Packers Huddle

Completely ignored a meeting I was in so I could at least do 1 of these! I'm sure guys don't fit. There's some I recognize, but it was more about addressing positions of need. Bunch of trade downs. Meant to grab a QB earlier, but screwed up, so just kept going. Focused on getting more options in the secondary. For me it's secondary and LB as the needs. But I expect we bring in those during FA as well.

Despite DT not being a huge need in my mind, I took Murphy over Kinchens and other OL options.

Let me know what you think about some of these guys. I rant this with Profootballnetwork's sim.

Murphy is value and would make for an insane rotation inside.

Obvi getting Nubin is great.

I think Trotter might not be an NFL athlete for the position. I’m pretty down on him. I want the instincts and IQ but you need better explosiveness to keep up in the league to me.

A little light on OL. Coleman is fine.

Don’t know most of the day three fits but really like throwing Elijah Jones in there. I know it’s almost too low-hanging but his athletic testing was great and he’s tight to be a heady instinctive guy, so adding that in to scheme familiarity I do think he should be strong on our radar, assuming Hafley has good things to say about him

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024 14:55

Murphy is value and would make for an insane rotation inside.

Obvi getting Nubin is great.

I think Trotter might not be an NFL athlete for the position. I’m pretty down on him. I want the instincts and IQ but you need better explosiveness to keep up in the league to me.

A little light on OL. Coleman is fine.

Don’t know most of the day three fits but really like throwing Elijah Jones in there. I know it’s almost too low-hanging but his athletic testing was great and he’s tight to be a heady instinctive guy, so adding that in to scheme familiarity I do think he should be strong on our radar, assuming Hafley has good things to say about him

Good to know on Trotter.

I wanted to grab OL a bit earlier, just didn't fall that way. I also don't know as much about that group yet. Though I'm leaning on us bringing back Runyan, and I'm still not convinced we don't keep Bakhtiari in some capacity. We need to add bodies, but we may not have to fill a starting role with someone new.

Elijah Jones was just too easy of a pick there. Meets all the criteria and history with Hafley. Makes so much sense, it likely doesn't happen.

Which QBs are you thinking of, btw?

I think it would really fascinating to see if MLF, Clements, and Mannion can fix Joe Milton’s mechanics and accuracy over the course of a rookie contract.

Getting back to draft, develop, and trade for great value at QB from the Ron Wolf years, which Gutey seemed to elude to

Not a fan of Murphy in the first round. I just feel like we are so deep at IDL that it ends up being poor positional value. Todays NFL is set up to get value from your rookies.

Love Nubin. Hes been my #1 S all season long.

Personally hate Trotter. I wouldnt take him in the top 4 rounds. Idk what he has going for him outside of his dad being an NFL LB. Hes small, light, and not that athletic. Im pretty confident Melton is going to be a good player. Im still surpirsed he isnt climbing into the 2nd round of mocks. Not much a fan of Corum. I feel like his offensive line did al lthe work for him. Kind of like Trotter but I dont know what it is that makes him special. Hes small and not that athletic.

I really like the rest of this mock. I really like Leary too as a developmental QB.

'Love the Day 2 and Mustapha pick.

I feel like if we are going IDL at all, it should be more of a NT. Murphy would give us a third UT. I would go almost any other direction at 25, JMO.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024 15:07

Which QBs are you thinking of, btw?

I think it would really fascinating to see if MLF, Clements, and Mannion can fix Joe Milton’s mechanics and accuracy over the course of a rookie contract.

Getting back to draft, develop, and trade for great value at QB from the Ron Wolf years, which Gutey seemed to elude to

I think its good sound long term strategy picking a QB to develop/and trade all the time, not mention the fact (unfortunately) that at some point in time, Jordan Love will miss time due to injury, and it might be nice having a reasonably competent MLF developed QB to take over when needed.

Maybe that guy is on our team already, but its a strategy I agree with.

That could be a fine mock. But do you see the Packers waiting til 102 for OLine? I don't. But these are strange days!

The Packers need DB's desperately and Olinemen, a starting ILB and a late round RB. There are 5 DB positions and only Alexander and Valentine have earned a spot on the 53 so far. On the Oline they need backups at swing tackle, guard and center, assuming JRJ is not resigned. That is 4 starters they have to find on D and 2 primary backups on the Oline and a backup RB ( assuming that Dillon walks and Wilson improves since he will no longer be a rookie ) 7 picks in the 1st and 2nd day and the RB in the late rounds.

I do not see how they can reasonably expect to improve the backup QB spot in the late rounds. They struck silver at backup QB in last year's draft and finding anyone better after the 4th round is extremely unlikely.

Similarly, they struck gold last year in the draft with Brooks and maybe silver in Wooden. They already have a 4 man rotation in Clark, Wyatt, Brooks and Slayton and any Dlineman drafted this year would be competing with Wooden for the final slot. Keep in mind that linemen are not very useful on special teams. Conclusion: Any Dlineman drafted this year is probably PS material and I may be wrong but drafting a player with the hope that he winds up on the PS is not a very good strategy.

Yes, I know, there is a Donald Driver or a Sam Shields or an Aaron Jones out there somewhere and if the Packers have a 3rd round grade on someone who is still available late in the 5th round, by all means take him, regardless of position. Even if he plays the Dline.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024 15:07

Which QBs are you thinking of, btw?

I think it would really fascinating to see if MLF, Clements, and Mannion can fix Joe Milton’s mechanics and accuracy over the course of a rookie contract.

Getting back to draft, develop, and trade for great value at QB from the Ron Wolf years, which Gutey seemed to elude to

Haven't looked that close, but Milton was one thought. Possibly go as early as Pratt in the 3rd.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024 18:15

That could be a fine mock. But do you see the Packers waiting til 102 for OLine? I don't. But these are strange days!

I do think its possible. Even taking Bak out of the equation, you've got Walker and Tom as starting tackle, Jenkins at LG, and they may be happy sticking with Runyan and Myers as well. Not to mention we've got a pretty good track record of developing mid-late round OL.

Also wouldn't surprise me if we took someone in the 1st round.

paco wrote: ↑

06 Mar 2024 10:34

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024 18:15

That could be a fine mock. But do you see the Packers waiting til 102 for OLine? I don't. But these are strange days!

I do think its possible. Even taking Bak out of the equation, you've got Walker and Tom as starting tackle, Jenkins at LG, and they may be happy sticking with Runyan and Myers as well. Not to mention we've got a pretty good track record of developing mid-late round OL.

Also wouldn't surprise me if we took someone in the 1st round.

just can't see us taking a DT Paco, even though I think Murphy may be the BPA at our slot, many of the Tackle prospects in this class also have interior ability, we value that type of versatility with our OL, plus there'll probably be a CB that could claim BPA as well, for me predicting this draft, specially round one is tough, second round, I think we take a safety and a RB, critical needs for my tranquility

Guty likes to double and even triple dip when fixing a position, I could see him buy 2 UFA safeties and also use slot 43 on Nubin.

3 CB's I like it, there is no such thing as having to many CB's

so much of the game is now played in the box, or lber level, I don't know much about the lbers but taking one with coverage skills is a hard pass, specially if we let Campbell go.

nice work

I don't mind taking IDL at all. If there is a stud there you take him.

Clark - final year of contract
Slaton - final year of contract
Wyatt - year 3 of contract (potentially 5 years)

Odds are at least one of these 3 are gone after 2025 and one is probably gone after 2024. Same reason WR will likely be a target in the 2025 draft even though we will appear loaded.

No issue at all taking another young player at a position that is known to take a bit of time to develop.

go pak go wrote: ↑

07 Mar 2024 10:44

I don't mind taking IDL at all. If there is a stud there you take him.

Clark - final year of contract
Slaton - final year of contract
Wyatt - year 3 of contract (potentially 5 years)

No issue at all taking another young player at a position that is known to take a bit of time to develop.

Also not sure when people are going to wrap their brains around the idea that the Packers don't mind letting a 1st rounder sit for a bit. I know people hate it. I'd rather have a superstar day 1 too. But it's what we do.

Thanks all for the commentary. Hope I get to dig in and learn some more before draft day!

Positional needs in the first round is nearly a farse because positions in rosters usually see a signficant enough turnover every other year. The only position that doesn't make sense for GB to draft in Rd 1 this year is QB unless they don't think they can extend Love.

Otherwise you take a player if you love them. I love Murphy and I love that IDL from Illinois.

go pak go wrote: ↑

07 Mar 2024 10:44

I don't mind taking IDL at all. If there is a stud there you take him.

Clark - final year of contract
Slaton - final year of contract
Wyatt - year 3 of contract (potentially 5 years)

Odds are at least one of these 3 are gone after 2025 and one is probably gone after 2024. Same reason WR will likely be a target in the 2025 draft even though we will appear loaded.

No issue at all taking another young player at a position that is known to take a bit of time to develop.

The issue to me is type, not position (... but also yes, position).

If it is a question of anticipating the loss of Clark and/or Slaton, that makes a lot more sense, but Murphy is not really the skill-set with which you want to replace them. What you end up with are four UTs (him, Wyatt, Brooks, Wooden).

If it is a question of not wanting Wyatt long-term, I would rather give Brooks and Wooden another year (at minimum, but preferably two) to see where they are at and if we are content to move forward with them at 3t. By drafting another DT of their type high, we lessen the amount of reps for Brooks and Wooden. They need those reps for their development, and for us to fully evaluate them. So does any rookie.

Then if we do decide we want Brooks and Wooden long-term, the pick is a waste, because he will never on his rookie deal barring injury.

This tends to get hand-waved away as a "good problem to have." To me it is just poor value, squandered premium resources.

Labrev wrote: ↑

07 Mar 2024 11:21

go pak go wrote: ↑

07 Mar 2024 10:44

I don't mind taking IDL at all. If there is a stud there you take him.

Clark - final year of contract
Slaton - final year of contract
Wyatt - year 3 of contract (potentially 5 years)

Odds are at least one of these 3 are gone after 2025 and one is probably gone after 2024. Same reason WR will likely be a target in the 2025 draft even though we will appear loaded.

No issue at all taking another young player at a position that is known to take a bit of time to develop.

The issue to me is type, not position (... but also yes, position).

If it is a question of anticipating the loss of Clark and/or Slaton, that makes a lot more sense, but Murphy is not really the skill-set with which you want to replace them. What you end up with are four UTs (him, Wyatt, Brooks, Wooden).

If it is a question of not wanting Wyatt long-term, I would rather give Brooks and Wooden another year (at minimum, but preferably two) to see where they are at and if we are content to move forward with them at 3t. By drafting another DT of their type high, we lessen the amount of reps for Brooks and Wooden. They need those reps for their development, and for us to fully evaluate them. So does any rookie.

Then if we do decide we want Brooks and Wooden long-term, the pick is a waste, because he will never on his rookie deal barring injury.

This tends to get hand-waved away as a "good problem to have." To me it is just poor value, squandered premium resources.

He is an excellent run defender so that is why I liked him. I didn't realize he weighted in at 297 at the combine. He was listed at like 310 in the season which I was okay with. Yes...I would like a guy who is not sub 300

go pak go wrote: ↑

07 Mar 2024 10:49

Positional needs in the first round is nearly a farse because positions in rosters usually see a signficant enough turnover every other year. The only position that doesn't make sense for GB to draft in Rd 1 this year is QB unless they don't think they can extend Love.

Otherwise you take a player if you love them. I love Murphy and I love that IDL from Illinois.

positional drafting is a necessity for the same reason you say it's a farse, just look how teams draft players, look at the increasing UFA every season, if your not hoping to get max years from rookie contract dollars you'll certainly be over whelmed with kicking second contract money into future seasons to keep them.

saying all that, some positions are slower to transition to this level then others, and DT is one,

I like a lot of players, doesn't mean I want to draft em all, this is about team building, and not positional building, what good is having stud players and only a few snaps a game to give them, we have plenty of position that actually do need up grading, no way I'am over loading a strong position based on future contract situations of others, never attempt to cross a bridge till ya actually get close to the dang bridge or you'll end up in some corn field

this stuff comes up every draft, and people come in here with this BPA report card, it is not even practical to think one GM board is even remotely like another's, each team has a different set of particular issues that HAVE to be addressed, and every GM without fail will emphatically say, HE WAS BEST PLAYER ON OUR BOARD, what they wont say, is we are razor thin at CB and had to take the best DB left available.

not to rant GPG but this BPA talk just drives me nuts, and I been around long enough to know that if a GM really likes a kid, he'll take him no matter his combine grades, or any other eval, it's one of the reasons so many draft picks fail

I like that you made secondary and LB's a focal point. I like the Mustapha pick. Some here are expressing disapproval with DT in RD1, but I wouldn't hate it. I fantasize about those 2007, 2011 NYG defenses, and it all started up front with them. I'd be happy with this draft overall.