Page 18 of 45
Re: 2024 Draft Discussion
Posted: 21 Jan 2024 15:06
by LombardiTime
In 2021, the Packers committed to Maurice Drayton as Special Teams Coordinator.
in 2022, the Packers committed to Amari Rodgers as their preferred return man.
In 2023, the Packers committed to Anders Carlson.
I hope the commitment to Carlson eventually turns out better than the other two commitments, but it cannot be disputed that Anders had a horrible 2023 season and that his poor kicking cost the team dearly in both the regular season and in the playoffs.
His leash should be very, very short heading into the 2024 season.
Re: 2024 Draft Discussion
Posted: 21 Jan 2024 15:09
by wallyuwl
Scott4Pack wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 14:35
Let Carlson play.
From the beginning of this season, the Packers made a commitment to develop their young talent (without "rebuilding"). Carlson is part of that. That means they were willing to let him work out his issues. Part of that is playoff games. They were willing to risk some in the short haul with the hope that he will become a very good kicker in the long haul.
So far, they are actually on track. Even with the pain of a miss like last night.
This was persuasive, you convinced me Carlson should stay. 13 missed kicks isn't bad at all, 4 for 10 40-49 yards is awesome. Though, now that this is the criteria, I am also convinced Nijman and Savage must stay. The Packers made a commitment by drafting them, and they are right on track even with the pain of their performances from last night.
Forbes is chiming in on Carlson...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robreische ... the-price/
Re: 2024 Draft Discussion
Posted: 21 Jan 2024 15:19
by Yoop
wallyuwl wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 15:09
Scott4Pack wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 14:35
Let Carlson play.
From the beginning of this season, the Packers made a commitment to develop their young talent (without "rebuilding"). Carlson is part of that. That means they were willing to let him work out his issues. Part of that is playoff games. They were willing to risk some in the short haul with the hope that he will become a very good kicker in the long haul.
So far, they are actually on track. Even with the pain of a miss like last night.
This was persuasive, you convinced me Carlson should stay. 13 missed kicks isn't bad at all, 4 for 10 40-49 yards is awesome. Though, now that this is the criteria, I am also convinced Nijman and Savage must stay. The Packers made a commitment by drafting them, and they are right on track even with the pain of their performances from last night.
Savage and Campbell where our only 2 defenders credited with a PD in that game, Savage had 4 tackles, Campbell 8, If Savage will take a short and moderate money deal he'll be back next season
Re: 2024 Draft Discussion
Posted: 21 Jan 2024 15:43
by Cdragon
Yoop wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 15:19
wallyuwl wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 15:09
Scott4Pack wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 14:35
Let Carlson play.
From the beginning of this season, the Packers made a commitment to develop their young talent (without "rebuilding"). Carlson is part of that. That means they were willing to let him work out his issues. Part of that is playoff games. They were willing to risk some in the short haul with the hope that he will become a very good kicker in the long haul.
So far, they are actually on track. Even with the pain of a miss like last night.
This was persuasive, you convinced me Carlson should stay. 13 missed kicks isn't bad at all, 4 for 10 40-49 yards is awesome. Though, now that this is the criteria, I am also convinced Nijman and Savage must stay. The Packers made a commitment by drafting them, and they are right on track even with the pain of their performances from last night.
Savage and Campbell where our only 2 defenders credited with a PD in that game, Savage had 4 tackles, Campbell 8, If Savage will take a short and moderate money deal he'll be back next season
Was the pass defensed the dropped int?
This is a business with few guarantees. The commitment only lasts as long as you have perceived value. I'm fine keeping Carlson. I wouldn't mind Savage as depth as long as we find a killer back there.
Re: 2024 Draft Discussion
Posted: 21 Jan 2024 16:36
by Scott4Pack
wallyuwl wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 15:09
Scott4Pack wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 14:35
Let Carlson play.
From the beginning of this season, the Packers made a commitment to develop their young talent (without "rebuilding"). Carlson is part of that. That means they were willing to let him work out his issues. Part of that is playoff games. They were willing to risk some in the short haul with the hope that he will become a very good kicker in the long haul.
So far, they are actually on track. Even with the pain of a miss like last night.
This was persuasive, you convinced me Carlson should stay. 13 missed kicks isn't bad at all, 4 for 10 40-49 yards is awesome. Though, now that this is the criteria, I am also convinced Nijman and Savage must stay. The Packers made a commitment by drafting them, and they are right on track even with the pain of their performances from last night.
Forbes is chiming in on Carlson...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robreische ... the-price/
With what I said about the youth commitment, I would also say this:
1. The course on Savage has gone further enough to determine if the Packers still see a higher ceiling for him. I could see them letting him go or keeping him either way.
2. Still find a kicker to give Carlson plenty of competition next TC. Don't just find a guy who goes thru the motions. We want REAL competition.
Re: 2024 Draft Discussion
Posted: 21 Jan 2024 16:48
by wallyuwl
Scott4Pack wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 16:36
2. Still find a kicker to give Carlson plenty of competition next TC. Don't just find a guy who goes thru the motions. We want REAL competition.
You said "let Carlson play."
He needs to be replaced, not competition. He sucked in college and is worse in the NFL.
Re: 2024 Draft Discussion
Posted: 21 Jan 2024 18:41
by Foosball
With the first 5 picks (1, 2, 2, 3, 3) I want (in any order):
LT, S, ILB, DT, and a RB (Trey Benson)
Re: 2024 Draft Discussion
Posted: 21 Jan 2024 18:43
by YoHoChecko
Foosball wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 18:41
With the first 5 picks (1, 2, 2, 3, 3) I want (in any order):
LT, S, ILB, DT, and a RB (Trey Benson)
Swap that DT for a C; we're pretty good at DT. Clark and Wyatt are beasts. Slaton is a solid rotational nose. rooks and Wooden are exciting young pass rushers.
Myers is mid in his best moments.
Re: 2024 Draft Discussion
Posted: 21 Jan 2024 18:48
by Pckfn23
YoHoChecko wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 18:43
Myers is mid in his best moments.
Was this true this year? It seemed he was fairly good.
https://wisportsheroics.com/green-bay-p ... myers-pff/
Re: 2024 Draft Discussion
Posted: 21 Jan 2024 19:18
by Foosball
YoHoChecko wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 18:43
Foosball wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 18:41
With the first 5 picks (1, 2, 2, 3, 3) I want (in any order):
LT, S, ILB, DT, and a RB (Trey Benson)
Swap that DT for a C; we're pretty good at DT. Clark and Wyatt are beasts. Slaton is a solid rotational nose. rooks and Wooden are exciting young pass rushers.
Myers is mid in his best moments.
If I were to swap one it would be for a slot CB.
Re: 2024 Draft Discussion
Posted: 21 Jan 2024 19:35
by kampmanfan4life
Foosball wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 19:18
YoHoChecko wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 18:43
Foosball wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 18:41
With the first 5 picks (1, 2, 2, 3, 3) I want (in any order):
LT, S, ILB, DT, and a RB (Trey Benson)
Swap that DT for a C; we're pretty good at DT. Clark and Wyatt are beasts. Slaton is a solid rotational nose. rooks and Wooden are exciting young pass rushers.
Myers is mid in his best moments.
If I were to swap one it would be for a slot CB.
Agree, I do not know if we got a roster spot for another DL. slot CB, or double up at S
Re: 2024 Draft Discussion
Posted: 21 Jan 2024 19:53
by go pak go
He sucked until like late November/early December.
I'm coming around him. For the first time. I never liked him. But I am getting to the point where I don't feel we need to spend a top 60 pick on Center which is a lus.
Re: 2024 Draft Discussion
Posted: 21 Jan 2024 20:02
by YoHoChecko
go pak go wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 19:53
He sucked until like late November/early December.
I'm coming around him. For the first time. I never liked him. But I am getting to the point where I don't feel we need to spend a top 60 pick on Center which is a lus.
For me it's like... yeah, he's improved. He's still not, like,
good. And he's got one year left on his contract? Are we going to... spend money on him? No, we're not. We better not.
So let's go get someone better than him right now. Let it be a competition this year and a succession plan for next year.
Plus we need a backup C. We need a starting caliber OG either this year or next year. And we need a third OT behind Walker and Tom (or to compete with them, which is like a bevvy of riches).
Even if we have our starting 5 OL on the roster right now, I still think we need to draft 3--C, G, T--this year. For the depth. The cheap depth with developmental upside. And we have like 10-11 picks, so why not?
Re: 2024 Draft Discussion
Posted: 21 Jan 2024 20:08
by Pckfn23
YoHoChecko wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 20:02
go pak go wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 19:53
He sucked until like late November/early December.
I'm coming around him. For the first time. I never liked him. But I am getting to the point where I don't feel we need to spend a top 60 pick on Center which is a lus.
For me it's like... yeah, he's improved. He's still not, like,
good.
But he kinda was this year.
Re: 2024 Draft Discussion
Posted: 21 Jan 2024 20:15
by Labrev
Myers played well enough for me not to feel like we need to draft a starting C, but not good enough for me to take C off the table. He was decent, but inconsistent, even in the latter stretch of the season.
Ideally we can draft a C/G interior lineman in Day 2 or so. We can play them at RG if Rhyan does not take the starting role, and/or have them take over at C if we decline to keep Myers long term.
Re: 2024 Draft Discussion
Posted: 21 Jan 2024 20:18
by YoHoChecko
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 20:08
YoHoChecko wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 20:02
go pak go wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 19:53
He sucked until like late November/early December.
I'm coming around him. For the first time. I never liked him. But I am getting to the point where I don't feel we need to spend a top 60 pick on Center which is a lus.
For me it's like... yeah, he's improved. He's still not, like,
good.
But he kinda was this year.
No, not really. He was "not bad." He was "above average."
Even your arguments for him have been "fairly good" and "kinda good"
He wasn't "let's pay him NFL starter money to continue to play C for us" good.
Re: 2024 Draft Discussion
Posted: 21 Jan 2024 20:31
by Pckfn23
YoHoChecko wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 20:18
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 20:08
YoHoChecko wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 20:02
For me it's like... yeah, he's improved. He's still not, like,
good.
But he kinda was this year.
No, not really. He was "not bad." He was "above average."
Even your arguments for him have been "fairly good" and "kinda good"
He wasn't "let's pay him NFL starter money to continue to play C for us" good.
That's an interesting rephrase of, not good.
Re: 2024 Draft Discussion
Posted: 21 Jan 2024 20:40
by YoHoChecko
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 20:31
That's an interesting rephrase of, not good.
I mean if you're playing semantics, you have to include all of it. The punctation. The emphasis. The context.
I said he's improved, but he's not, like,
good
Maybe it doesn't translate the way I wanted it to, but that wording and emphasis indicates that I would not say "Josh Myers is good."
I would only say it with some sort of modifier. Josh Myers is "fairly good" or "kinda good" are your choices, which stand in perfect agreement with my statement that he's not... "good."
It means that the word good does not stand alone as a descriptor of him. It requires some other word or caveat.
I separated the words not and good very clearly for that purpose. I apologize if it doesn't translate to what I meant, but since you are a stickler for semantics and phrasing, I'll explain the heck out of it.
Re: 2024 Draft Discussion
Posted: 21 Jan 2024 20:49
by Pckfn23
YoHoChecko wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 20:40
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 20:31
That's an interesting rephrase of, not good.
I mean if you're playing semantics, you have to include all of it. The punctation. The emphasis. The context.
I said he's improved, but he's not, like,
good
Maybe it doesn't translate the way I wanted it to, but that wording and emphasis indicates that I would not say "Josh Myers is good."
I would only say it with some sort of modifier. Josh Myers is "fairly good" or "kinda good" are your choices, which stand in perfect agreement with my statement that he's not... "good."
It means that the word good does not stand alone as a descriptor of him. It requires some other word or caveat.
I separated the words not and good very clearly for that purpose. I apologize if it doesn't translate to what I meant, but since you are a stickler for semantics and phrasing, I'll explain the heck out of it.
Thank you for explaining what, not, like, good, means.
Re: 2024 Draft Discussion
Posted: 21 Jan 2024 21:42
by texas
Yoop wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 13:10
texas wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 12:17
Labrev wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024 10:13
Not many top tier safeties. Cooper DeJean is a first-round guy and probably just out of reach, but you never know. Tyler Nubin is a borderline Round 1-2 guy who I am fine with taking late in the first round. Then there is a smattering of Day 2 guys who can maybe be solid starters.
I was talking about this with my friend and he noted that nowadays there aren't nearly as many high quality safeties as there were back in the day.
And btw, 5 years later, it's clear he was correct about Savage.
no he was not right about Savage, he just wasn't a rangy single high safety, true he with hind sight was a reach, however he has done well in 2 high safety, also think he's a better tackler then Lupe gives him credit to be, Savage does best when Barry allows him freedom to roam.
saying that I think his contract is up, so time to move on or pony up, but who from all the UFA safety prospect is actually a improvement over savage? I think that the question we need to answer, and if ya think we can draft a more ready to play next year safety, well good luck with that, imo safety, like ILB, almost like TE are a tough learning curve at this level
seems like RB's are ranked early second day, I'd move up round 2 for the best of the bunch, and take another mid rounds, on our team RB is a key position, MLF's offense requires a excellent running attack, good for Love too.
I was thinking today that we really missed Amos out there. Not sure if Amos is still good, but we really could have used a guy who is a sure-tackler, and that was Amos's strength.
But yeah, I agree, lack of good safeties. And yeah, I would do that for the RBs too.