Skip to main content

Saquon Barkley

Derwin James

Minkah Fitzpatrick

Isaiah Oliver

Josh Jackson

Carlton Davis

Roquon Smith

Tremaine Edmunds

Vita Vea

Bradley Chubb

Calvin Ridley

Quenton Nelson

Assuming at least two QBS go top 10, at the very least one of these guys will be on the board at 14 (if they don't take a shine to someone else).

That said, if a QB the Bills love is sitting there, a couple of trade scenarios could develop. One is the Bills trade #20 and #53 for #14. The Bills would still have two #1s, still have a #2 and Green Bay could miss out on one of the premier guys but grab another good player early with five picks in the first three rounds. The best bet for sliding premier guy would be Smith, Vea or Nelson due to position but the premier D-Backs and probably a couple more edge guys (maybe Landry and Davenport) are likely gone in that scenario. Still, a Rashaan Evans, DJ Chark, Kemoko Turay, Mike Gesicki, Quenton Meeks-type combo in the first three rounds would be a lot of quality hole filling.

If Gutekunst does really want two #1s, #20 and #21 would likely cost Green Bay their 1, 2 and 4. Is it important enough to potentially miss a premier player AND have fewer first four-round picks? That seems a bit steep, depending on tiers, of course. 

The other way would be if the first trade happens, then they move their 2 & 3 to get back in the Pittsburgh/Jacksonville area while still having a lower second (from Buffalo) and third (Compensatory) . I'm still not sure I like that , again it would depend on tiers.

Getting two #1s just feels fairly cost prohibitive to me with the number of holes to fill and middling cap space. Moving on from Jordy would cost them $2.3m in dead cap, if they moved from Bulaga it would cost them another $3.2m in dead cap. Not horrible but I'm never in favor of more than one O-line change in an offseason.

I'm also guessing Free Agency will be middling, especially as far as CB/Edge goes. Maybe some risk/reward signing like Jeremiah Attaochu and an older, stop-gap corner, or a Nigel Bradham/Trey Burton-type as a true starter. 

 

 

I have always been on the fence with the BPA philosophy.  I am not saying I am against it but I also think you can't stubbornly hold yourself to it.  I think we all agree that the Packers more than anything desperately need defensive playmakers.

But when the defense was just almost completely void of playmaking ability you can still go BPA but get the player on defense. 

If true BPA was an actual thing, position distribution would be wonky af. The Packers could end up with three QBs, four guards and two centers. That's why it's generally accepted there are tiers/clusters of players.later

Say you have an elite tier of Saquon Barkley, Calvin Ridley, Quenton Nelson, Roquon Smith, Tremaine Edmunds, Derwin James and Minkah Fitzpatrick. You project Edmunds as an Edge and your biggest needs are Edge and Corner. 

That's seven guys. Maybe your next tier is Josh Rosen, Sam Darnold, Baker Mayfield, Josh Allen, Josh Jackson, Sony Michel, Isaiah Oliver.

That's seven more, so you're guaranteed to get one of those guys at 14. There may be slight preferences within tiers but those are the close groupings. 

Maybe the next seven are Vita Vea, Harold Landry, Marcus Davenport, Bradley Chubb, Carlton Davis, Isaiah Wynn and Ronald Jones. 

If there are two of the guys at #14 left, say Roquon Smith and Isaiah Oliver, "BPA" is Smith because he's from the higher tier, outweighing position need. 

If it's Isaiah Oliver and Sony Michel, Oliver is a "need" pick because his position gives him preference over the similarly-graded Michel, but it's not like they're jumping the board. 

If somehow Saquon Barkley is there and you take Marcus Davenport instead, that's "reaching for need".

Of course other factors may play in to it. If you feel Edge is ridiculously thin while corner is very deep, and a combination of Harold Landry and Tarvarus McFadden/Donte Jackson is demonstrably stronger than Josh Jackson and Hercules Mata'afa/Ogbonnia Okoronkwo does BCA rule BPA? 

The tiers are mostly bigger also, maybe closer to "by round"  as it progresses so it's easier to match need with tiers after the usually small "elite" players. 

Last edited by Herschel

Great points, only things I would change;

Chubb from 3rd to 1st tier (replacing Smith in tier 1(moving Smith to 2))

Oliver would not be in any of top 3 tiers

Michel would not be in any of top 3 tiers (my picks to replace those two would be moving both Vea & Davenport up to tier 2)

Landry from 2 to 3. 

Would probably move Da"Ron Payne & Rashaan Evans to tier 3

If the Packers land Tremaine Edmunds he could be the Matthews heir even if Pettine sees Matthews as the "joker" he moves around the formation. They could take a flier on a Leon Jacobs or Garret Dooley later in the draft with 12 picks as a potential future backup to that spot while also taking another dedicated Edge guy somewhere in between. I could also easily see three corners drafted. 

ChilliJon posted:

Kevin King is better than Josh Jackson. But House was so bad last year. He was really awful in every measurable. 

I want Quenton Nelson. But that’s not realistic. So Josh Jackson and Arden Key 1-2. Then coach them up Pettine. 

Do you think GB might use some of those comp picks to move up to get Nelson? I think Nelson will  go somewhere around 5-7. 

Grave Digger posted:

170 tackles, 18.5 sacks, 2 INT, 10 PD, and 4 FF in the last two years...doesn't seem like his disability has impacted him thus far. Watching their bowl game against Auburn he was all over the field making plays...he's a high first round pick if he has 2 hands.  

Besides the fact hand play is much more important at the pro level, he's also a hobbit as a linebacker. He's built like a defensive back. I absolutely love his story and he's been a great college-level guy but I'm not sure he translates to much higher than a special teams guy at the pro level. 

what I find more fascinating than the actual pick-- this is where we get to see what Gute is like as a talent grabber.  TT had the 'from parts unknown' M.O. - I wonder if Gute will be more like TT that way, or be more in line with the 'Names' that are projected for a certain spot.  We could have had Foster, dropped big time, could have had Watt, projected to be a perfect fit...what did TT do, drop out to the 2nd round...what will happen this year

What I find fascinating is how folks obsess over a total crapshoot and then try and overanalyze them for a minimum of 5 years afterwards.   

Hindsight is always 20-20. 

Somehow folks are always smarter here (or everywhere), 2, 3, 5 years later (not to mention 2 months, 3, 6, 9, or 25 or 6 to four months later). 

Or geenyus for calling who should have been picked.  Those are the best.  Especially the one year flameouts after the gnashing of teeth and burning of idols when a one year wonder was missed.

The coulda-woulda-shoulda.... oh my....

 

the "total crapshoot" myth gets thrown around here a lot.  Not being a perfect science doesn't automatically make something a total crapshoot.  Because Tom Brady was drafted in the 6th round and Ryan Leaf in the 1st doesn't mean "crapshoot."  

The 5th pick is more desirable than the 10th pick.  First round picks have a higher chance of being productive than 6th round picks.  Every pick is important because the shelf life in the NFL is short and you need to hit on new talent.  New talent is exciting for fans and the draft is unpredictable, so for some folks it is fun.  Some folks follow a kid in college and want to cheer for him in the pros.  Message boards exist for everyone to be an expert and talk out of their ass.  

I say this and I've predicted accurately 92% of the first round picks in order for the last 10 years (72% of all picks).  The draft is fun.  

El-Ka-Bong posted:

The 5th pick is more desirable than the 10th pick.  First round picks have a higher chance of being productive than 6th round picks.  Every pick is important because the shelf life in the NFL is short and you need to hit on new talent. 

Obviously higher picks are more desirable, but only because the pool of talent to pick from is larger. It has been debated if the reason 1st rounds picks have a higher chance of being productive is because they are more talented, or because being a #1 they are given more opportunities/time to transition. 

With the rookie cap, the margin of error with draft picks changed since you aren't straddled with a 1st round bust cap hit.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×