Create Account

Or log in with Facebook


Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Packers Mock Draft Monday 11.0

By Category

Packers Mock Draft Monday 11.0

Ross will provide a semi-weekly roundup of national mock drafts relating to the Packers picks.  Back to Fanspeak's On the Clock software.  I used  Brandon Norris' board, the difficult algorithm and user voted team needs as always.  In 2019 the Packers will pick six times in the first four rounds, so those are the rounds that we will focus on.

Another edition with Ed Oliver, who has quickly become the favorite son of Packers Twitter.  Oliver provides a hand-picked replacement for Mike Daniels, but could truly provide some fun while those two and Kenny Clark are all together this year.  Oliver has tested in a way that would provide positional flexibility, which would please Mike Pettine.  Pettine's a creative coordinator, to say the least.  Hockenson falls to #30.  Fant was actually selected ahead of him but only one team in the top 29 chose to use their precious first-round pick on a tight end.  Winovich rounds out the Packers stable of pass rushers.  He's a first round talent that was selected at the top of the 2nd, much like Preston Smith was for his draft class.  Hooker competes with Jones and Greene for the starting safety spot and McGary provides a high-upside tackle.  McGary is an incredible athlete.


Brad Kelly, The Draft Network -- Brian Burns and Andre Dillard - this is how you make the case for Andre Dillard.  You take the superior prospect at the more important position in Burns and then you snag a tackle for the future.  This is a mock with an offensive lineman in it that I can actually get behind.

Mike Renner and Steve Palazzolo, Pro Football Focus - Jerry Tillery and Andy Isabella - yikes. 

Ryan Wilson, CBS -- Burns, Juan Thornhill, Kaleb McGary, Riley Ridley - A++++. This would be an absolutely INCREDIBLE haul.  Per the Packers Big Board, this gives Green Bay two top 20 guys, 3 top 40 guys and every player is inside the top 80.

Chad Reuter, -- Hockenson, Johnathan Abram, McGary, Zach Allen, Anthony Johnson and Trayveon Williams - obviously I appreciate the four-round mocks because that's what we're doing here constantly.  I don't hate this haul, either.  I don't know if I'd take Anthony Johnson, just because I don't know what he gives you that last year's trio doesn't, but the other picks highlight needs with good players, and that's all a person can ask for.  Trayveon would really be fun.

Maurice Moton, Bleacher Report -- DK Metcalf and Taylor Rapp - I don't hate it.  After seeing Metcalf's agility numbers improve at pro day, I think he checks every box.  He's going to be a star.  Also saw an Eric Weddle comp for Rapp.  If that's true I don't hate that either.  Rapp isn't an elite athlete, but he's not average either. 7.46 RAS. Crazy agility numbers.

Walter Football -- Hockenson, Greg Little, Jerry Tillery, Mecole Hardman, Cameron Smith, JoeJuan Willimas - this isn't very good.  Tillery is a great value but Little is questionable athleticially, they won't take him, and they probably wouldn't take JoeJuan, either.  Also completely disregards EDGE.

Packers Prospect Vid of the Week (no highlights)


Ross Uglem is a staff writer for Cheesehead TV. He can be found on Twitter @RossUglem 

NFL Categories: 
  • Like Like
  • 3 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (50) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

Not familiar with the last couple of draft selections but the first 4 I could live with and be happy with. If it was Fant at 30 than I would be extremely happy!

Bearmeat's picture

Love the top 3!

EdsLaces's picture

Agreed ...not a big fan of that safety..

GBPDAN1's picture

This would be a great draft for the most part, but I have a feeling that most, or at least some, of these players won't be available at the pick you slotted them for

Bure9620's picture

2nd round for Winovich seems a bit rich for my blood, no earlier than late 2nd. I am not sure how he would be utilized in Pettine's scheme, he may be a bit small to play 5 tech and not enough bend for the Edge. Winovich is an interesting prospect I cannot put my finger on how he fits. I also think some of his production was the result of Michigan having a dominant front 7 all around. Nothing really jumps off the tape. I like the other picks quite a bit.

Ross Uglem's picture

"not enough bend for the edge" is laughable.

Bure9620's picture

Okay explain

dobber's picture

I think Winovich fits as a rotational LB piece who can put his hand on the ground, too. I could see him playing on the edge some and also on the inside and pressuring the inside gaps (think what everyone was saying about CMIII)...but keeping in mind that Pettine also schemed Blake Martinez into 5.5 sacks last season. A "see-ball, get-ball" kind of guy. Not someone you want to expose in coverage at this stage, but I think he can be coached up to play more off-ball.

Super high motor...high character...productive college player. The kind of guy who can become the emotional heartbeat of a defense. I think you raise the right question, though, in 'what is that worth?' I'm intrigued by this guy on the inside in Pettine's defense.

stockholder's picture

Go back and watch the Ohio st. Mi game. Bush was out. Everyone sucked. I believe a Trade happens with the @75 and @ 119 to get into the second round again. So I don't see Winovich anyway.

lowcsp's picture

lets see Winovich had a 4.59 40 and a 6.94 3 cone an burns had a 4.53 40 an a 7.01 3 cone an Winovich has a pull an rip move that has left a lot of tackles on the ground he is not as good of athlete as Burns but he is not that far away then add in the way he plays the game with the same passion that CM brought to GB but I dont think he will be there at #75 probable have to take him at #30 if they want him

Duneslick's picture

That's 4.59 and 4.53 fortys

lowcsp's picture

been a long day thanks

Minniman's picture

Sorry,I just saw your post. I posted something similar below.

Minniman's picture

Not that it directly correlates to much but Winovich's 3 cone drill was 6.94s and Sweat's was 7.0s. Winovich may not have A+ top end speed or hips like a latin dancer, but he's not a slouch in his change of direction - coupled with a much vaunted high motor.

ShooterMcGee's picture

I really like the draft class since it checks off all of the needs. The later rounds are an ideal place to snag a decent RB and add some special teamers. Are there any good kick/punt returners to look for? Thanks

albert999's picture

Elijah Holyfield

albert999's picture

12 Burns
30 Chauncey Gardner Johnson
44 Nasir Adderley
Andre Dillard
N’Keal Harry

Guam's picture

Loved all of the picks but was very surprised to see Hock available at #30. Liked McGary in 4th round and hope the Packers use their 5th rounder to add another O-linemen.

Dzehren's picture

Home run Ross

jww061356's picture

I am hoping one of the Devins falls to us. I think it transforms the defense, if you also pick up a good FS. I don't think there is any way Hockenson gets to 30.

stockholder's picture

I'm going with CBS. The QBs are dropping! Oliver is the only one in yours for me. But I thought I would do one. @12 Bush. Seen him at 11. @30 Thornhill S @44 Lindstrom. @75 Carpenter WR @115 Scharping OT @119 T Williams RB

Barazinho's picture

#15: Burns (+3rd from Wash)
#24: Fant (-30 and -3rd from Wash)
#44: OL (Risner, Lindstrom, Dillard)
#75: Thornhill/Savage
#115: Best ILB
#119: Isabella (or BPA)

jannes bjornson's picture

Belichick will take Isabella in the third.

JakeDickerson's picture

I could absolutely get behind this draft. If Oliver is still available at 12 Gutey should run the ticket up there himself. Not sure McGary lasts that long though, if we get him there it may be the best value pick of that class. Your draft is filled with guys Greenbay covets. Athletes everywhere!

dobber's picture

Certainly draftniks run hot and cold on McGary.

JakeDickerson's picture

Half the league has private visits scheduled with him. The draftniks opinions are moot

dobber's picture

Yup...that's why I specified draftniks.

Nobody really knows what GMs think...

Old School's picture

1a. Rotational DL
1b. Backup TE
2. Rotational pass rusher
3. Starting safety
4. Backup offensive lineman.

Yeah....I don't like that. I'd rather go with:

1a. Starting ILB
1b. Starting S
2. Offensive lineman
3. Backup TE
4a. CB
4b. RB

Really, I'd rather trade down from 12 and get another 2nd round pick. Then it'd be:

1a. BPA
1b. Starting S (Adderley, Thornhill)
2a. Starting ILB (Mack Wilson)
2b. Offensive lineman (Erik McCoy. This guy shut out the mighty Josh Allen)
3. Backup TE (Sternberger)

Five guys in the first 76 picks.

albert999's picture

like the trading down scenario and the guys you’ve picked!

MikeS's picture

Everything but Sternberger. He's too slow. We just got rid of a guy like him.

jannes bjornson's picture

He has the same 40 as Hockenson 4.75 vs 4.71 ??

jannes bjornson's picture

Its a logical tradedown with assumptions of Oliver, Hockenson, White off the board. Its a good Mock, although, I prefer Abram at safety, a 4.45 guy, just because I like an enforcer on the backside. He takes no prisoners. Amos can play FS and Tramon the middle post in triple safety sets. The other guys have the slot CB/FS background and the same speed, but this defense definitely needs more attitude and a sure tackler. We've seen enough arm whiffs and flag football from the last few years.

leche's picture

Not sure how far down you're trading to pick up a 2nd round pick in return?
Last year Oakland got a 3rd and a 5th for trading back from 10 to 15. Baltimore swapped their own 5th for a 3rd to trade back from 16 to 22...

Getting a 2nd for trading back at 12 seems a bit too fantasy

Old School's picture

According to the Trade Value Chart, trading back from #12 to around #20-23 would get us a pick around 50-55

leche's picture

So our options as things stand now are Pittsburgh (#20) to land us #52 and Houston (#23) to land us either #54 or 55; they go back to back. Either of these either requires one team to eat value off the chart or additional later round picks are required... Houston doesn't have a 4th, so a deal with them requires us to eat value or them to give up a future draft pick as well...

Neither Seattle (#21) and Baltimore (#22) have 2nd round picks this year. Is trading back that far something we're going to find value in? It would guarantee we pass on Oliver, White, Bush, Hockenson, and any of the top of end edge rushers.

I just don't see either of these really happening.

Old School's picture

Why would we burn a high pick on an edge rusher when we just spent two fortunes on edge rushers and we return a guy who had 10 sacks last year?

It means we pass on guys, but it also means we get another pick. Would you trade the chance at Hockenson, for example, in order to get both Fant AND Mack Wilson, for example?

Never fall in love with a player. You have to put an entire team on the field. A trade down like this gives you a chance to get TWO good players instead of one.

leche's picture

Well you're opting for 4 good players instead of 3... But in doing so you're overlooking the reason why the higher picks all have such higher values on that draft chart. The higher you pick the increase in odds of you drafting a game changer. We already have the chance at both Fant and Wilson at 30 and 44... Adding a pick in at 51-54 doesn't help us with either of those; they'll be long gone by the 50s.

You're also ignoring my point that you need a trade partner willing to do that, and I'm not seeing why either of those teams would be trigger happy to make that flip with you. Remember when you initiate the trade offer, especially when you trade down, you're the one with less leverage. I'm just not seeing this scenario becoming a reality unless one of those teams is desperate to move up. Moving up really isn't the Steelers M.O. The only other team in that range that is even close on draft capital is the TItans, but they just had a draft with only 4 picks; I can't imagine they're looking to trade away picks again this time.

The only trade down that really makes sense right now is to somewhere in the 13-17 range; but none of those teams are going to be dealing a 2nd round pick to move up.

(Also for the umpteenth time- Stop referring to Kyler Fackrell as an edge player worthy of discussion. He had 10.5 sacks last year, that is a true statement. 6 of them came against 2 teams with really bad offensive lines and QBs who scramble a whole lot. That is also a true statement. He had a very pedestrian 14 games outside of Buffalo and Seattle that is much closer to what we should expect out of Fackrell going forward. )

Old School's picture

Kyler Fackrell is a legitimate NFL player, and he's going to sign a pretty good size contract next year, either with us or somebody else.

If you want to talk about pedestrian games, look at Z. Smith. HE had NINE GAMES without a sack, and two more with 0.5 Of his 8.5 sacks, three of them came in one game. But that didn't stop us from paying him , did it?

Please quit smearing crap on Packer players just because you think it makes your argument stronger. It doesn't.

I can absolutely see why a team would want to trade up to #12. I'm sorry you don't. We do need a trade partner, that is true. Last year, I don't think people were predicting that New Orleans would trade up to get Davenport, but they did, and I don't think it balanced out perfectly. It happens.

Neither one of us knows what is going to happen. I certainly see this as being in the realm of possibility; you do not, and that is fine. We can disagree. But please stop insulting players that played well for us last year.

Rick F's picture

I think 12 you pick your impact guy if available. Then at 30 you have options to go up or down. I did a draft on the draft network and here was the four players I got.oliver, hock, risner and thornhill. This would be great but the machine had them available so I picked them. Will it happen no but it gives you a sense of the runs on a position groups.

fthisJack's picture

i would love this draft.

Rick F's picture

I think 12 you pick your impact guy if available. Then at 30 you have options to go up or down. I did a draft on the draft network and here was the four players I got.oliver, hock, risner and thornhill. This would be great but the machine had them available so I picked them. Will it happen no but it gives you a sense of the runs on a position groups.

Buschmen's picture

Really hope we can get one of the Devins. Speed at inside linebacker to counter rb and te.

PAPackerbacker's picture

I doubt Ed Oliver will be there at #12. Would be a great pick if he did fall that far. But even if he did I'm not sure I would pass on Hockenson or Fant if either was there at #12. I doubt either Hockenson or Fant will fall to #30. Both will be gone by then. It will be an exciting draft to watch this year. A lot of talent available for the Packers to choose from.

leche's picture

Obviously it's hard to tell who was all available, but I'd pass on Winovich for a Safety or LB in the 2nd and go after a guy like Maxx Crosby or Wyatt Ray the around the 4th. Unfamiliar with Dakota Allen but he seems way down on everyone else's board. 118 is probably a reach for him (not unlike the Burks pick last year)

AgrippaLII's picture

If Oliver makes it to #12 I can see at least nine GM's who should start drafting new resumes.

EddieLeeIvory's picture

Ed Oliver will be long gone by #12

meatstyk's picture

What a joke. Hockenson lasts til 30?????? Cmon dude, get real.

Archie's picture

Tough to say when Oliver will leave the board given his size makes him an odd fit in classic 3 man or 4 man fronts. (He would however fit perfectly in Pettine's defense.) So I think it is 50-50 that he will be there at 12. However, if he is THE guy you want, it would be worth giving up a R3 pick to move up 2-3 spots to get him. As long as he and Hock are on the board, you are safe, but as soon as one is gone, you better go get the other if possible. JMHO.

It would make GB's draft if a couple of CBs got picked in the top 11 e.g., DET and DEN.

stockholder's picture

Oliver goes #8. It still would be the biggest mistake in green Bays history to take Fant or Hock at #12. Leaving Wilkins, Bush, and Burns for some other team just isn't winning football.

Bryan Chisholm's picture

First round+ Hooker was a pretty good haul IMO. I think it would be the one comparable (if not better) to the Raji, Matthews, Lang trio in 09'. If I'm a GM (contrary to popular opinion) there's 0% I'm looking at Winovich in the 2nd.. at that point, I'm looking at the edge players going off the board and think about trading up to get one.. idk why, but Id be happier with Polite, Ferguson, Ximines, maybe even Justin Collins over him there. If he's there in the 4th.. maybe. Unless you believe in putting Oliver on the edge? Then he'd probably make a good rotational piece. Overall, Id feel we got better, which is the point.

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos 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.

Or log in with Facebook



"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "
"The Bears still suck!"
"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."