2014 Green Bay Packers 7 Round Mock Draft 2.0

[mraynrand]

I'm at a pointe there I'd be at peace with Ryan Shazier out of OSU as a legitimate OLB in the 3-4 to team up with Matthews.

Blackhawk! Man he's tiny for an OLB. Chicago might take him first. If they don't take a DL.

[Brandon494]

Blackhawk! Man he's tiny for an OLB. Chicago might take him first. If they don't take a DL.

He would play ILB for us and I actually think there is a good chance we do pick him. CJ Mosley isn't falling to us and the two top safeties could be off the board as well. The guy has excellent speed to cover and run the zone blitz, he'll be a guy you would never have to take off the field. I know hes no where near as good but he could play a Patrick Willis type role for us with his athleticism.

[Brandon494]

Good scouting video on the Shazier

[smuggler]

Yeah guys like Shazier or Telvin smith would play on the inside for us.

[Bretsky]

At worst Shazier puts Brad Just a Jag Jones the bench forever which greatly improves our defense. He'd be a sneaky pick if TT could find somebody wanting to trade up a few spots so TT moves down a few and gets another pick.

Or you just take him at 21. I've never completely bought in to "having" to get draft value. I don't mind a slight reach where we're at as long as you draft somebody who is going to be productive. . for a QB. At 21 the BPA might very well be a WR if the draft plays out like I think it would. I have no problem grabbing a WR there............but Shazier in reality helps up win sooner a lot more than a WR. And I think if need be he can play outside LB as well.

[run pMc]

Yeah guys like Shazier or Telvin smith would play on the inside for us.

Thought I read somewhere that Telvin Smith goes about 215-220 and doesn't want to switch to Safety. Shazier bulked up to about 235 and kept his speed. Smith has to get bigger. Capers is going to want his ILB at least 230-240; otherwise just bring in a DB.

Was not a big fan of Shazier but I admit to having watched zero OSU games this year and being biased against the typical athletic OSU LB. I might get talked into him (or Smith in a late round) as a good pick eventually.
I certainly won't claim to be a college football expert.

[run pMc]

At worst Shazier puts Brad Just a Jag Jones the bench forever which greatly improves our defense. He'd be a sneaky pick if TT could find somebody wanting to trade up a few spots so TT moves down a few and gets another pick.

Or you just take him at 21. I've never completely bought in to "having" to get draft value. I don't mind a slight reach where we're at as long as you draft somebody who is going to be productive. . for a QB. At 21 the BPA might very well be a WR if the draft plays out like I think it would. I have no problem grabbing a WR there............but Shazier in reality helps up win sooner a lot more than a WR. And I think if need be he can play outside LB as well.

Agree Hawk/Jones pair needs upgrading. I think if there's a similarly ranked player at another position they might go there instead of ILB. They have Lattimore and Barrington waiting in the wings and I think they'll push for time. If Mosley or Shazier is there they will take a long look at them though.

I don't think anyone -- not even TT himself -- knows what name TT will write on that R1 card. Could be Mosley, Nix, Prior, Shazier, Odell Beckham (a dark horse IMO, he'd at worst be the #4WR and return kicks) among others. It depends on how the draft board falls. TT's gonna go BPA and I'm ok with that. Drafting for need can get teams into trouble.

[mraynrand]

Drafting for need can get teams into trouble.

"did someone mention my name?"

[Brandon494]

Yea drafting for need never works out...

[Guiness]

"did someone mention my name?"

I assume that's Brohm and not Hasselbeck, but don't see where either was a need pick?

[mraynrand]

Matthews was drafting for want!

The drafting for need versus BPA debate cracks me up. Good teams combine both strategies. Consider the absurd example - say you had players rated and every time your selection came up the BPA was a WR - you wouldn't draft 9 WRs - you have your team needs and maybe you pick the position you need who is rated slightly less than the BPA WR because, well because you aren't Mike Ditka or Matt Millen.

[mraynrand]

I assume that's Brohm and not Hasselbeck, but don't see where either was a need pick?

IN 2008, the Packers needed (at least) a backup QB.

[Brandon494]

Also for those not aware Shazier ran a 4.36 40 time. When we play SF again we could have Shazier spy Kap, hes not out running him.

[mraynrand]

Also for those not aware Shazier ran a 4.36 40 time. When we play SF again we could have Shazier spy Kap, hes not out running him.

Draft Blackhawk!

[run pMc]

Matthews was drafting for want!

The drafting for need versus BPA debate cracks me up. Good teams combine both strategies. Consider the absurd example - say you had players rated and every time your selection came up the BPA was a WR - you wouldn't draft 9 WRs - you have your team needs and maybe you pick the position you need who is rated slightly less than the BPA WR because, well because you aren't Mike Ditka or Matt Millen.

I don't know this for a fact, but I get the sense that many GMs rank players in groups of comparable ability (high R2, mid R2, etc.) vs. a pure force ranking (e.g., #38, #39), and if there are two players with comparable ability but one plays at a position of greater need they take that player. A player who drops far enough where they are ranked better than others would be the pick (or you trade down if you really don't need/want them) -- I would assume that's how they ended up with Rodgers and Lacy.

GMs that absolutely love someone at a position of need and trade up for that player (CM3) would logically only do so because they think there's value in doing so. I think that's different from drafting purely on need when you're on the clock because you're actively making a trade to get a specific player who you think will fit vs. letting fate decide who's the best 3-4 OLB left on the board.

Maybe that's a long way of saying that I agree that teams combine both strategies. There's no way TT drafts 9WRs. TT tilted towards need on his picks a bit too much on 2012 (the infamous all-D draft) and he's been rightly roasted for it.