The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
9 times out of 10, I would agree.
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)YoHoChecko wrote: ↑14 Mar 2024 11:08I’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
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.Yoop wrote: ↑14 Mar 2024 11:17if 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 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.go pak go wrote: ↑14 Mar 2024 11:26Let'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.Yoop wrote: ↑14 Mar 2024 11:17if 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
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 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 wrote: ↑14 Mar 2024 11:17if 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
CWIMM wrote: ↑15 Mar 2024 04:04I 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 wrote: ↑14 Mar 2024 11:17if 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 wrote: ↑14 Mar 2024 11:17if 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
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.Madcity_matt wrote: ↑15 Mar 2024 11:29Generally 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 wrote: ↑14 Mar 2024 11:17if 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
Now that Dillon is resigned, I would add RB to the list of what we don't immediately need.go pak go wrote: ↑14 Mar 2024 11:26Let'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.Yoop wrote: ↑14 Mar 2024 11:17if 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
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 guarantee you no GM is making a draft decision because of Brenton Cox, AJ Dillon or Luke Tenuta.TheSkeptic wrote: ↑15 Mar 2024 12:22Now that Dillon is resigned, I would add RB to the list of what we don't immediately need.go pak go wrote: ↑14 Mar 2024 11:26Let'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.Yoop wrote: ↑14 Mar 2024 11:17if 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
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 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.