Pre-Order The Pro Football Draft Preview Today!!

Packers Select Nose Tackle Kenny Clark In 2016 NFL Draft, Round One

With their first-round pick (27th overall) in the 2016 NFL draft, the Green Bay Packers select Kenny Clark, Nose Tackle, UCLA

MEASURABLES / COMBINE: 
 
6'3" 314lbs, 5.06 40yd, 28 1/2″ vertical, 102″ broad jump. 7.73 3-cone (Pro Day), 29 Bench Reps, 4.62 20yd shuttle
 
CAREER NOTES: 
 
Clark was a 4-star recruit out of Wilmer Amina Carter High School in Rialto, CA. After a freshman year in which he played in every game and was credited with 31 tackles, Clark was named second team All-Pac-12 as a sophomore.  Also won UCLA football’s Ed Kezirian "Coach K" Award for Academic and Athletic Balance as a freshman.  As a junior, Clark earned first team all-conference honors and was named a third team all-American after amassing 75 tackles, five pass break ups and six sacks. He also caught a 3-yard touchdown pass in the first game of 2015.
 
 
SCOUTING REPORT:
 
CHEESEHEADTV.COM: Clark is a big, long, strong guy who you can imagine anchoring a defense at the next level with a little work. His bull rush, getoff, and explosion are all very impressive for a man his size, and his pad level is generally very good. Clark can get leveraged out of plays by offensive lineman when hand placement strays outside: needs to work on consistent hand placement and better punch. Seems to have stiff hips. Can get lost in space, especially against quick players. Clark’s play in the trenches against the run is a big strength, as he can take on blockers and muscle his way to the ball while maintaining his balance very well. Not much of a pass rusher.
 
CBSSPORTS.COM:  Scouts can check off a lot of boxes with Clark. He was a high school wrestling champ, and many of those maneuvers translate from the mat to the football field, playing with low hips, leverage and power. He's a stout run defender who comes off the ball low and hard, consistently winning the leverage battle. Anchors well to double teams, planting his feet into the turf and locking out his arms. Clark flashes a quick burst but doesn't rely on it, exploding through the gap to wreak havoc at the line of scrimmage when opponents attempt to pull to block others.  Asked to play defensive end, defensive tackle and nose guard for the Bruins, Clark will enter the NFL with plenty of position and schematic versatility.  Just average size for the position. While possessing an exciting initial burst, Clark tops out quickly and shows just average change of direction and balance for the position, limiting his upside as a pass rusher.  Clark gives good effort in pursuit but too often gets caught up in the hand-fighting at the line of scrimmage and occasionally is extended too far over his feet.
 
VIDEO:
 

COMMENTARY:

Clark certainly bulks up the middle of the Packers defensive on the line.  With the retirement of B.J. Raji, nose tackle became a position of need, despite the presence of veteran Letroy Guion.  Clark is long (could use a bit more width at just 314 lbs) and the Packers were heavily connected to him.  That said, I never thought I'd be writing about how the Packers passed on a top talent like linebacker Myles Jack, who was never supposed to be available to them at 27th overall.  Hopefully the Packers and their medical staff know something we don't.  Clark has the versatility to move around, which is something we know the Packers like in their players up front.  Clark is only 20 years old and if he pans out, could offer the Packers an incredible value.  

The way the board fell, the Packers had quite a few options ranging from Jack, who everyone passed on in round one, to Reggie Ragland who many thought would be a good fit in Green Bay to the defensive lineman of their choice.  The Packers clearly had their eye on Clark and he will come in with some big expectations in 2016.  With Datone Jones (the last defensive lineman the Packers picked in round one) moving to elephant end, Clark has to be penciled in as a two-down player at the very least.  Packers general manager Ted Thompson's track record with defensive linemen early in the draft is spotty.  Raji was a ninth overall and was solid.  On the other end of the spectrum is Justin Harrell in 2007, who was easily the worst pick of the first round that year.  Jones falls somewhere in between the two.  This pick smells of another opportunity to test the "In Ted We Trust" mantra.

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

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 (168)

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

April 28, 2016 at 10:19 pm

Looks like a classic TT round 1 pick. Very safe pick who can play anywhere on the line and all 3 downs.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Chad Lundberg's picture

April 29, 2016 at 05:39 pm

I would have rather seen Ted get another wide receiver rather than seeing him get just another ho-hum DT. Almost every front seven player he's ever drafted before the 4th round has flailed out. CMIII and B.J.R. are the only exceptions. Hawk doesn't count lol. Besides, did we even NEED a nose tackle??? If in two years Clark is playing like Mike Daniels, then of course being wrong will be damn good, but based on his history in the first round, I'm almost certain this guy will be very very average to below average. Blah... here's hoping Jack or Ragland is still there at 57.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

April 29, 2016 at 05:47 pm

Are you guys watching any of Clark's film or are you guys just going off of TT's past failures?

"Besides, did we even NEED a nose tackle???"

Uhh, hell yea? Besides Pennell (who's gone for 4-games) and Guion, who else has experience and has shown they are capable of playing NT for us? What if Mike Daniels goes down? *Gasp*

"I'm almost certain this guy will be very very average to below average."

How? Why?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Chad Lundberg's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:23 pm

Yes, I've seen the tape. The film looked really good on Nick Perry, Datone Jones, Mike Neal, Jerel Worthy, and Justin Harrell too. Seriously, there's something about picking front seven guys early that Thompson just can't seem to connect on. Unless you're picking someone like that in the first 15 or so picks, I'm not sure I would even bother with them anymore unless I had no other choice.

"Besides Pennell (who's gone for 4-games) and Guion, who else has experience and has shown they are capable of playing NT for us? "

So you're sayin the fact that we have two totally capable NT's tackle's, is the reason why we needed another nose tackle???

This just isn't an exciting pick at all! Damarious Randall at the time wasn't thought to be needed, but at least he looked like a total baller! He could 3 different positions and played them all well. There was A LOT of value there!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
greenngold's picture

April 28, 2016 at 10:23 pm

A Robinson, R Ragland, J Reed, V Butler, A Billings, M Jack (depending on medical) all left on the board. I HATE HATE HATE this pick. Yeah, every player is different, but how many UCLA softies do we have to see before Teddy wakes up? Jeezus. Yeah, yeah, what do I know, but they BETTER be right on this, and I really really hope I'm wrong, but I'm not.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

April 28, 2016 at 10:27 pm

Can you link to tape of him playing soft?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:38 pm

Think it was intended to suggest a generalization based upon feeling a certain way about D Jones not being all world? Lol;)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Mojo's picture

April 28, 2016 at 10:28 pm

Don't hate the pick, but don't like it either. Think they could have traded down.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
sonomaca's picture

April 28, 2016 at 10:52 pm

Seattle got the jump on them. The Packers waited a full 9 minutes before turning in the card. Clearly, they were on the phone trying to trade. Nobody wanted Cook, apparently.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

April 28, 2016 at 10:57 pm

2 DTs went after us. Ted really likes Clark. He wasn't going to miss out on his guy.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
JerseyAl's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:03 pm

like it or not, this was their guy. I like it. They could only make a trade if there was some team that really wanted somebody at that pick. Obviously there wasn't.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 29, 2016 at 12:13 am

SF traded up to #28 at a cost of #105 (4th) and #178 (6th). Maybe SF wouldn't trade with TT, or TT did not want to trade back to #37?

Billings, Ragland, Reed, Robinson, Dodd are all still available, and one of Clark/Butler probably would have still been there. All of those prospects would have been acceptable to me at #37, and one of them would have been available, per the math. Spence, Ogbah and others too, though I did not like them as well. Those extra picks, especially the high 4th, would have been sweet, [Edit: but there would have been some risk - pretty minimal in my view though.]

I don't hate the pick itself, but I think TT could have knocked this draft out of the park with a trade back here. Given that, Clark needs to be more than a run-stuffing NT who might possibly be able play some 3 and 5 technique. But then, I still think Malcom Brown would have been a better selection than Randall, despite how good Randall has looked. I am hopeful that that pattern occurs again and we turn out to be happy with Clark. Decent chance of that, too.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:51 am

If Thompson traded back to 37, and they lost a chance at Clark, Butler, Reed, Robinson, Billings how would you feel?

The best deal the Packers could have got in a trade back was with Denver. But they traded to the pick ahead of Green Bay.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 29, 2016 at 08:21 am

I'd have felt kinda middling if those guys were all gone, RC, but I would not have taken Clark at #27. He is just okay there. I watched Clark's tape from Cal and Nebraska and still saw a 1st/2nd level talent. Since I like Dodd just as well as Clark, I'd equally been fine with Dodd at #37 as Clark at #27.

Clark has to have more value than say Dodd in a bad scenario or one of the Reed, Robinson, Billings types AND the guy we could have taken at #105 and #178. Be sure that I will prepare a list of prospects available at #105 when the time comes.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4EVER's picture

April 29, 2016 at 02:39 am

What...26 and 28 traded back...and include New England in that list at 29 if they had not been forced to forfeit their pick. Please, TT doesn't have the unscrupulous nuts required when all points back...snookered again!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 08:27 am

Has anyone confirmed that anyone ever called the Packers about a deal to move up to #27?

Secondly, it could be that the other teams that DID move down undersold their picks to garner more selections. I haven't run the draft value analysis, yet.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

April 29, 2016 at 08:38 am

JUST TRADE BACK!

That's all there is to it.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
TommyG's picture

April 28, 2016 at 10:28 pm

I like the pick. It's not a flashy pick, but the position is one that needed to be addressed. I did like highlights of him hitting the #1 overall pick this year!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
vj_ostrowski's picture

April 28, 2016 at 10:28 pm

If you look at the tendencies of GB's picks and what they like as far as measureables and timed speeds go, there is no doubt that this was the BPA on Ted's board, IF you consider Jack and Robert N. washed with red flags.

Great pick

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RobinsonDavis's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:27 pm

Robert N. was obviously NOT a consideration as, on paper, he seems a better athlete for the position. I am not upset with Clark as the pick.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Point-Packer's picture

April 28, 2016 at 10:28 pm

Continues a horrible offseason from TT. How can you not take Jack? Ridiculous.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

April 28, 2016 at 10:36 pm

Because micro-fracture surgery.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Point-Packer's picture

April 28, 2016 at 10:48 pm

I guarantee Jack will be a stud in the NFL, despite his surgery, and this pick will be in the Justin Harrel camp.

This pick does not make GBs D better, faster or more versatile.

TT has missed a great deal on DT drafts. Just missed on another.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

April 29, 2016 at 03:31 am

You do realize that Miles Jack is still available to be drafted, right?

And why would TT take a guy in D1 when it is now a proven and undeniable fact that no other team wanted him at that price?

No sane person says "I guarantee" about any draft pick, especially when that person is obviously 100% ignorant of the player's medical condition. If you do, you're clueless.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:26 am

"You do realize that Miles Jack is still available to be drafted, right?"

This is the key point. I still like Jack, despite the storm cloud hanging over him. He's definitely "trade-up"-able.

If you told me yesterday that the Packers would get Myles Jack and Kenny Clark out of this draft, I'd be ecstatic.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:43 am

Absolutely, but I'm not holding my breath. Given the uncertainly of his medical condition, I can't even know if I really want him on the team.

I just can't imagine all 31 teams taking a first round pass on Jack unless the medical is REALLY foreboding. If the medical report was only "He may need to take a red-shirt year" kind of bad, I'm certain someone would have pulled the trigger by now. But I'm guessing that the medical report is more like "He may never be the same again," or "there's no way he lasts more than a few years" kind of bad, and that's why no one wants to touch him in D1.

Having said that, I do think that someone will take that risk, maybe even in round 2.

We all want "healthy Jack," but no one really knows if "healthy Jack" truly exists.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
JerseyAl's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:41 am

We have your personal guarantee? Oh well that's different then!

You do realize 31 teams didn't draft him, right? They've seen the medical reports, we haven't.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 29, 2016 at 08:24 am

Microfracture surgery. Scary stuff from what I've read.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
zoellner25's picture

April 29, 2016 at 08:43 am

Point Packer guarantees Jack will be a stud. Everyone screen shot that to repost in 5 years.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 08:45 am

I'm trying to guess how imminent the need for this might be. Early on, it seemed like they had no clue when he might need it, but that it was very possible. Now this makes his knee sound like a hand grenade where someone has just pulled the pin...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
chugwater's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:59 am

It's funny how people criticized TT for taking a player with an injury history (Harrell), and are now criticizing him for not taking a player with an injury history (Jack).

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

April 28, 2016 at 10:29 pm

Wtf Myles jack must be jacked, nobody will touch him. Some had this guy in round 2. I waited all night for this? Teddy better be right. At least he's healthy, so was Hawk

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

April 28, 2016 at 10:30 pm

I LOVE LOVE LOVE this pick! The men making these decisions know SO MUCH MORE about all this than I do! Of course, time will tell and it's WAY TOO EARLY to be so excited, but oh well. That's what makes the whole deal so much fun!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Amanofthenorth's picture

April 29, 2016 at 01:20 am

Our ILB's all just became damn better

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Idiot Fan's picture

April 28, 2016 at 10:31 pm

Man, if the seahawks take jack.....oy

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
packerfan9507's picture

February 13, 2019 at 07:50 pm

Go Pack

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:08 pm

Good question.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:22 pm

Honestly, for the Packers it would be they feel Clark is the better player and/or the better fit for their defense.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:29 pm

I'm sure it's deeper than that. The body sizes are similar and their strengths are also.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:52 pm

I think I just seen why.

Clark is much more agile and his change of direction really helps. For a man that size it really is impressive. He also has pass rush moves outside of the Bull Rush.

I love the fact that O-Lineman can't keep their hands on him. Clark slaps them sh*ts in a hurry.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:29 am

Billings has a reputation for being somewhat undisciplined, also. Someone who is so intent on shooting upfield that he loses his responsibility. More of a 1-gap than a 2-gap.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:47 pm

Clark is more versatile than Billings. He can play all 3 spots on the DL. He's a few months younger, and he's an off the field achievement driven guy. Big, tall, athletic...I think Butler is very similar with more length and weight. I'm hopeful and square with the r1 pick.... for now.;) Lol

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
LeagueObsrvr's picture

April 28, 2016 at 10:36 pm

I'll admit, I was a bit disappointed too, considering what was available when they picked. Billings, Butler, and both Alabama guys were all there to be had, and they went with Clark instead...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

April 29, 2016 at 03:17 am

I'm guessing that GB had a little more info regarding all those "better" choices and took Clark. MAYBE they had him rated higher than those others. Time will tell. Enjoy the ride!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
phillythedane's picture

April 28, 2016 at 10:39 pm

There's a lot of front seven talent falling to later rounds. Why worry about a guy twenty-nine other teams don't pick?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
al bundy's picture

April 28, 2016 at 10:47 pm

The only thing i can think is clark is more mobile then raji was . i think ted and don wanted not just a run stopper but a guy who could move around and he did that at ucla. Again its that mindset, we want someone who can play more than one position. That is what clark is about. Of note there are a ton to top dt still available, ted could have gone another directiom and still got one?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bearmeat's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:09 pm

I'm really kind of "meh" on this. Didn't think Jack would be there. Wanted Spence, Billings, Ragland or Butler.

That said, the guy can play.... I guess we'll see.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
sonomaca's picture

April 28, 2016 at 10:55 pm

Fans want a splash in the first round. However, the Packers had a pressing need on the DL. Now that they've addressed it, they can be a bit more freewheeling later on.

I think TT will sleep well tonight knowing he can take some flyers over the next two days.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:49 pm

No, we didn't want a splash in round 1. That splash thing is just untrue. Billings, absolutely Reed, Butler, Robinson, few others would not have been a splash at all, just solid. Many of us just thought they were better players than Clark. Still, I like Clark well enough, but I simply did not have him as a legitimate round 1 talent. He is a 1st/2nd round talent who probably will have a pretty good career.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
chugwater's picture

April 29, 2016 at 05:52 am

Isn't pick 27 essentially "1st/2nd round talent?"?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:32 am

In the end, we've had months to play "what if?" and "who would I pick?". We all had our hopes up for someone at this spot. You know how geeked up I was over Vernon Butler, only to see him go a couple picks later to Carolina.

In the end, it's us succumbing to hype and playing arm-chair GM. Some of us do more scouting work (you are one of them, TGR) and have better feel.

I'll hold out judgement on the draft until all the picks are recorded on Saturday.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 29, 2016 at 08:38 am

Thanks Dobber, but I am an armchair GM - probably fully reclined with a blanket on. I like Butler (+ a few others) much better than Clark. I don't think Clark can play 5 tech much better than Boyd, whereas Butler could have.

Replying to Chugwater, yes, in a normal year I'd consider Clark to be a perfectly fine pick @27 as a 1st/2nd round talent, but not this year because there were a couple of legitimate first round talents available. Clark might be as good as 2015 Raji sometime in 2016, probably will be in 2017. Back to even with last year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jasonperone's picture

April 28, 2016 at 10:52 pm

If any of you read Al's "Whisper" piece earlier today, this pick shouldn't have been a surprise. Jack falling out of the first round was a huge surprise but 31 teams passing on him says all we need to know about the risk he presents.

This appears to be another example of need meeting BPA on Green Bay's board or they flat out went for need. The jury is still out on the last UCLA D lineman that Ted took in the first round (Datone) so Clark has some work to do in living up to his draft spot and contributing on the D line right away!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:02 pm

Exactly.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:15 pm

Hell, maybe this even inspires Datone and we get the best out of him.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:27 pm

Maybe, just maybe he will be an upgrade over Raji.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:30 pm

I'm almost certain he'll be an upgrade over the Raji we've seen these last few seasons.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:52 pm

Agree that he probably will be as good as Raji of the recent vintage. Not so sure we'll see much upgrade. I think Jones has a chance at elephant OLB, but clearly could not play 3-4DE. Datone has been a disappointment, and still has a chance to be a bust+.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:33 am

Given that the Packers still haven't replaced Neal or Hayward, I'll say that the defense is still behind where it was a year ago, but this actually does a lot to bring it back into line with where it finished the season.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
chugwater's picture

April 29, 2016 at 08:07 am

Randall, Rollins, and Gunter have replaced Williams, House, and Hayward.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 08:13 am

IMO, until Gunter has played meaningful snaps, it's hard to say he's replaced Hayward. It might be appropriate to say they hope he can replace some of Hayward's snaps (Rollins should get more of them).

There's a lot of projection in that secondary, yet. Can you afford to get caught with your pants down?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

April 29, 2016 at 08:19 am

Rollins is replacing Hayward. Its why they drafted him last year. to replace Hayward.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 08:25 am

No doubt that Rollins is best-suited to fill the role that Hayward was best-suited for. Still, using chugwater's post, TWill, House and Hayward are all gone. If Randall, Rollins and two UDFAs (Gunter and Daniel) are the replacements, they'd better have a lot of faith in the UDFAs, because they're going to need 4-5 CBs this season.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 29, 2016 at 08:44 am

Agree completely. I have hopes for Gunter. I am concerned about a player I really like, Micah Hyde, who seems to be regressing every year. Hyde needs a new role. I spent almost no time on CBs, so have no idea about whether there is help in this draft.

Can't believe Eli Apple went 10th. I think Whitt could have done a lot with Apple but still....

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

April 28, 2016 at 10:53 pm

They showed the Packer war room and they really were pumped after the pick. No character issues. Sounds like he plays like a young Raji.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
sonomaca's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:00 pm

The "Pack-12"

TT loves those Pac-12 players. Randall, Jones, Perry, Clark, Franklin, Rodgers, Rodgers, Bradford, Montgomery, Mathews, and Hundley.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:01 pm

Keep an eye out for more. Paul Perkins...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
sonomaca's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:11 pm

Yeah, and Cravens. Cal has some interesting offensive prospects: Lawler, Lasco, Anderson, and Davis.

Who is the Packers' West Coast scout anyway. Clearly has the bosses ear.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:51 pm

Lol:)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:42 am

It seems TT especially loves UCLA guys. Jim Mora is a high character coach, heard him interviewed many times on LA radio. Perhaps the schemes are similar also.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:34 am

I'd be uber dismayed if they WEREN'T pumped...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

April 28, 2016 at 10:58 pm

I like this pick a lot. They lost Raji. They had to get another NT.

He was the number 2 rated NT in college football in terms of pressures per snap according to PFF.

From different posts I have seen, this was not a reach pick. First off many people projected him going to the Packers. Perhaps they could have traded down and got him, but if they loved him, why risk it? Also it takes 2 teams to trade.

As far as taking Clark vs other DTs that were available, obviously it came down to fit in the Packers defense and they felt Clark was the best fit for what they do.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:05 pm

I get that some people wanted to trade down, but if they look at it this way they'll have a better understanding on why TT pulled the trigger on Clark:

1. Maybe there was no trading partner
2. Maybe there was a trading partner but Ted was scared to lose out on who HE thought was the best DT available
3. Kenny Clark isn't a bad player. He is a damn good player. He isn't the type of reach Richard Rodgers and Khyri Thorton was.
4. The fact that the last 2 (two) Defensive picks were DTs says something.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Idiot Fan's picture

April 29, 2016 at 12:13 am

I'm generally a fan of trading down, but we already have 9 picks, and there are only so many roster spots available.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

April 29, 2016 at 03:40 am

But sometimes the "roster spot" argument doesn't hold water. Or at least it is offset by the "more swings at the plate" argument. Regardless of your current roster, if you believe all of the players from 25-40 are of about the same quality, do you want two picks or one?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:38 am

I think the "more swings" holds up when you're Cleveland or Tennessee and have a lack of NFL talent. The more swings is great if you feel like you lack at least average guys.

That said, I think the Packers are at a juncture where they really need to be thinking about roster transition and making over several positions as they move forward. I'm not sure that "more swings" wouldn't have been a bad thing in this case. Which leads to the overall evaluation of this draft: maybe personnel guys felt that this draft just isn't as strong as upcoming drafts, and that remaking your team through this particular draft isn't going to be as beneficial. If that's the case, maybe this is a "less is more" draft, where you trade up, get 3-4 impact guys, and ride it out until next season.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 29, 2016 at 08:49 am

I agree, Dobber, but there is no law against trading back in the first to gain pick #105 and 178, and then using #105 to move up from #88. #105 + #88 allows GB to move to about #71. Might be useful.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bohj's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:06 pm

I also like the pick. Don't you guys see that year after year picking in the low 20s makes it difficult to get the "bigs"? They're usually all gone by the time the Pack picks. Well...this draft is deep in "bigs"..... And we need one bad. Remember our whole diced up run D? That needs to be fixed. ILB is part of that problem....yes....but Interior Dline is equally as imortant. You know what you won't see alot of in later rounds? ......Bigs.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:56 pm

So... Pennel, Guion, and Raji prior to departure were not big enough?! Wow, not sure I agree with that? Lol, I do agree that DL was an r1 priority IMO. I personally liked V Butler myself but I don't have TT's resources! :P lol

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

April 29, 2016 at 05:52 am

I think a big concern about Butler was he should have done better against the competition he faced in the USA Conference. I was on the Billings train myself but Clark was a guy who was normally mocked to go at the end of the first round before the combine. Players who vault up draft boards because the did well in Spandex scare me.

I wasn't "Thrilled" with the pick but after a nights sleep I'm okay with it.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:39 am

Ditto.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
BoCallahan's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:10 pm

Just watched the film. Seemed as if he couldn't get off blocks. Minimal back side pursuit. Most tackles took place after a 3-4 yard game. I saw nothing worthy of a 1st round.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

April 29, 2016 at 01:32 am

This is an article on Kenny Clark - not Shilque Calhoun. Make sure you pull up film on #97. He played for the UCLA Bruins. If you'd like, I can refer you to some games that I'm sure would impress you.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

April 29, 2016 at 05:59 am

What film was that?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Otto's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:17 pm

All you guys losing your minds about not taking Myles Jack must have loved the Justin Harrell pick, right?
As I recall, people wanted Ted's head on a pike for taking an injured player in the 1st round.
I guess he learned and you haven't.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Samson's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:46 pm

So you're saying that ALL players who have an injury while in college are undraftable ?? ---- Rrrright.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Otto's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:53 pm

A torn bicep is worse than micro fracture surgery... riiiiight.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
chugwater's picture

April 29, 2016 at 08:15 am

No. He's saying passing on Jack is a reasonable decision because of the injury history.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
steven10825's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:21 pm

Im done being mad... The only thing that saves it for me is hes 20

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:24 pm

Mad about what?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

April 29, 2016 at 01:35 am

Wait, so initially he wasn't worthy, but after realizing his age he became good? Orrrrrrr...I'm missing something?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:21 pm

Good Sound Pick. No weight issues. No surgeries. Rated Higher than Billings on most sites. TT stays to players that have good character.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
sonomaca's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:52 pm

No way the Packers would take a guy like Nkemdiche. For most players, the family, girlfriend and agent are at the table. For Nkemdiche, it was the whole posse of friends and hangers-on. That would strike terror into the heart of TT.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:58 pm

Hahahahaha.. That was funny. Lol

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4EVER's picture

April 29, 2016 at 01:58 am

Actually the aforementioned terror is precisely why TT shouldn't be in control of selecting the defensive front 7!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4EVER's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:24 pm

UCLA was 97th in rush defense for one reason; no one in the middle of there front 7 demanded a double team. Its there to see! Strong push with no release. McCaffery 200+ yds, 50% up the middle. It irks me when draft rooms says they can teach them. BS...like saying they can teach tackling...Burnett...still tackling with his head away and down.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

April 29, 2016 at 12:00 am

Burnett was a top 10 safety per PFF, considerably higher than HHCD. Don't sleep on Morgan, he's a good player.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4EVER's picture

April 29, 2016 at 01:27 am

Yes, I've heard that before...just re-watched the Washington and Arizona games, and it's frustrating too see Burnett's tackling fundamentals. By my account, his tackling is horribly weak; waits for contact with head down, which forms a poor pad level, and an unfocused point of contact, which all contribute to the soft contact and extra yards gained. Seems the NFL are low on SS!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:41 am

UCLAs defense had exactly two players to scheme for: Clark and Jack.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
AgrippaLII's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:30 pm

Like everyone else I'm wondering why not Billings or Butler. Then I hear Clark is only 20 yrs. old, he played everywhere on the defensive line, really good blowing up the run, and he got better each year. His versatility and the potential to be even better as a pro is what Ted is looking at.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

April 29, 2016 at 12:04 am

Butler is this kid in his big brother's body. Butler is massive. 6'7 335?! Can play the whole D line. If I were to guess, it's because Clark was more of an egg head than Butler?! Lol Typical TT ;)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 05:04 am

I loved Butler, too, but 6'7"? 335? He must've had a growth spurt last night! ;)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

April 29, 2016 at 05:55 am

LMAO!! Funny dobbler! I'm still laughing, no offense holmesmd.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:59 am

Hahaha;), I meant 6'4. Lol. Weight is right or close.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jocelyn Hopkinson's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:31 pm

#Trusted

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:33 pm

YOOOOO!!! I just got around to the Clark vs Cali. tape and oh my -- when this guy gets just a tad bit of a run going before the ball is snapped -- YOU'RE DONE! Center or Guard. You're done. Just hold on for dear life.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Samson's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:38 pm

BPA - I doubt it.
Need - of course. (Raji quit for awhile) - The DL is/was a major weakness heading into 2016. -- I'd rather have this guy on the field than another 5th or 6th rounder playing too many snaps.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Clay the 1st's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:45 pm

Seems like a nice kid with a lot to learn. I am thinking it is a good thing Mike Daniels will be teaching him to be mean.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 05:06 am

In my experience, wrestlers usually need no help in learning how to be "mean".

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:02 am

Or how to deliver a chair shot.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:44 am

I wrestled into high school in one of the state's excellent programs (and sparred with a guy who went on to UofM to play OT, was later drafted by the Steelers) and learned that I was too nice. I didn't have the fundamental willingness to hurt someone to win. Good wrestlers have no problem dealing with hurting people.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:25 am

go watch some film on him. He doesn't need help to be mean.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Miisbigsur's picture

April 28, 2016 at 11:57 pm

I am just as unexcited about this pick as I was about Perry and Jones. My preference would have been to trade down. Short of a trade partner, I would have opted for one of the Alabama players for DT, Spence for ER, or Spriggs for OT.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

April 29, 2016 at 12:23 am

Hey maybe he'll be great but I'd have liked to see Billings, Butler, Reed, or even Robinson. That he was a wrestler is good to know. Clark did have 5.5. sacks last season but he has only one FF his whole college career. Just think there Ted could have done better.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:27 am

Honestly, I think Clark has more pass rush potential then all the players listed.

He has a very strong Bull rush. very strong. He is quick and can change direction very well for a big man.

This is a very good pick.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

April 29, 2016 at 12:27 am

For most of you if Ted Thompson picked Clark Kent, you would not be satisfied... Why? Because Ted did not picked player of your choice, showing others how little you know. Well, guys, I think there is the reason why 27 GMs passed all those favorites of you. Do not ask me why. I do not know. But I know enough to understand that all those draft predictions were done by the people who are, basically, journalists, not scouts of any franchise. And there is the reasonwhy is like it is...
I'm neutral regarding g pick. It was surprise for me, as it was last seasons. I'm enjoying knowing that Packers has one of 3 best GMs...
Good night!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

April 29, 2016 at 01:25 am

Spot. On.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4EVER's picture

April 29, 2016 at 01:37 am

with a frustrating...bang on!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:28 am

31 teams passed on a lot of the players everyone is talking about.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:54 am

Exactly! But who is talking about that players? Journalists and so call "Experts" on the NFL! It is strong message when those guys did not picked in the 1şt round!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Icebowler's picture

April 29, 2016 at 12:36 am

He's got to be an upgrade over Raji that's for sure.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:04 am

I'm "OK-plus" with this pick. Personally I think he is the best run stuffer in the draft (yes, really). Unlike some DTs he's high energy, not a fatty, pretty tough. Although he's not long he has good leverage and is hard to move. Plus he doesn't come with baggage, but is a character-plus guy. And he's never had any health issues whatsoever (or even missed a game). People may say "no pass rush" - and they may be right - but having a rock in the middle to press the pocket creates opportunities for Daniels, Matthews etc. And it certainly helps ILBs fly around to the ball. He's better than "Recent Raji." I like this pick, but obviously time will tell.

What I am even more excited about, though, is how many players that I would love to have are still on the board. I'd love to see Whitehair, Spence, Correa, Ragland, Jason Spriggs, Ogbah. And if the Packers want to double down on a D-tackle, Reed, Robinson, Billings, etc are still there. Even guys like Henry (Hunter or Derrick) could be nice.

Bottom line there is a LOAD of really good players left, and the Packers are almost guaranteed to land someone they really like, even if they sit tight and pick at their spot.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 05:53 am

I think you hit on two very important things here:

1. It's clear that having a "clean" medical history has evolved into a very important factor in early player selection. Far more than I anticipated in this draft.

2. The way the first round fell, there's a TREMENDOUS number of guys with super-high upside and high draft grades left on the board. The Packers are likely to get at least one of them and potentially two (if Ted goes ballsy and trades up).

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:00 am

Hey Marpag1...Clack actually had 5.5. sacks last year. That's better than Butler who played in a much weaker conference and 1 less that Billings. Clark is taller so he's a little more versitile than just playing NT for example.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:09 am

Yup. I'm not saying that Clark WON'T be a decent interior rusher, but that it doesn't seem to be his greatest strength. To me, it looks like he has a nice first step and hustles well, but hasn't developed a lot of moves and might not have the flex to do so. He has pretty good balance and doesn't spend much time on the ground.

Here's an interesting take from PFF concerning Clark's ability to apply pressure:

"Kenny Clark recorded one bull-rush pressure for every 23.8 pass-rush snaps, the second-best rate for interior defenders in this class."

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:31 am

Clark is an underated pass rusher.

The thing I like is his ability to push the center back to the QB. If you get that pressure up the middle it allows the OLB's to get to the QB.

Clark will be a very good player for the Packers. Great fit for their defense.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:57 am

YUP, EVERY piece I've read on him this moring say the same thing, high effort, hign motor, strong (6th most reps at 225 out of 51 who tested). Pete Prisco over at CBS Sports said "Every time I put in tape to watch Myles Jack, this kid (Clark) popped up all over the place".

I like that.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jh9's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:44 am

TT made a safe pick. He filled a need, with Raji retiring. Clark should have a good career. He's not all-pro material, but he'll do the job.

I'm with you, marpag1. How well TT drafts this year will not be determined by this pick--it will be determined primarily by picks in rounds 2-4.

I'm of the belief that the Packers need an upgrade at ILB. Finding the right player for that position would be the "difference maker" for our defense. TT usually finds at least one gem in the later rounds. This year I hope he can do it again at the ILB position.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

April 29, 2016 at 05:53 am

I really don't watch much college football. Looking at the highlights of Clark, he may be an ok player but will struggle against very good opponents. UCLA run D was terrible.
Looking at his stats vs Raji at the combines, it seems he is quicker and faster than Raji but nowhere near as strong. Makes sense as Raji was 20 lbs heavier.
Overall a safe pick I think, no character issues that we know of, but given who was still available I am a little disappointed.

and just a fun comparison, corey Linsley is the same height but weighs less, yet he had 36 bench presses. Clark will struggle against double teams...

But so far, Jersey Al's mock is right on the money!!!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:04 am

Clark put up 29 reps on the bench press. The only player with more that had a 1st or 2nd round grade was billings with 31.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:07 am

Last summer, I think, Reuter posted an analysis on ALLGBP looking for the best predictor for all-pro players from the combine. For OL/DL it was bench reps.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:39 am

Clark's bench is respectable, especially when you consider that he is only 20 and has a lot of room to grow. As you pointed out Raji was 20 lbs. heavier and correspondingly slower. I don't see Clark as a NT in the short term. He might get some reps there filling in with Pennel serves his 4-game suspension, but I suspect he'll spend most of his time over the next three years at DE. Maybe he'll be a NT later in his career once he has reached his full weight and strength potential. For now I see him moving around as a rotational player this year, and taking over a DE spot next year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:05 am

I'd rather judge the draft as a whole, not just as a single pick. I'd like to think that there's an overarching plan for how these picks are going to piece together. That said, I think that Clark was a safe, sensible pick. Do I think he was BPA? No.

As I look at other sites that graded the pick, they are scratching their heads over why the Packers didn't take an ILB (like Ragland or Jack). I think the answer is pretty easy: it's not a priority to management. Someone else posted that the ILB on the roster immediately got better with this pick. I think that's accurate...at least on run downs. The way this draft is falling, there will be very good ILB talent available today. Only two LB went off the board (Floyd and Lee) last night.

I think it's a safe bet that the Packers reinforce the front 7 with at least one of their two picks today, and it will likely be a better caliber of player than I thought they would get at this time yesterday.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:43 am

I sure hope you are right. What would be exciting is to see TT move up to grab Jack or Ragland. Kind of like the year he took Raji and then moved up to get Matthews. Reinforce both levels of the front seven. Since you got some comp picks be willing to spend one of your other picks to move up if you think that Jack will recover or that Ragland is worth it.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:08 am

LOL....I thought the same thing, what if TT moved up to grab Ragland. If not and Deion Jones is there in the 2nd round or better yet 3rd round.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:48 am

As Jack and Ragland fall, many of the LBs fall behind them. There will be very good LB talent on the board at #57.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
chugwater's picture

April 29, 2016 at 08:17 am

What if Jack and Ragland are gone, but Jaylon Smith is there? Do you choose him?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 29, 2016 at 09:05 am

Our 3rd, #88, would move us from #55 to about #40. Pretty steep price, since I think we'd get someone pretty good at #88.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:05 am

I think some commenters here are staying false to their board.
I also think it's slightly horrifying that some commenters on here actually HAVE a board.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:50 am

"I also think it's slightly horrifying that some commenters on here actually HAVE a board."

It's a hobby for some people. I have a hobby...we just don't post about it on this board.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:40 am

This is a great place to check out some video's on players.

Here is some video's on Clark.
http://draftbreakdown.com/players/kenny-clark/

You can see the power and his strength of playing over the center.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:41 am

I was pushing for Jack as much as anyone as the fall was taking place, but I'm not a doctor and I didn't examine his medicals. I trust Ted. This strikes me as a solid but not sexy pick. Nothing wrong with that.

There are LOTS of guys still hanging around. The board is falling nicely for Ted.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:47 am

The Justin Herrell experience has probably permanently scared him away from taking a medical risk in the first round. I'd love to see him roll the dice in the second. The trade values are lower. The profile is lower.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:52 am

ha...I don't know about that. I doubt any one bad pick scares Ted off his MO. I just think the medicals must be pretty bad for every team to pass on him.

I'm excited for day 2 - lots of good LBs should be available.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:51 am

Yeah, you need to judge each player on his own merits. If Harrell is influencing how TT is picking, he needs to get out of there or grow a pair.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
phillythedane's picture

April 29, 2016 at 12:07 pm

Good advice - for the rest of us...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:00 am

Jack maybe would have been the best pick at that point. But when you are hearing possible need for microfracture surgery, I'm sure that scared everyone off.

When you watch video's on Jack, the player that flashes a lot is Kenny Clark. When you notice other players on the video while watching another player. That tells you something.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

April 29, 2016 at 06:54 am

How many DL went in the 1st? 6? Seems like a lot fewer than expected.

It seems like lots of teams are making the value play and waiting to take DL and addressing other areas first.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:04 am

yeah, there were a lot fewer then I expected. Which is a good thing though too...

checking this list out, I am thinking there will be a big run on defensive players early in round 2.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000656617/article/2016-nfl-draft-be...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:53 am

That's the first thing I thought this morning when I re-evaluated how the first round fell yesterday. DL are the high value picks, now, and they're going to get scarfed up quick-like. It will push better players back to the Packers at #57.

If you'd told me yesterday that an edge rusher like Spence or Ogbah might make it to #57, I wouldn't have believed you. It's a realistic possibility now.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Irish_Cheesehead's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:18 am

Judging from past drafts, I'm more excited to see who the Packers pick in rounds 2-5. Seems every year over half the first round picks never pan out to be the dominant players they were projected to be when their teams picked them. Ted has a way of finding the diamonds in the rough in later rounds. This is where it gets fun!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:24 am

Don't forget to mention that the Packers have picks 5 picks in the next 3 rounds. Should be exiting.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
phillythedane's picture

April 29, 2016 at 12:10 pm

That's the best advice I've heard yet. Think I will.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Handsback's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:36 am

I'm surprised that Spence wasn't called. It appears that Clark was TT's highest rated player and they were adamant in getting him. They saw and know more than I do so I think Clark may surprise us (fans) and assure the coaches he was worth that pick.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:54 am

I was somewhat surprised to see TT pass on the edge player to take Clark. We'll see how this pans out...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

April 29, 2016 at 07:54 am

Round 2 who do we like - Brothers? Jordan?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 08:01 am

Shocked to see all the 'bama players drop out of round 1. That said, I don't think any of them make it to #57. Not a fan of Brothers, and at this rate he might be had in round 3.

My guess is it will be a pass-rusher, either from the DE position or LB position. Could you imagine the Packers calling Spence's, Bullard's or Ogbah's name in round 2? Could fall that way. That...would...be...awesome.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 29, 2016 at 09:19 am

I agree that we still should get a good player at #57. Not so sure that the way the draft fell helps us - time will tell. Really, Artie Burns is the only guy I didn't have in the top 50. It is possible that the names will be the same, just re-arranged.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 09:45 am

You could be right...it seems that a lot of guys touted as second rounders went first. Now the guys who were mocked as first rounders will go...either way, the longer those guys last on the board, the more likely one or more of them make it to you later in round 2.

I can be the optimist! ;)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maia Maia's picture

April 29, 2016 at 09:23 am

We fans are disappointed because the draft is at its best when you watch for hours as your dream player falls right into your lap. Aaron Rodgers at 24.

It's the equivalent of winning a close game with 12 seconds left on the clock.

Taking a player nobody expects when 2 or 3 "dream" players are still on the board is the equal of fumbling on the 1 yard line with 12 seconds left. It's not about the player being good or bad, it's about the unfulfilled drama.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

April 29, 2016 at 10:09 am

Just the first pick and not a bad one. Not ecstatic but it's early. Besides when do we ever make a huge statement in first round lately. Leave that for the other teams. Rounds 2 and 3 and this year now 4 are ours.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Big_Mel_75's picture

April 29, 2016 at 12:41 pm

Smells of Datone Jones... Thompson got his average 3rd round pick in the first round.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
greenngold's picture

April 29, 2016 at 12:53 pm

jeremyjjbrown says:
April 28, 2016 at 10:27 pm
Can you link to tape of him playing soft?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbD179r7OKo

Shows decent technique, plays smart, but makes
very few plays. Also Looks good against a stiff center, but Garnett owns him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e9eXvyurWo
where is he against USC?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OGISC80_I0
BYU stiffs owning him for the most part.

I'm also a Stanford alum, and have the Pac-12 package. Saw about half the games he played this year, and my overwhelming impression is decent player but in NO WAY is he the 27th pick with the aforementioned D lineman with more upside AND versatility still on the board.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
greenngold's picture

April 29, 2016 at 01:11 pm

UCLA Defensive NFL picks:

Going back to '08. Couple nice DB's and a
potentially good LB. Not exactly a sterling
track record.

2008
Bruce Davis Pittsburgh 3rd round

2009 none drafted

2010
Brian Price Tampa 2nd round
A. Verner Tennesee 4th round

2011
Akeem Ayers Tennesee 2nd round
Rahim Moore Denver 2nd round
David Carter Arizona 6th round

2012 none drafted

2013
Datone Jones Green Bay 1st round

2014
Anthony Barr Minnesota 1st round
Cassius Marsh Seattle 4th round
Jordan Zumwalt Pittsburgh 6th round

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 29, 2016 at 02:27 pm

Just means they're due!! ;)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
EJ Breider's picture

April 29, 2016 at 01:29 pm

The Arizona tape looked awful. Sure, he was doubled a lot, but I didn't see 1st round "want to." Why not Ragland in the first ? Or even Butler, if he had something against the Alabama DTs. Or trade down a few spots. Clark might have nice measurables and reputation, but this was not a good pick. I didn't like D. Jones or Harrell or Perry either. I DID like Jerrel Worthy ... still wondering what happened there.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

April 29, 2016 at 01:54 pm

Yea. awful good. I know what you're trying to do. You're just hurt that TT didn't pick someone you wanted. It's ok though. You'll get over it,

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

April 29, 2016 at 04:14 pm

Without seeing the Packers board or knowing what they know it's difficult to be thrilled or disappointed with this pick. We do know that DL became a key need for the Packers with Raji's retirement. At least TT has tried to fill this need. How good of a player Clark will be only time will tell. I am satisfied that for now he is healthy and doesn't have any character issues. I'll reserve my comments on the draft until all the picks are in. As always it will be 2-3 seasons before we can accurately judge this draft. We have a good opportunity to really improve our team with 5 picks over the next 3 rounds. Let's see how it goes. Go Pack Go! Thanks, Since '61

+ 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.