2018 Free Agents to Target

[McKnowledge]

Have you ever seen him tackle? If you pair him with HCD you have by far the worst pair of tackling safeties in the league. Teams would run all over us.

That's what off-season training and the coaching staff is for...HCD and Randall will improve on their game.

 

[Half Empty]

I've always contended that semantics and subjectivity make sports forums what they are, and the DLine discussion is now Exhibit A.

 

[Dantés]

I don't think the Packers defensive line is anywhere close to being great, especially considering the team completely lacks quality depth.



Those are decent grades but there's not a single elite player on the DL supposedly being a great unit overall.

You know better than anyone that those grades are a lot better than "Decent" on their scale. Both are close to their "elite" category. Why are you downplaying them?

 

[GleefulGary]

It's almost as if there's this gap between decent and elite where great could lie. There is nuance here! Not everybody who isn't elite is just "ok". Not everybody who is great, is "elite".

I think PFF backs up the tape in this case, but if you don't think Daniels and Clark are top of the line at their position, I'm not sure what you're watching tbh.

I mean, we have PFF, there's even Nfl1000, which is a fun/cool rating BR do on basically every starter in the NFL. They have Daniels at #5 for 3-4 DE's, Lowry at #15, and Kenny Clark at #17 overall for DT's. When you consider Clark is 22 and rapidly improving, one has to be impressed. We have a great DL. A good DL. A very good DL. However you want to say it, we are good there. I know we can all have our opinions, but the idea that we are "sufficient" at DL is so ridiculously insane that even CaptainPFF is trying to ignore his favorite set of ratings rather than just saying, "oh hey, maybe I was wrong." Watch the game. Why do you think Martinez had so many gaps to RB's? Why do you think our run game was good? Please try to realize that the general function of a 3-4 DL scheme like what Capers ran is fundamentally different than a 4-3.

 

[Dantés]

Here's a different spin on the FA wishlist:

I wish for the FA veteran QB's who are good enough that their new teams won't feel compelled to draft a rookie QB in the first round end up going to teams who pick #15 and later (i.e. ARI, BUF, JAC, MIN).

Cousins, Bradford, Keenum, and Smith (via trade) could all be enough to make a QB needy team feel like they don't need to take a guy rd. 1. So if they're signed by the QB needy teams in the top 13 (i.e. CLE, NYG, DEN, NYJ, MIA, WAS) it makes it less likely that 4-5 QB's go in the top 13, and thus less likely that a blue chipper at a non-QB position gets pushed down to Green Bay or within range of a reasonable trade up.

 

[7thFloorRA]

SS Eric Reid 26 SF
TE Trey Burton 26 PHI
CB Kyle Fuller 25 CHI
CB Ross Cockrell 26 NYG
OG Andrew Norwell

I would push Taylor out to RT. Norwell is a freaking mammoth guard. Not sure why he hasn't tried RT.

 

[Dantés]

SS Eric Reid 26 SF
TE Trey Burton 26 PHI
CB Kyle Fuller 25 CHI
CB Ross Cockrell 26 NYG
OG Andrew Norwell

I would push Taylor out to RT. Norwell is a freaking mammoth guard. Not sure why he hasn't tried RT.

I really love the Burton and Fuller ideas.

 

[GleefulGary]

Norwell is awesome, but he's gonna be $$$$ and Lane Taylor can't play RT.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Here's a different spin on the FA wishlist:

I wish for the FA veteran QB's who are good enough that their new teams won't feel compelled to draft a rookie QB in the first round end up going to teams who pick #15 and later (i.e. ARI, BUF, JAC, MIN).

Cousins, Bradford, Keenum, and Smith (via trade) could all be enough to make a QB needy team feel like they don't need to take a guy rd. 1. So if they're signed by the QB needy teams in the top 13 (i.e. CLE, NYG, DEN, NYJ, MIA, WAS) it makes it less likely that 4-5 QB's go in the top 13, and thus less likely that a blue chipper at a non-QB position gets pushed down to Green Bay or within range of a reasonable trade up.

Or.......teams like Arizona and Buffalo do NEED a QB and see the guy that they REALLY want still on the board when the Packers are on the clock......Let's make a deal!

 

[sschind]

Here's a different spin on the FA wishlist:

I wish for the FA veteran QB's who are good enough that their new teams won't feel compelled to draft a rookie QB in the first round end up going to teams who pick #15 and later (i.e. ARI, BUF, JAC, MIN).

Cousins, Bradford, Keenum, and Smith (via trade) could all be enough to make a QB needy team feel like they don't need to take a guy rd. 1. So if they're signed by the QB needy teams in the top 13 (i.e. CLE, NYG, DEN, NYJ, MIA, WAS) it makes it less likely that 4-5 QB's go in the top 13, and thus less likely that a blue chipper at a non-QB position gets pushed down to Green Bay or within range of a reasonable trade up.

I had to read through that a couple of times for it to sink in but I like the thinking. The more teams ahead of us that draft a QB the more likely we get someone who can make an impact.

 

[sschind]

Or.......teams like Arizona and Buffalo do NEED a QB and see the guy that they REALLY want still on the board when the Packers are on the clock......Let's make a deal!

For years some fans have been saying that one of the reasons the Packers have not had luck with first round picks is because they were always drafting so low. Now we have a pick in the top half and you want to trade it away I'm not opposed to the idea but I think we will have plenty of picks in this draft so I'd rather stay put and take advantage of getting someone who is 10 players better than we usually get. In fact, if we do get 4 comp picks giving us 12 picks I hope we don't trade any of them away for more, I'd rather trade a few away to move up. Maybe not from #15 but certainly later on.

 

[Dantés]

I had to read through that a couple of times for it to sink in but I like the thinking. The more teams ahead of us that draft a QB the more likely we get someone who can make an impact.

It was worded about as well as a 4th grade essay.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

For years some fans have been saying that one of the reasons the Packers have not had luck with first round picks is because they were always drafting so low. Now we have a pick in the top half and you want to trade it away I'm not opposed to the idea but I think we will have plenty of picks in this draft so I'd rather stay put and take advantage of getting someone who is 10 players better than we usually get. In fact, if we do get 4 comp picks giving us 12 picks I hope we don't trade any of them away for more, I'd rather trade a few away to move up. Maybe not from #15 but certainly later on.

If Arizona, who is at #15 really wants a QB that is on the board and they are afraid we might trade back with another team who wants that same QB, you have yourself a perfect trade scenario. Trade the 14th pick to Arizona for their #1 and another pick and still get your man at #15. I definitely don't want 12 rookie draft picks, so I can see packaging picks to move up, but if you can take advantage of QB desperate teams in the first round, go for it.

 

[Mondio]

It was worded about as well as a 4th grade essay.

right in my freaking wheelhouse, I thank you for that

 

[bigbubbatd]

I really love the Burton and Fuller ideas.

I think they are my two favorites going into the offseason as well however I see Fuller staying with the bears. Burton could come a lot cheaper though and would mean te doesn't need to be a first 3 rounds pick unless a guy they love really slips. Then you could focus on olb and wr early.

 

[PackerDNA]

Norwell is awesome, but he's gonna be $$$$ and Lane Taylor can't play RT.

Would be thrilled with getting Norwell, but at his price and the other priorities/needs, I see less of a chance at them going for him then normal.

 

[PackerDNA]

I think I should have been clearer with why I made my earlier post and what it was based on. By elite, impact player, etc., I was using old rating scales I used to see by scouts and personnel guys. Specifically, a terrific annual that vanished after the 2000 season called AllSports . This annual wasn't writers giving predictions, it was all scouts and GM,s anonymously giving grades and comments on the top 35 or so players on each team. They would grade a LB for example on 7 or 8 different things that a LB does, then give a final total grade with comments.
In the middle of the mag, they would rank guys at each position. The grading would be for example, "4.75-5.00- best or top 5 in league at position; elite, impact player".
So when I say elite, impact, game changer, and so on, I mean the best at their position or top 5, which by definition would be an elite, 'great' player.

 

[jetfixer]

If Arizona, who is at #15 really wants a QB that is on the board and they are afraid we might trade back with another team who wants that same QB, you have yourself a perfect trade scenario. Trade the 14th pick to Arizona for their #1 and another pick and still get your man at #15. I definitely don't want 12 rookie draft picks, so I can see packaging picks to move up, but if you can take advantage of QB desperate teams in the first round, go for it.

Arizona is not going to trade up with us knowing we are not taking a QB.

 

[Dantés]

Arizona is not going to trade up with us knowing we are not taking a QB.

I’m not saying this is at all likely, but the way it works is you convince ARI, truthfully or not, that if they don’t trade for your pick you’ll trade it to a different club behind them that DOES want a QB. Again— unlikely. But it does happen.

 

[SoonerPack]

I had to read through that a couple of times for it to sink in but I like the thinking. The more teams ahead of us that draft a QB the more likely we get someone who can make an impact.

Absolutely! 13 picks ahead of us and you have to figure there will be at least 3, probably 4 (Mayfield) QB's taken. Also, Barkley, Ridley, Fitzpatrick, Chubb, Jackson and one or two OL all seem like safe bets to be gone as well. I really feel there will be an impact edge-rusher there for the taking and if it works out that way I pray we pull the trigger. My personal hope is Roquan Smith being there at 14. I believe this kid is going to be special at the next level and make an immediate impact. Putting him with Blake would make for a nice 1-2 punch for years to come.

 

[Dantés]

Absolutely! 13 picks ahead of us and you have to figure there will be at least 3, probably 4 (Mayfield) QB's taken. Also, Barkley, Ridley, Fitzpatrick, Chubb, Jackson and one or two OL all seem like safe bets to be gone as well. I really feel there will be an impact edge-rusher there for the taking and if it works out that way I pray we pull the trigger. My personal hope is Roquan Smith being there at 14. I believe this kid is going to be special at the next level and make an immediate impact. Putting him with Blake would make for a nice 1-2 punch for years to come.

The thing about edge rusher is that there is Chubb and then a lot of question marks. He will be gone. Then you’re talking about Landry and Davenport. I’m not ruling either out at this point, but they aren’t slam dunk values at 14 either. Landry needs to answer questions about his dropoff in 2017, and Davenport needs to demonstrate that his tools are genuinely rare enough to overlook his lack of development. It’s just something to continue monitoring.

Personally, I think 3 QB’s is a lock, 4 is reasonably likely, and 5 would be sweet. Barkley’s gone. Guice is a dark horse as well. Nelson should go in that range, as should Chubb, Edmunds, and Fitzpatrick. I would love it if someone took Derwin James. So say that’s ~9-10 picks accounted for.

That means that a number of the following could be in play at #14: Calvin Ridley, Connor Williams, Vita Vea, Da’Ron Payne, Roquan Smith, Denzel Ward, Harold Landry, and Marcus Davenport.

That’s a higher class of prospect than the Packers have had a shot at in some time. I just hope they’re open minded about positions and take the best impact player rather than reaching down the board to address a need. For instance, if Vea is their highest graded prospect by a good margin, take him and stack up strength on strength along that defensive front. Frankly, I think that kid will explode at the next level if he’s allowed to play 50-60% of snaps instead of 90+.

 

[GleefulGary]

Vita Vea playing Lowry's spot would be one of the sickest things in the league.

 

[SoonerPack]

The thing about edge rusher is that there is Chubb and then a lot of question marks. He will be gone. Then you’re talking about Landry and Davenport. I’m not ruling either out at this point, but they aren’t slam dunk values at 14 either. Landry needs to answer questions about his dropoff in 2017, and Davenport needs to demonstrate that his tools are genuinely rare enough to overlook his lack of development. It’s just something to continue monitoring.

Personally, I think 3 QB’s is a lock, 4 is reasonably likely, and 5 would be sweet. Barkley’s gone. Guice is a dark horse as well. Nelson should go in that range, as should Chubb, Edmunds, and Fitzpatrick. I would love it if someone took Derwin James. So say that’s ~9-10 picks accounted for.

That means that a number of the following could be in play at #14: Calvin Ridley, Connor Williams, Vita Vea, Da’Ron Payne, Roquan Smith, Denzel Ward, Harold Landry, and Marcus Davenport.

That’s a higher class of prospect than the Packers have had a shot at in some time. I just hope they’re open minded about positions and take the best impact player rather than reaching down the board to address a need. For instance, if Vea is their highest graded prospect by a good margin, take him and stack up strength on strength along that defensive front. Frankly, I think that kid will explode at the next level if he’s allowed to play 50-60% of snaps instead of 90+.

Well stated, per the usual. I am a also a proponent of BPA unless it comes down to two guys close enough in grade to justify going with positional need. I would never scoff at the idea of bringing in a guy with the size and skill-set of Vea. Imagining a defensive front of Daniels, Vea, Lowry and Clark brings a smile to my face. I am from the camp believing the game is still won in the trenches on both sides of the ball and having the 4 I just mentioned anchoring our DL would be a beautiful thing! Nice post.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I’m not saying this is at all likely, but the way it works is you convince ARI, truthfully or not, that if they don’t trade for your pick you’ll trade it to a different club behind them that DOES want a QB. Again— unlikely. But it does happen.

Exactly. You see it happen in the draft, teams really want a guy that is still on the board and fear the next team up is going to either take that guy or trade the pick away to another team that wants the guy. Power in position for sure.

Look at what the Bears did last year to move up from #3 to #2 to land Trubisky.

 

[sschind]

It was worded about as well as a 4th grade essay.

Ah, that explains it. I only passed the third grade and that's just because I outgrew the desk.