playing at the same time with the flexibility to move them around and cause havoc.

Then probably having two early 2nds to fill the Oline with.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
go.pack.go.
16 years ago

Just about every DE I see in this draft is on the small side. Most are 260 or less. There are only a couple 270 or above, at least that are currently shown in the top of the class. I am not sold on the small DE in the 4-3 the team plays. They are easily moved in the run game. That is why Jenkins was moved to DE in the first place.

Do we really want to draft a DE high in the draft that is going to get a big check and not be an every down player. I am thinking that if there is not a great Olineman at #9, a trade back in the 1st picking up a 2nd in the process and have the ability to pick up a 300 lb DT that has the ability to play DE run also. I am just picturing having two Jenkins playing at the same time with the flexibility to move them around and cause havoc.

Then probably having two early 2nds to fill the Oline with.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:



That's actually a really good idea. Who is another "Jenkins" in the draft that can play DE and DT though?

By the way, Brian Orakpo is 6'4" - 260 lbs and he has run a 4.62 40 yard dash. I think that if he is still on the board at #9, we should take him. If not, we should go with your plan...But is there a DT that can play DE in the NFL? Or the other way around? (DE that can play DT)
UserPostedImage
PackFanWithTwins
16 years ago
There are a few around 300 lbs with sub 5 second 40's. I will have to keep and eye out a few of them are under classmen. I am just worried about a undersized early pick being a project (waiting on size) or only being a pass rusher for starter money.

I like the prospect of a player coming in being able to play run and pass, and if he bulks up becoming just a DT.

All in all it was just an idea and option to look outside the first big names that appear.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
toronto_cheesehead
16 years ago

Just about every DE I see in this draft is on the small side. Most are 260 or less. There are only a couple 270 or above, at least that are currently shown in the top of the class. I am not sold on the small DE in the 4-3 the team plays. They are easily moved in the run game. That is why Jenkins was moved to DE in the first place.

Do we really want to draft a DE high in the draft that is going to get a big check and not be an every down player. I am thinking that if there is not a great Olineman at #9, a trade back in the 1st picking up a 2nd in the process and have the ability to pick up a 300 lb DT that has the ability to play DE run also. I am just picturing having two Jenkins playing at the same time with the flexibility to move them around and cause havoc.

Then probably having two early 2nds to fill the Oline with.

"go.pack.go." wrote:



That's actually a really good idea. Who is another "Jenkins" in the draft that can play DE and DT though?

By the way, Brian Orakpo is 6'4" - 260 lbs and he has run a 4.62 40 yard dash. I think that if he is still on the board at #9, we should take him. If not, we should go with your plan...But is there a DT that can play DE in the NFL? Or the other way around? (DE that can play DT)

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:



Jackson from LSU seems to fit that profile. He play DE on running downs and DT on passing downs. Fili Moala out of USC has been mentioned as a DT/DE, but I think as a DE he's being talked about as a 5-technique, so in our scheme he'd probably just be a tackle.
blank
go.pack.go.
16 years ago

Just about every DE I see in this draft is on the small side. Most are 260 or less. There are only a couple 270 or above, at least that are currently shown in the top of the class. I am not sold on the small DE in the 4-3 the team plays. They are easily moved in the run game. That is why Jenkins was moved to DE in the first place.

Do we really want to draft a DE high in the draft that is going to get a big check and not be an every down player. I am thinking that if there is not a great Olineman at #9, a trade back in the 1st picking up a 2nd in the process and have the ability to pick up a 300 lb DT that has the ability to play DE run also. I am just picturing having two Jenkins playing at the same time with the flexibility to move them around and cause havoc.

Then probably having two early 2nds to fill the Oline with.

"toronto_cheesehead" wrote:



That's actually a really good idea. Who is another "Jenkins" in the draft that can play DE and DT though?

By the way, Brian Orakpo is 6'4" - 260 lbs and he has run a 4.62 40 yard dash. I think that if he is still on the board at #9, we should take him. If not, we should go with your plan...But is there a DT that can play DE in the NFL? Or the other way around? (DE that can play DT)

"go.pack.go." wrote:



Jackson from LSU seems to fit that profile. He play DE on running downs and DT on passing downs. Fili Moala out of USC has been mentioned as a DT/DE, but I think as a DE he's being talked about as a 5-technique, so in our scheme he'd probably just be a tackle.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:



Well, I still think we should go Orakpo if he's still on the board.
UserPostedImage
toronto_cheesehead
16 years ago

Just about every DE I see in this draft is on the small side. Most are 260 or less. There are only a couple 270 or above, at least that are currently shown in the top of the class. I am not sold on the small DE in the 4-3 the team plays. They are easily moved in the run game. That is why Jenkins was moved to DE in the first place.

Do we really want to draft a DE high in the draft that is going to get a big check and not be an every down player. I am thinking that if there is not a great Olineman at #9, a trade back in the 1st picking up a 2nd in the process and have the ability to pick up a 300 lb DT that has the ability to play DE run also. I am just picturing having two Jenkins playing at the same time with the flexibility to move them around and cause havoc.

Then probably having two early 2nds to fill the Oline with.

"go.pack.go." wrote:



That's actually a really good idea. Who is another "Jenkins" in the draft that can play DE and DT though?

By the way, Brian Orakpo is 6'4" - 260 lbs and he has run a 4.62 40 yard dash. I think that if he is still on the board at #9, we should take him. If not, we should go with your plan...But is there a DT that can play DE in the NFL? Or the other way around? (DE that can play DT)

"toronto_cheesehead" wrote:



Jackson from LSU seems to fit that profile. He play DE on running downs and DT on passing downs. Fili Moala out of USC has been mentioned as a DT/DE, but I think as a DE he's being talked about as a 5-technique, so in our scheme he'd probably just be a tackle.

"go.pack.go." wrote:



Well, I still think we should go Orakpo if he's still on the board.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:



Well at 9 Orakpo would definitely be a better pick. Jackson and Moala are probably first rounders, but not until the latter third of the first round.
blank
go.pack.go.
16 years ago
I think a first rounder is a first rounder if that's what you need......
UserPostedImage
TheEngineer
16 years ago
How easy is it to get the player to put on some additional pounds?
blank
porky88
16 years ago

Just about every DE I see in this draft is on the small side. Most are 260 or less. There are only a couple 270 or above, at least that are currently shown in the top of the class. I am not sold on the small DE in the 4-3 the team plays. They are easily moved in the run game. That is why Jenkins was moved to DE in the first place.

Do we really want to draft a DE high in the draft that is going to get a big check and not be an every down player. I am thinking that if there is not a great Olineman at #9, a trade back in the 1st picking up a 2nd in the process and have the ability to pick up a 300 lb DT that has the ability to play DE run also. I am just picturing having two Jenkins playing at the same time with the flexibility to move them around and cause havoc.

Then probably having two early 2nds to fill the Oline with.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:



You develop him as an every down player. Even if he doesn't play first down and 10 all the often doesn't mean he's a bad pick. The Packers get beat through the air because of the lack of pass rush and if you add that, you get a much better defense. That's what the No. 9 pick is all about. Adding an impact player and pass rush is as important as any aspect of the game.

As far as two Jenkins' goes. I think we forget he was a big time bust in 2007. Jenkins is a flexible player that creates flexibility in your defense, but he's not worth having if you can't have a player to plug in for him at DT on running downs or DE on passing downs. To use Jenkins properly, the Packers will need to grab that type of player whether it's Brian Orakpo or Everrett Brown or Gerald McCoy the DT from OU.
go.pack.go.
15 years ago

Just about every DE I see in this draft is on the small side. Most are 260 or less. There are only a couple 270 or above, at least that are currently shown in the top of the class. I am not sold on the small DE in the 4-3 the team plays. They are easily moved in the run game. That is why Jenkins was moved to DE in the first place.

Do we really want to draft a DE high in the draft that is going to get a big check and not be an every down player. I am thinking that if there is not a great Olineman at #9, a trade back in the 1st picking up a 2nd in the process and have the ability to pick up a 300 lb DT that has the ability to play DE run also. I am just picturing having two Jenkins playing at the same time with the flexibility to move them around and cause havoc.

Then probably having two early 2nds to fill the Oline with.

"porky88" wrote:



You develop him as an every down player. Even if he doesn't play first down and 10 all the often doesn't mean he's a bad pick. The Packers get beat through the air because of the lack of pass rush and if you add that, you get a much better defense. That's what the No. 9 pick is all about. Adding an impact player and pass rush is as important as any aspect of the game.

As far as two Jenkins' goes. I think we forget he was a big time bust in 2007. Jenkins is a flexible player that creates flexibility in your defense, but he's not worth having if you can't have a player to plug in for him at DT on running downs or DE on passing downs. To use Jenkins properly, the Packers will need to grab that type of player whether it's Brian Orakpo or Everrett Brown or Gerald McCoy the DT from OU.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:



Jolly isn't that bad at stopping the run. We could plug him in there while he's at DE and we can put Orakpo /Brown/Whoever we get at DE in passing situations. Also, we could get a big DT in the second round that can give Jenkins a rest.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (18m) : Kanata, seek help! lol
beast (2h) : I was rooting for the Bears to win and hurt their draft pick status
Zero2Cool (2h) : Forgot there was even a game last night haha
TheKanataThrilla (2h) : That was terrible.
TheKanataThrilla (2h) : Watching that game in its entirety yesterday is proof positive that I am a football addict.
beast (3h) : And horrible time management multiple times... and not being able to score more than 3 points on a team with talent
beast (3h) : Realizing the Bears didn't fix it from the previous week and do the same thing, getting the game to overtime
beast (3h) : They probably are not tanking, but they've absolutely mismanagement some things, such as Vikings seeing the Packers blocked FG and realizing
Zero2Cool (4h) : Crazy of Bears to have that mindset that is
Zero2Cool (4h) : Hail Mary stop away from 5 - 2. Not sure how that flips to tanking. Crazy mindset if true
beast (4h) : I've quietly questioned if Bears are tanking on purpose... they suddenly got a lot worse with some simple concepts like 101 clock management
wpr (7h) : Watching bares fans melt down over how putrid their team is, so enjoyable. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Mucky Tundra (14h) : The Seattle Seahawks defeat the Chicago Bears 6-3. Jason Myers had 6 RBIs for Seattle while Cairo Santos had 3 RBI for Chicago
beast (15h) : Not nessarily, he might of been injured either way. He's playing about 50% of the games the last 4 years
Zero2Cool (21h) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.
packerfanoutwest (21h) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it
beast (23h) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done
Zero2Cool (26-Dec) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.
Mucky Tundra (26-Dec) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore
packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!
Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!
beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : 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
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
18m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

37m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

39m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

1h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

1h / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

11h / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Dec / Random Babble / beast

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.