The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
Smith tweaked a hammy; no workout today. He was expected to be an athletic beast
Have you watched his tape? I haven’t. But when I read the writups about him, I wonder how he compares to LeRoy Butler.lupedafiasco wrote: ↑02 Mar 2023 16:36With Branch I feel like if he plays the same position as Bama like the nickel or star position I think he will be a good player. He’s super physical there. The snaps I see him at safety he looks like a different player. He doesn’t look interested in mixing it up the same as when he’s already closer to the LOS.
I appreciate you posting this. But at this point, if the Packers aren’t looking for a WR, I’d be very surprised. In fact, if we don’t use a high draft pick and/or pickup a proven WR, I’d almost call for Guty’s head. It’s no surprise to me if Guty would invest in a WR. He wants to give Love every chance to succeed.
I look at it this way: Its the one best chance they have to meet face- to- face with these athletes... whether they draft them or not.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑02 Mar 2023 10:25But I've said this before and I’ll say it again. The Packers had approximately 85% of the combine attendees on their “want to meet with” list the year I went with them. So take “met with” information with the corporate grain of salt.
Oh yeah, and the reported ones at the combine are true private interviews, which means there is some level of interest or some question that NEEDS answering. Those definitely matter. I just like to give caveats especially to "seen talking to at the Senior Bowl" or other events or informal combine stuff. Because if I could find it, I could literally show you the list where there was a dot next to everyone they wanted to talk to; it's literally almost everyone.BSA wrote: ↑03 Mar 2023 16:03I look at it this way: Its the one best chance they have to meet face- to- face with these athletes... whether they draft them or not.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑02 Mar 2023 10:25But I've said this before and I’ll say it again. The Packers had approximately 85% of the combine attendees on their “want to meet with” list the year I went with them. So take “met with” information with the corporate grain of salt.
When this class hits FA in a few seasons, they'll have a full dossier on the player, including these interviews. Always building the database
I was hoping to hear a reason why, went and did a quick look and found nothing, personally I think it's a time restraint thing, not enough time to interview prospects and to many people asking the questions, just a thought.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑03 Mar 2023 16:14Oh yeah, and the reported ones at the combine are true private interviews, which means there is some level of interest or some question that NEEDS answering. Those definitely matter. I just like to give caveats especially to "seen talking to at the Senior Bowl" or other events or informal combine stuff. Because if I could find it, I could literally show you the list where there was a dot next to everyone they wanted to talk to; it's literally almost everyone.BSA wrote: ↑03 Mar 2023 16:03I look at it this way: Its the one best chance they have to meet face- to- face with these athletes... whether they draft them or not.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑02 Mar 2023 10:25But I've said this before and I’ll say it again. The Packers had approximately 85% of the combine attendees on their “want to meet with” list the year I went with them. So take “met with” information with the corporate grain of salt.
When this class hits FA in a few seasons, they'll have a full dossier on the player, including these interviews. Always building the database
I'm shocked that the Packers coaches are staying home and that they are one of 11 teams doing so. I actually hate it. Getting face time with these guys matters so much. I guess since the scouts are the ones making the picks, that makes some sense, but man, the assistant coaches really seemed to enjoy their meetings.
I don't see it. Watson is WR#1 and Doubs is WR#2. Why would you draft another receiver high to compete for WR#3 when you also need a TE who, if they pick the right guy, would get more targets?
you sir have the perfect mindset to be a Packer GM, we don't need no more receiversTheSkeptic wrote: ↑04 Mar 2023 02:52I don't see it. Watson is WR#1 and Doubs is WR#2. Why would you draft another receiver high to compete for WR#3 when you also need a TE who, if they pick the right guy, would get more targets?
) is correct a couple times a day. I really like all three of Watson, Doubs, and even Toure but the cupboard is pretty bare even if you are high on those guys and needs to be restocked.right, we need our draft picks for defense, defense wins championships,Labrev wrote: ↑21 Mar 2023 08:57A broken record (
Also, the flip side of pointing out that Rodgers's contract took up too much space to make the position appreciably deeper than it was over the past couple years is.... now we won't have that problem in the foreseeable future, so let's get the benefit of it, such as, carrying more WR talent.
I think I actually would prefer to sign or trade for two vets (one slot, one boundary) rather than rely on draft picks to fix it, because it is an inexperienced group as it stands, and that problem isn't solved with rookies. You need some guys in the WR room who will show the younger guys how to be a pro.
we'd be better off buying defensive players and drafting receivers, the hit rate is higher on WR's.
That comparison is a non-starter. We have more resources to add talent with Love than Rodgers. Basic logic.I expect Gute to furnish Love with better receivers then he did Rodgers
A broken record is right about the part of the song it repeats. It just doesn't get anything else right.a broken record is never right, are you thinking of a clock?
