Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 182
  1. #136
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seoul, South Korea
    Posts
    7,989
    Quote Originally Posted by petrey10 View Post
    Why was it stupid drafting AJ? I think that痴 about the only pick that was actually smart. A.J. and Jones will be a nice 1,2 punch this year.
    Agreed, on this point. I think AJ is going to have a really nice year. Dillon I think will give us a better runner at the #2 and he is going to get a ton of looks with Jamaal now gone. They get a true thunder-lightning duo in this. AJ had some really nice flashes.

    Slight sidebar here too. From a hindsight perspective and looking at the following picks I'm not sure there is a case anyone else would have been a better pick in that slot. I think perhaps the only two arguments could maybe be from what we have seen performance-wise is Antonio Gibson, but he would not have seen the same workload. Maybe Donovan People-Jones, but DPJ was taken in 6th, so that's not even applicable. Maybe you could argue DPJ over Martin, but Martin showed promise as well, so way too early on that take. Maybe someone emerges, but after year one there isn't anyone that has me thinking ahh, we would have been so much better with this guy.

  2. #137
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,793
    With hindsight, I would 100% swap Dillon for Jeremy Chinn. All the talk that we could potentially take a safety to play in the box or to allow Savage to move to a star type position would be moot if Chinn was on this team.

    But the pick has grown on me. Jones signed a pretty team friendly deal. If Jones wanted to get top dollar, he could have priced himself out of GB. We didn't know what he'd take until this summer. So insurance wasn't a horrible choice.

    And idk about trading up to 15 either. Maybe someone falls and it would make sense, but I'm not sure who. Maybe Smith or Waddle but idk if I'd move up for them to be honest. If that trade values Love as a mid 2nd, I think I'd almost rather just take a mid 2nd straight up to go with 29 in this draft. It's been a hard draft to evaluate, but whenever I look at this draft, I think there's a decent amount of value in the early to mid 2nd range. Im not against moving down a few spots if someone wants to jump back into the first to get a 5tj year option on a guy.
    Last edited by crewfan13; 04-27-2021 at 03:44 PM.

  3. #138
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    9,390
    Quote Originally Posted by IRNMN View Post
    I'm not sure what to make of these Love rumors. Overall, I take them with a grain of salt but will bite because it's at least possible and continue to report on it.

    To be honest, I would hate the move if we were to move up to 15 for NE. I don't see the value of moving up to 15; I would say they're getting fleeced in this deal on paper. Logistically who would we possibly move up for? I'm not sure. I would say a DB would seem most logical. At the same time, the class seems deep enough, so why gamble? Really outside chance, you walk away with a guy like Kyle Pitts or Micah Parsons (highly doubt). I don't think there is any logic in moving that far for a WR. Most of the IDL's would be a reach. Maybe OT, but we can honestly wait there and season a guy taken in round 2-4 and be just fine. The only value I could see would be to move up to move back down, but that's a stretch. Even if you could net the guys, you would really want IE Pitts or Parsons. I can't BB moving out of that spot. The move doesn't make a whole lot of sense. There are many positions where there is enough depth that there would be no need to move up that far unless you're sure you can get an instant impact talent.

    On the same note, I wouldn't doubt NE may have some interest. In fact, if an actual verified report came out, there were discussions. I wouldn't doubt it, but I would almost be willing to say it has nothing to do with 15 overall. I would be more interested in their second than giving up a big chunk to move up in the first. If any real discussion is going on, it's far more likely surrounding 46 overall and not 15th overall, but at 46, you're getting a lot of what you spent last year pick value-wise. Also, seems more of the M.O. of both parties. Just a hypothetical here that would swap third-round picks and look like: Love and 92 for 40, 96, and 122 (didn't run any of the draft value math there, but just a random scenario). This again makes a lot of assumptions. I would, however, be more interested in a mid-second than giving up a large amount for a mid-1st. Championship IMO are often won by the finds you get in the 2-4 rounds.

    Along the same lines, there have been reports of the Broncos. I'm wondering what those logistics would be. I would almost be more intrigued by the possibility of getting the Broncos. I really don't know what they would offer. But, let's say there is any truth to this one. I'd assume the offer presumably would include 40 overall and maybe some shifting of other later rounds somewhat like above. I would much rather take that than lose another 4th, 29, and Love.

    Both scenarios give them the flexibility to move around to maximize picks. At the end of the day, I also think the F.O. is not shopping Love and is really trying to play it year by year. Sure, fans will continue to groan over the move, but the chance of getting significant value after one year is slim to none. But let's say the Denver rumor is true (was reported by SI) that may be enough to sway them. If a team wants to go all on in him, I'm sure we would take the offer, but I would say moving up to 15 w/NE is really more of a "dump the guy" move and a person trying to sell a story. Keeping Love this season doesn't change anything. If they eventually deal Love, his value's not shifting to a point they can't get good value next season.
    there is another issue when it comes to trading Jordan Love that I don't think people are taking into account, the money. If you go to over the cap's interactive cap calculator, if you trade Jordan Love he leaves $4,924,620 dead money and you lose $2,110,195 to this years salary cap. which give the Packers a -$277,874 salary cap so they would again have to start doing some contract magic to get back in the black.

  4. #139
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,793
    Quote Originally Posted by PackerBum9786 View Post
    there is another issue when it comes to trading Jordan Love that I don't think people are taking into account, the money. If you go to over the cap's interactive cap calculator, if you trade Jordan Love he leaves $4,924,620 dead money and you lose $2,110,195 to this years salary cap. which give the Packers a -$277,874 salary cap so they would again have to start doing some contract magic to get back in the black.
    If you're trading Love, you're also extended Rodgers so there's where a big chunk of money can come from. It's hard to rework Rodgers deal without adding years. Sure, we could convert his salary to a signing bonus, but without adding years, you almost hamstring yourself in future years.

    And to me, that's part of the reason why nothing has been done with Rodgers contract yet.

  5. 04-27-2021, 07:08 PM
    Reason
    Insults

  6. #140
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    5,279
    Quote Originally Posted by PackerBum9786 View Post
    there is another issue when it comes to trading Jordan Love that I don't think people are taking into account, the money. If you go to over the cap's interactive cap calculator, if you trade Jordan Love he leaves $4,924,620 dead money and you lose $2,110,195 to this years salary cap. which give the Packers a -$277,874 salary cap so they would again have to start doing some contract magic to get back in the black.
    I知 not worried about $277k of salary cap. We still can extend Adams too. It痴 not like Rodgers is the only option left

  7. #141
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    9,390
    Quote Originally Posted by petrey10 View Post
    I知 not worried about $277k of salary cap. We still can extend Adams too. It痴 not like Rodgers is the only option left
    right now its looking like they want to hold off on working Rodgers contract or extending Davante. it was also a weird move to restructuring Za'darius' contract when extending him would have been better. and if they are wanting to hold off on those moves trading Love makes no sense just because of the money. I also don't see the Packers getting anything worth trading a guy they just drafted last year and hurting their salary cap by doing so. The packers show a lot of loyalty to their draft picks.

  8. #142
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bolingbrook, IL
    Posts
    6,942
    Quote Originally Posted by PackerBum9786 View Post
    there is another issue when it comes to trading Jordan Love that I don't think people are taking into account, the money. If you go to over the cap's interactive cap calculator, if you trade Jordan Love he leaves $4,924,620 dead money and you lose $2,110,195 to this years salary cap. which give the Packers a -$277,874 salary cap so they would again have to start doing some contract magic to get back in the black.
    If you traded Love, a Rodgers extension would surely happen so I think they could deal with it.

    The proposal I saw which had Love + 29 for 15 is insane. Definitely not worth it for GB. If it was Love and a third for 15 that makes more sense to me, but it is hard to tell what Love's value is though since there was no preseason last year.

  9. #143
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seoul, South Korea
    Posts
    7,989
    Reports have noted the Packers are really high on Rashod Bateman and have been doing a lot of homework on him.

    Bateman's been perhaps my top choice for the Packers to take. I think he's a guy maybe worth moving a few slots up for, but would be a stellar fit and would be great at 29. We will obviously need to see how the board plays out. You can get a guy like Bateman and there are tons of gadgets that will be solid late rounders.

  10. #144
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    5,279
    Newsome is my biggest want... followed by waddle/smith/Bateman then Barmore

    Teven Jenkins would be a solid pick IMO.

    I知 not wild about the LB. we missed our chance last year at Queen and I知 just worried we have buyers remorse and are reaching. Plus I知 fine with Barnes and Martin fingers crossed they make a step forward year 2. I feel the DL is a bigger issue

  11. #145
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seoul, South Korea
    Posts
    7,989
    Quote Originally Posted by petrey10 View Post
    Newsome is my biggest want... followed by waddle/smith/Bateman then Barmore

    Teven Jenkins would be a solid pick IMO.

    I知 not wild about the LB. we missed our chance last year at Queen and I知 just worried we have buyers remorse and are reaching. Plus I知 fine with Barnes and Martin fingers crossed they make a step forward year 2. I feel the DL is a bigger issue
    I'm wondering how the CB board unfolds. That will be interesting to watch. I agree plenty of potential and appeal with Newsome.

    I think Teven Jenkins would be a solid pick as well. He may not be ideal, but I don't think you can go wrong. Jenkins seems safe and will have an immediate impact. I think I've mentioned it elsewhere, but the thing you like about Jenkins is much like Eglton Jenkins you will get your value. He looks like a guy who likely will do well no matter where you put him. I would wonder if he is a guard or a tackle in the NFL. However, would fit in well with this group.

    I would agree not a big rush to add LB.

  12. #146
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,793
    Quote Originally Posted by petrey10 View Post
    Newsome is my biggest want... followed by waddle/smith/Bateman then Barmore

    Teven Jenkins would be a solid pick IMO.

    I知 not wild about the LB. we missed our chance last year at Queen and I知 just worried we have buyers remorse and are reaching. Plus I知 fine with Barnes and Martin fingers crossed they make a step forward year 2. I feel the DL is a bigger issue
    For what it's worth, queen graded out by PFF as possibly the worst ILB in the league. I strongly doubt taking an ILB this year is buyer's remorse with Queen. I wouldn't at all be surprised if they had Brooks higher on their board than Queen. Queen is undersized and not adept at taking on blocks and likely never will be. So for that package to be successful, you better be a sure tackler and solid or better in coverage, which Queen was neither. Barnes was comfortably better than Queen who missed a crazy amount of tackles and was putrid in pass coverage.

    One interesting thing with Newsome that doesn't get mentioned is he's missed a ton of time with injuries. He doesn't have one big concern like Farley does with his back, but Newsome missed like 40% of his college games with an ankle then seemingly constant nagging stuff like groins and hammies. For as much crap as King gets for always being banged up, I wonder why fans aren't worried about that with Newsome.

  13. #147
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,793
    Quote Originally Posted by IRNMN View Post
    Reports have noted the Packers are really high on Rashod Bateman and have been doing a lot of homework on him.

    Bateman's been perhaps my top choice for the Packers to take. I think he's a guy maybe worth moving a few slots up for, but would be a stellar fit and would be great at 29. We will obviously need to see how the board plays out. You can get a guy like Bateman and there are tons of gadgets that will be solid late rounders.
    I've said from the start Bateman screams Packers WR. He's the right size and while he's not an other worldly athlete, he's pretty solid athletically across the board and was productive when playing in college, despite less than ideal qb play. That's essentially the profile of the Packers preferred WRs.

    I don't think our WR group is as bad as people think, but it is a sneaky need. Virtually no one is under contract next year. I'd imagine we bring Adams back. But bringing in a legit WR in the draft could allow you to at least one of MVS or Lazard walk. If you bring in a Rondale Moore or even an Eskridge or Tutu or someone like that later, I'm not sure you let MVS or Lazard walk, since those guys are a bit more gadget-y type guys. But Bateman can be a very legit all around WR. If we're looking at WR, I wouldn't sleep on Elijah Moore either. Similar to guys like Aiyuk last year, I think some of the mock sites are lower on him than the league is. Some rumors are saying he's emerged as almost a consensus #4 WR behind Chase and some combo of Waddle and Smith. He's definitely a guy to keep an eye on and some think he's potentially a Tyler Lockett type WR.

  14. #148
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    964
    If he is still there at 29 do the Packers take Travis Etienne an Aaron Jones prototype? Jones's contract is an easy out in 2 years, just saying.

  15. #149
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    9,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Pcs Papa View Post
    If he is still there at 29 do the Packers take Travis Etienne an Aaron Jones prototype? Jones's contract is an easy out in 2 years, just saying.
    no i don't see it. I mean its possible because anything is possible but, I doubt he is the pick. They took AJ in the 2nd rd last year re-signed aaron jones even though like you said he is an easy out in 2 years I think they may take one in the later rds and just develop I don't see them going top rds for a RB.

  16. #150
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    NW Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,830
    Packers likely acquiring picks 2 and 23 from the Jets for Aaron Rodgers. Time to start thing about the best players in the draft. Trade down from 2 and take Penai Sewell, Pick 23 Christian Baremore...

Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •