2024 Draft Discussion

[Backthepack4ever]

Imo I don't see it as "throwing away picks" just because you have guys already at said position. They are drafting guys for a few different reasons.

1. The potential upside. Packers like RAS scores and top end athletes. Does this guy have the upside to potentially leap frog those middle to bottom of roster players.

2. Competition. Iron sharpens iron. I don't care if we have 14 TEs on the roster right now. If they feel this rookie can compete for that 3rd TE spot with future upside they will make that move. Let's be honest after musky and kraft these guys aren't changing the world. Are they ok sure but can stand to be upgraded. Injuries also happen at all positions

3. Future. I know this is SB or bust and I support that , but Gutes job is also long term success. Ted did it also. Drafting WRs in a loaded room bc 2 years from now that guy will be the GUY

I will never agree with draft this spot in this round bc we need a starter. That is what the bottom of the barrel teams do. If your guy is there and he fits that needed position cool, but don't just plug jags to fill a spot

[go pak go]

Skeptic, I think Paco's draft app is far more reliable than your inability to believe in the benefits of positional competition as well as go beyond your arrogant view of incredible limited snaps leading to projection of "position is solid"

I have said it multiple times and I will keep saying it again.

Brian Gutekunst is making ZERO and I mean ZERO (as in a lower chance than us picking a TE as you stated) consideration of draft selections based on Alex McGough, Caleb Jones and Luke Tenuta.

If I had to bet money today, I would say the chance that even one of these guys makes the active roster is 40% at best. You don't make roster building decisions based on the 50th to 90th best players on your roster.

Tenuta and Jones made the roster based on potential fliers. That is it. We do it every year. Occasionaly you will get the production upside of a Yosh Nijman that actually gives some production but will always at best be a middling backup. And most of the time you never hear of the guy again the following year.

Finally, Briian Gutekunst himself stated he would like to get back into consistently drafting quarterbacks. Might be smarter to do it next year but if they see a guy they like...by gawd use a 6th or 7th on him.

The draft essentially ends after Round 5 anyway.

Tell that to Valentine 7th and Brooks 6th. And to Johnson Jr. 7th. The year before we got Walker our starting LT in the 7th. The year before McDuffie in the 6th. JRJ got what, 11 million this offseason? Historically Lawrence Guy 7th had a long and successful career on another team. James Starks 6th was a starting RB for the Packers for several years. Mason Crosby, 6th. Mark Tauscher, 7th. Donald Driver, 7th. Matt Hasselbeck 6th. Marco Rivera, 6th. Adam Timmerman, 7th. Bill Schroeder 6th. Doug Evans 6th. Mark Chmura 6th. Bryce Paup 6th. Don Majikowski. I won't go back any farther because I am already missing several who played mainly for other teams and so I don't remember who they were. Except for 1 more, Bart Starr, 17th.

Maybe you need a little help remembering who they were? Ask Ringo.

You can bet your bottom dollar that Brian Gutekunst is indeed making his draft selections, especially the late ones, based upon the 50th to 90th players already on the roster. Why draft a project this year when there is a project on last year's PS or IR that has already exceeded expectations just by not getting cut? It is his job to know if that 90th player has been busting his butt all offseason and is bigger, faster, stronger and smarter than he was a few months ago. There are at least 250 players who will be drafted this season, it is a lot more difficult to know which of those 250+ are busting their butts than the 90 already under some kind of contract. It is his job to know! It is the reason why some GM's produce SB teams and others never have a team that makes the playoffs.

Well, maybe you think throwing away mid to late round picks to draft someone who has no chance is better than betting on the guys like Tenuta and Jones and McGough who already did enough to make last year's team or PS and are coming to this year;s camp.

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Absolutely 6th round - UDFA have a shot. The Packers are better at that than any team.

But don't bring up all these examples of guys who busted the trend and became great players and then the following sentence say it is stupid to draft a certain player because they have "no shot" at making the roster due to Alex McGough or Luke Tenuta being ahead of them. Nobody thought Donald Drive had much of a shot either. THAT'S WHY HE WAS THE 2ND TO LAST PICK but he was damn good and showed enough in camp to hang onto. If the player we draft is to any caliber that a Valentine was last year (or any player you listed above)...they will have zero problem surpassing any bottom of the roster guy ahead of them this year. .

Finally. Yes it is BG's job to know who is ascending and who isn't. But it isn't your job. And you often like to make assumptions on players you think are busting and trending up based on almost no information. We have no idea how these bottom of the roster guys are looking since we saw them last August. None.

By all means if we find a better development project in this draft than what we currently have....BUY IT. The cost is little and you ultimately want to build the best 90 man roster where positions are filled with competition. Never underestimate the power of competition.

I believe fans like to only talk about position when talking about the draft because positional analysis is easy. Player analysis is not easy. Therefore it is a lot easier to put in the 2 cents of, "we have 3 quarterbacks already...no room" rather than , "I don't think the footwork and arm strength of Sam Hartman will translate well into the league"

[Yoop]

Imo I don't see it as "throwing away picks" just because you have guys already at said position. They are drafting guys for a few different reasons.

1. The potential upside. Packers like RAS scores and top end athletes. Does this guy have the upside to potentially leap frog those middle to bottom of roster players.

2. Competition. Iron sharpens iron. I don't care if we have 14 TEs on the roster right now. If they feel this rookie can compete for that 3rd TE spot with future upside they will make that move. Let's be honest after musky and kraft these guys aren't changing the world. Are they ok sure but can stand to be upgraded. Injuries also happen at all positions

3. Future. I know this is SB or bust and I support that , but Gutes job is also long term success. Ted did it also. Drafting WRs in a loaded room bc 2 years from now that guy will be the GUY

I will never agree with draft this spot in this round bc we need a starter. That is what the bottom of the barrel teams do. If your guy is there and he fits that needed position cool, but don't just plug jags to fill a spot

ya still have to positional draft, there is no way out of that, this is not the 60's where players are content to stay with one team because family and staying in one place supersedes the few dollars more they could get from Cleveland money today changes that land scape, and those leaving absolutely need to be replaced.

teams have to have a QB, they also have to have players that can limit production from that QB, so if they need a edge rusher or CB they will figure out how to line up slot value to take that guy, they have to

again if ya have a 12 slot Gary, and a 15 slot LVN, why would you again use your first rounder on a edge rusher, redundancy does not make you better if you leave boundary CB weak ( or other positions.

yes plan for the future, not saying not to, it's also irresponsible to not fix a weak spot simply because ya lose several value points, winning is the most important thing here, right?

[Yoop]

Skeptic, I think Paco's draft app is far more reliable than your inability to believe in the benefits of positional competition as well as go beyond your arrogant view of incredible limited snaps leading to projection of "position is solid"

I have said it multiple times and I will keep saying it again.

Brian Gutekunst is making ZERO and I mean ZERO (as in a lower chance than us picking a TE as you stated) consideration of draft selections based on Alex McGough, Caleb Jones and Luke Tenuta.

If I had to bet money today, I would say the chance that even one of these guys makes the active roster is 40% at best. You don't make roster building decisions based on the 50th to 90th best players on your roster.

Tenuta and Jones made the roster based on potential fliers. That is it. We do it every year. Occasionaly you will get the production upside of a Yosh Nijman that actually gives some production but will always at best be a middling backup. And most of the time you never hear of the guy again the following year.

Finally, Briian Gutekunst himself stated he would like to get back into consistently drafting quarterbacks. Might be smarter to do it next year but if they see a guy they like...by gawd use a 6th or 7th on him.

Tell that to Valentine 7th and Brooks 6th. And to Johnson Jr. 7th. The year before we got Walker our starting LT in the 7th. The year before McDuffie in the 6th. JRJ got what, 11 million this offseason? Historically Lawrence Guy 7th had a long and successful career on another team. James Starks 6th was a starting RB for the Packers for several years. Mason Crosby, 6th. Mark Tauscher, 7th. Donald Driver, 7th. Matt Hasselbeck 6th. Marco Rivera, 6th. Adam Timmerman, 7th. Bill Schroeder 6th. Doug Evans 6th. Mark Chmura 6th. Bryce Paup 6th. Don Majikowski. I won't go back any farther because I am already missing several who played mainly for other teams and so I don't remember who they were. Except for 1 more, Bart Starr, 17th.

Maybe you need a little help remembering who they were? Ask Ringo.

You can bet your bottom dollar that Brian Gutekunst is indeed making his draft selections, especially the late ones, based upon the 50th to 90th players already on the roster. Why draft a project this year when there is a project on last year's PS or IR that has already exceeded expectations just by not getting cut? It is his job to know if that 90th player has been busting his butt all offseason and is bigger, faster, stronger and smarter than he was a few months ago. There are at least 250 players who will be drafted this season, it is a lot more difficult to know which of those 250+ are busting their butts than the 90 already under some kind of contract. It is his job to know! It is the reason why some GM's produce SB teams and others never have a team that makes the playoffs.

Well, maybe you think throwing away mid to late round picks to draft someone who has no chance is better than betting on the guys like Tenuta and Jones and McGough who already did enough to make last year's team or PS and are coming to this year;s camp.

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Absolutely 6th round - UDFA have a shot. The Packers are better at that than any team.

But don't bring up all these examples of guys who busted the trend and became great players and then the following sentence say it is stupid to draft a certain player because they have "no shot" at making the roster due to Alex McGough or Luke Tenuta being ahead of them. Nobody thought Donald Drive had much of a shot either. THAT'S WHY HE WAS THE 2ND TO LAST PICK but he was damn good and showed enough in camp to hang onto. If the player we draft is to any caliber that a Valentine was last year (or any player you listed above)...they will have zero problem surpassing any bottom of the roster guy ahead of them this year. .

Finally. Yes it is BG's job to know who is ascending and who isn't. But it isn't your job. And you often like to make assumptions on players you think are busting and trending up based on almost no information. We have no idea how these bottom of the roster guys are looking since we saw them last August. None.

By all means if we find a better development project in this draft than what we currently have....BUY IT. The cost is little and you ultimately want to build the best 90 man roster where positions are filled with competition. Never underestimate the power of competition.

I believe fans like to only talk about position when talking about the draft because positional analysis is easy. Player analysis is not easy. Therefore it is a lot easier to put in the 2 cents of, "we have 3 quarterbacks already...no room" rather than , "I don't think the footwork and arm strength of Sam Hartman will translate well into the league"

Driver, good one, how about Brock Purdy

anyone thats gets to be a NFL player is good, and we have no idea just how good, and neither actually do the GM's that draft them

[Backthepack4ever]

Imo I don't see it as "throwing away picks" just because you have guys already at said position. They are drafting guys for a few different reasons.

1. The potential upside. Packers like RAS scores and top end athletes. Does this guy have the upside to potentially leap frog those middle to bottom of roster players.

2. Competition. Iron sharpens iron. I don't care if we have 14 TEs on the roster right now. If they feel this rookie can compete for that 3rd TE spot with future upside they will make that move. Let's be honest after musky and kraft these guys aren't changing the world. Are they ok sure but can stand to be upgraded. Injuries also happen at all positions

3. Future. I know this is SB or bust and I support that , but Gutes job is also long term success. Ted did it also. Drafting WRs in a loaded room bc 2 years from now that guy will be the GUY

I will never agree with draft this spot in this round bc we need a starter. That is what the bottom of the barrel teams do. If your guy is there and he fits that needed position cool, but don't just plug jags to fill a spot

ya still have to positional draft, there is no way out of that, this is not the 60's where players are content to stay with one team because family and staying in one place supersedes the few dollars more they could get from Cleveland money today changes that land scape, and those leaving absolutely need to be replaced.

teams have to have a QB, they also have to have players that can limit production from that QB, so if they need a edge rusher or CB they will figure out how to line up slot value to take that guy, they have to

again if ya have a 12 slot Gary, and a 15 slot LVN, why would you again use your first rounder on a edge rusher, redundancy does not make you better if you leave boundary CB weak ( or other positions.

yes plan for the future, not saying not to, it's also irresponsible to not fix a weak spot simply because ya lose several value points, winning is the most important thing here, right?

I hear that loud and clear. But I'm not drafting that CB if he's 30th on my board at 12. It's bad drafting to force need.

Didn't JJ watt go 12? Would you say hey pass on him bc Kevin king is there and we are desperate at cb? I wouldn't. We took Gary after signing both Smiths. It's not BPA. It's more BVA. If 2 guys are close in the same tier yes I understand making position matter no doubt. My example is extreme I know but all I'm saying is let the pieces fall. No safety is worth a 1st this year (unless Cooper is playing safety).

I also just can't support get this position at this pick thinking. It kinda drives my nuts

[go pak go]

Imo I don't see it as "throwing away picks" just because you have guys already at said position. They are drafting guys for a few different reasons.

1. The potential upside. Packers like RAS scores and top end athletes. Does this guy have the upside to potentially leap frog those middle to bottom of roster players.

2. Competition. Iron sharpens iron. I don't care if we have 14 TEs on the roster right now. If they feel this rookie can compete for that 3rd TE spot with future upside they will make that move. Let's be honest after musky and kraft these guys aren't changing the world. Are they ok sure but can stand to be upgraded. Injuries also happen at all positions

3. Future. I know this is SB or bust and I support that , but Gutes job is also long term success. Ted did it also. Drafting WRs in a loaded room bc 2 years from now that guy will be the GUY

I will never agree with draft this spot in this round bc we need a starter. That is what the bottom of the barrel teams do. If your guy is there and he fits that needed position cool, but don't just plug jags to fill a spot

ya still have to positional draft, there is no way out of that

Agreed. But if you get out of the 15% and into the 85%, you will agree that teams have needs at about 80% of positions.

Case in point: Yes Green Bay won't draft a QB the first two days. Other than that...nobody would be surprised if we used a top 100 pick on any other position outside of ST specialists (LS, K, P). Even a WR people would be like, "well Watson is injured all the time"...big picture people get way too nitpicky about positional drafting.

[Yoop]

Imo I don't see it as "throwing away picks" just because you have guys already at said position. They are drafting guys for a few different reasons.

1. The potential upside. Packers like RAS scores and top end athletes. Does this guy have the upside to potentially leap frog those middle to bottom of roster players.

2. Competition. Iron sharpens iron. I don't care if we have 14 TEs on the roster right now. If they feel this rookie can compete for that 3rd TE spot with future upside they will make that move. Let's be honest after musky and kraft these guys aren't changing the world. Are they ok sure but can stand to be upgraded. Injuries also happen at all positions

3. Future. I know this is SB or bust and I support that , but Gutes job is also long term success. Ted did it also. Drafting WRs in a loaded room bc 2 years from now that guy will be the GUY

I will never agree with draft this spot in this round bc we need a starter. That is what the bottom of the barrel teams do. If your guy is there and he fits that needed position cool, but don't just plug jags to fill a spot

ya still have to positional draft, there is no way out of that

Agreed. But if you get out of the 15% and into the 85%, you will agree that teams have needs at about 80% of positions.

Case in point: Yes Green Bay won't draft a QB the first two days. Other than that...nobody would be surprised if we used a top 100 pick on any other position outside of ST specialists (LS, K, P). Even a WR people would be like, "well Watson is injured all the time"...big picture people get way too nitpicky about positional drafting.

We watched Thompson over look safety and ILB for years instead taking CB's and pass rushers, that obviously was not a coincidence, the later two are more valuable positions.


I don't have a issue with taking BPA, but there are essential positions that always need very good starter level ability, or ya just can't win, obviously QB topping the list, same with coverage and pass rush, same as blind side blocking, or WR and RB, thats why ILB and safety make less money.

if ya need a position, imo trade or move to line up slot value, that just makes sense to me, times change though, offenses evolve, now safety's and ILB's will see increased value, I think we are already seeing that with how we've treated this off season with McKinny and possible slot 41 pick of possibly another safety or ILB, along with OL that seems to be the focus of this draft, so sure a top 100 pick for any of those seems logical possibly all 4 positions will get taken with the top 100, should be interesting

[go pak go]

ya still have to positional draft, there is no way out of that

Agreed. But if you get out of the 15% and into the 85%, you will agree that teams have needs at about 80% of positions.

Case in point: Yes Green Bay won't draft a QB the first two days. Other than that...nobody would be surprised if we used a top 100 pick on any other position outside of ST specialists (LS, K, P). Even a WR people would be like, "well Watson is injured all the time"...big picture people get way too nitpicky about positional drafting.

We watched Thompson over look safety and ILB for years instead taking CB's and pass rushers, that obviously was not a coincidence, the later two are more valuable positions.

Ted took safeties high.

From 2012 (after Collins) to his last year (2017) Thompson took the following the first 2 rounds:

CB: 4
IDL: 3
S: 2
Edge: 1
RB: 1
WR: 1
OT: 1

[lupedafiasco]

Ted never overlooked safeties but he did suck at getting them. Collins was obviously great but he also took HaHa in the 1st. Burnett was fine in the 3rd. Can’t forget about how useless Josh Jones was in the 2nd. jerron McMillain was I guy I nailed in mock drafts but as a 7th round player, not a 4th smh.

Then again not sure what people consider Hyde. As he only played CB here I don’t count it.

[Yoop]

Agreed. But if you get out of the 15% and into the 85%, you will agree that teams have needs at about 80% of positions.

Case in point: Yes Green Bay won't draft a QB the first two days. Other than that...nobody would be surprised if we used a top 100 pick on any other position outside of ST specialists (LS, K, P). Even a WR people would be like, "well Watson is injured all the time"...big picture people get way too nitpicky about positional drafting.

We watched Thompson over look safety and ILB for years instead taking CB's and pass rushers, that obviously was not a coincidence, the later two are more valuable positions.

Ted took safeties high.

From 2012 (after Collins) to his last year (2017) Thompson took the following the first 2 rounds:

CB: 4
IDL: 3
S: 2
Edge: 1
RB: 1
WR: 1
OT: 1

4 CB's and 4 pass rushers, I forgot about Josh Jones, still NO ILB's, some positions just have more priority

we went 20 years between Hawk and Walker

[go pak go]

Ted never overlooked safeties but he did suck at getting them. Collins was obviously great but he also took HaHa in the 1st. Burnett was fine in the 3rd. Can’t forget about how useless Josh Jones was in the 2nd. jerron McMillain was I guy I nailed in mock drafts but as a 7th round player, not a 4th smh.

Then again not sure what people consider Hyde. As he only played CB here I don’t count it.

The Packers in general suck at drafting and evaluating the secondary. Since the Ted regime Casey Hayward, Nick Collins, Micah Hyde, Morgan Burnett and Jaire Alexander are really the only hits I can think of. 2 of the four we then incorrectly didn't extend.

All of the others were honestly lucky. Nobody wanted Woodson. Al Harris was inherited. Tramon Williams and Sam Shields were again just pure luck from a scouting standpiont.

It's why I kind of chuckle when I hear "Packer type" when looking at CBs and Safeties. Like our type has any real history of success?

I would put defensive line at #2 most sucky thing we suck at.

[BF004]

Be starting a new group mock draft soon.

Get control of a bunch of team, pick for them, make some trades, learn more about prospects and teams and their needs and depth chart. Very informative experience.


Move at your own pace, generally make best movement ~8-4 M-F during the work day, doesn't take a ton of time.

Give it a go!

viewtopic.php?t=1680&start=60

[Yoop]

Ted never overlooked safeties but he did suck at getting them. Collins was obviously great but he also took HaHa in the 1st. Burnett was fine in the 3rd. Can’t forget about how useless Josh Jones was in the 2nd. jerron McMillain was I guy I nailed in mock drafts but as a 7th round player, not a 4th smh.

Then again not sure what people consider Hyde. As he only played CB here I don’t count it.

The Packers in general suck at drafting and evaluating the secondary. Since the Ted regime Casey Hayward, Nick Collins, Micah Hyde, Morgan Burnett and Jaire Alexander are really the only hits I can think of. 2 of the four we then incorrectly didn't extend.

All of the others were honestly lucky. Nobody wanted Woodson. Al Harris was inherited. Tramon Williams and Sam Shields were again just pure luck from a scouting standpiont.

It's why I kind of chuckle when I hear "Packer type" when looking at CBs and Safeties. Like our type has any real history of success?

I would put defensive line at #2 most sucky thing we suck at.

ahhhh, not sure our lack of success drafting secondary players is that outside the norm, and we did have several safeties that did well in one scheme fit, and not so good in others, secondary success is dependent on scheme, experience in scheme, as well as the experience of others in it as well.

also many of our secondary misses are the result of Ted's un willingness to play the UFA game of over paying for talent, hence being forced to draft the best DB available and hoping the coaches can train them to play either safety or CB dependent on positional need, and we all complained about that, but every team is forced to do the same thing.

also, as we all know, late first round picks are often reaches, often these players, that every team needs ( QB, WR, CB, pass rusher) are 4th, 5th, or later tier positional players, sorta boom or bust, naturally the misses will be higher.


anyway another mock draft has us taking Barton, and Pitt. slot 24 taking Fautanu, both would be great additions to our OL, but over all this mock seems off base, some weird trades that appear to be poor value, some high value OL with a run starting with Pitt. and us and 4 more to finish round one


https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-mock-nfl- ... 05073.html

[NCF]

ahhhh, not sure our lack of success drafting secondary players is that outside the norm, and we did have several safeties that did well in one scheme fit, and not so good in others, secondary success is dependent on scheme, experience in scheme, as well as the experience of others in it as well.

I was thinking about this the other day. I wonder if it is coincidental or if there is a real long-term statistical advantage some teams have drafting certain positions. Perhaps built into the culture of the team or city.

Think of Green Bay with OL. Pittsburgh with WR's. Chicago with DB. Compare that with Cleveland QB's, Baltimore WR's, and Buffalo RB's. Sure seems like certain teams can do no wrong at certain positions while others can do no right.

[Yoop]

ahhhh, not sure our lack of success drafting secondary players is that outside the norm, and we did have several safeties that did well in one scheme fit, and not so good in others, secondary success is dependent on scheme, experience in scheme, as well as the experience of others in it as well.

I was thinking about this the other day. I wonder if it is coincidental or if there is a real long-term statistical advantage some teams have drafting certain positions. Perhaps built into the culture of the team or city.

Think of Green Bay with OL. Pittsburgh with WR's. Chicago with DB. Compare that with Cleveland QB's, Baltimore WR's, and Buffalo RB's. Sure seems like certain teams can do no wrong at certain positions while others can do no right.

maybe a bit of both, obviously some schemes are easier to play, but also require better athletes/players to excel in them ( Seattle, Legion of doom, Pittsburg steel curtain come to mind) problem is 11 excellent players are hard to assemble, so now we see schemes designed to cover for player limitations, zone schemes accomplish that, more so then press or off man which I consider the bell cow of older schemes.

long story short I have a strong belief when it comes to defense, scheme fit is the most important part of the puzzle, thing is there are very few players that excel in any scheme, so back to your point, it becomes a shortage of talent that fit well in particular schemes, and it's very hard to know that for sure till after you draft them, jmo

remember when we all wanted Capers to adjust his schemes to better take advantage of players we had, well that is far easier said then done, it's not as though that stuff is a one or 2 player thing, there are 11 players that have to fit well with those changes

[Labrev]

ahhhh, not sure our lack of success drafting secondary players is that outside the norm, and we did have several safeties that did well in one scheme fit, and not so good in others, secondary success is dependent on scheme, experience in scheme, as well as the experience of others in it as well.

I was thinking about this the other day. I wonder if it is coincidental or if there is a real long-term statistical advantage some teams have drafting certain positions. Perhaps built into the culture of the team or city.

Think of Green Bay with OL. Pittsburgh with WR's. Chicago with DB. Compare that with Cleveland QB's, Baltimore WR's, and Buffalo RB's. Sure seems like certain teams can do no wrong at certain positions while others can do no right.

I believe it is mostly endemic to the orgs. I think they end up getting good at certain positions' development and it becomes institutional knowledge that perpetuates itself, or they lack that institutional knowledge and the lack is perpetuated.

[NCF]

With the pool of Off Ball LB's available in this Draft, what does anyone think about targeting some of these undersized EDGE guys to play LB, specifically the SAM spot? I will throw two names out there to look at, Nelson Ceasar, III and Jaylen Harrell. It's not a position we have focused on heavily, but with no one seemingly available and the added bonus that these guys could give you sub-package pass rush reps, it seems like something Hafley and the brass might really look into.

[NCF]

[Scott4Pack]

Imo I don't see it as "throwing away picks" just because you have guys already at said position. They are drafting guys for a few different reasons.

1. The potential upside. Packers like RAS scores and top end athletes. Does this guy have the upside to potentially leap frog those middle to bottom of roster players.

2. Competition. Iron sharpens iron. I don't care if we have 14 TEs on the roster right now. If they feel this rookie can compete for that 3rd TE spot with future upside they will make that move. Let's be honest after musky and kraft these guys aren't changing the world. Are they ok sure but can stand to be upgraded. Injuries also happen at all positions

3. Future. I know this is SB or bust and I support that , but Gutes job is also long term success. Ted did it also. Drafting WRs in a loaded room bc 2 years from now that guy will be the GUY

I will never agree with draft this spot in this round bc we need a starter. That is what the bottom of the barrel teams do. If your guy is there and he fits that needed position cool, but don't just plug jags to fill a spot

ya still have to positional draft, there is no way out of that, this is not the 60's where players are content to stay with one team because family and staying in one place supersedes the few dollars more they could get from Cleveland money today changes that land scape, and those leaving absolutely need to be replaced.

teams have to have a QB, they also have to have players that can limit production from that QB, so if they need a edge rusher or CB they will figure out how to line up slot value to take that guy, they have to

again if ya have a 12 slot Gary, and a 15 slot LVN, why would you again use your first rounder on a edge rusher, redundancy does not make you better if you leave boundary CB weak ( or other positions.

yes plan for the future, not saying not to, it's also irresponsible to not fix a weak spot simply because ya lose several value points, winning is the most important thing here, right?

I hear that loud and clear. But I'm not drafting that CB if he's 30th on my board at 12. It's bad drafting to force need.

Didn't JJ watt go 12? Would you say hey pass on him bc Kevin king is there and we are desperate at cb? I wouldn't. We took Gary after signing both Smiths. It's not BPA. It's more BVA. If 2 guys are close in the same tier yes I understand making position matter no doubt. My example is extreme I know but all I'm saying is let the pieces fall. No safety is worth a 1st this year (unless Cooper is playing safety).

I also just can't support get this position at this pick thinking. It kinda drives my nuts

You might be echoing what Ted Thompson said many years. He wasn't necessarily a BPA guy. He would not pick a player because of position either. He wanted the value at every pick. And if he had a choice of two or more players that had same value, THEN he would look at the position need.

[YoHoChecko]

With the pool of Off Ball LB's available in this Draft, what does anyone think about targeting some of these undersized EDGE guys to play LB, specifically the SAM spot? I will throw two names out there to look at, Nelson Ceasar, III and Jaylen Harrell. It's not a position we have focused on heavily, but with no one seemingly available and the added bonus that these guys could give you sub-package pass rush reps, it seems like something Hafley and the brass might really look into.

Yes this. I looked at Jalyx Hunt and Solomon For that possibility due to their off ball playing experience