Green Bay Packers' News - 2024

[go pak go]

Again. Draft need is a farce.

Rosters do a 75%+ turnover every three years. Every position is a need nearly every year for the very few exceptions (like franchise QB is set)

[Drj820]

Again. Draft need is a farce.

Rosters do a 75%+ turnover every three years. Every position is a need nearly every year for the very few exceptions (like franchise QB is set)

Some years you need to improve certain positions more than other positions

[Labrev]

Again. Draft need is a farce.

Rosters do a 75%+ turnover every three years. Every position is a need nearly every year for the very few exceptions (like franchise QB is set)

9 times out of 10, I would agree.

At WR and DT (UT/3-tech), we are so loaded with young talent that will not hit the market for at least another two years.

Why take reps away... not just game reps/production, but practice reps/development... away from these young talents?

[YoHoChecko]

I’ve always looked at need more inversely.

Which positions do you not have a ROSTER need. At most positions, most years, depth spots are available on the roster and whether you fill it with a future star or a body to fill the slot, you can put a guy there—so you can go ahead and take a player there high or medium or low.

But every roster, most years, has one or two positions where there isn’t much space on the roster at all. For those positions, to me, it’s either an irresistible difference-maker early, or a very late/undrafted addition that can be placed on the PS or isn’t a big loss of value if you lose.

Given our current depth chart and contract status, I do place WR in that category; also traditional TE (But a FB/move TE can fit); probably DT? Though I’ve vacillated on that one.

In short, I think there are sometimes a couple positions you DON’T take more than there are positions you need to take. Because, yeah, everything can be a need within the time span of a rookie contract

[Yoop]

if GM's didn't include positional needs when drafting teams would be loaded up in several positions, and void of starter talent in others.

go look at every mock draft, each and everyone of em revolves around positions of need

if your losing a starter, the goal is and should be to replace that starter, and if your only way is the draft, thats what ya need to do

[go pak go]

I’ve always looked at need more inversely.

Which positions do you not have a ROSTER need. At most positions, most years, depth spots are available on the roster and whether you fill it with a future star or a body to fill the slot, you can put a guy there—so you can go ahead and take a player there high or medium or low.

But every roster, most years, has one or two positions where there isn’t much space on the roster at all. For those positions, to me, it’s either an irresistible difference-maker early, or a very late/undrafted addition that can be placed on the PS or isn’t a big loss of value if you lose.

Given our current depth chart and contract status, I do place WR in that category; also traditional TE (But a FB/move TE can fit); probably DT? Though I’ve vacillated on that one.

In short, I think there are sometimes a couple positions you DON’T take more than there are positions you need to take. Because, yeah, everything can be a need within the time span of a rookie contract

I do agree that for positions like WR in this draft the only time it makes sense is grab a true difference maker (and like with our selection 25)

The only way I would slide from that position is if you have a super athletic WR fall to our 91st pick area which may happen due to the sheer volume of WRs.

Again. This is the exception. WR for the Packers is an outlier for 1 year. We have a perceived "lack of need" in 2024 but will start justifying a need in 2025 as Watson and Doubs will enter contract years.

High level, you see rosters turn and therefore supports the notion of almost any position is a need - especially with a 2 year window outlook.

[go pak go]

if GM's didn't include positional needs when drafting teams would be loaded up in several positions, and void of starter talent in others.

go look at every mock draft, each and everyone of em revolves around positions of need

if your losing a starter, the goal is and should be to replace that starter, and if your only way is the draft, thats what ya need to do

Let's just look at the Packers an example. Let's look at positions (keep in mind this is a young and deep team) where we could justify a starter or key depth piece.

Defensive Line - can always justify a depth piece and Clark and Slaton are in final years of contract
ILB - Could use a starter
OLD/Edge - Could use a 4th edge with Preston Smith getting older
Corner - could use a CB2, Nickle and depth
Safety - hole at SS and depth

Every position on defense could be justified drafted in 2024

Offensive Tackle - need a swing tackle or premier talent to compete for starter
Offensive Guard - need depth and/or talent to compete for starter
Center - need depth and/or talent to compete for starter
Running Back - need depth or RB2
Kicker - could use competion


Positions that are good for 2024:
Wide Reciver
Tight End
QB

Of these, only Tight End is good beyond 2025 and all of this could change with just one injury.

So even on the Packers, a young and loaded team, you have roughly 10 of 13 positions that are immediate needs and the other positions could always use a player if an injury occurs - which always happens. So like Yoho says, instead of looking at team needs, it's an easier list to have "what do we not immediately need"

[Yoop]

if GM's didn't include positional needs when drafting teams would be loaded up in several positions, and void of starter talent in others.

go look at every mock draft, each and everyone of em revolves around positions of need

if your losing a starter, the goal is and should be to replace that starter, and if your only way is the draft, thats what ya need to do

Let's just look at the Packers an example. Let's look at positions (keep in mind this is a young and deep team) where we could justify a starter or key depth piece.

Defensive Line - can always justify a depth piece and Clark and Slaton are in final years of contract
ILB - Could use a starter
OLD/Edge - Could use a 4th edge with Preston Smith getting older
Corner - could use a CB2, Nickle and depth
Safety - hole at SS and depth

Every position on defense could be justified drafted in 2024

Offensive Tackle - need a swing tackle or premier talent to compete for starter
Offensive Guard - need depth and/or talent to compete for starter
Center - need depth and/or talent to compete for starter
Running Back - need depth or RB2
Kicker - could use competion


Positions that are good for 2024:
Wide Reciver
Tight End
QB

Of these, only Tight End is good beyond 2025 and all of this could change with just one injury.

So even on the Packers, a young and loaded team, you have roughly 10 of 13 positions that are immediate needs and the other positions could always use a player if an injury occurs - which always happens. So like Yoho says, instead of looking at team needs, it's an easier list to have "what do we not immediately need"

I get where your going with this, positions like edge rusher, CB, WR are positions you could take every season, I thought you and I agreed long ago that certain position like those are absolute have to have positions, so they will take priority over others however if there solid and ya don't have a quality starter at others then they become a priority, and if ya can't buy one then you draft one like we just did with McKinley.


just look around the league, most teams obviously rate CB higher need then safety, or lber, or DT, the only position on defense that ranks as a higher need is edge rusher, you might think DT, but thats mostly do to lack of supply.

hear let me word it this way so to be less confusing, if you only have one pick for defense what position are you to take? is that a safety? or is it Gary or Jaire? IMHO either is the right answer, but is sure as all heck aint the safety.

GM absolutely have to positional pick, specially so after the top tier of players are gone, seriously I don't understand the argument over this, so damn obvious.

[go pak go]

I am not talking about rating positional importance which is a completely different conversation.

[APB]

[CWIMM]

if GM's didn't include positional needs when drafting teams would be loaded up in several positions, and void of starter talent in others.

go look at every mock draft, each and everyone of em revolves around positions of need

if your losing a starter, the goal is and should be to replace that starter, and if your only way is the draft, thats what ya need to do

I prefer a general manager to draft the prospect presenting the best value once the team is on the clock. Position of need should factor into that decision.

[Yoop]

if GM's didn't include positional needs when drafting teams would be loaded up in several positions, and void of starter talent in others.

go look at every mock draft, each and everyone of em revolves around positions of need

if your losing a starter, the goal is and should be to replace that starter, and if your only way is the draft, thats what ya need to do

I prefer a general manager to draft the prospect presenting the best value once the team is on the clock. Position of need should factor into that decision.

absolutely, I think thats the case concerning this, best team value imho is improving weak positions, versus stock piling a stronger position.

It's why I didn't like the Rashan Gary pick, however edge rusher is a must have position and neither of the Smiths had ever played a down for us, so in that sense stocking up that position had some merit.

another point which seems more relevant now then years ago do to increase player salary is maxing out play time on rookie contracts, more players are now let go after rookie contracts because second contracts are through the roof, so stock piling a position as was the case with Gary amounts to less play time and less production when the player was cheap, imo a very expensive trade off.

[Madcity_matt]

if GM's didn't include positional needs when drafting teams would be loaded up in several positions, and void of starter talent in others.

go look at every mock draft, each and everyone of em revolves around positions of need

if your losing a starter, the goal is and should be to replace that starter, and if your only way is the draft, thats what ya need to do

Generally speaking, if you're drafting a guy to be a starter week 1 you've messed up prior to that by putting yourself in that position.

[Yoop]

if GM's didn't include positional needs when drafting teams would be loaded up in several positions, and void of starter talent in others.

go look at every mock draft, each and everyone of em revolves around positions of need

if your losing a starter, the goal is and should be to replace that starter, and if your only way is the draft, thats what ya need to do

Generally speaking, if you're drafting a guy to be a starter week 1 you've messed up prior to that by putting yourself in that position.

OK, but how is it even possible to avoid that? and it's not about playing game one as a rookie, but it is about starting at some point that first season, or game 1 year two, again so many are going after rookie deals that a GM has hopes to retain, no way he can draft based on projections that he wont be able to sign a certain player, can't pre fill every position that might leave.

[TheSkeptic]

if GM's didn't include positional needs when drafting teams would be loaded up in several positions, and void of starter talent in others.

go look at every mock draft, each and everyone of em revolves around positions of need

if your losing a starter, the goal is and should be to replace that starter, and if your only way is the draft, thats what ya need to do

Let's just look at the Packers an example. Let's look at positions (keep in mind this is a young and deep team) where we could justify a starter or key depth piece.

Defensive Line - can always justify a depth piece and Clark and Slaton are in final years of contract
ILB - Could use a starter
OLD/Edge - Could use a 4th edge with Preston Smith getting older
Corner - could use a CB2, Nickle and depth
Safety - hole at SS and depth

Every position on defense could be justified drafted in 2024

Offensive Tackle - need a swing tackle or premier talent to compete for starter
Offensive Guard - need depth and/or talent to compete for starter
Center - need depth and/or talent to compete for starter
Running Back - need depth or RB2
Kicker - could use competion


Positions that are good for 2024:
Wide Reciver
Tight End
QB

Of these, only Tight End is good beyond 2025 and all of this could change with just one injury.

So even on the Packers, a young and loaded team, you have roughly 10 of 13 positions that are immediate needs and the other positions could always use a player if an injury occurs - which always happens. So like Yoho says, instead of looking at team needs, it's an easier list to have "what do we not immediately need"

Now that Dillon is resigned, I would add RB to the list of what we don't immediately need.
I also think that OLB/DE is set for both this year and beyond. Enagbare was ready to start before he got hurt and will probably be 100% in 2025. Cox is a physical freak that probably just needs to play. Since the scheme has changed, Colby Wooden could probably play DE also.
Finally, Luke Tenuta or Jones might be the depth at guard and OT that the Packers need. If necessary either Jenkins or Tom can back up center. That does not mean that the Packers should not draft an Olineman, IMO they should but not in the first 3 rounds.

[go pak go]

if GM's didn't include positional needs when drafting teams would be loaded up in several positions, and void of starter talent in others.

go look at every mock draft, each and everyone of em revolves around positions of need

if your losing a starter, the goal is and should be to replace that starter, and if your only way is the draft, thats what ya need to do

Let's just look at the Packers an example. Let's look at positions (keep in mind this is a young and deep team) where we could justify a starter or key depth piece.

Defensive Line - can always justify a depth piece and Clark and Slaton are in final years of contract
ILB - Could use a starter
OLD/Edge - Could use a 4th edge with Preston Smith getting older
Corner - could use a CB2, Nickle and depth
Safety - hole at SS and depth

Every position on defense could be justified drafted in 2024

Offensive Tackle - need a swing tackle or premier talent to compete for starter
Offensive Guard - need depth and/or talent to compete for starter
Center - need depth and/or talent to compete for starter
Running Back - need depth or RB2
Kicker - could use competion


Positions that are good for 2024:
Wide Reciver
Tight End
QB

Of these, only Tight End is good beyond 2025 and all of this could change with just one injury.

So even on the Packers, a young and loaded team, you have roughly 10 of 13 positions that are immediate needs and the other positions could always use a player if an injury occurs - which always happens. So like Yoho says, instead of looking at team needs, it's an easier list to have "what do we not immediately need"

Now that Dillon is resigned, I would add RB to the list of what we don't immediately need.
I also think that OLB/DE is set for both this year and beyond. Enagbare was ready to start before he got hurt and will probably be 100% in 2025. Cox is a physical freak that probably just needs to play. Since the scheme has changed, Colby Wooden could probably play DE also.
Finally, Luke Tenuta or Jones might be the depth at guard and OT that the Packers need. If necessary either Jenkins or Tom can back up center. That does not mean that the Packers should not draft an Olineman, IMO they should but not in the first 3 rounds.

I guarantee you no GM is making a draft decision because of Brenton Cox, AJ Dillon or Luke Tenuta.

[APB]

Not insignificant. Especially when you don't see a mad dash to play with a certain other former Packer QB, as he once alleged.

[Labrev]

For those that live under a rock and have not seen these yet:

[lake shark]

For those that live under a rock and have not seen these yet:

Pretty pumped about these guys! I didn’t realize Josh Jacobs was such a football strategist that’s kinda cool and comforting towards the belief he will keep working hard to improve.

[Scott4Pack]

Doesn't surprise me that these two came here BECAUSE of Love (at least in part).

Even two years ago, the Packers could've easily slipped into mediocrity. Guty didn't let that happen. He deserves a lot of credit for that.

For those not old enough to remember, before Favre/White/Holmgren, the Packers played a LOT of bad football. The story had it that no free agents wanted to come to GB because of the badness and small town atmosphere. But once Ron Wolf started to turn things around, that all changed.

Isn't it interesting that last September, some wanted Guty and MLF fired. (Some still can't wait for Murphy to retire.) Not any more.