F>R's 2020 Mock Draft Thread (Final Mocks Page 16)

[Dantés]

Somebody gets it....




I never said they didn't fit. I'm just saying we have guys who can be effective in multiple schemes. I don't think we have a single guy who gets major snaps where we would say, "he can't play outside of such and such...."

But either the scheme needs to adjust slightly, or we need some extra help, and I've repeatedly said it's along the line.

I said that if the FO drafted players with a future DC in mind, and not the current one, then we have bigger problems.

You said "they've been doing that for years."

So I'm asking you for examples.

But whatever.

Yes, we have players who can align in different places. Epenesa can also align in different places-- ostensibly as a 5T in a 3-4 or as an edge in an even front. The issue is that his primary alignment in our most common fronts is on the edge, where they've already made huge, whopping investments in guys that are going to play ahead of him. And his versatility as a 5T in odd fronts isn't very valuable when we rarely use odd fronts.

You don't got out and spend 118M on edge players, draft another at #12, and then draft another in the first round the year following.

And from what I'm reading/seeing, I do not buy him as an interior player. Maybe the odd snap here or there, but you're drafting this guy to play on the edge.

 

[AmishMafia]

What's a 3-4 variant?

Some teams, when in base defense, run a 3-4, while others run a 4-3. But base defense is less relevant all the time. Nickel and Dime defense are the order of the day.

Most of the time, the Packers do not have a 5T on the field. Their most common fronts are much more similar to traditional 4-3 DL concepts than 3-4.

Epenesa could probably play the 5T, when we use that position. But most of the time, he would just need to play on the edge of a 4-2-5 or 4-2-6. And on the edge is where we already have the Smith's and Gary waiting behind them. He wouldn't make sense here.

The Packers shouldn't be spending #30 on an edge, and if they spend it on an iDL, it should be a penetrating, disruptive 3T, which they currently lack.

He's a DE 3-4 not an OLB. Or are we using Edge to refer to all DEs regardless of scheme?

We need big uglies on the DL. Our scheme is probably dictated by the players we have and not the other way around. Epensa will be a very good player in the NFL IMHO and the Packers could use him in some manner.

 

[AmishMafia]

What's a 3-4 variant?

Some teams, when in base defense, run a 3-4, while others run a 4-3. But base defense is less relevant all the time. Nickel and Dime defense are the order of the day.

Most of the time, the Packers do not have a 5T on the field. Their most common fronts are much more similar to traditional 4-3 DL concepts than 3-4.

Epenesa could probably play the 5T, when we use that position. But most of the time, he would just need to play on the edge of a 4-2-5 or 4-2-6. And on the edge is where we already have the Smith's and Gary waiting behind them. He wouldn't make sense here.

The Packers shouldn't be spending #30 on an edge, and if they spend it on an iDL, it should be a penetrating, disruptive 3T, which they currently lack.

He's a DE 3-4 not an OLB. Or are we using Edge to refer to all DEs regardless of scheme?

We need big playmakers on the DL. Our current scheme is probably dictated by the players we have and not the other way around. Epensa will be a very good player in the NFL IMHO and the Packers could use him in some manner.

 

[Dantés]

He's a DE 3-4 not an OLB. Or are we using Edge to refer to all DEs regardless of scheme?

We need big playmakers on the DL. Our current scheme is probably dictated by the players we have and not the other way around. Epensa will be a very good player in the NFL IMHO and the Packers could use him in some manner.

He's a DE in a 3-4, but we are almost never in a 3-4.

Edge refers to the ends in even front or the rush backers in odd front.

It's not that I don't think the Packers could use him, it's that I think his skillset would mean that in our most common defensive formations, he would join an already crowded group rather than play where the Packers need the help.

 

[AmishMafia]

He's a DE in a 3-4, but we are almost never in a 3-4.

Edge refers to the ends in even front or the rush backers in odd front.

It's not that I don't think the Packers could use him, it's that I think his skillset would mean that in our most common defensive formations, he would join an already crowded group rather than play where the Packers need the help.

Our roster dictates our alignments. We are not in a 3-4 because of the specific talent we have. If we add a player with the talents of an Epensa, we would be in a 3-4 more often and it would be a beautiful thing.

 

[Dantés]

Our roster dictates our alignments. We are not in a 3-4 because of the specific talent we have. If we add a player with the talents of an Epensa, we would be in a 3-4 more often and it would be a beautiful thing.

Totally disagree.

The Packers and virtually the entire league are in base defense far less than bygone years (be that 4-3 or 3-4) because of the offensive formations they have to defend.

If they tried to collect the personnel to run a lot more base defense, and actually executed it, they would get shredded.

 

[AmishMafia]

I think we as fans seem to want to label things as a scheme type. Hell, for all we know, we run an Eagle 44 defense, we are just in sub packages 100% of the time.

 

[Dantés]

I think we as fans seem to want to label things as a scheme type. Hell, for all we know, we run an Eagle 44 defense, we are just in sub packages 100% of the time.

Yes-- the 3-4 and 4-3 distinction is way overblown. Nickel and Dime are the order of the day.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

Regardless of distinction, with the exception of the Patriots(and they only did this for 2 years when they had the personnel), we are going to have 3 or 4 down linemen at all times. Unless I missed something, I've never seen Pettine run a 2-4-5, so there will be 3 linemen, it's just a matter of their alignment. Lowry and Epenesa could line up at the either 3T or 5T and rush accordingly. In a Dime look, Lancaster or my "new gem" who will be revealed in a later mock could play opposite Clark in a 2T.

With better personnel who can do multiple things allows Pettine greater flexibility. That flexibility allows him more ways to get to the QB and stop the run. Pettine, just like any DC is only going to do what his personnel allows within his scheme. Even if he wants to do something different, if his personnel won't allow him to do it then that limits the scheme and defensive plan overall.

 

[AmishMafia]

In a Dime look, Lancaster or my "new gem" who will be revealed in a later mock could play opposite Clark in a 2T.

The anticipation!

Its Marlon Davidson, isnt it? Grab him in the 2nd?

Is it?

 

[GleefulGary]

Regardless of distinction, with the exception of the Patriots(and they only did this for 2 years when they had the personnel), we are going to have 3 or 4 down linemen at all times. Unless I missed something, I've never seen Pettine run a 2-4-5, so there will be 3 linemen, it's just a matter of their alignment. Lowry and Epenesa could line up at the either 3T or 5T and rush accordingly. In a Dime look, Lancaster or my "new gem" who will be revealed in a later mock could play opposite Clark in a 2T.

With better personnel who can do multiple things allows Pettine greater flexibility. That flexibility allows him more ways to get to the QB and stop the run. Pettine, just like any DC is only going to do what his personnel allows within his scheme. Even if he wants to do something different, if his personnel won't allow him to do it then that limits the scheme and defensive plan overall.

I guess it's a matter of distinction.

There were plenty of times when we had Clark and Lancaster/Lowry with the Smith Brothers on the outside. Smith Brothers technically aren't down lineman, as they were in a two point stance.

If you were watching the Packers play, I can assure you saw them in a 2-4-5, or even 2-3-6, many times.

 

[Dantés]

Regardless of distinction, with the exception of the Patriots(and they only did this for 2 years when they had the personnel), we are going to have 3 or 4 down linemen at all times. Unless I missed something, I've never seen Pettine run a 2-4-5, so there will be 3 linemen, it's just a matter of their alignment. Lowry and Epenesa could line up at the either 3T or 5T and rush accordingly. In a Dime look, Lancaster or my "new gem" who will be revealed in a later mock could play opposite Clark in a 2T.

With better personnel who can do multiple things allows Pettine greater flexibility. That flexibility allows him more ways to get to the QB and stop the run. Pettine, just like any DC is only going to do what his personnel allows within his scheme. Even if he wants to do something different, if his personnel won't allow him to do it then that limits the scheme and defensive plan overall.

We have 2 down linemen on the field quite often. And more to the point, our average defense uses two interior defensive linemen and 2 edge players.

Interior defensive linemen (Clark, Lowry, Lancaster, Adams, Keke, and Brown) accounted for a total of 2185 snaps. The Packers defense was on the field for 1037 snaps. So that means that interior DL accounted for 210% of the total snaps. We are a 2 iDL defense.

 

[Dantés]

I guess it's a matter of distinction.

There were plenty of times when we had Clark and Lancaster/Lowry with the Smith Brothers on the outside. Smith Brothers technically aren't down lineman, as they were in a two point stance.

If you were watching the Packers play, I can assure you saw them in a 2-4-5, or even 2-3-6, many times.

Not to mention that the distinction between a 2-4-5 and a 4-2-5 is often irrelevant.

 

[tynimiller]

The latest three rounder out of FS I think is very realistic:

#30 - Patrick Queen ILB ~ LSU
#62 - Harrison Bryant TE ~ Florida Atlantic
#94 - James Proche WR ~ SMU

I know all of us desperately want a WR out of this draft...but I also think it could be VERY likely a LB, DT, OT get taken in round 1 and 2 by us, so I like the idea of speculating who could be there in the 3rd round WR wise. BUT I'm sorry I love guys like Proche, they're solid and reliable, with sure hands, solid route tree.....however he is 5'11' only 196lbs and isn't fast with that small frame sadly. 4th round on I had him pegged as a dynamite pick...but in the 3rd I just don't like it personally...but he could easily be one of like 3 worthy of thought at the #94 pick in the position.

As for the other two picks....I'm assuming this mock assumes we enter the draft with a cut Graham and not a soul signed in FA to go after a TE this high in the draft. I don't dislike Bryant, but just the pick. Queen I'm 100% a fan of picking!

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

The latest three rounder out of FS I think is very realistic:

#30 - Patrick Queen ILB ~ LSU
#62 - Harrison Bryant TE ~ Florida Atlantic
#94 - James Proche WR ~ SMU

I know all of us desperately want a WR out of this draft...but I also think it could be VERY likely a LB, DT, OT get taken in round 1 and 2 by us, so I like the idea of speculating who could be there in the 3rd round WR wise. BUT I'm sorry I love guys like Proche, they're solid and reliable, with sure hands, solid route tree.....however he is 5'11' only 196lbs and isn't fast with that small frame sadly. 4th round on I had him pegged as a dynamite pick...but in the 3rd I just don't like it personally...but he could easily be one of like 3 worthy of thought at the #94 pick in the position.

As for the other two picks....I'm assuming this mock assumes we enter the draft with a cut Graham and not a soul signed in FA to go after a TE this high in the draft. I don't dislike Bryant, but just the pick. Queen I'm 100% a fan of picking!

My preferred WR targets in the 3rd would be:
Pittman
V. Jefferson
Hill
Peoples-Jones

4th Round
Gandy-Golden
Davis
Mims
Claypool

Proche is like a 5th Rounder on my board, because like you said he is small but not fast.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

Just the news I was waiting for.....

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[4zone]

but I also think it could be VERY likely a LB, DT, OT get taken in round 1 and 2 by us, so I like the idea of speculating who could be there in the 3rd round WR wise

I think the board is wide open this year. AGAIN, we have so many areas we could use depth, upgrades or future starters at. It's actually liberating in a way.

Hopefully we are able to land at least one upgrade in FA and get our RT position figured out. And get that kid Ervin resigned. Beyond that, buckle up, it's gonna be a wild ride! Will do my own 3 Rd later today and see what I can come up with.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

I think the board is wide open this year. AGAIN, we have so many areas we could use depth, upgrades or future starters at. It's actually liberating in a way.

Hopefully we are able to land at least one upgrade in FA and get our RT position figured out. And get that kid Ervin resigned. Beyond that, buckle up, it's gonna be a wild ride! Will do my own 3 Rd later today and see what I can come up with.

I agree on Ervin getting resigned. I was actually curious as to why Gute was asked about the RB position at the Combine. J. Williams is a Packer until he's not, and while D. Williams struggled to get on the field he can be stashed on the Practice Squad(12 players this year) for a year or two to see if he figures it out. Unless Gute trades back, or signs a FA I'm not that enthused about spending a pick at the position before the 6th Round.

 

[PackFan2]

Is it just me or I feel like Ruggs III can be a faster Davante Adams(not the Adams coming out of college)? Adams coming out of college was a VERY raw athlete and poor route runner. Happy to see Adams use his basketball background/knowledge to translate onto the field. Thats why Adams has one of the best releases and always seems to get separation (via route cuts and head fakes). I think Ruggs very similar to Adams in that it feels like theyre playing basketball (their first love) crossing over defenders but Ruggs has that track background crazy straight line speed. I've seen people mock Ruggs to packers.. I dont think he falls but ... I'm excited thinking about it.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles...atest-buzz-for-every-nfl-team-at-2020-combine

Patrick Queen or Justin Jefferson....get into it.

 

[tynimiller]

Bucky Brooks further pushes my thoughts he is crazy.... http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...-2020-nfl-mock-draft-20-ceedee-lamb-to-dallas

 

[tynimiller]

The more I swirl into some mocks and such.....the more I could see Chase Claypool attracting more and more attention from Gute and Co. Versatile receiver with size and even asked to work out at TE....something MLF could covet. Look for it as a real option in the 3rd and definitely the 4th should Claypool make it that far.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

Bucky Brooks further pushes my thoughts he is crazy.... http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...-2020-nfl-mock-draft-20-ceedee-lamb-to-dallas

Blow me down if the first WR isn't selected until 13th.

The more I swirl into some mocks and such.....the more I could see Chase Claypool attracting more and more attention from Gute and Co. Versatile receiver with size and even asked to work out at TE....something MLF could covet. Look for it as a real option in the 3rd and definitely the 4th should Claypool make it that far.

If Buckys situation were to pan out, we should end up with a much better guy than Claypool. But he's a good guy to snag in the 4th or 5th

 

[tynimiller]

Blow me down if the first WR isn't selected until 13th.



If Buckys situation were to pan out, we should end up with a much better guy than Claypool. But he's a good guy to snag in the 4th or 5th

IF Claypool makes it to the 4th...it would get tough for me to look elsewhere, even if we already dipped into a top 15 WR. His WR/TE hybrid style intrigues me.

 

[4zone]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles...atest-buzz-for-every-nfl-team-at-2020-combine

Patrick Queen or Justin Jefferson....get into it.

I'm not a talent evaluator. I don't watch college games so I couldn't tell you about prospects beyond their numbers and professional evaluators opinions. So which one? Dunno. Just make it the right one cause we could use both positions.