2017 Draft/FA Needs - Ranked

[Deleted member 6794]

Are there even any good free agent CBs?

Probably not, that's why the position should have been addressed via trade before the deadline.

 

[OldSchool101]

1. CB will be our most pressing need and I would even consider acquiring two players here. An established Veteran from FA that is 6'+ and can run a 4.45 40 or better. I'm no college scout, but If what I'm reading is correct? there will be an abundance of D secondary talent still available by the 3-4 round.. so using a compensatory pick makes sense to me for depth
2. OT/OG. Dependent on who we sign or let walk on the O line in FA.
I've said this before and I'll say it again... I know this isn't a **** pick but Our entire franchise is dependent on #12.
3. RB. If the chips fall right in the draft we should be able to find a solid RB either 1st or 2nd day so we may be lucky enough to move RB to spot 1. Having a balanced offense not only makes sense, it also takes pressure off of AR by keeping opposing Defenses honest.
4. Back to the Defense.. I'd love to see another quality D Lineman or ILB by the third round. Battles are won and lost in the trenches and we also just departed with Pennel.
5. TE. Id like to see us resign Cook to short term deal and also get Aaron another weapon. I'd consider WR but I like the idea of having another solid run/pass blocking TE off the edge to compliment a talented RB.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

OT/OG. Dependent on who we sign or let walk on the O line in FA.
I've said this before and I'll say it again... I know this isn't a **** pick but Our entire franchise is dependent on #12.

With the Packers having Spriggs and Murphy on the roster I don't feel the need to draft another tackle.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

With the Packers having Spriggs and Murphy on the roster I don't feel the need to draft another tackle.

I would agree and say the need at OLB could be right up there depending on Matthews, Peppers and Perry.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Packers emphasis high up in the draft should probably be OLB/CB/Dline (not necessarily in that order).

 

[4zone]

Pretty much agree with this. I might say Corner, Edge, DL, RB, and OL in that order, depending on Lacy. Otherwise, I'd go Corner, RB, Edge, DL, and OL.

Since this draft is SO stacked at TE, I'd like to see us take a crack at one later too. Cook has been awesome, but having another tight end waiting in the wings would be great.

I expect we'll take at least one TE, as a backup project if nothing else. I guess it just depends on who is available and when

 

[4zone]

In 2016 we didn't only lose Sam Shields at CB, we also lost (hopefully temporarily) the promise of two high round draft picks filling the roles of starting CB's. It would be very dangerous to go into 2017 thinking that Randall and Rollins are going to play up to the level most thought they would, as well as putting a #1 (32nd player in draft ) next to them.....recipe for disaster IMO.

Opinions on Joe Whitt? Does he have any blame in what has/hasn't been happening with these young guys? Or does that rest on TT and the scouts for not giving him enough talent to work with?

Hey, we've been working with a patchwork quilt most of the season. Not even now are all the guys still on the roster back to 100%. Most of them have something slowing them down.

I beginning to think the NFL should allow teams to have all 53 guys active on game day. No reason not to really.

 

[Poppa San]

1- CB
2- G
3- OLB
4- RB
5- DE

Swap 2-3 and I like this list.

I'd remove #2 off the list completely as a "need." Unless Lang walks we good there because of this:

With the Packers having Spriggs and Murphy on the roster I don't feel the need to draft another tackle.

Either of these of Bulaga can slide into guard even if Tretter isn't back (I think he will because he played one season which does not a starters money earn.)

I already included the rollover in the numbers posted above.

I don't even count the rollover because TT seems to roll roughly the same amount forward every year. It's like his personal rainy day fund he will never spend but it is there.

 

[4zone]

I'd remove #2 off the list completely as a "need." Unless Lang walks we good there because of this: Either of these of Bulaga can slide into guard even if Tretter isn't back (I think he will because he played one season which does not a starters money earn.)

We don't have a dedicated G backup. This year ought to teach us that injuries are completely random. If we lose a T and G at the same time, we end up with Barclay at G. Not a good plan. I believe Tretter may be more valuable than Lang, he's our only backup C and can play any position on the line. Lang will be replaced in a few years and we need that guy now to get him ready and serve as backup now.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

We don't have a dedicated G backup. This year ought to teach us that injuries are completely random. If we lose a T and G at the same time, we end up with Barclay at G. Not a good plan. I believe Tretter may be more valuable than Lang, he's our only backup C and can play any position on the line. Lang will be replaced in a few years and we need that guy now to get him ready and serve as backup now.

I agree the Packers are in need of another guard or even two depending on the Packers plans to re-sign Lang.

 

[4zone]

We don't have a dedicated G backup. This year ought to teach us that injuries are completely random. If we lose a T and G at the same time, we end up with Barclay at G. Not a good plan. I believe Tretter may be more valuable than Lang, he's our only backup C and can play any position on the line. Lang will be replaced in a few years and we need that guy now to get him ready and serve as backup now.

Let me clarify a tad. I'm not saying Tretter is better than Lang, just more versatile and thus more valuable.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Let me clarify a tad. I'm not saying Tretter is better than Lang, just more versatile and thus more valuable.

Lang being a starter makes him more valuable to the Packers than Tretter.

 

[ThePerfectBeard]

I agree the Packers are in need of another guard or even two depending on the Packers plans to re-sign Lang.

I agree we could use a guard, but this draft class is so weak at the o-line position. Not sure how much value there will be.

 

[El Guapo]

I was thinking the same as Poppa San. I'm not sure that anyone will offer starter money to Tretter, meaning, I don't think that's a smart move based on his somewhat limited experience. That likely means that someone desperate may do it but I still think it's in the 25% chance range. If he's gone then yes, we will draft another guard somewhere.

 

[swhitset]

Lang being a starter makes him more valuable to the Packers than Tretter.

I'm not going to slap a disagree on that... but you know better than making that argument. You know full well that Tretter was the starting center before he got hurt... and you know he was actually slated to be the starter ahead of Linsley in the past as well. We don't know the actual status of Tretter's current injury now either but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he has been brought back more slowly than necessary due to his impending free agency and the fact that Linsley is also a very good center. Now none of this should be construed as me saying that I think Tretter is better than Lang. I'm just calling you out on a glib yet weak argument lol.

 

[thisisnate]

How is concluding that a starter is more valuable to us than a non-starter being glib or making a weak argument?

 

[Poppa San]

Let me clarify a tad. I'm not saying Tretter is better than Lang, just more versatile and thus more valuable.

More versatile?? (From his page at packers.com)

Has started 81 games during his career, opening contests at four different positions (47 at right guard, 27 at left guard, five at right tackle, two at left tackle)

I believe he also played center a few snaps. I'm not sure if he was competent or sucked.

 

[4zone]

More versatile?? (From his page at packers.com)
I believe he also played center a few snaps. I'm not sure if he was competent or sucked.

Yes, he also plays Center, our only legit backup there.

 

[swhitset]

How is concluding that a starter is more valuable to us than a non-starter being glib or making a weak argument?

lmao apparently you didn't bother reading ?

 

[thisisnate]

lmao apparently you didn't bother reading ?

Read what? The thread? Yes, but I still don't get it...

 

[swhitset]

Read what? The thread? Yes, but I still don't get it...

my answer is in the post directly above the post I quoted from you which I assumed you were referencing when you asked the question. In that post I pointed out that Tretter really is/was the starter so that saying one is more important than the other based on that is moot. Now we could certainly expand the conversation and conclude that Lang trumps Tretter because we have 2 starting caliber centers and only one Lang.....but that was beyond the scope of what I was saying.

 

[Poppa San]

Yes, he also plays Center, our only legit backup there.

You realize I was quoting from Lang's bio, true?

 

[PikeBadger]

Lang being a starter makes him more valuable to the Packers than Tretter.

I tend to think the Packers are trying harder to re-sign Tretter than they are Lang. I think Lang is being viewed as expendable and the RG position is going to be up for grabs next summer between about 4-5 guys.

 

[PikeBadger]

For those in the know, what are the strengths and weaknesses in terms of position groups in this year's draft? Is it considered to be an average draft class overall?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Lane Taylor has turned out to be a bargain but unfortunately only a 2 year bargain. With his contract up at the end of next year, TT is going to have to really think about Lang and Tretter and how much he wants invested in the OL.