Defense Still Early Draft Focus for Packers

We're just days away from the start of the 2018 NFL draft and the Packers are in a spot they haven't been in nearly a decade.  They currently hold the 14th pick in the first round.

With the number of quarterbacks that are being projected and mocked ahead of the Packers, there stands a chance that one of the elite non-quarterback players will be on the board when Green Bay's turn comes.

There will be movement and trades in this draft.  You can bank on it.  The current order will get blown up by the time the Commissioner takes the stage to announce the start of the selections.  Regardless, the Packers should emerge from Thursday night with a better situation then they were in when the 2017 season ended.

When Ted Thompson was Packers General Manager, he would often say he preferred the best available player in round one.  That didn't always prove to be true, regardless of what he said.  New GM Brian Gutekunst hasn't totally tipped his hand for his early strategy in his first draft.  

Coming into 2018, it's clear that the Packers' biggest needs still sit on the defensive side of the ball.  Since they won the Super Bowl in 2010, the Packers have been chasing a defense that can get them back there.  Here we are eight years later, still chasing.

Most of the mock drafts have the Packers selecting a defensive player.  Edge rusher and defensive back have been the predominant picks.  Those are flat-out needs so if Gutekunst has a "best player available" mentality, hopefully that lines up with need and the Packers do indeed pick a player who mans one of those two areas.

The defensive line saw the addition of free agent Muhammad Wilkerson to complement Mike Daniels, Kenny Clark and Dean Lowry.  Blake Martinez came on strong at inside linebacker last season and Josh Jones began honing his craft as a hybrid linebacker/safety.

With the departure of Damarious Randall, the Packers lost a starting cornerback.  Veteran safety Morgan Burnett departed in free agency for the Pittsburgh Steelers.  That leaves a hole or two in the defensive backfield.

Outside linebackers Clay Matthews and Nick Perry are both a year older and not likely to be as effective.  Regardless of whether the Packers run a 3-4, 4-3, 2-5 or nickel all day long, they have to get pressure on the quarterback.

That tells me that the Packers can't afford not to bring in a home run, impact starter on day one when this draft is over with.  The only question is how their board is stacked.

With the loss of Jordy Nelson, wide receiver is a need.  Green Bay also needs to address guard on their offensive line at some point.  But with Aaron Rodgers at quarterback, the Packers can likely buy a year or two before they have to spend high draft capital on the line.  They can continue building a top-notch defense.

Whether you're a Harold Landry or Marcus Davenport fan or you want one of the many defensive backs who should be available early, it's almost certain that the Packers address defense with two or three of their first four picks.

It's an eye-rolling cliche at this point, but if "defense wins championships" the Packers are a long way away, on paper.  This next week is going to be very critical to their ability to compete at an elite level and have a legitimate chance of reaching another Super Bowl.

-------------------

Jason is a freelance writer on staff since 2012 and also co-hosts Cheesehead TV Live, Pulse of the Pack and Pack A Day podcasts.  You can follow him on Twitter here

NFL Categories: 
0 points

Comments (101)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
Nick Perry's picture

April 23, 2018 at 06:25 am

"Since they won the Super Bowl in 2010, the Packers have been chasing a defense that can get them back there. Here we are eight years later, still chasing."

Sigh.... Not only are we still chasing defense, we've also developed gaping holes at O-Line, WR, and STILL have no long term solution at TE though I do love the Graham signing and am hoping for at least 2 quality seasons.

BUT.. I still have faith in the Packers for 2018 because we have Rodgers who is still good for 10 wins all by himself IMO. With an excellent draft and exceptional play from a pick or two, quality play from another pick or two, and those picks from last years draft take a BIG step forward we may be in better shape than we know. Hey the Saints did it, why not GB?? The Saints took a huge jump because they got BIG jumps from their 2016 draft class and instant starters from their 2017 class.

Having a new DC is huge. Joe Philbin coming back might be just as huge. New position coaches might be a big positive as well. New ideas, new thoughts. But BG making the picks instead of Ted Thompson might just be exactly what the Packers needed. I can't wait for BG to make his mark in GB, and I have no doubt he will!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Johnblood27's picture

April 23, 2018 at 09:16 am

BG will definitely leave a mark.

Will it be fantastic fireworks or a skid mark?

Next Thursday will be the first LARGE insight into which way things might go.

I am banking on a better approach to talent acquisition across the board as we have seen with a looser free agency perspective. A draft philosophy of getting players that already fit their positions (except in obvious adaptation circumstances) along with avoidance of high injury risk should begin to fill the talent pipeline on the roster.

I am hoping for the best.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Turophile's picture

April 23, 2018 at 11:04 am

A couple of things Jason Perone said, I take issue with.
First he says
"When Ted Thompson was Packers General Manager, he would often say he preferred the best available player in round one. That didn't always prove to be true, regardless of what he said."
Since you don't know how Ted's board was stacked, you cannot know if he took his player from the from the highest tier of players left on his board, or not. Boards can be stacked very differently, on different teams.

Jason also says "That tells me that the Packers can't afford not to bring in a home run, impact starter on day one when this draft is over with. The only question is how their board is stacked."
This is silly. What the Packers want is a good-starter-level, long-term player - they are unlikely to be an impact player right out of the box, almost no-one is. Though RBs can sometimes do that as a rookie, few other positions can. You don't draft a player for what he can do in year one, but over a (hopefully) long career.

Though not so relevant to the article, like Nick Perry in the above post, I also am a fan of getting Philbin back, and he can play a major role in the rewriting of the offensive playbook.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Packer_Fan's picture

April 23, 2018 at 06:31 am

CB is still a huge need for the Pack. Williams and House are not long term options. And House is not a starter in my opinion. And I still feel that that Pack should trade away from 12 picks to get more picks in rounds 1-4.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Nick Perry's picture

April 23, 2018 at 06:57 am

I still have some hope for House but I wouldn't bet anything that mattered to me he'll bounce back. I think Williams can still be effective but the Packers HAVE to limit his snaps somewhat for him to be effective all season so I agree they need CB's and the need is huge.

I also agree 100% about trading some of those 5th, 6th, and 7th round picks to move up or back into rounds 2-4 especially. Gutekunst has lots of capital to work with to move around in this draft. I can't wait!!!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 23, 2018 at 07:22 am

Trading some picks. I see swaps. But not loss of picks. It would be a big jump. Much like 2009, when TT did that for Mathews. We have to many holes in the depth chart for that to happen. (A 2 &3 ) 2 Wrs must be replaced.(Nelson,Janis) And at least 1 CB. The Cbs in the second round will not be better than Randall. The best edge players take a couple of years. The RG is a must replacement. And they still will need better back-ups at safety. (Burnett) And who replaces Thomas, Brooks and Dial. Just lots of needs!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
pooch's picture

April 23, 2018 at 07:28 am

Need to get edge rushers.Been putting that off for too many years

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
pooch's picture

April 23, 2018 at 07:28 am

Need to get edge rushers.Been putting that off for too many years

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2018 at 07:43 am

I don't see a tremendous amount of difficulty in replacing Thomas (an average passing-down ILB), Brooks (who spent most of 2017 in the training room), and Dial (a 2-down interior DL).

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 23, 2018 at 09:12 am

Ok, then your for Free Agents after the draft. Your giving up Vets for rookies. Ok, let's take some guy off the street and give him a job. Really dobber! Thomas was for speed, cover and fast rush. Sure couldn't tackle and should have been replaced. Brooks was for rush, cover, Dial was to plug and give Clarke a break. And look how when they came in, the play went right at them.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2018 at 09:52 am

I can't tell whether your agree with me or disagree. For players you seem to lament being gone in your previous post, you hack them up pretty significantly here.

Read my post: I said they wouldn't be hard to replace.
Joe Thomas: Played less than 10% of defensive snaps in 2017. Logged 79% of the def. snaps against Carolina, but otherwise played 10 total after week 4.
Ahmad Brooks: Played approximately 1/3 of the defensive snaps in 2017, missed 4 games. Registered only 1.5 sacks from the edge.
Quinton Dial: Played approximately 1/3 of the defensive snaps in 2017, missed 3 games. Logged a total of 12 tackles.

Dial's already been replaced: Montravious Adams and Mo Wilkerson will eat up his snaps. Brooks did essentially nothing. They have three edge players who didn't play much in 2017 (Gilbert, Odom, Biegel) who can do nothing just as effectively. Thomas's role might be the hardest to target a replacement for on the roster at the moment (given that Burnett's departure means Jones's role is not clear).

"You're giving up vets for rookies"

I'm giving up proven JAGs for guys who might show that they can be more than JAGs. I'm all for the Packers making as many of those 12 picks as they can. If we think the 2017 defense can't get any worse, then play for upside.

"Ok, let's take some guy off the street and give him a job."

My theme has always been, "be smart." When a player gets cut that can fill an immediate need and make your team better, kick the tires on that guy. I never said, "sign everybody...sign anybody." There are still players on the market that can help this team right now. There will be more on the market after the draft. Once the Packers see who they have, and have some idea what they can do after rookie camp? Don't be afraid to make smart signings.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 23, 2018 at 10:10 am

I think the best response is to show you a Mock. This mock shows no trades. This mock has the Rating and Need going with the pick. The packers have brought some of these players in. @14 - Vita Vea NT WA. He isn't a Tweener/or Bust @45- Mike Gesicki TE @76 - E. St.Brown WR @101-Daurice Fountain WR @133- Dane Cruikshank DB @138 - Mason Cole OC @172-Tarvarius Moore FS @174- Marquis Haynes OLB @186 - Justin Watson WR @207- Natrl Jamerson- S @232- Keith kirkwood WR @239- Ike Boettrer OT Iowa/// Needs Completed. And if you don't like Brown take Gallop. /// Gesicki was considered first round by some. If you mock a TE later you take the best now. I believe they won't get Carter! Cb is a waste.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2018 at 10:23 am

I have no idea what you're responding to, now, and I have little respect for chuckleheads in a studio trying to tell us who a team should draft.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 23, 2018 at 12:11 pm

Well Dobber you just shouldn't get on this site then.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

April 23, 2018 at 10:25 am

Jones will probably assume Thomas’ role I would assume? They can either draft or sign another FA safety IMO.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2018 at 10:30 am

I expect the same: Jones played that role later in the season last year, but we'll have to see how they replace Burnett and how that impacts Jones.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2018 at 07:57 am

There isn't enough draft capital in rounds 5-7 to generate any large number of new picks in rounds 1-4 according to the value charts. The Packers can package all their 5th-plus picks and that gets them ONE LATE third rounder (somewhere around pick 96, according to the pick value chart). So now you go from 12-picks, 1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5,6,6,7,7 to 1,2,3,3,4,4.

What they could do is turn their 4th rounders into 3rds, but I don't think they want to jump out of the catbird seat on day 3. So if they package everything AFTER pick 101 (4,5,5,5,6,6,7,7) they get to (drumroll please) about pick 85 (1,2,3,3,4).

Neither of those scenarios would be good for the Packers, and if they did either, I would be at the front of the line of those saying BG is in way over his head.

The trade-up options I favor that use those late-round picks include taking their early 5th and earlier 6th to move up from 138 to 121. The other is dealing both later 5ths (172 and 174) for a pick around 128. There have to be players there they covet, of course. Do both of those and you go from 1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5,6,6,7,7 to 1,2,3,4,4,4,4,6,7,7...still 10 picks, but focusing more picks 133 and under.

The only way they really make hay with a larger number of early picks in this draft is to make a significant tradeback from #14...which most people here won't like.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

April 23, 2018 at 08:38 am

I agree. If you want more 2nd day picks you should trade down 1st round to get them.

Everything else is way too much expensive...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

April 23, 2018 at 09:07 am

Trading down in Round 1 could really help us. We could package it with our 3rd to get a 1st and 2nd in the 18-22 range, or snag an extra 2nd straight out by trading a bit lower.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 23, 2018 at 09:26 am

This only works if it's a GUY they really like. Look at your top 100 board. The players are placed on Rating! Not position. Rating does not make that player a starter. Scheme Dobber!! Think Scheme! The packers may not see "THAT GUY" so why trade up. Your trading up to just trade up. The intelligence and logic won't fit. Unless it's a player they Must Have! The draft is a science now. Your reason does not go with draft thinking. The packers would be better off trading down first. These guys are not Reggie White.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2018 at 09:56 am

From the 4th paragraph of my post...

"There have to be players there they covet, of course. "

I never posted a top 100 board.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Cubbygold's picture

April 23, 2018 at 10:59 am

Sure, backing away from your board now that we know how terrible it is...typical ;)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2018 at 12:36 pm

I would've taken Jeff Janis in the 3rd round... ;)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 23, 2018 at 12:21 pm

Do you really understand a trade Chart.?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2018 at 12:27 pm

Do you?

It sure AF ain't rocket science.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
LambeauPlain's picture

April 23, 2018 at 10:23 am

The 5th, 6th, and 7th round picks won’t even let Gute smell another 2nd or 3rd round pick (all three 5ths would just get him the 9 or 10th pick in the 4th round). They just have no trade value for big moves.

But he could use them to jump up a few spots in the second or get close to the top of third round...then he could have close to the top pick in round 3 and then lead off day three with his first 4th rounder.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Handsback's picture

April 23, 2018 at 06:36 am

It wouldn't surprise me to see Green Bay draft a couple of CBs and a FS before the draft is done. The Packers need new players to step in and make a difference. It could be VB, KK, and MA from last year or a rookie or two this year. Just have to show progress in stopping the run and the pass.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 23, 2018 at 06:43 am

I think TT was right about BPA on offense. The problem is; it's not right when taking defense. We saw his defensive picks fail. It can work if it's the strength of the draft. But it wasn't. We got the last of the lot. The packers should take a defensive player rd. 1. But let's not take need over a better player. You have 32 teams all going for "THAT" player. I don't care if were set at that position or not. We saw how we were set with the CBs and WRs, and here we have to pick the position again. I'm not ready to give up on Mathews or Perry. WE signed Williams and House. Why draft Work, Question marks, or a player that just doesn't have a chance to be great starter. Don't pass on the better player. Gute must make the BETTER CHOICE!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Archie's picture

April 23, 2018 at 08:05 am

I don't think TT was right on anything other than getting lucky and drafting AR.

That aside, Gutey doesn't have to hit a home run but he must walk away with about 6 players that can contribute within 2-3 years. If he does that for 3 years in a row, the ghost of TT will be forgotten and the GBP should be in a good place for Ar's final years as QB1. That's the big picture, as I see it.

The home run could come in three ways:

1 - The solid draft I outlined above;

2 - finding a superstar after R1; or,

3 - finding a superstar in R1.

Could an Aaron Rodgers type player fall through to 14? Possible. Would Gutey trade up to get his man? Possible. Short of Chubb, that player would be T. Edmunds, IMHO.

If it's defense that we want to impact, we have a solid front wall, we need to pass rush. SEC will take time to fully cure but a strong front 7 can be the antidote till then.

On offense, find another top WR, OL, TE and maybe even a 3rd RB.

I think we are all ready to get this show on the road.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
fthisJack's picture

April 23, 2018 at 11:02 am

if one of these players is available at 14 ...Fitzpatrick, James, Ward, Edmunds, Smith....i would take any one of them. if they aren't, then i would like to see a trade back because they could get the same value pick and get extra ammo to move up to get an additional player in round 2 or 3.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Michael Hughes's picture

April 23, 2018 at 06:49 am

WR is our biggest need

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

April 23, 2018 at 07:10 am

3 DAYS 11 HOURS 50 MINUTES

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

April 23, 2018 at 08:31 am

Tick, tick, tick. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

April 23, 2018 at 07:18 am

I really am curious how much they believe that just switching Coordinators improves the current defense.

Meaning, that if they truly believe that the defense has already improved by a scheme change then they may feel that they don't have to go with a defensive player in the first round. I do think they will go more defensive then offensive in the first few rounds of the draft. But that doesn't mean they will draft a defensive player in the first round.

They obviously need more talent on defense. Most of our focus for the 14th pick has been on the defense. But perhaps they will like Calvin Ridley, another WR, or an OT more then some of the defensive players that are projected to the Packers.

I do think Gutekunst is looking to make some sort of a splash in his first draft. Perhaps that means trading up or down. Maybe that means he simply sits to see who comes to him. I do think he is going to add a play making type of player.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Donster's picture

April 23, 2018 at 07:28 am

Gutey has a lot of pressure on him. First draft and needing to hit a home run in his first two picks. He has a lot of holes to fill because of TT's misses instead of hits the past 3-4 years. We can all pray for the best that Gutey has a draft like New Orleans did last year. He has the picks to move up for better players in the first three rounds. I think he will try. But you can't expect that other teams will work out a deal with him either. Would be nice to be able to get another pick early in the second round. Would probably cost to much to get into the first round.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

April 23, 2018 at 08:51 am

Yeah he really does have a lot of pressure on him.

My opinion is (depending who is available) I would rather him trade down a few picks gain an extra 2nd-3rd round pick, then to trade up giving away a 2nd/3rd round pick.
Myself Roquan Smith is a guy I would trade up for. Though unlikely Bradley Chubb maybe a guy if he were to fall enough that would be worth moving up for.

Other wise I think they could trade down to 17 (Chargers), 19 (Cowboys) or 23 (Patriots) and get a lot more picks, and still get could get a Josh Jackson, Harold Landry type of player.

Just as a rough idea in what they would get in return according to the trade value charts.
If they traded with the Chargers at 17 they would get their 3rd round pick and would give up a 5th round pick.
If they they traded with Cowboys at 19 they would get their 3rd round pick and likely their last pick in the 4th round.
If they traded with the Patriots , gave up 3rd round pick and 2 at the end of the 5th round they would get their 23rd and 31st pick.

If they can get 2 first round picks by giving up a 3rd round and a pair of compensation 5th round picks. That is worth it to me!

That might be a pretty good move by Gutekunst.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Cubbygold's picture

April 23, 2018 at 09:45 am

I'd like to see one of those trade-down scenarios matched with another trade where GB packages several mid-round picks to gain an additional second rounder. I'm all for trading down to gain value, but the team only needs so many picks, and I'm inclined to think that 12 is already too many. I'd prefer to see as many picks as possible in the first three rounds.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

April 23, 2018 at 09:59 am

Yeah, I agree about only needing so many picks. I would like to see them take 10-12 players in the draft. Anything more would be overkill.

For example if they traded with New England, they would give up 4 picks for 2 of New England's. They get 2 higher picks and give away 1 middle of the round pick and 2 late round picks.

If they traded with Dallas for example and got an extra 3rd and 4th round pick they could take those 2 picks and trade up into the 2nd round.

They could move down 5 spots, and in the end get an extra 2nd round pick doing so. Again worth it to me.

This draft I think is going to be exciting because I think Gutekunst will be a bit more aggressive. I just hope he is more aggressive in the 2nd-4th round area then the 1st round, unless its for someone they absolutely covet.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

April 23, 2018 at 10:11 am

I too am hopeful for a great draft, but I hope BG is NOT motivated to “make a splash” with some kinda dramatic trade up or trade back. I hope he just wants to have a great draft. That alone is all the “splash” I hope for.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2018 at 10:24 am

YES! I suspect a great draft by BG might be one that disappoints many of our peers.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

April 23, 2018 at 12:38 pm

Plus it takes awhile to really evaluate a draft.
(Like when 45 is recording his 13th sack this season and everyone is SO GLAD that GB didn’t take Watt.)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

April 23, 2018 at 02:01 pm

Yeah, i agree.

I don't want to give up my first and 2nd round pick to move into the top 10 for a player. That is a lot to give up. Honestly unless its for Bradley Chubb I wouldn't do it. .

To move up to around 10-11 they would likely have to give up their 3rd round pick and possibly another. I would consider that for the right player.

I still would prefer to move down 3-5 spots and get a similar player that they would have had at 14. And pick up an extra 3rd round pick.

I think they will stay pretty close to 14, but wouldn't be surprised if they traded back up into the 1st round or up in the 2nd round.
They have a lot of flexibility with additional picks. So I do expect them to move around a little more then usual.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Donster's picture

April 23, 2018 at 07:20 am

Edge rusher and CB are the biggest need. Only a few edge rushers in the draft. Have to draft one first. This team hasn't been able to get pressure on the QB often enough for years. You can help a average secondary with a very good pass rush. There are more capable CB's this year than edge rushers. Last year there were over a dozen edge rushers available. Yet TT didn't draft one early, he waited to long and grabbed Biegel, who wasn't able to contribute. Matthews is old and has slowed up, should be playing the middle, and Perry is a damn China doll that is constantly in need of repair. Fackrell is a joke. Pass rush must be a priority.

At WR, there are plenty in this years draft to wait until the third round. I would like to see what Yancey and Clark are able to bring to the offense this year. Will Trevor Davis finally get it and step up? If he does, his speed will be a big advantage. Though I am not holding my breath that he does. We still have Montgomery who runs very good routes. He doesn't have to be RB only.

TE and offensive line are the next important needs. Will Jarhi Evans come back for another year? Wish he would make a decision before the end of the week. He is a good insurance policy.

I do believe that Philbin will get more out of his WR's this year then MM has the past few years simply by changing up the plays that will be used, instead of MM calling the same stuff over and over. Defenses seem to know what we were going to do all the time. I hope that MM saying that they were doing a refresh of the offense is true, and not just BS for the press conference.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
pooch's picture

April 23, 2018 at 07:29 am

Good post

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 23, 2018 at 09:54 am

Edge Rusher and CB. Wrong! Cb has been filled. House and Williams for 1 more year. Randall was traded. Randall was better than any 2nd round Cb this year. You have to take Ward,Alexander, Jackson. Compared to last year, this class of Cbs stink. Ward is the No Brainer. He's under 6 foot which has always been a problem for TT and others. The word is HELP! Nothing more on all of them. Edge Rusher- Seriously? Davenport is a DE. No cover skills. Landry could be a OLB. But he will slow down and has no cover skills. Part- Timers on the packers defense! They both would be replacements for a position that Mathews and Perry made slower! The packers need more speed than an elephant. And thats what your going to get when these guys age. Datone Jones couldn't make the switch! They won't be better than Perry. Neither is a stud like Mathews, when he was drafted.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

April 23, 2018 at 07:22 am

Watched the NFL network mock draft last night. They picked Davenport while D James and Fitzpatrick were still on the board.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2018 at 07:45 am

I watched that, too. Just a bunch of chuckleheads.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

April 23, 2018 at 08:08 am

I like Davenport. I like James and Fitzpatrick more.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
LambeauPlain's picture

April 23, 2018 at 10:46 am

That is just crazy.

The Packers need to win now. Davenport is a project and would be ideal for a rebuilding team. James and Fitzpatrick would play many snaps in a Pettine D. I am more enamoured with Fitz because he can also play boundry CB...but both those safeties are likey perennial pro bowl players.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Spock's picture

April 23, 2018 at 07:32 am

"Most of the mock drafts have the Packers selecting a defensive player. Edge rusher and defensive back have been the predominant picks. Those are flat-out needs...". Jason, that is what EVERY 'talking head' mock has ever been, basing the mock on teams' NEEDS. What else can they really do? Even fan's mocks for their favorite team are almost always based on the perceived 'needs' with disagreement about which hole in the roster should be filled in what round. The whole 'mock draft' thing tends to crack me up with some of the elaborate "first we trade picks 'x, x and x' to team x and then trade...". It always reminds me of an old cartoon I saw once where two prisoners are shackled to a wall and the first prisoner says to the second, "Here's my plan:
First we get out of these shackles and then....". :)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

April 23, 2018 at 03:54 pm

When attacked by an assailant armed with a banana: first, eat the banana, thus, disarming him.
Now THAT is a “battle plan”!
(Thank you, Monty Python!)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 24, 2018 at 04:00 am

The reason I've focused on defense is that there aren't many offensive players worthy of the first round. Barkley, Nelson and Ridley are solid first rounders. I have Ridley more as a middle of the first guy. Ridley lost 3 inches when he went to the combine: no longer 6'3" but just 6' 00.4. His 31 vertical and paltry 112" broad jump are as concerning as his slim frame, drops and hearing footsteps. But he can run routes and get separation. His speed is good without being anything to write home about. Otherwise, RB Guice often is assigned a first round grade, but I am not interested in RBs since there should be several defensive players with similar grades as Guice who play positions of need.

McGlinchey and Kolton Miller, Connor Williams, Christian Kirk, and DJ Moore (another guy who lost 4 inches when measured at the combine - now 6' even) get the proverbial 1st/2nd round grade from me, though I think McGlinchey is NFL ready with an extremely high floor, while Miller has physical limitations but is more raw. All these guys should get consideration in the twenties, but not too much at #14. just my opinion.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Ryan Graham's picture

April 23, 2018 at 07:41 am

The thing is with this draft for the Packers there are so many holes in the roster currently. Some are depth related such as OL and safety. Other holes will need to be filled in with starter caliber players. They won't all be filled by the draft, in fact they may not all be filled this offseason. I, along with many others, have convinced myself that they need to trade up for better picks but maybe that's not the answer necessarily. If there is a guy they really want that would require a trade up then it could be the right move. But to pull a stunt that the Jets would pull by trading up just to do it with no plan could be a mistake. There may be opportunities, say if Landry or Davenport were to fall to the late first early second, that's the kind of trade up that would certainly be worth it.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Archie's picture

April 23, 2018 at 02:54 pm

".....say if Landry or Davenport were to fall to the late first early second, that's the kind of trade up that would certainly be worth it."

Reminds of something Captain Obvious might say. Do you really think 2 of the top 3 pass rushers in this draft will fall to the late first early second round? I know stranger things have happened i.e., MM passing on AROD and that one falling to us at 25. (Best thing MM ever did for the Pack.)

I like drafting in pairs i.e., if you need one of something, take two. If you are really lucky, both are home-runs but even if one busts, you have doubled your chances of solving the problem. We will never be anything on defense till we can stop the run and rush the passer. Stopping the run actually has been accomplished. (Can't say that about anything else except maybe RB last year.) Once we have a pass rush, go after cover corners. All of this must happen, including a complete retooling of the offense in the next 3 years if we are going to get a snif of the SB again during AROD's career.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2018 at 07:54 am

My opinion is that they need to take the guys they project will have the best careers (I couldn't think of a better way to write that), and that it should be independent of what those players bring to the table in 2018. I don't want them to skip on a guy that they believe will be a perennial all-pro after a couple years of seasoning, just to pick a lower-ceiling guy who plugs a hole in the dam in 2018.

Its my hope that we see the Packers use 10+ of their picks, swing for the fences somewhat, and watch for those post draft and post June 1 cuts to help shore up positions of weakness.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Spock's picture

April 23, 2018 at 09:04 am

dobber, I agree with your thinking here. Not leaving a better player for the other team just to plug a leak in yours is always the best way to draft IMO. I'm just hoping some of last years picks can come on in this year (Biegel, Mt. Adams, etc.)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Archie's picture

April 23, 2018 at 02:56 pm

With that philosophy, I guess you'd be picking Davenport at 14. I happen to agree 100%. Of course, trading up for Edmunds is an option too.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2018 at 03:23 pm

I've warmed up to him. I dismissed him out of hand a month ago. I would be satisfied with that pick. Even though I don't think he's a complete player, yet, he'd be a contributor right away in sub packages. I think he has a higher ceiling than Ziggy Ansah (who many compare him to).

I love Edmunds. Based on the stereotype we've been fed for a Pettine-led defense, his versatility would be a great fit. I've heard more of his detractors start to pop up in the last week, but that's normal for the leadup to the draft. I don't think he makes it past San Fran, though.

I just see so many different ways that the Packers can go at #14 that I would be at least satisfied with, and there are likely others that I haven't even thought about. As we look at this roster and defensive players, we have a hard time not seeing it through a Dom Capers lens. Who knows what Pettine, MM, and BG have formulated behind closed doors...might look nothing like what we're formulating picks for...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 24, 2018 at 04:20 am

I agree with this philosophy for the 2018 draft. I probably won't in 2020, but that depends on several factors. Right now, it looks like AR has enough years left playing at an elite level to justify patience, if necessary, with our picks.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

April 23, 2018 at 08:40 am

My biggest concern: Don't reach on Josh Jackson. Don't get need-reachy.

I'm terrified by these mocks with Josh Jackson at 14. Good player, great ballhawk, but a terrible tackler who will struggle with NFL speed--NO, NO, NO, NOT AT 14! I see him as a late 1st.

Either move up a couple spots to revolutionize our 4-3 with Vita Vea, or stand pat with a super-athlete who doesn't bend (Davenport) or a fragile passrusher who wilts against the run (Landry)--or trade down for an extra 2nd and then consider 3rd-tier players like jackson.

My preference? Vea or Davenport (James and Fitzpatrick will be out of reach). This team needs a potential difference-maker.

But please, DON'T REACH ON JOSH JACKSON. Taking him at 14 is the absolute worst-case scenario.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Cubbygold's picture

April 23, 2018 at 08:55 am

Couldn't agree more. If GBs turn rolls around, and they're basically indifferent between 3-4 players, let some other team pay up for the privilege to choose.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PatrickGB's picture

April 23, 2018 at 08:31 am

One possibility for getting a higher slot would be to trade a player or next years pick. Cobb perhaps? And next years pick is bound to be lower anyway. ;-)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

April 23, 2018 at 08:43 am

No team will give us ANYTHING to take on Cobb's contract.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2018 at 08:48 am

Next year's draft is already going to be a base draft (no compensatory picks coming) where they're likely to be picking in the 20s. If it were me, I'd have to be convinced that I've found the answer to life, the universe, and everything, to deal out of that position of weakness.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Spock's picture

April 23, 2018 at 09:11 am

"...they're likely to be picking in the 20s". I'd be happier if they end up picking at 32. :)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2018 at 10:01 am

I like your thinking!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Cubbygold's picture

April 23, 2018 at 09:31 am

I think most trade partners would anticipate GBs picks next year being in the bottom third, so its not like they'll be fleecing anyone in a trade.

IMO, GB doesn't benefit from drafting 12 players this year. I'd prefer trading away a few picks to move up and get a targeted player if need be.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2018 at 10:08 am

This is where I disagree: I think 10-12 picks will be optimal for this team, and the reason why I think that is in that we're likely to see former TT pet projects and Dom Capers holdovers who don't fit Pettine's schemes shown the door. If they draft smart, they'll be bringing in guys who are better fits than many of these players from the previous regime. It's an opportunity to lift the talent floor of the team without the uncertainty of UDFAs.

Would I like to see higher picks? Sure, but they aren't well equipped to do much moving up. They're better equipped to move down to build early draft capital.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Cubbygold's picture

April 23, 2018 at 10:52 am

Do you think there's enough time to make those evaluations on that number of players before cuts are due?

I just think about the WR competition from last year. There just wasn't enough time to evaluate all the WRs and see who could separate from the rest of the group. Do we really know whether Dupre was worse than the other WRs we held onto? Maybe, I'm no expert. Is Joe Callahan better than Taysom Hill?

If there's a need to 'clean house' on the bottom of this roster, I could see bringing in a large number of draft picks and forcing that competition. Might be a good year for that with all the change in management. I'd just hate to see 4-5 draft picks be dismissed at the end of camp when we could have traded those away to get better selections in the first 3 rounds. (btw, I'm not in favor of trading up in the first...thinking the trades would be to move up/into the second/third round)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Cubbygold's picture

April 23, 2018 at 11:02 am

saw your post above dobber about trade value. I guess I do agree with you, if all of those picks can only be converted into one mediocre pick, it's probably not worth trying to move up much. Obviously if someone is going to take a poor trade, jump on it, but probably makes more sense just to pick 12 guys and hope theres some late round guys that impress

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2018 at 11:06 am

My guess is that some of those evaluations have already been made although the players haven't been cut loose. There are several roster spots already open based on the season-ending 53 from the net gain/loss of players due to expiring contracts, cuts, and FA acquisitions. Neither Dupre nor Hill did much to make the Packers regret those cuts...and, no, I don't think Taysom Hill made much difference in how the Packers played out 2017 (maybe they finish 9-7 instead of 7-9, but then they pick 20 instead of 14...oh, yay...). There are some players on IR from the end of last season who claim spots, but I do believe the bottom of the roster should always be in a constant state of makeover.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
CheesyTex's picture

April 23, 2018 at 11:20 am

Nice insight, Dobber. Hope the draft plays out where they can move down and fill 3 positions of need in first two rounds.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bert's picture

April 23, 2018 at 08:33 am

Focusing too much on particular positons usually leads to overlooking a players downsides in order for them to fit what you want them to fit. In other words many GMs wear blinders when they "need" to fill a position. I hope Gute leaves the blinders at home and picks the player with highest value at #14. We aren't exactly loaded on offense either. BPA should garner us a good starter with Pro Bowl ability.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

April 23, 2018 at 08:46 am

I agree, though I don't see any offensive players in the 13-18 range. Looks like defense all the way.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bert's picture

April 23, 2018 at 09:08 am

Hard to say how it will play out to #14. I see a few surprises coming as the actual NFL scouts and GMs don't usually see things the way Mel Kiper & the armchair experts do.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

April 23, 2018 at 10:31 am

If Kiper was so good, he'd be a GM wouldn't he?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Cubbygold's picture

April 23, 2018 at 10:55 am

If Trump owned an NFL team, Mel or Todd would be hired as the GM for sure. TV time = intelligence, right?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2018 at 10:35 am

When you've got 32 GMs making calls who can easily fall in love with prospects for any number of reasons, it's a recipe for chaos...and it happens every year!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
mnklitzke's picture

April 23, 2018 at 08:38 am

If Vita Vea is there we need to take him Big men who move like that only happen so often. I think our pass rush is coming from the middle of the defense. If Vea is gone then I'm good with Jackson from Iowa.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

April 23, 2018 at 08:53 am

Vea would be fantastic. I'd even trade up for him. Jackson would be a major reach. Worst-case scenario.

If Jackson is a consideration there, then trade down. ANYTHING is better than Jackson at 14.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

April 23, 2018 at 10:32 am

Jackson has been dropping

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2018 at 10:37 am

Dropping with draftniks. We have no idea what his status is with GMs, whether he's rising or falling, or where he even started...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dichillo@optonline.net's picture

April 23, 2018 at 08:40 am

Ted T really messed up our team over the last few years. HUGE mistakes signing Bennett, letting ALL PRO DEFENSIVE players Hyde and Hayward leave that would have stayed for relatively CHEAP salaries. Drafting Datone and Randell as number 1 picks, etc etc. Murphy doing a poor job. To compete after all TT's screw ups and staying with Dom way too long, we need to really get lucky in this draft and get TWO stud defensive starters. It would be nice if management gave Rodgers at least some INPUT in offensive moves. He's earned that!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Cubbygold's picture

April 23, 2018 at 08:51 am

"Outside linebackers Clay Matthews and Nick Perry are both a year older and not likely to be as effective"

Nick Perry is 28, this is a ridiculous statement

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

April 23, 2018 at 08:53 am

Agreed. With Perry, health is the concern, not age.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Galt's picture

April 23, 2018 at 09:00 am

If a top 4 QB is available in Round One - draft him because he would be the best player available and Rodgers is an injury away from retirement.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

April 23, 2018 at 09:11 am

No, trade down with a QB-hungry team and get big value.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Cubbygold's picture

April 23, 2018 at 09:35 am

Every player is an injury away from retirement. GBs best opportunity to win a superbowl is coming in the next four years, they need to add playmakers, not to be playing the long game

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Ustabeayooper's picture

April 23, 2018 at 09:09 am

Last year everyone was excited to get Bennett. Hindsight is always 20/20. Same thing with Haywood and Hyde. You have to work with salary cap considerations. Cook 's agent screwed his client by thinking he had the upper hand. He ended up with a lesser contract with Oakland. Both cornerbacks were not all pros when they left. When you continually pick at the end of the first round, there are no surefire starters. All teams have high draft picks that don't live up to draft positions. Every year the pundits redraft previous drafts with a 100% success rate! If drafting was such a simple process then Cleveland would have multiple SB victories.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
A Pickled Packer's picture

April 23, 2018 at 09:22 am

Heard Van Deresch killed it at the combine. Wondering if Gute surprises many and picks him at 14. A previous article regarding athleticism has me thinking in this direction.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

April 23, 2018 at 09:29 am

I'd be fine with Vander Esch at 14. Just don't reach on Josh Jackson, and I'm good.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2018 at 09:59 am

Suspect they could trade down several spots to get Vander Esch. If he's their guy, you hate to putter around and lose him, but I'd also hate to make a pick that feels reachy.

If it's a player in that vein they like, then I'd rather get Edmunds...it's just gonna cost an arm and a leg to get him.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
fthisJack's picture

April 23, 2018 at 11:30 am

i really think a fast ILB would make this defense a whole lot better. i really like Smith but he will be gone. also love Edmunds but most likely gone. but there is a guy later in the draft with unbelievable speed and effort that i am hoping they get. his name is Shaqem Griffin. runs a 4.32 forty and has had to earn everything he's gotten and it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg....just a hand. sorry for the bad joke. i love this guy and hope BG doesn't wait too long to draft him. i believe he could be a dynamic force in this defense.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2018 at 12:35 pm

I've really wondered about where he'll end up being picked. In the end, I wonder what GMs really think about drafting a defender with one hand?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
fthisJack's picture

April 23, 2018 at 06:36 pm

i just hope the Packers look beyond his one hand and see a guy that has excelled in college cause he has worked his butt off and has the drive to be the best . i believe he will be an outstanding LB in the league. hope BG takes a chance.....WTF does he have to lose...maybe a 4th round draft pick?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
CJ Bauckham's picture

April 23, 2018 at 12:07 pm

Read today that at least one team has failed Vander Esch medically. That's a little disconcerting

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Qoojo's picture

April 23, 2018 at 10:03 am

I don't think the packers really need to focus on defense as much as it appears. I would focus on OL depth due to the fact that Rodgers is worth 8-10 wins, and you need to keep him comfortable and upright.

Secondly, you have to trust that the new DC will get more out of the current players, or he is the wrong new DC. Packers are perpetually young, and they have a lot of young guys on defense for the DC to work with.

It doesn't sound like this year has a lot of pass rushing options, so I think it's down to

1a. CB
1b. OL depth/starter (right side)
2. BPA

Packers really need to come out of the draft with a decent first or second round CB. I think they need a high OL pick and mid round one too.

Their needs have been stated before. Faster at WR, but WRs take 2-3 years to develop in this offense. Then there is TE. On defense, LB, edge rusher. They really help in a lot of places on offense and defense.

I wouldn't mind Vea at 14 because you never know how injury dice will roll, and positions of strength can turn into weakness pretty fast.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

April 23, 2018 at 10:33 am

Gute should target some bum and the Bears would draft him.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 23, 2018 at 10:44 am

I'm waiting to see how Ryan Pace outsmarts himself in the draft THIS year...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
LambeauPlain's picture

April 23, 2018 at 11:30 am

If none of the D studs named Edmunds, Smith, James, Fitzpatrick or Ward is not available at 14, entertain trade down offers...well, if Nelson falls take him.

Then go to work with all the extra picks to get trade ups in the second and third and/or maybe an additional 2nd or 3rd...maybe another late 1st.

You still may get a shot at Landry in the #15-25 range and maybe Carter (GA) or Davenport for edge.

And fortunately for the Pack, the draft is rich in CBs and ILBs...decent in quality/value at WR in 2nd, 3rd...and OL in 3rd-5th.

If Edmunds is there at 10 go get him. And if Smith or Fitzpatrick is there at 12, go get one of them.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
fthisJack's picture

April 23, 2018 at 06:44 pm

i said this at 11:02.....u copied my post!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0

Log in to comment and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.