Packers 2021 draft class

[wist43]

I'm fine with a CB in rd1, I just would have preferred Campbell, but with Jenkins still there, and JOK... I would have gone with one of them.

I'm fine with an interior lineman in rd 2, except i would have preferred Creed.

Like the Rodgers pick, like the Newman, Hill, and Mcduffie picks as well.

Slaton is worth a flyer.

Changed my mind on McDuffie... watched more tape - think he's going to have a hard time sticking. Plays small, takes bad angles, poor technique in his coverage responsibilities.

Watched more tape of Newman too... he's got a chance to be a good player. Has a habit of getting his hands outside too much, but that can be coached up, and he's got the tools to develop.

[wist43]

Looked a little more at Myers...

Seems very limited - can't believe they took him over Humphrey. Watched Humphrey in the the Cotton Bowl vs. Florida, he handled Slaton easily.

The Packers scouts seem to have connections to certain universities, i.e. our scouts are best buds with their coaches kind of thing, and I think that clouds their judgement on players. At least it seems something like that is going on.

There's no rational explanation as to why they would take Myers over Humphrey, except some extraneous bias.

And the McDuffie pick?? I liked his movement skills initially, but digging deeper into the tape - I think he's undraftable. It's known we have a connection to Boston College.

Gute should undertake a review of the scouting Dept.

[texaspackerbacker]

Myers is bigger and stronger than Creed Humphrey and is supposedly exceptionally smart. Both played with a lot of good O Linemen around them, but Humphrey even more so than Myers. I think over time Myers will prove to be the better of the two.

I don't disagree with you, wist, about McDuffie, but that far down, you mostly just pick and hope.

[wist43]

Myers is bigger and stronger than Creed Humphrey and is supposedly exceptionally smart. Both played with a lot of good O Linemen around them, but Humphrey even more so than Myers. I think over time Myers will prove to be the better of the two.

I don't disagree with you, wist, about McDuffie, but that far down, you mostly just pick and hope.

Humphrey has better tape - much better tape. The only people who think otherwise reside at 1265. Who can say why they passed on one guy over another?? We'll never know, b/c they will never tell the truth.

As for McDuffie, everyone likes to make "comps"... McDuffie's NFL comp is Oren Burks. He's not as bad as Burks - nobody is as bad as Burks - but McDuffie's tape is pretty bad. 7th round flyer, sure... but there were a lot of good players still there.

The 3 best picks of this draft are shaping up to be,

Rodgers, Newman, and Hill.

[Joemailman]

Humphrey has better tape - much better tape. The only people who think otherwise reside at 1265. Who can say why they passed on one guy over another?? We'll never know, b/c they will never tell the truth.

As for McDuffie, everyone likes to make "comps"... McDuffie's NFL comp is Oren Burks. He's not as bad as Burks - nobody is as bad as Burks - but McDuffie's tape is pretty bad. 7th round flyer, sure... but there were a lot of good players still there.

The 3 best picks of this draft are shaping up to be,

Rodgers, Newman, and Hill.

I'll give Gute the benefit of the doubt on drafting O-linemen. No major misses yet. In defense of Myers, I don't know what tape you saw of him. I do know he played through a turf toe injury this year which almost nobody does. So you might not have seen him at 100%. Corey Linsley was supposedly very limited athletically, and turned out to be the best C in the NFL. So maybe there's a reason the Packers like those Ohio St. guys.

I'm not excited about McDuffie. Word on him is he makes quick decisions, but often the wrong ones. But hey, if he makes the team he'll probably be replacing Burks, so it's not all bad.

[texaspackerbacker]

Honestly, I was thinking McDuffie was similar Burks too. I just don't have quite as negative opinion of Burks, though, as some people - just raw and not instinctive enough.

[Joemailman]

Honestly, I was thinking McDuffie was similar Burks too. I just don't have quite as negative opinion of Burks, though, as some people - just raw and not instinctive enough.

A linebacker without instincts is a bad linebacker.

[texaspackerbacker]

Yeah, but it ought to be something he can acquire or grow into over time. Don't get me wrong, though. I do like Barnes and Martin better.

[wist43]

Yeah, but it ought to be something he can acquire or grow into over time. Don't get me wrong, though. I do like Barnes and Martin better.

That's what everyone said about Burks...

I knew Burks was a lost cause from the get-go b/c he simply couldn't see the play developing - at all!! All the speed and athletic ability in the world is useless if you haven't a clue which way to go.

McDuffie wasn't as bad as Burks, but he was still pretty bad. If they keep him and cut Burks, I get it, but it's most likely a lateral move.

[texaspackerbacker]

I thought and said from the start that Burks seems more like a OLB than a ILB. In that position, you need to be more proactive than reactive, so the instincts weakness shouldn't hurt as much, and the athleticism you help more.

Ideally, they keep both and cut Lowery and/or Lancaster. Clark, Slaton, Keke, and Rush and maybe one more should suffice.

[wist43]

I thought and said from the start that Burks seems more like a OLB than a ILB. In that position, you need to be more proactive than reactive, so the instincts weakness shouldn't hurt as much, and the athleticism you help more.

Ideally, they keep both and cut Lowery and/or Lancaster. Clark, Slaton, Keke, and Rush and maybe one more should suffice.

No, Burks simply isn't a football player at any position.

As for the DL, they need guys who can eat up some snaps - that isn't slaton, unless he drops weight. We're stuck with Lancaster for at least another year.

[texaspackerbacker]

No, what the Packers need is some bulk and some quality to pair with Kenny Clark. Slaton should be that. Lowery and Lancaster showed nothing but weakness against either run or pass.

I'm not gonna waste much effort defending Burks except to say, I can see why the Packers still have some hope for him - sort of a puncher's chance to be decent. McDuffie maybe the same.

[run pMc]

Burks is a core ST player; that's why he's still on the team. Not much return on that investment, but they're trying to milk it for what it's worth. Smart guy, athletic, but not instinctive and that's an issue. Barnes has the best instincts of the off ball LBs and he's ok. I think McDuffie is a ST piece, maybe a depth piece, and likely replacement for Burks when his contract ends. I don't have high expectations for him, but you never know. He's kind of a Joe Thomas type and could be productive in small samples, but I'm skeptical he'd hold up at his size and am not sure about his instincts.

BC has cranked out some decent LBs, and he was the leading tackler... but I think that's a product of their defensive scheme.

[run pMc]

I like Slaton better than McDuffie. Not impressed with McDuffie based on what I saw (highlights, and vs. Notre Dame)
Slaton is raw but with his size could give Clark a breather or let him move around the line more. Those big guys shouldn't be playing 70% of the snaps... they'll wear down. I think by end of season he could give them 15 snaps a game if he takes to coaching... which is 15 less snaps for Lancaster, who is essentially JAG.

[bobblehead]

That's what everyone said about Burks...

I knew Burks was a lost cause from the get-go b/c he simply couldn't see the play developing - at all!! All the speed and athletic ability in the world is useless if you haven't a clue which way to go.

McDuffie wasn't as bad as Burks, but he was still pretty bad. If they keep him and cut Burks, I get it, but it's most likely a lateral move.

Its for ST play. They replace Burks with a younger version who is minimum salary for 4 years to play ST. If he somehow turns into a player, bonus.