Packers Huddle

Feast or famine 3-technique whose game is characterized by splashy wins and glaring losses from snap to snap. Willis is a one-gapper who has enough initial quickness and footwork to find success in the backfield, but poor pad level gets him bludgeoned by double teams too frequently. He's an active rusher with change of direction to harass the pocket which could bolster his draft stock and make him a rotational backup with eventual starter potential if he plays with a more functional pad level.

Draft Projection
Rounds 3-4

go pak go wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2020 19:15

But we still need a two gapper. Bring me Snacks Harrison!!!

salmar80 wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2020 02:41

If you're loaded

Drj820 wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2020 11:16

Not real sure the best thread for this...but just general packers chat. Let’s look at the Packers top nfc competitors.

Vikings: got a top secondary prospect and a great WR prospect when they already have a Thielen and Dalvin at rb.
Replaced Diggs and Rhodes with rookies

Cowboys: Got a top two WR in the draft after already having a Gallup, zeke, amari.
Replaced Cobb with a top rookie WR

Niners:represented the nfc in the super bowl, went and reloaded at DL and got the perfect WR for their system.
Replaced DeForrest Buckner and Emmanuel Sanders with rookies

Eagles: Needed a WR, passed on Jefferson...went unpopular pick but still addressed their top need.

Saints: Went with top center in draft. Made Protecting their old qb a top priority. Has a qb older than Rodgers and passed on Love.
This is just my two cents, but when the Saints came up, I was terrified they'd take Love and be relevant/great for the next 10 years after Brees retires this year

Seahawks: After giving Wilson Metcalf last draft, they go immediate starter in the secondary to bolster the defense.

Packers: paid qb tons of money, need OT, WR, and ILB...draft a guy who 25 other teams passed on that won’t see the field for three years.
Replaced Bulaga, Martinez, and Allison with free agents; needs still remain, but if we took an OT in the first, that guy also would be sitting for a year or two barring injury

Nauseating how we don’t go for it while the window is open and other teams are improving for 2020.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2020 11:27

I'm gonna add context comments in red within the quote

Drj820 wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2020 11:16

Not real sure the best thread for this...but just general packers chat. Let’s look at the Packers top nfc competitors.

Vikings: got a top secondary prospect and a great WR prospect when they already have a Thielen and Dalvin at rb.
Replaced Diggs and Rhodes with rookies

Cowboys: Got a top two WR in the draft after already having a Gallup, zeke, amari.
Replaced Cobb with a top rookie WR

Niners:represented the nfc in the super bowl, went and reloaded at DL and got the perfect WR for their system.
Replaced DeForrest Buckner and Emmanuel Sanders with rookies

Eagles: Needed a WR, passed on Jefferson...went unpopular pick but still addressed their top need.

Saints: Went with top center in draft. Made Protecting their old qb a top priority. Has a qb older than Rodgers and passed on Love.
This is just my two cents, but when the Saints came up, I was terrified they'd take Love and be relevant/great for the next 10 years after Brees retires this year

Seahawks: After giving Wilson Metcalf last draft, they go immediate starter in the secondary to bolster the defense.

Packers: paid qb tons of money, need OT, WR, and ILB...draft a guy who 25 other teams passed on that won’t see the field for three years.
Replaced Bulaga, Martinez, and Allison with free agents; needs still remain, but if we took an OT in the first, that guy also would be sitting for a year or two barring injury

Nauseating how we don’t go for it while the window is open and other teams are improving for 2020.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2020 11:45

Here is some context:

other contenders: had fewer needs than the packers, reloaded, got better.

Packers: had large needs, drafted a player we hope doesn’t play for three seasons.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2020 11:45

Here is some context:

other contenders: had fewer needs than the packers, reloaded, got better.

Packers: had large needs, drafted a player we hope doesn’t play for three seasons.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2020 11:57

Drj820 wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2020 11:45

Here is some context:

other contenders: had fewer needs than the packers, reloaded, got better.

Packers: had large needs, drafted a player we hope doesn’t play for three seasons.

Why do you think other contenders had fewer needs?

As I mentioned, after trading away Buckner and letting Sanders walk, the 49ers had needs there. The Saints need a #2 WR just as badly, if not more so, than we do; and their defense has more holes than ours. The Cowboys and Eagles have plenty of needs and t's kind of you to even call them contenders. The Vikings have, thus far, only replaced the players they lost. Further, not every draft pick works.

I don't like the pick, either. I think it is a year or two too early to draft the heir apparent. I think trading up and losing a 4th in a deep draft at need positions was a mistake. I, in fact, called it "unforgiveable."

But acting as if all the other teams are getting loads better while we aren't is an overreaction. Like, I'm sorry, but a rookie C is not putting the Saints over the top; that's just ridiculous. Justin Jefferson is in no way assured to be able to replace Diggs' production--he's probably a downgrade at least in the short term. Brandon Ayiuk, as we all mentioned here, is a great fit for the offenses we and the 49ers run, but is also a very raw route runner despite being a senior rather than an early-entrant.

At 26, Queen was the only player left on my board that I wanted in the first round. It was a very bad board for us after the early-mid twenties. Had we stayed put, Queen would have been gone, too. And Gutey said the trade down options were not very appealing. To evidence that, we got a bargain on the trade to move up; trade charts that were accurate on other first-round trades had us needing to give a 3 and take back a 5, or to give a 4 and a 5. Teams moving down struggled to find partners.

So we were sitting at the end of round one with fairly few options. Let's see if we get a starting WR and a starting-caliber developmental OT, and a guy who can compete for time at ILB by the end of the next couple rounds. I've been saying all offseason the rookie impact from this class was going to be very limited by the fact that we really only have an opening at WR and MLF tends to prefer rookies to develop on the bench or in part time roles.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2020 12:00

Drj820 wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2020 11:45

Here is some context:

other contenders: had fewer needs than the packers, reloaded, got better.

Packers: had large needs, drafted a player we hope doesn’t play for three seasons.

I disagree that other contenders had fewer needs and we had larger ones. Other than maybe KC I think the amount of needs was fairly similar.

I agree that they addressed those immediate needs yesterday whereas we did not.

paco wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2020 11:47

Rookies don't make you better by default. If anything they make you worse. Don't know until after the season, but the draft does not typically fix problems in year 1. If you are using the draft that way, then you pick at the top of rounds often.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2020 11:57

At 26, Queen was the only player left on my board that I wanted in the first round. It was a very bad board for us after the early-mid twenties. Had we stayed put, Queen would have been gone, too. And Gutey said the trade down options were not very appealing. To evidence that, we got a bargain on the trade to move up; trade charts that were accurate on other first-round trades had us needing to give a 3 and take back a 5, or to give a 4 and a 5. Teams moving down struggled to find partners.

So we were sitting at the end of round one with fairly few options. Let's see if we get a starting WR and a starting-caliber developmental OT, and a guy who can compete for time at ILB by the end of the next couple rounds. I've been saying all offseason the rookie impact from this class was going to be very limited by the fact that we really only have an opening at WR and MLF tends to prefer rookies to develop on the bench or in part time roles.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

04 May 2020 12:05