Packers notes

[Vrill]

I think we'll have some good options at ILB and CB at #30. DT maybe iffy, unless you consider Philips or Goldman a good choice at that pick.

I will say that by the time we pick in round 2, that CB's options will be running extremely thin. However, we may still have a good ILB option or two in round 2. So honestly, I'd go CB in round 1 and then ILB in round 2. I have a feeling Anthony maybe sitting there when we pick in round 2. Then grab the best DT on our board in round 3.

With that said, I wont be shocked either if we trade back and pick up a couple of extra draft picks.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I am talking about draft picks, and I agree with you that it's not very plausible. But for me, if I could get an upgrade at ILB, for example, for a 3rd or 4th rounder, I'd have to seriously consider it.
If I learn that one of the guys (or all) of them I want in the 1st round will be gone when I pick, then I'd consider trading up to make sure I got them.
It's a broad brush kind of point I'm trying to make, but if this team is considered to be in a tightly packed group of 3-5 top title contenders, then you have to be aggressive in shoring up your weaknesses, by any and all means available.

The problem with moving up in the first round is the picks it takes to do so from the 30th pick. It would probably take another second rounder to move up 10 spots and an additional first round to move into the top 10.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think we'll have some good options at ILB and CB at #30. DT maybe iffy, unless you consider Philips or Goldman a good choice at that pick.

I will say that by the time we pick in round 2, that CB's options will be running extremely thin. However, we may still have a good ILB option or two in round 2. So honestly, I'd go CB in round 1 and then ILB in round 2. I have a feeling Anthony maybe sitting there when we pick in round 2. Then grab the best DT on our board in round 3.

With that said, I wont be shocked either if we trade back and pick up a couple of extra draft picks.

I would like the Packers to use the first round pick to either draft a NT or ILB. There´s at least some hope Hayward is capable of starting outside and the team could be fine with adding some depth at CB later in the draft.

 

[Vrill]

If Marcus Peters is sitting there when we pick at #30, hes going to be extremely hard to pass up.

 

[PackerDNA]

The problem with moving up in the first round is the picks it takes to do so from the 30th pick. It would probably take another second rounder to move up 10 spots and an additional first round to move into the top 10.

He made a similar move up for Matthews. There's always a cost and a risk in making big moves; the trick is making the right ones. Ante up or fold.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If Marcus Peters is sitting there when we pick at #30, hes going to be extremely hard to pass up.

Well, Peters has huge red flags regarding his character. The Packers would have to be sure he has matured since he was kicked off the Washington football team.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

He made a similar move up for Matthews. There's always a cost and a risk in making big moves; the trick is making the right ones. Ante up or fold.

The Packers had to give up a second-round and two third-round picks to move up 15 spots to #26 (they received another fifth-rounder) in the 2009 draft to select Matthews. They would have to give up more moving up further in the first round.

 

[PackerDNA]

The Packers had to give up a second-round and two third-round picks to move up 15 spots to #26 (they received another fifth-rounder) in the 2009 draft to select Matthews. They would have to give up more moving up further in the first round.

Aware of that, Cap. The point remains; ante up or fold.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Does the fact that a number of NFL teams think there are only about 16 true first round talents in this year's first round not make the idea of trading up less likely?

 

[PackerDNA]

Does the fact that a number of NFL teams think there are only about 16 true first round talents in this year's first round not make the idea of trading up less likely?

That's a good thought, but it only takes one team that firmly believes so and so is the guy they gotta have...

 

[TJV]

He made a similar move up for Matthews. There's always a cost and a risk in making big moves; the trick is making the right ones. Ante up or fold.

The Packers had the 9th pick in each of the first three rounds that year and had an extra third round pick, the 19th pick of the third round. After picking Raji at #9, they traded picks #41, #73, and #83 to the Pats to move up to pick #26 (and received #162 in the 5th round). As we all know, they have picks #30, #62, and #94 in this draft: In order to move up significantly in the first round, Thompson would have to eviscerate this draft and most likely “steal” a pick from the 2016. As observers of Thompson since 2005, we all know that is not going to happen, don’t we? IMO it is much more likely he trades down out of pick #30 as he did in the 2008 draft (picked Jordy at #36 and picked up a fourth rounder at #113).

BTW, we may not like it but I think it’s likely view ILB as the only significant hole to be filled on the team.

 

[PackerDNA]

Again, good points. Here's the angle I'm looking at.
If you really believe you're close, and missing one particular piece, than why not turn a draft into a one or two player deal instead of nine or ten lesser shots, most of whom will never be a big help? Quality over quantity.
Why not deal a third or fourth- an unknown maybe- for a proven vet at a position of need? Sometimes you look at a lineup and see 3 or 4 positions of need. But sometimes just one player- the right one- can drastically improve a unit's overall performance.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Does the fact that a number of NFL teams think there are only about 16 true first round talents in this year's first round not make the idea of trading up less likely?

I´m not convinced the statement about there only being 16 true first round talents is accurate.

Again, good points. Here's the angle I'm looking at.
If you really believe you're close, and missing one particular piece, than why not turn a draft into a one or two player deal instead of nine or ten lesser shots, most of whom will never be a big help? Quality over quantity.
Why not deal a third or fourth- an unknown maybe- for a proven vet at a position of need? Sometimes you look at a lineup and see 3 or 4 positions of need. But sometimes just one player- the right one- can drastically improve a unit's overall performance.

Thompson doesn´t like giving up multiple draft picks for a single player. While a proven veteran at a position of need is more likely to have an impact next season there´s no guarantee it will work out.

 

[PackerDNA]

I´m not convinced the statement about there only being 16 true first round talents is accurate.



Thompson doesn´t like giving up multiple draft picks for a single player. While a proven veteran at a position of need is more likely to have an impact next season there´s no guarantee it will work out.

And there's the problem- if there is one. "Thompson doesn't like".
The Seahawks see a need, they trade for Jimmy Graham.
The Patriots see a need, they sign Darrell Revis.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And there's the problem- if there is one. "Thompson doesn't like".
The Seahawks see a need, they trade for Jimmy Graham.
The Patriots see a need, they sign Darrell Revis.

No disagreement from me here, I would like Thompson to be more aggressive to fill obvious needs on the roster as well.

 

[Half Empty]

No disagreement from me here, I would like Thompson to be more aggressive to fill obvious needs on the roster as well.

Without getting into the 'how do they do it' details, wouldn't it have been nice to have a real shut-down corner for the last couple of minutes of their season?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Without getting into the 'how do they do it' details, wouldn't it have been nice to have a real shut-down corner for the last couple of minutes of their season?

Well, the secondary got four interceptions in the NFCCG so it´s tough to blame them for the loss. The cornerbacks made some terrible mistakes as well in the closing minutes of the game though.

 

[longtimefan]

In theory

IF our dline plays good, will help the lbs play better...which in turn allows the secondary to be better

 

[longtimefan]

Without getting into the 'how do they do it' details, wouldn't it have been nice to have a real shut-down corner for the last couple of minutes of their season?

Wouldnt it have been nice to been up 21 to 0 and not the 13-0 at the half

Put the same amount of blame on the offense as the def

 

[PackerDNA]

Wouldnt it have been nice to been up 21 to 0 and not the 13-0 at the half

Put the same amount of blame on the offense as the def

Bingo. In the ultimate team sport, there's always enough blame to go around.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Wouldnt it have been nice to been up 21 to 0 and not the 13-0 at the half

Put the same amount of blame on the offense as the def

I agree. McCarthy of the offense really should have gone for it on the one yard line. No reason (that's supported by actual evidence) to kick the FG both times.

 

[Half Empty]

Wouldnt it have been nice to been up 21 to 0 and not the 13-0 at the half

Put the same amount of blame on the offense as the def

Sorry, the post to which I replied was talking to the point of TT filling holes one the team. I chose the most obvious, especially with talk about Belicheck (and Revis) permeating several threads.

 

[Vrill]

Well, Peters has huge red flags regarding his character. The Packers would have to be sure he has matured since he was kicked off the Washington football team.

He does, but he is perhaps the most talented CB in this coming draft. If we do our due diligence and decide he is cleaned up, I wont gripe if we draft him. He is a big physical corner who can cover.

 

[adambr2]

It would have been nice if Burnett didn't slide to the ground with no one near him after an INT.

It would have been nice if Clay Matthews had actually toughed it out and been on the field the last few minutes.

It would have been nice if we hadn't been suddenly helpless to stop Lynch.

It would have been nice if Clinton - Dix hadn't just inexplicably watched a ball pass by.

It would have been nice if Bostick had followed instructions.

Ugh. It would have been nice if just one of these things could have happened so we could instead talk about what the Packers did in Super Bowl 49.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I agree. McCarthy of the offense really should have gone for it on the one yard line. No reason (that's supported by actual evidence) to kick the FG both times.

Just because there's statistical evidence to go for it from the one yard line (which is based on data from several seasons) it doesn't mean going for it in these situations would have been a good idea and guaranteed to result in at least one TD.

On the first drive the Seahawks had already stopped the Packers twice from the one yard line. On the second they would have only had one chance to go for it on fourth down.

Taking into consideration the game was on the road in one of the loudest stadiums in the league I was OK with taking the points.