Does Packers First-Round Pick Have to be Defense?

As the Packers get ready for the 2018 NFL draft, should the team be locked in on picking a defensive player? 

Believe it or not, the 2018 NFL draft is just a few weeks away and soon, the Green Bay Packers will be on the clock with the 14th pick. When that time comes, what should the Packers do?

There are a lot of options and in truth, the Packers really don’t have a shortage of needs. Defensively, the team needs corners and pass rushers. On the other side of the ball, a wide receiver and some help up front could be required.

Green Bay just needs to select someone who is going to make a difference next season, although that is much easier said than done. Yet, there are a handful of players who seem to fit perfectly.

Derwin James of Florida State seems like an ideal fit in Green Bay. He’s a safety that can play corner and even some nickel linebacker. He would be a huge addition to the sub-package defenses, but it also good enough to play on base downs.

James reminds me of Charles Woodson and with new defensive coordinator Mike Pettine, he would be a perfect fit. Yet, he’s not the only defender that seems to make sense in Green Bay.

Other guys like Denzel Ward of Ohio State or Josh Jackson of Iowa could be fits. Ward might be off the board before Green Bay picks, while Jackson might provide a perfect value as the Iowa corner is flying up draft boards. Many think he will go No. 18 to Seattle but it’s possible Jackson becomes a Packer.

James, Ward and Jackson would all be great picks, although trading up might be required for James or Ward, but Jackson could be had by staying pat at 14. Others that could fall to that spot are Virginia Tech pass rusher Trumaine Edwards, Boston College defensive end Harold Landry or Marcus Davenport of the University of Texas-San Antonio is another option.

Those all seem like great choices and I am sure you are familiar with all of the names. It seems like those guys are the ones generally given to Green Bay in mock drafts, which are generally nothing but hogwash anyways, however they are useful in assessing the general mood of the league.

James and Ward are guys that feel like top-10 picks. Edmunds is going to be close too. That gives the Packers the option of waiting to 14 and taking the best guy left or using the early fourth or fifth-round picks the team has to try and trade up.

Either way, the Packers need to find a defender in this first round. Drafting for need isn’t necessarily a good thing, but there isn’t a wide receiver or offensive lineman this organization desperately needs in the middle of round one.

Receiver has some issues, so does the offensive line, but those holes can be filled later. In the opening round of the draft, Green Bay needs a defensive playmaker. Whether its a corner, a pass rusher or a safety, an impact player is desperately needed on that side of the ball.

Generally, you don’t want to be locked into any one guy or position and Green Bay shouldn’t be. But when the Packers are up with the 14th pick, there will be some solid defensive players left and at that point, they should pick the best guy left.

Because unless Saquon Barkley falls to the 14th pick in the first round, there is no way the Packers should be using that pick on offense.

 

__________________________

Chris is a sports journalist from Montana and has been blogging about the Packers since 2011. Chris has been a staff writer for CheeseheadTV since 2017 and looks forward to the day when Aaron Rodgers wins his second Super Bowl. Follow him @thepackersguru

NFL Categories: 
0 points

Comments (144)

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

April 08, 2018 at 08:16 am

If Ward Fitz James Edmunds Smith or even Landry are still sitting there at 14 and we go offense....my heart shall break...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Royalty Free GM's picture

April 08, 2018 at 08:44 am

Let’s be honest...
If TT would have said last year that his plan this year is to
-sign injury proven FA TE
-sign 35 old FA CB
-spend our first pick again on CB

You all would have said , Get the f**k out of here TT, we want change!

You got TT with a different name. Don’t expect different results.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 08, 2018 at 09:46 am

The fact that Graham and TWill both count against the compensatory pick formula takes this away from how the Packers have done business in the recent past. They signed Bennett a year ago, but rarely dipped their toe in the pool of compensatory-pick-decimating FAs. The Packers will get no compensatory picks in 2019...does that sound like TTs MO? Dealing Randall (when he was still relatively inexpensive) for Kizer is not something TT would do, either (when was the last time he made a player-for-player move...if ever?). The sample size is far too limited to draw too many conclusions, but if you want to beat yourself over the head this way, it's OK with me.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

April 08, 2018 at 10:17 am

+2 BG is not really following TT MO so far. We'll just have to wait and see how it works out in the draft.

If the board falls according to most of the predictions my money is on BG will take Defensive player, not because it will be right thing to do in general, but it will be right in the particular s of how this draft goes.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 08, 2018 at 11:43 am

RFGM is correct as to a couple of things... First, the attraction to oft injured players and bargain hunting save for TE where Ted would spend. Second, the CB fix for this season looks oddly familiar to the great "fix" of last season. However, I still don't believe that Ted was running things last offseason. I understand he was still the GM but I don't believe it was him making the decisions as the addition of multiple FAs was very dissimilar to the way he'd always done business. I still wonder who made the decision to pay Davante that contract.

Is Brian Ted? No. Is Brian all that different than Ted? I haven't seen enough to conclude that things are all that different. I haven't seen the aggressive approach that Brian spoke of. Yes, a lot more talk about being interested in players but that might just be what Ted always did but we just never heard about. It may be the same thing...we're in on players but we have no legit chance of ever landing them due to not wanting to pony up enough. I think Marcus Peters is a great example. He went to the Rams for peanuts. I still believe we were the other unnamed team in on him but we didn't offer a better package of picks than the Rams...that smacks of Marshawn, Tony G, and Moss.

As for the draft, it absolutely does not have to be defense. In every draft it hasn't had to be defense but in what is it 10 out of the last 12 drafts or something like that it has been? If Brian goes D is that just another feather for the argument that he's just like Ted? If he reaches for a CB, I can understand the voices growing louder that he's just like Ted. Sign a former Packer to play CB and then draft one up high? That'd be the same as last year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

April 09, 2018 at 12:03 am

What was so unusual about the Davante Adams contract? That looks like business as usual to me. They reward a home-grown player with a contract extension (as opposed to letting him hit FA) that, at the time, seems huge, but over the next few months to season, ends up looking more and more like a bargain as the rest of the league catches up and the true market value is set.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 09, 2018 at 01:58 am

Davante Adams' contract is a bit unusual. As usual, the only guaranteed money is the signing bonus, which at 31%, is fairly normal. It is unusual for GB to assign large roster bonuses in the out years. Adams gets a $5M bonus in March of 2018 (that's isn't unusual) but he also gets a $3.5M bonus in March of 2019. That is unusual. Moreover, Adams' base salary becomes guaranteed if he is still on the roster on the 3rd day of the league year in March of 2019: that is highly unusual. But it is only $2.5M; that is why his base salary jumps to $12M in 2020. Otherewise, IIRC, only AR and Bakh got roster bonuses in the out years: Bakh just got paid a $6M bonus three weeks ago in year two of his extension, and he gets a small $1.5M bonus in March of 2019 as well. It may be that this is the way GB will handle contracts with large AAVs in the future.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

April 09, 2018 at 02:51 am

Good information tgr, but I believe Oppy's question to Cow II was more general. Cow II's continuing narratives are that Adams is not a WR1, Adams should not have received the total amount of the contract (he lacks any concept of the total contract amount versus the guaranteed amount), TT was not involved in the Adams contract, Murphy orchestrated the signing, and other conspiracy theories too numerous to mention here. It is simply another example of manufactured "opinions" created to stir controversy, nothing more.

Oppy's question was in reference to those general "opinions", not the details of Adam's contract. Again, nice job on your explanation.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

April 09, 2018 at 03:43 am

WKUPackFan,

you're a longtime poster and I have appreciated your contributions over the years.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but please refrain from speaking for me. It does not feel right to me. Thanks.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

April 09, 2018 at 08:00 am

As you wish. My point is, and could have been, just as easily made by omitting any reference to your name. I have always been complimentary and supportive of your comments.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

April 09, 2018 at 03:35 am

Thanks for the detailed breakdown, TGR.

Perhaps what this signifies is they view Davante Adams as a core player going forward. QB, LT, WR. Perhaps this is a sign that the roster is going to be thoroughly re-arranged, and the Packers are designating certain elements for the rebuild to build around.

However, by virtue of the fact they have done this with contracts before, still not an eyebrown raiser, IMO.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 10, 2018 at 04:21 am

Withdrawn. [As I typed my agreement with Oppy, I did some research that I need to mull for a bit...]

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 08, 2018 at 11:56 am

The truth hurts. Ouch!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

April 08, 2018 at 12:20 pm

Common RFGM...

I don't think Gutekunst could spend all those years in the organization with Thompson and at least have a little of Ted in him. With that said I think over this year and next we'll see the biggest differences in Gutekunst over Thompson. It's IMPOSSIBLE to say one way or the other right now. To suggest we still have Ted T with a different name is IMO just wrong and after what, almost 90 days is just unfair.

Lets be honest...

If we all would have known 3 years ago the Packers new GM who replaced Thompson was going to spend his first season as GM trying to clean up the mess left behind by Thompson with all the failed draft picks and limited cap space to do it, we would have be screaming for Thompson's head 3 years ago.

Oh wait...Some of us were. Give the dude time. It tooks 3 years of picks like Thornton, Rodgers, Bradford, Randall, Rollins, Spriggs, and Frackrell to name a few to get to this place. BTW... ALL of those guys were selected in the first 3 rounds with the exception of Bradford. I didn't include last years draft because like Gutekunst it's WAY to early to tell.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 08, 2018 at 12:26 pm

Definitely too early to tell, but I can see arguments for both sides at this early stage of the game. The draft is the next data point that's why I posted IF he drafts a Josh Jackson at 14, it would build the case that he is more like Ted than many of us hoped.

I wish we could get some decent reporting about Marcus Peters. Was that the Packers in on him as the 3rd team? Brian seemed to avoid that subject like the plague when asked leading me to believe by his reaction that we were that team. That would be the classic Ted thing to be after a difference maker and not want to part with a higher pick just like Ted.

NP... What is your sense for who was behind paying Adams that contract? There's no way that was Ted. Murphy had to know Ted was going after the Minnesota press box shot at the very very latest. Why would the org let him give out that kind of a deal when it knew he was being replaced in a few days? Someone else made the Adams and Linsley decisions but who?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

April 09, 2018 at 03:12 am

"Brian SEEMED to avoid that subject like the plague when asked leading me to BELIEVE by his reaction that we were that team." (emphasis added).

Another narrative based solely on a few snippets of a press conference. Another case of you believing that your perception equals reality.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

April 09, 2018 at 05:35 am

I think it was Ball with some input by Ted, I really do. I think Murphy was going to name Ball as his next GM and Ball, Murphy, and Thompson knew it.

The LAST think Ball could do was gamble on losing Lindsey and Adams. Could you even imagine what the Packers would have as an O-Line and WR Corps without those two?

I might be waaaay off but that's my feeling. It sure in the hell wasn't Gutekunst, most thought it would be Wolf who was the new GM, at least until the rumors came out it was going to be Ball.

Last thought...Wasn't it thought last season (Before 2017) that Wolf was the one most responsible for assisting Ted in his "FA Frenzy". With the way that turned out for the most part I think that really hurt Wolf .

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 08, 2018 at 02:05 pm

"Lets be honest...If we all would have known 3 years ago the Packers new GM who replaced Thompson was going to spend his first season as GM trying to clean up the mess left behind by Thompson with all the failed draft picks and limited cap space to do it, we would have be screaming for Thompson's head 3 years ago."

How often is a GM replaced who DOESN'T leave a mess behind? They don't get replaced for being too good very often.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

April 09, 2018 at 12:02 am

Actually, Nick, if there was any indication that TT leaving was pre-ordained a few years ago, or perhaps that the conspiracy theorists are right and someone else was pulling the strings, or that TT gave in to pressure from above, or that Russ Ball was tampering with the process.. or whatever...

it might be that the salary cap heading into 2018 was so tight.

That's not a normal indicator of TT operations.

Of course, it could also be that the Packers see cap/team management as a 10-14 year cycle, and they just plan on blowing the whole thing up, including the office jobs, on this cycle.

TT has missed on a number of defensive picks, but the salary cap issue coming into 2018 is an anomaly that must have some sort of reasonable explanation.. I just can't imagine TT botching up a cap situation all by his lonesome. Not really how he's proven he manages over the years.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

April 09, 2018 at 05:53 am

Oppy....Not to blow my own horn but I posted back at the end of the 2015 & the start of the 2016 season that 2017 & 2018 could be difficult years. Just looking at who was going to be a FA, the money committed to several players and WHO they had waiting in the wings you could see there COULD be potential problems.

I always said Thompson was one of the best Cap Managers in the NFL. How much of that is Ball and how much is Thompson is your guess. Everyone is asking about Adams and Lindsey's contracts. Well what about Perry's contract??

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
GBPDAN1's picture

April 08, 2018 at 11:50 am

Does Packers first round pick have to be on Defense? ..... YES !

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

April 08, 2018 at 12:19 pm

John...Who would be left offensively to take at 14? Ridley? McGlinchey? Guice? I wouldn't even want to trade back to say 22 or 23 and draft any of those guys..Well maybe Ridley if we traded back but he'll be over drafted and taken before he should have.

Draft Defense and then draft a WR in the 2nd round. I know 14 might be early but I'd still take Landry or Jackson at 14 and get a player I'm pretty sure can come in a play from day one AND make this team better.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 08, 2018 at 12:33 pm

Ridley is one...Sutton is a guy the Niners have been rumored to be interested in. I love that guy. I've also seen him talked about in Rounds 2 and 3 but I think it's insane to believe Sutton is making it to Round 3.

I see absolutely no reason not to take offense in Round 1 and defense in Round 2, if the right guy is there at 14. WR is as big of a need as any position on this roster in my eyes. Why are we chasing AROB and Watkins if we think we've got a great WR 1 in Adams and just paid 10 million to Graham? My offensive nightmare is a return to 2015. I realize Philbin is here but under Rodgers buddy, Clements, Adams became our WR1 with Nelson out. That was some ugly ugly ugly offense. I realize Adams was hurt off and on throughout 2015, but I have flashbacks to what that was without Jordy and I guarantee Brian hasn't forgotten how awful we looked with Davante in the WR1 role with Jordy gone. That is exactly where it is now with an eerily similar scenario of Nelson being gone, again. Throw in the concussion angle and Brian has to be terrified of what we have at WR so I think a Ridley or Sutton at 14 is not some left field pick should it come to pass.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
OrganLeroy's picture

April 08, 2018 at 02:04 pm

There is NO WR in this draft worth the #14 pick, but living in a fantasy world seems to suit you.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 08, 2018 at 04:38 pm

Why? What is your opinion based on? You don't want a WR so none is worth 14? I like Sutton.

Josh Jackson, Harold Landry, etc. have just as much of a chance to bust as Sutton.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Royalty Free GM's picture

April 09, 2018 at 10:04 am

WR Calvin Ridley is clearly TOP 10, when we look this draft next year. Steal him now.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

April 09, 2018 at 05:40 am

John...One thing the Packers have they DIDN'T have in 2015 is some semblance of a running game. Matter of fact I'd say between Jones (Love that kid) Williams, and Montgomery the Packers are WAY better equipped at RB than in 2015 with BIG Eddie....

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
EdsLaces's picture

April 08, 2018 at 12:47 pm

If we go WR I hope we wait till at least round 2 or 3 and get Gallup. Or maybe the dude from Notre Dame.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RobinsonDavis's picture

April 08, 2018 at 01:25 pm

I like Brown from Notre Dame here, but also note there are plenty of DBs falling to these rounds too. It will be interesting.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

April 09, 2018 at 05:42 am

Gallup, James Washington, Sutton (The last 2 in the 2nd round) would be a couple of great picks IMO. I love Washington, he can track and catch anything throw deep.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
worztik's picture

April 09, 2018 at 08:51 am

James Washington looks like a Packers’ WR!!! Jimmy Jones to be exact...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
OrganLeroy's picture

April 08, 2018 at 02:06 pm

I'd actually like to see them grab a TE in the 2nd round and a WR 3rd-4th or trade back into the bottom of the 2nd and grab a TE/WR.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 08, 2018 at 05:46 pm

Ah, I get it...you're a need drafter. I guess you could say that about me, in a sense, but I'd rather have Sutton than most of the defensive guys I think will be available to us at 14.

Can't wait until we're on the clock to see who went in the previous 13 picks. I've said this before...our spot in the draft feels a lot like the 20's to me. A very weak top end talent draft. It appears to me almost as bad as the time we had 5 overall and went AJ Hawk.

I wouldn't mind a WR and an OT in Rounds 1 and 2. It doesn't have to be defense but I doubt they change DC's and give him that dreadful cast of CB's. Philbin is newish, too, but he has the QB. There's no reason to make the first 4 picks all defensive, again.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Lare's picture

April 08, 2018 at 05:59 pm

Agreed.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DD's picture

April 09, 2018 at 07:51 am

JOHN: Have you watched film on the defense since 2010? No pass rush, burned constantly, especially in big games. Offenses don't fear or respect our defense at all. If not, give me one reason, and only one, why you think our defense is not in need of a major overhaul.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
CheesyTex's picture

April 08, 2018 at 01:46 pm

IMO best player available -- offense or defense -- is the best way to go for a team with so many holes.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

April 08, 2018 at 04:04 pm

Will value and need meet at #14?
That’s what makes this whole dance interesting. Will an all world offensive player drop to 14? Will BG move up or down?
I think most agree that needs on defense are more severe than needs on offense. But no one can say today how this will play out. Stay tuned. And be entertained.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RobinsonDavis's picture

April 13, 2018 at 07:28 pm

Thanks, TK! Totally agree.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Handsback's picture

April 08, 2018 at 08:18 am

Chris, you make a great case, but if Nelson fell to 14....I don't think there would be any hesitation to pull that trigger and draft him. Outside of Nelson and Barkley, just don't see Green Bay looking at offense in the first round. The chances of either Nelson or Barkley falling to 14 are the same as me winning the Lotto and I don't even play!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Spock's picture

April 08, 2018 at 08:36 am

Handsback, I was on the Packers official site this morning and someone said a Nelson was working out privately for an NFL team and sustained some sort of serious injury and might drop big time in the draft. Is that the same guy you're talking about?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Spock's picture

April 08, 2018 at 08:54 am

Edit: this was in yesterday's Insider Box:

Brandon from Fairfield, CA

Nick Nelson just suffered a huge injury that will keep him out most of the offseason. It is estimated he will be back by season. How does an injury like this affect draft stock? I have seen reports as him being a mid-late round pick.

You hate to see any prospect sustain an injury during the pre-draft process, but it’s a shame it reportedly happened during a private workout with an NFL team. It sounds like a relatively significant injury, so it could have a definite impact on Nelson’s stock. Every situation is different, but these are the type of injuries that sometimes cause guys to slide a round or two from their projected round. Nelson wasn’t considered a first-rounder, but some had him going as early as the third or fourth.

Based on the rounds mentioned I'm guessing this is a different Nelson????

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Rustyweezee's picture

April 08, 2018 at 08:44 am

That was Nick Nelson, CB from Wisconsin. Too bad for him, but he may actually still be drafted.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Spock's picture

April 08, 2018 at 08:55 am

Rusty,
Thanks for the clarification. I had just seen the name Nelson and I don't follow college football.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

April 08, 2018 at 12:23 pm

I know..What a shame. My heart went out for the kid. He was a 5th rounder for sure I'd say. Hey, maybe teams will pass on him now and the Packers could get him in the 6th with one of those comp picks. He's supposed to be ready in 4 months so I could think of worse picks for sure.

Like most of the 6th and 7th rounders we've taken the last few years.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RobinsonDavis's picture

April 08, 2018 at 01:30 pm

The rumors persist that Roquan Smith has some undisclosed injury. Have nothing more than that. Regardless, it would wreak havoc with many Mock drafts if true. Many have him pegged to the Raiders at #10.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
ChrisPeterson's picture

April 08, 2018 at 09:02 am

I agree. Nelson would be that good.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 08, 2018 at 10:30 am

If Nelson somehow slipped to #14, I don't know how you pass on him.

Elite prospect + position of need = ???

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
OrganLeroy's picture

April 08, 2018 at 02:08 pm

Nelson is a Guard, our need is at RT and that would be a wasted pick @14 and I'll bet you that Gutekunst would NOT draft Nelson if he's sitting there.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 08, 2018 at 05:00 pm

You slam me for fantasies as you call them and rip the idea of Quenton Nelson at 14? That guy is being called a generational talent.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 08, 2018 at 05:11 pm

I'd take that bet.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
OnWisconsinGoPack's picture

April 08, 2018 at 08:47 am

I have to agree with the board, it should be defense if certain players are available and if they are not, there should still be value. I don't see Nelson or Barkley being there either; however, if we trade back 10-12 spots and Connor Williams or McGlinchey is there and they are the highest rated, I wouldn't be terribly upset because we will need to sure up the RT spot soon.

Given the lack of offensive top 10 talent (non-qb) in this year's draft, it will more than likely be defense if we draft at 14

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Royalty Free GM's picture

April 08, 2018 at 08:52 am

Your almighty Gud will surprise you all...

by making the Packers THE BEST scoring offense in the whole league...

by selecting...

WR Calvin Ridley

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Rossonero's picture

April 08, 2018 at 01:09 pm

Since you're clearly not a Packers fan, which team do you root for?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Royalty Free GM's picture

April 09, 2018 at 09:57 am

The difference between you and me is that I want Packers to be better. Gute is not god for me. He is not making this team better right now.
#12 might save him too.
GoPackGo!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Rustyweezee's picture

April 08, 2018 at 09:10 am

I don't think there's an offensive player that pushes all the possible defenders out of the 14th pick, but we really don't know what Gutekunst has in mind. If the offensive line is top priority and they want to establish a G with the draft, the top guys are gone by their 2nd round pick. So they could move back & get a top guard later in the 1st round, along with gaining another 2nd round pick, which I'd be happy with. But if we're talking about the 14th pick overall, no to offense. I doubt Quenton Nelson makes it to 14, and if he does there's likely a reason that would also put him behind the top defenders available at that pick. So, no, grab a CB or Landry of Edmunds if he's there. That's my favorite guy. Right now, anyway.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bedrock's picture

April 08, 2018 at 09:15 am

I’m in favor of only Edmunds if a top DB isn’t there. I’m not completely sold on Landry at 14. Edmunds before Landry in that scenario.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bedrock's picture

April 08, 2018 at 09:12 am

Yes, defense. I’m hopeful Fitz, Ward, Edmunds, or James fall to GB. If not, I’d be hopeful of a trade back for a handful of possible defensive players.
The DB class is allegedly strong this year, but we’ve yet to replace Sam Shields. That injury set this defense back and has us in a replacement/reactive mode instead of being proactive in “draft and development”. New regime in place now, so we’ll see. That being said, we need a starting caliber CB somehow.
It comes down to the value of players at pass rush and CB needs. #14 gives us nice potential options.
I may eat my words, but I don’t want to see Davenport, Nelson, Vea, or Ridley at 14. After trading down, maybe.

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

April 08, 2018 at 09:30 am

I expect that the Packers will pick defense first because that is there area of greatest need especially at pass rusher and CB. However, it will depend on their board and who has been previously picked. They could also trade down which may result in an offensive player being chosen.
Who knows? When you strip away the hype and speculation it's a crap shoot based on hope, opinions and a plethora of X factors. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 08, 2018 at 09:50 am

I think the Packers will go defense at #14 (if they use that pick) because the consensus of the top of the draft board outside QB, Barkley and Nelson appears to be all defense. It seems that will be where the strongest value at #14 will be.

They brought Vea in for a visit last week, but it could be that they're trying to manipulate the board. If other teams love Vea and think the Packers might be interested, they might vault ahead of the Packers and push another player the Packers covet to GB. I can understand the interest in Vea and maintaining a strong defensive front should Wilkerson leave (WHEN he leaves) after 2018, but I'm just not sold on him as a pass rusher in the NFL. You can find run-stopping DTs throughout the draft, but I would argue Vea's value will be dictated by whether a team believes he's going to net 5+ sacks on the NFL level from the interior.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
CheesyTex's picture

April 08, 2018 at 01:56 pm

What do you think Packers would do if one of the elite QBs fell to 14?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 08, 2018 at 02:01 pm

Me? If it were me, I'd be looking for a trade down that could net a king's ransom return on #14 (knowing that there are QB-interested teams in 2 of the next 3 picks that other teams might try to jump ahead of) or taking the highest player on my board.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Community Guy's picture

April 08, 2018 at 02:21 pm

crazy things happen on draft day.. but an elite QB falling will not be one of them.. there are too many competitive forces working to acquire those guys to allow for that to happen.

Packers draft defense or trade out of #14.. and probably draft defense.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Hematite's picture

April 08, 2018 at 06:08 pm

I think that if one of the top 4 rated qb's fall to 14, I think the Packers should grab him and hold off on extending Rodgers for two or three years.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
mrtundra's picture

April 08, 2018 at 09:41 am

If the Packers go BPA at 14, An Offensive player may get picked, i.e. Ridley, Quenton Nelson, Saquon Barkley, Courtland Sutton, Mike McGlinchy, or even a QB, etc. Not that the Packers would go for one of those QBs, but if they go with the BPA approach and one of the players from their Board is there at 14, it may happen. McGlinchy, at OT, is a need and could be BPA at 14.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 08, 2018 at 09:48 am

I would have no problem with Nelson or (heaven forbid) Barkley at 14. They're too talented to not consider if they somehow showed up there. I feel like McGlinchey is a significant reach at that point, but we'll see. If he were the pick, then any argument about BPA and value drafting goes right out the window.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RobinsonDavis's picture

April 08, 2018 at 10:55 pm

Totally agree with first couple of points. I will try to defend McGlinchey though, given the few comments I have seen.

For those who forget or do not know, McGlinchey was playing left tackle to help his team over the last couple of years. Notre Dame even admits his best position is right tackle. Still, he is considered one of the best tackles in the draft.

He started at various positions on the line for over 3 years. How often have we heard on this forum the complaints about drafting injury-prone and one-year wonder players out of college, McGlinchey is anything but that.

He was voted 2 straight years as a Captain on the Irish, demonstrating his leadership abilities.

His negatives from scouts sound something like this; "A lack of power in his punch is the first issue that NFL scouts mention when you talk to them...His lean, long frame doesn’t have the core strength to anchor against bull-rushers, and he’ll need to consider adding both bulk and power as a professional." His positives like this: "A three-year starter at Notre Dame, ...played 13 games at right tackle (his sophomore year) before moving to left tackle and locking down the blindside for his final two seasons. A natural athlete blessed with great length and feet." The above statement though was for Ronnie Stanley, LT of Notre Dame, selected #6 overall in the 2016 draft by the Ravens and an anchor for Baltimore at left tackle. I have no doubts that if McGlinchey is available when they draft at #16, they will grab him.

Also, although I do not like some of things I have seen with McGlinchey, I do think the bull-rush issues can be handled with bulk and training. Faults can be found with any player. Last year's draft was supposed to be very weak in tackles. Bolles went #20 to Denver, and Ramczyk went #32 to New Orleans. Bolles had his issues, but was consider stabilizing at left tackle. Ramczyk moved to right tackle and was considered stellar. McGlinchey is considered at the top tier of this year's class which is considered at least midland.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
flackcatcher's picture

April 09, 2018 at 02:44 am

It would not be understating how important Ramczyk was to new Orleans last season. Without him at RT NO had no running game, should have been an all pro as a rookie. He was that good. (If he had stayed, Wisconsin would have been in the championship for sure......)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RobinsonDavis's picture

April 13, 2018 at 07:36 pm

Thank you for your comments Flack! I know Ryan and his family. Some of the statements prior to the draft regarding his attitude and desire were just so untrue. How many teams would like to have that desire now? We are proud of him, and it underscores my point about the need to find an OT with Bulaga hurt.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Colin_C's picture

April 08, 2018 at 09:49 am

It's not that I'm opposed to going offense in the first, it's just that there won't be a player worth taking outside of Barkley, Nelson, or Darnold at #14. I'm hoping San Francisco reaches for a WR with their pick at #9, pushing more defensive players down, especially considering their team needs are pretty similar to ours. I'd be happy with Davenport, Ward, Edmunds, James, Fitz, or Smith in the first.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Johnblood27's picture

April 08, 2018 at 09:50 am

If chubb, fitz, ward, edmunds, r.smith, jackson or james, nelson, barkley are all gone...

That makes 9 with I would guess 3 QB, maybe darnold allen and rosen...

That leaves...
the #1 OT
#1WR
#1Edge - if Edmunds is not considered edge (I say yes)
#1TE - no way
#4 QB
#1C - no way
#2 G - no way
#3 S - no way
#3 CB - no way
#2 RB - no way
#2 ILB - no way
#2 OLB - might be an edge - maybe
#2 DL - position of strength - probably not

with one more (13 total) guys gone before us...

Where is the value to GB here?

In Trading back for an extra 2nd round ++ selection(s).
I would stock up on 2 and 3 round picks, there is a lot there this year.

If I had to pick at this point at 14 with those guys plus 1 more gone...

I think about Courtland Sutton.

and I Love, love, love Cedric Wilson later.

There is no sense in reaching for Defense when the top half of round 1 talent is GONE.

Take the best positional player that will help your team win games. - WR this year if the draft falls as I listed.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 08, 2018 at 11:57 am

I wouldn't be surprised to see 4 or even 5 QB's go before us. Some team very well could have DeShaun Watson in their eyes thinking about Lamar Jackson before it gets to 14.

Waiting to see what rumor is going to come out about one of the top guys sending him plummeting. Would we take that guy?

I'm in favor of a trade back in this draft for right now. Obviously, have to see what happens 1-13 before I'm sure I want to do that, but this draft seems to have decent depth at positions we need save for EDGE. I can see the desire to reach at EDGE but can't at CB which is my biggest fear...that we'll pull the trigger on a player like Josh Jackson at 14.

Overall, I'd actually like to see us trade off our 14 for a legit established player instead of rolling the dice on whomever. Maybe, there'll be a QB on the board someone covets and we can do such a thing? Someone at the back of Round 1 might be desperate enough to do such at thing. Their 1st rounder plus a player would be sweet.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PackEyedOptimist's picture

April 08, 2018 at 02:47 pm

BPA It MIGHT be Leighton VanderEsch, depending on the Packers point of view. He's generally considered to be the #3 ILB, but he may end up playing OLB, since he's a Clay Matthews/Brian Urlacher-type prospect.

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

April 08, 2018 at 10:03 am

I want Vea or Edmunds, but they'll both be gone--we'd need to trade up.

Offense? I don't see anyone in our pick range, though I wouldn't be surprised if we trade down--then anything's possible.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 08, 2018 at 10:19 am

The greatest advantage to Vea, in my mind, is that he's a high-floor player. I think he's someone who will play in the league for a long time and be an outstanding run defender. In that sense, I think he's a pretty safe pick. I just don't know what his ceiling will be.

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

April 08, 2018 at 10:21 am

Spectacular athlete with on-and-off motor. At #14, ridiculous value. I think we'd need to trade up a few spots for him.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 08, 2018 at 10:27 am

I tend to skew the other way and say that the movement of QBs up the board and questions on his pass rush will push him to 14 or a little later, but, again, I'm not as sold on him as others. I agree he's someone to think about at #14.

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

April 08, 2018 at 10:33 am

I predict a trade down. I predict Vea goes 10-13.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 08, 2018 at 11:45 am

I agree: a trade down is entirely possible--even likely. As an example, look at the Chargers at #17, supposedly looking strongly at a replacement for Rivers, but behind Arizona (also potentially thinking QB) and Baltimore--who has been rumored to be looking at trade-down scenarios that could bring a QB-interested team up ahead of the Chargers. GB seems to be a reasonable trade partner for them, and moving down those 3 spots could net the Packers an extra 3rd (pick #84) based on pick valuation. It's all about flow and who's on the board, but I think that's not a bad scenario.

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

April 08, 2018 at 01:08 pm

Agreed. That's a great trade target, with Rivers getting older.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
CheesyTex's picture

April 08, 2018 at 02:29 pm

And a trade-down is a great idea and would give ammo to help fix OL. IMO most important fix needed on offense (and maybe even overall) is RT to protect #12 who needs it more than ever post injury. Perhaps a Brian O'Neill (Pitt) high and a second OT within first three rounds would be the answer.

Think between Justin McRae, Kyle Murphy, or even Spriggs RG should be fine.

Gotta protect the franchise as a #1 priority.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PackEyedOptimist's picture

April 08, 2018 at 02:44 pm

I like Vea; the question is: Will he fit into Pettine's plans? I personally prefer a 4-2-5 defense with a great, run-stopping line and fast, athletic LBs. Vea/Daniels/Clark /(with the rest as the 4th) with Matthews/Jones at LB looks pretty good to me.

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

April 08, 2018 at 04:16 pm

If we trade up and get Vea, that means we're going 4-3. Nothing wrong with that.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
OnWisconsinGoPack's picture

April 08, 2018 at 06:08 pm

How do you figure? That would mean we are playing Clay and Perry at DE, which isnt happening or we have too large of lineman like Vea or Lowry playing DE and they are too slow. I don't see it happening.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DD's picture

April 09, 2018 at 07:58 am

Andrew: the 4-3, or 3-4 don't exist anymore. Teams switch defenses with more hybrid sets using multiple formations. So to say a guy is either in the fit is wrong. My preference would be size, motor, attitude first. They will be used appropriately with Pettine.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

April 08, 2018 at 03:30 pm

Do you guys really think we need DL help at #14?!i think our DL starters and depth are pretty strong! I don’t think Vea will even be a consideration but I don’t know a lot about him.

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

April 08, 2018 at 04:21 pm

Oh, he's a consideration alright. A 4-3 with Vea, Clark, Daniels, and Wilkerson would be terrifying, and it would also alleviate our needs at linebacker.

Problem is, I don't think we're touching Vea without trading up. He's too good for our pick.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

April 08, 2018 at 10:19 am

last years SB proved one thing, defenses no longer win championships. Great QB play threw that philosophy right out the window. We have a great QB and don't have a WR to take the top off of a defense. The Patriots lost Cook and Brady still threw for over 500 yards, against a Eagle's defense that made the queens look like the Browns. Now the new catch rule will favor offenses even more. We have no idea what GB's board looks like, but another FA signing at CB will give us a clue.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Qoojo's picture

April 08, 2018 at 10:42 am

Here are my thoughts on it:

1. It all depends on who is available. Supposedly, this is a deep CB draft, so you have to expect that they can get a couple CBs in rounds 2-4. This is graded as a bad pass rusher draft. Thus, if you have a clearly higher grade on an offensive guy, even something as unsexy as OL, pick him.

2. There are no guarantees on any pick. The constant names thrown out as good choices can all be a bust. Thus, you have to trust the scouts and system.

3. You never know which position will get hit hardest next season with injuries. So you might think the team currently has enough depth at a position, and that the pick should not be at that position. This is within reason and the position of course.

That's why the draft isn't really that exciting for me. For the most part, on draft night, the teams accrue a bunch of potential on some dice rolls. Generally speaking, 2-3 years later you find out how the dice landed. On some rare occasions you find out how the dice landed in year one.

So the real question is how did the draft from the previous 2 years perform? The most you can hope for is 1-3 players providing significant rookie contributions. If a team gets 3, then that team got real lucky. That's the irony around the draft and especially around giving any sort of grade in April.

With all that said, I will go "What the ?!" if the packers take a RB with the first pick lol

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PackEyedOptimist's picture

April 08, 2018 at 02:38 pm

If Barkley is there, they'd be CRAZY not to pick him.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

April 08, 2018 at 03:15 pm

If Barkley is there at 14, it means there were 13 GM's who should be fired.

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

April 08, 2018 at 04:24 pm

No, only 12 GM's...Cleveland picks twice.

But yes, anyone passing on him is insane.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Lancer's picture

April 08, 2018 at 10:42 am

Gutekunst has to draft defense in the 1st round for two reasons: first that is where the non QB high value talent is in this draft (Barkley excepted). When draft gurus evaluate team's picks over time it seems that strength of positional talent in a given year is often overlooked. GMs can only pick the talent that's on that years shelf so to speak.
The second Packer centric reason for drafting defense at 14 is they need to get Pettine players that fit his defensive scheme. Reality is that it will probably take two seasons for the Packers to get players that enable Pettine to really release the hounds. His multiple look, attacking style of defense places big value on versatile players, so guys like James are probably higher on the draft board because of their value to his preferred defensive approach.I
Bottom line is they get Pettine a talent at 14 that has proven ability on film to immediately contribute to his D and not someone who has the measurables but will be a project of a position conversion. Having an attacking defense in Green Bay is going to be great to watch after years of bend and frequently break.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
lebowski's picture

April 08, 2018 at 10:45 am

Yes

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Michael Hughes's picture

April 08, 2018 at 11:38 am

BPA

Offense desperately needs some love in the draft though. Scary how some are mocking us to not take an offensive player in the first 2 days.

Receiver is a critical need now. I remember when teams could shadow our WR1 but wouldnt have enough guys to cover Jones at 3 and Cobb at 4.

Now we have geronimo at 3 and who knows at 4. Plus cobb will leave after this season and if adams gets another bad concussion !!!!!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

April 08, 2018 at 12:10 pm

I wouldn't say WR is critical, but we don't have that guy that can take the top off of a defense and make them defend the whole field. But if we lose Adams or Cobb the passing game will suffer. We all saw what happened when Jordy was lost for the season, it was dismal.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

April 08, 2018 at 03:45 pm

FWIW, Rodgers was much higher on Allison than he ever was on Janis...despite his speed and metrics. We also don’t know what we have in Clark yet? Lots to yet be determined.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 08, 2018 at 07:01 pm

That is true, but the draft occurs before anything gets determined about Clark and Allison. To a certain extent, Gute has to forecast the probabilities of his current roster when he is drafting.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 08, 2018 at 12:17 pm

I would say WR is beyond critical. I feel all but certain WR will be addressed before Night 2 is over. Whether it be a shock to most at 14, or in Rounds 2 or 3, a WR has to be coming. There is no way on this earth they're going into this season with Geronimo as the guy opposite Adams. The reported interest in AROB and Sammy Watkins tells me they absolutely get Davante is not a strong WR1 and he'll need significant talent opposite him to be effective. The last thing Brian wants is our WR corps just tanking after giving 14 mill AAV to Adams and 10 plus to Graham. He's going to do all he can to not make WR an area of concern so I'm one of the few who think 14 is strongly in play for a WR.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

April 08, 2018 at 12:24 pm

Ridley or Sutton? Neither is worth it at 14 IMO but I'm curious.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 08, 2018 at 12:50 pm

4th and 1 is 100% about it being dismal in 2015 when Jordy was out for the season. It's like Jordy is out for the season in 2018 and Adams is being counted on, again, to be WR1. This time in 2018 Adams comes in off 2 brutal concussions and Geronimo as his opposite. No speed there whatsoever. None. Adams can't run and neither can Jordy. Jordy got sent packing because he can't, while Adams got 14 mil AAV. Jimmy Graham isn't a speed merchant at this stage. I see a ton of slow at WR. Cobb can run but he's our quick twitch slot guy. Where is the outside speed at? It's not on the roster. If it isn't on the roster we have to get it on the roster from somewhere. Ridley can run. Packers like those Bama guys.

This is an offensive league. We have the best QB in the game but he has far from the best weapons. I'm hoping for a difference maker on offense for the first time in forever. It was 2008 (Jordy) the last time we took a skill position with our top selection. That player is now gone. 2005 was the other time we got an offensive difference maker. That's been a lot of years in between flailing away at defensive picks.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
OnWisconsinGoPack's picture

April 08, 2018 at 06:16 pm

2.14 Sutton all day

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Lare's picture

April 08, 2018 at 12:54 pm

Well to begin with, this should be a fairly easy draft for Gutekunst to get some starting players. The Packers currently need starters at RT, RG, WR, CB, S, LB and multiple pass rushers so he can go in almost any direction with his first few picks and help solidify the roster.

That said, I agree with JK that IMO Gutekunst has to get some protection & weapons for Rodgers. I don't care how he does it (draft, trade or FA) but it should be his #1 priority. We all saw what happens when Rodgers is injured, Gutekunst has to do everything in his power to make sure it doesn't happen again.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PackEyedOptimist's picture

April 08, 2018 at 02:37 pm

I completely agree that finding a WR 2 (and 4) is critical; however, I'm not sure that we don't have the potential on the current roster. Those young guys (Davis, Clark, Yancey) have speed and talent. Additionally, I REALLY like a lot of WRs in this draft. There are a huge number of athletically gifted players, many from small schools, who are predicted to go on the third day. It's possible the Packers believe they can get a starter in the fourth round or later. Frankly, I think a bunch of them are going to be better pros than Ridley, but that's me.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 08, 2018 at 07:16 pm

I agree that getting a WR is very important. We can't wait to see what Clark and Allison look like. I agree with Lare that there are about 6 starting spots that are pretty open on the team, and another 2 or 3 spots that normally would see players get 400 to 700 snaps (slot CB, #2TE, maybe #3 OLB). I agree with PEO that there are a lot of talented WRs in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

If Gute were to take Ridley, Sutton or Washington at Rd 1.14, I wouldn't be getting out the pitchforks yet, but I'd be looking for the torches. It is unfortunate that there aren't some blue chip WRs since Ridley, Sutton (whose 4.54 forty doesn't make him the deep threat speed X WR I am looking for) and Washington look like late twenties to mid-2nd round WRs to me.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 08, 2018 at 12:30 pm

Truthfully NO! If they think Ridley is best. I'll condemn it. If they think Landry is best. Their ready to move on from Mathews, even Perry. The smart play is Vea. The value is at WR. MM says Defense. He needs players that don't GET HURT. The horrible thing is the right side of the offensive line. We need game changers. There are none on the Offensive Line. WR in this draft is very deep. We patched the RBs, but do we have a game changer? NO! What defensive player will give us a game changer. Not Vea. Not Landry, or Davenport. They will provide PRESSURE> It's still Clay Mathews and Perry. But they must stay Healthy. The Safeties are set. Jones,Brice , and Ha Ha Dix. The packers must draft a CB to set up their draft! Josh Jackson, if clean, is that guy. I still prefer Vea. Even Smith. But Jackson does make the most sense.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 08, 2018 at 12:59 pm

I should add this: Eric kendricks could have been drafted by the packers. Everyone thought he was to small and short. Smith is going to be better than Kendricks. He's faster and an inch taller.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

April 08, 2018 at 01:12 pm

Totally agree, Smith is a football player, a really, really good football player.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 08, 2018 at 01:56 pm

The list of players that could have been drafted by the Packers is hundreds of times longer than the list of those who were...many of those players were an inch taller than Eric Kendricks.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 08, 2018 at 02:27 pm

If we're going to play the could've drafted game can I bring up taking Mandarich over Barry Sanders? We could've watched Brett Favre dealing to Sterling Sharpe with Barry Sanders in the backfield. OR Vonnie Holliday over Randy Moss. Still upset over Bulaga over Dez Bryant. We've yet to see Aaron get his version of Sterling Sharpe.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 08, 2018 at 03:53 pm

you seem to miss the point. Try bleach.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 08, 2018 at 04:50 pm

My point is that I hate playing draft in retrospect. There might be a hundred reasons why they didn't take Eric Kendricks, and one of them might have been his height.

See JK's post above.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 08, 2018 at 08:07 pm

I've never tried to post a comment from my phone, so I don't know how difficult it is. I gather that it is much harder than on a normal laptop or computer. I guess I don't know if you're using your phone either. In any event, I, too, missed your point, Stock.

You wrote that GB must pick a CB, and that Josh Jackson is that CB. Then you write that you'd prefer Vea, who you deem to be "the smart play.' So, which player should GB select, in your opinion?

Will you condemn the decision to pick Ridley? Sounds like it. Will you condemn the decision to pick Landry? Sounds like it.

"What defensive player will give us a game changer. Not Vea. Not Landry, or Davenport. They will provide Pressure> It is still Matthews and Perry. But they must stay healthy." IDK what this means. I thought you preferred Vea? Who will provide pressure?

Roquan Smith figures to be better than Eric Kendricks has been. That is why Smith probably goes top 10 and Kendricks went a full round later at pick #45.

As far as regretting Kendricks, I regret Landon Collins, Yeldin, Malcom Brown, maybe even Goldman as much or more than Kendricks. One can do that for most picks.

I do read your comments, but often I don't actually know what you meant.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 10, 2018 at 07:20 pm

sorry didn't see this earlier. I'd select Vea. Premium on DTs. He stayed in the top 15. And the packers should duplicate the 2009 draft. Thats what should happen. But won't!! I figure Gute will go with J. Jackson. Because it sets the draft for OFFENSE. And in 5 years jackson will lose his speed and the packers will get another. The playmaker is James. The leader is Smith. It's hard to condemn any player the packers could take early. But setting up the draft would be the packers priority. I don't like reaching!!! Landry is a reach. With a new DC he may be great. I like the film but not where he fits. I like edmunds better! I think most know what my comments mean. They just love picking them apart for a flip argument. But lets not confuse Need over Talent here. The packers should go after the can't miss guy. Every Round. I have some can't miss guys. Vea is considered the next All-Pro!! (per 1 scout) Hernandez G is next. And I love Fountain WR later. But the packers need a Cb. Ward/Jackson are both understandable.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

April 08, 2018 at 01:10 pm

The best possible scenario is Ward dropping to 14, then the draft is Gutes to kill it.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bert's picture

April 08, 2018 at 01:15 pm

The same people who say "the pick has to be defense" are the same people who said "In Ted We Trust" year-after-year as he wasted high RD picks on the defense. For God sakes Gute, just pick a pro-bowl quality player and let the fans and writers complain.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 08, 2018 at 06:26 pm

This is why a Nelson pick at #14 would be a gutsy pick for BG. From the standpoint of talent, it would likely be true BPA, and it meshes with team need...in that sense, not gutsy. But you're right: the fan base would absolutely howl if he didn't address the pass defense in some way with that pick.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bert's picture

April 08, 2018 at 08:14 pm

Thanks dobber. Nelson was who I had in mind when I wrote my post. Not everybody liked the post but in the long run we'll be much better off with a long-term pro bowl player on the OL (or offense in general) than a reach or "development" sexy pick for the defense. Ted did please the fan base with his "for need" picks. It kept people happy for the short-term. We always thought the problems on defense were fixed after every draft. Good job Ted!! Then it became a broken record. I hope Gute can break the mold and get the Packers rolling on a more sustainable course.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 08, 2018 at 09:00 pm

I am with Marpag: Nelson would be just too good to pass up at #14.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

April 09, 2018 at 10:15 am

Siding with Marpag isn't always the safest position to take. ;)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 08, 2018 at 01:41 pm

Here's the last 15 years of 14th overall... 12 defensive players and 3 offensive. Odds are heavily in favor of defense at 14...

2017 Derek Barnett DE/OLB Tennessee
2016 Karl Joseph S W. Virginia
2015 Devante Parker WR Louisville
2014 Sammy Watkins WR Clemson
2013 Star Lotulelei DT Utah Carolina
2012 Michael Brockers DT LSU St. Louis
2011 Robert Quinn DE North Carolina St. Louis
2010 Earl Thomas S Texas Seattle
2009 Malcolm Jenkins CB Ohio State New Orleans
2008 Chris Williams OT Vanderbilt Chicago
2007 Darrelle Revis CB Pittsburgh New York Jets
2006 Brodrick Bunkley DT Florida State Philadelphia
2005 Thomas Davis FS Georgia Carolina
2004 Tommie Harris DT Oklahoma Chicago
2003 Michael Haynes DE Penn State Chicago

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

April 08, 2018 at 03:54 pm

Kyle Fuller went 14 in 2014, not Sammy Watkins, so the number of defenders is actually higher. Having said that, I think this kind of statistical information - the history of pick 14 - means virtually nothing at all in terms of predicting the future.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 08, 2018 at 04:09 pm

You're right... Sammy went 4th not 14th.

I think 15 years of data showing 13 of 15 picks at 14 were defense does say something. The pick is likely to be defensive.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

April 08, 2018 at 04:49 pm

The historical list of #14 picks has zero predictive value. It is similar to incorrectly saying that heads is the higher probability of a coin flip because the flip was tails the past fifteen times. In fact, the odds of an individual flip result are always 50/50 between heads and tails, regardless of what happened on the previous flips.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 08, 2018 at 06:51 pm

I wouldn't say a coin has better than 50 50 odds based on a streak of 15 flips in a row of heads, but I would likely bet heads if I witnessed it. I understand the coin analogy is true.

This isn't the same thing as you noted in your similar qualifier. I think historical draft data has value. It's no wonder Vegas set a QB with the best odds of being selected 1st overall because a high percentage of 1st overalls are QB's even though you have multiple other positions to consider and it's not a 50-50 ratio in that regard.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
worztik's picture

April 08, 2018 at 06:13 pm

Who cares what you say???

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

April 08, 2018 at 06:55 pm

lol

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PackEyedOptimist's picture

April 08, 2018 at 02:30 pm

It's interesting. I agree with almost everybody's takes here, even though they are "in disagreement" with each other. The reason I can, is because I have one overall disagreement with what is the basis for pretty much everybody's arguments: I don't think the Packers have ANY "needs." If the coaches/BG see the current roster the way I do, there are potential players for every position. It's possible the coaches believe the young, backup DBs are ready to shine. WE haven't seen the practices, etc. Maybe they believe Jackson and Ward are no better, or only a shade better, than the guys who already have a couple years experience facing NFL WRs (King, Waters, Pipkins, Hawkins, Brown). It's not as outlandish as people make it out to be.
I'm totally in favor of BPA, and when fans say things like "McGlinchey isn't worth a first round pick," I wonder how much tape that fan has watched, and how they think they know more than professional, full-time scouts. I don't want the Packers to pick who I want picked--I want them to do better than I would! I want a Jordy Nelson, a Nick Collins--someone who I didn't even consider, but after they were drafted, and getting the FULL scoop and the college videos, saying "Wow, I'm glad THEY are making the picks instead of me!"

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Qoojo's picture

April 08, 2018 at 02:49 pm

Agreed. The only time I think a pick is bad is when the general consensus had someone going much later (reaching for a need or overvaluing) or using a high round pick on a headcase. Even then, I go like you mentioned, these guys watched tape and we will see how the pick goes.

I remember Sherman picking guys based on high potential and little college production, and I liked high TT reigned that in.

Where I think things started to go bad for TT is his preference for west coast colleges (Datone Jones), or the west coast scout had more sway with TT.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Lancer's picture

April 08, 2018 at 03:19 pm

Qoojo I agree TT picked an inordinate number of PAC 12 players in the first round, hard to believe something or someone was influencing his draft board. But the other thing TT did was draft lots of guys who the Packers then moved to a new position. That has simply not worked in many cases. What i liked about last year's draft was that TT at least drafted King and Jones to play the positions they played in college. Given the current CBA and M&M track record, relying on coaching guys up to play a new position does get results on the field immediately. It took Perry his entire rookie contract to become a useful 3-4 OLB for example. Hope Gutekunst avoids the draft and develop trap in the early rounds.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Qoojo's picture

April 08, 2018 at 04:05 pm

That's so funny, because the last sentence I was going to write was about them drafting them playing so many players out of position. I just didn't feel like opening that can of worms.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Qoojo's picture

April 08, 2018 at 05:14 pm

meh, typo issues today, "...drafting *then* playing..."

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 08, 2018 at 09:10 pm

You didn't put "Optimist" in your username without reason.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Turophile's picture

April 08, 2018 at 02:35 pm

The two offensive possibilities are, imo, OT Connor Williams and WR Calvin Ridley. Since you can get a good receiver in round two or even three this year, that leaves just one viable guy left. I wouldn't want a guard (Nelson) or running back (Guice) with the first pick.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 08, 2018 at 04:35 pm

Two? Williams.?? - We have Murphy, and MM is not ready to move on from Bulaga. I'm sure they want to prove Spriggs is no bust. So why draft a OT? Were not happy with the injuries there year after year. But they didn't cut Bulaga. So NO OT! WR? Ridley?? WE have to replace Janis. 7th round Again. We have to replace Nelson. But Adams did! They only had Nelson and Cobb as their starters for years. Adams was drafted to replace James Jones. Monty replaced Driver. (Both James and Driver were declining. ) Regardless its depth Again they NEED. The problem is nobody has faith in Adams and Cobb to be #1 and #2. We now have a starter at TE in Graham. But the hole is behind Adams and Cobb. It is not justified if Gute takes Ridley unless it's BPA. If Gute takes Ridley he's then TT! It's for the future and Dumping Cobb. Adams is their #1 now. They don't need to draft a WR#1. They need a WR to learn like Adams, Nelson, Driver etc. Ridley is not the answer at @14.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Turophile's picture

April 09, 2018 at 02:30 am

Perhaps you are assuming I WANT Williams to be picked, I don't. There are virtually no offensive guys that make any sense at all in round one. I was just trying to find at least one guy who makes any kind of sense.

IF the Packers have decided that Spriggs is not starter-level, then the need for an OT is the same as it was when Spriggs was drafted. It is a move that may make at least a little sense if the Pack have no faith in Bulaga staying healthy, and who knows if the staff want to find a Bulaga relacement sooner rather than later ? I certainly don't.

Bottom line is that I think the chances of going offense rather than defense with the first pick, are about 5% offense to 95% defense. That's just the way the big board is, this year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

April 08, 2018 at 07:05 pm

We have to much time on our hands between the end of season and the draft, It's like going out and looking for a x-mas tree. I've done it dozens of times. I live in the country, very little private land. I usually go out and find a nice tree fairly quickly, but no, I walk around the fields and woods for another 2 or 3 hours trying to find the perfect tree. In the end I take the one I found at first. When this draft talk started I was all for Landry, but then started looking at a bunch of other players. Think I'll stick with my first choice, I'd like to see Landry.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Johnblood27's picture

April 10, 2018 at 11:30 am

with the Packers first selection in the 2018 draft, 4th and 1 selects...

Doug Fir!!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
sherrmann1806's picture

April 08, 2018 at 11:14 pm

I know the packers have needs all over, but.......if it were possible.........i would love for them to land Derwin James in the first rd and Ronny Harrison, the Safety from Alabama would be just outstanding for the first two rounds!!!!!!!! That way James could play corner with the option of playing slot coverage and safety and Harrison could man either one of the safety positions. With that done................the Pack could have one of the best Defensive backfields in the league for the next 10 years!!!
From my point of view............that is one GREAT way they can go in this draft.........and afterwards......try to meet more of their needs in the remainder of the draft, by hopefully continueing to trade down at various junctures in the draft so that they can have as many draft picks as possible in this draft!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

April 09, 2018 at 03:37 am

I say first 2 rounds 2 defense players - DE/OLB and CB. If Vita Vea falls to 14, I can imagine Gutekunst will take him. Than CB in the second round and Hercules Mata'afa (OLB) in thew 3rd...

Offense (TE particularly) should wait 3/4th round to get some additional players...

Let say:

1. Tevita Tuliakiono Tuipuloto Mosese Va'hae Faletau Vea
2. Mark Huges / Jaire Alexander / Isaiah Oliver / Justin Reid
3. Hercules Mata'afa / Uchenna Nwosu / Arden Key
4. Mark Andrews (TE) / Deon Cain (WR) / Michael Gallup (WR) / Brandon Parker (T) / Christian Sam (ILB)
5. Troy Fumagalli (TE) / Kevin Toliver II (CB) / Stephen Roberts (S) / Bo Scarbrough (RB) / Daurice Fountain (WR) / Lowell Lotulelei (DT) / Dorian O'Daniel (OLB)

Later rounds depends of much deeper insight of the available players I have,

This is if Vita Vea is there at 14th of the 1st round.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DD's picture

April 09, 2018 at 08:00 am

Two FA signings. Draft? Who knows. We'll draft someone. Just get a starter!!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DD's picture

April 09, 2018 at 08:00 am

Two FA signings. Draft? Who knows. We'll draft someone. Just get a starter!!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
worztik's picture

April 09, 2018 at 09:02 am

It’d be great to see us get BOTH Jackson and Oliver in the first round!!! Need at DB taken care of for years and then we can truly talk about BAP going forward... I really like Brian O’Neill for our RT, as well... ;~€}

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Allan Murphy's picture

April 09, 2018 at 10:27 am

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!

+ 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.