Honest positional needs

[Deleted member 6794]

A lot depends on FA. But this thread is about the draft. I’d put the O line ahead of safety. Rodgers had way too many sacks this year. Protecting him has to be job #1. I’d take a starting OL over a rusher or safety at this point. Just depends on who is available.

In my opinion the Packers are in more dire need of either an edge rusher or safety than an offensive lineman.

They would need to take a big cap hit to cut Graham.

The Packers would actually save $5.3 million of cap space by releasing Graham before the start of free agency.

I’m almost willing to guarantee they move Bulaga inside to guard and put the rookie out on the edge.

While Spriggs might be a candidate to be moved inside Bulaga isn't an option in my opinion.

I also think it would be wise to keep Bulaga even though he is all too often unavailable. I know it is probably a bit of a stretch to expect much more from him but he offers an above average starter at the position when he is healthy. The 5 million or so savings is tempting but IMO he is worth keeping around for the experience and the stability he could provide.

The Packers finally have to stop holding on to pricey veterans who don't perform up to their cobtrqcts anymore.

 

[Dantés]

The Packers would actually save $5.3 million of cap space by releasing Graham before the start of free agency.

Yes, and incur 7.3M in dead money. So what I'm saying is that I'd rather keep him for 12.6 than dump him for 7.3. They can move on next offseason with about half that amount of dead money.

 

[OldSchool101]

I like the idea, though. A young, productive guy with slot/wide flexibility as is Adams. The ability to move these guys around to exploit matchups adds another dimension. However, I'm not sure this is the best position to be dropping a big bag of cash if a comparable player is available.

I would far prefer finding a WR 2nd day draft. We have to keep in mind also we lost Montgomery who, while he wasn’t a premier receiver, he was the Micah Hyde of our Offense. We need a versatile player like him in this Offense. He could play RB, WR, Slot, KR and while not exemplary at any one position he was formidable enough to be a starter at any of them.

I know everyone thinks we’re set at RB. But IMO I think a scat back (think a young version of Sproles) would be perfect in this system. It’s actually why a relatively average player in TY performed so well. He was by knows means a scat back but he had some of those qualities, eg, instinctive cuts, solid hands, strong lower body/low center etc..)
It’s no surprise opposing teams are bringing heat to fluster Rodgers and his underwhelming OL. We have to give Aaron another athletic option underneath to counter an overaggressive rush.

I like Jamaal as a solid backup but having Aaron Jones (who is an effective runner with some minor pass catching prowess) AND another super quick RB who is leaning receiver should be on the menu in 2019 or 2020.

We also need to utilize our TEs more in the 5-10 yard range. I know we wanted Graham to be the big play maker and a few of those sprinkled in is ok. But having options underneath and early to move the chains is what we’ve been missing. Some of that blame goes to play calling. I can’t keep count of the numbers of times we went long on 3rd n 2 but I can only recall a small % of times we converted past 15 yards. We need to be patient and take what they give us EARLY with high probability shots...THEN.. when we’ve won field position take our shots. We need the personnel grouping for that, Cobb is only 1 piece of a 3-part puzzle.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Yes, and incur 7.3M in dead money. So what I'm saying is that I'd rather keep him for 12.6 than dump him for 7.3. They can move on next offseason with about half that amount of dead money.

It seems that can't be repeated enough. From a one year perspective, what's releavant is not his cap number. Rather, it's the cap you save if you cut him which is $5.3 mil. If you think he will equal or exceed $5.3 mil in value in 2019, that's a strong reason to keep him from that one year perspective. Otherwise not. Given what $5.3 mil buys in a TE, I believe the Packers would keep him from that perspective.

But there's a wrinkle to it if, like me, one believes reloading the roster should be a 2 year project where plugging holes for the now is a wheel spinning exercise.

If you keep Graham around for 2019 and then cut him after the season, not only will you forego the $5.3 mil in cap savings for 2019, you will then have a new dead cap amount of $3.7 mil in 2020. Then the effective amount of cap savings foregone for that single 2019 season becomes $9 mil.

Now, you can't get rid of every vet who does not appear to be a good value proposition in a one or two year time frame, especially in the "who else ya got" consideration at positions without clearly developing youthful depth. If that were the case, Daniels $8.3 mil in cap savings if cut now would get more consideration. He hasn't been the same player in the last 1.5 seasons he was previously and that is now compounded by an IR-worthy foot injury.

Unless you go for a tear down/rebuild, which I certainly don't advocate, some semblance of winning has to be maintained while re-loading, otherwise you run the risk of falling too deeply into losing habits. While every vet that does not provide a good value proposition can't go on the chopping block, I wouldn't exempt any one of them, and that would include Graham.

 

[McKnowledge]

Your QB3 needs to have starter qualities? There are teams in this league who have starters who don't have starter qualities.

What's the point of being in the league if you're not capable of getting on the field. Why the hell do I care about the 31 other teams in the league and their rosters? My only concer is the roster for Green Bay and the backup QB positions need good solid veterans.

I would rather give up 12M in cap space to have Graham than 7M to not have him. A post June 1st cut just allows them to spread the hit over two years, but the bill still comes due. They can get out of the deal much more easily after this season.

That's idiotic. Paying $12 mil for a declining player is foolish. Wanting to pay that $12 mil is asinine.

1) You don't know where the rookies will be in year two. 2) Allison is ready to be a solid #2 if the 2nd year guys aren't. 3) MVS is tailor made to be the vertical threat you described.

1) The rookies will not be ready for a featured role, that's my opinion. 2) Allison is a good player, but a poor man's version of Davante Adams. He could work the slot, due to good route running, and YAC savvy. As a No.2 WR, Green Bay needs more explosive playmaking, which Allison lacks. 3) See my answer to No. 1

Lowry is good. Not knowing who Lancaster is just demonstrates that you don't have a clue about this roster. He's been really good down the stretch of the season.

Is Lowry good? Or good enough? I was being sarcastic about Lancaster. He's not ready for more snaps, he's a role player.

Of course we need more dynamic play at OLB, but saying we need four guys suggests that we currently have zero which is obviously stupid.

Ouch. Anyways, agreeing that the OLB needs more dynamic play warrants an overhaul. I suggested four guys at OLB, why not have 5-6 OLBs on the roster. NFL rosters should be fluid. Why not get players that are multidimensional and capable of offering different skill sets?

Development turns into production when it happens. Every good player on the roster that the Packers drafted are the product of development. It's not as though every player makes good, but not to allow for it is asinine.

Also, every bad player the Packers drafted are a product of development or lack-thereof. Drafting players for development is good, there's potential. Expecting the players to develop quickly or at all is asinine. Why not cover your bet, with cheap veterans? They know and embrace their place in their careers and its all about being useful for the team.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I know everyone thinks we’re set at RB. But IMO I think a scat back (think a young version of Sproles) would be perfect in this system.

The Packers should add another running back to the roster but Jones and Williams form a decent one-two punch.

What's the point of being in the league if you're not capable of getting on the field. Why the hell do I care about the 31 other teams in the league and their rosters? My only concer is the roster for Green Bay and the backup QB positions need good solid veterans.

1) The rookies will not be ready for a featured role, that's my opinion. 2) Allison is a good player, but a poor man's version of Davante Adams. He could work the slot, due to good route running, and YAC savvy. As a No.2 WR, Green Bay needs more explosive playmaking, which Allison lacks.

There aren't 32 decent starting quarterbacks in the NFL, therefore expecting the third QB on the depth chart being a solid starter is ridiculous.

MVS, EQ and Moore will be in their second season next year. With the first two having shown promise this season there's reason to be optimistic about them.

While Allison has had some success lining up in the slot he shouldn't be the primary receiver for that role entering the season.

 

[thequick12]

Bulaga won't be moved to guard he is still one of the best right tackles in the nfl.
He will either be the Packers preferred starter at tackle or he will be some other teams preferred starter at right tackle. I say prefferred because you assume he'll miss like 4 games.
I think the Packers should keep him as he is really good when available. They should also attempt to draft his replacement who could likely start out as the right guard because while I think spriggs is good enough to remain on the team he is not a bulaga quality starter and while he still might become that idk.
If they decide not to keep him I think he could have some pretty decent value in trade as once again he is among the best rts in the league when healthy. And he has a very reasonable cap number for a top 10 starter at 6.75 million for a team aquiring him in trade.
His cap number of 8.35 million in Green Bay is also very reasonable for a top flight starting right tackle so I hope they keep him but wouldn't blame them for trading him and saving 6.75 million against the 2019 cap while also gaining draft capital to find his long term replacement

 

[Half Empty]

I know nothing about anyone else's RT, but Bulaga's cap number for next year puts him tied for third in the league. Shouldn't availability be a factor in that?

 

[Dantés]

What's the point of being in the league if you're not capable of getting on the field. Why the hell do I care about the 31 other teams in the league and their rosters? My only concer is the roster for Green Bay and the backup QB positions need good solid veterans.

That's idiotic. Paying $12 mil for a declining player is foolish. Wanting to pay that $12 mil is asinine.

1) The rookies will not be ready for a featured role, that's my opinion. 2) Allison is a good player, but a poor man's version of Davante Adams. He could work the slot, due to good route running, and YAC savvy. As a No.2 WR, Green Bay needs more explosive playmaking, which Allison lacks. 3) See my answer to No. 1.

Is Lowry good? Or good enough? I was being sarcastic about Lancaster. He's not ready for more snaps, he's a role player.

Ouch. Anyways, agreeing that the OLB needs more dynamic play warrants an overhaul. I suggested four guys at OLB, why not have 5-6 OLBs on the roster. NFL rosters should be fluid. Why not get players that are multidimensional and capable of offering different skill sets?

Also, every bad player the Packers drafted are a product of development or lack-thereof. Drafting players for development is good, there's potential. Expecting the players to develop quickly or at all is asinine. Why not cover your bet, with cheap veterans? They know and embrace their place in their careers and its all about being useful for the team.

If you're not considering the league as a whole and simply demanding that your 3rd stringers be starting caliber because you want them to be, then I'd repeat that you're throwing a tantrum rather than providing analysis.

Paying the 12M is one of two options. The other is to pay 7M not to have him. We're not talking about saving the 12, we're talking about saving the 5. Graham is grossly overpaid and I never wanted him in the first place, but it makes way more sense to keep him for 12 than to ditch him for 7. They can cut him after the 2019 season and only have about 3.5 in dead money.

You don't know where the rookies will be in year two. But you don't spend all that draft capital on the position, spend all those snaps developing them with experience (in which they've shown real promise), and then squander those investments by replacing them. Allison has already proven to be capble if they aren't so your downside is minimal. And while he can play the slot, he's more of an outside receiver. I believe Allison was clocked with one of the fastest on field speeds this season if I'm not mistaken.

Whatever you think about Lowry and Lancaster, they're definitely good enough to be on the roster, along with Clark and Daniels. There's four players right there on the DL. You originally said the Packers need 6 (six!) defensive linemen. That's utterly ridiculous. You want them to roster 10?

5 outside linebackers is possiblie if you want to add 2-3 to the in house guys. 6 is unrealistic. Saying we need four outside linebackers is also unrealistic.

In a capped league, teams depend on development coming from talent on rookie contracts. You can't just sign a guy at every spot where you have someone developing. There isn't enough space to go around. Thus good teams draft, develop, and use FA to fill the gaps (or capitalize on the rare blue chip player that actually makes it to market). If you invest draft capital on talent and then never give that talent a chance to develop before you go and invest money in replacing it, you're hamstringing yourself and will never actually build a sustainable, competitive roster.

You are advocating for the Miami Dolphins model of roster building.

 

[Dantés]

I know nothing about anyone else's RT, but Bulaga's cap number for next year puts him tied for third in the league. Shouldn't availability be a factor in that?

Absolutely. But so should replacability. I don't think he was still an elite OT this last season, but he was still pretty good. A pretty good RT is hard to replace in free agency. Based on what Chris Hubbard got last off-season, replacing Bulaga on the market would mean an even bigger cap hit. Unless the Packers think his body is just done, I think they should play out his final year as a bridge to a new starter. Spriggs' sticking around would be the contingency if Bulaga is hurt and a rookie was not ready.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I know nothing about anyone else's RT, but Bulaga's cap number for next year puts him tied for third in the league. Shouldn't availability be a factor in that?

Sure. There's also "who else ya got?" If Spriggs wasn't getting beat by any guy who's name you'd recognize the discussion would take on a different color.

 

[HardRightEdge]

So, I've considered my "dishonest" positional needs defined as:

• not calling for a day 1 or day 2 draft pick or significant free agent signing
• based on who is currently under contract for 2019
• while considering other needs and cap/draft capital
• and assuming IR players are expected back healthy, which is a big "if"

Sadly, the positions are relatively few:

• QB
• LT
• C
• wideout*
• TE
• DT
• CB

That puts the honest needs and good to haves at:

• OG, preferably a guy who can play C in a pinch
• OT, primarily RT but also LT backup in a pinch
• slot receiver, or slot/wideout swingman preferably with punt return credentials
• DE/DT swing man
• OLB
• ILB with speed and 3-down potential*
• S

*I have more confidence in wideout progression than with Burks.

That's 3 signficant young FAs and 4 draft picks. It does not cure all that ails but it is a start.

 

[McKnowledge]

There aren't 32 decent starting quarterbacks in the NFL, therefore expecting the third QB on the depth chart being a solid starter is ridiculous.

I never said a QB3 should be a solid starter. He should have qualities of a starter. A prime example of a great QB3 is Taysom Hill (formerly of GB) for the Saints. If he doesn't have a strong arm, he should be accurate for example. If he lacks pocket presence, he possess improvisational skills. Backup QBs must bring something to the game in the event the starter goes down. The chains need to keep moving and his sole goal is to not allow the offense to get stagnant. I thought Kizer would progress and he hasn't. GB should target veteran QBs as backups and worry about developing young QBs for the practice squad.

MVS, EQ and Moore will be in their second season next year. With the first two having shown promise this season there's reason to be optimistic about them.

I like the progress the rookie receivers showed throughout the season, however they're essentially playing with "house money". There wasn't film on them the first half of the season, and later on defense started to key in on their lack of experience and shut them down. With a probable offensive philosophy coming to GB, I would expect a sophomore slump for the trio of rookies as they get acclimated to a new playbook and the regiment it takes to succeed in the NFL. They have talent...they need to develop their skills.

While Allison has had some success lining up in the slot he shouldn't be the primary receiver for that role entering the season.

Maybe he shouldn't be the primary slot receiver. However, I don't think he should be the primary No. 2 receiver either. He lacks dynamism to be a vertical threat. Yet, his skill-set translates very well to the slot. He could do a lot of damage on 3rd down in that role.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I never said a QB3 should be a solid starter. He should have qualities of a starter. A prime example of a great QB3 is Taysom Hill (formerly of GB) for the Saints. If he doesn't have a strong arm, he should be accurate for example. If he lacks pocket presence, he possess improvisational skills. Backup QBs must bring something to the game in the event the starter goes down. The chains need to keep moving and his sole goal is to not allow the offense to get stagnant. I thought Kizer would progress and he hasn't. GB should target veteran QBs as backups and worry about developing young QBs for the practice squad.

Sounds a bit like you either have QB2 and QB3 confused or you are blending the 2? I doubt many teams have a QB3 that is tailor made and ready to go, I know that the Packers haven't in quite a long time. QB3 seems to be the spot you have a rookie or development guy. Sounds like in your scenario, you want a QB4 on the Practice Squad. How many teams carry 4 QB's, including the PS?

As far as QB2 goes, I have been disappointed at the way that has been addressed for years in GB, seems more like they have tried to get away with a QB3 guy in that spot. I think that is the spot you have a veteran, not a developmental guy. As you say, starter quality, ready to step in play and lead the team, not learn on the job.

 

[McKnowledge]

Paying the 12M is one of two options. The other is to pay 7M not to have him. We're not talking about saving the 12, we're talking about saving the 5. Graham is grossly overpaid and I never wanted him in the first place, but it makes way more sense to keep him for 12 than to ditch him for 7. They can cut him after the 2019 season and only have about 3.5 in dead money.

They can cut Graham this off-season as a Post June 1st cut and have the same amount of dead money...$3.6 mil. I said in previous and posts and no more. Cut Jimmy Graham and seek better options. Why wait an entire year and have the same cap hold?

You don't know where the rookies will be in year two. But you don't spend all that draft capital on the position, spend all those snaps developing them with experience (in which they've shown real promise), and then squander those investments by replacing them. Allison has already proven to be capble if they aren't so your downside is minimal. And while he can play the slot, he's more of an outside receiver. I believe Allison was clocked with one of the fastest on field speeds this season if I'm not mistaken.

You are mistaken, Allison is a not a speedy WR, which is why he should play slot. No where as good as Larry Fitzgerald, Allison has great hands, route running, and YAC savvy perfectly suited for the slot. I said the same for Jordy Nelson prior to his exit and Oakland ended up deploying him in that role. Slot WR do not have to be shifty, shorter stocky guys. If the QB position has shown us, let's not pigeonhole players based on physical traits.

Plus, I never said replace the trio of rookies. I just think with a new playbook and the rigors of the NFL, asophomore slump is likely. Also, we don't have to necessarily bring in a free agent. Possibly changing roles for players might work. Maybe give Kumerow a shot as No. 2 Maybe try Tonyan as No.2? If one of the rookies show a quantum leap, give him a shot.

Whatever you think about Lowry and Lancaster, they're definitely good enough to be on the roster, along with Clark and Daniels. There's four players right there on the DL. You originally said the Packers need 6 (six!) defensive linemen. That's utterly ridiculous. You want them to roster 10?

Hell. Why 11? 12? Dude. Now who's throwing a tantrum.

In a capped league, teams depend on development coming from talent on rookie contracts. You can't just sign a guy at every spot where you have someone developing. There isn't enough space to go around. Thus good teams draft, develop, and use FA to fill the gaps (or capitalize on the rare blue chip player that actually makes it to market). If you invest draft capital on talent and then never give that talent a chance to develop before you go and invest money in replacing it, you're hamstringing yourself and will never actually build a sustainable, competitive roster.

You are advocating for the Miami Dolphins model of roster building.

Miami doesn't have a winning tradition and a HOF QB

 

[McKnowledge]

Sounds a bit like you either have QB2 and QB3 confused or you are blending the 2? I doubt many teams have a QB3 that is tailor made and ready to go, I know that the Packers haven't in quite a long time. QB3 seems to be the spot you have a rookie or development guy. Sounds like in your scenario, you want a QB4 on the Practice Squad. How many teams carry 4 QB's, including the PS?

As far as QB2 goes, I have been disappointed at the way that has been addressed for years in GB, seems more like they have tried to get away with a QB3 guy in that spot. I think that is the spot you have a veteran, not a developmental guy. As you say, starter quality, ready to step in play and lead the team, not learn on the job.

You do realize many teams keep QB on the practice squad? The practice squad doesn't count towards the 53 man roster.

So, we both agree a veteran should be QB2. Good.

 

[Poppa San]

GB should target veteran QBs as backups and worry about developing young QBs for the practice squad.

You mean like GB tried to do with Hill before NO saw something more in him?

 

[McKnowledge]

You mean like GB tried to do with Hill before NO saw something more in him?

GB should've listed Hill at WR. I was a little upset with McCarthy when he made that decision. Taysom Hill was playing pretty good in the preseason.

 

[Arod2gjdd]

I want to see them go hard after Josh Allen from Kentucky. Trade up if you must

Though, admittedly, this is highly ambitious. Should have lost more games

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You do realize many teams keep QB on the practice squad? The practice squad doesn't count towards the 53 man roster.

So, we both agree a veteran should be QB2. Good.

Yes, but you do realize that not many teams keep a 4th QB? Your description of a QB3 is a guy ready to play, so that pretty much precludes having a development guy on any team you would be making a roster for, unless you want to carry him as your 4th QB on the PS.

 

[Poppa San]

GB should've listed Hill at WR.

Got it. Play him at QB but list him at WR. Nobody else in the league will catch on. How'd that mislabel the position work with TyMont88 when he was here?

 

[morango]

Ok. I’ll take a shot at it. Prior to free agency, here’s what I think the six biggest needs are in order.

1) Pass rusher - This can be an edge player or a DL.
2) Pass rusher - This can be an edge player or a DL
3) Guard - Free agency might work or a mid-level draft pick
4) Free Safety - T. Williams is not the answer here
5) Tackle - Bulaga can’t stay healhy. Springs is jag.
6) Slot receiver or ILB.

Fire away!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

How'd that mislabel the position work with TyMont88 when he was here?

Speaking of Ty Montgomery, watched him return kicks in the first half of the Ravens game, hasn't missed a beat. Field ball....run slowly straight into crowd of tacklers, go down on first contact.

 

[morango]

I want to see them go hard after Josh Allen from Kentucky. Trade up if you must

Though, admittedly, this is highly ambitious. Should have lost more games

Yeah. I am pretty high on Josh Allen too. Sadly it looks as if he will be gone by pick 12, but.... you never know.

 

[McKnowledge]

Yes, but you do realize that not many teams keep a 4th QB? Your description of a QB3 is a guy ready to play, so that pretty much precludes having a development guy on any team you would be making a roster for, unless you want to carry him as your 4th QB on the PS.

It doesn't preclude anything. GB doesn't have to copycat other teams. Its ok to be unique sometimes. I recall in the '90s and 2000's, GB developed QBs and traded them for picks under Favre. Rinse and repeat. I think that's a great model to go back to.