Official 2019 Draft Thread

[red]

Or maybe if fat mike had played rodgers in preseason they might have developed chemistry.

Ding ding ding

[bobblehead]

I think Pack is a little better at WR than you think. Don't forget, Allison was putting up legitimate #2 numbers when he got injured. (300+ yards in 5 games). MVS and ESB have shown enough as rookies to,think they can be above average as 3/4, if not a 2. They are fine at 1/2 RB, but need a 3rd. They need starters at G, RT, TE, OLB and S.

In house development is what everyone (can't recall if you are in group) hates so much. Allison is pretty much kumerow. A guy who hangs around and is serviceable. MAYBE the young guys can develop, kinda early to say, but the goal is to have those guys down the depth chart another notch. If we had a legit #2 and then Allison/Kumerow as 3/4 to go with 2 more development guys I'd feel pretty good. As it is, we are have development guys at 2/3. MVS has disappeared if you haven't noticed.

I think Jones is a good RB you can win with, but you need another like him in todays game. RBs get hurt. Period. Not just ours. Williams has looked good for exactly one game I can recall and we just played it so the opium is good right now. The Jets are near the league bottom v. the run.

Its sort of my point about this roster. Guys who should be developing and playing ST are starting all over the place. At OLB I love both Gilbert and Fackrell....as backups who play in spurts. As things stand Nick Perry being healthy and playing like he has for about a 10 game stretch once in his career is perhaps the biggest need we have...you want to post the vegas line on that happening? I say +800.

[mraynrand]

Its sort of my point about this roster. Guys who should be developing and playing ST are starting all over the place. At OLB I love both Gilbert and Fackrell....as backups who play in spurts.

agree

[Bretsky]

I'm still waiting for someone to post a list of teams that have won multiple Superb Owls because they threw games at the end of the season to get a higher draft pick.

What proof do you have that teams do not do this and they did not have greater success in the draft ? There is no proof either way. The thought that we'd be better off drafting 10 spots higher in each round is just a common sense view.

Actually those who often supported Ted Thompson would use a reverse argument and blame some of Ted's failures in the draft on drafting too low.

And if AROD needs to keep touting himself as being a leader via the media by playing these games to me that it telling

[Bretsky]

The inverse of that... Dallas won 4 SBs with Troy Aikmen, whom they never would have had, had the Packers done the right thing and lost the last week of the 1988 season.

We win, and instead of getting a HOF QB in Aikmen, we get one of the biggest busts of that era, Tony Mandarich.

DING DING DING

I remember friends hammering on me for hoping GB lose that last game so we'd have the #1 pick

A better draft position gives you a better shot to get better players

[texaspackerbacker]

I had actually forgotten about Allison. We thus have SIX quality WRs going forward - a legitimate superstar in Adams, 2 excellent young WRs in MVS and St. Brown - damn good right now, potential star quality soon, a guy drafted above those two - Moore - who still has a strong chance to develop (I'd say all three look better than Davante Adams did at the same stage of his career), and two low potential (allegedly)/high achievers - Kumerow and Allison. And that doesn't even count Cobb - likely gone, and Davis a decent kick returner.

And some say we need to use a high draft pick on a WR or we don't have anybody other than Adams who looks like an NFL player? Come on!

[yetisnowman]

Healthy? Not sure that exactly applies to Rodgers.

I see nothing wrong with shutting him down.

Vanity wins to spite Stubby are worthless.

The Packers brass blew it keeping Stubby this season. Cut your losses. There is nothing to gain playing Rodgers with a bunch of camp bodies. What if he gets a career ending injury behind their pathetic O line? Just to win a game and lose draft status? Insane, I tells ya!!

Well Rodgers wasn't on the injury report, he practiced all week, wasn't limping, and played as agile of a game as he has all season. So he's as healthy as all the other thousands of players that suited up last week. If you want GB to be the one and only team to bench their starting qb(the highest paid player in the league) to tank then that's your opinion. No one sits on the bench of a non-playoff team to simply avoid a possible injury or intentionally try to lose in the NFL. It's just not what happens. Of course I would love a higher pick, but I also don't really like the idea of the Packers being the first team to overtly try to tank by benching their best players.

[mraynrand]

Well Rodgers wasn't on the injury report, he practiced all week, wasn't limping, and played as agile of a game as he has all season. So he's as healthy as all the other thousands of players that suited up last week. If you want GB to be the one and only team to bench their starting qb(the highest paid player in the league) to tank then that's your opinion. No one sits on the bench of a non-playoff team to simply avoid a possible injury or intentionally try to lose in the NFL. It's just not what happens. Of course I would love a higher pick, but I also don't really like the idea of the Packers being the first team to overtly try to tank by benching their best players.

I don't like the idea either, but the Packer Brass tanked the season from the start, so it least would be consistent. And Rodgers has been hurt all year so they easily could have said his knee and shoulder were issues. Or they could have just listed 'inaccuracy' on the injury report.

Also, they really need to develop the back-up QBs. What better way to find out what they have and give them playing experience than to start them in a regular season game?

The Packers have no obligation to play Rodgers just to accommodate the league or fans. They're out of the playoff running - optimize your chances for next year.

[pbmax]

Yeah, sorry, don't agree. The front office shut this 2018 team down. Rodgers isn't the coach. Sit him because he's hurt and recovering. The 2006 team was a rising team with two years' worth of new regime players and a first year coach. But there is an important point in your post - that this new Press/GM regime made the wrong call keeping Stubby for an extra year. Cut the cord and start the rebuild. They could have already have had an entire season working with the new scheme and Rodgers playing now would have meant something good. Now it just means ruining draft position in a vain attempt to show he can win without Stubbers.

Important to note that Murphy, not Gute, would have signed off on McCarthy getting another year.

Its possible they did not like last year's coaching candidates. Or weren't prepared. Or thought the job wouldn't attract they people they REALLY wanted unless Rodgers was signed long term. Having a lame duck coach and a QB seeking a new deal is drama that no one save McCarthy could survive, ironically. Since the extra Stubby year was done mid-season, I tend to think it was all about signing Rodgers at that point, not there candidates.

But Murphy screwed himself again by not publicly signing off on evaluating young talent and sitting Rodgers. Instead he talked about Phibin being a viable coaching candidate and gave no one any cover to sit the starters.

He's pretty middling for a President.

[pbmax]

The Colts got Elway! lol.

They also got Luck, but Manning was actually hurt. But they tanked that year hard because of Manning as well.

[pbmax]

That means we lack NFL talent at RB, WR, TE,OL, LB and S. We have one worthy RB and WR, you need minimum 2 of each. Honestly you need 3 WR in todays game.

Williams and Jones can make it work at RB easily. Need some backups, but who doesn't?

Want them to draft a WR, but they can make the current unit work with one guy stepping up to start outside.

[mraynrand]

Important to note that Murphy, not Gute, would have signed off on McCarthy getting another year.

Its possible they did not like last year's coaching candidates. Or weren't prepared. Or thought the job wouldn't attract they people they REALLY wanted unless Rodgers was signed long term. Having a lame duck coach and a QB seeking a new deal is drama that no one save McCarthy could survive, ironically. Since the extra Stubby year was done mid-season, I tend to think it was all about signing Rodgers at that point, not there candidates.

But Murphy screwed himself again by not publicly signing off on evaluating young talent and sitting Rodgers. Instead he talked about Phibin being a viable coaching candidate and gave no one any cover to sit the starters.

He's pretty middling for a President.

OK, I agree with the final point about Murphy and this posts makes a lot of sense, but I'm confused as to why they needed to sign Stubby for a year to get Rodgers for three.

[call_me_ishmael]

I had actually forgotten about Allison. We thus have SIX quality WRs going forward - a legitimate superstar in Adams, 2 excellent young WRs in MVS and St. Brown - damn good right now, potential star quality soon, a guy drafted above those two - Moore - who still has a strong chance to develop (I'd say all three look better than Davante Adams did at the same stage of his career), and two low potential (allegedly)/high achievers - Kumerow and Allison. And that doesn't even count Cobb - likely gone, and Davis a decent kick returner.

And some say we need to use a high draft pick on a WR or we don't have anybody other than Adams who looks like an NFL player? Come on!

We have a completely inept offense outside of a few rare moments all season long and Tex manages a way to project that three of the perimeter players are all-stars in addition to an all-star QB and a future all-star RB. I just cannot even my dude.

The only one of these folks that isn't expendable is Adams. The others are just guys.

[pbmax]

OK, I agree with the final point about Murphy and this posts makes a lot of sense, but I'm confused as to why they needed to sign Stubby for a year to get Rodgers for three.

An unsettled coaching situation is risky. All the speculation it could engender makes a signing less likely for both sides.

To get Rodgers to sign early, the team wants a settled, known situation with the least uncertainty. And their budget tells them they don't want to pay the risk premium Rodgers would ask for if it was obvious a coaching change could happen at a moments notice.

Its just my reasoning on why they gave M3 another year. It could be generally true without the explicit reason being Rodgers. As in, Murphy wants some stability on the football side while he kicks Ted upstairs.

I wonder if they sent Ted his locker last year?

[run pMc]

We have a completely inept offense outside of a few rare moments all season long and Tex manages a way to project that three of the perimeter players are all-stars in addition to an all-star QB and a future all-star RB. I just cannot even my dude.

The only one of these folks that isn't expendable is Adams. The others are just guys.

I wouldn't be against bringing Cobb back for the veteran presence and as a PR, but I wouldn't think he's anything more than a #4WR/slot guy. Adams, Allison and either ESB or MVS (depending which makes the so-called year 2 jump) are probably your top 3. Kumerow needs to get smarter about running his routes -- all the young guys do, actually, and getting open on the dreaded scramble drill. The WR group is young and inconsistent, and has been the source of some of the issues with the passing game. Rodgers has issues too, as well as the OL, and scheme.

I'd almost take Cobb over Trevor Davis -- neither can stay healthy, and Davis is decent as a ST player, but Cobb gives you more on offense than Davis ever has. You can play Cobb 10-15 plays on offense and ST. It's been 3 years with Davis, if the light was gonna go on it would've by now.
If they do spend a pick on WR, it will either be a late rounder flyer or someone who fell into their lap. They have bigger issues.

I keep going back and forth on whether to spend a higher pick (R1-3) on a TE...there aren't many good ones, and it seems like most teams can make do with what they have. With the size the WR's have, you're almost better off having them run routes, but not sure what you do for run blocking...putting a 6th OL is a giveaway to the play call.