Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 182
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,936
    Quote Originally Posted by ugottabjoshinme View Post
    I saw something suggesting Savage could play the "Star" role in Barry's defense were he is moving all over the place. Having another safety would be required.

    And even without that, they need a hybrid guy to do what Raven Greene did (when healthy) and that Will Redmond can't do.
    I look at a guy liek budda baker. Granted, this tweet was prior to last year, so it doesn't include his snaps last year, but his career snaps by position prior to last year were 882 at slot, 708 at free safety, 460 at LB and 186 as an edge. Generally, those things at based upon where you're physically standing at the snap moreso than position, but it's a good indicator of a guy who moves a ton. Not sure the exact numbers, but Honey Badger does similar things. Derwin James is a different type of guy, but he's a similar story.

    And I recall reports coming out from even his rookie camp that the coaches were impressed with how quickly he picked up the play book, so that would at least suggest he's capable of learning his responsibilities in all those spots fairly quickly, even with a new DC.

    Thats going to be a key with him. It's actually a semi similar story to Jenkins as well. Jenkins and savage should have enough positional versatility that we aren't shoe horned into taking specific spots. If a safety or center falls in the draft, we can take those spots and fill savage or Jenkins around them.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    9,460
    Packers had a meeting with Auburn receiver/returner Eli Stove

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seoul, South Korea
    Posts
    8,002
    Quote Originally Posted by PackerBum9786 View Post
    Packers had a meeting with Auburn receiver/returner Eli Stove
    I wonder if this is more of a potential UDFA conversation. Given the depth of this class, I'm not sure Stove gets drafted this year but could slide into the late round. The pretty reliable workload in the Auburn offense last two seasons he had 81 recs and 680 yds, 6 TD's the last two seasons. My issue would be for a guy who is supposed to be a gadget type his numbers are just ok.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    9,460
    Packers meet with Northwestern WR Ramaud Chiaokhiao-Bowman

    https://packerswire.usatoday.com/202...okhiao-bowman/

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,936
    Interesting article here about the Packers and RAS, which is Relative Athletic Score. For anyone who's not super familiar, RAS measures athelticism controlled for body size on a 10 point scale. Basically, if two guys run a 4.5 second 40 and one is 5'10" 190 lbs and the other is 6'5" 250 lbs, the 2nd guy will have a higher RAS score for speed becuase that type of speed is much more rare at the 2nd size than the first. Granted, I don't think NFL teams use this exact formula, I'm guessing most do some sort of size adjusted formula for athletic testing.

    But the article basically says the Packers almost always draft guys with an RAS of 8 or higher. Of the Packers last 25 picks, 3 weren't able to do enough testing to qualify for an RAS, but of the 22 that qualified, 80% had an RAS over 8.0. And that does change a bit by position as the article states. It seems a few spots like TE and ILB we've been a bit less strict about the 8.0 cutoff, but some like DB, Edge, WR and OL we seem more strict on it.

    The article is not formatted well at all for mobile, just as a warning since I use mobile almost exclusively. But it lays out all the guys at each position who meet the 8.0 qualifier at each position. This year might be a bit crazy with all pro days and no combine, so maybe we ease the requirements some, but I think there's a decent chance that list makes up alot of the guys we are looking at.

    https://247sports.com/nfl/green-bay-...ers-164087386/

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,936
    This year has been a really strange year for draft analysis as a whole though. I know there's always descrepancies, but this year feels extra crazy, especially at the spots the Packers are likely to be picking. There doesn't even seem to be anything close to a consensus. Depending on where you look, there will be guys who are off the board when the Packers pick at 29 at one spot who are available with our 2nd rounder in another spot.

    But to me, I think there's a strong likelihood we draft either an OT, DL or CB in the first. Outside chance of S, WR or ILB as well, but I'd say the first 3 are more likely.

    To me, it seems Sewell, Slater and probably Darrisaw are all off the board well before we pick. Seems like most drafts have Vera-Tucker off the board as well. To me, Jenkins seems like a Packers guy. I also think Cosmi, despite being lower on some boards is in play too. Humphrey could be the pick too, but I really think we're more looking for a potential tackle. Humphrey and maybe a guy like Mayfield or even Eichenberg feel more like guys who might make sense if we trade down a bit. If we stay put, Jenkins and Cosmi are the guys I have my eye on.

    At CB, that position is all over the map. Horn and Surtain are almost certainly off the board. Farley and Newsome both seem to usually come off the board before the Packers pick. If either is on the board, I'd expect we'd think long and hard about them. For me, the two other guys I think well have our eye on at CB in the first are Stokes and Melifonwu. Samuel might make sense because we like playing zone. While he is similar in size to Jaire, he is a bit small for what we usually take at corner. I don't personally love Melifonwu, but he feels like a Packers pick.

    For DL, Barmore is the only guy that's consistently in the first. He's usually off the board by the Packers pick, but he has been skipping a bit lately. If he's available, I think there's a very strong chance he's the guy. Outside of him, Levi O from UCLA has been rising lately. He's about the only other guy I could see in play at 29 without a trade back. I think it's early for him, but we do have a history of taking West Coast/Pac 12 guys fairly early and it wouldn't be an utter shock if we grabbed him. He's a top shelf athlete at the position.

    As for the other positions, depending how the board falls, I could see moehrig at safety. His RAS wasn't elite, but was still good and he was dealing with a bit of a back injury that may have dropped him a bit. At ILB, if Parsons falls, he may be the guy. However, if he falls, it might be for off the field stuff, which could mean he's not on our board. JOK doesn't seem to be the type of guy we've historically taken at ILB. Maybe that changes with a new DC, but he doesn't seek like a Packers type. Collins is interesting. Not sure how the Packers will have him rated, but he could be around.

    As for WR, I'm not really sure where we go. Traditionally, Bateman and Marshall both feel like Packers guys, especially Bateman. But I could also see us trying to find the one peice we don't have. If that's the case, both Moores could be in play too. I also think dyami brown could end up being a best of both worlds type of compromise. I feel like I don't have. A great read on where we'd go at WR if we did take one.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    9,460
    rumors going around Western Michiganís DíWayne Eskridge is a potential target for the Packers. I'm assuming a mid to late round target.

    on a similar note, have you guys noticed when going through the WRs for this year how many of them are undersized receivers?

    Jaylon Waddle 5'10
    Rondale Moore 5'9
    Elijah Moore 5'9
    D'Wayne Eskridge 5'9
    Amari Rodgers 5'10
    Tutu Atwell 5'9
    Demetri Felton 5'10

    The Packers tend to shy away from drafting shorter WRs with the exception being Randall Cobb who was like a 1/4 in under 5'11

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seoul, South Korea
    Posts
    8,002
    Yeah, I think it's pretty clear they are looking for a gadget guy who can offer an immediate upgrade at the returner spot. If you want a gadget player this is the year. I think they may still have some stipulations even for the smaller guys as well. A few things on this.

    Some of the guys on this list I have a lot of concerns for. It's one thing in the NFL to be shorter, but a few of these players are well under 175. A guy like Rondale Moore I would be against, that's a lot of stock put into a guy who is small and has injury concerns. Any of the receiver outside of the 180-185+ threshold I'm skeptical of. Guys like Rodgers and Eskridge have some more size to them, E. Moore just a little outside that bubble. Of this whole list, I probably can see the immediate value in Eskridge and Rodgers. I'm skeptical of any of these small receivers who are really below 185 let alone 175. Though they can have some success rarely do you see those 5'9 and under who are not in that 185ish range last more than their rookie deals. Taylor Gabriel really was more of an exception not the rule. Though they are doing homework I would almost wonder if they would take a truly smaller WR both in height and weight. Even Tyler Ervin was 190, Cobb coming out I think was around 190 and bulked up a little more. You may be able to thrown Elijah Moore in the bubble.

    Looking at both of those two I think one of the big draws for Eskridge is he is a pretty solid blocker and that will be required of all GB WR's. Eskridge makes sense if you're wanting to develop, but get an upgrade at the gadget. Rodgers may be more polished, a little less risk, and you know what you're getting. He's a guy built like an RB and likely can thrive outside of the gadget and in the slot. Eskridge will need to be a bit more consistent but could develop into a similar role. I think Eskridge has been getting some, but nothing reliable, but some 2nd-3rd round buzz frankly it's hard to know where players are in this draft. Rodgers likely would require a second round unless they move around. One advantage Eskridge may have is he's played in cold and ugly weather games I don't think they require it, but I think it's preferred.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    966
    Gotta take Cameron Cheeseman the long snapper from Michigan.
    On a more serious note what do you guys think of the Love, 29th pick and a 4th round pick to the Pats for the 15th pick rumors?

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    5,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Pcs Papa View Post
    Gotta take Cameron Cheeseman the long snapper from Michigan.
    On a more serious note what do you guys think of the Love, 29th pick and a 4th round pick to the Pats for the 15th pick rumors?
    Honestly we have no clue what Love is. But it gets us what should be a contributor right away. Iíd be happy with it.

    Idk if its all smoke and mirrors tho. Iíd be shocked that the Packers even consider it. They arenít willing to admit fault in the Love pick or commit to Rodgers. This move in my eyes would accomplish both

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,961
    If we could get a 2nd round value for Love I would trade him, so yes I'd do that Pats trade.

    I am a fan of trading down if we are looking at WR, T, or CB I think the depth in the 2nd is pretty good and we could package some of the later round picks to sweeten the deal.
    Say 29 and our extra 6th to Miami for 36 and 81. There will likely be teams looking to jump the teams behind us for a pass rusher Miami, NYJ, and Phily would make sense.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    117,981
    we have to trade love... roders is here for several more years... Drafting him and AJ was stupid from the start and it should cost someone their job. Imagine if we actually take guys we needed? NAAAAAAAAAA lets just keep ****ing rodgers over

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    117,981
    https://www.thescore.com/nfl/news/21...seeable-future

    why does he still have a job? drafts QB and runningback in rounds 1 and 2 while expecting to build around our current QB and Running back for years to come?

    my god imagine had we got legit talent with our 1 and 2 picks that could help the team last year. Yet we sit here and watch brady build the team he wants in tampa and win a superbowl while getting outplayed by rodgers in the same game and we wonder why we cant win

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    5,311
    Quote Originally Posted by More-Than-Most View Post
    we have to trade love... roders is here for several more years... Drafting him and AJ was stupid from the start and it should cost someone their job. Imagine if we actually take guys we needed? NAAAAAAAAAA lets just keep ****ing rodgers over
    Why was it stupid drafting AJ? I think thatís about the only pick that was actually smart. A.J. and Jones will be a nice 1,2 punch this year. Hoping deguara can make some plays this year that stoneberger never has.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seoul, South Korea
    Posts
    8,002
    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.

Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •