The 2019 Dantés Draft Thread

[Packer96]

Color me shocked a Hawkeyes fan would claim they have the best player if it's within top 5 at a position. Most Badgers fans do that about RBs too. How's that worked out overall through the years

I would say that as the Mackey award winner, and the first sophomore to do so, yes, he is the best in the country. Not a Hawk fan, paying student loans off from Iowa State!

 

[Dblbogey]

So we’re going to take a guy vying to maybe be the best tight end from Iowa with a first round pick? Doesnt sound great to me

Iowa's Noah Fant won the Mackey award as the nation's top tight end and has great size/speed/strength but I like Hockenson much more. He's the better football player. He's going to be very good at the next level. I'd love Polite and Hockenson in the 1st rd. Fant is a physical freak but potentially a total bust. I personally wouldn't touch him before rd 3. Fant has already declared for the draft, Hockenson is undecided yet.

 

[Dblbogey]

As I mentioned before McDaniels likes two tight end sets so if he does indeed does become the HC it wouldn’t shock me to see them draft The Iowa kid, cut Graham, and build around the much cheaper, faster, and you get tandem of Tonyan and the Iowa Kid.

I'd like to see Tonyan actually play and produce something before I get excited about him. This time last year, I recall many being excited about Justin McCray and Brice as future building blocks.

 

[Dblbogey]

https://www.thescore.com/ncaaf/news...efense-rules-the-board-as-bosa-grabs-top-spot

this one has us picking a WR at 12. *facepalm*

We have Devante Adams. Other than that, we have a couple of still unproven rookie mid round draft picks with "potential" and Geronimo at wide receiver. If a receiver is the best player at our pick, I'd say there is a definite need there.

 

[HardRightEdge]

WRs: I think I'd go where moneyball inidcates, the speedy, smaller slots that do not get valued highly to replace Cobb. While hitting a home run with a Hill or a triple with a Lockett in this mold is a bit much to ask, there is value to be had in the smaller receivers. With current needs, a true wideout in the first round is a luxury pick. Here a couple of ideas providng the Packers don't actually sign a good young slot if FA.

While having taken about 20 minutes to survey the options, how about a guy like Terry Godwin who can be gotten further down the board, tough in the middle and can run outside with what is probably 4.4 speed and some hops. He's probably going to measure around 5'10 - 5'11" and will be discounted as a result. Slot / outside versatility is a big plus, and I'm pretty confident in thinking he'd be an upgrade over Cobb once he gets his feet wet:

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

Further down the board there's Hunter Renfrow, not as fast as Godwin but he looks tough and competitive at the ball:

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

And for a deep dive bargain further down the board there's the 5' 8" KaVontae Turpin, possibly the fastest guy in this draft who also breaks ankles and looks pretty tough for his size. He's got outstanding kick and punt return numbers. He's a red flag character issue guy with two separate arrests, one for assault on his girlfriend and second for battery, which got him kicked off the TCU team. This guy would require some deep vetting but he would not cost much in the way of a pick. Not a 3-down slot in all likelihood, but a dangerous guy to work into the mix and have return kicks.

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

 

[HardRightEdge]

With the D-Line depth in this draft, and Daniels in his contract year, best value at a position of need could very well be one of those guys at #12 or whatever NO's pick turns out to be.

Here's the thing. When it was Thompson, and we didn't expect much if anything in free agency, needs at this point could be reasonably assessed.

With Gutekunst, we don't know what the needs will be until we get through the pre-draft free agency period. And a new HC and possibly both coordinators may have ideas about personnel fits which might be surprising.

Right now, we're shooting darts blindfolded.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

And for a deep dive bargain further down the board there's the 5' 8" KaVontae Turpin, possibly the fastest guy in this draft who also breaks ankles and looks pretty tough for his size. He's got outstanding kick and punt return numbers. He's a red flag character issue guy with two separate arrests, one for assault on his girlfriend and second for battery, which got him kicked off the TCU team. This guy would require some deep vetting but he would not cost much in the way of a pick. Not a 3-down slot in all likelihood, but a dangerous guy to work into the mix and have return kicks.

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

If I had just seen the tape and not known anything about this guys character, I would have said "Grab this guy in whatever round you think you need to!" Amazing tape, looks like everyone but him is in slow motion. This is the kind of player I think the Packers have been lacking, but sadly I doubt unless the Dalai Lama has been working with him since TCU kicking him out, he may never make it.

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

 

[JoePack]

3 year plan: With AR only having a few more years, it's past time to solidify the OL. Need to take a page out of the Colts program. If you have a franchise QB and he has more time in the pocket, he can dissect any good defense, not to mention far fewer sacks. AR has to stay upright these few remaining years.
Rd.1) Best OT. I prefer to trade down a few spots if possible and take Taylor(Florida) and pick up another pick.
Rd.1) Best TE
Rd.2) Best OG. If Cole Madison shows up, then all the better.
Rd.3) Best OT. Need more help in case Bahk starts to have trouble.
Rds4-7) BPA regardless of position.
Of course it all depends on who we can get in FA. I did not pick any receivers in the 1st 3 rds.,since we drafted 3 last year. Someone has to step up. And I would keep Bulaga for another year.
Year 2: If the prev. year's picks pan out, then BPA regardless of position with an emphasis on defense. Probably a good time to start looking for a QB.
Year 3: Best QB available in Rd. 1 if unable to find one in year 2.
Year 2 could be a run at the SuperBowl and Year 3 should bring the trophy back to GreenBay.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

IMHO, the Pack has many needs and could go in a variety of directions and not be wrong. For me, the top two are (1) edge rushers, not easy to find, and (2) dominant offensive lineman. Watching playoff teams like the Colts and the Cowboys it becomes obvious what a solid O-line can do for a team......Green Bay's interior line needs restocking.

My two cents.

 

[Eduardo Valadares]

IMO, DE, DT, OLB and O-Line comes first.

 

[thequick12]

WRs: I think I'd go where moneyball inidcates, the speedy, smaller slots that do not get valued highly to replace Cobb. While hitting a home run with a Hill or a triple with a Lockett in this mold is a bit much to ask, there is value to be had in the smaller receivers. With current needs, a true wideout in the first round is a luxury pick. Here a couple of ideas providng the Packers don't actually sign a good young slot if FA.

While having taken about 20 minutes to survey the options, how about a guy like Terry Godwin who can be gotten further down the board, tough in the middle and can run outside with what is probably 4.4 speed and some hops. He's probably going to measure around 5'10 - 5'11" and will be discounted as a result. Slot / outside versatility is a big plus, and I'm pretty confident in thinking he'd be an upgrade over Cobb once he gets his feet wet:

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

Further down the board there's Hunter Renfrow, not as fast as Godwin but he looks tough and competitive at the ball:

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

And for a deep dive bargain further down the board there's the 5' 8" KaVontae Turpin, possibly the fastest guy in this draft who also breaks ankles and looks pretty tough for his size. He's got outstanding kick and punt return numbers. He's a red flag character issue guy with two separate arrests, one for assault on his girlfriend and second for battery, which got him kicked off the TCU team. This guy would require some deep vetting but he would not cost much in the way of a pick. Not a 3-down slot in all likelihood, but a dangerous guy to work into the mix and have return kicks.

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

I like Godwin and Turpin for sure I guess another guy in that mold would be the skinny dude from Oklahoma Marquise brown 5-10. He can play slot or outside and be explosive but will go a bit higher probably 2nd round.

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

 

[thequick12]

As for bigger wrs I'd be cool with drafting I like aj brown with saints pick or maybe the 2nd rounder if he falls. I like the attitude he plays with feel like it's something Packers having been missing. This dude plays mean he brings it to the defense, almost plays like a defensive player on offense. Same reason I like te Irv Smith and on defense s deionte Thompson they play with a physical attitude I think the Packers need

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

I like Riley Ridley in 2nd round. Hes a smooth player who looks like hell surely develop into a solid starter at minimum.

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

I also like dk Metcalf but he's likely gone before saints pick if his neck checks out and I wouldn't wanna spend the 12th pick on him. Also at 6-4 230 he's similar to mvs and eq.

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

 

[sschind]

We have Devante Adams. Other than that, we have a couple of still unproven rookie mid round draft picks with "potential" and Geronimo at wide receiver. If a receiver is the best player at our pick, I'd say there is a definite need there.

I think WR is a need but I don't think value wise there will be on available at 12. If there is then fine but with the second first rounder or 2nd rounder I'd be more than OK with.

 

[elcid]

I agree, I don't see any WR worth taking at 12 overall. Edge has to be the pick here. There is a significant chance a player who is worth taking at that spot will be around then (with Bosa gone and Allen all but likely, Polite or Ferrel will probably still be there). I'd also be fine with an OT in Williams or Little, or if one of the top DL prospects slip in Williams, Oliver or Gary. Conditional on the assumption that there will be at least 2 QBs and a CB taken before us (for which there is a fairly high chance), it is a given that we will have a shot at either one of those 9 prospects.

With the second pick of the first round I wouldn't mind seeing an offensive skill player. Marquise Brown would be my preferred choice. If we were to draft EDGE with the first pick, this is also a good place to target reinforcements for the right side of our oline.


For our second rounder, I'd love to see a true FS drafted. Hell, if another edge rush prospect (Sweat, Burns, Winovich, Zach Allen) were to slip I wouldnt even mind double dipping at the position.

 

[gopkrs]

Someone out there please tell me the formula. What do we get if we trade down with the 12th? Like if we move down 6 or 7 spots.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Someone out there please tell me the formula. What do we get if we trade down with the 12th? Like if we move down 6 or 7 spots.

Not sure of your question. Is it:

1. "What would we have to give in order to trade down/up to the 6th or 5th spot?"
2. "What would we receive if we trade back to say the 18th or 19th spot?"

In either case, there is no clear cut formula and its all case dependent. However, this chart will give you a good starting point.

https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp

I'm not a big fan of using the terms "up and down" in regards to draft picks, seems like people use the terms to mean the complete opposite and it gets confusing. If you are "counting down from 32....you end up at the number 1". But for some "trading down" is going from an early pick to a later pick.

 

[gopkrs]

Well down means down. Hard to believe that anyone else did not understand what I meant. Anyway, it would be a long way back to switch with the raiders but maybe we could pick up their 2nd and that might not be bad assuming a real stud was not at 12. It would give us more ammo for the O line.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Well down means down. Hard to believe that anyone else did not understand what I meant. Anyway, it would be a long way back to switch with the raiders but maybe we could pick up their 2nd and that might not be bad assuming a real stud was not at 12. It would give us more ammo for the O line.

Maybe for some it doesn't seem confusing, but I have seen "moving down" used both ways by fans.

Don't tell Casey Kasum when he was "counting down the top 100", he was starting at 1 and going "Down" to 100. and yes, I know he is dead.

As far as moving back in a trade with the Raiders, giving them our #12 for their #27 and #35 works with the Trade Value Chart, but as a fan, I would hate to see it.

 

[gopkrs]

Maybe for some it doesn't seem confusing, but I have seen "moving down" used both ways by fans.

Don't tell Casey Kasum when he was "counting down the top 100", he was starting at 1 and going "Down" to 100. and yes, I know he is dead.

As far as moving back in a trade with the Raiders, giving them our #12 for their #27 and #35 works with the Trade Value Chart, but as a fan, I would hate to see it.

RIP Casey. I think I would like that trade. Why would you hate it?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

RIP Casey. I think I would like that trade. Why would you hate it?

Just looking over the past drafts, where the Packers have selected as late as that pick (#27) as well as second round at (#35) you are probably at a 50/50 chance of hitting. While picking a guy at #12 isn't a 100% chance of hitting, I think its a higher chance and if you do, probably a more of an impact player. Couple that with the fact that we already have the Saints first rounder, I would prefer keeping #12 and #30ish and hope they can do more than they could with #27, 30ish and #35.

But hey, if they have their eyes on a few players, that they want at #12 and they are all gone when they are on the clock, leaving them with a relatively large group that they would be happy with any of, then trading back to #27 isn't out of the question.

 

[Half Empty]

Maybe for some it doesn't seem confusing, but I have seen "moving down" used both ways by fans.

Don't tell Casey Kasum when he was "counting down the top 100", he was starting at 1 and going "Down" to 100. and yes, I know he is dead.

As far as moving back in a trade with the Raiders, giving them our #12 for their #27 and #35 works with the Trade Value Chart, but as a fan, I would hate to see it.

Was just going to Agree, but I don't have any preference on the actual move, just the explanation of why there's sometimes confusion - I've seen the same problem.

 

[sschind]

Maybe for some it doesn't seem confusing, but I have seen "moving down" used both ways by fans.

Don't tell Casey Kasum when he was "counting down the top 100", he was starting at 1 and going "Down" to 100. and yes, I know he is dead.

As far as moving back in a trade with the Raiders, giving them our #12 for their #27 and #35 works with the Trade Value Chart, but as a fan, I would hate to see it.

Wait, What???? Casey Kasum is dead???? Why haven't I read about this. I thought I kept up with ... Oh wait... never mind ... I thought you said Case Keenum. My bad.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Was just going to Agree, but I don't have any preference on the actual move, just the explanation of why there's sometimes confusion - I've seen the same problem.

Yes and the confusion comes with numbers VS value. People are use to using the term "down" in regards to numbers as descending. We count "down" from 32 to 1.

But if you are talking about value "I didn't need the expensive fancy car, so I decided to trade down and get the more economical one, leaving me with enough money for a great trip".

 

[sschind]

Just looking over the past drafts, where the Packers have selected as late as that pick (#27) as well as second round at (#35) you are probably at a 50/50 chance of hitting. While picking a guy at #12 isn't a 100% chance of hitting, I think its a higher chance and if you do, probably a more of an impact player. Couple that with the fact that we already have the Saints first rounder, I would prefer keeping #12 and #30ish and hope they can do more than they could with #27, 30ish and #35.

But hey, if they have their eyes on a few players, that they want at #12 and they are all gone when they are on the clock, leaving them with a relatively large group that they would be happy with any of, then trading back to #27 isn't out of the question.

I know that agree seems to go against everything I have been arguing with you about but the season is over now, the games are won or lost and the draft is the draft. Trading back 4,5,6 spots if there are a few players you like and you think one of them will fall is fine but moving back (up, down, sideways, in a totally random manner?) double digits is a big risk. I'd much rather keep the #12 as opposed to trading to #27 also. Although having 27, 30, 35 44 would be OK I guess. We could always try to trade 35 and 44 for something in the high teens. (why do I keep hearing the chant chug a spud, chug a spud in the back of my head) I just don't like the idea of trading out of the top 15 to the bottom of the round.

I also like the 30ish optimism. I think 28 is as high (low) as it could go right. If they lose this weekend they still have the best record. Go Eagles.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I know that agree seems to go against everything I have been arguing with you about but the season is over now, the games are won or lost and the draft is the draft.

I know I know, but had you and the Packers drank my kool aid, that #4 picks looks pretty juicy.