Packers Huddle

I was a major DeJean proponent, but I think folks are overstating the "miss" of not taking him in the draft. He ended up being drafted closer to our Round 2 pick than our Round 1. Yet I don't see anyone lamenting that we took Edge Cooper in 2 instead of trading up for DeJean. It is fine to pass on a good player in the draft, so long as the guy you took is good, at a position of comparable importance.

The same would be true if Morgan played this year, and the only reason he didn't is because we had unusually good fortune at OL this year (a good problem). Up to this point, it had been very common for our OL starters to miss a lot of time during the season, so we needed to come in with more than just five starting-caliber guys. So the Morgan pick was perfectly sensible.

Yet we ended having unusually good outcomes at OL this year: Rhyan took over at RG and did well, Walker was mostly solid at LT, Myers played appreciably better at C, hardly any injuries creating new OL combinations.

If even one of those things were different, Morgan would have played for us this year, a lot. If things went like that and we HADN'T drafted a playable OL high, we would have heard no end of how we were stupid for counting on Rhyan to start at RG, or Walker to keep playing well at LT, or sticking with Myers at C when he has been so mediocre, or not having depth to absorb injuries... and those criticisms would have been totally right.

So, based on what we knew at the time, Morgan was a perfectly sensible pick. In fact, it still is, given that Myers is almost certainly done, so we will need to reshuffle the starting OL, and Morgan can play either spot that will be opened by moving someone (Jenkins or Tom) to C.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 11:11

DeJean not getting picked because of Morgan is almost like a certain NBA team not picking Michael Jordan because they needed a Forward/Center. So they picked Perkins instead.

WILD comparison.

(Or, as you would say... 'good grief!!')

Labrev wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 11:49

So, based on what we knew at the time, Morgan was a perfectly sensible pick. In fact, it still is, given that Myers is almost certainly done, so we will need to reshuffle the starting OL, and Morgan can play either spot that will be opened by moving someone (Jenkins or Tom) to C.

Yes, but at the time I was horrifically disappointed with the Morgan pick, desperately wanted a versatile (actually two of them) DB and thought Dejean and Bullard were our best options, and thought (and still do think) moving Tom to C was dumb. I wanted Dejean or Barton toward the end of round one. Based on what was known. And many many people agreed. I think Morgan made little sense because we he's a G/T 'tweener and was unlikely to be a year one starter. There's a lot of time left and a draft class matters over the full 3-4 year window.

But this isn't hindsight. Based on what was known at the time, I and many others are being very consistent.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 12:08

Labrev wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 11:49

So, based on what we knew at the time, Morgan was a perfectly sensible pick. In fact, it still is, given that Myers is almost certainly done, so we will need to reshuffle the starting OL, and Morgan can play either spot that will be opened by moving someone (Jenkins or Tom) to C.

Yes, but at the time I was horrifically disappointed with the Morgan pick, desperately wanted a versatile (actually two of them) DB and thought Dejean and Bullard were our best options, and thought (and still do think) moving Tom to C was dumb. I wanted Dejean or Barton toward the end of round one. Based on what was known. And many many people agreed. I think Morgan made little sense because we he's a G/T 'tweener and was unlikely to be a year one starter. There's a lot of time left and a draft class matters over the full 3-4 year window.

But this isn't hindsight. Based on what was known at the time, I and many others are being very consistent.

Yet you admit here that IOL (Barton) was on the table for you at our pick. Most of the posts I am seeing about Morgan not being a great use of the pick is about OL not being a need or helping us this season. I don't really see anyone other than you making it an issue of Morgan as a player/prospect though.

yeah, our OL depth issues were hidden by remarkable health on that unit this year right up until the very last game. But it's hard to argue we didn't have them now that we see how the backups fared. Wild that our C2 is our LG1 and our C3 was our RG1. No one stepped up enough to be that versatile iOL reserve you like to have around. Morgan was rotating at RG, but Rhyan was the rightful starter and kept it.

And Morgan could wind up a player. But he wasn't ready to compete as a starter on the interior, we didn't need a starter at OT, and I'm not yet sure of his natural NFL position. which makes it tricky to know what we're lacking and what we have.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 11:43

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 11:11

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 08:20

Can't change the past, but the "Cooper DeJean should have been our guy" crowd (including me) got ample evidence from the way the season played out.

Though Morgan sure would have come in handy, if healthy, when Jenkins went down. I'm not saying there aren't counterpoints. But dang, with our struggles in the middle of the field and limitations at corner, DeJean would have been nice.

DeJean would have been great. But he wasn't the pick.

DeJean not getting picked because of Morgan is almost like a certain NBA team not picking Michael Jordan because they needed a Forward/Center. So they picked Perkins instead. There was not any question that Jordan was (much) more talented than Perkins. But that certain team didn't need a Guard.

I mention that because sometimes I wonder if Guty (and I do love Guty!) looks so much at pressing team needs and foregoes drafting elite talent. He says he always has a mind for "Best Player Available." But I just don't know if I agree. There's no doubt that he has picked for need, at least in recent years. But how much more should he acquire players for a higher/more transcendant ability? Maybe this is the year.

That wasn't really the scenario for the Packers. OL wasn't a 2024 need pick. Star/slot was.

sure it was, most mocks it seems had us taking one of the first round graded OL, and slot corners and safeties are much easier to find in a draft class, OL also tend to have a longer shelf life, plus when ya look at Gutes first round picks, there low floor high ceiling types, so there groomed up year one.

Labrev wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 12:24

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 12:08

Labrev wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 11:49

So, based on what we knew at the time, Morgan was a perfectly sensible pick. In fact, it still is, given that Myers is almost certainly done, so we will need to reshuffle the starting OL, and Morgan can play either spot that will be opened by moving someone (Jenkins or Tom) to C.

Yes, but at the time I was horrifically disappointed with the Morgan pick, desperately wanted a versatile (actually two of them) DB and thought Dejean and Bullard were our best options, and thought (and still do think) moving Tom to C was dumb. I wanted Dejean or Barton toward the end of round one. Based on what was known. And many many people agreed. I think Morgan made little sense because we he's a G/T 'tweener and was unlikely to be a year one starter. There's a lot of time left and a draft class matters over the full 3-4 year window.

But this isn't hindsight. Based on what was known at the time, I and many others are being very consistent.

Yet you admit here that IOL (Barton) was on the table for you at our pick. Most of the posts I am seeing about Morgan not being a great use of the pick is about OL not being a need or helping us this season. I don't really see anyone other than you making it an issue of Morgan as a player/prospect though.

My biggest issue with Moragan is I don't know what he is. Is he a tackle? Is he a guard? Is he suited at right or left side better?

I didn't know pre draft. I didn't know post draft. And I don't know now.

go pak go wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 12:40

Labrev wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 12:24

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 12:08

Yes, but at the time I was horrifically disappointed with the Morgan pick, desperately wanted a versatile (actually two of them) DB and thought Dejean and Bullard were our best options, and thought (and still do think) moving Tom to C was dumb. I wanted Dejean or Barton toward the end of round one. Based on what was known. And many many people agreed. I think Morgan made little sense because we he's a G/T 'tweener and was unlikely to be a year one starter. There's a lot of time left and a draft class matters over the full 3-4 year window.

But this isn't hindsight. Based on what was known at the time, I and many others are being very consistent.

Yet you admit here that IOL (Barton) was on the table for you at our pick. Most of the posts I am seeing about Morgan not being a great use of the pick is about OL not being a need or helping us this season. I don't really see anyone other than you making it an issue of Morgan as a player/prospect though.

My biggest issue with Moragan is I don't know what he is. Is he a tackle? Is he a guard? Is he suited at right or left side better?

I didn't know pre draft. I didn't know post draft. And I don't know now.

I think he is undoubtedly an OT. Honestly I was shocked to see us playing him at OG and I think thats a disconnect between Lafleur and Gutenbumst. I cant imagine a guy like Gutenbumst who drafts extreme athletes normally at positions of extreme value and the player he takes is an OG. I think Lafleur just wanted to play his best 5 and in that situation Morgan was one of the best 5 but not one of the best 2 OTs.

I like to think in my head though that Lafleur was sending a message saying "If you are going to draft me an OT that we have absolutely no need for I am going to play him somewhere. Stop drafting me players that arent going to play."

Yoop wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 12:39

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 11:43

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 11:11

DeJean would have been great. But he wasn't the pick.

DeJean not getting picked because of Morgan is almost like a certain NBA team not picking Michael Jordan because they needed a Forward/Center. So they picked Perkins instead. There was not any question that Jordan was (much) more talented than Perkins. But that certain team didn't need a Guard.

I mention that because sometimes I wonder if Guty (and I do love Guty!) looks so much at pressing team needs and foregoes drafting elite talent. He says he always has a mind for "Best Player Available." But I just don't know if I agree. There's no doubt that he has picked for need, at least in recent years. But how much more should he acquire players for a higher/more transcendant ability? Maybe this is the year.

That wasn't really the scenario for the Packers. OL wasn't a 2024 need pick. Star/slot was.

sure it was, most mocks it seems had us taking one of the first round graded OL, and slot corners and safeties are much easier to find in a draft class, OL also tend to have a longer shelf life, plus when ya look at Gutes first round picks, there low floor high ceiling types, so there groomed up year one.

Every starting lineman was already on the roster and had played before the 2024 draft. The only real question mark was RG where Sean Ryan started 18 games and had played 13 games before the season. Otherwise it was Walker, Tom, Jenkins, and Myers. This was not like picking Sam Bowie over Jordan because the Trail Blazers needed a center over a guard. Even that exact situation has been bastardized over the years. RG was not a need over a slot or safety.

Labrev wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 11:51

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 11:11

DeJean not getting picked because of Morgan is almost like a certain NBA team not picking Michael Jordan because they needed a Forward/Center. So they picked Perkins instead.

WILD comparison.

(Or, as you would say... 'good grief!!')

Yessir!
;-)

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 14:31

Labrev wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 11:51

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 11:11

DeJean not getting picked because of Morgan is almost like a certain NBA team not picking Michael Jordan because they needed a Forward/Center. So they picked Perkins instead.

WILD comparison.

(Or, as you would say... 'good grief!!')

Yessir!
;-)

Minor correction: it was Sam Bowie selected ahead of Jordan. Perkins was the pick after Jordan.

Your point is valid for the Trailblazers back then, not so sure the Packers need/pick comparison was quite as strong, though. I think Gute selected Morgan simply because he valued the talent at the critical position more.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 13:55

Yoop wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 12:39

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 11:43

That wasn't really the scenario for the Packers. OL wasn't a 2024 need pick. Star/slot was.

sure it was, most mocks it seems had us taking one of the first round graded OL, and slot corners and safeties are much easier to find in a draft class, OL also tend to have a longer shelf life, plus when ya look at Gutes first round picks, there low floor high ceiling types, so there groomed up year one.

Every starting lineman was already on the roster and had played before the 2024 draft. The only real question mark was RG where Sean Ryan started 18 games and had played 13 games before the season. Otherwise it was Walker, Tom, Jenkins, and Myers. This was not like picking Sam Bowie over Jordan because the Trail Blazers needed a center over a guard. Even that exact situation has been bastardized over the years. RG was not a need over a slot or safety.

I didn't say it was, I said Guty has in the past used his first round pick on groomers, maybe why most mock had us taking a OL, and while WAlker has played well, there is/was no guarantee he would have repeated that, even with everyone we now have, I would not be shocked to see another OL drafted high

APB wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 14:36

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 14:31

Labrev wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 11:51

WILD comparison.

(Or, as you would say... 'good grief!!')

Yessir!
;-)

Minor correction: it was Sam Bowie selected ahead of Jordan. Perkins was the pick after Jordan.

Your point is valid for the Trailblazers back then, not so sure the Packers need/pick comparison was quite as strong, though. I think Gute selected Morgan simply because he valued the talent at the critical position more.

OH, you're right! Thanks for the correction.

I'm just trying to put myself into Guty's shoes and figure out how he measures BPA against need, or balances them. I do think he leans more toward need than Ted Thompson did. Not a strong lean. But a lean anyhow.

Yoop wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 14:38

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 13:55

Yoop wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 12:39

sure it was, most mocks it seems had us taking one of the first round graded OL, and slot corners and safeties are much easier to find in a draft class, OL also tend to have a longer shelf life, plus when ya look at Gutes first round picks, there low floor high ceiling types, so there groomed up year one.

Every starting lineman was already on the roster and had played before the 2024 draft. The only real question mark was RG where Sean Ryan started 18 games and had played 13 games before the season. Otherwise it was Walker, Tom, Jenkins, and Myers. This was not like picking Sam Bowie over Jordan because the Trail Blazers needed a center over a guard. Even that exact situation has been bastardized over the years. RG was not a need over a slot or safety.

I didn't say it was, I said Guty has in the past used his first round pick on groomers, maybe why most mock had us taking a OL, and while WAlker has played well, there is/was no guarantee he would have repeated that, even with everyone we now have, I would not be shocked to see another OL drafted high

No, Morgan was not a clear cut need over slot or safety... This the comparison to Sam Bowie doesn't really work.

You butted into a conversation that has nothing to do with anything other than the Morgan pick compared to the pick of Sam Bowie and inserted some irrelevance about past picks being groomers.

Good news on Watson. I had read somewhere there was fear of more than just ACL damage.

paco wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2025 10:33

Good news on Watson. I had read somewhere there was fear of more than just ACL damage.

It's hard to imagine saying that's "good news" with a significant player like Watson. But that's where we are. If he can play all of December (and maybe a sliver of November?) and into the playoffs, I do think that's a very good thing!

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 15:07

Yoop wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 14:38

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 13:55

Every starting lineman was already on the roster and had played before the 2024 draft. The only real question mark was RG where Sean Ryan started 18 games and had played 13 games before the season. Otherwise it was Walker, Tom, Jenkins, and Myers. This was not like picking Sam Bowie over Jordan because the Trail Blazers needed a center over a guard. Even that exact situation has been bastardized over the years. RG was not a need over a slot or safety.

I didn't say it was, I said Guty has in the past used his first round pick on groomers, maybe why most mock had us taking a OL, and while WAlker has played well, there is/was no guarantee he would have repeated that, even with everyone we now have, I would not be shocked to see another OL drafted high

No, Morgan was not a clear cut need over slot or safety... This the comparison to Sam Bowie doesn't really work.

You butted into a conversation that has nothing to do with anything other than the Morgan pick compared to the pick of Sam Bowie and inserted some irrelevance about past picks being groomers.

again, most mock drafts had us picking a offensive lineman, that was the point, and a bunch of members here did as well, and long term Morgan could end up the better choice, getting a top OL man trumps safety or other positions because they are more rare.

and I didn't but in to anything, ya want a private conversation use PM's

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2025 10:48

It's hard to imagine saying that's "good news" with a significant player like Watson. But that's where we are. If he can play all of December (and maybe a sliver of November?) and into the playoffs, I do think that's a very good thing!

We will likely have an additional FA WR and a day 2 drafted WR. If and when Watson comes back, I doubt he plays much at all. I could see him starting to be more involved in the offense in early to mid December if he is cleared by Halloween, but it is unlikely he'll be cleared until Thanksgiving or later. Look at how LaCoach handled Musgrave this year.

Yoop wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2025 11:05

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 15:07

Yoop wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2025 14:38

I didn't say it was, I said Guty has in the past used his first round pick on groomers, maybe why most mock had us taking a OL, and while WAlker has played well, there is/was no guarantee he would have repeated that, even with everyone we now have, I would not be shocked to see another OL drafted high

No, Morgan was not a clear cut need over slot or safety... This the comparison to Sam Bowie doesn't really work.

You butted into a conversation that has nothing to do with anything other than the Morgan pick compared to the pick of Sam Bowie and inserted some irrelevance about past picks being groomers.

again, most mock drafts had us picking a offensive lineman, that was the point, and a bunch of members here did as well, and long term Morgan could end up the better choice, getting a top OL man trumps safety or other positions because they are more rare.

You are inserting yourself into a conversation you don't understand, which is exemplified by your reply. Selecting Jordan Morgan over Cooper DeJean was not like selecting Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan. Well, maybe in the sense that Jordan is the name involved.

wallyuwl wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2025 11:05

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2025 10:48

It's hard to imagine saying that's "good news" with a significant player like Watson. But that's where we are. If he can play all of December (and maybe a sliver of November?) and into the playoffs, I do think that's a very good thing!

We will likely have an additional FA WR and a day 2 drafted WR. If and when Watson comes back, I doubt he plays much at all. I could see him starting to be more involved in the offense in early to mid December if he is cleared by Halloween, but it is unlikely he'll be cleared until Thanksgiving or later. Look at how LaCoach handled Musgrave this year.

Sure. At this point, maybe the best plan is to just the final few regular season games to get his game legs under him for the playoffs.